SELECT COMMITTEE TESTIMONY OF 6 FEBRUARY 1974

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01474420
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: February 6, 1974

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
OLC 74-0197
6 February 1974
_(b)(3)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Select Committee Testimony of 6 February 1974
1. This, the third day of hearings, was held in B334. Following
the sweep, it was determined that the voices within the hearing room
could be heard in adjacent rooms. A radio was played throughout to
enhance security. Although the hearings were scheduled for 1200 hours,
Senator Baker did not appear to administer the oaths until 12 50 hours.
Since Greenwood was under oath from the previous day, I suggested we
start with him, thus economizing on the time of all involved. Liebengood
agreed but shortly after commencing the questioning, Senator Baker arrived
for the swearing in and the other witnesses were assembled from the room
upstairs that Jane McMullen, Senate Appropriations Committee staff, had
kindly located again for us for the third straight day.
2. Steven Greenwood
The sole purpose of Greenwood's appearance was to swear
to and identify a memorandum which he had typed up from his rough.notes
summarizing his contact with Hunt and Liddy. The fifteen minute session
was generally uneventful. The "memorandum" actually amounted to rough
typed notes with an attached chronology. The first page referred to three
attachments which were not affixed and Committee Counsel asked if we
could locate same, i.e. , list of points supplied by Krueger for Greenwood
to make to Hunt in the fourth meeting, suggestion awards submitted by
Greenwood for the speech alteration device he used with Hunt, and a note
from Greenwood to
3. Destruction of Tapes
Testimony covering the tapes destruction commenced at 1315 hours
and ended at 172 5 hours. I had arranged with of Security, to
have available as a back-up expert witness on the tape system
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
but it became unnecessary to call on for testimony. The three
witnesses were Messrs. Popivchak, Kobliska (who worked in the "pit" and
who carried out the destruction of the tapes in January 1973), and Mrs.
Elizabeth Dunlevy (from whom they received their instructions). Mr. Thompson
moved to incorporate as an exhibit in the record the 31 January 1974 Memo-
randum by to the Director of Security. Thompson also wanted
to incorporate the logs of the tapes in the records, but I explained that while
Mr. Colby had shown these logs to Senator Baker they contained very sensitive
information and he agreed to defer until he received a wrapup paper on the
tape destruction (which is now in the process of preparation).
4. Allen D. Kobliska:
Mr. Kobliska testified from about 1355 hours until 1445 hours
(subsequent to Greenwood's testimony, the Committee counsel took a short
break). Kobliska's testimony regarding the handling of the tapes and the
transcripts generally followed that outlined in memorandum
of 31 January 1974 and he was a good witness. Kobliska explained that
when he had come on the scene down at the "pit" he realized that there was
lack of storage space for the tapes and that he had submitted to Mrs. Dunlevy
a listing of some 238 tapes requesting permission to destroy. On 21 January
1972 permission to destroy from 1 through 54 was received. He estimated
that by 22 January 1973 all but 100 of those 238 tapes had been destroyed
periodically. He said a second list was compiled and submitted to Mrs.
Dunlevy on 21 January 1972. He also said that used tape from the large
discs was placed on smaller reels to save tape. During the discussion
A. J. Woolston-Smith's name was brought up by counsel, a name unfamiliar
to Mr. Kobliska.
5. Nicholas Popivchak:
Mr. Popivchak testified from 1455 hours until 1600 hours. His
testimony essentially corroborated Mr. Kobliska.'s, but he recalled 184
tapes being on the original listing recommended for destruction, that
1 through 54 were destroyed in early 1972, that some tapes in the sequential
numbers 55 through 184 were destroyed periodically from June 1972 through
January 1973. He said the second list covered tapes 185 through 238. He
2
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
estimated that the tapes destroyed in January 1973 occupied about six safe
drawers and involved some 125 tapes. Mr. Popivchak's testimony somewhat
conflicted with Mr. Kobliska's on providing Miss Pindar with a reel of the
Cushman/Hunt tape small enough for her to use upstairs. Mr. Popivchak
said that when called for the tape, he transferred it from the 10 1/2 inch to
a 5 inch reel. He also said he prepared an original and two copies of the
tape plus a cassette. (I have noted this for separate action, see attached
memorandum.) About 1515 hours Sam Dash entered the hearing room.
Mr. Popivchak said he had not seen a copy of fin,- 1\11-n r' "Fig'Irl lg. ter until
Mr. Colby had shown it to him the other day. as identified
as the main typist of the transcripts.
6. Mrs. Elizabeth Dunlevy:
Mrs. Dunlevy testified from 1600 hours until 1725 hours. She
was an excellent witness. Before the questioning started, Mr. Thompson
said they intended to go into a number of issues beyond the destruction of
tapes question. I told Thompson that this was not the understanding we had
when we relayed the Committee's interest to Mrs. Dunlevy, and that while
I was sure that Mrs. Dunlevy would be willing to answer any question posed
by the counsel, I did not want to be in a position of saying that she should
answer those questions before knowing what the questions were.
recommended that we await developments, and everyone was agreeable to
that.
The following points developed:
(a) She did not order the destruction of the tapes at
her own initiative, but had done so at the request of
Mr. Helms, in the context of cleaning out the office in
preparation for a new director.
(b) She had no idea that any tapes other than Mr. Helms'
tapes would be destroyed, pointing out that what happened to
the DDCI's and the Executive Director-Comptroller's, etc.,
tapes were not her proper concern. (As a matter of fact,
it is understood that all extant original tapes were destroyed
in January 1973.)
3
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
C7,
(c) The distinction between the handling of telephone
and office tapes.
(d) All transcripts were under her tight control in the
vault, she had read them all and on her oath none contained
any information relating to Watergate.
(e) She had no knowledge of any information bearing
on Watergate while working with Mr. Helms, but then
corrected herself and referred to the 28 June 1972
memorandum to General Walters which she observed
had been taken out of context and caused Mr. Helms and
others unnecessary problems.
(f) She no doubt prepared the routirg slip covering the
Mansfield letter.
(g) Mr. Hunt had always been grateful to her for
arranging a loan in connection with the terrible financial
strain involving his daughter. Counsel wanted to know
if she knew the details of the loan, but she said that was
a personal matter between the lender and Mr. Hunt.
(Later I questioned Mrs. Dunlevy on this and she explained
that she had suggested to Mr. Helms that the PSAS could
be helpful to Hunt and Mr. Helms had placed a call which
apparently resulted in a loan of about $12,000 to Hunt.
She said Hunt was always thanking her for this assistance
when as a matter of fact he had Mr. Helms to thank. I
had previo71NT F'innfor Baker and Fred Thompson
the note by oncerning the PSAS loan, so
I don't think we have any problem on this score.)
In summation, Mrs. Dunlevy was effective and convinced that
neither she nor Mr. Helms had destroyed any material related to Watergate
nor been involved in any type of cover up.
Following the session, Mrs. Dunlevy expressed her concern
that material that had been sent to Archives labeled "To be opened only
by Mr. Helms or Mrs. Dunlevy or at their death" was being used to
reconstruct records on conversations taped in Mr. Helms' office. She
also thought that she would be in the best position to be able to reconstruct
information from Mr. Helms' and her appointment calendars.
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420
7. At the end of the testimony Mr. Thompson told me he saw some
real conflict between Mrs. Dunlevy's testimony concerning the destruction
of tapes and what Messrs. Kobliska and Popivchak had testified to. It was
agreed we would get together later to discuss the dimensions of this problem.
Frankly, I do not see substantial conflict in their testimonies, unless it
relates to the fact that all the tapes were destroyed and Mrs. Dunlevy felt
that only Mr. Helms tapes were being destroyed.
5
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474420