CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR STUART SYMINGTON RE SENATOR HOWARD BAKER'S PLANS TO RECOMMEND SANITIZATION OF CIA DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO SENATOR BAKER'S INQUIRY

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482052
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: March 29, 1974

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052
.�,;� ..7111
OLC 74-0561
29 March 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Conversations with Senator Stuart Symington re
Senator Howard Baker's Plans to Recommend
Sanitization of CIA Documents Pertaining to
Senator Baker's Inquiry
I. I called Senator Stuart Symington this morning to tell him that
while I was aware that the Director had seen him at a social engagement
last night and mentioned some of the developments yesterday regarding
Senator Baker's proposal to raise with the full Ervin Committee (probably
Wednesday) the problem of sanitizing all documents pertaining to Baker's
inquiry into CIA and Watergate, the Director suggested I call him to be
sure we had covered all of the details. I proceeded to recap Baker's
call to the Director yesterday and the Director's telephone call with
Senator Stennis. I told Symington that in this latter conversation the
Director had advised Stennis of the request from Baker that we sanitize
our material and Stennis told the Director that he would not accept Baker's
proposal for transfer of his report and investigation to the Senate Armed
Services Committee if Baker planned to proceed with the Select Committee
to sanitize the Agency documentation. In furtherance of this position,
Stennis had returned the copy of Baker's Summary report to the custody
of George Murphy, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy staff.
2. Senator Symington said he was glad I called because it also gave
him an opportunity to advise me of a letter which he (Symington) has drafted
and proposed to send to Baker. (I gathered from some of Symington's
remarks that Baker had sent him a letter indicating his intention to raise
the question of sanitization of CIA material with the Watergate Committee
next week and had solicited Symington's views. I gather further that
Symington had told Baker he could not really focus on this issue without
having access to a copy of the summary report, which Baker has now
made available to him.)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052
3. Senator Symington read to me at least portions of his letter
to Baker which said in effect he sees no great problem from a security
standpoint in the sanitization of the summary report, but has raised a
question with Baker concerning a statement (item 10 in the "Miscellaneous"
section) referring to statements made by Ambassador Helms in his recent
appearance before Baker and members of his staff. Symington said the
report mentions an unnamed person whom Helms said had contacts within
CIA and the FBI. The summary also made reference to a memorandum
supposedly being prepared by this individual. Symington asked me if I knew
who the individual was. I told him I could not be certain but I would look
into it and be back in touch with him. Symington's letter to Baker suggests
this matter be clarified in the record and the name of the individual
concerned be provided.
4. Late this afternoon, after reviewing Helms' testimony,
Senator Baker's report and some of the documentation we provided Baker
and his staff, I called Symington back. I told him the individual in question
was James Angleton, Chief of our CI Staff, which was one of the most
sensitive organizations within the Agency. I told the Senator the question
he referred to in the Baker report came up toward the end of Helms'
testimony and was in response to a question put to him as to whether he
had ever discussed the Watergate breakin with Angleton. (I noted that it
was significant that Angleton.'s name was not disclosed in the summary
report.) I told Symington further it was obvious in view of Helms' request
for discussion off the record that he was reluctant to talk about the functions
of Angleton's office on the record in view of the sensitivities involved�not
for any reason pertaining to Watergate. I explained further that the
memorandum referred to was being prepared but has not been forwarded to
the Select Committee. I said any pressure which the Senator may put on
Baker for more specificity with regard to this matter might be turned against
Helms with a request for further information on the record. Symington said
he didn't think we should worry about this since Baker has now completed his
inquiry. However, he said if we should get any requests from Baker or his
staff with regard to Helms, he wants us to be certain to notify him (Symington).
2
409
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052
5. Commenting on the memorandum by Mr. Angleton, I told
Senator Symington we had talked with Angleton who had indicated that he
has had no conversation with any of the Watergate principals since the
breakin although he may have had contact with some White House staff
people, ultimately implicated in Watergate, in connection with their
legitimate activities such as drug enforcement and intelligence evaluation.
I did my best to dissuade Symington from including in his letter any
request for further specifics pertaining to the Helms item but the Senator
feels the matter is a good issue on which to block publication of the summary
report at least for the time being.
6. I told Senator Symington that I understand Senator Baker has
invited the Director to comment on his summary report if he chooses and
we were in the process of pulling together such comment. I said that while
the review of the report is still underway, our preliminary concern is not so
much with matters of security sensitivity since most of the sensitive items
have been leaked to the press in one form or another. We are more concerned
about some of the innuendos and half-statements which are in the summary
report and which, in our judgment should not go unchallenged. Symington
again made it clear in no uncertain terms that he feels we should give
nothing to Baker. If we have any comments on the summary report we
should make them to Stennis and McClellan.
7. I mentioned to the Senator I had obtained a copy of the Marquis
Childs column which appeared in the Baltimore Sun on Friday (which the
Senator had called to my attention in our earlier conversation today).
The Senator said he thought Childs' article was indeed more serious as
far as Baker was concerned than the Evans/Novak column this morning.
GE9AGE L. CARY
Legislative Counsel
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482052