MEETING WITH SENATOR BAKER, 11 DECEMBER 1973

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482353
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: December 12, 1973

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
preannosearwadidm*11.0.4011.10
Ezeoutiva Registry
12 December 19 73
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with Senator Baker, 11 December 1973
1. As a follow-up to our 7 December session with Senator Baker,
Messrs. Martin J. Lukoskie and of OLC met with
Senator Howard Baker (R., Tenn. ) in the Senator's office for approximately
two hours. George Murphy of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy staff,
who is assisting in reviewing certain sensitive aspects of the Senator's
investigation into Watergate-related matters, was also present.
2. Concerning follow-up items from the 7 December meeting,
Baker was advised:
a) There is no record of a written report of the 12 February 1973
meeting between Lukoskie, Mullen, and Bennett, and Lukoskie does
not recall such a report.
b) Bennett is out of the country, but the Agency will contact
and tell him that there should be no inhibitions whatsoever in
answering Baker's questions bearing on the relationship between
CIA and the Mullen Company.
c) The Agency has no negatives of the photographs taken of
Dr. Fielding's office, but only Xeroxed copies of the prints.
d) In response to Mr. Murphy's request, Mr. Osborn had
prepared a current memorandum on the August 1971 meeting at
the White House between Messrs. Helms, Osborn, Ehrlichman,
Krogh, and Young. A copy of Mr. Osborn's unclassified
memorandum dated 11 December 1973 was given to Murphy.
/b.E.INSITIVE
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
SECR T/SENSITIVE
e) Concerning the narrative chronology which Senator Baker
had requested, we are thinking of organizing it by major topical
headings, such as provisioning of Hunt, the profile, FBI/CIA and
White House/CIA relationships concerning the investigation and
the cover-up; Baker thought this would be very helpful.
3. Baker said there were substantial discrepancies between wriat
he had just been told by Martinez and what he had been told by us concerning
the meetings between our case officer and Martinez in Miami. In response
to Senator Baker's suggestion, I told him we definitely would want to see
the transcript and it was agreed I would contact Fred Thompson, Minority
Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities, for this
purpose. Per Baker, the discrepancies involved a) Who initiated Martinez's
reporting on Hunt's activities in Miami, and b) Instructions to Martinez that
his contact report on Hunt "not include anything that will come back to haunt
you." I reviewed once again what had transpired, i. e., the casual mention
by Martinez of Hunt in November of 1971; the re-mentioning of Hunt in March
of 19 72 leading to the Esterline/Martinez session in which Martinez used the
commercial cover story but aroused Esterline's suspicions by inquiring
whether he, Esterline, was aware of all activities within his area;
Esterline's related query to Headquarters, and Headquarter's reply. In this
connection Baker would like to review the communications between Miami
and Headquarters and also the records on the termination of Martinez.
4. Baker then proceeded to question Lukoskie on his handwritten
memorandum, but was interrupted early by a vote. When Baker returned
we were answering questions by Murphy and with Baker's acquiescence
Murphy continued a generally ineffective, leading type of interrogation,
friendly in tone but designed more to play on Baker's apparent concerns
than elucidate on the relevant information Lukoskie gave in explaining his
memorandum. Lnkoskie's explanation of his handwritten memorandum was
entirely consistent with the explanation given Baker on 7 December by
Messrs. Maury and Lukoskie was sincere and credible. Despite
this Baker continued to read words out of context "in the interest of tidying
up loose ends." Baker had difficulty in grasping the fact that the Agency
in July of 1972 believed that the "WH flap" posed a greater risk to the
integrity of the Mullen cover slots than Hunt's connection to Watergate.
S. Baker was perplexed by the statement that Bennett had established
"back-door entry" to the Edward Bennett Williams law firm to "kill off any
revelation by Ed Williams of Agency association with the Mullen firm"
-2-
SE /SENSITIVE
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
S ET/SENSITIVE
(paragraph 11 of Lukoskiels handwritten memorandum), and that Bennett
"could handle the Ervin committee if the Agency can handle Howard Hunt"
(last sentence of paragraph 13 from 1 March 1973 memorandum for DD/P).
said these statements were entirely consistent with Bennett's earlier
action with Silbert of the Justice Department to assure that there would
be no unnecessary damaging revelation concerning the cover slots.
6. In response to a question by Murphy, Lukoskie said he had 'a
session during the summer of 1972 with Mullen at Mullen's home near a
golf course. When Murphy pointed out that Mullen lived at the Watergate,
Lukoskie explained that the meeting was at Mullen 's former home which
Mullen sold tc an Agency employee,
Baker appeared to be genuinely
amused by this additional "involvement."
7. Baker will be interviewing Bennett on Monday. Baker would like
a copy of the Lukoskie memorandum, 10 July contact report, and
I March 1973 memorandum for use in interrogating Bennett, and I said I
would check to see if we could make a sanitized copy of these documents
available to him; Baker agreed as long as Murphy participated in the
sanitizing process. I pointed out that there were certain statements in
Mr. Lukoskie's memorandum, such as a reference to the "WH flap," which
had not been discussed with Bennett and which we would not want Baker
to discuss with him. Baker understood and suggested that I attend the
session with Bennett, but I told him that I didn't think this was necessary
to protect out interests.
8. Baker said that the one thing that troubled him the most concerning
Watergate was why the President, immediately after the break in, did not
line up his staff and get to the bottom of what was going on. He said he was
similarly concerned with why a thorough investigation was not immediately
undertaken within the Agency following the break in as the facts should have
aroused more suspicions within the Agency than they did.
9. Baker agreed that he needed to devote more time to the subject
of the concern within the Agency over the "WH flap" (an easily misunderstood
phrase which raises his ire). He was on the verge of requesting access
to the Agency's file on the Mullen Company but he deferred to my suggestion
that we could see if there were any other memoranda on Agency contacts
with Mullen Company bearing on the issues that we were discussing. Baker
would like us to go back as far as April of 1972 (subsequent to our return to
Headquarters I reviewed this matter with and Mr. Lukoskie
-3-
SE ET/SENSITIVE
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353
SE E T /SENSITIVE
and reviewed and identified several reports for supporting the contentions
that Lukoskie was making). Baker suggested that our next meeting be in
the morning so that he would not be interrupted by votes.
CONCLUSION
� It is my recommendation that we continue to cooperate with
Senator Baker as we have heretofore and provide as much possible
documentation, narratives, and explanation as is necessary to respond to
his questions. So far he seems to be accepting our explanations as being
more reasonable than the speculation he is pursuing. However, it is
hoped that he will soon satisfy himself that there was no knowing Agency
involvement in Watergate and related affairs.
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
1. Review transcript of Baker's interview of Martinez (I contacted
Fred Thompson's office on this as soon as we left Baker's office and made
a follow-up call to Thompson on the 12th with no success; I was assured by
Murphy that he would call me on the 13th and arrange for me to see the
trans c ript).
2. Communication between COS/Miami and Headquarters concerning
Hunt.
3. Records on termination of Martinez.
4. Sanitize copies of Lukoskie's handwritten memorandum, contact
report, and I March 1973 memorandum.
5. Memorandum on contacts with Mullen Company from April 1972
up to 10 July meeting and any thereafter which may substantiate the
points made by Lukoskie.
6. Narrative explaining the history of our dealings with Mullen
Company in light of the contentions made by Lukos3fie and in his memorandum.
Associate Legislative Counsel
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482353