MEETING WITH SENATOR HOWARD BAKER

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482359
• 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: December 7, 1973

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
SECRET/ SITIVE
OLC 73-1433
7 December 1973
-(b)(3)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with Senator Howard Baker
1. On 7 December Messrs. Maury and f OLC, met with
Senator Howard Baker (R., Tenn.) in the Senator s o ice for approximately
three hours. Also present was George Murphy, of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy staff, whom Senator Baker had called upon to assist him in
reviewing certain sensitive aspects of his Watergate investigations. The
Senator had called the meeting to review the material contained in "Supple-
ment to Volume III of 'Documentation Provided by CIA." The Senator read
all of the material in the volume. During the ensuing discussion the following
points were brought out:
a. Regarding the handwritten memo of 10 July 1972 by
Martin J. Lukoskie, Baker suggested that the fact that Bennett
had asked for the 10 July meeting with Lukoskie indicated that
Bennett might have been reporting to CIA on a CIA operation
(Watergate). We explqined that Lukoskie was merely performing
his official duties as the responsible in
dealing with the Mullen Company, which provided cover slots for
Agency officers overseas. We added that Lukoskie's principal
concern apparently was over the possible compromise of some
sensitive cover positions which the Agency had arranged with
the Mullen Company. We pointed out three reasons for this
concern:
(1) The Mullen Company had already been tainted as a
possible CIA front as a result of Hunt's employment
by Mullen.
(2) There was concern that Hunt in defending his actions
might publicly reveal the existence of these cover
positions with Mullen Company.
SEC SENSITIVE
tv�itf".."
r
!RIMY nn
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
SEC /SENSITIVE
(3) The Agency had pr vided the FBI with information
on its relationship with the Mullen Company and
there was concern that this information might be
leaked.
b. Baker viewed Lukoskie's conclusion, in the 10 July
memo, that the Agency "is not going to be able to use the
Watergate incident as our reason [for terminating the cover
arrangements] unless Howard Hunt's testimony is damaging
to us" and that "we will have to level with Mullen and Bennett
concerning the WH flap" as indicating some type of sinister
Agency involvement in Watergate. We explained what the
"WH flap" involved, particularly emphasizing its extreme
sensitivity. We further explained the importance of termi-
nating the cover relationships in view of the eroding security
situation. Finally we explained what Lukoskie meant by the
above mentioned quote was simply that the Agency would only
want to explain to Mullen the "WH flap" as a last resort.
Baker accepted this as a reasonable explanation. We suggested
that if he had any remaining questions on this or any other
point in the Lukoskie memorandum, a face-to-face meeting
with Lukoskie might be useful. Baker welcomed this sugges-
tion.
During Baker's absence from the room for a vote we
explained to Murphy that the Mullen Company might be
reluctant to terminate these cover relationships especially
since
and the company did not want to lose the business he
was bringing in.
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
c. Baker said he would like to have a copy of the contact
report of the 12 February 1973 meeting between Lukoskie,
Mullen and Bennett referred to in naragraph,13 of the 1 March
1973 memo to the DD/P from which is in the volume. (b)(3)
d. Baker indicated he would like to interview Bennett and
asked if the Agency would, for this purpose, release Bennett
from any security agreements he might have made with the Agency.
We said we would be glad to arrange this provided any informa-
tion supplied by Bennett would be appropriately protected. We
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
SECR IT IVE
remarked that we had done this in the case of all other Mullen
personnel who had appeared before the Special Prosecutor and
the Grand Jury.
e. Baker indicated that he was under the impression that
the Agency had negatives of the photographs of Dr. Fielding's
office. We said it was our understanding that we had only
Xerox copies, but we would look into it.
2. Maury asked Baker if he could explain just what it was that troubled
him about various allegations of Agency involvement in Watergate and went on
to say that the matter had been thoroughly investigated by our oversight sub-
committees and had been the subject of an intensive in-house investigation by
the Agency. He added that he knew all of the senior Agency officials concerned
personally--Helms, Cushman, Walters, Schlesinger, and Colby--and he
called attention to the fact that of the various Government officials who had
been pressured to assist in the Watergate coverup Helms, Cushman, and
Walters in particular had flatly refused as soon as they had reason to suspect
impropriety.
3. Baker said he completely accepted the sincerety of Maury's state-
ment that institutionally the Agency was entirely clean on Watergate, but
as he had told Helms when he had made similar representations, he had
to disagree in view of what he felt were innumerable Agency involvements.
He then recited the familiar record of the assistance to Hunt, the Ellsberg
profiles, and the past Agency associations of several of the "Plumbers," etc.
4. We said that all of this was true but emphasized that in no case
had any of the various investigations by oversight subcommittees or within
the Agency produced any evidence of "knowing" involvement by the Agency
in the sense that responsible officials could have known, or had reason to
believe, that the assistance given to Hunt, etc., was for improper or illegal
purposes. Baker then asked specifically whether the Agency had any advance
knowledge of the breakin of Dr. Fielding's office or of the Democratic National
Committee at the Watergate. He was told the answer to this question is a
firm and unequivocal "no." He then conceded that the Agency was probably ---_____
not knowingly involved, but it had undoubtedly been abused. Maury pointed
out that we had Made the most intensive internal investigation a.pd assembled
all available documentary material without encountering any evidence that
3
SECR SITIVE
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
SECRET/SENMTIVE
any responsible Agency official had any advance knowledge of the improper
purposes for which Agency assistance was being requested. Maury said
that the importance of clarifying the matter from the Agency's standpoint
could not be over emphasized, since if the credibility and integrity of any
intelligence agency is seriously doubted, that agency becomes completely
worthless and ineffective. In view of this, he said if Baker had any infor-
mation indicating any improper Agency involvement we felt we should know
it at once.
5. Baker said he had no intention of doing damage to the Agency but
felt it was important to investigate "all the loose ends." He added, however,
that despite our assurances he had come into the possession, without seeking
it, of "reliable" information indicating that there was something seriously
improper regarding some kind of Agency activities in connection with the
Western Hemisphere operations. He said he had not deliberately sought this
information, but it had been provided to him and he could not ignore it. He
added that because of circumstances he was not free to be more specific
regarding the matter of the information or the source.
6. Maury said he considered this an extremely serious matter and
even though the Senator might not be able to tell us the nature of the informa-
tion or its source, he would hope that the Senator could formulate some
questions for the Agency to answer which would help him to evaluate the
validity of his information. Baker said he would try to do this.
7. Maury said he was aware of many irresponsible and malicious
'NJallegations about Agency involvement in Watergate and it might be worth-
while to consider the motives of the authors of these allegations. As an
example he said there were a number of 'potential defendants in criminal
prosecutions stemming from the Watergate who might find it useful to use
the Agency as a smokescreen or red herring, since many people are pre-
pared to believe almost anything about the Agency and it's often impossible
to defend against such allegations without revealing sensitive information.
Baker said he recognized this. Maury noted that another defense tactic
might be to assert that the "Plumber's" were in fact working on projects
designed to protect the security interests of the Agency. Baker seemed to
react to this and somewhat defensively volunteered that the so-called
"22 page report" on CIA activities mentioned in the press actually ne�si.ei�
existed.
4
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359
-SEICAZET
8. Baker said that he had tried to protect the Agency's interest in
the handling of information he obtained from Andrew St. George. He recalled
that when this information came to his attention, instead of publicizing it he
turned it over to Senator Symington for investigation.
9. In conclusion, Baker said he had great difficulty in absorbing all
the relevant facts and getting a coherent picture of the problem. He said it
would be helpful if we could present the relevant material in a more orderly
fashion, perhaps in narrative form rather than merely as a collection of
intelligence memoranda. He asked if we could work with George Murphy
and Fred Thompson, Minority Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presi-
dential Activities, to compile such a report. We said we would be glad to.
10. Followup items:
a. Arrange for Baker an interview with Lukoskie.
b. Assure that Bennett understands that he can respond
freely to questions put to him in an executive session interview
with Baker concerning the Agency's relationship with the Mullen
Company. 11 handle this when Bennett returns
from a trip a roa
c. Provide Baker with a copy of Lukoskie's 12 February
1973 report of contact with Mullen and Bennett.
d. Prepare and review with Fred Thompson and George
Murphy a proposed chronology and explanation of CIA connection
with Watergate and related matters.
e. Report back to Baker that the Agency only has Xerox copies
and not negatives of photo ra hs of r. Fieldin s office.
As ounsel
5
SECR SENSITIVE
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482359