SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES TESTIMONY OF 4 FEBRUARY 1974

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01474423
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: February 4, 1974

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C014744230
(b)(3)
OLC 74-0179
4 February 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
Testimony of 4 February 1974
1. This, the first day of hearings involving Agency witnesses to
testify under oath in executive session with Vice Chairman Howard Baker
presiding, was held in S. 1418, Dirksen Office Building. Although scheduled
to commence at 0930 hours, Senator Baker did not show up to swear in the (b)(3)
witnesses until 1025 hours at which time he administered the oath to
and and then
left.
2. Background:
a. As a result of previous sessions with Senator Baker
andhisciauns_el._file_fol win Alr)g__giv_i.tnessesw were scheduled:
James Angleton, Richard A. Krueger, Steven
Greenwood, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, Thomas Karamessines,
and Jacob Esterline.
b. Those witnesses who were able to assemble were met
as a group on Saturday, 2 February, with Office
of General Counsel, and myself meeting each one individually.
It was pointed out to all that:
(1) Their appearance before the Committee was
voluntary; the Agency was not directing them to appear,
but, of course, the Committee had the power of subpoena.
(b)(3)1
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
(2) They had the right to a private counsel and
that and I would sit in with them during
the session and tnat our principal role would be to
assure that the questioning did not get into sensitive
areas unrelated to "Watergate. "
c. Early in the hearing of 4 February 1974 it became
clear that the Committee could in no way handle the five
witnesses scheduled for the day, and that the Committee
counsels had not had sufficient time to absorb the voluminous
written material that we had provided them earlier in the
week. As a result, with the agreement of Committee
counsel we unplugged for now Angleton,
anC Also, following the day's testimony which ended
in the late afternoon, I stayed on into the evening to review
all of the material that we had provided to the counsels to
make sure that they would make better use of the time of all
involved.
3. Presession Agreements:
Prior to the hearings Thompson agreed:
a. To the security arrangements which I outlined
(see attachment).
b. To treat the testimony as exhibits under the
1 February 1974 understanding reached with Senator
Baker.
c. That he thought it would be all right for us to have
a copy of the transcript, but he didn't want us to show it to
scheduled witnesses. (This is a fairly remote possibility
because of the delay in getting transcripts.)
4.
(Saturday had mentioned that she had had a
roommate who somehow knew Marchetti and that the former roommate
had told her the Committee might be interested in talking to her, feeling
that she had information relating to McCord's employment in the 'Agency.)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
testified from 1025 hours until 1040 hours and her testimony (b)(3)
was completely uneventful. She identified Also, her
uncertainty over whether McCord retired in 1970 or 1971 raised a possibility
that she had seen McCord in Agency Headquarters in 1971 after McCord had
retired, but eventually it was clarified that she had seen McCord before his
retirement and not after it.
5.
(b)(3)
(b)(3)
testified
from 1040 hours until 1235 hours, with
Thompson
questioning
for about 65 minutes. acquitted
(b)(3)
himself extremely
well and there were no surprises in his testimony.
(b)(3)
a.
Liebengood brought out the sudden TDY to Head-
quarters
following the Watergate incident.
(b)(3)
b. Some confusion
arose because was not sure
of the date he took over
Martinez, he thought it might have
been some time in March 1972, when in fact it was late in
(b)(3)
April.
c. It is obvious that the counsels have some conflicting
testimony concerning the discovery of Martinez' car in the
Miami airport following the arrests in June 1972.
6.
During testimony, which commenced at 1300
hours, I moved to go off the record a number of times on the following
points:
a. Thompson wanted to know who we dealt with in
I told him
we were getting into uncharte red waters because I didn't
know where his questioning was going to end up. He said
his interest was to find out the names of the individuals
and companies with which CIA had a relationship
over the last ten years. I requested that he rephrase his
3
(b)(1) E
(b)(3)
(b)(1)
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
question so that we could respond only with respect to the
particular companies or individuals in which he was interested.
As a concession, he cut down the period from the last ten years
to "since 1971" and I said we would note his request.
b. Thompson asked about CIA relationships with the Mormon
church, the Summa Corporation, or the Hughes Tool Company.
(Thompson said he had specific information that we had something
with the Mormon church.) I suggested that if he is interested in
whether the Agency had any relationship with these three institutions
in connection with CIA's relationship with the Mullen Company, he
rephrase the question. Thompson refused to do this and I said we
would note his request.
c. Thompson wanted a full explanation of the "WH flap. "
I told Thompson this involved a sensitive and activpsituation
which had been explained to Senator Baker and tha
was not an Agency witness in this respect, but we would note
his interest and see what could be provided. (I believe Thompson
has already been fully exposed to the "WH flap" in an executive
hearing with Bennett during which Baker asked if Bennett knew
what the WH flap was all about. Baker later told me that Bennett
did know, and explained it to Bakr T assumed that Bennett may
have gotten this information from Thompson
observed the parallel which exists between the position of CIA
with respect to the "WH flap" and the White House with respect
to issues it did not wish to be explored by the Attorney General
in connection with the activities of the Plumbers (an observation
I have been expecting for some time, but this is the first time it
has been presented directly.)
(b)(3)
testimony was excellent with no surprises and generally
paralleled that given to Senator Baker in the Senator's office on 11 December
1973:
a. Concerning any general logs that
explained that internal
procedures had changed some time in December 1972 on the
information to be maintained in the logs. To assure his
responsiveness to a specific question, I refreshed
4
[(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
memory on an entry in aF7log on a call in June 1972
between the Agency and the Mullen Company in which it was
not clear either who initiated the call or who was contacted
in the Mullen Company.
Follow up: Provide any extant memorandum reflecting
the change in information to be covered in the log.
b. In response to counsel's questions, said he
had no knowledge of (1) a Greenspun memorandum, (2) a
Mr. Waite (sp?) of General Foods, and (3) Mr. Hemlick (sp?)
of ANA (Association of National Advertisers).
c. The counsels focused in on the meetings between
Mr. Hunt and Messrs. Cord Meyer and Tom Karamessines.
d. In characterizing Mr. Bennett as an individual in
whom he did not have a great deal of trust, as contrasted
with Mr. Mullen, mentioned Bennett's suggestion
that would be well taken care of if he could assist
in getting unfavorable information on
7. Following the hearings, I stayed on with the counsel and we
reviewed late into the evening the voluminous material previously provided
by the Agency to assure that they could make more effective use of the time
of all involved and hopefully to get to the bottom of whatever is troubling
them.
During the session I made it clear that I was puzzled by their ques-
tioning during the day since it was apparent that they had not yet absorbed
the information we had already provided and which we think satisfactorily
answers the questions they had raised. Restating a point that I had made
previously, I said that while I did not personally believe so, their investi-
gation had the appearance of a fishing expedition and that if they continued
it would be unavoidable that we would have to disclose more and more
sensitive information which had no bearing on the case and which I assumed
5
1
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423
they had no desire to obtain. I said t at I felt that serious consideration
should be given to either advising Mr. Colby about the particulars, or if
that was not satisfactory, to at least advise our oversight Committee
chairmen and ask them to investigate whatever serious leads had been
developed in the secure environment structured for the oversight of
sensitive CIA matters. Mr. Thompson admitted this suggestion had some
merit.
Deputy Legislative Counsel
Att.
6
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01474423