LETTER TO LUCIEN NEDZI FROM W. E. COLBY RE HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH FORMER CIA DIRECTOR RICHARD HELMS REGARDING ALLEGATIONS IN THE PRESS AND ELSEWHERE THAT A PORTION OF HIS MEMORANDUM OF 28 JUNE 1972 TO GENERAL VERNON A. WALTERS ON THE WATERGATE AFFAIR APPE

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482367
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: November 5, 1973

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
OLC 73-1274
CENTRAL INTELLIC-ENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20505
5 November 1973
The Honorable Lucien Nedzi
Chairman, Special Subcommittee
on Intelligence
Committee on'Armed Services
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In response to your inquiries and a similar inquiry from Senator
Stuart Symington, Acting Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, I
have communicated with former CIA Director Richard Helms regarding
allegations in the press and elsewhere that a portion of his memorandum
of 28 June 1972 to General Vernon A. Walters on the Watergate affair
appears to be in sharp conflict with his testimony before congressional
committees and Federal prosecutors on this subject.
I am forwarding herewith the text of Ambassador Helms' personal
response to your inquiry. I am also sending this response to Senator
Symington.
It is clear from testimony on the record that in every instance when
Mr. Gray was in communication with Mr. Helms, Mr. Helms stated there
was no CIA involvement in any matter that he knew was under investigation
by FBI, including Mexican activities. This testimony includes:
From Mr. Gray's opening statement before the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
on 3 August:
"On Thursday, June 22, 1972, after being briefed by
Mr. Charles W. Bates, Assistant Director, General
Investigative Division, regarding the latest development
in the Watergate case and undoubtedly as a result of
�
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
. Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
information developed at the briefing, I telephoned
Director Helms of the CIA. I told him of our thinking
that we may be poking into a CIA operation and asked
if he could confirm or deny this. He said he had been
meeting on this every day with his men, that they
knew the people, that they could not figure it out but
that there was no CIA involvement."
� � �
II. . �I telephoned {on 27 June 1972] Director Helms
of the CIA and asked him to tell me specifically if the
CIA had any interest in Mr. Ogarrio that would prevent
us from interviewing him. . . Director Helms told me
that he would have to check to determine whether the
CIA had any interest in Mr. Ogarrio and would call me
later. . Director Helms called me back later that
afternoon, told me the CIA had no interest in Mr. Ogarrio
The record also indicates that Mr. Gray telephoned Mr. Helms on 28 June
1972 to cancel the meeting scheduled for that date. During that conversation
Mr. Helms closed out a previous request by the FBI by advising that any
investigation of Mr. Dahlberg would not interfere with Agency operations.
Mr. Helms also said he would be out of the country but that General Walters
would be available for any meeting next week. Mr. Gray did not schedule
any further meetings with CIA officials until 6 July 1972 when he met with
General Walters. In this connection Mr. Gray testified before the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities:
"On Thursday, July 6, 1972, I met with General Walters
in my office. I remember that he delivered to me the
writing that I requested and I remember that it indicated
the CIA had no interest in Ogarrio or Dahlberg. After
reading the document, I concluded that there was no
reason for us to not interview Messrs. Ogarrio and
Dahlberg. . . � It
2
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
In light of the record as developed above, I would like to share
with you my personal interpretation of the meaning of the 28 June 1972
memorandum by Mr. Helms. Mr. Helms, mindful that the Agency was
not involved in the Watergate break-in, was issuing instructions, for
internal Agency guidance during his absence abroad, that the FBI should
not look into any and all Agency operations without some showing of
justification for such an investigation. Mr. Helms was concerned about
leakage from the FBI compromising CIA sensitive information provided
the FBI, which actually occurred.
I fUlly support Ambassador Helms' position that there is clear
evidence on the record that the actions of Mr. Helms and General Walters,
both before and after 28 June 1972, completely refute the interpretation
that the memorandum of that date constituted an order to General Walters
to stifle the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in.
If we can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
W. E. Colby
Director
Enclosure
3
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
4 November 1973
Response of Richard Helms to Inquiries from Senator Symington
and Representative Nedzi Regarding Helms Memorandum of
28 June 1972 to General Vernon A. Walters and Related Matters
My memorandum to General Walters of 28 June 1972 was written
in the context of an upcoming trip which took me abroad from 1 to 12 July
1972. I was mindful of the fact that General Walters had only been Deputy
Director since 2 May 1972 and that Acting Director Gray of the FBI had
been in his job an even shorter time. I could not understand why Gray
could not find time to see me on 28 June or during the next two days. I
wanted Gen. Walters to be cooperative with the FBI so that its investigation
of the Watergate break-in could go forward. But I did not want him to
permit some kind of a fishing expedition into CIA operations outside the
United States
There had been queries about Ogarrio
and Dahlberg from the FBI without any explanation being given as to what
these individuals represented. Since I could not establish the FBI motive
and since Gray kept querying about CIA involvement in the Watergate
burglary despite my denials, I wanted to insure that the agreement between
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
the two agencies to advise each other of any activity which touched on any
activity of the other was scrupulously followed. Further, I could see from
press stories and other events (such as Dean's meetings with Walters on
26, 27 and 28 June) that efforts were being made to implicate the Agency.
My sole preoccupation was to prevent this from happening since the Agency
was in no way involved in the Watergate break-in, the only illegality which
as far as I knew at the time was at issue. Although the precise language
of the sentence of my 28 June 1972 memo may sound ominous in light of
later findings and testimony, i. e., out of context in time and circumstance,
it was simply an effort to see to it that the investigation went forward while
I was absent from the country. It was designed to give Gen. Walters
guidance, since he was so new to the Agency, to the effect that I did not want
the FBI's headquarters
taking advantage of this
investigation to hurt unrelated Agency operations
whatever they might be. I had no way of knowing what the FBI was attempting
to get into as of 28 June 1972.
I have been informed that Gen. Walters has said that he did not see
my memorandum of 28 June 1972, until May or June of 1973. I do not know
how or why this happened, and I was not aware that this was the case until
some time this year. Since it was an "eyes only" memorandum, it would
2
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
probably not have been seen by any other officer of the Agency. I certainly
intended Gen. Walters to see the memorandum, but if he did not, it could
not have affected his attitude in the 6 July meeting or any other conversations
with Mr. Gray.
I believe that there is clear evidence on the record by Gray and
Walters that my actions and those of Walters both before and after 28 June
1972 completely refute the interpretation that the second paragraph of my
memorandum constitutes an order to Walters to stifle the FBI's investigation.
A few days previously, I had firmly and clearly told Gray that there was no
CIA involvement. Also, Gray rescheduled the cancelled 28 June meeting
for 6 July with Walters, and Walters' memorandum of the same day states
that he told Gray, "In all honesty, I could not tell him (Gray) to cease
further investigations on the grounds that it would compromise the security
interests of the United States," At that meeting, Walters also gave Gray
a memorandum summarizing all the information that we had reported to the
FBI on the matter which, of course, is further proof that there was no
Agency involvement. Surely this was not an action to stifle the FBI investi-
gation.
As for my attitude toward the FBI as of 28 June 1972, I would like
to point out there had been leaks from the field office of the FBI which had
been conducting the initial interviews. It was for this reason that I did
not want Wagner and Caswell interviewed by that office although I was quite
3
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
prepared, and believe I made it clear to Gray, that if their testimony was
actually needed, someone from Gray's own office would have access to them
at any time. Also, as early as 22 June 1973 the Agency security staff checked
with the FBI on the progress of their investigation of McCord and was advised
by the FBI that word had come down from Gray that the FBI was not to
disseminate any information about the case in oral or written form. The
accumulation of such facts made me wary of what the FBI might be doing
and strongly influenced my efforts to try to keep the Agency from becoming
ensnared.
Laurence Stern wrote an earlier article on 10 July 1973 pertaining
to me. This article was the subject of a letter from Mr. Colby to Chairman
Symington of the Armed Services Committee dated 10 July. What Mr. Colby
writes in said letter is accurate.
I have no reluctance to return to the United States to testify before
the Senate Armed Services Committee or before the staff of the Special
Prosecutor. I find myself with numerous commitments here. I open a
US trade center on Sunday evening and am involved in the arrangements
for Secretary Kissinger's visit in Tehran on November 9. Also I am scheduled
to travel in southern Iran from November 5 to November 8 to visit Iranian
oil installations. This trip could be cancelled, but I do not quite see how
4
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
I could get to Washington and return by November 9 and still do justice to
what would be required of me. I cite these commitments, and others
in the week right after 9 November, only to set forth what my problem is.
I have not addressed the question of releasing publicly the text of
the 28 June 1972 memorandum since I believe the security and legal impli-
cations can best be judged by you on the scene. It is noteworthy that Mr. Cox
made his indirect reference to the memo despite Mr. Colby's testimony at
his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in
July 1973 which reads as follows:
This position (taken in the 28 June 1972 memorandum) was
consistent with our concern that investigations might reveal
CIA activities and our belief that they were unnecessary
since CIA had no involvement in the Watergate incident ...
our check indicated that the leads in Mexico did not
involve any current CIA assets or activities. Having
satisfied ourselves that there was no CIA involve-
ment in the Watergate incident, we were concerned that
a possible broadening of the investigation which would
reveal CIA foreign activities having no bearing on the
Watergate incident would take place.
5
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367
Please advise me whether the use of the foregoing responses will
help to quiet down the current controversy, I am clearly open to advice
as to what further I should do if anything seems required.
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482367