Church Committee Reports at American Buddha Online Library

Site Map

CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORTS

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1975
U.S. SENATE,
SELECT COMMITTEE To STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :08 a.m., in room 318,
Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Church, Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado,
Baker, Mathias, and Schweiker.
Also present: 'William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O.
Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the minority;
and Charles Kirbow, professional staff member.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order.
Our first witness this morning is former Attorney General .Tohn
Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell, will you please stand and take the oath. Do you
solemnly swear that all of the testimony you will give in this proceeding
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?
Mr. MITCHELL. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schwarz will commence the questioning.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN MITCHELL, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM G. HUNDLEY, COUNSEL
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Mitchell, are you accompanied by counsel?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I have Mr. William Hundley with me.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Have you had your attention called to the testimony
the other day of Mr. Helms on the subject of the CIA's mail opening
program and his testimony about a meeting with you?
Mr. MITCHELL. I saw this morning two pages that had reference to
it, yes, sir.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Have you had an opportunity to check
your office calendar to determine whether you did meet with Mr. Helms
in June of 1971?
Mr. MITCHELL. As I previously told this committee, my log shows
a meeting of 22 minutes with Mr. Helms on June 1, 1971.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. What is your best recollection of what
transpired in that meeting?
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Helms came in to see me, I believe, primarily
about another subject matter, and during the discussions of that subject
matter Mr. Helms referred to the activities of the CIA in connection
with the U.S. mails. My understanding of it was that he had
reference to mail covers. It was a very short conversation on the subject
matter, according to my recollection, and that is about the substance
of what I can recall at this late date.
(119)
120
Mr. SCHWARZ. When you say mail covers, what do you mean by
mail covers?
Mr. MITCHELL. "Well, there is a practice of law enforcement agencies
to obtain information to look at mail in envelopes going between
parties in which law enforcement agencies have an interest to find
out who is the sender, if possible, and, of course, who is the recipient
of the mail.
Mr. SCHWARZ. You said this practice involves looking at mail in
envelopes, and by that do you mean looking at the contents of the
letter?
Mr. MITCHELL. No. It does not. Mail cover, as the term is used, and as
I understand it, does not entail the opening of the envelopes.
Mr. SOHWARZ. Did Mr. Helms in that conversation tell you that the
CIA had been and was opening mail?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no recollection of any such discussion at that
time or any other time with Mr. Helms.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Is it your testimony, then, that you believe he did
not tell you the CIA was opening mail?
Mr. MITCHELL. It is my testimony that the best recollection I have
of the meeting with Mr. Helms on June 1, 1971, was that I understood
what he was talkin~ about was a mail cover operation, that is correct.
Mr. SCH"\~ARZ. DId the subject of legality arise in your conversation
with Mr. Helms?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no recollection of it whatsoever. I would not
believe it would arise in connection with a mail cover which, as I said
before, is used by most law enforcement agencies in the proper circumstances,
and I do not believe that the question of legality would
arise during such a conversation.
Mr. SCHWARZ. If it was all such a routine matter, why then is it
your understanding that Mr. Helms came to see you?
Mr. MITCHELL. About another subject matter.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Why did he mention, to the best of your understanding
and your testimony, the subject of mail at all ?
Mr. MITCHELL. Because of the fact that it related to the other
subject matter in an indirect, peripheral way, as I recall the other
subject matter that we discussed.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And by that, are you saying that the other subject
matter related to the gathering of intelligence, and he then informed
you that one method of gathering intelligence was mail covers?
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I agree with everything up to the last aspect
of it. He put it more in the context that it was not unsimilar with
the primary subject matter of our discussion.
Mr. SCHWARZ. What was the primary subject matter of your
discussion?
Mr. MITCHELL. I do not believe that I am permitted to testify on
that subiect matter here at this time.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the appropriate procedure
on that. Mr. Mitchell, what is the basis for that statement?
Senator BAKER. Before you go on, Mr. Schwarz, is this the same
matter that was covered in the executive session when Senator Tower
was present?
Mr. SCHWARZ. I assume that it is, and I think we should get on the
record here the nature of Mr. Helms' reasoning, and then the committee
can rule-Bxcuse me, Mr. Mitchell's reasoning.
121
Mr. "YIITCIIELL. You mean Mr. Helms' reasoning?
Mr. SCHWARZ. I mean Mr. Mitchell's reasoning.
Senator BAKER. Before you go on, as you understand it, this is going
to deal generally with material that Senator Tower ruled on in the
executive session '?
Mr. SCHWARZ. I would assume so, Senator Baker.
Senator BAKER. All right. Thank you.
The CHAIR~rAN. Mr. Mitchell, can you state the basis for declining
to reveal to the committee what the principal subject of conversation
was that day between you and Mr. Helms?
Mr. MITCHELL. I do not believe, so far as I know, that the subject
matter has been in the public domain, and I don't believe that I should
be the one to disclose it here. I understand that your committee and
the executive branch is having certain discussions on hearings in some
areas, and it may very well be that this would fall within it.
The CHAIR:~rAN. A.nd are you referring now to the same su.bject
matter that you referred to i'n the course of the deposition that was
taken of you earlier when this general question arose and you took
the same position then that you are taking now?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, except that I would like to
point out that it wasn't discussed during the taking of my deposition.
It was discussed with the vice chairman of your committee on his
representation that you had an understanding with the executive
branch that when such matter arose, that either you or he or both of
you might inquire into the subject.
The CHAIR~IAN. Very well. I believe that we have identified the
subject sufficiently well so that I understand the reason for your declining
to respond to that particular question.
The subject does not really relate to the question of mail opening
that weare now asking you about. Is that correct?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, M1'. Chairman. But you can see that
there was a collateral circumstance there under which the mail cover
aspect might have arisen.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Very well, Mr. Mitchell.
Counsel, I wouldn't pursue that any £nrther.
Mr. SCHWARZ. In '&ny event, Mr. Mitchell, your testimony about
that meeting is that you discussed mail cover and not mail opening.
Is that correct?
"Y1r. MITCHELL. That was my understanding of the basis of the short
discussion we had on the subiect matter.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now, one final question. First, did Mr. Angleton of
the CIA show you material obtained from CIA opening of mail, and
second, did he show you material relating to a Cathy Boudin?
Mr. :MITCHELL. To the best of my recollection I have never met Mr.
Angleton in my life. I may have in some group or circumstances. I have
110 recollection. I feel quite certain that M1'. Angleton never showed
me anything relating to Cathy Boudin, and certainly not under the
circumstances that it was a product of a mail opening.
)11'. SCHWARZ. Did any other person in the CIA show you material
relating to Cathy Boudin?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no recollection of it. I am quite sure they would
not.
:Mr. SCHWARZ. I hare nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
122
The CUAIR:\IAX. Do you haye any questions, Mr. Kirbow?
)11'. KIREOW. I haye no questions at this time, )11'. Chairman.
The CHAIR:\L\X. )11'. )litchell, you are acquainted, are you not, with
what has come to be known as the Huston plan?
)11'. )IITCHELL. Generally, )11'. Chairman, yes. It has been a long
time since I examined it, but I understand the subject matter.
The CIL\IR:\L\X. Is it true that you ,,,ere not involved in any way in
the meetings between the various intelligence agencies which led up
to the submission of the Huston plan?
Mr. )llTCHELL. That is true, sir. Yes, sir.
The CIIAIR:\IAX. Is it also true you knew nothing about these meetings
or the Huston plan until after it had been submitted to President
:Nixon?
Mr. )!ITCHELL. That is correct.
The CHAIR:\IAX. ,Yho first told you about the existence of such a
plan?
Mr. MITCHELL. I belieye it was Director Hoover, but it could have
be~.m Mr. De Loach, one of his associates.
The CHAIR:\IAN. Did you subsequently meet with Mr. Hoover to talk
about the plan?
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe I met with Mr. Hoover to talk about the
plan. It again could have been Mr. De Loach who brought the plan to
me at Mr. Hooyer's direction.
The CHAIR~IAX.Did you ever speak to Mr. Helms about the plan once
you had learned of it ?
Mr. MITCHELL. I do not have a recollection of talking to Mr. Helms
about the plan, although I have been shown memorandums where Mr.
Helms says that such a meeting and discussion took place.
The CHAIR:\IAX. Well, when you talked either to Mr. Hoover or to his
deputy, ~Ir. De Loach, do you have any recollection that either of them
told you that mail was being opened?
~fr. MITCHELL. Well, no, not that mail was being opened. The discussion
I had with them was to go oyer the salient point of the recommendation
of the so-called Huston plan. The plan, of course, contained
a recommendation with resped to that, and I believe, based on some
homework that I have done here recently, that the materials had a
reference to the fact that there was no covert operation, which I understand
in that document meant the opening of mail. There was a reference
to mail covers; in other words, the examination of the outside of
envelopes.
The CHAIR~IAX. 'VeIl, the Huston plan did contain, as you correctly
say, the statement that mail openings had been terminated, and it incluaed
a request that the President authorize mail openings.
Now, my question is, after you learned of the plan, do you recall
being told that mail openings were then going on, even though the plan
itself stipulated that they had been terminated?
Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir. To the best of my recollection I was never
told anyone was carrying on a mail opening operation.
The CHAIR~IAN.Kow, as Attorney General of the United States and
the chief law enforcement officer of the Government at the time, doesn't
it strike you as heing extraordinary that you should not have been
told about a mail-opening program that was contrary to the laws of
the country?
123
Mr. MITCHELL. ·Well, I "Would believe, Mr. Chairman, that that
would depend entirely upon what had become the established practice
with the CIA, or whatever other agency was opening mail, vis-avis
the executive branch of the Government, particularly the Attorneys
General. It ,,'ould surprise me only to the extent that they did
not brief me on such a subject matter as they did on many other types
of intelligence-gathering operations that were in place when I became
Attorney General.
The CHAIRMAN. Although they briefed you on other intelligence
operations, according to your testimony, they never briefed you on
the mail opening?
Mr. MITCHELL. Not on the mail openings; no, sir.
The CHAIRl\IAN. When you learned of the Huston plan, what action
did you take? You proceeded, did you not, to take the matter ul? with
the White House? Did you take it up directly with the PreSIdent?
Did you take it up with someone else in the White House?
Mr. MITCHELL. As I testified this morning, Mr. Chairman, I made
known to the President my disagreement with the concept of the plan
and recommended that it be turned down. ·Whether that was in a
direct conversation with the President, which I believe it was, but it
could have been in a conversation that I might have had with Mr.
Haldeman that was transmitted to the President.
The CHAIRMAN. "Vhat were your reasons for recommending that
the plan be turned down?
Mr. MITCHELL. The proposals contained in the plan in toto were
inimical to the best interests of the country and certainly should not
be something that the President of the United States should be
approving.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by that that the proposals for undertaking
illegal action formed the basis for your objection to the plan?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, sir. There had been, of course, individual
items of that plan suggested to me that would be undertaken
by parts of the Justice Department, which had been turned down,
and the aggregate was worse than the individual parts that had been
suggested.
The CHAIRMAN. "Vas it your understanding, following your conversations
at the White House, that President Nixon then rescinded
his approval of the plan?
Mr. MITCHELL. I was so told.
The CHAIRMAN. By whom?
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe either the President himself or Mr. Haldeman,
I am not certain which.
The CHAIRMAN. At any time afterwards, were you ever told that the
mail openings continued, despite the President's rescission of his earlier
approval of the plan?
Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, as I have previously testified.
The CHAIRMAN. Given the fact that, as Attorney General, you were
not told in the first place of the meetings between the various intelligence
agencies and the FBI, which was directly under your jurisdiction,
and which led to the formulation of the plan, and in view of the
fact that the plan itself contained recommendations that were illegal,
and you were not informed of the plan until after it had been submitted
to the President, and in view of the fact that you then asked
124
the President to rescind his approval of the plan, why didn't you
follow up aItel'\yards to make certain that none of these practices
were, ir- fact, going on? Did you just accept the statement that the
matter had been reconsidered and the President's approval had been
withdrawn and take no further action?
~Ir. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman. when the President of the United
States makes known his determirlations \vith respect to a subject matter,
one "'ould believe that the branches of the executive departments
underneath him "'ould follow through on his determinations, and
needless to say, some of the agencies that were involved in the preparation
of the Huston plan, such as the CIA, were not under my
jurisdiction.
I know that from time to time I had further discussions with Director
Hoover on some of the subjects contained in the Huston plan
and the Bureau continued to abide by the determinations of the
President.
The CHAIRMAX. And beyond that, you felt that the other agencies
\vho had signed the plan \,ere really beyond the jurisdiction of the
.Tustice Department, so that your followup was confined to the FBIis
that your testimony?
Mr. MITOHELL. That is the substance of it; yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CIIAffiJ\IAN. Thank you very much.
Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I think counsel and the chairman have covered the matters that you
were invited to testify about, Mr. Mitchell. I have one or two brief
questions on a tangential or related matter.
As you testified, the situation was such that you were not advised
that the Huston plan was being formulated; in fact, on the first
opportunity, you recommended to the President that it be disapproved,
and it was disapproved or withdrawn. What would you suggest, as a
former Attorney General of the United States, to make sure that the
Attorneys General in the future have a better understanding of what
sort of plans are being proposed to your successors or to future Presidents?
Do you think there is some way we can guard against this sort
of thing happening in the future?
Mr. MITCHELL. 'Well, apropos of these answers I gave to the chairman
in that area, I believe that so far as the executive branch is structured
now, the Attorney Generars responsibility rests with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the other constituent parts of the Justice
Department. 'With respect to that, I am fully convinced, after
many experiences, that the only way the Attorney General will ever
get control of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is through the
Director. There is no way that an Attorney General can carryon all
of the functions that he has to do, with all of his divisions, with all of
his bureaus, and be able to monitor what goes on in the FBI.
Senator BAKER. How is one to ensure that? How is one to ensure
that future Attorneys General have control of the Director of the
FBI?
Mr. MITCHELL. How are you going to ensure it?
Senator BAKER. Yes.
Mr. MITCHELL. Only by the appointment of the proper Director;
that's the only way.
Senator BAKER. Would it be helpful to appoint a Director for a tenn
of years?
125
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. I think that, Senator, we can go to the same
concept that I tmderstand you and I hold about the Presidency, that
if you had a long enough term and a single term, I think that would
be one \yay of perhaps putting some rein on it.
Senator BAKER. You mentioned that the scope of your jurisdiction
and concern extended only to the FBI and not to the CIA, as it was
related to the Huston plan. Do you think that is a defect? Do you think
that in terms of the total intelligence apparatus of the U.S. Government
that there ought to be some sort of central authority that coordinates
both domestic and foreign intelligence? Should there be a better
relationship bebYeen, say, the FBI and the CIA, in terms of intelligence
gathering?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. I think there certainly \yas, and I presume there
still is, great room for improvement in that area. But to get to your
specific point of domestic and foreign intelligence, there has got to
be a better understanding, because in many areas, you just cannot
make a demarcation of which is which, and it is about time that this
Government and the courts and a few other people began to realize
that. There should be a better control of the total operatIOn, and preferably
a greater unification of it.
Senator BAKER. "'auld you agree that the present situation, in terms
of law enforcement and intelligence, probably indicates the need for
better congressional oversight of those functions, and that some sort
of committee structure having the jurisdiction to legislate and oversee
both the FBI and the CIA, or any of the other 62- law enforcement and
intelligence operations, woula be in order? 'Would you support a proposal
for a joint committee of the Congress on intelligence and law
enforcement?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I would do that, Senator. But I must hasten to
add that I am not quite sure ho\y effective it could ever be. It seems to
me that would be awful difficult, for somebody up in the Congress
trying to monitor the operations of the intelligence community. 'When
I say monitor, I mean, their actual operations, not their policies or
appropriations or things in that area.
Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Baker.
Senator Mondale.
Senator ~10XDALE.Thank you, ~lr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell, while you were Attorney General, you were apparently
under the opinion that mail covers alone were in operation. This inyolYes
taking pictures of the outside of an envelope, which, I gather,
IS legal, and it does not involve the actual opening of the mail. In fact,
thousands of letters were being opened, mail from every conceivable
source, from Richard Nixon to Arthur Burns to Leonard Bernstein,
and the rest, which the record no\\" establishes. Is it your testimony
that you never saw the contents of the materials being opened?
Mr. MITCHELL. It is my testimony that I never knowingly saw the
contents of any letter that \yas opened. Now, whether or not material
from mail that had been opened was provided to me in memorandums
or in other form, I cannot say, but I was not cognizant of the fact that
it ('arne from the opening of mails.
The CIL\IR::IL\N. So that you cannot testify that you never saw any
of it, but if it did come before you, it came before you in a way that
64-G53 0 .. 76 • 0
126
',ould not have ulerted you as to the illegal method by which it was
obtained?
Mr. ~IITCHELL. That is correct. sir.
Senator MOXDALE. Similarly, the Huston plan deliberations occurred,
among other things, through thc aC'tiYe participation of the
FBI, without your knowledge until the \'cry last moment. \vhen either
Mr. Hoover or :\11'. De Loach came to you, and you then \Y(~nt to the
President and had the plan killed!
Mr. ~IrTCHELL. That is correct, sir.
Senator :MOXDALE. Senator Bakel' asked vou what to do about the
apparent actions within the Department of .Tustice when one of its
bureaus engages in illegal actiYity without informing the head of the
Department. One of your answers seemed to be that we ought to get
someone as a Director who is accountable and responsible to the
Attorney General. Is that correct?
Mr. MITCHELL. 'VeIl, in part. But what I intended to convey, Senator,
was that it is practically impossible for an Attorney General to
monitor ewrything that goes on in the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and that the success of the Bureau will depend entirely upon the
man who is the Director of the Bureau, who should carry out the proper
policies.
Now, if I might add also to the first part of your senten~e, which
I believe was part of the question, ~Ir. HoO\'er was OYer in the 'White
House working on the Huston plan apparently in his belief that it was
a directiyc or a request of the President of the Cnited States. This is a
little different than the normal activity where the Director does clear
his activities with the Attorney General.
Senator MOXDALE. Do I take by that answer that you do not mean
to imply that :Ylr. Hoover was unaccountable and unresponsive to the
Attorney General?
Mr. MITCHELL. You sav he ,vas then accountable?
Senator MOXDALE. In" other words, are you saying that while you
were Attorney General and ~Ir. Hoover was the Director of the Bureau,
it was your judgment that he was fully accountable and responsi\'e to
you as Attorney General?
Mr. ~IrTCHELL. Yes, he was. And I would have to add that if the
Chief Executiye Officer, the President of the United States, gives him
directions, I am sure they would supersede those of the Attorney General
or anyone else.
Senator ~10XDALE. Eyen when the direction was to conduct an illegal
act?
~1r. MITCHELL. 'Well. I do not helien that the President's direction
to Mr. Hoover was to conduct an illegal act. I think the direction to Mr.
Hoover and the other gentleman inyohed was to assemble a program
for obtaining the appropriate intelligence.
Senator MOXDALE. The Huston plan explicitly stated that while
many of these tactics are illegaL ,ve should use them anyway. Is it your
testimony that had the President ordered the Houston plan, it should
have gone forward. despite its illegality?
Mr. MITCHELL. No; that was not the testimony I was suggesting. The
testimony I was suggesting is that the President of the United States
has broad po\\'ers and I would be sure that it would be necessary for
each of the recommendations that were made in connection with the
127
appropriate circumstances to be examined before you can make that
bla,nket determination.
Senator MONDALE. All right. Xow, if a President orders an illegal
act, is it the duty of the people in the Justice Department to so inform
the Attorney General, and is it the duty of the Attorney General then
to act to stop it?
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, assuming your premise is of an illegal1lJCt, I
would believe the answer would be yes.
Senator MONDALE. Kow, the opening of mail was clearly illegal,
wasn't it?
Mr. MITCHELL. I'm not going to formulate that opinion here and
now, because I don't know what the mail was, under what circumstanCes,
who might have given the directions that the nmil be opened,
and under what authorization, because I cannot give you a blanket
answer on that.
Senator MONDALE. How can you say that the Bureau was fully accountable
if the Director never told you that the FBI w'as getting mail
illegally obtained by the CIA?
Mr. MITCHELL. I am at a loss, Senator, to know how to answer your
question. I didn't say-I don't believe I said the Bureau was fully
accountable. I said it should have been fully accountable.
Senator Mo::mALE. Is it your testimony that the FBI "was not accountable?
Mr. )!ITCHELL. 'With respect to the circumstances that you are talking
about, I would have to know the specifics of it before I could
answer your question as to the individual items.
Senator MOXDALE. But you were not told at all that they were opening
mail, were you?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
Senator MOXDALE. Then how can you say that the FBI was accountable?
Mr. MITCHELL. I haven't said they were accountable. I suggested
that they be accountable.
Senator MONDAI,E. Then are you saying they were not accountable?
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe I could go back over my experiences in the
.Tustice Department and find some areas in which the Bureau was not
fully accountable to me; yes, Senator.
Senator MONDALE. And would this be one of them?
Mr. MITCHELL. I would have to get to the specifics of it before I could
answer your question.
Senator MOXDALE. Can you give us some examples upon which you
based your answer that in some instances they were unaccountable?
Mr. MITCHELL. Counsel, I don't think that is part of this hearing,
and I don't see any reason for getting into that subject matter.
Mr. HUNDLEY. ~fr. Chairman, I think we have an agreement that we
would confine the questioning of "XII'. ~Iitchell to the three areas that
the committee voted on yesterday. If we are going to delve into such a
broad area as where Mr. Mitchell might think that the FBI was unaccountable,
I can see that we could stray into areas that I know the
committee doesn't want to get into, for the reasons I stated in executive
session.
Senator MOXDALE. I will withdraw the question.
Senator Baker pursued what I think is a very valuable line of inquiry,
in terms of how to make agencies of the Federal Government ac128
countable to the law. You were Attorney General of the United States
at that time. It would seem logical,according to the structure of the
Federal Government, that the key orticml \Vho should be held responsible
for seeing that the law is observed is the Attorney General. Those
questions asked by Senator Baker are very important, and I think
we have to find an answer to them. But there is also another question
that I think has to be answered; namely, whether it is the judgment
of the Federal Government that through its leaders and under the guise
of counterintelligence, our Government is permitted to pursue illegal
ads against the American people in order to gather such intelligence.
Do you feel that there is such authority to go beyond the law for that
purpose?
Mr. MITCHELL. ·Well, it depends on, Senator, what you decide to determine
the law is, and how it is interpreted.
Senator MOXDALE. That is true.
Mr. MITCHELL. And I think that there has been a tendency to assume
that certain acts are illegal and that the po\Vers of the President of the
United States don't extend to some of those activities and functions.
Obviously, the warrantless wiretapping is one that is a perfect illustration
of it, and I think you can carry the question of mail openings
into the same field. The same constitutIOnal principle is involved, and
you do have the question as to the powers of the President of the
united States in the areas of national security and foreign intelligence.
I do not believe that the subject matters have been fully examined.
Certainly the courts-our highest court of jurisdiction has not seen
its way clear, because cases have not been presented to them, to make
these determinations. I think it would be very constructive, in the
interest of the American people, that we get on with the determination
of what these powers are, and how they should be exercised.
Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAX. Senator Mathias.
Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Mitchell, a few minutes ago you testified that
after the Huston plan had been discarded by the President, you had
several discussions with Director Hoover covering topics that were
individual portions of the Huston plan. Is that right?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
Senator MATHIAS. Do you recall if any of these included questions
of mail openings?
Mr. MITCHELL. To the best of my recollection, Senator, they did
not.
Senator MATHIAS. 'Vere you aware that the FBI was, in fact, forwarding
requests to the CIA to open specific mail?
Mr. MITCHELL. I was not.
Senator MATHIAS. I believe the testimony before the committee is
that it continued to within 2 months of Mr. Hoover's death. Is that so?
Mr. MITCHELL. I was not so aware.
Senator MATHIAS. So that, in fact, although the general area of mail
opening had been brought to your attention through the Huston plan,
it was concealed from you that this activity was going forward, and
that requests were actually being made to the CIA by the FBI to
open mail?
Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Senator, I think we ought to again take a
minute to find out that the Huston plan said that there was no covert
129
opening program of the mails, that there was a mail cover program.
They opted for the opening of mails. So that my determinations and
interest in the subject matter, of course, was responsive to what had
been laid out in that document in July of 1970.
Senator MATHIAS. I am interested in the kind of circumstance which
is unfolding here, in which the President gives an order which you
discuss with Mr. Hoover in the light of the President's action, and
we now find a very important part of that order was being disregarded
on a regular basis by a number of requests from the FBI to the
CIA to survey certain particular mail. This brings up the whole question
of executive oversight, in addition to the question of congressional
oversight, the latter of which Senator Baker has suggested we consider
as part of our hearings.
Mr. MITCHELL. 'VeIl, Senator, my response to a comparable question
a few minutes ago was that, in my opinion, the only way we are going
to have the proper functioning of the FBI is to have a Director who
will carry out his responsibilities in his oversight of the Bureau. It
is impossible for the Attorney General to do it.
Senator MATHIAS. Perhaps we cannot depend on individuals, on
human beings. Maybe we have to think in terms of institutions. And
one of our jobs here is to try to understand how we can apply the
fourth amendment in the context of the 20th century and in the context
of a highly technological society. From your experience as Attorney
General, and particularly from your experience in this matter,
do you think that any exceptions should be made to the fourth amendment
with respect to foreign espionage and intelligence? Do you think
that, dealing in this area, a requirement of judicial warrant should be
waived?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. I can visualize circumstances under which it
would be in the interest of the country to do so. I am not accepting
all of your language, but as I testified before, the primary responsibility
of the President of the United States is to protect this country.
And I can understand circumstances which arise where he might have
to take certain acts or direct certain acts which, in the light of the discussions
that are being held today and through this committee, you
might think were illegal and unwarranted.
But in the light of the circumstances, such as Abraham Lincoln
dispensing with the writ of habea8 COTjJU8 and a few other things, it
might be well justified that an Executive take those actions. But referring
to the first part of your question, if you want to have an oversight
of the FBI or the CIA, or any of the rest of them, the best way
to do it from the Hill is to get your list of things you do not want
them to do or do want them to do. Get them up here under oath, swear
them in, and ask them if they are doing it or not. And then you will
find out.
Senator MATHIAS. Is opening mail among those exceptions that you
would consider j Ilstifiable? 'Would surreptitious entry be included?
Mr. MITCHELL. It could very well be, Senator. We will have to examine
that in the light of particular circumstances.
Let me give you a hard one. We know that the Embassy of X has
got an atomic bomb in its basement that it can put off in Washington,
right down here, any time they want to. Now, would you have the protective
forces, or whoever is going to handle the job, run down and try
130
to get a warrant to go in there ~ You know, you get to some of these
questions where there are hard ends on both parts of the spectrum. So
I think we ought to try and talk to the principles that you and I have
been discussing.
Senator MATHIAS. No atomic bombs have been developed that you
can put into an envelope. ""Ve are talking about mail here.
Mr. MITCHELL. Apparently somebody has put a few bombs in an
envelope, or you would not be having these hearings.
Senator MATHIAS. There are many kinds of bombs.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
Senator MATHIAS. Your illustration was atomic. But is this not the
very question ~ When you decide that you are going to do away with
the protection of the fourth amendment, whether it is surreptitious
entry or mail opening, that participation of another impartial authority
is the heart and soul of the fourth amendment. If the fellow who
thinks there is an atomic bomb in the basement, who is convinced of
it, who is about to rend the protection of the fourth amendment, is able
to go forward on the basis of his own information and caught up with
the emotion of his own feeling about the thing, he can go in there and
do a tremendous amount of damage.
Should there not be the participation, the institutionalized participation,
of another branch of Government-a judge, for instance?
Mr. MITCHELL. 'VeIl, I can give you about an hour's dissertation on
that, if you want, and I would try to answer you briefly by saying that
in the areas of national security and foreign policy, it is my opinion
that the Chief Executive of the country IS much more qualified to
make a determination than somebody sitting over on a bench who has
nothing to do with foreign policy, nothing to do with national security,
and will be making a judgment in a very restrictive legal light.
Now, I want to get back again to what I said before; and that is,
I am hoping that some of the ground rules can be laid out in these
areas and established either through judicial proceedings or by determinations
of national policy by whomever may, so that you will have
a better and clearer understanding as to what funotions should be
carried out.
Senator MATHIAS. Mr. Mitchell, just to pursue this one step further,
isn't the problem with your solution that the Chief Executive, or even
the Attorney General, is not always going to give his personal attention
to the problem. Here we know, at least from testimony before the
committee, that the FBI was actually requesting the CIA to open mail
after the President had ordered that it not be done, and after you
"ere at least under the impression that it was not being done.
In the absence of institutions, and depending completely upon individual
human beings who happen to occupy a particular office for a
particular space of time, we do lose the protections of the fourth
amendment.
Mr. MITCHELL. There is great possibility for it, and there is a great
history of it. We are dealing again with human beings and human
nature, and I do not believe that the fact that there is somebody, a
judge, sitting on the bench is going to be any different from the guy
who I recommend is going to have to be the one in the FBI to make the
proper determinations, and that is the Director. And it will depend
131
on who the Director is, and under what circumstances he is accountable.
Senator MATHIAS. Justice Powell wrote, I thought, a remarkable
decision in which he dealt with this subject. He said:
The fourth amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, not the risk
that Executive discretion may be reasonably exercised. This judicial role accords
with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best
be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among
the different branches and levels of government.
It seems to me that this institutional approach, with all due respect,
is a preferable one that reliance on the individual who holds the job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MITCHELL. May I comment on that?
Senator MATHIAS. Certainly.
Mr. MITCHELL. I quite agree with what Justice Powell wrote in the
circumstances under which he wrote them. But I would hate to have
this colloquy left without pointing out that judges can be just as fallible
or infallible as Directors of the FBI.
Senator MATHIAS. But they are generally more disinteretsed in a
given case.
Mr. MITCHELL. Hopefully so.
The CHAIRMAl'\. Senator Huddleston?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell, just a couple of clarifications. Is it your testimony
that when you assumed the office of Attorney General, you were not
told of the FBI's or the CIA's mail-opening program in the briefings
that you received by your predecessor or by others within the Agency
itself~
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, Senator.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Were you told by the FBI of their COINTEL
Program?
Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir. My first information about that program
came from the press.
Senator HUDDLESTON. ",Vould that be one instance where you would
agree that the FBI was not accountable?
Mr. MITCHELL. From what Thave read in the press and heard from
other parties, I would say that that was the case. I do not know the
full parameters of their program. From what I know about it, yes, sir.
Senator HUDDLESTON. That would be an area where they certainly
should have checked with the chief legal officer to determine its
advisability, its legality, its propriety.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir, and I hope that Senator Mondale understands
that this was one of the subject matters that Mr. Hundley
referred to that the committee brought to our attention.
. Senator HUDDLESTON. You also stated you were never aware of any
mformation that came to you in the way of evidence that had been
secured from the mail-opening program.
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, sir.
S~nator HUDDLESTON. Are you aware of any instance where any
testImony had to be excluded from any potential case, or any case
had to be dropped or altered because the evidence might have been
tainted through improper or illegal gathering?
Mr. MITCHELL. Of mail?
132
Senator HUDDLESTON. Yes; through the mail-opening progra~.
Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir. I have not; or at lease, I have no recollectlOn
of it. As you can well in~agine, many of the mechanics of trying cases
do not come to the attention of the Attorney General. In fact, it is the
exception rather than the rule.
Senator HUDDLESTON. So you have no knowledge of this having
occurred?
Mr. MITCHELL. I have no knowledge. It may have happened, but I
do not recall it ever having come to my attention.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Mitchell, there is one thread that has run
through all of this inquiry that this committee has undertaken that
bothers me, and other Senators have expressed problems that they see
in trying to develop the kind of regulation or guideline or law that
may 'be necessary to prevent such abuses from happening again, and
that is in the matter of communications.
For instance, we have Mr. Helms' testimony that he did, in fact,
brief you on the project, indicating that your approval was given. This
assurance was then handed down to those below him who were charged
with the responsibility of carryillg out the program, and presumably
everybody thought that they were cleared to do it.
This same type of thing has occurred in nearly every incident that
we have investigated involving the CIA or the FBI in questionable
operations. And I find it is as if you were drawing an imaginary line,
say, at the level of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Enrybody in gonrnment above that line has one perception of what
they are talking about. and what the instructions are and what the
policy is. And everybody below that line has quite a different perception,
and they all act, apparently. in accordance with their own conception
of what the instructions and the policy are.
Either the U.S. GOYernment and its agencies were operating in
"ery serious matters in a "ery loose fashion. where there was no
clear understanding going all the way from the President down to
the person who is carrying out the responsibility, or they were operating
in such a way, and probably deliberately, that the record would
show that if anything happened that was not supposed to happen,
there would be no way to place any responsibility on anybody.
Can you comment for me and this committee, first of all, on the
question of understanding and communication? I presume that all
persons were using the English language, and I presume that they
were using phrases that were common and understood by all. Yet, the
perceptions were vastly different. 'What guidance can you give us on
developing procedures that will make absolutely certain that the
orders of the Presiclent of the United States and the policy of the
Presiclent of the Unitecl States woulcl be unclerstood by those who are
going to carry them out?
Mr. MITCH~LL. "'Yell. first. Sen"tor, if I may. I presume that I read
the same tesbmony of ~Ir. Hel: IS that you did, and I don't think it
came out quite the way you phrased it here with respect to the difference
bebveen Mr. Helms and myself-not as strong as you put it.
Senator IIUDDLESTOK. You ilHlicate he did not mention the mail
opening. but you understood him to talk about covers.
Mr. ~fITCIIELL. I am talking about his testimonv which seems to me
wasn't quite as strong as yon placed it. Second. i think that the one
problem. right on the nose: that I can discllss relatinO" to VallI' observations,
is the practice that I learned at a later clate,bso~etil11esto mv
chagrin, that when you are dealing with some of these people, they
133
write what are known as memorandums for the files, and they become
the most self-serving documents that you can find. I am not speaking
of anything here, but I do say there is great potential for it, and
it has happened, and it has happened to me in a number of
circumstances.
"\Vith respect to the more general aspects of your observation, I think
that a lot of government goes on without appropriate consideration of
the subject matter, and I think a very good example that is before
this committee that can be discussed is the so-called Huston plan. I
know from my conversations with the President that he saw that he
had a problem of failure of liaison among intelligence agencies, and
the proper intelligence to deal with certain problems. He went ahead
with the program that he thought was going to carry it out, and the
report came in. He said, "fine, go ahead and implement it."
·When the contents of the report was called to his attention, it was
over and done with. Obviously, with all of his other duties, he had
not focused on the natures of that report or its consequences.
Senator HUDDLESTOX. That is a good point. It was over and done
with as far as the President of the United States is concerned. But
many of the things suggested in the Huston plan were, in fact, already
going on, and others were initiated after it had ceased to be the policy
of the President.
Mr. MITCHELL. That was the last point that you made, and the last
one I was going to comment on. I think that it is a very difficult area.
It always has been in government, and it always will be. We do not
always deal with such high-level matters as the first and fourth
amendments, and national security and national intelligence. But
you can go into anyone of these departments or bureaus in this Government,
and you find somebody dmvn in those lower levels that are
trying to structure a policy of their own that is contrary to what the
Secretary or the Director is trying to put in operation. It has been
going on since government was founded.
Now, they may not do it as blatantly as has been done here, in
connection with a direct statement that such and such did not exist
when, in fact, it was being carried out. But there are always those in
these bureaucratic positions in this Government who are going to try
and structure their own policies, and most of the time it is done with
good intent.
I believe that, as I testified before with respect to the FBI-about
which I know a little bit more than some of the other agencies-that
our salvation is a proper Director who is serving for an appropriate
period of time. The second aspect of it is the oversight of somebody.
If you want to. in the area we are talking about, create a foreign and
do.mestic intelligence board that will sit and monitor this, that is one
thmg. If you want to do it through congressional committees, that is
another. But I am sure that there can't be too much oversight. if that
is a proper word, with respect to sensitive areas. - .
Senator HUDDU~STON. ·What about the question of establishing a
record within an agency, for instance, to determine precisely who did
what, and why? You mentioned a memorandum. In some instances,
we do find the very kind of memorandum to which you referred.
Somebody ,vould apparently put it in writing very quickly so that
there would at least be a record of his or her view of what went on
134
at a particular meeting. But often, we do not find memorandums from
other people that might either substantiate that or differ from it. In
some cases, we find nothing on paper at all, where all the instructions
and orders went down verballv. Then at each level, there is a little
different understanding of what they actually were. .
Is it feasible to develop some sort of policy where it would be a
requirement that from the very top to the bottom, that there be on
record written instructions indicating the policy, indicating how that
policy was going to be implemented, and whether or not it was
implemented?
~Ir. ~IrTCII'ELL. Yes. Senator. I ,,'auld subscribe to that. at the level
of the subject matter that you are talking about; in othE'rwords, matters
of policy and directions for implementation. But, as I'm snl'e you
are 'Yell awarE', you can bog down government to the point where it
will only fnnction if all you do is writE' memorandums, and there
are too many of them ,uitten--
Senator HUDDLESTON. I recognize that.
Mr. MITCHELL [continuing]. On inconsequential subject matters
now.
Senator HLDDLESTOX. Yon can also get into a sitnation that we have
discovered as part of our inquiry, in which programs are implemented
at the l()\'.,f'J' le,'els in a ,rav <Inite different from what was intended
a few echelons upward. Those who were responsible had no way of
knowing whether their orders had been carried out, and some had
been snrpl'iSt'd to lparn lwre, as you haY<' been, that some of their
understandings at that time were totally wrong.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; as I testified in response to your last question
with respect to what the policy is, and how it is to be implE'mented,
thrre is no doubt but ,vhat thE'I'e should be a memorandum, a ,niting
order. whatever it might be, on the subject matter. Otherwise, the
individual is given somrwhat of a free pass at what he thinks it might
be.
The CIL\IR:\L\X. Senator SchwE'iker.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank vou. ~Ir. Chairman.
~Ir. ~Iitchell,when you sened as Attornry General, did you approve
FBI requests for warrantless wiretaps?
~Ir. ~IITCIIELL. Yes. sir.
Srnator SCIIWEIKER. In your judgment, what is the difference, if
~my, between ,varrantlf'ss win'taps and warrantless mail openin,g-s?
Do you see any legal difference here, aside from the specifics of the
sitJlfltion?
Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, I haven't examined the question of mail
openings. I believe I indicated before that there could be similarities in
certain cases. I indicated that perhaps the same constitutional and
legal principles applied. But I don't want to give you a definitive legal
opinion on the subject matter without getting further into it. I think
I would like to leave my answer as saying that there is a distinct
possibility that there a,re similarities.
Srnator SCIIWEIKEH. According to my opinion-and of course, yours
may diffrr fmm this~I think the statutes prohibit ,yarrantless mail
openings. Xmy. if tlwr did. and that is a presumption 'Yith which you
Illay or may not agree, ,Yould you fayor amending the law to allow
warmntless mail opening for national security cases?
135
311'. )fITCIIELL. I would like to examine the question a lot more in
depth than I han, but I think it is a subject matter that should yery
well be considered. And I ,Yould point out that in connection with mail
openings, you may haye a little different time frame, and you should
consider the desirability or the potential of using ,,-arrants in connection
with it, based on the probable cause question that we have in wiretaps
where ,ye do seek court approYals.
Perhaps the thing here would be to show probable cause in connection
with partics to the mailing, which ,Yould be helpful, rather than
to giYe an indiscriminate right of somebody to make a determination
that .A and B were im-olYed in some sort of a conspiracy and then,
therefore, yon can open their mails. Because this can hold the mail
in the Post Office for a day while you go to the court with an affidavit
shO\Ying a probable cause.
Senator SCIIWEIKER. On ,Vednesday, }1r. Blount said that .Mr.
Helms told him that Helms had asked you for a legal opinion concerning
mail opening. I belicye you testified that this was not the case.
Is that correct?
)fl'. :\IITCIIELL. I testified that, to the best of my recollection, there
was no such discussion, and as you are probably aware, Senator, legal
opinions out of the .Justice Department are a very lengthy, involved
process. It goes through the Office of Legal Counsel. They are not
gi,-en by the Attorney General sitting at his desk.
Senator SCIIWEIKER. I gather from your previous answer that you
would probably favor some statutory authority that would require
some written legal opinions in these sensitive areas, so that there is
no question what the positions of a future Attorney General or the
.Tustice Department would be in some of these areas. Is that a fair
assumption, based upon your other answers, or not?
}1r. }1ITCIIELL. If I could paraphrase it just a bit, I think it is a
subject matter that needs a great deal of consideration to determine
where we go from here, to make sure that actions with regard to
opening mails or ,Yhatever it may be recei,-es full exploration, perhaps
judicial determination in constitutional areas, and a full recognition,
however, that there are many aspects of this that have now been
downgraded for various reasons that may turn out to be, in the future,
very much in the interest of this country.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The records of the FBI indicate that until
1966, the Bureau had programs in which mail was opened, but the
Attorney General was not ach-ised of such programs and such openings.
Do you agree that all Bureau programs of questionable legality
or marginal arcas such as this should be cleared in advance by the
Attorney General? Is that your concept of the role of the Attorney
General?
.Mr. }1ITCHELL. ,VeIL it is certainly a very important role of the
Attorney General with respect to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If they are eyen on the borderline with respect to these practices, it
certainly should be called to the attention of the Attorney General
and his determination made ,,,ith respect to it.
Senator SCIIWEIKER. You said earlier in your answers that you
would favor greater control and greater unification of the intelligence
services, which I think is a feelinp: that many of us on this committee
would share. One of the proposals that has been put before us for
136
consideration calls for a stronger role for the Inspector General, who
would have authority to go into certain of these areas and to report
either to the President or to the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board. Did you have this concept in mind when you mentioned
greater control or unification? If not, exactly what were you
referring to?
:Mr. :MITCHELL. There are two subject matters. One of them is
unification or liaison, or whatever hasis upon which you discuss it.
And the other is the oversight question. If you had an Inspector
General on top of the Director of the FBI or the CIA, why that is
just another layer of individuals. I think that probably won't hurt
anything. It may help things. It may also cause another bureaucratic
foul-up.
:My thoughts in connection with what Senator Baker and I had
to say more in the line of a high-level oversight commission, plus
congressional oversight, and I think, out of all that has been going
on and kicking around, if some of your congressional committees, whoever
they are, a spe.cial comrl1ltt~e, were to put some good people
together, we have learned what the bad points are. \Ve have learned
what some of the good points are. And if they just got a checklist,
and as I said before, got the Director of the FBI and the CIA up
here under oath and said, "Now, are you doing this, are you not doing
this, down the line," you could have a little bit better oversight than
some of the colloquies that are carried on 'when you get up before
committees on the Hill.
Senator SCIIWEIKER. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday, as you know, :Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Helms
was here. He testified on the very question of whether or not he did,
in fact, inform you that the mail was being opened when he spoke
to you about the general plan, and I would like to read to you Mr.
Helms' response when he was asked that question. If you would like
to follow me, it is on page 1090 of the transcript of yesterday's
proceedings.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. I think we have it.
The CHAIR~IAN. All right. ~fr. Schwarz had asked-
Now, is it your testimony that you told him about a mail-opening operation?
And we had a long, rambling answer from ~fr. Helms that went
this way:
Well, I can only say, Mr. Schwarz, to be fair to everybody concerned, that I
am not sure that everyobdy in Washington is as nearly familiar about the
distinction between these two things then as they are now. I mean, everybody
in this room knows exactly what the two things are, but in those times, I am
not sure that necessarily the Attorney General would have known the difference.
I do not recall, therefore, being in a battle of terminology with him. I thought
I had gone down to explain something that was going on and the usefulness
of the information we had, and in fact, we would like to preserve the operation,
that we were going to have a problem.
Then Mr. Schwarz said-
That just is an unsatisfactory answer. Did you tell him you were opening
the mail or not'!
To which Mr. Helms replied,
I am sorry you find it unsatisfactory because I don't recall whether I said
specifically we are opening x number of letters, but the burden of my discussion
137
with bim-I don't see bow it could have left any alternative in his mind, because
how do you find out what somebody is saying to another correspondent unless
you have opened a letter.
~Ir. Sch\vurz then saidAll
right, so you did tell him?
Mr. Helms said,
That is my recollection.
Mr. Schwarz then said-
Did you tell him information about what could only have come from the contents
of the letters?
Mr. Helms said,
I thought so, sir.
Now, that being Mr. Helms' testimony, he left this committee with
the clear impression that he had told you enough about this operation
that in his judgment, you must have known that lettcrs were being
opened. Now, are you telling us today that that was not so ?
Mr. MITCHELL. I am telling you today that that was not so, and I
wish the staff would call your attention to some of the other parts of
Mr. Helms' testimony, where he said he came to talk to me about another
subject matter, and other parts that relate to this. I also wish that
vour counsel had asked Mr. Helms what it was that he showed me out of the letters, because there is no reference to it, or anything else in
here.
But I am affirming again, that to my recollection, he did not either
show me any material-nor q.id anybody else from the CIA-that
came out of any letter, that his conversation was such that it led me
to believe-and I guess it could have been based on the Huston plan
and the references there-that he was relating to mail covers and not
mail openings.
The CHAIRMAN. Since mail covers are legal, why would he come to
talk to you about something that was legal and ongoing? The FBI was
doing it. The CIA was doing it. 'Why would he make such a special
thing about a matter that was so well known and routine and legal?
Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, as my testimony has stated, and Mr. Helms
has referred to in his testimony, he came to me to talk about another
subject matter. The other subject matter, which is the one we had dialog
about what I wouldn't testify to, was in a similar area, and it is
my recollection that he made a reference to this matter as being comparable
to it.
The CHMR;\IAX. And since that reference took such a form as to
lead you to believe that he was simply talking about mail covers, then
what you are really tclling us today is that Mr. Helms misled you?
Mr. MITCHELL. I'm not saying that at all. I'm telling you of what my
recollection and understanding was of the subject matter, and the last
thing I would do is characterize anybody's testimony up here, that I
did not hear, nor have not read.
The CK\IRJ\,gN. I have read you the answer to this particular question.
Mr. Helms clearly conveyed to this committee that he believed
that he told you about opening the mail. You have said that your recollection
is that he told you only about mail covers.
138
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. vVe go back to Senator Huddleston's
observations with respect to the dialog between individuals.
The CHAIR11AX. Therefore, you are saying he misled you, because
what was going on was something far beyond mail covers; it was the
opening of the mail.
Mr. MrfcIIELL. Senator, you are implying an intention on the part
of ~Ir. Helms to mislead me. That may not haYe been the case at all.
I don't know. rm telling you what I understood was the basis of his
conversation.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. vVhat you understood was quite different
from what was, in fact, going on, and he did not convey to you the
mail-opening operation, isn't that true?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is my understanding of the conversation that
we had, that I have testified to on any number of occasions.
The CHAIRl\fAN. Do you know whether President Nixon had knowledge
of the mail-opening program?
Mr. MITCHELL. I ,vould believe not, because of the-or at least not as
of the time we discussed the Huston plan. I would believe he did not.
The CHAIRMAN. You have suggested that, without having further
details concerning the program, you cannot give us a judgment on
whether or not it was legal. Now, we have read into the record several
times what we understand the law to be, the statutes that relate to
this matter, and the Supreme Court decisions o,-er the years that relate
to this matter. The Agency itself has acknowledged the illegality. And
so, the illegality of opening mail is really unarguable, but then you say
you believe that the President may open mail for reasons of national
security, even though the laws prohibit it.
Mr. MITCHELL. I didn't say that, Senator.
The CHAIRl\L\N. What did you say?
Mr. MITCHELL. 'Vell, if your stenographer can go back and get the
record, we can get the question and answer specifically.
The CHAIRl\IAN. Mr. Mitchell, you did say you could not give your
opinion as to legality?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
The CHAIRl\IAX. And you did say that there is an area in which the
President has special responsibilities in national security affairs?
Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
The CUAIRl\IAK. And the implication was that this may be one of
those places where the President has power to disregard the law. What
other implication can you draw?
Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, you're getting in the same situation with me
us Mr. Helms and I apparently got into. The implication was that I
went on to say further that I would recommend that a detailed account
be made of the total picture, and I think it was in response to that
general type of question that I gave that answer, not with respect to
the statutory provisions and all of the rest of it having to do with a
particular mail cover.
The CIIAIRl\IAX. So, this committee is involved in just such an investigation
with the hopes that we can come forward with recommendations
in this area, and in many other areas. But even if one were
1D accept the need to clarify this area, and to draw the lines more
clearly, and even if one were to agree that under some circ.umstanc~s,
the national security interests might be so great as to entItle ceriam
139
kinds of operations tQ go on under proper guidelines and controls,
here was a situation of which the President was not even aware. How
in the world can the President exercise meaningful control when the
agencies of the Government are conducting dubious operations and
the President has no knowledge of them, the Attorney General has no
knowledge of them, until after the fact? Recommendations go to the
President, first he approves them, then he turns them down, and the
same practice is continued, just as though he weren't there. Now, that
is the record that is before this wmmittee.
Mr. MITCHELL. \Vell, is that a question, SenatQr? Do you want a
comment?
The CJUIR)UN. That being the state of the record, I would like such
comment as you would like to make.
Mr. MITCHELL. .My comment is w the effect that I think you are doing
a very fille job with respect to a determination as to what the facts
are, so that somewhere along the line, the proper body, whether it be
this committee, whether it wants to undertake it, or you may have w
go further, tQ the Congress, or up to the courts, will define the powers
of the President, and hopefully proscribe guidelines under which they
should be exercised and in what cases.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what we propose to do, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. MITCHELL. I wish you well.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
Senator Mondale, would you take charge of the hearing at this
point?
Senator MONDALE [presiding]. Senator Baker, do you have any
questions ?
Senator BAKER. I have no questions at this time.
Senator MONDALE. Mr. Mitchell, suppose we were holding hearings
while you were Attorney General, while the Counterintelligence Program
(COINTELPRO) and these mail openings were going on, and
they were going on without your knowledge. Suppose the committee
called you up to find out what was going on in the Department and
asked you questions about whether there were current mail openings or
COINTELPRO activities? How would you answer that question?
Mr. MITCHELL. As to whether I would come or not?
Senator MOKDALE. We used to have that problem, too. Let us put
that behind us.
Mr. MITCHELL. ~What is the question that you would like me to
answer?
Senator MONDALE. I will try to ask it again. Suppose we have set
up this joint committee on intelligence that has been recommended.
Mr. )frTCHELL. Yes.
Senator MONDALE. The committee wants to know what has been going
on in the FBI that might be illegal. So they call the Attorney General
before it and they ask him questions that concern mail openings and
so on. How would you answer the committee under that circumstance?
Mr. MITCHELL. vVell, we are dealing, I guess, in an academic field.
Senator MOKDALE. In one sense, but that would have been the predicament
then, ,vould it not?
-:\11'. MITCHELL. No; it would not have been the predicament, because
I would have pursued it on Ithe basis-and it is still academic, because
we do not have the subject matters before us as to what the subject
140
matters of the inquiry were, and what effect the public disclosures of
them might have with respect to the national security and the foreign
intelligence of the GO\'ernment.
And then I bElieve I would have followed ,,,hat has always been my
understanding of the law, that executive privilege, which is what you
are asserting, can only be asserte(] by the President, so you would have
to, as Attorney General, go to the President and have him determine
whether executi"e pri,'ilege was to be exercised or not.
Senator )10XDALE. Let us suppose we asked you if they ,,,ere opening
mail at Kennedy Airport in New York, and you said, "I cannot answer
that on the basis of executive privilege," and the President said, "yes,
you can." 'What would you have answered?
)11'. )1lTCIIELL. 'VeIl, just on that basis, if they were opening mail,
period?
Senator i)fOXDALE. Yes.
)11'. )!ITCHELL. I would have had no problem of coming up and testifying
to what I know under the circumstances and on the basis of the
question you asked. A mere physicalaet of opening the mail does not
seem to me to affect our national security or foreign policy, the fact
that mail was being opened. 'Vhat mail might be opened and so forth
is a different subject matter.
Senator )10XDALE. How would you have answered the question
if you did not know? In other words, there were two massive programs
going on about which you were unfamiliar: one, opening thousands of
letters in New York; and another, called COINTELPRO, which was
investigating, even intimidating and harassing American citizens all
over the country, and sometimes using the IRS in one way or another to
achieve those aims.
Kow, my question is, how would a CIA oversight committee or an
FBI o,'ersight committee be able to know it was getting the truth if
the Attorney General of the United States did not know it himself?
2\11'. )!ITCHELL. 'VeIl, Senator, if that is the thrust of your question,
I think it is the point, if you ask me as Attorney General, "are you opening
the mail through the Federal Bureau of Investigation." I would
say "I do not know but I will damn well find out."
Senat,or )fOXDALE. That is right. And the reason you would want
to know is because it is your duty to know.
Mr. )frTCHELL. It is the duty to the point of view that the Attorney
General has the FBI and the Justice Department and is responsible to
the extent that he can control them for the policies of the FBI.
Senafor MoxDALE. Do you think such an oversight committee would
have the right to assume that the Attorney General knows what is
going on in his Department on matters like these?
Mr. )fITCHELL. I would hope not. I would hope they would never
assume anything, based on what we all know about what goes on in
government.
Senator )IoXDALE. You see, that is what scares me, because unless
we clearly define what the limits of these agencies are-and I think
the limit has to be defined by law--then all we have left, if we want
real onrsight, is to set up an oversight committee which spies on the
spies. And we will have to have a one-far-one relationship around this
country. Since we cannot even be sure that the Attorney General and,
we now know, the Postmaster General, know what is going on. ,Ve will
141
have to have another parallel system where we follow the investigators
and the spies. Then1 based on our outside investigations of the investigators,
we will decide whether what they are doing is appropriate.
::\11'. MITCHELL. You are making a very eloquent argument for my
contention that it all has to rest with the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to control the activities of his men within
the Bureau.
Senator ::\lmwALE. And would you agree that the limits of his activities
are defined by the law? In other words, he cannot conduct illegal
acts?
. ::\11'. ~1ITCHELL. I think we can state that without equivocation1 yes,
SIr.
Senator ::\lm'DALE. That is right. And you would agree that when the
CIA1 the FBI, the IRS1 or any other investigative agency ams in the
united States1 it does not have the authority to go beyond the law?
~lr. )IITCHELL. It does not.
Senator ::\loxDALE. ",Ve will [,my turn to Senator Schweiker.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you very much1 Mr. Chairman.
~lr. Attorney General, you said a minute ago that it was your belief
that President Xixon had no knowledge of mail opening. You say as
Attorney General and chief law enforcement official, that you had no
knowledge of mail opening. Two days ago we heard from Postmaster
General Blount, and he testified, to the best of his knowledge, that he
dicInot know the mail was being opened.
My question is very simple. Mr. Mitchell1 who was running the
Government?
::\11'. ::\hTCHELL. Are you talking about the mail opening paIt of the
Government, or the rest of it?
Spnator SCHWEIKER. I think after hearing the answers I may be
talking about all of it, but right now I am talking about mail opening.
::\11'. MITCHELL. Apparently, from what I have read in the newspapers-
and that is where my knowledge comes from-the old school
tie boys who had been doing it for 20 years just decided they were
going to continue to do it.
Senator SCIHYEIKER. ",Ve certainly have a situation that seems to be
out of control, whereby some people were deceived by a lot of other
people. This situation, I think1 is something the committee has to
deal with in the future.
That is all I have. Mr. Chairman.
Senator l\10XDAU:. Senator Huddleston?
Senator HrDDLEsTOX. ::\fr. ::\fitchell1 in whatever briefings did occur
bptween you or ::\fr. Helms or any other person relating to this matter1
were yOIl ever informed that the Postmastrr General was not being
told the trne nature and extent of this project?
Mr. ::\hTCHELL. I am puzzling with your question1 "of the true extent
ancI nature of the project,'l since I did not lmow the true extent and
nature of the project. Obviously I was not told that the Postmaster
General was not informed.
Senator HVDDLEsTox. "'Vas there any suggestion that this was a
project of which the Postmaster General was not fully aware?
1\11'. MITCHELL. ",Vell1 when you talk about project1 if you are talking
about mail opening--
Senator HeDDLEsTox. ",Yere you given specific knowledge1 or even
an impression, that the Postmaster General was being deprived of
64-663 0 • 76 - 10
142
knowledge, the total nature of any project that the FBI or the CIA
conducted involving the mails?
Mr. MiTCHELL. No. I recall no circumstances where I ever became
aware of the Postmaster General being apprised of the nature of the
project, as you have described it.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You are surprised to learn now that those
Postmasters General who were here yesterday or the day before testified
that they did not know that mail was ac:tually being opened?
Mr. MITCHELL. No; I am not surprised at that at all.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Was this a commonly accepted practice, then,
within Government as you know it, that one agency would become
involved in another agency's responsibility without advising the head
of the other agency what it was doing?
Mr. MITCHELL. I am speculating, because I do not know, and I only
know what I have read in the papers. But I would speculate to the
point that this was something that-whenever it got started and by
whom and under what circumstances, I do not know. Knowing the
cautious nature of so many of these people. I would believe that somebody
in the Post Office at a pretty good altitude knew about it, whether
it was the Postmaster General or a lesser degree; and that once the
practice got operating, I can see how Postmasters could come and go
and they would never find out about it, because the mechanics for it
was established.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Suppose there were a strict prohibition
against the FBI, the CIA, or anybody else operating within another
agency without fully and regularly informing the head of that agency.
1Vould this not be one way to then assure more accountability?
Mr. MITCHELL. I would certainly subscribe to that.
Senator HUDDLESTON. The head of such an agency would be informed
on some kind of a regular, continuing basis.
Mr. MITCHELL. I would subscribe to that most wholeheartedly.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I am sure that you, as Attorney General, would
not appreciate the CIA or any other entity coming over and utilizing
your personnel for questionable purposes without your being aware
of it.
Mr. MITCHELL. You are absolutely right. It was not the CIA, but
I did have a few of those problems which were soon put to rest.
Senator HUDDLESTON. I am certain that occurs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MONDALE. Mr. Kirbow?
Mr. KIRBow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mitchell, you first took the oath as Attorney General on January
22, 1969. Would you tell the committee again the first time you
knew for sure that the FBI or the CIA was involved in mail opening
projects?
Mr. MITCHELL. I presume when I read it in the newspapers whenever
it got out of wherever it got out of.
Mr. KIRBow. Would that have been before you saw the so-called
Huston plan in January of 1970, or after that?
Mr. MITCHELL. No. It would have been long after I saw the Huston
plan. The Huston plan, in effect, states that they were not involved in
mail openings.
143
Mr. KIRBOW. I would like to pursue that with you just a moment.
'Would you or your attorney please turn to exhibit 11 \ which is entitled
"Special Report."
Mr. MITCHELL. "Special Report of the Interagency Committee"?
:Mr. KIRBOW. Yes, dated June 1970. Please turn to page 29 where
mail coverage is discussed, sir.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. KIRBOW. I would like to draw your attention to the last two
sentenc~s of the first full paragraph by reading them for the record
at this point.
Under preliminary discussion the following-
Covert mail coverage, also known as "sophisticated mail coverage" or "flaps
and seals." Entails surreptitious screening and may include opening and
examination of domestic or foreign mail. 'l'his technique is based on high level
cooperation of top echelon postal officials.
And in the next paragraph under the nature of restrictions, this
se,ntence-
Covert coverage has been discontinued, while routine coverage has been reduced,
primarily as an outgro\vth of publicity arising from disclosure of routine
mail coverage during legal proceedingS and publicity afforded this matter in
congressional hearings involving accusations of governmental invasions of
privacy.
Looking at those words, Mr. Mitchell, is it fair to say that almost
any reasonable man, be he an attorney or not, including you and
the President, should have been on notice that this had been an ongoing
program which had been phased out for some reason?
Mr. MITCHELL. No; I think it is just to the contrary.
It say&--
"Covert coverage has been discontinued, while routine coverage has
been reduced, primarily..." and so forth. As I understand covert,
that is the openings, and routine is the mail cover aspect of it.
Mr. KIRBOW. It says it has been discontinued. That did not indicate
to you that there had been an ongoing program at some time
in the past where the mail was actually opened?
Mr. MITCHELL. It might have in the deep, dark past, bu1r---
Mr. KIRBOW. Does it indicate that to you now, Mr. Mitchell, reading
those same words?
Mr. MITCHELL. Well,' I think the important part is when it had
been discontinued. Since they were opting in the Huston plan to use
that as one of the tools in their intelligence-gathering operation, I
assume that it might have been any time in the deep, dark past, but
certainly not in the immediately preceding time frame.
Mr. KIRBOW. If I could then direct your attention to page 30 under
"Covert coverage, point 1," where it states:
High level postal authorities have in the past provided complete cooperation
and have maintained full security of this program.
Speaking of the covert coverage that we just discussed, did that indicate
to you, or does it now indicate to you, that this had been a
program involving the high level postal officials and either the FBI
or the CIA in tha past?
1 See p. 211.
144
Mr. MITCHELL. ·Well, I think that the language you have read refers
to the postal authorities. The statement is quite dear, I would think,
as to the fact that they had been knowledgeable and cooperated in
the past; how far in the past, I could not guess.
Mr. KIRBOW. From reading the cover sheets and other parts of this
report, it had to be obvious to you that Mr. Hoover and Mr. Helms
took part in preparing a report that went forward, because it bore
both their signatures.
I would like to ask you, at that time when you and the President
were discussing the so-called Huston plan, did you have any discussion
about making absolutely certain that this was not still going on or being
sure that the laws of the land were being obeyed, as far as covert
mail opening was concerned?
Mr. MITCHELL. Let me see if I can answer your question in two
parts.
My testimony has been that the President got word to me, either
told me directly or got word to me, that he had called oft' the implementation
of the Huston plan. That would carry with it, without any
detailed discussion-which I have no recollection would follow upbut
would carry with it a Presidential determination that the authorizations
contained in the Huston plan would not be carried out.
Mr. KIRBOW. At that time Mr. Hoover was still the Director of the
FBI and worked diredly for you; did he not, Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, he did. He worked directly under me. I am
not sure he worked directly for me.
Mr. KIRBOW. I appreciate your position.
Did you at that time or any time thereafter discuss with Mr. Hoover
any aspects of the covert mail program to insure that it was not continuing
in the Department?
Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir.
Mr. KIRBOW. Did you not have the duty to do so?
Mr. MITCHELL. I do not believe so, because of the fact that I had
no knowledge that the Department, meaning the FBI and Justice,
was doing anything at all with respect to covert mail activities.
Mr. KIRBOW. How do you reconcile that answer really, Mr. Mitchell,
with the answer that you gave Senator Mondale a moment ago where
you said. "I would certainly have a duty to know if I were the Attorney
General" ?
Mr. MITCHELL. I forget what the subject matter of the question
was.
Mr. KIRBOW. The same general premise, that you should know what
is going on in the FBI.
Mr. MITCHELL. As the Attorney General, you have a duty to know
whatever is going on in the FBI; your ability to obtain the information
is an entirely different matter.
Mr. KIRBOW. You did not, though, 'at any time, inquire into this
matter to carry out your duty to know and to prevent abuses of the law
of the land in the c,overt mail-opening program?
Mr. MITCHELL. I think I have testified, and will again, that it was
my assumption that based on the Presidential directive to not implement
the Huston plan, that it would be unnecessary for me to go over
and find out if the Director of the FBI was carrying out a policy contrary
to one that had just been laid down by the President of the
United States.
145
Mr. KIRBOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MONDALE. Senator Hart?
Senator HART of Colorado. I have no questions on this subject.
Senator ~IOXDALE. Mr. Schwarz?
Mr. SCHWARZ. Following further Mr. Kirbow's line of questioning,
you do agree, do you not, that the document dated June 197"0 does
reveal that in the past at least, mail had been opened?
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe that is the implication, yes.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And it does state in the document that the opening
of mail is illegal; does it not?
~rr. MrrcHELL. I believe that with reference to a number of subjects
were illegal and I think opening mail was one of them.
Mr. SCIIW.\RZ. All right. Then based upon your knowledge from
an examination of the document, which shows that in the past at least,
illegal actions involving the opening of mail had taken place, did you
convene a grand jury to look into the admitted acts of illegality on
behalf of some intelligence services ?
Mr. MITCHELL. I did not.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And whvnot?
Mr. MITCHELL. I had no consideration of that subject matter at the
time. I did not focus on it and I was very happy that the plan was
thrown out the window, without pursuing any of its provisions
further.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Are you now of the opinion that if you had had time
to focus on the matter then, it would have been wise to convene some
investigation within the Department to determine what had happened
in the past?
Mr. MITCHELL. I believe that that would be one of the normal
processes where you would give it initial consideration and see where
it led to, what the statute of limitations might have been land all of
the other factors you consider before you jump into a grand jury
investigation.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Excepting those factors, do you agree that you should
have at least considered the matted
Mr. MITCHELL. I think if I had focused on it I might have considered
it more than I did.
Mr. SCHWARZ. I have nothing further.
Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Senator MONDALE. Senator Baker?
Senator BAKER. I have no quarrel with Mr. Schwarz's questions.
They are valid questions, but it seems to me we ought to keep things in
perspective here. You know we have a whole interagency report that
proposes a whole lot of bad things, or at least I think they are bad
things, and many of them were illegal. They wanted the President
of the United States to approve it. He signed off on it 'and this is the
man who said, "No, change your mind and withdraw it."
It is entirely possible that perhaps Attorney General Mitchell should
have thought a little further and said, "Look, let us check into that
business." Maybe you did these things in the past and that is the basis
for this recommendation. maybe so. But I think the record clearly
ought to carry the notation of the fact that John Mitchell is the man
who withdrew Huston plan, or convinced the President to do so. And
let us not detract at least that credit.
146
Mr. SCHWARZ. If I gave any implication that I was seeking to
detract from that point, Senator Baker, I did not intend to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, if I might just make a comment?
Senator MONDALE. At this point, I think we also ought to put this
memorandum [exhibit 15 1J from Mr. Dean to Mr. Mitchell in the
record, which says that, "I believe we agreed that it would be inappropriate
to have any blanket removal of restrictions"... This excerpt
from the memo refers to the Huston plan. . .
rather, the most appropriate procedure would be to decide on the type of intelligence
we need, based on the assessment of the recommendations of this unit, and
then to proceed to remove the restraints as necessary to obtain such intelligence.
Mr. MITCHELL. vVell, Senator, restraints are not the same as referred
to in the Huston plan. As you know, Mr. Dean--
Senator MONDALE. Asa matter of fact, that is exactly what that
referred to, because it was immediately after the denial of the Huston
plan that you and Mr. Dean got together, prepared this memo and
said, "Well, what the Huston plan--
:Mr. J\fITCHELL. You are wrong on that, Senator. Mr. Dean and I
didn't get together. Mr. Dean brought the memorandum over to my
office from the White House.
Senator MONDALE. "Pursuant to our conversation yesterday," it
says. Did you not have such a conversation?
Mr. MITCHELL. We had a conversation about Mr. Dean-Senator
MONDALE. On September 17, 19--
Mr. MITCHELL. I don't recall the date-about Mr. Dean coming over
to see me about the subject matter. And I would like the record to show
that Mr. Dean's recommendations were not implemented.
Senator MONDALE. Is there some record that you disapproved of
this memo?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; there is testimony in volumes and volumes and
volumes.
Senator MONDALE. Can you refer me to it?
Mr. MITCHELL. We will be glad to provide it for you. It is in the
Senate Select Committee of which Mr. Baker was present. It is in, I
believe, the House Judiciary Committee testimony and a few other
places.
Senator MONDALE. I look forward with great anticipation to seeing
it.
Mr. MITCHELL. And let me call your attention to the fact that the
outgrowth of this was the establishment ofa liaison intelligence function
to try and get at the problem where the CIA couldn't talk to the
FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms didn't provide
the information to the FBI. And we tried to cure this hiatus that
existed among the intelligence communities. And it wasn't too bad a
job at that. We at least knew when they were trying to tear down
Washington.
Senator MONDALE. And one of the things that happened after this
was that all of the things recommended in the Huston plan went
forward.
Mr. MITCHELL. You will have to document that for me some time.
Senator MONDALE. You were the Attorney General. Can you say
whether it was true or not?
1 See p. 225.
147
Mr. :MiTCHELL. I do not believe that what was recommended in the
Huston plan went forward.
Senator )Io::\DALE. What part did not?
~Ir. MITCHELL. If you give me a couple of hours to study it and
analyze it and analyze the record, maybe I can answer it for you.
Senator MONDALE. I think you would need at least 2 hours.
Mr. MITCHELL. I would think so too, Senator.
Senator )IoxDALE. Any other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Our next panel of witnesses are four persons from the FBI.
Would you stand and be sworn, please? Do you swear that the testimany
you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, so help
you God?
Mr. WA::\NALL. I do.
Mr. MOORE. I do.
Mr. BRANIGAN. I do.
Mr. MINTZ. I do.
Senator MONDALE. 'Vould you introduce yourself for the record,
please,and then the questioning will begin.
Mr. WANNALL. I'm W. Raymond Wannall, Assistant Director,
Intelligence Division of the FBI.
Mr. MINTZ. I'm John Mintz, the legal counsel to the Bureau.
Mr. BRAXIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm William A. Branigan, and I am
the Section Chief of Counterintelligence No. 1 in the FBI.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I'm Donald E. Moore. I retired from the
FBI as Inspector in June 1973.
Senator MONDALE. All right.
Would you begin the questioning, Mr. Schwarz?
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had an opportunity to talk
to these gentlemen in executive session previously.
Mr. Mintz is legal counsel and the dialog with him occurred last
Tuesday when we discussed various questions of warrants. He has
~lOthing by way of first hand knowledge on the subject of mail openmg.
Beginning with you, Mr. Wannall, could each of you state briefly
for the record ,,,hat your connection was with the mail opening subject,
and what your knowledge about this project is now and was at that
time.
TESTIMONY OF W. RAYMOND WANNALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE
DIVISION, FBI; WILLIAM ERANIGAN, SECTION
CHIEF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, FBI; DONALD E. MOORE,
FORMER FBI INSPECTOR; AND JOHN A. MINTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION, FBI
Mr. WANNALL. In two separate programs I had a direct connection
in that they were carried on or instituted at the time that I was the
Chief of the section which had responsibilities for those particular programs
or phases of programs.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Branigan?
Mr. BRANIGAN. Mr. Chairman, I was the Sedion Chief, within
which section I supervised-I had responsibility for five specific programs
involving the FBI.

Go to Next Page