Church Committee Reports at American Buddha Online Library

Site Map

CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORTS

165
ing on K Street in Northwest Washington, D.C. Further details of
these events involving electronic surveillance remain classified "Top
secret."
Finally, there are two additional examples of political abuse of or
by the FBI inthe seventies. In July ID7l,:3 months after the supposed
end of FBI COINTELPRO opemtions, the FBI leaked to a newsman
(lerogatory public record information about Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer
[exhibit 87].t Copie." of the article were sent to the Attorney General,
the Deputy Attomey General, and Presidential Aide H. R. Haldeman
with the specific approval of Director Hoover, with no indication it
was generated by the FBI. Nevertheless, the committee should note
that Charles Colson, who pleaded guilty to a civil rights offense for
leaking information about Daniel El1sberg's lawyer to a journalist,
had said that he belil'ved that the FBI was doing the same thing.
In May of ID70, the FBI provided derogatory public record information
and other allegations about the Reverend Ralph David
Abernathy, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
to Vice President Agnew at his request [exhibit 38].2 This
occurred following a telephone conversation between FBI Director
Hoover and Mr. Agnew during which, according to Bureau records,
the Vice President "said he thought he was going to have to start
destroying Abernathy's credibility."
In summary, political abuse of the FBI and by the FBI has extended
over the years through administrations of both parties.
Senator TOWER. Thank you, Mr. Elliff. ,
Our witnesses this morning are Mr. Cartha DeLoach and Mr. Courtney
Evans, former special agents of the FBI.
Mr. Evans and Mr. DeLoach, would you please seat yourselves at
the witness table.
Senator TOWER. Gentlemen, would you please rise and raise yonr
right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you present before this
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. EVANS. I do.
Mr. DELOACH. I do.
Senator Towlm. Will your counsel please identify himself?
Mr. McNELIS. Charles A. McNelis, Washington, D.C., attorney with
the firm of Welsh &Morgan.
Senator' TOWER. And who are you counsel for?
Mr. McNELIS. Mr. DeLoach, Mr. Tower.
TESTIMONY OF COURTNEY EVANS AND CARTHA DeLOACH, FORMER
FBI OFFICIALS ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES A. McNELIS, COUNSEL
Senator TOWER. Ge,ntlemen, I understand you have no statements
to make. Proceeding with the questioning will be the chief counsel
of the committee, MI'. Schwarz.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Chairman. I am going to attempt. and Mr.
Smothers is going to attempt. to get ont of the way certain facts re-
1 Spp p. 4SR.
• Spp pp. 490 throul(h 494.
166
lating to authorization, or lack of authorization, in the King matters.
So we're not going to pursue the political abuse and propaganda areas
which ~fr. Elliff covered and to which these witnesses are here to
respond. I'm going to deal with Mr. Evans and Mr. Smothers is going
to deal with Mr. DeLoach.
Mr. Evans, beginning at the time of the commencement of the
Kennedy administration, what was your job at the FBI?
Mr. EVAXS. I was Assistant Director in charge of the Special Investigative
Division.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did you have an informal function as liaison to the
.Justice Department?
Mr. EvAXS. Yes. Since I had known the new Attorney General as
Chief Counsel for a Senate Select Committee, he called upon me from
time to time after he became Attorney General for certain information.
And the liaison relationship developed at this time.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now before we get into specifics on the King matter,
I would like to have you state for the record your understanding of
the sorts of information you were authorized to provide to the Attorney
General or other persons in the Department of Justice.
Mr. EVANS. The procedure was very definite, in line with Mr.
Hoover's request, in that if a request was received from the Attorney
General, or if information was received from him,. this was put in
memorandum form and presented to Mr. Hoover wIth some kmd of
recommendation as to action that should be taken; other times~ just for
his information. But action was taken only after that procedure was
followed.
Mr. ScnwARz. So the substance of that answer is that you are not
authorized to provide information to an Attorney General without the
specific permission of Mr. Hoover?
Mr. EVAXS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now was it your general understanding that Mr.
Hoover believed that confidential matters, particularly relating to
investigative techniques, ought not generally to be disclosed outside
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? .
Mr. EVANS. I understood this policy to be very firm in that these
matters were confidential within the Bureau itself.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And that meant confidential even with respect to the
Department of Justice, which had nominal chaq(e of the FBI.
Is that correct?
Mr. EVANS. That is correct insofar as my actions were concerned.
MI'. SCHWARZ. All right. Now, again before turning to specifics on
the King matter, in the early sixties, the time when you served in the
liaison role, what was your understanding of whether or not authorization
was required from the Attorney General with respect first to
taps, and second to bugs?
Mr. EVANS. It was my understanding at the time that any tap required
the written authorization of the Attorney General, but that
no such authorization was required for the use of microphone surveillances.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And when you say microphone surveillance, that's
what the ordinary citizen calls a bn,!!?
.Mr. EVAXS. Yes.
167
Mr. SCHWARZ. Kow turning then to the taps on Dr. King, without
getting to details on authorization, did Robert Kennedy at some point
authorize placing a tap upon the home phone of Dr. King, upon the
office of the SCLC in Atlanta, and upon the office of the SCLC in
New York?
Mr. EVANS. I have no specific recollection. My memory has been refreshed
by the record and I understand this is true. He did so approve
them.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And in referring to the record, do you mean the documents
dated October 7, 1963, and October 21, 1963, which are in the
documents you have furnished previously?
Mr. EVANS. That is correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now I'm going to come back to the details on those
documents in a moment, but before doing EO I would ask you some
questions about July 1963, and whether or not Robert Kennedy suggested
in July 1963 that the Bureau put a tap on Martin Luther King.
Mr. EVANS. These are events that occurred 12 years ago and my
recollection is necessarily very dim with regard to them.
On the basis of documents that have been shown to me, however,
my memory has been refreshed to some extent and it is my recollection
that at that period of time in early 1963 there had been a rather frequent
exchange of information between the Bureau and the Attorney
General. The Bureau had frequently furnished information to the
Attorney General with regard to the background and activity of certain
associates of Dr. King, and it is my recollection that the action
taken with regard to wiretaps resulted from this information.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Now let's look at the documents that were
shown to you to refresh your recollection, starting with the document
dated .Tuly 16,1963. [See, footnote, p. 21.]
This is a document from you to Mr. Belmont reporting on a conversation
with Robert Kennedy.
Is that correct? .
Mr. EVANS. That's correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Would you either rC'ad into tll<' record or summarize
paragraphs 2 and 3 ?
Mr. EVANS rreading1. "The purpose of this contact with the Attorney
General related to the possibility of effecting technical coverage on
both--
Mr. SCHWARZ. Let's nse tIl<' name of Mr. Y.
Mr. EVANS rcontinuing1. On Mr. Y amI Martin Luther King. And
on that occasion * * *."The mC'morandum reflects I told the Attorney
General that I wac;:n't aequainte.d with the activities of Mr. Y,
hut that insofar as Dr. King was concerned, he traveled a great deal
and I doubted for that reamn whethPI' surveillance of his home or
office would be vC'rv pro(luctivC'. The memorandum reflects that I
also raisC'd the question as to the repercussions should it ever become
known that a surveillance had been put on Dr. King. It was the Attorney
General's view according to the memorandum that this did not
concern him.
Mr. SCHWARZ. You might read into the record precisC'ly the language
of that third para!!raph.
66-077 0 - 76 - 12
168
Ml'. EVANS [reading]. "The AG said this did not concern him at all;
that in view of the possible Communist inflnence in the racial situation,
he thought it advisable to have as complete coverage as possible.
I told him, under the circumstances, that we would check into the matter
to see if coverage was feasible, and if so, would submit an appropriate
recommendation to him."
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now within a week of that document, turning to
a document dated June 25, 1963, in other words 9 days later, did
the Attorney General tell you he had concluded that there should
not be a wiretap placed upon Dr. King?
Mr. EVANS. That is correct.
And for the record, my memorandum was apparently misd,ated
June 25 ; it should have been July 25.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. What was the reason for your offering
testimony about the prior history of memos from the Bureau to the
Attorney General, which had been pressuring him to do something
about looking into allegations of Communist connections between
certain persons and Dr. King? Why did you offer that testimony?
Mr. EVANS. I offered that testimony because I had no specific recollection
of exactly what was said at the time with regard to the installations,
and to try to put into perspective the condItions that existed
at the time.
Mr. SCHWARZ. So even though the first of those documents can
directly indicate that the Attorney General suggested the coverage
on Dr. King, are you stating that there is a background to that which
is inconsistent with the document? What are you stating, Mr. Evans?
Mr. EVANS. I am saying generally that there is a background that
throws some question as to the exact nature of the request and the
motivation for it, and to point out that the memorandum does no{
purport to be a complete story of all of the facts.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Now turning to the terms under which the
taps were actually put on in October, or authorized in October, would
you turn to the document dated October 10, 1963, and read into the
record the first sentence of the fourth paragraph~please.
Mr. EVANS [reading]. "After this discussion, the Attorney General
said he thought we should go ahead with the technical coverage on
King on a trial basis, and to continue it if productive results were
forthcoming. "
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now turning to the document of October 21, 1963,
did the Attorney General in that document make more specific what
he meant by a trial basis?
Mr. EVANS. Yes. He pointed out that by trial basis he was referrin~
to 30 days.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Will you read into the record the fourth paragraph
of the document dated October 21,1963?
Mr. EVANS [reading'):
The Attorney General advised that he was approving the October 18, 1963,
memorandum, but asked that this CQverage and that on King's residence be
evaluated at the end of 30 days in light of the results secured so that the con·
tinuance of these surveillances could be determined at that time. This will be
done.
Mr. SCHWARZ. To your knowledge, was any evaluation of the taps
authorized in October fU1'I1ished to Robert Kennedy within 30 days,
or at any time?
169
Mr. EVA~8. I have no personal knowledge in this regard, but I
1V0uid point out for the information of the eommittee that t lie assassination
of President KenIwdy oceUlTed within that 30-day period, and
that this had a great effpct on what Robert Kennedy was doing.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes; but why didn't the Bureau furnish the evaluation
to the Attorney General within the 30-day period as he requested
in the document of October 21 ? Is that connected with the assassination?
Mr. EVANS. I don't know that. It was not a matter within my jurisdiction.
I just don't know.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'fuming to the bugs, with Robert Kennedy as Attorney
General. was any authorization sought for tIl{' bugs that were
placed on Dr. Martin Luther King from Robert Kennedy?
Mr. EVANS. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. SCIlWAHZ. And to your knowledge, was Robert Kennedy tQld
about the bugs that were placed upon Martin Luther King?
Mr. EVANR. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Finally, would you turn to the documcnt dated
March 4th, 1964-. [See footnote p. 21.J
Mr. EVANR. Yes, this iR the mpmorandum from MI'. Baumganlner' to
Mr. Sullivan.
Mr. SCHWAHZ. Yes. Are eertain instruetions direeted to you in that
memorandum regarding Dr. King and the Attorney General?
Mr. EVANS. Yes.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And werp you instrueted to deliver something to thp
Attorney General?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, I was.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And was that a memorandum ('ontaining information
derogatory to Dr. King?
Mr. EVANR. That is my understanding.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And did you deliver that memorandum tf: Robert
Kennedy?
Mr. EVANS. I have no speeifk reeolleetion that I did so. I noted on
the memorandum I took the action I was instructed to take and therefore
on the basis of that handwritten notH,tion, I assume today that I
did follow those instruetions. .
Mr. SCHWAnz. Well, let me put in the rocord that the handwritten
notation says, "done 3/10/64," and that's in your handwriting.
Mr. EVANS. It is.
Mr. SCHWAnz. Were you given a socond instruction in. the memorandum
of March 4, 1964, the second one in addition to the instl'\wtion
to deliver material to RobHt Kpnnedy?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, I was. .
Mr. SCHWARZ. Would you read into the record the second sentence
of the paragraph No.2 at the bottom of page 2 of the March 4 memo.
Mr. EVANR.
It is also believed Mr. l<Jvans should indicate to the Attorney General that if
King was to becoml' aware of our coverage of him, it is highly probahle that
we will no longer be a'ble to develop such information throug.h the llll'8.nS
employed to date, that we, of course, are still desirollB of continning to develoll
such information.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now did you carry out that belief as it is expressed in
the document, the belief that you should make such an indiration to
the Attorney General? '
170
Mr. EVANS. The answer to that question is identical to the answer
as to whether or not I delivered it; namely that I have no present
recollection that I did, but I interpret the notation in my handwriting,
"done" to mean I follmved explicitly the instructions that were given
tome.
Mr. SCHWARZ. One final question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Evans, would
yon examine the document dated April 14, 1964, which I have previously
shown to yon. and turn to the fourth page of it. [See footnote
p. 21.] Senators, this is the document that led up to the Mr. X
exchange we had 2 weeks ago, the report from New York that Mr. X
was not proven to be a Communist to which the Director responds,
"well, MI'. X is not proven not to be a Communist, so continue to
investigate him."
On page 4, a refer.ence is made to a man that we have agreed to call
Mr. A. Was Mr. A the principal alleged Communist connection with
Dr. King?
Mr. EVANS. That is my understanding.
Mr. SCHWARZ. I will now read into the record what is said about
Mr. A and the report from the New York field office to the Director.
[reading]
Mr. A is not now under CP discipline in the civil rights field. There has been
no indiootion, however, that Mr. A has not continued his ideological adherence
to communism.
Were you told, and to your knowledge was the Attorney General
told, at any time by the FBI that Mr. A, whose alleged connection
and control by the Communists had been the justification put forward
for the tap of Dr. King, was found by the New York office to "not
be now under a CP discipline in the civil rights field?"
Mr. EVANS. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Nothmg further, Mr. Chairman.
Senator TOWER. The next line of questioning will be directed to
Mr. DeLoach. The Chair recognizes the counsel to the minor~ty, Mr.
Smothers.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeLoach, I would like, before turning directly to the King
matters, to examine with you the role of the Crime Records Division,
and your role personally as head of the Crime Records Division.
Then, upon completion of the King matters, I would like to turn
briefly to your knowledge of the FBI's activities regarding the 1964
Atlantic City Democratic Convention. Beginning with the Crime Records
Division, Mr. DeLoach, when did you become head of the Crime
Records Division of the FBI?
Mr. DELoACH. I believe, Mr. Smothers, that was 1959, sir.
Mr. SMOTHERS. And how long did you serve in that capacity?
Mr. DELOACH. Until December 1965, when I became Assistant to
the Director.
Mr. SMOTHERS. What was the function of the Crime Records Division
during your tenure?
Mr. DELoACH. Liaison with the Congress, Mr. Smothers, the handling
of the Top 10 Fugitive Program, dealing with the communications
media of the United States, preparation of memorandum for Mr.
Hoover and other Bnreau officials, matters of that nature.
171
Mr. SMOTHERS. Would it be an incorrect characterization to say
that the Crime Records Division handled much of the Bureau's public
relations effort?
Mr. DELOACH. That was part of it. sil'o
Mr. SMOTHERS. 'With respect to that public relations effort, ,,,as
it a part of your job to insure that stories or television programs
were reviewed, and to make sure you were constantly in touch with
information regarding the Bureau that was reaching the public?
Mr. DELoACH. That is correct, sir.
Mr. SMOTHERS. 1-Vas part of your responsibility also related to the
use of liaison with the media, in connection with the Bureau's CO
INTELPRO aeti vities ?
Mr. DELoACH. I can't satisfactorily answer the question specifically,
Mr. Smothers. I do recall after my mind being refreshed by a memorandum
you have shown me that part of the COINTELPRO, or Counterintelligence
Program, the Dome&tic Intelligence Division did have
a segment or phase of it called the mass media program, and from tinle
to time the Domestic Intelligence Division would prepare memoranda
and send to Mr. Hoover for his approval and then over to me
information which was to be given to newspapers in connection with
that program.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Then would it be fair to say, Mr. DeLoach, that if
the Domestic Intelligence Division wished to have a story planted
against a COINTELPRO target, that it would have been your responsibility
and the responsibility of the Crime Records Division to facilitate
this?
Mr. DElAlACH. Only if it pertains to the communications media.
Mr. SMOTHERS. You're talking about press and television.
Mr. DELOACH. That would have been the only pUlt of it.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did the Crime Records Division also have responsibility
for the name checks program?
Mr. DELOACH. No sir, that would have been in the General Investigative
Division, I believe, Mr. Smothers. The Crime Records Division
did have responsibility for preparing summaries of information for
Mr. Hoover whenever he instructed that it be done, and also, for those
individuals that were requesting appointments with Mr. Hoover from
time to time. But that was tlll' only responsibility they had with respect
to name checks. Name che..cks per se were over in another division of
the FBI.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did you have any contact, Mr. DeLoach, with the
White House in connection with requests for information on individuals,
members of the press, or public personalities?
Mr. DELOACH. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
Mr. Smothers, Mr.•Tohnson became President and requested
Mr. Hoover, throu,!!h Mr. Hoover, that I assume the responsibility of
liaison with the White House in addition to my other duties. From
time to time we did receive extensive requests for name checks from
the Secret Service and from White House personnel concerning those
individuals that the President desired to appoint to jobs or committees
or commissions, or those individuals who were being invited to go
to state functions at the White House and matters of that nature.
Mr. SMOTHERS. In this conneetion--
172
Ml'. DELuACH. And incidentally, Mr. Smothers, that would not have
been handled by the Crime Records nivision as such. It would have
been handled by the name check section, which would have been in another
division.
Mr. SMOTHERS. But to the best of your knowledge, there is some
blurring of the lines here, isn't there? Didn't you have frequent contact
with Mr. Jl'l1kins, ~fr. Moyers, Mr. \Yatson, at the White House in connection
with these kinds of requests?
Mr. DELOACH. I would say rather infrequent contact, Mr. Smothers.
I did have contact with them from time to time. They would call me
from time to time. It was rather infrequent. The greater majority of
that would be handled by straight requests from the Secret Service to
the name check section of the FBI.
Mr. SMOTHERS. If we were trying to establish the point of contact in
the Bureau for political matters, liaison information regarding political
groups, and information regarding individuals and their political
positions, where would the point of contact have been during your
tenure? Would it have been you, Mr. DeLoach?
Mr. DELOACH. Well, what you term "political information," Mr.
Smothers, was not exactly political information to us. I was an investigator,
not a politician, and information was brought to my attention.
I didn't know whether it was political or not. We didn't know what
was in the minds of the White House personnel or the President of
the United States requesting such information. But with Mr. Hoover's
instructions we followed it.
Mr. SMOTHERS. After your review of some of the information this
committee has provided you, have you now concluded that some of those
requests were indeed political?
Mr. DELOACH. Well, again Mr. Smothers, I'm not a politician, and I
did not know what was on the minds of the White House personnel, or
the President, so I cannot answer your question,
Mr. SMOTHERS. Let's move on then to the King- matter. We had previously
called your attention to a memorandum originated by you dated
November 27,1964. The memorandum reports on a meeting with Mr.
Roy Wilkins, the Executive Secretary of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, anrl the subject matter of the
mnversation was apparently Dr. King. Let me rearl from that memorandum
for you just two brief excerpts, and then I will ask several
questions reg-arding the state of your knowledge of these matters.
Mr. DELOACH. Certainly, sir.
Mr. SMOTHERS. The first on page 2, and you are writing this:
I told him [Mr. Wilkins] that the Director, of course, did not have in mind
the destruction of the civil rights movemE'nt as a whole. I told him the Director
sympathized with the civil rights movement as exemplified hy the Director's
provision of the FBI's many brilliant accomplishment,., in this field. I added,
however, that we deeply and bitterly resented the lies and fals'ehoods told by
Kin~ and that if Kin~ wantE'd war, WE' CE'rtainly would give it to him.
LatH in tIl{' memorandum you report,:
I want to rE'iteratE' once a~ain IE'SR strongly that if King' wanted war. we were
prl'parE'd to g'ivl' it to him and Il't thE' chips fall whl'rl' they may.
Wilkins statl'd that this would hI' most disastrous. particularly to the Negro
mO\'eml'llt. and that he hopl'd this wonld nl'ver come ahont. I told him that the
1ll0nkE'Y was 011 hiR hack and that of thE' otlll'r NE'g'ro IE'adE'rs. HE' litatE'd hE'
rpnli7.E't1 thiR. \YP Rhook handR :lllfl Ill' rptnrllE'd to NE'w York
173
Mr. DeLoach, what ,vas the nature of this war or threatened ,,'ar
between the Bureau and Dr. King as you understood it?
Mr. DElA)A('J1. I will be glad to relate that to the best of my recollection,
Mr. Smothers. As well as I can remember, Dr. King in
Albany, Ga., while there was considemble rape, strife, and violence
going on at that particular time, made the statement publicly that
Southern born, reared and educated FBI agents were not to be trusted,
were biased and could not properly conduet civil rights investigations.
Mr. Hoover, to the best of my knowledge, became very resentful of
this, as did personnel of the FBI, because they felt it was extremely
diffieult under conditions at that particular time to conduet eivil rights
investigations, very diffieult to get infonnation from all parties, all
sonrees. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't in conducting
such investigations. Howe\'er, Mr. Hoover also felt that this
cast a slur, it was an aspersion upon the integrity of FBI agents. So,
consequently, Mr. Hoover, later on-I'm trying to recoIled to the best
of my memory-had a press conference with about approximately 22
women, I think the National Capital Press Club at that time, and
made the statement that he considered Dr. King to be a notorious
liar.
I was with Mr. Hoover at the time, as I beliew was Inspector
Robert E. Wick. I passed Mr. Hoover a note indicating that in my
opinion he should either retmet that statement or indicate that it was
off-the-record. He threw the note in the trash. I sent him another note.
He threw that in the trash. I sent a third note, an.d at that time he
told me to mind my own business. Hmw\'er, the statement was made
at that time.
Following that statement, when it became public, the girls could
hardly wait to lea\'e to get to the telephone. Dr. King made the statement
publiely that Mr. Hoover, apparently bowing under the pressure
of his work, had become senile. This further angered Mr. Hoover anll
at that time we had a full-scale feud going on with many pawns in
between two men of great stature: Dr. King on the one hand, who was
the symbol of leadership of 12 million blacks in the TTnited States; and
~fr. Hoover on the other hand, who, in my opinion, had built the
greatest investigatiw agency in the world. I personally considered it~
while the facts were somewhat objectiw in saying that Dr. King was
wrong about Southern born, reared. and educated agents,because I
have yet to haw anyone show me any investigative case, in which the
FBI has shirked a eivil rights im'estigation or any other investigation
wllPther they were Southel'll born, Easte,rn. or what have you. But
I considered this to be unfortunate in the public relations image of the
FBI because you cannot win in such a feud.
I was respom;ibl(' for recomm('n(ling to Mr. Hoover that he han'
a meeting with Dr. King and that we try to settle the situation, and
Dr. King would not return my telephone calls. I did talk personally
with Mr. Andrew Young, who I belie\'e is now a Congressman. We
agreed to a mutual informal meeting between Mr. Hom'er and Dr.
King. There was a meeting in Mr. Hom'er's offiee which was att('nded
by R('verend Abernathy, Congressman Young, one other individual,
and Dr. King, l\fr. Hom'eI', and myself. It was more of a love feast:
it was not a confrontation. It ",as a yery amicable meeting. a pleasant
nweting behwen two gr('at symbols of leadership: Mr. Hooy('r. on
174
the one hand, telling Dr. King that, in view of your stature and
reputation and your leadership with the black community, you should
do everything possible to be careful of your associates and be careful
of your personal life, so that no question will be raised concerning
your character at any time. Dr. King on the other hand told Mr.
Hoover that he would attempt to cooperate with the FBI in civil
rights investigations in the future, and that there would be no difficulty
involved. Dr. King left ~Ir. Hoover's office after approximately 1 hour
and 17 minutes and issued a press release more or less concerning the
peaceful meeting between Dr. King and ~Ir. Hoover. That, in essence,
~lr. Smothers, was the situation. I would like to repeat, it was a love
feast more or less, rather than a bitter confrontation between these
individuals.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Is it your testimony and YOUI' belief then, Mr.
DeLoach, that this dispute between King and Hoover culminating
in the Bureau's determination to remove Dr. King as a leader in the
civil rights movement was the result of some unfortunate, and maybe
childish, reaction to who said what about whom? Is that all there
is to it?
MI'. DELOACH. Well. I think unfortunately, Mr. Smothers, there
was a very unfortunate feud that went on, and I hope as Assistant
Director, the head of the Crime Records Division in charge of the
Rnreau's public image, that it had not occurred in the least, but it did
and it went on.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Was this feud, this alleged tBlling of lies, the basis
for the wiretaps on Dr. King?
MI'. DET..OACIL I was not in the Domestic Intelligence Division
at the time, Mr. Smothers. I was not on the operational side of the
FBI. I was strictly in the administrative side, the Crime Records
Di vision, and it would be difficult for me to answer that question. I
can only speculate, as Mr. Evans has previously testified, as shown
by the record, and as indicated by Mr. Schwarz, that the reason for
the electronic surveillance was brought about by a simple intelligence
operation rather than any feud or personal pettiness. .
Mr. SMOTHERS. Do you have any knowledge of the Involvement
of Mr. Walter .Tenkins in the approval of these wiretaps, or did you
ever discuss them with him?
Mr. DELOACH. I don't recall discussing with Mr.•Tenkins the
approval or disapproval of wiretaps, Mr. Smothers.
Mr. SMOTHERS. To the best of your knowledge, was he involved in
or knowledgeable of the taps?
Mr. Dd..OM'H. Would you repeat the question?
Mr. Sl\IOTJIERR. To the best of vour knowledge, was Mr.•Tenkins
either involved in, or knowledgeable of. the taps against Dr. King and
tlJ(' authorization of these taps?
Mr. DET..oACH. Mr. Smothers, vou have refreshed my memory by
showing' me memoranda several days ago showing that on one occaFlion,
Mr. Hoovrr instrnrted me to take written information, prepared
by the Domestic Intelligence Division, over to Mr..Tenkins for the
information of the President concerning the fruits of, I believe, one
or two of those surveillances.
Mr. S~fOTnF:RR.•Tust passing briefly, then, to the Hl64 Democratic
Convention, ,,,ere yon in charge of. or responsible for, coordination
of sl1n'eillanre at that convention?
175
Mr. DELoACH. Well, the word "surveillance" connotes a rather
unsavory term, Mr. Smothers. That's not a correct term.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Investigation of individual groups participating
in the convention?
Mr. DELOACH. Well, to relate to you, as refreshed again by the
memoranda you have shown me, and my recollection of the situation
12 years ago, over 12 years ago; Mr. Jenkins called one day, caUed
me, and asked if the FBI would send a team of men to Atlantic City
during the convention. I told him in my opinion that this was something
that he or the President should disouss with Mr. Hoover. Mr.
•Jenkins or the President, to the best of my recollection, later called
Mr. Hoover and asked that this be done. Mr. Hoover then gave me
instructions to proceed to Atlantic City and to gather a team of men
to go there to assist in gathering intelligence concerning matters of
strife, violence, et cetera.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did your investigation go beyond matters of strife
and violence? Did you in fact report on political matters as a result
of your investigation of the 1964 convention?
Mr. DELoACH. Mr. Smothers, we passed on to the Secret Service,
we ,passed on to Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Moyers. Those are the only individuals
I recall that we did pass information to, all information that
we received. Again, I am not a politician. I was an investigator.
Mr. SMOTHERS. I have nothing further at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator TOWER. I would urge my colleagues to adhere to the 10minute
rule because of the lateness of the 'hour. The questions will
begin at the end of the table with Senator Hart of Colorado.
Senator HART of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeLoach, I would like to confine my questions to the period Mr.
Smothers toudhed on, August 22 through'August 28, 1964, at Atlantic
City. It is my understanding that the special squad, as you described,
was estwblished at the request of Mr.•Jenkins. Is that correct?
Mr. DELoACH. Either at Mr. Jenkins' request, or if the President
called Mr. Hoover later on, it would have been the President's specific
request. But I told Mr.•Jenkins that either he or the President should
call Mr. Hoover concernin~the matter.
Senator HART of Colorado. Was there any written request from the
White House about this operation?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I do not recall any written request.
Senator HART of Colorado. What was the purpose, as Mr.•Jenkins
outlined it to you, of this operation?
Mr. DEl..oACH. He gave me no specifics, as I recall, Senator. He
just indicated he wanted a team of men there because the President
migoht have expected violence, or strife, or something of that nature.
Senator HART of Colorado. That latter part is your speculation,
or what he said?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I do not recall. It has been 12 years ago,
but let me put it in this perspective. The President of the United
States, following the assassination of President .Tdhn F. Kennedy,
became somewhat obsessed with the fact that he himself might be
assassinated. As a matter of fact, strangely enough to the FBI, the
President would call from time to time, as would his assistants, and
indicate that an FBI agent should be on Air Force One when Air
Force One, would take off for foreign countries or would take off for
176
distant cities in the United States. FBI agents, for the first time in
the history of the FBI-we have never served as bodyguards, we
were investigators, we determined facts, we do not offer bodyguard
assistance-found themselves on street corners with Secret Service
agents that the President's line of motorcade would come through on
that particular street. This became somewhat of a lengthy practice,
Senator. So it was very apparent to personnel of the FBI that the
President was obsessed with fear concerning possible assassination,
and he therefore was asking the FBI to supplement Secret Service.
Now, to further that, before leaving for Atlantic City, I called the
Director of the Secret Service, Mr. James Rowley, and told him of
the President's request, and told him that we would be there to assist
his men in reporting information to them concerning possible violence.
Senator HART of Colorado. Did you and Mr. Jenkins talk about
the flow of political information ~
Mr. DELOACH. I have never talked with anyone at the White House,
to the best of my knowledge, concerning the fact that the FBI should
furnish political information, Senator.
Senator HART of Colorado. Did you discuss with Mr. Jenkins the
Mississippi Freedom Party deleg-ation and the credentials dispute ~
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I've been shown no memorandums, and I
know nothing-I recall nothing which would point out that Mr.
•Tenkins had mentioned this specific group to me prior to leaving for
Atlantic City. I do recall, and I have here certain memorandums,
which the committee has shown me, which showed that while at Atlantic
City, there were definite potential indications of strife and violence.
These were reported to Mr. Jenkins.
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, we'll get to that in a minute.
To whom did you report while you were in Atlantic City~
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, the committee reported, at least the group
of men that I had, the special agents, reported matters to Mr. Jenkins
and Mr. Moyers, and they also reported to the Secret Service. They reported
some parts of it to the State police. .
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, I meant specifically in the White
House. Did you have a direct telephone line in your residence to the
White House, to Mr.•Tohnson's office ~
Mr. DELOACH. I'd be glad to explain that, Senator. At one time, to
the best of my recollection, Mr.•Johnson instructed that about 65 telephones
be placed around Washington to people he would try to contact
from time to time. I have seven children, Senator, and it was necessary
for me to put a rule in my own home that no child could talk on the
phone for over 3 minutes; but in most families that have children of
that nature, particularly teenagers, those rules are often broken. I had
a teenager who talked one night for 18 minutes to one of her friends.
The President was trying to get me to discuss a matter concerning an
applicant type investigation, concerning an appointment he wanted
to make. He became very irate. The next morning when my family and
I were trying to go to church, we were met in the driveway of my home
by two men from the White House. They told me they had instructions
from the President to put a direct line in my home. I told them to
go 3;h~ad and put it in the den, and they said no, the President said
put It III your bedroom. [General laughter.]
177
Senator HART of Colorado. Did you have any direct contact with
President .Tohnson while you were in Atlantic City ~
Mr. DELoACH. No, sir; not to the best or my knowledge, and I had
no direct line from Atlantic City to the White House.
Senator HART or Colorado. All right. On August 29, 1964, immediau>-
ly arter the close of the convention, you wrote a summary memorandum
ror Mr. Mohr [exhibit 39 1]. The lead paragraph goes as follows:
"In connection with the assignment of the special squad to Atlantic
City, N.,T.," it gives the dates, "at the direction of the President, I wish
to report the successful completion or this assignment. By means or
informant coverage, by use of various confidential techniques, by infiltration
of key groups through use of undercover agents, and through
utilization of agents using appropriate cover as reporters, we were able
to keep the White House fully apprised of all major developments
during the convention's course." About those techniques, did you use
wiretaps~
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, to the best of my recollection, there was one
electronic surveillance, an ongoing surveillance which would have been
in Atlantic City or any other city where Dr. King might have been,
if domestic intelligence had recommended it and Mr. Hoover had approved
it. There was an electronic surveillance at that time on Dr.
King, and now that you've refreshed my memory from showing me
memorandums of 12 years ago, there was an additional electronic surveillance
on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating- Committee I believe,
sir. Let me make it very clear, Senator, that I did not place either one
of those electronic surveillances, but I was aware that they were there.
Senator HART of Colorado. Who placed them?
Mr. DELoACH. That would have been the Domestic Intelligence
Division, the Newark office, following the instrnctions of the Domestic
Intelligence Division.
Senator HART of Colorado. So there was more. than one ongoing
operation. '.Dhat is to say, you had the special squad and you were
using other resources of the Department as well.
Mr. DELoACH. Both were ongoing surveillances, electronic surveillances,
as far as I can recall, Senator.
Senator HART of Colorado. Not by this special squad, but were
operating out of another Bureau office?
Mr. DELoACH. They were operating at the instructions of FBI
headquamrs, the Domestic InU>-lligence Division, but were not part
of the responsibilities of the special squad, Senator.
Senator HART of Colorado. They were not operating under your
supervision?
Mr. DELoACH. No, sir, they were not, but we did get the fruits of
those partioular surveillances, Senator.
Senator HART of Colorado. On the second page of that memorandum
it says additionally, "We utilized highly successful covers with cooperation
of" blank, and then it goes on to say, "furnishing us credentials."
What is the name that ~oes in that blank?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I'd be glad to answer that question if the
chail'Illan inSists upon it. I want to cooperate to the fullest exu>-nt with
the Committee.
1 See p. 495.
178
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll read in the
blank if you like.
Senator TOWER. I'm informed that's already in the record.
Senator HART of Colorado. In a wrap-up memorandum to Callahan
on this whole operation, dated January 28, 1975, based upon interviews
with you and others, they talk about coverage of CORE and SNCC
and so forth, and say "the cooperation of management of NBC News,
our agents were furnished NBC press credentials" [exhibit 40].' Is
that correct ~
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, that is correct to some extent. But let's
put it in a very objective light. ,]\here was one agent that accompanied
me to Atlantic City from FBI headquarters, who had a friend among
the employees of NBC who were attending the convention. On one
occasion this agent expressed to the friend, that he saw from time
to time during the 6 days that we were in Atlantic City, the fact that
it was difficult to obtain sufficient information to report to the White
House on Secret Service matters concerning violence and strife. The
agent was given, whether at his request or not, or whether it was
voluntarily given, a couple of pieces of cardboard where you filled in
your own name, and as to the uses of these, the extent af the usage,
I don't know, Senator.
Senator HART of Colorado. You don't know how many of your
agents used bogus .press credentials ~
Mr. DELOACH. I do not, sir.
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, at the same time it says one of
our "reporters," so there must have been several.
Mr. DELoACH. There could have been, Senator, but I have no recollection
of that.
Senator HART of Colorado. Well, were you aware of the fact that
this was going on ~
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, the memorandum clearly reflects that, so
I must fiave been.
Senator HART of Colorado. Let me go very briefly into this matter
of whether you were a politician or an investigator. In your memorandum
you say, during our convention coverage we disseminated
44 pagoes of intelligence to Walter Jenkins, and you attached those to
Mr. Mohr.
Additionally, I kept Jenkins and Moyers constantly advised by telephone
of minute by minute developments. This enabled them to make spot decisions
and could adjust convention plans to meet potential problems before serious
trouble developed.
We have no way of knowing, of course, w'bether that was political
trouble or some other kind of trouble.
"We also prepared thumbnail sketches on all key dissident groups"one
might ask how you qualify to be a dissident group--
... expected at the convention, and we maintained separate files on the activities
of King, Communist Party Groups, area hoodlums, informants, the Mississippi
Freedom Democratic Party and other groups. We alerted White House representatives
regarding compromise proposals proceeding of the MFDP. Through a
highly confidential source we learned that CORE and SNCC had been advised
that the President was bringing pressure to bear on the delegates of 15 states
to preclude their support of a move to bring the Mississippi Delegates to the
floor of the convention. We advised Jenkins that the MFDP delegates tlatly
rejected the compromise proposal to seat the MFDP delegation.
1 See pp. 503 and 509.
179
It goes on and on like that, and there are a couple of more quotes from
the summary done by the Bureau in 1975 of this effort.
Mr. DELoACH. I believe you mean 1964, Senator, instead of 1975?
Senator HART. I'm sorry. No, it's a January 1975 study done
by Mr. Bassett for Mr. Callahan. The Bureau files reflect a memorandum
from Mr. Hoover wherein Walter Jenkins, Special Assistant to
the President, called and stated the President wanted him to call the
Director to say that the job that the Bureau had done in Atlantic
City was the finest the President had ever seen. In discussions with
you, presumably by the authors of the memorandum, and this is a
quote from a special agent in charge, "It was obvious that DeLoach
wanted to impress Jenkins and Moyers with the Bureau's ability to
develop information which would be of interest tQ them." The author
denies that this was for political reasons, but states: "I do recall,
however, on one occasion I was present when DeLoach was on a lengthy
telephone conversation with Walter ,Ter.~{ins. They appeared to be
discussing the President's 'image.' At the end of the conversation
DeLoach told him something to the effect, 'that man sounded a little
political to you, but this doesn't do the Bureau any harm.' "
One final quotation, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be done. A letter from
Mr. DeLoach to Mr. Moyers, addressed, Dear "Bishop", which I assume
is either a nickname or a code name, "Thank you for your very
thoughtful and generous note concerning our operation in Atlantic
City. Please be assured that it was a pleasure to be able to be of assistance
to the President, and all the boys that were with me felt honored
in being selected for the assignment. I think everything worked out
well, and I'm certainly glad that we were able to come through with
vital tidbits from time to time which were of assistance to you and
Walter," etc., etc., Signed, C. D. DeLoach [exhibit 41).1 That's all.
Senator TOWER. Senator Schweiker?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, may I inject just one note here, if I may,
please?
Senator TOWER. All right.
Mr. DELoACH. I'd like to answer a :few of those statements, if I may,
Senator, with due respect. You're talking about tidbits of information.
First, let me say that the name Bishop given to Moyers, because
of his ministerial background. He was called that, I called him that,
and so did a number of other people. But with respect to tidbits of
information and the information furnished to Mr. Moyers and to Mr.
Jenkins, let me g-ive you several examples. One example was-and this
was the coverage on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
Headquarters, "While I don't want any killing, I don't mind if someone
gets a little scorched. I do not want any more killing." Another
quote, "If the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party is not seated,
the Independent Citizens Committee will rush a motorcade from
Philadelphia to assert pressure on the convention." Another one, "If
the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party is not seated by the
Democratic Credentials Committee, the leadership of CORE and the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee will 'l\bandon their vigil
and resort to direct action."
1 See p. 510.
180
There was an instance where information was picked up and passed
on that an Atlantic City hoodlum who requested that a strong arm
man come to Atlantic City from New Jersey for the purpose of taking
care of a few people who needed to have their skulls cracked. One
individual in CORE was quoted as stating, "that if all persons arrested
in civil rights riots were not given amnesty, then direct action
would be taken to dramatize the cause of racial strife." Another one,
"Seven to thirteen busloads of demonstrators are coming in tonight,
the night of the 9th, a do or die effort."
We reported to Mr. Jenkins and to Mr. Moyers and to the Secret
Service, of course. "Banning the most unusual circumstances," this is
on August 27,1964, and was taken from the memorandum which you
have shown me, which came originally from FBI files, "Banning the
most unusual circumstances, the FBI feels the potential for difficulties
is considerably less than there was the previous 2 days." Another
report was that was passed on, "Apprehension concerning personal
safety continues to be expressed by members of the Mississippi Freedom
Democratic Party."
Senator, the only thing I'm trying to point out is we passed on all
information. We did not decide what was political or what represented
potential strife and violence. Not being politicians, we let other people
decide that. We were an investigative agency and we passed on all data.
Senator HART of Colorado. To that I can only respond, here I have
copies of 44 reports that went up; if they are not political documents,
I don't know what are.
Senator TOWER. Senator Schweiker?
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeLoach, I want to read from a' memorandum. This is a memorandum
that vou addressed to Mr. Hoover. I don't want to mention the
name of the Political leader involved for obvious reasons. I will read
aloud just a 'paragraph. This is forwarding some personal and derogatory
material relating to a political leader. You were writing a
memorandum from Mr. DeLoach to Mr. Hoover. The last part of this
reads, "I told Jenkins," that is, ·Walter .Jenkins of the White House,
that Director Hoover indicated I should leave this attachment with him if he
desired, to let the President personally read it. Jenkins mentioned he was sufficiently
aware of the facts that he could verbally advise the President of the
matter. Jenkins was of the opinion that the FBI could perfOl1ID a good service
to the country if this matter could somehow be confidentially given to members
of the press. I told him the Director had this in mind, however also believed we
should obtain additional information prior to discussing it with certain friends.
Have you had a chance to see that paragraph?
Mr. DELOACH. Yes, sir; Senator.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Obviously it's personal and derogatory material.
My question to you is. as a matter of policy and procedure, how
often was this kind of personal discrediting of a political figure used ?
How would you describe that particular memorandum and its significance
?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, to the 'best of my knowledge, this is the orrly
time that the White House refers to such a possibility insofar as Dr.
King was concerned. The only other possible recollection I could have
after 12 years would be the previous reference of the counterintelligence
program, where the Domestic Intelligence Division would prepare
a memorandum under the mas." media category of that program
181
and send it to Mr. Hoover for approval, suggesting that someone in
the various organizations !Which were promoting strife and violence,
something of that nature be given to the press. That is my only reeolleotion,
Senator.
Senator SCHWEIKER. In the deposition you were shown the letter
to Marvin Watson from J. Edgar Hoover, dated November 8, 1966
[exhiibit 42 1]. "Reference is made to your request regarding authors
of books dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy. Attached
are summary memoranda setting forth pertinent information
contained in the FBI files concerning the following individuals." Then
seven individuals are listed, some of their files, of course, not only included
derog-atory inf?rm~tion, but sex pictures to boot.. It also says,
a copy of thIS commUlllcatlOn has not been sent to the Actmg Attorney
General.
Certainly here is some kind of a pattern; whenever somebody was
in disagreement or in political difference, first the name check, then
derog!lJtory material, and then photographs, were sent out. I know
specifically that Congressman Boggs' son has testified that the White
House passed material of this nature to him that was being received
here from the FBI. As you recall, we came across another letter several
months later on another of the critics' personal files. I think it is
.January 30, 1967. Here, almost 3 months apart, is an ongoing campaign
to personally derogate people who differed politically. In this
case it was the Warren Commission. This wasn't a pattern to you ~
Wasn't this standard operating procedure when they were out to get
somebody politically ~
Mr. DELoACH. No. Senator, I recall no specific pattern in that regard.
You have shown me the memomnda concerning the request on
the part of the President of the United States for the FBI to furnish
name checks concerning critics of the Kennedy assassination. Those
instructions, after being shown to Mr. Hoover, and Mr. Hoover instructed
that it be done, !Were complied with. What the White House
did with those, I don't know.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, the question is what does a name check
normally include? Does it normally include all of the adverse material
that is in the files on a particular person, whether it's substantiated
or unsubstantiated? What in general does a name check include?
Mr. DEI.JOACH. It would include information in a file concerning the
individual, the subject of the inquiry, Senator. If thl're was no information,
it simply would be stamped and sent back to the White House. As
I say, at that particular time, I was not in charge of the name-check
section. I'm not totally familiar with what all it did include. But that
is my understanding.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Well, it's true you were not in charge, but on
these carbon copies it was marked "Sent direct to Mr. DeLoach."
Mr. DEI.JOACH. Strictly in a liaison capacity, Senator.
Senator SCHWEIKER. You were passing it on. I recognize that.
Mr. DELOACH. Certainly.
Senator SCHWEIKER. So that you were a conduit in this case, and that
is why I'm asking you in these terms. Did it also normally include
sexual activities of the person involved, as we've twice seen evidence
that it did ~ . .
1 See p. 511.
182
MI'. DELoACH. Senator, I did not prepare the name-check memorandum,
as I testified previously, and I'm not aware of the fact of what
information was contained in those memorandums.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Here's another memorandum that I had a
chance to review just briefly with you during the deposition. I'll just
briefly read from it. It's a memorandum from you to Mr. Tolson, dated
Apri14, 1967, and it says: "In this connection, Marvin Watson called
me"-that's you-"late last night and stated the President"-President
Johnson-"had told him in an off moment that he was now convinced
that there was a plot in connection with the assassination"-this
is the Kennedy assassination. You go on to say, "vVatson requested
that any further information that we could furnish in this connection
would be most appreciated by him," the President. Then you say, "1
reminded 'Vatson that the Director had sent over to the White House
some weeks back all of the information in our possession in connection
with the CIA's attempts to use former agent Robert Maheu and his
private detective outfit, in contacts with Sam Giancana and other hoodlums
relative to fostering a plot to assassinate Castro." The interesting
thing to me is, why did you at that time, and why did the White House,
consistently link the Kennedy assassination to the attempts against
Castro? Here they are both discussed in the same paragraph. They
are hooked together in the same paragraph.
I note that at the time of your deposition, you said you could not
recall. I just wondered if, since we had our deposition hearing, anything
might have come to light which would refresh your memory or
help reconstruct why the mite House, you, or Watson might have
thought there was a' link between the Kennedy assassination and attempts
to kill Castro?
Mr. DELOACH. Well, Senator, you have shown me that memorandum,
and I appreciate being allowed to be refreshed concerning the matter.
The only possihle reason it could have been brought up is because of
Mr. Watson's remark quoting the President, that the President felt
that a certain agency may have been involved in a conspir~cy. I felt
this to be sheer speculation, and Mr. Watson did not follow up, neither
was any information furnished to the FBI to follow up, the sheer
speculation. That's the only reason whiI can think I brought up the
name of the Agency.
Senator SCHWEIKER. You testified that the FBI was asked to put out
a statement sayin,g- Lee Harvey Oswald acted in a sing'ular capacitvwithout
any plot involved. Is that correct? . "
Mr. DELOACH. That's absolutely correet, sir, and it should be a matter
of record in the FBI files. .
Senator SCHWEIRER. The 'Vhite House was asking the FBI to put
out this statement. Is that not correct?
Mr. DEI.JOACII. That's correct, Senator.
Senator SCHWEIRER. Do vou have anv recollection about the time
frame during which the White House asked the FBI to put out that
statement? -
Mr. DELOACH. Senator. I don't. But out of sheer speculation, it would
have to be. Ithink. 1966, 1967, 1968.
Senator SCHWEIRER. You don't know whether it comes before or
aftf'r. thismemori\l1dum here that I just read?
~fr. DELOACH. I GO not, sir.
183
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. DeLoach, did you brief Attorney General
Ramsey Clark on the COINTELPRO activities?
Mr. .DELoACH. Shortly after Mr. Clark became Attorney General
or Actmg Attorney General, Mr. Clark instructed me on one occasion
to brief him, to assist him in his knowledge concerning FBI activities
to brief him concerning all ongoing programs. I do distinctly recall
that on one occasion briefing Mr. Clark concerning programs of the
FBI; I did generally brief him concerning COINTELPRO, or the
Counterintelligence Program; yes, SIT.
Senator SCHWEIKER. How would you describe the extent and the
depth of the briefing in terms of his fully understanding what was
going on? Not necessarily all the specific details, the names or places;
but in terms of the import, the thrust, the purpose, the objectives
of it-how do you feel the briefing conveyed that?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I can't fully answer that question because
nothing's been shown to me to refresh my memory concerning a conversation
that took place 7, 8, 9 years ago. However, I do recall that
at the same time, I do specifically recall that, again at Mr. Clark's
instruction, I briefed him concerning electronic surveillances that
had been 'previously authorized by Attorneys General and were on at
the time that he was to take office. At that specific time, I believe it
was Mr. Clark that laid down the policy that we were to keep the
Attorney General's office advised more frequently concerning justification
of such surveillances.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Senator TOWER. Senator Morgan?
Senator MORGAN. Mr. Evans, I believe you testified that you were
the liaison officer with the Attorney General throughout most of the
Kennedy administration.
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. And you testified in response to Mr. Schwarz's
question, that you did confer with the Attorney General in July of
1963 with regard to some wiretaps and technical surveillance of Martin
Luther King.
Mr. Evans. Yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. But up until that time, for nearly 3 years or 2%
years, you had regularly briefed the Attorney General on the FBI.
had you not?
Mr. EVANS. No; that is not a correct characterization.
Senator MORGAN. How often did you brief him?
.Mr. EVANS. I never briefed him with reference to the activities of
the FBI as a whole. Mr. tIoover ordinarily met with the Attorney
General and I assume for that purpose. My role w~s to respond to
a specific request from the Attorney General for actIOn by the FBI,
or to supplement a written record that the FBI had sent to the Attorney
General where some action was necessary.
Senator MORGAN. To put it your way, during that period of time
you had responded to his request on numerous occasions prior to
July 1963, had you not?
Mr. EVANS. That is correct.
Senator MORGAN. Had you ever, at any time, declined to furnish
the Attorney General any information that he requested?
Mr. EVANS. I never did. after I cleared it with Mr. Hoover.
66-077 0 - 76 - 13
184
Senator MORGA:N". Did you misinform the Attorney General of any
activities of the FBI of which he had inquired?
Mr. EVANS. Not to my recollection.
S~nator MORGAN. On July 16, 1963, according to your memorandum,
at hIS request you contacted him. Is that eorrect?
Mr. EVANS. That is correct.
Senator MORGAN. During that time he told you that Mr. Burke
Marshall was concerned about some of the activities of Martin Luther
King, with regard to possible Communist influence of the civil rig-hts
movement.
Mr. EVANS. That is my recollection.
Senator MORGAN. 'Was Mr. Burke Marshall present?
Mr. EVANS. I don't remember.
Senator MORGAN. Do you have any recollection as to who was
present?
Mr. EVANS. No; I do not. My memorandum doesn't reflect. I assume
it was only the Attorney General.
Senator MORGAN. The fact .is at that time there had been little or no
evidence of Communist involvement with Martin Luther King's activities,
had there?
Mr. EVANS. Senator, I can respond to you by saying that my knowledge
in this area was necessarily very limited. My jurisdiction within
the FBI had nothing to do with internal security matters. Consequently,
the only knowledge I had in that area was when a particular
incident or situation would arise wherein I was requested to take
action either by the FBI or by the Attorney General. So I am not
knowledgeable enough to characterize that.
Senator MORGAN. Mr. Evans, I find it hard to believe that a man who
occupied the very important position of liaison between Mr. Hoover
and the Attorney General would not be knowledgeable, at least generally,
about what was going on. It is true that never more than two
or three known Communists were ever involved with Martin Luther
King's operation. Is that not true?
Mr. EVANS. That is the extent of the information that was called to
my attention, yes.
Senator MORGAN. You never received any information that their
involvement was to any extent further than occasional moral
encouragement?
Mr. EVANS. I don't know that I am qualified to characterize it in that
manner.
Senator MORGAN. Well, to your knowledge, those two or three that
you did know about were not leaders in the Martin Luther King movement,
were they?
Mr. EVANS. They were leaders to the extent that it was my understanding
that they exercised great influence with Dr. King.
Senator MORGAN. Isn't it true that the records reflect, and you've
reviewed these records, that the extent of their involvement was conversations
with Martin Luther King by telephone, and maybe one or
two meetings with him?
Mr. EVANS. I think generally that is it, although I don't know that
one or two meetings is necessarily correct.
Senator MORGAN. But at any rate, in .Tuly of 1963, the Attorney Genpral
asked you, or asked the Bureau, to engage in a technical surveillance
of Dr. King. did he not?
185
:YIr. EVANS. That is conect.
Senator :YIORGAN. And you advised them at that time you didn't
think that was practical or feasible, because he was traveling a great
deal and due to possible repercussions if their surveillance were
discovered?
Mr. EV.\NS. The record so reflects; yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. The Attorney General responded that he was not
afraid of the repercussions, because he feared the dangers of Communist
influence?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. So thereafter, acting on his directions, you did
submit a request for approval for wiretaps, did you not, or the Bureau
did?
Mr. EVANS. The Bureau did, yes. I had no personal involvement.
Senator MORGAN. 'Vhen that request was submitted, Mr. Schwarz
asked you if the Attorney General did not turn it down. He did turn it
down. didn't he ?
Mr: EVANS. That is my understanding.
Senator MORGAN. But according to your memorandum of October 10,
1963, he turned it down because of the reason you had stated to him
previously: the difficulty in obtaining or fonowing through on such
technical surveillance, and the possible repercussions.
Mr. EVANS. It was just my understanding that he had second
thoughts about this matter, and was not going to approve it.
Senator MORGAN. He noted that the last thing we could afford was to
have a discovery of a wiretap on King. You stated that in your memorandum
of October 10, 1963 ?
Mr. EvANS. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator MORGAN. And in one other place you stated that his reasons
were substantially those that you had given to him in the beginning?
Mr. EVANS. I assume that to be true; yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. An right, but later on he did approve technical
surveillance of Dr. King in a number of places.
Mr. EVANS. That is my understanding.
Senator MORGAN. And you testified that you did not advise the Attorney
General of the bugs that were placed in his hotel rooms and
around the country.
Mr. EVANS. I did not.
Senator MORGAN. Do you know whether he was advised of that fact?
Mr. EVANS. No; I do not.
Senator MORGAN. Do you not know if he was given information
obtained by this type of surveillance?
Mr. EVANS. On the basis of the memorandums that have been shown
to me, it appears that one or more documents were transmitted to him
which log-ically could have arisen from such sources. But I have no
personal knowledg-e that he was ever told specifically the identity of
the source.
Senator MORGAN. You say you have no personal knowledge, but
logically it could have been concluded that it came from such source.'3.
And the truth is that it could only come from such sources. Isn't it,
Mr. Evans? •
Mr. EVANS. Kat nece&'3arilv.
Senator MORGAN. From \~-here else could it have come?
186
~1r. EVAXS. It could well have come from a live individual present
at the time.
Senator ~10RGAK. How long did you continue in your role of briefing
the Attorney General?
~lr. EYAxs. l~ntil December 196-1.
Senator MORGAl\'. After December, what role did you assume? Did
you retire from the Bureau then?
. Mr. EVANS. I retired from the Bureau.
Senator MORGAN. I have a few questions for Mr. DeLoach.
~1r. DeLoach, I believe you testified that you knew nothing about
the name-check business.
Mr. DELOACH. That's not exactly correct, sir. I said it was not under
my jurisdiction at the particular time the questions were concerned.
Senator MORGAN. \Vell. whether or not it was under your super,-
ision, you knew about it and your successor, Mr. Bishop, was responsible
for it? Didn't Mr. Bishop succeed you in that role?
Mr. DELOACH. No, sir. Mr. 'Wick succeeded me as Assistant Director
in charge of the Crime Records Division. Mr. Bishop came later, after
Mr. Wick retired.
Senator MORGAK. But the name-check system was a system whereby
the names of individuals could be pulled out of all of their criminal
records files, and put together, wasn't it?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I believe that I testified that the Crime
Records Division had only certain minor responsibilities with respect
to preparing memorandums, in-house for the most part, concerning
name checks. The name-check section was over in one of the investigative
divisions of the FBI.
Senator MORGAK. But you were familiar with that; were you not?
Mr. DELOACH. Bas:cally, Senator, I knew what was going on,
yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. It was often used against defense attorneys by a
prosecuting attorney who would call for a name check against a
defense attorney ; wasn't it?
Mr. DELOACH. I have no knowledge of that, Senator.
Senator MORGAN. Do you know that it's not true?
Mr. DELOACH. I am not aware of what you're talking about, Senator.
I am sorry.
Senator MORGAK. Isn't it a fact when U.S. attorneys would be
involved in litigation and defense attorneys would be defending indi\-
iduals of some repute, quite often you would conduct a name check
on the defense attorn.ey to find what information you could about him,
at the request of r.S. attorneys?
Mr. DEl..oACH. That may have happened in the field, Sena.tor. I don't
have any specific recollections of it happening at the seat of government,
at FBI headquarters. However, if the Attorney General requested
such information, we would furnish it to him. Here again,
this would be handled by the name-check section and most probably
not by the Crime Records Division.
Senator MORGAN. The truth is that you did a full background memo
on Leonard Bodine, who was ruttorney for Dr. Spock in 1968.
~lr. DELOACH. The Crime Records Division?
Senator ~rORGAX. Yes. 'Vas it Crime or the Federal Bureau of
Ilwestigation? Don't pin it down.
187
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I don't recall any specific memorandum on
Mr. Bodine. It may have been prepared but I don't r&all it.
Senator MORGAN. You're not in a position to say that it didn't
happen?
Mr. lliLoAClf. I don't recall any such memorandum, Senator. It
may have been shown to me, but I don't recall it at this time, Senator.
Senator MORGAN. It was shown to you in your deposition; wasn't
it?
Mr. DELoACH. It could have been. I had approximately 750 or over
700 memorandums shown to me, Senator.
Senator MORGAN. You just don't recall that one at all.
Mr. DELoACH. That's correct, sir.
Senator MORGAN. Let me go on, Mr. Chairman, if I could have a
minute or two. Mr. DeLoach, is it a matter of routine for the Bureau
to do a background check, or to gather information, on all candidates
who vie for the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Senate?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, to the best of my recollection there was such
a program where information was furnished to Mr. Hoover concerning
candidates for the Congress, and if such a candidate were elected,
Mr. Hoover would send him a note of congratulations.
Senator MORGAN. The information sent Mr. Hoover also contained
summaries of the candidate's background, personal habits, and whether
or not he might be friendly toward the Bureau; did it not?
Mr. DELOACH. I recall specifically that it contained a paragraph or
a statement or a sentence, what have you, as to whether or not they
were friendly to the Bureau, yes, sir.
Senator MORGAN. They were also used in your lobbying with Congressmen
on the Hill. One of the purposes of having this information
was that it might be helpful in dealing with the Congress. Is that correct?
Mr. DELoACH. I am certain that's correct, sir.
Senator MORGAN. That practice not only extended to members of the
Congress but to candidates for State office, did it not, such as candidates
running for attorney general of a State, or even Governors ?
Mr. DELOACH. I don't recall that, Senator.
Senator MORGAN. Well, I'll ask you, sir, if you didn't do one on me
in 1968 when I filed for the office of the attorney general of the State
of North Carolina?
Mr. DELoACH. I don't recall that specifically, but I'm sure if it was
done, I'm sure there was no derogatory information.
Senator MORGAN. You are sure that it was done on me and other
candidates because it was the practice. at that time; wasn't it?
Mr. DELOACH. I can't state that, Senator, because I cannot recan
such a practice concerning State officers.
Senator MORGAN. You followed it up by sending so-called liaison
agents to various conferences of State officials. Liaison agents who
submitted memorandums to the criminal records file concerning the
activities of those officials at these national conferences; didn't they?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I do not recall such a program concerning
State officials. To me that would be a considerable waste of time. It
may have been done in some minor instances, but I do not recall it and
I say again I'd like to reiterate it would be a considerable waste of time
considering the backbreaking responsibilities of the FBI.
188
Senator )IORG_\X. I'll agree ,vith you that it would be a considerable
waste of time and a contemptible action. but I will also state to
you that you did it. and yon made memorandums as to whether or
not the officials were considered friendly or unfriendly to the Bureau.
~~~. ..
:Mr. DEI.iOACH. You ha,-e information I do not have.
Senator MORGAX. It is in mv file.
Senator TOWER. Senator Buker?
Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am sorry
I haven't been here for the entire testimony of these witnesses, because
I am sure it has been yery helpful. This is not my first opportunity
to question :Ml'. DeLoach. I remember previously in 1973 in the
,Yatergate inquiry, that ,ve had an opportunity to jntervi~w hi~, and
I have here with me an abstract of the substance of that mtervIew at
that time. Mr. DeLoach. do 'lOU remember that, interview?
Mr. DELOACH. I do.' .
Senator BAKER. Do you remember what response you gave me, at the
time, as to whether you had any telephonic link or communication between
the Democratic National Convention in 1964 and the White
House?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I believe you asked me the question whether
I had a direct telephone to the 'White House from Atlantic City, and
I believe I answered in the negative. That would be my answer today
again, sir.
Senator BAKER. I don't have the full transcript here. I'm not trying
to trap you.
Mr. DEl.DACH. Certainly. I understand, Senator.
Senator BAKER. But do you remember whether you indicated there
was effective communication link between the FBI observation post at
that convention and the ""bite House '?
Mr. DEWACH. There was a definite effective link between the office
maintained by the special squad in Atlantic City and those individuals,
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Moyers, as assigned by the President to their
offices, Senator.
Senator BAKER. Do you recall telling me at that time that your contacts
with the White House were Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Califano, Mr.
Moyers. and Mr. Marvin 'Vatson?
Mr. DEwAcn. I do not remember saying Mr. Califano. I could
have, Senator, and I do not remember saying Mr. Watson. To my
knowledge, to the best of my recollection, I met Mr. Watson only once
in Atlantic City and I don't recall any contacts with him.
Senator BAKER. The information I have here is not the original
transcript. The staff memorandum is that your reply in that respect
was on page 9, line 21 of your testimony. Your contacts at that time in
the White House were Walter ,Jenkins, Joe Califano, William Moyers,
and Marvin Watson. Do you know anything now that would dispute
that in your mind or contradict that in your mind?
Mr. DEl"oACH. I distinctly recall communicating and the ag-ents on
the squad being in communication with Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Moyers.
But Senator, may I say when you interrogated me approximately 2
years ago, 10 years had elapsed since the Democratic National Convention
in 1904-. Thad been shown no memorandums whatsoever to refresh
189
my memory and I was testifying strictly on recollection of another era
10 years ago.
Senator BAKER ~\nd your memory and recollection has been
refreshed now.
Mr. DELoACH. To the extent of what you just read to me and it's
entirely possible that I did talk to Mr. Califano and Mr. ·Watson. I do
recall meeting Mr. 'Vatson on one occasion at the convention, but I do
not recall transmitting anything to him and I do not recall transmitting
anything to Mr. Califano.
Senator BAKER. Do you know whether or not the FBI had made a
practice of similar observation at other political conventions in the
past, or was this unique in the 1964 Democratic :Kabonal Convention?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I think the FBI historically has attempted
to maintain its intelligence responsibilities as laid down in the Exeeutive
order of 1939 with respect to any matter concerning strife or violence
that would interrupt a convention, or any other time and possibly
information previous to that. Now to go further, the FBI covered the
1968 Democratic convention from a local standpoint, a local field office
standpoint in Chicago because they anticipated such massive amounts
of violence which actually did occur. The FBI, as I recall, and although
I was not in the Bureau, I left the Bureau as you recall, in July
1970, which has been almost 6 years; but I do know that the FBI covered
the convention, the Republican convention in 1972 in Miami,
because, again, I understand there was a potential for considerable
violence and strife.
Senator BAKER. 'Vithout trying to differentiate between the coverage
of the several conventions, haven't they covered virtually every
Republican and Democratic convention since 1936?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I can't answer that.
Senator BAKER. To your knowledge?
Mr. DELoACH. To my knowledge I do not know, sir, and I would say
that so far as I know. the 1964 convention was the first time that the
special squad was sent to a convention. Otherwise, it had been handled
by the local field office.
Senator BAKER. One other question on the telephone link in 1964. I
have here a letter from A.T. & T. dated Septembe,r 17, 1975 [see
exhibit 43 1J, addressed to this committee saying in part that, "private
lines for security purposes were established from the FBI and Sooret
Service temporary communications center, Atlantic City to FBI headquarters
in the District of Columbia and to the White House PBX."
Does that conform with your understanding? Was there, in fact, an
FBI line directly to the White House PBX?
}fr. DELOACH. Not to my mind, Senator. We had a direct line to
the Washington, to the FBI headquarters.
Senator BAKER. 'Well, the letter ,is unclear. It says, it was estrubjished
to the FBI headquarters and to the White House, PBX for
the FBI and the Secret Service. I don't know if that means they
were done for 'the FBI at both places, or to just one. You have no
recolledion?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I do not recall 'any specific instance where
we had a direct line to the White House from Atlantic City. We did
have a direct line between Atlantic City and FBI headquarters in
Washington.
1 See p. 512.
190
Senator BAKER. Do you know ~nything about an FBI surveiUance
of Senator Goldwater and his staff during the time of the 1964
Convention?
~fr. DELOACH. 'Vould you repeat that?
SenaJtor BAKER. Yes, sir. Do you have any personal knowledge of
FBI surveillance of Senator Goldwater or his staff during the 1964
Convention?
:Mr. DELOACH. I have no personal recollection whatsoever and I
would doubt seTiously whether such thing ever happened. I would
have known about it if it had happened. Let me go one step further, if
I may, SenaJtor.
The statement has been made here today concerning name checks, or
investigations, so to speak. I forgot whether they said name checks or
investigations concerning Senator Goldwater's staff, and I believe
that occurred in 1963 or 1964, the request was made of me to make
so-oalled name checks of Senator Goldwater's staff. I came back and
told Mr. Hoover about it and Mr. Hoover said, what do you recommend,
and I told him I recommended we do nothing, and he said, I
agree with you. And that's exactly what we did, nothing. I told !the
White House nothing.
Senator BAKER. Mr. DeLoach, for my own personal information, tell
me in a general way how you received 'Uuthorizationat the FBI to
install technical surveillance, a telephone 'tap? What procedure did
you go through?
~fr. DELOACH. Senator to the best of my recollection, as I say most
of my experience was in the Crime Records Division which has been
previously described to you as the pU'blic relations arm of the Bureau,
but IMer on I be£ame Assistant to the Direotor. An interested division,
say the Domestic Intelligence Division, for example, would receive a
communication from 'a field office of the FBI indicating a recommendation
that a wiretap be placed on a specific individual, and containing
justification in that communication. Now, the Domestic Intelligence
Division would then prepare a memorandum to Mr. Hoover where
they would reflect fully the name of the individual and the proposed
justification. It would go up the line, through the various officials to
Mr. Hoover's office, and aU'ached 'to that'communication would be a
letter of communication to the Attorney General requesting his approval
and setting forth the so-called justification.
Senator BAKER. From Hoover to the Attorney General?
Mr. DElA)ACII. Yes, sir, that is correct, sir. Mr. Hoover, if he
approved it, I would then ask one of his secretaries. I believe it was
~Is. Edna Holmes for the most part, to take this communication to
the Attorney Geneml's office and to wait there for the answer--or to
go back after it personally for personal deNvery and personal return
to Mr. Hoover's office re~arding the wishes of the Attorney Genernl
concernin~ the matter. W'hen she received a telephone call, or when
she was given the approval by the Attorney General, she would bring
that communication back 'to Mr. Hoover and he would route it back
to ,the interested division.
Senator BAKER. Generally the memorandum from Hoover to the
Attorney General would carry an approval space for the Attorney
General's name or initials on the bottom, is that correct ~
~fr. DEI.JOAcH. I believe so, sir. Let me say that he always either gave
approval or disapprm'al of such a matter on a personal basis.
,
I
191
Senator BAKER. And the FBI never did wiretaps, to your knowledge,
without the approval of the Attorney General?
Mr. DELoACH. I can't recall any instances, Senator, no. It was a
very established policy, I believe Mr. Evans will agree with me here,
that you must have the agreement of the Attorney General to establish
an electronic surveillance.
Senator BAKER. As far as you know, that was adhered to strictly?
Mr. DELoACH. So far as I know; yes, sir.
Senator BAKER. I take it that on occasion there may have been requests
by Attorneys General to the Bureau to initiate technical surveillance?
Mr. DELOACH. Yes; I believe there have been such instances.
Senator BAKER. Do you know of any such instances related to newsmen
or radio or television personalities which involved wiretaps?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, the only recollection I could have was with
respect to the Nixon administration where the Attorney General, Mr.
Mitchell, called over to FBI headquarters on one occasion and indicated,
or instructed, that the President wanted this done and it should
bedone.
Senator BAKER. Who was that about?
Mr. DELoACH. I don't recall that, sir.
Senator BAKER. I've just been notified that my time has expired. I
would like to pursue that line of questioning further, but Mr. Chairman,
if I may, I would ask instead that the witness provide us with a
list of newsmen or women who may have been wiretapped by the
Bureau during the time that he was there.
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, with due respect to that and in complete
courtesy to you and the committee, again reasserting my desire to be of
complete cooperation, I have been out of the FBI for many years now.
It would be better if that request could be directed to FBI headquarters,
I believe, sir.
Senator BAKER. Well, I think we could help you with that. We'll
show you a memorandum and ask you if you can verify it.
Mr. DELoACH. Yes,sir.
Senator BAKER. Thank you.
Senator TOWER. Senator Hart of Michigan.
Senator HART of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am developing a dilemma
this morning. I thought, with a deep conviction, that the worst
thing we could have at the FBI would be a politician. Now I'm beginning
to wonder if that isn't what we need, more than anything else,
someplace along the line. As I hear you, your statement to us is that
because you're a policeman, you can't make any judgment as to the
propriety of if a request comes to you from the White House or the
Attorney General.
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, may I say something there, please?
Senator HART of Michigan. Sure.
Mr. DELoACH. The FBI has always been established as simply an
investigative agency. The FBI does not make recommendations, has
never made recommendations, insofar as investigative activities are
concerned, and in my opinion in the future should not make recommen~
ations; but it should simply investigate, determine the facts, and
furmsh the faets to the Attorney General and/or the Department of
Justice, including the U.S. attorneys, where the final approval should
192
be given as to prosecution or not. Under no circumstances, in my
opinion, should the FBI ever become a determining f.actor whether
there should be prosecution or action taken concerning a specific matter.
They should simply ascertain the facts. They should pass on all
data.
Senator HART of Michigan. Yes. But if the White Houee calls you
and asks you to do a check on a critic, is there any hope that somebody
in the Bureau would be willing at least to question, or second-guess
the 'White House, as to whether this relates to national security or the
enforcement of criminal laws, or if it really is a misuse of the FBH
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I think there are several things that need
to be done here, if I may say so, sir, if you'll allow me to. First, the
guidelines, as laid down in the Executive order for domestic intelligence
jurisdiction in 1939 by President Roosevelt, and later reiterated
by President Truman, represents strictly an Executive order. The FBI
has been operating in the domestic intelligence field without any guidelines
or statutory authority from the Congress for many, many years.
This needs to be done. and this should be the responsibility of this
committee with respect to those recommendations. I am not trying
to throw this off on the committee. I am simply stating facts. But I
strongly feel that this committee should take that responsibility and
should lay down definite guidelines for the FBI, not only pertaining
to domestic intelligence jurisdiction, Senator, but also with respect to
the questions being asked of us as witnesses today.
Senator HART of Michigan. Were you aware of any instances where
requests to the FBI made by the White House, or by other administration
officials in the executive branch, were rebuffed by Mr. Hoover,
by yourself, or anybody else in the Bureau, on the basis that the request
was an improper use of the FBI?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, I do not recall any specific instances. I'm
sure there have b€en. I do know that on occasion requests from the
Department of Justice were considered by Mr. Hoover to be not within
the jurisdiction of the FBI, and he sent one of us lesser lights over
to discuss the matter with the appropriate Assistant Attorney General,
and/or the Attorney General and eithm- the request was withdrawn
or the Department insisted upon it and we did it. But information
from the 'White House, I am sure, was rebuffed by Mr. Hoover from
time to time, too. But I have no specific recollection.
Senator HART of Michigan. I think the record is left hanging a little
with respect to the Bureau's reactions to requests made by the White
Hous~ for name checks on Senator Goldwater's staff. It is my impresSIOn--
Mr. DELoACH. Well, Senator, we felt that to be purely political and
that's why I made the recommendation to Mr. Hoover.
Senator HART of Michigan. I'm told the next dav he went ahead
and did it. •
Mr. DELOACH. We did no name checks, Senaitor. We furnished no
information, as far as I know, to the best of mv recollection.
Senator HART of Michigan. I stand COITOOt:ed. You are COITect.
Mr. DELOACH. Thank you, sir.
Senator HART of Michigan. That is an instance where the Bureau
rebuffed a request as inappropriate.
193
Mr. DELoACH. Thank you, sir.
Senator HART of Michigan. Now, the incident I had in mind bore
on another public figure, Spiro Agnew. A request was made to get
telephone records of candidate Agnew. 'What happened on that
request?
Mr. DELoACH. I received a call from MI'. James .Jones. who was
the top assistant to the President at the time, Senator, to the best
of my recollection, late one evening. and he indicated the President
wanted information concerning either MI'. Nixon or Mr. Agnew insofar
as toll calls being made from Albuquerque, N.Mex. were con·
cerned. I told Mr. Jones I felt this was not a correct thing to do,
particularly at this time of night, and while we would try to comply
with the President's specific request, we would not do it that night.
The President then called me personally in my office late that night
and indicated that did he understand my refusal to Mr. Jones correctly,
and I said, yes, he did. I said, I thought that it would be
wrong for us to try to obtain such information that late at night.
The President then proceeded to tell me that he was the Commander
in Chief and that when he needed information of that nature, he
should get it. However, the conversation ensued that I reiterated my
objections to it, and the President indicated all right, try to get it
the following day. The Domestic Intelligence Division did geit in touch
with Albuquerque, and did obtain toll call slips. Now, this was no
electronic surveillance, Senator. This was merely a matter of going
to the telephone company and getting the results of toll calls made
from a certain number several days prior to that to Washington, D.C.
I believe there were five all total and this has 'been made a matter of
record in FBI files.
Senator HART of Michigan. I thought I was throwing you a slow
ball. I thought that was a case where you did reject the request. Apparently
the rejection hinged on, it is too late at night, we'll do it in
the morning.
Mr. DELOACH. You're absolutely right, Senator.
Senator HART of Michigan. There was the period when, as opposition
to Vietnam mounted in this country, the Senate Committee on
Foreign &llations under Chairman Fulbright, prepared for public
hearings.
Do you recall the incident involving the White House request
that the Bureau monitor statements by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee members in those television hearings~
Mr. DELOACH. Yes, Senator, my memory's been refreshed by committee
staff showing me memorandums in that regard. That was a
specific request from the White House? As I recalL sir, it was not a request
to monitor the television program. It was a reQuest to have an
agent present at the hearings. We refused to do that. 'Ve had agents sit
by a television set and monitor the hearings and then later furnished
reports to the 'Vhite House in that regard.
Senator HART of Michigan. 'Whether it was an agent present in a
hearing room or sitting elsewhere in front of a television set, the request
was that the Bureau monitor a legislative hearing, a congressional
hearing. The Bureau was then to analyze statements by members
of that committee questioning our Vietnam involvement to see if
parallels could be found between them and statements by Communists.
194
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I believe those were the expressed instructions
by the White House as given to the FBI.
Senator HART of Michigan. How did you hear those instructions?
\Vere they instructions of a neutral sort to see whether such parallels
exist, or to see if you can't find some parallels?
Mr. DELOACH. I don't recall specifically, Senator. I received the
instructions I believe, or Mr. Hoover received them and gave them to
the Domestic Intelligence Division, but as to the philosophy there, I
don't recall.
Senator HART of Michigan. Do you recall any discussion as to the
propriety of responding to that request?
Mr. DELOACH. \Vell, I think we were somewhat upset by it, but agaiJl
we complied with the instructions of the White House.
Senator HART of Michigan. Did you resolve your upset by concluding
that maybe some of the Senators or witnesses were acting as agents
of the international Communist conspiracy?
Mr. DELOACH. I would doubt that very seriously, Senator. I was not
aware of what was thought at the White House, but I would doubt that
very seriously.
Senator HART of Michigan. You were upset but you went ahead,
why, just because the White House asked you?
Mr. DELOACH. We complied with the instructions of the President
of the United States, Senator. Mr. Hoover approved it, after getting
the instruction from the President, and we followed our orders.
Here again, Senator--
Senator HART of Michigan. I pause only because I suspect this isn't
the kind of exciting action we associate with Dr. King's experience with
the Bureau. But to me, this one is equally bad. Communists and I
espouse many similar goals. I hope they are sincere and I hope I am
sincere. But if you get up to make a speech advocating improvements
in civil rights or the elimination of hunger, I am sure some Communist
is making the same speech somewhere else.
Mr. DELOACH. That could be, sir.
Senator HART of Michigan. I would hope that the Bureau is not
viewing somebody like me as a potential threat just because somebody
like that other fellow is saying the same thing. That is my concern
here.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I think, and in fairness to the Bureau,
we should invite the Bureau to furnish specific instances where
requests have been made by Presidents of the United States or persons
actmg in their behalf..-requests to undertake an investigation or some
activity which the Bureau has declined and continues to decline on
the grounds that it involved neither national security, nor the enforcemf'nt
of the Federal criminal laws.
Senator TOWER. The staff will be so directed.
Senator HART of Michigan. Let me tell you what my very able staff
man is telling me in this memo. Let me return to the question regarding
the name checks on the staff of Senator Goldwater in 1964. You
said no information was provided. Was that be<'ause you refused 01'
becanse you did the check and found nothing? Let me read from an
FBI memorandum indicating the check was done and you reported
back to ~1r. )foyers the negative results. This is dated .January 31.
1\)7;), "A I'rco)'(1 ropy of n letter to ~Ir. ~fo.vers dntrd Octolwr 27,1964.
195
is in the file and was hand delivered by )Ir. DeLoach on October 28,
~964. This letter advised that there was no derogatory information
III our files on 1:1 of the individuals mentioned." I assume those 13 were
Goldwater staffers. "But on two others there was, and those two and
the information bearing on them were furnished the 'White House.,.
[Exhibit 52].1 Does that refresh your recollection ~
~Ir. DELOACH. To the best of my recollection, Senator, as I recall
the incident, no information was given to the 1Vhite House concerning
Senator Goldwater's staff. Kot because of the fact that \ve did not
have information in the Bureau's files, but simply because the Bureau
did not desire to be involved in such a request.
Senator HART of Michigan. We will put this in the record. Somebody
is marching out of step here, somebody is clearly out of step.
This memorandum says that there were two individuals, whose names
I won't state.
Mr. DELOACH. 1Vere those members of the Senator's staff, sir?
Senator HART of Michigan. Yes.
Mr. DELOACH. I can only recall, to the best of my recollection, sir.
Senator HART of Michigan. I would ask that with the deletion of the
names that would be made part of the record, and your clarification
will be welcome.
Senator TOWER. Without objection, that will be made part of the
record at exhibit 52.
Mr. DeLoach, did the FBI institute physical surveillance of Mrs.
Claire Chennault on October 30, 1968, at the direction of the President
of the United States?
Mr. DELOACH. Senator, to the best of my recollection on that specific
case, the Executive Director, I believe the Executive Secretary of the
National Security Council, Mr. J. Bromley Smith, called me on one
occasion and indicated the President of the United States wanted this
done. I told Mr. Smith that I thought what he should do is call the
Attorney General concerning this matter, and I believe either Mr.
Hoover or I later received a call from the Attorney General indicating
that this should be done.
Senator TOWER. Was it done?
Mr. DELOACH. There was a physical surveillance on Mrs. Chennault,
yes, sir.
Senator TOWER. What did it include?
Mr. DELOACH. The usual physical surveillance, as I recall, Senator.
following- her to places where she went in the city of Washington, and
as I recall a statement made this morning, also a trip that she made to
New York.
Senator TOWER. Did it involve the constant monitoring of any and
all of her incoming and outgoing telephone calls?
Mr. DELOACH. I believe the instructions of the President and the
specific instruction and approval of the Attorney General, that a
wiretap was placed on her telephone, sir.
Senator TOWER. So during the period of time between October 30.
and November 7, all of her telephonic communications were monitored
by the Bureau?;
1 See p. 539.
196
Mr. DELoACH. I don't recall the specific dates, Senator, but I do
lmow that such surveillance ,vas established.
Senator TOWER. \Vho was the Attorney General at the time ~
Mr. DELoACH. In 1968, sir?
Senator TOWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. DELoACH. I believe that would have been .Mr. Clark.
Senator TOWER. \Yould the FBI have undertaken this surveillance
on its own initiative had they not been directed by the Attorney General
to do so ~
::\11'. DELoACH. That was the reason I referred ::\Ir. Smith to the
Attorney General. I felt that we should have the Attorney General's
concurrence. and as I testified earlier, tD my knowledge the FBI did
not place wiretaps on individuals unless it had th.e approval of the
Attorney General. The answer therefore would be "no."
Senator TOWER. Turning tD Dr. King, was Attorney General Katzenbach
ever informed of the Bureau's surveillance on Dr. King~
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I cannot answer that. I did not maintain
liaison ,vith Attorney General Katzenbach, and I was not on the
operational side of the house at the time, side of the FBI. Consequently,
I cannot answer that.
Senator TOWER. Did the \Yhite House, did the President or anyone
acting in his behalf at any time request or receive political intelligence
on Members of the U.S. Senate?
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, there may have been such instances on the
part of the White House, requests from them. I don't recall specific instances,
but there could have been.
Senator TOWER. Was such intelligence gathering ever undertaken?
Mr. DELoAOH. I don't recall any instance where the President of the
United States requested the FBI tD specifically investigate a Senator
or a Member of the Congress unless that person was being considered
for an appointment to a commission or a committee. Now, I do recall
one specific instance where the White House specifically requested
the FBI, they made the request, I believe, of Mr. Hoover, that Senators
or Members of the Congress entering a certain establishment,
diplomatic establishment, that those matters be brought to the attention
of the President.
Senator TOWER. Mr. Evans.
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.
Senator TOWER. During your tenure as the liaison with Attorney
General Kennedy, did he direct you tD place Hanson Baldwin of the
New York Times under surveillance ~
Mr. EVANS. I believe. Senator, on the basis of the record that has
been exhibited tD me, that this was a request from the Attorney General
to Mr. Hoover. It did not come to me personally.
Senator TOWER. \Vho implemented that? Was that under your-Mr.
EVANS. That was not under my jurisdiction. I would be glad to
explain the very limited knowledge I had of the whole affair, if you
like.
SenatDr TOWER. I would like to know why he was placed under
surveillance.
Mr. EVANS. That, sir, I cannot answer for you. My knowledge does
not go to that area.
197
Senator TOWER. 'Were any other journalists or personalities in the
mass media placed under surveillance by orders of the Attorney General
or the President, to your knowledge?
Mr. EVANS. The only other example that I might cite is that in
connection with the Baldwin c.overage there was also coverage of one
of his assistants.
Senator TOWER. Thank vou, Mr. Evans. Do counsel have any questions?
Mr. Schwarz. •
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. DeLoach, we've been talking largely about requests
from the ""Vhite House for name check information or information
about critics. Has the Bureau, in your experience, volunteered to
the White House information about persons believed to be critical of
the ""Vhite House?
Mr. DELOACH. Mr. Schwarz, I've been gone from the FBI for approximately
not quite 6 years, and my recollection therefore is somewhat
hazy concerning the matter, but I don't recall any specific
memorandums. It may have happened, but I don't recall.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Didn't we show you a memorandum which showed
you precisely that, relating to a person who had written a play critical
of President Lyndon Johnson?
Mr. DELoACH. xII'. Schwarz, the committee staff has showed me over
700 memorandums. I do not recall the specific memorandum.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. There is such a memorandum, but you
turned it over and it was volunteered.
Senator TOWER. Do you have any questions, Mr. Smothers?
Mr. SMOTHERS Kothing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator TOWER. Thank you, Mr. DeLoach and Mr. Evans.
Mr. DELoACH. Senator, I would like, if I may, to say one thing.
Senator Morgan in his remarks or closing comments made it appear
somewhat that I personally was responsible for keeping tabs on him.
I would like the record to reflect that I have never met Senator Morgan,
I knew nothing about him, and I certainly did not keep any tabs
on him.
Senator TOWER. I don't think he intended to mean that you had done
so personally, but that the Bureau had and it was in his file. So that is
an established fact. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing
and cooperating with the committee.
The witnesses this afternoon-let's have order please--the witnesses
this afternoon will be former Attorney General Katzenbach and former
Attorney General Clark. The committee will stand in recess until
2 p.m. this afternoon.
[Whereupon, at 12 :45 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2
p.m., the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator TOWER. 'Vill the committee please come to order. Our witnesses
this afternoon are former Attorneys General Nicholas Katzenbach
and Ramsey Clark. They are here not only to provide us with
factual information, but I believe they have some views which we
should value considering their experience on reform measures that the
committee might consider.
I have been asked to announce that the general counsel of the committee,
Mr. Schwarz, has disqualified himself from participating in
198
the questioning of Mr. Katzenbach and has disqualified himself from
any preparation in the questioning of Mr. Katzenbach, in that he has
represented ~1r. Katzenbach on occasion in a legal connection.
Gentlemen, would you rise and be sworn. please? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you're about to giyc before this committee is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. CLARK. I do.
Mr. KATZENBACH. I do.
Senator TOWER. Do you gentlemen have counsel with you?
Mr. KATzENBACH. No. I have friends who are lawyers here, but Pm
not being reprel~ntedby counsel.
Senator TOWER. And you, Mr. Clark?
Mr. CLARK. No, Pm here by myself.
Senator TOWER. 'Ve will first hear opening statements by the witnesses.
Mr. Katzenbach, you may proceed if you wish.
TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS deB. KATZENBACH
Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I have
submitted a long stawment to the committee and I would like now
just to read a brief summary of it.
Senator TOWER. Your full statement will be printed in the record
and you may summarize if you like.
Mr. KATZENBACH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Nicholas deB. Katzenbach follows:]
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DEB. KATZE~BACH, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Chairman and members of the select committee, this committee has uncovered
and publicly exposed activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
which were unlawful, grossly improper and a clear abuse of governmental authority.
According to the testimony before this committee, some of those activities
took place while I was Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General.
Some of those revelations have surprised me greatly. Some, such as the extent
of the FBI's attempt to intimidate, to harass and to discredit Dr. Martin Luther
King have shocked and appalled me. Those activities were unlawful and reprehensible.
They served no public purposes. They should be condemned by this
Committee.
My surprise and shock stem more from the fact that these activities occurred
with the apparent knowledge and approval of J. Edgar Hoover than from t.he
fact that I, as Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, was unaware of
them. Mr. Hoover dedicated his life to building a Federal Bureau of Investigation
which enjoyed a great and deserved reputation for integrity, efficiency and
dedication to public service. Even in a world which he believed was questioning
and rejecting some of the values which :\lr. Hoover so esteemed-patriotism, respect
for law, sexual mores grounded in marriage and family, the work ethic,
I would not have expected him to risk the Bureau's reputation-his life's workby
resorting to unlawful or improper tactics.
I was aware of the fact that the Director held political views far more conservative
than my own or those of the administrations which I served. I knew
that on occasion he promoted those views on the Hill, without consultation with
me and sometimes in opposition to administration policy. I knew the intensity of
his views on the dangers of communism. on the decline of moral standards, on
the evils of permissiveness, on the lack of respect for law and order. I knew that
as Mr. Hoover grew older and the country changed-for the worse, in his viewthe
intensity of those feelings and his frustration at what was taking place
grew. I knew that :\Ir. Hoover was extremely sensitive to any criticism whatsoever
and that he deeply llnd persoually resented public criticism by civil rights
leaders, and especially that made by Dr. King.

Go to Next Page