MEETING WIHT HOWARD LIEBENGOOD, SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES STAFF, RE BAKER SUMMARY AND SUPPLEMENT

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01482016
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: June 26, 1974

Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
P.astistTy
OLC 74-1404-
26 June 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with Howard Liebengood, Senate Select Committee
on Presidential Campaign Activities staff, re Baker
Summary and Supplement
1. Baker Summary.
a. Substance. Howard Liebengood, Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities staff,
believes the vast majority of our preliminary comments
were well taken: he will redraft the report to incorporate
those he agrees with and we will have an opportunity to
reclamer on the revised version. I said this was
important since now that we have had an opportunity to
review Mullen's testimony, we see that Mullen himself
disclaimed that Helms leaned on Mullen to hire Hunt.
b. Supplemental Comments. As backup for the
summary Baker report, there is being prepared a more
detailed supplement for at least each of the five substantive
sections (Mullen, Pennington, Tapes, TSD, Martinez).
These supplements will consist of sourced "proof" and a
"digest" of documents upon which the report is based
and would be in lieu of the publication of the transcripts
and 10 volumes of material. I observed this was a
reasonable and responsible approach. Liebengood then
gave me a copy of the supplement on the Mullen Company
which consists of about 20-25 pages, the digest of material
documents, and footnotes for our review, for 1) sanitization,
and 2) our preliminary comments, if any, for inclusion in
a revision of the supplement. Further, supplements will be
given to us as they are prepared. The Martinez supplement
is now one-fourth done and he hopes to finish it tonight.
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
2. CIA Transcripts and Volumes. With respect to the disposition
of the transcripts of CIA witnesses and the 10 volumes of material,
Liebengood believes that at least a copy of the original and a sanitized
version should be placed in an appropriate respository (possibly
Archives) and sealed. The Committee would not retain the material.
He mentioned one important reason for this is the "Brady Rule" concerning
discovery which he feels will be resorted to with respect to some of this
material. (It was not until after I returned to the office that I learned from
Mr. Cary that Dash had advised that the Select Committee, on the basis of
Mr. Colby's letter of the 24th, had rejected Baker's motion to print his
report and perhaps publish all of the CIA material. Senator Baker,
however, does have the right to submit individual views which apparently
is what we are working on with Liebengood.)
3. Sanitization - Baker Report. We then reviewed the Agency's
suggested security deletions from the Baker summary report and
identified the following issues for possible further resolution:
a. In the sentence opposite our marginal
note, number 20, Liebengood maintains that it is
important that Robert Maheu's name not be deleted
and that some phrase like South America be inserted
for the deleted
b. In the sentence above our marginal note 34b,
he would like to propose a rewrite which would at least
keep in the word Mexico and a cover relation there.
(b)(3)
c. In the paragraph opposite our marginal note 94,
he felt we ought to leave in name since (b)(3)
it has already been publicized. I told him that our
concern was that we did not want to hang the sobriquet
"lock picker" on by name and Liebengood said he had (b)(3)
no big hangup on this, indicating the deletion suggests the
existence of an additional actor beyond those identified
so far. I retorted that inherent in every deletion is this
problem and it is one of the reasons their publication
is such a difficult proposition for us.
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
e. In the paragraph below marginal note 106,
and the line opposite marginal note 109, Liebengood
argued that the phrase "maritime, operations" is not
classified since it is understood that the Agency would
conduct such operations. He feels it is important to
correct the impression created by Helms and others
that Martinez was performing only the most mundane
of tasks. I told Liebengood that I thought we were in
factual disagreement since Martinez' tasks were very
routine and that the principle reason for his continuing
on the payroll was the rehabilitative one to give him
an opportunity to learn a livelihood which would get
him off the payroll. Liebengood maintains that the
testimony, specifically Esterline's, contradicts this.
f. Regarding the paragraph opposite marginal
note 125, Liebengood felt very strongly that
name should not be deleted. I told him I thought we would
have real problems with this since inclusion of his name
in the text would finger the and cause
associated problems. As an alternative I suggested that
they be satisfied with revision of the paragraph confirming
but made no commitment in this
respect.
g. With respect to paragraph 7 in the "Action
Required" section, he contended that we should not
delete the names
He gave me no good reason other than the
fact that their names have already been publicized.
He agrees that both turned down
Hunt's propositions. With respect to he was not
sure about publication, but said there had been speculation
and that role was important since during the
casing of Dr. Fielding's office, Hunt got from the
3
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
name of an attorney in the event he might need one,
Hunt stayed at
was in Mexico,
. recommended Bittman as
counsel for Hunt after the Watercra.te break-in and
that Hunt had been in touch with
Grand Jury.
as had
testimony before the
h. Regarding paragraph 11 of the "Action Required"
section, Liebengood felt there was no justification on
classification grounds for deleting this material since
it raises the question as to whether McCord did have
emotional problems and if he didn't, why did we advise
the Secret Service that he did. I explained our deletion
on the basis that we really had no evidence of any such
problem and did not want to pillory McCord with such a
statement in the record since in our opinion it contributed
absolutely nothing.
4. In general, Liebengood complimented the restraint we had
shown in our security deletions. However, he felt the deletion of my
name was hard. to swallow on classified grounds but that he had no
objection to its deletion along with other names in principle. As a
substitute for the deletions in the revision of the report, he is going
to insert titles for the names deleted.
5. Colson Allegations. At the end of our session, Liebengood,
on the basis that he would deny the statement if I attributed it to him,
said it was absolutely false that Colson had seen the I March
memorandum in Baker's home. I said that I was glad to hear this but
asked if he could make the statement that no one in the Baker group had
granted Colson access to the document, and he said they had not.
He then said that some of their questions to Colson may have suggested
the contents of the document but I said I could not buy that because the
newspaper report was too detailed even though garbled and he agreed.
He maintained he was very confused and perplexed by the entire situation
and over who is doing what to whom.
4
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016
6. Action, was apprised of this development and
copies of the supplement were sent to him which he will staff out,with
the IG, OS, within the DDO and OGC for substantive comments and
suggested security deletions.
Dep ty Legislative Counsel
5
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01482016