JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R002700020033-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 9, 2005
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: February 27, 1978
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R0027000200s
1NT RNAL USE ONLY
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 8
Monday - 27 February 1978
31. (Internal Use Only - MMP) BRIEFINGS Diane LaVoy,
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staff, called with
a total of eight requests: (a) three separate but related requests for
briefings on Operations Center computer use of extracting intelligence
and the CONTEXT system, the Task Force system and how the one 25X1
currently in being (on Somalia) functions, and a follow up to the handlin
of last years' "Berlin tensions. " After checking with
NFAC/CSS, I relayed these requests to C/Operations Gen 1
We agreed to set aside 1415 to 1615 hours on 2 March to brief Ms. LaVoy
in the Operations Center. I called Ms. LaVoy back and confirmed this
appointment with her. (b) four separate requests about various offices in
NFAC - Current Reporting Group, Office of Weapons Intelligence, Office
of Strategic Research, and both China and Africa within ORPA. Additionally,
she asked for a listing of the NIOs, both b name and function. I have
passed all of these requests to 'n writing and have requestec~5X1
that we set up a briefing for Diane on 6 or 7 March 1978.
110000
32. (Unclassified - MMP) LIAISON Jeanne McNally, secretary
to Thomas K. Latimer, Staff Director, House. Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, called to relay a request from :Representative Robert
McClory (R., Ill.) about the location of Soviet dissident camps for dissidents
per se and described the usual methods of handling dissidents. I suggested
to Jeanne that the request might not be precisely what we had just discussed,
and subsequently I received a call from Tom Latimer saying that
Representative McClory's interest was in the displacement of Lithuanians
et cetera within the Soviet Union. T,1ve r /rrcc ....,....._ ~L ?5X1 ,
lvi.r. uutu ler.
Ms. McNally asked me whether 0900 would be an acceptable hour
for the 15 March date that I had indicated to her was agreeable to the DCI
for an open hearing (for the Subcommittee on Oversight chaired by
Representative Les Aspin (D., Wis.) on the DCI's regulation on CIA
dealing with the U. S. press. I told Jeanne that I would get back to her
and passed this inquiry on to Office of Legislative Counsel. 25X1
Qf L
INTERNAL U ,,,E
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-R?P81 M00980R002700020033-5
 Approved For Release 2007/031 N , M P if 0980R002700020033-5
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel
Monday, o 27 February 1978
Page 4
15. LIAISON Phoned Earl Eisenhower,
Senate Select o ee on luCel Bence staff, and informed him I had had
a search done of both Office of Security and DDO files, in response to the
allegations o of New York City, that she was being
investigated by the Agency and that we had no record whatsoever of her.
attorney had written to Senator Howard H. Baker (R., Tenn.),
who asked the Select Committee to look into this matter. I agreed to give 25X1
Eisenhower a blind memorandum on this subject.
17. BRIEFING NE Division,25X1
DDO, briefed tan Taylor, Angelo Codevilla, Abe Shulsky, Catherine
Essoyan, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff, and Richard
Beal, consultant to the Committee, on the recent Egyptian/Cypriot
terrorist incident. This was another in a series of briefings this group
is receiving in order to evaluate Governmental capabilities against
international terrorism.
18.
LIAISON Returned via courier to
Abe Shulsky, Senate IS-elect Committee on Intelligence staff, the paper which
the Soviet emigre gave to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan's (D., N. Y.) New York
office on the Soviet missile program along with a translation of it.
19. LIAISON Received a call from Debbie
Dubrule, Joint Economic Committee, who asked that George Tyler, also
of the Committee, be put on the subscription list to receive the "International
Energy Biweekly Statistical Review. " I told her I would arrange it.
20. LIAISON Took a call from Ken Klein,
House Sele sinations staff, who reiterated the request
for access to th aper. I explained that both Jackie
Hess and Gary Cornwell of the Committee, had already called with that
request and tha would return his call within a few days to
convey our response.
Approved For Release 2Q7/Q3103 ; QIA 7PDPQ1,MQ0980R002700020033-5
 Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
INTERNAL USE ONLY JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Monday - 27 February 1978
1. (Unclassified - NDL) LIAISON Per her earlier request, I
sent to Ann Proctor, Staff Assistant to Senator Thomas F. Eagleton
(D., Mo.), the January 1978 issue of the National Basic Intelligence
Factbook.
V- (Unclassified - THW) LIAISON Ernest Evans, Senate Armed
Services Committee staff, called requesting an unclassified report on
the portion of the Soviet military budget that goes to manpower. They
intend to use such a report, if one exists, in open session. If no unclassified
report exists, they would still like to obtain classified information on the
same subject. The request is from the Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel. I told Mr. Evans I would call him back. _Jwill follow-25X1
up on this.
4. (Internal Use Only - THW) LIAISON Called David Bushong,
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staff, to see if he had any indication
how the-,deletions in the Senate debate were being received by the various
Senators. He suggested I call Bill Miller, the Committee's Staff Director,
which I did. Miller indicated that no one had any problems so far.
vlfx . ! TER t,L US F O"' -,/
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002749 0033-5
 Apt-For Release 2007/03/03: Ch P81 M00980R002700020033-5
Central Intelligence Agency
V shington. D. C 20505
OLC: 78-0665/a
Honorable Robert F. Drinan
House of Representatives
.Washington, D..C. 20515
Dear Mr. Drinan:
This letter is in response to your letter of 7 February 1978
concerning CIA intelligence activities.
There has been established within the Intelligence Community for
more than three decades a program whereby persons may voluntarily
provide information on matters of intelligence interest. This information..
principally from U. S. citizens, has proven over the years to be of
inestimable value in keeping the United States Government abreast
of significant foreign developments in broad areas of importance.
.
The authority for the Director of Central Intelligence to undertake
such a program is contained in Executive Order 12036, Sections 1-801
and 1-809 (copy attached).
I fully appreciate your concern that the families of such persons
who have. remained abroad may be subject to reprisals if the cooperation
with the United States Government of their relatives is revealed. I
wish to assure you that I am well aware of the sensitivities involved. In
accordance with my statutory responsibility for the protection of intelligence
sources and methods, any information collected through this program is
handled with the most stringent controls and limited dissemination while
at the same time protecting as inviolate the identities of our sources.
I trust that the foregoing is responsive to your request.
Yours sincerely,
/5/ StU i 2 i u:
STANSFIELD TURNER
Enclosure
cc: DCI DDCI Dist.: Orig - Addressee
ER DDO 1 - OLC Subject
1 - OLC Chrono
OLC:MDC:mlg (22 February 1978)
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
 r
Approved For Release 2007/05 ' " l%AtAM00980R002700020033-5
The Honorable Birch Bayh, Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United.States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
OLC 77-5457/b
tA/l Pha
2 7 FEB 1978 S5 C/
This is in response to Senator Inouye's letter to me (Q#1070) requesting
answers to eight questions on the Helms matter and copies of all correspondence
between the Attorney General, or any other representative of the Department
of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency requesting access to or use of
documents in the investigation or prosecution of Richard Helms regarding his
testimony before Congress.
We have been informed by the Department of Justice that, while the case 'against
Ambassador Helms has been resolved, an investigation of certain ITT officials and
other persons is being actively pursued. Many of the documents which were relevant
to the Helms investigation are also relevant to the current investigation and, for that
reason, the Department is reluctant at this time to provide copies of the DOJ-CIA.
correspondence on the case.
Below are set forth answers to the questions contained in your letter:
Q. (1) How many "potentially relevant" documents were identified? Did
the Department of Justice explain what use it planned to make of these documents?
Were Justice Department representatives prepared to use the information in
questioning witnesses, in presentation of the documents to the grand jury, or
for the actual use at trial? Did they distinguish which documents were to be
used for developing the perjury charge, the so-called "ITT-cover-up" charge,
or some other charge?
A. The Department of Justice attorneys were given access to Agency
information, including classified operational traffic, intelligence reports
and internal memoranda relating to operations and events in Chile in order
that they might determine which documents fell within the ambit of the CIA-ITT-
Chile investigation. From this corpus of documentary information the Department
of Justice investigators identified materials which they considered relevant to the
investigation. These documents, including 55,102 pages of material which were
numerically stamped, were retained in special safes within the CIA, Office
of General Counsel. The materials so identified filled four, four-drawer safes.
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
 proved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
Drawing from this total collection the Department of Justice investigators then
asked that some 758 documents, attachments and daily calendars and logs be
reviewed to determine whether and to what extent they could be declassified for
use as evidence in the course of the investigation.
The Agency was not informed which documents were to be used for developing
a perjury charge, the so-called "ITT-cover-up" charge or some other charge. Nor
was it informed whether the documents were to be used solely for presentation, to
the grand jury or also were to be used in questioning witnesses and for actual 'use
at trial. To the best of our knowledge, however, the -Department was interested in
using these documents for all of these purposes, but at a minimum they wanted the
latitude to use these documents as required.
Q Q. (2) Did the Department of Justice explain what protective action
they intended to take with respect to these documents? Did they express any
willingness to sanitize the documents to use in camera procedures; to refrain
from using some documents in the grand jury or in public trials and limit their
use only to interviews? Or, did they simply request bulk declassification of all
of the documents which they reviewed?
- A. The Department of Justice requested total declassification of the
documents required so that they could be freely used for investigative and pro-
secutive purposes. Documents were declassified to the extent possible and we
understand that the declassified as well as the sanitized documents were used in
the grand jury proceedings. No special protective steps were taken with respect
to these documents. As to other documents which might have become involved in
the proceedings, for example, as a result of defense discovery requests, the
Department of Justice represented that it would take such actions to protect classified
material as might be possible under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
be permitted by the trial judge.
Q. (3) Did CIA officials discuss this matter with Mr. Helms or any
representatives of Mr. Helms during the period that he was under investigation?
Or, were all discussions pertaining to these documents in this matter handled by
the Department of Justice and all requests or possible requests for documents
discussed between representatives of the Department of Justice and the CIA?
A. To the best of our knowledge there were only the following interchanges
with Ambassador Helms or his representatives on the ITT-Chile Matter:
a. On 10 November 1975 Ambassador Helms asked about the status
of the Justice investigation and whether indictments were in the offing. The
Agency explained that same day, that Justice had used a grand jury in the District
of Columbia to secure subpoenas of corporate records. On 11 November 1975,
Ambassador Helms thanked the Agency for this information and asked to be advised
of further developments.
-2-
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RD?P81 M00980R002700020033-5
 proved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
b. On 7 May 1976, the Agency alerted Ambassador Helms to a draft
Senate Select Committee addendum to a November 1.976 report entitled, "Alleged
Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders," sections of which dealt with
covert actions in Chile in 1970 and quoted former President Nixon's statements
concerning the extent of his knowledge and approval of CIA actions in Chile.
On 9 May 1976, Ambassador Helms thanked the Agency for this information and,
noting that he did not know whether the statements were factually correct,
suggested that a former senior Agency official be shown the draft and be asked
to comment on it. On 11 May 1976, the Agency informed Ambassador Helms that the
former official came to Headquarters, reviewed the Senate Select Committee's draft
report, took issue with certain parts and so informed a member of the Senate -
Select Committee staff.
Q. (4) Of the documents provided to the Department of Justice, how
many did the Department request the CIA to declassify? How many of the docu-
ments was the CIA willing to declassify? How many of the documents which the
CIA was not willing to declassify fell into each of the following categories?
a. Documents which could not be declassified because they
revealed the names of agents.
b. Documents which could not be declassified because they
revealed the names of cooperating foreign nations.
c. Documents which could not be declassified because they
revealed the names of cooperating Americans.
d. Documents which could not be declassified for other reasons.
A. According to our count the Department of Justice requested declassifi-
cation of 758 documents and attachments of which 152 documents were declassified
in full, and 519 were declassified in substantial part, deleting only cryptonyms,
pseudonyms, names of personnel under cover, etc. Fifty-three documents could
not be declassified and 34 documents have not been declassified pending'a.dditional
review. The documents which could not be declassified either in whole or in part
frequently contained a number of classified items falling within more than one of
the above suggested categories (a-d). A single document, therefore, may be
counted in more than one column in the chart below.
Reason for denial Documents denied in part Documents denied in entirety
a
97
12
b
17
1
30
11
466
49
? Approved For Release 2007/03/03': CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
 pproved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5
Q. (5) Of those documents which the Department of Justice proposed
declassifying as potentially relevant, how many of those documents were con-
sidered to be potentially exculpatory. Was there any review of documents or
any other review to determine what classified information should be provided.
to meet constitutional obligations to the rights of the defendant?
A. It is assumed that one of the reasons for the Department's extensiv
e
review of Agency documents was to determine whether any documents were
potentially exculpatory or otherwise required at trial to meet constitutional
requirements but we do not know how many of the reviewed documents may have
been identified as relevant for these purposes.
Q. (6) Was the CIA led to believe that Mr. 'elms, if indicted, intended
to raise any particular affirmative defense which would require disclosure
of classified intelligence information? If so, what was that defense, and in
general terms what was the nature of the information required to be disclosed?
Similarly, was it the Agency's understanding that Mr. Helms would have made pre-
trial motions requiring disclosure of classified information? If so, what motions
did you anticipate and in general terms what was the nature of the information
which would have been required to be disclosed? How did you get your information
regarding this issue?
A. The Agency had no specific indication as to the line or lines of defense
-which would have been pursued by Ambassador Helms but it was assumed that
broad discovery requests, supported by numerous pre-trial discovery motions,
would have been forthcoming in the event of prosecution. In all likelihood such
discovery would have sought production of a great deal of classified information
including, of course, the information which was deleted from the documents
provided to the Department of Justice.
Q. (7) Did the DCI express to the President: or the Attorney General any -
official review of whether further criminal proceedings against Mr. Helms might
jeopardize national security or sources and methods? Specifically, what was
communicated and to whom was that view expressed?
A. The DCI indicated to the President and, in more specific terms to
the Attorney General, the potential national security consequences of declassi-
fication of those items which were deleted from the documents which were
,requested by the Department of Justice.
Q. (8) Why would the disclosure of the names of agents; the names of
cooperating foreign nations; or the names of cooperating Americans be needed in
a prosecution for perjury or related charges pertaining to misleading Congress
as to the covert action in Chile?
Approved For Release 2007/03/03 CIA-RDP81 M0098OR002700020033-5
 pproved For Release 2007/0
03: CIA-RDP81 M0098OR002700020033-5
A. Any question as to why any particular information or document may
have been required in support of any of the charges under investigation should
more appropriately be answered by the Department of Justice.
Yours sincerely,
3: GI 1
-5-
Approved For Release 2007/03/03: CIA-RDP81 M00980R002700020033-5