Transcripts For CSPAN3 Church Committee Hearings On FBI Intelligence Activities 20160528

There i am in the back of the johnson signed the Voting Rights act of 1965. I had a better seat than i did for the Martin Luther king speech. One more antidote you might be anecdote you might be interested in, in 2008, i was in the rotunda, we were celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the birth of lbj and i met lucy johnson who i had never met before. On thelucy, i was here day your dad signed the Voting Rights act. She said i was, too. Nobody knew i was here, but im sure everyone knew you were here. She said her dad said , on, get in the car. I will take you to the capital, this is something important. Oh he explained to her that every person was be right beside while he signed the bill and she said why would you want to have a republican there . He said it was important that the American People understood this was not on a bipartisan basis of the American People would be like much more likely to accept what we are doing if they think both sides are involved. That was the story lucy told me 100 birthday. You talked about your internships, when did this interest in politics start . Probably in high school. Mentor or were you following politics . I just got interested, in my fifth grade picture, it was a little mug shot every year, my fifth grade picture not many republicans in georgia at that time, my dad served in world war ii down in the foot served foot soldier level and he voted for eisenhower. Eisenhower did not carry any southern states, but my dad was a great admirer of the commander. I sort of began to identify with republicans a little bit and four years later we were in kentucky and even though it was a democratic state, republicans occasionally won. I decided to take a shot at it, iran for president of the student body in college and law school. Clean sweep. You can watch this or any other american artifacts programs at any time by visiting our website cspan. Org history. Weekend,emorial day book tv features three days of nonfiction arthurs. Authors. Democracy now host amy goodwin interviews tamra about her new book Sleeping Giant how the new workingclass will transform america. An interview with chris jackson, publisher and editor in chief of world. D one he discusses the life of jayz sunday evening at 10 00 eastern, a Book Release Party for steve hilton and his book more human more human designing a world where people come first. Of crowd back, he argues that we need to redesign our economic and political systems to meet the needs of americans today. On memorial day, an extra day of dennisfeaturing gregor on the importance of the 10 commitments and diane ream on the right to die movement. The committee met for 16 months, reviewing more than 10,000 documents. His legacy in includes the creation of the senate. New requirements for the executive branch to notify congress of about covert activities. Two former staffers of the Church Committee are with us to provide context for the 40yearold video you are about to see. Here in our studio in washington is Elliot Maxwell who was counsel to the committee. Thanks to the both of you. In this, our third installment in the series, we are looking at in looking at the Church Committee hearings on possible Illicit Activity of the fbi. To share the staff findings on these activities. Were going to see a clip of you reading an anonymous letter to Martin Luther king. Mr. Schwarz the bureau went so far as to mail anonymous letters to dr. King and his wife. They were mailed shortly before he was awarded the nobel peace prize. It finishes with this suggestion. King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You have just 34 days in which to do it. You are done. Ms. Swain give us some context for what we just saw. Why were they looking into the activities of Martin Luther king . Mr. Maxwell everybody was a hero but he was a special one. That was taken to mean that was such a suggestion for suicide. The answer was it was intended and it was taken as an effort by the king family and the king associate to get him to commit suicide. J edgar hoover hated king. Hoover had a negative view of what were then called negroes. Indeed on the very afternoon of kings i have a dream speech dc in the bowels of the fbi office, they result result to destroy Martin Luther d to destroy Martin Luther king and they set out to do that in lots of ways. They persuaded the kennedy brothers to wiretapping of king and his close associates. They did that by exaggerating the role of advisor to king. Theyve said he was a member of the communist party and a close advisor of king. They did not have to obtain permission of the rules. In anybodys house are in anybodys bedroom. They put bugs in hotel rooms. They made recordings from that. Just one final thought that may be helpful, we obviously focused very much on the cia and the fbi. A lot on institutions like the nsa. I am ever mentioning this to the committee was that the cia was a danger to the country because its successes undermined in the world. The fbi was a danger to the country because it undermines democracy in america. Both of those things one should be worried about. I thought that the effort to undermine democracy in america was the more dangerous, and so my personal view is our hearings on the fbi were the most important work we did. Other people might not agree with that, but they were enormously important. Watching that video 40 years later, what kind of emotions does it bring . Mr. Maxwell the hearing about Martin Luther king had a profound affect on me in part because of the statement that senator hart made. I think the gist of it was in response to all of this, talking about Martin Luther king and his impact on america. What he said was that there will always be protectors for people like Martin Luther king. What we need to worry about are the actions of the government about people who will have no protectors. The socialist Workers Party representatives whose neighbors by the fbi andut were told not to have them play with their children. The employers who were told not to employ them on the grounds that these people were a threat to the United States. These people were not a threat to come out of a paper bag. Phil hart recognize that it was the powerless who are most at risk. I remember that most profoundly. If the government acts against the powerless, we should be not only because it is the powerless, but who will be next . It was in those hearings that for me that crystallized the kind of concern you need to have for the exercise of power. Ms. Swain as we look at the work of the Church Committee. Here is frank church, opening up the hearing on the fbi and its abuse of power. Church there has never been a full Public Accounting of fbi intelligence. To mpeg or is not the fbi at legitimate Law Enforcement function, but rather to evaluate Domestic Intelligence according to the standards of the constitution and the statutes of our land. To be found, it does not rest in the bureau alone. It is to be found also in the long line of attorney generals, president s, and congresses who have failed you have given power rather and responsibility to the fbi, but have failed to give it adequate guidance, direction, and control. Information is a possible resource. The fbis most significant features is its system for efficient processing, filing, and retrieving of the data it gathers. S in thential danger system are obvious. Today we are here to review the major findings of our full investigation of the i domesc fbi Domestic Intelligence. Including programs aimed at domestic targets. Fbi surveillance of lawabiding citizens, political abuses of fbi intelligence and several specific cases that are unjustified intelligence operations. These hearings have one overriding objective, congressstandards by to legislate for the fbi. They began their presentation of the fbi irregularities. They gave some notable examples. Mr. Church in the area of what they characterize as the new the, an example of overbreadth of requirement for information laid on the field can be found in the document 13 1 of your books. In this document, the director of the fbi issued an instruction to all special agents of the bureau as to the kind of information that he wanted them to collect and report on. Now the number of items in the arrt are in letters from and numbers under each one of those entries. I would just refer to a couple of the specific examples of what the fbi agents are required to report in the field. In the area of finance, who were the socalled angels for the group . In the area of publication describe all the publications. , in the area of religion, what the policy of the organization relating to its approach to and any vehement statements made against religious bodies by leaders. Conversely, any statement of support for the movement by religious groups or individuals. In the area of political activity, any and all Political Activities in which socalled new left leaders are involved. Relating to the positions taken on political matters, including the attempts to influence Public Opinion and government bodies. Come on of education information concerning the course is given given given together with any educational outline and what is the assigned or suggested reading. In the area of social reform, all information on activities with connections to demonstration aimed at social reform, whatever that may be. In the area of labor, all information, including all activity in the labor field. With respect to the public appearance of leaders, the identity of any leader who makes an appearance on radio or television and appears before groups, for example labor, church, and minority groups, and in connection with such appearances, the identity of the group and a sissy summary of the subject matter discussed. In the area of mass media, influence of the new left on mass media. An indication of support of support by the new left of mass media. A comprehensive listing of everything that they thought or did on any subject imaginable. Taking the next example of how seekstelligence, desire that is scarcely relevant to subject we thought the bureau was concerned with. In the area of womens liberation, report of the report about meetings of women who got together to talk about their problems. Now how the bureau got this information is not entirely clear, but it is apparently by informants. We have informants running all checking up ony what housewives are talking about in their effort to decide whether women should have a different role in the society. Reports of particular women who the meeting came to and how she felt repressed, sexually or otherwise. Reports on such other important matters as that Womens Liberation Movement interested in zapping the miss America Pageant atlantic city, by protesting the standards and whatever they protest in atlantic city. [laughter] my favorite example is in the baltimore womens Liberations Movement in a document that was sent not only to the fbi, tab 5. 4, but to three military agencies for some reason, a document on the origins and purposes of the group, and in concluding comes up with such important findings that they wanted to free women from the humdrum existence of being only a wife and mother. They wanted equal opportunities with men in working society. Nothing to do with violence. Nothing to do with these labels of subversion and extremism. What is the conclusion of the document . We will continue to report the activities of the womens liberations we will continue to report on the findings of the Womens Liberation Movement. Much of it was turned over to white house aides and much of it was used for political purposes. Violence may corrupt. The bureau was called upon to supply information regarding the potential of violence to assist local Law Enforcement officials. In addition to that, after infiltration of various groups, the challenge planned for the mississippi convention, challenging the official delegation were developed by the , fbi and submitted to the white house through a white house staffer. The plans of dr. King and others were also communicated both as they related to efforts to disrupt as well as general political strategy at the convention. This was accomplished really through a complete infiltration , and when itps became apparent as in the case of the mississippi challenge that it might be politically expedient to have some information to discredit the group, the fbi provided that also by providing some bookkeeping data on the organization and its funding sources. We see the same kind of unofficial dissemination occur after the critics of the Warren Commission begin to surface. The white house is a bit concerned about these persons who are criticizing the war in Warren Commission. Fbi was directed together information on those persons, information which was extended to their personal lives. Down to and including sex activities. The name check process was often of getting ais clear fix on people who had began to criticize administration. In several cases we have identified news correspondents of Major Networks who at one ire ofr other earned the the white house. Many of the names there pop up immediately after revelations or accusations. About misconduct or other activities of the white house. We even got to the point where the name check process was used as a basis to gather the views or information on private citizens who objected to vietnam policy, and this information was subsequently distributed to persons who may be in a position to point out adverse information in the persons background. This took the form of going to political figures and saying to you have ans, if occasion to comment upon so and so, you might want to have this information. Bit morealk a little about that when we come to other activities. The use though in a political arena virtually covers a spectrum, in one case they use information to influence the speaker of house using been gainedthat had through various investigative techniques and a publishing this unofficial kind of dissemination. A footnote on the 1964 Democratic Convention. The technique was used there by the fbi was furnishing false credentials which the fbi used to assert itself as a bogus news man into legitimate discussions of political persons and protest groups and acquire information concerning their plans, pretending to be a reporter, and in fact acquiring it for the purposes of the bureau and transmission two higher authority. To higher authority. Program,telligence telpro is the name by the effort of the bureau to destroy people and in organizations, or words they use, disrupt and neutralize. In pursuing this goal, the fbi used a large range of weapons. One of the other techniques utilized was to destroy the job or family life. Family life was a particularly opportune target in the bureaus some fairlyyed on tender sensitivities. The nameentioning reflected their income if you 94, you willine 94, you will see the bureaus report on an effort against a white female who was involved as an officer in a local black activist group. The way to discredit or neutralize this leader was to take attention away from activities of the group by creating another kind of distraction, the distraction is blank,ows, dear mrs. Look, man, i guess your old lady does not get enough at home mr. Blank, im sorry, a letter to her husband, or she would not be shocking and jiving with black men, you dig . Eight going tos angling to take women aint going to take it is signed, a soul sister. An effective technique as reflected by the memorandum. It succeeded in distracting. They were told to attack the new left. I will give you six quick examples that were pursuant to that program. At the time of the Democratic National convention in 1968, that body attempted to obtain housing in chicago for demonstrators who would come to the convention. The fbi local office in chicago obtained 217 of those forms and fill them out with hi fictitious names and addresses. The tactic had its design defect because according to fbi documents the persons who went out to look for these houses made long and useless journeys to locate the addresses. What contribution that made, we suppose we will never know. Precisely the same tactic and program was carried out by the bureau with respect to the 1969 inauguration, where they again filled out false housing forms to confuse and disrupt efforts by persons coming to washington to find a place to stay. Same 96 and nine inauguration ceremonies the , Washington Field office of the fbi discovered that persons who were attempting to coordinate and control the demonstration, they were marshals. This committee has examine an executive session mr. Eagle crow , who was responsible for knitting Law Enforcement at that demonstration, and he said the marshals of the demonstration where a helpful and useful group of persons to help keep the demonstration orderly. Now what did the fbi do . Citizen bandt what was being used for walkietalkies, and they use that citizen band to supply the marshals with misinformation and pretending to be a unit of the National Mobilization to in the war in vietnam countermanded those orders issued by the movement. 1967 there was a rally in , washington protesting the vietnam war. A newspaper in new york city indicated that its contribution to this rally was to be the symbolic act of dropping flowers on the pentagon. Ad in theper put an newspaper asking for pilot who can help them do that. The fbi answered the ad and kept up the pretense that it was a genuine parts pilot of to the point when the publisher of the newspaper showed up with 200 pounds of flowers and no one was there to fly the plane. Dramatic testimony today involve the surveillance of Martin Luther king. Dramatic efforts were described in detail to destroy king and turn his followers against him. Even to find another idle for black americans. Martin luther king was and is a National Hero to millions, but to J Edgar Hoover, he was a dangerous man who would wreck the country. By january 1962, mr. Hoover has already classified mr. King as no good. In 1963, it became clear that the concept of nonviolence was gaining adherents. Adherence to be made even more ther by the time o march in washington came around. This development of the concept of nonviolence was seen as a threat to Law Enforcement and something the bureau was indeed unhappy about. This was aided apparently by what the bureau regarded as dr. Kings direct attacks on mr. Hoover and the bureau. Whispered controversy them at full blown at the time sullivan, whor. Should be able to give us some assistance on this matter, to mr. Hoover a plan for dealing with dr. Martin luther king. Memorandum, the plan here is to completely discredit dr. King by taking him off his pedestal and to reduce. M completely in influence to reduce dr. Kings influence and take him off his pedestal and to change, beforewill, his image the masses, we begin to see, begin to get some insight into the thought process of the fbi. At this time, the thinking was that this would not be a terribly difficult task. The memo indicated for example that it can be done and will be done. Rain,sly confusion will particularly among the negro people. The negroes will be left without a National Leader of significant personality to steer them in the right direction. The fbi decided that if they were going to taking off his pedestal, it was part of their task to find and to bring into prominence a new National Negro leader. After the march on washington there was an acceleration. He was defined because of his speech in that demonstration in washington as the most dangerous an effective leader in the country. There was a paper battle within how to attackbest to him. After Time Magazine named him man of the year, the fbi found that reprehensible and feels it must attack and destroy. When he was given the nobel seek tohey again discredit dr. King with the persons who welcome him back from that award. When he began to speak out against the vietnam war, there is a new crescendo of efforts by the bureau to discredit and destroy dr. King. The Poor Peoples Campaign took place, once again they go after dr. King. Their activity to go after dr. King did not cease when he died. Because, as congress began to consider the question of whether or not dr. Kings birthday should be made a national holiday, the bureau developed plans to call in friendly congressman for off the record briefings concerning king, in the hopes that those congressmen could keep any such bill from being reported out of committee. The time surrounding the march is particularly revealing. He reported was written for the director by his chief intelligence officer, reporting that the communist party, in fact, for 40 years, had been trying to control the negro movement, and that it had always failed. And that it efforts in connection with the march on washington were infinitesimal. This was not accepted by the director of the fbi. He found that thinking wrong, unacceptable, and said that it must be changed. And it was changed. And then, we find paper coming in in which the lowerlevel people in the fbi apologized for having misunderstood matters, and on they go with the effort to discredit and start, they do, the bugs on dr. King. The fbi sought to prevent the pope from meeting dr. King. It intervened with a cardinal. The pope. From meeting with dr. King . Mr. Schwarz it did. And when the hope despite the , effort, the pope did meet with , the fbi efforts record the adverb astounding. It was pope john . Mr. Schwarz it was in 1964. Someone has to help me on that. Who was the pope . Pope paul . Mr. Schwarz in any event, the effort didnt work. The paranoia, the belief that american citizens couldnt deal themselves with dr. King as indicated by this jury. At one point, governor rockefeller was planning a trip to latin america, and the bureau felt that it had to approach governor rockefeller, he was planning to see dr. King before going, so he could be warned about what a great danger dr. King was. The effort went on and on. Each time he was doing something important, there was an effort to discredit him. Each person who the bureau felt could give further credit, further recognition to dr. King, an effort to stop that from happening. The bureau went so far as to mail anonymous letters to dr. King and his wife, which were mailed shortly before he was awarded the nobel peace prize, and finishes with this suggestion. King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it. This exact number has been selected for a specific reason. It has practical significance. It was 34 days before the award. You are done. I would like to interrupt. That was taken to be a suggestion for suicide . Who wrote the letter . Mr. Schwarz that is a matter of dispute. It was found in the files of mr. Sullivan, who was the assistant director of the fbi and was heavily involved in this program. He claims it was a plant in his files, and someone else in the bureau in fact wrote the document. The document, which was found, anonymous of the letter which was sent. Is there any dispute that the letter did in fact come from the fbi . Mr. Schwarz we have heard no dispute. One thing that is very clear, as we examine the king information, is that the fbi is not only presumed to know an awful lot about the movement which dr. King headed, but many of its fumbling efforts, many of its failure to convince people that dr. King should be discredited, was born out of the ignorance, if you will, the very clear racism at large than in the agency. The particularly revealing aspect of the bureaus approach to the question, even at a time when they were examining the socalled negro question, is evidenced by the response to a memorandum which then attorney general kennedy wrote to mr. Hoover. He wrote a memorandum asking mr. Hoover how many negro special agents he had. Mr. Hoover wrote back, we dont catalog people by race, creed, or color. And now reading from his sullins transcript on the point, it was assumed by mr. Hoover that this would take care of mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy came back with another very nice letter you are , commended to have this attitude. I still want to know how many negro special agents do you have . It so happened during the war, he had five negro chauffeurs. So he automatically made them special agents. It didnt matter if they finished college or high school or Grammar School or had a law degree. He wrote back and said, we have five. Then mr. Kennedy came back and said, this is atrocious. At the time, according to mr. Sullivan, the fbi had 5500 special agents. Out of that number, 5500, you only have five negro agents . Mr. Sullivan again, we did not say in the memorandum that none of them conducted investigations. They were just drivers. This was 1961. Is it any wonder that the fbi was later presumptuous enough to feel that it could determine the next new National Negro leader. Part of the problem is that they attempted to translate the tactics used first against the communist party, against virtually every perceived enemy, as the bureau looked across the landscape and decided who should be neutralized, discredited, or destroyed. As we all know, the bureau was set up as a crimefighting 1939 in at in directive by president roosevelt, it assumed a new task of seeing that the countrys internal security was maintained in the face of a growing threat from fascism and communism. In 1939, the fbi had been established an index called the Security Index. It was a list of individuals, aliens and citizens, i am now quoting, on whom there is Information Available to indicate their presence and liberty in this country at time of war or National Emergency would be dangerous to the Public Safety of the United States government. The documents which notified all and toices of such lists prepare names, indicated that the bureau should make certain that the fact it was making such investigations does not become known to individuals outside of the bureau. Nevertheless, the department of justice was then informed and in , 1941, the department of justice commenced to work with the bureau on classifying persons of a degree of danger. In 1943, however, the attorney general then in office, mr. Bittle, wrote a memorandum for J Edgar Hoover in which he instructed J Edgar Hoover to get rid of the list and to stamp on each document in which a person had been given a classification for the purpose of being locked up, the following legend. This classification is unreliable. It is hereby canceled and should not be used. Attorney general biddle told J Edgar Hoover that after full reconsideration of these classifications, i am satisfied that they serve no useful purpose. There is no statutory authorization or other present justification for keeping a custodial detention list of citizens. The department fulfills its proper functions by investigating the activities of persons who may have violated the law. It is not aided in this work by classifying persons as to dangerous new. Ness. Within a few days of that instruction, the very flat instruction from the attorney general, the director of the fbi indicated to all fbi agents that the instruction, in effect, indicated the instruction should not be carried out. He told them that what they should do is simply to change the label on the files to and from matter custodial detention. They said the bureau will continue to prepare and maintain Security Index cards. This was for the same purpose of knowing who the bureau might lockup. He instructed them, the fact that the Security Index and Security Index cards are prepared and maintained should be considered as the confidential and should at no time be alluded to in investigative reports or discussed with agencies and individuals outside the bureau other than representatives of the military intelligence agencies who are going to be let in on the secret. In 1948, there was a new attorney general in office, and he, contrary to attorney general biddle, who instructed that this be turned off, the new attorney general in 1948 instructed the fbi to prepare an Emergency Detention Program following something called the attorney generals portfolio. This included plans to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. It included ultimately, plans for a master warrant of arrest, whereby on the signature of the attorney general, and only that signature and without reference to the courts, thousands of people could be locked up. Have they continued to maintain these files for lockup purposes . Mr. Schwarz your key question is the last three words. They have continued upon the agreement of the department of justice to maintain the same files. The numbers have now been reduced to 1200 persons. The name has been changed to something called the administrative index. What purpose that serves, and whether it is still used as a reserve list of persons to lockup, i think we will have to ask the bureau, and i cant give you a definitive answer. Well, for most of the hearing, the members of the Senate Committee sat silently listening to the documentation of abuses. One senator said he regarded the fbi wrongdoing is more serious than the cia wrongdoing. All were stunned and appalled by the disclosures. At days end, several vented their feelings. I have been told for years by among others some of my own family, that this is exactly what the bureau was doing all the time. And in my great wisdom and high office, i assured them they were on pot. This just wasnt true. It couldnt happen. They wouldnt do it. What you have described is a series of illegal actions intended squarely to deny First Amendment rights to some americans. Will that is what my children have told me is going on. Now, i didnt believe it. The trick now, as i see it, is mr. Chairman, is for this committee to be able to figure out how to persuade the people of this country that indeed, it did go on. And how shall we ensure that it never happens again . I would hope, as we lead to the strengthening of the fbi and in the criminal field, we impose very clear and unquestioned limits, so that this kind of unrestrained, illegal, secret, intimidation and harassment of the essential ability of americans to participate freely in american political life shall ever happen again. Seems to me that we have moved away from concerns by the bureau for actual actions that might be violent or might be criminal. Towards action towards ideas that might be unpopular or may not be acceptable to some people. Within the bureau, or perhaps, within the administration. The fbi has never had a statute clearly defining its authority. And after all these many years, this is the first serious congressional investigation of its activities. And weve seen today the dark side of those activities. Many americans who were not even suspected of crimes were not only spied upon, but they were harassed, they were discredited, and at times, endangered. Through the covert operations of the federal bureau of investigation. Such revelations place a serious responsibility upon this committee to see to it that that cant happen again. Ms. Swain as a result of the committees investigation, did you learn who wrote that letter to Martin Luther king or who authorized it . Mr. Schwarz i think it was a man called sullivan, who we examined, actually, senator mondale took his deposition up in new hampshire, then he died before we could call him at a public hearing. But he was head of the Domestic Intelligence group under J Edgar Hoover, and i think he was the person who did it. Whether hoover himself authorized, i am certain that hoover would not have objected, socalledl of the cointelpro proposals, like the one in chicago, where the fbi tried to get one black leader to kill another black leader by sending an anonymous letter to the one they wanted to do the killing, but all of those actions were authorized by hoover, and he would say, ok, go ahead and do it so long as you dont embarrass the bureau. That was the exact words, so so long as you dont embarrass the bureau. By what she meant, so long as you can keep it secret. But we didnt find internal evidence in the fbi beyond our being certain that mr. Sullivan had been responsible for producing that letter. We didnt find internal evidence about whether the approval went up to hoover. A lot of hoovers documents, the day he died, his famous close secretary and one of his closest aides went through his files and destroyed a lot of them. Fortunately, they didnt destroy everything, and we found in the enormous amount but it may , be there was a hoover approval of the suicide letter, but that was one of the things that was destroyed. I dont know the answer of that. Ms. Swain did the committee find out what impact this had on dr. Martin luther king . Mr. Maxwell i believe that to will leave that to fritz to answer. Fritz was more deeply involved in the domestic side than i was. Ms. Swain was there any witness to testify whether or not the fbi, was dr. Martin luther king aware of the fbis surveillance of him, and did it affect his activities . Yes he was, and yes it did affect his activity, but it didnt suppress his activity. But that letter, which was received and talked about not only between king and his wife, but between king and his close advisers, was of great concern to them. It just proved further the extent to which the fbi was trying to hurt them. I mean, the fbi pedaled information about king to the pope, the white house, to universities, to foundations, to foreign leaders. They tried to prevent his getting the nobel peace prize. But, you know, elliott made a we will usech phil hart for this. King of course, is a known , counter leader to the practices of J Edgar Hoover, but the fbi did things that injured all kinds of people. Civil rights leaders, they would write anonymous letters trying to break up marriages. Unitarians from ohio, who traveled to chicago for the Democratic Convention in 1968, where the fbi used false information to have them not have housing, and get all mixed up in where they were staying. An actress who did commit suicide after the fbi had pedaled information about her relations with people of another race. It was deeply, deeply disturbing that a Law Enforcement agency, knowingly and intentionally violated the law and did it in ways that were designed to hurt lots of ordinary people and lots of significant and famous people. Ms. Swain in just a few minutes, you will see 30 minutes of the deputy associate fbi director, james adams, who appeared before the committee the day after Martin Luther king revelations. But to give you a taste of what that 30 minutes is like, lets show you a short letter of democratic senator phil hart questioning director adams. Hart there are an awful lot of people who never got close to a nobel prize whose names were r jones and smith. But my review of the file shows, had violence done to their First Amendment rights. Nobel Prize Winners will always get protection. But joe potatoes doesnt, and this committee should focus on him, too. Ms. Swain joe potatoes, a memorable reference by senator phil hart. We will show the entirety of this in a few minutes. You talked about the impact of this on you, mr. Maxwell, but could you give us a sense of what the atmosphere was like in that room at the time. Mr. Maxwell it was electric. The extent of what the fbi had done was almost unbelievable. It came against a public backdrop about the fbi, which was the crime busters, the elite Police Activities on the federal level, incorruptible, unbeatable, a bulwark of american institutions. And to think that these things had been going on below the surface, and in such contrast to the image of the fbi, was extraordinary. Ms. Swain we should tell people, because this is a vintage time, but that image was propelled by hollywood. In the popular culture, the fbi agent was always the type of person you described. So this is a real revelation to the public that there were two sides. Mr. Maxwell it was the untouchables, in a sense. All of a sudden, to think that the untouchables had been doing things that were so destructive, so wrong, so in violation of the was i think,y took , almost unimaginable at the start of the investigation. Ms. Swain thanks to mr. Maxwell and fritz shorts for setting the stage for this. Schwartz for setting the stage for this. You are about to see the pbf broadcasting of this hearing, and it is anchored by paul duke, a familiar name to many of you watching. It is the edited highlights of testimony of deputy associate fbi director james adams. Lets watch. From the outset today, it was plain that much of the interrogation would revolve around the committed disclosures yesterday of the attempts to discredit dr. King. An intensive campaign that was waged over a sevenyear span. The hand of hoover was everywhere in the harassment of dr. King. Adams told up 25 separate acts , acknowledging there was no legal basis for any of them. As we pick of the proceedings, adams is being questioned about an anonymous letter sent to dr. King in 1964. Shortly before he received the nobel peace prize, a letter which some suggest was an attempt to induce suicide. Democratic chairman frank church quoted directly from the letter. King, there is only one left thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which exact number has been selected for specific reasons. It has definite, practical significance. You are done. There is but one way out for you. Now if you had received such a letter, how would you have interpreted this . What would you have thought it meant . Mr. Adams i have read that statement. I have heard the conclusions of your staff that it was a suicide urging. I cant find any basis upon which they drew that conclusion. I think that approaching it from an objective standpoint, as i read it, i dont know what it means. I could, i think, rather than a conclusion, it should be a speculation in a realm of possibilities as to what was intended, but i cannot i dont , understand the basis for it. It is a possibility, but i certainly would not reach such a conclusion from my reading. If you have received a letter of this kind and it had been directed to you, and you are in dr. Kings position, and you read, king, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it. Now that happens to roughly corresponds to the time before which he was to receive the nobel peace prize. What would you think that meant . Mr. Adams i would have to be consider what i was being accused of what the facts were. , i would have to consider what the intent of the person was, writing such a note, coming just before christmas. I dont know if it means and an urging to repent from something this person, whoever he was, repented. No christmas card, is it . Mr. Adams no christmas card. It reads, you are done. There is but one way out for you. What does that mean . Mr. Adams i dont know. I dont know if it means confession. I dont know if it means suicide. I have no idea. You have the statement. I am not in a position to say. I havent interviewed anyone that was with him at the time he received it. Would you disown this statement and say that any connection the fbi has with it had with it was utterly improper and grotesque . Mr. Adams i would certainly say that it was improper. And i cant justify its being prepared or sent. I gather that there was never any question raised about whether dr. King was a communist. That was never charged. Mr. Adams not as a communist. Or that he had committed acts of violence. Mr. Adams no. Peg for investigating was that he was subject to communist influences. What makes that a justified reason for investigating . Is it a crime to be approached by someone who is a communist . Mr. Adams no. What is the legal basis for that investigation . Mr. Adams the basis would be the communist influence on him, and the effect it would have upon the organization. It would be in connection with our basic investigation of the communist party. As i understand the law today, it is not a crime to be a member of a communist party. Mr. Adams that is correct. How can it be a crime to know someone who is a member of the communist party . Mr. Adams it isnt. Well then how do you tenuousate something as as that . What is the basis for it, legally . Mr. Adams well, it falls into the area of, one, the intelligence jurisdiction, of the activities of the communist party. You have a situation where an individual in an organization, a leader of an organization, efforts are being made to influence him and achieve control over the organization, and it is part of the overall investigation of the party trying to exert this influence, as to are they successful . Are they taking over a black movement, the Civil Rights Movement . Just like we tried to make clear in investigations that were more prevalent years ago, but still occur, and communist influence in labor unions. Mr. Adams, i am trying to get at the legal basis in this particular case, of investigating dr. King on the grounds that he might be subject to communist influence. Can you cite any legal basis for that . Or is it based entirely upon a generalized authority thought to entirely on thought to exist in the fbi to investigate, quote, internal Security Matters . Mr. Adams it was in the president ial directives of investigating subversive activities. The question returns to, what authority the president had for such an order. Dr. King was investigated, among other things, for matters of, i think you call it delicacy. Would that be a basis for investigating an american citizen by the fbi . Mr. Adams no. Would you say the the n that those investigations were improper . Mr. Adams i dont believe that there is an allegation that week. Nvestigated for that t there were byproducts of information that developed, and i think at a point, you had a situation where the tail was wagging the dog, perhaps. But i dont see any basis for such investigation. I find it is very difficult to get into a discussion of this in view of the prohibitions that i think we you answered my question. You are familiar with the bureaus Domestic Intelligence work for many years. How did the bureau come to launch the Cointel Program, and what did the Cointel Program accomplish . Mr. Adams the program, as such, as i can reconstruct from the files, was indicated to concern over the conspiratorial efforts by certain groups, and an attempt, a decision made that perhaps, more affirmative action should be taken to neutralize violence, which was becoming of more concern to the fbi in that regard. Considerations that went into the launching of cointel. The first one, the communist party, of course, that was a concern here to neutralize the effectiveness of the communist party in the United States. In fact come out of all the cointel pro operations that were approved, 59 were directed at the communist party. The bulk of the concern, initially, was with the communist party, and it was a desire to create factionalism within the communist party and try to neutralize the effort. The communist party, congress itself still has a determination on the record as to the threat of the communist party. The Supreme Court has held that the communist party is an instrument of the soviet union. The soviet union certainly has not relinquished its interest in the United States as a target. All of these considerations went into, should we do something, not only to follow the activities of the coming as party, butunist should we destroy its effectiveness in the United States . That was the first program, i believe, that was an issue. Did the bureau seek direction of counsel from the attorney general on any of this cointel pro efforts or specific programs . Mr. Adams as best as i can reconstruct, senator, there was no direct authority requested from any attorney general for the initiation of these programs, and it is only a question, as your staff presented yesterday, that the attorney general, president , congress, had been made available to certain aspects of programs after the fact, and those were primarily concerned with the communist party, and one other organization, but not the new left. I cannot find any evidence that, and i have no reason to believe that there would be any evidence, that the bureau initiated these programs, other than as an internal decision. Was the attorney general informed of them on a continuing basis . Mr. Adams he was kept informed by letters, which, again, the staff alluded to, letters reporting certain developments, for instance, one of them that went to one attorney general, reading that letter outlined the in complete detail, activities taken to disrupt the klan. Terms to neutralize, disrupt. There was a clear explanation of what we were doing against the klan in that regard. To believet you came that you had the authority to neutralize or disrupt these organizations, rather than proceed for prosecuting them for law violations. Mr. Adams you would have to say in a position like this, that it is just like the smith act of 1940, which is designed to prevent revolutionary groups from advocating deal for the role of the government, and subsequent interpretations as to the constitutionality of it leaves us with a statute still on the books that prescribes certain actions, but yet, the degree necessary to operate under the few remaining areas is such that there was no satisfactory way to proceed. And it was an area where yield at this point, please. What you are saying, mr. Adams, is that you didnt operate within the law because the law didnt give you sufficient latitude. Therefore, you undertook direct action to disrupt and otherwise undermine these organizations. Did you proceed on the assumption that these organizations would eventually break the law, and therefore you saw fit to neutralize them before they did . Mr. Adams i cant say that. The investigations of them were based on the belief that they might break the law, or they were breaking the law. The disruptive activities, i cant find where we were able to related to that, but it boils down to what we have gotten into question before, and our review of the situation, we see men of the fbi recognizing or having a good faith belief that there was an immediate danger to the United States. But answer senator churchs question. You didnt have specific legal authority. Mr. Adams no. This is the hangup with the whole program, which we are not trying to justify that there is some statutory basis. I wouldnt make that effort whatsoever. All i am trying to do is say that at the time, it we had men who felt there was an immediate danger to the country. They felt they had a responsibility to act, and having felt this responsibility, did act. And this is the whole problem we have at the present time. Because we do have one, we can see good evidence of their belief of the threat. We had cities being burned, we had educational institutions being bombed, we had deaths occurring from all of these activities, we had a situation that we didnt know what the end was going to be. We never can look around the corner in intelligence operations. We dont know if, ultimately, this might bring the distraction of the country. All we know is, we have an extremely violent time. So, i dont find any basis, in my mind, to part with their good faith belief when they were faced with a danger. When they move over to the area of responsibility, here is where we have the problem. I think it is the whole purpose of this committee, the attorney general, mr. Calley, all of us, realizing we cant operate in these areas where we feel a responsibility but we dont have a mandate by congress. So in that area, this feeling of responsibility, i feel, came from the fact that president s, as your staff said yesterday, president s, congressman, the attorney general, no one really provided direction and guidance or instructions, dont do this, dont do that. What are you doing, and how are you doing it . For instance, there is some feeling in the, on the part of some that our hold the mystic Domestic Intelligence operations were secret. The Cointel Program was through. H i think we all agree that this was to be effective, they felt it should be secret. Back in our testimony, which went to the members of the committee, was mailed out to newspapers, friends, anyone that was interested in it, back in 1970, talking about an internal security operation, the new left movement, young socialist alliance, nationwide demonstrations, student agitation, antiwar activities, committee of return volunteers, communist party usa, progressive labor party, socialist Workers Party, extremist organizations, black panther party, all of these items, and statements about extremists, white extremists and hate to type hate type groups, republic of new africa, minutemen, our coverage of subversive organizations, the groups, organizations, and movements show the wide coverage we must maintain to follow on their activities and changing tactics in spite of the proliferation of these organizations, we are covered at all levels and it has been a value in the system, able enabling us to keep abreast of our responsibilities. This is the same way through all of our testimony. We told the world we are investigating hate groups, new left groups. I merely mention this to try to put in the frame of reference, so these men, they know we are investigating them. They didnt tell them, though, in sufficient detail, what we were doing to disrupt these activities. My feeling is that the men recognized the danger, they pointed out the danger to the world, they said, we are investigating these organizations, and they felt then that the comfortable plan of leave it up to the fbi, we should do something more. We are looking for guidelines on that. The attorney general, mr. Kelly, you, give us the guidelines under which we should operate. There are certain guidelines and we dont need to begin. We shouldnt do this, we dont have such activities today. Programs designed to disrupt or neutralize Domestic Intelligence field. Beyond that, we need guidelines on what does the whole of congress, representative of the people, say, this is the fbis role in Domestic Intelligence . Mr. Chairman, my time has long since expired. I would like to note that i saw mr. Kelly on the today show, indicating strong support for responsible congressional oversight. That is a healthy attitude. As you have really said, you shouldnt have ever had to have had guidelines to tell you that the federal governments chief Law Enforcement agency ought not to disobey the law. And really, you dont need explicit guidelines to tell you that, or you shouldnt have, dont you agree . Mr. Adams looking at it today, we shouldve looked at it that way yesterday. But i do feel that i dont have any doubt about the good faith of people recognizing a danger, feeling they had a responsibility, no matter whose fault it was, hours internally ours internally or because we werent given the supervision we shouldve been given, taking what they considered appropriate action. It is right that the committee, and the press, be worried about the treatment of a nobel prize winner. Dr. King. There are an awful lot of people who never got close to a nobel prize. Whose name is jones and smith. My review of the files show, had violence done to their First Amendment rights. Nobel Prize Winners will always get protection. But joe potatoes doesnt. This committee should focus on him, too. Now, included in this cointel were activities like this. Anonymous letters drafted by Bureau Offices in the field, sent to headquarters in washington, approved, then put in the mail, intended to break up marriages. Not of dr. King, but mary and john jones. Because one or the other was thought to be a guy center a dissenter. May have dressed strangely or showed up at meetings in the company of others who dressed strangely. Anonymous letters to university officials, and to several newspapers in that city, to prevent University Facilities from being made available to a speaker whom the bureau disapproved. And it wasnt a topflight bigname speaker. In that case, an anonymous letter was sent to me, making protest. It never occurred to me that it came from the federal bureau of investigation. The series of anonymous letters, one with the spelling very poor, the grammar sloppy, and another more sophisticated, protesting the employment by a city of a man alleging that he was a communist. Or came from a communist family. And there are loyal americans out of work, and what are you doing, mayor . And to the press, isnt this an outrage . And again, an anonymous letter sent to me, what are you going to do about this . There are loyal democrats in this town who need work. In that case, i happened to have known them, know the man about whom the protest was made. The bureaus facts were wrong as hell on that mans loyalty. He was as loyal as you or i. Yes or no, are those actions regarded now by the bureau as within bounds . Mr. Adams no, sir. Why were they regarded as within bounds when they were approved by the bureau . Mr. Adams under the guidelines , the programs were not designed or the purpose of harassment of an individual. The memorandum indicated they were designed to disrupt the organization. Some of the turn downs were turned down on the specific wording. This is near harassment. The rationale would have been, and of course, here, i would say some of these you have mentioned wouldnt appear to me to meet the criteria of the program and shouldve been disavowed even under the existence of the program. However, in the total context of the program, activities were to be directed towards the organization itself, but we do not do that at the present time. But everything i have summarized rather poorly was approved by the bureau at the time. By headquarters, not field offices. Mr. Adams i do think that there were improper actions taken under the program, even under the program as it existed. Mr. Kelly has so stated his recognition of that fact. The attorney general certainly has. Yes, the majority of the actions taken, even the department concluded were lawful and legal, proper investigative activities. Senator hart my feeling is, it isnt the techniques that are bad, the concept of the program seems to do violence to the First Amendment. Everything you did sought to silence somebody or frighten somebody into silence or deny somebody a platform. Or create an atmosphere in which people work people were afraid to assemble. Sometimes, Law Enforcement, legitimate Law Enforcement, has what we call a Chilling Effect. When it is legitimate Law Enforcement, oftentimes that Chilling Effect is a necessary, though regrettable, side of effect. But im talking about, and what are full of, our actions the only purpose of which is to chill. Would you agree with me, mr. Adams, that this whole they whole big generalized area of the assignment that the fbi has been tasked, which they have but they possess over the years, to investigate americans, not where there are allegations of crimes or suspicions of crimes about to be committed or that there is violence or violence is about to be committed, but rather, the whole generalized area, to investigate americans in terms of ideas they have, or might be persuaded to have, that might hold potential for danger to this country, is an exceedingly vague, difficult if not impossible to define area, an area which has gotten the fbi into an awful lot of trouble, including todays hearing. Mr. Adams yes. And because of that, there is a very important need to sit down and redefine it, have the guidelines known specifically by law, so the fbi can know precisely what it can do and what it cannot do. Mr. Adams this is why the country is fortunate at this particular time to have an attorney general who is a legal scholar and a lawyer of unquestioned repute, who indicated a willingness to address these problems, which, as the staff has determined, was not always the case over the years. But we have an attorney general, we have a director who has offered his complete cooperation, just as he has to the committee in this inquiry, that we are not trying to avoid embarrassment. The only thing we are trying to hold back are the identities of informants and sensitive ongoing operations, and that we have a concern on the part of congress that not only recognizes there have been abuses, but recognizes that there still always has to be some degree of flexibility. We are going to have situations where you have a weatherman working for the waterworks, and in college, he was a scientific student and he makes a comment to a fellow employee that there is going to be some spectacular event occurring that is going to bring the attention of the world on this city. Wouldnt you a probable cause to investigate mr. Adams we might have to investigate, do we have the authority to tell the supervisor, get him out of there before the city water is poisoned and 100,000 people die . I think the committee is going to find the same problems we do in coping with that situation, and even the attorney general, in his speech, pointed out that there is still possibly a necessity for some flexibility senator mondale do you have any how many names you keep in your files . Mr. Adams no i dont. In the millions . Mr. Adams we have six and a half million files. Six and a half million files . Mr. Adams yes, sir. Surely there are names of more than one person typically in a file, arent there . Mr. Adams it is a large country. That is a large number of files to start with. If you have multiple names, we are quickly up into the 20, 30, 40 million. Mr. Adams many of the files are applicant files. They are not all subversive files. They are not all criminal files. We have a million crimes of violence each year. There are a million people. I wish you had more time to spend on those crimes of violence. Mr. Adams i do, too. There we agree. What i worry about is this. You say there is no way to know when to close a file. These are surveillance files, originally opened up to determine whether organizations might have subversive connections. There are names in the files, if some demagogue comes along and says, against some public figure, that his name is contained in a file that is to be found in the subversive files of the fbi, and there it is. He hasnt made a misstatement at all, but to the American People, that mans name and reputation has been scarred. Mr. Adams i hope this committee recognizes that, and recommends legislation that would enforce strong, punitive, or criminal violations against misuse of information in the files. We feel this way, the cia feels this way, we recognize we have a lot of sensitive information. We fire employees if we find information. We feel me need additional sanctions in this area. I do not think we can stop the accumulation of information. I do not know an agency in the world, a Law Enforcement agency, that doesnt have to accumulate information. We are working on guidelines as to how to get rid of the irrelevant information, how to eliminate material that really doesnt need to be kept, and we hope we will be able to come to congress with these guidelines before too long, which will help address these problems. You may be assured that the Committee Chair shares your objective in this regard. We will be working with you and with the department of justice and others, to try and change the laws, to give a greater measure of protection to the First Amendment rights of the American People. The hearings you have been watching took place in this room on november 18, 1975. Kate scott is a historian. How can you put this in perspective . Dr. Scott the gentleman is in an unenviable position. He has been asked to defend practices that included infiltrating civil rights organizations, the womens movement, the antiwar movement, it is included all kinds of projects and plans to disrupt these social movements. And the senators are particularly concerned about how the fbis very programs have violated the constitution in ways that, you know, in very real ways. And while the fbi is meant to protect the constitution. So they are pointing to this problem, and saying, clearly, we must do something about it. The challenge here, and not to defend the practices of the fbi, but the testimony given here is meant to provide some context, to explain the history, the time period in which these programs were created. And the very real developments that these programs were a response to. So, for example, in the 1960s, we have a number of civil disturbances within newark and detroit and watts, california. We have bombs that are being detonated on University Campuses in madison, wisconsin, in new york city. We have, he suggests, very real, dangerous situations that the fbi, as the domestic Law Enforcement agency must address. And he is suggesting that in the context of the cold war, the very real threat of global communism may be behind some of these movements. And that the fbi, under fbi director J Edgar Hoover, who was the director for more than 40 and that the fbi, under fbi director, J Edgar Hoover, who was the guy director for more than 40 years, has tasked the agency with providing a type of response to these developments. Are mindful of the cold war era in which these programs were developed, because they have been lawmakers during this period, the understand the challenges. But they are suggesting that the fbi has gone entirely too far, and as you can see from senator harts very emotional testimony about how his family members have been trying to convince him for some time that these programs have been in place, and he has dismissed their arguments as irrational. The fbi could never be involved in this type of behavior. And his point is, the fbi, he is convinced, the fbi is involved. He sees the evidence provided by members of the committee staff. And he says, we must respond, we must educate the American Public to the extent of which these programs violated constitutional protections, and we as lawmakers, members of congress, will have to respond with legislation to correct and prevent these abuses from occurring in the future. Did they respond and make legislation that changed things . Dr. Scott well, yes and no. Their ultimate goal of establishing an fbi charter, a Legal Framework that would provide the parameters for which the fbi could operate, that was never approved by congress. It was considered for long, many years, but it was never finally approved. The scrutiny of the fbi and the fact that J Edgar Hoover passed away in 1972 provided a sort of unique opportunity for a new attorney general, edward leavy, to institute internal reform. And he did that with a series of processes that were known as the attorney general guidelines. The criticism for those guidelines were that they addressed this particular issue, but any attorney general coming in could change those guidelines moving forward. And so that, therefore, is a legislative solution, a legislative charter would have been preferable. But ultimately, it was those internal reforms that were the final sort of, the final reform effort, the final effort to reform the fbi that came out of this investigation. Do you know what sort of reaction there was in the public, and in news reports, to the revelations about Martin Luther king . Dr. Scott people were deeply disappointed. You can see the lawmakers here, the revelations that the fbi had not only infiltrated Martin Luther king jr. s top circle and was collecting intelligence about his top lieutenants, if you will, but the allegations that the fbi had been what they called wiretapping Martin Luther king jr. s hotel room in order to gather information that they could blackmail him with, was deeply troubling to the general public, and especially to members of this committee. The committee tried to handle the information that they had in a very responsible way. We now know what the, the content of those wiretaps was. We know what was recorded in those hotel rooms. We now know that. But at that time, during the course of the hearing, the members themselves and the staff [video clip] never revealed the content of that wiretap. And they did that very consciously. They said, we dont want to further violate the familys privacy. Of course, it was reported by members of the press what the content of the material was, but it does suggest that dealing with some of this information was very challenging for members of the committee and their staff, because they wanted to present the material to the American Public, to help them understand these egregious abuses, and they wanted to do it in a way that respected the individuals who had been under surveillance, and that is a that is a difficult thing to do. Kate scott, thank you very much. Dr. Scott thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] coming up next, popular and historian David Mccullough receives the u. S. Capitol Historical Society freedom award. This event took place in statuary hall of the u. S. Capitol and runs about one hour. Mr. Coleman good evening, it is in german. I am the chairman of the board of the u. S. Capital Historical Society and a former member from thst