Transcripts For CSPAN3 Church Committee Hearings On FBI Intelligence Activities 20160603

Schwartz who was the committees chief counsel. And here in our studio in washington is Elliot Maxwell who was counsel to the committee as Pennsylvania Republican senator richard swiekers designee. Thanks to both of you. In this our third installment in this series were looking into the Church Committees hearing on possible excesses by the federal bureau of investigation. Rich schwartz former chief counsel for the Church Committee, on november 18, 1975, you testified before the Senate Committee to share the staffs findings in an investigation of fbi intelligence activities. Were good to show a clip of you reading anonymous letter that the fbi sent to Martin Luther king. Lets watch. The bureau went so far as to mail anonymous letters to dr. King and his wife which were mailed shortly before he 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 definite practical significance. It was 34 days before the award. You are done. Give us some context for what we just saw. Why was the fbi looking into the activities of Martin Luther king . Well, right after i made that statement, Fritz Mondale who was really the hero of the committee on the fbi side, everybody was a hero but he was a special one, he asked me a question. If i could interrupt. That was taken by dr. King to mean a suggestion for suicide, was it not . Thats our understanding, senator. And the answer was, it was intended and it was taken as an effort by the king family and the King Associates like andy young to get him to commit suicide. Hoover hated king, j. Edgar hoover hated king. A. Hoover had a negative view of what were then called negroes, indeed on the very afternoon of kings i have a dream speech in washington, d. C. , in the bowels of the fbis office, they resolved to destroy Martin Luther king. And they set out to do that in lots of ways. They persuaded the kennedy brothers to agree to wiretapping of king and kings close associates. They did that, we later discovered, by exaggerating the role of an adviser to king, his closest white advise her, stanley leave levison who had been part of the kmcommunist pay but left the party and the party left him. But what he told kennedys was that he was a member of the communist party and a close adviser of king and they wanted to get the wiretaps. They then obtained they didnt have to obtain permission. Under the rules then, the fbi could put a bug in anybodys house, in anybodys bedroom, and they put bugs in hotel rooms that king was going to use, and they made recordings from that and then sent those to king with the letter. Just one final thought that may be helpful. We obviously focused very much on the cia and very much on the fbi and a lot on other institutions like the nsa. My own view and i remember mentioning this to the committee at some time was that the cia was a danger to the country because its successes undermined the reputation of the United States in the world but that the fbi was a danger to the country because its efforts undermined democracy in america. And both of those things one should be worried about, but i thought that the effort to undermine democracy in america was the more dangerous. And so my personal view is that our hearings on the fbi were the most important work we did. Other people might not agree with that. But they certainly were enormously important. William maxwell, watching that video 40 years later, what kind of emotions does it bring to bear in you . Well, i think that the hearing about the tapping of Martin Luther king had a profound effect on me in part because of a statement that senator hart, phil hart , made. And i think the gist of it was, in response to all of the senators and their Opening Statements talking about Martin Luther king and his impact on america and the qualities of the man, the importance of what his work, and what phil hart said was, there will always be protectors for people like Martin Luther king, but 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 were talked to by the fbi and were told not to have their Children Play with their children, the employers who were told not to employ them. On the ground thats these people were a threat to the United States. These people were not a threat to come out of a paper bag if they were in a paper bag. But phil hart recognized that it is the powerless who are most at risk, and i remember that profoundly as the, for me, high point ever the hearing, was that if the government acts against the powerless, we should be terrified because its not only the powerless but who will be next . And it was in those hearings that i think for me crystalized the kind of concern that you need to have with the exercise of secret power. As we learn about the work of the Church Committee 40 years ago, now from november 18, 1975, here is Senator Frank Church the Committee Chairman opening up a hearing on the fbi and its abuse of power. There has never been a full Public Accounting of fbi Domestic Intelligence operations. Therefore this committee has under taken such an investigation. Its purpose is not to impair the fbis legitimate Law Enforcement and counter espionage functions but rather to evaluate Domestic Intelligence according to the standards of the constitution and the statutes of our land. If fault is to be found, it does not rest in the bureau alone. It is to be found also in the long line of attorneys general, president s, and congresses who have failed, who have given power, rather, and responsibility to the fbi but have failed to give it adequate guidance, direction, and control. Information is a powerful resource. One of the fbis most significant features is its system for efficient processing, filing, and retrieving of the data it gathers. The potential dangers in this system are obvious. Today we are here to review the major findings of our full investigation of fbi Domestic Intelligence including the cohen tell program and other programs aimed at domestic targets. Fbi surveillance of law abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence, and several specific occasions of unjustified intelligence operations. These hearings have one overriding objective, the development of sufficient information for congress to legislate appropriate standards for the fbi. After the senators option statement, had schwartz and smudgers began their presentation detailing the broad surveillance activities of the bureau mainly in the 1960s and giving some notable examples. In the area of what they characterize as the new left, an example of the overbreadth of the requirements for information laid on the field can be found in the document thats at 131 of your books. And 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 report are in letters from a through r and numbers under each one of those ententries. I will just refer to a couple of the specific examples of what the fbi agents are required to report into the field. In the area of finances, who are the socalled angels for the group . In the area of publications, describe all the publications. In the area of religion, the policy of what the organization relating to its approach to religion, and any vehement statements made against religious bodies by leaders. Conversely, any statements of support for the movement by religious groups or individuals. In the area of Political Activities, any and all Political Activities in which socalled new left leaders are involved. And details relating to their position taken on political matters including efforts to influence Public Opinion the electorate and government bodies. In the area of education, all information concerning courses given together with any educational outline and together with what is the assigned or suggested reading. In the area of socalled social reform, all information on activities in connection with demonstrations 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 leadersor, the identity of any leader who makes a public appearance on radio and television and who appears before groups, for example, labor church and minority groups and in connection with such appearances the identity of the Group Sponsoring the speaker and a succinct influence of the new left of the new left by the mass media. A wholly comprehensive listing of everything those people thought or did on any subject you can imagine theyre having a concern with. Taking the as the next example of how the intelligence desire seeks out information of scarcely relevant to subjects that we had thought the bureau was concerned with. In the area of womens liberation, report after report about meetings of women who got together to talk about their problems. You now, how the bureau got this information is not entirely clear, but its apparently by informants. So we have informants running all over the country checking up upon what housewives are talking about in their efforts to decide whether women should have a different role in this society. Reports on particular women who said why they had come to the meeting and how she felt oppr s oppressed sexually or otherwise. Reports on such important matters as the release of white mice by women at a protest demonstration. Reports on such other important matters as the Womens Liberation Movement is interested in zapping the miss America Pageant in Atlantic City by protesting the standards and well, whatever they protest in Atlantic City. And my favorite example in the baltimore Womens Liberation Movement in a document which was sent not only to the fbi this one is at tab 5. 4 not only to the fbi but to three military agencies for some reason a document in which theres a long discussion of the origins, aims and purposes of the group, its location, its pamphlets and in concluding on the purposes of the group comes up with such important findings as they wanted a purpose and that was to free women from the hum drum existence of being only a wife and mother. They wanted kwafl opportunities that men have in work and society and so forth. Nothing to do with violence. Nothing to do with these labels of subversion and extremism. And whats the conclusion on the document . Quote, well continue to follow and report the activities of the Womens Liberation Movement. Not all of the information collected by the agency was stashed away in some musty file. Much of it was turned over to white house aide and much of it was used for political purposes. There was an indication in the 64 Democratic Convention that violence may erupt. The bureau was called upon to supply information regarding the potential for violence. Assumingly both on a federal level and to assist local Law Enforcement officials. In addition to that, after infiltration of various groups, the challenge plan of the mississippi convention, the plans of those who were challenge pg the official delegation were developed by the fbi and submitted to the white house through a white house staffer. The plans of dr. King, the be plans of core, the plans of snik with respect to activities at the convention 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 of these groups and when it 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 and the white house is a bit concerned about these persons who are criticizing the Warren Commission. The fbi is directed here to gather information on those persons, information which extended to their personal lives indeed down to and including sex activities. The name check process where its often used as a basis of getting a clearer fix on people who had begun to criticize the administration. In several cases weve identified news correspondents of Major Networks or apparently at one point or another earned the white houses ire or the subject of name checks. The number of reporters from major newspapers 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 with the name check process was used as a basis to dpagather the vie 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 individuals background. This took the form, for example, to going to political figures and saying to those figures, if you have an occasion to comment upon soandso, you might want to have this information. We will talk a little bit more about that when we come to cohen tall activities. The use in a political arena virtually covered the spectrum. In one case we deduce information regarding the fbis reported efforts to influence the speaker of the house regarding a prominent civil rights figure y s using informa had been gained through various investigative techniques and accomplishing this unofficial over lunch kind of dissemination. A footnote on the 1964 Democratic Convention, a technique which was used there was the furnishing to the fbi of false press credentials by one of the Major Networks which the fbi then used in order to insert itself as a bogus newsman 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 to higher authority. Now, turning to cohen tell pro, cohen tell pro an abbreviation of the words Counter Intelligence program. Cointelpro is the name for the effort by the bureau to destroy people and to destroy organizations or, as they use the words, disrupt and neutralize. And in pursuit of this goal, fbi agents used a wide range of weapons disseminating this information creating animosities and generally spreading havoc among the target groups. One of the other techniques utilized was to destroy the job of family life. And family life was a particularly opportune target in the bureaus view and played on sensitivities. Without mention of the name reflected therein, if you look to tab 94 of your books, you will see the bureaus report on a cointelpro effort against a white female who was involved as an officer in what is defined as 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 read as follows, dear mrs. Blank, look man, i guess your old lady doesnt get enough at home mr. Blank, sorry, letters to her husband. Or she wouldnt be shucking and jiving with our black men in action. You dig . Like all she wants to integrate is the bedroom and us black sisters aint going to take no second best for our men. So lay it on her, man, or get her the hell out of blank. Its signed a soul sister. Particularly effective technique as reflected by the memorandum, it did succeed in distracting her. Bureau agents were told to attack the new left by disinformation and misinformation. And i will give you six quick examples of what was done pursuant to that program. There was a body called the National Mobilization committee to end the war in vietnam. At the time of the Democratic National convention in 1968, that body attempted to obtain housing in chicago for a demonstrator who would come to the convention. The fbi local office in chicago obtained 217 of those forms and filled them out with fictitious names and addresses to people who purported falsely to have houses in which the demonstrat r demonstratodemonstrato demonstrators could say. The tactic had its designed effect because according to final documents the persons who went out to look for these houses made, quote, long and useless journeys to locate the addresses and the effort to find housing was canceled. What effect that had upon the attitude of the persons who were there in chicago and what contribution that made to what happened thereafter i suppose well never know. Precisely the same tactic and program was carried out by the bureau with respect to the 1969 president ial inauguration where they again filled out false housing forms to confuse and disrupt efforts by persons coming to washington to find places to stay. During those same 1969 inauguration ceremonies, the Washington Field office of the fbi discovered that persons who were attempting to coordinate and control the demonstrations, there were sammarshals and ee he crow who was responsible for coordinating Law Enforcement at that demonstration and he has told us that the marshals of the demonstrators were a very useful and Helpful Group of persons in order to keep the demonstration orderly. Now, what did the fbi do . They found out what citizen band was being used for walkietalkies and they used that citizen band to supply the marshals with misinformation and pretending to be a unit of the National Mobilization to end the war in vietnam countermanned the orders issued by the movement. In 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 similymbolic act of dropping fls on the pentagon and the newspaper put an ad in the newspaper asking for a pilot who could help them do that. The federal bureau of investigation answered the ad and it kept up the prehe tense that it was a genuine pilot up to the point when the publisher of the newspaper showed up with 200 pounds of flowers and there was no one there to fly the plane. The most dramatic testimony today involved the surveillance of Martin Luther king. The Committee Staffers described in detail attempts to discredit and to destroy king, to try to turn had his followers against him, even to find another idol 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 of 62, mr. Hoover has already typed dr. King as no good. Hoover has particularly disturbed after in 1963 it became clear that the concept of nonviolence was gaining adherence, adherence to be made even more clear by the time the march on washington came around. This development of the concept of nonviolent confrontation or nonviolent protest 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. And the public controversy was pretty much full blown at the time in 1963 when mr. Sullivan who should be able to give us some assistance on this matter communicates to mr. Hoover a plan for dealing with dr. Martin luther king. Quoting from a memorandum, the plan here is to completely discredit dr. King by, quote, taking him off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influen influence. In its effort to reduce dr. King in influence, to take him off his pedestal and to change, if you will, his image before the masses, we 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 this can be done and will be done. Obviously, confusion will reign particularly among the negro people, but negroes will be left without a National Leader of sufficiently compelling personality to steer them in the proper direction. So the fbi decided that if they were going to take king off his pedest pedestal, it was a part of their task to find and bring into prominence a new, quote, 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 and effective leader in the country and there was a paper battle within the bureau as to how best to attack him and he was attacked. After Time Magazine named him as man of the year, again the bureau finds that reprehensible, believes it must attack and destroy. When he was given the nobel prize, again they seek to discredit dr. King with the persons who welcomed him back from that award. When he began to speak out against the vietnam war theres a new crescendo of efforts by of the bureau to discredit and destroy dr. King. When the Poor Peoples Campaign took place, once again they go after dr. King. And their activity to go after dr. King didnt even 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 congressmen for offtherecord briefings concerning king in the hopes that those congressmen could keep any such bill from being reported out of committee. The period surrounding the march on washington and directly following it is particularly revealing. A report 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 its efforts in connection with the march on washington were infin test mal. This was not accepted by the director of the fbi. He found that thinking wrong, n unacceptable and said that it must be changed and it was changed. And then we find paper coming in in which the lower level people in the fbi apologize for having misunderstood matters and on they go with this effort to discredit and start they do the bugs on dr. King. The fbi sought to prevent the pope from meeting with dr. King. It intervened with a cardinal. Prevent the pope . The pope. From meeting with dr. King . It did. And when the pope despite that effort did meet with dr. King, the fbi documents record the adverb astounding. Must have been pope john, was it . It was in 1964. Someones got to help me on that. Who was the pope then . Paul. Was it pope paul . In any event, that effort didnt work. The paranoia, the belief that american citizens couldnt deal themselves with dr. King is indicated by this story. At one point, governor rockefeller was planning a trip to latin america and the bureau felt that it had to approach governor rockefeller so he could be he was planning to see dr. King before going warned of what a great danger dr. King was. This effort went on and 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 definite practical significance. It was 34 days before the award. You are done. If i can interrupt. That was taken by dr. King to mean a suggestion for suicide, was it not . Thats our understanding, senator. Who wrote the letter . Well, thats a matter of dispute. It was found in the files of mr. Sullivan who was the assist achbt direct ant director of the fbi and heavily involved in these programs. He claims that its a plant in his files and that someone else in the bureau enact in fact wrote the document. The document which was found is a draft of the anonymous letter which was actually sent. Is there any dispute that the letter in fact did come from the fbi . Weve heard no dispute of that. 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 that many of its fumbling efforts, many of its failures to convince people that dr. King should be be discredited was born out of the ignorance and if you will the very clear racism at large then in the agency. A 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. Mr. Kennedy 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. Now reading from mr. Sullivans 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 it, but i still want to know how many negro special agents do you have. So we were in trouble. It so happened that during the war he had five negro chauffeurs so he automatically made them special agents. Did not matter whether they finished college or high school or Grammar School or had a law degree. So now he wrote back and said we had five. Then mr. Kennedy came back and said this was atrocious at the time according to mr. Sullivan the fbi had 5500 special agents. Out of that number, 5500, and you only have 5 negro agents . Mr. Sullivan, of course we did not see in that 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. Its part of a problem is they attempted to translate the tack tigs first used 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 originally set up as a Crime Fighting agency but in 1939 in a 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 and established an index called the Security Index which was a list of individuals both aliens and citizens im now quoting on whom there is Information Available to indicate that their presence at liberty in this country at time of war or National Emergency would be dangerous to the public peace and safety of the United States government. The documents which notified all fbi offices of such lists and to 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 as to degree of dangerousness. In 1943, however, the attorney general then in office mr. Biddle wrote a memorandum for j. Edgar hoover in which he instructed j. Edgar hoover to get rid of the lists 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 recbs of these classifications, i am satisfy thad they serve no you 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 dangerodan dangne dangnedan dangerousne dangerousness. Now, within days from that very flat instruction from the attorney general, the directior of the fbi indicated to all fbi agents that the instruction in effect indicated that the instruction should not be carried out. He told them that what they should do is simply to change the label on the files from, quote, security to, quote, Security Matter and from quote custodial detention. And he instructed the agents of the fbi as follows, that the bureau will also continue to prepare and maintain Security Index cards and this was for the same purpose of knowing who the bureau might lock up. And he further instructed them, the fact that the Security Index and Security Index cards are prepared and maintained should be considered as strictly confidential and should at no time be alluded to in investigative discussed with agencies or individuals outside the bureau, other than representatives of the military intelligence agencies who were going to be let in on the secret. In 1948 there was a new attorney general in office. He, contrary to attorney general bidle who had 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 written of habeas corpus. It included 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 . The key question is your last three words, senator. They have continued upon the agreement of the department of justice to maintain the same files. The numbers have now been reduced to 1,200 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 lock up i think were going to have to ask the bureau. And i cant give you a definitive answer. For most of the hearing the members of the Senate Committee sat silently listening to the documentation of abuses from staffers schwarz and smothers. One senator said he regarded the fbi wrongdoing as more serious than the cia wrongdoing. All were stunned and appalled by the disclosures, and at days end several gave vent to their feelings. Ive 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, that this just wasnt true, it couldnt happen. They wouldnt do it. What youve described is a series of illegal actions intended squarely to deny First Amendment rights to some americans. Thats what my children have told me was going on. Now, i didnt believe it. The trick now, as i see it, 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. And i would hope as we lead to the strengthening of the fbi and 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 never happen again. Seems to me that we have moved away from concern by the bureau for actual actions that might be violent or might be criminal toward action toward 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 we have seen today the dark side of those activities where Many Americans who were not even suspected of crime 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. As a result of the committees investigation, did you ever learn who wrote that letter to Martin Luther king or who authorized it . Well, i think it was a man called sullivan who we examined actually. Senator mondale took his deposition up in new hampshire. And 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, im certain hoover would not have objected because all of the socalled cointel proposals, like for example 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, okay, go ahead and do it so long as you dont embarrass the bureau. That was the exact words, so long as you dont embarrass the bureau, by which of course he 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 an enormous amount. It may be there was a hoover approval of the suicide letter, but that was one of the things that was destroyed. Did the committee find out what impact this had on dr. Martin luther king at the time . Well, i think it was ill leave that to fritz to answer. He was more deeply involved in the domestic side than i was. Was there any witness who testified whether or not the fbis 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. That letter which was received and talked about not only between king and his wife, but between king and his close advisors 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 peddled information about king to the pope, to the white house, to universities, to foundations, to foreign leaders. They tried to prevent his getting the Nobel Peace Prize. But, you know, elliot made a great point which were used phil hart for this. King of course is a known counterleader to the practices of j. Edgar hoover. But the fbi did things that injured all kinds of people. Civil rights leaders where they would right 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 peddled information about her relations with people of another race. And it was 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 signature and famous people. In just a few minutes youre going to see 30 minutes of the deputy associate fbi director, james adams, who appeared before the committee the day after the Martin Luther king revelations. Lets show you a short clip of democratic senator phil hart questioning director adams. Its the segment we just heard about from mr. Maxwell. Lets watch. There are an awful lot of people who never got close to a nobel prize whose name is jones and smith that my review of the file show had violence done to their First Amendment rights. And nobel Prize Winners will always get protection, but joe potatoes doesnt. This committee should focus on him, too. Joe potatoes, quite a memorable reference by senator phil hart. Were going to show the entirety of this in a few minutes. And you talked about the impact of this on you, mr. Maxwell. But would you give us a sense of what the atmosphere was like in that room at the time . I think it was electric. The extent of what the fbi had done was almost unbelievable. And it came against a 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. We should tell people, because this is such a vintage time, but that image was propelled by hollywood. In the Popular Culture the fbi agent was always the type of person you that describe. So this was a real revelation to the public. Absolutely. It was the untouchables in a sense. And all of a sudden to think that the untouchables had been doing things that were so destructive, so wrong, so in violation of the oath that they took was, i think, almost unimaginable at the start of the investigation. So thanks to Elliot Maxwell and Fritz Schwarz for setting the stage for this. Up next youre going to see from november 19, 1975, the pbs broadcasting of this hearing. Its anchored by paul duke. Which might be a familiar name to many of you watching. Its 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 committees 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 of 25 separate acts acknowledging there was no legal base for any of them. As we pick up 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 thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do. This exact number has been selected for a specific reason. 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 it, what would you have thought it meant . 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. Its a possibility, but i certainly would not reach such a conclusion now, if you had received a letter of this kind and it had been directed to you and you were 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 correspond to the time before which he was to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. What would you think that meant . I would have to consider what i was being accused of. I would have to consider 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 is an urging to repent from something. Certainly no Christmas Card is it . Its certainly no Christmas Card. It reads, you are done. There is but one way out for you. What does that mean . I dont know. I dont know if it means confession. I dont know if it means suicide, as has been raised. I have no idea. You have the statement. Im not in a position to 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 had with it was utterly improper and grotesque . I certainly would say it was improper and i cant justify its being prepared or sent, yes, sir. I gather there was never any question raised about mr. Dr. King was a communist, that was never charged . Not as a communist party member. No, sir. Thats right. Never a member. Or that he was about or had committed acts of violence . No. The peg for investigating was apparently that he was subject to communist influence. Yes. Now what what makes that a justified for investigating him . Is it a crime to be approached by someone whos a communist . No. What is the legal basis for that investigation . The basis would be the communist influence on him and the effect it would have upon the organization, would be in connection with our basic investigation of the communist party. Yeah, well im as i understand the law today, it is not a crime to be a member of a communist party. Thats correct. How can it be a crime to know someone who is a member of the communist party . It isnt. Well, then how do you investigate something as tenuous as that . What is the basis for it legal li . 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 the chief control over the organization, and its part of the overall investigation of the party trying to exert this influence, as to are they successful, are they taking over the black movement or the civil rights movement. Its like we try to make clear in investigations that were more prevalent years ago, but still occur and the communist influence in labor unions. Were not interested in labor matters. Were not trying to inquire into that. Mr. Adams, im 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 exist in the fbi to investigate, quote, internal Security Matters . It would fall also in the president ial directives investigating subversive activities. Then the question would return to what authority the president had for such an order . Thats right. Now, dr. King was investigated, among other things, for matters of i think you call it delicacy. Would that basis for investigating an american citizen sent by the fbi . No. Would you say that those investigations were improper . I i dont believe that there is an allegation that we investigated him for that. I think there were certain byproducts of information that developed. And i think that at a point, you had a situation where the tail was wagging the dog perhaps. But i dont see any basis for such investigation and i i find it very difficult to get into a discussion of this in view of the prohibitions that i think we well, you answered my question. That by itself would not be a basis. No, sir. Youve been familiar with the bureaus Domestic Intelligence work for many years. How did the bureau come to launch the Cointel Program and what in essence did cointel pro accomplish . Well, the program as such as i can reconstruct from the files was indicated to concern over the conspiratorial efforts of certain groups and an attempt to 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. I believe these are some of the basic considerations that went into the launching of cointel pro. As far as the first one, which was the communist party, of course, that was a concern here to neutralize the effectiveness of the communist party in the United States. In fact, out of all the cointel pro operations that were approved, 59 of them 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 its efforts. The communist party, congress itself still has a determination on the record as to the threat of the communist party in a statute. The Supreme Court had 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 communist party, but should we destroy its effectiveness in the United States. That was the First Program that was initiated. Did the bureau receive direction or counsel from the attorney general on any of its cointel efforts or specific programs . As best as i can reconstruct, senator, there was no direct authority requested from any attorney general for the initiation of these programs and its only a question as your staff presented yesterday that the attorney generals, president s, congress had been made available of 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 and these other types. So i cannot find any evidence that and i have no reason to believe there would be any evidence, that the bureau initiated these programs other than as an internal decision. Were reports on these programs made to the attorney general . Was he kept informed on a continuing basis . He was kept informed by letters, which again the staff has alluded to. Letters reporting certain developments. For instance, one of them that went to one attorney general reading of that letter outlined almost in complete detail klan activities. Activities taken to disrupt the klan. It used terms of neutralize, disrupt. There was a clear explanation of what we were doing against the klan in that regard. How is it that you came to believe that you have the authority to neutralize or disrupt these organizations rather than proceed against them properly through prosecuting them for law violations . I guess you would have to say in a position like this that its just like the smith act of 1940 which is designed to prevent revolutionary groups from advocating the overthrow of the government and then subsequent interpretations as to the contusionality of it. You have the degree of proof necessary to operation under the few remaining areas is such that there was no satisfactory way to proceed. And it was an area where would the senator yield at that point, please . What youre saying, mr. Manal, is mr. Adams, excuse me, 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 that these organizations would eventually break the law and therefore you sought to neutralize or disrupt them before they did . I cant say that sir. I think that the investigations of them were based on this belief that they might break the law or they were breaking the law. The disruptive activities, i cant find where we were able to relate it to that. What it boils down to is what weve gotten into a question before on. In 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 right, but in regards to senator churchs question, you dont say that you have really specific Legal Authority for this. No. And this is the hangup with the whole program in which we are not trying to justify that theres some statutory basis. I wouldnt make that effort whatsoever. All im trying to do is say that at the time it was initiated 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 there was threat. We had cities being burned. 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 destruction of the country. All we know is we had an extremely violent time. So i dont find any basis in my mind to argue with their good faith belief they were faced with a danger. Now, when they move over to this second area of responsibility, heres where we have the problem and i think its the whole purpose of this committee, the attorney general, mr. Kelly, 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, congressmen, the attorney general, no one really provided direction and guidance or instructions, dont do this, do this, dont do that, or what are you doing and how are you doing. For instance, theres some feeling in the on the part of some that our whole Domestic Intelligence operations were secret. The cointel pro operation was. I think we all agree that this was to be effective, they felt it should be secret. But back in our this is printed appropriation testimony which went to the member ones of the committee, it was mailed out to newspapers, friends, anyone that was interested in it, back in 1970. Talking about our internal security operations, the new left movement, young socialist alliance, chicago trial, nationwide demonstrations, student agitation, antiwar activities, vince aramus brigade, 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 extremist, white extremist and hate type groups. Republic of new africa. Minutemen. The several groups, youre coverage of subversive movements. Organizations and movements which ive discussed show the wide coverage we must maintain to follow on their activities and changing tactics in spite of the proliferation of these organizations, our informant coverage at all levels has been of great value and assistance in enabling us to keep abreast of our investigative responsibilities. This is the same way through all of our public testimony. Weve told the world were investigating black hate groups, new left groups. I merely mentioned this to try to put in the frame of reference of these men feeling they know were investigating them. They didnt tell them, though, in sufficient detail other than before the appropriations committee, what we were doing to disrupt these activities. And my feeling is that the men recognized the danger. They pointed out the danger to the world. They said were investigating these organizations. And they felt then that the comfortable climate of leave it up to the fbi, we should do something more. And thats what were looking for guidelines on. The attorney general, mr. Kelly, you, that give us the guidelines under which we should operate. Now theres certain guidelines we dont need to be given. We dont have such activities today. Programs designed to disrupt or neutralize in the Domestic Intelligence field. Beyond that, we need guidelines on what does the whole of congress, representative of the people by passage of legislation say this is the fbis role in Domestic Intelligence mr. Chairman, my time is long since expired. I would like to note that i saw mr. Kelly on the today show this morning indicating strong support for responsible congressional oversight. Yes, sir. And i think thats a healthy attitude. I think it must come because as you have really conceded, you shouldnt ever have 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. Wouldnt you agree . I would say that looking at it today, we should have 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, ours internally or because we werent given the supervision we should have been given and taking what they considered appropriate action. Senator hart. It is right that the committee and the press be worried about the treatment of a nobel prize winner, dr. King. There were an awful lot of people who never got close to a nobel prize whose name is jones and smith that my review of the files show had violence done to their First Amendment rights. And nobel Prize Winners will always get protection. But joe potatoes doesnt. And 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, and then put in the mail intended to break up marriages, not of dr. King. But of mary and john jones because one or other was thought to be a oh, a dissenter. Might have dressed strangely. Or showed up at meetings in company of others who dressed strangely. Anonymous letters to University Officials and to the several newspapers in that city to prevent University Facilities from being made available to a speaker whom the bureau disapproved. And it wasnt a top flight big name speaker. In that case, an anonymous letter was sent to me making protest. As an anonymous letter 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 that. There are loyal democrats in this town who need work. And in that case, i happen to have known the man about whom the protest was made. And the bureaus facts were wrong as hell on that mans loyalty. He was as loyal as you or i. Now, yes or no, are those actions regarded now by the bureau as within bounds . No, sir. Why were they regarded as within bounds when they were approved by the bureau . Well, i think even under the guidelines of cointel pro, as established, the programs were not designed for the purpose of harassment of an individual. The memoranda indicate theyre designed to disrupt the organization. Some of the turndowns were turned down on this specific wording. This is mere harassment. The rationale would have been, and of course here i say some of these you mentioned wouldnt even appear to me to meet the criteria of the program and should have 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. Yeah, but everything ive summarized rather poorly was approved by the bureau at the time. By headquarters, not field office. I do think that the 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. Yet, the majority of the actions taken, even the department concluded were lawful and legal, proper investigative activities. But the but you see, my feeling is it isnt a question of techniques that are bad. The concept of the program seems to do violence to the First Amendment because everything that you did sought to silence somebody or frighten somebody into silence or deny somebody a platform or create a an atmosphere in which people were were in fact afraid to assemble. Now, sometimes Law Enforcement, legitimate Law Enforcement has what we call this Chilling Effect. When its legitimate Law Enforcement, oftentimes that Chilling Effect is a necessary, though regrettable side effect. But what im talking about, and what these files are full of, are actions the only purpose of which is to chill. Would you agree with me, mr. Adams, that this whole vague, generalized area of the assignment that the fbi has been tasked and which they thought they possess over the years to investigate americans not where there were allegations of crime or suspicions that crimes are about to be committed or that theres violence or that violence is about to be committed but rather this whole generalized area, to investigate americans in terms of ideas that 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 and an area which has gotten the fbi into an awful lot of trouble including todays hearings . 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 that the fbi can know precisely what it can do and what it cannot do . I think 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 has 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 were not trying to avoid embarrassment. The only thing were trying to hold back are adenties 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. Were going to have situations where you have a weatherman working for the water works. And in college, he was a scientist. I mean, a scientific student. And he makes a comment to a fellow employee that theres going to be some spectacular event occurring thats going to bring the attention of the world on this city. Now, wouldnt you have probable cause then to investigate we might have to investigate, but to disrupt. Do we have the authority to tell the supervisor of the waterworks you better get him out of there before the city water is poisoned and 100,000 people dying. And i think the committee is going to find the same problems we do in groping with that situation. Even the attorney general in his speech in ottawa pointed out that there is still possibly a necessity for some flexibility. Have you any idea how many names of americans you keep in your files all told as a result of the cumulative effect of all these surveillances and investigations . No, i dont. Its in the millions, isnt it . We have 6. 5 million files. You have 6. 5 million files. Yes, sir. There are surely names of more than one person typically in a file, arent there . Well, it is a rather large country. Well, thats a large number of files to start with. If you have multiple names in them, were quickly up into the 20, 30, 40 million . But. Many of these files are applicant files. Theres not all subversive files. We have a million crimes of violence each year. Theres a million people. I wish you had more time to spend on those crimes of violence. I do too. Well, there were agreed. What i worry about is this. You say theres no way to know when to close a file. These are surveillance files. They were opened for to determine whether organizations might have subversive connections. There are names in those files. So some demagogue comes along and says against some public figure that his name is contained in a certain file that can 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. And 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. Cia feels this way. We recognize we have a lot of sensitive information. We fire employees if we find them misusing information. We feel we need additional sanctions in this area. I dont think we can ever stop the accumulation of information. I dont know an Investigative Agency in the world that doesnt have to accumulate information. And were 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 well be able to come to congress in a with these guidelines before too long, which will help address itself to just some of these problems. Well, you may be assured that the committee shares your your objective in this regard and 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. So the hearings youve just been watching took place in this room on november 18th and 19th, 1975. Kate scott, as a historian, how could you put this in perspective . Well, the gentleman here is in an unenviable position, which is that hes been asked to defend fbi practices during the cold war. Practices that have included infiltrating civil rights organizations, the womens movement, the antiwar movement. Its included all kinds of projects and plans to disrupt these these social movements. And the senators are particularly concerned about how this fbis very programs have violated the constitution in ways in very real ways. And while the fbi is meant to protect the constitution. So theyre pointing to this problem and saying clearly we must do something about it. The challenge here is 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 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 is must address. And hes 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 years, has tasked the agency with providing a type of response to these developments. The senators are mindful of the cold war era in which these programs were developed because theyve been lawmakers during this period. They understand the challenges. But theyre suggesting that the fbi has gone entirely too far. And as you can see from senator harts senator phil hart of michigan, he has some 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 hes 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 about the extent to which these programs violated constitutional protections. And then we as lawmakers, members of congress, will have to respond with legislation to prevent these abuses from occurring in the future. Did they respond and make legislation that changed things . Well, yes and no. Their ultimate goal of establishing an fbi charter, that is a leal framework that would provide the parameters for which the fbi could operate, that was never approved by congress. It was considered for a long for 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 levi to institute internal reform. He did that with a series of processes that were known as the attorney general guidelines. The criticism was that they addressed this particular issue, but any attorney general coming in could change those guidelines moving forward. So therefore, a legislative solution would have been preferable. 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 . 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 content of those wiretaps was. We know what was recorded in those hotel rooms. We now know that. But at the time during the course of this hearing, the members themselves and the staff 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 that 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 thats a difficult thing to do. Kate scott, thank you very much. Thank you. On newsmakers, air force secretary Deborah James lee discusses the congressional policy debates. Chinas and u. S. Actions in the South China Sea as well as women and the selective service. Newsmakers, watch sunday 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Real america is looking into the activities 40 years ago of the Church Committee which did a broad examination of the work of the fbi, the cia, and the nsa. Today as we continue, were going to be looking at testimony of two fbi informants before the committee. From december 2nd, 1975, were going to show you a clip of a ku klux klan fbi informant by the name of thomas rowe. He talked about how he participated in beatings of civil rights activists during the Freedom Riders Movement in birmingham, alabama. Lets watch. In connection with the freedom riders incident that you mentioned, did you inform the fbi about planned violence prior to that incident . Sir, i gave the fbi information pertaining to the freedom riders assault approximately three weeks before it occurred. And what did you tell them . I stated to them that i had been contacted by a Birmingham City detective who in turn wanted me to meet with a high ranking officer of the Birmingham Police department to set a reception for the freedom riders. You mean the Birmingham Policemen set up the beating of the freedom riders and you told the fbi that . Thats correct, sir. Then were they beaten . They were beaten very badly, yes. And did the Birmingham Police give you the time that they promised to give you to perform the beating . Yes, sir. We were promised 15 minutes with absolutely no intervention from any Police Officer whatsoever. The information was passed on to the bureau. We had our 15 minutes. Approximately 15 minutes after the freedom riders were attacked a Police Officer ran over to me and stated goddamn it, goddamn it, get out, get them out of here. Your 15 minutes are up. Were sending the crew in. So Fritz Schwarz, watching this, let me have you underscore for the public exactly what it is were hearing here. What im trying to understand is we just heard testimony that the fbi and the Birmingham Police colluded to allow people to come in and beat the freedom riders unaffected for 15 minutes before the authorities moved in. Is that correct . Is that what we just heard . Thats what you just heard and thats what happened. That day we had two witnesses, Gary Thomas Rowe who testified with a hood over his head that ill tell you about in a minute, and a young woman who was in the Vietnam Veterans against the war, maybe she worked for that group. And she was an informer for the fbi. Now, again, our point was not you should not have any informers. Informers are a legitimate Law Enforcement tool. However, there was absolutely no process for deciding what how and who you would pick as an informer. And as that story about knowing beatings of the freedom riders shows, the informers sometimes do some very bad things in order to maintain their credibility. Now, rowe, had come out into the public. He testified in a murder trial against three ku klux klan people who had murdered viola leoso, a civil rights worker on a march in the south, maybe in selma. And she was shot by the three ku klux klan people and killed because she was riding in a car with two black young men. So he had become pib gone public and testified at the murder trial against his three confederates in the ku klux klan. With about half an hour to go before the hearing, he said to me, i cant appear on television. And we really wanted him on television because it was such a dramatic story. And under the rules of the senate, at least then, a witness who didnt want to appear on television didnt have to appear on television. So i came up with the idea of putting a bag over his head and slits over his eyes and maybe for his mouth so that he could see and talk. I thought that was a pretty clever idea. One of the assistants for senator tower who was presiding that day, frank church was away, said you did that in order to embarrass senator tower. Now, senator tower never said any such thing to me. I think if he thought it, he would have said it. If hed thought it, he would have said it. But i think it was a great idea and it got this guy to testify and perhaps added a little bit of drama for having a person with a bag over his head giving that very dramatic testimony that you just played. So, to understand the fbis motivation in this, may allowed the ku klux klan to proceed with the beatings so this gentleman could continue to serve as an informa informant. And you can go back to world war ii and when we broke the german code, we had to do somethings, we and the british broke the german code. We had to do some