Transcripts For CSPAN3 Mary 20240705 : vimarsana.com

Overcorrected and eisenhower was there with him. He thought that the end of colonial was a destructive hurricane. As we write the book and that helped lead to the disaster, the vietnam war, where francis was dealing with counterinsurgency for the better part of a decade since the end of World War Two. It go well. They make a lot of mistakes that the American Army will later repeat pretty frighteningly. And so by the time frank church is in the senate and he visits vietnam in 1962, its pretty clear that the saigon government is the us military has supporting and abetting them. Britain and france refused to help because there supposed to be a treaty. The geneva accords, that would have united vietnam through an election. Ho chi minh probably would have won was incredibly popular. He was a communist communists were killing rival groups. So there was already a civil war brewing. Think there was going to be blood . The united just made it worse. And thats so. Frank church visits vietnam in 1962 and he notices things are not going well. When church arrived. In 1962, president kennedy, who he was, he very close to kennedy, had wanted him and some other senators to tour vietnam and he went and he was just shocked by the corruption and the incompetence of the south vietnamese regime. And reminded him completely of the Chinese Nationalist army and the Chinese Nationalists regime of chiang kai shek. And he went back to washington and began to slowly to turn against the war. He was, since he was so close to kennedy, he was very discreet and subtle about his criticisms of the war at. He turned he would the the south vietnamese government but he wouldnt criticize his the kennedy administrations policies and it was really only when Lyndon Johnson president that began to turn openly against the us policy in vietnam and his relationship Lyndon Johnson went downhill very fast. He johnson had been Senate Majority leader when church was first elected to the senate and they had had very up and down relationship. He was in the senate very volatile but now it went completely south because church willing to be very open in his opposition to the war and he was the first major senator who johnson considered credible to openly turn against the war and he really pressured William Fulbright was the chairman of the Senate Foreign relations at the time to hold hearings on vietnam. And it was the pressure think from church that finally helped force fulbright hearings were a watershed moment the mid 1960s on vietnam and it helped opposition to the war and then later in the during war church became very frustrated that congress was having so little impact on ending the war that he became deeply depressed and. He finally began to push for congress, defund the war, and defund military operations. He started on the edges that with a series legislative moves called the Cooper Church, which began efforts stop any operations in thailand and then move to try trying to stop military operations, cambodia, and then finally trying to defund all military operations, vietnam itself, and think historians today agree that it was the Cooper Church amendments and similar Actions Congress which finally force nixon, Henry Kissinger to begin, accelerate and intensify peace negotiations with North Vietnam and, ultimately led to the peace accords of 1973. And i think that was really church doesnt get the credit that he deserved for his role in helping to end vietnam war and it as i said earlier he was he started in the 1950s when he got to congress as kind of a cold war hawk much like kennedy was. And it was it was the democratic mainstream of the late 1950s, was very hawkish. And they were trying to be more hawkish than the republic hence in the wake of the era. And church really evolved from that. It was transform armed by vietnam much more than any other senator. He became a real radical by the late 1960s and early 1970s, and he compared he began to compare the United States to the soviet union. He thought that the United States becoming a militaristic empire that was dangerous force in the world, just like the soviet union and his speeches. If read them today are just shockingly. Leftist for a senator from idaho and probably the only thing his his the main political that he received was that he had split personality. On the one side, he was becoming this radical. The other side he was deeply politically ambitious and he wanted to be president and he was extreme good at navigating how to present his radical views. Idaho to an increasingly conservative audience. And he did that in a remarkable way by just honest with them and by telling them exactly what he thought. And its kind of refreshing to see what he was saying to people in. Idaho in 1968, when he had run for reelection in the midst of the war, and he would go from county courthouse to the fremont courthouse to the other, and he would sit down with people and talk about vietnam and explain he was turning against the war and why he was afraid of what was doing to the nation. And people in idaho accepted it and they saw that as well. Hes hes explained to me, he sits down with me and he talks about it. And in simple english and it worked. Its remarkable that politicians dont try honesty. And. And yet idaho becoming more conservative over and so he he realized eventually by the mid 1970s he realized i think that the state was turning against him and he wasnt sure how long he was going to be able to continue and in the senate but and he had this dual view i think of his life one as i said he was deeply politically ambitious but becoming radical and i think thats the great tragedy of his life was he never quite figured out to resolve that in his life of being a radical who was very worried about the future of the United States as a republic. He thought it was going to become an imperial power that was unaccountable and yet he still wanted to be president of the United States, or at least chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee here. And i dont think he ever resolved. How do you how do you navigate those two completely opposing thoughts . And and that climaxed in 1975, when he was he wanted to run the Church Committee, but he also wanted to run for president. And he did. And it was kind of his ultimate, uh, the ultimate problem. He quite resolved but in his mind or in his because while he ran the Church Committee, he was being criticized by many who thought that it was just he was just using it as a platform to run for president. And then when he waited because he wanted to complete the church, he waited too long to into the president ial campaign. And so he lost in primaries to jimmy carter. And so i think that was it was an interesting problem. I think a lot of politician have is never quite knowing how far to push their ideals, their ambitions. But i think the Church Committee, um, is just another whole another part of our book that is so it becomes so dramatic that his life really in a lot of ways and in 1975, when he becomes chairman of the Church Committee and its a committee that looking back, its a amazing that what they accomplished, they had their had never been, as tom said, never been oversight of the cia or the fbi or the nsa before. And the Church Committee had to decide once it was created what to look at and what to, you know, they had 30 years of past history of the cia and they had to decide what to investigate and the first thing that they decided to investigate were a series. A series of efforts by the cia to assassinate foreign. And that led very quickly as they began to investigate to a secret cia alliance with the mafia that had occurred, the late eisenhower and early kennedy. And then as they began investigate that their witnesses started getting murdered. And so tom did a great job in our Research Getting the files on two of those murders, one was sam giancana, who was the mob boss of chicago. And other was Johnny Roselli, who one of the most flamboyant mobsters from hollywood and las vegas. Why dont you talk . The murder of sam giancana. Yeah, the Church Committee investigated the five assassinations and the most one that got the most headlines was the plot between the cia and the mafia to kill fidel castro. The mafia. You may remember had casinos in havana up until castro took over. And cia thought, hey, they hate castro, too. Lets listen. List them and see what see if they can help kill him and so they reached out through a fixer of theirs. They had a former fbi agent named Robert Mayhew who one of those guys who knows everyone, including someone in the mafia. And that friend of his, Johnny Roselli, another guy who knows everyone, you know, the intelligence and crime worlds depend on people who know everyone. And pass secrets between trusted people. Johnny roselli was one of those guys and, so he brought in some giancana, Santo Trafficante. They plotted to poison castro bataan and poison and. So by the time 1975 comes along, sam giancana, subpoenaed properly, just requested to arrive because they had subpoena in the committee. But, you know, you dont always use it. People know you have it. So you show up. So sam, john, connor was about to be interviewed by a Church Committee staffers, but hes murdered in his. And to this day, no one knows who. But also to this, the Oak Park Police department is still it a cold case . I think they did dna tests in the 2000 with cigaret that were left at the scene. So theyre still looking and miami police are also still looking for johnny. Johnny roselli did survive to testify before the Church Committee and. About a year later, he was found chopped up into pieces a barrel in dumbfounding bay near, miami. So theyre still looking for who killed . Him, too. But everyone pretty much agrees. It was, uh, tony accardo was the kingmaker. He was the power behind the throne of chicago and never spent the day in prison. One of the reasons he didnt, he was able to do as he killed almost everyone who he did business with, including Johnny Roselli and sam giancana. One of the things thats so fascinating is that throughout, as tom said, these two murders have never been solved. And a lot of a lot pundits in the press at the time and other dismissed the idea they might have been murdered for talking to the Church Committee, but i think that the mob, the mafia, never, in my opinion are doing a lot of research on this. These two murders. I dont think the mafia kills people for any one reason i think theres usually a lot of reasons and i think its because people are talking too. Both, right . Giancana was talked was testifying before a federal grand jury and roselli also was talking to a separate grand jury when when they were killed, they were all but they were also talking to the Church Committee. And so i think the issue is that they were talking too much in general. And part of who were talking to was the Church Committee. So i think the idea you can dismiss the fact that they were murdered because they were talking, the Church Committee is not true. And one thing that we found that no one else we disclose in the book for the first time was that there was a third witness murdered and that orlando letelier, who was the with my neighbor oh, he was the chilean dissident who had fled chile, salvador allende. The government was overturned, was overthrown, and the pinochet government him. But what wasnt known until our book was that he was secretly being interviewed by the church, which did a Major Investigation of u. S. The covert action in in chile. And so to have three witnesses all murdered is i think a congressional record and and i think it its amazing of the things at the time the Justice Department and the fbi did not want to investigate the giancana murder or the roselli murder. They wanted to leave it up to local police in cases. And one of the members of the Church Committee, gary hart, decided that was that he was shocked that the justice wasnt doing anything about it. So he and a few other staffers went to miami to try to investigate the roselli on their own, and they met with the miamidade police, put them in touch with the cia, and gave them as much help they could. But i think but the roselli murder was never solved. One of the interesting things was that the two homicide detectives for Miami Dade Police force were later charged in a in a very complex Drug Trafficking corruption case. And tom was able to talk to both of them about whether that had any effect on their willingness or eagerness to solve the roselli murder. Yeah, it seems like it was, you know, the seventies and early in miami. And, you know, far from the First Police Officers to get involved in the coke trade back then, was it so much . And another thing we discovered, Santo Trafficante got a phone call from payphone that was down the street from Johnny Roselli the day he disappeared. That doesnt look good. I think the fbi clearly believes and i think the Miami Dade Police clearly believe that Santo Trafficante was behind johnny or sallys murder and trafficante is the only mob figure who was involved in the alliance with the cia to kill castro, who never testified, was never killed it was a big deal with the investigation of the Police Officers because was a drug kingpin in florida. The cartels really you know, became huge. So we were if there was a connection there, it turns there wasnt. But it was it was still. You got to wonder whether corrupt cops were the best people to investigate. A mob hit. So should we move to questions or should we keep going for a while to ask you about that the main . You mentioned, bob mayhew or something . Bob mayhew. Yeah, hes the one that put the bomb underneath celias car. No no, that was somebody else. Really . Yeah. He was busy with Howard Hughes by now. Yeah. Yeah. Say something. The impact of. Sure, yeah. And the committees. Yeah, sure. The i think the the Church Committee had i think a real legacy and it was very consequential. Think theres a lot of historians who now recognize that it was probably the most important investigation in American History its it had a water was a watershed moment for american intelligence it brought the cia and the fbi the nsa under the of law it that because of the investigation actions of the past abuses by the cia, the fbi and the nsa, new laws were were passed, especially during the Carter Administration and when the democrats controlled the house and the senate and the white house and the theres a number of laws that are now on that remain on the books that reign in the power of the Intelligence Community. Those are flawed and not as good as they should be but they are the only but but prior to the Church Committee none of those rules existed. One example is the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, the what we now call which is widely criticized today for all of its failures, but it didnt it was the law that ever limited the power of the Intelligence Community to eavesdrop on american citizens and other laws like the foreign corrupt practices act was passed as a result of churches of Martin National bribery of foreign governments. And there were the creation of Permanent Senate and House Intelligence Committee committees was a direct result of the Church Committee. We wouldnt there was no oversight prior to the Church Committee and, really. Frank church saw his goal his objective was the Church Committee to set the stage for creation of a Permanent Oversight Committee in the senate because he knew he had to lead this committee in a way was would be broadly acceptable to both parties and to white house and to the Intelligence Community in order to set the stage for the creation of a permanent oversight and the senate Intelligence Committee was created just a couple of months after. The completion of the Church Committees work, and there were a number of other executive orders and, administrative changes, both at the fbi and the cia and the nsa that all really were put in because of the Church Committees work. And the Church Committee had an important impact on the growth and the and the role of the Intelligence Community in American Society that after 911, cheney began to attack it. I mean, if you remember, cheney had been deputy chief of staff, the white house and the Ford White House when the church was and was operating. And he hated Church Committee. He wanted to try to stop it and block access to documents. But jerry ford, who was a new president who had just who was the president as a result of the watergate scandal, didnt want another fight with congress. And so he continually ignored cheney, as cheney kept demanding, a tougher, a more hard edged approach to the Church Committee. And so when he was Vice President after 911, he finally saw his chance and he attacked the Church Committee repeatedly, and he blamed it basically, he blamed frank church, who had been dead for years for 911 and claimed that the Church Committee been that the reforms imposed by Church Committee were to blame for the of the Intelligence Community at the time in 911. And he he and other republicans to attack the Church Committee for several years after that including in the hearings on the intelligence reorganization that went into place in 2004. But it was finally when the war iraq started going badly. The war on terror to be seen for all of its the fact that cheney didnt like it became actually a positive for legacy of the Church Committee and within about ten years of 911 people were starting say we need a new Church Committee to investigate cheney, george bush and everything that theyve done and today every time that there is a a major scandal in washington, people say we need a new Church Committee. Added the Church Committee become a soon a really a synonym for in american politics for truth and Reconciliation Commission and become a shorthand for any major congressional investigations. So much so that the great irony today is that republicans who it under Bush Administration now say that jim jordans new weaponisation committee is the new Church Committee. Oh, god. And they are calling themselves heirs of frank church, which is kind of the opposite. But it shows degree to which the phrase the Church Committee has begun into. American political law as just a name for. Any major effort to american abuses and scandals. And so i think thats know frank church has its kind of like elvis hes had a good afterlife and people had forgotten him in the 1980s and 90 years and today the Church Committee has been revived in American History. I think something worth about any question, this report report is you want to come a stand . Oh, yeah, socalled back to the earlier part of your history. There was this fascinating discussion. You just forgot to mention the antiwar movement, which also had something to do with ending the war in. Yeah, yeah. And draft. Right. But going back to the to your your description of church as someone who became radical, who was from idaho and became radicalized, did, did people around him did he talk to people around him as to why he thought idaho was moving the way it was . I mean, idaho become symbolic of white. I mean, the worst, the worst they want to form their own White Supremacy state. And its so odd have someone like that like church from a place like idaho and he sensed that things were going the way they ultimately went right did he ever say or did you hear why he thought that was happening . Yeah. Well, this man know he was his Senate Campaign manager. But the i think its i think its fair to say that idaho, when he first got into politics, was wasnt quite a swing. What we call a swing state, but it wasnt far off. One of the things that really shocked was that Franklin Roosevelt and harry truman won idaho five straight president ial elections. From 1932 to 1948. There were a lot democrats elected, both to governor to the governorship. The senate, house over throughout the thirties, forties, fifties, and into the sixties and seventies. Cecil andrus was of idaho fairly recently. He was a one of the most popular governors in idaho history, and so it really a fairly recent, you know, if you step its a fairly recent trend to see whats happened idaho really only since the i would say but he began see in the 1970s it was really the seventies when he began to see the change his 1970 in 1974 he ran for reelection and he kind took it for granted because hed always won fairly easily and he ran against nobody and and was a close race and think that 1974 election shook him and led him i think to decide run for president because. I think he knew it was going to get very difficult for him to keep getting reelected in idaho. And i think it was also he then that he had to do as many big things in washington as he could. And i think in the i, i cant prove this, but i think in the back his mind, the Church Committee idea fit in with his belief he didnt have much longer to go in the center idaho. He was one of the best close was america the conservative thats willing to vote liberal . And i think how he viewed idaho and why he campaigned on the issues is because he thought, i to persuade them theyre willing and i have to them but he still mean he still almost won reelection in 1980. It was a very close race. He only lost by about 4000 votes in the reagan landslide. Reagan destroyed carter, idaho, but church almost won and theres a lot of people who still believe was because jimmy carter can so early that night i remember that well and the and the funny thing is one of the shocking to me that about idaho that i now know and i it was to me it was a great study in learning about a state i didnt know anything about north idaho is now militia central was a democratic stronghold frank church it was the strongest democratic area of the whole state for decades and it was filled with union for mines and lumber and. It really was only after the mines and timber operation began to close that. Conservatives began move in and take over. In an interesting interesting, interesting and one of the one of the old time democrats who from that time period told me that whenever a church was worried about an election, he would he would say, well, you just wait till the north comes in and would not be a good answer today. And is that is that what you think . Is that what is that what he thought that because the unions were collapsing as the as industry was collapsing in idaho that was a big factor. Theres no question about and i should note 1980 someone said, well were waiting for the north to come in. One of our top people from up north and aint coming in anymore. And also, you had you had the National Environment who after hostages were taken in every town and churches of the Foreign Relations committee, people thought he cared more about that politic of pakistan than the price of and i know i you get into that kind of situation its time travel is tough thank thank you. Thank you. By the way, this is peter fenn, who was you worked the Church Committee and was a very close friend of the Church Family and a great source for my book. So very nice to meet you by his. Peter. I did by crook founded in a bookstore in georgetown. Great so thats why im here and im so grateful to be because i picked up a copy. I have no idea when somewhere around 2005 from a no i have been here alleged assassination plots, interim report select committee and theres introduction by frank church right watch whats i and then i pick up this book the library. When i first heard about this event way back whenever by luke johnson, i was in your book. Yeah. The reason i came up to the microphone because i love listening to this. I was listening with particularly interest to the mafia, the mafia. But then i, i concluded in my ears and study and research that there is no distinct, distinguishable difference between the Central Intelligence especially and the mafia. They do. There is a reason why they why they work together. It goes back to World War Two actually with the us. But i wont go there. Yeah. I mean i think that of the one of the issues during the 1950s and early sixties that there were no rules. And youre right, i mean the people today on the right talk about a deep state and they talk about this Conspiracy Theory that there is and there is huge part of the government the secret government that is totally rogue. I in my book that that was true in an earlier time period and that the Church Committee really reined that in and and yes that the fact that senior cia officials thought it was a good idea to work with the mafia to kill a foreign is something that was was of a piece of that era of the cia and i think not doing that anymore. Well, not as far as i know because seymour, you mentioned cheney is this is very important for, everybody to know, because you read sy hersh, his book chain, i think its called chain of command. Yeah. It talks about how Cheney Cheney came in and if anything, he wanted attention. His response ability for 911. But again i wont go there. Yeah. No, i mean, is wrote a lot about but but heres my yeah and this is also people need to know because theres no distinguishable difference when it comes to the Intelligence Community war and peace between the democrat and Republican Party i cite paraphrasing one Senate Majority now Senate Majority leader charles schumer. Ill never forget seeing this. And he was on meet the press. I believe that soon after trump was elected and paraphrase. But he said something to the effect they have a way of getting back at being the Intelligence Community. Either that or he was talking specifically the cia six ways to sunday that that was for and he was like kind of joking it and it was very chilling to me to hear that because definitely do believe the president john f had his head blown off in the middle of a city street in broad daylight and the only people who had that ability, capability and certainly motive and to cover it up, of course, all these years was, the Central Intelligence agency, community intelligence, community today. One difference is the mafia has more than the cia. So theyre not of killing the president. Thats the big thing is if the the mafia didnt want to do it, they would have been too much heat. Castro and want to do it. That would a too much heat. Same with the fbi, cia, but at the mafia, castro try to do it. They would have been more effective than the agency. So thats my view, i think. I think thats. But how the point is how are we to assess progress with the frank Church Committee, which i believe its important to to today . I think where where people are openly talking about throwing any ideas of republic and then, oh, i dont like the election. Right. No, no. How do we do . I think thats you know, its its a constant struggle try to rein in and reform government. And i think. One of the the Church Committee had unfinished. It it began the process reform it reined the power of the Intelligence Community to a degree, which i think makes it so that it is not a deep state i think a deep the idea of a deep today is a Conspiracy Theory. But i do think that there are more needs to be done. And that we need something like. The Church Committee, again, to to impose new reforms. I just dont i just dont think i just give for refocusing. I just dont think jim jordan is the answer. Do you think they senator or president . I have, yeah. How a church talk a people from idaho in the sixties when he tried to persuade them or or talk about his opposition the war in vietnam. It was it was fascinating because he was very honest. It he would give some of the same kind speeches in idaho that he gave in washington and. He had a he had a habit of every year to every county courthouse and all in idaho and would sit down in the courthouse and let anybody come talk to him. And so he was he said he would he would explain exactly i dont have his speeches in front of me, but he would explain exactly his on vietnam why he felt that the war had to be stopped why he thought that the johnson administrations policies flawed and he had the benefit i think in 1967 and 68 of the fact that was turning against Lyndon Johnson and that his to the war was seen sort of as opposition to Lyndon Johnson rather than being purely antiwar. And so when republic uns tried to attack him for, being antiwar and being soft on communism, a lot of idaho voters didnt buy that because the first of all, they knew him pretty well by that time. And he he as i said, he was its remarkable. He wasnt to be to different people. He was saying pretty much the same thing in idaho as he did in washington. Did you find that when he was running for president , did he modulate his views at all in terms of and idahos becoming more conservative . Did you find that he modulated his views at all . Not as much as you would think. I mean, one of the things that if you read his his announcement speech in 1976, when he announced he was running for president , he announced in idaho city is a little old mining town. And his speech filled with discussions of the United States becoming an imperial power. It had to be reined in and that he saw what he had done. The Church Committee, which was the Previous Year as essential. To change and transforming america back into a republic. He did at when he began to worry about the 1980 senate reelection, he began to moderate some of his positions. But it was much less than you might think. I mean, i think he knew by that time, people knew him pretty for who he was, you know, and he ran he led the fight in the senate on, the panama canal treaty which was deeply in in idaho. And he did that knowing that it was going to be a major problem him in the 1980 senate election. One last thing i remember during the debates between and reagan in 80 that when carter was talking about the cia he suddenly became muted for a few minutes. Oh, really . Do you that do people remember that it was a he was muted for a few minutes and they tried to get the sound back. I didnt know that. Okay, thanks. Thank you, pat. The cia killed it. You know he was killed in a coup plotters. I know. Yeah, that they wanted him gone, but they didnt do it. They. They might have had that time for one to coup. Yeah. Amen. In the new york post, theres a phrase that democracy dies in that darkness. Do you think that democracy as it relates to the scandals and that democracy could die in the darkness and what would church say about like, you know, our governing system or body that could come after if democracy died in the darkness . Thats a good question. I think i think today, if frank church was here today, he would be a very progressive democrat. I think he would be on the left, left of the party. And i think was he would be by the inequality in our society today. And i think he would have found the actions of the Us Government after 911 in the war on terror just how he would have been revolted them. And i think he would have rebelled much more than any other democrat did during the war on terror yemen. Thought, yeah, he he frank church in 1936 ran in a very progressive campaign. He supported the equal amendment, supported decriminalization of marijuana. He was kind of muted on gun control because that was his safe issue with idaho, because that was the thing they really wanted and he was kind of muted on that. But he also gave some really good speeches like we to look after each other. Were starting to eat other. Our society has to be supportive of one another. And a really good speech he gave about the Church Committee was we have to be afraid of the abyss from which there is no return because he said if the wrong people are at the helm of our Intelligence Community, they have surveillance abilities and all these other, you know, tools that they could to run a surveillance deep state and because the Church Committee we dont have one and were such leaders Martin Luther king under investigation. Yeah, well, that was one of the landmark investigations the Church Committee was to they the ones who uncovered and disclosed the fbi as long, decade long harassment and abuse of Martin Luther king. And that really came out pretty much everything we know what the fbi did to Martin Luther king came from the Church Committee and black panthers. And, you know, theres a whole chapter on hoover and the fbi but just like theres one more person id like to ask, so. Sure, i just quick question. Sure. You think that if he were here im sorry. If he were today. You were mentioning earlier you think that he would still look for some more reforms that were needed for the i hate the term deep state because its been abused. Thats right. And i actually have a deal of confidence in the Intelligence Community, a general matter and being professional, so forth. What do you think he would look to do now about example, the collection of metadata i think that whole investigation has been left sort of hanging a lot of really good work has been done youre prominent for that there are some other people that have done great work, but it just sits. What do you think he say about that or what do you think he might do that . I think he beginning after 911, i think he would have fought and rebelled against the growth of the National Security state that bush and cheney pushed. I think he would have been much more aggressive in investigating and pushing that than any other democrat has. I