“the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of the camera lights and ask them some ques tion s that have gone un as ked for thir”
“STUDY APR 29 1976 Edition: LATE CITY Author: Editor: Title: Character: or Classification: Submitting Office: Being Investigated 62-15065-38 SEARCHED SERIALIZED INDEXED FILED Sac PR 29 1976 ✓ FBI NEW YORK PIC : C on, the report said, "yet neith- er ascertained the full details" of”
“s, it seem ed as if no Justice De- pariment had exist ed in 1962; today, an F.B.I. witness pointed o ut that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap of Dr. King, and that " the President of the United States and the Attorney Gener al specifically di scussed their concer ”
“ess pointed out that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized th e wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the Pr esident of the United S ta tes and the Attorney General specifically discussed their concern of Communist influence with Dr. King." But the Church committee showe d n o z est fo r”
“pe cifically discussed their concer n of Communist in fluenc e with Dr. King." But the Churc h co mm ittee showed no zest for getting further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they ma y”
“ing Investigated 62-15065-38 SEARCHED SERIALIZED INDEXED FILED Sac PR 29 1976 ✓ FBI NEW YORK PIC : C on, the report said, "yet neith- er ascertained the full details" of the campaign to discredit Dr. King. Mr. Kennedy, for example, in 1963 authorized wiretaps on Dr. King's home a”
“not asking embar- rassing questions even when answers are readily available. A couple of weeks ago, at an open hearing, an F.B.I . man inadvertently star ted to blurt out an episode about newsmen wh o were wer itapping in 1962 wit h the apparent knowieage of Attorney General Kenn”
“ome knowl- edgeable witne sses into the glare of the camera lights and ask them some quest ions that have gone unasked for thirteen years. For example, he could call Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General Ken- nedy's de puty and successor, and ask what he knows of the Ken ned y d ”
“t for getting further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to W ater- gate eavesdropping. If Sena tor Church were willing to let the ch ips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the gla re of the c amera lights and ask them some questions that ”
“ployees of investigatory agencies only . A n ew sense of Con- gressional decorum exists, far fro m t he sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate com mi tte e's hear- in g room. When it is revealed that the management of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B.J.'s spies ”
“ment to Democrats, and Senator Church wants to embarrass profes- sional employe es of investigatory agencies only. A new sense of Con- gressional decorum exists, far from the sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate committee's hear- ing room. When it is revealed that t”
“hurch wants to embarrass profes- sional employees o f investigatory agencies o nly. A new se ns e of Con- gressional decorum exists, far from the sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate committee's hear- ing room. When it is revealed that the management of NBC News gav”
“s- sional employ ees of investigatory agencies only. A new sense of Con- gressiona l d ecoru m e xis ts, far from the sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate committee's hear- ing room. When it is revealed that th e m anagement of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B”
“rt out an episode about newsmen who were weri tapping in 1962 with the apparent knowieage of Attorne y General Kennedy. The too-willing wit ness was promptly shooshed into sit lence, and told that such information would be developed only in executive In Senator Frank Church's'sub”
“n be brought f or ward to tell us all about it? But that would cause em barrass- ment to Demo crats, and Senator Church wants to emb ar ra ss p ro fes- sional em ployees of investigato ry agencies only. A new sense of Con- gressional decorum exists, far from the sense of outrage ”
“bout the use of the F.R.L. in any other intresions into the lives of petitscal figures? NW 54 955 Do cId:32989494 NW 65994 Docld:32176535 Page 7 which network executive made what decision unde r w ha t pressure. I have been haranguing patient readers for ye ars about the double s”
“nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Sen ato r C hur ch wer e w ill ing to l et the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of the camera lights and ask them some questions that have gone unasked for thirteen ”
“counsel f ir st set forth the result of shuffling throu gh pr ess clips, it seemed as if no Justice De- pariment had existed in 1962; today, an F.B.I. wi tne ss p oin ted out that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the President of the United ”
“. A new sense of Con- gressiona l d ecorum exists, far from the sense of outrage expressed in th e S enate Watergate committee's hear- ing room. When it is reve aled that the management of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B.J.'s spies at the 1964 conve ntion, everybody blushe”
“r concern of Communist influence wit h Dr. King." But the Church committee showed no zest for gettin g further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would c al l some knowl- ed”
“l of the United States put his personal signa- ture on a document that launched and legi tim ati zed one of the most horren- dous abuses of Federal police power in this century. The committee is not asking embar- rassing questions even when answers are readily available. A couple”
“opponents, wh o can be brought for ward to tell us all about it? Bu t that woul d cause embarras s- ment to Democrats, and Senator Church wants to embarrass profes- sional employees of investigatory agencies only. A new sense of Con- gressional decorum exists, far from the sense ”
“readily available. A couple of weeks ago, at an open hearing, an F.B.I. man inadvertently st ar te d to blurt out an episode about newsmen who were weritapping in 1962 with the apparent knowieage of Attorney General Kennedy. The too-w illing wit ness was promptly shooshed into si”
“s tha t have gone unasked f or thirteen years. For example, he could call Nicholas Ka tz en ba ch , Attorney General Ken- nedy's deputy and successor, and ask what he knows of the Kennedy de- cision to wiretap Dr. King. Who at Justice concurred in the recommenda- tion? How does t”
“fluence with Dr. King." But the Church committee showed no zest for getting further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the gla”
“.B.I. witness pointed out th at it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap o f D r. Kin g, and that "the | President of the United States and the Attorney General specifically discussed their concern of Communist influence with Dr. King." But the Church committee showed no ”
“h Dr. King." But the Church committee showed no zest for getting further to the Ken - n edy ro ot of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdropping. If Senator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of th”
“isted in 1 962; to day, an F.B.I. witness pointed out that it was Robert Kennedy who a ut ho ri ze d the wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the | President of the United States and the Attorney General specifically discussed their concern of Communist influence with Dr. King." But th”
“t for ge tti ng further to the Ken- nedy root of this precedent to Water- gate eavesdroppi ng. If Se nator Church were willing to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of the camera li ghts and ask them some questions that ”
“ommittee counsel first set forth the result of shuffling through pr ess clips, it seemed as if no Ju stice De- pariment had existed in 1962; today, an F.B.I. witn ess pointed out that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wi ret ap of Dr. King, and that "the President of the U”
“tell their story so avidl y g iven the next Presi- dent's men? If Lyndon Johnson com- mitted thi s i mpeachable high crime of using the F.B.I. to spy on political opponents, who can be brought for ward to tell us all about it? But that would cause embarrass- ment to Democrats, an”
“e counsel first set forth the result of shuffling thr ough press clips, it seemed as if no Justice D e- partment had existed in 1962; today, an F.B.I. witness pointed out that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the | President of the United St”
“he Senate Watergate committee's hear- ing room. When it is revealed that the management of NBC Ne ws gave press credentials to L.B.J.'s spies at the 1964 conve nt ion , e very bod y blushes dermure- For example, he could call Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General Ken- nedy's depu”
“sel first set fo rth t he result of shuffling through press clips, it see med as if no Ju sti ce De- partment had existed in 1962; today, an F.B.I. witness pointed out that it was Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretap of Dr. King, and that "the | President of the United State”
“way as not to unduly em- barrass officials of the Kennedy or Johnson Administrations. With great ca re, the committee has focused on the F.B.I. Yes terday, when, the committee coun sel first se t forth the result of shuf fling throu gh press clips, it seemed as if no Justic e De-”
“y may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of t he cam era li ght s a nd ask them some questions that have gone unasked for thirteen years. The committee is not asking embar- rassing questions even when answers are readily available. A couple of weeks ag o”
“o the Ken- nedy root of this pr ecedent t o Water- gat e eaves dropping. If Senator Churc h wer e wi lling to let the chips fall where they may, he would call some knowl- edgeable witnesses into the glare of the camera li gh ts and ask them some questions that have gone unasked f”
“itapping in 1962 with the apparent knowie age of Attorney General Kennedy. The too-willing wit ne ss was promptly shooshed into sit lence, and told that such information would be developed only in executive In Senator Frank Church's'subcom- mittee hearing room this week, the auth”
“hear- ing room. When it is revealed that the managem ent of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B.J .'s spies at the 1964 convention, everybody blushes dermure- For example, he could call Nicholas Katzenbach, Attorney General Ken- nedy's deputy and successor, and ask what he kno”
“Jr. is being gingerly examined, with the "investigation" conducted in such a way as not to unduly e m- barrass officials of the Kennedy or Johnson Administrations. With great care, the committee has focused on the F.B.I. Yesterday, when, the committee counsel first set forth the ”
“gate committee's hear- ing room. When it is revealed that the management of NBC News gave pre ss cre dentials to L.B.J.'s spies at the 1964 convention, everybody blushes demure- ly-and nobody demands to know which network executive made what decision under what pr ess ure. I have”
“tresions into the lives of petitscal figures? NW 54955 DocId:32989494 NW 65994 Docld:32176535 Page 7 which network executive made what decision under what pressure. I have been haranguing patient readers for years about the double standard applied to Democratic and Republican pol”
“resident of the United State s a nd the Attorney General specifically discussed their concern of Com munist influence with Dr. King." But the Church committee sho wed no zest for getting further to t he Ken- nedy r oot of this precedent to W ater- gate eavesdropping. If Senator C”
“nowieage of Attorney General K en nedy. The too-willing wit ness was promptly shooshed into sit l en ce , and to ld that such information would be developed only in executive In Senator Frank Church's'subcom- mittee hearing room t hi s wee k, t he aut ho rized wireta ppi ng and s”
“o authorized the wiretap of Dr . King, and that "the | President of the United States and th e A tto rney General specifically discussed their concern of Communist influence with Dr. King." But the Church committee showed no zest f or getting furthe r t o the Ken- nedy root of th”
“and legitimatized one of the most horren- dous abuses of Fe der al police power in this ce nt ur y. In Senator Frank Church's subcom- mittee hearing room this week, the authorized wiretapping and subse- quent unauthorized bu gging and a t- t em pted blackmailing of Martin Luther ”
“mer Assistant F.B.I. di re ctor Cartha (Deke) Deloach, Lynd on Johnson's personal contact with t he F.B.I. in the witness chair. What did President Jehuson kno w about the character- assassinati on plot and when did he know it? Wha t conversatio ns took place between Mr. Deloach ”
“um exists, far from the sense of outrage expressed in the Senate Watergate committee's hea r- i ng r oom. When it is revealed that the management of NBC News gave press credentials to L.B.J.'s spies at the 1964 convention, everybody blushes demure- ly-and nobody demands to know w”
“such a way as not to unduly em- barrass officials of the Kennedy or J oh nso n A dmin ist rat ion s. With great care, the committee has focused on the F.B.I. Yesterday, when the committee counsel first set forth the result of shuffling through press clips, it seemed as if no Just”
“p romptly sh ooshed into sit lence , and told that such information would be developed only in exec utive In Senator Frank Church's'subcom- mittee hearing room this week, the authorized wiretapping and subse-session. Nobody raised an eyebrow. quent unauthorized bugging and at- te”