Page 421 of 703

-2-

possible. I knew that the Agency had had no part in the operation against the Democratic National Committee. I therefore could not say that further investigation would jeopardize Agency sources. I felt that someone had bungled badly and that the responsible parties should be fired. He asked whether there was not some way in which the Agency might have been involved. I said that I had checked with Director Helms and was convinced it was not. Any attempt to stifle investigation would destroy the effectiveness of the Agency and the FBI and would be a grave disservice to the Presidency. I could only say that I had no ideas on the subject and I qualified that there were responsible should be fired. We would dispose of and I left.

The following day I saw Dean again in his office at his request. He again reviewed the Watergate Case saying that some witnesses were getting scared and were "wobbling". I said that no matter how scared they got, they could not involve CIA because it was not involved in the bugging of the Watergate. He then asked if the CIA could not furnish bail and pay the suspects' salaries while they were in jail, using covert action funds for this purpose.

I replied that this was out of the question. It would implicate the Agency in something in which it was not implicated. Any such action by the Agency would imply an order from the highest level and I could not be a party to any such action. It would be a grave disservice to the President and the country and would destroy the CIA's credibility with the Congress and the people. I would resign rather than do this and, if ordered to do it, I would ask to see the President to explain the reasons for my refusal. Furthermore, when the Agency expired funds in the U.S. it had to report this to the Oversight Committees of the Agency in Congress. He was much taken aback by this and agreed that risks of implicating the CIA and FBI in this matter would be enormous. I said that what was now a "contained" scandal could become a moral one. What was now a "conventional explosion be turned into a multi-megaton explosion". I again advised him to fire the responsible parties.

Again Dean sent for me on the 23rd of June and I saw him at his office at 1120 that day. He inquired whether I had learned anything more about CIA involvement. I replied that there was no involvement of the Agency in the bugging of the Watergate. He then asked whether I had any ideas and I said that I had none which could be helpful. Perhaps the Cubans who were anti-Castro might have had a hand in it but the CIA did not.

On July 5 I received a call from Acting Director of the FBI Gray saying that he could not stop further investigation of the Watergate aspects of this matter unless he had a formal letter from the Director of CIA requiring it. I said, "The following day..."

004160

[vision-ocr]