THE RECANTATION THAT WAS STILL A LIE OR THE CASE OF THE TANGLED WEB Oh, what a tangled web we weave, Even Sir Walter Scott would have been amazed, we would imagine, at the tangled web that was woven by the Reilly, Hill, Belisle trio when they put their talents to work to practice deception upon the Internal Security Subcommittee about the "bugging" of the security chief's phone. For even when they were caught in falsehoods their "clarifying" statements added new knots to the tangle. Their amplifications of sworn testimony were so thick, it took sharp knives to cut through the Gordian knot, as illustrated in documentation that is supplied below. Involved were days of hearings and examination by members and counsel of the subcommittee to strip away the technical dodges, the half-truths and plain lies to lay bare the facts. The shock waves ran through the Department and up to Secretary Rusk who got action on "clarification" letters from the trio after the possibility of perjury was raised on the floor of the Senate. But the truth, or at least a pertinent part of the story, was unraveled. It is retold in some detail here because it is more than a who-done-it, being a recital of stubborn official resistance to an accounting which reveals a pattern of evasion that cried for administrative action. In the wake of the subcommittee investigation, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill resigned and Mr. Belisle was transferred, first to the office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, where he was secretary of the personnel review panel, and later to an overseas post. The Deputy Under Secretary for Administration, William J. Crockett, was asked about it January 28, 1964, in the light of a statement by Representative William C. Cramer that Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill were let out, not so much for what they did, but for getting caught at it: 1 Mr. CROCKETT. Certainly neither the Secretary nor I were aware of the activities of Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill in their surveillance efforts of Mr. Otepka, except so far as the burn bag was concerned. We were aware of the burn bag investigation. So that it wasn't a matter of just letting people out because they got caught at it." It was apparent to us as it was to the committee that these two people had lost the confidence of the Department and the committee, and therefore could no longer serve the interests of the United States in the Department. All three had been caught in lies in their testimony before the subcommittee about one or more angles of the "bugging" of the Otepka telephone or the "compromising" of communications over it. Follow 1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, pp. 938-939. ing exposure of this, all three wrote letters of "amplification" of their testimony. How did this come about? WHY THE LETTERS? Mr. Belisle agreed, under examination, that the letters were written in response to a "request" from Secretary Rusk, relayed to him by Mr. Thomas Ehrlich of the Legal Adviser's Office: 2 Mr. SOURWINE. All right. You indicate in this letter that you want to amplify your responses after a review of your testimony. Did you mean by that to indicate that it was your review of your testimony which caused you to feel that you wanted to amplify your responses? Mr. BELISLE. Well, I really don't think so. I think the reason I wanted to amplify is that the Secretary wanted to amplify it was that the committee felt that it had been misled. So therefore I thought that if they thought I was misleading them, we should amplify the testimony. Mr. SOURWINE. You mean this letter and Mr. Reilly's letter and Mr. Hill's letter were written in response to or in compliance with the instructions of the Secretary to amplify the thing? Mr. BELISLE. Well, I think that-I don't think they were instructions. Requests. Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. Well, in your own case how did this request come to you? Senator DIRKSEN. Was there any other conversation on that point? Surely when Mr. Ehrlich came and said you are to prepare a letter, he would have to say the Secretary wanted you to prepare a letter. There probably was other conversation, wasn't there? Mr. BELISLE. Oh, yes. I wanted to know Senator DIRKSEN. Yes. Can't you enlighten us a little? Mr. BELISLE. Well, I asked Mr. Ehrlich: Well, why should I enlighten my testimony, I mean amplify on my testimony? I have answered the questions, so far as I am concerned, truthfully. I was not here at the time that these events took place and it was my considered judgment that I would not testify to hearsay information, so I answered the questions as I did. Mr. Ehrlich said that the Secretary thought that he wanted to get this thing in the record to show that I had been advised of the events after testimony and I was not here at the time, and so it was all right. If the Secretary wants it, I will do it. Mr. SOURWINE. The Secretary didn't tell you what to say? Mr. BELISLE. No, sir. I never have talked Mr. SOURWINE. Nor did Mr. Ehrlich tell you what to say? Mr. BELISLE. I never talked to the Secretary. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Ehrlich didn't convey a message telling you what to say? Mr. BELISLE. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. He simply told you to amplify it and explain it if there was any explanation? Mr. BELISLE. Right. The CHAIRMAN. He told you to tell all the truth, didn't he? Mr. BELISLE. Yes, sir. Mr. Ehrlich confirmed that Secretary Rusk wanted letters prepared "clarifying or amplifying or correcting" the testimony of Mr. Reilly, Mr. Belisle, and Mr. Hill.3 Mr. SOURWINE. Now I am asking whether, on that occasion when you first discussed that with Mr. Ball, you and he parted with the understanding that he was going to take it up in some way with the Secretary and let you know later what the order would be. 2 Ibid., pt. 12, pp. 833-834. Ibid., pt. 12, p. 863. Mr. SOURWINE. You did have at least an inkling, then, at the time of the conference with Senator Dodd, that there had been lying by State Department witnesses? Mr. CROCKETT. That this was a statement; yes. Mr. SOURWINE. As you say, it was an allegation. The allegation was made at that time. And quite some time prior to December. Mr. SOURWINE. That is not my question. My question is whether Mr. Reilly was there during most of the 3 hours that Mr. Belisle was there. Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. And was Mr. Hill there during most of that 3-hour period? Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. Had you received instructions from the Secretary with respect to calling them and having letters of this nature prepared? Mr. SOURWINE. They all came together in response to your call. Mr. EHRLICH. I had received a request not directly from the Secretary but through Mr. Ball, what I understood Mr. Ball had discussed the matter with the Secretary. Mr. SOURWINE. You got this personally from Mr. Ball? Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. By telephone or face to face? Mr. EHRLICH. In person. Mr. SOURWINE. Face to face. Mr. SOURWINE. And what did words as best you remember. You were called to his office were you? Mr. Ball tell you? Just tell us in your own Mr. EHRLICH. He said that he believed that it would be well from both the Department's standpoint and from the individuals' involved standpoint if they prepared letters and/or statements clarifying what actually-the events that actually took place the previous March. Mr. SOURWINE. Did he tell you he had talked about this with the Secretary of State? The CHAIRMAN. He already testified to that. Mr. EHRLICH. I believe he did say he had discussed that. The matter-so I am not misleading-the matter had been discussed earlier, the possibility of the three individuals involved preparing amplifying statements. Mr. SOURWINE. With whom or among whom had this been discussed? Mr. EHRLICH. I had-Mr. Ball had discussed this with me and I had discussed it with both Mr. Reilly and Mr. Hill. Mr. SOURWINE. Who prepared these letters? Did you? Mr. EHRLICH. The letter of Mr. Belisle, the first letter, I had discussed the problem with Mr. Belisle and I had understood that this was what-how he would amplify his statement, and so I did prepare a draft of what I thoughtwhat my understanding of his contentions were. As I remember it, when he came in I read it to him orally. I didn't show him the piece of paper, as I remember it, to him. My next positive memory is that it was typed and then he went over it. Mr. EHRLICH. I know he made changes. Whether he made changes as I read it or only after it was typed and then, I don't remember, nor do I remember exactly how much Mr. SOURWINE. You heard him testify here under oath that he took a writing instrument in his hand and sat down and physically made corrections in the statement? Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you doubt that that is true? Mr. EHRLICH. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Does your memory tell you that that happened? Mr. EHRLICH. Yes. I remember him going over in pencil. What I said was whether he made earlier corrections when I-earlier changes when I read it I am not sure. * * * * Mr. Belisle testified that drafts of the letters of recantation were prepared by Mr. Ehrlich of the Legal Adviser's Office.8 There was conflict over the preparation of the letters of recantation by the participants as evidenced by the following: Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Belisle, were there any drafts of letters prepared when you got there? * State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, p. 844. |