Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

angle was presented or was made available to defense counsel, which didn't work.

At the extradition phase, when she had practically one foot on German soil and one here in the United States, her defense counsel was provided with more inside data, namely the names of people down in central office and abroad, American personnel abroad, who can testify that the CIA obtained the female Nazi's conviction record in Austria.

The names went down the list central office personnel and Immigration, who can verify that, and this thing came out in a packed courtroom at the extradition hearing. The press section was loaded. The public was present, and here we have a CIA operation exposed. Now, this is a violation. This violation, when we first discovered it in October, months, something like 6 months before, it was reported to the District Director. It called for an FBI investigation. Instead, after presenting the formal complaint, we were called into the District Director's office and told that the security violations that we had reported, and when I say "we" I am talking about the trial attorney and myself, there would be no investigation on that security violation, and that is where it stood.

So then I went down to the FBI office and talked to the agent and told him about the security violation had not been purused and also told him about the irregularity in the Detroit burial of another Nazi case which he readily admitted, saying he had reviewed the file and was aware of it. I provided that FBI agent with solid evidence of wrongdoing implicating the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After that, he continued his investigation and I never heard anything of it until it appeared in the GAO report. Now, there are some things that are not readily known; namely, that after that investigation was undertaken there were two quick removals from the Immigration scene. One down in the central office, and the District Director in New York suddenly decided to retire 6 months before time, which he admitted to the press.

So there were some results as a result of that FBI probe. Now, in the GAO report we have reference to four investigations, Operation Clean Sweep, the Carey report, we have the 1975 Immigration inhouse investigation and the FBI report, which claims they found no wrongdoing in Immigration.

That is a phoney FBI report. That is misinformation, and if you take a look at that report that agent could not have possibly written or given Immigration a clean bill of health with the information I gave him, impossible. So there you are, you have four phoney reports, including the FBI report as a basis for or as a justification General Accounting Office personnel presented to substantiate their feelings about no conspiracy, and Immigration was a clean house.

Now, I would like to go paragraph by paragraph and page by page, but I realize that is impossible. You people have been through an awful lot. But I will answer any questions you want to on the report and give you my feelings on it.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, we may not have the time. We don't have the time to do that adequately. I would appreciate, however, your going over it carefully and giving us a memorandum of your reactions or comments to any section of that GAO report. It trou

bles us substantially, and we are anxious to find what your reactions as well as the reactions of other people who have been in the field.

Mr. DEVITO. As you know, I was waiting to be approached by GAO personnel after the probe had gotten off the ground. Six months later they finally contacted me. Three personnel appeared at my home. One from Connecticut, one from Jersey, one from Washington, and I was ready to give them a load of documentation, advice, guidance, and what have you and, in short, I didn't feel as if they were interested in documentation, I didn't feel as if they were interested in getting at the facts.

I think they came to my home with a preconceived conclusion, which I explained in my analysis and everything I said was generally pooh-poohed. As a matter of fact, they came out with some challenging statements; namely, that that is where the so-called Immigration echo was heard, Immigration files get lost, shuffled around, and I can tell you why that happened in the Nazi case, it could not possibly happen because of the signature aspect.

I was ready to provide them with other leads, other personnel they should interview, to get at the crux of their investigation. They would not have it. They appeared to be very reluctant. As a matter of fact, they came there and asked some silly questions, went way out of their way, got involved in a lawsuit, got involved in a grand jury probe, which they had no right to get involved in. Nevertheless, I told them certain information in confidence, which they violated. In short, gentlemen, these three gentlemen, these three people came to my house in a deceitful manner. They practiced deception, because several days later I was called upon to affix my signature to a memorandum supposedly reflecting the results of our interview. And at the top of the heading I saw the reason for their visit: "To discuss the validity of the statements in Blum's book."

Now, what in the devil has that got to do with the GAO report and why wasn't I notified before time that was the reason for their visit? This is the first time I heard that the reason for their visit was to discuss Blum's book. This is, in brief, private enterprise. GAO has now entered the picture of censorship, I see. Anyway, I was discouraged and I refused to sign the thing.

First of all, it's erroneous, it is not my language, it is very wrong. They got the picture completely confused. They allowed me 2 hours and then left.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, I wonder if you would take the time to perhaps point out two or three of the objections you have to the GAO report. Can you do that at this time? Just give us an idea of the kinds of things that you find in error, in you opinion.

Mr. DEVITO. Sure. First of all, the widespread conspiracy simply does not hold with the basic contents of the report. It appeared as if they wanted to whitewash Immigration. They did manage to come across some data that was rather damaging. So this widespread conspiracy just doesn't hold.

I found difficulty reading this report. For one thing, we go right at the outset. We look for their mandate, which, namely, is your letter of January 13.

Now, according to that letter, which is dated January 13, 1977, you specifically requested that they investigate. There is no authorization in this letter or from anyone that instructed them to go beyond January 13, 1977, and if you look at their report they went beyond that. They went right up to date. As a matter of fact, they went overseas. I don't know why they went overseas. What are they going to find out from foreign governments about whether or not a conspiracy existed in Immigration all these years?

Mr. EILBERG. The main thrust of that letter was to request a review of what had happened over all of those years since the end of the war, and why nothing had happened, apparently, in the Immigration Service in terms of denaturalization or deportations when it was commonly known that many alleged Nazi war criminals had entered the United States.

Mr. DEVITO. Precisely, precisely. I see no authorization to go beyond that date. Perhaps a few months, yes, but, good heavens, they went something like 5 years beyond that point. No, they went several, several years beyond that point. So that anything that was incorporated after the letter of mandate, as I call it, was unnecessary, totally unnecessary. The funds, I question the authorization for that funding.

Are we going to call on General Accounting Office to return these funds? Are we going to call on the personnel who took these trips abroad?

These are questions we should be concerned with.
Anyway, we start off at this point.

Now, let me say one thing on behalf of GAO personnel. They were given a difficult job. It is a difficult job, no question about it. You are getting some outsiders to come in and you put them in the middle of a lot of vultures and wolves; it really is tough, so let's recognize that. Nevertheless, they didn't even come close to the mark.

The other agencies made fools out of them. You could not possibly operate, certainly Internal Revenue could not possibly operate unless they have access to the firms' records, to make a determination as to whether any illegalities were involved. The GAO, in my opinion, were entitled to have access, full access to FBI records, CIA records. And there should have been more effort made in that direction and it could have been accomplished overnight.

But, to be hand-fed certain select material to show that they are innocent, certain select material they were handed as the report indicates and, naturally, you are going to get a wrong picture. If you go to our prison population throughout the country, you will find out practically everybody in prison today was framed; they are innocent. And that is exactly what happened with this GAO report when they went out to the other agencies.

CIA, FBI, State Department, the Department of Defense, they all had a hand in it. They all were responsible. This all happened at a time when the government was not being run by the White House, certainly not by Congress who represents the American people, it was being run by a group of people who chose and made decisions on illegalities which later cropped up during Watergate.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, we have a number of questions we would like to ask you but we renew our request that you perhaps

again examine the GAO report and let us know in some sort of summary form, if you can, all of those additional complaints or criticisms that you may have about it.

I am referring now to the newspaper article, a copy of which you gave us, in the New York Times dated December 8, 1973, entitled, Ex-Chief Immigration Trial Attorney Quits Abruptly," referring to Vincent A. Schiano. There is a statement in this article which I would like to ask you about.

It reads:

Once Mr. DeVito related the search for witnesses in Europe was delayed when Immigration's then Chief of Investigation, Carl G. Burrows, cabled the United States Embassy in Vienna and told it to disregard instructions from Mr. Schiano unless they were routed first through Washington. Mr. Burrows, who has since left the Service, was not available for comment.

Would you react to that statement, please?

Mr. DEVITO. Yes. You see what happens in Immigration when a case reaches the trial attorney level, the normal investigative management and routine is removed. The trial attorney then comes under the direct control of the general counsel. But in this particular case, Burrows, who was mentioned in there, continually stood on top of the case, continually stood on top of it, wanted to know everything. When we sent some simple, logical leads abroad, he stopped it. He instructed the officer in charge in Vienna to ignore our requests and return it to New York and have New York route it through his office.

Mr. EILBERG. Do you have any idea why he did that?

Mr. DEVITO. Sure; I will tell you why. It's quite simple; he wanted to keep abreast of the situation. He wanted to know what the trial attorney and Tony DeVito are doing up in New York, because he tried to discourage us from undertaking that case right from the outset.

Mr. EILBERG. Have you been able to find out what his motivation was, why he would do that?

Mr. DEVITO. The Nazi female's lawyer was being fed material right along in that case, and if we were to direct our inquiries through him, then the central office personnel would know what is going on in the case, and advise the counsel accordingly. You see, Mr. Chairman, in my view, there was no question that there was a fix in the Nazi female's case. There was a fix just as sure as I am sitting here now. Namely, go ahead and yield, consent to the agreement to relinquish her citizenship, and we will give you a superficial deportation hearing, well, a super, super.

The deportation hearing they got wasn't expected, especially when the foreign witnesses appeared on the scene.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, you have mentioned pressure was exerted on the trial attorney in the female Nazi's case from many sources, and that there was a desire to remove you from that case. Can you be more specific?

Mr. DEVITO. Well, the trial attorney was under investigation. He was sick. It was getting the best of him. He absented himself, as I said, about 90 percent of the time. If they found any irregularities, why didn't they either do it before or after? Why did they wait for the Nazi case to come about? If they removed me, the case was broke. If they removed the trial attorney the case, like when I say,

broke, I mean it was defeated, it would result in an unsuccessful Government action.

That is what they were looking for, to remove the trial attorney and myself. Insofar as a fix was concerned, nobody told the trial attorney, nobody told me. Not that we would go along with it. Mr. EILBERG. Earlier you referred to U.S. Attorney Robert Morse. I am wondering, was there an investigation conducted as a result of U.S. Attorney Morse's request and what were the results of that investigation?

Mr. DEVITO. Yes; the investigation did take place. Do you remember when I told you after I retired I got a call from the FBI Office. It did take place. I spent 7 to 8 hours with an FBI agent. For them to come out with a clean bill of health on Immigration simply does not hold, ladies and gentlemen, and I only found out the results of the investigation here in the GAO report. A clean bill, they gave Immigration a clean bill.

Mr. EILBERG. Mr. DeVito, you have leveled a variety of accusations against the INS and other Government agencies, charging obstruction and other impropriety with respect to investigations on alleged Nazi war criminals.

With respect to the allegedly missing interview summaries of the 12 Majdanek witnesses in the Ryan case, can you provide the subcommittee more details on the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of those summaries, and what was the extent of investigations into their disappearance?

Mr. DEVITO. To the best of my knowledge, and I believe there was never an investigation for the disappearance of those summaries. As it happened as I said, there was an overnight break-in of a combination type cabinet. That means the opening of the cabinet could only have been undertaken by certain people that had the combination. Now, the trial attorney and I discussed this, who it might be, and we agreed who it might be.

I revealed the name of the official down at the New York Immigration Office, I told it to the FBI, and why. I wish I could tell you, and I will if you ask me, but it would be very embarrassing to the official. Yes; the investigation never took place. As a matter of fact, you can see here in this December 8 article whereby the District Director in New York said they didn't give either the trial attorney or Tony DeVito credence.

Mr. EILBERG. The information you have available, would you privately convey to me and our subcommittee staff and let us know what the full response would be?

Mr. DEVITO. Surely.

Mr. EILBERG. Now, with regard to the Ryan case also, you noted that vast amounts of money were expended in her legal defense. What do you feel was the source of these funds and can you present any evidence supporting that theory?

Mr. DEVITO. Well, as you recall, Weisenthal answered that question. You may recall it was my suspicion about the expenses of the attorney and costs for his traveling abroad rather freely. It just didn't coincide with the total income of both Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. As you know, last year Weisenthal discovered the foundation, tax free foundation, entitled, "Hermine Braunsteiner Ryan Defense Fund."

« FöregåendeFortsätt »