'); //--> Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel
Back home
today's date
[an error occurred while processing this directive] Transcript of William Bulger's congressional testimony

By, FDCH e-Media, Inc., 6/19/2003




US Representative Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), Chairman
US Representative Dan Burton (R-IN)
US Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT)
US Representative Ileana Ros-lehtinen (R-FL)
US Representative John McHugh (R-NY)
US Representative John L. Mica (R-FL)
US Representative Mard E. Souder (R-IN)
US Representative Steven C. Latourette (R-OH)
US Representative Doug Ose (R-CA)
US Representative Ron Lewis (R-KY)
US Representative Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
US Representative Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
US Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT)
US Representative Adam Putnam(R-FL)
US Representative Edward L. Schrock (R-VA)
US Representative John J. Duncan, JR. (R-TN)
US Representative John Sullivan (R-OK)
US Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA)
US Representative Candice Miller (R-MI)
US Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA)
US Representative Michael R. Turner (R-OH)
US Representative John R. Carter (R-TX)
US Representative William J. Janklow (R-SD)
US Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
US Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA)

US Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA)
US Representative Major R. Owens (D-NY)
US Representative Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
US Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA)
US Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
US Representative Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD)
US Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
US Representative Danny K. Davis (D-IL)
US Representative John F. Tierney (D-MA)
US Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO)
US Representative Diane E. Watson (D-CA)
US Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
US Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
US Representative Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA)
US Representative C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger (D-MD)
US Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
US Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN)
US Representative Chris Bell (D-TX)
US Representative Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

William Bulger, Former Massachusetts state senate president and brother of fugitive James "Whitey" Bulger

T. DAVIS: The committee will come to order and I will begin.

We're here today to receive testimony from William Bulger. During the 107th Congress, the committee conducted an investigation of the FBI's misuse of informants in New England from 1964 until the present. The committee held a number of hearings and conducted hundreds of interviews under the leadership of then-Chairman Dan Burton.

Mr. Bulger's testimony is the next step of the committee's investigation into the use of informants by the Department of Justice. James "Whitey" Bulger was an informant for the FBI in Boston. Whitey Bulger was repeatedly able to avoid arrest due to information illegally leaked by his FBI handler, John Connolly. When Whitey Bulger was finally indicted in 1995, he received advanced warning from Connolly and fled.

Federal and state authorities continue to look for him. Whitey Bulger is currently wanted on 18 counts of murder, as well as other racketeering offenses, some of which were committed during his tenure as an FBI informant. He is currently listed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

As a result of John Connolly's improper relationship with James Bulger, Connolly was convicted of racketeering and obstruction of justice and is now serving a 10-year prison sentence.

I don't believe Rit's a coincidence that current FBI Director Bob Mueller recently asked former Attorney General Griffin Bell to conduct a review of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility. The revelations about John Connolly's conduct call into serious question the deterrent value of the FBI's internal review process.

Connolly grew up in the same south Boston neighborhood as the Bulger family. As an adult, John Connolly was a friend of James Bulger's brother, William. William Bulger served as president of the Massachusetts Senate from 1978 to 1996, and is currently the president of the University of Massachusetts.

Pursuant to subpoena, William Bulger appeared before this committee on December 6, 2002. At that time, Mr. Bulger exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to testify. On April 9, 2003, this committee voted to grant William Bulger immunity to obtain information concerning Whitey's whereabouts and the FBI's misuse of informants.

The purpose of this hearing is to get to the truth about the impact that the misconduct of John Connolly had on the proper functioning of state government in Massachusetts. The record of this committee's investigation plainly establishes that the FBI's improper relationship with its informants corrupted and distorted the efforts of state law enforcement.

Joseph Salvati went to prison for 30 years for the Deegan (ph) murder when the FBI had evidence that Salvati was not the killer.

This hearing, however, will focus on whether the relationship between John Connolly and Whitey Bulger benefited Whitey Bulger's brother, William Bulger, while he was a high-ranking elected official in Massachusetts.

The issues include whether as a result of that relationship the FBI improperly protected or advanced Mr. Bulger's career during his tenure in the Massachusetts legislature; whether Mr. Bulger used his position of power to retaliate against those who investigated Whitey's crimes; whether Mr. Bulger knew of the relationship and sought, or at least knew that he received favorable treatment as a result of the relationship; and finally, whether Mr. Bulger has knowledge on James' whereabouts and the efforts of the FBI to locate his brother.

Getting to the truth about these issues will reassure the public that these matters have been thoroughly and fairly investigated and contribute to the restoration of public confidence in government.

The disclosure of the improper relationship between John Connolly and James Bulger has cast a new light on events involving William Bulger. The committee will examine whether the investigation and prosecution of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph DiCarlo (ph) on federal corruption charges was intended to benefit Mr. Bulger, who became Senate president following that scandal.

T. DAVIS: The committee will also examine whether Mr. Bulger has any information regarding allegations that John Connolly sought to terminate prematurely an investigation of possible corruption in connection with the 75 State Street matter--a real estate development project in the 1980s.

The committee will ask whether Mr. William Bulger had any connection in the demotion of a Massachusetts state police officer who in September 1987 filed an incident report regarding an attempt to stop Whitey Bulger at Logan Airport after $500,000 was discovered in his bag. The officer, Billy Johnson, later committed suicide. Mr. Johnson claimed his superior requested a copy of this incident report regarding James Bulger on behalf of William Bulger.

The committee will also examine whether Mr. Bulger was aware of an amendment to the state budget which would have required state police officers--50 or older--to take a reduction in pay, in rank or retire. The amendment which was later vetoed by the governor would have only affected five officers in Boston. Two of the five officers had participated in the Lancaster Street garage investigation, involving Whitey Bulger and other leaders of the Boston mob.

The misuse of informants in Boston has left an indelible mark on the public's perception of the FBI. The Department of Justice was supposed to enlist the use of informants to apprehend and prosecute high-ranking members of the mob.

Instead, certain FBI special agents in Boston, including John Connolly, chose to break the law by participating in corrupt relationships with their informant. The agents turned a blind eye to the crimes committed by their informant and participated in dismantling state and federal investigations of the New England mob by tipping off their informants to wiretaps, surveillance and pending indictments.

The agents chose personal gain over ethics by forming social relationships with their informant that exceeded the boundaries established by FBI guidelines. The agent handlers accepted personal and monetary gifts from their informants.

This committee will examine all of these issues to gain a full understanding of the serious impact of FBI's misconduct in the case. Only by having a full understanding can we take steps to make sure that it never happens again.

I now recognize our ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome this opportunity to hear from William Bulger and to give him a chance to answer the committee's questions in a public session. This is the 10th day of hearings on law enforcement abuses related to the Boston office of the FBI.

During the committee's hearings, we have learned that the FBI profoundly abused the public trust. It is now beyond dispute that agents in the Boston office of the FBI protected organized crime, or figures who committed murders and other violent crimes, helped send innocent people to jail, warned suspected criminals of impending indictments, accepted bribes and committed other illegal acts.

The person alleged to be at the center of much of this illegal conduct is James "Whitey" Bulger, who is now one of the 10 Most Wanted Fugitives in the United States. Whitey Bulger is accused of committing multiple murders and running a brutal criminal organization in New England.

Almost like the biblical parable of Cain and Abel, his brother William Bulger took a completely different path. He became a major political figure in Massachusetts and the president of his public university.

William Bulger is here today to answer questions about whether he has information on the whereabouts of his brother, Whitey; whether he was involved in or knew about the corrupt relationship between his brother, Whitey, and the former FBI special agent, John Connolly; and whether he used his public office to protect his brother or to protect himself in various law enforcement investigations.

WAXMAN: I welcome the opportunity to explore these questions with Mr. Bulger. But I would add one final point before we proceed.

When the committee considered granting Mr. Bulger immunity in April, I gave my support, reluctantly, because I was concerned that Mr. Bulger not be singled out for political purposes. I still have some of those concerns, given the ongoing political disputes brewing in Massachusetts. But I'm guided by Justice Brandeis's oft-quoted statement, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

Questions have been raised about what Mr. Bulger knows. It is in everyone's interest, even Mr. Bulger's, for these questions to be answered in public.

And perhaps most important, the families of the victims of Whitey Bulger need to know that no effort has been spared to find the truth.

I look forward to hearing Mr. Bulger's testimony today.

I yield back my time.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Indiana, who started these investigations, has played a very active role, Mr. Burton.

BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad we finally are able to get on with this.

Two years ago, Joe Salvati and his wife sat at that table, and he spent 30-some years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. And we found out that all the way up to J. Edgar Hoover it was pretty apparent that he was innocent and they were protecting informants.

And that's because our government let them down. The FBI was protecting a killer named Jimmy Flemmi, and it didn't matter to even the people at the highest levels of the FBI that innocent people were going to prison and possibly going to die in prison.

We've learned a lot since Joe and Marie Salvati were here. When we started, we had a suspicion that terrible things had happened. Now we have some more facts, facts about innocent men who were left to die in prison so that government informants could go free; facts about the Joe "The Animal" Barboza, who lied for the government and who was protected while he committed crimes, including murder, after he went into the witness protection program; facts about Paul Rico, his sordid conduct as an FBI agent and his subsequent career as an organized crime facilitator at World Jai Lai, where some have testified he helped murder Roger Wheeler; facts about John Connolly and some of his corrupt FBI cronies in Boston, who didn't seem to care that their informants were out killing people; and finally, facts about Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi and James Whitey Bulger, who were allowed to murder with impunity.

The story is so sickening it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

BURTON: Today, however, we have an opportunity to step back and look at the big picture, and it's my sincere hope that this will be a positive step in the committee's investigation.

I've called what happened in Boston one of the greatest failures or the greatest failure in the history of federal law enforcement. In two years, no one has come up with an example that is half as bad as what happened in Boston. And I think that the government owes the people of New England an apology, but the fault cannot be put exclusively on the federal government.

Perhaps as important, there was a climate in Boston that permitted Joe Barboza, Jimmy and Steve Flemmi, and Whitey Bulger to get away with murder, multiple murders, literally. And to understand this climate we have to talk to people like Whitey Bulger's brother, Billy Bulger, who was president of the Senate.

For over 30 years, Boston was living the fable of the emperor's new clothes. I'm sure we all know that fable. Remember the story about an arrogant leader who spent his money on new clothes, and then one day two rogues came to him and commissioned a new suit, and he was told that the clothes would be invisible to all who were unfit for his office or simple in character. And when the emperor finally was presented with nothing, he could not admit that he could not see the suit, and his followers were too scared to admit they saw nothing so the emperor paraded through the streets wearing no clothes. Finally, a little child said that the emperor has nothing on at all.

In Boston, two of the rogues were Stevie Flemmi and Whitey Bulger. The appearance of being the emperor was William Bulger, and the question is: Did he know what the rogues were doing? Was he protecting in any way what the rogues were doing?

It's hard to conclude after the investigations that we've conducted over the last couple of years that he did not.

People knew that Bulger and Flemmi were criminals. They knew about the bookmaking and the loan-sharking. They knew about drug dealing and gun running. And some even knew about the murders. But for some reason nothing seemed to happen.

People could not bring themselves to speak the truth. Now we know why--they were scared. They were terrified, and many still are. They were terrified because the local establishment tolerated Whitey Bulger and Stevie Flemmi. It facilitated their conduct. It enabled them, and no one seems to doubt that William Bulger, through the example he set, played a major role in helping his brother stay on the streets.

William Bulger did not describe his brother in front of hundreds of people at his chair of St. Patrick's Day festivities as the reverend, because he thought he was a good man. He did it because he knew that no one would question him. He knew they would laugh with him. Everyone was in on the joke, but it wasn't a joke--ask Debbie Davis's family, ask Joe and Ann Marie Salvati, ask David Wheeler who told this committee about how his dad was killed.

Making light of, quote, "the reverend," speaks volumes about why we're here today.

BURTON: And now people are coming forward and years of silence are being broken, but we're far from finished. We have a lot of work to do. And I hope that Chairman Davis will devote the time and energy to going forward with this investigation.

We still have not seen the Bulger or Flemmi informant files, and we need the chairman's help to get that done.

It's taken several months, but we have Mr. Bulger with us and I look forward asking him about many things today--as well as my colleagues.

And I hope that Mr. Bulger will be concise with his answers and not ramble on, because we have a lot of questions we'd like to get answered and we'd like him to be concise and direct to the answers posed as much as possible.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

Any other members wish to give opening statements?

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch?


T. DAVIS: Let me start this. We'll go through seniority, give an opportunity to Mr. Tierney.

TIERNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the preceding chairman, Mr. Burton, for having these hearings on the FBI misconduct.

For nearly 40 years the FBI agents in Boston have recruited members of organized crime to act as bureau informants. Some of the same agents may have been recruited by organized crime, or in some odd zealousness to pursue information for criminal informants against other criminals, some law enforcement, FBI agents, appear to have ignored or covered up criminal conduct of their informants to preserve cases against other targets.

The result has been a corrupt system where FBI agents protected informants at the expense of innocent citizens. The FBI and possibly other Department of Justice people are now alleged to have been complicit in miscarriages of justice, where some went to jail on tainted evidence, where discretion about whether or not to investigate and prosecute certain cases was improperly exercised.

This oversight committee has particular responsibility to determine the exact nature of these corrupt relationships, to identify all participants--however wide or deep or how high up the chain it went--to ensure that victims see justice done and to implement any necessary guidelines that the Department of Justice or laws or rules and regulations that will be necessary to prevent any repeat in Boston or elsewhere.

We're confronted with the new security dynamic where many are pressing for expanded law enforcement powers and less constitutional constraint on trespass against individual rights.

TIERNEY: Many people are concerned, and the facts such as those in this investigation give rise and voice to that concern: Is the FBI reliable enough to properly use any enlarged powers? Is the Department of Justice and ultimately Congress acting to ensure citizens' constitutional rights are protected?

People need to know that the FBI agents will enforce the law and not undermine it.

Already we've had hearings disclosing outrageous injustices and law enforcement's transgressions. We heard expert testimony about possible recourse to prevent future transgression: from the United States Attorney General Reno's task force guidelines for prosecutors and law enforcement personnel, to expert witnesses recommending a broadening of the obstruction of justice law to include suppression of evidence as a punishable act, and extend beyond five years the statute of limitations relative to such offenses.

One witness provoked thought with the recommendation that Congress should federalize far fewer criminal laws.

This committee is charged with evaluating the effectiveness of current standards of determining which of the above recommendations or others, if any, should be incorporated into new standards and with issuing a full report on the extent and exact nature of the conduct forming the basis of this investigation.

The latter aspect is where today's witness testimony may be relevant. To the extent that this witness has information bearing on the FBI or other law enforcement personnel's misconduct, especially concerning the handling of confidential informants, or information of other misconduct including cover-ups or inappropriate exercise of discretion in pressing cases, the testimony will be of interest and helpful to this investigation.

And so far as the witness now testifies under a grant of immunity, we have every right to expect that he will share any and all relevant information, that he will be direct, forthright and honest. And if he does that, then we can all perform our responsibilities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

Let me just say every member's statements will be included in the record.

I also ask unanimous consent that Mr. Meehan and Mr. Delahunt, who are not members of the committee, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.

And hearing no objection, so ordered.

Other members wish to make opening statements?

Everything will be included in the record.

Mr. Lynch?

DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman?

T. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Delahunt.

DELAHUNT: Yes, if I may.

First, in terms of I have a need to disclose the fact that Mr. Bulger's counsel, Mr. Kiley, has represented myself on a variety of election issues and is currently the treasurer of my own campaign committee. And I presume--I have not heard from Mr. Kiley on the subject, and I clearly have not had any conversations with Mr. Bulger. But if there is any objections to me participating in this hearing on behalf of Mr. Bulger, I'd like to know that now.

If I may, Mr. Davis, proceed with the statement.

T. DAVIS: You may. I was going to get Mr. Lynch first though...

DELAHUNT: Certainly, I didn't know.

T. DAVIS: ... because he is a member of the committee.

DELAHUNT: I defer to my colleague.

T. DAVIS: But there's no objection, you're participating. We're happy to have you, and you're here at our invitation.

LYNCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Davis, Mr. Waxman and my colleagues on this committee and invited members, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meehan of the Judiciary Committee, I'd like to begin by offering my thanks to the leadership of this committee--both Republican and Democrat, and both past and present--for the enormous effort that's been put forward to investigate and address what must be described as one of the most shameful and troubling chapters in the history of the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI.

As a result of the good work of Federal District Judge Mark Wolf, which this committee has continued, under the able leadership of Chairman Burton and also Jim Wilson, very able counsel who served this committee very well, and also now Chairman Davis and able counsel Keith Ausbrook and Mike Yeager, we have elicited and catalogued a 40-year history of unspeakable crimes and atrocities which were condoned, conducted or materially assisted by the Boston office of the FBI.

These atrocities include the murders of at least 19 individuals--17 men and two women--some of whom have been retrieved from hastily dug graves, others who have yet to be found.

The trail of law enforcement misconduct also includes the wrongful imprisonment of innocent men who spent 30 or more years in prison for crimes they did not commit. While the government had evidence that would exonerate them, they were allowed to remain in prison because to expose the false testimony of government informants like Joe Barboza and others would have jeopardized the convictions of La Cosa Nostra in New England.

LYNCH: But I think, more importantly, it would have jeopardized the careers of those law enforcement officials who advanced themselves as a result of the prosecution of La Cosa Nostra through the use of these same informants.

The FBI, in league with their government informants, set forth a chain of events that spans 40 years. This crime spree saw the case of Brian Halloran (ph), who had turned to the FBI for protection in fear of his own life. He was turned away by the FBI, and only a short time later he and his friend, Michael Donahue (ph), who was an innocent bystander and who had merely given Mr. Halloran (ph) a ride, were gunned down in cold blood in my own neighborhood of south Boston.

Two other victims, Deborah Davis (ph) and Deborah Hussie (ph), were only 26 years old when they were murdered by the very men that the FBI had chosen to protect.

The record is replete with examples documented to obtain evidence against Whitey Bulger by law enforcement officials and also against Stephen Flemmi and their cohorts. But time and again, wiretap locations and surveillance attempts were thwarted by Agent John Connolly and other agents of the FBI who gave notice to their government informants of these attempts to bring them to justice, and so the killings continued.

The reach of this group was extensive, reaching to Florida and Oklahoma where businessman Roger Wheeler (ph) was shot in the face at point blank range in a parking lot, leaving behind a wife and young children.

The families of these victims have come to these hearings regularly, seeking justice where justice can be done. Others are merely hoping for a chance to give their loved ones a decent burial. For most of these families, especially for those members who were merely children when their family members were taken, justice under any fair description of that term is simply beyond reach.

Lives have been destroyed and, in some cases, stolen. This is especially true for Mr. Joseph Salvati and his wife, Marie and their children, as well as the Lamoni (ph) family and the Greco (ph) family and the Tamilio (ph) family.

These families had to look on while their loved ones were sent to jail for a crime the FBI knew that they did not commit. And I would be remiss if I did not note the good work of Vincent Garel (ph), legal counsel for the Salvati family, who for these many years has maintained the highest standards of professionalism and vigilant legal advocacy on behalf of a man who was wrongly convicted.

LYNCH: And in the reams and reams of testimony that we've received over the past two years, there's one conversation that sticks out in my mind and it sort of captures the scope and the depth of the wrongdoing that we investigate here--the conversation between Mr. Garrow (ph) and Joseph Salvatti's (ph) youngest son, who I think was two years old when his dad went to prison.

Some 30 years later when Joseph Salvatti (p) was a young man, Mr. Garrow has a conversation with Joseph Salvatti's (ph) son and he said, "You know, you were only two years old when your dad went to prison and you've sort of been the man in the family for all these years." And he said, "Now it looks as though your dad is going to get out of jail and when he gets out, he's going to want to be the man of this house."

It was a light moment in a history of darkness. And Joseph's reply was this. He said, "Mr. Garrow (ph), I want you to know that I have never sat down and had breakfast with my father; I have never gone for a walk with my father; I have never gone to a baseball game with my father. And if when my father gets out of prison, he wishes to exercise his right to be the man of this house, then I'll be happy to allow him to do that."

That conversation--probably for me--solidified the sense of wrongness that's been done here as well, the special nature of the FBI wrongdoing that has gone on here. The American public--I think has yet--well, is probably just beginning to grasp the depth and the breadth of what really went on during the course of FBI misconduct. In fact, it is perhaps hard to grasp because the facts are so unbelievable.

I was disappointed recently to read a court decision that prevented the Wheeler (ph) family from bringing suit against the FBI and law enforcement officials that law enforcement was culpable in the death of their father. They were told by the court that they should have brought their claims previously; that they should have known.

They should have known that the FBI was in league with organized crime? That's unbelievable. That defies the wildest imagination.

And yet these people are being precluded from justice, precluded from any recovery because they did not know that the FBI was in league with organized crime.

LYNCH: And yet we in government have empowered the FBI through our laws and through government regulations to operate in secrecy, and I hope at some point we will revisit the cases of these victims.

Nevertheless, we only compound injustice when we seek to avoid the conflict of these offenses with the highest expectations of American democracy, when we simply wish it all to go away, to be over with, because some of these events happened so long ago and have been concealed for so long.

But it remains essential for the highest ideals of our system of justice and to the fabric of constitutional democracy that the Congress and this committee fulfill its responsibility to the victims in this case and also to the institutions of government that have been so maligned.

We must continue to address this outrage honestly and in a spirit of justice that has been for so long denied. It is an admitted fact that certain agents and supervisors of the FBI recruited and employed criminal informants in order to undermine the New England La Cosa Nostra, and that in the course of cultivating and employing these informants, these FBI agents became corrupted themselves.

This corruption included agents who took cash, bribes totalling thousands of dollars from the same criminals who have been indicted in at least 19 murders. I think it is very important for the members of this committee to be mindful that the Justice Department itself is charged with upholding and enforcing the laws, and that we as lawmakers have passed those laws and supported regulations which give the FBI an enhanced ability to operate in secrecy.

Moreover, we have so empowered the FBI and the Justice Department that local and state law enforcement authorities have been and can be in the future intimidated and obstructed in the pursuit of justice when, as in this case, the FBI asserts jurisdiction.

In the course of this investigation we have seen citizens murdered because they turned to the FBI for protection. If we were examining actions of the KGB in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or if we were condemning the butchery of secret police in some struggling Third World country, we would instinctively--when we read about those atrocities--take comfort in the protections of our constitutional government.

I think it's generally the case when we read about things like that we say to ourselves, thank God that couldn't happen here. Well, it happened here. It happened here and we've got to wake up to that fact.

The American public has yet to wake up to the fact, but we have witnessed in these committee hearings a collapse of certain constitutional protections. In constitutional terms, this is like a 40-year sinkhole--a period where the underpinnings of democracy were allowed to decay, in which the individual protections guaranteed by our Constitution were subverted in the interest of pursuing La Cosa Nostra.

Ultimately, this investigation is about the actions taken by the Justice Department and the FBI; it is not about the particular witness before us. By way of my own disclosure, today's witness and I each have the pleasure and honor of living in south Boston, a solid, patriotic, close-knit community where we all know each other.

Mr. Bulger and I each shared the high honor of representing the good people of south Boston in Dorchester in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

LYNCH: Similarly, we both served in the Senate and actually briefly served together in the Massachusetts legislature. And I have had the unique opportunity to witness Mr. Bulger's distinguished career of public service--one that, in my opinion, has met the highest professional standard of excellence.

At the same time, growing up in the housing projects of south Boston I also had ample opportunity to see families that were greatly harmed by the influence of organized crime and indirectly by the effects of the misdeeds by the FBI who protected those criminals. And in the end, we have an overriding responsibility and a sacred trust to protect those families and answer to those families as well.

It may very well be that in the end this hearing is only marginally productive. Indeed, some of the areas of inquiry that we'll hear about today occurred some 35 or 40 years ago. However, it is the abiding principle of justice that now compels this committee to exercise due diligence and requires us to ask for every assistance and exploring to the fullest extent the FBI wrongdoing that is the core focus of these hearings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield at this time.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays.

SHAYS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not a long statement, but just to say that I am truly stunned that the president of a major university system would feel it necessary to exercise his Fifth Amendment right and say that he's only going to tell the truth if he's able to come before us with immunity.

SHAYS: Also to thank Chairman Burton for his extraordinary work previous to your very fine work, Mr. Chairman, and to thank you for following up.

To thank Mr. Waxman and the Democratic colleagues for our work on this committee on a very bipartisan basis and to welcome our colleagues from Massachusetts who aren't on this committee.

To say to you that I have still not gotten over how Mr. Salvatti (ph) and his beautiful wife and family had to deal with this issue, and the failure of our government to right this wrong.

And then to say, in conclusion, that I'm going to defer questions on Mr. Bulger to others and listen to what he says to them under oath and with immunity. But I believe without any hesitation to say to you that this is a story about corrupt law enforcement on the federal, state and local level, but particularly the FBI; it's a story of political corruption, deep and serious; and it's a story of organized crime, and they all mix together in this incredible cocktail that resulted in the Salvattis (ph) spending 30 years of their lives without each other.

I am grateful you had this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to make that statement.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

Again, members will have five legislative days to get their remarks in the record, but members who feel compelled to speak will be allowed to speak.

Mr. Clay?

CLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very short statement.

I welcome the continuation of this hearing from the 107th Congress. I'd also like to applaud the committee for its in-depth work in helping to uncover important facts concerning the FBI's tactics and its previous use of informants in the Boston area.

The use of informants by law enforcement is as old as law enforcement itself. Today's hearing hopefully will play a part in the restoration of public confidence in law enforcement matters. We know a few facts surrounding the investigation of Whitey Bulger, and one of them is that John Connolly, Whitey Bulger and today's witness, William Bulger, lived close to each other as children in south Boston.

And on April 9, 2003, this committee voted to grant today's witness, William Bulger, immunity to obtain information concerning the whereabouts of his brother, Whitey.

Mr. Chairman, this is some of what we know so far. However, after we have had an opportunity to formally question today's witness, I am certain this committee will learn much more and move closer to uncovering the rest of the truth about Whitey Bulger.

Finally, I would encourage this committee to remember that William Bulger is not on trial and should not be treated as such. He is only guilty of being the brother of a man that does not have the same respect for the law as he does.

CLAY: Hopefully, he will share with us what he knows about his brother's former associates, illegal activities and whereabouts.

And I ask unanimous consent to submit my entire statement in its entirety into the record, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much. Without objection, so ordered.

Do any other members of the committee wish to be recognized? If not, let me get to Mr. Delahunt and then to Mr. Meehan. This is of great concern to the both of you.

DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the invitation.

As others have indicated, the committee has focused now for many months on the operation of the Boston office of the FBI. And as others have indicated there have been a number of profoundly disturbing revelations as to the misconduct and questionable practices that span decades in that particular office.

It's been established clearly that information in the possession of the FBI could have exonerated innocent men who did serve more than 30 years each for crimes that the FBI knew they did not commit, and yet the bureau never felt the need to come forward with that information.

And as important, information was withheld from state and local law enforcements as well as other federal agencies that put individuals and communities at risk from some of the most violent criminals in this country's history. Some murders might not have occurred if the bureau had fulfilled its responsibilities to be more forthcoming.

It is important to remember that Joe Barboza was relocated to California and there was testimony that was taken by this committee from state and local authorities that established that they had never received any notification of Mr. Barboza's presence in their community. And while there, Mr. Barboza committed a murder.

And then, while serving time for that particular homicide, federal authorities intervened in his behalf before the parole board. I think we all can agree that that is unacceptable and unconscionable and that's why the work of this committee over the course of 10 public hearings now has been so essential.

And I really want to commend the former chair, Mr. Burton. He has been accused in the past of being a partisan, but it was Dan Burton that took on his own administration, that threatened the attorney general of the United States with contempt unless the documents that this particular committee was seeking were provided to the committee.

DELAHUNT: And I know he can speak for himself, but again, I don't believe we have received the kind of cooperation from the Department of Justice that this committee should have and that the American people deserve.

But my concern isn't limited to the conduct of the FBI just simply in Boston. It goes beyond that.

As Senator Grassley of Iowa has said, a culture of concealment that has eroded the confidence of the American people in the FBI and in the Department of Justice reflects what the FBI is about, and unfortunately at the moment in history when the American people yearned for confidence in their Justice Department given the events of September 11th. But it does go far beyond just the office in Boston.

All we have to do is remember that back in the 1960s, information that would have assisted in the prosecution of those responsible for the church bombings in Alabama was not disclosed.

Questions surrounding the work done in the FBI laboratories; the so-called Jewell matter, where an individual was identified as responsible for the bombing during the course of the Atlanta Olympics, and the case was never moved forward; and to the recent prosecution of Wen Ho Lee, where a federal district court judge apologized to Mr. Lee on behalf of the American people because of the work of the FBI. So this is not just about the Boston office of the FBI.

In the four terms that I've been here, the most astounding testimony I've heard from any witness was presented last December in Boston during the course of a field hearing. And in response to a question from my friend and colleague to my left, Mr. Meehan, Jeremiah O'Sullivan, former U.S. attorney, former head of the Organized Crime Strike Force, who knows the FBI well, made this statement: "If you go against the FBI, they will try to get you. They will wage war on you."

Please reflect on that statement, my colleagues.

This is a culture that requires radical surgery. It can't stand and what is necessary, as others have suggested, is transparency where appropriate and accountability.

DELAHUNT: With that, I yield back. And I thank the chair for the invitation.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Meehan?

MEEHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, want to thank the chair and the former chair for their work in this matter. Congressman Delahunt and I, way back as early as 1998, had requested that the House Judiciary Committee conduct hearings, given our jurisdiction over the Justice Department.

And, frankly, it took courage and perseverance to hold these hearings. No one likes to have a hearing on the FBI knowing that the FBI is not going to be too happy about the outcome of it. But I'm going to tell you something: The results of this hearing and the misconduct at the Boston FBI office is just absolutely incredible.

And I know, as a former prosecutor, from personal experience that informants make a significant and indeed an essential contribution to federal, state and local law enforcement efforts. Informants have been extremely useful in organized crime cases, in that it's a way to infiltrate, it's a way that you get rats within the organization to provide information.

That having been said, the events in Boston certainly demand that this Congress needs greater scrutiny. Attorney general of the United States testified before the Judiciary Committee 10 days or so ago looking for broader powers under the PATRIOT II Act, more secrecy under the guise of, "We have to protect the United States from terrorism."

We had better not give any more authority to the FBI or any law enforcement agency until we clear up the culture that is so evident in the case that's before us. Whitey Bulger was a government informant and is alleged to have committed eight murders while a government informant, while he was an informant for the government, and there's evidence to suggest that the FBI either knew about it or looked the other way.

And if anybody needs more evidence of why we need to make sure we keep a focus on the FBI, just look at this morning's Boston Herald, where, apparently, there are two individuals, employees of a hotel in the Caribbean, who say that they've seen Whitey Bulger. No one in St. Vincent has been interviewed by the FBI. None of the witnesses have been interviewed by the FBI. I have no idea why they haven't, but it makes me wonder how aggressive this pursuit is in the case.

Now, I don't know if the witness before us has any information, can shed any light on this. But I just want to thank the chairman and the former chairman, because the work that we are doing in terms of oversight of the FBI is important.

Remember, J. Edgar Hoover was bugging Martin Luther King, not because he thought he may have committed a crime, but he wanted to embarrass him. There's all kind of evidence to demonstrate that this Congress has a responsibility to make sure that this never happens again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: I thank the gentleman.

If there are no other further statements, I would remind members they'll have until the end of the day to submit any statements for the record.

Mr. Bulger, it's the policy of the committee all witnesses be sworn before they testify. Would you please rise with me and raise your right hand?

T. DAVIS: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?


T. DAVIS: Thank you.

Note for the record that Mr. Bulger is appearing before the committee pursuant to a subpoena issued by this committee and duly served by agreement by a facsimile on Mr. Bulger's lawyer on Tuesday. A copy of that subpoena will be placed in the record.

Mr. Kiley (ph), would you please introduce yourself?

T. DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you for being with us.

In order to allow time for more questions and discussion, Mr. Bulger, we're going to give you an opportunity to make your opening statement. We won't hold you to any time limit.

This is, I think, an important statement for you and for the committee, and again, thank you for being here.

BULGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I appreciate the courtesies that you, the members of this committee and the committee staff have extended to me.

I know this committee seeks to ensure that our law enforcement and criminal justice functions in an effective and appropriate manner, and I certainly applaud this effort.

One of the most basic duties government faces is to provide for the public safety. Government's efforts must be unwavering. Public confidence, when it is shaken, must be restored. People must feel secure about their lives, and people must be able to trust their government.

I understand that you have a specific interest in the activities of federal law enforcement officials in Massachusetts, and I will be happy to assist in any way.

I know that you have questions about my brother, James Bulger, and I will answer those questions.

With the chairman's indulgence, I would like to offer a few words about my brother.

Many words have been written about him, but few have been spoken by me. There are reasons why I have maintained a reticence on what, for me, is a difficult and painful subject. I recognize that my reluctance to comment has been vexing for some, and I also believe that it is responsible for some significant misunderstandings and misperceptions.

So please allow me to speak plainly. I do not know where my brother is. I do not know where he has been over the past eight years. I have not aided James Bulger in any way while he has been a fugitive.

Do I possess information that could lead to my brother's arrest? The honest answer is no.

I had one very brief telephone conversation with my brother. It occurred in 1995 and has long since been disclosed to law enforcement officials. Truth to tell, over the years I was unable to penetrate the secretive life of my older brother. He marched to his own drummer and traveled a path very different from mine.

Jim had his own ways I could not possibly influence. The realities of the situation were such that his activities were, in fact, shrouded in secrecy.

BULGER: They were never shared with me. It would be unfair to impute to me knowledge of my brother's associations, knowledge that I did not have, do not have.

Much has been made of that brief telephone call that I have mentioned--a call that has become a topic of discussion because my grand jury testimony was released to a Boston newspaper in violation of federal law. Many people, including elected public officials have offered opinions about what was said or what was not said. But few, if any, have spoken about the illegal leaking that underlies the discussion.

Very few have questioned the system that allows a transcript of my grand jury testimony to be released to the Boston Globe but not to me. This call occurred in 1995--six years before my grand jury appearance. The subject of my brother turning himself in never came up in that conversation. I never recommended that my brother remain at large. In 1995 and in subsequent years, I believed that the FBI wanted James Bulger killed.

It has been established that an FBI agent, John Morris, in 1988 met with Boston Globe's spotlight (ph) team editor, Gerard O'Neill (ph), and told him that my brother was an informant--information that was summarily published in the Boston Globe. Morris' leak had one purpose, pure and simple--bringing about the death of James Bulger. And this is not just my hunch. This is the finding of U.S. District Court Judge Mark Bull (ph) after extensive hearings.

I know my brother stands accused of many things--serious crimes, brutal crimes. I do still live in the hope that the worst of the charges against him will prove groundless; it is my hope. I am particularly sorry to think that he may have been guilty of some of the horrible things of which he is accused. He has heard me often enough speak of society's right to protect itself and to impose severe penalties on anyone guilty of such deeds.

I'm mindful of the victims in this matter and I do not have the words that are adequate to let them know of my own sympathy and anguish. But I am ever mindful of the good shepherd story and its lesson that no one is to be abandoned. I cared deeply for my brother but no one should construe my expression of concern as in any way condoning any illegal acts nor should anyone ever think that I take lightly this entire matter.

One political foe has made the claim that I have somehow made a choice of my brother over my civic duties and my public responsibilities. There is no basis in fact for such an assertion.

I had, in fact, been concerned about the direction of my brother's life for many years. In truth, my effort with Jim spanned the decades. My attempts to change my brother's life were unsuccessful; I wish that I could have achieved success. But I must tell you that reforming Jim Bulger was not my sole 24-hour a day focus during the 30-year period spanning his release from prison during the mid-1960s through his departure in 1995.

During that entire period, I served in the Massachusetts legislature.

BULGER: I was honored to serve in the Massachusetts House of Representatives for 10 years and subsequently in the Senate for 25 years, elected by my Senate colleagues for nine terms as president of the Senate. Legislative duties, as the members of this committee can fully appreciate, exact heavy demands. I met those demands.

I made contributions during 35 years of legislative service, authoring the first bill to require the reporting of child abuse, championing the cause of public education, public libraries and advocating for the health and safety of my urban constituents. I kept faith with my constituents and with my colleagues.

My wife and I were blessed with nine children and early on I recognized that this was a place where my energies must be focused. It was a responsibility I embraced. Our efforts have had a happy result. Those nine children have successfully completed and have been granted a graduate--and graduated from college and six of them also completed graduate studies in the law and business and education, and our children of the parents of 24 grandchildren, some of whom are in my house on a daily basis.

So while I never abandoned hope or abandoned my efforts with respect to my brother, the truth is that other important things were happening in my life. I never wrote my brother off or walled him off, but public service and my own immediate family placed very large claims on me. It is natural to focus our efforts on those matters that we can affect.

And while I worried about my brother, I now recognize that I didn't fully grasp the dimensions of his life. Few people probably did. By definition, his was a secretive life. His actions were covert, hidden even from--or perhaps hidden especially from those who loved and cared about him.

The subject that interests so many, the life and the activities of my brother James is painful and difficult for me. But it is a subject I've lived with for a long time. For years my political opponents, my detractors in the press and my adversaries in public debate have tried to use my brother in a cynical and calculated way in order to gain advantage.

I first sought political office in the year 1960. Be assured that the subject of my brother was contentious from the start. On the occasion of my first speech, a political foe told me that I should "be in jail" with my brother and it has been a refrain for 40 years.

Among the constituents of my legislative district and in the Massachusetts Senate, there was always an awareness of my brother. It was never a secret. But people understood that we were different people who lived different lives and should be judged separately.

BULGER: When I was elected president of the educational institution I am privileged to lead, the University of Massachusetts, the members of the board of trustees knew of this circumstance in my life yet they judged me on my own merits and they have my lasting gratitude.

Now I am in a much larger arena where the audience is so vast that I cannot rely on its members having personal impressions of me as the basis for their judgments.

I know that in some quarters I will no longer be seen or judged as an individual. I doubt that, that happier time will ever return for me. But there is a reason to believe that a fairer perspective will surface again for those other family members who have shown great strength in the face of the onslaught by the media and by overzealous government authority.

Thank you.

T. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Bulger.

With the concurrence of the ranking minority member in pursuant to Committee Rule 14, I'll recognize the ranking minority and myself to control 30 minutes each. After this time, the committee will proceed under the five-minute rule.

I recognize myself for 30 minutes.

Mr. Bulger, your brother is accused of more than 20 murders. He led a life of crime for 30 years without being caught. One murder may have occurred at the house next door to yours. FBI agents apparently sat down for dinner there with mobsters, including one dinner at which you allegedly appeared.

When Stevie "The Rifleman" Flemmi was arrested and the shed next door was searched, a large stash of weapons was discovered. You became Senate president following the federal prosecution of other Senate leaders. Former FBI agent John Morris, who was one of Whitey's handlers, admitted that he took money from Whitey during the '75 State Street investigation.

A former assistant U.S. attorney has testified that John Connolly, now serving 10 years in jail for protecting Whitey, tried to terminate that investigation prematurely.

My question is did there come a time when you came to believe that the FBI had protected your brother and that John Connolly may have used his authority to protect you or advanced your political career?

BULGER: My counsel informs me that I'm supposed to make a statement at this time, Mr. Chairman.

I understand from your staff that your procedures require me to reassert my privilege under the Fifth Amendment in order to effectuate the order of Chief Judge Hogan (ph), and I do so at this time.

T. DAVIS: Well, because you've refused to answer I'm hereby--under your statement we have to communicate to you an order issued by the district--court for the District of Columbia.

The order provides in substance--you may not refuse to provide evidence to this committee on the basis of your privilege against self-incrimination. It provides that evidence obtained for you under the order may not be used against you in any criminal proceeding.

A copy of the order is at the witness table, and without objection, will be placed in the record. Pursuant to the order, now you're directed to answer the questions put to you. This has been previously scripted.

Mr. Bulger, the immunity procedure is complete.

I'll repeat my question.

Did there come a time when you came to believe that the FBI had protected your brother and that John Connolly may have used his authority to protect you or advance your political career?

BULGER: They're a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

BULGER: On the question of whether I came to the conclusion that there was, in fact, a relationship between the FBI and my brother, that is so. And I already alluded to the time that that first came to my attention. It was when Mr. Morris told the newspaper and the newspaper printed it. And that was later construed by Judge Wolf (ph) as an attempt by Mr. Morris to have my brother killed.

And on the matter of the second question, of John Connolly seeking to help me, I don't know of it, especially the instance that you've referenced, but John was a friend of mine and I assure you I never asked him to interfere in any such procedures--never.

T. DAVIS: Were you aware at the time that he may have done that...

BULGER: No, I was not.

T. DAVIS: ... even though you didn't ask him?


T. DAVIS: You became president of the Massachusetts State Senate following the prosecution of former Senate Majority Leader Joseph DiCarlo (ph) on federal corruption charges.

BULGER: Right.

T. DAVIS: Did you have any knowledge of the DiCarlo (ph) investigation before it became public?

BULGER: No, we knew that there was an--I knew there was an investigation going on because it was in the press and it was in the general rumor mill.

T. DAVIS: Did you ever discuss the DiCarlo (ph) investigation with John Connolly?

BULGER: I don't believe I ever did. I have no recollection of ever speaking to John Connolly about that matter.

T. DAVIS: But he was your friend at the time that was going on.

BULGER: He was.

T. DAVIS: In 1985 you received $240,000 from a trust fund established by Tom Finnerty (ph), your law associate. The money came out of the same account into which Tom Finnerty (ph) had deposited $500,000 that he received from Harold Brown (ph), a Boston real estate developer. Brown (ph) alleged that Finnerty (ph) extorted the $500,000 as part of the real estate venture for 75 State Street.

As you're aware, we're here today to uncover as much information as possible about FBI misconduct in Boston and the effect it may have had on state politics. You were cleared by both the federal and Massachusetts state government of any wrongdoing concerning 75 State Street. Even if you did not participate in extorting money from Harold Brown (ph), there is still the underlying question of how the FBI agents who were your brother's handlers influenced the 75 State Street matter.

Boston FBI Special Agent John Morris was the supervisor of the Public Corruption Crimes Unit during the time of the 75 State Street investigation. Morris formerly served as the supervisor of the Boston Organized Crime Squad. Morris testified under oath of taking gifts and money from your brother Whitey, including $5,000 in 1985.

What did you know of that relationship between your brother Whitey and Special Agent Morris?

BULGER: I knew nothing of that relationship, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Did you know Special Agent Morris?

BULGER: I don't think I ever met him, but I've seen someplace that he claims I met him. But I do not recall such a meeting.

May I make one further reference to...

T. DAVIS: Certainly.

BULGER: ... Mr. John Morris.

John Morris was disciplined back in 1988 or 1989 because I had volunteered to speak to the United States attorney about this whole matter of that investigation. I was anxious to tell them my side of the story. My attorney at the time asked the U.S. attorney's people, "Please treat this with great confidentiality because I'm a public figure and it would be harmful to me," and it was the United States attorney's office, a couple of counsel from that office, and also an FBI agent was seated at the table as I told my story.

BULGER: The next morning my phone rang, Mr. Chairman, and it was the Boston Globe and they wanted to know how the interview had gone. My attorney was indignant about that. And so he called for some kind of investigation of this episode at the FBI.

The FBI did exactly that and the conclusion was that John Morris had called the Globe about my interview and that John Morris was then disciplined--you should know--for this behavior. I've written about that myself in some little political writings about the idea that I had gone through all of this with these people and the only one who seems to be in trouble as a result of it is an FBI agent. And he was suspended, I think, for several weeks for his behavior. Unless I've met him at some point which could be true too. And that's my experience with John Morris.

T. DAVIS: Did you ever discuss the 75 State Street investigation with Whitey?

BULGER: I don't think so.

T. DAVIS: What about with John Connolly? A former assistant U.S. attorney testified at John Connolly's trial that Connolly sought to prematurely terminate that investigation at 75 State Street. Did you ever discuss...

BULGER: I don't think I ever spoke on that subject to John. I was very confident about my position with respect to that. I didn't feel as though there was anything for me to answer for and I hoped for it to end. It went through three I think federal investigations and two state investigations, all of which it concluded by saying that there was no accuser for me, number one; and that this was not a close call and that was the state attorney general also.

And I have an affidavit, Mr. Chairman, which my attorney has provided for the staff.

T. DAVIS: Without objection, we will enter that into the record.

Let me ask another question--in September of 1987, your brother Whitey was stopped by Logan Airport personnel for attempting to carry $500,000 onto an airplane. State police trooper Billy Johnson (ph) detained and questioned Whitey at the airport with regard to that incident.

Billy Johnson (ph) later wrote an incident report. Johnson claimed that soon after the incident David Davis (ph), the executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, came to Johnson's (ph) office and requested a copy of his report. Johnson (ph) stated that Dave Davis (ph) told him that you had asked Davis (ph) to obtain a copy of the incident report. Johnson (ph) was demoted after this incident and he later committed suicide.

Mr. Bulger, when did you first learn of the incident between Whitey and Billy Johnson (ph) at Logan Airport?

BULGER: I think the first I ever saw of it was when it was reported in the newspaper. And I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman--although you haven't asked--that I have never made any call, I never sought to seek sanctions against that state trooper.

BULGER: He was doing his job.

I have another affidavit, which my counsel has provided for your committee, and that affidavit is a recent one from David W. Davis (ph) himself.

And he was a very respected, and is a very respected individual in Massachusetts, and he was the head of the Massachusetts Port Authority, and he maintains exactly what I am saying, that there was no such communication from me.

It has been reported a hundred times that there was, but there's no truth to it--none.

T. DAVIS: OK. Mr. Davis's (ph) affidavit only says that no one interceded with him for Bulger, and no one else at Mass Port told him that Bulger had contacted them.

Did he ask, did we, we didn't ask all the staff at Mass Port, and does Mr. Davis (ph) know whether Mr. Bulger ever received an incident report from another source within Mass Port?

And we will go and verify that. I think we will go out and ...

BULGER: Excuse me, sir?

T. DAVIS: I just said we will go back and try to verify the affidavit. We've just been presented with that today. But I wanted to say ...


T. DAVIS: Did you have a professional relationship, yes?

(UNKNOWN): That affidavit be placed on the record, please.

T. DAVIS: Without objection. It will be put on the record. Did you have a professional relationship with David Davis (ph)?

BULGER: Well, only that I was the president of the Senate, and he would be in touch from the Port Authority, almost with, the same relationship I'd have with most agencies in the Commonwealth.

T. DAVIS: Did you have a close--was it a close personal relationship?

BULGER: No, we were not very--no, we were not close.

T. DAVIS: Not a social relationship?

BULGER: No, not at all.

T. DAVIS: Did you tell David Davis (ph) to acquire Billy Johnson's (ph) incident report?

BULGER: Never.

T. DAVIS: Did you tell anyone else who worked for Mass Port to acquire Billy Johnson's (ph) incident report regarding Whitey?


T. DAVIS: And finally, my last point before I'm going to yield to Mr. Burton, and we have a vote going, so we may end up at this point, Mr. Burton, after this line and then turn it over to you when we get back.

The Lancaster Street investigation was conducted by the Massachusetts State Police, and targeted the leaders of the Boston mob, which would have included your brother, Whitey.

After the investigation was closed, an amendment was added to the state budget for fiscal year 1982, which would have required officers age 50 or older to take a reduction in pay and rank or retire.

The amendment only affected five officers, two of which, John O'Donovan (ph) and John Regan (ph), were involved in investigating Whitey. Were you aware of the Lancaster Street investigation before it was revealed to the public?

BULGER: No, I was not.

T. DAVIS: Did you ever discuss the Lancaster Street investigation with John Connolly?

BULGER: I don't think so. I don't know--in fact, I just recently started to ask where this Lancaster Street site is. I don't for certain where it is.

T. DAVIS: Did you ever discuss the Lancaster Street investigation with your brother Whitey?

BULGER: Never.

T. DAVIS: Did you know John O'Donovan (ph)?

BULGER: Pardon me?

T. DAVIS: Did you know John O'Donovan (ph), one of the officers?

BULGER: Oh, yes.

T. DAVIS: And did you know John Regan (ph)?

BULGER: I don't think I knew John Regan (ph).

T. DAVIS: Now, did you sponsor the amendment in question?

BULGER: No, I tell you, I have no memory of the amendment, none whatsoever. And the ...

T. DAVIS: You don't remember discussing the amendment with anyone?

BULGER: Never. No.

T. DAVIS: Before--how about after the fact?

BULGER: I don't recall.

T. DAVIS: Because there was press on it, I think, later on.

BULGER: The press came much later, from what I understand. I have two affidavits from state police.

T. DAVIS: Would you like those entered into the record?

BULGER: If I may.

T. DAVIS: Without objection.

KILEY: The affidavits of Mrs. Agnes (ph) and Ally (ph), two of the other affected officers.

T. DAVIS: OK. Those will be entered into the record without objection.

BULGER: And then they, by the way, offered a different take on the amendment, with a vote, with a 100,000 amendments ...

T. DAVIS: I wondered, Mr. Kylie (ph), if you could just take a second to tell us what the affidavits say, that are going to be entered into the record?

KILEY: Both affidavits state that the individuals were among the five affected officers. Both offer the observation that they do not believe that Mr. Bulger was the sponsor, and offer up the observation that they had nothing to do with Lancaster Street, and there were other things going on in law enforcement in Massachusetts that may well have contributed to the filing of this particular amendment.


BULGER: That's a paraphrase, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Right, I mean, they wouldn't necessarily have known who had put it in, though. Isn't that fair to say?


T. DAVIS: Do you remember if you voted for the amendment, Mr. Bulger?

BULGER: I don't.

T. DAVIS: OK, and were you aware of the specific individuals who would be affected by the amendment? You are now, obviously, but...

BULGER: Oh no, it was, I think, one out of hundreds of amendments that the budget (inaudible).

T. DAVIS: All right.

BULGER: And I didn't--I never knew of it until long afterwards.

T. DAVIS: All right, I think this would be a good time for the committee to break. We have 10 minutes left on a vote on the floor. We'll probably reconvene in about 15 minutes.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman?

T. DAVIS: Yes?

(UNKNOWN): Before we leave, can I ask one real quick question?

T. DAVIS: The gentleman is recognized.

(UNKNOWN): You said that you don't recall talking to Connolly or anybody about the Lancaster Street investigation? Is that what you said?

BULGER: I don't believe I ever spoke to John Connolly about Lancaster Street, never.

(UNKNOWN): Did you talk to anybody about that investigation?

BULGER: I don't think so.

(UNKNOWN): I know, but the point is you're saying, "I don't think so," and you know, we've had a lot of people testify before the committee who had what I call convenient memory loss. And what I want to know is can you categorically say you did not talk to anybody about that investigation? Can you categorically say you did not talk to anybody about that?

BULGER: Mr. Congressman, could I just ask when this Lancaster Street event occurred? I just don't have...

(UNKNOWN): 1982.

BULGER: 1982.

I--well, my preference is to say categorically I cannot recall ever talking with anyone, but I think it's hazardous over 20 years, something that seems to have appeared in a newspaper from time to time to suggest that absolutely so.

(UNKNOWN): Well, the reason I asked the question, it's pretty significant because only five people were affected. They were people that were causing your brother some heartburn. You were the president of the Senate, and now you're saying you can't remember. That would be pretty significant if you were trying to punish these people who were after your brother. So I just want to ask one more--you say you can't recall.

BULGER: Mr. Congressman, I have never sought to punish anyone who was in law enforcement and was in pursuit of my brother.

(UNKNOWN): But you can't categorically say that you didn't talk to anybody about that?

BULGER: During these 20 years?

(UNKNOWN): No, during the time the amendment was going to be pending and it was going to be passed.

BULGER: Oh, I don't believe so, no.

(UNKNOWN): You don't believe so. Categorically, can you say you didn't?

BULGER: At that time there were--again, may I just explain the reason for my caution with my answer. It's this: there was some kind of a struggle between the uniformed police and the--and this is, I think, is the basis for the amendment--and the people who are in this category of offices who had officer status. And the uniformed people were--thought it was against their interests that people would be frozen into their jobs after having become the officers, because then they themselves could no longer aspire to those offices.

BULGER: I don't recall any conversations with any of the state police at that time. But it could very well be that some one or some of them may have talked to me, and I thought that the amendment had a different purpose.

And then, I don't remember. I just don't remember it. was of no great significance to me. And I am confident that people who are in the legislature, you must know that amendments and measurements that are coming before you by the hundreds or dozens, the tendency is to forget what exactly...

(UNKNOWN): I know we have to go, but this affected people that were after your brother, and you don't remember these people being penalized?

BULGER: I never asked anyone to do any such thing as...

(UNKNOWN): I know you said that, but you don't remember...

(UNKNOWN): He said that categorically--that you never...

BULGER: Oh, never. No.

T. DAVIS: Congressman, we'll recognize you when we come back.

(UNKNOWN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Bulger, we'll get a break for probably close to a half an hour. Thank you.

BULGER: Thank you.


T. DAVIS: The committee will come back to order. We have people take their seats. It's our time, but the gentleman from--we're trying to just get some continuity.

T. DAVIS: Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan, you have a follow-up question?

MEEHAN: I just wanted to ask Mr. Bulger, on this amendment, my understanding was that it wasn't an amendment, but rather it was an outside section of the budget, and it was actually in the Senate Ways and Means proposal, which presumably would mean that it was approved by the leadership in the Senate.

In other words, this wasn't just an amendment that was offered on the floor of the Senate, I don't think.

BULGER: It could very well be the case.

MEEHAN: OK. My point is that if an outside section is proposed and included in the Senate Ways and Means budget, it probably has the--it's not like it was just some amendment. There are hundreds of amendments that are filed during the budget process. This was actually in the Senate Ways and Means budget proposal that was presented to the Senate. At least that was my understanding.

BULGER: It could very well be the case, Congressman.

MEEHAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much. And we can do subsequent research to see if there's any other.

OK, gentleman from Indiana is recognized.

BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The bottom line is you just don't remember.

BULGER: That's right.

BURTON: Just don't remember. Five people that were after your brother, they were penalized financially, when you were the president of the Senate, you had nothing to do with it and you don't remember.

BULGER: Well, the premise is not true that such people were penalized.

BURTON: What did the amendment do?

BULGER: The amendment never--it only becomes effective when it's signed by the governor.

BURTON: But what did the amendment do?

BULGER: I'm uncertain of that.

BURTON: You say it wasn't...

BULGER: It freezes...

BURTON: You say it wasn't penalizing them, then you must know what it did.

BULGER: But it never became law, Congressman.

BURTON: No, but you just said it didn't penalize them.

BULGER: Because it never became law. Unless something--there are proposals. We have about 5,000 proposals a year at legislative level. They only achieve their purpose, whatever it might be...

BURTON: I know...

BULGER: ... when they're passed into law.

BURTON: The thing that's very interesting is you said you didn't remember anything about it, but now you're saying it didn't become law. How do you recall that?

BULGER: I don't think--it's not inconsistent.

BURTON: Well, tell me why it's not inconsistent.

BULGER: Well, if you can tell me...

BURTON: You said you didn't...

BULGER: No, I'm trying to tell you that it doesn't...

BURTON: You said you didn't remember the amendment.

BULGER: ... if it doesn't become law, it doesn't achieve its purpose, whatever the purpose might be.

BURTON: No, I understand.


BULGER: If it's to save money--let us just say we have an amendment or a measure which would...

BURTON: You're thinking.

BULGER: ... which would--I'm thinking.

BURTON: You're thinking. I'm a legislator, too. You said you didn't recall the amendment. You had thousands of amendments going on and you were the leader of the Senate. But you just said that, Well, it didn't become law. How do you know that if you don't remember?

BULGER: Because subsequent to that it's been written about.

BURTON: Oh, I see. You picked it up from the newspapers. Did you check to see if it became law when you read it in the newspapers?

BULGER: I don't believe so. By the way, I'm also relying...

BURTON: Then how do you know it didn't become law?

BULGER: Can I--may I just acquaint you with what Mr. Agnes (ph) says of it? And he is one of those people who was affected. If you give me a chance I'd like to just give you his affidavit.

BURTON: I'm only concerned about the amendment, whether or not you recall.

BULGER: Yes, and he's speaking to the amendment. Mr. Agnes (ph) is a--he's a retired lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts State Police. He says, I'm one of five former senior officers who would have been adversely effected...

BURTON: Mr. Bulger, I simply don't have the time for you to read that into the record. I'd like...

T. DAVIS: It's in the record.


BURTON: You can submit it for the record.

BULGER: But it would be enlightening, I think, if folks who are hearing...

BURTON: I would rather your answers be as concise as possible.

T. DAVIS: Gentleman controls the time.

BURTON: You grew up with John Connolly, didn't you?

BULGER: I did.

BURTON: And you and your brothers were buddies with John Connolly throughout your childhood and into adulthood.

BULGER: I didn't know that. That's news...

BURTON: Well, were you or weren't you?

BULGER: No. I mean, I know when I went into the Army when I was 19 years of age, John Connolly was 12 years of age, Congressman.

BURTON: Oh, I see.

BULGER: So it's highly unlikely in the course of normal relationships.

BURTON: So he was very close to Whitey, though? He was closer to Whitey?

BULGER: I don't think so.

BURTON: Well, how did he and Whitey get to know each other?

BULGER: I think it all came years later.

BURTON: But they came from the same neighborhood?


BURTON: Did Mr. Connolly assist you in any of your political endeavors?

BULGER: I believe so.

BURTON: In what endeavors did he help you?

BULGER: When I'd be involved in campaigns in the district.

BURTON: Did he help you in your campaign to become president of the Senate?

BULGER: No that was within the body, and he did not.

BURTON: Well, one of your opponents was indicted, wasn't he, and convicted?


BURTON: You didn't have an opponent that was a potential opponent that was going to...

(UNKNOWN): The incumbent.

BULGER: The majority leader was indicted, and that paved the way for upward mobility.

BURTON: Well, that was one of your potential opponents. Was he indicted about that time?

BULGER: I don't think--he is still, I hope, a friend of mine. And he was indicted, yes.

BURTON: And that paved the way for you to become the president of the Senate?

BULGER: It was still within the power of the president to decide who would be named majority leaders. So there was nothing definite about my ascendancy into that position.

BURTON: Do you know of any threats made by your brother, Whitey, to people that were giving you political difficulty, being difficulty for you?

BULGER: I don't know. But nothing authorized by me, I assure you, congressman.

BURTON: But there are people who said Whitey came up to them and said, hey you know who I am, you SOB, if you don't leave my brother alone, you're regret it. You don't know anything about that?

BULGER: I don't know much about it, no.

BURTON: Do you know who the people were that were threatened?


BURTON: You had no connection or...

BULGER: I assure you I would never, never ask for or authorize such a madcap kind of conduct on his part, or on anyone's part.

BURTON: Other than the property we talked about a while ago, did you ever use any of your authority to chastise or threaten people that were after your brother?

BULGER: No, never.

BURTON: Never did?

Did you talk to your brother about rumors that he was an informant?

BULGER: I don't recall such conversation, but I would assume that some place after it appeared in that newspaper, I might have asked the question, what is this all about?

I know his answer would--again I'm speculating--be very swiftly: Oh, that's just not true.

BURTON: Did you talk to Connolly about whether or not your brother was a government informant?

BULGER: No, I don't believe so.

BURTON: You know, I can't...

BULGER: Well, I have to say I don't believe so on somebody because these things are...

BURTON: I know but that's pretty significant. You cannot categorically say you didn't talk to Connolly?


BURTON: What's that?

BULGER: No, I cannot categorically say that I did not talk...

BURTON: So you might have talked to Connolly about it.

BULGER: Of course.

BURTON: In retrospect, given your power and prestige, did you ever discourage law enforcement from doing everything it could to go after your brother?

BULGER: Never.

BURTON: Never?

BURTON: Never? You referred to your brother as reverend at a Saint Patrick's Day function. As a side, I'd like to know why you did that.

BULGER: I would like to know myself. I don't believe I ever did. But I can assure you those things are on tapes all over the place, and we could find out.

I never in my experience used that expression to describe my brother ever.

BURTON: You had a long-time aide, Mr. Joyce (ph). And I believe he was working where, at the convention center?

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: Now, he hired people like Theresa Stanley (ph), who was one of the people that fled with your brother when she came back. Did you have anything to do with that?

BULGER: No, I'm reminded by counsel that it may turn out that he, Mr. Joyce (ph), never did hire Theresa Stanley (ph).

BURTON: He did not hire her?

BULGER: That's what I believe has been...

BURTON: Well, then we have an error in the information we have. We'll check that out. But you say she was not hired by him?

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: Was anybody else hired by him that had a connection with you and your brother?

BULGER: I don't know. I'm sure there were people in South Boston. My problem with the question, if I may, is that if I recommended someone, and it was rare that I did, because when Joyce (ph) got the job I said, Please just do the very best job and you won't be imposed upon by me. And...

BURTON: But the question is...

BULGER: ... if I recommended someone, Congressman, it might very well be that he is known or she is known by both of us. But that's not the cause of it.

BURTON: Did you have anything to do with the efforts to get the Billy Johnson police report. I think you answered that to some degree earlier?

BULGER: I what?

BURTON: Were you involved in the efforts to get the Billy Johnson police report?


BURTON: About the money at the airport?

BULGER: Never, it comes from the tabloid talk show stuff in Boston. And it was concocted there. And there is not even an accusation that I can bite on that. And when Mr. David Davis, who is the one named by them as having been asked by me, his affidavit says at no time did we inbulge (ph) or any person perporting to act on his behalf and to cede with me to affect our handling of the incident or how we dealt with information about it.

I never provided copies of reports written by Trooper Johnson to send to President Bulger. No one at Mass Port Authority ever indicated to me they were contacted in those matters by William Bulger.


BULGER: Whenever I have been asked--this is I think important to know...

BURTON: Well no, I think you've made the point. You don't need to read it all.

BULGER: Well no, but there's a larger point to be made, Congressman. May I respectfully just make it one sentence?

BURTON: All right.

BULGER: Whenever I have been asked about what I have described as the incident which did occur, a William Bulger in deceiving in any way in connection with it or Trooper Johnson, which did not occur, I have attempted to make clear that the former Senate president did not, to my knowledge, involve himself.

Nevertheless, the insinuation that he did persists in some circles. The insinuation is false.

BURTON: You indicated in your opening statement that you were--you knew your brother was involved in some of the various activates, but you didn't know, you know, a great deal about it. Isn't that correct?

BULGER: That's correct.

BURTON: Did you know that he was involved in murder?

BULGER: Never, no, I do not, I did not.

BURTON: Did you know he was involved in narcotics trafficking?


BURTON: You and your brother--you didn't know anything about that? Did you know anything about the Winter Hill mob?

BULGER: The what?

BURTON: The gang that he was connected to.

BULGER: No, I didn't. I don't think I met anybody from that...

BURTON: You didn't know Flemey (ph).

BULGER: I did know Steve Flemey (ph), yes.

BURTON: Well, he was part of that gang. You didn't know he was part of that gang?


BURTON: Or his brother?

BULGER: I don't--didn't know his brother.

BURTON: Do you know a gentleman named Maratano (ph)?

BULGER: No--oh, no, I don't, I've read of him.

BURTON: Let me see what Mr. Maratano (ph) said here. Mr. Maratano (ph), who was the hit man for the Mafia, testified at Connely's (ph) federal racketeering trial that Connely (ph) protected James as your urging. Did you ask Connely (ph) to protect James, saying something like, Just keep my brother out of trouble?

BULGER: Whatever was done by Connely (ph) would not have been done at my urging. And I know--thee was no urging on my part along those lines. There was something about the quote itself which seemed to be kind of innocent, but then depending on the circumstances.

BULGER: And if ever said such a thing, it would mean that I am saying, Please stay him clear of getting into trouble, or keeping his nose clean, following the straight and narrow, the kind of thing we might be inclined to say.

BURTON: Did you ever ask any law enforcement officer--state, local, federal Mr. Connely Bulger, anybody--to assist your brother in any way?

BULGER: Never.


BULGER: I don't believe ever in my life. Never.

BURTON: I don't want you to say I don't believe...

BULGER: Well, I have to say that because you know I've lived--I've got some mileage on me, so who knows? But I don't believe there is anything anywhere that was done nefariously or any kind of request for anyone not to do his duty--ever.

BURTON: Did you ever express gratitude for law enforcement efforts to keep your brother out of jail?


BURTON: Never did?

BULGER: No, I don't believe so, ever.

I have to say I don't believe so because who knows what you might have said in jest or whatever? And you know that, Mr. Congressman. You know that that's the only way--I assure you no one has been--I have expressed gratitude to anyone on any serious note for their having failed to do their job--ever.

BURTON: Well, you're a very good attorney, and you qualify your statements very well.

BULGER: Thank you.

T. DAVIS: Gentleman's time has expired. If he would ask for an additional 10 minutes by unanimous consent...

BURTON: I think my colleagues may have some questions so why don't...

T. DAVIS: I think we'd be willing to do that and then break. As I understand it...

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Yes.

(UNKNOWN): Our side has 30 minutes to inquire of this witness. Many of us have conflicts. I have another committee going on. And I wondered if we could start off with five minutes on our side.

T. DAVIS: That's fine, gentlemen. You'll have your time.

BURTON: I think these colleagues deserve the same amount of time so that's fine with me.

T. DAVIS: All right, we will flip it to your side.

(UNKNOWN): That's fine. Mr. Waxman for five minutes.

WAXMAN: Mr. Bulger, you've just stated unequivocally that you've never intervened in any way to aid your brother in any of his activities to aid him in avoiding arrest. Is that your testimony?

BULGER: That is my testimony. Yes, sir.

WAXMAN: Then, it comes down really to a question about a conversation you've had with your brother. And I want to ask you about that last contact with your brother. You testified you spoke with him by telephone in January of 1995. Is that the only contact you've had with him?

BULGER: That was the contact.

WAXMAN: For how long a period of time?

He fled?

BULGER: Yes. Since he fled.

WAXMAN: What was the substance of your conversation?

BULGER: It was a conversation of about three or four minutes duration, Congressman. It was he calling me. And it's at like the first four or five weeks after his indictment. And I never thought that there would not have been a resolution of it. Ordinarily, in these cases...

So the tone of it was something like this. He told me don't believe everything that's being said about me. It's not true. I think he was trying to give me some comfort on that level.

And he--I don't know--he, I think he asked me to tell everybody he's OK. And then I told him, Well, you know we care very much for you, and we're very hopeful.

BULGER: I think I said, I hope this will have a happy ending.

WAXMAN: Did he ask you...

BULGER: I'm telling you there was not talk of the more terrible crimes.

WAXMAN: Did he ask you to do anything, other than to tell people he was OK?


WAXMAN: And did you ask that he do anything?


WAXMAN: Did you provide him with any advice, such as advice to surrender to the authorities?

BULGER: No, the subject, I've said this before in my grand jury, Congressman, that that subject never came up.

WAXMAN: It's been alleged that you and your brother made arrangements for the call to evade surveillance of your telephone by law enforcement authorities.

Where were you when you received the telephone call from James Bulger?

BULGER: I was in a friend and an employee's home, and I was asked the question before, Did you have a desire to avoid electronic surveillance in connection with that call? And I answered, no.

I was asked where I would be, and I received the call up there.

WAXMAN: Who asked you where you would be?

BULGER: I don't have a specific recollection, but the only person it possibly could have been would be his friend Kevin Weeks (ph).

WAXMAN: You've been criticized for not contacting law enforcement officials about your call with your brother. Did you contact the authorities before or after receiving the call?

BULGER: No, I told my lawyer immediately after it. In Massachusetts, we have the benefit of a statute which allows for a sibling to talk to a brother or sister under these circumstances, and I think now that that's somewhat protective.

WAXMAN: There was a law that said...

BULGER: This is special Chapter 274, Section 4, I think, and it's one that is protective of the family relationship. It seeks to encourage the family relationship and be protective of it.

WAXMAN: Many people have written about your actions, and they said you had a basic choice, you had to choose between loyalty to your brother and your civic duty to assist in his arrest, and you chose your brother. How do you respond to that criticism?

BULGER: Well, they're wrong on that. I'm his brother, he called me, or he sought to call me, and I told his friend where I'd be, and I received the call, and it seems to me that that is in no way inconsistent with my devotion to my own responsibilities, my public responsibilities as a, well, at that time president of the Senate.

I believe that I have always taken those as my first obligation.

WAXMAN: When the ...

T. DAVIS: The gentleman's five minutes have expired.

WAXMAN: If I might just ask for one clarification for the record?

T. DAVIS: Certainly.

WAXMAN: One of my colleagues made the statement that you requested immunity before testifying, implying that you were, in essence, fishing for an immunity deal. Was that the circumstance?

BULGER: No, it was not. The immunity request came on a couple of bases. This is the immunity I sought recently, in December, and then, Mr. Chairman, I mean, Congressman, at that time my grand jury notes, minutes, had been leaked to The Boston Globe.

I felt as though I was going to be involved in a huge memory test about what had been my testimony a couple of years before at the grand jury, and I would like to have seen my grand jury minutes, but they were denied to me.

The judge had no problem, apparently, with the fact that the Globe had my grand jury minutes, but he nevertheless denied them to me. And so it made me concerned about it.

The business of, when you're going into a grand jury, I mean, others have written about this, but innocent people are more likely to plead the privilege in secret proceedings.

BULGER: In a secret proceeding you're all alone, and the prosecutor knows--and the prosecutors, in this case plural--know what they're doing. And it's a time, I think, for great caution.

And it's an exercise, in my belief, of a constitutional right that is for the innocent. And so I exercised it, and I thought there should be no punishment for it and no one should question it as it being something bad. That's my understanding of it as an attorney.

And in fact the law, the cases in the Supreme Court of the United States insist that it's a law for innocent men who find themselves in ambiguous circumstances. And it should not be a method of punishment or persecution for anyone who exercises that right.

May I try one more moment on this, since you seem to be patient?

WAXMAN: Well, before you get into some of the details on the privilege, you took the privilege before this committee previously.

BULGER: Right.

WAXMAN: This committee has granted you immunity.

BULGER: Right.

WAXMAN: Which means we can compel you to testify...

BULGER: Right.

WAXMAN: ... because you will not be incriminating yourself, since you've been granted immunity. Does that grant of immunity come at your request to the committee?

BULGER: The grant of immunity?


BULGER: Well, the committee did what I would have expected, it would grant the immunity once I declined to testify. But I guess it's not at my request so much as at the request of the committee, of the Justice Department, is that...

WAXMAN: There was an offer by the committee.

BULGER: I see.

WAXMAN: Well, that clarifies it for the record. Because I think there was an impression that was not a fully thought out one. And I appreciate you elaborating on it.

(UNKNOWN): And I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that it came from this--this committee's reaction to his being...

WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm compelled to go to another committee.

Mr. Tierney is going to manage the time on our side. And I appreciate the courtesy that you and he have extended to me.

T. DAVIS: Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

TIERNEY: Thank you. This is a difficult format for you Mr. Bulger, probably as much as for the committee members here. We have a limited time. I'm going to do five minutes or so here, and then ask Mr. Lynch followed by Mr. Meehan and Mr. Delahunt to do the same. And then we'll collectively deal with whatever time we have left.

(UNKNOWN): Will the gentleman yield? Weren't other members expecting a break at this point?

TIERNEY: They were, but I think the chairman has...

T. DAVIS: I think at this point, we're going to let Mr.--if we recognize people in five minute intervals, we can move through a little quicker because we have a vote expected at 1:00.

(UNKNOWN): I see. Well, I understood there was going to be a break, and I asked--I have my opportunity now so others might have been expecting the break...

TIERNEY: That's what changed things.

(UNKNOWN): What's that?

TIERNEY: That's what changed things.

(UNKNOWN): Well, I would urge you to think through whether members have been relying on the expectation of a break, and I interceded to change. But whatever you two decide.

TIERNEY: We'll take some time and then we'll assess that. Thank you.

Mr. Bulger, at the close of your opening remarks, you made the statement that you think that the fair perspective will surface again for those other family members who have shown great strength in the face of the onslaught by the media and by overzealous government authority.

What were you referring to in the overzealous government authority part of that?

BULGER: Well, there has been a deep inquiry from various people. I'm not sure, for example, I don't mean--I'm not thinking even of the government in Boston when it released by grand jury minutes to the press and refused to give them to me.

TIERNEY: Do you believe the government did that?

BULGER: Well, the government had control of it. I think it bears responsibility in some way for it.

TIERNEY: So that was it?

BULGER: No, there are other things. As recently as a week ago, we received a visit at my home from two people who identified themselves as FBI people. And they met my daughter. And I asked her to just give me a quick synopsis of it. May I just read it to you?

TIERNEY: I think at the end of our time we'll do that.


TIERNEY: But if you want to enter the written in the record, we could ask the chairman to do that with unanimous consent.

And I've got some other questions I want to...

BULGER: May I just quote one of the...

TIERNEY: Sure, we will extend some time

BULGER: One of the gentleman said, Look, I'm from Boston. We want to talk to your mother. She doesn't have to say a word.

BULGER: We just want her to listen to us. We want to explain things to her. Do you see what's going on in North Carolina with Rudolph? They're tearing that town apart. That's what will happen here.

But if we can get someone in the family, just one person, to drop, say something that will help us arrest the fugitive. It will be over just like that. We will even help to rebuild your father's reputation.

TIERNEY: Do you have the names of those two individuals?


TIERNEY: And would you share those names with the committee?

BULGER: Well, should I state them right now?


BULGER: One's name is James Stover (ph) and the other is J. Michaels Doyle (ph).

TIERNEY: And we ask that document be submitted on the record...

T. DAVIS: Without object, so ordered. And we'll resume the time.

TIERNEY: Mr. Bulger, you know that this committee is investigating the conduct of the FBI, and I want to go into one particular agent at the moment and that would be Mr. Connolly on that. Did you encourage Mr. Connolly to attend Boston College?

BULGER: I may have. I honestly don't recall. I was a little older, of course, and Connolly would be around, and I could very well have.

TIERNEY: Did you write a letter of recommendation for him to attend graduate school?

BULGER: I don't believe so. But the Kennedy School of Government, I'm reminded, I think I did send a letter over to the Kennedy School.

TIERNEY: And did you know whether or not he had a relationship with your brother, James?

BULGER: At some point, I became aware of it.

TIERNEY: And when was that?

BULGER: It was--well, I'm uncertain there too--but sometime in the '80s.

TIERNEY: Now, Mr. Connolly worked on some of your campaigns, you testified earlier.

BULGER: I believe he probably did.

TIERNEY: And do you recall meeting with him or being in his company at your own office once you got elected?

BULGER: Yes, sir.

TIERNEY: And is it a fact that he used to bring in new FBI agents and bring them over to your office...

BULGER: He'd bring people through.

TIERNEY: In that view, did he ever introduce you to John Morris (ph)?

BULGER: I don't recall any meeting with John Morris, but I'm told that he's among those who came through.

TIERNEY: And after Mr. Connely left the FBI, did you in any way assist in his procurement of employment of the private sector?

BULGER: No, I did not, congressman. I could also tell you that I have an affidavit from the hiring authority.

TIERNEY: We would ask that be submitted on the record also.

T. DAVIS: Without objection.

Did you write any recommendations for him?

BULGER: Pardon me?

TIERNEY: Did you write any recommendations for him to go to the Edison Company?

BULGER: Yes. No, no I did not.

TIERNEY: You didn't allow your name to be used as a reference?

BULGER: No, I didn't. I don't--I think it's against the law by the way in Massachusetts for us to intervene on the matter of employment at a utility.

TIERNEY: After Mr. Connolly left the FBI, it's a fact, isn't it, that he used to attend some of your political events?

BULGER: More than likely, yes.

TIERNEY: And at those events, isn't it also a fact that you used to ask him as a courtesy to you to take certain individuals around the room and introduce them to various people that were there?

BULGER: No, I don't remember that.

TIERNEY: Now Special Agent James Ring of the FBI, whom I believe you know--James Ring?

BULGER: I think I know who he is.

TIERNEY: OK. He testified that in 1983 you walked into the home of Steven Flemmy's (ph) mother while James Bulger , John Connely, Mr. Ring and Steven Flemmy were there. Do you recall that event?

BULGER: I do not.

TIERNEY: Do you recall ever seeing Mr. Connely and your brother James in the same company?

BULGER: I don't believe I ever saw them together, ever.

TIERNEY: Did you ever remember Mr. Connely telling you that he had had conversations with your brother James, or was in his company from time to time?

BULGER: I don't think he told me. I don't think he ever told me.

TIERNEY: And on September 20, 1988, The Boston Globe article suggested that your brother James had a relationship with law enforcement. was that the first awareness you had of that circumstance?

BULGER: Nineteen eighty-eight?


BULGER: That was the first time I had heard that term. And, by the way, the word informant had a different meaning then than it has now for me. I didn't know whether it meant that someone had on one occasion informed, or whether there is now I see it as some kind of a special status, or whatever, but it was not the way I saw the word, the meaning of the word at that time.

TIERNEY: How did you see the meaning at that time?

BULGER: Well, I didn't know what to make of it. I didn't know whether, but I was very certain that at that time, and again, it was my feeling that the purpose of characterizing my brother as an informant was to put him in grave danger.

TIERNEY: Mr. Bulger, what is it that you thought your brother did for a living in those years?

BULGER: Oh, well, I knew that he was, for the most part I had the feeling that he was in the business of gaming and whatever, it was vague to me.

For a long while he did have some jobs, but ultimately, it was clear that he wasn't doing what I'd like him to do.

TIERNEY: In your book, "While the Music Lasts," in chapter nine, Mr. Bulger, you write, "In the well-publicized case against my brother, all of the evidence has been purchased, inducements more precious than money--release from prison, the waiver of criminal charges--have been offered time and time again. Some of those who insisted they had nothing to offer at the beginning of their incarceration have had second thoughts and suddenly remembered things they could barter for advantages. Without such purchased testimony, there would be no accusations."

Do you still believe that to be the case?

BULGER: No, I have a different understanding of it now, I wrote that, I think, in 1995. It was published in '96, and so much has gone on since then I have a different understanding.

But I think at that time, it was a fair description of what it appeared to me to be.

TIERNEY: Let me go back just to 1985. We've all heard allegations that you accepted $240,000 from a trust fund.

BULGER: Right.

TIERNEY: And apparently your bar associate, Mr. Finnerty, is it?

BULGER: Right.

TIERNEY: Had deposited some $500,000 into that trust fund, and that's the fund from which you withdrew $240,000? What was the nature of that withdrawal? Was it, what was the payment for?

BULGER: First, why did I say I don't want the money from that source?

TIERNEY: No, starting at the beginning, why did you take the $240,000? What was the...

BULGER: Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Because Finnerty and I were law associates, and Finnerty's office, while I had left my partnership with him, was the base for my practicing law, and there was a fee that was, that exceeded $250,000 that was due me, and it was coming, and it was late.

And Finnerty was being accommodating by providing some money in advance.

TIERNEY: When did you disassociate from that law firm, in terms of practicing regularly?

BULGER: Well, no, I think after, well, I became president in 1978, and I realized that I was a burden, myself, because of the conflicts and the rest. So that someplace in the middle, I don't know whether it's, it's in the '80s, and I'm uncertain about when ...

TIERNEY: What was the nature of the case for which the fee was owed?

BULGER: That I was working on? It was called the Quirk (ph) case, and it was about property and the Quirk (ph) brothers, Bruce and Robert, were people who had a dispute with National Semiconductor about property. and I went to court for them on many occasions, and ultimately it boiled down to a settlement. And the Quirks (ph) publicly praised the work I had done for them: They were pleased by the settlement.

And the other side, I don't which one of them, could have been Halondor (ph), I think, the other side was, they had said for the record that I had handled the case and had been, to use the term, the heavy on the case.

TIERNEY: What was the total of the recovery in that case?

BULGER: I don't recall, but it could have been something like $350,000, or something like that.

TIERNEY: That's what your client recovered?

BULGER: That was our fee. $350,000 was my fee.

TIERNEY: And you were owed $240,000 of that?

BULGER: Pardon me?

TIERNEY: And you were owed $240,000 of that total fee?

BULGER: I was owed?

TIERNEY: Well, you withdrew $240,000...


BULGER: Oh no, the $240,000 was--I'd call that some kind of a loan or an advance. And I gave it back to Tom.

TIERNEY: Do you remember when you took the $240,000?

BULGER: No, he put it into my account. And it was--I don't know what year any longer. By the way, Congressman, it turns out that because of the case, Finnerty had brought an action against Harold Brown. I never worried about too much the fact that Finnerty--because it was his money to give as he--you know, and I just--so there was nothing sinister about it, I assure you.

TIERNEY: We're giving you an opportunity to delay that outbound, right?

BULGER: Yes, but can I just--my friend Harold Brown...

TIERNEY: We're going to get to that, but we'll allow that on the record, that. But what I'd like to know is when you added that $240,000 deposit in your account, did you spend any of that money?

BULGER: I think I took some and invested it, some of it, yes, a little bit.

TIERNEY: And at some point in time, did you become aware that Mr. Brown had alleged that Mr. Finnerty had extorted $500,000 from him?

BULGER: No, no, not during that period. Finnerty brought suit, and that was part of some of his defense. But Brown exonerates Finnerty now.

TIERNEY: And at some time you put the $240,000 or gave it back?

BULGER: I have it back because I knew that Brown was the source of it.

TIERNEY: And why did that bother you so much?

BULGER: Because Brown was--I didn't know Harold Brown, but he was in some kind of trouble. And I'm elected, and it gave opportunity to any one who would like to, to misconstrue it, to claim that there was some nefarious relationship between him and me.

TIERNEY: Did you ever talk to John Connolly about that situation?

BULGER: I don't believe I ever did.

TIERNEY: Did you ever talk to John Morris about that situation?

BULGER: I don't even remember John Morris.

TIERNEY: Did you ever discuss it with your brother James, or any of his associates?

BULGER: I don't think so.

TIERNEY: Did you ever discuss it with any one associated with law enforcement before the investigation started?

BULGER: I don't think so.

TIERNEY: Mr. O'Sullivan, Jeremiah O' Sullivan indicated that he reviewed the case and thought it was a question of power-brokering. Do you know what he would have been referring to on that?

BULGER: Yes, I do. You know, I--O'Sullivan also said that--he said there was no one who accused me of anything. And he said it was not a close call. He gave me a very good result, the same result I received from the attorney general in Massachusetts.

But when he said that, that was at a press conference, Congressman, and it was in response to a Globe reporter. And the Globe reporter was one of those who had this kind of a vested interest in this case. They had brought it, they had discovered it, and they had worked it to death for several months.

And I believe that Jeremiah O'Sullivan, who I didn't know, but Jeremiah O'Suillivan, I think he strayed from his mandate. That's what it is.

When asked the question, you know, what about, he really should have stayed with what he found. But he was giving an opinion that may be a power brokering situation. I don't think it was myself. But nevertheless, it gave the Globe people who have always insisted despite--he says, You know, Bulger had any involvement, he had none. The simple fact is that this did jot stop the media snowball. That's what Harriman complains about.

TIERNEY: My time has expired, Mr. Bulger. Thank you very much for thoughts.

Mr. Lynch?

DAVIS: We'll make sure everybody gets questions. We'll yield as much time as you use, and then we'll go back and forth after the time is up. We're set for five minutes, but if you need more, we'll take it.

LYNCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, let's pick up right there with Jeremiah O'Sullivan.

In his testimony before this committee not long ago, he described the relationship or the dynamic in dealing with the FBI, who through various agents, have been charged with a lot of wrongdoing in this matter.

At one point, he said words to the effect that you don't mess with the FBI. You just cooperate. They can make life miserable for you.

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: And what I'd like to do is I'd like to look at the action of the FBI with respect to your office, the Senate presidency. And it probably goes back to before you were Senate president, when you were in the Senate.

But there are a number of individuals here I'd like to ask you about, and about your relationships with them. They are all special agents of the FBI and/or supervisors.


LYNCH: I'd like to ask you about Dennis Condon. He is a special agent of the FBI, and he had some role early on with handling your brother James in his relationship with the FBI.

What was his relationship with you, sir?

BULGER: Dennis Condon became very friendly with me. I don't think I knew him before he retired from the FBI. I don't think I did.

LYNCH: When do you think you may have first become an acquaintance of Dennis Condon?

BULGER: I think it was when he became head of the public safety. He was appointed by Governor Dukakis, and I came to know him there--again, because both of our duties were interrelated.

LYNCH: I see. Let me ask you then. Dennis Condon, working for the FBI, comes out of the FBI after handling matters with your brother as an informant and then becomes, I think, secretary of public safety for the Commonwealth?

BULGER: I think that's what it is.


BULGER: I'm not certain of that.

LYNCH: Did he ever approach you...

(UNKNOWN): For the record, Mr. Lynch, he was commissioner of the state police.

BULGER: Commissioner. All right, I stand corrected. He was the commissioner...

(UNKNOWN): Of public safety?

(UNKNOWN): State police.

BULGER: So he came out...

LYNCH: Do you recall at all then that--did Dennis Condon ever come to you, at that point, where he was coming out of the FBI after handling your brother's case--your brother's relationship--and then trying to get this position with the state police, apparently--commissioner--did he ever come to you and use the fact of his relationship there...

BULGER: Never.

LYNCH: ... to try to get you to refer him for that position?

BULGER: I never was aware that he had anything to do with--that he had any relationship at all with my brother.

LYNCH: OK. And he never approached you for help in getting appointed as commissioner?

BULGER: I don't recall it, but he could very well have. I mean, we had many people who were friends in common. He came from Charlestown, I think.

LYNCH: And you were Senate president at this time. Would that be correct?

BULGER: Mr. Dukakis--well, at the beginning of the Dukakis--there were 12 years of my (inaudible) with the Dukakises, and I think that he--in the first one, first term in the '70s, I was not the president of the Senate, but I think that Dennis came along later while I was president.

I don't know the answer to when...

LYNCH: But you feel certain it was during the Dukakis administration?

BULGER: I'm pretty sure.

LYNCH: OK. But you don't recall him ever coming to you and asking you for your help for that appointment? Is that your recollection?

BULGER: I don't recall it, but if he asked, I'd probably be favorably disposed to him--not based on any of the inferences that I draw from your question, I assure you.

LYNCH: Let me go on to another agent of the FBI, Nick Gianturco.

Do you have any knowledge, or do you have any acquaintance or relationship with Nick Gianturco?

BULGER: I don't believe I--I don't know him, I don't think.

LYNCH: OK. Nick Gianturco left the FBI, similar to Dennis Condon, and went to work for the Edison.

Do you recall ever getting a request from Mr. Gianturco?

BULGER: I don't believe I ever did. But I--don't think so.

LYNCH: Let me go back then. Do you remember Mr. Gianturco?

BULGER: I don't think I do.


BULGER: I know the name Gianturco, but I don't know the person.

LYNCH: OK. We've already covered in this questioning special agent John Connolly, and just so we're certain, I do have on the record an affidavit from Mr. Davis...

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: ... who was first at the Mass Port...

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: ... and then went over as CEO for the Edison.


LYNCH: And the indication is, in his affidavit, that it is his knowledge and belief that it was others...


LYNCH: ... at the Edison who advocated on behalf of John Connolly.

BULGER: Right. It was Carl Gaston (ph), Congressman, not David Davis.


BULGER: And it's--Gaston (ph) says, I'm aware of the rumors repeated in the press that former Senate President William Bulger got Mr. Connolly his job at Edison. The rumors are false.

LYNCH: And he points to a gentleman named John Keogh (ph). Is that correct?

BULGER: Yes, he does.

LYNCH: All right, let me ask you about John Keogh (ph). Amazingly enough, John Keogh (ph) was also another FBI agent...

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: ... former FBI agent that went to work for the Edison.

Can I ask you abut your relationship with John Keogh (ph)? Do you have any knowledge of him?

LYNCH: Yes, I do know who John Keogh (ph) was. He's a very quiet person.

I don't think I ever had a conversation with John Keogh (ph), other than in the early--or in the '70s around 1974.

There were helicopters flying over the community during the turmoil. And I called him and complained about it, I thought, angrily. And the only thing--the reason--somehow I remember him because I thought he was very fair with an elected official who was advocating for the community, angrily, that he never made any kind of--he never exploited it. Never said how tough I was on him or any of that.

LYNCH: OK. Do you recall if John Keogh (ph) in getting--now he was also involved with those whole matter with the FBI and the Boston office.

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: Went to work--came out of there, went to work for the Edison.

Do you ever recall John Keogh (ph) quietly or otherwise, lobbying you or asking for your support in getting his job at the Edison?

BULGER: I don't think he ever did. Now I have no recollection. I don't think that I ever knew that John Keogh (ph) had gone to the Edison.

LYNCH: OK. Let's go to special gent Robert Sheehan of the FBI. Left the FBI. I believe was involved with some of the informant operations there at the FBI. Actually, I think, preceding relationship with your brother and Mr. Flemmi, but also during that, he left the FBI and retired and went to work at the Hines Convention Center. What is your relationship? Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Sheehan?

BULGER: I think I came to know Sheehan toward the end of his days. I would see him at certain restaurants. And he had--he was hooked up with a breathing apparatus.

LYNCH: What time period? Do you have a recollection...

BULGER: I don't remember exactly, but it was--he died shortly thereafter.

But he, Sheehan, would have been friendly with the head of the convention center, Fran Joyce. So I don't know that I ever was asked even to use my...

LYNCH: Let me just ask the question and get it on the record.

LYNCH: Do you recall that Mr. Sheehan came to you, or requested--well, given the backdrop here that your brother is in this relationship, and at some point you're aware from your earlier testimony from things that were in the paper--I think Mr. H. Paul Rico had let slip the fact that your brother had an ongoing relationship with the FBI.

Do you have any recollection that Mr. Sheehan might have capitalized on that back to try to get you to help him in getting a job at the Hines Convention Center?

BULGER: I don't think he did. I don't think he did, but you know if you don't mind my just mentioning that the state house is in our senatorial district. People came through that office by the hundreds, and I would use my vast intercessory power for folks if I thought it was all right. And I would say to the person on the other end that this is not something you should not do; just don't. I was always careful of it.

LYNCH: Probably nobody on this panel...

BULGER: I just don't remember Sheehan coming through looking for help; I have to say that. And I knew him and his wife but--a little restaurant they frequented--I used to go over and chat with him, but it was in the last year or so of his life.

LYNCH: It's just that what I'm getting at is the fact of your responsibility in trying to help constituents.

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: That is quite normal in the course of your duties. What I'm getting at is Dennis Condon, Nick Gianturco, John Connolly, John Keogh (ph), Robert Sheehan, and others who leave the FBI and then perhaps try to exercise the leverage of their relationship with your brother to get you to help them.

And so I'm looking at the wrong doing, misconduct of the FBI agents in this case, and I'm trying to find out whether or not there is a systematic...

BULGER: There was never, not one--not to interrupt, excuse me--but there was never a case that anybody came ever and said, I knew your brother, I befriended your brother, I therefore ask you to please befriend me. No one ever said that to me--ever.

So those people would go to such jobs--I'm sure they were finding similar berths before I ever arrived.

LYNCH: No doubt.

I know I have exhausted my five minutes, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Thank you, and then some.

Mr. Meehan?

MEEHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I guess I want to clear up the record. Mr. Bulger said that few, if anyone, has condemned the leaking of grand jury minutes.

When we had this hearing in Boston, I condemned the leaking of the grand jury minutes at that time, said that violations of law relevant to leaking of grand jury minutes is every bit as serious as the abuses in law enforcement that we are investigating and trying to correct today.

And I think that they should be investigated. And I think your rights in that instance were violated--and spoke out at the time.

The other point that I wanted to mention was the outside section of the budget. I just think there's a difference between hundreds of amendments being put in and the Senate chairman of the Ways and Means presenting a budget that has this provision in, and I just view it differently.

And at the time, it was a major issue because the commissioner of public safety, Gianturco, called on Governor King to veto that provision saying that if the investigators lost their jobs to reduction and rank or retirement, we would lose our intelligence gathering management team. It would dismantle the operation of all intelligence gathering in this area would stop.

Going back to your relation, obviously, you've had a close relationship with John Connolly.

Do you recall seeing John Connolly when he came back in 1975, when he returned to Boston as an FBI agent?

BULGER: Do I recall seeing him?

MEEHAN: Seeing him, talking to him when he came back in 1975.

BULGER: I'm sure I must have, but I don't have any distinct specific recollection.

LYNCH: Well, would you have regular contact with him, for example, on the phone or in person?


LYNCH: But you were aware that he was an FBI agent?

BULGER: Right.

LYNCH: And he would bring certain people from the FBI by the see you, is that correct? That's what you testified.

BULGER: Occasionally, he did.

LYNCH: And I'm not clear on--did you ever discuss your brother, James, with Connolly?

BULGER: I don't think I ever discussed my brother with John Connolly. I don't believe I ever did.

LYNCH: And when did you first...

BULGER: ... during those times. In later times I did; in the '90s, for example.

LYNCH: OK, so when did you first learn that your brother, James, had an ongoing relationship with Connolly?

BULGER: I'm uncertain of that. It didn't come in a flash. It became known to me as time went on.

LYNCH: So when did you...

BULGER: In the late '80s, I'd say, or the early '90s.

LYNCH: OK, when did you first learn that he was an informant? Apparently, when it was published in the Globe.

BULGER: Right, and I wasn't sure then.

LYNCH: Did you ever discuss this relationship with your brother, James, with Connolly?


LYNCH: Did you ever discuss this ongoing relationship with James with John Connolly?

BULGER: I don't think so.

LYNCH: Now you've indicated that you didn't help John Connolly get a job with Boston Edison. Were you on the board of New England Power in 1990?


LYNCH: At anytime were you on the board?

BULGER: I went on to the board of New England Power after I left the senate and became president of the university.

LYNCH: And that was after John Connolly had gotten a job with Boston Edison.

BULGER: Yes, long after.

LYNCH: Did you serve on the board of directors at South Boston Savings Bank?


LYNCH: Did you ever assist John Connolly in ever securing a loan from South Boston Savings Bank?

BULGER: Not that I know of.

LYNCH: Did John Connolly ever bring by Special Agent in Charge James Greenleaf?

BULGER: James who?

LYNCH: Greenleaf.

BULGER: I don't--the name doesn't ring a--I don't know.


The issue of 75 State Street--and my recollection was it was actually investigated by two state attorney generals. You can understand why it would be an issue, though, because--and it's unfortunate, but we're looking at the FBI and there's evidence now to suggest--John Morris was Connolly's supervisor. He's admitted to taking bribes from Whitey Bulger at the same time he apparently was in charge of this investigation.

I mean, I don't think past investigations should be brought up. However, it's just a little funny how John Morris is in charge of the FBI portion, and now we find out that not only was he Connolly's supervisor but he's admitted to taking bribes. It's, sort of, the reasons why one would ask questions on it. Otherwise, I don't think any members would bring it up.

BULGER: May I just point out that John Morris was clearly no friend of mine? He...

LYNCH: Well, you've made that clear, but he has admitted to taking, I think, $5,000 from James Bulger.

BULGER: And I don't know what his function was, but I don't think he was pivotal in this whole matter.

LYNCH: In the 1995 telephone call that you had with your brother, why did you go to the home of an employee to accept the call?

BULGER: I have to reconstruct, but I think that Kevin Weeks asked me where I'd be and I think I told him that.

LYNCH: And you knew Kevin Weeks pretty well?

BULGER: Not very well, no. Only through him.

LYNCH: Did he mention that you would have to use a different phone because it was likely that...

BULGER: No, he did not. Just asked where...

LYNCH: So you didn't go to the home of an employee for any reason other than--you weren't trying to avoid being--having a phone call tapped?

BULGER: I've been asked that question several times, Congressman, and I always said no. I was just doing what I was asked--where will you be answering the question.

LYNCH: Do you know a Richard Schneiderhan?

BULGER: I don't recall him, but I've been told that I know him, yes.

LYNCH: But you don't know him?

BULGER: I don't remember him. I think he came to my office, according to press reports, one time, because he was interested in a particular edifice, a church which might qualify, and did ultimately qualify for some kind of protection under architectural laws. 0

LYNCH: In 1991, did anyone ever tell you that you should be careful using your phone because of law enforcement investigators?

BULGER: Prior to that I had been told my counsel, who had been told by U.S. Attorney's Office, that my phone--my brother Jack's phones were both--they had pin registers on them.

LYNCH: After that, did anyone ever give you any reason to suspect that any investigator was in any way monitoring your phone calls?

BULGER: No, I don't think so.

LYNCH: Did anyone...

BULGER: Other than that monitoring I suppose--again, the meaning of the word monitoring--I don't think they're listening in, but they were in fact hard at the task of calling people who might call me from strange places like Connecticut or places like California, Florida, Virginia, everywhere.

So they would be visited and David Wilson lives in Stonington, Connecticut, and he liked to call from time to time.

LYNCH: Did anyone tell or suggest to you that you should be careful using your phones other than your counsel after your brother fled? Specifically, did Kevin Weeks indicated that you should be careful and investigators...

BULGER: I don't think he ever said a word to me. Kevin--I don't think he even--does he say he did?

I don't--he never spoke to me about it.

LYNCH: When did you first meet Kevin Weeks?

BULGER: Well, I know his brother Jack. Jack was active in the national campaign. He was a lead person or something in the Dukakis campaign, so I know the family from--they did not live too far from me. I don't think I knew Kevin very well until later. I would see him around occasionally.

LYNCH: So the circumstance under which you might have a discussion with Kevin Weeks would be in person or on the phone, or what was the nature of those communications?

BULGER: I don't think Kevin Weeks ever called me. Occasionally he would come by, I think, because there was just absolutely no place else to go and he'd chat with me.

LYNCH: When did you become aware that Kevin Weeks was cooperating in the investigation regarding James?

BULGER: I'm uncertain of that, but it was hugely publicized, so there was no mystery to it.

LYNCH: When did you learn that he had been arrested and charged? Is that the same time you learned that he was cooperating?

BULGER: No, but if I...

LYNCH: Did you know he was--did anyone tell you or do you remember becoming aware that Kevin Weeks was cooperating with the investigation?

BULGER: No, but I think I saw it in the paper. I don't think anyone ever told me that, I don't think.

LYNCH: So you learned of it through the newspaper?

BULGER: I think so.

T. DAVIS: Thank you.

We have a vote pending, and the time on this side has expired.

Mr. Delahunt, do you want to be recognized?

DELAHUNT: I'll try to do these five minutes.

Following Congressman Lynch's line of inquiry in terms of your relationship with a variety of federal agents, and I will give this to your counsel during the break, and you can review it and we'll inquire after we return.

I just want to be really clear that the first time that you realized that your brother was an informant for the FBI was in 1997 when it appeared in The Boston Globe?

BULGER: No--well, we were referring, Congressman, to a 1987 story where...

DELAHUNT: Right. But let me ask you this question, then.


DELAHUNT: When you were first aware that--or you were satisfied that, in fact, your brother was an informant with the...

BULGER: I think one of the moments when I was confident that it must be so was when, during the preliminarily proceedings in the federal court, Judge Wolf, that someone, I think it was Flemmi, used it as a defense.

DELAHUNT: So that would have been the late '90s?

BULGER: I think so.

DELAHUNT: '97, '98?


DELAHUNT: Were you aware or did you learn subsequently that, in fact, your brother had been an informant for the FBI since 1979?

BULGER: Since 1979?

DELAHUNT: Correct.

BULGER: I think this is the first time I ever heard about...

DELAHUNT: That date?


DELAHUNT: Well, let me indicate to you that there has been evidence before this committee that John Connolly and John Morris cultivated James Bulger as an informant, and in 1979 approached Jeremiah O'Sullivan to inform him that your brother James was an informant for the FBI, and that he should be given consideration in a particular case, and that was done. That's been evidenced before this committee.

Subsequently--and, again, I want to inquire as to the involvement of the federal authorities as it relates to the so-called 75 State Street.

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: And I'm not interested in the facts. I presume that you were interviewed. I don't know whether you appeared before a grand jury, but you were interviewed, I understand, by two assistant U.S. attorneys...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... as well as two FBI agents that were present.

BULGER: I'm sure there were other people beside those--the two counsel. But the counsel did all the talking.

DELAHUNT: Fine. And the statements that you made to them, you'll testify here today were to the best of your ability the truth.

BULGER: Oh, sure.

DELAHUNT: So that we can obviously refer to those if necessary.


DELAHUNT: Let me just digress and go back to...


DELAHUNT: When you were called in front of the grand jury, and you indicate that your testimony was released--I share my colleague's concern about that leak--the purpose of that grand jury, the purpose of those questions was to seek assistance in the whereabouts of your brother?

BULGER: I think so.

DELAHUNT: That was your understanding?



BULGER: Harboring and obstruction of justice were the two matters that brought us there.

DELAHUNT: Were you declared, was it indicated to you you were either a subject or a target of that investigation?


DELAHUNT: So presuming that the purpose of the grand jury was to secure information as to the whereabouts of your brother...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... prior to your grand jury testimony, were you interviewed by the FBI?

BULGER: The grand jury is in 2001.


BULGER: That's correct, yes.

DELAHUNT: If you have a memory, were you interviewed by the FBI prior to 2001 as to the whereabouts of your fugitive brother?

BULGER: I don't believe I was.

DELAHUNT: You were not?

BULGER: I don't think I was.

DELAHUNT: Are you aware that there is a task force that was created for the sole purpose of apprehending your fugitive brother?

BULGER: Yes, I am.

DELAHUNT: And you were never inquired of, by that task force prior to your grand jury testimony?

BULGER: I don't believe so, no.

DELAHUNT: Was your brother John, Jack, inquired of? If you know.

BULGER: I don't know.

DELAHUNT: You indicated that your wife was inquired of this week?

BULGER: Last week.

DELAHUNT: Last week.

BULGER: They were looking for her.

DELAHUNT: With the purpose of determining the whereabouts of James Bulger?

BULGER: Correct.

DELAHUNT: What year did your brother flee the commonwealth?

BULGER: '95.

DELAHUNT: 1995? So eight years later, the FBI gets around to inquiring of you and your wife, in your case some six years, as to the whereabouts of your brother.

BULGER: That's the first direct effort, yes.

DELAHUNT: Do you have something prepared that you were about to read or submit to the committee regarding a conversation some Doyle (ph) had with...

BULGER: Yes. These were two FBI agents, Congressman, who came to the door last Wednesday, a week ago. This is very brief.

T. DAVIS: Can I just interrupt? We've got to get over to a vote. Let me ask this. This is a great time for us to take a break. Their time has expired, we've indulged them a little extra time so they could have some continuity.

What I'd like to do is take a 40-minute break. If you'd like, we can make sure you have lunch in the back and have some privacy.

BULGER: Thank you.

T. DAVIS: And you prepared. Allow you to read anything that you'd like to supplement at that point when you come back and read anything into the record.

Then we'll resume questioning a half an hour on our side and then a half an hour over in the Democratic side.

OK. Hearing will be in recess.


T. DAVIS: Committee will return to order.

Before I refer questions over to Mr. Bulger, I have one issue that I wanted to get to the bottom of.

We'd asked earlier about the special legislation that was put in the budget amendments in 1981 following the Lancaster Street garage bugging incident.

This was legislation that, at least as I read it, was aimed at about five officers, two of whom were involved in the bugging of Whitey Bulger and the Lancaster Street garage, that some in the press have dubbed retaliatory.

I'm just trying to understand in my mind other than singling out five officers who would have to retire early or lose other benefits, how this could have happened or what other public policy issue might have been at stake here.

And I just wonder, Mr. Bulger, if either you or your counsel, Mr. Kiley, could shed any light on that? In fact, Mr. Kiley, if you'd like to--I know you were--can I swear you in on this just to...

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you're about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

KILEY: I do.


I say this because I understand you were around the state house at the time and at least were acquainted with the issues.

KILEY: I was in 1981, as I had been for the prior six years, the first assistant attorney general for the commonwealth. I served in that position for 10 years.

We had a state police contingent in the office, which at one point, and I believe it included in 1982, was headed by Captain and later Lieutenant Colonel Agnus (ph), one of the gentleman who provided you an affidavit.

In the affidavit, and in the president's testimony, there is an allusion to, a reference to a controversy that existed in Massachusetts following the United States Supreme Court's decision in the United States v. Murgia. It related to the retirement ages in the uniform branch and the detective lieutenants.

The uniform branch people were required to retire at a very early age. The detective lieutenants, and these five individuals who were among them, were not. They had civil service status. They retired at 65.

The controversy that existed for years was whether it was fair to the uniformed branch people to leave the senior staff on top of them so that there were not opportunities for promotion. There was the issue, and if I may refer you again to the affidavit of Peter Agnus (ph), he alludes to that problem.

I also want to suggest, and I think it's an important point to the committee, that we have provided you news clips contemporaneous from 1981 in addition to these clips.

And to Congressman Meehan's point.

KILEY: One of those articles suggests the outside section actually emanated from the House and was in the House budget.

I've not been able to nail that down with historic research, but this amendment--the outside section that you are talking to--has an unclear provenance. It may have originated in the House, not the Senate, and there were certainly other issues on the table at the time.

One other quick point--the Lancaster Street garage surveillance, by all accounts, was conducted largely by uniform branch personnel. The uniform branch personnel would have benefited--not been harmed--by the passage of the (inaudible). Now that, again, as I've told your staff that's argument--that last point--is argument, not fact.

T. DAVIS: Just trying to put it all together. Of course, we're going to go back to check the legislative record to the extent that we--20 years later--but that at least from my perspective clears up at least what might have happened.

KILEY: And again, it's referenced in those Agnus (ph) and Nelly (ph) affidavits that you passed.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, just so we're clear on this issue.

So, Mr. Kiley, you're saying that it wasn't an outside section that was included in the Senate Ways and Means proposal?

KILEY: Congressman, I have gone back and done the research in our journal and so forth and I have not been able to nail it down. I can't tell you where it came from and I've been trying to do that with...

(UNKNOWN): So you can't say it is or it isn't?

RILEY: I can't.

(UNKNOWN): OK. Great.

T. DAVIS: Thank you.

Under unanimous consent, each side will now be given 30 minutes. We'll proceed with Mr. LaTourette.

LATOURETTE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And Mr. Bulger, it's nice to see you again.

The affidavit that's sort of sporadically been put into the record during the course of the day. I have received them last night and it looks like they were faxed down from Mr. Kiley's office yesterday morning maybe about 10 o'clock.

And while I appreciate them, the difficulties I have with affidavits like these is you can't ask them questions. I mean, they are what they are.

And I might ask the chairman--that since these folks have been kind enough to want to participate in a hearing--maybe we should chat with them just a little bit later if there are questions on the affidavits.

And I just want to ask you, I assume that they came into existence because you and your lawyer reached out to these people. They didn't know you were coming today and said: Hey, I got something I want to say. You reached out them--is that true?

BULGER: Yes, my counsel has done so.

LATOURETTE: OK. And I want to return to the 1995 phone conversation between you and your brother that took place at an employee's home. And again it was set up by Kevin Weeks--wanted to know where you were and the phone call was made.

In your opening remarks, you referred to it as a short conversation three or four times and then in response, I think, to Mr. Waxman's question, you indicated it was a three-or a four-minute conversation.

LATOURETTE: When asked what the substance of the conversation was, just to summarize what I heard you say, you said, you know: Don't believe everything you hear and tell everybody things are going to be OK. And you expressed the concern on behalf of your family that you all care about what happens to him.

That only takes about 30 seconds. I've learned that folks in the South and New England speak slower than we do in Ohio, but that's only 30 seconds.

So was it a 30-second phone call or was there more that you're not remembering today or were there variations on that theme about expressions of concern back and forth that then consumed another two and a half, three and a half minutes?

BULGER: Congressman, I don't have a distinct recollection of the minute-by-minute conversation. I don't have that. That's the idea that I came away with, that everything is not as it seems and that I'm OK. And in turn I told him, You know, we care about you...


BULGER: ... and we want you to--I hope it's going to have a happy ending.


BULGER: And I think what I've probably provided you with is not so much the words, but the gist of the conversation.

LATOURETTE: The gist of the conversation.

During the course of the conversation, when we spoke a couple of weeks ago, you did not advise your brother to turn himself in during that phone conversation.

BULGER: That's correct.

LATOURETTE: And likewise he did not reveal to you where he was.

BULGER: That's true.

LATOURETTE: Now, there's been some discussion about the leaking of grand jury evidence, and I find that as abhorrent as my colleagues from Massachusetts do.

But one of the newspapers is quoted as saying, that allegedly was in receipt of those documents that indicated that in fact when you were in front of the grand jury you testified that you told him not to turn himself in.

BULGER: That's not true.

LATOURETTE: That's not an accurate...

BULGER: I mean, if you reported--I believe the Globe may have reported that, but it's absolutely not so that I told--I never said such a thing to him.

LATOURETTE: Prior to your appearance at the grand jury, or maybe during the course of your appearance at the grand jury, did you request immunity from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before making that appearance?

BULGER: Did I request immunity from the commonwealth?

LATOURETTE: Before your grand jury testimony.

BULGER: I never had no occasion to do that, no, sir.

LATOURETTE: OK. Also, as I asked you a couple of weeks ago, I think--I don't have the same strong feelings that maybe Mr. Shays expressed, but I think that when you invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege on December the 6th up in Boston that caught some of us by surprise.

LATOURETTE: I've heard you explain today and the other day that you were afraid that there was going to be some sort of memory test, and I also understand that the idea of immunity was one that was generated by the committee. It wasn't you and your counsel calling up and saying, I'm only going to come see you if you give us immunity.

But I guess the question that I have is, between the date that you invoked the Fifth Amendment when the committee was in Boston, and then I would assume that there would come a time I would think when you would say, I don't have anything to fear here.

And I think, as I expressed to you a couple of weeks ago--as I listened to you a couple of weeks ago, and I listen to you today--I'm not conversant with Massachusetts law, and if you and your lawyer say there is a section where you can talk to your brother or your sister and you don't get in trouble for that even if they happen to be killers, I'll take that on face value.

But I'm wondering, there is nothing that you said today that you've done anything wrong, so I'm trying to figure out why there didn't come a time after you took the Fifth in December and then finally the negotiations are for you to show up here, that you didn't reach that conclusion as well?

BULGER: Well, I became increasingly comfortable after the conversations, I do know that but I thought the die had been cast back in December by my invocation of my constitutional right.

And at that time in December, I can just tell you that I was very much concerned about the fact that just upon the arrival of the committee in Boston, the government had released or leaked my grand jury minutes to The Boston Globe, and I feared that other people might have it and therefore I would be at this huge disadvantage in my view where I would be required to remember exactly what I had said two years before, and they would have all the advantage of being able to look at my notes, and that was a matter of large concern to me.

LATOURETTE: Sure. Well, that's a commonly used trick that prosecutors do to take former testimony and try and trip you up, and I certainly understand that.

Let me ask you, when you received a subpoena in December--to appear in December, did you hire a public relations firm to help you? Aside from legal counsel, did you hire a public relations firm to deal with the subpoena and your appearance before the committee?

BULGER: I hired counsel, and we had people who do public relations work who were being helpful to us, yes, and I did pay them myself.

LATOURETTE: And was the purpose of that to somehow get out your side, aside from the appearance, but was it also to help with the media, in terms of spinning whatever it is you wanted the Boston media to believe about this?

BULGER: That's exactly right. I was trying to get some part of my point of view into the public domain.

LATOURETTE: Following that retention and around the time of your testimony there were also some--not so pleasant stories about our former chairman, who I see now is in the chair today.

LATOURETTE: But was there any strategy discussed that--it's not an uncommon technique in politics to not only defend, but to attack. Was there any suggestion of that?

BULGER: I never heard of it, Congressman. If there were any ad hominems, they didn't come at my suggestion.

LATOURETTE: And certainly, from that answer, that isn't a tactic that you would approve of certainly by...


BULGER: No, I think--no, I should...


BULGER: ... care for myself.

LATOURETTE: I want to now just turn quickly to the wire to the PEN registers for just a second. As I understand Kevin Weeks, who has recently testified in the Verizon case, has indicated that information was given to him by Mr. Schneiderhan.

And he testified that he gave that to your brother Jackie. Do you know that to be true other than I've just said it and Kevin Weeks testified under oath the last time?

BULGER: No, I don't know that it's so.

LATOURETTE: And again, your story is that no one in law enforcement, or no one outside of law enforcement ever indicated to you that there were PEN registers on your phone, and that knowledge only came to you when pursuant to statute, your lawyer was notified that you had been a subject of a electronic surveillance.

BULGER: That's right. It was back in 1998.

And by the way, Jack would have heard the same thing from his--yes. So the two of us were well aware of it.

LATOURETTE: Well, but I think that the allegation is that the tip came before the notification. It's after? You think it's after?

BULGER: Subsequent.

KILEY: If I may, Congressman...

LATOURETTE: Sure. Well, sure.

KILEY: Our correspondence is dated October 9, 1998. The allegation with respect to Trooper Schneiderhan is the tip came in 1999, a year later.

LATOURETTE: Well, thank you for clearing that up.

So the last area, with the chair's indulgence, I want to talk a little bit about the safe deposit boxes.

Apparently your brother has safe--dead, or may still have safe deposit boxes around the world. And one of them was in the United Kingdom. Today you're aware of that fact, is that right?


LATOURETTE: And you're also aware of the fact that you were a contact name on at least one box...

BULGER: Right.

LATOURETTE: ... today. And how did you come into possession of that information?

BULGER: Through the newspaper. It was reported in the newspaper, and that was the very first I ever heard of it.

LATOURETTE: I had thought--and I'm not trying to do anything tricky--I had thought when we talked a couple of weeks ago that they had in fact--that one of the banking institutions had called your home.

BULGER: That's what I understand, too. They claimed to have done so.

LATOURETTE: But in checking with your family members...

BULGER: Nobody...

LATOURETTE: ... no one remembers receiving a telephone call from the bank about such a call?


LATOURETTE: I would yield back. I don't have anything else.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Shays?

SHAYS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Bulger, for being here.

I have a different view of the Fifth Amendment than yours, and maybe they're not all that different, but I believe that a public official has a duty to cooperate when you have an official body that wants the truth.

And it blew me away when you exercised your Fifth Amendment right, which you're allowed to do, but you are a public official.

And it bugs the heck out of me that we've had to delay six months what you could have answered. I heard nothing you said today that you couldn't have said back then.

My view is the Fifth Amendment gives you the right not to incriminate yourself, and you have the right to use it.

SHAYS: And the courts have made it very clear that you can't convict someone on it. But it doesn't say what public opinion has a right to think, or what a congressional hearing has a right to think, about the exercise of anyone using that right. And so my natural instinct is to think what do you have to hide?

And I've listened to you, and you've used as an excuse that your memory might not be good enough and that, therefore, you don't want to, you know, do something where your memory isn't good enough.

But whatever you say here--whatever you say here--has to be the truth. And your immunity doesn't protect you from lying before us. You were sworn in, correct? Everything you say here has to be the truth, correct?


SHAYS: Or you, in fact, can be prosecuted. Is that not true?

BULGER: That's exactly right, Congressman.

SHAYS: OK. So I'm just, like, mystified.

I want you to tell me what you think about Joseph and Marie Salvati.

BULGER: Joseph Henry Salvati, the gentleman who spent--I have the same sense of outage, same sense of actually revulsion at the story of Mr. Salvati and the other two defendants who were wrongfully conflicted and sent to jail for all those years. And Mrs. Salvati, I've met her on occasion, and she knows of my feeling on that.

SHAYS: Does it bother you that you helped provide an environment in which it seemed difficult for law enforcement agencies to get at the truth?

Does it bother you that the FBI was involved with sending this man to jail when he was innocent?

Does it bother you that your brother was involved with sending this man to jail when he was innocent?

I want to know what you think about your brother's involvement in this outrageous, obscene, gross circumstance.

BULGER: This is the very first I have ever heard of my brother's involvement in that, Congressman, the very first.

SHAYS: Very first?


SHAYS: Yes? So somehow he just wasn't connected with this in any way?

BULGER: Somehow he was not connected with this?



SHAYS: In any way with the Salvati case?

BULGER: I don't believe so.


BULGER: IN fact, it's the very first I've ever heard of it.

SHAYS: You've never heard anyone suggest that before?


SHAYS: Let me ask you, when you received the phone call, you received--your brother fled in December '94 and you received the phone call in January of '95, correct?

BULGER: Correct.

SHAYS: OK. Your brother broke the law and you were a public official. Did you go the authorities to say that your brother had contacted you?

BULGER: I informed my attorney just about immediately.

SHAYS: Did you go to the officials?


SHAYS: Why not.

BULGER: I told my attorney, and he in turn...

SHAYS: Well, big deal.

BULGER: And he in turn told the officials.

SHAYS: OK. And who interviewed you after that?

Why wouldn't you--just offhand--why did you have to tell the attorney, why don't you just--I think you're a senator, correct?

BULGER: Pardon me?

SHAYS: You were a state senator at the time.


SHAYS: Why wouldn't you have just gone to the officials? Why do you need to speak through your attorney to tell the authorities that you spoke to your brother? Why are you looking at me...

BULGER: I have a right to do. I exercised my right to...

SHAYS: But why? You have a right to do it, but why would you do it? Why wouldn't you just pick up the phone and say, My brother who's fled contacted me. And by the way, I'd like to know why you just didn't speak to the authorities directly, why did you speak through an attorney.

BULGER: That was my preference.

SHAYS: OK. Let me ask you this.

SHAYS: The individual who told you that you were to go to a house, his name was Kevin Weeks (ph)?

BULGER: Right.

SHAYS: Whose house did you go to?

BULGER: He didn't tell me to go to a house. He asked me where I would be.

SHAYS: And where were you?

BULGER: And I went to the--I was, in the course of my duties that day, I was at a home in Quincy, the home of...

SHAYS: What home? Whose home?

BULGER: Edward Phillips.

SHAYS: So you spoke to your brother at Edward Phillips' home?

BULGER: Right.

SHAYS: Did Mr. Phillips know you were going to receive that call?

BULGER: I can't remember whether he knew.

SHAYS: Why not?

BULGER: I don't know whether I informed him that I was receiving...

SHAYS: So you came to that home and you said, I'm going to receive a phone call from somebody, or, I need to come to this home. Tell me how that's logical.

BULGER: No, when I go to this home--very frequently, I'm receiving phone calls wherever I am. And it would not be unusual at all for me to receive a phone call while at his home.

SHAYS: But you knew that when you went to that home you were going to receive a phone call from your brother.

BULGER: I expected that I might.

SHAYS: Right. Why did you think you would receive it there? Why was your brother calling that...

BULGER: That was his request. I'm sure he would like a private conversation.

SHAYS: Did the FBI ask you why you received the call there?

BULGER: I'm reminded by counsel that the U.S. attorney asked me, in the grand jury.

SHAYS: Yes, when was the grand jury?



BULGER: In 2001.

SHAYS: Isn't that amazing? You receive a call in 1995 and nobody wanted to have details of why you went there and whether or not that individual knew you were receiving the call and so on. It didn't strike you as kind of interesting?

BULGER: I think the U.S. Attorney's Office knew about it far in advance.

SHAYS: Yes, the problem is that there is a suspicion, why you obviously don't agree with, that the FBI and others were intimidated in interacting with you because you were a powerful political person, and you know you were a powerful political person. Did the FBI ever try to question you, and did you refuse to talk to them or answer them? Did you ever shoo them away? Did you ever suggest that maybe they should go somewhere else? Did you ever do that?

Under oath. I'm asking you under oath if you did that.

BULGER: I think whenever they have come I told them I'd like to--if I'm going to talk to them, I want to do so with counsel.

SHAYS: Did you ever suggest to them to get lost.


SHAYS: Did you ever suggest to them that you did not want to answer their questions?

BULGER: I don't recall. But I know that if they...

SHAYS: So if we have someone from the FBI who comes up to us in a hearing and says, We went to Mr. Bulger, we asked him, and he told us to get lost, you would...

BULGER: I don't think I used that expression...

SHAYS: Well, you get the gist. Maybe they don't say get lost up in Boston, but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting. Not willing to cooperate.

BULGER: You're suggesting...

SHAYS: I'm suggesting that--I am asking whether you gave a signal to the FBI that you did not want to answer their questions and that they should not ask you and that they should leave.

BULGER: I don't recall meeting the FBI. I really don't recall it.

SHAYS: Did the FBI ever come to your home?

BULGER: I've told that they did, but I do not recall it.

SHAYS: Did the FBI ever come to your office?

BULGER: No, I don't think so.

SHAYS: Did any other law enforcement people come to your home?

BULGER: I don't think so.

SHAYS: Did any law enforcement people come to your office just to ask you questions?

BULGER: I don't believe so.

SHAYS: Do you think the FBI felt that if they asked you questions about your brother that you would cooperate?

BULGER: I have no idea what the FBI is thinking. They're not too friendly to me, Congressman.

SHAYS: I'm not friendly because I'm outraged at this whole case.

BULGER: No, I'm saying that the FBI is not very friendly to me.

SHAYS: I don't blame them.

Let me ask you this question...

BULGER: Well, if you can understand then--if you don't mind--Congressman why I would therefore be reluctant to be a cooperative witness.

SHAYS: No, I don't understand that. The fact that someone may not like you doesn't mean you can't tell the truth. That's an absurdity.

Let me ask in the final area: Did you have any knowledge of any organizations or people that were involved in gun running to Northern Ireland?


SHAYS: Were you aware that your brother was involved in any way in with providing some kind of munitions to Northern Ireland?

BULGER: I read that in the paper.

SHAYS: When did you read it in the paper?

BULGER: The year, I have no idea. In the '90s.

SHAYS: How did you react when you read about it? Were you proud of him?

BULGER: I didn't even know whether it was true or false, Congressman. I don't know how I felt.

Is this the question that I'm here for, to answer what how I feel about things? At any given time, I don't know.

SHAYS: That's not an unusual question because it gives me a sense of your attitude about a variety of things. I just want to know if you know anything relating to Valhalla (ph)?

BULGER: No. I know nothing about it.

SHAYS: Let me just conclude with these questions about your--you have a variety of children--were any of your children interviewed by the FBI about anything to do with your brother or their uncle?

BULGER: Oh yes, they have been.

SHAYS: OK. They've been interviewed, but you haven't been.

BULGER: Well, they been--I'm trying to think of how--they've been approached. And then once counsel called them, I think that was the end of it each time.

SHAYS: So the bottom line is when anybody approaches you or your family, they're told to speak to counsel?

BULGER: That would be a sensible attitude, yes.

SHAYS: OK, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Before I ask questions, Mr. LaTourette, did you have some follow up real quick?

LATOURETTE: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. From chatting with you the other day and also listening to you today, I get the sense that your family is close--you and your nine children--you have a very close-knit family. Does that exist in terms of your relationship with your brother? And by that I mean over the course of the years, like most families, did you get together for Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter? Did you have family get-togethers like that, where your brother would be present?

BULGER: No he would not be on hand for such occasions.

LATOURETTE: And then whether or not those events occurred, what was you or understanding that your brother did for a living? I mean, he had a lot of money. What was your understanding...

BULGER: You know I answered, Congressman, earlier that I recognized that he was doing things that were...

LATOURETTE: Extra-legal...

BULGER: That were beyond the law at some point.


Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Let me ask a few questions here.

You indicated at first that you heard that your brother might have been aware of the killing of Deagon (ph)?

BULGER: Deagon?

T. DAVIS: Deagon was the gentleman that was killed--that they accused Mr. Salvatti of being involved with, as well as the others. You indicated you didn't brother knew anything about that, or at least the first you've heard about it if that's the case. Is that right?

BULGER: That my brother did not know anything about it?

T. DAVIS: Yes.

BULGER: That was not my intention to say that, I'm sure.

T. DAVIS: Well, I just want to clarify one thing.

T. DAVIS: The Winter Hill mob, or gang, or whatever you want to call it, he was pretty much the head of it. And Barboza and Flemmi, those guys answered to patriarch up there, who was north of them, I believe, in Connecticut.

And when they gave the approval to kill Deagan (ph), I'm sure that they had to know that, I'm sure he had to know that Deagan was going to hit.

BULGER: Could I ask you what year that was, Congressman?

T. DAVIS: What year was that?

BULGER: 1965? I think it's the year my brother was released from prison: 1965. So I...

T. DAVIS: He nevertheless was very tightly involved with all these guys.

BULGER: He was?

T. DAVIS: Well, he was the head of the Winter Hill mob as far, as I know. Isn't that correct?

BULGER: He was...

T. DAVIS: I know he was in Alcatraz.

BULGER: Right. And I don't think he could manage it from there. I'm not being--I don't mean to be--seeming--excuse me for that.

No, but I mean that's my problem with this.

T. DAVIS: I understand.

BULGER: You see my problem?

T. DAVIS: Earlier you said that Linda Riordan (ph), who left with your brother, he came back and you said that she did not get a job with the--was it Linda Riordan (ph)?

BULGER: I think it's Theresa Stanley (ph), sir.

T. DAVIS: Theresa Stanley (ph), excuse me. I've got the wrong year.

Theresa Stanley (ph)--that she didn't get a job at the convention center from your friend?

BULGER: I don't know that she did. I just...

T. DAVIS: It was...

BULGER: I didn't think she had worked there.

T. DAVIS: No, it was her daughter.

BULGER: Her daughter, OK.

T. DAVIS: I just want to correct that for the record.

Do you know whether John Connolly ever tipped your brother off to the fact that a criminal investigation was underway?

BULGER: With respect to--do I? No, I don't know of it.

T. DAVIS: Did you consider writing a letter to Judge Terrell (ph) regarding Connolly's sentencing?

BULGER: Did I consider writing a letter?

T. DAVIS: To Judge Terrell (ph) regarding the sentencing of Mr. Connolly?


T. DAVIS: Did you encourage any others to write letters?

BULGER: I don't believe so.

T. DAVIS: Well, you say you don't believe so. Could you be more specific?

BULGER: But I know I never called anyone, Congressman, Mr. Chairman, and said to him, please write a letter. There was nothing of that nature.

T. DAVIS: Did you ever talk to anybody on the street and say, you know, Connolly is a friend of mine and appreciate it if you'd write a letter to the judge?

BULGER: No, I don't think so ever.

T. DAVIS: You don't think so.


T. DAVIS: So categorically you're saying you never did that?

BULGER: I'm categorically telling you that I have no recollection of such a thing.

T. DAVIS: I know you have no recollection. But you can't say for sure that you didn't ask somebody to write a letter to the judge on his behalf?

BULGER: I believe I never asked anyone to write a letter to Mr. Connolly, never.

T. DAVIS: Did you encourage--did Connolly introduce you to John Morris and any other FBI agents?

BULGER: Yes. Along the way he did introduce me to FBI people. I don't recall us meeting, or an introduction to John Morris, but I hear it frequently that Mr. Morris claims that there was such an introduction.

T. DAVIS: Now, I don't know if you answered this question--I was out of the room for part of the time.

Did you ever take any steps to help Connolly get the police commissioner of Boston's position? Did you ever refer him to anyone for that job?

BULGER: Can you give me an idea of the year of that?

T. DAVIS: Well, I presume it was right after his retirement party, which would have been around 1990.

BULGER: 1990? And that was when he went to work, I think, for the Edison Company.

T. DAVIS: But did you recommend him for that position as police commissioner of Boston?

BULGER: Excuse me, who's the mayor at that--maybe way back many years before there was a neighbor of ours who was mayor and I heard that I may have suggested John to Raymond Flynn (ph). He was the mayor some years back.

T. DAVIS: Did you try to help Connolly get other jobs, I mean, like at Edison? I guess you did.


T. DAVIS: You did not. That's the only time that you can recall?

BULGER: No, I think--it wasn't even an effort. It wouldn't qualify as an effort to get the man a job. I may have suggested him as a possible candidate, somebody that might be looked at.

T. DAVIS: When you got that phone call, did you know in advance how far in advance you were going to get that call?

BULGER: I've answered that question before. I'm not positive. It seems as though it was very close to the time that I'd be in Quincy, where...

T. DAVIS: Well, I just wondered if maybe you felt it might be better to get a call someplace besides either your office or your residence because your phone or something might be tapped.

BULGER: Yes. This request was one as to where I would be at a certain time of day, and I was quite certain I would be there at that particular place.

T. DAVIS: Well, if you knew you were getting a call from your brother, who was gone, had fled, why would you go to somebody else's house instead of your own to get the call, or go to your office? Because he was your brother after all.

BULGER: Right.

T. DAVIS: I mean, why wouldn't you just say, Well, you know, I'll be someplace. You can give me a call if you get a chance?

I mean, if he was on the lamb, you would know that he might not be able to make three or four phone calls chasing you down if you were going to different places.

BULGER: No, I answered where I would be. I was pretty sure I'd be down at Phillips' house that evening.

T. DAVIS: And of course you knew that Phillips would--there wasn't any chance that anybody would be listening in on that phone conversation down there.

BULGER: Well, it was my brother's request that he wanted to talk to me.

T. DAVIS: Yes, going back to the State Street episode: You have the $240,000 back because it came from Brown.

BULGER: Right.

T. DAVIS: Did he get the $240,000 back when the money came? Did you get the money back when it came from other sources? You ended up getting a fee. Right?

BULGER: No. I got the money to which I was entitled. And I had done other work in that office. And because I now was in a more difficult position as president of the Senate, I had to step away from the formal practice of law as a partner of Mr. Finnerty.

T. DAVIS: But it had nothing to do with the first issue, the first case, the $240,000.

BULGER: No, but the money was something in the nature of an advance. Finnerty was working on a particular matter with Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown had a degree of notoriety, which caused me say to Finnerty, Why don't I just--since the money's coming immediately from Mr. Brown, I should probably not receive it.

It was more to do with appearances. I don't think there's anything substantively wrong.

T. DAVIS: Nevertheless...

BULGER: It turned out to be Tom Finnerty's money. He could do whatever he wanted with it.

T. DAVIS: Nevertheless, you did receive $240,000 later.

BULGER: Later? Oh, much more than that, I hope. No, more, because I was entitled to a fee. I think we may have covered this when you were out of the room.

T. DAVIS: You did. You did.

BULGER: What happened was I had a fee coming for about $350,000, and I was expecting that. Ultimately, that did come.

T. DAVIS: But it had nothing to do with the $240,000 that you gave back.

BULGER: No, that's a totally different matter.

T. DAVIS: I see my time's expired.

Mr. Tierney?

TIERNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just try to round out on that subject. What was the name of the trust from which you took the $240,000?

BULGER: The Saint Pascal (ph) trust.

TIERNEY: And for what purpose was that trust established?

BULGER: Finnerty established the trust. It was his, he did it, I think just for the sake of separating some assets in his office. He ran the office.

TIERNEY: Who were the trustees?

BULGER: I think just himself.

TIERNEY: And who were the beneficiaries?

BULGER: I think just himself. I don't know. I think it doesn't stand the test of a real trust ultimately.

TIERNEY: Have you seen the documents?

BULGER: Well, way back I think I did. It was the fact that he's the beneficiary, as well as the...

TIERNEY: Trustee?

BULGER: Trustee.

TIERNEY: He was the only beneficiary and the only trustee?

BULGER: Yes, he was everything in that trust, yes.

TIERNEY: And nobody else shared either of those positions, so in fact it wasn't a trust.

BULGER: Yes, I think that's--I'm remembering that from Emil Shlosetzski (ph).


TIERNEY: So when you took that money, you didn't take it as a beneficiary...

BULGER: Oh, no.

TIERNEY: ... it was some other form of transfer?

BULGER: He was free to pay it as he wished.

TIERNEY: And you didn't take it as a beneficiary, you took it as some other...

BULGER: Oh, no. It was really because the other money was coming, it was slowed up. And I think he had some sense at the time that the slow-up on the other fee, which I had earned, was something which was the fault of the office. They had not been receiving the money on time, due to some inaction of their own.

TIERNEY: But as you testified just a short while ago when you received that money you invested it.

BULGER: Yes, I did. Some of it. Yes.

TIERNEY: Were there immediate needs that you had to meet with that money?


TIERNEY: Were you putting pressure on Mr. Finnerty for it?

BULGER: I don't think I did.

TIERNEY: I'm trying to figure out why he felt compelled to have to give an advance when everybody knew the fee was coming in eventually...

BULGER: I don't think he felt...

TIERNEY: ... and you had no apparent need for it.

BULGER: My sense of it is now, so many years later, 15 years, maybe more--must be longer--my sense of it is that he just wanted to do it. There were needs, nothing critical, I don't think, but it would be something he would be willing to do.

TIERNEY: Can you tell me how much of that money went towards needs that you had and how much of it got invested?

BULGER: Oh, only a very--I didn't have it very long. I didn't put it toward needs. Just a very little bit, about $10,000 or $15,000, I think, was invested.

TIERNEY: When that money was paid back, did you make the check out to Mr. Finnerty or to the trust?

BULGER: I assume it was to the trust. I assume.

TIERNEY: And did any of the money which you used to reimburse the trust come from James Bulger...

BULGER: Oh, no.

TIERNEY: ... or any of his associates?


TIERNEY: Now, you had testified earlier also that Mr. Connolly from time to time brought by various FBI personnel to your Senate office to introduce them to you.


TIERNEY: Do you know what the frequency of those visits were?

BULGER: It would be occasionally, maybe--I think if new people were coming to town, he might come by and introduce them.

TIERNEY: Did he visit your office on other occasions?

BULGER: He may have. I have some sense that he was around a bit. He knew everyone, nearly everyone who worked for me.

BULGER: And I think frequently that was the reason for his presence there.

TIERNEY: Was there any associations with other people in your office?

BULGER: He was friendly with several people, yes.

TIERNEY: Did you have periodic telephone conversations with Mr. Connolly while you were in the state Senate?


TIERNEY: Would he call your office?

BULGER: Not very frequently, no.

TIERNEY: And when he would call what were the topics that he'd discuss with you?

BULGER: I don't know. He might ask me if I would be an emcee at something, that was always a request that I would receive. I think I visited every senatorial district in Massachusetts doing that, Democrat and Republican.

TIERNEY: And Mr. Connolly would ask you to do that?

BULGER: He would do that, too. There were some event that he were interested in, if there were a charitable event or something, and I think I recall his asking me on some such event, Would you come and be the emcee?

TIERNEY: Is it your testimony that in none of those telephone conversations and in none of those personal visits between you and Mr. Connolly was the subject of James Bulger made?

BULGER: I don't--no, it was--no, he didn't. He just didn't--there is an awareness on the part of people that my brother is there, Congressman.

TIERNEY: But this individual was somebody that you and your brother grew up in the same neighborhood with him, you had a long-standing relationship. He's in the FBI, he's running your brother as a confidential informant.

BULGER: Right.

TIERNEY: And he never mentions anything of that to you?

BULGER: He doesn't tell me about it. He does not. He, I think, years later, as he's leaving, maybe around 1990 or thereabouts, it's becoming clearer and clearer that they all know each other. He knows my brother. But I don't think I ever was even aware of it until much later.

You know, can I--just an example. Governor Welles served for, I don't know, seven years as governor of Massachusetts, and we were very close during the five years in which I was still the president of the Senate.

He never mentioned my brother, never once, and we had traveled together and we worked together to resolve some of the problems that confronted both the House and the Senate and the governor. And I can only say he never mentioned it, and that is not an unusual way that the fact of my brother's presence was handled. Everyone knew about my brother, but it frequently was just something that didn't get referred to.

TIERNEY: Mr. Bulger, you wrote that...

BULGER: Can I have one moment?


BULGER: I'm reminded by counsel that one time I did ask John Connolly about something that was in the paper, that my brother was involved in drugs, and I began to, I think, asking people about that because I didn't think it was something that could go on without a lot of people being aware of it.

And I asked him, you know, if he could find out within his right to know and he came back to me and said, they gave me a negative on it. He said that he didn't think that was so.

TIERNEY: Earlier when we talked about what it is that you thought your brother did, you indicated you thought that he was involved with numbers and things of that nature.


TIERNEY: How come you never asked John Connolly then if your brother was engaged in those things?

BULGER: Well, because I thought there was validity to it. In the case of this drug business, I thought it was false. There was something, a claim made against him that was false. I asked other people about it too.

TIERNEY: You've never asked Connolly to the extent that your brother might be involved in gaming or anything of that nature?

BULGER: No, no I didn't, no.

TIERNEY: You never asked him if your brother was in trouble with the FBI or other law enforcement officials or should you have talked to your brother about it?

BULGER: I don't believe I did. I didn't think it was within my right to inquire or that it was his right to tell me.

TIERNEY: You wrote a while back that your wife at one time all you and informed you that your brother and a group of people purchased the lottery ticket together and that the ticket had been bought jointly. Apparently, a $1 ticket we're talking about here. But it had been bought jointly by Mike Linsky (ph) and his brother Patty (ph), Kevin Weeks and Jim. Half of the purchase price, I guess, 50 cents, was paid by Mike--was thus entitled half of the proceeds of the $4.3 million prize. The remaining half was divided equally among Patty, Jim and Kevin. And my brother's share amounted to about $1.6 million.

Do you have any idea of whether your brother would or not have received $80,000 a year I guess over 20 years. Do you have any idea where your brother may have invested or spent that money during the five years before his disappearance?

BULGER: No, I don't know where he spent that money.

TIERNEY: Do you know if he took it as a lump sum or if he did take it over the periodic payment period?

BULGER: I don't think he took the lump sum because there was a squabble about whether it was a valid win.

TIERNEY: You testified at one point--there was information at one point--that your brother had a safe deposit box in London with your name on it. What knowledge did you have about that box, and when did you acquire knowledge about it?

BULGER: Whenever it appeared in the newspaper is the first I knew of it. Understand I'm not a joint, but rather somebody to whom they would go if there were no one else.

TIERNEY: In that phone conversation you had with your brother, he mentioned to you that this was the case in case something happened to him?

BULGER: No he never told me that. I don't think he--he'd know that I would tell him that I don't want to be on it.

TIERNEY: Do you know of any other safe deposit box belonging to your brother James?

BULGER: No, I've heard of one in Florida which is involved.

TIERNEY: How did you hear about that?

BULGER: Because my brother, Jack, was paying the annual bill for it.

TIERNEY: Was your name on that one also?

BULGER: Oh, no.

TIERNEY: Do you have any financial interest in any money or property or business that's owned in part by your brother James?

BULGER: No, not at all.

TIERNEY: Do you have any awareness of any assets belonging to James and where they might be at this point in time?


TIERNEY: Have you ever received any large gifts with the value of $1,000 or more from your brother, James?


TIERNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Lynch?

LYNCH: Let me continue. I just have a few questions, but let me just continue on that line of questioning.

Based on earlier testimony by, I believe, Mr. Weeks, Mr. Martorano, and actually confirmed by Mr. Morris, for a certain period of time there was an awful lot of money flowing between the FBI agents themselves and other third parties as well as your brother and Mr. Flemmi and their organization.

Were you ever confronted with an offer of money either from the FBI or from any of your brother's associates like Kevin Weeks or any of those gentlemen that are affiliated with your brother's organization?

BULGER: Never, no.

An offer of money to me from...

TIERNEY: From either an FBI agent or from--all right, even an unexpected offer of money from an unknown third party?


TIERNEY: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Meehan?

MEEHAN: This will be my final question on this 75 State Street.

Before you paid back the money, had anyone suggested to you that Harold Brown was going to be indicted?


MEEHAN: So you never had a discussion with anyone relative to Harold Brown potentially being...

BULGER: No, I didn't know much about Harold Brown at all and them, but it became pretty clear that he was in some sort of difficulty. And I'm not sure how I came to know it but I thought it would be advisable since the money--the source was from him--and (inaudible), by the way, was suing him by that time. And that it would not be sensible for me to receive that money, since I already have the other money coming before long.

Tom Finnerty was trying to be helpful to me. He had it, and he thought that would be some help to me.

MEEHAN: Going back to the telephone conversation in 1995, when you went to your staff person's house, you knew that you were going to get a call--it's not clear to me: Did you know that you were going to get a call from your brother?

BULGER: Well, you know, I still don't have a specific recollection, as I've indicated about the conversation with Kevin Weeks.

MEEHAN: But you testified that the information came from Kevin Weeks.

BULGER: Right. I have. But I've also said I hope each time--I don't remember exactly the conversation, I settled on Weeks because I don't know anyone else--I didn't know anyone else then--who ever seemed to be in touch with my brother.

MEEHAN: And this is the same Kevin Weeks who was involved in the Logan Airport incident in 1987 where he escaped, apparently with the money.

MEEHAN: And this is the same Kevin Weeks that issued the lottery ticket. Apparently he was involved in this, maybe still in dispute of extorting a $14 million winning ticket from the first person who won it. That was Kevin Weeks?

BULGER: I didn't know that that--is that--I didn't know that that was a claim.

MEEHAN: I think he's testified, I think that he's testified...

BULGER: That he did?

MEEHAN: ... to that.

BULGER: Yes, I didn't know that.

MEEHAN: And this is the same Kevin Weeks who along with--apparently along with your brother and Steve Fleming--at least according to his testimony--forced legitimate owners of a south Boston liquor store to sell them the business apparently, according to Mr. Weeks, at gun point in 1984. And I think it's the same Kevin Weeks who, at least according to his testimony, has said that he participated in burying bodies all over the--apparently all over south Boston.

Is it fair to say John Connolly was a close friend?

BULGER: Of mine? Yes.

MEEHAN: Yes. And John Connolly and John Morris apparently were friends.

BULGER: I didn't think so...

MEEHAN: You don't know that--you don't know that...


MEEHAN: John Morris was, apparently, was the agent in charge of Connolly. Are you aware of that?

BULGER: Pardon me?

MEEHAN: Are you aware that Morris...

BULGER: I think he was, yes. I think I was aware of that too.

MEEHAN: On the issue of the safe deposit box in 1997, you never, ever got notification that your name was on the box.


MEEHAN: Is that correct?

BULGER: Never.

MEEHAN: And was there a phone conversation or not, a telephone conversation, relative to that box? It's unclear to me whether or not...

BULGER: Well, I think there was some claim--I'm remembering the newspaper reports that at some place something was changed--I don't even know the name of the bank--but that that was communicated. And my sense of it is that it was communicated by telephone. But no one seems to have heard that.

MEEHAN: So you never knew that he had put you name on...


MEEHAN: ... this box in London. And your name wasn't on the one in Florida, and apparently you heard of the one in Florida only through...

BULGER: Right.

MEEHAN: ... your brother Jack. After the phone call from your brother, you've testified that you notified your attorney.

BULGER: Well, I did tell my attorney that I had received the phone call. I didn't...

MEEHAN: You've stated that that was your last conversation, in 1995. And have you receive any other information from any source relative to your brother?

BULGER: Well, back in '95, there were people who they all seemed to claimed to have received a phone call or were aware through someone else who had that he was doing fine, or something like that.

Now I would hear it through third parties. And that seemed to be sort of a common bit of information.

MEEHAN: So information would get to you generally through third parties relative to how he was doing.

BULGER: I think so, yes.

MEEHAN: Do you recall the names of any of those third parties?

BULGER: Well, now I remember the incidents, some of the people. I mentioned that there was a young lady named Kathy McDunna (ph). I did not know her at the time. I since have come to know her. And I understand that she had received such a call.

And then there was someone named, I said Hart (ph). I don't know if it might be Caputo (ph). And she was someone who was a friend of Theresa Stanley. She may have received a phone call. I'm not sure of that.

And then there were some folks who made large claims that would just--the usual things you hear, you know, that were false.

MEEHAN: On a separate subject: Do you know a man named Roger Concannon (ph).


MEEHAN: How do you know him? What's your relation with him?

BULGER: Well, Roger grew up in that community. I know his brother for the most part, James.

MEEHAN: Have you ever been to his home?

BULGER: Roger? No.

MEEHAN: Has he been to your home? Are you close friends?

BULGER: No. I don't think I've seen him in years and years.

MEEHAN: Are you familiar with a musical group called The Irish Volunteers?

BULGER: Musical group? Yes. Very flattering.

MEEHAN: And you know they were...


... they would perform with the group. Is that right?

BULGER: Roger did, yes.

MEEHAN: Did you ever hire them to perform at events?

BULGER: Oh, I'm sure I did. But they were--yes, they were--yes, I know who they are.

MEEHAN: Were they any good?

BULGER: Well, you know--well, I'm not a--no, I would not recommend them.


I would also say that--well, I used to chide them--do you want to hear that? I should say it's a nice group. They hold themselves out as volunteers. The trouble's 3,000 miles away, and they're here.

MEEHAN: Are you aware that Roger and Bill Driscoll owned the Coconut Beach Inn?

BULGER: No. I don't know that place. I never heard of it. Coconut Beach?

MEEHAN: Coconut Beach Inn. Have you ever been to Saint Vincent?

BULGER: Pardon me?

MEEHAN: Have you been to Saint Vincent, in the Caribbean?

BULGER: No. I was going to--I know another Saint Vincent.

MEEHAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, that's it for now.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Delahunt?

DELAHUNT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned Theresa Stanley. I'm sure you're curious about the whereabouts of your brother.

DELAHUNT: Have you ever had a conversation with Theresa Stanley since she returned to Boston?

BULGER: I have...

DELAHUNT: After your brother dropped her off?

BULGER: Yes, I did--I saw her at a couple of events, and I've seen here a few times, but she becomes very silent, very quiet about things.

I don't bring up those subjects, but even the chance meetings seem to be subdued. She doesn't--I don't know what--but she's very polite and very...

DELAHUNT: But you've had no conversation with her about your brother?


DELAHUNT: I just want to name some FBI officials and determine whether you know them, and if you do, how you know them.

A James Ring, Jim Ring?

BULGER: Jim Ring, I do know that name and I think I have met him.

DELAHUNT: Do you remember where you met him?

BULGER: No, I don't remember meeting him at this alleged chance meeting at Mary Flemmi's home, but that's where I've seen his name. I don't remember that. I told you--but it's, I think, 20 years.

DELAHUNT: You're familiar though with his testimony?


DELAHUNT: Regarding your appearance at the Flemmi household while he was there with John Connolly and your brother and Stephen Flemmi?


DELAHUNT: And you have no memory?

BULGER: No, I could not have seen that. I would have--I just--I never saw that.

DELAHUNT: Have you ever met a Dennis O'Callahan (ph)?

BULGER: I don't know that I have. I know the name.

DELAHUNT: He was a former assistant special agent in charge.

BULGER: Yes, I know the name.

DELAHUNT: But you don't remember meeting him?

BULGER: I don't remember meeting him.

DELAHUNT: Are you aware that there is testimony that was given in the federal court that it was Dennis O'Callahan (ph) that provided John Connolly information relative to the indictment of your brother?

BULGER: I didn't know that, no.

DELAHUNT: There is a--do you know this name, a Richard Baker? Would be a special agent.

BULGER: No, no.

DELAHUNT: There were reports that pursuant to a recommendation or instructions from John Connolly, you purchased liquor from the south Boston liquor mart that reportedly was owned by your brother after the incident that was just related by Mr. Meahan. But you don't remember--you don't know a Richard Baker?

BULGER: No, and Richard Baker is an FBI...

DELAHUNT: Special agent.

BULGER: I don't know him, no.

DELAHUNT: A James O'Hearn (ph).

BULGER: I know that name.

DELAHUNT: He was a former special agent in charge in Boston.

BULGER: Right, I don't--I'm sure I must have met him at some point, but I don't recall him or I don't recall ever having any conversation with him. But I do know he was--I think he was very much in the news.

DELAHUNT: Yes, he was very much in the news. Do you remember a John Claridy (ph), Jack Claridy (ph)?

BULGER: Yes, I do. I think I know his sister.

DELAHUNT: You know his sister?


DELAHUNT: But you know Jack Claridy (ph)?

BULGER: If he is from West Roxbury, then I think I know him.

DELAHUNT: Do you remember being, again, a master ceremonies at his retirement party?

BULGER: Jack Claridy's (ph)?


BULGER: No, I don't.

DELAHUNT: You don't?

BULGER: I could have done it, though. I did it all the time.

DELAHUNT: But you don't have a memory of...

BULGER: I don't have a specific memory. If you told me when and where it took place, I might.

DELAHUNT: I think it was actually in June of--if you give me a moment.


DELAHUNT: I think it was June of 1989.

BULGER: Yes, and the place?

DELAHUNT: I don't know the name of the place. I just...

BULGER: I could very well have been. I know his sister. She worked at the statehouse.

DELAHUNT: Her name was Hagedy (ph), as I remember?

BULGER: Yes, she--and she always mentioned her brother as though we were--we knew each other, yes.

DELAHUNT: Others have indicated that on multiple occasions, John Connolly would introduce you, either at your office or elsewhere, to members of the FBI.

BULGER: At his house?

DELAHUNT: Not at his house, no, either at your office or...

BULGER: That's how I remember him coming through. Someone new was in town and would you like to say hello, and that stuff. But that's very common. Lots of people did it. The place was open for traffic all of the time.

DELAHUNT: I understand, but you know, others have asked the frequency. I'm not asking you...

BULGER: Oh, but I don't know how. It wasn't very frequent. I'm sure that there were a couple of times a year, that would be about the way I would think of it.

DELAHUNT: But one inference could be drawn that Mr. Connolly enhanced his own status by bringing FBI officials in to meet the president of the Massachusetts Senate? That's an inference that could be drawn, would you...

BULGER: Sure, we assume that anyone who comes through, and is doing it either a social purpose or a self-promotion purpose. But I think it happens to all of us in public office.

DELAHUNT: And let me just--again, I'm not interested in the facts of 75 State Street...


DELAHUNT: ... because you have testified here that the statements that you provided to the federal prosecutors were the truth. So I don't think there's any need for us, but by incorporation, those statements could be made part of our record.

And I would recommend to the chair that they be made part of our record.

BULGER: I hope you'll consider carefully, if I may...

DELAHUNT: Certainly.

BULGER: ... the affidavit I've submitted from Harold Brown. Harold Brown seeks to set the record straight, and he uses the word that I was totally innocent, that he doesn't ever intend to accuse me of anything.

DELAHUNT: I understand, Mr. Bulger, and I'm confident that this committee will consider that. But if the chair would honor my request, if we can secure the statements of Mr. Bulger...

T. DAVIS: Without objection.

DELAHUNT: Thank you.

But what I find interesting is the--well, let me ask you this question, Mr. Bulger. Who represented you during the 75 State Street...

BULGER: Bob Popio (ph).

DELAHUNT: Bob Popio (ph) represented you.


DELAHUNT: Did he ever raise with you the question of, or did he ever raise with you, an issue regarding a request or a suggestion by the federal government that would entail that investigation being conducted by another United States attorney's office or by a different office of the FBI?

BULGER: I never heard of that.

By the way, it had been already investigated.

DELAHUNT: I understand that.

BULGER: And then it went to a grand jury, and they said no.

DELAHUNT: I understand that all...

BULGER: And you know there are no accusers. The accusers of the lawyers of Harold Brown.

DELAHUNT: Well, let me explain the reason again why I'm posing these questions, is that while you testified here that you were unaware...


DELAHUNT: ... you were unaware that your brother was an informant...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... for the FBI...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... the individuals that were either involved in the investigation of 75 State Street, or even were in the periphery, were fully aware of your brother's status as an informant.

BULGER: But...

DELAHUNT: Go ahead.

I was doing some reading last night, and in a story that was dated December 9, 1988, it appeared in the Globe indicating that the FBI had called off an investigation of some two and a half years into the matter involving 75 State Street. And I'm quoting now: "FBI Agent John Clougherty (ph) yesterday confirmed that there was a formal investigation started in March of 1986. This investigation failed to develop any evidence of a violation within the jurisdiction of the FBI."

In December of 1988, as you've indicated, the investigation was closed.

Let me just interpose a question here. At that point in time it has been reported that you had never been interviewed by the FBI. Do you have a memory of being interviewed by the FBI as it related to 75 State Street?

BULGER: No, of course not.

DELAHUNT: Thank you. But they did go ahead and made an announcement closing the investigation.

BULGER: May I also--I think that's exactly the same time as the grand jury spoke and said there was nothing to...


DELAHUNT: Now, let me try to refresh your memory. The grand jury was subsequent to the announcement by the FBI. And obviously, is was John Clougherty (ph) who made that particular announcement.

BULGER: I never knew there was any kind of an investigation going on. I didn't.

DELAHUNT: I'm not in any way suggesting that you did. What I am saying, Mr. Bulger, is that the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Boston made an announcement that they were closing an investigation that you indicate of some two and a half years that you were unaware of, and then made that announcement. That doesn't happen very often with the FBI.

In fact, back in December I asked a question of the head of the Organized Crime Strike Force and the U.S. attorney, Mr. O'Sullivan, regarding his statement after the grand jury concluded its work, and he made the announcement that it was not even a close call.

And I posed the question to Mr. O'Sullivan: In your 16 years as a federal prosecutor when did you ever make an announcement that it was not a close call or that someone was vindicated?

Now, I'm not suggesting that's a policy that should be rejected out of hand, but what I am saying, it's a very exceptional policy. And he indicated--his response to me was--that it was very rare and he could only think of a single--maybe one--his words were: maybe one other time. And I requested that he, as he left, to go reflect and submit to the committee a letter outlining that other time, and I don't think we've ever received that.

Have we, Mr. Chairman.

BURTON: Not that I know of.


BURTON ... the gentleman about concluding his questions. Do you have more questions, sir?

DELAHUNT: I do, but I'll be happy to...

BURTON: No, go ahead. There's continuing of questions that we want to make sure we get completed. But go ahead.

DELAHUNT: I'll do whatever the chair recommends.

And again, it was Mr. O'Sullivan that reopened that case, supervised that investigation and presented evidence to the grand jury, which, in a public statement, he exonerated you. And I think his words were "no close call."

But what I find interesting here is, we have Morris, John Morris, whom you've made a serious allegation about here today, who is in charge of that investigation; Mr. Ring, who was the special agent in charge--strike that--Mr. O'Hearn (ph), who was the special agent in charge of the Boston office, who clearly was not only aware of the informant status of your brother, but would sign off on any statement that was made in the name of the FBI, and also would have supervised Mr. Morris; we have Mr. Clougherty (ph) who was the former partner of John Connolly; and in addition to that we have Mr. O'Sullivan, who exonerated you.

And then we have testimony from Morris that he was approached by Connolly, and Connolly sought his advice as to whether you should testify in front of the grand jury. I think you've indicated...

BULGER: No, it was a meeting.

DELAHUNT: It was a meeting.

BULGER: That is what it was. It was my own request. I asked Popio is there some way I could talk to these people? So it's not the grand jury, Congressman; it was a meeting with the prosecutors.

DELAHUNT: No. This is prior to that, Mr. Bulger. There was an approach made by John Connolly to John Maurer (ph), and this has been testimony, you know, in the federal court.

BULGER: I wasn't aware of that, then.

DELAHUNT: And what I'm trying to do is clarify the record, because one could draw an inference that you requested John Connolly to make the approach to Maurer.

BULGER: Be absolutely certain, I never made such a request. Never.

DELAHUNT: But what I'm trying to relate to you is the testimony of John Maurer that was never refuted by Mr. Connolly.

Many things are said in all of our names that we're unaware of. But again--well, I guess the bottom line for me is that the federal authorities, having knowledge that your brother was an informant, and that you were either the subject of a target of an investigation, concluded that it was fine for those that I mentioned to proceed with the investigation into 75 State Street, as opposed to referring the matter, like occurs frequently, to either another FBI office or to another U.S. attorney's office.

What I'm suggest is that I have reservations as to whether that's a very good practice, particularly when several months after you are cleared, that these same FBI officials invite you to be a master of ceremony for a departing member of the FBI.

I think it--and again, I'm not leveling criticism at you, Mr. Bulger. What I am suggesting is that in terms of appearances and the confidence of people in our justice system, that just doesn't, as the former Governor Welles I think once said, that doesn't pass the smell test.

BULGER: May I just say a couple of things? First of all, as to the publicity, at the very--there was a whole--it was The Boston Globe, I'd call it a concoction. And it ran from that time, about December 8 of '88, and it ran right to the March 31. I remember it well because it was a daily, daily drum beat upon me.

And ultimately Bob Popio asked people who were conducting this thing, Please, there's never been so much publicity, if one were to go back and look at the publicity during that period, and he therefore asked, If you would please just make a public announcement so that my own opportunity to be made whole would occur.

Another thing, about being a master of ceremonies: I have to tell you, I did it more--I'll bet I was a master of ceremonies for more state police than I have been for any FBI. I just did it all the time. It seemed to go OK.

I'm just telling you, it was a constant problem for me because people would so frequently ask me to do it. And it becomes difficult not to do.

BULGER: I mean, Elliot Richardson (ph), who was the United--Would you please, he said, do it? And I did it with Popio (ph), and we retired his debt. And he was ever grateful. But Elliott Richardson (ph), I mean, it was everyone. And I didn't know how to turn it off. And I did it all of the time.

And one of the things in my opening statement I don't mention, but the fact is these offices keep you very, very busy. And that was one of the...

And so, there's nothing sinister about my having agreed to be--and by the way, I don't even know about this...

DELAHUNT: Mr. Bulger, let me be really clear. I'm not even suggesting sinister. What I am suggesting is responsibility of the office.

BULGER: My office?

DELAHUNT: No, not your office, the office of the FBI.


DELAHUNT: Because they were aware of the informant status of your brother.

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: They knew that your brother was an informant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they proceeded to conduct an investigation into the matter involving 75 State Street. And I'd just say the appropriate action by the government should have been to refer that matter to another U.S. attorney's office, to another office of the FBI.

And far be it for me, Mr. Bulger, to defend the blow. But they were correct in the information they provided relative to the status of your brother as an informant. My understanding is that it was Mr. Morris that was the source of that particular information. But that information did lead to, I dare say, the Wolf (ph) hearings, the hearings of this particular committee, that have really given us some insights into what was occurring within the Department of Justice, not just in Boston, but by implication elsewhere.

BULGER: I appreciate that, Congressman. I can't even be in disagreement with you on it, not at all.

DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, before we get off this round, can I ask one question on the subject of...


... I want to get off this Coconut Grove end. And I didn't ask the last question. I get a little sidetracked with the evaluation of the Irish Volunteers, how they were. But I do want to ask this question. You indicated that you knew Roger and James Concannon (ph). And there's a story in the Herald today. I don't suppose you've had an opportunity to read the Herald yet, but...

BULGER: I don't ever read it.

DELAHUNT: I just want to ask you this. You had indicated you knew Roger and James. Have you ever spoken to them about your brother?

BULGER: To whom?

DELAHUNT: Roger Concannon (ph) and James Concannon (ph) or Bill Grisgal (ph)?

BULGER: I don't think I've ever spoken to Roger Concannon (ph) about my brother. I see Jim Concannon (ph) so frequently that I could very well have.

DELAHUNT: So you could have. Any idea what the content would have been?

BULGER: Jim is a contemporary, and I see him once a week. And he's usually very supportive and that sort of thing. So it would be probably just giving him some assurance that we're doing OK. And I can't remember discussing my brother with him, though, Jim. Jim is a probation officer.

DELAHUNT: You never had a conversation with them about your brother potentially being at the Coconut Grove Inn or anything of that nature?

BULGER: The Coconut Grove Inn? I don't know where that is. Where is that? Do you mind me asking that?

DELAHUNT: Well, yes, it's in Saint Vincent--the Caribbean, apparently. But I just asked the question because it was in--it was a piece today, and I just thought I would finish that off.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much. Your time on this side has expired.

The gentleman from Indiana is recognized.

BURTON: I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman, to kind of wrap up. Stevie Flemmi, were you aware that he had extensive real estate holdings?

BULGER: I think only after he was in trouble, indicted. I read it in the paper. I was not aware of it before that.

BURTON: But did you ever talk to his mother about him and what he did for a living, or anything like that?

BULGER: No, his mother was just exactly next door to me, just a few feet away. And she's a very fine lady, Congressman, and she was--really she just--she was seldom visited. She didn't have anybody after her husband died, and she would, I think, be kind of waiting when I come home or when I was going out. And I...

BURTON: I understand. That's laudable. Was he like your brother? I mean, did you have any idea what he did for a living?

BULGER: No, I thought he had a restaurant somewhere. And also I thought he had a club or something like that, some club.

BURTON: Did you ever hear any rumors or anything that would indicate your brother was involved in murders?

BULGER: Someplace I saw it in the paper. I didn't believe it, but I did see it someplace. And that was in the '80s.

BURTON: Now, all of these--after 1995, you were called in January, I think, in 1995, and he left around Christmas in 1994.

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: Can you give us a list of all the people that passed along information to you about Whitey and where he was and how he was doing? Or is that a...

BULGER: I could--well, I've done it for other authorities. I've told them...

BURTON: Well, we'd like to have it here for the record, if you can give it to us.

BULGER: OK, well I think that...

BURTON: I think it's important to know how many times he contacted people.

BULGER: Yes, well I don't think...

BURTON: The only time he contacted you.

BULGER: I think Theresa Stanley was the source of some communications, because she had been with him and then was dropped off.

BURTON: This is the one whose daughter got the job at the convention center?

BULGER: Right.


BULGER: And I think, by the way, that youngster had worked at the convention center long before that. She's a very good employee. And she was savaged by the local press about being there. And she left, she went someplace else.

BULGER; I think Mrs. Caputo (ph), who I haven't spoken to in years, but I think she may have received a call. There's a gentleman that I used to meet, and I told the police about this, he is a retired policeman, and he told me that he had seen my brother in Maine and decided not to arrest him.

BURTON: Now, did they pass on to you anything specifically that Whitey said to them?


BURTON: He didn't say, Tell Billy I'm fine?


BURTON: Or didn't say Merry Christmas or anything?

BULGER: When I was in public office, I listened to everyone. Frequently knew better than to take them very seriously. He would fall into that category. Very nice fellow, but he could tell a wonderful story. That happens. I mean, I just didn't go about saying to people, You're fibbing and you're telling the truth, because they're all...


BURTON: Were there any other people in that list?

BULGER: And then there was--I don't know (inaudible) ended some eight years ago. It happened then, and then nobody has said anything in years and years.

BURTON: So you don't recall anybody else other than those you mentioned?


BURTON: OK. Now, I'm going to be a little redundant, but I want to make sure we've got this for the record. When did the FBI first interview you after your brother fled Boston?

BULGER: Well, I'm informed now that they said they came to my house or something, and if they say that, then they probably came, but it would not have...

BURTON: The information that we have on that is that about four days after he left there was a knock on your door, you answered the door, they asked you questions, and you were supposed to have said, I don't have anything to say, and you just shut the door.

BULGER: Well...

BURTON: You don't recall that?

BULGER: I don't remember it, you know, but my sense is, if I did speak to them, I think I'd handle it much more diplomatically, and I'd say, I have a lawyer and would you, and I'd give them his name.

BURTON: Well, what other interviews were there?

BULGER: With me or with other members of the family?

BURTON: With you.

BULGER: No, I don't think there were other interviews, no.

BURTON: OK. Were you concerned that your Senate office was bugged?

BULGER: No, I wasn't.

BURTON: Did you ever ask anyone to conduct a sweep of your office to determine if it was bugged?

BULGER: I accepted the routine sweep of the office. There was someone from one of the police departments or the state...

BURTON: Suffolk County district attorney's equipment was used?

BULGER: Something like that. And they would go through--I think they'd go through all of the constitutional offices, and they'd make themselves--if you wanted to do it, fine. I think I said yes to it.

BURTON: That was a common practice for them to sweep your office?

BULGER: No. But whenever they--it probably happened once or twice.

BURTON: Did you ask them to sweep your office?

BULGER: No, I never went looking for anyone to do that, never.

BURTON: You didn't say, You know, I'd like to have my office...

BULGER: Oh, please, no. I didn't. No. No, I didn't say, Oh, please come and do it, no. I didn't do that.

BURTON: Well, how did it happen? Did they just say...

BULGER: I think that they called, the people who were doing it...

BURTON: But they initiated the call.

BULGER: I believe so. I think so. Again, it's years and years.

BURTON: If you were concerned about your office being bugged, it seems to me you would call and say, Look, I'd like for you to sweep my office.


BURTON: Or if they just said, You know, we would like to come by and check your office for bugs, you would know the difference.

BULGER: I don't think I ever felt that it was...

BURTON: Necessary.

BULGER: Necessary.

BURTON: The only reason I ask that is you went to this other house to get that call from Whitey, and I just wondered if there was any correlation between that, having your office swept.


BURTON: There wasn't?


BURTON: You did not ask them to sweep your office?

BULGER: I don't think so.

BURTON: No, no, you did not ask them to sweep your office, you didn't think so. Just a yes or no. Did you ask them to sweep your office?


BURTON: Thank you.

OK, I just have a few more questions.

In your book, you showed a great deal of contempt for informants. And you've covered this, you heard that your brother was an informant, refresh my memory, how did you find out he was an informant or alleged to be an informant?

BULGER: The very first was in this piece in the Globe in the late '80s. That's the first time, I think, that, you know, my curiosity was piqued about this.

BURTON: What steps did you take to find out if it was true?

BULGER: I didn't take any steps.

BURTON: Did you talk to your brother about rumors that he was an informant?

BULGER: No, I don't think so. I don't think so. My brother's an older brother, Congressman, he doesn't listen to--he didn't listen to--he didn't come to me looking for advice.

BURTON: Yes, but it seems to me you'd remember if you said, Are you an informant? I mean, that's a pretty significant thing. I mean, Are you talking to the cops? You don't remember doing that?

BULGER: I don't think so, no.

BURTON: But you can't say categorically you didn't.

BULGER: I may have said it if I saw him, but, you know, I doubt it.

BURTON: But you were curious about the truth of the Globe article.

BULGER: The truth of it was not as interesting to me as the other aspect that I have described.

BURTON: Did you talk to John Connolly about your brother and whether he was a government informant?


BURTON: Did you talk to any friends or aides about the possibility that he was an informant?

BULGER: I don't think so.

BURTON: You didn't talk to anybody else that you recall?

BULGER: No. I know what I said about it.

BURTON: I just have one more thing, Mr. Chairman, and that is, I'm very troubled by this Boston Herald article, not because of you, Mr. Bulger, but because how can a newspaper find out all this information and the FBI hasn't done anything about it. It just mystifies me.

BURTON: It says, according to one policeman, these two guys didn't have two nickel to rub together, and yet they paid $130,000 at the outset, plus another $27,000 for that hotel, to buy up controlling interest in it, and that Whitey Bulger allegedly was down there and had the top two floors. And they've talked to people down there that said that that was the case. And if that's the case and the Herald can find out about it, why in the world can't the FBI?

So I don't know if we have any U.S. attorneys around, but, guys, that kind of throws a little mud on your ability to get one of the 10 most wanted criminals in the country when a newspaper finds out about it and goes into great detail.

With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

You doing OK? I'm going to recognize counsel. Do you need a break, Mr. Bulger, or you OK?

BULGER: I'm doing fine.

T. DAVIS: All right. Let me recognize counsel for questions.

KEITH AUSBROOK, COMMITTEE COUNSEL: Thank you, Mr. Bulger, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to ask a few follow-up questions to some things that have been raised today.

After your brother returned to Boston from Alcatraz, you tried to get him a job. Is that right?


AUSBROOK: And what job was that?

BULGER: I got him a job in the Suffolk County Courthouse, janitorial.

AUSBROOK: How long did he stay in that job?

BULGER: Some months, but not very long.

AUSBROOK: And do you what he started to do after that?

BULGER: And do I know what?

AUSBROOK: After he left that job, do you know what he started to do?

BULGER: I think he was with a company that was doing billboard advertising. I think that's where he went next.

AUSBROOK: And how long was he there?

BULGER: Excuse me?

AUSBROOK: And how long was he there?

BULGER: I don't know. I think several years.

AUSBROOK: Was that a legitimate job, or was that something that he didn't really have to show up for...

BULGER: Well, I had assumed it was.

AUSBROOK: When did you come to realize that your brother was engaged in criminal activity?

BULGER: I'm uncertain of that, very uncertain of that.

AUSBROOK: Can you even make a rough estimate of when you might have figured out that he was engaged in criminal activity, loan sharking, numbers, other activities?

BULGER: Could I make a guess? It must be in the '70s sometime.

AUSBROOK: So I think you said that you certainly could have asked John Connolly to look after him at some point. Is that true? Is that what you testified to?

BULGER: Excuse me, this comes from a newspaper story, Counsel, that...

AUSBROOK: It actually comes from John Matarano's (ph) testimony.


AUSBROOK: And so he testified that you asked John Connolly to, Look after my brother.

BULGER: He said that?

AUSBROOK: Yes. To keep an eye on him. Keep him out of trouble. Something like that.

BULGER: Yes. That I said that to whom, to John Connolly?

AUSBROOK: To John Connolly, about your brother Whitey.

BULGER: And was Mr. Matarano (ph) there when I--was he present...

AUSBROOK: No, I don't think he actually was there, but I think he understood that you had done that...


BULGER: Well, if I ever said something like, Boy, influence him to stay on the straight and narrow, if that's what's meant by it, I could well have said it, but I never was--the other construction of my words is wrong. I don't know anything about what Mr. Matarano (ph) has heard. And I forget who it was that told him of it.

AUSBROOK: Do you think you would have said that at a time when knowing that John Connolly was an FBI agent and that your brother was engaged in criminal activity?

BULGER: Oh, no. I mean, I didn't intend that at all. I think it's a pretty innocent comment, if in fact I made it. I have no recollection. But I don't want to quarrel with that source.

AUSBROOK: But it's not something you--I mean, maybe it's something you'd say to a lot of people, you know, just keep an eye on somebody, keep him out of trouble. It's not an unusual thing to say to somebody, is it?

BULGER: Do you think it's unusual?

AUSBROOK: No, I'm asking you if you think it's unusual.

BULGER: I don't think it's so unusual.

AUSBROOK: But in the context of an FBI agent and a person involved in crime that might be an unusual thing to say.

BULGER: Oh, I suppose it could be, but it's not intended as it's purported.

AUSBROOK: Let me ask a few questions about Kevin Weeks. What is your relationship with Kevin Weeks?

BULGER: I just know him from seeing him around. His brother was a friend of mine, or at least I knew him from the campaigning. He lives in Chicago.

AUSBROOK: Kevin Weeks seems to be a person who would come to you with information about your brother.


BULGER: On several occasions he would stop by. I think I'm the last one to, at the end of a day, he felt like talking and not going home or something, yes.

AUSBROOK: Did you have any sort of special relationship with Kevin Weeks whereby you asked him to provide you with information about your brother?


AUSBROOK: Was there any special treatment that Kevin Weeks was afforded in getting access to you?

BULGER: No. I think I was inflicting my advice upon him. He seems very young to me. His brother was in Chicago, and I know I told him that he should go to Chicago and that he should take his wife and family and go to Chicago. That's what I would tell him.

AUSBROOK: So if he made a phone call to your office, would it automatically be put through?

BULGER: I don't think so. Somebody would talk to him. I don't think he ever made a phone call, ever, to my office.

AUSBROOK: What about visiting your office?


BULGER: I don't recall ever seeing him there.

AUSBROOK: Where would you see him?

BULGER: He would stop by the house, and he'd come through unannounced, suddenly.

AUSBROOK: Let me ask you some questions about your relationship with John Connolly.

AUSBROOK: Do you recall gathering some Friday nights at something called the Bayside Club?

BULGER: No, I know the Bayside Club, but there were no big gatherings that I attended.

AUSBROOK: Any kind of gathering then. Did you have a regular gathering of some sort on Friday nights anywhere?

BULGER: No--what year is this?

AUSBROOK: In the early 1970s.

BULGER: In the early 1970s, I don't think so.

AUSBROOK: In your last conversation with your brother, did you discuss at all any means of further communication with him?


AUSBROOK: Did he say he would call you again?


AUSBROOK: He did not?

BULGER: There was no discussion of it. It was the first few weeks. I thought the situation was temporary.

AUSBROOK: Let me ask you about your role as Senate president, and this outside budget item that keeps coming up. Have you been involved in other outside budget items?

BULGER: I don't know. I probably must have at different times.

AUSBROOK: Do you have any formal responsibility for outside budget items?


AUSBROOK: Is there a practice in the state legislation that the leadership, as Mr. Meehan has asked, suggested that the leadership has to sign off on outside budget items?

BULGER: No, the budget items come up as amendments, outside sections. And then there is an up or down vote on them by the body. But they come from all directions. They come from the committee on the judiciary, the committee on health, the committee on insurance and taxation. They are also...

AUSBROOK: Can they be voted on without the approval of the leadership?

BULGER: Oh, sure.

AUSBROOK: Let's go to the Billy Johnson incident. Did you ever receive a copy of the incident report?


AUSBROOK: And you've mentioned that you also had some contact with people who say they've heard from your brother. Cathy McDonna (ph), Caputo (ph) maybe?

BULGER: Yes, I don't think I spoke to those people, but I think they were the source of it.

AUSBROOK: Did you tell this information to the grand jury, that you'd had contact with those people?

BULGER: I think I did, but I don't--I told them I was hearing it. And if it were attributed to someone, I think it might be such people as that.

AUSBROOK: And did you give them their names.

BULGER: Yes, I think so.

AUSBROOK: Did you ever tell the FBI that these people--that you had heard that these people might have had contact with your brother?


AUSBROOK: Do you have any information as to whether federal investigators have contacted any of these people?

BULGER: Oh, yes, there's evidence of that.

AUSBROOK: And how do you know that the FBI has contacted...

BULGER: I mean, because one of--the young lady, Cathy McDonna (ph), ended up with a perjury charge against her. And I don't know, Theresa, I've seen her picture in the paper, testifying in court. So they've all contacted.

AUSBROOK: And finally, let me just ask you a little bit about if you ever saw John Connolly in the company of your brother?

BULGER: Never, I don't believe I ever saw that. I think I'd--that will be--I just never saw that.

AUSBROOK: Would that have surprised you to see that?

BULGER: It would have.

AUSBROOK: Did you ever see your brother in the company of any other federal law enforcement officials?

BULGER: No, not at all.

AUSBROOK: James Ring, John Morris?


AUSBROOK: How about did you ever see federal law enforcement officials going to Steven Flemmi's mother's house?


AUSBROOK: Those dinners apparently were not--there was more than just one?

BULGER: Right.

AUSBROOK: But you never saw anybody going in and out of the house?

BULGER: Well, of course, I've seen many people going in and out.

AUSBROOK: But I mean any of the FBI agents with whom you were familiar?

BULGER: No, never. I can recall her family coming, because she would be inviting everybody that came from Lawrence, Massachusetts. And they would come. And she loved to cook for them, and that would be a big event.

AUSBROOK: Let me go back to the Billy Johnson incident report. Did anybody tell you what was in that report?

BULGER: No, no one ever told me what was in that report.

AUSBROOK: So you have no knowledge of what was in that report?

BULGER: Absolutely no knowledge of it. I never knew his name until years later, only because the press was writing about his problems.

AUSBROOK: Was it your earlier testimony that people did suggest to you that they had been threatened by your brother?

BULGER: I have a sense that I'd hear it, not from an individual, but I hear people say, you know, your brother frightened someone to death or something. And if I share it--if I saw him.

Sometimes I wouldn't see him six, seven months at a time. But if I did, I'd say to him, Please, I hope that's not true. That's all I could say is I hope it's not true.

AUSBROOK: Were these people involved in politics? Or were they just--or were they also other people?

BULGER: I'm not--well, they, I don't know. I don't know anyone who has been a candidate or anything.

AUSBROOK: I'm not sure I understood you. But when you did see your brother and you'd heard about these threats, did you ask him to try to stop that?

BULGER: I would say I hope that that's not true. I wouldn't want to get--there's no sense in getting into an argument. He would say I think it's not true. But rather than argue about it, I would express my consternation with that kind of behavior.

AUSBROOK: So did he ever talk to you, not just about the threats, but about any of his other activity that was illegal?

BULGER: No, he didn't, no.

BURTON: Would the counsel yield to me, Mr. Chairman?

T. DAVIS: The gentleman from Indiana (ph)?

BURTON: These people who you had heard through the grapevine were threatened, do you know who any of them were?

BULGER: I suddenly remember one.

BURTON: Well, how many were there that you know of?

BULGER: I wouldn't hear it from them.

BULGER: But as I say, indirectly.

BURTON: I understand. But if somebody said, you know, someone was scared to death by Whitey...

BULGER: He scared the...

BURTON: No, excuse me, if somebody said a friend of mine was scared to death by Whitey, they obviously would tell you their names. So we'd like to know the names of the people that were threatened.

BULGER: Oh, but not necessarily. He'd say he's arguing with someone about you, me, taking my part, he thinks. And it wouldn't necessarily be--I do recall one maybe.

BURTON: You only recall one?

BULGER: This, by the way, happened many years ago. We're back to 25 years or something. And it was in 1970. And one of the people running against me, someone in his camp there called me and said, Boy, your brother's angry and he's sounding off about things. And so I drove up the street and I found him and I said, You know, this is madness. Don't do that, you know.

BURTON: Well, who was this person.

BULGER: The candidate was a fellow named Patrick Loftus (ph).

BURTON: Patrick Loftus (ph)?


BURTON: OK. Now, were there any others like that?

BULGER: No, that's the only one I pinned down like that. I had forgotten about it. It was 30 years.

BURTON: It was a political opponent...

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: ... and you had a very long and, according to what I've heard, a pretty distinguished career.

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: You obviously had other political opponents. Did Whitey threaten any of the others that you know of?

BULGER: No. I never...

BURTON: Well, you said that from time to time you would hear this.

BULGER: I would hear him arguing. I think he probably thought he was doing it for me. And I think ultimately, I'm sure around that time, I made it very clear to him that I did not want that and please don't do it.

BURTON: But you can't recall any other names of people that were threatened?

BULGER: No. I don't think there were big incidents. It was just--it was his displeasure, and they were concerned about it. I know that night I went and found him, and I think at that time he said, I assure you I will never be near any of this again, the political thing. I supposed that's what was intended. I had forgotten about that incident, but it comes to mind now, and it was in 1970, 30...

BURTON: You don't recall any after that time?

BULGER: I don't think so. I'm sure, you know, he'd be willing to argue, but none of it comes to my mind at this moment.

BURTON: One last question. When the majority leader of the Senate, who was the heir apparent to becoming the pro tem, who was indicted and convicted, who you said was a friend of yours and is a friend of yours, that happened just prior to you becoming president of the Senate, president pro tem, didn't it?

BULGER: No. I think it happened...

BURTON: Can you give me the time...

BULGER: Well, it was in the '70s that all of that occurred. And then I became the president in the middle of 1978. The president of the Senate at that time was the one who would decide who would be the majority leader, and he appointed me.

BURTON: So you were then in the line of succession, so to speak.

BULGER: Right.

BURTON: But you have no knowledge of anything that led up to that indictment or that investigation?

BULGER: No, I have no--and I'm absolutely certain that I never would ask anyone or even indicate any way that I would want some harm to befall someone to further my ambition. I mean...

BURTON: Was Connolly involved in that?

BULGER: I don't know. I don't think so.

BURTON: So Connolly was not involved in that business.

BULGER: I don't think he was.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

T. DAVIS: Well, I think we're close to the end here.

Let me just ask, you had weapons found next door. There were a lot of activities going on next door to you.

BULGER: Right.

T. DAVIS: Were you aware of this?

BULGER: Sure. I was aware when they were discovered and picked up.


BULGER: But I didn't know. I mean, whoever, when they put them there, didn't tell me, By the way, we...

T. DAVIS: Oh, no, I understand. But what'd you think afterwards? I mean, obviously--were you concerned?

BULGER: Well, I don't know. They were hidden away. And I think at the time when they were discovered I didn't even realize that people had come and done it; that is to say, have come and take them away. I just didn't know that.

For all of those years that the Flemmi family lived there it was two very fine people, old people, and for a long, long time the widow and the mother of Stephen Flemmi. The house had become vacant and they were looking for someplace and they came there.

T. DAVIS: Yes, I mean, these were big lots or anything, though, right?

BULGER: Pardon me?

T. DAVIS: These were relatively small units and small lots?

BULGER: Oh, yes. Very small.

T. DAVIS: Very close to each other, right?

BULGER: Very, yes.


Any other questions?

Mr. Meehan, Mr. Delahunt, I think (OFF-MIKE).

DELAHUNT: So the Flemmi house was right next door to...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... to your home.


DELAHUNT: How much distance is there between the two?

BULGER: Perhaps from here to the desk, the first desk.

DELAHUNT: And you're aware of the machine guns and the other ammunition that was taken out of, I guess, the back shed.


DELAHUNT: After the fact, I mean.


DELAHUNT: And you never had any knowledge of...


DELAHUNT: Not of guns, guns being in there, but nothing ever looked suspicious over there?


DELAHUNT: Did you know Debbie Davis?

BULGER: I don't think I ever met Debbie Davis, no.

DELAHUNT: You're aware it's alleged that she was murdered next door?


DELAHUNT: I realize the difficulty with this. I'm curious, after all that has transpired, do you want your brother to give himself up now?

BULGER: Do I want him to? I hope he does what is the right thing.

DELAHUNT: Do you want law enforcement, at this point, to effectively find him and bring him back to face charges?

BULGER: Do I want them to?

DELAHUNT: Well, let me phrase it differently...

BULGER: I worry about the thing I told you in the first place, Congressman. I can't get away from that, my belief that the effort was made to kill him and that it was done by an FBI agent, Mr. Morris. And I'm mindful of the finding of the judge, Wolf.


BULGER: He said, I believe, and uses the verb in order to murder Bulger, that the Morris went and met with O'Neil at the Globe to have that printed. And when the question is asked, each time they say well what did you think about--I tell you, I--one thing I knew, it was this, that whether it were true or false, the fact is identifying him as such might result in his murder. And that was the judge's conclusion. And I think it--and it was a chilling thing for me, with all of the talk about killings and the rest.

Believe me, I don't--I know it may seem as though I am expressing all my sensitivity to this particular situation, it's only that it's under color of authority that it really disturbs me, that people would violate their office by doing that. I think it's the same sense of indignation that I am--well, I'm aware of because I'm here at the--your committee as you try to deal with the perennial question of who will police the police.

So I have no quarrel with whatever you are thinking. In fact, I think if I were here, I'd be similarly outraged. And also, with respect to the question, the original question, I don't know, I don't know exactly how to give the answer. Just in view of my lack of confidence in these people.

DELAHUNT: Let me ask you a question. Was that part of your rationale in 1995 when you got the phone call not to go immediately to law enforcement in an effort to try to trace...

BULGER: 1995, I still hadn't seen the official kind of pronouncement by the judge. But I was always mindful of that fact, that some years before that had appeared. And the only people who would know it would--you know, with any kind of degree of certitude would be the ones who were--to be an FBI informant is surely to be known for being that by the FBI.

DELAHUNT: So do you question the ability of law enforcement to, if in fact they were able to capture James (inaudible) do you question whether or not they could keep him from being murdered?

BULGER: I don't know. I'm just--I'm taken by the fact that I have to have the doubt. I do--I have a doubt.

(UNKNOWN): Would my friend yield?


(UNKNOWN): Mr. Bulger, today, as we sit here in the year 2003, and there have been changes obviously in the Boston office of the FBI as well as in the leadership of the FBI down here in Washington. You've expressed the concern. You made it in your statement that you believed partially, as my understanding, on the finding by Judge Wolf. But did you have any other evidence as opposed to a feeling that there was a--that some wanted your brother killed?

BULGER: Yes, it was a strong feeling. I think...

(UNKNOWN): But it was a feeling?

BULGER: Based on reason.

(UNKNOWN): Can I--let me interrupt.


(UNKNOWN): Would you provide this committee with what you would discern as the motive for the FBI wanting to kill your brother?

BULGER: I can tell you.

(UNKNOWN): Tell us.

BULGER: It's the finding of Judge Wolf, to at the large hearings. He said that Morris had been involved in this unsavory kind of relationship and therefore he had accepted something from my brother. He thought that my brother had outlived his usefulness and he therefore knew that some day my brother would be brought in.

BULGER: And his own misconduct would have...

(UNKNOWN): I understand--let me interrupt you by saying Mr. Morris is no longer, obviously...

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: ... with the bureau. Do you have that same concern today?

BULGER: I'm sorry, I didn't--that was your question. I apologize (inaudible). I think it's--I don't know, my confidence is shaken, but I don't know. I don't believe that most--(inaudible) me just saying this--most of those people that we've had the names about, Mr. Condon and the fellow who--Sheehan and those people--they seem to me to be men of integrity.

I really don't--I cannot believe--you don't have to listen to this--that they would knowingly been parties to this terrible commitment of three men for their whole lifetimes. I just find that so--I don't know Rico, I don't know Rico. So if it's somebody I don't know, like Morris, I suppose that's easier for me, but when I'm around--when I have been around with them, they were in state government, they seemed that it would be so base for them to have been a party to that and then to be, I don't know, so, in my view, upstanding.

DELAHUNT: Let me just change the subject for one moment. Let me go back to the issue of Mr. Davis and Trooper Johnson. When you were preparing the affidavit, I don't know whether it was Mr. Kiley or yourself that prepared the Davis affidavit, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Bulger, that was he inquired of as to whether he went to the state police office and sought the report?

KILEY: May I answer, Mr. Chairman?

All of the affidavits were my work product. All of them are the result of contact following our June 3 interview here. And I asked particular questions of all of them, drafted them. They edited them, every one of these individuals...

DELAHUNT: Well, let me interrupt you. Let me interrupt you.

KILEY: And, no, I did not ask them...

DELAHUNT: You did not ask them that question. Because I would suggest the fact that Mr. Davis, who was the director of Massport, should go and seek the report can be described as unusual.

In terms of the outside section of the budget, did you at any time inquire who happened to be the chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee?

BULGER: In '81 it's Chester Atkins (ph).

DELAHUNT: It's Chester Atkins (ph)?

BULGER: Right.

DELAHUNT: And it's my understanding that this outside amendment was inserted in the House as opposed to the Senate?

KILEY: We don't know, Mr. Congressman. There's different accounts in the press.

DELAHUNT: And do you know who would have been the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee at that time? If you can remember.

BULGER: I can't remember right now.

DELAHUNT: Mr. Chairman, I think that...

T. DAVIS: That's in the public record and we can find that out.

DELAHUNT: Yes. I would hope that the committee...

T. DAVIS: We're going to look at that...

DELAHUNT: ... would review and have staff conduct its own interviews.

And let me conclude by saying to you, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that this effort in terms of an examination of the FBI, and specifically the Boston office, continues. I think it's very important. And I believe that it's time for us to consider having Mr. Connolly in front of this committee, Mr. Morris in front of this committee, Mr. Weeks and Mr. Matarano (ph). And I would hope that under your direction that the staff would be instructed to initiate whatever has to be done in terms of interviewing them.

T. DAVIS: Well, let me just say, obviously this is probably not our last hearing on this issue, but we coordinate with the Justice Department on this. Mr. Connolly has an appeal pending. But that is something that we're certainly looking at, I want to assure the gentleman.

DELAHUNT: Thank you.

(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, should I assume that Mr. Delahunt used all my time?

T. DAVIS: If you have another question, I think we're ready to wrap this up. It's been a long day I think for all of us.

(UNKNOWN): That's OK. No further questions.

T. DAVIS: Let me just ask Mr. Bulger, is there anything you want to add at the end of this, that you'd like to say, to straighten anything out, something you didn't get in the record?

BULGER: No, no. It's over now, but I wanted you to know that I understand your purpose and I'm serious about respecting it.

T. DAVIS: Thank you.

BULGER: I mean, it's the terrible questions, but it's the perennial question about who will watch the watchers. And it's going to be...

T. DAVIS: Going to continue here.

BULGER: ... other people will be doing it many years hence. It's an ongoing duty.

T. DAVIS: Well, unfortunately, I don't think it's confined to Massachusetts. We've had other issues we'll continue to look at, but this has been very helpful. Obviously, we're going to come back, and this has raised some other issues as you testified. We want to go back and look. But we appreciate your being here today.

All the affidavits will be entered into the record.

BULGER: Thank you.

KILEY: And how about also the statements that we alluded to and said (inaudible) instead concerning the visit last week?

T. DAVIS: That is--that'll be--Mr. LaTourette, do you have some questions still remaining?

LATOURETTE: One, if you can bear with me.

T. DAVIS: Sure.

LATOURETTE: I know you want to move along.

Mr. Bulger, earlier today I asked you if you'd asked for a grant of immunity when you testified, and I think I said a state grand jury. And my understanding is you never went to a state grand jury, it was a federal grand jury. So I hope that my bad asking didn't get me the wrong answer. When you appeared in front of the federal grand jury did you seek a grant of immunity?

BULGER: Yes, I did.

LATOURETTE: And can you explain to us why? If that section of the law is correct, the sibling exception that you talked about, why?

BULGER: Because it was a federal grand jury originally, and it was a question in my mind as to how much protection the Massachusetts statute afforded me. There were questions like that.

LATOURETTE: Thank you.

That's all I have. Thank you.

T. DAVIS: OK. Thank you. Thank you very much.

The hearing will be adjourned.

COPYRIGHT 2003 BY FDCH e-Media, Inc.

 Search the Globe:      
Today (Free) Yesterday (Free) Past month Past year   Advanced search

© Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

| Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy |