Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.12.19-forming the COVERUP strategy for the ERVIN COMMITTEE HEARINGS] The Meeting then turned to a general discussion of the, proposed amendments and Timmons was called from the congressional leadership meeting that, was then in session in the Cabinet room. Timmons reported that the Senate was going to begin debate on Senator Ervin's resolution that afternoon. Timmons was instructed to request Senator Hugh Scott to come to his office. after the leadership meeting and I was instructed to go to Mr. Timmons' office to explain the amendments to the resolution to Senator Scott. I was also told that I should tell the Senator--Senator Scott--to raise the 1968 bugging incident as a reason to expand the scope of the resolution with reference to prior Presidential elections. I left to brief Senator Scott with the feeling that the meeting had accomplished nothing. I went to Timmons office, had a brief meeting with Senator Scott, and. as I was returning to my office I ran into Dick Moore who told me that he felt that the meeting had been useless. I agreed. On February 7, Timmons informed me that the White House amendments had been virtually rejected out, of hand and the resolution adopted 77-0. Timmons told me he had discussed with Haldeman the possibilities of suggesting names for the Republican side of the. Select Committee with Senator Scott, and Scott, seemed receptive. On February 8, the, members of this committee were named and I recall Timmons telling me that Haldeman had "chewed him out,", but Timmons told me Scott had never given him a chance to make any recommendation. On February 9, 1 had planned to go to Florida for a week or 10 days. The President had departed for San Clemente and it appeared that everyone could relax for a while. In midafternoon, however. -my plans were changed when I received a call from Ehrlichman in San Clemente telling me that he. wanted 'Mr. 'Moore and me to come, to California that night, so that, he could discuss in full detail the, problems of how to deal with the, forthcoming Senate, hearings. Ehrlichman indicated that he and Haldeman were going to have some available time over the weekend, so we should come immediately. I contacted Mr. Moore, who was about to take a train trip to southern Virginia with his young son and wife. -Moore said that since he was Packed he would merely fly west instead of training south. My wife and I and the Moores all flew to San Diego on the evening of February 9. [00.14.52] THE LA COSTA MEETINGS Everyone -was staving at the La Costa Resort Hotel. south of San Clemente. The meetings with Haldeman and Ehrlichman, Moore and myself ran for 2 days, and I would estimate they involved between 12 to 14 hours of discussion. The meetings began on Saturday morning, February 10, at San Clemente, but the discussion did not begin to take focus until Saturday afternoon and Sunday, when we met in Haldeman's villa at La Costa. Based on notes I took during the meeting I will attempt to reconstruct what transpired. I should also point out that before I departed San Clemente to return to La Costa I was given several memorandums which I have submitted to the committee, which directly relate to what occurred at La Costa. Mr. DEAN-. I did not, look at these memorandums until several days after the meeting and was rather surprised that Haldeman would state in writing specific instructions to me regarding his thoughts on perpetuating the Watergate tactics or the coverup by a counteroffensive against the forthcoming Senate, hearings. What had happened by this point in time was that the coverup had become a way of life at the White, House, and having, made it to this point, those involved were becoming careless and more open about it. Also. the Senate was different than the courts. grand jury, FBI, and the like that had been dealt with earlier. Before turning to the substance. of the La Costa meetings. I would like to note that Mr. Moore and I had tallied on many occasions about the Watergate affair and the damage it was doing. [00.16.37] Mr. Moore is the only person--other than Mr. O'Brien on a few occasions--to whom I ever expressed my deep concern about the, matter, particularly the coverup. While Moore did not know all the facts he knew a great deal and was becoming increasingly aware of the dimensions of the problems I talked to Moore far differently than anyone else. I talked to him about, how we Could end this matter once and for all. I expressed my concern to him often about how to end the matter before it ruined the second term of the President. I -was concerned that it was not going to simply go away, and I had learned that the press was becoming aware of other illegal activities at the White House. I never discussed these other matters -with Moore, but I told him the coverup was bigger than the. Watergate incident per se. The. more that we talked about it the, less we could find a solution--so the coverup proceeded. As I have indicated, the purpose of what I call the La Costa meeting was how to deal with this committee's investigation of the Watergate. The Watergate trial was over and that problem appeared to be over. The next major problem was the. Senate hearings. It was realized that it was going to take an all-out effort by the White House to deal with the Senate inquiry, because Of the scope of the, resolution. the composition of the committee the investigative powers of the committee, and the general feeling that. the Senate was a hostile world for the White House. [00.18.00]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973
Mr. DASH. Now Mr. Straun, who was Mr. Straun, and where does he appear on the chart? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Straun was on Mr. Haldeman's personal staff, he appears right here. (points to chart with pointer stick) Mr. DASH. What was his particular function with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. KEHRLI. His particular function was liaison with the Republican National committee and with the Committee to Re-elect the President. Mr. DASH. Now, are you aware of your own knowledge as to how frequently Mr. Straun was in touch as liaison with the Committee for Re-election of the President? Mr. KEHRLI. No I am not. Mr. DASH. But, that was a main function of his. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes it was. Mr. DASH. And therefore he would be carrying back and forth for Mr. Haldeman, between Mr. Haldeman and the committee, whatever messages Mr. Haldeman had for the committee or the committee for Mr. Haldeman. Mr. KEHRLI. Carrying, I think he may have or may not have carried them, but they would probably come through him at one point or another. Mr. DASH. Now Mr. MacGregor at one point was a member of the White House staff as I see on the chart. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes he was. Mr. DASH. And I think you have him on the chart as leaving July 1, 1972. Do you know where he went from there? Mr. KEHRLI. He went to the Committee to Re-elect the President. (CU chart) Mr. DASH. And Mr. Magruder is show on that chart on the other, on the right hand side on the communications under Mr. Klein, staying until May 1, 1971, do you know where he went, after that time? Mr. KEHRLI. He went to the Committee to Re-elect the President. Mr. DASH. And I think you have Mr. Odle and Mr. Porter working for Mr. Magruder and they left approx, well one on Mr. Odle May 1, 1971, and Mr. Porter April 29, 1971 according to the chart. (CU chart) And do you know where they went, when they left? Mr. KEHRLI. They went to the Committee to Re-elect the President.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 16, 1973 (2/2)
Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield testifies to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) begins inquiry. At 00:15:25 Chief Counsel Sam Dash questions Mr. Butterfield.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
DO NOT USE Jim Lehrer introduces reporter Caroline Lewis on Capitol Hill.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
DO NOT USE Jim Lehrer announces a pause in coverage
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
DO NOT USE PBS network ID.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
Side angle of studio, a WETA spokesperson seated in the foreground, Jim Lehrer and Paul Duke visible behind him. Spokesman sayssays that WETA coverage is "maximum opportunity" to see the hearings, which will continue "gavel to gavel" on a daily basis for as long as the hearings continue. Solicits membership contributions to fund the coverage.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974.
Title screen "Impeachment Debate. July 30, 1974
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974.
DO NOT USE Jim Lehrer in studio. He announces that Barbara Jordan will speak next in favor of the article.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. Under whose directions did you operate in your role on the committee? Jeb Magruder. Mr. Mitchell's. Samuel Dash, attorney. What position did Mr. Gordon Strachan have from January 1972 to June 17, 1972? Jeb Magruder. He was staff assistant at the White House. He was Mr. Haldeman's aide and liaison to our committee. Samuel Dash, attorney. And how did he play that liaison role between the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the White House staff, particularly Mr. Haldeman? Jeb Magruder. He played a very direct role with all of the members of the staff, particularly myself and other senior members. He consolidated our work for Mr. Haldeman for whatever needs Mr. Haldeman or the President needed, the information from the campaign committee. He received copies of all our documents and worked very closely with us. Samuel Dash, attorney. Would it be true, Mr. Magruder, that aside from any direct contacts that Mr. Haldeman would have with you or the committee who that any communications the committee would have with the White House would be through Strachan? Jeb Magruder. Yes, that s correct.
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
House Public Works and Transportation Committee conducting hearing on shredding of public documents by the Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Representative Gene Snyder (R-KY) expresses concern over practice of destroying public documents, then expresses concern over the ability of Congress to subpoena documents from executive agencies; he discusses this with U.S. Representative Elliot H. Levitas. Rep. Snyder gives example of Congress subpoenaing the Drug Enforcement Agency for documents on criminal investigations, saying this might be crossing the line. Rep. Levitas refers to the fact that this is not a DEA criminal case, but a standard practice of the EPA to monitor pollution. Rep. Levitas questions why this situation would invoke Executive Privilege. Levitas and Snyder fail to agree on whether Congress has the right to investigate the EPA in this case.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.12.20] Mr. EDMISTEN. Who in the whole organization would you consider your superiors, and would you just go up the line from you? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not know that I had any superiors. It, was a unique situation. The finance committee was separate from the campaign committee. The campaign committee exercised a dominance over the finance, committee by their spending policies, forcing us to raise enough money to pay everything they committed. But I had no superior. I would have taken instructions from the President if he gave me any but, he did not, and I would have been influenced by requests from certain people in the White House from time to time but I do not, believe I had a superior in that, sense. Mr. EDMISTEN Well, now, I just, have one more question here. I want, you to think carefully, Stans: Did you have a meeting On June 24, after the break-in', with Mr. John Mitchell to find out from him what, had happened? Mr. STANS. I am not sure of the exact, date. I had meetings from time to time with Mr. Mitchell. I probably had One on June 24. Mr. EDMISTEN. Did You ask him what happened at that meeting, if you recall it? Mr. STANS. I do not, recall that I asked him that, question. Certainly I was curious about it, and it would not surprise me if I had. I have no recollection of specifically talking about, that, subject. That was a, week after the break-in, specifically Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Do You recall at! any time Mr. Mitchell telling you that, there were others involved beside-, those. who were apprehended? Mr. STANS. No, I do not Mr. EDMISTEN. At a meeting of that nature about that time? Mr. STANS. No, I do not. Mr. EDMISTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.. [00.14.29--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states STANS' testimony will continue [PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.16.58--LEHRER] LEHRER states that in the last hour of testimony, STANS will be questioned about the activities of the CRP Budget Committee, and "the activities of the 'mystery man to end all mystery men', G. Gordon LIDDY". [00.17.14--committee room]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17,1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Samuel Dash. Now Mr. Odle, who where the initial persons who came over and formed the committee for the re-election of the President when it was started? Robert Odle. There was Mr. Jeb Magruder, Mr. Harry S. Flemming, Mr. Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., myself, Dr. Robert Merrick, Mr. Herbert Porter, and a number of secretaries who went there to assist us. Samuel Dash. Of those persons, could you identify which of those had positions in the White House, before they came over to the committee? Robert Odle. Yes sir, Mr. Porter, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Flemming had been at the White House, he left the White House and went into private business and then came to the Committee, but he had been there before. And Mr. Sloan, and myself.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17,1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Samuel Dash. Now Mr. Odle, who where the initial persons who came over and formed the committee for the re-election of the President when it was started? Robert Odle. There was Mr. Jeb Magruder, Mr. Harry S. Flemming, Mr. Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., myself, Dr. Robert Merrick, Mr. Herbert Porter, and a number of secretaries who went there to assist us. Samuel Dash. Of those persons, could you identify which of those had positions in the White House, before they came over to the committee? Robert Odle. Yes sir, Mr. Porter, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Flemming had been at the White House, he left the White House and went into private business and then came to the Committee, but he had been there before. And Mr. Sloan, and myself.
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - Assassinations
U.S. Senator Walter Huddleston (D-KY) comments on the conclusion of the committee’s report, says, “The conclusion from reading the report is that the CIA was divided by those on the upper and lower level. Both sides had different ideas about what certain things meant and no one inquired to whether they were on the same wave length. We asked a head of the CIA if it ever occurred to him to go to the President and ask if it was really meant that so and so should be assassinated. He said it never occurred to him to present that kind of a question to a chief executive. It seems to me that any person who believes he has an order to carry out on assassination would certainly want to know precisely what he is expected to do. Witnesses said they had the understanding that they were acting with the highest authority. He identified the highest authority as either being the President or the President’s chief adviser, certainly the White House. Yet, you can never pin down what those instructions were.”
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
As a purely partisan matter, would it enhance our Republican party if despite the evidence and the weight of constitutional law we as Republicans on this side of the aisle decide to exonerate a Republican President accused of high crimes and misdemeanors; simply because he and we are Republicans. I see that line as leading to Republican Party disaster. A viable two party system to my mind is an institution worthy of preserving second only to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Preserving our Republican party does not to my mind imply that we must preserve and justify a man in office who would deliberately and arbitrarily defy the legal processes of the Congress nor can our party be enhanced if we as Republican members of the United States House of Representatives tolerant the flaunting of our laws by a President who is constitutionally charged with seeing that the laws are faithfully executed as provided in Article two. We will enhance our Republican party and assure a viable two party system only if we are courageous enough and wise enough to reject such conduct even if attributed to a Republican President. The essential question which we must answer is not what is best for our party but what is best for our nation?
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator INOUYE. What was Mr. Gordon Straun's role? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Gordon Straun was a staff assistant to Mr. Haldeman who was in charge of liaison with the Committee to Re-Elect and the Republican National Committee. Senator INOUYE. Did Mr. Ehrlichman get copies of all political memos as indicated in an exhibit which was submitted earlier? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't know. Senator INOUYE. I have no further questions. Oh, I have one question. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator INOUYE. Do you know a Mr. Roy Shepard? Mr. KEHRLI. (smiling) no I don't know him. Senator INOUYE. Have you checked the files to see if he's on the payroll? Mr. KEHRLI. I know for a fact that he is not on the payroll. Senator INOUYE. If he is not on the payroll, how does one get admitted to the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. Well, I did some checking on Mr. Shepard and he was admitted because he had a pass from another government agency. Senator INOUYE. What government agency sir? Mr. KEHRLI. As I remember it was the Department of Transportation. Senator INOUYE. Is he on the payroll of the Department of Transportation? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't know. Senator INOUYE. But Mr. Shepard is not on the payroll of the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. That's correct. Senator INOUYE. Have you ever met Mr. Shepard? Mr. KEHRLI. No sir. Senator INOUYE. Were you aware that he visited one of the offices there? Mr. KEHRLI. Not before his name came up. Senator INOUYE. Alright, thank you sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle. United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle. United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Aging, U.S. House Representative Edward Roybal (D-CA) introduces Velma Whitely, seated next to Dr. Albert Sabin at witness table; Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) seated with her adult Caucasian male Congressional colleagues. Whitely testifies on behalf of her mother and provides details on the impacts of Medicare expenses for the elderly and their families; Rep. Ferraro reviewing document in hands. Rep. Roybal also reading along while Whitely (o/s) continues testimony. Reps. Butler Derrick (D-SC) and Robert Wise (D-WV) listening. Rep. Hal Daub (R-NE) listening to Whitely explain that Medicare will not pay for a biopsy and a mastectomy; nodding his head, he turns and states something off camera. POV from behind Whitely and Dr. Sabin, Rep. Ferraro listening, then leaning in to speak to Rep. Wise; Whitely notes medical costs and prescriptions not covered by Medicare.
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
POV from behind Dr. Albert Sabin, seated at witness table, he speaks to U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY); adult Caucasian male sitting against the dais, photographing witnesses. Dr. Sabin believes that too many high technology diagnostic procedures are performed because insurance will cover it. There should be requirements in order to perform certain diagnostic procedures. During his illness, he had diagnostic procedures that were necessary, but others were performed that he felt contributed nothing. Rep. Ferraro reviews Dr. Sabin's fourth recommendation and addresses an issue that her mother and her senior constituents may have, such as being denied the ability to go to their preferred doctor or hospital, and asks for his comment. Wide view of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Aging, including Chairman Edward Roybal (D-CA), witnesses Dr. Sabin, Velma Whitely, Dana Andrews, Elsie Parsons, Bert Freed, and adult Caucasian males and females in attendance.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.20.20-DASH questioning DEAN about the CLEMENCY agreement and keeping McCORD silent] Mr. DASH. Mr. Dean.' on page 202 of your statement, you state, down toward the bottom, "Mr. Mitchell raised the fact that F. Lee Bailey, who had been very helpful In dealing ling 'with McCord" had a, problem---what are the, details, or what to your knowledge was meant by Mr. F. Lee Bailey, who had been helpful in dealing with McCord, from Mr. Mitchell's point? [Testimony of John W. Dean III, continued.'] Mr. DEAN. Well, I believe, I testified to this fact earlier, Mr. Dash. There was one point when Mr. Alch apparently was not having, full rapport with his client, Mr. McCord, that an arrangement or discussion was to be had. I testified, I believe, I didn't know that in fact that had occurred, in -which Mr. Mitchell was going to Call Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey was going to fly in or call or visit with 'Mr. McCord and promised Mr. McCord that, he would represent his case on April and at that, time to the highest court in the, land, if necessary. That was what the, reference is to. [01.21.37] Mr. DASH. 'NOW. I don't know whether you fully replied to Senator Montoya's question when he asked the, question that concerned the President's news conference of August 29. 19-12. and the question had been put, to the President: Mr. President, wouldn't it be a good idea for a special prosecutor, even from your standpoint to be appointed to investigate the contribution situation and also the Watergate case? The, President: With regard to who is investigating it now, I think it would be well to notice that the FBI is conducting a full field investigation. The Department of Justice of course, is in charge of the prosecution and presenting the matter to the grand jury. The Senate Banking and Currency Committee is conducting an investigation. [01.22.20] Now. Can you identify who the President meant, for Senator Montoya, when he was referring to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee also conducting an investigation? Mr. DEAN, That was a known fact that the Patman committee 'was-- Mr. DASH. That was the Patman committee ? Mr. DEAN-. Yes; correct. Mr. DASH. And here the President -was responding that the Patman committee was making an investigation? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. DASH. But, in fact. when the President was making that statement was the White House strategy to halt the Patman committee Investigation? Mr. DEAN. It was to try to impede that investigation. Mr. DASH. Mr. Dean, in your statement, page 101, you state that the lawyers at the reelection committee Were hopeful of slowing down the Democratic National Committee suit. as a result of ex parte contacts with the judge. What was the extent and source Of your information on the Subject? Mr. DEAN. I first learned of this in a meeting "In Mr. Mitchell's office, in which I was told that there were some arrangements had been made to' have somebody. at that time I did not know who. talk with Judge Richey about the problems the case presented for the reelection committee and potentially for the White House. without getting into specifics with the I later learned and was present when Mr. McFee had a direct discussion With -Mr. Mitchell about this subject, and fact that he was going to go visit with the judge, and then as late March 2 of this year, Mr. McFee to my office--not to my Office,, he came to have lunch with me at the White House and told me that, very weekend he -was going to go take up a matter which he said Kenny, referring to Ken Parkinson, had was an aspect of the case that he -was concerned about, so there were several people, I think, who wereaware of this. I think Mr. LaRue was aware of it; I think Mr. Mitchell was aware of it. Mr. DASH. Did you have personal knowledge of that other than what you had been told? Mr. DEAN. 'Only what I was told directly by Mr. McFee, that he in fact, was going to visit the judge. I was not present at any meetings with the judge.; no, sir. [01.24.36] Mr. DASH. Do you know that at a hearing on September 21, 1972, before Judge Charles R. Richey, the judge to whom the case was assigned, that counsel for the plaintiffs, the Democratic National Committee, agreed as a practical matter that the case could not be tried before the election? Did you know that? Mr. DEAN. I did not follow the civil cases at all to speak of, other than just general awareness; I was probably aware of that at the time, but I do not know-I know there were countless meetings with Judge Richey with all counsel present. In fact, virtually every meeting he had directly relating to the case he would call all counsel and all interested parties. The meetings I am referring to did not involve all counsel. [01.25.27] Mr. DASH. Do you know at the same hearing that the judge ruled that depositions should cease to be taken for the time being on the, ground that the taking of depositions might jeopardize the pending criminal case? Mr. DEAN. I was aware of the fact that about that time that the depositions had been cut off temporarily anyway. [01.25.49]
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Parren Mitchell (D-MD) rails against considering adopting a "pass card system similar to that in South Africa," pleads with colleagues that whatever else is done with the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill, the possibility of a national ID system be removed. Several males (o/s) ask for Mitchell to yield; Rep. Edward Roybal (D-CA) wishes to recognize Chairman of House Immigration Committee. Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) refers to page 9 of the bill, explains "nothing will authorize directly or indirectly the issuance or use of a national identification card." He says all conversations in committees and subcommittees have stated that nothing like that could happen. Rep. Mitchell wishes to reply and Rep. Roybal (o/s) yields.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974. Vote on motion to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute.
01.04.44 Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman I move the previous question. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, moves the previous question and the question is on the motion to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute. All those in favor of voting for the motion to strike please say aye. [chorus of "ayes".] Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). All those opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The noes appear to have it.