Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.58.54] On the 5th of April, having in mind the change in the law that would take place in the next day or so, Andreas, in Florida, called Dahlberg in Minnesota and said: I still have that money. I would like to give it to you before the change in the law; can you pick it up? And Dahlberg said: I cannot get down there before the 7th. I will get down there on the 7th and arrange it to pick it up. Andreas said: Well, I want the contribution to be made now, made effective now. So I will put it in an envelope in your name and put in the safe deposit box in the hotel in your name. You can pick it up whenever you are ready, but I want the understanding between you and me that title has passed and it is your money and you accept it as of today. Dahlberg said, "I do," and called me and relayed the transaction, and I advised him on the basis of legal advice that I had already received that a commitment of that nature was properly a contribution before April 7 and when received would not, have to be reported. On April 7, Dahlberg went to the hotel in Florida but arrived too late to pick up the money because the safe deposit box had been closed. He talked to Andreas on the 8th and arranged for the two to get together on the 9th, and at Dahlberg's request, Andreas took the money out of the safe deposit box and delivered it to Dahlberg on the 9th. On the 10th, Dahlberg bought a cashier's check for that because he did not want to carry that amount of money around with him from Florida to Washington, where he was due on the 11th for a meeting of all of our State finance people on our committee. On the, 11th, at an intermission in the meeting, Dahlberg endorsed the check and handed it, to me, with the explanation that "This is the money from Andreas." And I had a full accounting of the sequence of the transaction up to that, date. I thereupon, the same day, as quickly as possible, gave the, check to the, treasurer, explained to him the background that this was money that had been. contributed before the 7th, and asked him to determine the accounting handling of the check. The treasurer, not being sure, discussed it with the general counsel for the committee and the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June---- [01.04.12--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.13.41-DEAN tries to make a closing statement] Mr. Chairman, just to close, and I will be very brief, I have sought to provide this committee---- Senator ERVIN. One question on this. Mr. DEAN. Certainly. Senator ERVIN. -You stated that there, was an attempt at the White House and the, Committee To Re-Elect the, President, to prevent, the Patman committee from investigating that? Mr. DEAN. That, is correct, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. And the Patman committee did, at least a majority of them did refuse to investigate it? Mr. DEAN. That, is correct. Senator ERVIN. So regardless of motives, it had the same effect as what the White House and the committee were trying to do? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. But of course a Congressman has got a, perfect right to vote his convictions . That is his function. Mr. DEAN. I have sought to provide this information with all the facts and information that I know regarding this matter, to answer all of the questions that have been asked of me, and to hide nothing of my own involvement, in this matter, and Provide the truth as I know it. [01.14.55] This has been most difficult for me because I have had to speak against the President of the United States, some of my friends, and some Of my former colleagues, I attempted to end this coverup initially working within the White House, and when that didn't work, I took it, upon myself to work from without, and I earnestly pray that this committee reaches the truth in this entire matter and reaches it as quickly as possible because I think there is a terrible Cloud over this Government that must be removed so that so that we can have effective government. I thank the committee for the many courtesies that they have provided me in assisting me to get to and from the hearing room and Me available space during the breaks and the recesses and thoughtfulness Of the staff in that regard. Senator ERVIN. Without expressing any opinion about your testimony or the way of your testimony, I do think that you do deserve the thanks of the committee for the patience which you have exhibited. It, has been quite a trial, a trying time to you and also on the, committee because I think this is our fifth day on your testimony, and it and it is a very long time. Are there any other comments? Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would only associate myself with your remarks and express. I believe, the appreciation of the committee for Mr. Dean's patience and rather prolonged testimony. It's obviously not an easy task to testify on matters of this importance and delicacy, and I think Mr. Dean has provided us with a great deal of information and will-which will serve as a basis for the ongoing inquiry of this committee and we thank him for it. [00.17.00] Senator ERVIN. It might be at some later stage of the investigation the committee may want to recall you. Mr. DEAN. I understand, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I understand you will be willing to return on proper notice under the same subpena. Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, a matter of procedure that perhaps you could give us some help with. In the last 2 or 3 hours we have had many requests from the media who have been so patient and who have been sitting through this, to have an interview with Mr. and Mrs. Dean as they leave here. You understand, of course, that we cannot provide those interviews for some legal reasons, and for the basic reason, 5 days, that they are exhausted. We ask their leave and their understanding and yours that we are going to leave the building immediately after this. Senator ERVIN. I would think, since Mr. Dean has testified under an order of immunity, and testified involuntarily, I would think that his counsel would be wise to give him the same advice that I used to give my clients and that is to keep his mouth shut [Laughter.] The committee will stand in adjournment until Tuesday, July 10, at 10 o'clock.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (2/2)
[01.23.51-Sen. WEICKER questioning DEAN] Senator WEICKER. Did you have any information that, Mr. Kleindienst had Indeed offered his resignation prior to this time? Mr. DEAN. No, I didn't. I read subsequently that he had proffered it. Senator WEICKER. The committee has received evidence, that a courier for Senator Muskie's campaign microfilmed documents which Were, typed by Sally Duncan, Bart Porter's secretary, and delivered by her to Gordon Strachan at the White House. This was in earlier testimony before this committee. Now, what do you know about the source of committee the list of Muskie Contributors, which list, you provided to the committee yesterday? Mr. DEAN. The only thing I know about that list is it was sent to me from Mr. Colson's office. Senator WEICKER. I see. Now, Mr. Dean, the line of questioning which I am going to follow is going to include you to some extent, it is going to include me to some extent. But one of the jobs that I think we, have is to preserve the opportunity for every individual to be. heard and heard. fairly when they come before this committee, whether it is you or any other witness, and to probe fairly, as has been the case by the members of this committee. Obviously, the seriousness of the matter before us also makes it imperative that the committee, itself and each member or the committee have credibility and be believed. [01.25.44] Now, our job, in other words as I look upon it here, is to get the facts, not to get the President, and -to have the United States or Americans feel exactly what it is that happened to their political system and, in fact what happened to their Constitution. [01.26.07] With that in mind, I now intend to review some of your testimony and to also review some of the things that have happened, Certainly, I and the, committee, the American people, have seen things that have been illegal. We have seen things that have been unconstitutional and we have seen-and heard those things which I can only categorize as gross. But to get to the issue of the credibility of witnesses, I first want to find out what your comments would be to the memorandum that was read to you by Senator Inouye. Except this time, what I am going to do is I am going to point out to you and to the American people the difference between the first memorandum that was sent to the committee, and the second memorandum that was sent to Senator Inouye. [01.27.00-WEICKER discusses the White House memorandums, and points out that the second one was much more stridently Anti-DEAN, appearing defensive] The first memorandum sent from Mr. Fred Buzhardt at the White House made the following statement: [READING] History fails to record that at that moment, Dean corrected the Attorney General's erroneous impression by pointing out that, however innocently, Mitchell, Magruder, and Dean had all been involved in planning of operations of which Watergate was an obvious derivative or that Strachan had knowledge of the fruits of this kind of operation or that all of them were suborning perjury and otherwise seeking to conceal the facts. Now, let me show you the key difference, between the first and the second versions. The first version here, "History fails to record that at that moment, Dean corrected the Attorney General's erroneous impression by pointing out that, however innocently, Mitchell, Magruder and Dean"--the memorandum which was read to you by Senator Inouye, which was the second memorandum to come from the White House, read as follows: "History fails to record that at the moment Dean corrected the Attorney General's erroneous impression by pointing out that Mitchell, Magruder, and Dean"--in other words, omitting, "however innocently". Now, to get to further aspects of the memorandum, the first memorandum stated: [READING] It is probably because of executive privilege it is not possible even to speculate on the extent to which Dean helped induce the view on attorney-client privilege." The second version of the memorandum read "It is probably that Dean helped induce the views on attorney-client privilege." Then again, in the first version of the memorandum given to this committee by Mr. Buzhardt and the White House, the statement was made in the first edition: "The President indicated to Ehrlichman that his conversations with Dean throughout the preceding month had given him a growing awareness of Dean's personal involvement and that his sending him to Camp David apparently was a device to Smoke him out." The second version that came from the White House reads as follows: "The President indicated to Ehrlichman that his conversations with Dean throughout the preceding month had given him a growing awareness of Dean's personal involvement in this." Then lastly--if you will be patient here for a minute--the first version: "Dean was not merely one of the architects of the coverup plan. He was also perhaps its most active participant." The second version from the White House: "Dean was not merely one of the architects of the coverup plan. He was also its most active participant." [01.30.49]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Mr. Chairman, this would be a point where I could summarize part of this statement regarding handling of the FBI interview with the White House and just merely state generally that they followed a very similar pattern. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). That would be all right. If you could indicate for the committee the pages on which the statements are made that you summarize so we can have those pages printed in full in the body of the record. John Dean. All right, sir. I ll summarize beginning at the bottom of page 63 through 66 and merely note to the committee that the handling of the FBI interviews at the White House followed the pattern that had first been established by the interview with Mr. Colson. I had cleared this procedure with Mr. Ehrlichman. He felt it was a good idea I was there. I was there when he was present or when he was interviewed and I think that the material is self-explanatory as to any questions that the committee might have regarding those interviews.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. John Conyers
Now, I know that there is something else that is troubling us and I am constrained to speak frankly to it because there are members who regardless of how much agreement that they may give to the arguments that will be presented by myself and the proponents, feel that perhaps they have some implication in the result of undeclared wars and I think a word should be said about it. I don't think that we can absolve the fact that, the Congress has failed to declare officially that war that has haunted us for nearly 10 years but that we can use this moment as a new beginning, as a point of departure, where the Congress says from this moment on, from this day forward, we will reinstitute that law constitutionally asserted from the beginning that somehow during the course of previous administrations, I am frank to admit, has eroded and we find that that power is no longer ours and ours alone. But on March 17, 1969, the President of the United States, and I might note less than 2 months after he had been given the oath of office, approved the beginning of bombing strikes in Cambodia which continued until August 15, 1973. But, it was not until July 16 that Secretary of Defense Schlesinger, before the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed formally that bombing had occurred in Cambodia prior to May 1970, the date of the American invasion or incursion into Cambodia. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman's time has expired.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
During the months that followed. I devoted most of my time to regular office functions, keeping abreast of the new campaign legislation and familiarizing myself with existing election laws, the Hatch Act, and related laws. It was not until after the proposed Operation Sandwedge had been shelved and Magruder had left the White House to from the reelection committee that I began receiving calls from Strachan and Magruder that I was expected to suggest a lawyer to head up the demonstration intelligence operation at the reelection committee and to also serve as general counsel.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.40.45] Senator ERVIN. In other words, Mr. Kalmbach in effect told you he was going to destroy such records as he had and advised you to do the same thing with the records you had. Mr. SLOAN. With the exception, Senator, I do not know whether he had another copy of the record. In the case of the figures I had, I did not feel I was destroying tiny original information because I was handing a report that contained that information to Secretary Stans Senator ERVIN. You had made a compilation in aggregate form of what your original record showed. Mr. SLOAN. That is right and it would include all contributors. Senator ERVIN. Did anyone else beside Mr. Kalmbach talk to you about destroying your original record? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. They were destroyed on the 23d of June, a few days after the break-in. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Do you know if there were any records kept or now in existence of what became of the $250,000, approximately, given out of these funds to Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. SLOAN. No , sir; 1 have no knowledge of what he would have used those funds for. I would think if there is a record he would have to be a source of it, [00.41.49] Senator ERVIN. Now, where did Mr. Strachan work at this time? Mr. SLOAN. He, was in the White House working as a political aide, liaison with Mr, Bob Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. In other words, he was political liaison between Mr. Haldeman and the committee, was he not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, that is correct, Senator ERVIN, And you got the instructions to put $350,000 in the briefcase to be carried to the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And that, was taken to the White House in cash? Mr. SLOAN. My understanding is it went to the White House. I did not--- Senator ERVIN. Who transmitted the message that that money was to be sent to the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Kalmbach. Senator ERVIN. Where, did Mr. Porter work? Mr. SLOAN. He worked at the Committee for the, Re-Election of the President. Senator ERVIN. Do you have any knowledge of whether any record Was Made, or whether any record "has been preserved, in respect not only to the $250,000 given to Mr. Kalmbach and $350,000 carried out of the committee to the White House by Mr. Strachan, In respect to the, $100,000 given to Mr. Porter, the $199,000 given to Mr. Liddy, the, $20,000 given to Mr. Magruder, the $10,000 given to Mr. Nofsiger, the, $15,000 given to Mr. Stone; and the other $8,000 exclusive of the $50,000 given to Mr. Lankler and Mr. Hitt. Is there any record in existence that shows what became of that, money? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I do not, know if they are in existence, but in the process of preparing this final report-, Secretary Stans had instructed me to sit down with each one of these individuals where there had been multiple distributions to verify the figure that, I had in my records with what they had in theirs. Senator ERVIN. Did you? [00.43.54] Mr. SLOAN. SO presumably at that point, in time, there were records in existence in the hands of these individuals which would indicate, what happened to that money if it, had been spent. Senator ERVIN. But there were no records kept, there, no records that you know of now in existence in the committee offices, which would disclose what had become of these funds? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Senator ERVIN, You became much concerned about, the disbursement of some of these funds, didn't you, particularly those to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes Sir, Senator ERVIN. So when you got. orders to continue these disbursements to Mr. Liddy, which you mentioned were $199,000, you expressed your concern to Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, that, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Stans told you to go ahead and continue to disburse them. Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, he Said he would check with Mr. Mitchell and came back and told me to continue Senator ERVIN. And you told Mr. Stans in the course of your conversations with him that you had misgivings about giving so much money to Mr. Liddy without knowing what the money was to be used for? [00.44.56] Mr. SLOAN. The $83,000 was really the trigger. I am not sure I restricted it in my conversation with Secretary Stans to Mr. Liddy. I said, here we have a tremendous sum of money that this committee has no control over or accountability for. I did express that. general concern at that time. Senator ERVIN. That was when you were authorized and directed to give $83,000 in cash at one time to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And when you made the statement to Mr. Stans about your misgivings about, the disbursing of money without knowing what it was being used for, Mr- Stans said, I do not Want to know what the money is used for and you do not want to know? [key QUOTE starts@ 00.45.15] Mr. SLOAN. As I recall, sir, it was when he returned from seeing Mr. Mitchell and he said, I do not want to know and you do not, want to know, yes sir. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. As a matter of fact, was not a deliberate effort, made at the committee not only not to report receipt of funds, but to hide the source of those funds? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I know of no deliberate effort, in that regard. With regard to these funds, I have never had it, suggested to me--- Senator ERVIN. Well, what about the $89,000 in Mexican checks and the Dahlberg check? Mr. SLOAN. They were considered to have, been pre-April 7 funds and were considered not to be covered under the new legislation, [00.46.20]
House of Representatives in Session
Speaker Pro Tempore George Brown (D-CA) seated at Speaker's platform, introducing and granting request asked off-mic; adult Caucasian and African American male and female House clerks working at rostrum. U.S. Representative Parren Mitchell (D-MD) gives his remarks: "Mr. Speaker, this veto is the biggest scam, con job that has been attempted by the White House up to this point. There is no point in calling it anything else but that. It is a con-job. It is a scam. The President knows darn well that this is not any budget buster. He knows that. It is way below his figures. What he wants to do and does not apparently have the will and support to do is to eliminate all Federal programs. That is what he wants. Way back when we passed the Social Security Act, it was the Republicans who voted overwhelmingly to send it back to committee, and that would have killed the Social Security Act. A leopard does not change its spots. What we have here is a scam job and we have got to deal with it. We have to be honest with the people. I tell you, the President is afraid. He is afraid to say, I do not like housing; Government should not provide it. I do not like to help senior citizens; the Federal Government should not do that. I do not like to help students; the Federal Government should not do that. He does not have the guts to say that. What he is doing is nibbling away at these programs every chance he gets. Cut, cut, cut. Come on out. Be the true conservative that you are Mr. President, and say end all Federal programs. I would have a lot more respect for you." Speaker Pro Tempore bangs gavel, noting time has expired.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.49.07-DASH interrogates MITCHELL about the COVERUP of WATERGATE] Mr. DASH. Well, wasn't it the result of your effort or program to keep the lid on? You were interested in the grand jury not getting the full story? Isn't that true? Mr. MITCHELL. Maybe we can get the record straight So You won't have, to ask me after each of These questions; Yes. we wanted to keep the lid on. We were not volunteering anything. Mr. DASH. AS a matter Of fact, would it not be fair to say, Mr. Mitchell. that The most consuming issue that occupied you and Some of those you were meeting with at this time was exactly the question of keeping the lid On during the--- Mr. MITCHELL. NO. I wouldn't say that I that that was correct, Mr. Dash. There Were many other political activities that took place and. of course, I've, probably spent more time in connection with the civil litigation than We did in connection with this particular aspect of it. [00.49.58] Mr. DASH. Well, did you become aware at this; time--in July or August--that payments "were being made to defendants and support payments, for the family? Mr. MITCHELL. I became aware in the fall sometime. and I can't tell YOU 'when it was. Probably It was a time in which one individual stopped making the payments and the other individual took it up, whatever time reference that was. Mr. Mr. DASH. And did you know that Mr. Kalmbach had been involved in that at all ? Mr. MITCHELL. I had learned that. yes. Mr. DASH. Did you also learn That in September, he had decided not to be involved any more and that Mr. LaRue took up the responsibility of landing the funds, making Payoffs? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. [00.50.44] Mr. DASH. Now, when did you leave your position as the director of the campaign? Mr. MITCHELL. On the 1st of July 1972. Mr. DASH. And when you left, were you not, aware that Mr. Magruder was staying on as deputy director of the campaign. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, he. stayed on as Mr. MacGregor's deputy. Mr. DASH. And -were you not aware when you were leaving that Mr. Magruder at least faced some serious problem of being indicted on the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters as of July 1? Mr. MITCHELL. As of July 1? 1 think that was a potential, yes. [00.51.29] Mr. DASH. Now, you did meet with the President on June 30, 1972, just before you left. As I understand, you had lunch with the President Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. DASH. Did you think it your duty to tell the President at that lunch before you left that the man who was playing such a key role in his campaign, Magruder, had such a problem that he might be indicted for the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters? [00.51.55-MITCHELL acts bored to be asked the same questions again, gives even more vague answers than before] Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dash, I think you and I have gone over to the point where we have established that the White House horror stories had come out in connection with the problem at that particular time and there wasn't the question of lifting of the tent slightly in order to get with respect to one individual or another; it was a keeping the lid on and no information volunteered. [00.52.27] Mr. DASH. Even if the lid had been kept, on the so-called White House horrors, wouldn't it be very embarrassing to the President of the United States in his effort to be reelected if his deputy campaign director was indicted in the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters? Mr. MITCHELL. I don't think as far as the Watergate was concerned, there was a hell of a lot of difference between the deputy campaign director and the counsel for the finance committee and the security officer. Quite frankly, as far as the Watergate was concerned, that -was already a public issue. It was the parties that were involved. [00.53.07] Mr. DASH. There came a time, did there not, Mr. Mitchell, that the pressures for money by the defendants or by Mr. Hunt increased? Would you tell us what you know about that? Mr. MITCHELL. Well I am not sure, Mr. Dash, that, I can tell you very much about them other than the fact that somewhere along in the fall Mr. Hunt had a telephone conversation with Mr. Colson, which, I think, covered the subject matter and then later on, as I recall, Mr. Dean has got, in the record a letter from Mr. Hunt to Mr. Colson, which I think is quite suggestive of the fact that, he was being abandoned. [00.54.02] Then I heard later on, in March of this year, there were oral communications from either Hunt or his attorney relating to requests for legal fees and so forth, which were communicated to the White House [00.54.21]
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 2
U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works Chairman Robert Roe (D-NJ) states that he's not trying to pin anyone down; Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) seated next to him. Chairman Roe simply wants to establish the fact that neither the committee nor the EPA has been able to break the logjam and determine the specific number or availability of law enforcement sensitive documents. EPA official Eugene Lucero continues stating that the sensitive documents have been put aside, and are accessible; EPA staff chief Michael A. Brown seated next to him and adult, predominantly Caucasian men seated in BG. Rep. Roe once again states that Lucero is missing the point. He lists four points that have been testified to by the EPA repeatedly: there are ten areas where documents are involved, "security situations", there are still reviews on potential law enforcement sensitive documents. Lucero ones again repeats his statement on the sensitive documents being kept in his office. Rep. Elliot Levitas (D-GA) asks Rep. Roe to yield.
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 1
Two middle-aged adult Caucasian men and one middle-aged adult Caucasian woman seated on the lower tier of the dais. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director of Waste Programs Enforcement Eugene Lucero references Mrs. Gorsuch's testimony on controls placed around the use of shredders. Camera moves around different tiers of the dais, the Chair of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, U.S. House Representative James Howard (D-NJ) and Rep. Gene Snyder (R-KY). Adult Caucasian man with his arms overspreading onto empty chairs to either side of him. Rep. Snyder wants to clarify that assistant administrator, under the authority of her office has access to files she wants. Lucero states that is correct, but there would also be a record of any files retrieved. Rep. Snyder confirms that access to that record will be provided and asks who creates the record. Lucero states the secretary to deputy director in his office has that responsibility and gives her name; adult, predominantly Caucasian men and women seated in BG.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Bruce A Kehrli, Special Assistant to the President United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.36.27-TRANSCRIPT MISSING-DEAN discussing meeting with NIXON to discuss agenda, direction of HALDEMAN and EHRLICHMAN] DEAN. Next meeting was Feb. 27, 1973, it is essential to have an understanding of the AGENDA, from the LaCosta meetings, that was the purpose of DEAN'S meetings with NIXON. The AGENDA related to a coming meeting between Sen. BAKER and NIXON, whether STANS would be sent up for a confirmed post in the government, to diffuse the impact of the ERVIN COMMITTEE hearings by having hearings for STANS' confirmation. DEAN was to talk to STANS about this. [00.38.13] DEAN. Next item on agenda for Feb. 27, 1973 meeting with NIXON was status of Mr. MAGRUDER. DEAN was asked to prepare the Agenda by Mr. HALDEMAN pursuant to a conversation and the LaCosta meetings. DEAN was also advised in February of a meeting between TIMMONS (White House) and Sen. BAKER, in which BAKER indicated a wish to meet with NIXON before the start of ERVIN COMMITTEE hearings, to discuss EXEC. PRIVILEGE, and that BAKER had indicated a desire to be helpful to the White House. [00.39.29] BAKER responds to DEAN'S testimony that BAKER was playing ball with the White House in Feb. 1973, Asks DEAN to state for the record whether he later learned of the content of BAKER'S meeting with NIXON. DEAN states that he did learn of the content of the meeting. [00.39.45] [RETURN TO TRANSCRIPT] Mr. DEAN. Do you want me to take that out of order right now? Senator BAKER. If you don't mind. Mr. DEAN. Certainly. The President reported to me--first of all, Mr. Haldeman reported to me, and subsequently the President reported to me, that you had urged the President to send members of the White House staff up to this committee as quickly as he could get them up here and waive executive privilege. The President told you that he was going to hold the line at written interrogatories. Senator BAKER. Mr. Dean, would you proceed, then, with your sequence as I have it? Before you do, I see -we have another roll call vote. If the committee is agreeable, we will recess at this point until we can return from it. [00.40.33-LEHRER v.o. states Senators must go to vote-00.40.46-after Recess]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Senator Ed GURNEY (R-FL). Mr. McCord, in response to a question from Senator Baker you said that you thought that what you were doing in this operation was legal. Now, of course you spent some years in the FBI, didn't you? Mr. James McCORD. Yes sir. Senator GURNEY. And also in the CIA? Mr. McCORD. That's correct sir. Senator GURNEY. You ran your own security company? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator GURNEY. You were charged at the trial with seven counts as I understand, conspiracy, intent to steal property, entering the Democratic National Headquarters, attempted interception of telephone conversations, and attempted interception of oral conversations as well as possession of a telephone listening device and an oral communications device. Now, is it your testimony that you thought that all of these acts there on June the 17th were legal? Mr. McCORD. As my testimony sir, if I may repeat a portion of it, that the Attorney General had the authority to authorize it. It was my experience that he did in fact authorize wire tapping and other related activity, that were within his purview. That he could and would have turned it down, out of hand at the very beginning of the operation itself, if in fact it were clearly and beyond any question illegal. I was advised that it was ..... Senator GURNEY. But authorizations by the Attorney General for wire tapping are made of course, in connection with say national security cases or crime, trying to find out about organized crime, always in the purview of the attorney generals office. Wasn't this authorization and operation which had to do with the committee to re-elect the president? Hasn't that been your testimony this morning? Mr. McCORD. No sir. (removes his eye glasses) My testimony was that it appeared to me that this operation was really three fold. That it was set in motion while the attorney general was attorney general. Secondly, that the White House was a party to the authorization itself, and to the justification for the operation, because the council to the president had set in on it. Thirdly, that the committee for the re-election for the president was represented in those discussions and that they may have been the funding mechanism for it. And fourthly, because of a time delay here and my knowledge of a relationship of Mr. Mitchell with his immediate superior, my conclusion was that his immediate superior approved and set in motion that operation. Therefore, it had all of those implications to me, that it was just not simply the committee for the re-election of the president's operation, because it began with the attorney general while he was the attorney general. Senator GURNEY. The activities though that you were doing, as I understand this course of events were supervised by Liddy and Hunt, is that correct? Mr. McCORD. They were agents, as I understand it for the attorney general and for the White House. Senator GURNEY. Well that isn't the question I asked. I said that they were the ones who were supervising and guiding your activities were they not? Mr. McCORD. They were the immediate supervisors, but not by my understanding.... Senator GURNEY. And weren't they working for the committee to re-elect the president? (WS James McCord and lawyer seated, filled courtroom behind them) Mr. McCORD. Mr. Hunt ..... (lawyer says "never did") never did to my knowledge. I believe there has been testimony to that effect by Mr. Odle. Senator GURNEY. Who was Mr. Liddy working for, during this period of time we're talking about? Mr. McCORD. I believe Mr. Liddy was had two responsibilities. One as general council originally for the committee for the re-election of the president. And the second one as general council for the finance committee for the re-election of the president.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.45.56] I will quote my conversation with John -Mitchell as best I call paraphrase it. It is not, precise. But I saw John Mitchell a relatively short time after and said, "Sloan tells me that Gordon Liddy wants a substantial amount of money. What is it all about?" And John Mitchell's reply was, "I don't know. He will have to ask Magruder because -Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spending." I said, Do you mean John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay these, amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy that he should do so?" and he said, "That is right." NOW, that is my recollection in a paraphrase of the discussion that took place. I went back to Sloan and reported it to him And found Out, that he had already talked to and had the same information. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, let's go through the transaction that Mr. Sloan testified to here with reference To payment, of cash to Mr. Herbert Porter after April 7. Did he have a conversation with you? Mr. STANS. I would like to go back to the previous answer and add one more point. Apparently, from the testimony, Mr. showed Mr. Sloan a budget of $250,000 against -which he intended to draw. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sloan did not tell me about, that, budget and I did not know that Mr. Liddy had authority to draw an amount of money of that size. Now, with respect to Bart Porter, I think that Mr. Sloan's recollection is somewhat confused, because my understanding of it, is somewhat different. I had learned prior to April 7 that Mr. Porter had a cash fund in his safe, that he sometimes received money from one or more sources and used it to pay for certain campaign purposes: I objected to that, because I wanted there to be only one treasurer in the campaign So there was an understanding which Mr. Sloan has confirmed in his testimony that, Mr. Porter would not receive any more. money from him. And to the best, of my knowledge, he did not receive any money from Mr. Sloan after April 7. Now, subsequently, some date. in August, I asked Mr. Sloan how much money he had given Porter after April 7, and he said none, More importantly, on September 6, I met with Mr. Sloan's attorney, and the attorney for the committee, to learn some more information about Mr. Sloan's activities after April 7, and Mr. Sloan's attorney told us that after April 7, Sloan had given Porter only $500. Both the committee's attorney, Mr. Parkinson, and I have our notations of that conference. Subsequently as you know, it was developed that Mr. Porter had received $5,300 from Mr. Sloan and that that was cited by the General Accounting Office. Later, it evolved that the amount was $11,000, and I understand Mr. Porter- testified last Friday or Thursday that, he received $17,000 from Mr. Sloan, So I have no knowledge of those, transactions or the, use to which they were put, except what I have learned subsequently in testimony, Mr. EDMISTEN. So we have some conflicting testimony again regarding the transaction. Mr. STANS. I do not want to be critical, but I believe that Mr. Sloan's memory in that respect is faulty and perhaps confused. He may have discussed with someone else the question of authority to give money to Bart Porter. [00.50.37] Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, did you learn of the payment, of cash of some $350,000 from the finance committee to Gordon Strachan and when that, payment was made? Mr. STANS. Yes, I learned a little bit more about, it I think than Mr. Sloan did because back in February Of last year I heard from someone--I think it was; Mr. Kalmbach, but I am not, sure--that the White House would like, to have some of the 1968 money that he, had turned over to our committee, to use for special polling purposes. NO amount, was mentioned at, that time and I have no recollection of any other discussion about, this subject, until after the $350,000 was given by Mr. Sloan or Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan. I believe that, Mr. Kalmbach takes full. responsibility for that transaction. At later date, I asked Mr. Sloan if the White House had ever gotten the money it wanted, and he said, "Yes, they got $350,000". I do not, think that the. difference in our recollections is material on this point, because I certainly would not, have objected to the item in any event, had I been asked about, it, beforehand. I did not object, to it, when I. heard about it in February. I think it was a perfectly proper transaction. [00.52.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.59.29-MITCHELL is interrogated about the COVERUP] Mr. DASH. At that time, did you hear that Mr. Caulfield had been authorized to promise some form of Executive clemency to Mr. McCord? Mr. MITCHELL. I don't believe so. I think the only conversations that I had heard about Executive clemency had to do with Mr. Colson and Mr. Hunt. Mr. DASH. Well, what Was that, to the best of your recollection?, Mr. MITCHELL. To the, best of my recollection, it was that somewhere along the line, and I gather that that would be in 1973, early 1973, there were discussions of whether or not Mr. Hunt ---well, I gather he had approached Colson, or through his lawyer had approached Colson on the subject matter. [01.00.14] The essence of it was that Mr. Colson's word was the only Word that Mr. Hunt would take with respect to Executive clemency, whatever that meant. That is the subject and substance of my overhearing of discussions on Executive clemency. Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Mitchell, you became aware., apparently, that after the election and after the questions concerning the funds that were being used by Mr. Hunt and Mr. 'McCord's concern, that whatever you discussed as keeping the lid on might become uncovered. Did that, sometime around December or January, occur to you? [01.01.02] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it always occurred to me, the possibility that the so-called lid would become uncovered. Of course, I always hoped that it didn't, for the very simple, reason that there was no necessity of scaring the President, who was not involved, through his White House activities or the activities in the, White House, Mr. DASH. But the real possibility of it becoming uncovered, -now that the election was over, could not, affect his election. Mr. MITCHELL. No, it, Would not affect his election but it Would affect his Presidency, Mr. Dash. [01.01.39] Mr. DASH. But you were aware. and I think from your own statement that the President Was unaware, and You had personal knowledge or knowledge of information you had received from others of certain activities, that if they did become known publicly could either injure or destroy the President's second administration. After the election, did it occur to you to tell the President then? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I am sure it occurred to me and probably on hindsight I probably should have. I do not think there is any doubt about, it. [01.02.08] Mr. DASH. Did you not think it was the President's prerogative to know what to do about these matters? Mr. MITCHELL. The decision had to be made, and it is a tough one, whether or not he is not. involved in it but he does not know about them, will this go away. I knew they were going to change the personnel in the White House and hopefully they would be gone and he would not have to deal with it and he could go on to his second term, the second Presidency, without this problem. Mr. DASH, But you were taking a major risk. were you not. Mr. Mitchell? Mr., MITCHELL. I think you are taking a major risk any time you have to deal with the White House horrors under any circumstances. [01.02.49] Mr. DASH. 'Now, you spoke to the President quite frequently on the telephone. you met with him, your logs indicate, so you did have plenty Of opportunities. and on no occasion. I think it is your testimony. did you speak to the President about these matters? Mr. MITCHELL. Now. which matters are we talking about? Mr. DASH. Again, the White House--- Mr. MITCHELL. About disclosing these, matters. Mr. DASH. Disclosing the matters, the White House horrors, the break-in. Mr. MITCHELL. I did not--well, let US not pass this over to the point where--on the 20th of June when I talked to him I apologized to him for not knowing what the hell had happened and I should have kept a stronger hand on what the people, in the committee were doing, et cetera. And then, further on down the road in these political meetings that are shown on the, logs. there were discussions about appointing a commission of the type of the Warren commission to Investigate this matter. and special prosecutors and things like that. I do not want to leave the, impression that it was never touched under any circumstances. [01.03.53] Mr. DASH. I am not talking about when you talked about Watergate as such. I am talking about the so-called coverup, the White House horrors and what your own knowledge, based on information given you, [01.04.03-TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.02.00--NPACT letters on black screen--image of page bearing Senate Resolution 60--Robert MacNEILL v.o. reads text of resolution--title screen 'SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES'--MacNEILL in studio] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION*** [00.02.57--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the ERVIN committee that day fended off several high-level attempts to to get it to delay its activities. When told by a witness (Maurice STANS) that his testimony to the committee would prejudice his case in a criminal indictment, the committee voted to compel his testimony. Further, Watergate judge John SIRICA denied an attempt by SPECIAL PROSECUTOR Archibald COX to black out the TV coverage of the hearings, which will allow the airing of the testimony of the two most potentially dramatic witnesses, Jeb MAGRUDER and John DEAN. SIRICA granted both men immunity to appear before the committee, with MAGRUDER potentially appearing the next day and DEAN next week. MacNEILL states that both REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT committee members dismissed the charge by VP AGNEW that the hearings were "a gross perversion of justice". [00.04.00-Jim LEHRER] LEHRER states that the decision of Judge Sirica [shown on screen, b/w headshot] climaxed a delay of several weeks to get immunity for MAGRUDER and DEAN, and also ordered DEAN to testify before a federal grand jury, which DEAN did, taking the FIFTH amendment. [MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that the two chief counsels for the committee were absent, Sam DASH and Fred THOMPSON, to prepare MAGRUDER to testify. LEHRER introduces guest commentator William GREENHALGH, Georgetown University Law professor. LEHRER said that STANS' lawyer posed the first legal hassle for the committee. GREENHALGH agrees, saying that BARKER, STANS' attorney, read a lenthy statement that objected to the committee calling STANS, on the grounds that it would prejudice a jury in New York, where STANS faces criminal indictment. LEHRER states that Senator ERVIN heard the statement and denied the request. Introduces other guest commentator Alan BARTH, a Washington journalist. MacNEILL states that no one actually mentioned the VESCO case,[STANS' indictment], except to assure one another that they weren't going to talk about it. Instead, talk centered on the payment of large sums of cash, including payment of $75,000 to Herb KALMBACH, NIXON's personal lawyer, without explanation of its purpose [00.05.52--STANS testifying] STANS talks about making that payment, after a phone call from KALMBACH, with no explanation except "I am here on a White House project, a special mission, and I need all the cash I can get." KALMBACH insisted on cash and cited "high authority" to receive the funds, and refused to name the authority. [00.07.00--MacNEILL in studio]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
(DO NOT USE voiceover of Jim Lehrer.) Representative J. Edward Hutchinson (R -Michigan) conferring with Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey) with his gavel.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
So let us go forward. Let us go forward into this debate with good will, with honor and decency and with respect for the views of one another. Whatever we now decide we must have the integrity and the decency, the will and the courage, to decide right. Let us leave the Constitution as unimpaired for children as our predecessors left it for us.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
It would be the grossest understatement on my part to suggest that Watergate and all that that word implies has not caused serious injury to my party, the Republican Party. And this is so despite the fact that no element of our established Republican Party organization was involved and no Republican member of the Congress has in anyway been implicated in this whole affair. Let me assert on the contrary that Republicans even more than Democrats are anxious to erase this blemish from our party. I ve heard it said by some that they cannot understand how a Republican could vote to impeach a Republican President. Let me hasten to assert that that argument demeans my role here. It would infer that no matter what high crimes and misdemeanors might have been committed, that if attributed to a Republican President than I as a Republican am foreclosed from judging the merits of the case. I cannot and do not envision my role in that dim light.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
We may ask further is the office of the Presidency being operated in the manner contemplated by the Constitution, when under the disguise of national security, dissatisfaction with the head of the FBI, or personal animosity against enemies, we experience burglaries, wire taps, muggings, unlawfully provided shredding and concealment of evidence, misuse of the CIA, FBI, IRS and a host of other misdeeds. It should not be hard for my solid Midwest constituents, Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to see and understand what s troubling me? Believe me it s also troubling them. The question remains whether these acts and omissions of Richard Nixon as president are to be approved or denounced. If in these respects the president is to be denounced and if the president is too called to account for such acts and omissions, impeachment is the appropriate and constitutionally designated vehicle for bringing these specific charges against him.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
In resolving this issue, we should put aside that legalistic jargon of our profession; present to the American people in plain language our best judgments as to whether there is evidence that Richard Nixon has brought disgrace and disrespect to the office of the President. We must immediately put to rest the argument that the corruption we have witnessed in the last five years is only an extension of what is always been done. I do not share this view or the view of those that hold that all Presidents have lied, broken the law and compromised the Constitution. And if George Washington accepted bribes, it would not make bribery a virtue nor would it be grounds for overlooking such acts by his successors.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Representative Barbara Jordan ( D Texas ) Today, I am in inquisitor. And hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole. It is complete. It is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution. Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men. And that s what we are talking about. In other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust. It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an Article of Impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Representative Barbara Jordan ( D Texas ) We know the nature of impeachment. We have been talking about it a while now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to bridle the Executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men. The Framers confined in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the Executive. The nature of impeachment, a narrowly channeled exception to the separation of powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term maladministration. It is to be used only for great misdemeanors so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention, We do not trust our liberty to one particular branch. We need one branch to check the other. No one need be afraid, The North Carolina Ratification Convention, no one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity. Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 65. We divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. I do not mean political parties in that sense. The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment, but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the Constitutional term "high crime and misdemeanors."