Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (2/2)
[01.28.15-DEAN responding to the statement by the WHITE HOUSE, read by Sen. INOUYE. The statement charged DEAN with running the coverup and making accusations against others to protect himself from prosecution-DEAN'S response is calm and thorough] The 23d letter of Mr. McCord. I was asked by Mr. Ehrlichman what my assessment of it -was based on the, earlier conversation I had With Mr. O'Brien, at best it was hearsay that he had if any wanted to perpetuate the coverup at, that, point through further perjury, I am sure they could have, because he had no hard evidence. This was revealed in a conversation which I have submitted to the committee and a conversation I had with Mr. Magruder who was not concerned about this, that the fact that McCord could prove nothing, he could say a lot but he could prove nothing. Let me see here. I will recall the reason again that I was seeking to get the comment from Mr. Liddy was in a sense twofold. First of all, the President had done -a tremendous embrace of me that next morning when the story was printed. He had said that based on conversations -he had had with me, which in fact he had not had, but rather I had had conversations with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ziegler, both, and informed them I was prepared to file a libel suit, and I believe the White House has also admitted the fact that that phone, call never took place between the President and myself on that day. But in an effort to develop what would be necessary for a libel suit, not that I was planning to file one at that point, but just in preparing for it I thought the strongest statement I could have would be it statement from Mr. Liddy and that was the reason I approached Mr. Maroulis to see if he could do it. The reason that at Mr. Maroulis could not get the statement was because he was concerned about his client's fifth amendment rights. So those are the only points I would make on that closing statement that was offered by the White House. Senator ERVIN. I want to thank Senator Inouye for putting these questions at the request of the White House counsel, and also for calling the -attention of the witness to the contentions of the White House counsel. Mr. Dean, you have been testifying -for about an hour and a half and I imagine you would not be very adverse to having a very brief recess at this time. Mr. DEAN. I -would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your thoughtfulness. [01.30.57-MacNEILL v.o. states that the break is to give DEAN a rest, but also allows Sen. ERVIN to prepare his questions]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (2/2)
[01.30.49-WEICKER discusses the WHITE HOUSE reaction to DEAN'S testimony, noting that the White House freely implicates individuals in criminal acts to defend itself, the same charge it makes against DEAN.] I think it is important to point out, Mr. Chairman, to the committee the very substantial discrepancies in the two memorandums sent to this committee. But probably the greatest disservice performed by the White House in this instance comes on the following fact. Before I make my statement in regard to the entire memorandum I would like to read a quote from a Speech given by the Vice President of the United States not long ago, where he goes ahead and blasts this committee, in which speech he states: [01.31.32] "There is no question whatever that some men, despite their innocence, will be ruined by all of this, even though I am sure that the Senate intended nothing of this kind when it commissioned this investigation." I think. Mr. Chairman, the American people should know that the author of the White House memorandum read by Senator Inouye yesterday makes statements of facts concerning John Mitchell which, in effect, assume that he took part in a conspiracy to break and enter, that he took part in obstructing Justice and suborning perjury, and all this without an admission or conviction of John Mitchell. [01.32.26] And this, Mr. Chairman, done in the document sent by the White House to this committee. I don't believe that in anything that the committee has done to date we have overstepped our bounds, to this extent and I think it important to note, not only in the ease of Mr. Dean, who sits before us, but also in the case of Mr. Mitchell, who is to come before us. Now, Mr. Dean, I didn't mean to jump ahead of you. Have You any comment to make relative to this memorandum, and if so, I don't mean to cut you off on it. Mr. DEAN. When the memorandum was being read yesterday, as you Will recall, Senator. I commented point by point as they went through it. I will certainly stand on the comments I made yesterday and I certainly stand on my testimony. I refuse to engage in descriptions of Motives of others, myself. [01.33.28-Sen. WEICKER brings forth a long list of the excesses and illegalities of WHITE HOUSE actions] Senator WEICKER. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated there have been acts that have been illegal, unconstitutional, and those that fall in the general category of gross. And I would like to go ahead and repeat now exactly what acts which have been testified to, have actually been proven or admitted in the illegal area, acts committed by various members of the executive branch of government--conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to intercept wire or oral communications, subornation of perjury, Conspiracy to obstruct a criminal investigation, conspiracy to destroy evidence; conspiracy to file false sworn statements, conspiracy to commit breaking and entering, conspiracy to commit burglary, misprision of a felony, filing of false sworn statements, perjury, breaking and entering, burglary, interception of wire and oral communications, obstruction of criminal investigation, attempted interference with administration of the internal revenue laws, and attempted unauthorized use of internal revenue information. These are illegal matters proven or admitted that have been accomplished by the executive branch of this Government. [01.35.11-Sen. WEICKER discusses the utter disregard for the CONSTITUTION by the WHITE HOUSE] As to those matters that are unconstitutional Attempts to infringe upon people's first amendment rights of free speech and the press, the enemy list which we have seen, first amendment rights to peaceable assembly, fourth amendment rights to be secure in our houses and papers and effects, and fourth amendment rights, denial of rights to fair trial, right to due process of law. That is what we have, heard which has been done in the way of unconstitutional acts by the executive branch of the, Government. [01.35.53] Now, when you get into the area of the gross, I think it very important that we have more than just an exhibit before us, the exhibits that were part, of the enemy papers submitted by Mr. Dean to this committee yesterday----- [01.36.12-TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2
[00.12.22-Cross-examination by Sen. MONTOYA-discusses EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE and subpenaing NIXON] Senator MONTOYA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dean, I presume while you were counsel at the White House that you had many discussions and probably provided input to some legal opinions with respect to the separation of powers vis-a-vis the possibility that the President might be subpenaed before any congressional committee. TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. DEAN III-Resumed Mr. DEAN. No, sir, I do not. Senator MONTOYA. Did anyone else? Mr. DEAN. Not while I was present at the White House do I recall that subject being- researched by my office, certainly, Senator MONTOYA,. Did you have any discussions pursuant to this? Mr. DEAN. Senator, I might you might respond in this regard, that much of the doctrine of executive privilege, and there -were several statements issued on the policy of executive privilege, stemmed from the separation of powers concept, and it was the President -who told me that rather than reefer to the matter as executive privilege that Mr. Ziegler should start referring to it as separation of powers. Now, when we were looking into the problems of executive privilege, of course, there were collateral reviews but not as far as the President vis-a-vis an appearance per se was ever researched as opposed to staff appearances. [00.13.59-discusses EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE claims as part of the coverup strategy] Senator MONTOYA. I noticed from reading the President's press Statements that he used the separation of powers and Mr. Ziegler, in his press statements, used that term and also the term executive privilege. Now, was there any legal opinion with respect to the ground that the two facets or two phrases covered? Mr. DEAN. Well, as I said, I think you will find that about in mid-March the Phrase "executive privilege" was not being used as much and they began using the, phrase publicly separation of powers." As I say, this resulted in some discussions in preparing the President for press conferences that, occurred in mid-March, and the President said that he did not want -to use the phrase, "executive privilege." Rather he wanted to use the phrase "separation of powers" and instructed Mr. Ziegler to do likewise. How often -Mr. Ziegler has subsequently used the phrase "executive privilege" I do not, know. I have not studied the transcript. [00.15.14-it appears that the claim of PRIVILEGE is one that is completely made up] Senator MONTOYA. Are you aware that anybody might have advised the President as to whether or not, he was subject to a subpena of a congressional committee?, Mr. DEAN-. I have, no firsthand knowledge of that,, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. Now, referring to the President's news conference August 29, 1972, and I will quote from that conference, a reporter asked this question: Mr. President, would not it be a good idea for a special prosecutor, even from your standpoint, to be appointed to investigate the contribution situation and also investigate the Watergate case? Answer: The PRESIDENT. With regard to who is investigating it now, I think it would be--it would be well to know 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-- I presume he meant the House--is conducting an investigation. The General Accounting Office, an independent agency, is conducting an investigation of those, aspects which involve the campaign spending law. Now with all these investigations that are being conducted I don't believe that adding another Special Prosecutor would serve any useful purpose. [00.16.49] Senator MONTOYA. Now, you stated before that, there was a move at the White House to try to stop the House Banking and Currency Committee investigation, and you presented testimony as to what went on in the White House in the background. Now, was 'this going on under auspices of anyone close to the President? Mr. DEAN. Well. of course, on September 15 I had had a discussion with the President about this. He had asked me. about the Banking and Currency Committee investigation. He. had asked me -who was handling it for or the White House. I had reported that Mr. Richard Cook was the man who had formerly worked with the Banking and Currency Committee as a member of the minority staff, was very familiar with the members of the committee, and at the conclusion of my report I recall him saying that he wanted Mr. Timmons to get on top of the matter and be directly involved in it, also. [00.17.49]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. Prior to that position did you hold a position at the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Jeb Magruder. Yes, I was deputy campaign director. Samuel Dash, attorney. And prior to that time, did you hold a position at the White House? Jeb Magruder. Yes. I was special assistant to the President and deputy director for communications in the Executive branch. Samuel Dash, attorney. When did you have that position at the White House? Over what period of time? Jeb Magruder. From October 1969 until May 1971.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). And also it was suggested by those in charge of things who were concerned about these so-called enemies, that the processes of the Internal Revenue Service should be perverted and prostituted in order to harass people who were enemies as viewed by the White House and the Committee To Re-Elect the President? John Dean. That is correct. I might add also in addition to the harassment through tax audits there were a number of memoranda I received from Mr. Colson regarding the tax-exemption status of groups that did have tax-exemptions that were opposed to Presidential policy. Now, my files would contain those. I don t have them in my possession. A review of my files would indicate that 99 out of a 100 times when one of these would come down it would go right in the file and go no further.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.02.00--NPACT logo/black screen--image of page with text of Senate Resolution 60, Robert MacNEILL v.o. reads resolution text--MacNEILL in studio] **SEE RESTRICTION FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION*** MacNEILL introduces testimony of Hugh SLOAN, former treasurer of Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, which focuses on the financial practices of the campaign, payment of cash funds to Gordon LIDDY to conduct operations, and efforts by his superiors, including Jeb MAGRUDER, John MITCHELL, and Fred LaRUE to get SLOAN to keep silent about the payments, leading to SLOAN'S resignation from FCRP Jim LEHRER states that a new group of top White House staff has been hired to replace those who were fired or resigned due to the scandal. Further states that the course of the hearings and with many witnesses still to come, it will be necessary for the Senate Committee to hold more hearings. [Senator BAKER with reporter Peter KAYE.] BAKER states that the committee will go to a 3-day per week schedule for the forseeable future [LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the bulk of SLOAN'S testimony (recorded earlier) focused on the financial practices of the committee, and his futile attempts to get his superiors (MAGRUDER, MITCHELL, etc.) to investigate the Watergate matter fully, On one trip, to MITCHELL's office, SLOAN was asked what happened in the meeting: [00.05.45--shows SLOAN testifying, states that MITCHELL'S response to his concerns was "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". ] LEHRER states that watching the hearings in full will give all viewers a chance to judge for themselves the truth of SLOAN's testimony, Gives SLOAN's background--educational, governmental, political history. States that SLOAN'S testimony made a big impact on the committee, particularly Senator ERVIN [00.07.38--cut to Senator ERVIN ] Senator ERVIN tells SLOAN that his testimony has restored ERVIN'S faith in the saying that "An honest man is the noblest work of God." [MacNEILL in studio--seen to chuckle at ERVIN'S remarks] [00.07.58]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.52.48] Senator MONTOYA. Did Mr. Sloan contact you about this contribution before he distributed the same? Mr. STANS. That is where my recollection differs from his. My recollection is that, I learned about it, from Mr. Sloan after it was distributed but I really do not think that, is material. Senator MONTOYA. What about, the $75,000 contribution to Mr. Kalmbach about which he, called you from the Statler-Hilton Hotel. Did you approve this? Mr. STANS. Well, I gave him the money, as I said, from sources outside the committee, and relying on his good faith and on his assurance,, to me that it -was an important transaction and that he had cleared it with high authorities and he was doing it at their request. Senator MONTOYA. You knew of course that, Mr. Kalmbach was a man of very high influence in the, White House, did you not? Mr. STANS. Yes, I did. Senator MONTOYA. You knew he had a good line of communication with those in the upper echelons in the White House? Mr. STANS. No question about it, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. '"Then he mentioned that this request was coming from very high authority-, what did go through your mind as to who that person might be? Mr. STANS. Well, I knew the people with whom Mr. Kalmbach had 'very close association and contact. I did not, try to identify anyone as the party to that transaction-. I did learn about 6 weeks ago from Mr. Kalmbach and his attorney who it, was. Senator MONTOYA. Who was it? [00.54.38] Mr. STANS. he fold me the request to raise the money came from John Dean. That, he asked Mr. Dean whether it was a legal transaction and Dean assured him it, was. But, being unwilling to proceed solely on that basis he, went to Mr. Ehrlichman and asked Mr. Ehrlichman if it was something that should be done and whether it was legal and that Mr. Ehrlichman told him it, was. Now that is hearsay but I got that, as I said, about 6 or 8 weeks ago from Mr. Kalmbach and his attorney. Senator MONTOYA. Did not, Mr. Kalmbach tell you that that this was not going to be used for the, campaign, that it was going to be used for other purposes? Mr. STANS. Yes, he did. Senator MONTOYA. Did that arouse your curiosity? Mr. STANS. NO; not in the relationship that I had with Mr. Kalmbach, and that he had with the White House. Don't forget that Mr. Kalmbach had been entrusted with a very large sum of money that he had left over from the 1968 campaign, he had -worked with the White House people in the handling of that, sum of money, and I believed Mr. Kalmbach when he said it was important but, he, could not tell me what it was about, and I trusted him and I still do. Senator MONTOYA. Wasn't, it your understanding, Mr. Stans, that when you were collecting this money from contributors that the money would be used strictly for political purposes? Mr. STANS. Oh, Senator, I think I have already said that the money I gave to Kalmbach was not money that, had come as contributions. Senator MONTOYA. What money did you give him? Mr. STANS. Well, I will be glad to tell you. Senator MONTOYA. I believe you stated that) $407 000 of that was from your safe and I believe you have stated before through other sources that $35,000 came from contributions made by a foreign national. Mr. STANS. Let me recite that very carefully so that, I can correct the amounts as well; $45,000 of the money I gave to Mr. Kalmbach was money that I had received from him just about, the time I became finance chairman to use for expenses in the campaign, not for ordinary expenses, but for unusual expenses that I might incur, such as using jet transportation by charter if I needed to get, around the country quickly, or to pay for a vacation because at that point, I was working Without Compensation. Mr. Kalmbach gave me $50,000 to use for that kind of expense. But as I got into the campaign I decided I was not, going to incur much of that type of expense, I didn't need the money, and was submitting regular expense accounts for all the amounts I incurred on behalf of the committee. So I had $45,000 of that still in my safe. deposit, box, and when Mr. Mr. Kalmbach said he had this urgent need for or in money for a very high purpose on behalf of the White House,, I went to the safe deposit box and got that money and gave it, to him. That was not Money belonging to the finance committee. [00.58.10]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. William S. Cohen
William S. Cohen (R Maine). So what happened after the bombing was disclosed? What action did Congress take at that time? I can recall my first year in Congress standing in the halls listening to the countdown on the vote where that Congress finally determined to cut off the bombing in Cambodia. And I couldn t help but be impressed with the electricity in the air. For the first time, Congress was finally going to regain the powers that it had given up, again through its own sloth and default. So what happened is that last year Congress, rather than condemning the President for past actions they actually went ahead and ratified it in my opinion. They passed legislation which would have allowed the President to continue to bomb for an additional 45 days. Now, that to me was tantamount to ratifying a past act. And I can t see us imposing a double standard upon the President of the United States after having some complicity in this act. We come awfully close to the margin when we pass a law which says it is all right to bomb just for another 45 days but after that you cannot bomb and besides, we are going to impeach you for what you have done before. Now, that is what happened. I know the gentlelady from New York did not share in that vote, nor did I, and a number of other members on this committee did not, but the fact of the matter is that Congress did have some complicity, in my opinion.
Washington Week Show - WW 4247 - "White House Image"
Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times asks if the spate of White House staff resignations is part of the Bush administration's way of getting ready for the upcoming election. Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times notes that the White House is currently transitioning toward that, especially after the passage of the tax cut bill. Show host Gwen Ifill asks Bumiller if she can talk about how that image comes together and works even as people are leaving, presumably on good terms. Bumiller describes the Bush administration taking lessons first used by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and bringing it to whole new level in terms of professional press presentation. McManus wonders if footage of President Bush landing on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln in a Harrier jet will find its way into the re-election campaign. Bumiller is not certain, could not find Republican National Committee film crews there, but that does not rule it out. Whatever is used for re-election footage will undoubtedly be tested first by a focus group, although the NYT took a poll on that question and 59% of respondents thought it was appropriate for the President to use the image, did not see it as political stunt. Ifill jokes that the press will be the judges of that.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.28.03] Senator GURNEY. This is the written report you are, talking about? Mr. PORTER, Yes, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Reisner say what, he did with it? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir, he did not. Senator GURNEY. Did you make, any report at all to till anyone in the White House? Mr. PORTER. 'NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did not? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Neither during your term with the Committee To Re-Elect the. President, or afterward? Mr. PORTER, You mean, Senator, on this particular subject matter or on all the things I was doing in My role as surrogate scheduling? Senator GURNEY. I am not talking "about the legal activities. I am talking about 11 Watergate coverup, surveillance sabotage all these activities Mr. PORTER. Sir, I did not know anything about the Watergate. The only part of' any so-called coverup that I was aware of' was the Part that I knew about, that I was scheduler -and I did not put it in the, context of the Watergate coverup but, there were no written reports, to knowledge, at all. Senator GURNEY. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I understand Senator Inouye has a question. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, you have testified that you have been in charge of the scheduling of surrogate speakers. Did you schedule the appearance of the Acting FBI Director, Mr. Gray? Mr. PORTER, NO, sir, I did not. Senator INOUYE. Who did? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Gray's activities or scheduling were handled out of the White House, to my understanding, He was not a surrogate for the campaign, Senator INOUYE. Do you know who did the scheduling, sir? Mr. PORTER. I do not know firsthand. I have read in the newspaper reports that it was out of the White House speakers bureau. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. The Bible bestows blessing on him who swears to his own word and changeth it not. I want to commend you on the forthrightness of your testimony before this committee. Thank you very much. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, before the witness is dismissed, I want to join in that expression to the witness. I must say that he and I trod on delicate and painful ground on Thursday. And I think you were very manly in the way you reacted to probing and searching questions. It is not an easy job you have undertaken, And the committee is not here to sit in judgement on your guilt or innocence. But the committee is privileged. I would like to comment on your forthcoming testimony and spirit. So while we have used your testimony to probe and explore the atmosphere of campaigning, I hope we have not left the, impression that we have done so with an absence of sensibility for your own situation and your own private concerns. I think you are to be commended for appearing and testifying and the committee is grateful and I am grateful. Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. You are excused now subject to recall at some future date if the committee desires it. Mr. PORTER. Yes, Sir. [00.31.09--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the testimony of PORTER, the last of the 'LITTLE FISHES' to testify, and that he is lead to wonder what will happen to PORTER now that he has admitted to perjury on national TV [PBS Network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.33.47--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces questioning of former CRP Finance Chairman, Maurice STANS, who is under indictment for involvement in another case, and will try to get his lawyer, Robert BARKER, to get the committee to drop the case. [00.34.16--ERVIN headshot]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator Howard BAKER. (R- TN) Mr. Chairman thank you very much. Once again I understand that our operating format is to utilize this witnesses testimony for the purpose of establishing an organizational chart within the White House. I have a number of questions that I wish to put to the witnesses, the witness that are not related to the organizational chart as such. But in the interest of trying to conserve time and stick to that operating format, I would ask instead if the witness will agree to return at a later date, so that I may ask him other questions that are not related to his testimony today. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. I might also ask, Mr. Kehrli if as an assistant to the President you are appearing voluntarily or under subpoena? Mr. KEHRLI. I am appearing voluntarily. Senator BAKER. Was there any intervention of a claim of executive privilege on your behalf? Mr. KEHRLI. No there was not. Senator BAKER. Was there any instruction from the White House or anyone in it, as to how you should conduct yourself with this committee? Especially with the respect to whether you should co-operate or not cooperate? Mr. KEHRLI. I was asked to, I was encouraged to cooperate. Senator BAKER. Mr. Kehrli, so that you have some understanding of what I intend to ask you later, and once again I do not intend to pursue it today, when you return as a witness to testify in a later sequence of hearings, I want to know particularly about the drilling and opening of Mr. Hunt's safe. I want to know what you found in it, I want to know what happened to it, I want to know a number of other things related to it. (Mr. Kehrli seen shaking his head in agreement.) But, just so that you understand that I'm not asking you those questions now at the interest of time and orderliness, I hope you'll be prepared to respond when you do return. Mr. KEHRLI. I will be. Senator BAKER. Thank you very much.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now there came a time, did there not, Mr. Dean, when the $350,000 under Haldeman's control was needed for payoff money. And you suggested that before any of it was given back to the committee or Mr. LaRue that it be made whole again with regard to the $22,000 that had been taken out of it? John Dean. That s correct. Those discussions began in early as late July and August of 1972, about making the fund whole. Samuel Dash, attorney. Wasn t it your suggestion, Mr. Dean, or one that you approved of that Mr. Stans of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President should provide this $22,000 from the committee funds to send that over to the White House to make that $350,000 whole? John Dean. That is correct.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (1/2)
[00.25.55-ERVIN with gavel, brings hearing to order] Senator ERVIN. The committee will resume. Senator INOUYE. If I may resume reading from the memo. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN] "It was Dean -who sought out successfully to have the others omit his name from the list of those who -attended meetings on the Liddy plans." This is from the Magruder testimony. Mr. DEAN. I would like to comment on that. The meeting in -which this was discussed was called by Mr. Mitchell. I -was departing a meeting in his office, and he asked me if he could talk to me about these matters. He called Mr. Magruder into the same meeting. They asked me to review my recollection of the meetings. I told him what my recollection was and as I testified Mr. Magruder asked me "How do I handle this before the grand jury?" I said, "Well, I don't know what occurred at the second meeting. I know there was some brief reference in the first meeting to the election laws and that would seem to me a way to explain my presence at the meetings." [00.27.10] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN] "It, was Dean who urged Hunt to flee the country two days after the burglary." Mr. DEAN. I believe I testified to that. That., occurred before the meeting commenced in Mr. Ehrlichman's office on the evening of the 19th, when Mr. Ehrlichman asked me where Hunt was. I said I had no idea. Mr. Colson was present also. He asked Mr. Colson a, similar question and got a similar response. At that point. Mr. Ehrlichman told me, to call Liddy and tell Hunt to get out of the, country, which I did. After a subsequent discussion, I called back, after reraising the matter, thinking it, was not something that the White House should be doing, and spoke again with Mr. Liddy and told him that my earlier conversation should be retracted. [00.28.04] Senator INOUYE. Then it. -is your testimony that it was Mr. Ehrlichman who-- Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator INOUYE. [continuing] . Proposed the idea? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO] "It, was Dean and Mitchell who prepared Magruder for his perjurious grand jury testimony." Mr. DEAN. I cant speak about Mr. Mitchell's involvement. I know that Mr. Magruder came to my office shortly before he was to appear before the grand jury. As you will recall from my testimony. there were a series of events that preceded that relating 'to the fact, that I had recommended that Magruder be removed or resign from the re-election committee because I thought he was going to have problems. Simultaneously to that, there was a discussion developing which Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman were well aware of, that there was an effort to hold the case, at Mr. Liddy. Senator INOUYE. Did you in fact counsel Mr. Magruder to commit perjury? Mr. DEAN. I did, I did in this regard: I helped him prepare a statement that I knew was false.. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO] "It was Dean who said of a memorandum Colson had prepared on August 29 stating the facts as he knew them, 'For God's sake, destroy the memo. It impeaches Magruder.' Mr. DEAN. I think the facts speak for themselves on that. I did not destroy the memorandum. In fact, I turned a copy over to this committee. I think I have also explained in my testimony why I did not turn it over to the prosecutors, [00.29.43] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO] "It was Dean who suggested that Sloan take, the fifth amendment, though Sloan was innocent." Mr. DEAN. It is correct; I did call Mr. Sloan's attorney before he was to appear in Florida before an unrelated matter down there. There had been a number of discussions within the White; House about the fact that Mr. Sloan was going to testify about money that had come, to the. White House. He had sought meetings with a number of people in the White House, I was the only one who would talk -with him. Technically under the law, it appeared that he did have difficulties -with some of the disbursements that had been made that occurred after April 7, which was the effective date of the, new law. And I did call him and ask his attorney if he was prepared to take the fifth amendment and in doing that, suggesting that he might want to pursue that course. Because to me, the fifth amendment doesn't indicate innocence or guilt. [00.30.46]
August 5, 1994 - Part 3
Coverage of the House Banking Committee Hearings before which testify several officials from the Resolution Trust Corporation
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.07.15] At that time it was understood within the committee that Robert Mardian had been brought to Washington to work on legal matters that were current at the time, and I went to him for advice. His advice, after he learned the description of the money, was to get the money out of the office and out of the, campaign and money, he suggested that I give it to Fred LaRue. Fred LaRue was, the right-hand man of John Mitchell, assistant to Mitchell as campaign director. On that, advice I gave the money, my half of the money to LaRue and Sloan later gave his half of the money to LaRue. I neglected to say that when Sloan expressed concern about, having that much money in his custody, I agreed to divide it with him so that there would only be about $40,000 in each parcel, and I took one and put it, in my desk and he took one. parcel and took it home. I gave mine to LaRue rather promptly, at the first opportunity. Sloan went, on vacation to Bermuda for about 10 days, and gave his money to LaRue upon his return. Now, there is some uncertainty as to whether that money passed through Mardian's hands. In each case. I can't recall whether I gave the $40,000 that I had directly to LaRue or gave it to Mardian to give to LaRue. Sloan did give his $40,000 to Mardian and Mardian gave it to LaRue. Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know what happened to that money in the end? Mr. STANS. I do not know specifically what happened to that money. Subsequently I received some funds for several Purposes from Fred LaRue. Whether it was part of the same money or other money, I have no way of knowing, and only he could tell. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, in late June or early July did you receive a call from Mr. Herbert Kalmbach requesting money from you? [00.09.37] Mr. STANS. On the, 29th of June I received an urgent call from Kalmbach. He said he was in Washington at, the Statler-Hilton Hotel, that it was extremely vital that he see me right away, and He wanted me to come over there, and I did. I dropped everything and went over there to see him. He said, "I am here on a special mission on a White House Project and I need all the cash I can get." I said, "I don't have any cash to give to you. Will you take a check. He said "No, I can't, take a check it, must be in cash, and this has nothing to do with the campaign. But, I am asking for it, on high authority." Mr. EDMISTEN. What high authority did he say? [00.10.33] Mr. STANS, He, did not, say. "I am asking for it on high authority and You will have to trust me that I have cleared it, properly." As I said, I had no cash belonging to the committee at that time because we had closed it all out but I did have two parcels of money that were available, and I gave those to Mr. Kalmbach. They added up to $75,000 of funds outside the committee. Mr. EDMISTEN NOW, Mr. Stans, did you not, ask him why he wanted this money? Mr. STANS. Yes, I did. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did he say? Mr. STANS. He said, "This is for a White House project, and that I have been asked to take care, of and I cannot tell you. You will have to trust, me." Mr. EDMISTEN. Would Mr. Kalmbach have, been your superior in this campaign organization? Mr. STANS. NO, Mr. Kalmbach was a man I knew very well. He had been my principal deputy in the 1968 fundraising campaign for Richard Nixon. He subsequently had close affiliation with a number of people in the White House that I was aware of. He was personal counsel to the President. He AN-as a man that I knew was a man of highest integrity, trustworthiness and honesty, and I had no question to doubt, no reason to doubt, anything he told me and I didn't. [00.12.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.12.15-Sen. BAKER concludes his questioning] Senator BAKER. Mr. Dean, I might say that the reason I had tended to formulate, that, question was anticipation of conflict and the very point that you make. The alternative way to handle that, of. course, would be to have rebuttal or surrebuttal from you after we receive the other testimony, that is, if there is conflict, the committee. may wish to recall you to testify further or it may not. But since time is moving on, I think it is better to wait and make that judgment later and I assume that you, like every other witness, would be willing to return if that seems indicated. Mr. DEAN. I stand at, the subpena of the committee at this point, In time and if the committee desires me back, I will return. Senator BAKER. Thank you very much. [00.13.00] Senator ERVIN. I found in the record the exhibit to which I asked you the question whether George Wallace, of Alabama was listed among the enemies. I find that on the page about 12 black Congressmen--Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and 11 Congressmen are named. And then there is miscellaneous politicos: John V. Lindsay, mayor of New York City, Eugene McCarthy, former U.S. Senator, and George Wallace, Governor of Alabama. [00.13.44-ERVIN gives a HISTORY LESSON to the effect that the committee should obtain the testimony of NIXON.] Now, before I get, silenced, I have been furnished by the Library of Congress through the agency of Senator Inouye a Xerox copy of an extract from the--New York Tribune of February 14, 1862, which has an item of historical value. It is entitled "The Premature Publication of the President's Message." [READING] President Lincoln today voluntarily appeared before the -House Judiciary Committee and gave testimony in the matter of the premature publication in the Herald of a portion of his last annual message. Chevalier Wikof was then brought before the committee and answered the question which he refused to answer yesterday, stating, as is rumored, that the stolen paragraph was furnished to the Herald by Watt, the President's gardener, who was reported as disloyal by the Potter Committee, and whose nomination to a Lieutenancy the Senate so decidedly refused to confirm, but who is still to be seen in the White House, and is said to be an applicant for a foreign appointment. The public can learn from this case in what sewers it is the taste of the Herald to fish for state secrets. The Chevalier is still in close confinement at the Capitol, in quarters at which his fastidious tastes revolt. An iron bedstead was purchased for him today, His most frequent visitor is said to be General Sickles. The first papers taken by the officers out of the pocketbook of the "special representative of the New York Herald," now in Fort McHenry, was a pass admitting Dr. Ives at all hours to the War Department, signed "George B. McClellan." [00.15.34-ERVIN concludes his HISTORY LESSON] Senator ERVIN. That is an item concerning the, manner in which President Lincoln volunteered to appear and testify before the House Committee. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I might say in that respect, although my precedent, is not, nearly as old as your precedent, that I believe in 1919, in junction with the efforts to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, rather than a President appearing before a committee of the. Congress, in fact, President Wilson invited the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with him. [00.16.10] So as -we, say in Tennessee, there are lots of ways to skin a cat and I wouldn't, presume to say how we go about it. But I do hope that there is some, way to supply additional information on these crucial and important points. Mr. Chairman, might I say one other thing on an unrelated matter? [00.16.27] Congressman Garry Brown has 'written a letter to this committee that. refers directly to certain statements made by Mr. Dean. Congressman Brown has also indicated to me, that he wishes to file a sworn statement, in compliance with the rules of the committee and I would ask if there is no objection, that the letter be included in the record, and the, statement, that, Congressman Brown may later submit be submit included in the record at the appropriate place. Senator ERVIN. Without objection, it Is so ordered.
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 Don Bonker (D-WA) gives his remarks: "Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have already spoken to the possible elimination of Title V of the Older Americans Act, if the Congress today does not override the President's veto on the supplemental appropriations bill. Recently, the Select Committee on Aging conducted hearings in the Northwest on the impact of budget cuts on older women. Congressman Wyden and myself participated in those hearings and we heard from witnesses who reaffirmed the vital importance of the Title V Senior Employment Program, particularly for older women. Older women now represent 72% of the elderly poor and are truly dependent on many of these Federal programs. Despite the crucial need for Title V, President Reagan has vetoed the one piece of legislation that appropriated the $211 million in additional funds to keep Title V seniors employed through June of 1983. If the Congress cannot override this veto, over 54,000 elderly will be out of work after September 30. Of the 54,000 part time community services jobs provided for the low income elderly, two-thirds are those employed by women. I urge the Congress today to override the President's veto and sustain this important program." Speaker Pro Tempore bangs gavel, noting time has expired.
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - Schwarz and Smothers testify
Duke narrates over court footage that much of the FBI's information was turned over to White House aids to be used for political purposes (00:13:15) Smothers tells the committee that the FBI was involved in making the 1964 Democratic convention secure against violent outbreaks, how they infiltrated various groups and discreditted them and their members - Martin Luther King included among them, records of their infiltration were given over to the White House - Smothers also mentions the FBI got dirt on those people who contested the Warren Commision findings - Smothers explains the name check process in which critics of the administration including reporters from newspapers and tv, citizens who objected to the Vietnam war (00:13:25) Smothers mentions an incident of the FBI trying to influence a Speaker of the House regarding a prominent civil rights figure (00:17:05) Schwarz tells the committee how at the 1964 democratic convention the FBI infiltrated press meetings with fake credentials pretending to be reporters in order to get dirt on their enemies (00:17:20) Schwarz explains the term COINTEL PRO which means Counter Intelligence Program and served in the words of the FBI as "disrupt and neutralize people" (00:18:00) Duke narrates over hearings to segue the following testimony which is about the range of weopons used by the FBI to disturb groups (00:18:25) Smothers gives an example of how the FBI destroys job and family life of subversives, he reads a letter written to the husband of a white female officer in a local black activist group - the letter says the only integration this woman wants to do is in the bed and ends that she should be beaten for this (00:19:42)
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Church recognizes Senator SCHWIEKER (?), Schwieker pushes the case that the Huston plan's recall was not the end of the White House's push to step up intelligence operations - Huston responds in agreement, but saying that he left the White House shortly after the recall of the Huston Plan - Huston and Schwieker talk a bit about the creation of IEC by the White House, which worked within the Justice Department as an inter-intelligence agency group
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.33.08-DASH interrogates MITCHELL about his knowledge of the developing COVERUP of WATERGATE] Mr. DASH. And then, to the best of your recollection and knowledge, were you aware, that Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman were being kept Informed on the question of the strategy to conceal Mr. Magruder's actual--- Mr. MITCHELL. I had no specific, knowledge of that. Mr. DASH. Did you ever discuss that with Mr. Ehrlichman or Haldeman? Mr. MITCHELL. No, Sir; I never did. You are talking about the Magruder's testimony? Mr. DASH. Yes, Mr. MITCHELL. To the best, of my recollection I have never discussed it with them. Mr. DASH. You don't recall that at all? Mr. MITCHELL. I don't recall that. no. I can only say that Mr. Dean' was the, conduit, was the party who acted between the two committees and came back and forth and discussed things with us so that whether---- Mr. DASH. Did you have any communication with Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman yourself during this period of time? Mr. MITCHELL. Oh, I am sure I had numerous communications but. I probably had to do with the running of the campaign, with other such matters rather than what, Mr. Magruder might be testifying to. [00.34.10] Mr. DASH. Did it have, anything to do with the so-called White House horror stories or the scandals you learned about, from Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue based on Mr. Liddy's statement, to back them up? Mr. MITCHELL. You are talking about this time, you are talking before, Magruder--- Mr. DASH. Before Magruder's testimony before the grand before the grand jury. [00.34.30] Mr. MITCHELL. Before Magruder's testimony before, the grand jury. I would believe that during that, period of time there were some discussions of the, so-called White House stories, yes. Mr. DASH. Was there----- Mr. MITCHELL. Horrors. I mean not stories. Mr. DASH. Was there a concern expressed by you to 'Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman concerning whether stories would be revealed during this campaign? [00.34.51-In other words, it was not necessary just to coverup WATERGATE, but a gigantic host of other illegal acts] Mr. MITCHELL. I think that -we all had an innate fear that during the campaign that they might be revealed. I recall discussing it, specifically in that area but I am sure we must have had a mutual concern about the subject matter. Mr. DASH, Well, did you yourself form a personal position as to what should be done about revealing this material [00.35.17-MITCHELL'S rationalization of COVERING UP the WHITE HOUSE HORRORS] Mr. MITCHELL. I formed the opinion and a position that I did not believe that it was fair to the President to have these stories Come out during his political campaign. Mr. DASH. Were YOU aware that there was a program actually going on so as to actually prevent these stories from coming out? Mr. MITCHELL. NOW, which program are you talking about, Mr. Dash, so I can be sure to answer your question properly? Mr. DASH. Well, a program on the part of yourself, 'Mr. Dean, Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Ehrlichman, and perhaps 'Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mardian to see to it that the information that got to the prosecutor or to the grand jury or to the civil suits did not in any way include this information concerning the so-called White House horrors as you described them'? [00.36.12] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Mr. Dash, that is a very broad question and covers a lot, of areas. I may answer it. perhaps, by saying that we sure in hell were not volunteering anything. In addition to that, we were Involved in a very difficult series of civil litigation. as you know, that involved discovery and all the rest of it. So we were not volunteering anything. [00.36.34] Mr. DASH. But, you say you did come to know that, prior to Mr. Magruder's testimony that he was going to testify falsely? Mr. MITCHELL. I think I can put it On the basis that I had a pretty strong feeling that his testimony was not going to be entirely accurate. Mr. DASH. Right, and this discussion, I think you have already testified, was part of the discussion of some of the meetings with Messrs. LaRue, Mardian, Dean. and Magruder. Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. Mr. DASH. it be Would it be correct---- Mr. MITCHELL. I think the best way to put it is that Mr. Magruder would seek an audience to review his story that he was going to tell, rather than somebody was trying to induce him to do so. I think Mr. Magruder has testified that nobody coerced him to do this. that he made up the Story, that he did it of his own free will. So it was more of a basis of Mr. Magruder recounting to these assembled groups what he was going to testify to. [00.37.36] Mr. DASH. But would it be fair to say, Mr. Mitchell, that it was in the interest of the group to have the story that, did go into the grand jury and the ultimate indictments that did come out cut off at Liddy? And Mr. Magruder, who was in such a high position in the committee, would not be involved in that type, of thing? [00.37.52-MITCHELL'S skill as a lawyer makes him seem arrogant and dishonest as a witness-splits many hairs] Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dash, I think you are jumping from one conclusion to another without the bridge. What we were really concerned about were the White House horror stories. Now, if the cutoff that you speak Of helped in that direction, perhaps that was probably the case. In other words, Watergate did not have the great, significance that the White House horror stories that have since occurred had. Mr. DASH. Would you say that whatever coverup was taking place to this point, concealment and not volunteering information, had to do with actually preventing the so-called White House horror stories rather than Watergate break-in? Mr., MITCHELL. This was certainly my belief and rationale and I would believe the people in the White House, certainly some, of them, might well be involved and certainly would have similar interests. [00.38.44]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.07.04] . *SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD OF RIGHTS SECTION*** MacNEILL introduces guest commentator, David AUSTEN, Georgetown University LAW PROFESSOR. MacNEILL asks AUSTEN about the important points of the day's hearings. AUSTEN comments that SLOAN is just a great witness, honest, confident, candid, that he is a model witness, particularly in being pinned down about exact words, is candid to admit he is not sure. This is in contrast to PORTER, who is much more insistent on exact words etc, States that PORTER'S testimony will probably cast some disrepute on the legal profession as PORTER recounts a story of the CRP's lawyer falling asleep during a conslutation with PORTER. [00.08.40] LEHRER states that AUSTEN will comment further at the end of the day, along with an interview by reporter Peter KAYE with Senator Daniel INOUYE. MacNEILL advises that the most dramatic questioning, by Sen. BAKER of PORTER, comes at the end. Offers an hourly summary of the hearings. [00.09.09--cut to SLOAN at table with counsel, MacNEILL continues v.o. to give summary--titles show the thrust of testimony] [00.10.26--Sen. ERVIN/gavel] Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. The New York Times and the, Washington Post, carried news dispatches indicating that papers identified' as the so-called "Dean papers" have been released in some manner to the New York Times, and published in part in the New York Times. When Judge Sirica ordered a copy of these--I do not know whether they are the same papers but indications are that, they are--ordered copies of the papers which Mr. Dean allegedly carried from the White House and placed in the safety deposit, box and later surrendered to Judge Sirica and furnished to this committee, I have a very wise man for a vice chairman of this committee. In spite of his youthful appearance he has wisdom of the ages and he suggested to me when the papers were received that we deposit them in a secure place under the most watchful security officer, and I am happy to report that an investigation made this morning indicates that any release that May have been made to the press of any papers of this nature did not Come from this committee. These papers were deposited under the understanding they would be kept, secure, that. no one would have access to them except the Senator., who constitute members of this committee and that no member of this committee would make any notes in respect to those papers. So I am glad to be able to report that however the New York Time, may have, gotten copies of any Papers of that nature, that they did not come from committee or from copies of the copy deposited with this committee under order Of Judge Sirica. I would be glad to have my wise colleague make a statement, on this point. [00.12.58]
Senate Select Committee Hearing: FOIA - Part 2
ACLU lawyers Mark Lynch and Allan Adler sitting at witness table; Lynch continuing his statement, addressing the last critique from Admiral Bobby Ray Inman's testimony: that the FOIA is fundamentally inconsistent with an intelligence agency. Admiral Inman does recognize the need for oversight, but that it should be limited to the current House and Senate Committees. Lynch calls this a "novel idea" where no oversight of an executive agency by the press or the public is appropriate. This is a fundamental and philosophic difference between Inman and the ACLU. Historically, Congressional oversight has had ebbs and flows in performance, good and not good. Lynch believes that having a Congressional committee be the only oversight over an agency, in a democracy, is a dangerous idea. Lynch is thankful that the CIA is not suggesting that they should be exempt from the Privacy Act, but notes the application of that act will have some of the same disadvantages as the FOIA.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.12.01] Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I had not seen these before this moment. I notice there is a cover letter dated June 27, 1973, which I have seen now for the first time. It says, "Pursuant to the rules of the committee, there are enclosed herewith questions which we believe would be appropriate to have asked of Mr. Dean. I will say again I have only seen these just now, but from that cover letter it would appear to me that these are questions submitted to be propounded to the witness and not to the committee. I wonder if the chairman might agree with me in view of the cover letter which has been handed me by counsel. Senator ERVIN. The only thing which misled me was the fact we had two series of questions. One of them. was numbered 1 and 2, and the second series of questions also are numbered I and 2. So I drew the inference from this that the first question and the second question were addressed to the committee. But perhaps I have misconstrued that. Senator BAKER. I think I would agree with my chairman, who has implied that it would be inappropriate for anyone to address questions to the committee, and if that is in fact the fair intendment of the letter, then I do disagree with it and I would suggest that they be disregarded If, in fact, they are, questions submitted under rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Committee to be propounded to the witness, it would seem to me we have a different situation. Senator ERVIN. I might state these were just handed to me about 1 second before, I read them, and I drew the inference since, the questions -were separated as they were some of them were addressed to the committee rather than the witness. But perhaps I am mistaken in that, but I would say that the only strategy this committee has followed to secure immunity for any witness has been to pursue the law strictly. Senator BAKER. I think the chairman is entirely correct, And I think the committee has tracked the provisions of the statute carefully. On one occasion, at least, Mr. Chairman, I recall that, we retraced our steps for fear there might be a technical deficiency in our method of operation. The votes have been unanimous in each case, even though the statute only requires a two-thirds vote in order to request immunity. So I agree with my chairman that, the only strategy this committee has followed is to track the provisions of the available statute law in order to gain the most information we can in order to present it to the Senate. Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman---, Senator ERVIN. Now, yesterday the witness was asked to produce some exhibits and I just wanted to ask him if he had provided them. TESTIMONY OF JOHN DEAN III, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES N. SHAFFER AND ROBERT C. McCANDLESS, COUNSELS---Resumed Mr. DEAN. 'Mr. Chairman the only thing I -wanted to say, the only involvement I had in what you are referring to is I did participate a number of years ago first in the development of that statute, and second, its drafting and its relationship with the Senate in its adoption, but I did take, at that time, in representing the Department of Justice, a far different position that the Attorney General should have the Ability to nullify any request of any committee to grant immunity to any witness, which is far different from the one Congress accepted ultimately. Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Dean, did you bring with you this morning the exhibits that you indicated you had and the committee requested you to bring? Mr. DEAN. Yes, I did, Mr. Dash. Mr. DASH. Could you just, submit them and perhaps identify them as you submit them to the, committee? [00.15.33-DEAN introduces documents on the White House "ENEMIES LIST"] Mr. DEAN. These are from a file that is entitled "Opponents List, and Political Enemies Project." The first, document in the file, and these are not in an chronological order. is a briefing paper that was prepared for Mr. Haldeman for a meeting with the head of Internal Revenue Service. The, goal of the briefing paper which was based on material that, was provided to me by Mr. Caulfield who, in turn, got information from friends of his within the Internal Revenue Service, was to make the, IRS politically responsive to the White House, and I think that the document is self-explanatory. It is not marked other than the heading, which says "To Accomplish: Make IRS Politically Responsive." I will mark these. as I-- Mr. DASH. Well, You can mark them following your last exhibit number. Mr. DEAN. For the sake of the record right now I will call it exhibit A.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
****SEE RESTRICTIONS/RIGHTS FIELD BEFORE USING**** [00.36.08-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that we have been watching DEAN for four days, and it's becoming increasingly clear that if DEAN'S testimony is to be discredited, it won't be done by the ERVIN COMMITTEE. DEAN will return for one more day. States that the committee, in 3 days of cross-examination, has obtained little information that was not contained in DEAN'S opening statement. That statement "so massive and so rich" has given the committee enough to talk about since then. The next witness, states MacNEILL, will be former Attorney General and CRP head John MITCHELL, but the real questions now seem to be awaiting the testimony of H.R. HALDEMAN and John EHRLICHMAN, part of the "White House Faction" that opposes DEAN, MITCHELL, and MAGRUDER. The most crucial questions, however, are for the President himself. States that ERVIN desired some kind of input from NIXON, but no one on the committee is willing to suggest that NIXON be invited, or subpoenaed, to testify for the committee, perhaps out of fear of deepening what the WHITE HOUSE is already calling a "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS", or perhaps out of fear of bad P.R. [00.37.38-LEHRER] LEHRER states that Senator WEICKER had talked to DEAN about attempts by the WHITE HOUSE to influence the committee, states that reporter Peter KAYE discussed this with Senator BAKER after the end of the hearings. [00.37.53-BAKER in empty hearing room] KAYE asks BAKER about WEICKER'S comment at the end of the hearing about pressure, asks if BAKER has experienced such. BAKER states it depends on perspective, but he hasn't felt pressure, he had had inquiries to which he felt free to say no, concerning the appointment of the White House's choice for minority counsel. Says that WEICKER feels very strongly about the points he discussed, and that BAKER feels it is a proper area for the committee to investigate if there are hints or signs of such pressure, he is understanding and sympathetic of WEICKER and WEICKER was within his rights to make his statement. Affirms that the issue of pressure will be monitored. KAYE asks BAKER about the meetings he had with the PRESIDENT, as mentioned by DEAN. Asks if the points described by DEAN as an AGENDA for that meeting were raised. BAKER says he has no recollection about being told about SEGRETTI and other matters. Says that NIXON and he talked about only two of the points, BAKER saying he hoped NIXON would waive EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, and NIXON saying he hoped BAKER would help conduct the hearings in a speedy fashion. BAKER says that he does not consider that as PRESSURE, and he is happy that those two objectives of the meeting are being carried out (EXEC. PRIVILEGE/speedy hearings). [00.40.01-MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that the WHITE HOUSE has evidently failed to sway BAKER, and its strategy remains unclear. Notes that two versions of the statement by BUZHARDT, special counsel, were issued, and BUZHARDT is at pains to explain how his statement could not be the official White House position, and if it is not the official position, what is? [00.40.23-LEHRER] LEHRER says that the question "everybody" wants to know is "how is DEAN doing after four days of testimony", introduces "two everybodys", guest commentators, David AUSTERN of Georgetown University law center, and Steven HESS, former NIXON White House aide and fellow at BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. LEHRER asks for assessment of DEAN'S performance and credibility AUSTERN states he thinks DEAN is doing very well, Lawyers are often bad witnesses due to overanalyzing questions, but DEAN is doing well at answering questions promptly, without thinking too much, but he must confess that part of that impression on AUSTERN'S part is that most of the questions have been very easy, and very easy for him to avoid giving sensitive information, and, with the exception of Sen. GURNEY, the Senators and counsels have given DEAN the opportunity to make almost any answer he wants, and are satisfied with almost any kind of answer. LEHRER asks an opinion on Sen. BAKER'S questioning (WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW, WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?) AUSTERN says he thinks Sen. BAKER either incidentally or intentionally bolstered DEAN'S testimony, went over it step by step, and actually had the result of shoring up some of the structural problems with DEAN'S original narrative of events. HESS agrees that DEAN has been cool and a skillful witness, and has done much to lay out a pattern of seamy activity at the WHITE HOUSE, but after all the testimony, there is not much to go on with regard to the central issue of DEAN'S charges against NIXON except for the lone example of direct evidence, the March 13 conversation where DEAN claims NIXON directly discussed the payment of money to the defendants to keep them silent. LEHRER asks about DEAN'S demeanor and manner as a witness as a factor in his credibility AUSTERN says he rates it very highly. DEAN appears spontaneous, and even is able to laugh on occasion, and carries a feeling in his testimony that perhaps he has been the victim of threats and intimidation. So, DEAN comes off well, even though he has made statements about his own actions that are damaging. HESS states that he doesn't rate DEAN so highly in that sense, and that DEAN to him doesn't seem like the kind of man he'd want for a friend or to grill a steak in the backyard, but he does appear cool, has not lost his temper, and it does seem that that DEAN has carried off the key task of not seeming "like a person we should disbelieve". LEHRER states that that is the central question at this moment. [00.45.12-MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that DEAN has made it through his fourth long day of testimony and his story is not seriously challenged. Sen. BAKER has said the central question is "What did the President know, and When did he know it?" The questions of the committee and the questions prepared by BUZHARDT have done little to deter DEAN'S claim that the PRESIDENT "knew a lot, and knew it early." MacNEILL states that one thing that has come up, through Sen. GURNEY'S questioning, is that there is a possibility that DEAN misinterpreted NIXON'S statements to him, although DEAN has been very consistent in his story for all four days. The role that MITCHELL chooses to take, a defender of the PRESIDENT or a corroborator of DEAN, will likely be the deciding factor on the question of NIXON'S guilt or innocence. Signs off. [00.46.31-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"-SPONSOR CREDITS-PBS NETWORK ID]