Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
After Liddy was hired at the reelection committee, I informed my staff, principally Mr. Fred Fielding and Mr. David Wilson, that they should assist Liddy in becoming familiar with the election laws, I made my election law files available to Liddy and believe that he used them and he had periodic contact with my staff and myself on election law matters. I can recall that I had several discussions with Liddy about his responsibilities with the reelection committee in complying with the election laws. He told me that he had more work than there were hours in the day to complete it. I urged him to get volunteer lawyers to assist him and suggested several names of lawyers who might assist him. I can also recall that several weeks after Liddy left the White House he was asked to turn in his White House pass. Liddy came to me and asked me to intervene on his behalf so that he might retain his pass he and avoid the cumbersome procedures of clearance every time that he wished to enter the White House. I thought that my office would have a good deal of contact with Liddy, so I requested that he be permitted to keep his pass. This request was turned down, however, because they had decided to provide a fixed number of passes for the people at the reelection committee and Magruder would decide who got the passes. I so informed Liddy and never heard any more, about the matter.
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:30:25) House Banking Committee Hearings resume at which several officials from the RTC or Resolution Trust Corporation testify
Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on the Intelligence Reform Act
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) in Dirksen Building, Room 6226 at Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on the Intelligence Reform Act of 1981: "Senator Moynihan?" Sen. David Durenberger (R-MN) sitting at dais. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) speaks: "Maybe I could take a tangential course because it seems to me that Mr. Low on behalf of the Newspaper Publishers Association has raised an important point, which is that all these events take place in a larger context, what we do and do not do with our statute. As Sen. Chafee knows, the bill he has introduced is, as he said very generously, virtually the same as the bill a group of us introduced last year, him included. But the administrations have changed and certain attitudes have changed. The public information office has been closed down. And certain kinds of briefing, which I don't think should have been background briefings-- which I think should have been on the record briefings, but I think there's too much of that-- have been stopped. The atmosphere of cooperating with inquiry, I am sorry to have to tell you, is not what it ought to be. Now, for the past two days, as the chairman knows, and I don't want to implicate the chairman in this at all, we have been urgently trying to find out whether or not the Director of the CIA has been involved in activities that would make him unfit to hold this office. We didn't raise it. We didn't call for the resignation of Mr. Hugel. We certainly would never have called for his appointment. But he resigned. And now we have been given the job of looking into this. One member of this committee, sir, on my side has already in effect called for the resignation of Mr. Casey. And we call the White House, and we call the White House, and we call the White House, and nobody answers. I have been here, the administration has been here since January, and never once called the Attorney General. I called the Attorney General and I have called the Attorney General. He does not answer. I do not know whether he is afraid to talk with me or doesn't know who I am or doesn't know what. goes on up here or doesn't think it matters. It damn well does matter. And I am going to speak on the floor later on, and I'm going to say very clearly if this administration wants Mr. Casey to stay in office, they better start answering the phone calls of Mr. Blake and Dr. Shulsky. If they are going to cover up, they are going to lose themselves a Director of CIA right fast. I have not said a word about this until now. I have been absolutely silent. But it is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. They will not answer our phones, as if they don't matter. They will find out that it matters a very great deal what they do to this committee. They should know."
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Representative J. Edward Hutchinson (R -Michigan). Thank you Mister Chairman. I certainly agree with the opening paragraphs of your statement. And I want to compliment you upon a statement in which I m sure you hold strong and firm belief. Although I would disagree with parts of it. I certainly wanted to say that I certainly compliment you upon its opening several paragraphs.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
As I see it, and I state only my personal views, a vote for an article of impeachment means that a member is convinced that the article states an offense for which the President should be removed from office. And that there is evidence which supports the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike criminal juries prudence where there is discretion in the court to make the sentence fit the crime, the Constitution mandates that conviction on impeachment shall carry with it removal from office, nothing less. It seems to me than that in determining in my own mind whether a specific charge states an impeachable offense, I would have to decide whether I thought the offense charged is of sufficient gravity to warrant removal of the President from office because of it. In other words, some offenses may be charged for which there is convincing evidence and still such offenses may not, in the judgment of a member, be so serious as to justify impeachment and removal of the President of the United States from office.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Vote on Article III
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The question now occurs on Article III as amended. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. "Aye." Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). All those opposed? No." Edward Hutchinson (R-Michigan) Mr. Chairman, I demand the ayes and nays. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The call of the roll is demanded and the roll call is ordered and all those in favor of Article III as amended please signify by saying aye when their name is called. Those opposed, no and the clerk will call the roll.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Vote on Article III
Clerk. Mr. Donohue Harold D. Donohue (D Massachusetts). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Brooks. Jack Brooks (D Texas). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Kastenmeier. Robert W. Kastenmeier (D Wisconsin). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Edwards. Don Edwards (D California). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Hungate. William L. Hungate (D Missouri). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Conyers John Conyers (D Michigan). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Eilberg. Joshua Eilberg (D Pennsylvania). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Waldie. Jerome R. Waldie (D California). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). No. Clerk. Mr. Mann. James Mann (D South Carolina). No. Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Seiberling. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Danielson. George Danielson (D California). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Drinan. Robert Drinan (D Massachusetts). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Rangel. Charles Rangel (D New York). Aye. Clerk. Ms. Jordan. Barbara Jordan (D Texas). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Thornton. Ray Thornton (D Arkansas). Aye. Clerk. Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Owens. Wayne Owens (D Utah). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Mezvinsky. Edward Mezvinsky (D Iowa). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson. Edward Hutchinson (R Michigan). No. Clerk. Mr. McClory. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). No. Clerk. Mr. Sandman. Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). No. Clerk. Mr. Railsback. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). No. Clerk. Mr. Wiggins. Charles Wiggins (R California). No. Clerk. Mr. Dennis. David Dennis (R - Indiana). No. Clerk. Mr. Fish. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R New York). No. Clerk. Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R - Iowa). No. Clerk. Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Aye. Clerk. Mr. Butler. Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). No. Clerk. Mr. Cohen. William Cohen (R Maine). No. Clerk. Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). No. Clerk. Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). No. Clerk. Mr. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). No. Clerk. Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). No. Clerk. Mr. Latta. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). No. Clerk. Mr. Rodino. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Aye.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Vote on Article III
Do not use narration. Members seen leaving the chamber.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I am going to call upon the clerk pursuant to the resolution to read Article II. And I would like to state too that the Chair will recognize following that perfecting amendments in order that we procedurally are able to allow members time for debate then on the substitute to be recognized for their 5 minutes in accordance therewith, if they so seek recognition. I would now call upon the clerk to read proposed Article II. The clerk will read. The Clerk. [reading] Article II. In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office and to preserve, and protect and defend William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D Missouri). I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute to Article II of the Donohue resolution. And Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the forbearance of my colleagues once more before the clerk reads, there is a further typo on page 2, sub 3. If they would write that in. It s written in at the desk. "He has," then there, is an insertion, "acting personally and through his subordinates and agents." That is the insertion and then you resume. This is sub 3 on page 2 line 1. It would read, "He has," then you insert "acting personally and through his subordinates and agents," and then it proceeds. The clerk will read it in the proper form I apologize to the members.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The clerk will read the substitute. The Clerk. [reading] Substitute offered by Mr. Hungate. Article II. Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his Constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his Constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more of the following. (1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
The Clerk. [reading] (2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens by directing, or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office. He did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office. And he did direct the concealment, of certain records made of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
The Clerk. [reading] (3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the Constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
The Clerk. [reading] (5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the Executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Charles Wiggins (R California). Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Mr. Wiggins. Charles Wiggins (R California). I make a point of order on the consideration of Article II. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman is recognized on the point of order and will state his point of order. George Danielson (D California). Mr. Chairman, point of order. He has not read it in its entirety as yet. Charles Wiggins (R California). I beg your pardon. I will withhold. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Will the gentleman withhold his point of order? Charles Wiggins (R California). Of course.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). And the clerk will complete the reading of Article II. The Clerk. [reading] In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of Constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Richard M Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Cut Congressional Committee Budgets
Speaker of the House, U.S. House Representative Thomas "Tip" O'Neill (D-MA) recognizes Rep. James Collins (R-TX) for 60 minutes. Rep. Collins begins remarks on Cutting Staff Budget with the problem of inflation hurting many Americans, who attribute the problem to Congress, believing it simply spends too much money. Americans are looking for government to reduce spending, and Congress will have to go through agencies to find ways to reduce budgets. Collins believes Congress should set an example by looking inward to cut unnecessary positions and spending within staff. He references data gathered from 1972-1979, when the nation's spending doubled, and Congressional committees continually expanded, more than doubling. Rep. Collins clarifies his reference to investigative staff, not the basic, or statutory staff. Expenditures went from $14 million to $96 million.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Senator MONTOYA. What kind of work or consultation transpired when Mr. Colson would visit the particular offices. And on how many occasions did he visit? Mr. ODLE. I don't remember seeing Mr. Colson at the committee sir. Senator MONTOYA. Well, are you aware that anyone was in touch with him at the white house, at any time? Mr. ODLE. Yes sir, people at out committee met with him. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever see Mr. Howard Hunt, in that particular building? Mr. ODLE. Sir I've never seen Mr. Howard Hunt to this day. Senator MONTOYA. Are you aware that he was in touch with any individuals in the building or employees of the committee? Mr. ODLE. I never heard his name even until after June 17. Senator MONTOYA. How long did you keep Mr. McCord on the payroll after the Watergate bugging? Mr. ODLE. About 1 minute (courtroom laughs, funny) Senator MONTOYA. How were you employed to go to the CRP? Mr. ODLE. I was asked by Mr. Magruder. Senator MONTOYA. What were you doing at that time? Mr. ODLE. I was a staff assistant at the White House. Senator MONTOYA. And where are you now employed? Mr. ODLE. I'm a consultant at the committee. Senator MONTOYA. Where you employed in any other position after the election? Mr. ODLE. Yes, from May 1 until May 7 I was a consultant at the Department of Agriculture. Senator MONTOYA. Who recommended you for this job? Mr. ODLE. Um, people at the white house. Senator MONTOYA. Who specifically? Mr. ODLE. I'm not exactly certain who initiated the call over there. I suspect the white house personnel office which is, which would have done it. Senator MONTOYA. Did you receive any communications tapes or any other memoranda, (Mr. Odle looks to his right, and scratches his face) which were taken as a result of the bugging of Watergate and the democratic national committee? Mr. ODLE. Never. Senator MONTOYA. Were you aware that any of this might of been stored in the building over which you were the administrator? Mr. ODLE. No sir, I was not. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever discuss with Sally Harmony any of the memos which she typed for Mr. Liddy related directly from the wire taps? Mr. ODLE. No sir, I did not, and have not. Senator MONTOYA. Now, you mentioned a few minutes ago that there was communications between the CRP and the Republican national committee. Mr. ODLE. Yes sir there was co-operation and communication. Senator MONTOYA. What kind of liaison went on between the two committees? Mr. ODLE. Well sir, I would say for example, that the people in our political division would work with the people in the RNC's (republican national committee) field operations division. The people in our press office would work with people in their communications office, that sort of thing. I worked with the administrative guy there. Senator MONTOYA. Did you have people going back and forth between the two? Mr. ODLE. Back and forth between payrolls, or visiting? Senator MONTOYA. No, no not on payrolls, communication between peoples. Did you have people going back and forth between the Republican national committee and the CRP? Mr. ODLE. Yes. Senator MONTOYA. And how close were you to each other? Mr. ODLE. They were here on capitol hill, and we're at 17th and Pennsylvania.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.14.00-WEICKER continues to question DEAN about the WHITE HOUSE'S desire for intelligence] And then you give several examples relative to Mr. Garment and to Mr. Kissinger. Now, on the bottom of page 13. you reefer to another incident that occurred. [READING] It was not until almost a year or more later that I learned the reason for Mardian's trip to set, the President. Mr. Mardian later told me in a social conversation that he had gone to see the President to get instructions regarding the disposition of wiretap logs that related to newsmen and White House staffers Who were suspected of leaking, These logs had been in possession of Mr. William Sullivan, an Assistant Director of the FBI, and were, per Mr. Mardian's instructions from the President, given to Ehrlichman. I had occasion to raise a question about these logs with Ehrlichman during the fall of 1972, and he flatly denied to me that he had the logs. I did not tell him at that time I had been told by Mardian that he had the logs. About February 22nd or 23rd of this year, Time Magazine notified the White House it was going to print a story that the White House had undertaken wiretaps of newsmen and White House staff and requested a response. The White House Press Office notified me of this inquiry. I called Mr. Mark Felt at the FBI to ask him first, what the facts were, and secondly, how such a story could leak. Mr. Felt told me that it was true, that Mr. Sullivan knew all the facts and that he had no idea how it leaked. I then called Mr. Sullivan and requested that he drop by my office, which he did. He explained that after much haggling, that the wiretaps were installed, but as I recall, Mr. Sullivan said they did not have the blessing of Director Hoover. Mr. Sullivan explained to me that all but one set of the logs had been destroyed and all the internal FBI records relating to the wiretaps except one set, had been destroyed and all the material had been delivered to Mr. Mardian. After Mr. Sullivan departed, I called Mr. Mitchell who told me he also had an inquiry from Time Magazine and denied to Time Magazine any knowledge of the matter. I did not Press him further as to what he did know. I then called Mr. Ehrlichman and told him about the forthcoming story In Time Magazine. I told him of my conversations with Felt. Sullivan and Mitchell. I also told him I knew he had the logs because Mr. Mardian had told me. This time he admitted they were in his; safe. I asked him how Mr. Ziegler should handle it, He said Mr. Ziegler should flatly deny it--period. I thanked him, called Mr. Ziegler and so advised him. [END QUOTED SECTION] [00.16.14] [00.16.14-WEICKER asks questions about the WHITE HOUSE'S access to information from the FBI and other agencies] Now, Mr. Dean. this sets the general framework as to the areas of my inquiry this afternoon. The first question that arises is that during the course of questioning by this committee, Mr. McCord stated that he went to the Internal Security Division and obtained from a Mr. John -Martin and Mr. Joel Lisker information which he brought back to the Committee To Re-Elect the President and disseminated among the various members of the Committee To Re-Elect. My first question to you is based upon the visit which he made shortly after Mr. McCord's testimony to the internal Security Division and in talks which he had with Mr. Martin, and Mr. Kevin Moroney, and it relates to the, fact of whether or not You know who authorized the release Of this information 'by Messrs. Martin and Lisker at the Internal Security Division. Mr. DEAN. Senator, I have only a general awareness of this area, and to the best of my recollection, and I don't know, I don't recall who told me this, but there -was an arrangement that was worked out by Mr. Mardian before he departed the Department, of Justice to join the reelection committee. Senator WEICKER. In other words, the arrangement Of information from the Internal Security Division to McCord was authorized by Mardian. This never came to your attention as being authorized by anybody in the White House? Mr. DEAN. I don't recall that it did. My office did have dealings, as I have said. with the Internal Security Division. I don't recall specifically this subject coming up. I recall subsequent conversations in which Mr. Mardian told me that he had made an arrangement of some sort after it was initially arrived at. Senator WEICKER. But, of course, at this moment Mr. Mardian is over at the Committee To Re-Elect the President and 'Mr. Olson is at the head of the Internal Security Division. Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator WEICKER. Did your office have any dealings, with Mr. Olson? Mr. DEAN. No--well, I had dealings with him but they were on departmental matters where the practice had evolved that, when the department was going to release in a major case electronically obtained evidence under a court order they would notify the White House of this procedure. Senator WEICKER. Could you amplify on that? I am not, so sure I understand. Mr. DEAN. Well. when a major case -was going on and a defendant would call for whether or not there was any electronic surveillance of His conversations at any time and the Government made a decision to release this information if it was a very political or sensitive case, this matter would be brought to the attention of the White House and Mr. Olson would generally inform me that he was going to do this. [00.20.00]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
To the best of my recollection, it was the spring of 1971 that Mr. Haldeman discussed with me what my office should do during the forthcoming campaign year. He told me that we should take maximum advantage of the President's incumbency and the focus of everyone in the White House should be on reelecting the President. It was decided that the principal area of concern for my office should be keeping the White House in compliance with the election laws and improving our intelligence regarding demonstrations. I was also told that I should provide legal assistance in establishing the reelection committee and insuring that they had their own capacity to deal with the potential threats of demonstrations during the campaign and particularly security at the convention. I advised Haldeman that Jack Caulfield was developing security plan and that he wanted to discuss his plan with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ehrlichman. I also told him I would seek to get the Interagency Evaluation Committee working on the potential for demonstrations during the campaign and subsequently called Mr. Bernie Wells, the head of the IEC, to my office and told him of the concern of the White House for good intelligence during the coming campaign.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.02.00--NPACT letters on black screen--image of page with SENATE RESOLUTION 60--Robert MacNEILL v.o. reading text of resolution--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"--MacNEILL in studio] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD OF RIGHTS SECTION*** MacNEILL states that the day's hearings ended with new insight into the motivations of men who were willing to disregard the law to carry out the campaign out of loyalty to NIXON. States that viewers will see the unusual spectacle of a man admitting that he voluntarily committed perjury, for which he could still be indicted, as part of the Watergate Coverup. This man was Herbert PORTER, of the Committee to Re-Elect, who paid out some of the funds to Gordon LIDDY. MacNEILL states that his testimony raised a major theme of the hearings, how to ensure the morality of campaigns. [00.03.32--Jim LEHRER] LEHRER states that the fallout from Watergate continues to reach outside the hearings. Clarence KELLY, Kansas City police chief, was nominated to head the FBI, after the previous nominee, Patrick GRAY, was forced to quit because of his handling of the Watergate INVESTIGATION. States that the FBI will continue to be led by acting Attorney General William RUCKELSHAUS until KELLY can be confirmed by the senate, with the BUREAU being without permanent leadership since the death of J. EDGAR HOOVER over a year before. [MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that in the courts, the deposition of former WHITE HOUSE Chief of Staff H.R. HALDEMAN was made public, containing some surprises. HALEDMAN'S deposition stated that White House Counsel John DEAN was never asked formally to investigate WHITE HOUSE involvement in Watergate, and never submitted a report on it [contradiction of the White House's public statements on the matter] MacNEILL states that HALDEMAN'S deposition claims that DEAN did not talk to NIXON about the Watergate matter directly until 1973, confirming DEAN'S statement of surprise in 1972 upon hearing that NIXON had publicly claimed that DEAN was investigating the matter. The deposition also stated that HALDEMAN had control of a $350,000 fund for polling during the campaign. The deposition was part of the Civil litigation by the DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE against the COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT, and was over 200 pages long. [LEHRER] LERHER states that, as viewers will see, Jeb Stuart MAGRUDER is now at the center of the scandal, as the days testimony places MAGRUDER in a central postion in the COVERUP, with Hugh SLOAN giving more damaging testimony, and another former CRP staffer Herb PORTER adding more incrimination of MAGRUDER. SLOAN'S testimony concerning MAGRUDER'S efforts to get SLOAN to lie about the amount of money given to Gordon LIDDY, and PORTER'S story concering MAGRUDER asking PORTER to lie to the FBI, a GRAND JURY, and a trial court, with PORTER going along with the plan because he trusted MAGRUDER personally and in his position of second in command to John MITCHELL in the COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT. [00.05.53--shot of PORTER testifying] PORTER recounts MAGRUDER asking PORTER to corroborate to the FBI a false statement previously made by MAGRUDER about expenditures to LIDDY and others, and continuing to corroborate the PERJURY for the GRAND JURY and the TRIAL of the Watergate defendants. [00.06.52--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that PORTER would later describe his motivations in going along with the COVERUP, and that his admission of PERJURY before a national audience was a dramatic moment of the hearings thus far. [00.07.04] .
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) recognizes Ernest Asckenasy and Mark Weiss' opportunity to supplement their testimony and Weiss thanks the committee staff and the New York Police Department for their assistance.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.15.10-The WHITE HOUSE questions posed to DEAN attempt to cast doubt on DEAN'S recollection of the facts] Senator INOUYE. Are, you suggesting that your testimony was primarily based upon press accounts? Mr. DEAN. No sir, I am saying that I used the press accounts as one of the means to trigger my recollection of what had occurred during given periods of time. Senator INOUYE. Am I to gather from this that you had great faith in the reporting in the press?' Mr. DEAN. No. I am saying what was happening is that sequentially many times White House activities related to a response to a given press activity. I did not have the benefit, in fact the statement might even be more detailed. Senator, if I had had the benefit of all the Ziegler briefings where some questions came up very specifically In press briefings as to given events at that time, but I didn't have the benefit of those. [00.16.07-DEAN brags a bit ] Senator INOUYE. In addition to your press clipping, the logs, what other sources did you use in the process of reconstruction? Mr. DEAN-. Well. Senator. I think I have a good memory. I think that anyone who recalls my student years knew that I -Was very fast at recalling information, retaining information. I was the type of student who didn't have to work very hard in school because I do ha have a memory that I think is good. Senator INOUYE. Have you always had--- Mr. DEAN. I Miry-lit also add this: That I did have the opportunity to go through my daily chronological files which was another part of the process. Plus While, I was at Camp David I had sent for some files In preparation of the report I was writing up there so I did have some documentary materials, many of which have been submitted to the committee. Some of the exhibits that the committee has and from these I was very easy able, to put in time sequence various specifics. [00.17.27-the White House questions get more specific, trying to portray DEAN'S description of conversations with NIXON as ambiguous] Senator INOUYE. The next question, have you always had a facility for recalling the details of conversation which took place many months ago? Mr. DEAN. I didn't hear you. Senator. Senator INOUYE. Have You always had a facility for recalling the details of conversations which took place many months ago? [00.17.44-DEAN anticipates the gist of the question] Mr. DEAN. Well, I would like to start with the President of the United States. It was not a regular activity for me to me to go in and visit with the President. For most Americans it is not a regular activity to go in and visit with the President. For most of the members of the White House staff it is not a daily activity. When you meet with the President of the United States, it is a very momentous occasion, and you tend to remember what the President of the United 'States says when you have a conversation with him. With regard to others, some of the things, for example, the "deep six" conversation and shredding of documents -was so vivid in my memory because of the circumstance that had occurred that it was very indelibly put in my mind. Going back even while I was at the Justice Department seeking the information on Mary Jo Kopechne, that is the sort of thing that would stick in a, person's mind because of the sort of the nature, of the sensitivity of the information being sought. So I would say I have an ability to recall not specific words necessarily but certainly the tenor of a conversation and the gist of a conversation. I would like to give, another example.. I remember I reeferred at one point in one of the meetings I had with the President after he had, after Mr. Gray had, made the statement about, that he had jolly well proceeded with the investigation at the White House despite the fact that Mr. Dean had been sitting in on the investigations I remember vividly when the President mimicked Mr. Gray in saying this and saying it, was absurd. That sort, of thing is very easy to remember and sticks very clearly in one's mind. [00.19.48-The WHITE HOUSE questions get to the point] Senator INOUYE. Then why is it, Mr. Dean, that you were not able to recall precisely the account of the meeting of September 15, very likely the most important meeting in the year 1972? Mr. DEAN. Well, I think I have recalled that meeting. Senator INOUYE. If I recall, in your colloquy with Senator Gurney your response was "I had an impression." Mr. DEAN. Well, we were talking about the one line out of the first part of the, meeting. I would recall to the Senator that after I had had the conversation, after I was--I sat down, and the President -told me that "Bob had said that you had done a good job," and then I turned on the fact of--I said that I could not take responsibility for this alone myself, I remember a sequence of events in the conversation ending up with something when we were discussing a book I -was reading and I remember very vividly the book I was reading at the time we discussed it. Senator INOUYE. Is it your testimony that you cannot recall precisely what the President said to you? Mr. DEAN. You mean, can I repeat the very words he used? Senator INOUYE. Yes. Mr. DEAN. I cannot repeat, the very words he used, no, sir. As I explained to Senator Gurney, my mind is not a tape recorder but it certainly receives the message that is being given. [00.21.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.08.50-Sen. INOUYE introduces the questions from the WHITE HOUSE, which he will pose to DEAN.] Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. before proceeding I would like to advise the committee that we have had a bit of confusion here. Statements attributed to the press office of the White House indicated last evening that the memo which I presented to the committee might not been an official document of the White House, However about 15 minutes ago I had a, Personal chat with -Mr. Fred Buzhardt, I believe, is that the Way you pronounce his name? Mr. DEAN. Buzhardt. Senator INOUYE. Buzhardt, and he indicated to me that these questions -were in fact prepared by his office. and he was desirous that I Would use them in my interrogation of you, sir. Mr. Dean, before, proceeding may I ask one question. We have been advised that these questions have appeared in the -New York Times, have you seen those questions? TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. DEAN III--Resumed Mr. DEAN. No, I have not. Senator INOUYE. With that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to now proceed With the questions which were prepared by the of the Counsel to the President of the United States. Fred J. Buzhardt. Mr. SHAFFER. Mr. Inouye, I would like to advise the committee that I have seen the New, York Times this morning, that, I didn't see the questions. I looked at some photographs in the Times, and that I haven't discussed the, contents of the Times -with my client and I would like to make that statement in behalf of Mr. McCandless, and if you would like to put us under oath we, are both willing to be sworn. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I don't, think that is necessary, sir. [00.10.20--ERVIN humor] Senator ERVIN. You know, my experience around Washington is that if several people get hold of 'a document, that the thing will more than likely appear in the morning paper-if not be telecast that night. [Laughter.] I think that the protection of information around Washington is about as much as the protection which a sieve affords to the passage of water. You may proceed. [00.11.01] Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dean, you quote the President as saying on February 27 that Haldeman and Ehrlichman were principals' in the Watergate matter and that therefore you could be more objective. What did you understand by this? Mr. DEAN. Frankly, Senator, I never understood what the President was saying when he said that, they were principals. Before he said that he told me that the involvement of their time in dealing -with Watergate matters was taking them away from their other duties and then he also added to me that they were principals in this matter and, therefore, that he thought I could be very objective in it, and that was what subsequently prompted me the next day later to make sure he understood that I felt I was also a principal. [00.11.56] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, did you have any evidence then or now that Mr. Ehrlichman had prior knowledge of the break-in? Mr. DEAN. That he had prior knowledge? Senator INOUYE. Yes, sir. Mr. DEAN. NO, I did not or I do not know. Senator INOUYE. The second question: Mr. Dean, if the President was referring to the post-June 17 events were, you not equally a "principal" as you claim to have indicated to the President, on September 15 Mr. DEAN. Well, as I just mentioned in answering the last question when the President raised this it stuck in my mind, and I returned the next day and after thinking about what he had said, and told him that I also felt I was a principal and that he should understand that. And then began to explain to him why I felt I was involved in obstruction of justice and he assured--he said "You don't have any legal problem in this matter," and the discussion was terminated. [00.13.00-the WHITE HOUSE questions try to cast doubt on DEAN'S power of recollection in making his statement] Senator INOUYE. Your 245-page statement is remarkable for the detail with which it recounts events and conversations occurring over a period of many months. It is particularly remarkable in view of the fact that you indicated that it was prepared without benefit of notes or daily diary. Would you describe what documents were available to you in addition to those which have been identified as exhibits Mr. DEAN. What I did in preparing this statement, I had kept a newspaper clipping file from roughly June 17 up until about the time these hearings started when I stopped doing any clipping with any regularity. It was by going through every single article. Outlining what had happened and then placing myself in what I had done in a given sequence Of time, I was aware of all of the principal activities I had been involved in, the dealings I had had with others in relationship to these activities. Many times things were in response to press activities or press stories that would result, in further activities. I had a good memory of most, of the highlights of things that had occurred, and it, was through this process, and being extremely careful in MY recollection, particularly of the meetings with the President. Before I did leave the White House while I was initially, well, I was ultimately denied access to the logs: I called the man who was in charge Of keeping the logs and asked him if he could give me a list, of all my meetings with the President. He did so on an informal basis before, he realized that--when I sent a formal asking for more information and a formal confirmation. then they denied me that information when I sent the formal memorandum. [00.15.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.19.02] [***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION CONCERNING COMMENTARY FOOTAGE***] LEHRER states that the uneven operation of the new campaign finance laws with respect to reporting and disclosure have led some critics to call for an end to private financing and the start of Government bankrolling of campaigns to end corruption and ensure fairness. Introduces an interview of Senator BAKER by reporter Peter KAYE. [cut BAKER with KAYE] KAYE asks if there is more of a case now for Federal election financing after the revelations of the days hearings BAKER says he is still opposed, very strongly, feeling that introducing the Federal bureaucracy would be exchanging one evil for another, but he would be against having the Ervin Committee recommend such a move. [MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that before the committee can grapple with making a recommendation on Campaign reform, it must cover the factual ground of the coverup, leading to the point when the Committee will have to decide if the evidence implicates President Nixon in illegal activities. There is a growing argument about the Ervin Committee hearings, with one side claiming that airing so much hearsay evidence will prejudice the trials of other indicted conspirators in the Watergate affair, and Senator ERVIN on the other claiming that it is more important to get the facts to the public even at risk of jeopardizing the criminal courts' ability to indict and convict conspirators. Notes that Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox renewed his failed effort of the day before to get the Ervin hearings postponed, with a request to have the testimony of men like DEAN and MAGRUDER heard in executive session by the committee. MacNEILL states that there is another debate, about the effect of NIXON to govern, and that the committee should proceed to the witnesses closes to the President so that a fast conclusion about NIXON'S involvement in illegal activities can be reached. States that the committee rejects this argument, saying that it is necessary to have a careful and deliberate examination of lower-level witnesses to allow for proper examination of the larger figures in the Watergate affair. States that a number of politicians are getting impatient, among them Congressman McCLOSKEY, stating that an impeachment should be initiated, Senator FULBRIGHT, calling for both NIXON and VP AGNEW to resign (Agnew would be forced to split soon enough, as it turned out), Senator GRIFFIN of Michigan, a Republican, demanding disclosure of the facts by NIXON. MacNEILL states that NIXON seems determined to organize his new staff at the White House to "ride out the storm". States that it is reminiscent of the final act of a Shakespearean tragedy in which "forces are rising against the king on all sides" etc., etc.. However, reminds that the final scene is some time away, and it's not clear that it will become a tragedy. [00.22.36--MacNEILL signs off--title screen 'SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"--PBS ID] [00.23.14--TAPE OUT]