Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.35.42-DEAN responds to Sen. GURNEY'S request to clarify that DEAN'S prior dealings with ERVIN, WEICKER, GURNEY were unrelated to WATERGATE] Mr. DEAN. That, I have a vague recollection of because I was not the principal actor in that. The meeting I recall was during the same set of hearings when you were going to appear on either Face the Nation or Meet the Press or one of the national television shows and I was instructed to provide you with briefing material for you and your staff to go over in preparation for that appearance. Senator GURNEY. There was a discussion? Mr. DEAN. Yes, I brought Mr. Fielding up with me and we had a very cordial, brief meeting. Mr. Fielding, I understand, had some subsequent meetings with you and your staff, and prepared you for that briefing session on national television. Senator GURNEY. That was the discussion with Senator Tunney, as I recall it on the whole matter of executive privilege that came up during the Kleindienst hearings; is that correct? Mr. DEAN. I think that is correct. It definitely had to do with the Kleindienst hearings, Yes. Senator GURNEY. Thank you. [00.36.44] Senator ERVIN. Senator, I would like to state, that my impression of this matter that referred to the allegation Mr. Haldeman had called down to North Carolina about me had reference to the time I was fighting the impoundment of funds and had no reference whatever to this committee. I was very sorry it was brought out here. I never attributed and my under any importance to it, and it didn't bother me at all, my understanding is that it had no relation whatsoever to my service on the Senate Select Committee but was,, Mr. Haldeman was, kind of distressed because I was taking a very strong stand with respect to the President's power under the Constitution to impound funds. I think that is what it was. If he did anything, I think that this is what provoked him, and -not my service on this committee and I just think in fairness to everybody that I would state that. [00.37.42-Sen. WEICKER offers a HISTORY LESSON] Senator WEICKER. Mr. Chairman, I just have one further question along the lines of the precedents cited by the chairman and the vice chairman and that appears in Carl Sandburg's book on Abraham Lincoln, "The War Years," where he writes: [00.38.06] [READING] Yet the talk of -a -Southern woman spy in the White House arrived at the point where Senate members of the committee on the conduct of the war had Set a secret morning session for -attention to the reports that Mrs. Lincoln was a Disloyalist, so the story goes, though vaguely authenticated. One member of the committee told of what happened. "We had just been called to order by the chairman when the officer stationed at the committee room door came In with a half-frightened expression on his face. Before he had opportunity to make explanation we understood the reason for his excitement, and were ourselves almost overwhelmed with astonishment for at the foot of the. committee table stood solitary, his hat in his hands, his form towering, Abraham Lincoln stood, Had he come by some incantation thus of a sudden appearing before us unannounced we could not have been more astounded. There was almost unhuman sadness in the eyes, and above all an indescribable sense of his complete isolation which the committee felt had to do with a fundamental sense of the apparition. No one spoke, for no one knew what to say. The President had not been asked to come before the committee nor was it suspected that he had information that we were to investigate reports which if true, fastened treason upon his family in the White House. At last the mourning corpus spoke slowly with control, although depth of sorrow in the voice ; I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, appear of my own volition before this committee of the Senate, to say that I, of my own knowledge know that it is untrue that any of my family hold treasonable communication with the enemy." Having attested this he went away as silent and solitary as he had come. We sat for some moments speechless and, by tacit agreement, no word being spoken, the committee dropped all consideration of the rumors that the wife of the President was betraying the Union, we were so greatly affected that the committee adjourned for the day. [00.40.19]
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Hart and Huston discuss the White House's desire to use the military as a domestic intelligence gathering tool
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.48.16] Senator ERVIN. Mr. Haldeman was Chief of Staff in the White House? Mr. REISNER. That is correct. In fairness to the nature of what we, were doing there, we were working for the President who was the candidate and, therefore, we were providing him the, opportunity I , if he wished, or if Mr. Haldeman wished to see any documents that were taking place in his campaign. Senator ERVIN. Do you know whether anyone on the Committee To Re-Elect the President ever received any communications from Mr. Haldeman? Mr. Reisner Yes, sir; I would imagine that a number of people--to be precise--Mr. Haldeman had working for him a man named Mr. Gordon Strachan. It was my impression that Mr. Strachan communicated frequently with many members in the committee. Mr. Haldeman himself may have communicated directly with other senior staff members. 1 do not imagine that it was frequent. Senator ERVIN. Would it be proper to describe Mr. Strachan. 's activities as something in the nature of liaison between the Committee To Re-Elect the President and Mr. Haldeman? Mr. REISNER. Yes,sir. Senator ERVIN. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Magruder since June 17? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir; I have on a number of occasions. You mean Conversations related to the concerns of your committee? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. Reisner I have subsequent to June 17, there took place a' conversation in which I asked Mr, Magruder about some of the things which I have described previously. I think I asked him by my Of raising some suspicion, just what was going on, and I think I asked him on that occasion what Gemstone was, because I did not know what Gemstone was, and he indicated to me that he did not know what Gemstone was either. Now, at that time I was asking him are we involved in thi's thing, are we connected to this thing, because it looks a little suspicious, and he indicated to me that we were not. There was another conversation in which Mr. Magruder, I had volunteered to be helpful to another member of the committee and it would have, I think, involved me getting involved in subsequent activities, and he indicated to me that I should not. Senator ERVIN. Now, in Your conversation with Mr. -Magruder in Which You asked Mr. Magruder what the Gemstone file meant or was-- did that occur after he had called from California and asked That it, be removed from the. committee headquarters over the weekend? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir; the conversation I am describing took place in his office.. I think he may have initiated it; by calling me. into his office and saying you know, how are things going or something like that. Senator ERVIN. After that, he told you he did not know what, the Gemstone file was? Mr. REISNER. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. He told you and Mr. Odle the night when be called from California that, it was very sensitive, did he. not,? Mr. REISNER. Yes, he did. Senator ERVIN. Please remove it, from the office over the weekend? Mr. Reisner Yes, he did. Senator ERVIN. How many times did Mr. Magruder Meet with John Mitchell before John Mitchell became the, campaign director? Mr. REISNER. Prior to 'March 1, 1 can only Speak of the times between November and March when I knew Mr. Magruder. He met with him several times a week, I would say, on the, average. That, is indicated in the notebook that by have described and Vicki Chern kept. Senator ERVIN. And that was while Mr. Mitchell was still Attorney General and had offices in the Justice Department? Mr. REISNER. Yes, Sir; he went down to meet -Mr. Mitchell, that, is right. Senator ERVIN. 'Now, how many times did Mr, 'Magruder meet with Mr. Mitchell after Mr. Mitchell resigned, ceased to be Attorney General and took up offices in the headquarters of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? MI REISNER. I Would say 'Mr. Magruder perhaps early in March, when Mr. Mitchell also was concerned with the hearings concerning ITT, it may not have had this frequency, but certainly with the exception of those days it was my impression that Mr. -Magruder met with Mr. Mitchell every day. Senator ERVIN. When was your first conversation With Mr. Magruder on June 19 1972? Mr. Reisner On June 19, 1972? That was on the Monday morning When Mr. Magruder returned' from California. I believe I just saw him when he came in and did not have an opportunity to talk to him, Senator ERVIN. Did -Mr. -Magruder have meetings from time to time with members of the White House staff? MR. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. How frequently? Mr. REISNER. I -would say that. I would say that be, met, with different members of the White House staff who were concerned with different aspects of the campaign practically every day, certainly as the campaign he heated up and became more active he did, but that could have, that would have to be verified in the calendar, I cannot Speak precisely. Senator ERVIN. Where did the meetings take place" Mr. REISNER. It depended on the individual. If it Was a Senior member of the White House staff I Would say that it probably took place at the White House or in the Executive Office Building. if it was a member, more junior member of the staff, it probably took place in our office. [00.54.02]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.37.00-GURNEY forces DEAN to again defend his professional ethics, part of a strategy to discredit DEAN to defend the WHITE HOUSE] Senator GURNEY. Were these papers in connection with your venture? Mr. DEAN. Yes, they were. Senator GURNEY. Not The law firm--- Mr. DEAN. No. There were standard forms that were used on virtually every application for filling out various, forms of the application and I was as preparing my own, my rights, and Mr. Fellows and some of these aspects of it. I also had some papers on--there is an outfit that does incorporations--FM I believe is the name, of it--where -you just pay the fee, and they do all the incorporating work. It is nothing you do yourself. I think there were some papers related to that in there. When these were discovered, I -was called into the office the next morning when I came in. I remember there -was a Very serious snowstorm that night, and I was late coming in. When I came in, I was asked to come into one of the senior partner's office. He asked me to explain what I -was doing. I had learned, I had seen that my desk had been rifled the night, before and I was quite annoyed by it, so I decided I would say nothing. I said, I have nothing to say about this. There, then ensued--he said, -well, if you are not going to tell me anything about this, you, are fired, I said, I am not fired, because I have already resigned. He said. you can't, resign, because I have already fired you. So that was the session. Later, one of the other associates said, John, you had better go back and talk this over with him, I did. I thought the matter was resolved. The, next, I heard about it was when the civil service did an examination and there -was a comment in that examination that I had been dismissed for unethical conduct. At that time, I asked one of the lawyers that had been at the law firm if he would look into it, because I said I am prepared to take this to the Ethics Committee, if necessary. He looked into it, the person who had made the comment, that it was an unethical charge, retracted the comment, and the Matter was left at that. Senator GURNEY,. When did the matter occur in the civil service files? Was that in connection with your employment at the House Judiciary Committee? Mr. DEAN. "No. it -was after I left the House Judiciary Committee. As the Senator knows, the House, does not run civil service examinations staff. Senator GURNEY. Was it in connection with your employment at the Justice Department? Mr. DEAN. No, sir; it was not. While I was with the House Judiciary Committee, I developed legislation that created the National Commission on Reform of Criminal Laws. Senator GURNEY. I am talking now about the civil service information Mr. DEAN. I am explaining Senator. I was asked to go on the staff as the Associate Director of that Commission. It was at that time, when I was joining that staff, that this matter arose. Senator GURNEY. And regardless of the ethics involved, and I do understand your contention and the letter you read was that it was not an ethical matter. Mr. DEAN. It was not unethical to me; no, sir. [00.40.12-GURNEY wants to hammer this point home, regardless of how redundant] Senator GURNEY. But as far as your termination of employment with the law firm, I do understand that you were discharged; is that right? Mr. DEAN. I would say it -was a rather heated discharge as a matter of my unwillingness to discuss the matter with the person who was a senior partner in the organization. Senator GURNEY. Now, to get back to the break-in ,it the, Watergate, as I recall your testimony, there really wasn't anything in Watergate or much of anything in the activities surrounding the Committee, To Re-Elect the President from that February 4 meeting until the Watergate break-in. And I understand you got back from the Philippine Islands on the 18th and then returned here to Washington and went in your office on the 19th. Is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct, Senator. [00.41.09-GURNEY wants to make DEAN seem intensely involved in WATERGATE by the inferences of his questioning-the "BLAME IT ON DEAN" strategy that would come to be favored by the White House] Senator GURNEY. Then, as I recall, you said that you had received phone calls that day and talked to a number of people-Caulfield, Magruder, Ehrlichman, Strachan, Colson, Sloan, and you later called Liddy and Kleindienst Why all these calls if you weren't that closely associated with what they were doing over there in the political field? Mr. DEAN. Well, Senator, I would say that my office,, -was one that, one, I did have some dealings with the reelection committee, I did know all the parties involved. My office normally was asked to investigate or look into any problem that, came up of that nature. When any wrongdoing was charged--an administration office, for example, when the grain deal came, up--and I think as the Senator will recall, during the ITT matter, my office had some peripheral involvement in that. [00.42.15] And I believe we had some dealings with your office on that matter. [00.42.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.02.00--in to Maurice STANS testifying about receiving campaign contributions] Mr. STANS......the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June, which was 6 days after the Watergate affair. I received a phone call from Fred LaRue, saying,, "Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg?" And I said, "I certainly do." He said, his contribution ended up in a bank account of one of the fellows who was arrested. I said, Dahlberg didn't make a contribution." He said, "Well, it is his check." So he came down and we discussed it and concluded that, in Some Manner or other, Dahlberg's cheek must have reached the bank account of Bernard Barker. We called Dahlberg and discussed It with him, got him to Washington on that same day. mot with him, and he met with LaRue and I think with Mardian,. and got all the facts of the transaction in hand. It, was clear that neither Dahlberg nor I nor Hugh Sloan had anything to do with the checks, that check or the Mexican checks, entering the, Barker bank account. They could only have gotten there through the bands of our general counsel, Gordon Liddy, who had. taken them into his custody, Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, I am going to skip along, I don't want to encroach on the committee. At one time did you approve Or consent to giving Mr. Fred LaRue $80,000? Mr. STANS. I did. Would you like to know the background of that? Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. When was that? Mr. STANS. The same day of June 23, Mr. Sloan had balanced out his cash account, something which I had asked him to do as early as April 10 but which he couldn't do because he was waiting for the return of the proceeds of the various checks we were discussing. He showed a balance of $81,000 of cash on hand and expressed some concern about it because he was going on vacation and under the tense situation that was building up he didn't want to hold the cash in his custody. We discussed it and concluded that the funds were of a nature which did not classify them as funds of the current committees, that they were more properly funds of earlier committees, that they were not part of what we had to account, for in an audit by the General Accounting Office, and that we should get legal advice. [00.07.15]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.09.05] Senator BAKER. I might depart from the letter to say that the chairman and I have indicated to Mr. Brown that we would be happy to have this letter as Part Of the record, his statement as part of the record. If he still wished to testify, of course, we would provide him that opportunity. [01.09.21] Mr. DEAN. Mr. Vice Chairman, I -wonder if I might comment on something? I think that in my testimony, I have explained that often, What was happening at the White House was one motive. The person On the, other end wasn't always aware of that motive. and I don't mean to impute to other people the fact that one person had one desire, the motive to the other person who was doing a normal, what they was as helpful thing to the White House in a general election year and not understanding the implications of all the facts and circumstances. Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Dean. I am. aware of that situation, and what I would really like to do is read this letter now so that before you conclude your testimony and make your closing statement, if you choose to do that you would have an opportunity to comment on that as well. To continue with the letter, the second paragraph: Before I had an opportunity to get the letter off to you, I was pleased to be contacted by a member of your committee's majority staff who indicated an interest in talking with me relative to the allegations set forth and involving me in Dean's statement. I met with your Mr. Dorsen and Mr. Parr and believe that this conference was mutually beneficial. I thank you for providing me with this opportunity to at least apprise your committee staff of my position relative to Dean's charges. Although I think I have satisfied your Committee staff members that Dean had no factual justification to link the House. Banking and Currency Committee action with what he has testified were White House coverup activities, his irresponsible or false statements with respect thereto have caused me and other members of the Banking and Currency Committee grave harm. Without equivocation , I can state it was not known to me, nor to any other member of the Committee to my knowledge, that our opposition to the granting of subpoena power to Chairman Patman was in any way, nor could be claimed to be, in any way, a part of the coverup about which Mr. Dean is testifying. I, personally, vehemently deny the truth of Mr. Dean's statement that my letter of September 8, 1972 to the Attorney General was in fact, drafted by Parkinson for Congressman Brown.' This is an untrue statement, the letter having been dictated by me and having contained my work product. [01.11.43] Although I am preparing a chronological statement of my whole participation in the successful effort to deny Chairman Patman subpoena power in October of last year, the mere filing of such a statement with your Committee and even the giving of the same to the media will not counteract and repudiate the publicity given to Mr. Dean's testimony, I, therefore, respectfully request and insist that I be given an opportunity to appear before your Committee and respond to the allegations made by Mr. Dean. The granting of this request, Mr. Chairman, is the least your Committee should do, It seems to me, to attempt to correct The unwarranted and unjustified damage that has been done. Your prompt and favorable response to this request will be greatly appreciated. Signed GARRY BROWN. Congress. [01.12.32] Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate this letter has been accepted for the record and is being read now for the, -record at the request of Congressman Brown. Mr. DEAN-. Yes and I might just say--- Senator BAKER. Mr. Dean, I wanted to read it now in an abundance of fairness both to Congressman Brown 'and to you, so you can make any further comment, Now, on the question, on the request., that Mr. Brown makes, as stated earlier, the chairman and I have discussed this matter and clearly if Mr. Brown wants to testify as a Member of Congress he, is entitled to do that but by the same, token, we Understand that he is submitting a sworn statement as an addendum to this letter and I would propose, Mr. Chairman, that we take under advisement the matter of whether any further testimony should be, received or not. [01.13.21] Mr. DEAN-. I might just, add on, -with regard to Mr. Brown, Congressman Brown's letter, this is in the area of hearsay, of course, that I had heard that the letter by Mr. Parkinson was, Mr. Parkinson assisted Mr. Brown in Preparing the letter for the Attorney General, [01.13.41]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (1/2)
[00.02.00-DEAN identifying documents related to the ENEMIES LIST] Mr. DEAN.----prepared by a member of Mr. Colson's staff and forwarded to my office as a part of this general list, Senator ERVIN. That would be June 24, what year? Mr. DEAN. That is 1971. Senator ERVIN. Thank you. Mr. DASH. Could I have the documents back, Mr. Dean ? [00.02.16-ERVIN HUMOR!!!] Senator ERVIN. I can't forbear observing when I consider the list of opponents why the Democratic vote was so light in the general election. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Yes, Sir. Senator BAKER. I really even in my wildest dreams 'would not think of trying to improve or embellish on your story but you told it better the first time -when -you leaned over to' me and you said "I think I am going to demand a recount," when you said "There are more enemies than we got votes." [Laughter.] Senator ERVIN. Senator Inouye. [00.03.07-INOUYE is going to confront DEAN with a memo prepared by the White House, which puts forth a strategy of "BLAME IT ALL ON DEAN"] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, the charges contained in Mr. Dean's testimony are extremely serious with potentially grave consequences. The President of the United States has been implicated, and because of the. gravity of these charges, I believe that the witness, Mr. John Dean, should be subjected by this committee to the most intense interrogation to test his credibility. It -would appear to me, that a most appropriate credibility test would be one prepared by the White House and as you, Mr. Chairman know, the White House has prepared a memorandum and a set of questions for use by this committee. These questions should serve as a substitute, admittedly not the very best, but a substitute for cross-examination of Mr. Dean by the President of the United States. Accordingly, I believe that it -would be most appropriate to use these questions and to use the memorandum, and I am certain that all of us here -will agree that, the President is entitled to his day in court. So with that in mind I wish to proceed, sir. [00.04.28] I have here a letter dated June 27, 1973, from the White House, Washington. It reads as follows: Dear Senator Inouye: We have noted your public expression of your willingness to use questions and a memorandum, previously furnished to the committee staff, in questioning Mr. Dean. We have today forwarded more up-to-date questioning to both the majority counsel and minority counsel for the committee. However, in view of your interest in this material, we thought it would be appropriate -to -send these questions directly to you. There is also enclosed herewith a slightly revised draft and updated version of the memorandum previously furnished to the committee staff. Sincerely, J. Fred Buzhardt, Special Counsel to the President, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this letter be made part of the record, sir. Senator ERVIN. Without objection, it is so ordered. The letter will be marked with the, appropriate exhibit number. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I also request that the memo and the questions previously furnished to staff be, made part of the record at this point, sir. Senator ERVIN. I would suggest that, the memo, which is sort, of an expanded version of the White House logs, should be followed by this is a memorandum of counsel explaining the position of counsel in substance,. Senator INOUYE. Yes. Senator ERVIN. If there is no objection, it will be marked as an exhibit. [00.06.04-INOUYE proceeds with the memo-it is harsh toward DEAN, painting him as the major culprit of PLANNING as well as COVERUP of WATERGATE] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I will now proceed with the memo which was received this morning from the White House. It goes as follows: [READING WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM-the "BLAME IT ALL ON DEAN" DEFENSE] It is a matter of record that John Dean knew of and participated in the planning that went into the break-in at Watergate, though the extent of his knowledge of that specific operation or of his approval of the, plan ultimately adopted have, not yet been established There, is no reason to doubt, however, that John Dean was the principal actor in the Watergate cover-up, and that while other motivations may have played a part, he had a great interest in covering up for himself. pre-June 17: Dean came to the White House from Justice from a background of working on problems of demonstrations and intelligence. Among those working under him at the White House were Tom Huston and Caulfield. Dean was involved in discussions in 1971 about the Sandwedge plan Caulfield proposed. Ehrlichman was told that the original authors of the $1 million plan were Dean and Liddy. [END OF QUOTED SECTION FROM W.H. MEMORANDUM] [00.07.12]
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
Acoustics expert Ernest Aschkenasy returns to witness table, rejoining Mark Weiss. U.S. House Representative Floyd Fithian (D-IN) brings up earlier committee review of photographs that show suspicious characters and objects around the grassy knoll, Chief Counsel Professor, Robert Blakey, jumps in and says that these photographs had been discounted by committee panels as inconclusive. He then asks for Exhibit 155 to be displayed.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.07.16] Senator ERVIN. Well, on July 4 Mr. LaRue obtained from you the $40,000 which you had taken from the committee safes and put in the trunk at, your home. Mr. SLOAN. That, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Stans gave the. $40,000 that he, had assumed custody of to Mr. LaRue, Mr. SLOAN. That, is what he indicated to Me when I checked on the propriety of having turned that money over to Mr. LaRue. [00.07.44] Senator ERVIN. That same day or same evening Mr. 'Magruder called you and asked you to come to the Black Horse Tavern. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And you went, to the Black Horse Tavern and Mr. Magruder suggested to you that you and he go down and talk to the U.S. District Attorney Titus, Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Senator ERVIN. And he wanted you to tell Mr. Titus that, you had given only approximately $40,000 to Mr. Liddy. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. -Now, had you told Mr. Magruder ruder or did you tell him in this conversation that the amounts you had given to Mr. Liddy was $199,000 or thereabouts? Mr. SLOAN. I don't believe I did on that occasion. The next morning, I knew he. knew that that was not a correct figure, which he himself had authorized a figure in the magnitude of $83,000. Senator ERVIN. You told him you Would talk to him the next day about it. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.08.40] Senator ERVIN, You did talk to him the next day and you told him if you went down to see District Attorney Titus dial, you wore going to make a disclosure of the truth in respect to the amounts you gave to Mr. Liddy. Mr. SLOAN, Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Magruder pursued the subject no further. Mr. SLOAN. That is correct). Senator ERVIN. On the evening of July 6, you met with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson and Mr. Paul O'Brien, Counsel for the Committee To ]Re-Elect the President. Mr. SLOAN. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. And they suggested that, they were afraid you would be called before the grand jury very soon and it would be well for your health, and the committee's health, and somebody's health for you to take a trip to California. Mr. SLOAN-. Senator, I think I expressed the concern about the grand jury. I said I was trying to get information as to what I was Supposed to do. My personnel themselves had been subpenaed that same day and in response to my concerns, they had not talked to me prior to that that point. I reviewed the entire financial disbursements to these key individuals with them. They were shocked by that. They indicated they had been lied to and requested of myself to consider a trip to give them time to confront the officials which they indicated to me had lied to them and they did not identify the officials. Senator ERVIN. Then that night after you got I home you got a from Fred LaRue who urged you to go to California. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, that is right. As a matter of fact, he urged to leave the house that evening. Senator ERVIN. Did he give you any reason why he thought that you ought to go to California? Mr. SLOAN. I just do not recall, Senator. It certainly was in the context, I think, of the grand jury appearance that--- Senator ERVIN. Did anybody, did Mr. LaRue, or anybody else about that time tell you that it would be well for you to be out of town a few days so they could get some stories arranged or anything like that? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. No reason whatever was given for it being desirable for you going to California. Mr. SLOAN. The reason was they wished time to confront the officials at the committee. My information was new to them. They wanted to confront the committee officials who presumably had given them different information than I had. Senator ERVIN. Now, you did go to California for several days and when you came back I believe it was Friday, the 13th of July. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.11.22] Senator ERVIN. That is an unlucky day, I have always heard. At that time Mr. Fred LaRue met you at the Watergate restaurant and advised you that you ought, to either commit perjury or take the fifth amendment if you went before the grand jury. Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I don't think he advised me to commit perjury, I think the emphasis in that conversation was he was implying to me that I had campaign law problems and that I should very well consider the option of taking the fifth amendment. It was at that point that I told him of the decisions I had already made and I told him in saying I would not consider the fifth amendment. I would also not consider perjury, I had every intention of telling the truth as I knew it. Senator ERVIN. Had he made any suggestion to you at that time or prior to that time that you ought to minimize in your testimony before the grand jury the amount that you had given to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Not in relation to any particular proceedings but very early in the first week he had suggested to me that the, amount,, and I did not have a precise figure, but I knew the general magnitude, would be very politically sensitive and damaging and there was L need to come in with a lesser figure. Senator ERVIN. Anyway, you drew the inference that Mr. LaRue thought and expressed the thoughts at the meeting at the Watergate restaurant that the only alternatives open for you, as he saw it, was either to minimize the amount that you had given 'Mr. Liddy or to plead the fifth amendment? Mr. SLOAN. By the time of the Watergate meeting, the luncheon, I do not know if we were at that point, even talking the Liddy figure, any longer. I think he was talking about the fifth amendment, to deny, any information on this subject, period. [00.13.19]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.54.21-DASH continues interrogating MITCHELL about efforts to pay off the DEFENDANTS-for a man at the center of the alleged activities, MITCHELL professes to know very little...] Mr. DASH. How did you hear about the March request? Mr. MITCHELL. The March request? I think I probably heard about it through Mr. LaRue, if my memory serves me right. Mr. DASH. Do you know how much money was tactually being requested at that time? Mr. MITCHELL. I can't really, tell you about the moneys across this period of time. It seems to me that the March request had some amount in the, area of $75,000 which Mr. LaRue described to me that was being requested by counsel for their legal fees in connection with the representation of Mr. Hunt. Mr. DASH. Did Mr. LaRue ask you what your opinion was or whether he should pay that amount of money to Mr. Hunt or his counsel? [00.55.14] Mr. MITCHELL. 'Mr. LaRue, to the best, of my recollection. Put it this context; I have got this request, I have talked to John Dean over at the White House, they are not In the money business any more, what, would you do if you were in my shoes and knowing that he made Prior payments? I said, if I were you. I would continue and I would make the payment. Mr. DASH. And in that advice to Mr. LaRue. I take it, was the consideration that unless that payment was made, Mr. Hunt might in fact, might uncover the so-called White House horror stories, [00.55.48-MITCHELL again tries to play dumb] Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dash, I don't know how you can move from the fact, that Mr. LaRue told me that it was for legal fees to the point Where we are uncovering the White House horror stories. It may be there. I don't know. Mr. DASH. Didn't that enter your mind, the pressure from Mr. Hunt, the fact that, you indicated there were requests and former pressures for money, to the----- Mr. MITCHELL. I don't think, Mr. Dash, that in March of 1973. those things Were entering my mind, because I think as you are well aware from other testimony, I had refused to even consider raising money for these purposes a long time before that. Mr. DASH. But YOU are aware that there Was a sum of money available for that at the White House, were you not? Mr. MITCHELL. I was aware that there had been one at one time. but I didn't know how far they had gotten into that particular fund. Mr. DASH. Was this the $350,000 had come over from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President to the White House---- Mr. MITCHELL. That is the only fund I was aware of, yes. [00.56.55] Mr. DASH. Why Mr. Mitchell, did you refuse around that time to raise any money for the payment of these fees? Mr. MITCHELL. Well. not only around that, time, but all other times I have, never raised any money for anything and I was not about to start for that particular purpose. Mr. DASH. Did you ever make any suggestions that the money that should be used for that purpose was the $350,000? Mr. MITCHELL. -No, to the best Of my recollection, I had -a conversation With Mr. LaRue, I am sure at his instance, not mine, In which he Pointed out that the funds, whatever source they were, that he had for the support of and the, payment of lawyers' fees of these, individuals, had run out, did I know whether there was any other money? And I suggested that maybe you ought to call over to the White House and see if the $350,000 that had had been sitting over there since April was available for the purpose. I understand that he did so. [00.57.56] Mr. DASH. Do you recall attending a meeting in with Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. Dean in which you asked Kalmbach to help raise money for these legal fees and support of families? That occurred in January 1973. Mr. MITCHELL. In January 1973. Since, our conversation of yesterday Mr. Dash, I have continued to rack my brain and I have no recollection of that. I know that there Was a meeting on that day, January 19, a foundation meeting over here in Blair House, in which both Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. Dean were there. But I have no recollection of any meeting beyond that. [00.58.41] Mr. DASH. -NOW, did you become also aware of Mr. McCord's demands and were you in touch -with Mr. Dean concerning Mr. Caulfield's approach to Mr. McCord? Mr. MITCHELL. Somewhere through the middle, of it, because I -was in Florida for sometime, I think the 20th of December through the 8th or 9th of January, while a lot of this Was occurring. Mr. DASH. What role did you play? What did you learn?, Mr. MITCHELL. I learned that Mr. Dean had Mr. Caulfield contacting Mr. McCord and talking to Mr. McCord. Mr. DASH. About what? Do you know about what? Mr. MITCHELL. About what, Mr. McCord's attitude -was concerning the predicament that he was in and what he was going to do. [00.59.29]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.46.20] Senator ERVIN. But did the checks for the Mexican banks totaling $89,000 come into the committee offices? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, they did. Senator ERVIN. They came into the committee offices, in the form of checks, did they not? Mr. SLOAN. Cashier's checks, both. Senator ERVIN,. Cashier's checks from the Mexico City Bank? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, Senator ERVIN. When did those funds reach the committee office? Mr. SLOAN. On the evening of April 5. Senator ERVIN. How did they get there? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Roy Winchester brought them to my office, that evening. Senator ERVIN, Who is Mr. Winchester? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Winchester, I believe, is the vice president of the Pennzoil Corp. Senator ERVIN. I wish you would look at these documents that are marked "Government Exhibit 112C," "Government Exhibit 112D," "Government Exhibit 112B," and "Government Exhibit 112A" and see if you can identify them. Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, I believe these tire. accurate copies of the checks I handled. Senator ERVIN. Let those be marked, numbered as exhibits and received as such. Senator ERVIN. Did Mr. Winchester bring any other cash along with those checks? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, he came in with a briefcase that, to the best of my recollection, in terms of checks, cash, including, these cashier's checks, totaled somewhere in the, neighborhood of $700,000. Senator ERVIN, Do you know, where. he carried that cash and those checks from? Mr. SLOAN. My understanding was that these were a result of fund-raising effort in the Southwest Senator ERVIN. In Texas? Mr. SLOAN. I know Texas, but whether it was just restricted to Texas, I am not sure. senator ERVIN. You do not know from your own knowledge, of course, whether they came from fund raising or whether they came from correspondence? Mr. SLOAN. As I recall, all the checks were individual checks. The cash funds--I might explain. 'There was a listing in the briefcase, the total amount which equaled the, total amount in the briefcase, Individual names were associated -with each of those items. Senator ERVIN. Were am- checks brought at that time in addition to these four Mexican checks? Mr. SLOAN. Oh, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. I thought that the rest Was in cash Wits I mistaken in that? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I think a large proportion of it Was in personal checks from contributors. Senator ERVIN. I would like to hand you a check that purports to be drawn on the First, Bank and Trust, Co. of Boca Raton, a cashier's check, to the order of Kenneth H. Dahlberg. I hand that to you and ask if you can identify that? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that, appears to be accurate. Senator ERVIN. When did that check reach the office of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. I did not know when Secretary Stans received it. I believe he turned it over to me sometime in the week following April 7. Senator ERVIN. This cheek was not dated, this cashier's check was not dated until April 10, 1972, 3 days after the new law went into effect. Mr. SLOAN. Secretary Stans in giving that, check to me, told me it, represented pre-April 7 funds. Senator ERVIN. The committee proceeded upon the advice of Mr. Liddy to the, effect that, if somebody promised them money before April 7, or they had agreed to make a disbursement before April 7, that that did not have to be reported--is that, so' Mr. SLOAN. I believe that, is correct, Senator. Senator ERVIN. NOW, what happened to these four Mexican checks? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, excuse me. In response to that other question, presumably Mr. Liddy gave his advice to Secretary Stans. He did not specifically give that advice to me. It, was represented that way to me by Secretary Stans. Senator ERVIN. In other words., Mr. Stans told you that Mr. Dahlberg's check had been received somewhere under some circumstances by somebody before April 7, and, therefore, even. though it had not reached the committee or any person authorized to receive funds on behalf of the committee, that it, was received before April 7? Mr. SLOAN, My understanding riders was that Mr. Kenneth Dahlberg, Who was an authorized representative of the committee, had received it from Mr. Dwayne Andreas. As to the exact circumstance of that arrangement I do not know, Senator ERVIN,. Were not the four -Mexican. checks and the Dahlberg check deposited in a bank in Miami, Fla. Mr. SLOAN. That is what I understood happened to them, Senator. It, -was certainly not Under my instructions. [00.52.16]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
In the late afternoon of March 21st, Haldeman and Ehrlichman and I had a second meeting with the President. Before entering this meeting I had a brief discussion in the President's outer office of the Executive Office Building suite with Haldeman in which I told him that we had two options. One is that this thing goes all the way and deals with both the pre-activities and the post-activities. Or the second alternative, if the coverup was to proceed we would have to draw the wagons in a circle around the White House and the White House protect itself. I told Haldeman that it had been the White House's assistance to the Re-election Committee that had gotten us into much of this problem and now the only hope would be to protect ourselves from further involvement.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.25.34] Mr. Sloan, do you know Lee Nunn? Mr. SLOAN. Yes. Senator ERVIN. What position did he have with respect to the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. He. was vice chairman of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. Senator ERVIN. Did he give you any advice as to what you should do in respect to testifying about any' of the matters that are being investigated? Mr. SLOAN. He personally never suggested anything to me except to tell the truth. He relayed to me a telephone conversation, the fact that an individual whom he refused to name to me from the political committee upstairs had come to his office with the suggestion use Mr. Nunn's friendship with me to pressure me to take the amendment. I understood him to undertake that conversation with me on the basis of friendship. He told me essentially to tell the gentleman, whoever he was, that he would in no way advise whoever was in my position to take orders in this situation to take the fifth amendment. He just conveyed the fact, he wanted me to know that there Were pressures, external pressures, that might well be brought to bear on me and hurt my testimony as the case developed. Senator ERVIN. The only identification he gave to you about that certain person who had called him was that it was an official. of the Committee To Re-Elect, the President? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I bad the distinct impression that it staff member of the political committee. Senator ERVIN. Yes; but he. told you that he was conveying the, message to you, but that he would advise, you to tell the truth? Mr. SLOAN. No; he was not conveying that that individual's request to me. He told the gentleman that he would in no way ever advise me to take that course of action. He called me just to let me know the fact that someone had approached him with that kind of request. It was purely to inform me, to alert me, that pressures might be brought to bear on me over a period of time. Senator ERVIN. Well, I still repeat what, I said earlier in my interrogation of you; I think you have strengthened my faith in the old adage that, an honest man is the noblest work of God. [00.28.05--classic ERVIN] I will also meditate for a, moment, on the old saying, "What a tangled web we, weave when first we practice to deceive.," That is all. Senator Gurney. Senator GURNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have certainly been very full in your information to the committee, Mr. Sloan. I think you have covered about all that you know about it. There are one or two little loose ends I would like to clean up this afternoon, myself. On the interrogation Just recently by the chairman, let us go back to that Mexican-Dahlberg transaction. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. When did you give the checks, to Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Essentially what happened here, Senator, 'the four Mexican checks had come in the night of April 5'. They were drawn on a foreign bank. I had no knowledge of whether they were even legal or whether they could be accepted 'into the campaign. We were so busy in that period of time, I essentially set aside anything that was a problem area, to get through this transition period. Probably sometime during that following week, I addressed myself to the problem areas It. was in this case clear by the dates and the checks that they had been issued prior to April 7. Senator GURNEY. I must say I am really not interested in retracing ground we, covered before. I' am just curious about the date you gave them to Mr. Liddy. Mr. SLOAN. I would 'think it was probably sometime in the week following April 7--probably within a 10-day period. Senator GURNEY. And he said he would take, care of cashing them. Mr. SLOAN. If I could correct that, Senator, thinking of the Dahlberg check that, I gave to him immediately after I received it, from Secretary Stans, I would say I probably gave it to him within a day or two after the 7th. Senator GURNEY. Now, then, you have testified that he returned the cash to you when? Mr. SLOAN. My best recollection was in the two installments, probably separated by a week or two in mid-May. [00.30.20] Senator GURNEY. And how much was involved, in cash? Mr. SLOAN. What went out was $114,000, I think. It, came back $25,000 short, Senator GURNEY Did you ever inquire in that. intervening time-I think nearly a month went by--what happened to the money? After all, he was simply to cash these checks and bring back the money, Was he not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, I did question him on that. He said, "I have given them to people in different places- in the country and it takes a while; I will get them back as soon as I can. Senator GURNEY. Did he ever explain the brokerage fee of $2,500? Mr. SLOAN. I asked him that question, Senator. He indicated that there were expenses involved. He never gave me a detailed breakdown, At that point in time, it was an accomplished fact. I essentially broke it off, but I believe I told Secretary Stans of the fact that it had been short, by that amount. [00.31.16]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (1/2)
[00.41.18-Sen. INOUYE continues to interrogate DEAN] Senator INOUYE. Were you surprised when you heard of the. June 17 break-in ? Mr. DEAN. Was I surprised ? Senator INOUYE. Yes. Mr. DEAN. As I told you, my immediate reaction was, after hearing the facts, that it was something that Mr. Colson had been involved in. I was more appalled than surprised. Senator INOUYE. Talking about the first time you heard of the break-in on the 17th, were you surprised? Mr. DEAN-. As I say, I learned it through a conversation that I had on the telephone with my assistant on the 18th, when I called after landing in San Francisco, his persuading me, to come back. When I first heard of -it, [00.42.02] I can't say I was surprised to hear it, knowing what I 'knew had occurred in the White House in the past. Senator INOUYE. You had anticipated something like this? [00.42.14] Mr. DEAN. I hadn't anticipated anything like this, no. I can't. say I anticipated it, but I can't say I was surprised to hear of it, because I was aware, of the fact that there had been a past effort, to accomplish a burglary on the Brookings Institute and I had also heard of the Ellsberg psychiatrist break-in by that time. Senator INOUYE. You were not surprised because you were an author of the plan? Mr. DEAN. No, sir; that was not my immediate reaction. I didn't think the plan had been approved Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "In February, however, with the Ervin committee beginning its work, the President was again. concerned that all of the available facts be made known. In the middle of February 1973, Dean and Richard Moore met with Ehrlichman and Haldeman -it San Clemente. Dean was assigned to reduce "to written form all of the detailed facts as they related both to the Committee To Re-Elect and the White House.'" This is from Mr. Ehrlichman. [00.43.20-DEAN disputes being ordered to make a written report of Watergate] Mr. DEAN. I received no such instruction when I was at La Costa to prepare, any written report and have no knowledge of ever being given such an instruction. Senator INOUYE., This is also substantiated by Mr. Moore. Mr. DEAN. I have, no knowledge of that, There, was, as I say, an earlier effort in December to prepare such a report, and I have, submitted that document to the committee. If there were discussions of Preparing a written report, it was of the ilk of a report that was prepared in the December period, which I, for lack of a better term, call a fairy tale. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "Dean was pressed continually for or that statement, particularly by Haldeman, but never produced it." Mr. DEAN. Well as I say, I recall, the only time I recall Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman pushing me and pressing me for a statement is when I -was up at Camp David and not in that time frame. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "At this point, the Gray confirmation hearings were imminent and the Ervin hearings were on the horizon. The President, who had barely known Dean, determined that counsel to the President was the appropriate person with whom to work in formulating the President's position on executive privilege and similar legal issues in that these hearings in news conferences on March 2 and 15, at which they would arise, would present. Between February 27 and April 16, the President met with Dean and usually others, 21 or 22 times and there were 14 telephone conversations between March 10 and April 22." Mr. DEAN. Senator, I will stand on my testimony with regard to those last few paragraphs you have read. [00.45.18] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "It is probable that Dean helped induce the views on attorney- client privilege and on separation of powers that would have immunized Dean himself from having to testify under oath." Mr. DEAN. I -will comment on that to the effect that Mr.--or the President and I when we discussed the Dean appearance, I told him that if I go up there, I am going to testify. There is no way to go up. We had had countless occasions when the executive privilege, issue had come up before, there was a parallel developing between the Gray hearings and the, ITT hearings where Mr. Flanigan made an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was quite evident. In my discussions with the President he made, it clear to me he did not want Mr. Ehrlichman or Haldeman to appear and I told him the strongest case for executive privilege would rest on the counsel to the President and we did discuss that. [00.46.23]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). That is correct. Even though the IEC itself did not engage in any illegal activities, do you consider the matters which you have spoken of whether it be an FBI investigation of an individual or an IRS audit, do you consider that to be legal and proper actions by those security arms? John Dean. As I say, I don't know of the IEC itself preparing political material. I do, of course, know and as I have submitted in documents, other agencies were involved in seeking politically embarrassing information on individuals who were thought to be enemies of the White House. I might also add that in my possession is a rather, very much down the lines of what you are talking about, is a memorandum that was requested by me to prepare a means to attack the enemies of the White House. There was also maintained what was called an enemies list which was rather extensive and continually being updated. Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). I am not going to ask who was on it. I m afraid you might answer. I wonder, are these documents in the possession of the committee? John Dean. No, but I would be happy to submit them to the committee. They didn't fit within the request that I had with counsel as to the documents he wished to have produced, but if the committee does wish them, I will be happy to submit them. Samuel Dash, attorney. Mr. Chairman I think the committee would like very much to have a copy of that memorandum. John Dean. All right, sir. Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Television and the White House
Wide view of moderator, press secretaries, and correspondents on stage; audience of Caucasian males and females in FG; Edward Morgan thinks it is ironic in an age of instant communication there is still a "lack of penetration". Morgan states time is coming to a close and opines that there is a "built-in tension between government and the press that will continue and is a good thing in an open society". When a non-partisan expert like George Gallup sees new lows regarding trust in the government and government officials, there need to be more discussions like this one. Morgan thanks everyone and turns the proceeding back to John Cannon, President of the Academy's Forum Committee. Cannon gives final credits and signs off.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.29.30-ERVIN with gavel] AFTERNOON SESSION-, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1978 Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Senator Gurney, you may resume your examination. Senator GURNEY. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DEAN. Senator Gurney. I wonder before -we proceed. counsel has a, couple of exhibits that were in my folder this morning that we did not get to, to insert and there was I request made by the committee yesterday and at, this time he would like to insert them Into the record. Senator GURNEY. Yes, pursuant to request. Mr. McCANDLESS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman and 'Senator Gurney. I think it was Senator Weicker who requested yesterday the Sullivan memorandum. I have that. There is another memorandum here marked confidential we would like to turn over to the committee without description, unless the chairman or counsel would like Mr. Dean to read it, but at this time we would like to turn these over. I also understand that there may be some confusion about some part of a list that has been left out of the opposition list. All we can say is that last night, as -we were looking for the files to respond to this committee's request, that list was hastily assembled. We hope that it came here all intact. We had no other reason to think otherwise. If we could have a Xerox copy back of the list, we would then be able, to ascertain whether everything was in it or not. Senator ERVIN. There are two documents, I wish that Mr. Dean would search his files and see if he has copies of them. One is what is called a decision memorandum which bears the letterhead: White House, Washington, July 15, 1970; and the other--- Mr. McCANDLESS. Would you repeat that? Senator ERVIN. Decision memorandum, the White House, Washington, July 15, 1970, and the subject, is "Domestic Intelligence." And the other is organization and organizations of the, interagency group on domestic intelligence and internal security, IAG. These were two documents that were printed in the "New York Times and the Washington Post, but were not in the documents that Mr. Dean turned over to Judge Sirica and Judge Sirica turned over to the committee. Mr. DEAN. Senator, to the best of my knowledge, I do not have those, documents, but I will check and I probably will have, to go to my White House files to ascertain if they are located in those files. Mr. McCANDLESS. If the, committee can give any help to Mr. Dean in respect to Senator Gurney's request on the financial records that are still in the EOB or as to the, rest -of Mr. Dean's files, it would be helpful because. he does have some problem in getting in there and copying those. Senator ERIN. Yes. You might let Mr. Dean identify the so-called Sullivan memorandum, and then we will mark it. Mr. DEAN. It is a memorandum, there are several memorandums with the envelopes in which I received them. They are typed by Mr. Sullivan as Mr. Sullivan told me he had typed them. One is a, memorandum re President Johnson, "Politics and the FBI." The other one is headed top secret with preface, and then the first line is he indicates he will make a general statement relative to the FBI and politics in various administrations. And then on subsequent pages he sets those circumstances out. There is also a note to me from Mr. Sullivan in -Which he indicates the contents are self -explanatory, and asks me to take recognition and tolerance to his own poor typing. Then, there is another letter I received from him classified secret, re. Watergate, and in which he indicates in light of the recent hearings it, could be that specific probing of the Watergate affair may turn out to be more troublesome than anticipated and indicates, he would be willing to testify on behalf of the administration and draw a clear contrast between this administration and past administrations with reference to information that he had in his possession and knowledge [00.35.02]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). When did you transfer from the Justice Department to the White House? John Dean. July Of 1970. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). And when did Mr. Tom Huston transfer from the Justice Department to the White House? John Dean. I don't believe he was at the Justice Department to the best of my knowledge. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Was he at the White House when you arrived there? John Dean. Yes.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator Sam ERVIN. Senator Inouye. Senator INOUYE (D-Hawaii). Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kehrli, according to that chart Mr. Ehrlichman is presently the chief of the domestic section .... Mr. KEHRLI. Domestic Council, yes sir. Senator INOUYE. And Mr. Haldeman is chief of the White House operation, Mr. Dean the counselor. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator INOUYE. At this moment? Mr. KEHRLI. No. Senator INOUYE. You have the date May the .... (MS committee seated at table) Mr. KEHRLI. Oh I see, yes sir that's right. They are still on the payroll through the 19th, which is this Sunday and that was based on an agreement that was made, in terms of trying to make sure that they had enough time to wind down their responsibilities on the White House staff. And that was determined it was a reasonable amount of time to allow a man with their responsibilities to phase out, get other people who were taking over their responsibilities briefed on what those responsibilities were and up to speed before they left. Senator INOUYE. Following up on the matter of scheduling, you've indicated that Mr. Haldeman had the final say as to who saw the President, am I correct in that? Mr. KEHRLI. Now, on occasion he would not have the final say, he would cover it with the President. Senator INOUYE. Did this extent to telephone calls also? Mr. KEHRLI. No it did not. Mr. Chapin handled the telephone calls as I remember. Senator INOUYE. Is it possible for an United States Senator to call the President and speak to him directly? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't know, I'm not that familiar with that set up. Senator INOUYE. Your chart indicates that Mr. Colson was a liaison with outside groups. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator INOUYE. Would you describe outside groups? Mr. KEHRLI. Veterans groups, Labor groups, groups of that nature. Senator INOUYE. Are you aware of his activities with groups that have been mentioned in the press, that you have not mentioned? Mr. KEHRLI. For instance? Senator INOUYE. It has been suggested that he has been involved in dirty trick activities. Mr. KEHRLI. No, I'm not aware of any dirty tricks. Senator INOUYE. Do you know who Mr. Colson reported to? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Colson reported to Mr. Haldeman for administrative purposes and on most of the things that he did, he also reported to the President on occasion. And I really can't give you a percentage breakdown on what percent he reported directly to the president, what percent he reported to Mr. Haldeman. I imagine on some occasions he may have reported to Mr. Ehrlichman, again this is something that only he knows.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Mr. Fred THOMPSON (Chief Council). Mr. Kehrli if you'd like to be seated I think, perhaps that would be better. Mr. Kehrli, I'd like to ask you a few questions about Mr. John Dean, council to the President. According to your chart, Mr. Dean is immediately responsible to Mr. Haldeman, is that correct? Mr. KEHRLI. That's correct. Mr. THOMPSON. And according to the chart he would not have direct access to the President as Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Kissinger, and these other men who you've named would. Mr. KEHRLI. I should elaborate on that point, as I said depending on the various issues or projects that these people were working on, they would have different chains of command. On some issues John Dean may have had direct access to the President. Mr. THOMPSON. Sure. Could you categorize Mr. Deans duties for us, what types of problems or situations would normally arise that would draw his attention that would require his work? Mr. KEHRLI. Basically, he was responsible for seeing that anything that the President sent out in terms of an official document or proclamation, executive order, a thing of this nature, was correct legally. He also was an advisor to the President on Legal matters, things like executive privilege. He also dealt with conflict of interest (CU Mr. Thompson clearing throat) in terms of bringing people on the staff, and that was his responsibility. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you say that his primary responsibility would be for providing Legal opinions and approving legal documents, there at the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes I would. Mr. THOMPSON. Notice you have here Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld as Counselors to the President. And I assume we can draw a strict distinction between the Council to the President, Mr. Dean and Counselors to the President, Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes, Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld as counselors to the President performed a role that included them being spokesmen, it included a number of special projects. They didn't have any set substantive responsabilities, but were free to move in any area the President may determine. Mr. THOMPSON. You mentioned the area of executive privilege a minute ago, would Mr. Dean aid the President in formulating his legal position on executive privilege? Mr. KEHRLI. He would advise him on it, yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, the President made a statement on March the second (March 2nd) pertaining to executive privilege when he stated that White House aids would not come down to testify before a committee normally, and another statement on March the fifteenth (March 15th) of this year when he stated that Mr. Dean specifically had what might be refered to as a double privilege. Do you know wether or not Mr. Dean had any input with regard to the President's legal position on those two statements? Mr. KEHRLI. I can't say that for a fact.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
[00.02.00-Sen. WEICKER begins questioning with a statement that points out that the WHITE HOUSE has shown little regard for protecting the reputation of the parties involved in WATERGATE, even though it accuses DEAN of making wild charges to save himself] Senator WEICKER. 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: "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. And this, Mr. Chairman, done in the document sent by the White House to this committee. [00.03.20] 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. [00.04.20-Sen. WEICKER goes into a long list of the "gross" acts on the part of the White House and the Executive Branch] 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. [00.06.00-Sen. WEICKER goes into a description of the White House's disregard for the CONSTITUTION] 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. [00.06.42] 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, and I would like to go ahead and read just very short portions from some, of those memorandums. [00.07.13]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.54.02] Senator ERVIN. What senior members of the White House staff would Mr. Magruder meet with at the White House? Mr. REISNER. Here, to be precise, he did not meet that frequently. He probably talked On the. phone more with senior members of the White House staff. I think that he met with virtually all of the senior members of the White House staff that were concerned with either political activities of one kind or another or the campaign. Senator ERVIN. And who would those senior members be? Mr. Reisner That would have been Mr. Colson, Mr. Dent, Mr. Ehrlichman, perhaps later, after the campaign got going and the platform was important, Mr. Haldeman, perhaps. All of these men, Of course, were extremely busy. When Mr. Magruder went over there I was not certain whether in fact he had been able to see them or not. There were others. Senator ERVIN. Which members of the White House staff came down to the committee headquarters of the Committee To Re-Elect the President to see Mr. Magruder? Mr. Reisner It would have depended upon the subject of the meetings If the meeting concerned something that one of them was directly involved in--Mr. Timmons was the man who oversaw the convention. He would have come probably to the committee offices and met with Mr. Magruder and other people concerned with the convention. I would say that the more senior the member of the White House staff the less likely he would have had time to come to the committee and, therefore, they would have come less frequently. Senator ERVIN. Did Mr. Dean ever come to the Committee To Re-Elect the President and consult Mr. Magruder? Mr. Reisner Yes, he did, and he did not come that frequently, he came on several occasions that I saw him there. Senator ERVIN. Did you receive any instructions from Magruder about the shredding of documents after June 17, 1972? Mr. Reisner Well, yes, sir. I received instructions that related to documents that were later destroyed. What I received were instructions to look through the files and to try to centralize documents that were sensitive politically. The purpose-the instruction was not, 0 find political things and shred them, the instruction was "Go find the sensitive political documents that we have in our files and bring them to me." And that is what I did. Some of these were subsequently destroyed, because they appeared in his outbox and were marked "destroy" and others I didn't see again. Senator ERVIN. What was the general nature of them? Mr. Reisner Virtually anything--well, I think Mr. Magruder's secretary and I looked through his own files. I think other people On the committee did similar things and virtually anything that concerned the opposition, contenders, that sort of thing, that would have been awkward or politically damaging to-well, no, even broader than that. Anything that would have concerned the opposition. Senator ERVIN. As I understand one of the files that you gave to Mr. Odle at the time that Mr. Magruder called from California was a file relating to the seven opposing contenders? Mr. REISNER. I believe it was, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, that, was done on candidates for the Democratic nomination ? Mr. REISNER. To be specific, I gave Mr. Odle two files, one that was contained inside another. One file was the file that has become known as the Gemstone file, and I don't, know what, the contents were. I know from reading the newspaper now what I presume them to be. The other file was a file concerned--it was called "attack" or "attack strategy." That, concerned materials, that, contained materials concerning the opposition, but I am not, certain of exactly what was there on the 17th. Senator ERVIN,, Did you receive any documents from Mr. Liddy on June 16, 1972. Mr. REISNER. Yes, I did, Senator ERVIN. What were they? Mr. REISNER. I received an envelope that, I believe was similar to the one I identified as saying sensitive material on it. Mr. Liddy at that time gave me this envelope, which was sealed and said to me, "Here is an extra" or something like that-- Magruder wanted a copy, Magruder wanted an extra. That, is the document that I received. Senator ERVIN. And you gave that, to 'Mr. 'Magruder? Mr. REISNER. -No, I didn't. Senator ERVIN. N. What became of it? Mr. REISNER. Here is what happened to it. I put it in my drawer and that clearly would have fallen in the category, I presume, of documents similar to the one I have called the Gemstone file, The reason it would have by that it came in a similar envelope and Liddy had called it a copy. On Monday morning, I discovered that I had not given that to Mr. Magruder- I mean to Mr. Odle--as I had been instructed to do. it was a copy, I presumed, of the material 1 had given to Mr. Odle and it was not with it. In fact, I guess I hadn't done what I was asked to do, to get that Sensitive material out of the office. At that point, I did not know Mr. Magruder was going to return that Monday morning, it turns out he was already In to Washington. And thinking that it was, a copy and sensitive material that, should have been gotten out of the office, I destroyed it. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Magruder came by into the office and I realized could have turned it over to him, so I realized it was a mistake on my part. I am sure he is learning for the first time about this. Senator ERVIN. That was destroyed by shredding? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. [00.59.41]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Wasn t there a feeling there, among some White House officials such as Mr. Colson and perhaps among some in the Committee To Re-Elect the President that every person who was not backing their efforts to reelect the President or who dissented from the programs of the President was an enemy? John Dean. I think that many people who were most vocal and could command some audience in their dissent were considered opponents or enemies, yes.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[01.00.10] Senator GURNEY. Then after the transfer to the Committee To Re-Elect the President--that is the finance committee-- you just continued that practice and then as far as the amounts of cash were concerned, that remained in either lockboxes or laid in safes-, that decision was made by Mr. Stans is that correct? Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. I never made, to the best of my recollection, any deposit out of these funds without having had instruction from him. In terms of distribution, it would have been one of the various people we, have discussed that had authority, that I recognized their authority to make this decision. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever ask Mr. Stans, what do we need to keep this cash here, x hundred thousand dollars and what do we need it for? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, I never asked him that, except in the--no; I never asked him that kind of question. Senator GURNEY. Who had access to the lockboxes? Mr. SLOAN. I think it varied at different times, I think initially, probably Mr. Kalmbach and myself were two of the signatories; probably two of the girls in my office were the other two. It would have taken two at any one time. Maybe there were only three at that point. Senator GURNEY. Where were the lockboxes? Mr. SLOAN. In the bank vault downstairs of the building where we were located, the First National Bank of Washington. At that time, Mr. Francis Raine--- Senator GURNEY. Mr. Francis who? Mr. SLOAN. Raine, R-a-i-n-e, of California, was a signatory on one of the boxes. Senator GURNEY. Now, he worked for the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; he did not. Senator GURNEY. Who did he work for? Mr. SLOAN. My first meeting with Mr. Raine was, I believe, sometime in February 1972, when he transmitted to Washington on behalf of Mr. Kalmbach several hundred thousand dollars in cash which were represented to me as being a carryover of 1968 funds. I think we had initially set up a separate safe deposit box from the one we already had for those funds. Senator GURNEY. Any of them had access to the lockboxes during the time Mr. Kalmbach was your boss; is that right? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Stans may have been in place at that point in time, but Mr. Kalmbach was still very active as a fundraiser and at one point in time in March was actively an officer of the committee. Senator GURNEY. Do you know whether Mr. Raine ever made any withdrawals of cash at any time? Mr. SLOAN. I know he has not, because I kept the records and eventually consolidated this all in the safe in the office. I can verify that no money that ever came under my control was ever taken out without my knowledge. Senator GURNEY. And who else had access to the lockboxes? Mr. SLOAN. I think just so there would be other people around, think Jane Dannenhauer, my secretary, would have been a signatory. Eveline Hyde, might have been. I think Judy Hoback, just as a function of having somebody who would be there if Mr. Kalmbach came to town and I was out, just so somebody would be in the office who could act as a second signatory. Senator GURNEY. Any withdrawals of cash from lockboxes were made by you, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. How many were made? Mr. SLOAN. I have forgotten, Senator, precisely when we got the safe. The procedural handling of cash funds was the same throughout. I kept a cash-in and -out book, recording receipts and distributions, so that I kept an ongoing record wherever it happened to be at that particular time. Senator GURNEY. This is a record you later gave to Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. In summary form. In other words, the figures would be aggregated--Mr. Liddy, $199,000--not just the individual occasions when money was given to him. [01.04.03--TAPE OUT]