Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Sarbanes substitute as amended
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The question---- Robert McClory (R Illinois). Will the gentleman withhold? Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The question is, the question is before us and, there being no objection, I am going to put the question. And the question occurs on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland, as amended. All those in favor of the substitute of the gentleman from Maryland as amended, please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes"] Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The ayes appear to have it and the call of the roll is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those who are in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland substitute as amended, please signify by saying aye and all those opposed no. The clerk will call the roll.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Sarbanes substitute as amended
The Clerk. Mr. Donohue. Harold D. Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Brooks. Jack Brooks (D Texas). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Kastenmeier. Robert Kastenmeier (D Wisconsin). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Edwards. Don Edwards (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D Missouri). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Conyers. John Conyers (D Michigan). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Eilberg. Joshua Eilberg (D Pennsylvania). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Waldie. Jerome Waldie (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mann. James Mann (D South Carolina). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Seiberling. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Danielson. George Danielson (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Drinan. Robert Drinan (D Massachusetts). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Rangel. Charles Rangel (D New York). Aye. The Clerk. Ms. Jordan. Barbara Jordan (D Texas). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Thornton. Ray Thornton (D Arkansas). Aye. The Clerk. Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Owens. Wayne Owens (D Utah). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mezvinsky. Edward Mezvinsky (D Iowa). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson. Edward Hutchinson (R Michigan). No. The Clerk. Mr. McClory. Robert McClory (R Illinois). No. The Clerk. Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). No. The Clerk. Mr. Sandman. Charles Sandman (R New Jersey). No. The Clerk. Mr. Railsback. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Wiggins. Charles Wiggins (R California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Dennis. Davis Dennis (R Indiana). No. The Clerk. Mr. Fish. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R New York). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). No. The Clerk. Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Butler. Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). No. The Clerk. Mr. Cohen. William Cohen (R Maine). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). No. The Clerk. Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Aye. The Clerk. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New jersey). No. The Clerk. Mr. Latta. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). No. The Clerk. Mr. Rodino. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Aye.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Sarbanes substitute as amended
Clerk counting tally. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The clerk will report. The Clerk. Twenty-seven members have voted aye, 11 members have voted no. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). And the amendment is agreed to.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on Hungate substitute as amended
William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider and adopt en bloc technical perfecting amendments I have at the desk and they have been distributed to each member. I ask unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Does the gentleman from Missouri ask unanimous consent that certain technical amendments be adopted? William Hungate (D Missouri). Yes. Mr. Chairman, I might state this is on page 2. Page 2, on line 4, we strike out a comma, following the word "directing," and at the bottom of the page, fourth line from the bottom on page 2, you insert a comma immediately before "which." And, Mr. Chairman, on page 3, the word "misused" is misspelled, "missued." Correct the spelling. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman has read the amendment. Is there objection? Without objection, the technical amendments are adopted.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on Hungate substitute as amended
William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D Missouri). I move the previous question. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The question now occurs on the adoption of the Hungate substitute as amended. All those in favor of the Hungate substitute as amended please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). All of those opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The ayes have it.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on Hungate substitute as amended
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Rollcall. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). A call of the roll is demanded and the roll call is ordered and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the Hungate substitute as amended, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The Clerk. Mr. Donohue. Harold Donohue (D Massachusetts). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Brooks. Jack Brooks (D Texas). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Kastenmeier. Robert Kastenmeier (D Wisconsin). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Edwards. Don Edwards (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D Missouri). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Conyers. John Conyers (D Michigan). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Eilberg. Joshua Eilberg (D Pennsylvania). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Waldie. Jerome Waldie (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mann. James Mann (D South Carolina). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Seiberling. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Danielson. George Danielson (D California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Drinan. Robert Drinan (D Massachusetts). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Rangel. Charles Rangel (D New York). Aye. The Clerk. Ms. Jordan. Barbara Jordan (D Texas). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Thornton. Ray Thornton (D Arkansas). Aye. The Clerk. Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Owens. Wayne Owens (D Utah). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mezvinsky. Edward Mezvinsky (D Iowa). Aye The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson. Edward Hutchinson (R Michigan). No. The Clerk. Mr. McClory. Robert McClory (R Michigan). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). No. The Clerk. Mr. Sandman. Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). No. The Clerk. Mr. Railsback. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). Aye The Clerk. Mr. Wiggins. Charles Wiggins (R California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Dennis. David Dennis (R Indiana). No. The Clerk. Mr. Fish. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R New York). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). No. The Clerk. Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Butler. Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Cohen. William Cohen (R Maine). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). No. The Clerk. Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). No. The Clerk. Mr. Latta. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). No. The Clerk. Mr. Rodino. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Aye.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on Hungate substitute as amended
Clerk counts the votes. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The clerk will report. The Clerk. Twenty-eight members have voted aye, 10 members have voted no. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). And the substitute, as amended, is agreed to.
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(12:13:45) In studio NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE segue to House Bank Committee Hearings at which ROGER ALTMAN is testifying (12:15:15) Roger Altman testifies before the House Banking Committee - this House hearing footage runs for the rest of the tape
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - The mystery of the shell fish toxi
Picture changes to testimony earlier in the day of Dr. Shantz who is being questioned by committee council SCHWARZ - Shantz is asked about his background and relationship to the CIA (00:04:57) Schwarz asks about super secret CIA document - did Shantz see it (00:06:10) Schwarz asks how much 11 grams of toxin is? - Schantz answers 1/3 of what has ever been produced - Shwartz asks how lethal it is - Schantz responds that 2/10 of mg enough to kill some one - Shwartz asks how many people could be killed by CIA's supply - Schantz answers 55,000 (00:07:00) Shwarz asks if there are benign uses for toxin - Shantz responds that it has many possible medicinal applications including developing an antidote for the toxin itself (00:08:15) CURTIS R. SMOTHERS, Minority Council, asks Shantz if he worked with toxin for public health reasons, did Schantz receive any requests for toxin from special operations division - Schantz responds yes - How much - Schantz cannot answer that accurately 10-15 grams he beleives - Smothers wants to know if special operations got toxins from other people - Shantz responds also from public health services. Senator FRANK CHURCH, Chairman Select Committee on Intelligence, confirms that special operations is located at Fort Deitrich and is part of the army biological warfare division (00:11:50) Smothers asks if Schantz supplied toxin to people outside the government - Schantz responds yes, to labratories through out the country and countries except those behind the iron curtain for physiological studies on nerve transmission (00:12:05) Church asks how shell fish toxin manufactured - Schantz breifly explains the process (00:13:01) Church confirms that it is a long and difficult process to manufacture the toxin in order to alleviate fears of the public about eating shell fish (00:14:55)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.20.45] Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, I still think that relates, that phrase that you read that isn't in the Washington Post, relates back to the same subject matter. [00.20.52-MITCHELL caught in a lie] Senator TALMADGE. You testified a moment ago in response to a question that I asked you that you did have campaign responsibilities prior to the time you resigned as Attorney General. And yet, on March 14, before the Judiciary Committee, I quote again: "Senator KENNEDY. No re-election campaign responsibilities?" That, is a question. "Mr. MITCHELL. Not as yet." Isn't that negative? Mr. MITCHELL That is negative. It relates back to the, Republican Party, Senator, in the way I read the context and this one was so intended. Senator TALMADGE. "No reelection campaign responsibilities?" I ask you who was running? Mr. Nixon ? And is he a Republican? Mr. MITCHELL; I think the answer to both those questions is "Yes." Senator TALMADGE. I would concur with that. I still don't, get, the thrust Of your testimony when you testified a moment ago that you had none, that you did have election responsibilities and yet before the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1972, you testified exactly the opposite. Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, I go back to the statement that I made, before, that this refers to the Republican Party and this is the reason that I raised the question and responded to it and it, Was my intention to do so in that context. [00.22.19] Senator TALMADGE. Was not President Nixon running on the Republican ticket? He didn't, change parties, did he? Mr. MITCHELL. No, Senator. I stand On the answer that I have, given you. But the, question that I asked of Senator Kennedy was with respect to the, party and he referred to the, Republican Party, and that is the context in which I took it. [00.21.40-EVIDENCE of MITCHELL being very strongly involved in the campaign prior to resigning as ATTORNEY GENERAL.] Senator TALMADGE. Now, there is some stationery from the Committee for the Re-Election of the, President. There is a memorandum to the Attorney General, marked "confidential," December 3 1971. There is a lot of language here. "We recommend that the Committee for the Re-Election of the President assume all White House support activities." It is signed by Jeb S. Magruder and there are three blanks there: One, "approve," one "disapprove," the third, "comment," And by "approve", there is an X. Is that your X mark? Mr. MITCHELL. I haven't the faintest Idea. I don't remember the, memorandum but maybe if I looked at, it. I could tell. Generally I write my name rather than write an X. but I may be able, to identify my X. [00.23.35] Senator TALMADGE. We all admit, Mr. Mitchell, that you are entirely legible and that you write eminently well. Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, that looks like a good enough X to possibly be mine. I am not familiar with it, and I don't, recall the memorandum. Senator TALMADGE. You do not deny it? Mr. MITCHELL. I do not, deny that that could be my X. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that, that be marked as an exhibit and be inserted in the record at this Point. Senator ERVIN. Without objection, it. is so ordered. The reporter will mark- it as an exhibit for the record. Senator TALMADGE.. I also ask that, the colloquy I have read between Senator Kennedy and the then Attorney General, John Mitchell. dated March 14, 1972, before the Judiciary Committee be made part of the record. And as further evidence, Mr. Chairman. I desire to send to Mr. Mitchell a number of documents here wherein he was exercising his responsibility as director of the campaign, one, dated June 22, 1971, one dated January 14, 1972, all marked "confidential," memorandum to the Attorney General one involving the Republican -National Committee budget, the, other a telephone plan for the Florida primary. I send them also to -Mr. Mitchell for identification and I ask that, they be identified, appropriately numbered, and inserted in the record at this point. [00.25.47]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.08.40-committee room, Sen. ERVIN.] Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Senator MONTOYA. Before, the recess I -was reading you a quotation from a press statement, delivered by 'Mr. Ziegler which appeared in the Post. He stated "A blatant effort at character assassination that I do not, think has been witnessed in the political process for some time" had occurred. What comment do you have to say about that? What do you think about that? Mr. DEAN. Senator, it is hard for me to-what was the date on that again? Senator MONTOYA. That was October 25, 1972. Mr. DEAN. It is hard for me to relate to specifically which story, was reefering to. About the time, as I recall, the Segretti stories were evolving, it had started on October 10. Finally. it reached the point of directly tying in Mr. Haldeman on source stories, and I Can only assume that this is the--- Senator MONTOYA. The reaction to it? Mr. DEAN. The reaction to that story, yes. Senator MONTOYA. On April 18, 1973, in the Washington Post, this statement appeared: "Mr. Ziegler met with reporters and said that all previous White House statements about the bugging were inoperative. Ziegler emphasized the President's statement today is the operative statement." Now can you tell us what motivated Mr. Ziegler to make this statement what transpired prior to the, making of this statement at the White House, if you know ? Mr. DEAN. I believe what transpired as you compare that statement to the chronology of my testimony. you -will see, that that was the weekend that, the Attorney General and Mr. Petersen reported to the President the direction that the grand jury -was headed in and the fact, that I had been to the prosecutors had been revealed and the fact that I had told the prosecutors the, involvement of others in this matter, including those at the White, House. It was as a result of that and the President statement of the 17th when he -went out to explain and further elaborate on the President's statement that he made the inoperative comment. Senator MONTOYA. Then let us get back to Mr. Mitchell with whom YOU felt a father-son relationship, and perhaps justifiably so; what were the reasons for your going to 'Mr. Mitchell's office at the time that Mr. Liddy first, presented his plan, and then subsequently on February 4. -when there was a scaling down of the initial plan? Who sent you there and what was your mission? Mr. DEAN. Well. I was called--it was a meeting called by Mr. Magruder, My secretary informed me of the fact that the meeting had been scheduled. I did not know the substance of the meeting so I called 'Mr. Magruder to ask him what the substance of the meeting Was going to be. and he told me that Mr. Liddy was going to present his intelligence plan at that point. [00.12.47] Senator MONTOYA. Did you have any instructions from 'Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Haldeman to attend those, meetings? Mr. DEAN. Well. very early in the preceding year it had been my role to make sure that the reelection committee had a capacity to deal With demonstrators. When I had first talked to Mr. Liddy about his job, I had explained that one of the responsibilities of his job would he to deal with demonstrators in the security system and particularly with regard to the convention. When he was interviewed by Mr. 'Mitchell on November 24. 1 think you will find in the exhibits a copy of the agenda that Mr. Liddy prepared regarding his Job. Therein You will find a one-line in a rather limited agenda that would have something to do -with intelligence. That was discussed at that meeting that he would prepare an intelligence plan for dealing with demonstrators. [00.13.51]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.44.32-THOMPSON questions MITCHELL about information given to various figures about the "White House Horrors" spying operations and the Watergate] Mr. THOMPSON. Did you ever talk directly with Ehrlichman about these matters? Mr. Mitchell. Not in that time frame. I am sure they were discussed substantially at later dates. Mr. THOMPSON. In 1973? Mr. MITCHELL. Well. yes, possibly before the end of 1972, certainly in 1973. Mr. THOMPSON. At this time did you know of Hunt's Involvement? Did Liddy tell them about Hunt's involvement? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I believe, he did, In fact, I am sure he did. Mr. THOMPSON. So, in effect, what you are saying, is that you were basing your later activities concerning Magruder's testimony and Concerning the payments and these sorts of things as embarrassment upon the hearsay information of this man that, presented these outlandish and wild-eyed proposals, in your office. It would seem like you would want, some verification from him. Mr. MITCHELL. Let us back up. Mr. Thompson, a little bit. You are jumping from the 21st or 22d of June all the Way to knowledge that I obtained in the fall and I keep reminding you that Mr. Dean was also aware of these factors and was discussing, them with me and with other people. We are talking about the White House problems now, is that what you are having reference to? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. SO it was not just what, Mr. Liddy had told Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue on the 20th, 21st and 22d of June. There were, further affirmations of the facts that came out of the White House, from Mr. Dean. Mr. THOMPSON. Such as what. concerning these matters that we have been discussing? [00.46.28] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, as I Said a minute ago one of the things that I did not believe that Mr. Liddy had any reference to in the Mardian-LaRue briefing was the Diem papers and how they had been handled. Mr. THOMPSON. Did Mr. Dean verify this to you? Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dean so stated. he did not show me the spliced cables but he told me about the circumstances. Mr. THOMPSON. But as early as June the money started flowing, the payments started flowing and, of course Mr. MITCHELL. Well, now, you are assuming, Mr. Thompson that I was aware of it. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I will ask you when you first became aware of---- Mr. MITCHELL. As I said this morning. it -was much later than that and I believe it was at the time that -Mr. Kalmbach ceased in connection With his activities. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall the date that you became aware of any money being paid to any of the defendants' or families or attorneys? Mr. MITCHELL. No, I do not recall the date but it was well after the, matter was in progress and in operation. Let me perhaps help you a little bit on that, Mr. Thompson or help myself maybe is a better way to put it. [Laughter]. There is testimony by Mr. Dean that there was a meeting. Mr. THOMPSON. June 23 or 24. I believe. Mr. MITCHELL. On June 28. Mr. THOMPSON. And 28th. Mr. MITCHELL. June 28. You see, Mr. Dean had testified that they had been playing games with the CIA up to the 28th. Then, Mr. Dean testified that there was a meeting in my office with Mardian, LaRue, and Mitchell and I do not know who all else, including Mr. Dean in the afternoon of the 28th in -which it, was decided, naturally Mitchell was always deciding these things, according to Dean, that the White House., somebody in the White House, John Ehrlichman should call Kalmbach and ask him to fly back from California that night of the 28th, -which led to their meetings on the 29th. The only problem with all of that was that I was in New York and could not have been at such a meeting, and I was not aware of it. [00.49.07] Mr. THOMPSON. I believe your logs reflect that, Mr. Mitchell. I think that---- Mr. MITCHELL. I -would hope so because I have been so stating for quite some, time. Mr. THOMPSON. It reflects that, according to your logs, you were in New York on the 28th. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. And that you arrived in the District of Columbia at 5:30. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. There is no indication of any meeting after 5:30. Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. And I assume there was none. Mr. MITCHELL. The passenger that, I had with me coming back from Now York was not about to allow me to go to any more meetings on that particular day. [Laughter-] [00.49.41]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. Would Mr. Colson be one of those persons who would be a line of communication to whatever Mr. Strachan was communicating to the White House? Jeb Magruder. I think Mr. Strachan worked closely with Mr. Colson, but his line of command was through Mr. Haldeman. Samuel Dash, attorney. Was anybody present when you received that telephone call from Mr. Colson? Jeb Magruder. Mr. LaRue was. Samuel Dash, attorney. Were there any further contacts that you had with Mr. Howard, Mr. Colson's assistant, concerning the call that Mr. Colson made to you? Jeb Magruder. Mr. Howard and I were fairly good friends. He had worked for me at the White House and a number of times we discussed the general intelligence-gathering situation and he did indicate what he thought was the professionalism, particularly of Mr. Hunt and the need to gather this information. But I would like to make it clear there was a general, I think, atmosphere in the White House and the committee of the need to gather information. This was not necessarily information that would be gathered illegally. Samuel Dash, attorney. Were Mr. Howard's discussions with you also urging you to try to pursue the Liddy plan? Jeb Magruder. Yes.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Let me very briefly summarize the key plans and activities which you state in your statement created such key such an atmosphere. The first I understand was an overall intelligence plan developed by the time you had already arrived at the White House in July of 1970 by White House leadership or including White House leadership to deal with internal security and domestic dissent which included such activities as illegal break in and wiretapping. And these are the papers which I understand you submitted to Judge Sirica and which this committee has received from Judge Sirica. John Dean. That is correct. And I believe that was indicative of a concern that existed regarding that particular area of problem. Samuel Dash, attorney. Then there was the so-called Plumbers operation set up in the White House in 1971 under Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Krogh utilizing Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy to investigate leaks such is the Pentagon paper leaks, which utilized such tactics as break ins, photographing and bugging. And then there was Operation Sandwedge recommended by Mr. Caulfield but never finally approved which had recommended covert features to it such as the use of bagmen and wiretapping. Now, generally is that the context in which you described the atmosphere that was conducive to such activity as break-ins and wiretapping in the White House? John Dean. I think, Mr. Dash, attorney, you have capsulized some, of the high points of the concerns I expressed yesterday. Samuel Dash, attorney. I am attempting just to capsulized and not go over your lengthy statement. John Dean. I understand.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Bernard L. Barker
Senator MONTOYA. All right. Now, did Mr. Hunt tell you who he was working for at the time? Mr. BARKER. Yes. At the time, Mr. Hunt was a counselor at the White House. On one occasion, I remember that I had met Mr. Hunt at the executive building and went home for lunch with him. Senator MONTOYA. And he mentioned the internal security aspects of the Ellsberg case with you, and it was with that motivation that you got into that. Now, what did he mention to you about the Democratic National Committee headquarters and the McGovern headquarters other than the simple objective of going in there to find out what foreign governments had made contributions to either the Democratic National Committee or to Mr. McGovern? Mr. BARKER. To the best of my recollection, Senator, the operation aspect was never discussed after that. Senator MONTOYA. Well, didn't he mention to you that the reason that he wanted to go into the Democratic National Committee we to find out whether or not some foreign government had contributed to the Democratic Party? Mr. BARKER That is correct, yes. Senator MONTOYA. And it was your assignment to look at the documents as you went in and for Eugenio Martinez to follow as you gave him the documents with a little photography? Mr. BARKER. That is correct.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.25.04-DEAN discusses the existence of a $350,000 slush fund in the White House that was used to pay off the defendants in the WATERGATE case] The $3.50,000 fund, as I have indicated, was held by !Strachan but I do not, know where he held it. It was shortly before Mr. Sloan was being called to testify in July that discussions commenced on how to make the $350,000 fund whole and get it out of the White House. There was no easy answer, because there was no place to ,send it out without, reporting requirements. The concern was that 'Mr. Sloan Would testify that he was aware of the disbursal of the $350,000 to the White House This, in turn, would, have, created two problems: The White House would have been accused of having a secret slush fund if this became public. and second, a $6,800 expenditure out of a $22,000 authorization which had been made presented a potential campaign act violation for Haldeman, Colson, and Howard. I had numerous discussions about, how to handle this problem with Mr. Stans and Mr. Parkinson but there was no easy answer. I also discussed this matter with Mr. Haldeman, telling him that there was no easy answer. Finally, after the election, Stans indicated" he had cash available and it was decided that, Stans should provide $22,000 to Strachan to make the funds whole, and then they could be removed from the, White House and, if necessary reported. This plan was approved by Haldeman and Stans was so informed . On the morning of November 28, Stans called to request that Strachan. come to his office, to receive. money that, he had available. I do not know the source of the money or whether it. was Campaign money or any of the details about the $22,000 that Stans had made available. I could not locate, Strachan and Stans indicated that it should be, picked up immediately but I cannot recall at this time the reason be called for the, immediacy. Accordingly I asked Mr. Fielding to pick up a package from Stans an and give it to Strachan as soon as he could. I informed Stans that Fielding would be over to pick up the package but he would not know what. be -was picking up and -when I later learned that Stans had informed Fielding I was somewhat annoyed because I felt it was unfair to Fielding. The, money was then given by Fielding to Strachan but no final decision had been made regarding how to dispose. of the $350,000. Having explained the status of the cash at the, White House, I must now return to the pressure that was, being placed on the White House for the use of these funds which I have- just described for payments to the seven indicted individuals. [00.27.44] This pressure began long before election day in that Paul O'Brien was receiving Messages from William Bittman, Hunt's lawyer, that, Hunt and others expected to have more support, money and attorney's fees in exchange for continued silence. The initial payments by Kalmbach had not been sufficient. O'Brien reported this frequently to Mitchell, 'Mardian, LaRue, and myself. I, in turn. was reporting to Haldeman and Ehrlichman. There were discussions in late July, August, and September of using these funds at the White House. for these payments. I informed Haldeman of these discussions, but they were. still in the discussion stage and no action was taken. [00.28.29] After the election. the pressure was greatly increased when Colson received a call from Mr. Hunt, which Colson recorded. Colson brought the recorded call to me and I, in turn, transcribed it onto a cassette, tape. I have been informed by the committee counsel that the committee has in its possession a transcript of the conversation between Colson and Hunt in which Hunt makes, demands for money. [00.28.54-HALDEMAN and EHRLICHMAN involved in the payoff] On November 15, 1 arranged a meeting -with Haldeman and Ehrlichman so that they could hear the tape of the Conversation Colson had had with Hunt and also -to inform them of the increased and now threatening demands that were being transmitted through Hunt's lawyer to Mr. O'Brien and in turn on to the White House. Haldeman and Ehrlichman were at Camp David at that time developing the plans for the reorganization of the executive branch for the Second term of the -Nixon administration I departed on the morning of 'November 15 for Camp David with Mr. Walter Minnick, who was going to Camp David to discuss the reorganization plans with Ehrlichman. Mr. Minnick had been doing virtually all of the work at that time -for Ehrlichman on the reorganization plan and was a member of Ehrlichman's staff. 'In fact. I that the country counsel's office had not been more involved. or involved at all. prior to that in the reorganization plans. After arriving at Camp -David, Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and I went into the President's office in Laurel Lodge. I have referred earlier to the fact that in this meeting the matter of Dwight Chapin's remaining at the White House was discussed. [00.30.01] It was after that that I told them of the telephone conversation between Hunt and Colson and played the tape for them and I also told them of the increasing demands being made, for money. I told them I was going to New York that, afternoon because Mitchell had requested that, I come visit him regarding the demand being made and told them I would also play the tape for him. My instructions from this meeting were to tell Mitchell to take, care, of all these problems. [00.30.27]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.42.48-MITCHELL tries to contradict testimony given previously by others] Senator TALMADGE. Was that the first--excuse me. Mr. MITCHELL. I am going into this because, Mr. Stans' credibility 'with respect to his knowledge of the Watergate was quite, severely impugned apparently more severely in the executive committee meeting by Magruder than it was later in public testimony. Senator TALMADGE. Was that the first time you had knowledge Of the Watergate break-in, bugging that day, that conversation? Mr. MITCHELL. On the, 24th? Senator TALMADGE. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. No, my---- Senator TALMADGE. That was the first time you were. debriefed on it, was it not? Mr. MITCHELL. No, I had been debriefed, Senator, as I mentioned a little earlier either on the 21st Or 22d. Senator TALMADGE. Did you get, full details of it at that time? Mr. MITCHELL. It Was coming from Liddy who was, as I went through with Mr. Thompson, was involving Magruder and said that that he got his approval in the White House and a lot of things that--- Senator TALMADGE. Did he say who authorized the approval in the White House? Mr. MITCHELL. No, he did not. No, he did not. [00.43.58] Senator TALMADGE. The, White House was definitely interested in the campaign, of course, was it, not? Mr. MITCHELL. The campaign what, Senator? Senator TALMADGE. The campaign for reelection. Mr. MITCHELL. No, there is no question about it,. Senator TALMADGE. With whom In the White House did you discuss the Watergate break-in? [00.44.12] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it depends, of course, as I testified earlier this morning in the context of it. Talking with, starting at the top, with the President, I believe it was the telephone Call that I had On the 20th Of June in which was before the which--this debriefings that I had had and had not any particular knowledge of it, discussed it to the point where I thought it was ridiculous and thought I had been very remiss as being the campaign director and not ever being able to keep a rein on the individuals that were for the campaign, at that time I had my mind, of course, the fact that Mr. McCord was the only one who was involved in the particular incident. Senator TALMADGE. Let me see if I can identify that telephone call, that was on the 20th of June, according to the logs that the committee has. that took place by telephone between 6 p.m.. and 6:12 p.m.. is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. That is the one, sir. [00.45.20] Senator TALMADGE. What did you fell the President about the Watergate break-in at that time? Did you tell him employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President were involved in it? Mr. MITCHELL. I assume the President knew that because It had been in the newspapers by then, to my recollection but what I really recall about the conversation was more. Senator TALMADGE. Did you tell him Magruder was involved? Mr. MITCHELL. I did not know Magruder was involved in it at that time. Senator TALMADGE. Who did you tell I him was involved? Mr. MITCHELL. The only ones I knew -were Involved at that time Were the he five that that were accosted on the premises. Senator TALMADGE. When did you talk with Mr. Haldeman about the break-in? Mr. MITCHELL. I have no recollection of it but it -was some time thereafter. Senator TALMADGE. Was it shortly after June 20? Mr. MITCHELL. I would probably believe that would. be the case. Senator TALMADGE. When did you talk to Mr. Ehrlichman about it? [00.46.15] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I talked to Mr. Ehrlichman--Mr. Ehrlichman Called me In California when I was out there and asked me. in effect, I think there has been testimony to the effect here that somebody suggested he do it. He called me out there and asked me what it was all about and I said. "I do not know. we will find out and we will get back to you." That was the substance of that conversation. Senator TALMADGE. That was either the 17th, 18th, 19th, or thereabouts? Mr. MITCHELL. It was either Saturday or Sunday because on the 19th, which was Monday, we left rather early for I for the return to Washington. Senator TALMADGE. When did you talk to Mr. Colson about It? Mr. MITCHELL. I have no I idea but it would have been somewhere much further down the line. Let me point out----- Senator TALMADGE. Sure. Mr. MITCHELL [continuing]. Senator, that if you would have, I know you are reading from one of these minicharts but some Of the things they do not have up there, is that there is an 8:15 a.m. morning meeting in the White House. Senator TALMADGE. YOU should have ample opportunity to state, whatever you want to, Mr. Mitchell, if that, chart, is different from your views do not hesitate, to say so, we want the facts, Only the facts. Mr. MITCHELL. I cannot see it from here and it, does not make any difference anyway, because, I have got a directory here but what I Would point out, is that, during this period which I have--which I have testified to earlier today, until I left, the committee, as the campaign director, there was a meeting at 8:15 a.m. in the White House every morning. This was the regular staff meeting that involved legislative liaison, Dr. Kissinger, General Haig. et cetera. So, I say when you ask me when did I first, talk to these, people, about the, Watergate, of course, it was a continuing subject matter basically in the concept of the, political problems that presented because by the, I guess the, 20th or certainly the 21st, the Democrats had threatened their lawsuit, they filed it, I think, On the, 22d and -we had had a, verbal press battle over the circumstances from then on constantly day in and day out about the matter. [00.48.28]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Could it be explained, and again having already testified, I think twice that morning you were not aware of all contacts that might have been made by others concerning your client or others in the White House? That it could be or could it be likely that some contact by other defendants or their counsel were being made with the White House during which your representation of your client could have been discussed? Mr. ALCH. Mr. Dash, it is possible only because I don't know. Mr. DASH. You don't know and therefore - Mr. ALCH. I am in no position to refute or confirm. Mr. DASH. And you have no other explanation of why Mr. Dean might have made that statement? Mr. ALCH. I do not. As I told the committee yesterday, I had never met the man nor spoken to him in my life. Mr. DASH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Capitol Journal - Perceptions of Congress
People in an auditorium watching a video of the House Budget Committee Atchison hearing. Man talking about the House Budget Committee Atchison hearing, To a certain degree I think it was a little bit of a show. But still I think the thing that they brought to Atchison was that they cared what was going on out here. Man talking about the House Budget Committee Atchison hearing, It s impressive that Congressmen & Senators would want to come to a small town, rural community. People in an auditorium watching a video of the House Budget Committee Atchison hearing.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.59.30] Senator TALMADGE. Yet, Do You also reaffirm to this committee that Mr. Strachan, who was a White House liaison man for Mr., Haldeman, assigned to your committee had knowledge of these affairs and had daily reports' from you to him concerning them ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes sir. Not daily reports relating to the Watergate though, Senator. He had daily reports totally on many subjects. Watergate only occurred on periodic bases. Senator TALMADGE. He did have Information concerning the Watergate before and after; is that, correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. NOW, to what extent was Mr. Haldeman involved in the Watergate affair. either preplanning or subsequent thereto? Mr. MAGRUDER. As I have indicated before, Senator, to my knowledge, my dealings were only with Mr. Strachan at the White House and Mr. Dean. I am not privileged to the conversations or memos that that, went between Mr. Dean and Mr. Strachan and Mr. Haldeman or any ally" other official at the White House, so I Simply do not know, first discussion with Mr. Haldeman relating to this matter was the Sunday after the break-in and. again, I did not have any further discussions with him until January at which time we discussed it in relation to our employment, so it is very difficult for me to directly relate anything other than what I have already testified to, Senator. Senator TALMADGE. You had assumed since Mr. Strachan was Mr. Haldeman's personal representative, liaison 131,111. the memorandums that you prepared for Mr. Strachan were being delivered to Mr. Haldeman? I Mr. MAGRUDER. I think I mentioned this morning--mentioned that before. Mr. Strachan, because I had seen them a number of times, not with reference to Watergate or intelligence gathering, was simply an update report that he Would prepare for Mr. Haldeman and I do not know how often he prepared it and that would, In capsule form, indicate that the campaign committee as an example. had agreed to do a direct mail campaign for the State of New Hampshire in the primary at a cost of a $100,000. He may. might have., attached backup material which might have boon a memo from one of our staff people to 'Mr. Mitchell on that subject or he might not. It -was his discretion but he did not, send the raw reports to Mr. Haldeman. I know that. He always capsulized it in a memo form because I saw that report numerous times during the campaign. Senator TALMADGE. AS I understood it. Hie President had two counselors one was Mr. Colson and the other was Mr. Dean. Mr. MAGRUDER. Mr. Colson. I think. was special counsel to the President. That is not a legal position, Mr. Dean's role was counsel to the President, and was a legal position. Senator TALMADGE. You testified this morning that Mr. Dean was intimately involved in both the planning the execution, and the coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir, Senator TALMADGE. Now, to what extent was Mr. Colson involved? Mr. MAGRUDER. To my direct knowledge only through the telephone conversations that he had with me and some references to that matter that his assistant, Mr. Howard, had relating particularly to Howard Hunt. We did not discuss the specific Watergate wiretapping directly, I did not, with Mr. Colson, other than his admonition his to me to in effect get On the stick and get the Liddy project approved so we can get the information from Mr. O'Brien, something to that effect, Senator TALMADGE. I believe you testified that he urged immediate execution go forward at an early date. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. sir. Senator TALMADGE. Now, to what extent was Mr. Kleindienst then Attorney General, involved ? Mr. MAGRUDER. To my knowledge to no extent. I never had any discussions with Mr. Kleindienst on this matter. Senator TALMADGE. YOU have no personal knowledge of his involvement either by hearsay, memorandum. or otherwise Mr. MAGRUDER. No, Sir. Senator TALMADGE. Now, to what extent was Mr., Stans, involved? Mr. MAGRUDER. To my knowledge, to no extent before April--before June 17. Other than as chairman of the committee being aware of the cash disbursements that were being made to Mr. Liddy. Now, on June 24, 1 think it was, on a Saturday we did meet and discuss the, Watergate problem with him and my best recollection is we didn't 'go into specifies that Mr. Mitchell and I were involved but that simply Mr. Liddy was involved and we thought there would be, problems that would create a situation -where Mr. Stans would probably be--eventually have to terminate, Mr. Liddy, and that there were problems with Mr. 'Sloan as to the amounts of money----- [01.04.14--TAPE OUT]
Lawmakers April 28 1983
Representative Clarence Long (D - Maryland), House Appropriations Committee, chairing House committee hearing, Today we re meeting to vote on the administration s proposal to reprogram $60 million in foreign military sales credits to El Salvador.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.12.29] Senator INOUYE. I will list a few names. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean knew about, the coverup?, Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Yes, sir. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Mitchell knew about the, coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Haldeman knew about the coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. Directly from my knowledge only in January I did not know directly before. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Ehrlichman knew about, the coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. I did not ever know that, Mr. Ehrlichman knew about the coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. MAGRUDER. I only knew in Mr. Kalmbach's case he was funding the coverup. [Laughter.] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Mardian. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. I request the audience again to refrain from laughing. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Kleindienst? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, sir, I did not know of any involvement by Mr. Kleindienst Senator INOUYE. Mr. Gray? Mr. MAGRUDER, No, sir, I had no direct knowledge of Mr. Gray's involvement. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Strachan? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. he was aware of the coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. LaRue'? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, he was aware. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Egil Krogh? Mr. MAGRUDER. Mr. Egil Krogh? I cannot specifically recall any direct knowledge that, I would have known that he knew about the coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Colson? Mr. MAGRUDER. I have no direct knowledge that Mr. Colson knew about the coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Howard, Mr. Colson's aide? Mr. MAGRUDER. I don't, think he knew directly about the coverup. I think he realized that we had some, problems that we were taking care of. Senator INOUYE, Mr. Reisner? Mr. MAGRUDER. No. All of the employees of the committee were not involved in the coverup purposely--we made a substantive decision in a sense to be sure. they were not aware of the coverup so that they themselves would not become involved in any problems relating to this coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Stans? Mr. MAGRUDER. Only the. discussion I had in June with Mr. Stans which would indicate some knowledge after that point to some extent. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Sloan? Sloan? ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, I am sure he knew about the coverup. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Porter. Mr. MAGRUDER. Only to the extent that he has testified that he assisted me for what he thought were legitimate reasons. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Odle ? Mr. MAGRUDER. -No. far as I know he did not- know. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Moore. Mr. MAGRUDER. Again I know Mr. Moore was aware of the trip to Burning Tree Country Club. What Mr. Moore then knew later just. I don't know what Mr. Liddy and Mr. Moore talked about: you would have to talk to Mr. Moore directly. Senator INOUYE. Finally the President? Mr. MAGRUDER. TO my knowledge no, no direct knowledge. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I know the time has run out and I thank you very much Thank you very much. Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. [00.15.30--Senators, Photographers, others, standing to leave room] [00.15.39--LEHRER IN STUDIO] LEHRER states that the Senators will mull over MAGRUDER's "explosive testimony" over lunch break [PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.18.07--LEHRER] LEHRER introduces questioning by Sen. WEICKER. [00.18.17--MAGRUDER--ERVIN with gavel] AFTERNOON SESSION THURSDAY. JUNE 14, 1973 Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Senator Weicker. Senator WEICKER. Mr. Magruder, on the chart over there, there is indication you received $20,000. Would you tell the committee exactly how you disbursed that money? Mr. MAGRDUER. Yes. sir. I received a request from the White House to disburse $20,000 to a columnist or writer who had done writing work, as I understood it. for the--either for the White House or in relationship to a book that he was writing and so consequently, he requested it. in cash and I requested from -Mr. Sloan $20,000 and gave it to the Writer. Senator WEICKER. Who was the writer? Mr. MAGRUDER. Mr. Victor Lasky. Senator WEICKER. Victor Lasky ; so you paid $20,000 in Cash to 'Mr., Victor Lasky, is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Sir. Senator WEICKER. -Now. would you tell the committee, I believe you touched upon On.,; this morning you what Mr. Dean told you after your you your August 16 grand w appearance? Mr. MAGRUDER. He simply notified me the next day that I would not be indicted. Senator WEICKER. DO you have any indication as to the basis for that statement Mr. MAGRUDER. My understanding was It was from official sources. [00.20.03]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.19.13] senator MONTOYA. What did Mr. Dahlberg discuss in Des Moines during that trip? Mr. SLOAN. I do not- Senator MONTOYA. With Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. I do not know. I was not present at this meeting. Senator MONTOYA. Flow did Mr. Dahlberg meet with Mr. Stans in Des Moines? Mr. SLOAN. I believe it was in his hotel room. Senator MONTOYA. Isn't Mr. Dahlberg the individual who transported the Mexican money from Dallas, Tex., to Washington? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, that, is my understanding, Senator MONTOYA, How long did they meet? Mr. SLOAN. I really do not know. In terms of a conversation Mr. Dahlberg mentioned to me that he had met the previous evening or whenever it was with Mr. Stans, Senator MONTOYA. Were you ever aware of any meetings between the President and Mr. Stans with respect to campaign financing? Mr. SLOAN. I know he met with the President, that I am aware of maybe once after he had joined the committee and once probably after the election. I do not know what the subject matter of whether it was even on the subject of finance. Senator MONTOYA. Did you in Your reports to the White House or to Mr. Stans reflect balances periodically of what was in the campaign fund? Mr. SLOAN, Oh, Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And how were these reports transmitted to the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Excuse me, I have never made such a report to the White House, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. Did anyone from the White House pick up any of these reports either from you or Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Not that I am aware of. Senator MONTOYA. You stated that you were aware that Mr. Liddy, was spending approximately 90 percent of his time on finance committee matter as counsel. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator MONTOYA. Were you aware of how he was spending other 10 percent of his time? Mr. SLOAN. -NO, sir, When he joined the finance committee, he indicated to me that he would have continuing projects for the political side of the campaign. Mr. Magruder confirmed that fact to me. No discussion took place as to the nature. of those duties. Senator MONTOYA. Did it ever arouse your curiosity that Mr. Liddy might be performing other tasks? Mr. SLOAN. I was fully aware he was spending some time on other affairs, I do not know what they were Senator MONTOYA. What led you to believe, as you stated, that the disbursement. of $10,000 to Mr. Lyn Nofziger was to recruit a team of American Nazis to disrupt the Wallace candidacy in California? Mr. SLOAN. Senator I have no knowledge of that. I believe my statement yesterday with regard to the $10,000, there was as we went, through this list, it was a question, an inquiry, as to did you know what any of these expenditures were for in the case of Mr. Nofziger in California. I had said subsequent to that disbursement I had heard by rumor and I cannot even tell you who from, it had something to do with the Wallace campaign in California, but, that, is the extent of my knowledge in that matter. Senator MONTOYA. Now, in your meeting with Mr, Ehrlichman, I believe it was on July or June 23, at the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, [brief shot Sen. INOUYE listening to testimony] Senator MONTOYA. You started discussing with Mr. Ehrlichman the problem of how you were going to face up to the reporting of the cash disbursement, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. No, No, sir. I have no precise recollection of how and to what depth or dimension I expressed my concern to him. I think it was in the nature that it was by way Of just, indicating to him that I think there is a problem. [brief shot of the audience in caucus room] I did not get to the point, I am sure, of mentioning names or leveling allegations at, anybody. Senator MONTOYA. Well, in what context did you place that observation to him that there was a problem? There must have, been some context, Mr. SLOAN. Oh, yes, sir. The party on the boat on the Potomac the night before--I think probably -that, day or in that period of time, it had become known that these gentlemen with McCord in the room at the Watergate had $5,300 in hundred dollar bills, I Obviously had an initial concern with regard to "Mr. Liddy's first remark. When the money issue came Up, it, obviously indicated to me that there might be a direct connection, that that money may in fact have been money that, I had given to Mr. Liddy of- to somebody in the campaign. I think what I was expressing is we have, a situation here where there is 110 accountability of these funds as far as I know. At least, there has been none, to me, and as far as I know, Secretary Stans does not know. In light of this, there is a suspicion, a possibility that there is a connection. What I was trying to convey--I do not, know how hard I pressed the point. What 'I was trying to convey to Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Chapin was that I thought it, Was ell more serious problem than any individual I had seen, either in the White House or in the campaign appeared to be taking at that point. [00.24.54]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI): Mr. Dean, the number of source stories containing allegations against the President attributed directly or indirectly to you over the last 4 or 5 weeks have been most numerous. Do you deny that these stories were planted in a calculated attempt to influence Federal prosecutors to believe you had such important testimony that they should give you transactional immunity from the crimes which you committed in return for your testimony against others? Former White House Counsel John Dean: I gave my testimony directly to the prosecutors. I planted no stories at all to do that, and the prosecutors certainly wouldn't make any decision based on what they are reading in the newspaper. They would want to hear it directly from me, and I was dealing directly with the prosecutors. As likewise with Mr. Dash when he began to interview me to find out what the scope of my knowledge was to make a decision for this committee as to whether they wished to grant me immunity. Senator Inouye: Mr. Dean, the May 14th, 1973 edition of Newsweek carried a long article about you and your prospective testimony. In this article, you are quoted a number of times and in many instances the quotes in that article were word by word identical to the testimony you have given this week. Indeed, for the most part this Newsweek article was a very accurate preview summary of the lengthy statement which you detailed before this committee.