Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, Testimony of James W McCord (Jim McCord)
Samuel Dash, attorney. Leaving aside for the time being why you broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on the second time on June 17 and what circumstance led to your arrest, you were in fact arrested by plainclothes men of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police shortly after you entered, is that true? James McCord. That's correct. Samuel Dash, attorney. And it s that the arrest which led to your present conviction? James McCord. That's correct. Samuel Dash, attorney. Will you tell the committee, Mr. McCord, why after a lifetime of work as a law enforcement officer without, as you have testified, any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Liddy to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretapping and specifically the two break ins on May 30 and June 17 of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate? James McCord. There were a number of reasons associated with the ultimate decision of mine to do so. One of the reasons, and a very important reason to me, was the fact that the Attorney General himself, Mr. John Mitchell, at his offices, had considered and approved the operation, according to Mr. Liddy. Secondly, that the counsel for the President, Mr. John Dean, had participated in those decisions with him. That one was the top legal officer for the United States at the Department of Justice and the second gentleman was a top legal officer in the White House. That the matter had apparently been given
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.50.27-committee room, DEAN seated at witness table] Senator ERVIN. The committee Will resume. Senator 'MONTOYA. Mr. Dean, I only have three or four questions to ask of you. I want to clear this matter up with respect to Mr. Mitchell. On pages 225 and 226 of -your statement, you mention that there, was a move afoot at the White House to try to get Mr. Mitchell to accept the blame for the entire affair. Now, can you tell me who the prime mover of this attempt was at the White House? Mr. DEAN. It, is very difficult, for me to say who the prime mover was. At the time this first was discussed. it Was after I had reported to the President -on the 21st what I thought were the implications of this entire, matter and subsequently, I had a meeting with Haldeman and Ehrlichman and then another meeting with the President. It was early discussion--I recall one particular incident that occurred outside of the President's Office before he -went into a meeting in which I said that, there are two options. One is everything pre- and post- is going to have to be laid out or, second, the White House is going to have to surround itself with wagons and start protecting Itself. It was in subsequent discussions with the President when it was evolving that I was arguing that, both pre and post had to be disclosed, but there was evolving the thought at that point in time, that if we merely deal with the pre- situation, that the post might go away. I did not believe that and it was really when the Presidential party came back from California that early discussions of this concept had evolved into a firm policy. [00.52.51] So I also mentioned that there -was a meeting on the 22d where Mr. Mitchell came down. I assumed at that time that Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman were going to do something to try to bring Mitchell forward on this issue because of, the earlier discussions that had been held. To the contrary, the discussion really revolved around, first of all, Mr. Ehrlichman asked, has the Hunt problem been taken care of, the demands that he was making, and Mr. Mitchell reported that that did not seem to be any problem. There were general discussions again about the status of the White House vis-a-vis this committee on executive privilege. I went to a meeting that afternoon with the President and it was a repeat of the same thing that had occurred on several previous occasions. So I really cannot say that, that policy evolved until after they returned from California. I recall on the 13th----- Senator MONTOYA. Did you not indicate that there had been some discussion in California about making Mr. 'Mitchell the fall guy? Mr. DEAN. Well. I do not know that, I was not in California. I am aware of another situation where Mr. Colson and Mr. Shapiro came to meet with Mr. Ehrlichman and possibly Mr. Haldeman--I was not present but I did hear them both discussing it on the afternoon of the 13th-- which Mr. Colson had laid out the theory that Mr. Mitchell should be smoked out and this might resolve the whole problem. Senator MONTOYA. Did you hear any discussions by Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman with respect to the same thing? Mr. DEAN. I guess I did. In fact, during that conversation, Mr. Ehrlichman -was on the telephone with the President at one Point in time, I recall. and it was--it had been planned that Mr. Mitchell would come down that Saturday, Saturday, the 14th. Senator MONTOYA. Who arranged for Mr. Mitchell to come down? Mr. DEAN. I believe that Mr. Haldeman called him. I am not sure. Senator MONTOYA. Now, in view of your strong feelings for Mr. Mitchell, why did you not apprise him of this move by the White House? Mr. DEAN. I had already gone to the prosecutors by this time and was in discussions with the prosecutors and I was trying to avoid any situation that would further involve me, but yet, I was not revealing to Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman that, in fact, I was having discussions with the Government about the entire situation. It occurred to Me at one time when I learned that Mr. O'Brien was going to California to meet with Mr. Ehrlichman at a suggestion of Mr. Mitchell, that he do so, that this could well be a setup situation. But I did not apprise him of it because I, myself, was dealing with the Government and I had stopped the coverup, as far as I was concerned. I was no longer involved in it. [00.56.04]
Lawmakers - May 27, 1982 - Budget Debate
Meeting of House Rules Committee.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.42.44] Mr. THOMPSON, Why Was there a belief that there were such plants? Mr. REISNER. There were a number of occasions on which articles appeared in the newspaper in a way I think would have lent to great suspicion that there was material being fed out of our committee into the newspapers or possibly to other candidates. There was such a wire story the week prior to June 17, according -to my best recollection, and there were such occasions. Mr. Anderson, Jack Anderson, on several occasions had information that seemed that could only have, come from inside of our committee. Mr. THOMPSON. Prinitng Of internal committee documents? Mr. Reisner I do not believe there were any documents themselves but I do-- Mr. THOMPSON. References to what? Memorandums, letters? Mr. REISNER. To information and to activity and that sort of thing which was going on in our committee which I think could only have gotten into the newspaper if someone had fed it out of our committee. It was just a feeling. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman, Senator ERVIN. You stated that you kept some sort of a log. Mr. Reisner Exactly what was the log? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. REISNER. My log was a sort of a daily report, of activity that was going on. I would be interrupted frequently and I might make a notation someone had come to me. Senator ERVIN. As I understand, you reported that your log shows prior to February 4, that there was a meeting at the White House attended by Magruder, Liddy, and Dean. Mr. Reisner Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Is that correct? Mr. Reisner Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And then, your log shows that on February 4, there Was a meeting Of Liddy, John Mitchell, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and John W. Dean III? Mr. REISNER. Yes; in the other notebook that was kept by Vicki Chern, Mr. Dean's name appears. It does not appear in mine. Senator ERVIN. Where did this meeting of February 4 take place? Mr. REISNER. Where was their disagreement? Senator ERVIN. Where did it take place? Mr. REISNER. That, meeting would have taken place in Mr. Mitchell's office at the Justice Departement. Senator ERVIN. At, the Justice Department,? Mr. REISNER. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. Then--- Mr. REISNER. I believe. Senator ERVIN. YOU stated that In March that Mr. Magruder went to Key Biscayne in Florida for the purpose of meeting with Mr. Mitchell? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN-. And it was after he came back from Key Biscayne that Mr. Magruder told You to call Liddy and tell Liddy that it, was arranged? Mr. REISNER. Mr. Chairman to be precise, my recollection is that on one occasion I was asked to Call Mr. Liddy and to make such a statement. My recollection is that it was', could have occurred shortly after that trip because the time seems correct. I cannot be absolutely certain. Senator ERVIN. To whom did Magruder report at the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. REISNER. Mr. Magruder worked for Mr. Mitchell. Senator ERVIN. Did Mr. Magruder send many memorandums to Mr. Mitchell? I Mr. REISNER. Yes. sir; he did. And also memorandums that would have been Prepared by senior staff members, at the committee would have been sent, through Mr. Magruder to Mr. Mitchell, Senator ERVIN. Now, how frequently did Mr. Magruder send Memorandums to Mr. Mitchell? Mr. REISNER. Mr. Magruder would have been unlikely to have met with Mr. Mitchell if he did not have some matters worthy of Mr. Mitchell's attention. He met with Mr. Mitchell virtually every day when Mr. Mitchell was campaign director and every day therefore, would probably have had memorandums. Senator ERVIN. And I understand from your testimony that Mr. Magruder had a file called the Mitchell file in which he placed documents which related to matters he wished to discuss with -Mr. Mitchell? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. According to your best recollection, the file contained some Gemstone reports and was in those file papers on one occasion? Mr. Reisner Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. Now, you spoke about the time -Mr. Odle took out the blue file. Mr. REISNER. Yes, Senator Ervin. Which I understand contained Gemstone information and other information. Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir, Senator ERVIN. to as this the kind of a file the Gemstone file was In. Mr. REISNER. It Was, I believe, if that has my initials on it, it is the file that I gave to your staff in order to-- Senator ERVIN. It has your initials on it and dated 5/21/73, Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir; I gave it to your staff to indicate the kind of file it was. Senator ERVIN. Let that be marked appropriately as all exhibit and received in evidence as such. Senator ERVIN. Did anyone else receive copies of memos that Mr. Magruder sent to Mr. Mitchell? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir; each document to Mr. Mitchell went through me, would have been a formal document to Mr. Mitchell, a duplicate copy was sent to Mr. Haldeman's office. [00.48.16]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.02.00-In to DEAN testifying about WHITE HOUSE press secretary ZIEGLER'S briefings on WATERGATE] Senator MONTOYA. And did you also state that the President received news summaries periodically -with respect to commentaries about him, in the news media or other media?, Mr. DEAN. The President received a daily news summary that was composed of basically the wire service stories from the preceding evening. I do not know what time the cutoff was, generally about 12 or 1 o'clock at night, and then it -was produced so it would be on his desk in the morning, summarizing all the preceding day's news. Senator MONTOYA. Are these, also filed in the archives of the White House? Mr. DEAN. Yes, they are. I might make a comment with regard to those,. The news summaries were really a source of a lot of action by White House staff. When the President read the news summaries, he would make notations on the news summaries, and in turn, those would be transcribed into action memorandums for various members of the staff to follow up on. Reading the news summary would prompt the President to take certain actions. These are, of course, kept in the possession of the White House. Senator MONTOYA. I would like to make a similar request with respect to these, news summaries, Mr. Chairman. Now, going back to Mr. Ziegler, on October 16, 1972, a statement appeared in the New York Times on October 17. The statement reads as follows: "The opposition has been making charges which have not been substantiated." Would you say that this is correct? Mr. DEAN. I think that probably at, that time, they had not been substantiated, no, so it probably is correct. Senator MONTOYA. On October 25, 1972, another statement by Mr. Ziegler appeared in the Washington Post, -where he termed the reports, the Post reports, "a blatant effort at character assassination that I do not think has been witnessed in the political process in some time." Mr. DEAN. What was the date on that, please, Senator? Senator MONTOYA. October 25, 1972. Senator ERVIN. We will have to go and vote. Mr. DEAN. Fine. [00.05.57-MacNEILL v.o. states that Sen. MONTOYA apparently wants to compare DEAN'S testimony, NIXON'S statements, and documents the PRESIDENT received about WATERGATE.] [00.06.05-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the committee has recessed for a Senate vote [PBS network ID-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.08.29-MacNEILL] MacNEILL introduces more questions by Sen. MONTOYA. [00.08.40]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.28.57--Robert MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the Senators are hoping that SLOAN'S testimony will lead them into the inner workings of the COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT, and that Senator BAKER'S questions went to the central purpose of the committee, reforming CAMPAIGN FINANCING. Senator ERVIN will question SLOAN next. Solicits viewer response to the coverage, 70,000 letters, 99% in favor of the form of the coverage--suggests sending letters (and donations) to local public TV stations [PBS network ID--Title Screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.32.10--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL introduces Senator ERVIN'S questioning, stating that ERVIN seems to be looking for clues to possible White House involvement in the Watergate coverup [00.32.33--in to wide shot of committee table] Senator ERVIN. Do you not think this is an area where we need the highest standard of ethics which exceed the requirements of law? Mr. SLOAN. Excuse me, Senator? Senator ERVIN. Don't you think in this area that individuals should have personal ethics whose requirements exceeded the strict letter of the law? Mr. SLOAN, Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, it is a fundamental principle of ethics that people who handle funds belonging to other people keep records of them, isn't it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And I judge from your testimony that you had many misgivings as an individual about the way matters were being handled in the receipt and disbursement of funds, didn't you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, in this transition period. Senator ERVIN. You were not a policymaker were you? Mr. SLOAN. in certain areas but not in this area. Senator ERVIN. You worked primarily or entirely, I would say, if I infer correctly, with Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, your duties were confined entirely to the finance side of the matter and you had nothing to do with the political aspect of it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; I would say the only overlap was I was a member of the budget committee that considered the total expenditures for the campaign. The finance committee's role in that essentially would be to say this is all the money we can raise, you have to set your priorities within those limits, We were a restraint factor on the political spending, Senator ERVIN. NOW, you are not a lawyer? Mr. SLOAN. No sir. Senator ERVIN. And in trying to comply with the old law and the new law you were acting upon legal advice given you by others? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Liddy, was he your legal advisor? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; he was the counsel to the committee at that time. Senator ERVIN. Now at times you had approximately $1,777,000 available to the Committee To Re-Elect the President which were not deposited in banks? Mr. SLOAN. Of that figure, Senator, approximately a million was in terms of direct payments to individuals. The balance, the $750,000, Was deposited in bank accounts. [00.35.05]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.07.26] Senator GURNEY. This occurred in January 1973?' Mr. SLOAN. I believe so, Senator. I am just not, sure.. Senator GURNEY. Where did the meeting occur? Mr. SLOAN. In Mr. Haldeman's office,. Senator GURNEY. Did you seek the audience with him? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I did. Senator GURNEY. How long did it last? Mr. SLOAN. About 45 minutes. Senator GURNEY. And would you be a little more specific about what you discussed in the meeting? Mr. SLOAN. It was a very friendly meeting. We discussed my future. I think we discussed Mr. Magruder. I think I may have, whether by name, I mentioned how strongly I felt about certain individuals in terms of what they had done that I thought was wrong. I told him that I thought positive action should have been taken away back when. I was seeking his counsel a little bit in terms of employment as well. I told him that I fully understood why, under the umbrella of what had happened in Watergate, it would be inappropriate of me in any case, regardless of your insistence, to seek employment in Government. He was just very friendly and cooperative and agreed with that analysis. He said if I ever wanted to come back in Government years from now, he would be glad to recommend that. It was that kind of a conference. Senator GURNEY. And your conversations about the President--I was quite clear about that. You professed faith in him. Is that what you generally said? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Looking at this whole problem in a time perspective, I felt that a long decision had been made, in a way, what to do about this matter. At that point in time, I think the trial had already been and it looked as if that was the end of the line, that was as far as it went. It looked as if, in a way, aside from the convicted individuals, that essentially, in a way, I was the only big loser on this thing. I think it had been interpreted at the White House, by people I considered friends over a long period of time, that there was something I had done that was improper. I think I just wanted to express my side of the story to someone who I felt could make a difference before others. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Haldeman mention anything at all in that conference about his involvement in Watergate or anybody's involvement in Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. He indicated to me that he had absolutely no involvement in Watergate. He knew about the Segretti matter and indicated, you know, when the, full story was told, that would be understand understandable. We did not go into any great, depth about this. He admitted to me that he felt that some mistakes had been made in the handling of the Watergate matter. Senator GURNEY. Was there any mention of the President other than the one you have referred to by yourself? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure I even mentioned the President's name, I think it was just a feeling that, being close, to the President, I felt a lot of information-- because of the people involved, I was getting blacklisted, essentially, Senator GURNEY. What did he say about Mr. Segretti? Did he mention when he had learned about Segretti? Mr. SLOAN. It was a, passing reeference in response to my explaining to him why I had done certain things. He just said, well, the Segretti thing, when it comes out, will be understandable--he probably says to the American people, He said, I personally know the story on that; that will be defensible. He said, the Watergate, I do not know about. He said, I have no knowledge. Senator GURNEY. Have you had ad any conversations with Mr. Ehrlichman other than the one you have told about? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator GURNEY, With Mr. Chapin other than the one you have told us about? Mr. SLOAN. I attempted once, after he joined United Airlines, to have lunch with him when he was leaving town, but he was unable to arrange it. Senator GURNEY. Do you know anything at all about the coverup of Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. Only what I have read in the newspapers, Senator. Senator GURNEY. You do not know an -thing of your own personal knowledge? Mr. SLOAN. I would say the only comment I have even heard that would be relevant was a comment by Secretary Stans to me when we were in a legal conference sometime in, I guess it would be April of this year, where we were asked by the attorneys--we were addressing ourselves to certain litigation in certain civil matters--to leave the room for a while and we were chatting informally. I think this afterward came out in the press. He said, well, I think we know now where the $350,000 went, reeferring to the subsequent transfers, as I understand it from news reports, of that money to Mr. LaRue. Senator GURNEY. You have mentioned the advice from Mr. Magruder about perjury and also the fifth amendment advice from Mr. Dean. Did anybody else try to give you any advice on what to say to the grand jury or this committee or anyone else about Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe so, Senator. I think that covers it. Senator GURNEY. There was one mention in one report about the GAO investigation and their having difficulty in locating you. Could You tell us about that, their investigation, you know, in July and August of the funds of the Committee To Re-Elect? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, with regard to the General Accounting Office, I believe we have responded to every request they have ever made, either in writing, in written interrogatories. I had been traveling at times. It evidently has not been timely from their standpoint, but we, "have made every effort to be cooperative. [00.13.30]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.22.13-DASH asks for clarification on the documents submitted as evidence concerning the White House ENEMIES LIST] Mr. Dean, just before -we recess, there has been a little, confusion in the exhibits that you have submitted, and we 'want to make sure we, have them properly identified. There is a list which is entitled "Opponent Priority Activity." That is captioned so that we know -who prepared that list. There. happens also to be, a document which is on White House, stationery which is for eyes only, dated June 24, 1971, memorandum for John Dean, Gerry Warren, DeVan Shumway, subject, opponents list., and the statement is "Attached is the list of opponents which we have compiled. I thought it, would be useful to you from time to time," and it, is signed, George T. Bell. Is this the list that goes with that memo? Mr. DEAN. Mr. Dash, I would like a look at those first if I could before I---- Mr. DASH. Do You have them?, Mr. DEAN. I don't know which one you are referring to. Mr. DASH. Would someone give this list and give this memorandum to you have the, memorandum of June 24, 1971l also? Memorandum for John Dean, Gerry Warren, Van Shumway. Mr. DEAN. Is there a, list that accompanies the June, 27 one, also, that you have attached? Mr. DASH. June 25? Mr. DEAN. It, would either have to be from the- Mr. DASH. No, there is no list attached to the June 25 one. Mr. DEAN. All right. It would either be the June 24 or June 25 that would be, attached there. Mr. DASH. No, the June '25 says, "Please, add the attached list of Muskie contributors." That list I have just, given you is not a list of Muskie, contributors. Mr. DEAN. This would go with the list on June, 24, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. DASH. And that is your understanding in submitting that to the committee, that, to the best, of your knowledge, that list is covered by the memorandum of June 24, 1971? Mr. DEAN. I know the source of this would be from Mr. Colson's office, this list, yes. Mr. DASH. Who is Mr. George T. Bell ? Mr. DEAN. He was a member of Mr. Colson's staff at the time. Mr. DASH. And it is your understanding that the list was prepared in Mr. Colson's office? Mr. DEAN. These lists -were prepared by Mr. Bell and Miss Gordon, and kept continuously updated. This does not, represent the totality of the list. This represents what I have in my possession. Mr. DASH. For our record now, that list did come from Mr. Bell and is related to the June 24 memorandum? Mr. DEAN-. That, is my understanding, This is my best recollection from the way I extracted the documents from my records. Mr. DASH. The list does not have any identification on it. That is why I am asking you that question. Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Senator Weicker. Senator WEICKER. Thank you. Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. [00.25.48-LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that GURNEY examined DEAN for more than two hours and is still not finished. [PBS NETWORK ID-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITES"] [00.29.21--LEHRER] LEHRER states that immediately after the recess, Sen. ERVIN will ask questions about the ENEMIES LIST memos that DEAN gave the committee. [00.29.30] n
JFK Assassination Hearings - H.B. McClain
Committee Chairman, U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) recognizes Rep. Christopher Dodd, who asks how H.B. McClain can identify himself in the blown up photographs of President John F. Kennedy's motorcade.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.29.06] Senator MONTOYA. Well, weren't you kind of curious as to what had happened to the scaled down plan 'which involved the expenditure of $250,000 and which was discussed by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, Yourself. and Mr. Liddy? Mr. DEAN. YOU mean between the meeting on the 27th and the meeting on the fourth ? Senator MONTOYA. February 4. Mr. DEAN. February 4. Well, after the meeting on the 27th, I was frankly very surprised, given the precedent that had been followed before with Operation Sandwedge, that Mr. Mitchell even reconsidered the matter. I think that he expected, when the meeting was reconvened, that there was going to be something totally different than it was. It was when I came in that meeting late and it was the same type of discussion going on that I interjected myself and terminated the meeting. Senator MONTOYA. When were you first aware that the scaled down plan had been approved by Mr. Mitchell? Mr. DEAN. As I think I testified. I have never asked Mr. Mitchell directly whether he approved the plan or not. Mr. Magruder--- Senator MONTOYA. Well, were you aware--- Mr. DEAN. Yes. after June 19, when I was having conversations with Mr. -Magruder, he indicated to me that Mr. Mitchell had authorized the plan, that he indicated also that the White House was recipient of the, information. and he indicated at that time that there had been pressure from the White House to get the plan moving. But it was never very clear as to exactly what had happened. Senator MONTOYA. Well. did you have any conversations with Mr. Strachan, who was the emissary or liaison between the CRP and Mr. Haldeman or Ehrlichman? Mr. DEAN. Yes. that raises a point that came up in the questioning that, Mr. Thompson was going into this morning. At one point. Mr. Strachan called me and told me that Mr. Magruder and Mr. Liddy had had a serious falling out. I behave Mr. Magruder raised the fact with me that he just could not work with Liddy. Strachan got in the middle of it and called me and he said, what should I do? I said. I have no idea. but I would suggest now That Bob Mardian is over there, that if there are personality problems and personnel problems, that Mr. Mardian handle it. That, was my recommendation to Mr. Strachan and it was only later that I heard that he had been moved from the reelection committee to the finance committee. Senator MONTOYA. Had you become aware, since the break-in that Magruder was transmitting memorandum through Mr. Strachan to Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman? Mr. DEAN. Not to Mr. Ehrlichman. I was aware from a conversation I had with Mr. Strachan on the 19th that he had destroyed documents that. indicated that he was transmitting this information back to The White House. Senator MONTOYA. And why would Mr. Haldeman destroy these documents if he was not aware, and still professes unawareness, of anyone at the White House being involved in the Watergate affair prior to June 17? Mr. DEAN. Well, as I think I have, said before, Senator, publicly, it is inch by inch that the truth is coming out. [00.32.41] Senator MONTOYA. Would you say that in view of the correlation of events, in view of Mr. Strachan's missions between the CRP and Mr. Haldeman, in view of the admission by Mr. Jeb Magruder that he Was sending this memorandum to Mr. Haldeman as well as to Mr. Ehrlichman about all these things, that Mr. Haldeman as well as Mr. Ehrlichman were, fully aware of -what Mr. Liddy's role was with respect to collecting intelligence. and with respect to the possible plan of breaking into the DNC, the McGovern Headquarters, or the O'Brien suite at Miami during the Democratic convention? Mr. DEAN. You have drawn, that is a rather broad conclusion. But, I would say this: That I think that anything that was transmitted to Mr. Strachan. Mr. Strachan was a very good, thorough, man. Anything of any import that came to his attention he would regularly report to Mr. Haldeman, and I can only assume that that material that came To Mr. Strachan was reported on to Mr. Haldeman. [00.34.04] Senator MONTOYA. Well. I can only assume from your testimony and what has been adduced before this committee heretofore by other witnesses that Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman were very precise in 'the missions that they undertook and in exacting performance by those, to whom they made assignments of missions. Would not you say that that is a correct statement? Mr. DEAN. Yes, Sir: I would. [00.34.32]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.23.52-DEAN discussing attacks on his credibility] Mr. DEAN. There have been efforts to say that I received $100,000 of missing campaign money. There is no truth to that, whatsoever and there is no Conceivable, way they will ever substantiate a story like that. Every neighbor has been probed, As I say, some of this has been press inquiry and quite legitimate press inquiry. Other of it has been by privately hired investigators. Senator MONTOYA. 'Now. how long did you know Mr. Liddy before he was hired by the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. DEAN. I didn't know Mr. Liddy until I had--I may have met him once, while I was at the Department of Justice at a rather large meeting, when I -was in the Deputy U.S. Attorney's office. There was a program called "Operation Intercept," which I was not directly involved in. It was a drug program and I understand that Mr. Liddy was in- in involved in that. When I did meet him once at the White House, he referred to the fact, that I had met him earlier, I don't recall that. The, first time I ever talked to Mr. Liddy was, in, let's see, I guess it was late October, when I began talking to Krogh about whether he was interested or not in the general counsel position at the reelection committee. I was unaware of his activities with the plumbers unit. I had only known that he had been in a dispute With his employer at the Treasury Department 'Mr. Rossides, and there had been quite a fiery exchange between the White House and the Treasury Department the like for the White House intervening in this dispute and interviewing Mr. Liddy and bringing him to the White House. This I got from Caulfield who had friends in the, Treasury Department. Senator MONTOYA. When was the first time that you knew about Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt working together? Mr. DEAN. I don't believe I really realized that, until after the break-in. it just didn't occur to me, the fact that they were both in the Plumbers Unit. I was unaware of the fact, for example, that, Mr. Hunt spent most of his time as a consultant for the White House working for the plumbers. Now, I may have been told, but it didn't occur to me. I learned, I believe it was in April or May of 1972, I had heard the rumor about, the break-in at, the Ellsberg psychiatrist's office and heard that Hunt and Liddy had been involved in this. So it was much after the fact of their actual working together that I learned of the fact that they had worked together. Senator MONTOYA. Had you seen them around the White House talking together on or about March or February of 1972? Mr. DEAN. No, Sir, I cannot say I did. Senator MONTOYA. -Now, when you were having discussions with Mr. Liddy at the CRP, did he ever tell you about his activities other than being chief counsel for the CRP? Mr. DEAN. Well, if I recall our initial dealings after he went over there, my responsibility with him was to get him Very aware of the election laws. He had not had any experience in this area. I informed my staff that they should cooperate with him and assist him. I made my files available. We had a new election law to deal with, to interpret, to understand. Regulations were being issued by the GAO, and we had a number of discussions on those. I also encouraged him, because he frequently told me that there was More Work than one man could handle, to get himself some volunteer lawyers and I suggested some names of lawyers who I thought might be of assistance to him. Senator _MONTOYA. Well, I am not, speaking of his duties as Chief counsel. Were you aware that he was performing other duties? Mr. DEAN. I think the only time I -was aware ---I was Unaware of his developing his plan; no, sir. That has been always one of the great mysteries to me, what happened from the time he went over there--I guess it must have been December 10, because as I recall, it was 1 or 2 days after 'Mr. Magruder had interviewed him that he went to work-- what happened between December 10 and January 27, and my conception of what his responsibilities were and possibly his own 'or others Conception dramatically changed. There was nothing in my conversations with him that, indicated other than the fact that he was going to have a plan for dealing with demonstrators and convention Security. [00.29.06]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.13.53] Mr. DASH. At the, time. you were interviewed by the FBI, had the story been developed? Mr. MAGRUDER. We still had not, come up with the, money amount, but other than that, we basically had developed the guidelines to the story, yes. Mr. DASH. When you were interviewed by the, FBI, did You tell this false story to the, FBI? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes: I did. Mr. DASH. You say you were next brought before the grand jury when? Mr. MAGRUDER. In August, August 18. Mr. DASH. When You testified to the grand jury that time. did you testify to the false story? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. I did. [00.14.23] Mr., DASH. What role did Mr. Dean play in preparing you for your second grand jury appearance? Mr. MAGRUDER. On the day before the grand jury appearance, was aware that I was a target of the grand jury at that time. So. I was briefed by our lawyers and Mr. Mardian. Also, I was interrogated for approximately 2 hours by Mr. Dean and approximately 1/2 hour in a general way by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. DASH. 'Now, after You appeared before the grand jury for the, Second time, did Mr. Dean give you a any report? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes: the day after Mr. Dean indicated that I would not be, indicted. Mr. DASH. Did he tell You how he knew that Mr. MAGRUDER. No ; he' did not,. Mr. DASH, By the, way, were You not aware of Mr., Dean's participation you were aware were you not,, that Mr. Dean worked in the White House and did report to Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Sir. Mr. DASH. And I think you yourself, when you testified before us in executive session, indicated that YOU were familiar with the roles that YOU played at that time and that Dean played? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; that is correct. Mr. DASH. What was your understanding, therefore, when Mr. Dean was working with You prior to Your appearance before the second grand jury? Was he doing this on his own, or was he doing it as a representative for other Persons the White House? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, again, it is an assumption On my part, I think I should be very careful. He was in a staff and did report to the gentleman you mentioned. Consequently you would assume, and I did not know and at no time did I know, that he was directly reporting back to either Mr. Haldeman Or Mr. Ehrlichman. I did assume this but that was only an assumption form my work at, the White House myself, Mr. DASH. Were YOU again called before, the grand jury prior to the trial, the first trial ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Mr. DASH. When was that? Mr. MAGRUDER. That was in September, the middle of September. Mr. DASH. Did you know -why you were being called before. that grand jury? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. At that time, they had gotten a copy--they had subpenaed my, diary and my diary contained Meetings, primarily the meetings in January and February, with Mr. Liddy that we knew they very interested in. So consequently, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, would be, and I met to try to determine how I would answer--- Mr. DASH. You mean prior to your appearance before the grand jury in September? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Mr. DASH. What was the, purpose of that meeting? Mr. MAGRUDER. The purpose was to develop the story in effect of what took place at those meetings, Mr. Dean asked if he could be removed from those meetings, and I said that would not Work, because too many people knew he had attended those, meetings. Then Mr. Mitchell and 'Mr. Dean, and I agreed that we would indicate--would indicate--that the first. meeting never occurred, that We had canceled it, and that at the second meeting, we had discussed the new election law, which actually had been passed that week and that I introduced Mr. Liddy to Mr. Mitchell and he had not met Mr. Mitchell, it turned out that he, had met Mr. Mitchell, but I was unaware of that. So I indicated to the grand jury that, it was an informal meeting to introduce Mr. Liddy and also to discuss the new election law, Mr. DASH. Was any suggestion made that you might erase entries in the diary? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; as I recall, one of the individuals indicated that. I think we agreed that erasures could be, determined by the, Federal Bureau of Investigation if anything was erased. Mr. DASH. During your appearances before the grand jury or preceding it and When the story that -was indicated was being developed, what if anything- was told to you or discussed with you or by you concerning the question of executive clemency for yourself or for those who were going to accept the blame in the story? [00.18.15] Mr. MAGRUDER. Again I would like to be very careful here. I think that--during the time, of course, since I knew I Was a target of the grand jury I was somewhat, concerned about, what would happen to me if I Was indicted, So I went through the same type, of thing that the other defendants in the, trial did and asked Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean for the kind of assurances that they did. They made those assurances to' me, but they--- Mr. DASH. What assurances specifically? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, they made assurances about income and being taken care of from the standpoint of my and a lob afterwards, and that, type of thing, and also that, there Would be good opportunity for Executive clemency. But. having worked at the White House and being aware of our structure there, I did not take, that as meaning that had a direct relationship to the. President at all. In fact, the, use of his name was very common in many cases where it. was inappropriate; in other words, where he had not had any dealings in the matter. So I knew that this did not necessarily mean it came from the, President or anyoue else other than 'Mr. Dean or Mr. Mitchell, Mr. DASH. But you did not know to the contrary. Mr. MAGRUDER. NO, I did not know to the contrary. [00.19.29]
August 5, 1994 - Part 1
(09:30:12) Whitewater Coverage title screen (09:30:25) Hearing hosts NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE introduce day's hearings from tv studio (09:33:12) Excerpt of BERNIE NUSSBAUM'S testimony before the Senate Banking Committee from the night before [see tapes #10096, 100097, 10098] (09:34:52) Further commentary of Totenberg and Bode in tv studio, they also talk to Nussbaum's attorney JAMES FITZPATRICK (09:41:45) Coverage of the House Banking Committee Hearings where several officials from the Resolution Trust Corporation testify
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.48.45] Senator GURNEY. He took you to Mr. Mitchell's office. Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Mr. Mardian was there, I believe. Of course, Mr. LaRue and possibly Jeb 'Magruder, Mr. Mardian suggested the first thing I ought to do is calm down a little bit. Senator GURNEY. This is when you first entered the office. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Mardian was the first person who said anything. Mr. SLOAN. I believe that was the sequence, yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Go on. Mr. SLOAN. Then it was a very brief meeting. I think I asked what is going on. The agents are here, they want to talk to me and my assumption at, that, point was that they were probably there to talk about financial matters. I was hoping for some enlightenment or somebody to say don't worry about it, we have an accounting of all of this, or something of that sort. Instead, I got the remark of Mr. Mitchell's. Senator GURNEY, That, was the only thing that, was said in this meeting. Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I am sure there was more, said but that essentially rocked me back so far on my heels, I have forgotten all the rest. I came away from the meeting with a feeling of absolutely no guidance as far as what, I should do -with the, FBI and particularly no guidance with regard to the whole general problem. Senator GURNEY. How long did the meeting last? Mr. SLOAN. I think it was only a couple minutes because, the Bureau was waiting, Senator GURNEY. Was the advice flippant, was it serious or wasn't it? Mr. SLOAN. I don't think anybody was being flip. I think he was being Serious but I did not understand what he meant to convey by that remark. Senator GURNEY. I would like to go over again the Chapin and Ehrlichman meetings. They were very important. By the way, in that meeting with Mitchell, LaRue, -Mardian, Magruder, and yourself, did the name of President Nixon come up at, all? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir, Senator, as a blanket answer to that, question, I don't believe the President's name. had come up in any conversations, I have had with anybody in any meaningful way. Senator GURNEY. Well, now, let go to these Chapin-Ehrlichman meetings again, and there again could you construct in narrative detail about the meetings with Mr. Chapin at 12 o'clock? Mr. SLOAN. I really with the passage of time cannot really reconstruct the nature of the way I expressed a concern to them. The responses, as in the case of Mr. Mitchell's response, were very cryptic and they stick very strongly in my mind. Beyond that, I really cannot be very helpful. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chapin, of course, had been your boss for 2 1/2 years, hadn't he? Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. How long was that meeting? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure,, probably 20 minutes. We, discussed some, other things. Senator GURNEY. Did you discuss with, him any Of the Liddy payments? Mr. SLOAN. I am not just sure,. I suspect, Senator, at that point in time I would probably have been very reluctant to make any specific accusations in terms of Mr. Liddy or anybody else. I think I was attempting to convey the general information there is a hell of a Problem over there and somebody has to really look into it. Senator GURNEY. As best YOU can say, well how long was the Ehrlichman meeting? Mr. SLOAN. I am just not sure, Senator. Aside. from the remark, they were all very friendly, talked about, other things, families. If was a Period of time of normal social interchange prior to getting these specifics we have discussed here. Senator GURNEY. And the only discussion was just, an indication on your part of a general alarm, as to what was going on down at the Committee To Re-Elect and somebody ought to do something about it. Mr. SLOAN. And also a personal fear I think with regard to the situation I found myself in. I just cannot reconstruct my own thinking or what I would have conveyed at that particular point in time. Senator GURNEY. And again was there any indication in these meetings that President Nixon knew anything about what was going on at the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, the President's name in any conversation I had with anybody with regard to the Watergate or related matters I don't believe has ever come up. Senator GURNEY. The summaries of cash disbursements that you gave to Mr. Stans, in your testimony you said you destroyed these after you gave them. Why was that? Why didn't you keep a* record of those? Mr. SLOAN, Senator, my understanding of Secretary Stans' instructions, and I think this has to be put somewhat in the context of what was happening there, we had had a number of different kinds of records. Decision had been made to remove all of the pre-April 7 records from the committee, as a part of the past. The question was constructing the kind of records for internal use that we want to have available to us as an aid in our fundraising post-April 7. Essentially, it would be we are after a man for you, target him as a man capable of giving $50,000. You would want to have available to you a record that indicates he has already given 25 in the pre-April 7 period, so when you went back to him you would have this fact in mind. So it was a 2 1/2 month period attempting to unscramble essentially what was a nightmare influx April 5 and 6, and put in a useable form. This finally consisted of the cash summary on the one side and on the other a total listing of all contributors by category. I might have been all contributors who had given above $50,000. Category 2 might be $100,000 or above, for instance. So, what was being requested was either a single copy or two copies to be tightly held of this kind of information and the request that had been made of me by Secretary Stans was a single copy of this final report. [00.55.24]
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(15:19:49) Hearing hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE in tv studio comment on hearings and segue to House Banking Committee Hearings (15:24:25) Testimony of JEAN HANSON, JOSHUA STEINER, DENNIS FOREMAN, JACK DEVORE before House Banking Committee - this House hearings footage runs to the end of the tape
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE - "Rep. John Dingell"
U.S. House Representative John Dingell (D-MI) chairing various House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings, beckoning committee members to him. Norman Ornstein (VO) describes Rep. Dingell as brash, brusque, and someone who isn't afraid to wield his gavel. Unidentified middle-aged adult male being silenced by the gavel. Rep. Dingell takes time out of a hearing to remind a lawyer their only purpose at a hearing is to advise their clients of their constitutional rights. Ornstein (VO) continues to describe Rep. Dingell as a tough committee chairman on a tough committee filled with Congressmen and women who have high ambitions. Rep. Dingell is suited for the committee as he thrives on confrontation. Ornstein calls him a shrewd parliamentarian and describes a former director of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) often getting "the Dingell treatment." Various middle-aged adult Caucasian male and female members of the House Congressional Committee listening or speaking in hearings. Rep. Dingell grilling former EPA director Anne Gorsuch, who was withholding information from committee; Gorsuch admits to refusing to comply with the subpoena; Rep. Dingell says she is without legal justification, threatens contempt ruling; Gorsuch says the refusal to provide documents under subpoena is done so regardless of the opinion Rep. Dingell puts forth; he understands this, proceeds to lay out the next steps in legal proceedings that may end in criminal penalties being laid against Gorsuch. Ornstein (VO) says Rep. Dingell is just as tenacious on passing legislation, especially when it comes to bills affecting Michigan's auto industry. Rep. Dingell in well of the House of Representatives, debating a bill to protect the U.S. auto industry. Rep. Dingell, in office, says he tries to present a fair case and get his colleagues' attention.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
After this second meeting in Mitchell's office, I sought a meeting with Mr. Haldeman to tell him what was occurring, but it took me several days to get to see him. I recall that Higby got me into Haldeman's office when another appointment had been canceled or postponed. I told Haldeman what had been presented by Liddy and told him that I felt it was incredible, unnecessary, and unwise. I told him that no one at the White House should have anything to do with this. I said that the reelection committee will need an ability to deal with demonstrations, but it did not need bugging, mugging, prostitutes, and kidnappers. Haldeman agreed and told me I should have no further dealings on the matter.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2
[00.17.49-MONTOYA questions DEAN about the strategy of the White House for dealing with Congressional investigations] Senator MONTOYA. And that was about the time that he was making this statement to the press? Mr. DEAN. Well, that preceded--that is correct. Of course, it was September 15 that that arose in his office directly and we are talking about a press conference in August, and during the following weeks, of course, there, was an ever increasing effort of the White House, to deal with the Patman committee hearings as I have so testified. Senator MONTOYA. When did the President tell you this? Was it before August 29 -when he made the statement at the' press conference or after? Mr. DEAN. It was after, September 15. Senator MONTOYA. It was approximately 17 days later. Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator MONTOYA. 17 or 13 days. In the, same. and as he "went, along, the, President said as follows: The other point that I should make is that these investigations, the investigation by the GAO, the investigation by the FBI, by the Department of Justice have at my direction had the total cooperation of the--not only the White House but also of all agencies of the government. [00.19.01-MONTOYA raises the alleged "DEAN REPORT", which DEAN claims never to have made] Senator MONTOYA. I want you to pay special attention to this. This is quoting the President still. In addition to that, within our staff under my direction Counsel to the President, Mr. Dean, has conducted a complete investigation of all leads which might involve any present members of the White House staff or anybody in the Government. I can say categorically that his investigation indicates that no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration presently employed was involved in this bizarre incident. [00.19.45-COMMON SENSE!] Senator MONTOYA. Now, I ask you this question: With respect to any project that you handled directly for the, President where a report was required, wouldn't you assume that if this Is true, that you would have been required to file a report? Mr. DEAN. Yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. And also if, assuming that this was true, wouldn't that report be available at the White House? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. [00.20.23-IF DEAN made a REPORT of his INVESTIGATION, why is there no such report available?] Senator MONTOYA. And so assuming the, correctness of the President's statement then it necessarily follows that If you made a complete investigation at his behest, and for him, that the President should produce that Dean report? Mr. DEAN. I already believe that. the White House has indicated there was no Dean investigation. I think that is one of the inoperative statements [Laughter.] Senator MONTOYA. But it is still your testimony that you were not requested by the President to make a report to him or to conduct this investigation. Mr. DEAN. Not at that time, Senator; that is correct. Senator MONTOYA. All right. [00.21.20] I want to go into this a little further the matter of the San Clemente conferences. Now, did you discuss specifically with Mr. Haldeman, with Ehrlichman and others Who might have been attending their matters directly dealing with the so-called coverup? Mr. DEAN. Yes we did. Senator MONTOYA. NOW Will you as succinctly as possible, as briefly as possible, relate for the record now just exactly what those discussions were with respect to the coverup? Mr. DEAN. Well, we had a lengthy discussion ranging over 2 days, and I have, estimated between 12, 14-10, 12, 14 hours--I do not know how many hours totally were spent in a discussion, that, basically were on how to deal with this committee. At the end of that discussion on the, last day of the discussion on Sunday afternoon, what I described as the bottom line question came up, because everything depended upon the continued silence of the, seven individuals who had either been convicted or had pleaded guilty. Would they remain silent during the duration of these hearings? I was asked that question. I said, I cannot answer that question, because I do not know. All I know, is that they are still making money demands. [00.23.03]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.24.26] Mr. DASH. Thank you, Mr. Sloan and I can say for the staff of this committee that you have indeed 'met regularly with our staff and have cooperated with us in preparing us for your testimony today. Now, during the period of time that -you served as treasurer for the, Committee To Re-Elect. the President, did you handle cash contributions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, I would have handled all of the contributions of the campaign, securities, checks, and currency, yes, sir. Mr. DASH. With regard to contributions, can you give us a general idea as to the total amount that handled and Over what period this took place. 'Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I would say in terms of the total campaign effort Up to the April 7 period, the, receipts in behalf of the President's reelection in total amounted to approximately $20 million. Of that figure, my best recollection would be that $1.7 or $1.8 million came in the form of currency. Mr. DASH. -Now,' am 1 correct that some of the, cash that was received was deposited contemporaneously with receipt, of the cash? Mr. SLOAN. 'Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. DASH. Could you give us an estimate about. how much that, would amount to.) Mr. SLOAN. I would not say directly contemporaneously but, as over a period of time certain funds Were deposited, This would total approximately $400,000. Mr. DASH. -Now as to the approximate balance, having deposited $400,000 of cash, where was the rest. of the cash kept? Mr. SLOAN. Over the entire period, from March forward, at various times, it was kept in different places. At the, outset Used safe deposit boxes at the bank in which our headquarters were located, the First, National Bank of Washington. At a later period, we Obtained a safe , and subsequent to that a second safe within the confines of the finance committee. At that point in time, the cash funds were moved into one Or the other of these safes and at a subsequent period of time, it was shifted between them. Mr. DASH. Could you tell us where these safes were located actually in the committee for the reelection offices? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, one safe was physically in my office. The other safe was kept in the office of Arden Chambers, the' secretary to Mr. Stans. Mr. DASH. Going back to the balance of cash which was not deposited, I refer you to a chart which is just in place up on the easel to my left. Would the reporter enter this with the appropriate exhibit number? [The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 20.*] Could you give us an accounting of the individuals who received cash disbursements and as you do that, to the best of your knowledge, tell the committee what was the, basis of that cash disbursement? Why, Was the. money given, if you know? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Would you like me to take it in the order you have on the chart? [shot of chart showing disbursements itemized by name to each recipient] Mr. DASH. Yes, I think it, would be an easy way to do that. Mr. SLOAN. In the case of 'Mr. Kalmbach--- Mr. DASH. When You are speaking of MR. Kalmbach, you are speaking Of Mr. Herbert, Kalmbach? Mr. SLOAN. Yes. sir. that is correct. In the case of Mr. Kalmbach, he, in a period from March 1971 up until Secretary Stans came into the campaign, was essentially my senior, from whom I took instructions. He was the principal fund raiser for the President's reelection campaign, during that, period. He, over this period from March until April 7, received, to the best of my recollection, approximately $250,000 in cash. I would qualify that by saying that in raising the funds, there were occasions, and I cannot give you what proportionate amount, where we would raise the, funds, not give it to me but give me the name of the donor, so in terms of my own internal bookkeeping, I would receive the funds from that individual to Mr. Kalmbach. So the entire $250,000 figure, that amount of money did not physically go through my hands. Mr. DASH. Now, do You know of your knowledge why Mr. Kalmbach received, either by holding On to receipts of his own or by actual disbursement by you, this amount, $250,000? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, I have no knowledge. Mr. DASH, Did you receive any receipt from Mr. Kalmbach concerning any money that was received by him from you? Mr. SLOAN. No; sir. Not only in the. case of cash, but in this entire pre-April 7 period, receipts just were not used in the campaign, period. Mr. DASH. Then will you go to the next person listed? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Gordon Strachan, who was the political liaison between Mr. Haldeman at the White House and the campaign committee. This $350,000, Mr. Kalmbach, on a day just prior to April 7, and I am not sure of the precise date but my best recollection would be within 10 days prior to the effective date of the new law, came to me and indicated that he had had a, request from the White House for $350,000 in cash, would I get that together for him. In the conversation, he indicated that he had talked to Bob Haldeman. At some point in the same day, Mr. Strachan was present in the committee. Mr. Kalmbach indicated to me that Mr. Strachan would arrange to have this picked up. I had put the money in a briefcase 'I and I do not believe I was there when the money was physically picked up, so I do not confirm that Mr. Strachan in fact personally picked this up, But I either turned it over to Mr. Kalmbach or to my secretary. I believe I was going out to lunch and was not there when this was picked up. [00.30.39]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.02.00--in to Sen. MONTOYA questioning Jeb MAGRUDER about the coverup story for Watergate] Senator MONTOYA......changes made in the coverup, were there not, as the exigencies would arise? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, we had to move. very quickly before the FBI got to Mr. Porter and myself on the basic. framework Once the FBI got to us, we. had to pretty well stay with that at, general story. We, made some changes, but, basically, the coverup story we used was developed before, our interviews with the FBI. Senator MONTOYA. Well, you used a coverup story before the grand jury and during the trial, is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir; that is correct. Senator MONTOYA. Was the matter of executive privilege discussed as part, of this coverup during your meetings with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean, or Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO, I never--no one brought up that, Subject to me. I had indicated that, I would not, ever invoke executive privilege because as I understand it, I certainly was not qualified. Senator MONTOYA. No, but. did they discuss it as a shelter for themselves? Mr. MAGRUDER. Not with me, sir, no. Senator MONTOYA. NOW, Mr.--- Mr. MAGRUDER. Excuse me. Senator, -Mr. Dean may have mentioned a couple of times that that might be an approach he might take, yes, but that would be the only one that I call remember. Senator MONTOYA. Now, what specific part did Mr. Dean have in the, Coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well Senator, he was one of the people, that dealt with this situation and dealt with me directly and dealt -with Mr. Mitchell, dealt with Mr. LaRue. as to all of the, coverup. The story 'was obviously only one and probably the easiest, part Of the coverup, taking care of, handling of the defendants was what was most difficult. My understanding from him and from others was that he, was involved in all aspects of this coverup.; And as I gathered--as you gathered from the newspapers, there were other activities that I was not aware of involving the FBI and. the CIA and so on. that Mr. Dean involved in. I was not aware of any of those activities. Senator MONTOYA. When did you quit working for the CRP or the Inaugural Committee Mr. MAGRUDER. I left the Committee To Re-Elect after the election and became executive director of the Inaugural Committee immediately after. Senator MONTOYA. When did you terminate your employment there? Mr. MAGRUDER. Approximately the end of 'the middle of February I think, Senator MONTOYA. And did the CRP or the Inaugural Committee continue to pay you after you left? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO, Senator MONTOYA. You mean you have been on your own since? Mr. MAGRUDER. No. I worked at the Commerce Department for approximately 2 months and since that time, I have been on my own as a private consultant although I did, have. done some small amount of work for the Inaugural Committee which I was reimbursed for, Senator MONTOYA. How did Mrs. Hunt come into this picture? Mr. MAGRUDER. Senator, I do not know Mrs. Hunt and I have no idea how she came into the picture. Senator MONTOYA. Well, Mr. Magruder. I believe that you have told a Very complete story. I believe you have been most frank. I believe you have comported yourself in an admirable fashion before this committee. I want to say to you that the tragedy of Watergate is that it has affected many fine young men who dedicated themselves to a President and it has affected their families more. Now, I ask you this final question: Does it not amaze you that after all this allegiance and blind devotion to duty, now you have been relegated to solace and to stew in your own juice? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, Senator. let me just say I have had to take the attitude and I have taken the attitude that this is certainly a very unfortunate period of my life. I am not going to let it destroy me, I wonderful wife and four children. Senator MONTOYA. I understand that you do, Mr. Magruder. Mr. MAGRUDER. And I am not going to lay down and die because of it. I think I will rehabilitate myself I guess is the he best word. I think in that process and I hope To be able to live a useful life. I would not recommend this as a method of re-emergence. but in this case, I think I can and I -will. Senator MONTOYA. I want to wish you well in your future endeavors. Mr. MAGRUDER. Thank you, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. Thank you. Senator ERVIN. I was very much impressed with your testimony about the climate. that prevailed in the White House, and afterwards in the Committee To Re-Elect the President. As a Matter of fact, was there, not a fear there, of Americans that dissented from policies of Government? Mr. MAGRUDER I think, Senator, it would be fair to say that all of us, and I really should only speak for myself. For myself, I did work at the White House during the time when there, were many demonstrations against the, President. We knew--I knew--of his work to try to solve this problem and I knew, at least, I felt, he was doing it, in the most effective- manner possible. Yet, at the same time, we---I knew that because of the activities of the antiwar movement particularly, that much of the. work was being delayed and stalled because of this. I did create in my mind, anyway, a frustration and a feeling of impotence in being able to deal with the subject. Consequently, I think we became, or I became-and I should only speak for myself--to some extent more callous about these activities, particularly since there were people that I knew, in the, movement many friends in the movement, -who were doing what, I would call illegal activities similar to the type that were, being done, in a sense, in the Watergate and seemed to be. doing it with the approval of a great deal, a great majority--not a great majority of the, American public, but certainly -with some approval. [00.08.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.07.00--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that later on, STANS will name the high authority that allowed KALMBACH to receive campaign funds in cash. [00.07.07--cut to committee room, Sen. ERVIN walking to table--MacNEILL V.O.] MacNEILL states that there were eloquent debates during the questioning over which branch of government was properly authorized to investigate Watergate. [MacNEILL continues, v.o., to give hourly summary of the testimony, ERVIN seen to continue his walk to his seat at table] [PORTER seen waiting to testify, appears somewhat nervous] [00.08.37--ERVIN gavels meeting to order, first rather softly, begins to speak, there is still noise, so he bangs the gavel very hard on the second try] Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. The witness will return to the stand. Senator Inouye, I believe it is your turn. to question the witness, is that right,? Senator INOUYE. I finished. Senator ERVIN. Are there any other questions? Senator Gurney. Senator GURNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, to get, caught up, to date, as I understand it you were the director of scheduling in the Committee To Re-Elect the President in charge of the speakers, the surrogates program, and also the celebrities, entertainment and athletes, and I think that two pertinent pieces of testimony you gave us last week were that you had disbursed some, $69,000 in this, I guess you might call it, sabotage program, and that you also perjured yourself at the trial at, Mr. Magruder's request, on what you paid money to Liddy for. Now, that I might clarify one or two points here, would You explain to the committee how you' disbursed the $69,000? I don't. think that was gone into in much detail last week. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT L. PORTER-Resumed Mr.- PORTER. Yes, sir;' I will. April 7, I passed approximately $31,000 to Mr. Liddy--the purpose of the funds to be used for a purpose I was not aware' of. I passed $8,000 to Mr. Richard Howard at the, White House at Mr. Magruder's request. Senator GURNEY. What did he use that for? Mr. PORTER. I do not know, sir. Senator GURNEY. Did you ask Mr. Liddy what he was going to use. this money for? Mr.- PORTER. No, sir- I did not. Mr. Magruder instructed me to pass Mr. Liddy funds when he requested them, and I did not ask what they were used for nor did he tell me. Senator GURNEY. Go on. Mr. PORTER, I gave $300 at Mr. Magruder's direction to Mr. Douglas Hallet who was at the White House. who worked to help put some reports, together and it was--I do know the purpose of that was to pay roundtrip Mr fare for Mr. Hallet to California for an Easter vacation because he had helped out in the campaign putting these reports together. I paid $1,100 to Lionel Hampton for a band appearance and rally in 'Miami, Fla., in March. I paid approximately $3,700, $3,800 to a Roger Greaves in Los Angeles. I paid- Senator GURNEY. Do you know what that was for? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Greaves, on two occasions, promoted some sign carrying placards to greet, I believe it was, Senator Muskie upon airport arrival in Los Angeles, and also came on to the-was also paid for a period of about 2 weeks, served for a period of about 2 weeks and actually paid a month's salary in fact to do some Dick Tuck type, as I think I cited the other day, Dick Tuck type prank harassments in New Hampshire, Florida, and it lasted for about, 2 weeks and he went back to California. Senator GURNEY. Go on. Mr. PORTER. Gave $200 to Mr. Robert, Mardian for an advance trip to California that he took when the bank was closed I gave approximately $300 to about, I would say, seven or eight people. in various spots around the country to promote the President's campaign at opposing candidates' stops, signs which would say "This Is Nixon Country," or whatever. [00.13.11]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Do you know anything about meeting having been held in the office of the President on or about the 5th of June 1970, at which the President and Huston and others discussed laying a plan for gathering domestic intelligence? John Dean. I have hearsay knowledge of that, Mr. Chairman that such a meeting did occur. Present at the meeting, Mr. Huston was there, various representatives of the intelligence agencies and the President at that point in time stated to those present that Mr. Huston would be in charge of the project for the White House. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Now, you were informed in substance that the President assigned to Tom Charles Huston White House staff responsibility for domestic intelligence and internal security affairs? John Dean. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.12.16] Senator, BAKER. Is this, Mr. Stans, what 'Mr. Odle probably was referring to when he answered in, response to Mr. Thompson's question On page 33 of the Odle testimony With regard to Mr. Stans, was his role limited to raising money or did Mr. Stans also participate in the decisions as to how money would he allocated? Mr. ODLE. I think that Mr. Stans in the budget meetings certainly kept an eye on where the money was going, He sometimes challenged expenditures. he would say, for example, do we really need to spend this money on television advertising this week? Is this the kind of thing you are describing? Mr. STANS. That, is the kind of thing I am describing and that the way in which the budget committee operated. At some. times, a concession would be made that we would take $100,000 out of polling and put it into candidates support, for example, but I was never successful in getting any reductions in the budget despite my letter of May 10 to Mr. Mitchell, which is before us, despite all of my pleas, despite the fact that, I got quite irate at times, despite the fact that I said, I don't think we can raise that amount of money. We, were against an upward situation and the ultimate, as I said yesterday, was in excess of $50 million that was spent. Senator BAKER. Mr. Odle also testified, and according to the transcript, that "I would say that in budget, committee sessions, his agreement--meaning your agreement--"was necessary before we, could allocate a great deal Of money, say for television advertising the following week: yes, those kinds of major decisions." Is that essentially correct? Mr. STANS. That is essentially correct, and in principle, it is the basis on which we operated. Senator BAKER . What about that $350,000 that went to the White House? Did you have to approve that? Mr. STANS. Well, that came up before the budget committee, I believe, had any effective operation, and as I testified yesterday, I knew that the subject was under consideration. I learned 'shortly after that, the money had been paid to the White House; I had no objection to it; I would have approved it had I been asked about it; and the minor difference in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan as to whether I approved it in advance or later is, I think, immaterial. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, you testified, I believe, that the $350,000 for the White House was intended for, as you understand it, polling costs, polling operations, and other things. Why on earth--cash would be the most, awkward way on earth to take care of something like that. Why wouldn't a check have been sent to an account against which the White House could draw from those funds? Mr. STANS. Well, I think this is a question that might well be, worth asking of other witnesses but I do understand that the White House, and I get some of this from Mr. Haldeman's testimony and depositions that the White House wanted to do some polling on its own to check on the reports that it got from the campaign committee as to issues and findings in certain States and they wanted to do it without the knowledge of the regular polling organizations that were being used by the campaign committee. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, let me, in the interest of time, with a full understanding you are going to return and testify later on other matters more intimately related to the structure of campaign financing let me ask you a final question: In retrospect, and hindsight is always 20-20, can You see any reason why we should lot eliminate cash transactions from the political system? Mr. STANS. Well, we had that question just a minute ago. I think when you say eliminate cash transaction in just those words, you will run into a lot, of trouble because you will even eliminate petty Cash funds for paying for the, delivery of a parcel--something like that. I think also the committee ought, to inquire into the circumstances of whether or not under certain conditions of elections, for example, it is necessary for people to have cash funds to pay certain types of expenses to get people to the polls, and that, sort, of thing, But its a finance chairman in the past, never again, I would have welcomed that kind of legislation because it would have eliminated an awful lot, of the questions. Senator BAKER. It, would have made it, a lot easier for you to account for the income and outgo, wouldn't it? Mr. STANS. Not necessarily- easier but just, easier to eliminate the, suspicions that, seemed to be associated with people paying in cash even though it, is legal tender. Senator BAKER. I can't help but note, your voluntary statement that you will never be a finance chairman again, I understand you didn't want to be this time. Mr. STANS.' That, is entirely correct. Senator BAKER. And I take it nothing has happened to change your mind? [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.17.25]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, November 15, 1973
Senator Sam Levin talking to press. Reporter. Senator, have you given up on the President? Is that it? Senator Sam Levin. You know I m an optimistic person. I always hope that everybody will do what I think common prudence dictates that you do. Reporter. Well, is it common prudence for the President to just ignore you? Senator Sam Levin. I don t think so. I think the President should have made these tapes and memoranda available three months ago. Reporter. Is there anything else you might be able to do to jog him into action? Senator Sam Levin. Well, I m still hoping he will meet with the committee and let us ask him some questions. Reporter. Despite the fact that the White House just hasn t answered you? Senator Sam Levin. Yes, I still in hopes that people will do the right thing. Reporter. (Indistinct) yourself and Senator Baker. Senator Sam Levin. Well, I don t think I ll rule out anything on any invitation or say what I ll do on an invitation until I ve received the invitation. I ve got enough things to do without going into invitations that I have never received and may never receive.