Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote to adopt Article one, Watergate Coverup
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Call of the roll is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor 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 Illinois). No. 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.
Capitol Journal - Poverty
House Select Committee of Children, Youth and Families.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.52.16] Senator ERVIN. Call YOU explain to the committee why the cheeks were transmitted from Washington to Miami and deposited in a bank in Miami to the credit of Bernard L. Barker? Mr. SLOAN.! have no idea, Senator. Senator ERVIN. Would you not infer from those circumstances that somebody that had something to do with the checks did not want anybody to know about receiving the checks and wanted to hide them? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, my understanding when I received them was a judgment had been made that they were pre-April 7 contributions and, therefore, were not required to be reported. I did turn them over to Mr. Liddy to have them converted to cash. He handled them from there. Why he gave them to Mr. Barker, I have no idea. Senator ERVIN. Well, even though they did not, have to be reported, can you inform us why, instead of being put in the safe in the committee office, why they were sent, down to Florida? Mr. SLOAN. I do not know, why they went to Florida, Senator. The reason for the conversion of those checks to cash was to attempt to comply with the spirit, of the old law of distributing an individual's contribution in $3,000 increments among pre-April 7 committees. But as those bank accounts had been closed out, the only way to do this was by converting it to cash and counting that, cash as a transfer as cash on hand in the Media Committee To Re-Elect the President. It was reported in that figure--- Senator ERVIN. I am a little mystified. How could it comply with the old law with reference to the receipt of $3,000 or less in cash by having $114,000 deposited in the bank account, of Bernard L. Barker in Miami, Fla.? Mr. SLOAN, Senator, I do not know any circumstances surrounding the deposit of the checks in Mr. Barker's account. That was not my intent in turning those checks over to Mr. Liddy. Senator ERVIN. Who instructed you to turn them over to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. I believe I took them to Mr. Liddy in response to the conversation of Secretary Stans. He asked me, do we have any problem in handling these? I told him I did not know; I would check with counsel. His recommended way of handling this was a diversion to cash. He offered at that time to handle that, transaction for me. It took him until mid-May to return those. funds to me in cash form, minus roughly $2,500 expenditure, [00.54.42--A VERY FUNNY PART HERE] Senator ERVIN. I hate to make comparisons, but I would have to say on that, Mr. Liddy in one respect, was like the Lord, he moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. [Laughter.] Now as a matter of fact, do you not know that some of the funds that were drawn out, that represented proceeds of these checks which were drawn out of the Miami bank on Mr. Barker, were found in the possession of some of the people who were caught in the ;burglary at the Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. I have since learned that,- yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. How long was it after the break-in before, you learned that? Mr. SLOAN. I believe not that specific reference, but the fact that these men had been found with $100 bills in their Possession came out Probably within 3 days of the first, week. I do not have a direct recollection of when that connection specifically was made to the bank account of Mr. Barker. Senator ERVIN. Well, during the trial, in January, it was brought out that the Miami bank in which Mr. Barker had deposited these funds had, pursuant to law, kept the serial number of $100 bills withdrawn by Barker and that the serial Nos. 043 $100 bills found in the possession of those who burglarized the Watergate bore those serial numbers? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And that came out very early in the newspaper, did it not? Mr. SLOAN. I do not think it took too long. It came out certainly within a, week or two. [00.56.18--more funny stuff] Senator ERVIN. NOW, I do not mean any of these questions to make any reflection on you, because your testimony and your forthrightness have renewed my faith in the old adage that an honest man is the noblest work of God and I am not in any of these expressions meaning to reflect on you in any respect. Senator BAKER. Nor on God? Senator ERVIN. No. Now, there was a good deal of consternation among the officers and employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President when it was reported on the morning of June 17, 1972, that one of the employees of the committee, Mr. McCord, and four other people had been arrested in an act of burglary during the early morning hours of that, day, was there not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.57.18] Senator ERVIN. And that was the time that Mr. Liddy made his statement to you to the effect that "some of his boys had been caught in the Watergate" and he had "made a mistake" in letting one of "our people participate" in the matter? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. Excuse me, Senator. He did not say, "My boys were caught last night in the Watergate." He just said, "My boys were caught," with no direct connection to Watergate. Senator ERVIN. You inferred what he was talking about? Mr. SLOAN. Not until after I read the newspapers, Senator. He made that comment to me before I knew of the break-in. [00.57.54]
U.S. Rep. Jim Wright Speaks at DNC Orientation
United States Representative Jim Wright (D-TX) speaks to new Democratic National Committee (DNC) members coming into the House of Representatives. US Congressman Wright tells a story about an argument between former US Senators Robert S Kerr (D-OK) and Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN) regarding Committee appointments.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator GURNEY. Now who were the people who budgeted the Presidents time, I mean by that, who were most responsible for those people who saw the President and those people who did not see the President? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Chapin was responsible for the Presidents schedule, and that was done on a weekly and a daily basis, a long range weekly schedule followed up by a daily basis, by a daily schedule. Mr. Butterfield was responsible for implementing that daily schedule. Senator GURNEY. Who was Mr. Butterfield? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Butterfield on the chart on the far right, reported to Mr. Haldeman and he was, he had an office right outside the President's door, and he was responsible for implementing the President's schedule on a daily basis, making sure that the appointments were there on time, that when people came in they were positioned correctly, things of this nature. Senator GURNEY. And he reported to Mr. Haldeman? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes he did. Senator GURNEY. And Mr. Chapin reported to Mr. Haldeman? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes he did. Senator GURNEY. Did anybody who had anything to do with budgeting the president's time report to anybody else but Mr. Haldeman? Mr. KEHRLI. No. Senator GURNEY. Are you familiar at all in your job in the White House with the people that the President saw daily, during your time there? (MS courtroom with Mr. Kehrli seated in FG) Mr. KEHRLI. You mean was I aware of his daily schedule? Senator GURNEY. Yes, I mean would you be generally familiar with the people he saw or ....? Mr. KEHRLI. I received a copy of his daily schedule, so I saw the names of the people that he saw daily. Senator GURNEY. I see. Mr. KEHRLI. That were on the published schedule, now he often would call other people over and that wouldn't be on the published schedule because, obviously you couldn't keep it up on a minute to minute basis. It was issued in the morning and if it changed during the day, then it wasn't worth issuing a new one to everybody on the staff. Senator GURNEY. Would you generally be aware of people who came to see him, even though they weren't on the regular schedule? Mr. KEHRLI. No I would not be. My office is located in the basement of the White House out of the traffic flow. Senator GURNEY. Of those people that you are aware of who saw the President, because you did see the daily schedule, did many senators ever visit the President? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes quite a few, and he also he used to have as I remember or and he still does breakfasts for members of Congress. Senator GURNEY. But I mean on a personal basis, talking to him in his own private office, with him personally. Mr. KEHRLI. I don't have an exact number, but I do remember senators and congressmen on the schedule, yes sir. Senator GURNEY. Were these frequent visitors? Mr. KEHRLI. I really can't comment on the frequency of the visits.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.45.12-Sen. INOUYE continues to pose questions from the WHITE HOUSE to DEAN. This line of questions tries to point up inconsistencies in DEAN'S statements and suggest that DEAN has embellished his story to get favorable treatment, IMMUNITY from prosecution] There are, however, several very noticeable. differences. One difference is an omission from the testimony you gave here. You told this committee that, when the President discussed the matter of your investigation of Watergate you did not tell him you made no such investigation. The Newsweek article however, reports that, in your meeting with the President of March 21, and I quota "Dean also bore down hard, he said, on the fact that there had never been any study clearing White House staffers. Mr. Nixon replied that he had had verbal reports of Dean's work but, the counsel insisted 'nobody asked me -for reports, Mr. President," he said." "He said. 'I did not go around asking people questions in their offices. There, was no report." [00.46.06] "At, this point sources quoted Dean as saying "The President Came out of his chair into a half crouch of astonishment and shock.' If the -Newsweek account is correct, Mr. Dean. the President's reaction was most, inconsistent with that, to which you have testified before this committee. Did you or did you not, tell the President that you had never conducted an investigation, and have you made the statement previously that "The President, came out of his chair into a half crouch of astonishment and shock"? [00.46.46-HUMOR] Mr. DEAN. Well. I have testified here already that I have never seen the President come out of his chair-[Laughter]-in that manner. I recall the interview that you are talking about and the ground rules for that interview, my wife was present with me, and she will recall that well, Mr. McCandless was With me and the rules were set. that I Would enter into no, what I considered testimonial areas at all of a substantive nature, regarding my direct dealings with the President. I was asked if I had prepared an investigation or done an investigation into that. I merely just said no. As I say. the, interview that was given, and that story do not meet With what I told the reporter because I said anything I Say I want it for attribution. I am not giving you anything on background or the like and I will not enter into testimonial areas and it was very clearly understood that I would not, I would recall to the Senator again that at this time I was coming under increasing character attacks. People said. "John. you just cannot sit down and take that. You have, got to come Out and say at a few words that you are living and' breathing and a real human being," and that is the reason I held I that interview. [00.48.12-The WHITE HOUSE questioning turns to conflicts between DEAN and MAGRUDER'S testimony.] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, if I recall correctly, you testified to this committee that it was not your idea for Magruder's diary to be altered nor were you aware before Mr. Magruder testified before the grand jury last September that Mr. Magruder would testify that the first meeting appearing in his diary had been canceled, and the second meeting had been to discuss election laws. On both of these points, your testimony is in direct conflict with the sworn testimony of Mr. Magruder. Are we to believe that Mr. Magruder lied as to these details concerning you and, if that is your position, what could be Mr. Magruder's motive for lying about the details of the manner in which Mr. Magruder's perjury was conceived? [00.49.11] Mr. DEAN. Well, Senator, I will stand on my testimony and not on the conclusions drawn in the question that has been propounded by you at the request of the White House. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder also testified that Mr. Liddy told him that you among others had indicated to him that he would have $1 million for his plans, which he had been working on before he even came to the committee. You testified, on the other hand, that you were surprised when Mr. Liddy briefed his million dollar intelligence plan to Mr. Mitchell in your presence. To what motive do you attribute Mr. Liddy's report to Mr. Magruder that you knew about his extensive plans before you saw them in Mr. Mitchell's office. [00.50.04-DEAN denies the insinuation by the WHITE HOUSE question that DEAN was involved in formulating LIDDY'S plans for intelligence] Mr. DEAN. Well, if the Senator will check the exhibits, there is one, of the exhibits in there where I had an interview or a discussion with Mr. Mitchell, At that, time Mr. Mitchell reported to me that Magruder had made, this statement to him. My response at that time to Mr. Mitchell was that I had no recollection at all of ever making such a statement to Mr. Liddy, and I can't conceive of the, statement being made for this reason: I was quite aware of the fact that a far different plan, Operation Sandwedge, that had a half-million dollar budget suggestion, had been deemed to be far more than necessary for anything to deal with even the security problems that were going to confront the campaign, [00.50.50]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). I mean be very careful on this point. He indicated to you that No. 1, according to the testimony that you set down to the best of your recollection that Mr. Hoover disapproved of these particular set of taps, is that correct? John Dean. That is the impression I had. I had been told sometime before, after Mr. Mardian left the Department of Justice and went to the reelection committee, that something had to be done for Bill Sullivan. Now he always worked on an assumption that I knew that Sullivan had done some very Important thing for the White House. I was never clear on exactly what it was that Mr. Sullivan had done that the White House owed him some favor for. But I can recall on repeated occasions this coming up and also it came up with respect to a man by the name of Mr. Brennan and who was with the FBI. I was somewhat on the periphery or this and was never quite clear and the best I can do now is I m just trying to put together the tidbits of knowledge that I did have.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now in your statement, you have described a number of meetings and activities occurring immediately after the arrest of the CRP burglars in the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate on June 17, 1972 and continuing for several months thereafter involving such persons as Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Colson, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue Mr. Magruder, yourself, and others. Isn't it your testimony that this flurry of activity represented a massive coverup operation to prevent the prosecutors, the FBI and the public from learning of the involvement of high White House or CRP officials either in the Watergate break-in or embarrassing earlier illegal activities of a similar nature, such as the Ellsberg break-in? John Dean. That is correct, Mr. Dash.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Senator Daniel INOUYE (D-Hawaii). Mr. Odle, this mornings Washington Post suggests that Mr. Charles Colson organized at least 30 groups of supporters of President Nixon to quote "attack" end quote, network news correspondents through write in, telephone and telegram campaigns to their local stations. I know that one of your committee charts lists an E. Fayler and shows that his area of responsibilities designated as quote " attack" end quote. Now who is Mr. E. Failor (Faylor, Fallor, Phayler ?) and what were his duties? Mr. ODLE. Mr. Edward Failor was basically, as the name suggests in charge of the attack operation. The idea there was, as I understand it, and I was not close to it. The idea was to see what the opposition candidate was saying that day, or that week. To get an idea what his line was, what his pitch was that day. And then to mobilize some of the other campaign activities against that, to criticize him in effect to say no your wrong senator, it ought to be this way. That was the basic idea. For example he would maybe talk to a couple of the surrogates who were members of the cabinet and others who were speaking up for the president around the country, and he would say look maybe we ought to use this line this week in attacking Senator MacGovern. Or, and then he might um go to the press office and say maybe we should to put out a press release doing this and so.....that generally is my idea of what he was involved in. Senator INOUYE. And he was not involved in the attack of news correspondents? Mr. ODLE. Well, not to my knowledge. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Odle press reports have indicated that you participated in the destruction of committee records following the June 17th break-in at the Democratic Headquarters. What was your part if any, in the destruction of these records? Mr. ODLE. I'm glad you brought that up Senator, because I appreciate the chance to respond to that. There was a story in the newspapers that I shredded documents the Sunday after the Watergate. Point in fact I was not even in the District of Columbia the Sunday after the Watergate. Um, how that story got there, I don't know. But I did not even enter Washington D.C. that day. Now there was another report later on, and that report said that I made a file search, and then shredded documents. Again, in point of fact, as the administrative officer of the re-election committee the agents from the FBI would come to me from time to time and they would ask me for various documents. Initially they wanted Mr. McCord s (James McCord) W-4 forms and all sorts of documents that the committee had. And I did search files in response to those legitimate requests from the U.S. Attorney and the FBI. And I then handed over those documents to the uh, uh, uh to the uh FBI. I did not shred one document in relation to this, this, this, (stutters) this camp, in relation to any of these things. Senator INOUYE. Did you have a shredding machine in your office? Mr. ODLE. No sir. Senator INOUYE. Where was the shredding machine? Mr. ODLE. There were shredding machines located on most of the floors at a convenient point (courtroom laughs). Senator INOUYE. And as the Administrative officer you were not involved in any shredding? Mr. ODLE. I did not shred, no sir I was not. I did not go around after the Watergate break-in and participate in what was termed a "house cleaning" I did not do that.
President Reagan and Senator Laxalt Photo Op for Re-Election Committee
U.S. President Ronald Reagan walks past adult Caucasian male soldier dressed in Class A uniform, sits behind Resolute Desk in Oval Office to sign papers for formation of re-election committee; press stand around desk, taking pictures. President Reagan banters with press and U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV). Reagan signs several documents, hands them to Laxalt; reporter Helen Thomas asks, "Does this mean you're a candidate, Mr. President, for the election?" President Reagan: "In the eyes of the law." Laxalt thanks Reagan, who replies: "This is the first pen that I've used to sign six words." Thomas asks when Reagan will formally announce; Reagan gives inaudible reply. Reagan stands, shakes Sen. Laxalt's hand, shakes hands with others.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[01.01.00-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the second day of DEAN'S testimony has ended, with many of the committee members seeming unsure about how much credence to give to DEAN'S testimony, remarks that Sam DASH has been quoted as saying he is looking forward to another chance to question DEAN, and Senators BAKER and ERVIN have not yet had their chances. MacNEILL states that the likelihood of DEAN'S testimony taking longer than expected puts more pressure on the committee's plan to finish with the first phase of the hearings by early August. LEHRER introduces comment by Steven HESS of the BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, former member of NIXON'S White House staff, and John KRAMER of Georgetown University law school. LEHRER states that things got a little tedious at the end, asks if the guests would call it a totally lost day. KRAMER says that it was not a totally lost day, but it could have been sifted down to about a half hour of worthwhile information. States that three things were learned: First, did seem to change his indication about NIXON'S involvement; had said before that he did not think that NIXON was fully aware of the implications of the coverup etc, but today, DEAN said that he meant NIXON was unaware of the "human implications" of the coverup in terms of close associates being criminally liable, rather than the facts per se. Second, it was clarified that ZIEGLER did not have complicity, and that DEAN was denied permission by EHRLICHMAN to brief ZIEGLER on the Watergate matter. Third, it was clarified that Henry PETERSEN was not complicit in the coverup, although, as LEHRER notes, the testimony of the day before was not favorable to PETERSEN. KRAMER notes that the questioning by Fred THOMPSON took away much of the aspersions from ZIEGLER and PETERSEN. LEHRER asks HESS the same question. HESS (sounding like a paid NIXON MOUTHPIECE) states that seldom is something so potentially dramatic as DEAN'S testimony reduced to such "instant boredom". Very little in the way of DEAN'S factual charges or his credibility has been affected, and HESS hopes, given statements by BAKER and INOUYE, that the cross-examination tomorrow will be more effective in either establishing or rejecting DEAN'S credibility. [01.04.28-TAPE OUT]
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - Schwarz and Smothers testify
Chief counsel Schwarz and CURTIS SMOTHERS, minority counsel, testify about their investigation findings from the witness stand (00:05:32) FRANK CHURCH opens up hearings which he explains are the first public accounting of FBI domestic intelligence operations taken on by committee - the FBI is being investigated according to the standards of the constitution, he explains the faults revealed by these investigations lie with more than the FBI alone, also with the government agencies that supported them and thier work - Goes on to say that at today's hearing will reveal what was found in the investigations regarding FBI surveilance, political abuses, unjustified intelligence operations - Church explains the purpose of this hearing is to gather information for congress to legislate appropriate standards for the FBI (00:07:50) Schwarz begins testimony about New Left investigation, he lists what director of FBI wanted agents to report on: groups' finances, publications, religion, political activities, education, social reform, labor, public appearance of leaders, mass media (00:08:06) Schwarz on the extent of the FBI's investigation: "A wholly comprehensive listing of everything those people though or did on any subject you can imagine" (00:10:49) Schwatz talks about how the FBI investigated the women's liberation movement as a subversive and threatening movement and that even women's group meetings of discontent house wives were infiltrated (00:11:00)
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973
Mr. DASH. And Mr. Chapin, what was his particular capacity and role? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Chapin was in charge of scheduling the President. Which included any meetings within the White House, any trips, any meetings outside of the White House. (CU chart) Generally, on a long range planning basis. Mr. DASH. Now going to Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Ehrlichman's I see is there on a line right to the left of Mr. Haldeman, is that true? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes he is. Mr. DASH. Yes, and what was his official role? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Ehrlichman was an advisor to the President as well as Head of the Domestic Council. Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Krogh, now what was his relationship to Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Krogh was a member of the Domestic Council staff. I might add at this point, as I said in my opening statement my, I can only speak on out of first hand knowledge on the White House organization itself. The Domestic Council is a separate entity, has it's own administrative procedures and it's own administrative personnel. Mr. DASH. Were you aware, that a point in time that Mr. Liddy worked in the White House staff under Mr. Krogh? (CU chart) Mr. KEHRLI. I was aware only because I had heard his name mentioned, I can't verify that for a fact. Well, I couldn't at that point, I have since then checked and found that he was on the Domestic Council and left on December 10th, 1971. Mr. DASH. But based on your check, that therefore Mr. Liddy in fact did work under Mr. Krogh. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes he did. Mr. DASH. And did there come a time based on any check that you made in assistance of preparing this chart, that Mr. Young from National Security Council and Katherine Chenow worked with Mr. Krogh and Mr. Liddy. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes. Mr. DASH. Do you know what time that that shift of relationship occurred? Mr. KEHRLI. The National Security council records indicate that David Young was detailed to the Domestic Council in July of 1971, they don't have a specific date. Ms. Chenow was on the Domestic council staff at that point. Mr. DASH. Now the chart does not show it, are you aware of anytime with Mr. Hunt worked with that group, that later I understand has been become known as the "Plumbers" under Mr. Krogh? Mr. KEHRLI. No I was not aware of that..... Mr. DASH. Are you aware of that term as a .... Mr. KEHRLI. Yes, I am aware of that term because I read it in the papers. Mr. DASH. You are only aware of it because you read it in the papers? Mr. KEHRLI. That's right.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.19.07] Senator ERVIN. Did he ask you anything about any efforts of -Mr. Magruder or others to persuade you to commit perjury? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; he did not. Senator ERVIN. Were there any questions asked by him concerning' the activities of officers or employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe so. I am not positive of that. Senator ERVIN, Were you present when Mr. Magruder was interrogated by counsel in the criminal prosecution? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir; I have never been present when 'Mr. Magruder has been interrogated. Senator ERVIN. Were you present, when Mr. Silbert made his argument to the jury? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. Did you hear any statement, made by any counsel in the case that there was no evidence anybody was implicated in the Watergate affair except, the seven men on trial? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure, Senator. The only period of my appearance at, the trial was just my own testimony. Senator ERVIN. Do you recall the prosecution of Bernard L. Barker in Miami in connection with an allegation about which he had falsely notarized a signature. of Kenneth Dahlberg? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I testified at, that trial. Senator ERVIN. Did you have. a conversation with anyone, with John Dean- did you have a conversation with anyone concerning the trial in Miami, Fla.? [00.20.38--DEAN is President's hitman on the coverup] Mr. SLOAN. I did not. I had one conversation with John Dean myself not specifically with regard to the trial but, in terms of the extradition proceedings in Virginia where he expressed a hope that my attorneys would oppose extradition. Following that, one of my attorneys, Mr. Treese, received a direct phone call from Mr. Dean. Senator ERVIN. Mr. James T. Treese, was your attorney and he is the gentleman sitting right behind your counsel there? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; he is. Senator ERVIN. What did -Mr. Treese tell you that had occurred? Mr. SLOAN. He related to me that -Mr. Dean had called him and indicated that Hugh Sloan would be a real hero over here if he took the fifth amendment. Senator ERVIN. That is in Florida. You would be a real hero. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Did Mr. Dean talk to you yourself about resisting extradition to testify in the Florida case?' Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And he advised you to oppose extradition? Mr. SLOAN. He expressed the hope that my attorneys would, yes, sir, Senator ERVIN. Mr. Treese, I wonder if you would mind testifying a moment. Just stand up and take the oath. Do you swear that the evidence that you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. TREESE. I do. Senator ERVIN. You were attorney for 'Mr. Hugh W. Sloan? Mr. TREESE. That, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And did you receive a call on or about October 21, 1972, in which you received you a suggestion about what Mr. Sloan should do about his testimony in Florida? Mr. TREESE. Senator, I received a call on October 31 on that subject. Senator ERVIN. Do You know who the call was from? Mr. TREESE. Yes, it, was from John Dean. Senator ERVIN. what conversation did you have with him? Mr. TREESE. Mr. Dean called trying to locate Mr. Sloan. That happened to be the day that Mr. Sloan and Mr. Stoner departed for Florida in order to participate in the trial in Miami. As a matter of fact , Mr. Dean had just missed Mr. Sloan, who had left, about a half hour before the call. he called to discuss the case very briefly with me and he said are you prepared to advise your client to take the fifth amendment? I laughed. I would like to explain that. I did not think it was particularly comical as I look back at it now, but taking it in the context of the events at that time, to invoke the fifth amendment on that kind of case, knowing Hugh Sloan as I did and knowing about the, case, what I did, was probably like swatting flies with sledge hammers. It was just so out of place and inappropriate that it did cause me to laugh. He pursued the matter and said Hugh could be a real hero around here if the took the fifth. [00.24.15--shot of SLOAN'S wife listening to testimony, SLOAN is out of frame, holds her hand] And I said, John, relax. Hugh is with Jim Stoner, he is fully protected, This case has absolutely nothing to do with the Watergate, it just happens to be a case that has come up involving one of the participants in the Watergate, he is going to draw an amount of publicity and attention and quite frankly, Senator, I believe at that time he was reacting in terms of public relations considerations rather than legal analysis of the case. I did make a promise to him to try to get hold of Hugh and Jim Stoner at National Airport by having them paged at the Eastern Airline counter and I signed off with him at that, point. I tried -to get them, it was about 15 minutes before their flight time and missed them. I called Mr. Dean back and said you have absolutely nothing to worry about, Mr. Dean, Hugh Sloan is not, going to take the fifth amendment. It, is totally inappropriate in a case of this nature. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. Mr. Sloan can come back to the stand. [00.25.34]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.32.21-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that DEAN has been discussing the plan to create a coverup story to explain the events of January and February, 1972, when the LIDDY plan was being considered by MAGRUDER, MITCHELL, and DEAN. [PBS network ID-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.35.01-MacNEILL] [00.35.14-Sen. ERVIN bringing hearing to order] AFTERNOON SESSION. Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Dean, I realize that when you have to do so much reading that sometimes it gets pretty hard on your voice and any time that you feel like you need a little break to sort of relieve your voice, let us know and we will certainly grant it to you. Mr. DEAN. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman. If the Chairman is ready I will proceed. When we stopped for lunch I was just commencing on page 91. APPEARANCES Or WHITE HOUSE PERSONNEL BEFORE THE GRAND JURY Mr. DEAN-. I Shall now turn from the matter of Magruder's appearance before the grand jury, to the appearance of the members of the White House staff before the grand jury. The handling of the appearances of the White House staff before the grand jury was very similar to the procedure that had been followed with regard to their interviews by the FBI By that I mean either Mr. Fielding or myself Would discuss with the individual before he went to the grand jury the likely questions he would be asked, the unrelated areas that we, didn't feel It was necessary for the individual to get into. [00.36.49] When Colson learned that he was going to be called before the grand jury, he was outraged. He felt that the press had been rather hostile toward him because of his association with Mr. Hunt and his appearance in the courthouse before the grand jury would be most detrimental. He was very insistent that something be done about the situation and asked me 'to see if I could do anything to help him. I called Henry Petersen and discussed this with him and asked him if there was anything that could be done. Peterson told me he would explore it. Petersen called back and said he appreciated the problem of the White House staff people coming down to the courthouse to appear before the grand jury and he had worked out an arrangement whereby they could come to the, Department of Justice, be interviewed by the prosecutors with counsel present, and then the prosecutor would take a sworn statement without counsel present as if it were a, secret grand jury room and later the prosecutors would read the statement to the grand jury. This procedure was followed, as I recall, for Mr. Colson, Mr. Krogh, Mr. Young, Mr. Chapin, and Mr. Strachan. When Secretary Stans learned that he was being called before the grand jury, he expressed a similar outrage and requested a procedure like that which had been given to the members of the White House staff. I discussed this again with Petersen, but he said he didn't feel it would be possible to follow a similar procedure. Mr. Stans' outrage continued and finally he raised it directly with Mr. Ehrlichman. [00.38.26]
Lawmakers - February 11, 1982 - Clean Air Act
House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee members in discussion.
Congress: We The People - Lobbying Congress
House of Representatives chamber rostrum. A Congressional committee hearing.
August 5, 1994 - Part 2
Coverage of the House Banking Committee Hearings where JACK RYAN the acting head of the Resolution Trust Company, ELLEN KULKA - General Counsel of the RTC, APRIL BRESTLOV - Staff Attorney of the RTC, Mr. HEINZ (?), JAMES DUDINE Chief of Investigations at the RTC, WILLIAM ROELLE - Former Senior Vice President of the RTC, and others testify
Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on the Intelligence Reform Act
U.S. Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) speaking in Dirksen Building, Room 6226, at Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on the Intelligence Reform Act of 1981: "... what we are involved in here is always trying to obtain this balance. I would point out that the Nation went along for some 190 years without the Freedom of Information Act, so it's not something that's written in concrete into our Constitution in that it constitutes one of the very basis of the liberties that we have. The difficulty is the contradiction of having an organization which by its very nature is meant to be secret, and having it available through the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of that information. Now, you have listened to the testimony that the generals gave here earlier, not just on the chilling effect, which couldn't be quantified. That was not facts. That you were dealing with facts. I don't take that as quite an accurate statement, to just dismiss what they testified to. These were facts which they stated, and facts which were given by Mr. Carlucci a year ago in testifying before the House. He said sources were cut off. Now, if we are going to have Intelligence Committees, as we have, greatly strengthened, that we did not have in the past, it seems to me that the protection for the people that you are discussing is provided for. So, Mr. Chairman, I found the information and the testimony of these gentlemen helpful but not persuasive."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.55.00-GURNEY continues to question DEAN about his meetings with NIXON at the time he decided to go to the prosecutors] Senator GURNEY. You are right. That is true. Now, why was that? You had been meeting with him almost daily there, in March on a number of things many of which had touched on the Watergate affair, according to your testimony. Why was there this total and you had sudden absence of any other contacts, meetings, or phone calls with the President? Mr. DEAN. Well, I call only tell you -what my impression of the situation is. When I met with him on the 22d in the, afternoon--let's say it was the, afternoon of the 21st--I had gotten rather factual and open in a meeting with Ehrlichman and Haldeman and the, President that I thought they could be indicted, that, I could be indicted, and I was disagreeing with most everything that, was being said in the meeting. I subsequently had a meeting the next day, on the 22d, in the morning, with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and myself. There was further discussion of--one of the first things that came out, in the, meeting was the fact when Mr. Ehrlichman asked -Mr. Mitchell if Mr. Hunt's problems had been taken care, of, referring to the fact, that Hunt had made. demands. Mr. Mitchell said, "I don't think that, Hunt has any Problems anymore.". [00.56.24] Then there was the afternoon meeting in the President's office in which there was more discussion about how to handle this committee and deal with it, vis-a-vis the White House and the President and the President's Posture on executive privilege. I again had quite evidently shown. a different posture than I had before. Senator GURNEY. Well, that really--- Mr. DEAN. I have not finished. I was looking to see if the chairman wanted me to proceed. Senator ERVIN. There is a vote on now, and we will have to take a short recess, [Recess.] [00.57.10-MacNEILL v.o. states that there will be several rollcall votes that interrupt the afternoon session, when the senators return, GURNEY will continue, trying to pin down DEAN'S meetings with NIXON and the Prosecutors.] [00.57.29-cut to after recess] Senator ERVIN. The committee will resume Senator GURNEY. Mr. Dean, WE were discussing the time lapse, between those meetings with the President, the last meetings on the 20th and 21st and 22d and your next, communication with him, which was April 15, as I recall. [DEAN describes a meeting in which it is clear that NIXON, HALDEMAN, and EHRLICHMAN are all interested in continuing the coverup] Mr. DEAN. Yes, Senator, and I believe I was explaining that it was after the, meeting on the 22d, that a afternoon, when we met again with Mr. Mitchell, Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and the, President, and there was more discussion of dealing with this committee, some discussion about the fact that the Executive privilege statement was too broad and that the President would probably have to retreat somewhat to a position, this is Mr. Mitchell's suggestion, and he saw this to be the only problem in dealing with the committee. And then, on the 23d the President was going to Key Biscayne, and I believe he probably was in Key Biscayne when he called me, I am not certain because of the time frame. As I said, I had been surrounded by the, press and was it my house and I talked to Ehrlichman that morning I morning about the, McCord letter. and then the President called and suggested I go to Camp David, and I would say that was the last time I talked with him until April 15 at which time I sent him a message. [00.59.11-DEAN gives his opinion on the role of HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN, AND NIXON at that stage when the coverup was in jeopardy] Now, why did this happen? In my estimation, it was becoming Very evident to certainly _Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and probably the President, who was present during the meeting on the afternoon of the 21st, that I was; not playing the coverup game any more, and certainly -when I came back from Camp David that was very evident to them. in my meetings with Mr. Haldeman, my subsequent meeting with Mr. Mitchell and my meeting---- Senator GURNEY. When were they? Mr. DEAN. This was on the 28th. Senator GURNEY. The meeting with Mitchell. Mr. DEAN. Mitchell and Magruder. Mitchell and Magruder had met with Haldeman, and then when Mr. Haldeman called and asked me to come, back from Camp David and I had a brief meeting him, as I said, we had for many, many, many months, we talked very openly about---- [01.00.15]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.31.10-TALMADGE continues to question MITCHELL] Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans testified before the committee, Mr. Mitchell, he. stated his sole responsibility as chairman of the finance committee was to raise, the money and he testified that it was your responsibility as I recall., as chairman to determine the expenditures thereof. [00.31.45-TALMADGE asks if MITCHELL was responsible for the unaccounted spending in the campaign] Now, we had some more than, a million dollars in cash that was not accounted for during the. expenditure. Thus, as I understand it, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Stans -has implicated you as being responsible for these cash disbursements. Would you comment on that? Mr. MITCHELL. I don't believe that, that 'Senator, in all deference to you, is the testimony of Mr. Stans in any form, shape, or circumstance stances about that. By the time that, I became active. and 1 am Saying active as distinguished from consulting, in the campaign, we were working on budgets, which Mr. Stans and his people on the finance Committee, were part and parcel of, just, as I was on the political side, and we, -were working under the budget. Mr. Stans was part of that. [00.32.38] Senator TALMADGE. Let's see if we can clarify it. It was Mr. Stans' responsibility to raise the money, as I understand it. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. MITCHELL. No question about that. Senator TALMADGE. Whose responsibility was it to disburse it? Mr. MITCHELL. It was the responsibility--to disburse it? Senator TALMADGE. Yes, Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it, was actually disbursed by the finance committee but, I am sure that, is not, the, thrust of your question. Your question is who authorized the programs for which the money was spent. I think that that is the question? [00.33.06] Senator TALMADGE. Yes. who could call up over there and say give x number of dollars or write a check for such and such an amount? Who had the. authority to do that? Was it you or Mr. Stans? That is what I am trying to get at. Mr. MITCHELL. It, depended on the period of time involved. Mr. Talmadge. 'Before their budgets were put together, it was done in the way you said, that we authorize this program and so-and-so can get so much money. Senator TALMADGE. When did you take over as chairman of the committee? Mr. MITCHELL. I didn't, become chairman. I became campaign director, Senator Talmadge. Senator TALMADGE. What date was that? Mr. MITCHELL. It was announced on the 9th of April. But, I had been working, as my time would allow. plus a vacation, from the 21st of November through the 3d or 4th of April in trying to put together working budgets under which these moneys would be expended, Senator TALMADGE. Thereafter then was It your responsibility to authorize authorized disbursements? Mr. MITCHELL. In connection with the budget., yes. Senator TALMADGE. And so-- Mr. MITCHELL. That, is up until the 1st of July. Senator TALMADGE. When you resigned and that, was sole your responsibility during that period? Mr. MITCHELL. No. as you have heard from the discussion here, this morning -when Mr. Stans consulted me about, it, because of the many other things that I was doing, including putting together the political organizations in the 50 States. I told Mr. Stans that Mr. Magruder had continuing authorization which, of course, Is part, of Mr. Stans' Testimony, to authorize expenditures of Money. [00.34.38-TALMADGE charges MITCHELL with approving the payments of money involved in the COVERUP-MITCHELL tries to split hairs and dodge the question] Senator TALMADGE. Then the expenditures that were paid out by Mr. Sloan, as I recall, various lawyers fees, and bail fees, and living expenses, were authorized by you, Is that a correct statement? Mr. MITCHELL. To my knowledge, Mr. Sloan never made such payments. Senator TALMADGE. Who did? Mr. MITCHELL. To my knowledge there was never any money paid out of the committee for that purpose.. Senator TALMADGE. There was some--- Mr. MITCHELL. If I can go back to my testimony a few minutes ago Senator TALMADGE. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL [continuing]. When this matter was first brought up it was turned down and turned down cold. The money that was used, if it was bail money and I am not, sure of that, but, attorneys' fees and support, were not committee moneys. Senator TALMADGE. Where did that money come from? Mr. MITCHELL. Well I believe Mr. Stans testified, and I am no expert on this subject matter because I don't know all of the answers to it, I believe Mr. Stans testified that at Mr. Kalmbach's request and this is the first public knowledge that I have as to how this got started, that on the 29th of June Mr. Stans turned over moneys that were not part of the campaign moneys to Mr. Kalmbach in the amount of $75,000. [00.35.58] Senator TALMADGE. I believe he, testified that he checked with you on that and you authorized it, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. Who did this? Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, as I recall. Mr. MITCHELL. No, he did not, No, sir, I beg your pardon. Senator TALMADGE. Who authorized that disbursement? Mr. MITCHELL. That was not a disbursement of campaign funds. This was moneys that Mr. Stans testified that, he had outside of the campaign, and that he turned them over to Mr. Kalmbach at Mr. Kalmbach's request, Mr. Kalmbach having said this -was for an important White House mission and I am quite certain that is the testimony. [00.36.29]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.48.28-Sen. TALMADGE interrogates MITCHELL about the first stages of the coverup] Senator TALMADGE. Did you talk to Mr. Colson about the same time? Mr. MITCHELL. I am sure that I would because he would have, attended those meetings. Senator TALMADGE. Did you direct Robert Mardian to telephone Liddy on June 17 and ask him to try to persuade Mr. Kleindienst, then the Acting Attorney General. to arrange for Mr. McCord to be released from bail as Mr. Magruder has testified? Mr. MITCHELL. NO, sir. I am sure, I assure you, that would not be the case. There was some conversation that somebody might call up the Acting Attorney General to find out, what the hell happened but I noticed in Mr. Magruder's testimony he said that, I selected Mardian because, Mardian was, a great, friend of Liddy's and if there was anybody who were on the opposite ends of the stick it would have been Mardian and Liddy. Senator TALMADGE. -Would You say then that Mr. Magruder committed perjury before this committee? Mr. MITCHELL. I cannot, characterize anything as perjury. Senator. That does not. happen to be, a fact, what you have just said, and I have just denied it and I am sure, the other people who were present Will also deny it. Senator TALMADGE. You are a good lawyer. Mr. Mitchell, testifying under oath to a lie is commonly referred to as perjury, is it not? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Yes; but you also have to have intents, I think, along with it under certain circumstances and I am sure, that some of these conversations have rot garbled and mixed up in the, intervening year and a half or so. I would not, want to characterize anybody---- Senator TALMADGE. What you are saying is intentions might be good but, his facts are wrong, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. Could very well be that the recollection was not quite accurate. There are many of other circumstances some Of which I testified to and some of which I presume I will in connection with my answers relating to Mr. Magruder's testimony where I know damn well that, he has transposed events and got them mixed into other circumstances. [00.50.31] Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Dean has testified before this coil in committee that there was a meeting on March 22, 1973. When you met with him. Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman and you said that there was no more money problems for Mr. Hunt. Did this meeting take place? [00.50.51] Mr. MITCHELL. The meeting had taken place, Senator, I covered this earlier this morning and it to this effect. the meeting took place prior to a meeting with the President. It was, on March 22. those participating were Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, and myself. Dean's testimony Is to the effect that, Ehrlichman asked me if Hunt had been paid or if his problems had been taken care of. and I am reported by Dean to have answered yes. something. To the contrary, I deny that it ever existed as far as I am concerned because I would not, know whether Hunt's problems have been taken care of or not, Senator TALMADGE. Then, you are telling this committee Mr. Dean was in error when he made this statement? Mr. MITCHELL. This may be another one of these cases where on---- Senator- TALMADGE. Intentions were good and his facts, were wrong? [00.51.38] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, he probably got the parties mixed up. I do not recall ever having talked to John Ehrlichman about payment of money to anybody in connection with the Watergate. Senator TALMADGE. I believe you stated you later met with the President that day? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes sir. we did. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Dean said--he testified--you talked with the President about dealing with the Ervin committee at that point, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. Excuse me. this is a side joke that we have, he is afraid I am going to pronounce the chairman's name wrong as I have from time to time. The word "dealing: is a pretty broad term. Actually. the subject matters were a number that did have to do with the committee and it was also, of course the basis, the subject matters were the basis for discussion that took place previously that morning among Haldeman, Ehrlichman Dean, and myself in the meeting that we Just got Out of. The real problem that was discussed -it that particular time 'Was the problem the President was having in connection with executive privilege and that was the real focal point of it and, of course. that Was right in the middle of the Gray hearings where the concentration was on the executive privilege matter. The other aspects of it were as to who was to be the liaison in connection with the White House working with this committee, up here, and I believe that Mr. Dean is correct in testimony that during the meeting the President Called Mr. Kleindienst to ask him if he had met with the chairman and the vice chairman of the committee on the Subject matter to start discussing matters of privilege and the other relationships in that area. [00.53.36] Senator TALMADGE. Did you convince the President at that time that he ought to waive executive privilege? Mr. MITCHELL. I urged it. senator TALMADGE. Why was he so insistent on what he called executive privilege, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. MITCHELL. Well of course, I can't always--I can't say always, If can't read the President's mind but I -would believe that whatever the President does in this area he does it in connection with the Presidency and not in connection with some individual. problem that he may have at a particular time. [00.54.06]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (2/2)
[01.08.23-INOUYE continues to confront DEAN with the WHITE HOUSE MEMO accusing DEAN of masterminding the coverup] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "On March 30, the President relieved Dean of any further responsibility for the Watergate investigation. He called Ehrlichman in, told him that it was evident to the President that 'Dean was in the thing up to his eyebrows and assigned Ehrlichman to look into Watergate." This is from Mr. Ehrlichman. "The President indicated to Ehrlichman that, his conversations with Dean throughout the, preceding month had given him an awareness of Dean's personal involvement in this.' Relieved of his Watergate duties by the President and aware, that"--- [01.09.07] Mr. DEAN. Senator, I might just note at this point and call it to the attention of the record, that Mr. Ehrlichman also resigned from the White House on the, same day that my resignation was requested, and Mr. Haldeman as well. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING FROM W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "Relieved of his Watergate duties by the President and aware that his own complicity had become obvious', Dean decided to strike out on his won to hunt for immunity for the long list of wrongs he had committed. According to the President, it was, April 2 when he first established contact with the prosecutors and attempted to bargain for immunity. While he carried on these negotiations, Ehrlichman completed his report and advised the President on April 14 that Mitchell, Magruder, and Dean were, all involved." [01.10.01] Mr. DEAN. I would like to comment on that. As I have testified, Mr. Ehrlichman told me after he had returned from San Clemente back to Washington, I met with him on the afternoon, late, afternoon of the 8th and had periodic meetings with him during the week of the 8th to the 14th. It was on the 14th that he told me that, he had talked with Kleindienst and that the grand jury was doing nothing. He was particularly asking me when I was likely to appear before the grand jury. I was already, per the instructions of my own counsel, limiting conversations with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman about testimonial areas. But it was that day that I drew up the list which I wanted to get the message very clear to Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman that they had very serious problems. It was on the, as a result of that, list that the Attorney General suddenly received a call, because I informed him that my counsel had been in direct communication with the prosecutors and the prosecutors had indicated that indeed, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman were potential targets of the grand jury. At 1 o'clock that night, I realized that they had gotten the Attorney General late at night to get a briefing from the prosecutors and that is when things really started moving. That is when the activities began to occur. [01.11.41] Senator INOUYE. "On the 16th, Dean was asked by the President, to resign, but refused to do so. On the 30th, he was dismissed. His increasingly shrill efforts since, that date to, save himself by striking out recklessly at others are, too familiar and too painful to require Mention." This ends the memorandum. [01.12.06] Mr. DEAN. I would only add to that, Senator, that I think that if anyone has been on the receiving end of adverse publicity. it has been this witness; and not any of the other witnesses and I have not dealt in personalities, nor will I deal in personalities at any time during these hearings. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, that ends the memorandum. I have several questions were submitted by the office Of the counsel for the, President, with a closing statement. Knowing the lateness of the time, May I request that, I be Permitted to continue the interrogation tomorrow, sir? Senator ERVIN. Yes, think the Chair should state, however, for the information of all Concerned, that that the article which you have been reading to the witness and the witness has been testifying about is an article which the committee has received from Mr. Fred Buzhardt, counsel to the President. Mr. DEAN-. I understand. Senator ERVIN. And not the testimony of a witness. Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask--- [01.13.17] d
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.02.00-Sam DASH, pursuing a pointed line of questioning, asking John DEAN about efforts to keep Jeb MAGRUDER from breaking ranks with the coverup by finding him a government job] Mr. DASH. ----I have so noted them." What is your interpretation of "some will break more china than others?" Mr. DEAN. I do not know exactly. That could mean one of many things, that, the given head of an agency might have had a various level of tolerance for the White House continuing to place people in their agencies. It could mean that people would want to know about Magruder's awareness which I do not know if Mr. Jones had any awareness that Mr. Magruder had problems, but whether Mr. Higby had related that to them or not, I certainly did -not so it is very hard for me, to interpret exactly what that phrase, means; and I think only Mr. Jones can testify what he meant by that. Mr. DASH. I think it is fair for the record of this committee to clarify here. Is it your testimony that Mr. Jerry Jones, -who had been asked to prepare this memorandum and seek- out these, options, did not himself,. of your knowledge, know what Mr. Magruder's problems were or know anything about, the Watergate coverup? [00.03.06] Mr. DEAN. Not to my knowledge. In fact, when I was talking about this with Higby before, Mr. Jon knowledge prepared this, one of the jobs I had heard of after talking -with Jeb that he might be interested in was the job that ended, up as No. 1, which was the assistant to the Secretary or Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Policy Development. And apparently Mr. Higby relayed that on to Mr. Jones. No. I do not know when I first heard of that at I job but, I did, did, when Magruder came by I mentioned I heard of that job and he expressed Immediate interest in it. [00.03.48-testimony about misinforming Clark MacGREGOR, MITCHELL'S replacement at CRP] Mr. DASH. Mr. Dean, you testified you were. asked by Mr. MacGregor to tell him the true you facts and that you testified that you checked 'with Mr. Ehrlichman and Ehrlichman said no that you should not tell Mr. MacGregor the true facts. Do you recall what Mr. MacGregor's reaction was when you refused to tell him the true facts, or how did you handle that? Mr. DEAN. Well, what I did was I gave him the most evasive song and dance I could to weave, him through the problems he was going to have down there, and I recall that as soon as Mr. MacGregor would have a press conference that people at the White House who hit the ceiling because he would say something that would created more problems than it would solve, and I felt very sorry for Mr. MacGregor because he did not know what he should say and what he should not say and he had been given a lot of assurances that -were assurances he should not have been given, and I think, I am sure I am not the only one he, asked for assurances, I am sure, he asked others for assurances and was given them, that there, was nothing to be concerned about, [00.04.57] Mr. DASH, You have also testified, Mr. Dean, that after the President's August 29 speech, and that is the speech of the so-called Dean report of no White House involvement, that you discussed with Mr. Moore. and others the Possibility of your becoming a fall guy. Now, how could you meaningfully discuss it with Mr. Moore without Mr. Moore having all the facts? Did Mr. Moore have the facts at that time? Mr. DEAN. Not at that time. I--it was long after that that I began--I do not recall exactly when. when I first started discussing this, as I recall, I was discussing it with Mr. Fielding and I thought that If this statement crumbles, I crumble with it. I am the man who is out in front saying that everybody is clean, and this is something I did not exactly want, and that is why I began to talk to people about: Am I being put out in front? I can recall discussing it, with Mr. Mitchell at the time, and he assured me, he told me, his answer Was, "If you ever see any sign of that, please tell me because I Will speak directly -with the President." [00.06.08] Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Dean. you testified, of course quite at length this week, first a full day of statement and then all these days of examination, cross-examination. But I think in the course of your testimony you have made It fairly clear that you have. had experience both in the legislative branch and the executive branch and very full experience in this unfortunate occurrence- which was the coverup of the Watergate and perhaps some complicity in the Watergate itself. Now, a major reason for this committee sitting and hearing all these facts certainly is not that of a prosecutor but of a committee of the Senate in order to come forward with legislative recommendations and, especially in this case, recommendations to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again in this country. You were a major and key figure in so many intimate parts of this massive coverup and activity which became the Watergate scandal and coverup. Can you give this committee any recommendation either now in brief, and later in writing to the committee, which can assist this committee in formulating its recommendation to the Congress so that this kind of thing can never happen again in our country? [00.07.30]