Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.52.58-Problems in convincing Jim McCORD to participate in the COVERUP] Caulfield told me that McCord was very adamant about his plans to gain. his freedom through the, phone calls that he, had made to the foreign embassies. I told Caulfield I really did not understand why McCord thought he could got his case dismissed by reason of the wiretaps taps, but I would gave the matter some thought. Caulfield told me that it was his assessment that McCord would only respond to a direct request from the President. I told Caulfield that he couldn't make such a statement because I had no such request from the President, but suggested he meet again with McCord and keep him happy by telling him we were checking out the matter of his conversations with the Embassies. Later that, afternoon, Caulfield reported again to me that McCord was only interested in his theory about the calls to the Embassies. I told Caulfield to keep in touch with McCord, but I couldn't promise anything about his calling the, Embassies. I told Caulfield to have McCord give him a memo on why he, thought that his calls to the Embassies would result in dismissal of his case. I called O'Brien and told him what had transpired. On Monday morning I reported to Mitchell what Caulfield had reported. It was sometime during this period that a result of my reports of Caulfield meetings with McCord, That O'Brien, Mitchell, and Mr. Alch discussed having F. Lee Bailey, Alch's partner meet with McCord and inform him that he would personally handle his case on appeal, Mitchell was to talk -with Mr. Bailey about this. I do not know what happened regarding- this proposed plan. On January 19 or 20. Mr. Caulfield brought me copies of McCord's memo regarding his intercepted conversations to the embassies. I have submitted these documents to the committee. Mr. I DEAN. I never did anything" with these other than inform Mitchell I had received them and I showed them to Mr. O'Brien in my office. I do not recall ever talking with anyone at the Department of Justice. regarding McCord's proposal. At this time, I concluded McCord was going to do what he thought best for himself. [00.55.14] HANDLING LIDDY'S CALL TO KROGH--JANUARY On January 4. Gordon Liddy called Mr. Krogh. Krogh's secretary received the call and Liddy said that he had received a letter from an investigator for the Senate Commerce Committee about his relationship with Krogh. The letter was part of an investigation conducted by the committee staff in connection with hearings for the Under Secretary of Transportation post. Liddy wished to speak to Krogh, but the call was not put through to Krogh. Krogh came to my office and asked what he should do. He said he wanted to be able to testify at his confirmation hearing that he had not spoken with Liddy since long before the Watergate incident. Krogh that his secretary should return the call. We then worked out a response which Krogh wrote down for his secretary and she returned the call. I have submitted to the committee the document prepared by Mr. Krogh's secretary after the call was returned to Mr. Liddy--and I might note, that, was not, in the exhibits, when I assembled them last night, but, I do know where it is, on the table at, home. Senator BAKER. I take it you Will supply that. document later in your testimony Mr. DEAN. Yes, Senator I will. Senator BAKER. Thank very much. Mr. DEAN. On Friday afternoon. January 5, I received a report from O'Brien that, Liddy had been rather miffed and annoyed that Krogh had been unwilling to speak with him. I reported this to Krogh, who asked if I would personally see what I could do, because, Krogh felt sorry for Liddy but, just couldn't talk with him, I' agreed I would do something and on Saturday January 6. 1 called Liddy from my house at his home. It was a brief call In which I told him the reason Krogh had not called and told him that Krogh had great sympathy for his plight. Liddy -said he understood. The only thing I can recall Liddy saying to Me Was that he hoped that there would be some money forthcoming for his lawyer. I said I would pass that. message along. I also expressed sympathy over his situation and the call ended. I later reported to Krogh that Liddy understood why he did not speak with Him personally and Krogh appreciated it. [00.57.37] RETRIEVING 'CIA MATERIAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Now I am going to turn to the receiving, the retrieving of CIA materials from the Department of Justice in connection with the investigation. As a result of a conversation I had with Ehrlichman. I was asked to attempt to have the CIA retrieve from the Department of Justice information relating to Hunt's dealings with the CIA. To understand Ehrlichman's request. I must provide some background. During the course of the Watergate investigations. the prosecutors had requested materials from the CIA and because of the fact that this material related to the White House, the CIA had informed the White House of the request. The first Incident when this came up was regarding the fact of who had made The initial request to the CIA to assist Hunt. [00.58.30]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.02.04-DEAN responding to GURNEY'S questioning about his meetings with NIXON in March 1973] Mr. DEAN. Well, as I said also, we had discussed the Watergate on previous occasions before that, we discussed it on the 13th. We talked about money and clemency. He had told me as early as my February -meetings -with him, that I was to report, directly to him at that point. If you check some of the exhibits that I have submitted you will see that there are a lot of Presidential decisions being made as a result of the La Costa meeting, and it was at one point I decided that I had to tell the, President what I thought the implications of this whole situation was. That I thought that not only was there a problem for some that were involved before the break-in had become known but I thought there, were a lot that had problems is a result of the break-in, and that the coverup could not continue. Senator GURNEY. Well, at any rate, whatever was being discussed at these meetings the 20th, the 21st, and the 22d, they certainly were very important matters affecting Watergate, is that not true? Mr. DEAN. They were affecting Watergate, to the degree of how to deal with this Senate, committee, yes. Senator GURNEY. You mean you only discussed the Senate committee in these meetings? Mr. DEAN. That is the thrust of virtually the entire. conversations that occurred, particularly -when Mr. Mitchell was present, the morning he was present, on the 22d. Senator GURNEY. What about the meeting of the 21st? You had two that day, one with the President when Mr. Haldeman came in later, and then another one, with Mr. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and yourself and the President. Was that the subject of this committee here that you talked about? Mr. DEAN. I think, as I testified, that after I had completed my presentation to the President from some, of the, questions he asked and some of the statements he made I did not, feel that be fully understood the problem that people at the, White House had for their involvement in the post situation. It was somewhat like---- Senator GURNEY. So it was a much wider discussion than simply this committee? Mr. DEAN. Not really, Senator, it was, it was a rambling discussion. It did not have a particular focus. We never got down to specifics. The meeting--I assume what was going to happen as a result of the meeting that afternoon of the 21st and a subsequent meeting I had had earlier, at that meeting was that there was going to be an effort, to have Mr. Mitchell step forward and take the heat. [00.04.44] Senator GURNEY. Did you not seek the meeting of the 21st with the President? Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir, I did. Senator GURNEY. Why did you? Mr. DEAN. As I think I mentioned earlier to you, I had had a communication from Mr. O'Brien that, Mr. Hunt was making new and increased demands that were now coming directly to the White House, and I could. see that the White House was going to be increasingly and increasingly placed in a, position of having to deal with this situation. [00.05.17-GURNEY is suggesting that the HUNT crisis necessitated the INITIAL informing of NIXON about WATERGATE, DEAN suggests that NIXON was already aware and it was only necessary to impress on him the severity of the situation, and to advocate for the President to end the coverup] Senator GURNEY. And is that not what precipitated your request for this meeting with the President so that you call tell him the Whole broad outline of the Watergate and what it was all about? Mr. DEAN. Well, as I had discussed with Moore. Dick Moore, for many, many months how to end this situation, how to get the President out in front of it so that he would step forward and say, "This is what my involvement is, this is what the picture is from my standpoint." But there just seemed no way to do that. Senator GURNEY. Did you not discuss; the day before, March 20, as I recall, with Mr. Moore, that "Now I have got to go in and tell the President what this is all about, and I am going to make an appointment with him tomorrow." Is that not the substance of the conversation that morning? Mr. DEAN. That did-yes, and Mr. Moore encouraged me to go in, as a matter of fact. Senator GURNEY. Tell him about Watergate, the whole thing? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. But as I say, Mr. Moore, it, is much--it is parallel to the Segretti situation in this regard my conversation with Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore knew a lot but he did not know everything. For example, when he had recommended that the President merely issue a letter of censure to Mr. Chapin and keep him on at that point he had only the broadest understanding of Chapin and Strachan's involvement. He, had not heard the tape that I had recorded with Mr. Segretti. Senator GURNEY.. Well, perhaps we had better continue on because. there are other members I know who want, to question and I have got to close mine down here,. But at any rate after these meetings of the 20th, 21st, and 22d, you had no communication with the President until April 14, 15? Mr. DEAN. April 15. [00.07.02]
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Schwieker reads the fourth ammendment and asks Huston what part of the Constitution he can site in the Huston plan's defense that would over ride this ammendment - Huston responds that he cannot do this, that he no longer feels the Huston plan to be constitutional, he says though, that in 1970, the general feeling was that there was a reasonable cause for intelligence gathering operations - Schwieker adds that he thinks the White House knew the Huston plan walked all over the Constitution and for this reason had Huston be the name affiliated with the plan, so that were it to come to legal contestation they could use "plausible denial" to escape responsibility
History of the U.S. Congress
VS of adult Caucasian Congressmen and women, including U.S. House Representative Marci Kaptur (D-OH) attending House committee meetings; Norman Ornstein (o/s) explains the function of House committees. Rep. Daniel Rostenkowski (D-IL) speaking as Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, which drafts the nation’s tax laws. Middle-aged adult Caucasian male witness testifying; adult Caucasian males and females seated or standing in BG. Adult Caucasian male looking over papers during a committee meeting; Ornstein notes that all revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives. Rep. Rostenkowski and an adult Caucasian male having a private conversation on the dais. Rep. Rostenkowski states that he’s seen Congressmen give up Chairmanships to take the lowest position on the House Ways and Means Committee; pan down from a stone eagle in a meeting room where Rep. Rostenkowski bends over to speak two to other adult Caucasian Congressmen.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Notwithstanding the fact, rather, do you not agree with me that these facts indicated that there were footsteps which went from the Watergate right into the Committee To Re-Elect the President? John Dean. There is no doubt about that. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Yet nobody in the committee except Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt were indicted. John Dean. That is correct. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). And had it not been that Mr. Magruder had resorted, to your knowledge, in his testimony before the grand jury to perjury to keep the grand jury from implicating him and others? John Dean. That is correct. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). And so this meeting in which the President said that Bob Haldeman had told him about your activities was held in the office of the President right after it had been announced that the indictments had stopped with Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt and Mr. McCord? John Dean. That is correct. And there had been discussion within the White House of this very strategy of stopping them at or stopping the case at Mr. Liddy and there was an a awareness of the fact that Mr. Magruder was going to have to perjure himself to have that accomplished.
Watergate Hearings - Hugh Sloan
Skip in footage - Counsel Majority Leader SAM DASH questions HUGH SLOAN about his relation to the White House and when he joined the Committee for the Re-election of the President - Sloan gives his introduction, he was a White House staff assistant and history with the Committee, he joined the committee early on as a treasurer, his description is cut short by a skip in the footage.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.38.44-DASH interrogates MITCHELL about the COVERUP. MITCHELL engages DASH in a great deal of Hair-splitting about his working relationships with the President and the high-level White House staff] Mr. DASH. Well, did Mr. Dean in carrying back the messages from Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, indicate that he had in fact informed them of the actions that had been taken--the strategies performed by your group? Mr. MITCHELL. I cannot say that he did or did not, I would have to believe that Mr. Dean was reporting to those gentlemen over there. Mr. Dean, as a proper lawyer, proper counsel, was very, very limited in his discussions of -what he did or said -with people in the White House and that is the way, of course, he should have acted. Mr. DASH. I think you testified that you at least discussed with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman the problems involved in the Liddy operations, the Ellsberg, and other situations? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, and that -was somewhere down the line, probably much later than the time frame of which you are talking about in relationship to Mr. Magruder's appearance before the grand jury. Mr. DASH. All right, now, let us look very briefly to the so-called-wiretapping of the journalists and Mr. Kissinger's staff as a result of the wiretaps? the SALT talk leaks. Were you aware of the leaking and those wiretaps? [00.39.58] Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dash, I find it hard to give you a specific answer other than the fact that, yes, I 'was. To what extent, I do not know. This happened in 1969 and they were national security wiretaps. They should have a full record of everything that was handled in the Department of Justice, because every security tap, -whether it be a strict national security dealing with foreigners or whether it, is the type that the court, has since frowned upon, is filed the Department of Justice. Mr. DASH. 'But this -would require your authority as Attorney General, would it not? [00.40.46-MITCHELL tries to downplay his role during his entire term as ATTORNEY GENERAL in surveillance and law enforcement policies that were constitutionally questionable, domestic wiretapping, etc.] Mr. MITCHELL, I would believe that the FBI -would-probably not operate without it. I am not sure of that, but I believe that that would be the case. Now, let me go on to point out two other things. -No. 1, I do not recall there being that many people involved. I remember some members of the National Security Council that they thought were very suspect. The second point I would like to point out, which gives me memory problems, is, that in the newspapers, accounts have said that some of these were, on for l year and a half or 2 Years, or something to that, extent,. Well, -we have a rule that I put in the Department that where they had these national security taps, they had to be reviewed every 90 days. SO there again, I would have had a memory jog along the way if this be the Case'. So what I am saying, is that, I think Your best evidence is over in the Department of Justice and not my recollection. [00.41.52] Mr. DASH. Well, would the President's recollection be of assistance, Mr. Mitchell? Are you aware of the President's statement of May 22? Mr. MITCHELL. I am aware of that, reference in the statement of May 22. I do not know where it came from. It may quite conceivably be correct. I brought the matter up through a correspondence with Mr. Ruckelshaus 'and I thought I got very fuzzy answers, back, but as I say, the evidence is in the Department of Justice and you ought to have access to it. Mr. DASH. Well, you do recall that In that statement of the President, the President did say that these areas did have the approval and were selected, along, with others, by the Attorney General of the -United States, who was you at the time? [00.42.39] Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Dash, I have seen a lot of statements that come out that--I am not referring to the President-but in which people who dig out the information frequently get their facts wrong. Mr. DASH. This is a very important statement by the President on May 22. Mr. MITCHELL. I thought Mr. Buzhardt's Statement was Quite important as far as I was concerned, too, but. I think we found out what the distinction was there, Mr. DASH. You are not suggesting Mr. Buzhardt prepared the May 22 testimony? Mr. MITCHELL. I am not suggesting anything. [00.43.13] Mr. DASH. Did you believe, Mr. Mitchell--and I use the term belief at this point--have any belief as to whether the President was aware of the events either prior to or after the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters? When I say events. I mean the actual bugging or the coverup which took place thereafter? [00.43.31] Mr. MITCHELL. I am not aware of it and I have every reason to believe, because of my discussions and encounters with him up through the 22d Of March. I have very strong opinions that he was not. Mr. DASH. Now do you arrive at that conclusion? Was it by particular conversations with the President that he talked to you about this subject, or did you talk to him about this subject? Mr. MITCHELL. NO, it is primarily--I do nor want to say no to it, and I will explain the natures of the conversations, if you so desire. As a matter of fact, you may go through that list and I will get a Chance to do them one, by one. What. I am saying- is that I think I know the individual, I know his reactions to things, and I have a very strong feeling that, during the period of time in which I was in association with him and did talk to him on the, telephone that I just do not believe that he had that information or had that knowledge; otherwise, I think the type of conversations we had would have brought, it out.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.49.45-His attempts to portray DEAN as an embezzler foiled, GURNEY attempts to cast aspersions on DEAN'S dealings with his own attorneys] Senator GURNEY. Let us go into the business, of attorney's fees. Well. first of all, was not you your lawyer originally Mr. Hogan? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator GURNEY. And then you changed from 'Mr. Hogan to whom? Mr. DEAN. Well, I began discussing with Mr. Hogan who is a very able lawyer, who has had some criminal experience. on March 25, who he would suggest is a very fine criminal lawyer. We talked about, I told him that I wanted to have a very fine criminal lawyer to go Over a lot of these things to get some independent counsel on. Mr. Hogan, who is also from, has a suburban practice, told me, about Mr. Shaffer. I had known Mr. Shaffer from some years ago, We had had a casual acquaintance. Where we had met, I do not know how many years ago, three or four, I guess it has been, and I liked him when I met him, I knew he, had been a prosecutor. and enjoyed a good reputation in that regard. I also called on the 28th and 29th several other friends to ask them who they might suggest as a very capable criminal lawyer that could assess this situation for me. I wanted them to look at my problem and everybody else's problem and that had never been done based on the facts that I knew. So Mr. Hogan was my initial lawyer. Mr. Hogan dropped out, of the case because he had a conflict of Interest because he had represented 'Mr. Colson at one stage and he realized that, when my conversations went on it might get on into Mr. Colson. so he withdrew and about that same time Mr. McCandless was retained. Senator GURNEY. Is Mr. Shaffer chief counsel or Mr. McCandless? Mr. DEAN. I think they are cocounsel and Mr. Shaffer and Mr. McCandless work together very closely. [00.52.07-GURNEY seems to be trying to suggest that DEAN is manipulating his attorneys in some improper way] Senator GURNEY. Have you paid them a retainer? Mr. DEAN. They have sent me a bill I have not paid. Senator GURNEY. Did you handle any other cash during the campaign other than the $15,200 that you testified to? Mr. DEAN. Did I personally handle it? No. sir, I did not. Senator GURNEY. Have you received any payment from anybody this year or last year other than the Income which you received from your employment or your brokerage accounts. Mr. DEAN. I have had reimbursements from the Government and I had a reimbursement from the Re-Election Committee for an expenditure for the convention but those were the only reimbursements. Senator GURNEY. Turning now to--- Mr. DEAN. You said also my brokerage 'firm, I guess it was this year that I made a substantial profit on a home, I owned. I had bought a house at, in the neighborhood that Senator Weicker has recently moved into, I might add, where, I was one of the first persons in the neighborhood, and they were almost giving the houses away at that point in time. I bought the house, encouraging a lot of my friends to buy houses also, and we were able to negotiate by bringing the number of people in simultaneously, a rather good purchase price. Within 11, 12 months I had made a $15,000 -profit on one home and was able to buy another home and pay for the furniture in the second house. [00.53.56-GURNEY desperately wants to make DEAN out to be a crook] Senator GURNEY. Is it my understanding that the committee is being furnished a full financial statement by the, witness? Mr. DASH. We Will so receive, one, Mr. DEAN. I have not been asked for one. I would be perfectly willing. My records are in the White House, my own records are down there with everything else and I might add that I would be perfectly welcome for any audit or any examination that I understand Mr. Bellino, who is with the staff, and would welcome, his full and thorough analysis of all my Financial holdings or dealings and the like. [00.54.33]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17,1973
Vice Chairman Sen. Howard Baker (R-TN)--need for Republicans to clean own house for political credibility, pledges thoroughness.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.18.20] ****SEE RESTRICTION FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION****** LEHRER asks KRAMER, as an attorney, he's used to seeing this kind of thing in courtrooms rather than public hearings, does he agree with BARTH's assessment of the decay of American public and political ethics? KRAMER says he certainly agrees, and that instrumental ethics in politics are dangerous. States that it's good for the American people that the narrative came out in a hearing, because in a disjointed and closed trial, it's possible that much of this would not have come to light in an understandable way. LEHRER asks what was learned today, legally speaking. KRAMER says it's clear the prosecution has a very strong conspiracy indictment that can be built, and that the forthcoming testimony of STRACHAN and DEAN will only add to this. MacNEILL asks KRAMER how he feels as a law professor about revelations about the conduct of his fellow attorneys as revealed in the hearings. KRAMER. states it is very distressing that lawyers as well as politicians think of ends justifying means. MacNEILL thanks the guest commentators. States that outside events have been impacting the progress of the hearings. Introduces interview of Sam DASH by reporter Peter KAYE. [00.20.15--KAYE with DASH in vacated committee room] KAYE asks DASH about the revelation of the discovery by NIXON's private secretary Rosemary WOODS of the Pre-April 7 contributions list, and how it will affect the proceedings. DASH states that there may be a misunderstanding, and that people have perhaps forgotten that part of the committee's mandate is to investigate all aspects of the 1972 political campaign, including financing and contributions. It should be clear that the committee has been calling witnesses only to testify about the Watergate, but that STANS and SLOAN will be called back to another set of committee hearings in the fall to discuss financing. The public should understand that the present set is only related to Watergate and the Coverup, and that the mission for now is to present the facts in those areas clearly, while a second set of hearings will deal with campaign contributions and political espionage. KAYE. asks about the conflict with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Asks if the testimony of witnesses like MAGRUDER jeopardizes any other defendants' right to a fair trial. DASH denies this, says the Courts agree, and that the ruling is that public testimony is not a jeopardy, because of the time lapse between the hearings and indictments (three more months) and trial (possibly six more months) of the conspirators. [00.23.09--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that DASH also told KAYE that, absent surprises, the next 5 witnesses called will be : John DEAN, Herbert KALMBACH, Anthony ULASEWICZ, Fred LaRUE, and Gordon STRACHAN. LEHRER states that since the Senators have offered judgements of MAGRUDER'S performance as a witness, they can pass on the task and proceed to digest the testimony of the "calm, articulate young man", States that MAGRUDER'S testimony should put to rest the idea that WATERGATE was a media invention, since the number 2 man in the Nixon Campaign has admitted that many important people have been implicated in illegal and unethical activities. While there will be many more months of dispute over the details, at this point, three days from the year anniversary of the Watergate arrests, that everyone knows, once and for all, that it really did happen. Second, there is finally some believable light shed on the attitude of many in the NIXON White House to "fight fire with fire" against protesters, and other political enemies. Signs off. [00.25.50--sponsor credits, PBS Network ID] [00.26.16--TAPE OUT]
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE - "Rep. John Dingell"
Norman Ornstein (VO) says U.S. House Representative John Dingell doesn't have the power past committee chairs have, and he himself voted for such reforms because he benefited from rules that gave more power to Subcommittee chairs; now, as Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he's paying for that rebellion. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) taking seat in committee meeting. Political scientist at Johns Hopkins University, Robert Peabody, discusses the reforms, says now that Rep. Dingell is the full committee chair he has to contend with his feisty subcommittee chairs and strike a more conciliatory tone. Ornstein (VO) describes one of the head to head battles Rep. Dingell had with Rep. Waxman over strengthening of the Clean Air Act, which was important to Rep. Waxman since his district, Los Angeles, suffered from some of the worst smog pollution in the nation. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment meeting, U.S. House Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) as Chairman. Rep. Waxman describes his disagreement with Rep. Dingell over a Clean Air Act, saying Rep. Dingell wanted to gut the Clean Air Act. Ornstein (VO) says Rep. Dingell wanted major changes to the law, making it easier on the auto industry by reducing emission standards. Rep. Dingell speaking in a committee meeting. H.R. 5252 Bill. Rep. Dingell in office, says he wants to protect both jobs and air quality while his opponents are not concerned about jobs. Ornstein (VO) says this is a conflict of constituent needs, but below the surface this is also a struggle for power between Committee Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman. In the end, the Clean Air Act was not strengthened or weakened, but remained in place. Various Committee and Subcommittee hearings with Chairmen Reps. Waxman and Dingell leading and speaking with fellow members. Subcommittee meeting in progress. Rep. Dingell in office, says he is willing to accept criticism from anyone with a different viewpoint, but he is paid to do what's right.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
The meeting was almost exclusively on the subject of how the White House should posture itself vis-a-vis the Ervin committee hearings. There was absolutely no indication of any changed attitude and it was like one of many, many meetings I had been in before, in which the talk was of strategies for dealing with the hearings rather than any effort to get the truth out as to what had happened both before June 17 and after June, 17. Following this meeting with the President, it was apparent to me I had failed in turning the President around on this subject, but Ehrlichman and Haldeman began taking over with regard to dealing with a new problem, which had become John Dean, as they were aware of the fact that I was very unhappy about the situation.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. All right. Let us move now to the next area of complaint. That is Mr. McCord's indication or implication of you that you participated in having him exposed to the pressures to accept an offer of Executive clemency. Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Mr. DASH. Now, it is true, is it not, that you might have also been not aware of pressures from other sources or from Mr. Hunt or of any contacts from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President or the White House, concerning Executive clemency, and therefore, might not have been aware of all that might have been going on concerning the CIA? Mr. ALCH. That is true. I may not have been aware of it because I had no knowledge of that if it, in fact, happened.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
Old House Caucus Room in the U.S. Capitol Building, text on screen reads “House Select Committee on Assassinations, John F. Kennedy December 29, 1978." Press members gathered in hearing room; adult African-American man sets up chalkboard. Commentator Paul Duke introduces the subject of today’s hearings. Duke says Committee will hear new evidence from scientific report that claims four shots were fired on the day of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, not three shots as experts have said. This report raises the conspiracy that shooter Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and that another gunman shot from the Grassy Knoll. Duke says the Warren Commission originally concluded three shots were fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Duke says Committee will hear this new conflict in evidence. A group of acoustical experts including Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschenasy of Queens College New York City will be testifying. Dr. James Barger also will testify.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.14.10] Senator BAKER. If you make a contribution to this country by serving, as an example, a deterrent to others having that attitude, it might make some atonement, for that submerged conscience, but time will tell that, we will have to wait and see. Mr. PORTER. I had that in my statement, and took it, out because I thought that was rather self-serving to make because that, is how I feel. Senator BAKER. Before I ask this last, question, let me point out, that, this inquiry is not, that, of an amateur philosopher or psychologist but rather in pursuit of the. statutory jurisdiction of this committee, which is not only to find those things which may have been illegal but improper as well. Mr. PORTER. I understand. Senator BAKER. Call you tell me, 'Mr. Porter, how we might ventilate the structure of campaigning how we might expose to the fresh breeze Of conscience and personality the organization of a presidential campaign SO that young men and old men assert their sense of right or wrong instead of doing so-and-so because someone told them to. Mr. PORTER, I think you are doing a damn fine job right, now, Senator. [Laughter.] Senator BAKER. It is a painful thing, you know. Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And it is a terrible way to have to do it. Do you have any other suggestions? Mr. PORTER. I have often thought we had too much money. [00.15.55--HUMOR] Senator BAKER. Money is the--I am sure the chairman would approve of this. [Laughter.] And in deference to the chairman I will save it for him. [Laughter.] Mr. PORTER. I am waiting myself to find out which one he is going to apply to my case. Senator BAKER. Mr. Porter, I believe that is all I have. I would like to yield to Senator Inouye. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Mr. Porter, you have in your interview with the staff said it was a standard operating procedure that Mr. Haldeman of the White House be kept totally informed of everything that went on; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Senator Inouye, 1 believe I told the staff it was my understanding that certainly in my area that major policy decisions and that sort of thing that Mr. Haldeman's aide, Mr. Strachan, always got copies of everything that we had, everything that went on in my division, and I am sure got copies of everything that went on in other divisions. Senator INOUYE. To the smallest detail such as a guest list? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator INOUYE. Did you advise Mr. Haldeman as to cash disbursements? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. Senator INOUYE. Are they a bit more important than guest lists? Mr. PORTER. I am not sure I understand the question, Senator, Senator INOUYE. YOU just indicated that Mr. Haldeman was desirous of getting everything including guest lists of parties. Now, I asked if you had advised Mr. Haldeman of cash disbursements, $67,000 worth, and you say no, I was just wondering, don't you think $671000 is a bit more important than just a little old guest list? Mr. PORTER. I think the two, one doesn't follow the other. The money that was disbursed through 1-1 me as a conduit Mr. Magruder was aware of and it would have teen Mr. Magruder's responsibility to relay that situation to his superior, Mr. Mitchell, and if he wanted to, Mr. Kalmbach, not Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. Strachan or Mr. Haldeman That was not my function, no, sir. Senator INOUYE. I presume you kept a record of all your disbursements? Mr. PORTER. I did. Senator INOUYE. What happened to the record, sir? Mr. PORTER. At the end of March 1972, 1 received a phone call from Mr. Sloan saying that he would like to balance out, because April 7 was approaching. I, to protect myself internally, called upon Mr. Reisner, who has testified before this committee, to come in and act as a disinterested third party to review what I had in--I had on a little secretarial steno pad, an in-and-out sheet, if you will, a record of my copies of my receipts and cash on hand. Mr. Reisner did that. I called Mr. Sloan. I told him the figure, $52,000, that I had received from him from whatever the beginning of time was until that point. He agreed to that. I did not have an accounting function at the committee. In fact, nobody at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President had any accounting or disbursing function, so to speak. That was the finance committee. And I had no need for the records, and I threw them away. [00.19.47] I
Budget Reconciliation Act 1981 Debate
U.S. House Representative Leo Zeferetti (D-NY) recognizes U.S. House Rep. Leon Panetta (D-CA), Chairman of the Budget Committee Task Force on Reconciliation. Rep. Panetta (D-CA) comes to the House floor; adult Caucasian male and female clerks seated at the House rostrum in BG, Speaker Tip O'Neill seated at Speaker's platform. Rep. Panetta defends the work of the committee and the Congressional Budget Office that verified it in the House and Senate. Neither body achieved 100% of what the President wanted, yet there is no protest in the Senate. The House Committees were given targets and they were achieved, even exceeded in a very tight time frame. Panetta rails against the Reagan administration, particularly the director of Office and Budget Management, David Stockman for coming in at the 11th hour to demand more.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
I told Mr. Kleindienst that I did not have all the facts but I was very concerned that this matter could lead directly to the President. I told him that I did not know if the President was involved, but I was concerned. I remember Kleindienst saying to me that he certainly hoped that the President was not involved or that I was not involved in this. And I responded that I certainly had not involved in any criminal activity. I told him that I had no idea that there was going to be a break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and I agreed with his continued assertion of its stupidity. I told Kleindienst without giving him specifics that I did not know what would happen if the investigation led into the White House but that I suspected that the chances of reelecting the President would be severely damaged. Kleindienst called Henry Petersen and asked Petersen to come to his office. While we were waiting for Petersen, Kleindienst told me that my superiors at the White House never understood that once an investigation begins, it runs its full course. He said that he was always being asked to take care of this matter or that matter, as if by magic he could make something unpleasant go away. I said I was well aware of that attitude and that I had never been able to get through to anyone at the White House that things just didn t happen that way.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.31.02] Senator WEICKER. I just want to make sure that neither I nor you miss them. Now, during the first 2 weeks of June, you must have contacted Mr. Strachan relative to the Gemstone material. is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. [00.31.23] Senator WEICKER. And in this particular instance, obviously, it must have been considered important to the extent that nothing was sent to the White House. but rather you requested that Mr. Strachan come down to the, Committee To Re-Elect the President. Is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. sir. Senator WEICKER. Would you mind telling me as to why you felt that, was the best, way to do things in this instance? Mr. MAGRUDER. These were in effect logs of wiretap conversations and I did not think it was appropriate to Send them over to the White House by messenger. Senator WEICKER. So really., the inhibition was by messenger. You knew they were. going back over to the White House? Mr. MAGRUDER. I am sorry. Most all Of the documents-- in fact. all of the documents in the entire Campaign except the Gemstone file, were automatically sent over by messenger to Mr. Strachan for Mr. Haldeman this was the only document I can recall. these two sets of documents the Gemstone documents that I did not send over by messenger because I thought they -were of a sensitive nature---- Senator WIECKER. Too sensitive. Mr. MAGRUDER. Too sensitive to send over by messenger. Senator WEICKER. SO your transmission of this material was a mental transmission rather than a physical transmission, is that correct I Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, I called him and I told him I had the documents there for his perusal but I would keep them there in my office. Senator WEICKER. I understand . Did he come over? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Did he look, at them? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. sir. Senator WEICKER. And I think we can assume that he returned to the White House ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Now, we are at June 17. I just want to ask once again as to whether or not there are any other contacts between you and Gordon Strachan prior to the break-in that you feel this committee should know about, Mr. MAGRUDER. I would not recall anything specific. I think probably after the time, Mr. Mitchell indicated to Mr. Liddy HIS dissatisfaction I think I would have normally as a matter of course indicated to Gordon that we had hoped that Mr. Liddy would do a better job on his next go-around, something to that effect. But I do not recollect that. Senator WEICKER. Would you say that Mr. Strachan, on the evening of June 16, was as well briefed on the intelligence operation in the Committee To Re-Elect the President as- anybody within the campaign? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Now, on June 17, did you call Gordon Strachan? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, I called him Saturday afternoon at some point. Senator WEICKER. And what was the nature of that, conversation? Mr. MAGRUDER. Simply to alert him to the break-in, give. him the, details of what we were doing in Los Angeles and particularly Mr. Mitchell's statement nothing more than a discussion of what happened. Senator WEICKER. When you say give him the, details, what details were you giving him? You were in Los Angeles? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, we had heard, and I do not think it had been reported by that time through Mr. Odle, that Mr. McCord had been arrested. That is the point that I called Mr. Strachan. We had heard Mr. McCord had been arrested earlier through Mr. Liddy and it became, more official, and any efforts to release him had not, been successful; So we knew that, he would be in jail for a period of time. it Was at that point that at I called him. There was a high degree of concern on our part and 1 imparted that concern, as there was on his part, of course. Senator WEICKER. During that conversation with Mr. Strachan, did you discuss the money in possession of the defendants? Mr. MAGRUDER. As I recall, it, came out in the, evening news that some $5,300 had been found in the defendants possession. We had hoped that it was Democratic money, not our money. But at that time, it was not known as to whose money it was. It was not until Monday when I talked to Mr. Sloan that I knew it was our money. [00.36.06] Senator WEICKER. And on June 18, you received a call from Mr. Haldeman. Is that correct,? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sin Senator WEICKER. And during that, telephone conversation Mr. Haldeman asked, "What happened?'" Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Well, now, how did you take that question? Did you think he, was referring, to what happened as it related to the particular events of the arrest or did you feel that this -was a "what happened" relative to the, whole operation? Were you surprised that Mr. Haldeman should ask the question, what, happened? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO sir, Senator WEICKER. You were not surprised ? Or yoi were surprised? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO; I was not surprised. Senator WEICKER. In other words, you felt, in this telephone, conversation where he called you, that he truly was trying to find out from scratch as to what occurred ? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, I didn't say that. I was not surprised that he called. [00.37.24]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.16.58-BAKER continues the committee discussion of what evidence may properly be considered by the committee] Senator BAKER. I might say. Mr. Chairman, that by explaining my point of view. I have fallen into the trap that the chairman just, warned me against. He and I had a brief conversation a moment ago, and I am sure he will not think it, a breach of confidence to repeat it. He said, Howard, he said, do not try to explain--your friends do not require it and your enemies will not believe it. Senator ERVIN. I agree with you. I was not trying to explain, I was just trying to enlighten some of our commentators. I would like to put in the record a legal memorandum which sustains the points made by Mr. Dash. [01.17.36-THOMPSON checks into the debate, suggesting perhaps the committee ought to be more selective in accepting evidence] Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on that point. I do not want to belabor the matter If I am in error. I want to be corrected for my misinformation, but I think what Mr. Dash has said is completely correct. I think there might be one additional consideration. It goes to the point of admissibility under any circumstance about what this witness thought another man was thinking at any particular time, his mind as to what some, other individual was thinking or his impressions of his thoughts. and I think. that is a completely different matter. With that statement, I would like to subscribe to everything you and the, co-chairman and Mr. Dash have said. Senator ERVIN. I agree with you on that. Mr. DEAN. I just want to---- [01.18.19-ERVIN tells a HUMOROUS country ANECDOTE] Senator ERVIN. I am from near Watauga County in North Carolina, the county where Rufus Edmisten comes from. 'This man had been in court over in Boone, the county seat. He came back that night, and was in the country store and he mentioned the fact that he had been over to the court in Boone, and somebody asked him -what, was going on there. Well, he said, there was the judge sitting up there; there -was the jury sitting over in the jury box. And there were the lawyers. He said, some of the lawyers were objecting and others were excepting and the costs were piling up. [01.18.58] Senator BAKER. You know, Mr. Chairman. if this is storytelling time [LAUGHTER], my distinguished chairman is going to have to suffer for having Set the example for me. But in the course of all of our testimony, to the extent that we have conflicts in it, I am reminded of an old lawyer in Scott County, Tenn. named Haywood Pemberton who was employed to defend a man. He said, I have just shot a man, Haywood, will you defend me? He said, of course I will defend you. Did you kill him? He said, no, I have just wounded him. He said, that is all right, but just remember, he will be an awful hard witness against you. [LAUGHTER] [01.19.42] Senator ERVIN. I believe the, witness wants to make some observations. Then we will go to Senator Inouye. Mr. DEAN. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that as you know, I am here under compulsion of the committee and I have tried to withhold nothing from the committee at any time and I did not want these conversations to reflect, that there has been any hesitancy on this witness to answer any question put to him and to answer it fully and honestly. [01.20.15] Senator ERVIN. Senator Inouye? Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, I regret I have no Hawaiian stories to tell. [Applause.] Senator INOUYE,. Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid confusion, I wish to advise the Chair that the questions I am about to ask Mr. Dean were not prepared by the Office of the Counsel of the President. [01.20.46--Sen. INOUYE addresses previous testimony given by DEAN, regarding the climate of spying in the White House] Mr. Dean, I will refer to testimony received yesterday. To the following statement, you made your response. This is the statement: [QUOTING] Mr. Dean, you have. depicted all others in the White House as excessively Preoccupied with political intelligence, use of overt methods of security, and your-self as a restraining influence on these pre-occupations. And, Mr. Dean, this was your response: I do believe I was a restraining influence at the White House to many wild and crazy schemes. I have testified to some of them. Some of them I have not testified to. Many of the memorandums that came into my office became a joke; in fact, some of the things that were being suggested, I think if you talked to some of the other members of my staff or if your investigators would like to talk to them, they would tell -you some of two things that we would automatically file, just like the political enemies project. Many of these just went right into the file and never anything further until extreme, pressure was put on we to do something did I ever do anything. So I do feel I had some restraining influence. I did not have a disposition or like for this type of activity. [01.22.13]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.53.20-THOMPSON continues to examine DEAN, trying to insinuate that DEAN planned to skip town with CRP funds in October, 1972 to avoid being called to account for the COVERUP, with a honeymoon as a cover story] Mr. THOMPSON. There is a document here, Mr. Dean, that I would like to present to you for your examination I ion. It is entitled "Request for Transportation.--- If I might read it, as it is being presented to you. Dated October 11, ".Contact, Jane. Traveler, Mr. and Mrs. John Dean. Extension 241, from D.C. to Miami, two seats. Carrier, Eastern Airlines, Flight 185. Date, October 14." You went down I assume you returned. "National Airlines, Flight 102, October 18. Payment, American Express. Fare, $336." The word "tickets" is stamped across it. First of all, is this a form that is used by the travel office? Mr. DEAN. I have no Idea. I have never seen the form before, and I have no idea if in fact that was paid for by American Express. I think that is something that will have to be checked as the auditors go back through my records. Mr. THOMPSON. I agree with you. If there is any question about it, obviously, the person in charge of these documents, the person in custody of these documents will be brought down here and placed under oath to explain these documents in full. It is my understanding that since your testimony was begun pursuant to committee request, this request, this document has been furnished by the travel office, It does indicate to me that the request was made on October 11. 1972, by someone named Jane for a flight leaving on the 14th to return on the 18th, a trip of 4 days. Do you have any further comment on it. -Mr. Dean? Mr. DEAN. Well. as, I said, it was my intention to go down there and spend 2 weeks. Mr. THOMPSON. THOMPSON. Two weeks or several weeks Mr. DEAN. Several weeks. I very frequently, and you can check my other travel records, when I went, places, I took the immediate turnaround ticket for the hold purpose and often stayed beyond that date. A bird in the hand, in traveling back and forth through main routes, is something I always felt was wise to do. I think if you -will check my records, in the travel office, you will find I did that on other occasions. [00.56.14-THOMPSON questions DEAN about his use of campaign funds and his travel plans at that time] Mr. THOMPSON. So you are stating that this document could be correct and you could have. requested your secretary to make accommodations for you to return on the 18th after 4 days. Mr. DEAN. It is nay recollection I did not pay for that by American Express, as a matter my Of fact, Often, when my secretary would go down and set, something like this, up, a subsequent phone call would change an arrangement, something like that. I think you can check that also. Mr. THOMPSON. I thought you just testified you did not know whether or not your secretary had made a request for this particular honeymoon trip not. Mr. DEAN. I am saying that the name "Jane" here would indicate to me that, she had. Mr. THOMPSON. YOU just said that you did not recall whether or not this was paid for by American Express. Mr. DEAN. That is the reason I say that. I recall that there was not time to pay for it by American Express and I had to go to the airport and pick the tickets up at the "will call." so I had the tickets In hand. The White House could not process the tickets fast enough, I think if you will check the records, you will find out that is what happened. Mr. THOMPSON. The White House could not process the tickets fast enough? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. Would that indicate, that you did make a request through the travel office of the White House? Mr. DEAN. As I say, I generally made all the requests through the travel office--through my secretary, I mean. I asked her to arrange them. There were occasions when she went directly to outside lines and made my travel requests as well. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you subsequently get to Miami to spend a few more days on your honeymoon? Mr. DEAN. As I recall, we made several trips to Miami to try to have a honeymoon and were called back. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you leave for Miami on October 20, if you recall? Mr. DEAN. That is very possible. As I told -you when we started this line of questioning, I have not sat down and tried to reconstruct this. I am perfectly willing to reconstruct it for the committee and turn it all over to the committee for the committee's use. I just have not entered this area of reconstruction and I am sure---- Mr. THOMPSON. You will not test your memory on these particular points, is that what you are saying? Mr. DEAN. I think I would like to have the opportunity to check my own calendar, particularly my wife, who does keep a calendar of these types of events. It would be very helpful in reconstructing this for the committee. [00.58.39]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Fred Thompson, attorney. What had been your professional relationship with Mr. Mitchell while you were at the Justice Department? John Dean. I had a very I would have I to say it was sort of a father-son relationship in many ways. Mr. Mitchell was very friendly to me. He gave me some of the best assignments, I thought, in the Department of Justice. He counseled me before I went to the White House that I shouldn t go to the White House. He said I ought to stay at the Department of Justice. I liked Mr. Mitchell very much. Fred Thompson, attorney. Were you concerned about his personal involvement after you heard about the break in? John Dean. I indeed was but as I say, Mr. Mitchell to this day there has been only one indication and that was on a meeting on March 28th that he has given me any indication that he had any involvement in this thing at all. And that was when I hypothesized to him what I thought had happened and he said something to the effect well, yes, it was something like that but we thought it was going to be two three times removed from the committee.
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:30:04) ROGER ALTERMAN testifies before the House Banking Committee
Lawmakers - October 14, 1982
05.46 Steve Gunderson (R - Wisconsin) nameplate on bench of House Committee.
Capitol Journal - Poverty
Hearing of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families