Advanced Search
Lawmakers - February 11, 1982 - Clean Air Act
General views of House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee meeting on Clean Air.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
MS panel of HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE (HUAC) at hearing, including Richard Nixon.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973 Testimony of John Caulfield.
Senator Sam ERVIN. If there's no objection ..... (Mr. Dash pushes a piece of paper at Senator Ervin and he pauses to read it) Senator ERVIN. If there's no objection I'd like to exchange to question witnesses with Senator Montoya and let him take my place and then I'll take his place. Senator Joseph MONTOYA (D-NM). Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. There are no objections, you may proceed. Senator MONTOYA. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Caulfield, I think we better get your background and you're employment duties at the White House in better perspective. What exactly were you doing when you went to work at the White House in April of 1969? Mr. John CAULFIELD. My prime duties at the White House was to act as a liaison, primarily with the United States Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies. As I've indicated I worked under Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Krogh was under Mr. Ehrlichman as well. From time to time I would be assigned major projects that come up in the law enforcement area. For example, shortly after coming to the White House I was assigned to the then emerging drug abuse task force, that subsequently emerged as operation intercept. Senator MONTOYA. Well were you working directly under Mr. Ehrlichman or were you working under Mr. Dean? Mr. CAULFIELD. No, Mr. Dean sir was not at the White House at that time, this is you asked I think the question was, what were my duties when I went into the White House? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. CAULFIELD. When I went into the White House Mr. John Dean was not yet there, he was at the Justice Department. Senator MONTOYA. Well as I understand you went to work at the White House on April 1969 and you worked there until March 1972, is that correct? Mr. CAULFIELD. Yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. Alright, were you on the payroll of the White House or were you being paid by someone else? Mr. CAULFIELD. No, I was on the White House payroll sir. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever get paid from the President's attorney? Mr. CAULFIELD. No sir. Senator MONTOYA. Were you assigned to the White House payroll or were you on the Treasury payroll? Mr. CAULFIELD. I don't quite understand. Senator MONTOYA. Were you working or being paid from the payroll attributable to the Department of the Treasury or to the White House? Mr. CAULFIELD. At the White House payroll sir.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.08.03] Senator ERVIN. And you didn't 'take into consideration how much was needed? Mr. STANS. There is no such definition as how much is needed except the subjective definition of the people who want to spend the money. Senator ERVIN. I don't know whether I understand your testimony or not. Are you tolling me in effect that Mr. John Mitchell was running the show and you had very little voice in it except to raise the money that he wanted to spend?' Mr. STANS. NO, I am not quite telling you that. I am telling you that in the budget committee meetings, I was not very successful in holding down the level of spending. Senator ERVIN. Did they ever discuss the question in any budgetary meeting about using any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any discussions of that type. Senator ERVIN. Did you ever vote to authorize the use of any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. No. If you mean by that the kind of intelligence that we are talking about in connection with the Watergate and so on, no. Senator ERVIN. Now, you say the President called you in August? Mr. STANS. The President called me in August and'! have checked my record, and I believe the meeting I had with him was in September, early September. Senator ERVIN. I will digress for a, minute to say that you are familiar with the power structure, the power as was in the White House, are you not? Mr. STANS. I believe I am. Senator ERVIN. And the man next to the President is Mr. Haldeman? Mr. STANS. One of the men next to the President is Mr. Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Ehrlichman -was the other? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. And John W. Dean was a man who was subordinate to both of them, wasn't he? Mr. STANS, I don't know. I know he was counsel. I don't know where he stood in the organizational structure of the White House. Senator ERVIN. You didn't, put him ahead of 'Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman, either one of them, in authority, did you? Mr. STANS. No; but for all I know, he may have been on a par with them. I just don't know. Senator BAKER, Mr. Chairman we have a vote in progress now and I know we are going to have to leave. But you have raised some interesting questions and I would like the, chairman's attention just for or a moment. I have not been a protector and I have not been a defender of any witness, nor have I been a prosecutor, I believe, and I don't propose, to start that now. But it seems to me that the inquiry into two areas on campaign financing deserves further inquiry. The chairman's question of this -witness as to whether there was a higher duty than that required by the law under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 is very interesting, particularly with reference to the method and manner of accounting for cash contributions and cash disbursements and the requirements of the law or the custom and usage by political parties in disbursing cash. The second quest on the chairman raised about whether or not the multiple dividing up of cash contributions into smaller sums for deposit is an attempt to defeat the gift tax as distinguished from avoiding the gift tax. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in absolute fairness, if we, going to inquire into something higher than the language of the law or into Custom and practice, of politics in this respect, it is incumbent upon this committee, and I so suggest, that, the committee subpena all of the records of the Democratic National Committee and all of those candidates for nomination of either of the two major political parties for a reasonable time preceding April 7, 1972, and subsequently, to shed light on exactly what the custom and usage in politics was. I hope we will have witnesses here to discuss the manner of handling cash and the manner Of handling deposits in order to avoid gift tax consequences before these hearings conclude. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my position, too, with the vice chairman's I think we should look into those things. I would like to say some other things, too. The American public, don't think, understands how these hearings are conducted and I don't want them to get the Impression that the questioning of any Senator here is found favorable by other Senators. I for one have not appreciated the harassment of this witness by the chairman in the questioning that has Just finished. I think this Senate committee ought to act, in fairness. [00.12.53]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.36.16] Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. he returned to the committee and did you not speak to him about his conversations at, the White House? Mr. STANS. I have no recollection of having spoken to him about that. It is possible that somewhere along the line, he reported on those conversations, but I don't recall it. Mr. Sloan may have a better recollection on that than I do. Mr. EDMISTEN. In quotes, do you recall "raking him out" about that, maybe, criticizing him? Mr. STANS. I didn't understand Your question. Mr. EDMISTEN. Did you "rake him out" about having that meeting in the White House? Mr. STANS. Oh, absolutely not. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. Now, do I understand it that your concept of Mr. Mitchell's role in the whole campaign is that he chaired those meetings you spoke about? Mr. STANS. The meetings of the budget committee? Mr. EDMISTEN. That is right. Mr. STANS. Yes, we were really cochairmen of the budget committee but I deferred to Mr. Mitchell. The meetings were held in his office or near his office and in effect, I considered him the chairman of the meeting. Mr. EDMISTEN. So you viewed him as the man in charge, didn't you, of the whole campaign? Mr. STANS. Yes, but not, in charge of the finance committee. Mr. EDMISTEN All right;, but overall, you said that YOU really had nothing to do with the campaign, that you considered him in charge of the whole campaign process. Mr. STANS. Yes, he was campaign director, That was his title. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. When you were approached about giving Some money to Mr. Liddy, you called up Mr. Mitchell, did you not? Mr. STANS. I went to See him. Mr. EDMISTEN. And I think yesterday in response to a, question I Posed, you said, "Do you mean, John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay these amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy, that he should do so? And he said, "That is right." Now', before that, Mr. Mitchell had said to you, "He will have to ask Magruder because Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spending." Now, wasn't that incredible to you? Mr. STANS. NO, not in the, context in which I understood it. What Mitchell was saying is that Magruder is the man who is handling the details of the campaign, Magruder is the man who is working out, the, Programs Magruder is the man who has the responsibility for directing the spending ending. When John Mitchell is before this committee, he can tell you better than I can what his function was, but I conceived his function to be that Of the political professional, the man who talked to the political leaders in' a State and organized the campaign in a State, the man who sought to bring about harmony in the campaign, and so on. I did not conceive of Mr. Mitchell as the man who said, "Let's spend $745,000 for public relations." He was in on the discussions on that, but he was the political professional, as I understood it. Magruder was the on-hand manager of the activity. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right, Mr. Stans, My last question is this: I know that you have subsequently read about the so-called CIA involvement of the Mexican transactions, but did you not have some inkling of that at the time that the Dahlberg-Mexican checks came up? Did somebody notify you that there was a possible CIA involvement, and, if so, who? Mr. STANS. The stories I have, been reading in the paper recently have been a great surprise to me about the discussions, between the heads of the CIA and the FBI because I was not aware that any of that was going on. But there was, one occasion when Bob Allen had complained to me that the attorney in Mexico was being harassed, that the FBI had demanded to know the name of his client, that this would have breached his lawyer-client privilege, find that the, FBI had threatened him that if he did not tell them who the client was in this matter, they were going to go to all the clients of the firm and find out. Allen called me and said, "Does the FBI have that much authority in a foreign country," and I said, "I do not know." I talked to either Mardian or John Dean, I can't recall which one it was and asked them the question. Sometime later a day or two later, I got a reply. It said that it appears as though this lawyer may be a CIA source and if that is the case, the investigation will stop at that point. Now, that is all I heard or know about, that situation. I can't place that conversation in terms of a date. But I did get that one report. The investigation did not cease and eventually was carried on until I was told the investigation was over. [00.41.44]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.44.41-DASH interrogates MITCHELL about NIXON'S knowledge of Watergate and the COVERUP] Mr. DASH. Generally is it fair to say that much of your opinion that, you express is based on your faith in the President and your knowledge of the man, rather than any specific statement he President made to you or that you made, to the President? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I subscribe to the first two. I do have faith in the President and I do think I have, knowledge of the man and I do think there were enough discussions in the area, in the general area, to the point where I think the general subject matter would have come out if the President had had knowledge. [00.45.15] Mr. DASH. Well, now, Mr. Mitchell, you did become, aware, as you have indicated, somewhere, around June 21 or 22, when you were briefed or debriefed by Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mardian about the so-called--as you described it, the White, House horrors of the Liddy operation and the break-in. Did you, yourself, as the. President's adviser and counselor, tell the President what you knew or what you learned? Mr. MITCHELL. NO, sir, I did not. Mr. DASH. Why didn't you ? [00.45.44] Mr. MITCHELL. Because I did not believe that. it was appropriate,, for him to have that type of knowledge, because I knew the actions that he would take and it would be most detrimental to his political campaign. Mr. DASH. Could it have been actually helpful or healthy, do you think? [00.46.01] Mr. MITCHELL. That was not my opinion at the particular time. He was not involved; it wasn't a question of deceiving the public as far as Richard Nixon was concerned, -and it was the other people that were involved in connection with these activities, both in the White House horrors and the Watergate. I believed at that particular time, and maybe in retrospect, I was wrong, but it occurred to me that the best thing to do was just to keep the lid on through the election. Mr. DASH. Then it is your testimony that you in fact. did not say anything to the President at that time Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, I did not. Mr. DASH. So whether the President had any knowledge of it, it certainly couldn't have come, from, his lack of knowledge or knowledge from any statement, that you made to him? Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, Mr. Dash. [00.46.57-DASH interrogates MITCHELL on the subject of MAGRUDER'S commission of Perjury before the grand jury-what was MITCHELL'S role in the perjury?] Mr. DASH. Now, were you aware of the fact that actually prior to Magruder's testimony, Mr. Dean rehearsed Mr. Magruder for his testimony before, the grand jury? Mr. MITCHELL. I do not recall that, Mr. Dash, if you are talking' about the testimony that took place on the--- Mr. DASH. In August. Mr. MITCHELL. In August the second appearance. Mr. DASH. The second appearance. Mr. MITCHELL, I am not aware Of that. Mr. DASH. Then prior to Magruder's third appearance, which dealt with the diaries and the meetings in your office, were, you aware or do you recall; the meeting between you, Magruder and Dean. in which a discussion was had concerning how to handle that testimony and how he was to testify concerning those meetings? [00.47.45] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it wasn't a question so much of how to handle the testimony, it Was a question of what the recollection was. That, I recall, Magruder's testimony had to do with the destruction Of diaries that were already in the possession of the grand jury. But I think Mr. Dean's testimony is a lot closer to the recollection that I have Of the meeting It was a question of what was the purpose of it. who was there. and what could be Said about it to limit the Impact of the whole---- [00.48.21] Mr. DASH. And did Mr. Magruder indicate That he was not going to testify concerning any intelligence plans, but would testify that he was there to discuss the election laws. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, the election laws were discussed -and I think the result was that he would limit it TO the election laws. Mr. DASH. And you were aware. then, in September that he would testify not completely, if not falsely, concerning the meeting on January 27 and February 4? Mr. MITCHELL. Well. that is generally correct. AS I say again, this is something that Dean and I were listening to, as to his story as to how he was going to present it,
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord). McCord reading a statement vis a vis pressure on him to falsify his testimony at trial to deflect suspicion from the White House. Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassination Chairman U.S. Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) seated with U.S. Representatives Samuel L. Devine (R-OH) and L. Richardson Preyer (D-NC). Chairman Stokes opens hearings on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Stokes makes opening statement: the Committee will hold a one-day hearing on the assassination of President Kennedy, focusing on acoustical analysis of audio tape recorded on the day of the JFK assassination; the Committee is prepared to make its final conclusions and recommendations on all the questions on both the assassinations of JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which the Committee will do after the public session has adjourned; the Committee thought it best to hold a public hearing before the final Committee vote. Stokes recognizes Committee Chief Consul G. Robert Blakey.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. Was it at that time that you went over to the campaign activities for the reelection of the President? Jeb Magruder. Yes, that is correct. Samuel Dash, attorney. Can you tell us the circumstances which led you to take on the responsibilities of the campaign? Jeb Magruder. We had begun discussing the 1972 campaign in early 1971. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman particularly were concerned and responsible for the campaign at that early stage. And it was decided that certain White House staff members and other individuals would begin the preparatory work for the campaign. It was agreed that it would not be done at the White House but would be done outside and consequently, in May of 1971 myself and a number of others began the activities for the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Samuel Dash, attorney. Who particularly made a decision that you were to go over to be active in the campaign? Jeb Magruder. I would consider it a joint decision between Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell. Samuel Dash, attorney. Now, what was your first position in the campaign activities? Jeb Magruder. Basically, I was responsible for planning and the general administrative activities relating to what I might consider the inside activities of the campaign, advertisements direct mail, telephone, press and public relations, surrogate program, and the inside activities.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. When Mr. Liddy did come into the picture were you aware of his prior relationships in the White House with the so-called plumbers group? Jeb Magruder. No, I was not. Samuel Dash, attorney. Were you aware at all of his activity with Mr. Hunt and the others break-in at Ellsberg psychiatrist's office? Jeb Magruder. No, I was not. Samuel Dash, attorney. Who finally approved Mr. Liddy's position at the committee? Jeb Magruder. Mr. Mitchell. Samuel Dash, attorney. What if anything did Mr. Liddy tell you about an intelligence operation that he was authorized to plan? Jeb Magruder. The next week, the week he began work for us we met on a Tuesday and discussed basically the new election law. At that time, he indicated to me that he had discussed a broad gauged intelligence plan with members of the White House staff. He mentioned particularly Mr. Dean. He did mention other individuals but I cannot recall their names and indicated he had been told he would have approximately $1 million budget. I indicated to him at that time that $1 million budget was a sizable budget and that he should prepare the background documents necessary to justify this budget. And that he would then have an opportunity to present the budget to the Attorney General.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.31.44] Senator GURNEY. Were there any other occasions when he gave, that indication of faulty memory that you can remember? Mr. MAGRUDER. Nothing--not a specific reference to the same extent that that one meeting had. Senator GURNEY. After that Key Biscayne meeting with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. LaRue, you mentioned that the, Liddy plan was in typewritten form, as I recall. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Are there any copies of that left'? Mr. MAGRUDER. Not that, I know of. Senator I destroyed all of the copies that I had. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned also, of course these, reports that you made from time to time to Mr. Strachan. I suppose, you reported to him on the occasion of the first entry of the Democratic 'National Committee headquarters. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, Sir, Senator GURNEY. Do you recall any reaction back from him after he made his report to. I suppose, Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, because I think at that time we were simply waiting for the result of that entry. Senator GURNEY. He was present, as, I recall, when you got your report on the McGovern business? ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Did he ever come back to you with any reaction from who he reported to on that affair.? Mr. MAGRUDER. I cannot say that he came back with reaction from someone he reported to. He did come back with a reaction that 'Mr. Liddy -was not to be involving himself in these activities. He was supposed to be the planner not the executor of these activities. Senator GURNEY. I think we, have another vote. I am going to close up very quickly here. I had some other questions I wanted to ask you, but let me ask you this closing question or two closing questions. Your testimony indicated that the man who made the coverup payments was somebody called Tony, Do you know Tony ? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. One, final question, you were in the White House how, long? I Mr. MAGRUDER. From October 1969 until May 1971. Senator GURNEY. And, of course, you knew about as well as anybody what the staff setup in the White House was? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Is it fair to say that you were on a staff level about the same level as Mr. Dean? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. We were, I was a special assistant to the President and we were what I would call second-level appointees in the White House, under the five or seven assistants to the President. Senator GURNEY. Did you see the President on many occasions during your term in the White House.? Mr. MAGRUDER. Not, on many occasions. I saw him periodically mainly in meetings with other people. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever see, him alone? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. You always saw him -when somebody else was present? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Was that his normal way of carrying on business in the White House? Mr. MAGRUDER. Absolutely. [00.34.43-attempting to discredit the expected testimony of Dean?] Senator GURNEY. Were you rather surprised to hear the report the other day that Mr. Dean had seen him, I think on 30 or 35 occasions very recently? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; I was. That, would not have been in the normal pattern of events. Senator GURNEY. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator BAKER. The committee will recess long enough to make this rollcall and return for the completion of the testimony of this witness. [00.35.09--Senators stand to go vote, LEHRER v.o. says that the members will return immediately after the vote, when Sen. GURNEY will get an answer to his question of MAGRUDER about the sponsorship of a Miami business exposition] [00.35.29--wipe to MAGRUDER after recess] Senator ERVIN. Senator Montoya. Mr. BIERBOWER. Senator, if you will excuse, me for a moment, we have a name for Senator Gurney that he had asked, if you care to hear it. Mr. MAGRUDER. Senator Gurney asked me the name of the convention official--- Mr. THOMPSON. I will take it in his behalf. Mr. MAGRUDER [continuing]. We, had discussed that we, had a phone conversation with him. It was Mr. Richard Murphy. Someone reminded me of the name. He was a convention manager, Senator ERVIN You may proceed, I understand that, Senator Gurney had finished. Senator MONTOYA. He indicated to me he had finished, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Magruder, I believe this morning you stated that the first meeting with Mr. Mitchell occurred at the Department of Justice with respect to Watergate and at that meeting were present yourself, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Liddy, and that it was at this meeting that, the charts, the big charts, were displayed. Is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER, Yes, sir, Senator MONTOYA. And that the plan evolved before your eyes and before your ears on this particular meeting with a budget request from Mr. Liddy for $1 million. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And that all three of you expressed shock or wore appalled by either the sum or the approach to intelligence as Mr. Liddy had proposed. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; that is correct, Senator. [00.37.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.12.52-DEAN discusses extending the coverup to the investigation of the SEGRETTI affair to prevent evidence of White House involvement in Watergate from being discovered] When I was in California in late August, I was asked by Mr. Ehrlichman to meet with Kalmbach and prepare him for his FBI interview regarding the Segretti matter. Mr. Kalmbach was very concerned that the interview could lead into other areas, and had discussed this problem with Ehrlichman. Accordingly, I helped Kalmbach prepare for his FBI interview, and he later informed me it had gone well, that they had not asked questions unrelated to the, Segretti matter, and he. volunteered nothing. On October 10, 1972, an article, based on leaked FBI -information reported the Segretti story for the first time publicly. Following the October 10 story there commenced a series of stories involving Chapin, Strachan, Kalmbach, and, later, Haldeman. [00.13.46] These stories created a new frenzy in the White House press office as to how to deal with the stories. On Friday. the 13th, I had left Washington to go to Florida to spend several weeks on a honeymoon, but was abruptly called back to Washington on Sunday, October 15, because of the. cascading leaked stories regarding Segretti. When I returned, I went to the, White House -where a meeting was in session in the Roosevelt room. [00.14.12-Meshing WHITE HOUSE publicity with the story being used in the criminal COVERUP.] In attendance at the meeting were Ehrlichman, Ziegler, Buchanan, Moore. and Chapin. The purpose of the, meeting was to prepare Ziegler for his press briefings on the Segretti-related stories For a reason that I cannot explain, a secretary to Mr. Chapin was present and taking notes during parts of the discussions and hypothetical questioning and answering of 'Mr. Ziegler. I believe this is one of the rare occasions where the preparation of a Ziegler briefing was actually recorded and I have submitted to the committee a copy of the notes recording parts of that session. Mr. DEAN. I might also add that this session was not unlike many other sessions that had preceded it and that were to follow it in preparing Ziegler to meet with the, White House press corps. It would, however. take another 200 pages to give that story. After Segretti became the subject of intense inquiry by the press. Ehrlichman suggested That I advise Segretti to go incognito and hide from the press to avoid further Stories that result from press interviews of him. I so advised Segretti and he came to Washington in late October, because he was very distressed about the fact that a number of people were issuing what he considered to be inaccurate and false stories regarding his activities. When Segretti arrived in Washington, he was met by Mr. Fielding and myself to discuss whether he should issue a press statement himself at that time. The subject was also discussed in a meeting at Mr. Chapin's office attended by Ziegler. Ehrlichman. Chapin, and myself and later by Fielding after he had received a draft copy of Segretti's proposed press statement. It was decided that it would be, unwise for Segretti to issue the statement so he commenced his travels around the United States once again to avoid the press. Mr. Segretti would periodically call me to tell me that he was in some small town and had not seen a newspaper or television for several days and was curious to know what they were saying about him. I would give him a summary report as to the press coverage. Following the election I was asked by Haldeman and Ehrlichman to meet with Segretti to determine the, extent of the involvement that Chapin and Strachan had had with him. Segretti at this time was in Palm Springs, Calif., where he had been spending the last week before he election in the desert. I arranged to meet with him on November 10 in Palm Springs, and had planned to spend a week myself relaxing after the election in Palm Springs. On November 10, I met with Segretti and, pursuant to an arrangement between Segretti and myself agreed to tape the interview with him, with the understanding that I felt it was privileged under the doctrine of executive privilege and that it would never be released, I have submitted the tape of that conversation between Segretti and myself to the committee pursuant to a subpena issued for the material, My visit to Palm Springs was abruptly interrupted when I received a call on November 11 from Mr. Todd Hullin, Ehrlichman's assistant, requesting that I come to Florida where Ehrlichman and Haldeman were accompanying the President, to report on my interview with Segretti. [00.17.19] Accordingly, I flew to Florida immediately and met with Haldeman and Ehrlichman on November 12 and played the taped interview I had had with Segretti for them. I recall that while I was discussing this matter with Ehrlichman and Haldeman, the President requested that Haldeman come over to see him. [00.17.37-Evidence of NIXON being regularly informed of the progress of the coverup-since HALDEMAN waited to see NIXON until AFTER talking to DEAN, infer that DEAN'S report was to be the subject of HALDEMAN'S report to NIXON.] I was surprised on this occasion, as I had been on other occasions when a similar situation had occurred, that Haldeman sent a message back to the President that, he was meeting with me and would be over shortly to report. I was surprised that my reporting on Segretti would take precedence over Haldeman's responding to an immediate request of the President. November 15, 1972, I arranged to meet with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman at Camp David on another subject, which I will discuss -later. During the first -part of the meeting however, the subject of Chapin's remaining at the White House, came up, and I learned that the President had made a decision, based on the. information that had been imparted to Haldeman and Ehrlichman in Florida, that Mr. Chapin would have to leave the White House staff. Before going to Camp David, I was aware of this subject being under discussion and Mr. Moore and I had talked about it. Moore felt that the President should merely issue a letter of censure to Chapin and let it go at that, but "Moore, was unaware of the contents of the tape and had never heard it. Pursuant to requests of Moore, however. I did raise his suggestion with Ehrlichman and Haldeman. [00.18.49]
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) continues to testify vis a vis his perception of official sanctioning of WATERGATE BURGLARY by both White House and Attorney General. Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Capitol Journal - South Africa and the Federal Budget
In studio Carter segues to a look at tax reform - Reagan at a rally in Independence, Missouri tells a cheering crowd that "in the spirit of Rambo" he's going to win tax reform, shots of a meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee meeting to formulate new tax codes, meeting of the Senate Finance Committee at which Secretary of the treasury JAMES BAKER testifies, Senator BOB DOLE at press conference speaks of a difference in agenda between Congressional Republicans and the White House, graphic of the national debt in which a silhouette of the U.S. is partially filled with red meant to represent the 1.823 trillion dollar debt, Reagan speaks before Congress to gain support to deploy more MX missiles, footage of a woman trying on a pair of shoes in a shoe store, audio from radio address in which Reagan condemns protectionism, shots of the House floor where Speaker TIP O'NEILL calls the House into session, onscreen text lists government programs that must be considered in budget.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.03.24-DASH questions DEAN, driving at the point that KALMBACH must have known that if the provision of money to the defendants was to be covert, it must have been improper, or else it would have been public and visible] Mr. DEAN.----I told him virtually everything I knew at that time and I think there was no doubt in his mind about the sensitivity of the situation. Mr. DASH. As a matter of fact, Mr. Dean, is there anything wrong for instance, if somebody working for you--and after all, Liddy and McCord did work for the Committee To Re-Elect the President--is there anything wrong if anybody works for you and gets in trouble, about your picking up their expenses--defense funds and things like that, Defense funds have been raised. [01.03.58] If that was the attitude of the White House. and. if that was the attitude of the Committee To Re-Elect the President for Mr. Liddy, Mr. McCord, whoever else they involved, would they not at least have tried to dig up a collection from' all those working for the White House and Isn't the committee, to raise a defense fund? Isn't that the way you raise defense funds for defendants? [01.04.20] Mr. DEAN. I am not familiar with raising defense funds, but you generally don't use covert means to raise humanitarian funds. Mr. DASH. Do you use moneys that have been given to a committee to reelect a President of the United States? Mr. DEAN. In covert fashion? Mr. DASH. In raising a defense fund for those who may have been caught in a covert act, do you use campaign funds-- Mr. DEAN. No, you don't. Mr. DASH. Is that a proper use of funds given in a campaign for reelection of a President? Mr. DEAN. No, it is not. Mr. DASH. YOU Spoke of your knowledge of clandestine payments. Can you tell us of your knowledge of the clandestine nature of the way, in which these payments -were made? [01.05.00] Mr. DEAN. Mr. Kalmbach asked me if I would have Mr. Ulasewicz call him when he returned to -California. He said he didn't have. his phone number at that time. and would like to have him reach him as soon as he got back. In a few subsequent conversations I had with Mr. Kalmbach, he had developed what he called code names for various individuals. I think I reefered to these earlier., He called Mr. Hunt the Writer. He called Mr. Haldeman the Brush. Mr. DASH. Do you know what he called Mrs. Hunt? Mr. DEAN. 'The, -writer's wife, I think, maybe. something I don't know. Mr. DASH. Like who is buried in Grant's Tomb, Mr. DEAN. I don't really know. Mr. DASH. Do you know, by the way, whether Mr. Ulasewicz, had a code name? Did you know that he was called Mr. Rivers in the conversation with Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. Ulasewicz? Mr. DEAN. I think I did hear that subsequently from Mr. Kalmbach, that he had referred to him as Mr. Rivers. [01.06.06] Mr. DASH. Now, again, if one were to, on the basis of decency, humanitarianism, whatever way you want to call it, raise a defense fund, 'Would you go about clandestinely using code, names of that kind to secretly make these payoffs? Mr. DEAN. No, sir. Mr. DASH. I think we will have Mr. Kalmbach here to testify as to that in much more detail. Now, did Mr. Kalmbach tell you about any of the instructions that he had as the man who was to make these payoffs? [01.06.44] Mr. DEAN. He, told me when I met him in Lafayette Park that he was going to meet Mr. Ulasewicz at that point in time and that, he was going to have the money laundered. That is the only thing I know about that. He never did tell me exactly how money was laundered. I asked him and he said, I don't know. I don't know if he goes to the race track and exchanges it there or if he's got friends in New York that exchange it, I was never exactly clear on how money was laundered. Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Kalmbach ever tell You that he had had any discussion with Mr. Ehrlichman concerning this role? [01.07.21] Mr. DEAN. . The only time I had heard of any discussion was when--well, Mr. Kalmbach had numerous discussions with Mr. Ehrlichman that I was aware of. Mr. Kalmbach. when he would come into town, would have a list that he would keep in his pocket that he would check off each item with each individual he wanted to talk with. He is a very thorough man. He never told me what he was going over with Mr. Ehrlichman on his list. [01.07.50] The only time. I had heard about his discussing this at all with Mr. Ehrlichman was after April--or let's see, March 29 or 30, when they were in California for President Thieu's visit. He said to me he had met with Mr. Ehrlichman that week to discuss the fact that he was concerned that when he, appeared before this committee he didn't want to ever have the name of the contributor come out, the person who had raised this money, and he had had some discussion with him. What other discussions--I know, he had met with Mr. Ehrlichman On countless occasions. [01.08.29] Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Kalmbach over tell you to your knowledge that Mr. Ehrlichman had indicated that the President had approved these payments? Mr. DEAN. Did Mr. Kalmbach tell me? Mr. DASH. Yes. Mr. DEAN. 'No, he, did not. Mr. DASH, Did you learn in any other way? Mr. DEAN-. No, not that I recall. Mr. DASH. In your exhibit No. 34-47. Mr. Dean, you list Mr. Stans. I think you pretty -well identified a number of the 'others and I think it may be interesting to the committee, Mr. Stans having testified before the committee, why you listed his name. This was a list, to recall it for you, that you put certain markings by those who were lawyers. This was a list of those you thought had problems as far as criminal charges. Why was Mr. Stans put on your list? [01.09.24]
1983 - LAWMAKERS - Jobs Bill
Host Paul Duke introduces report on progress of jobs bill for unemployment relief; Cokie Roberts in FG. (March 3) U.S. House Representative Frederick Boucher (D-VA) arguing for a jobs bill on the House floor to fund employment. House Minority Leader, Rep. Robert Michel (R-IL) says the bill passed through committee is mediocre. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) says the bill is inadequate to address the sixteen to twenty million people that are unemployed. VS of Congressmen complaining about deficiencies in the jobs bill: rural areas ignored, mimicking old New Deal programs, benefit areas where there is low unemployment anyway. Rep. Delbert Latta (R-OH) calls the committee bill a big hunk of pork that benefits a few committee members on appropriations committee.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.30.35] Senator ERVIN. Well, didn't all of this engender in your mind a suspicion that maybe so something was rotten in the Committee to Re-Elect the President? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, I had no reason to suspect at that time and until 'March 23 that there was anybody involved in this matter beyond McCord and Liddy. Senator ERVIN. There was Hunt who had worked and had an office in the same building in which you had an office, did he not? Mr. STANS. I did not know Mr. Hunt. I know, nothing about his connection with the affair. Senator ERVIN. Did you not learn something about that shortly thereafter. Mr. STANS. He was one of those indicted. No, I did not know anything about Mr. Hunt until I read in the press and he was indicted. Senator ERVIN. And the fact that you had been told that Mr. Magruder had tried to persuade Mr. Sloan to commit perjury, did this not Make you think that Mr. -Magruder was implicated in some way? Mr. STANS. Well, it is entirely possible that Mr. Magruder was but he was -not, indicted by the grand jury who had apparently had the entire story, according to Mr. Sloan's statement. I am not in position to accuse people of crimes if the grand jury does not find them indictable Senator ERVIN. 'Well, I wasn't suggesting that. I was just suggesting as a friend and well-wisher of the President that you might naturally have exactly the same inclination Which Mr. Sloan evidently had that something might be wrong, might be rotten in the Committee To Re-Elect the President and if you might feel like protecting the President, you ought to call to his attention your misgivings. Mr. STANS. Well, Mr. Sloan and Mr. Magruder testified before the grand jury. Mr. Sloan talked to people in the White House. All I can say is that I saw no reason for my going any further with the President, Senator ERVIN. Well, you didn't have any feeling that there was anything rotten in the Committee To Re-Elect the President that ought to be investigated? Mr. STANS. Beyond that investigation which was going on by the FBI, by the grand jury, by the White House, and whatever other sources were involved, I had no investigating mechanism and I did not. Senator ERVIN. Were you questioned individually by the FBI? Mr. STANS. Oh, yes. I had three meetings with 'the FBI plus the one occasion when they came back for a few questions. Senator ERVIN, In other words, the information you did give the FBI was not in the form of a written statement made by you? Mr. STANS. No, it was not. Senator ERVIN. And how long was it after you had the conversation with the President until the President announced that Dean had made an investigation and that he could assure the American people that nobody presently employed or then employed in the White House was implicated in any way? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, offhand, I don't know whether that announcement was made before or after the date that I had the meeting with the President. Senator ERVIN. NOW, you talked with the President personally in September, you say? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. Did you discuss any of these matters with him? Mr. STANS. No; I did not discuss the Watergate matter as Such. The President commiserated with me. He said, I know you are, taking a lot of punishment in the press and taking a great many accusations. He said, you are doing a fine job, I hope that you will keep on working,' because this will all be cleared up some day and I am confident that you had nothing to do with it. It was a pep talk, as I said. I did take advantage of the occasion to say to the President, I think we are spending an awful lot of money, we are working awfully hard to raise it, and Mr. President, it is very hard to raise money for a candidate who is 30 points ahead in the polls. But that, was the nature of the discussion. Senator ERVIN. Do you have any questions? Mr. EDMISTEN. I have a couple of rapid questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stans, you have testified that part of the, money that went to Mr. Kalmbach was paid out of some Philippine National money and you said that, that had to be paid back? Mr. STANS. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMISTEN. Was that paid back by check? Mr. STANS. No; that was paid back by Mr. LaRue in the, same form in which we received it, in cash. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, isn't it true, Mr. Stans, that shortly after the break-in, Mr. Sloan went to the White House because he was very, upset about certain things that had allegedly happened and that did indeed go there, and that he talked to Mr. Ehrlichman and to Chapin? Mr. STANS. He has so testified. I had -no direct knowledge of it at the time.
LAWMAKERS - October 8, 1981
DO NOT USE Still photo of Senate Committee being briefed at White House by Reagan.
JFK Assassination Hearings - H.B. McClain
Committee Chairman, U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) recognizes Rep. Samuel Devine (R-OH) who asks H.B. McClain a couple questions about his microphone and motorcycle, focusing on whether he could receive any messages if his microphone/receiver was stuck on.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator WEICKER. Now, logs are kept are they not as to those persons that see the president and that telephone the president? Mr. KEHRLI. That's correct. Senator WEICKER. And who keeps those logs? Mr. KEHRLI. Those logs are actually it's a compilation, the white house operators keep track of phone calls, and any number of people put together the log on who sees the president. It may be the military aid who's walking along and someone would walk up to the president and shake his hand and say hello and start a conversation. Well, he would be the only one present, so he would be able to put that together. The scheduling office keeps a log of his formal appointments. There is a secretary who sits outside of his office who also keeps track of other people who are called in periodically. So, it's actually a compilation of a number of different inputs that results in the final schedule, or the final listing of who saw the president. Senator WEICKER. Does Mr. Nesbitt have the responsibility of keeping logs as to who sees the president? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Nesbitts responsibility is in terms of the daily diary, which is just what it says a diary of the presidents activities and phone calls for that particular day. He gains inputs from various sources and combines them so that the log shows not only phone calls but also shows meetings and visits. Senator WEICKER. So this is, if there were any place, this is the one central place where you would have a fairly accurate description of both the personal meetings and the phone conversations of the president. Mr. KEHRLI. It is one place, it's not the only place. Senator WEICKER. Could you tell me what the other places are? Mr. KEHRLI. Well, they re also within central files, which is the general filing organization we have, we have an organization that keeps track of who saw the president, when they saw him, and also what correspondence has gone back and forth between them. So, that if a letter comes in to the president, we can pull the background information on it letting him know or whoever is going to be drafting a response know when this individual writing the letter saw the president last, when he wrote the president last and what the response was, if any.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.24.09] Senator GURNEY. Between whom? Mr. PORTER. Among Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Magruder, and then ultimately, Mr. Mitchell. There were several large banquet rooms, empty banquet rooms, in the hotel that were not being used and a lot of these meetings were held in those rooms, off in a corner. I was asked at one occasion to stand some 50 yards away, whatever it was, and kind of be the guard on the door as they had this meeting. Senator GURNEY. Who was present, at that particular meeting? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 'Mardian, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Clifford Miller from Los Angeles was present, but I am not sure whether he was present, at, that particular meeting. There were several of these conferences going on intermittently during the- Senator GURNEY, How many would you say? Mr. PORTER. Three or four, probably. Senator GURNEY. And would you please name All the, people that You can remember who participated in these conversations? Mr. PORTER. I think I have named them, Senator, those people. Senator GURNEY. Did you overhear any of the conversations? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, not a bit. Senator GURNEY. Did any of these people repeat to you later any part of these conversations? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. Obviously, my curiosity became piqued and I asked, I believe it was Mr. Miller--I think it was Mr. Miller--probably a question like, what's up? He said, I believe, that one of the committee's employees, had been caught inside the Democratic National Committee. I asked him who it was and he said, James McCord. And that was the first time I had learned of that. It was toward noon. Senator GURNEY. How long did you stay in California? Mr. PORTER. I personally, Senator? Senator GURNEY. Yes. Mr. PORTER. Through Tuesday, I believe, the following Tuesday. Senator GURNEY. And what about the rest of the time that you were in California? Do you recall an conversations that took place about Watergate that you have any knowledge of? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. At no time was I ever included in any of those conversations with any of those people. Senator GURNEY. While you were in California, did you make any phone calls back to Washington? Mr. PORTER. I have been asked, I believe, that question by one of the members of your committee. I received a phone call from the same Roger Stone who I mentioned earlier in this about the--in my earlier testimony, And Mr. Stone was taking care of our house while we were gone. I had taken my family out to California for the summer. Senator GURNEY. 'Is this significant? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir, it is significant. He was, I think it was on Monday night, I guess feeding our dogs and the phone rang and a voice asked for me and he said, he said, is Bart Porter there? Mr. Stone said, no, he was not. He said, who is this? And the voice said, and it sounded like an older man, according to Roger, this is Jim McCord. And Roger said, I do not believe you. And I guess the man pressed him and said, yes it was. He said, where are you? He said, well, I am in jail. I want to talk to Porter. I do not think this is accurate. I think personally it was a hoax or some friend calling. But anyway, Roger called me in California immediately. I was convinced it was a prank because I hardly knew Mr. McCord and he would have no reason to call me. But, because Mr. Magruder--I think I tried to get Mr. Magruder, I am not sure. But I did call Mr. LaRue. I felt somebody should know that I had received that call. So I did tell, I think I called Mr. LaRue and told him that. And he just took the information and said, thank you. And that was the last I heard of it, Senator GURNEY. Now, when you returned to Washington again, did you participate 'in any conferences, phone conversations with anyone about this Watergate break-in? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, not at, all, other than the normal Senator GURNEY. Did you hear anybody discuss it there at the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. What about destruction of records? What records have you destroyed other than the accounting that you have mentioned? Mr. PORTER. Well, I really did not have any other records, Senator, other than some speech material; and some travel schedules that, were out of date and other things that I had been kind of saving over a period of months that really were not--I would not classify as anything important, but I did have those and I did throw those away, I think. Senator GURNEY. From the time that you were 'in the service of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, until now, have you ever had any discussions about Watergate or bugging or surveillance or sabotage with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. PORTER. Never. Senator GURNEY,. With Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. PORTER. Never Senator GURNEY. With Mr. Dean? Mr. PORTER. Never. Senator GURNEY. With Mr. Colson? Mr. PORTER. Never. Senator GURNEY. With Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. PORTER. Never. Senator GURNEY. With Mr. Mitchell? Mr. PORTER. -Never.
LAWMAKERS
00.22.21-shot of HOUSE ENERGY COMMITTEE holding hearing on renewing CLEAN AIR ACT. Shot of Rep. JOHN DINGELL (D-MI), descr. v.o.-from DETROIT, fearful of impact on AUTO INDUSTRY. Shot of Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA), from L.A., smog city. Shot of WAXMAN chairing a hearing on POLLUTION on HEALTH. Shot of committee hearing. Shot of DINGELL with aide. Shot of DINGELL speaking to committee, advocates speedy passage of a bill. Shot of WAXMAN. Discussion of battle of industrial/environmental issues, conflict of personalities between WAXMAN and DINGELL. Shot of DINGELL.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, was the first person you had any conversation with about this Mr. LaRue? Hugh Sloan. I am not sure precisely the sequence, whether it was the Magruder conversation or the LaRue conversation in that week. It could be either one. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes. Well, Mr. LaRue came to talk to you, that s Mr. Fred LaRue, isn't it? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And he was an aide, to John Mitchell? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And had served with John Mitchell in the Department of Justice, hadn't he. Hugh Sloan. I am not sure of my own knowledge. The last I knew of Mr. LaRue he d been at the White House.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.46.59--A VERY BIG RATIONALIZATION] Mr. MAGRUDER...Now, here are ethical, legitimate people whom I respected, I respect Mr. Coffin tremendously. He was a very close friend of mine. I saw people I was very close to breaking the law without any, regard for any other person's pattern of behavior of belief. I believed as firmly as they did that the President was correct in this issue. So, consequently--and let, me just say, when these subjects came up and although I was aware they were illegal, and I am sure the others did, we had become somewhat inured to using some activities that would help us in accomplishing what we thought was a legitimate cause. Now, that, is absolutely incorrect; two wrongs do not make a right. For the past year, I have. obviously had to consider that and, understand completely that, that was an absolute, incorrect decision But, that. is basically, I think, the reason why that decision was made. because -of that atmosphere that had occurred and to all of us who had worked in the, White House, there was that feeling of resentment and of frustration at being unable to deal with issues on a legal basis . Senator BAKER. There are countless cliches that come to mind that I could use to try to describe that state of mind or that attitude--fighting 'fire with fire, two wrongs don't make, a right, and all rest. But, they all seem inadequate. Mr. MAGRUDER. Well. they certainly were and I have no justification for them, nor will I make any today. I fully accept the responsibility of having made an absolutely disastrous decision, or at least having participated. I didn't make the decision but, certainly I participated. Senator BAKER. A decision really that is going to affect history that was made in almost a casual way. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, Senator BAKER. SO on J January 27, February 4. March 30, 1972, you considered a plan formulated by Mr., Liddy for illegal and clandestine activity. It was put into effect and ultimately led to a. break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at. the, Watergate on May 28, 1972, which went undetected. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. We understand from other testimony--I do not remember whether you made the, point or not--that there was criticism of the first break-in. I believe by Mr. Mitchell, that, it, did not produce the desired results and there. was a second break-in effort on June, 17, 1972. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator DARER. And the illegal entry was detected. It. Was reported to you and others, including Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, and Mr. LaRue, during your visit in California,. Mr. MAGRUDER. It 'was reported to Mr. Mardian Mr. LaRue, myself and Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean was not, in California with us. Senator BAKER. Someone, suggested I think Mr., Haldeman, from Key Biscayne, that you should return to Washington on June 19. Mr. MAGRUDER. He suggested it to me. [00.50.03] Senator BAKER. Let's examine that conversation a little more--What was the extent of 'Mr. Haldeman knowledge of the situation? What did he tell you and why did he ask you to return?, Mr. MAGRUDER. Senator, I don't know the, extent, of his prior knowledge. Senator BAKER. What did he appear to know? Mr. MAGRUDER. The discussion was simply what had happened. I told him that the break-in had occurred. that the five people had been apprehended, that one of them was Jim McCord, our security chief, that money was found there that was probably our money, although we did not know at that time. He suggested that I get back to Washington to try to solve that matter. Senator BAKER. Can you elaborate that conversation at all? Mr. MAGRUDER. It was a straightforward discussion of the, problem and in effect-Magruder, you get back and try to solve that problem. He did not suggest, and I want to make it clear, that I start any coverup or anything of that kind. He just wanted somebody back there to get hold of the situation. because obviously it was going to deteriorate. Senator BAKER. . Did he tell anyoue else to go back or suggest to you that anyoue accompany you? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, he did not, He specifically asked me to go. [00.51.15] Senator BAKER. What I am going to ask. 'Mr. Magruder,, is patently unfair. to you ,and to Mr. Haldeman, But with that apology in advance and with the full foreknowledge that as far as I am concerned, I am asking for the purpose rather than the content of the conversation, because we will have Mr. Haldeman here later as a witness--can you tell me anything about that conversation the tone of voice, 'the manner the anxiety, the lack of concern--are there any Indices of emotion or content of that conversation that indicate to you that Mr. Haldeman knew how the break-in had been planned a and executed. What Was involved and what had to occur? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think--I have known Mr. Haldeman for a considerable length of time, I have worked for him. I happen to respect him tremendously, still do, will continue to do, because I think he, is an extremely competent and fine individual. But his manner of working, as many of you Senators on the Republican side know, is rather direct, somewhat abrupt. He is not one who engages in long discussions over issues--ate least in his working relationship with People who are subordinate to him, which in effect, although I did not work directly under him at that time, I still was. So our discussion was rather short and rather to the point, rather one of, you have got a problem, You had better solve it. [00.52.35]