Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:13:01) Hearing host NINA TOTENBERG segues to House Banking Committee Hearings where ROGER ALTMAN is testifying - this House hearing footage runs to the end of the tape
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.29.54] Mr. THOMPSON. Fine. Just one small matter. I don't want to leave any inferences from the story I quoted a minute ago concerning your meeting with Mr. Dash. I don't know the source, and this is not the proper time to find out The source. The only thing I am sure of is that it was not Mr. Dash. I just want to put that on the record. I have no further questions. Senator ERVIN. Senator Talmadge. [00.30.20] Senator TALMADGE. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dean, you realize, of course that You have made very strong charges against the President, of the United States that involves him in criminal offenses, do you not ? Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir, I do. Senator TALMADGE. What makes you think that your credibility is, greater than that of the President, who denies what you have said? Mr. DEAN. Well, Senator, I have been asked to come up here, and tell the, truth. I have told it exactly the way I know it. I don't say that I--you are asking me a public relations questions really, in a sense, why I would have greater credibility than the President of the United States. I am telling you what I know. I am telling you just as I know it. Senator TALMADGE. Now, you are testifying, I believe, under immunity that this committee has granted to you. Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. You would not be here testifying today, had we not granted that use immunity, would you? Mr. DEAN. I would probably be before the prosecutors downtown. Senator TALMADGE. 'NOW, you refused to testify before the grand jury, I believe, did you not? Mr. DEAN,. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. You pled the fifth amendment there? Mr. DEAN. That is correct, Senator TALMADGE. You have been bargaining With them for immunity -which has not, yet been granted. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. DEAN. that at is correct, Senator. Senator TALMADGE. NOW, there have been various reports in the press; I know nothing whatever about their credence. Did you see an article in one of the Washington papers that you were kicked out of a law, firm here for violation of the canon of ethics? Mr. DEAN. I did, sir. Senator TALMADGE. Would you like to comment on that? Mr. sometime DEAN. Yes, I Would. To explain that is that I learned about that sometime after it had occurred. That was -when I had left--I had been on the hill working with the House Judiciary Committee. I had gone to a newly formed commission that was working on a revision of the Federal criminal laws and the Civil Service ran a normal civil service examination. As a result of that, they -went to a former employer, the employer indicated he had dismissed me for unethical reasons. The Deputy Director of the Commission brought this to my attention and said, is this true? I said, I am -flabbergasted to see this. I called a friend who had been in the firm at, the time, Who is another lawyer. I asked him if 'he would go to The person who had made the charge and if he could find out what in the -world this is all about. I explained to him the entire set, of facts and circumstances that had occurred. As a result of this man going to see the former partner who had dismissed me,, the statement was retracted in my civil service record. Also. I should note one of the reasons that I was prepared to go to the ethics committee at that point in time is because I was operating on the advice of counsel when I was involved in this investment, while I was still at this law firm. and I believe we had really a question of Personalities rather than a question of ethics involved. I would be happy to submit to the committee for its record the letter of counsel that I was operating on at the time this incident occurred, that I had sought legal advice as to whether this Was proper or improper because I did not Want to engage in it if it Was improper. Senator TALMADGE. If you will submit that for the record, we -will appreciate it. I judge from your statement that that was an unfair and unfounded attack on your professional ethics. Senator ERVIN. I would suggest that he read it. [00.34.00]
LAWMAKERS - LM 146 - "Civil Rights Bill of 1984"
Adult men and women in a U.S. House of Representatives Committee meeting. Asst Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds testifying that the proposed civil rights bill is too intrusive to local affairs. Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) questions Mr. Reynolds. House Sub-Committee Chairman Don Edwards (D-CA) stating to the committee that the Reagan Administration is outside of the rest of American thought in its stance on the bill. Reporter Cokie Roberts standing in the committee chamber with House Representative F.J. Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who calls President Reagan’s statements "scare tactics." Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI) says politically a Civil Rights bill is a no-win situation for Republicans. Rep. Sensenbrenner says Republicans are independent thinkers and the bill will pass regardless of the President's stance. Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-RI) says she will continue to work with the White House on the bill's behalf.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.07.30-DEAN answers DASH's question, how can the Watergate fiasco from being repeated] Mr. DEAN. Mr. Dash, I am quite aware of the fact that the purpose of this committee is legislative, and you are looking for answers to problems and that the man who has been right in the middle of those problems, and right in the middle of the White House for quite a while and has seen the way things have operated down in the executive branch. I have given this considerable thought, and with the permission of the chairman and the committee what I would like to do at some point, because I have made some rather lengthy notes as I have thought about this, over the last several months, as to potential legislative steps that might be taken by this committee under consideration, that I feel might provide some answers to preventing this sort of thing from occurring again and I would like to submit that at a subsequent date to the committee rather than go on to hat would be a rather extensive discussion of legislative remedies. Mr. DASH. Thank you, Mr. Dean, I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Thompson. [00.08.43] Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I might add since the document which I dictated subsequent to my conversation with Mr. Buzhardt has been made part of the record that it was submitted to me with the understanding that it would be made available for committee use. There was no discussion as to exactly how that document or the subsequent document that I might prepare would be used, although there was certainly no limitation in any manner as to how it might be used. I might also add there was no discussion as to the source of the information which Mr. Buzhardt was imparting to me but that it was one lawyer's position to another lawyer. [00.09.25-the QUESTION is whether DEAN met with McCORD'S lawyer, and what DEAN knew of clemency offers to keep McCORD silent] Mr. Dean, you have testified and referring to your statement on page 144, that you had a meeting with Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Alch. Mr. Alch has testified. Mr. DEAN. Mr. Alch, I never met with Mr. Alch, I am sorry, I am trying to get to that page. Mr. THOMPSON. I am sorry, you are right, it was a report of the meeting. I will relate the portion I am referring to, "Sometime during this period that as a result of my report of Caulfield meeting with McCord that O'Brien, Mitchell, and Alch discussed having F. Lee Bailey meet with McCord, et cetera." I assume then that discussion was not in your presence either? Mr. DEAN. 'That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know Mr. Alch's relationship with either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Mitchell at that time? Mr. DEAN. No, I do not. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know why he was present at that particular meeting at that time? Mr. DEAN. It is my understanding that Mr. O'Brien--I am not sure Mr. Mitchell was present, I have not seen the paragraph you are referring to. Mr. THOMPSON. The first full paragraph. Mr. DEAN. On page 145 of my testimony? Mr. THOMPSON. 144. That O'Brien, 'Mitchell, and Mr. Alch discussed having F. Lee Bailey, I assume that as a discussion, one discussion with all these gentlemen present? Mr. DEAN. Well, this is what, I am referring to -here, if you read it is that there 'Was sometime during this period that as a result of my reports., of Caulfield's meetings -with McCord, that O'Brien, Mitchell and Alch discussed. That does not indicate a meeting, and I am not aware of any meeting. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. Mr. DEAN, It is intercommunication among these individuals that I am referring to, and I was not directly privy to any of these but I had a general misunderstanding that Mr. O'Brien had request Contacts with Mr. Alch, and he, in turn, would report back to Mr. Mitchell, am -not aware of any contact between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Alch. Mr. THOMPSON. I see. SO you assume that your information was from Mr. O'Brien and that he had gotten his information directly from Mr. Alch? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. That is your assumption. [00.11.44-THOMPSON asks DEAN more questions about the finances of the COVERUP] Let me ask you this: About this $350,000 of which you received $15,200, did I understand You to say that you understood that part of this money came from the 1970 congressional campaign? Mr. DEAN. My understanding was that the money came from the 1968 primaries. Mr. THOMPSON. 1968 primaries? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know what particular route that money traveled in order to get from those primary campaigns to the Committee To Re-Elect? Mr. DEAN. To the best of my recollection what I was told is that it went to New York during 1968, was kept in safety deposit, boxes in New York, it subsequently came from safety, deposit boxes in New York to safety deposit boxes in Washington, Mr. THOMPSON. In whose custody was it in New York? Mr. DEAN. I believe it was in Mr. Kalmbach's custody in New York but I don't have the actual facts as to who had the actual safety deposit boxes. Mr. THOMPSON. Would it, not be, appropriate for that money to have gone to the, congressional campaign committee? Mr. DEAN. The 1968 primary money? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. DEAN. Mr. Thompson, I was not making any decisions in 1968 about that money. [00.13.14]
Capitol Journal - Poverty
Text on screen displays the findings of House Ways and Means Committee Report on child poverty.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.12.45] Senator GURNEY. And the sole subject, of the meeting -was a discussion of Mr. Liddy's intelligence plan? Mr. MAGRUDER. AS I recall, at the beginning of the meeting, we did discuss the new election law which was about, ready to be -passed in the Senate and the House the following week, as I recall. Senator GURNEY. 'Of course, I understand why Mr. Mitchell was there--he was going to head up the campaign--and you, the, deputy director. And Liddy was going to make a presentation. But why Mr. Dean? Why was he present at this meeting and so many others, too? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, I , he had ad worked for Mr. Mitchell before. He was one of the people at the White House who worked -very closely with us. He had brought Mr. Liddy to the committee. I cannot specifically recall why he was asked to come to that meeting, I would assume, I just assumed that he should be there because it was part of his--I want to be careful, not his responsibility. but part Of his area, of concern, and we had had other people attend meetings of this kind when they were concerned with a specific subject. And he had brought Mr. Liddy to me and indicated that he should prepare this plan. Senator GURNEY. Then he was included because he knew about Mr. Liddy's role, to be played in the Intelligence operation? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. Of course, there, were, several rather bizarre activities discussed at, that meeting and as I understand it, you did tell Mr. Strachan all about the meeting and what Mr. Liddy proposed, including this business of the kidnapping and the call girls, is that right? Mr. MAGRUDER. I want to be careful, On the first meeting, Senator, I don't recall whether he included these blank sheets of paper With the, documentation from the, chart. If he had, I would. have, sent those automatically over to Mr. Strachan. If he did not, an and I have a feeling he did not on the first, meeting, I would have simply discussed the meeting with Mr. Strachan on the, phone and probably would have not gone Into the detail that, I am talking about. In fact. I forget many of the Other things On those charts. There was much more. The plan was much more comprehensive than I have indicated to you. I mean there, were just, other things. I Just, can't recall what they -were. These were, many of them, he used Many of what I called buzz words and things that I did not particularly understand, and I don't, think Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean understood them. senator GURNEY. But what I am saying is as far as the principal points of the plan are concerned, You reported those to Mr. Strachan? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; the. general parameters of the plan. yes. sir. Senator GURNEY. And you have a vivid recollection today about the kidnapping and the call girls? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. As I think anyone of us would. Well, now, this is why I am bringing this up again. Was there ever any reaction from Mr. Strachan after presumably he, made his report? No one really knows whether he did or not, but presumably, he reported this to Mr. Haldeman. Did he ever get back to you? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Senator GURNEY. Was there any reaction? Mr. MAGRUDER. My indication from Mr. Strachan was that whatever decision Mr. Mitchell made was acceptable to the White House on this matter. Senator GURNEY. And that, was the message that Mr. Strachan brought back to you? Mr. MAGRUDER. That was the context of' the message, and I don't want to say it was after the first meeting or the. second meeting, but that was the context, Because Of the sensitivity Of this project, I Personally felt that we. should be sure that they were aware of the Seriousness Of that project. Senator GURNEY. Well, now, in this context of the, report, who did he, mention if ,it all, that he was. reporting for? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, he only reported to Mr. Haldeman, Senator. Senator GURNEY. And you assumed, of course, that he was reporting for Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MAGRUDER. In that, context, Sir; yes, Senator GURNEY. You mentioned that--and one of the missions of this committee is to look into all of the Irregularities in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Republican and Democratic. There is mention in your witness sheets, and you mentioned this morning too, that one of the, reasons why you thought that you ought to find out, more about What was going on the. Democrat side, was because, of this kickback situation at the Democratic Convention, but you never elaborate on it. Now, where did you learn about this and what did you learn about it.? Mr. MAGRUDER. A newsman called me early in the year and said there was something of interest, that, we should look into and indicated that along with the Democratic Convention at the Fontainbleau Hotel, there would be a business exposition at the Fontainbleau, And he said, this business exposition is a setup deal. The Democratic committee officials are going to do business with the, exposition people, and requesting that the business take, space at this exposition . The business would take the space. and pay--let's take a figure of, say, $10,000--of which $5,000 would go to the business exposition company that was putting On the exposition, and the company would get a booth, but the other $5,000 would be get kicked back to the Democratic Party to assist itself in its debts. I later received from this same newsman detailed brochures by this business exposition company on that subject. We asked Mr. Liddy at first to take a look at the situation and he went down to Miami and, through some manner, was able to record a telephone conversation between an individual who was his Informant, in effect. and a, member of the Democratic National Committee. That telephone conversation further indicated that, yes; there was this kickback situation. Because of the phone message and because of this information We had received we thought it was, could be an appropriate situation to investigate further. [00.19.04]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.50.49-DASH continues delivering a pointed line of questioning trying to establish that DEAN'S conversation with NIXON on September 15, 1972, viewed in the context of the ongoing coverup, is evidence that NIXON knew all about the coverup at that time] Mr. DASH. What was the instruction that you received with regard to that on that day from the President? Mr. DEAN. On the 15th? Mr. DASH. Yes., Mr. DEAN. After reporting to him -who was handling that, he told me to--this was really something that was said to both Mr. Haldeman and myself--that Mr. Timmons should get on top of this matter. [00.51.21-the events suggest that NIXON was orchestrating the coverup to a large degree, knowing that the PATMAN COMMITTEE hearings had to be stopped and telling HALDEMAN and DEAN which man was best suited to stop the hearings] Mr. DASH. NOW, I think you have already testified exactly what, did occur, and as a matter of fact, those hearings never went forward. Mr. DEAN. That is correct, Mr. DASH. NOW, after all those events, after the, President having told you how Bob Haldeman had kept him posted on your handling of the Watergate case and that. he appreciated how difficult a job that was and your own statement. to the President that you had only contained it and that some day it might unravel, and your own statement to the President, that in a civil case, an ex parte relationship had been established to influence the judge, and then the discussion on the Patman case- [00.51.59-the climax of DASH'S line of questioning, DEAN appears overwhelmed in answering, IT IS DEAN'S MOST DIRECT TESTIMONY IMPLICATING THE PRESIDENT] frankly and honestly Mr. Dean, when you left the President, on September 15, did you just have an impression as to his knowledge of the coverup, or did you have a conviction concerning that? Mr. DEAN. Mr. Dash, there -was no doubt in my mind that the President was aware of it and I would have to, to use your language say I had a conviction, or I was convinced. [00.52.30] Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Dean, I do not want to go through the other meetings because they have been thoroughly gone through. But at the March 13 meeting. which again was a significant meeting, March 13, 1973, you have testified to the discussion about The possible requirement of $1 million and the President's response to that and the discussion of Executive clemency. [00.52.47-DASH asks DEAN about NIXON'S statements to DEAN regarding the $1 million payoff to keep the BURGLARS from talking] Now, the committee does have in its possession some confirmation from the White, House that at least the subject matter of the million dollar discussion did occur. as well as the discussion of Executive clemency. I think we know now that 'Mr. Fred Buzhardt contacted the committee by phone call and that minority counsel, Mr. Thompson, reduced his notes in the form of a memorandum. Those notes have been reviewed in my office, by Mr. Buzhardt and -Mr. Garment and with some minor exceptions, which do not relate to this particular reference that I am going to read to you. Mr. Buzhardt and Mr. Garment have informed me in my office that they were not verbatim or detailed but a roughly accurate memorandum Of the conversation. These were submitted to us for use by this committee for the purpose of questioning you at this time. I would like, to identify that I am using them for that purpose at this time. [00.53.45] Now, according to the memorandum that, MR. Thompson prepared based on that call this meeting when the discussion, according to the White House, on the million dollars and Executive clemency took place was March 21 rather than 'March 13. [00.54.05] Mr. DEAN. That is not correct. That, is not my recollection. In fact, I am very clear on the fact that it occurred on the 13th. because the meeting on the 21st -was a totally different range of topics than the way this rather casually came up on the 13th. Mr. DASH. Regardless of the date, because I am sure there will be disagreement on the, date--you have already testified the date this discussion came up--I think it is important, however, that I read to you the reconstruction of this meeting from the point of view of the, White House at that meeting and what was said. This is from Mr. Thompson's notes which, as I have indicated, was his putting down What he recalled from the telephone call from Fred Buzhardt, special counsel to the President: [00.54.52-DASH reads the BUZHARDT notes which state that NIXON wanted no part of paying the defendants] [READING] Mr. Dean stated that Hunt was trying to blackmail Ehrlichman about Hunt's prior plumber activities unless he was, paid what ultimately might amount to $1 Million. The President said how could it possibly be paid. "What makes you think he would be satisfied with that?" stated it' was blackmail that it was that it was wrong and that it would not work. that the truth could come out anyway. Dean had said that a Cuban group could' possibly be used to transfer the payments. [00.55.30]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.54.04-MITCHELL avoids fully admitting that the PLUMBERS' activities were for political advantage and unrelated to National security] Mr. MITCHELL. They were obviously elements of that in connection With some of these activities But I think we would have to parcel it Out in details before you could make that determination Mr. THOMPSON. Would it be accurate to say your motivations were generally more out of political considerations at that time, in the midst of a campaign, than matters of national security? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I would think if you would put the, aggregate Of the subject matters we are talking about it would have to be from that point of view than from national security. Mr. THOMPSON. All right, -Mr. Mitchell. you have testified on several points where you disagree with Mr. Magruder Or refute his to testimony. I would like to ask you a few points which I don't believe have been Covered yet concerning Mr. Dean's testimony. Dean testified that, "Within -the first few days." and I am quoting, [quoting DEAN'S statement] Within the first few days of my involvement in coverup a pattern had developed where he was carrying messages from Mitchell, Stans, Mardian to Ehrlichman and Haldeman and vice versa about how each quarter was handling the coverup and relevant information as to what was occurring. Is that an accurate statement, as far as you know, was Dean doing that? [00.55.11-MITCHELL can't quite testify that DEAN is wrong, so he picks at the details of DEAN'S testimony] Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I think that, Mr. Dean has, lumped together a number of things. I think Mr. Dean has testified that, the coverup had started on June 19 by the destruction of certain documents, by the concept of getting Mr. Colson out of the country, and a few other such things--Hunt, I am sorry, I am sorry there seems to be some. correlation there that I keep putting together [laughter] but it was Mr. Hunt that they were talking about. Mr. THOMPSON; What correlation do you put, together there? Mr. MITCHELL. The fact that Mr. Hunt worked for Mr. Colson. With the second part, about it with -which there was particularly at the time, frame in which he is talking about, there is considerable interest at that time as to, about, the money that had been through Barker's bank and the Ogarrio checks that were coming out that had come from Mexico, et cetera, et, cetera. This is the, subject matter and that particular -week in -which Mr. Stans and perhaps Mitchell and others were asking the, White House about. You will also, of course., recognize that the newspapers and Liddy himself, I believe, in the debriefing that, Mardian got, referred to the fact that, they had had CIA documents or materials, et Cetera, et, cetera. So there was very considerable interest in, was there any CIA involvement No. 1, in connection with the break-in, No, 2 in connection with the. personnel involved and, No. 3, in connection with this gentleman from Mexico City, Mr. Ogarrio I believe his name was, in Connection with his activities. [00.57.16] Mr. THOMPSON. You would not, categorize those things as part of a coverup would you? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, that is -what, I say, Mr. Dean, I think, has, put a blanket over activities that are, happening at that particular time, and talked about them as a coverup; this is where I started, I thought, my very lengthy answer. I am sorry to be so long. Mr. THOMPSON. That is all right. You have already stated that, Dean's testimony about a meeting of June 28, and I believe I am quoting him correctly, where he said: Mitchell asked me to get the approval of Ehrlichman and Haldeman to get Herb Kalmbach to raise the necessary money. Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. [00.57.52-MITCHELL tells a big LIE] Mr. THOMPSON. You stated that was false. Mr. MITCHELL. There was no such meeting, I made no such request ever. Mr. THOMPSON. With regard to asking--- Mr. MITCHELL. Ask Dean. to ask Haldeman to get, Kalmbach, to my recollection I have never made such a request. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you ever ask anyone to get, Kalmbach to raise money for these purposes? Mr. MITCHELL. Not to my recollection. As I recall this scenario that Mr. Kalmbach did, at the request of somebody, according to Dean, it was somebody in the White House, Kalmbach to Washington on the 28th and met, on the 29th with these people. He proceeded into this operation. There came a time in the fall, I believe it was September or October, where. because of adverse publicity or whatever it -Was he wanted out, and that, was the end of it, and I certainly don't, believe that I would have the audacity to ask him back into such an operation. [00.58.56]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (2/2)
[01.13.08-DEAN discusses meeting with NIXON ] Senator BAKER. Incidentally, Mr. Dean, at that point, as we know, You are here without a claim of executive privilege, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean--I mean Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman are under subpena and it is our understanding that they will appear without a Claim of executive privilege. Can you identify the Point at which this position at the White House was reversed and that those privileges indeed were waived? Mr. DEAN. I believe It was probably in late April, I don't know for certain, maybe it was May, maybe it was June, the position was evolving and, as I recall, as to the statements on executive privilege continued to change after, that certainly was after the April 30 resignation of Haldeman and Ehrlichman and my departure, from the, White House staff. Senator BAKER. Do you know who recommended the changed position? Mr. DEAN. I do not, I was not privy to the conversations at that point in time. Senator BAKER. But in any event, there is no claim now of executive privilege or of attorney-client privilege as far as you are concerned? Mr. DEAN. That is Correct. Senator BAKER. And as far as the other witnesses are concerned? Mr. DEAN. that is correct. [conferring with counsel.} Mr. DEAN. Counsel has just reminded me of something that at one point, in time we were going down to appear at a special Saturday session before the grand jury and the Friday night before, when we went to advise it with the prosecutors there was a sheet that had been handed out by the White House on executive privilege and at that point in April, So sometime in April, the latter half of the month, with executive privilege was still being claimed particularly vis-a-vis the grand Jury as well. Senator BAKER. There was a speech by the President. I believe on May 22 on this subject, but that is really not important to this query so we Will move on from there. I am anxious, in the moments we have remaining. for you to tell me about the information that you have, or what I call category 1, of direct knowledge of what the President knew and when he knew it. Mr. DEAN. That is right. [00.15.41-DEAN discusses NIXON'S knowledge at point of Feb. 27, 1973 meeting] It was on the meeting of the 27th that the President urged me to, he reported the fact that you had asked that your contact not be anybody at the White House but somebody, very specifically the Attorney General Mr. Kleindienst, and I was asked by the President then to' make sure that Kleindienst had in fact met with you, I had met with Kleindienst the preceding day as I recall in a general discussion and he had indicated to me he wanted to turn over the FBI--I don't think he, was aware at that point in time, well, he couldn't have been aware--he may have been aware at that point in time of the fact that you Were to be the, contact point for the hearings and he had not yet scheduled a meeting with you. I don't know what conversations he had had with you but he had said that he hadn't worked out a firm date to have these hearings that he was hoping to meet with both you and the chairman. Senator BAKER. Do You know, in fact, when he did meet with us? Mr. DEAN. No; I do not. Senator BAKER. But you do know that it was with Senator Ervin and me? Mr. DEAN. That was my understanding yes. That was his desire. Apparently, you indicated you wanted to meet with both, you thought it would most effective if the meeting was with both you and the chairman. That is what Mr. Kleindienst reported to me. Senator BAKER. Go ahead, Mr. Dean. Mr. DEAN. As I have also testified, there was some discussion of the composition of the committee. He felt that at that point in time, he hoped that the White House could receive some assistance from you. That is why he was hoping, urging me to have the Attorney General Work closely with you. We discussed Senator Gurney, as the President said, no one has to get in touch with him, he will do what is right. He felt very comfortable that that was our best friend on -the committee. Senator BAKER. Incidentally, one other thing, I noticed in one of the memos, one of the exhibits, that mention was made of Attorney General Kleindienst and of you as a possible communication point for committee affairs. Mr. DEAN. It was Wally Johnson or myself, I believe. Senator BAKER. Would you confirm that you and I have never discussed that? Mr. DEAN. Yes, sir, I would. Senator BAKER. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Mr. DEAN. I might add that coming forward in the meeting at one point in the meeting on March 22, -when Mr. Mitchell was with the President, there was a call as a result of a staff inquiry from a member of your staff that said that, it is still seeking guidance and this report had come. to the President from Mr. Timmons. During the middle of the meeting, the President picked up the phone and tried to, or called the Attorney General and said, you know, get on up there and meet with Senator Baker and work these problems out. [01.18.53]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.25.47-MITCHELL testifying about his role in the campaign prior to his resignation as Attorney General-Sen. TALMADGE has presented documents showing MITCHELL to have had an active role in the campaign at that time] Mr. MITCHELL. Senator. I have no recollection of the first, one relating to the Republican National Committee budget. I have a vague, recollection of this one in January having to do with the telephone Plan for the Florida primary, and I am quite sure that the writing at the bottom here in connection with the comment which says, "Hold for November pending standing In the polls"--"Hold for now," I guess it is, not November--"Pending standing in polls" is not, my writing. But--- Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous Consent that those documents be appropriately marked and inserted in the record at this point. Senator ERVIN. I believe the one he stated he had no recollection about will have to be identified by some other witnesses. Senator TALMADGE. Then the, ones he, identified- Senator ERVIN. The ones he identified will in be, appropriately marked as an exhibit and placed in the record as such. Mr. HUNDLEY. I think I should state with reference, to the second document that Mr. Mitchell had seen it and that he indicated that the handwriting on it, on the bottom was not his and I would note there, is no X on the, "Approved- or "Not Approved." Senator TALMADGE. I am not indicating that it was Mr. Mitchell's mark there, But it does corroborate that he was actively Involved in the, campaign- That was admitted by Mr. Mitchell, I might say. Mr. HUNDLEY. That 'Is a matter of dispute. Mr. MITCHELL. That is a matter of dispute, and I would like the chairman's indulgence for a moment to point, out that there, is no illegality about any appointee engaging the, carrying out any Presidential or political functions. Senator TALMADGE. I am not arguing that., Mr. Mitchell. You testified under oath in response, to a question of mine a moment ago that at the, request of the White House You were actively involved in the, campaign, If I can read the English language correctly, on March 14 of last year, you testified to the opposite before the Judiciary Committee. One or the other of Your Statements is in error. I am inserting them in the record only so the, public can draw their own conclusions as to which was in error. [00.29.52] Mr. MITCHELL. I dispute your statement with respect, to the, discussion before the Judiciary Committee and I would like to go back to my statement. and stand on that answer. Senator TALMADGE. That, is part, of the record and that, is the reason, Mr. Mitchell, that I inserted both of them in the record so the American people can draw their own conclusion as to which is correct,. I am not arguing with your testimony but, if I can read the English language in two different places they are the opposite of each other. You state that they aren't. If I understand English, and I learned it in a small country school, in Telfair County--- Mr. MITCHELL. So did I, Senator. a very small one. Senator TALMADGE- We both studied the same English, I assume. [00.30.38] Mr. MITCHELL. That is why I am surprised you don't agree with my interpretation. Senator TALMADGE. Let's get on to another matter. Senator ERVIN. Could I ask for his interpretation so I can understand it'? It is your position that working for a Republican candidate, for President gave you no responsibilities in respect to the Republican Party ? Mr. MITCHELL. That is it, entirely, Mr. Chairman. That is the question that I asked of Senator Kennedy. Senator ERVIN. Thank you. [00.31.10]
LAWMAKERS - LM 059 - "Rep. Claude Pepper"
U.S. Representative Claude Pepper presiding over House Committee hearing; elderly adult Caucasian woman with foreign accent speaking at hearing; VO Paul Duke discussing Rep. Pepper’s work as the Chairman of the House Committee on Aging. Rep. Pepper at Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) event, speaking for seniors citizens of the United States, referring to them as the “VIPs of America.”
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.50.50-The WHITE HOUSE questions insinuate that DEAN was involved, with LIDDY, in hatching the WATERGATE break-in scheme and a central figure in getting that plan funded-DEAN has testified to the contrary] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, just prior to taking Mr. Liddy to meet Mr. Magruder in early December 1971, did you and Mr. Liddy not have a meeting with Mr. Egil Krogh and did you not at that time tell Mr. Liddy he would have $1 million for intelligence gathering at the committee? Mr. DEAN. I don't recall--I recall a meeting with Mr. Krogh and Mr. Liddy when I described the job, and I don't recall specifying a dollar amount as to what the, intelligence for dealing with demonstrators would be. I have no recollection of that, Senator, no sir. Senator INOUYE. This is my question: Is it a matter of recollection or did it actually happen? Mr. DEAN. Well, as--- Senator INOUYE. I am very much impressed by your power of recollection. Mr. DEAN. Well, as I say, I remember very well the meeting with Mr. Krogh. The meeting was at, the time I was describing the job to Mr. Liddy. 'The, thrust of the description of the job was the fact that he would be, the general counsel of the reelection committee. I said one of the responsibilities he would have would be for dealing with the potential problems of demonstrators. I don't recall at that time any extensive discussion at all as to, you know, how this plan would operate, what it would involve, what would be the, substance of it, because, I never did, in fact discuss this with Mr. Liddy at all. Senator INOUYE. Did you discuss any sums of money? Mr. DEAN. I may have told him at that, time whatever he feels is necessary will probably be allotted to him after he presents his plan but he didn't really have a plan in mind himself at that time. [00.52.46] Senator INOUYE. Wouldn't a sum of $1 million be significant enough for you to remember?, Mr. DEAN. That is--I have no recollection of $1 million, as I have repeated earlier. In fact, to the contrary that seems like an extremely high amount. Senator INOUYE. I will now return to the White House questions. [00.53.02-the WHITE HOUSE questions insinuate that DEAN was involved in keeping LIDDY at CRP so that he could carry out WATERGATE-DEAN has testified to the contrary] Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder testified that in March 1972 'Mr. Liddy had threatened to kill Mr. Magruder and that Mr. Magruder made a decision to terminate Mr. Liddy's employment [Laughter.]. In this connection Mr. Magruder testified that he received a call from you encouraging him not to become personally concerned about 'Mr. Liddy and not to let personal animosity get in the way of Mr. Liddy's project. Did you in March intercede with Mr. Magruder on Mr. Liddy's behalf and, if so, since you have said you assumed Mr. Liddy's intelligence project died after your meeting in February, what was, the project of Mr. Liddy that you urged Mr. Magruder to give priority over his personal animosities? [00.53.50-DEAN responds, very calmly but emphatically, consistent with his previous statement] Mr. DEAN. I did not intercede for Mr. Liddy, in answer to that question, and I think I have described yesterday, I believe, it was yesterday, yes, that what happened is I was aware of the fact of a strained relationship between Liddy and Magruder. Mr. Strachan at one point called me and told me that there were serious difficulties between Liddy and Mr. Magruder and Liddy--Magruder wanted to fire. Liddy. I said well, that is a personnel problem for the reelection committee. They need a lawyer over there. that I suggested Mr. Mardian deal with the problem because I didn't was something worth taking to Mr. Mitchell. [00.54.37-The WHITE HOUSE questions allege that DEAN promised clemency to MAGRUDER in exchange for MAGRUDER'S perjured testimony for the grand jury] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean. Mr. Magruder testified wider oath that Prior to his; August 16 grand jury appearance at a meeting in your office, you told him that if the worst happened everything you be taken care of, even executive clemency. Did you make such a promise of Executive clemency to Mr. Magruder as he testified and, if so. did you have authority from anyone else to make such an offer or was it On your own initiative. Mr. DEAN. YOU say the date was August 10? Senator INOUYE. Yes. sir. [00.55.17] Mr. DEAN. Well, I can recall on numerous occasions that, Mr. Magruder was very worried. he -was very shaky at some stages. As I alluded earlier, or discussed earlier. the fact that the strategy that had been developed, that Mr. Haldeman -Mr. Ehrlichman were quite aware Of was that stop the case -with Liddy. That is why apparently they made the decision to keep -Mr. Magruder on at the reelection committee contrary to my recommendation that he be removed. There were a number of occasions that they asked me how was he doing and the like, and I would say, you know, he is either calm today or upset today or the like. [00.56.01-DEAN contends that his discussion of clemency with MAGRUDER was not a promise or a suggestion but idle speculation] I do recall his having a conversation with me: What happens if this whole thing comes tumbling down, will I get Executive clemency and will my family betaken care of? And in a manner of not serious import or serious discussion I said something to the effect, "I am sure you will." But I wouldn't call that what I would consider a firm offer of Executive clemency and it was not in that, context at all, he didn't specifically ask "Will I get Executive clemency"--he was just saying he wanted assurances.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Now, this is additional information bearing on the President's knowledge of the coverup from June 17 to September 15, 1972. John Dean. That is correct. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). All right, sir. It consists of some 8 or 10 pages. We can read it if you like. It would be much easier, I believe, if you would simply point out those sections relative to the President's knowledge. John Dean. Well, as a result of this memorandum going in to the President, I received instructions back that all of the actions in here were something that should be followed up on and that was done. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). So you are referring now to the second half of the exhibit, which is the White House memorandum? John Dean. That is correct. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). And the allegations made, fall under the headings in the memo of "Complaint for malicious abuse of process." What is that? John Dean. This is one of several counteractions. This was an action to be filed by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President and the finance committee against Mr. O'Brien. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Alleging that they were violating the rights and privileges of discovery in civil suits for an ulterior purpose. John Dean. That their basic action was unfounded in its Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Was as that suit ever filed, Mr. Dean? John Dean. Yes it was. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). What was the disposition of it? John Dean. It is still in litigation.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
SEE RESTRICTIONS LEHRER notes also that DEAN would not have been able to introduce a 245 page statement in a courtroom. Asks Steven Hess, former White House aide, to comment.
Watergate Hearings - Hugh Sloan
Skip in footage, Time code jump - Dash has Sloan use a chart listing Committee member names and cash amounts given to them by the Committee to discuss Committee cash deposits and disbursements, Sloan says that no receipts were issued for these payments, Sloan links some of this money to the White House.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973 (1/2)
[00.20.23] Senator GURNEY. Let me, ask you this. Were there, any instances during the campaign, when you were the campaign director, -where Mr. Magruder went over your head, on his own, without your knowledge or without your direction? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I think you -will find, and we must, get, the two dates because Senator Talmadge, of course,, has had me in one, spot, at one period Of time and I was officially campaign director for another period of time. I think you will find that, in the dirty tricks department I can give you one example, that I cannot give you the details of, but I know that it happened without my knowledge. That was a riot that they created up here, on the steps of the Capitol that I had no knowledge of and did not know that it was being funded. There, undoubtedly are others. I know that there, were beforehand and I presume that there -were in between. I can answer your question better after this committee gets through with its dirty tricks investigation. [00.21.33] Senator GURNEY. Well, hopefully we Will find out about all those things you know, and I think maybe I have asked this in another way. but I do want to ask it, again-do you know of any other instances -where, Mr. Magruder, or do you know of any instances -where Mr. Magruder may have been carrying out the instructions of anybody else, in. connection -with his duties at the committee? [00.22.05] Mr. MITCHELL. Yes: I believe that, you will probably find that that was the case. in connection with this matter up here. I think that, this was directed out of the White House. I think you will find that, there are, other similar activities, maybe not of the same magnitude or scope. Senator GURNEY. In other words, I think there probably are instances where he was directed by other people? Mr. MITCHELL. I think perhaps "directed" can be The word, or it, may be the point where they were working in Concert On Some of these activities. Senator GURNEY. Let, us go to the, June 18 meeting if we may. You talked about that. But mostly in connection with this business of whether there was discussion 'on destroying the Gemstone files. I am not interested in going over that again, but would you give your explanation of what happened at that meeting? [00.23.09] Mr. MITCHELL. Senator, my recollection of the purpose for the meeting was, the fact that not only I but Mardian and LaRue, who were pretty well up in the campaign by June 17, had been On a Series of events out in California on Saturday and Sunday and that we had Very little contact with what was going on back in Washington. We were on the plane leaving out here at 10:30 and get getting in at sometime around 7:00 or 8:00 at night. What we were concerned of was to find out what was going on in the press, because there, you know, was an inordinate blast from the Democratic side., and, of course, for the next 9 months, all we did was answer charges and countercharges charges with respect to the subject matter. So that to the best of my recollection, the meeting was for the purpose of reviewing what had developed In the case that we did not know about in our transit who had been identified in connection with it, and I do not believe that as of Julie 18, there had been any other identification other than the five that had been arrested In the Watergate: how we were going to respond to the Democratic previously, the security officer of the Committee To Re-Elect the President had been arrested; and where we were going to go from here. [00.24.50] Coming back On the, plane -with Mardian and LaRue. I discussed the concept that we needed an investigation which they should undertake in connection with the committee which they did undertake. Now, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to -whether or not, by the time we had gotten back on the night of June 18, as to whether or not the Democrats had threatened to sue and we were talking about lawyers. To the best of my recollection, that came later, although in trying to reconstruct. what happened at that, there has been some thought that lawyers for the committee were considered at that Meeting. But to my knowledge or recollection it came at a later date. [00.25.40]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.20.00] Senator WEICKER. Then can you give me some specific examples of cases that involved that kind of release of information? Mr. DEAN. Well. I am trying to think of some of the more celebrated cases in connection with antiwar demonstrators and I Cannot recall with any specificity and having not had an opportunity to go back to my files, it is rather difficult to remember this off the top. Senator WEICKER. Is it a fact. Mr. Dean, that 'Mr. Olson and Kevin Moroney came to your office, at least on one occasion, maybe there are others. to give YOU information relevant to the law on foreign contributions? Mr. DEAN. Yes, they did. I recall a conversation with them both about it; I don't recall whether it was in my office or telephonic in which I raised the subject. I had always assumed that foreign contributions were prohibited under the law. I had been asked by Mr. Stans at one point; who had received a memorandum from Mr., Liddy when he was serving as counsel to the finance committee, that this was a proper contribution to receive. I had occasion to talk to Mr. Olson and Mr. Moroney about this and they had reached another conclusion. They felt, it was not from their reading of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, that unless the individual was an agent in fact and not a principal that such a contribution was not violative of the Federal Law. Senator WEICKER. Why would you seek such information from the Internal Security Division of The Justice Department? Mr. DEAN. Because they had jurisdiction over that 'area of the law. Senator WEICKER. What were your contacts with the Internal Security Division? Do you feel any information that -was supplied to your office from the Internal Security Division might have had some sort of political impact? Mr. DEAN. Well, I think some of the reports that the IEC prepared had political implications to them but those did not go outside of the White House, Now. I would have to review those reports and I have not done that either regarding demonstrations and the like, I did, as I mentioned in my testimony, after I had talked to Mr. Haldeman about, what my office should be doing regarding the forthcoming election I called Mr. Wells, who was then the head of the IEC or Mr. Caulfield brought him -over and told him that the White House was very anxious to have the best intelligence possible regarding the potentials of demonstrations during the forthcoming campaign. Senator WEICKER. And so you maintained a liaison with the IEC? Mr. DEAN. I would say that of all my contacts with the Justice Department my most infrequent contacts were with the Internal Security Division. Senator WEICKER. All right, now, I have in my hand a position report on the Internal Security Division, as of April 15,1972. It is the same report which already has been brought to the attention of the committee, which I submitted to Mr. McCord to identify those individuals with which he had contacts, specifically, Mr. Martin and Mr. Lisker. In this position report dated April 15, 1972, under the Office of Analysis and Planning, there, are listed Bernard Wells, Executive Director of the IDIU, and two assistants, James McGrath and Joyce' Webb. Again, in the interviews which I had at the Internal Security, Division, after Mr. McCord's testimony it -was explained to me quite openly that in fact, this office of Analysis and Planning and this position of Director of the IDIU were a cover for the IEC. This report is dated April of 1972. I will be glad to have you take a look at Does this in any way relate -to recommendations you had made at an earlier date?
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.18.45] Senator MONTOYA. Now, I have read press comments and I have become fully cognizant of different efforts which have been made to discredit your testimony before this committee in recent, days, one of which was the release Of information dealing with your obtaining $4,800 from the cash fund. The other was the leaking out by sources Unknown of an allegation that you had applied in concert with others for a television license while you were working for a law firm. Now, this has been rebutted this morning and I will not go into the authenticity of this. But did it ever occur to you that you had gone through a complete checkup before you were employed by the Department of Justice and before you were employed by the White House, and that this information necessarily had to turn up in your folder or dossier collected by the FBI and that you had to either explain it or the dossier explained -whatever allegation was made with respect, to the TV license per se? Mr. DEAN-. I am Well aware of that, because when I was first interviewed by Mr. Haldeman, he had a copy of my FBI report from the Justice Department. I gathered from his review of the FBI report that, this material was in the FBI report, He asked me for some comments on it. I told him about, the, fact that I thought it in involved more personalities than anything else, that I had been prepared to take it, to an ethics committee, at the time, that I had had a lawyer friend -who had been at the firm, and had the time to check it out. that I had been operating on the advice of a very senior and distinguished member of the communication bar, and that I thought it was really a Matter of personalities more than facts and that I had not pursued the matter because it had been retracted later on and I was satisfied -with that. So this was reviewed and this obviously -was investigated by the FBI before, I went to the Justice Department originally, and then subsequently to the White House. Senator MONTOYA. So apparently this was picked out of context and released by someone. Do you have any conjecture about that? Mr. DEAN. I didn't understand your question, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. So apparently, the allegation that you had applied for a TV license in conjunction with others while you were employed in a law firm that was almost a similar application, apparently this was apparently picked Out of context from your file by someone- Mr. DEAN. That, is, correct. I understand that it, -was leaked by someone to a member of the press and in turn reported. Senator 'MONTOYA. Who do you think leaked it? What is your opinion? Mr. DEAN. Well, that would be highly speculative. At that, point in time, I don't know. I have heard of subsequent efforts to discredit me and a rather concerted attack to discredit me. Senator MONTOYA. Have, you felt that they were serious efforts? Mr. DEAN. Well, I am quite, aware of the fact that there a, are a number of investigators who have, been privately retained to visit friends, visit stores I deal with-- It, has run the gamut--places where I bank, every conceivable inch of my life has been gone over, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. Now, tell me more about it, I mean not your life, but about the, efforts made by the White House. Mr. DEAN. I have learned this from people who have said, 'Who have called and tried to get verification on stories and the like, I can tell you the absurdity of some, of the stories. For example, I borrowed a friend's car, a friend of my wife's, one of her girl friends, and I drove that car for several days. My wife went off to Florida with some friends of hers for a couple of days. The next thing that was on the rumor mill was that I had left my wife and was living with some beautiful foreign 'Woman. That went around for awhile, It, was not printed, but it has been gossiped. I have been charmed with being afraid--I have been charged with being afraid to go to jail for reasons of homosexuality. That was attributed directly to one of my lawyers. Now, the story is absurd, but again it is a typical character assassination technique. [00.23.52]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.44.32] Senator TALMADGE. You knew, of course, that Mr. Liddy had previously presented massive intelligence plans to Mr. Mitchell, I believe You were there on two occasions? Mr. DEAN. Yes I was. Senator TALMADGE. Then you testified that 'Mr. Strachan told --- Mr. DEAN-. Senator, I might correct that they were massive on the, first, occasion and a very tailored-down version On the second and. I must say I was very late in attending the second meeting and The meeting was shortened after I arrived. Senator TALMADGE. Each meeting was scaled down further? Mr. DEAN. That is right. Senator TALMADGE. Intelligence plan. Then Mr. Strachan told you that Mr. Haldeman ordered him to go through Mr. Haldeman's files and destroy materials which included documents relating to wiretap information from the Democratic National Committee is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. Then you told 'Mr. Ehrlichman about the meetings with Liddy and Mitchell and about your subsequent conversations with Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Ehrlichman's reaction in a meeting which _Mr. Colson attended, was to tell you to get Liddy to have him tell Hunt to get out of the country. is that correct? Mr. DEAN. Well, you are, tying two meetings together Senator. I might straighten that out for you. The meeting I reported to Ehrlichman was in midafternoon and Mr. Colson was not present. I was reporting my meeting with Liddy at, that, point, I did not discuss -with him the facts that Strachan had brought to my attention because I assume he was aware from his conversations with -Mr. Haldeman that that, in fact, had occurred. He, told me to come back to a meeting later that evening with Colson. He said he -was aware of the fact that Colson wanted to meet with him and I should be present at that, meeting. Senator TALMADGE. Then shortly thereafter Mr. Ehrlichman told you to throw the contents of Hunt's safe in the river, is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Well, he told me I should throw the briefcase in the river and he told me to shred the documents. [00.46.27-a big question about the logic of DEAN'S statement is addressed-it all is dependent on the facts of lines of communication and authority in the White House whether this is believable] Senator TALMADGE. -Now, after all of those facts occurred, were available to you, why did you not, as counsel to the President go to him at that time and tell him what was happening? Mr. DEAN. Senator, I did not have access to the. President. I never was presumptuous enough to try to pound on the door and get in because I knew that just did not work that way. I know of efforts of other White House staff to get in. I have seen. for example one of the reporters sitting in this room, Mr. Mallenhoff, memorandums he tried to send in to the President and they are just blocked when you try to send information in. Senator TALMADGE. You mean you were counsel to the President of the United States, and you could not get access to him if you wanted to, is that your testimony? Mr. DEAN. No, Sir, I thought it would be presumptuous of me -to try, because, I felt. I was told my reporting channel was Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman and I was reporting everything I knew to them. Senator TALMADGE. It Seems like to me after finding evidence of a conspiracy of this magnitude it -was incumbent upon you as counsel to the President to make every possible effort to see. that he got that information at that time. Mr. DEAN. Senator I was participating in the coverup at that time. Senator TALMADGE. -Now, another question. When you met with Attorney General Kleindienst on the 19th and 20th of June, I believe, there you told him you had no idea there 'would be a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters Did you tell him about the meetings of January 27 and February 4, 1972. with 'Mr. Liddy and Mr. Magruder and Mitchell during, when buggings were considered? Mr. DEAN. No, sir, I did not, Senator TALMADGE. Why did you not tell him at that time? Mr. DEAN. Because I knew that would put him in a position that he Would have to pursue his investigation that way, and 'Mr. Kleindienst had told me when we talked generally, in very broad generalities about the thing that he said he would never sit in the Attorney General's Office and prosecute Mr. Mitchell and I did not want to put this On Kleindienst at this point in time. Senator TALMADGE. In other words, you were still participating In the coverup. Mr. DEAN. Well, this -meeting had occurred on. the 19th or 20th. Senator TALMADGE. Yes. Were you chosen to tell Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. Mitchell, Ehrlichman and Haldeman wanted him to raise money to pay for The silence Of the Watergate defendants? Mr. DEAN. Well, I became the courier of good and bad news between the committee, concerning what, each quarter was doing concerning the coverup. I think that occurred for this reason: One, Mr. Mitchell had known me -and trusted me, with this type of information and, Haldeman and Ehrlichman knew and trusted me. There was a--particularly after--this reporting requirement or requirements. this reporting scheme, developed very early on. Ehrlichman and Mitchell, I would have to say, had a rather strained relationship and this made it convenient to avoid some of those strains, and there was also a longstanding competition between Mr. Mitchell and certain persons in the White House so that this made it convenient, they didn't -want to deal with one another so I was the convenient vehicle to deal with. [00.49.52]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
As each session progressed I was able to provide more information, more leads, and more explanations of the interrelationship within the White House and the relationships of persons, who were involved. During the period of April 2nd until April 15th, the meetings I had with the prosecutors were initially focusing on the activities 'which had led up to the June 17 break in at The Democratic National Committee and all the knowledge I had regarding the events before, June 17. But as our discussions evolved and I began telling them more and more of the coverup, their interest began to focus more and more in that area. As I began explaining what I knew, it was evident that the prosecutors had no conception of how extensive the coverup was so I tried to provide them with all the details that I could remember. Also, as the conversations began to get more and more specifics, we moved into areas that closer to the President. But prior to April 15th I did not discuss Presidential involvement.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). To get over this particular area of inquiry, and I do not want to prolong it, insofar Is Division 5, the CIA, the Metropolitan Police, Military Intelligence John Dean. I am not aware of the term Division 5. Senator Lowell Weicker (R Connecticut). Did you receive information from these entities which was of a political nature? I don t consider information on demonstrations to be of a political nature. It is something that could be applied to all sides but that could be useful politically? John Dean. Senator, I would like to be able to tell you that I can recall, but I cannot recall. And what the answer might be to resolve the question is that the committee might want to go through my files and see what s in there and that would answer the question. Because I have not destroyed any documents and anything I received would be there. My files, of course, are still locked up in the basement of the White House.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Well, therefore, Mr. Dean, when Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and their crew broke into the Watergate in May and June in 1972, this really was not an extraordinary action from the standpoint of the White House which had approved or engaged in similar missions for a period of at least 2 years prior to the Watergate, was it? John Dean. Well, as I believe I described in my statement yesterday, the preceding things that had occurred in a sense were precursors. But I think that the fact that the break in occurred was not as a result of a conscious design as much as an accident of a culmination of many of these elements. Samuel Dash, attorney. I understand that. But recognizing that some of these earlier plans had the approval of such things as break ins and wiretapping and things of that covert activities, the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters was not extraordinary in the context of those plans, would that not be true? John Dean. That is correct, Sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 14, 1973 - Testimony of Jeb Magruder
Samuel Dash, attorney. There came a time, did there not, when there was an organized Committee To Re-Elect the President and you held a particular position. Would you tell us about that? Jeb Magruder. Yes, that is correct. Approximately in March 1972 when Mr. Mitchell became campaign director I was named chief of staff. And in July 1972 when Mr. MacGregor became campaign director, I became deputy campaign director. Samuel Dash, attorney. Now, briefly Mr. Magruder, from the time you went over for the campaign could you tell us what Mr. Mitchell's role was and what Mr. Haldeman's role was? Jeb Magruder. Well, from the beginning Mr. Mitchell was responsible for the campaign and I reported Samuel Dash, attorney. When you say "beginning", what date would you put that on? Jeb Magruder. That would have been May of 1971. He was responsible for the campaign. I reported directly to him. Mr. Haldeman was basically our liaison. And his liaison activities were primarily related to him through Mr. Gordon Strachan at the White House.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (1/2)
[00.07.12-DEAN reacts to the White House charge that DEAN was co-author of the LIDDY plan] Senator INOUYE. If I may I would like. to pause at this point. Would you care to comment, sir? Mr. DEAN. Is that in question form? Senator INOUYE. This is a quotation from Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. DEAN. I have no recollection of advising Mr. Liddy of a $1 million plan. In fact to the contrary. When operation Sandwedge was shelved, and I think I have in ray testimony explained how that died a natural death, that the budget for that was set at $500,000, and all that were involved in reviewing that document, thought that was an excessive amount of money. Senator INOUYE. Well, I 'will continue, to quote: [READING FROM WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM] [00.07.59-More accusations by the WHITE HOUSE that DEAN was the ringleader of the breakin] Whatever the fact about this, it is clear that Dean attended the meetings that led up to adoption of the, Watergate plan, Dean introduced Mitchell (who had sponsored Dean for his White House position) to Liddy in November 1971. [END QUOTED SECTION] Mr. DEAN-. Senator, may I comment, right there? Senator INOUYE. Please do so. Mr. DEAN. I do not believe Mr. Mitchell sponsored me, to my knowledge to my White House position. I first heard of the White House interest in me when Mr. Krogh came to me and said would I be interested in going to the White House, and would John Mitchell let me come, to the White House? I said I did not know but I thought somebody else ought to take it Up With Mr. Mitchell rather than myself. So to the contrary, I do not believe Mr. Mitchell Sponsored me to the White House. In fact,, I recall some conversations when he counseled me against going to the White House. [00.08.55] Senator INOUYE. I will continue: [QUOTING FROM WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM] Dean introduced Magruder to Liddy in December 1971 and suggested Liddy for the combined position of general counsel and chief of intelligence-gathering for CRP. He told Magruder that Mitchell had hired Liddy. Dean, Liddy, Mitchell and 'Magruder met to discuss intelligence plans of this kind on January 27, 1972, and on February 4. Dean was not present at the final meeting on -March 30 when the $250,000 plan was approved. It is not clear whether he was not there because he disapproved or simply because he was not in Key Biscayne or because he wanted to try to keep his own record clean. [END QUOTED SECTION] [00.09.41-DEAN responds-he is calm in answering the charges] Mr. DEAN. I might Comment there, Senator. First of all, after I returned from the second meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office, and reported to Mr. Haldeman what had occurred and told him of My feelings about what -was Occurring, and that I wanted to have no part, in it, and told him I thought no one, in the White House should have any part in it. He agreed and told me, to have no part, in it and I have no' knowledge that there -was going to be a meeting in Key Biscayne and did not learn about that meeting until long after June 17, 1972, Senator INOUYE. [continues reading] He is reported as having said that "he did not think it was appropriate for him to be in on these conversations." He is reported to have said at a meeting in Mitchell's office that we should not discuss this in front Of Mitchell Or in the Attorney General's office. At some point during the spring Magruder phoned Dean and asked him to talk to Liddy to try to calm him down. At another point, Dean, knowing that a bugging operation was under serious consideration, called Magruder and referred to the importance of Liddy's intelligence activities. [END QUOTED SECTION FROM WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM] [00.10.55] Mr. DEAN. I would like to comment on that. I do not believe that is quite accurate, Senator. What happened is Mr. Strachan at the White House called me, I believe I did receive a call from Mr. Magruder tell telling me that he had developed a very strained relationship with Mr. Liddy. Like when Strachan called me because I believe he told me he had been talking with Mr. Liddy, he said, "What should I do?" I said it sounds like a personality and a, personnel problem and I suggested that he not bother Mr. Mitchell with it but rather take it to Mr. Mardian and let Mr. Mardian resolve any problem because they do need a general counsel over there. [00.11.38] Senator INOUYE. [continuing] [QUOTING FROM WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDUM*** The White House bigshots close ranks to dispute DEAN'S testimony] This arose after an argument between Magruder and Liddy. Dean urged Magruder not to let personal animosity "get in the way of the project." Also in March 1973 Dean claimed to Haldeman that in the spring of 1972 he had told Haldeman that he had been to two meetings at which unacceptable and outlandish deals for intelligence gathering had been rejected by himself and by Mitchell and that he, Dean, proposed not to attend any more such meetings. Haldeman has no personal recollection of Dean telling him about the meetings at the time but is "willing to accept that as a possibility." Post June 17. [00.12.24] [END QUOTED SECTION FROM W.H. MEMORANDUM] Mr. DEAN. If I might just comment there, following June 17 and the break-in the first, time I had a discussion with Mr. Haldeman about these facts I had already reported them to Mr. Ehrlichman, He remembered perfectly well and very clearly the fact that I had come to him shortly after the second meeting. [00.12.50] +