Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. Let us go to Executive clemency. You did attend a meeting with Mr. Bittman? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Now, Mr. Bittman was representing Hunt? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. You knew that Hunt had been a consultant in the White House or the Executive Office? Mr. ALCH. I honestly was not just sure of what Mr. Hunt's position was. Senator ERVIN. You knew he had been working for the Committee To Re-Elect the President, didn't you? Mr. ALCH. That I did. Senator ERVIN. And you do not know what contacts were had between Mr. Hunt and any of his former associates in the Committee To Re-Elect the President or between his counsel and any of those people? Mr. ALCH. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. But you did have a discussion with Mr. Bittman in which Mr. Bittman mentioned Executive clemency, did you not? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir, in the context that I described. Senator ERVIN. In other words, when Mr. Bittman was discussing with you the fact that his client, Mr. Hunt, might plead guilty or had determined to plead guilty, I do not remember which, you discussed with him, not Executive clemency, but what? Mr. ALCH. No, sir; I tried to make clear yesterday with Mr. Bittman where the words "Executive clemency" came up did not happen on January 8. It happened some time in late 1972 and when it happened, when I said to him just in a casual conversation, "What do you think our clients are liable to receive for a sentence if they are convicted?" Just like that, and that is when he said to me - and in not a very authoritative tone I might add - "You never can tell. Christmastime rolls around, Executive clemency might come into the picture. Forget it. The President won't go near it."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (2/2)
[01.19.15-DEAN responds to a question that insinuates he lied about trying to get the CIA to give assistance to the Watergate Defendants] Mr. DEAN. I recall I did make those requests and as I say, the omission was not intentional. I have never really read in full General Walters' depositions. So the answer is that in fact, I recall that, that was discussed. Senator INOUYE. And it was not intentional? The omission -was not intentional? Mr. DEAN. No, sir. In fact, I recall that they were in the paper and I decided I didn't want to read them and then tailor what I had to say around what Mr. Walters had to say. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean. I believe you testified that on March 26, while you were at Camp David, you called Mr. Maroulis the attorney for Mr. Liddy, and asked for a statement by Mr. Liddy that, you had no prior. knowledge of the Watergate break-in. Is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct, and I have so testified. [01.20.16-the WHITE HOUSE questions cast aspersions on DEAN'S motives in going to the prosecutors, suggesting he tried to get the drop on HALDEMAN and EHRLICHMAN to sell them out] Senator INOUYE. Now, you also testified, did you not,. that it was on March 28 that Mr. Haldeman called you to meet with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder and that it was at that time you became convinced You would have to look out for yourself Isn't, that correct? Mr. DEAN. That isn't my interpretation . I had decided while I was at Camp David, in fact before I went to Camp David. that I didn't have to watch out for myself, but I saw what others were doing and I realized that I ought to--well, as I say, I retained counsel up there initially and told him because Of the Los Angeles Times story, I retained him. At that, point in time, I told him I would like to talk to him when I got, back and suggested to him that he begin to think about a criminal lawyer. Senator INOUYE. If on March 26. after you, according to your testimony, had admitted to making payments to Watergate defendants to obstruct justice, offering clemency to defendants to obstruct justice and suborning perjury, you were still actively trying to build your defense having prior knowledge of the break-in on March 26, doesn't this demonstrate that throughout this affair, your motivation was to protect yourself against the criminal charge of authorizing and directing the Watergate break-in? [01.21.40] Mr. DEAN. The reason I sought the statement from Mr. Liddy is you will recall I testified that on the 25th, I learned there was going to be a story published in the Los Angeles Times that I had prior knowledge I felt that was libelous. I was trying to build what I thought would be a good defense or a good case if I decided I wanted to bring a libel action. In fact, I had mentioned that in my conversation with Mr. Maroulis also. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, you stated that Mr. Maroulis called you back on the 29th of March and told you he could not get you the statement you wanted from Mr. Liddy. Did you record either of these telephone conversations you had with Mr. Maroulis? Mr. DEAN. Yes. The first telephone conversation -was recorded. It is almost inaudible, and I don't know if it is because of the form I recorded it in. I would be happy to turn it over to the, committee and if the committee can get off the tape what is on there, fine. I have been unable to. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, that was the last question from the White House. However, the White House has also submitted a short statement, I presume this is the closing statement, sir. Mr. DEAN. Do I have the opportunity to comment on the closing statement as well as the opening statement? Senator INOUYE. If you wish to, sir. Mr. DEAN. Thank you. [01.23.07]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.59.57-DASH submits for a record a White House-prepared list of questions for DEAN, Sen. BAKER wants to make it clear that it is not to be construed as an official White House statement] Mr. DASH. Yes, and I just want to give their statement as to what they intended to do and that was their reconstruction. having talked to persons who had knowledge of 'what had occurred in these meetings between the President and Mr. Dean. It was basically a reconstruction given to us for the purpose of use in questioning Mr. Dean. Senator BAKER. I think that. Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment, ago, is appropriate for that purpose at this time. But I caution against, if I may, taking that as a statement of the White House position or a Presidential statement at this time, and I would rather keep the record open on that and see if we can't do a little bit about it. Mr. DASH. I accept that, Senator, and I only submit it as you limit it, Senator ERVIN. I will make the same statement about it that I made at the time Mr. Dean was cross-examined about the, statement which had come, at least infrequently, from Mr. Buzhardt. This is not evidence, it is a statement of Mr. Buzhardt's position or supposed position as counsel. Senator ERVIN. Yesterday, Senator Montoya suggested that, the committee issue a subpena for Mr. Buzhardt and I suggested at that time that Instead of so doing, -we should have inquiry made of Mr. Buzhardt if he claimed to have any personal knowledge of the matters mentioned in his so-called Buzhardt statement. I am informed that Mr. Buzhardt says he has no personal knowledge of those matters. [01.01.40] Mr. DASH. I informed the chairman that I had such a call with Mr. Buzhardt and as to personal knowledge, he referred to both his reconstruction and to the statement that, this is something he prepared as counsel, having discussed it with others, or used others in Preparing it. Now, with regard to your involving Mr. Kalmbach in the raising of so-called funds and in the so-called payoffs to maintain silence of the defendants, I think you were, yesterday, by Senator Gurney in his very thorough cross-examination, examined as to whether or not Mr. Kalmbach really understood from your discussion with him just what he was doing when he was being asked to raise money for the payoffs. [01.02.29] You had indicated that you clearly understood that he did understand, because you had fully informed him as to the circumstances. The question clearly was raised whether or not Mr. Kalmbach could have gotten the impression that this was for humanitarian purposes, sort of to raise a defense fund. [01.02.47-DASH relies on COMMON SENSE to smash the arguments made by GURNEY] Now, first, Mr. Dean, I think you testified that you told Mr. Kalmbach just prior to asking him to undertake this assignment what the circumstances were. Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. DASH. Could you just briefly, very briefly, tell us, what did you tell Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. DEAN. Well, I told him everything that I knew about the case at that time. I told him that I was very concerned that this could lead right to the President. I didn't have any hard facts. I hoped that I was incorrect. I explained to him in full the seriousness of the matter. I relayed to him the fact that some records had been destroyed. 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. [01.03.34] 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---- [01.03.52-TAPE OUT]
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations hearing into the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Committee Counsel G. Robert Blakey discussing Committee attainment of acoustics analysis of a sound recording of made during the assassination in Dealey Plaza, evidence not available to the Warren Commission. A Dallas Police tape recorded the sounds of the assassination from the transmitter of a motorcycle police officer whose microphone was on. The Committee searched for the best people in the acoustics field, and contracted the firm of Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (BBN). Early testing was unsuccessful, as the Committee only had a copy of the tape. The Committee was later able to obtain the original copy of the 1963 dispatch tape, along with dictabelts that originally recorded the transmission. Dr. James E. Barger of BBN was able to locate several segments of the tape that contained “impulses” that might have been gunfire. The impulses were put through six screening tests.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations hearing on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Gary T. Cornwell continuing to take testimony of Professor Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschenasy on acoustic analysis of the Dallas audio transmission tape. Weiss discusses the scientific principles behind echoes and sound in recordings vs. the human ear. Weiss discusses variables in echoes in urban environments such as Dealey Plaza.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.24.34] Senator ERVIN. So there the public relations man either consciously or unconsciously was undertaking to deceive the American people, was he not? He kept that up month after month, did he not? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct, Senator. Senator ERVIN. There is a public relations, rather a White House press man, Ron Ziegler, and day after day when the news media and the hearers about this matter in these new discoveries, there was Ron Ziegler day after day in the White House giving incorrect statements to the American people to leave them under the impression that there was nothing, nothing was rotten in Denmark? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think in fairness to Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Shumway, and Mr. MacGregor, others to make public statements. I personally think that they honestly believed the story that we had come up with and they were only carrying out what they thought was the truth at that time. [00.25.33] Senator ERVIN. I will indulge in that assumption also, but here were all of these people who had participated in the planning of this including people of the stature of John Mitchell, and your stature, and LaRue and Mardian and Dean, knowing that every day the American people were being told things which were not true by Mr. Shumway and Mr. Ziegler, all of whom kept silent. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir; that is correct,. Senator ERVIN. NOW, YOU talked to Mr. Haldeman in January before the trials were had? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you told him at that time the truth about it, did you not? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you also recommended that he take, care, by some kind of a, patronage job, of Mr.--- Mr. MAGRUDER. Porter, sir. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Porter. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Because he had rendered great, service in the coverup, was it not? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. Which service. consisted of committing perjury before the grand jury? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Haldeman certainly knew from January about your involvement, of Mr. Mitchell's involvement, and other people people's involvement that, you have discussed here in this sordid affair? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think to be fair. again, to Mr. Haldeman, he may have known it from me but, be probably did not know it from other officials and may have decided that their statements were more correct than mine. I do not know, I cannot speak for him, but I think people were indicating that, these things never did happen. Senator ERVIN. Well, do you not think that, to go to the relationship between Mr. Haldeman and the President which you witnessed while you were at the White House, it, was Mr. Haldeman's duty to go to the President with what, you told him ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Senator, I really cannot speak -for Mr. Haldeman. I do not think that is fair. for me to speak for him. I just--- Senator ERVIN. Do you think it -was somebody's duty, if they were interested in the President, to go and tell him the truth?, Mr. MAGRUDER. Senator, in hindsight, I think I agree with you completely. At the time of the case the atmosphere was different. Senator ERVIN. Notwithstanding the fact---- Mr. MAGRUDER. I cannot support my role in any of the, activities Senator, and I will not support it. It -was wrong. [00.28.04] Senator ERVIN. Well, the, scriptures say that men love darkness rather than light because of the deeds of evil. Somebody must have covered up something back in the, scripture days, to quote that. [Laughter.] Anyway notwithstanding. the fact that that you knew the truth about this. you saw time and time again where the President joined Shumway and Ron Ziegler in effect, by denying to the American people that anybody connected with the White House had anything to do with this? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. And at the time the President said that you knew that Strachan was connected with the White House and he was connected with it. You knew Dean was connected with the White House and he had been fully advised about it and you knew Mr. Haldeman had been advised by you about the truth? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is, correct. Senator ERVIN. Going back to this time the White House. the White House people there, they not only did not trust the people outside, the American people, they did not even trust themselves, did they not? The did not trust the FBI. They would not, turn over to the FBI investigations did they? Mr. MAGRUDER. I only know what you have read, I was not Involved in that, Senator so I cannot really comment. [00.29.38--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that Sen. ERVIN has finished for the moment {PBS Network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.32.08--LEHRER] LEHRER introduces questioning by Fred THOMPSON.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.47.56-THOMPSON takes one last stab at questioning DEAN, seemingly trying to suggest that DEAN attempted to rip off the CRP and skip town to avoid being called to account for the coverup] Mr. THOMPSON. What were your campaign duties, Mr. Dean? Mr. DEAN. I don't know what you mean by campaign duties. Mr. THOMPSON. You were counselor to the. President, and I believe you mentioned in the past, that Mr. Haldeman in effect realized what your duties would be during the campaign. I assumed you would have slightly different role, perhaps, during a campaign than you would in a nonpolitical year? [00.48.20] Mr. DEAN. That is right. I certainly was not involved in any political aspects. I would say the basic, thing, a number of filings required by the President required research of the State laws to define and describe, exactly what the President himself would have to sign as a candidate for the Office of President of the United States. These could not be handled by the reelection committee. They would require a notarized Presidential signature. The President -was traveling around the country from time to time, we would have to send them with a military aide, We would have, to be not only aware of what the 50 States required we would have to be aware Of when they required it. That was probably the most consuming of the campaign activities. [00.49.05] I would say that my largest campaign activity was the coverup of the Watergate. Mr. THOMPSON. Let, me ask you if this would. be correct and I am reading from page, 38 of the transcript Of our executive session. [READING] My principal area of concern would be that the white. House itself would stay in full compliance with election laws. And I can say from that point on, we didn't miss one thing regarding the election laws themselves which was a rather voluminous and time-consuming task because as the candidate the President had a lot of filings that required his signature itself and were handled in the White House. Mr. DEAN. I think that is saying in another way what I have just said. Mr. THOMPSON. You left on October what 13th? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, several weeks would have had you returning after the election Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. Would not that have presented a little problem for you considering there was a required filing on the 15th, 6 days next Preceding the election? Mr. DEAN. At, that time. we had a routine system set, up for filing. Mr. Wilson had devised a calendar with all the check dates. There was not a daily filing period. I can't recall any particular filing period in that time, there may have been, I don't have the calendar in front of me. These would be forwarded by that time routinely to the President for signature. He was used to them by that time. He would sign them, they would come back notarized and he. would forward them back to the appropriate State requiring it. In fact, I would say the weeks, preceding the, election -were some, of the slowest weeks during my time at the White House. [00.50.47] Mr. THOMPSON. Was It Slow in terms of campaign contributions that were coming in? Mr. DEAN. We didn't receive campaign contributions at the White House. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you ever called upon to interpret the propriety of accepting such campaign contributions, foreign contributions, anything of that nature? Mr. DEAN. Yes; that periodically, came up, yes, indeed. [00.51.06-THOMPSON questions DEAN, trying to insinuate that DEAN was preparing to skip town in October of 1972] Mr. THOMPSON. But you were going to go on a honeymoon, from which you would not return, if you had your preference, until after the election? Mr. DEAN. Let me explain when I went to Florida, what the situation is in Florida. There are two villas that are set aside, for White House staff. I had to retain that privately rather than take it at Government expense, obviously, being on a honeymoon. That runs $100 a day. I also said that because when I am in Florida, you have the entire signal telephone system. As I think my -wife can attest, while I was at the White House, there was virtually no time, that I was out of contact with the remainder of the staff at any time. And as you well know, you can conduct business by telephone and get staff doing things as easily as you being present in the office, and that is how, often, you operate in the office. I also had a very trusted deputy who could handle things in my absence and if he had a judgment he wanted my attention drawn to, I certainly was available for him to call and reflect on that judgment. Mr. THOMPSON. So then you were planning to be gone for several weeks? Mr. DEAN. I had hoped to. That had been our intention; yes. [00.52.23] Mr. THOMPSON. That -was your intention. Did you know anyone when you were working at the White House, have contact with any one whose first name is Jane? Mr. Did I know anybody at the White House by the name of Jane? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. DEAN. I know several Mr. THOMPSON. Start closest to you, if you would. Mr. DEAN. Yes; I have a secretary by the name of Jane Thomas. Mr. THOMPSON. That is the name, I think, that I am interested in. If I am not, we will go back to it. Do you have a travel office, or did you have a travel office, at the White House that sometimes made accommodations for you for the trips that you would take? Mr. DEAN. Yes; I generally had my secretary make travel accommodations through the travel office. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall whether or not -you had Jane Thomas make travel accommodations for this particular honeymoon trip? Mr. DEAN. I do not have the foggiest recollection. [00.53.20]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, you did go to the White House? Hugh Sloan. Yes) sir, Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). That was about the 23d? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir, it was the 23d. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you got to talk to Mr. Dwight Chapin, the President's appointments secretary? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you told him that you were very much concerned about what had happened? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And Mr. Chapin suggested that you take a vacation? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir, he did. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Chapin didn't suggest that you talk to Mr. Haldeman? Hugh Sloan. No, sir. I made the assumption that if he felt that I was that overwrought with the information I had given him presumably he would convey that information to Mr. Haldeman. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Didn't you think it was time for some honest man to be overwrought? Hugh Sloan. I was overwrought, yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Chapin tried to impress upon you that it was necessary to protect the President. Hugh Sloan. He made that comment yes, sir.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.22.40] Senator GURNEY. When was that, discussion had with him about how to treat it? Mr. STANS. Well I would have to assume that it occurred early in April of last year. Senator GURNEY. I am curious. Why would you confer with him about it instead of the general counsel for the finance committee? Mr. STANS. Oh, I did confer with him, too. I also conferred at an earlier time with the counsel for the Republican National Finance Committee. What we are involved with here is the question of the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act definition of a contribution. Very simply, and I will paraphrase it without having the language right in front of me--the Corrupt Practices Act says that a contribution includes the receipt of money or anything of value, and includes a promise, agreement, or contract to make a contribution, whether or not it is legally enforceable. And it was on that language that I concluded that the contributions received from several people whom we have discussed here were contributions by law before April 7. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Dean ever tell you at any time that he was conducting an investigation for the President into the Watergate affair? Mr. STANS. No, I do not recall that Mr. Dean ever told me that he was conducting an investigation. I think I heard first about that from the public statements of the President or others in the White House. Senator GURNEY. Yesterday, you mentioned in your testimony that you heard that Liddy was receiving money, but you did not identify from whom you had heard it. Do you recall? Mr. STANS. I really can-Dot recall, because it was in the early days of my service to the committee. It could have come from Mr. Kalmbach, it could have come from Mr. Sloan. I doubt that there was anyone else who could have told it to me, My vague recollection is that, I was told that Liddy was getting small amounts of money from time to time in cash and that it was being used in the primaries. I do not have any other recollection of that and I had no idea that the amounts were as large as they apparently were. [00.25.41] Senator GURNEY. Did you ever know about the $250,000 budget before the Watergate break-in? Mr. STANS. No, sir, I was not, told by anyone about a $250,000 budget for Mr. Liddy. Senator GURNEY. Back to these, Kalmbach moneys again. In your initial discussion with Mr. Kalmbach about this money, did he say he was getting it, to spend himself on a, project for the White House, raising it to pass it on to somebody else to spend? Mr. STANS. He did not say. Senator GURNEY. Did you get any impression from your conversation whether He meant, the one or the, other? Mr. STANS. I had no such impression either way. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned, of course a later conversation, I think you said about, 6 weeks ago, perhaps, with Mr. Kalmbach's attorney- Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator GURNEY [continuing]. In which he told you that it, was Mr., Dean who had requested Kalmbach to raise the money. What about in this discussion? Did his attorney tell you whether Mr. Kalmbach raised the money to spend himself or whether he was raising it to Pass on to someone else? Mr. STANS. In that conversation -Mr. Kalmbach's attorney told me that Mr. Kalmbach had raised the money for the purpose of giving it to a man named Tony. he did not give me his last name or any other details, but he said it was for the purpose of paying legal fees for or the lawyers representing the defendants in the Watergate case. Senator GURNEY. He did not identify Tony beyond that? Mr. STANS. No, he, did not. Senator GURNEY. And you do not- know who he was-? Mr. STANS. I do not know who Tony was. Senator GURNEY. The $350,000 for the White House and the reimbursement of $22,000 requested by Dean-I am curious about that. Why should Mr. Dean be so uptight about, restoring $22,000 to this $350,000 fund if $22,000 was used legally, as I thought it was from the testimony? Can you shed any further light on, that? Mr. STANS. Well, I can only shed this light, that in several discussions with Mr. Dean, the desirability of having the $350,000 intact seemed important to him. Senator GURNEY. Well, why did it? Mr. STANS. For example, in -November- Senator GURNEY. -November? Mr. STANS. [continuing]. Of last year. He handed me some bills for polling by a polling organization, I believe it was Opinion Research Corp.--and said that originally it had been the intention to pay those bills out of the $350,000 fund, but that they wanted to keep the fund intact and the bills did relate to the campaign, so it was Perfectly Proper for them to be paid as expenses of the campaign and he asked that, they be so paid. And on that authority, the bills were paid to the Polling organization. Now that I understood to be for the purpose of keeping the $350,000 intact. [00.29.13]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.39.16-THOMPSON interrogates MITCHELL trying to probe whether MITCHELL had incentive and motivation to authorize electoral cheating tactics, and MITCHELL'S knowledge of the Watergate operation] Mr. THOMPSON. Of course.. as it reads, as I have read it, of course, it is not an accurate response Mr. MITCHELL. -No, I say as you read it, but I think if you will look at the total context, of the questioning, it referred to the security group that involved Mr. McCord which was the subject of the conversation. Mr. THOMPSON. Were you not, asked any other broader questions about any knowledge you might have had of any surveillance activities? Mr. MITCHELL. I was asked broader questions with respect to did I ever receive documents that I could identify as coming from electronic surveillance and broad questions like that.. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall any broader questions concerning conversations that, you had? Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, I do not, Mr. THOMPSON. Is it, just a case of not having asked you the right question? Mr. MITCHELL. I think that that is the case. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me refer to June 19 or, 20, I am not, quite sure when it -was. Mr. Mitchell. As I understand it, Mardian and LaRue debriefed Liddy and found out what he knew about, the break-in, his involvement. and the involvement of others. And at that time, he related to them some of the White House horror stories, I believe YOU characterized them as the plumbers activities, and so forth. [00.40.37-THOMPSON checks MITCHELL'S statement he was concerned less with WATERGATE being made public than with the other White House spying activities] I will go back to that, In a minute, but as I understand your testimony, this morning the knowledge you got from that debriefing was really the reason why you, in effect, stood by while Mr. Magruder was preparing a story Which, according to what you knew from Liddy was going to he a false story, to present to the grand jury. [00.41.01] Mr. MITCHELL. Along, Mr. Thompson, with some of the other stories that Mr. Dean brought forward to him, the Diem papers and the suspected extracurricular wiretapping -and a few of the others, Mr. THOMPSON. OK. That caused you to take that position with regard to Magruder. And also, I assume that those factors were the reasons why you, in effect, acquiesced, anyway, in the payments to the families of support. money and lawyers' fees and that .sort of thing, which I am sure you realize could have been pretty embarrassing to say the least, if not illegal, at that time. Would that be correct, as far as your motivations are concerned Mr. MITCHELL. That is a, correct, summary of my motivation and rationale, for the actions that I did take. [00.41.56] Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall the date on which Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue related this conversation of Liddy's to you? Mr. MITCHELL. Well he certainly didn't debrief them on the 19th, I am sure of that, because they were, In transit. Whether it -was the 20th or 21st I am not certain. Mr. THOMPSON. Did they talk to you the same day they talked to him? Mr. MITCHELL. My recollection is they talked to me the next day, but I am not certain about that, either. But in any event, it was in the,, time frame of the 21st or 22d, to the 'best of my recollection. [00.42.27] Mr. THOMPSON. Can you recall in a little more detail what they said that Liddy had related to them? You have already mentioned the fact that Liddy said that Magruder had pushed him, and the break-in at the, Ellsberg psychiatrist's Office, I believe, and the Dita Beard situation. What did Liddy supposedly say with regard to the Dita Beard situation? What did he supposedly know about White House involvement? [00.42.58] Mr. MITCHELL. To the best of my recollection, and, of course, I have heard these horror stories in different versions from different people, over the period of the years, the fact that he was either the one or assisted in spiriting her out of town, I believe was the discussion at that particular time. [00.43.21] Mr. THOMPSON. Did he indicate, according to them, that the budget for the electronic surveillance operation which led to the break-in of the DNC had been approved by the White House? Mr. MITCHELL. You are testing my memory pretty hard. I am inclined to think that he did say that, but this is a--not that he said it, but that Mardian or LaRue reported to me that he had said it. But you are testing my memory pretty hard on a substance, of which I have heard dozens and dozens of repetitions of it. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you ever verify any of these facts with the President? Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, I never discussed them with the President. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you ever verify any of them with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MITCHELL. I -never discussed those specific factors -with Haldeman until a later date. It was at that time that Mr. Dean, acting as a liaison between the White House, and the committee with respect to these, matters. [00.44.32]
Focus on the 70s - The Nixon Years - PT6
TLS/MSs House Judiciary Committee adopting Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, House members (including future Secretary of Defense William Cohen) debating, 1974. MSs White House aides filling a station wagon with more edited transcripts. Est shot of the White House South Lawn, reporters gathered on & around portico after tapes showed evidence of Nixon's knowledge of the break-in.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.40.31-GURNEY continues to interrogate DEAN about his meetings with NIXON.] Senator GURNEY. But those discussions were about the 302 files, I think, and the Segretti letter probably. Mr. DEAN. What happened as I recall, probably. recall, Senator Ervin had been on nationwide television the -preceding Sunday, on Meet the Press or Face, the Nation, and had made, some statements about sending the Sergeant at Arms down to arrest people at, the White House, and there had also been questions that had been raised regarding the reason that principal interrogatories would not be sufficient because you could not cross-examine a written interrogatory. I think that everybody at the White House agreed that you can't cross-examine written interrogatory. Senator GURNEY. I might Say the chairman of our committee was very persuasive and effective on that; he convinced everybody that you could not. Mr. DEAN. Well, the White House, realized he had a very convincing point, I will assure you. Senator GURNEY. Well, again, if we can shorten it, except for matters like that the Watergate coverup was not discussed; is that a fact? Mr. DEAN. Well, now, there -was an effort in those meetings to get a draft letter up where Dean could explain some of this. This wasn't what I -would call baring all the facts of the Watergate and how I -was going to answer that letter. I submitted a copy of the draft of the response which you have as an exhibit before the committee. Senator GURNEY. Well, I now--- [00.42.06-DEAN talks about expressing a desire to meet with NIXON to personally fill him in on the implications of WATERGATE] Mr. DEAN. Then on the 20TH, of course,, I had a call that, evening from the President and we were talking further about, some of the, things we talked about. during the day, and it was at the fail end of the conversation that I said to the President, "I would like to meet with you the next day to give you a report, on some of the implications of the Watergate." Senator GURNEY. Well, thank: you, Mr. Dean; I am sorry we too so long to get through there, but I was trying as I am sure you understand, to get a rundown of the actual discussions, direct discussions with the President---- Mr. DEAN. Mr. Gurney, I might say this--- Senator GURNEY [continuing]. On Watergate. Mr. DEAN [continuing]. That just, I know that every time I entered the oval office I appreciated the enormity of dealing with the President of the United States, at no time did I ever feel I withheld anything from the President and I think anyone who went in there and is asked any question by the President does not withhold anything, just as when I am saying something about the President I realize the enormity of that also, and I wouldn't lightly or in any way intentionally say anything that I did not know to be, the facts as I knew them in my mind. [00.43.32] Senator GURNEY. Well, in summary, let me simply state my understanding of what we found out here: I understand it is your own testimony that you did not think the President had anything to do with the planning of the, Watergate break-in or the break-in; is that a fact?, Mr. DEAN. I have no knowledge of that, at all, sir. [00.43.56-GURNEY wants to emphasize the fact that DEAN did not tell NIXON about Watergate prior to March 1973, which would support the thesis that NIXON was ignorant of the coverup] Senator GURNEY. Mr. Dean, I think it is also true, at least according to my understanding, that during the rest of the year 1972 between June 16 or was it the 17th, the day of the break-in, except for a meeting on September 15, even you have not testified to any discussions with the President about Watergate. Isn't that correct? Mr. DEAN. Well, Well, 'sir, at the meeting on the 15th, Senator, we got discussing some very narrow semantic--- Senator GURNEY. I understand, but what I say, except for- that meeting isn't that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. [00.44.33-GURNEY is insistent on his point of view] Senator GURNEY. And, of course, it is understandable here that you and I have different interpretations of that. Your interpretation is that when the President said to you, "Bob tells me you have done a good job, you interpret that as meaning he knew all that you had been doing on Watergate and I simply say that the interpretation can be assessed to that that he was talking about the investigation you were doing in connection with the FBI. [00.45.04-DEAN shows that NIXON was clearly complimenting him on the coverup] Mr. DEAN. I would call the Senator's attention to the other phase of the conversation in which I told him that I didn't think that this thing could continue indefinitely and at some point in time it would likely unravel. Senator GURNEY. I understand, and the records show that and the facts show that. Mr. Dean, I am simply saying you and I have a different opinion on that point. [00.45.20]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Anyway, he came to you and told you he was investigating this matter at the request of Mr. Mitchell? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And at that time, you had been notified that the FBI wanted to see you? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And Mr. LaRue told you not to go down and see the FBI until you bad seen Mr. Mitchell? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir, that s correct. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). So you went to see Mr. Mitchell and you told him you were much concerned about what had happened. Hugh Sloan. I was asking generally for guidance restricted to that situation. I guess what I was hoping for was an explanation that everything was all right. I didn't get any such guidance. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And the only advice you got on the subject was the philosophical observation that "when the going gets tough, the tough get going"? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, that is the sort of enigmatic expression that is worthy of the Sphinx, I guess. I don't quite understand it all. Hugh Sloan. I didn't really understand, either, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). How long after that was it before Mr. Mitchell left the committee? Hugh Sloan. Senator, I must admit that when I received news of Mr. Mitchell's departure when I was in Bermuda that same thought did cross my mind as well. I had heard of that when I was in Bermuda, which would be probably, I guess it was July 1. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). What time did this conversation with Mr. Mitchell occur about when the going gets tough, the tough get going? What day of June was that? Hugh Sloan. I am not precisely sure, but I think it was midpoint of that first week, probably the 21st or 22d of June. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Mitchell left on July 1st? Hugh Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.46.37] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, you stated yesterday, that Mr. Magruder told you sometime in May, I believe you said the latter part of May, that Mr. Liddy was to provide security at the San Diego convention. Did I hear correctly, sir? Mr. STANS. Yes, that was about all I ever heard about Mr. Liddy's activities except, as I said, when I came to the committee in February I got intimations from someone that Mr. Liddy was using relatively small amounts of cash in connection with the primaries. Senator INOUYE. So you provided funds to Mr. Liddy in May for security activity in San Diego? Mr. STANS. I did not provide Mr. Liddy any funds. The funds came from the treasurer an came to him-came to Liddy, I believe, before the time of my conversation with Magruder, indicating that this was for convention security. Senator INOUYE. When was the conversation with Mr. Magruder? Mr. STANS. Well, I really cannot in it down by date. Senator INOUYE. The early part of May? Mr. STANS. I have testified earlier that I think it was in the latter part of May, It may have been in the early part of June. But it had no relation to the timing of the Watergate developments. Senator INOUYE. Mr. secretary, are you aware that the transfer of the Republican Convention from San Diego to Miami was made public on April 21? Mr. STANS. I do not recall the exact date, but nevertheless, that was what Mr. Magruder told me as to what Liddy had been using the money for. Senator INOUYE. Was this not a major decision in which I am certain you must have participated? Mr. STANS. I had no part in the decision to move the convention from San Diego to Miami. Senator INOUYE. Even when it meant the additional sums of money? Mr. STANS, Well, I think this is pretty good evidence of the fact that the finance committee had very little to say in the campaign. We knew that the convention in San Diego was going to cost a lot of money. I had seen budgets indicating that it was going to cost $3 million because of structural changes to the building in San Diego and so on. But we had no voice in that decision. It was a Presidential decision and we in the finance committee accepted it as something that had to be coped with. Now, having said that, there was a separate committee that had the responsibility of financing the convention. There was a separate convention committee, and it had its own funds which were not part of our responsibility to raise, except that as these things go, if they had run short, I am certain they would have come to our treasury in order to make up any deficit on the costs of the convention. Senator INOUYE. So you are testifying that in middle May or late May, you were not aware that the party had changed its convention site? Mr. STANS, Oh, I am -not testifying to that at all. I cannot put the date, but, I was aware of what, was being said in the press and certainly was conscious of that. Senator INOUYE. On July 1, or June 29, somewhere in that period, Mr. Kalmbach called you and advised you that, there was a very urgent, request for cash funds for a special purpose. NOW, in the, weeks prior to that, questionable activities were being reported in the press. Were you not a bit curious as to what, these funds were going to be used for? Mr. STANS. Well, Senator, I think you--it is very easy for all of us in retrospect to assume a lot, of knowledge in the week following the disclosure of the, Watergate break-in. But this came step-by-step, day-by-day, slowly. I do not believe that I had any knowledge of any activities in connection with Watergate except that, Mr. McCord was one of those arrested and I did not know Mr. McCord. I was aware that, Sloan had made payments to Liddy; there was the possible connection there. But it was not until the 28th of June, which is later than the date you are referring to, that, Mr. Liddy refused to answer questions of the FBI and I discharged him, discharged him on advice of counsel the minute I had heard about it. Senator INOUYE. On the 28th of June' [00.51.40] Mr. STANS. 28th of June. Senator INOUYE. 1972? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator INOUYE. And Mr. Kalmbach made the request, on June 29? Mr. STANS. On the 29th of June, the very next day. Senator INOUYE. And you were not a bit suspicious then? Mr. STANS. I was, not. I knew Mr. Kalmbach very well and he was a man who had close ties in the White House, had had them for years, including being counsel to the President. I trusted him implicitly as a man of honor and integrity, and when he came. to me and said he needed money for a, special purpose, I had no reason to assume that it was anything but proper.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.18.45] Senator ERVIN. Yes. Now, at that time Mr. Kalmbach told you that it was a White House project and the request was made on him by higher authority? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. But he refused to tell You What the money was for? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. Now you later found out that that money was given to a man named Tony to bring down to Washington to be used to pay lawyer fees for the defendants in the criminal action before Judge Sirica? Mr. STANS. Yes, I learned that sometime in late April and May--- Senator ERVIN. NOW---- Mr. STANS. Of this year. Senator ERVIN. Don't you know that approximately $450,000, either campaign funds or funds that were raised by people active in the campaign, were given as funds to pay counsel fees for the attorneys for the defendants in the criminal action and to pay their salaries and to take care of their families? Mr. STANS. No, sir, I do not know that. Senator ERVIN. Do you know of anything except the $75,000 that was used for that purpose? Mr. STANS. That is all I know about it. Senator ERVIN. So we have a situation here in the criminal cases where the Department Of Justice, or rather prosecuting attorneys who were prosecuting the case, and to some extent counsel for the defendants in the case, were being paid by people who were active in the campaign isn't that so? Mr. STANS. Well, it depends on how much they were paid and what the, source of the money was. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. STANS. And I really don't know. Senator ERVIN. Only to the extent of $75,000. Mr. STANS. That is correct. And that was not known at the time. Senator ERVIN. -Some very distinguished gentlemen maintain we ought to leave it to the prosecutors and the courts to determine we whole thing and the committee ought to close shop. Now, as understand it, you have no records--, showing that YOU had a meeting with Magruder and Mitchell on June 24, 1972? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, I have something to add to said this morning. I have no records showing that I had any meeting with Magruder or Mitchell on June 24 nor do I have any recollection But because the committee put such emphasis on it, my counsel, at his initiative called Mr. Mitchell's counsel who talked to Mr. Mitchell to see if he had any recollection and this is the report that I got back which Is, quoting Mr. Mitchell. There was a meeting sometime during the day between Mardian, Magruder and Sloan at which Mardian was pushing, Sloan and Magruder to find out how much money Sloan had given to Liddy I was not at the meeting and I did not know who was at the meeting. Then there was a second meeting the same day between Mardian, Sloan, and Mitchell. Mardian got -CA rough on Sloan because -Mardian did not find out from Sloan how much money he had given Liddy. Again I was not at that meeting and I did not know of the meeting at the time it was held. Then according to _Mr. Mitchell's records at 3:40 there was a telephone conversation between Mitchell and me. Whether he placed it originally or whether I did, he did not know. At 4 p.m. I met with Mr. Mitchell in his office, alone, no one, else present. Mitchell told me that Sloan would not tell him how much money Sloan had given Liddy and asked me if I knew and I said I did not. That is all that was said. Now, I am giving you a report which is thirdhand _Mr. Mitchell to his counsel to my counsel to me. As I said earlier, I have no recollection of the meeting and no record of it and I still have no recollection of the meeting but this is Mr. Mitchell's report. Senator ERVIN. Now Mr. STANS. But it did not cover anything beyond the question of how much money did Sloan give Liddy. It did not cover any Of the subjects that were alluded to in the questioning earlier as to whether there was a full discussion of' who was involved in the Watergate and so on. Senator ERVIN. Now, within a few weeks after the break-in you knew that McCord, who had been employed as a security officer for the political committee, as I understand it, that is the committee To Re-Elect the President, had been arrested in the Watergate? Mr. STANS, Yes, I knew that the day after, Senator ERVIN. Then you found out from the press that four, Barker and Sturgis and Gonzales and Martinez had money which had come from 'the proceeds of checks of the committee 'in their pockets at the time they were arrested and in their hotel rooms? Mr. STANS. I knew that only from the press stories. I did not know it of myself. Senator ERVIN. Then a short time later you knew that -Magruder had paid, rather had directed Sloan, and Sloan, at Magruder's direction had paid substantial sums of money to Liddy? Mr. STANS. Yes. [00.25.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.58.16] Senator WEICKER. On the, basis of your experiences with Mr. Dean between June 17 and August 16--that is when you actually appeared before, the grand jury? Mr. 'MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Would you say Mr. Dean was conducting an investigation or a coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think, Senator, there was never an investigation conducted. Senator WEICKER. He was conducting coverup. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Thank you very much, No further questions,. Senator BAKER. I have some, if you don't mind Mr. Chairman. On this Stans thing, really, it is terribly important not only from the standpoint of your testimony and the facts that this committee will find, but it is important, to Mr. Stans, I would rather expect. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying so I can compare it, against the testimony Mr. Stans has given us and compare it in the future against the testimony that Mr. Mitchell will give us. Now, the transcript says that you told Mr. Stans the facts. This is the transcript of your interview before, the majority and minority staff of the committee-. Now, I already asked you if you told Mr. Stans that. you planned, led, and were responsible for the unlawful entry into Democratic national headquarters at the Watergate complex. Did you tell Mr. Stans that? Mr. MAGRUDER. No; we did not. Senator BAKER Did you tell Mr. Stans that you were then planning and intended to implement an untruthful story to try to cover it up. Mr. MAGRUDER. Absolutely not. Senator BAKER. Well, where does that lead? What did you tell Stans? Mr. MAGRUDER. We told him, I think, just what Senator Ervin said, that an operation that we had knowledge of got fouled up, some thing to that effect; that Mr. Liddy, who was as his general counsel, was involved in this operation and that we, would probably have to terminate Mr. Liddy, and that we were having difficulty with Mr. Sloan because Mr. Sloan was not discussing with us in any legitimate terms how much money had been given to Mr. Liddy and it was important us to know how much money was given to Mr. Liddy. And I think that is the, general context. It was a meeting that took no more than 10 minutes, 5 or 10 minutes was a year ago. I think- it is very difficult to recall specifically specific statements made by participants in meetings of this kind. But the general context was because Mr. Stans had come up. I think because Mr. Sloan had said, they are giving me a tough time upstairs can you go up and see what you can do for Me. We, in effect, said, Mr. Stans, will you go down -and assist us with Mr. Sloan, in effect. Senator BAKER. Mr. Magruder, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. DASH. I just, have, a few questions, Mr. Magruder. you said, and I think the testimony Seems to be that Mr. Dean introduced Mr. Liddy to you. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Mr. DASH. But is it, not, true that, you have also said to us that Mr. Haldeman approved Mr. Liddy's appointment? Mr. MAGRUDER. In that no White House employee was allowed to move over to the Committee To Re-Elect the President without his prior approval, which in a sense was a negative approval. We, let Mr. Strachan know that we, were contemplating hiring Mr. Liddy through Mr. Dean. There were some salary discrepancies and discussions with another assistant of Mr. Haldeman's When that was straightened out, in fact, that led to a memo which I sent to Mr. Haldeman explaining all the individuals who had been hired from the, White House, at, -what salary, and so on. Mr. Liddy is included in that memo. Mr. DASH. So Mr. Haldeman was involved in solving the salary setup? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct; yes. Mr. DASH. Now, when -Mr. Liddy told Mr. Mitchell and you after you had gone over the Gemstone file with him. and when Mr. Mitchell said he was dissatisfied. and he said that he was going to correct the errors, did Mr. Mitchell or you say no; don't do it? Mr. MAGRUDER. No. Mr. DASH. Isn't it true, also, Mr. Magruder, THAT you did give Mr. Howard some information that you had received, information from that operation? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes: in a number of informal discussions with him. I indicated that, we would have information forthcoming and that If he could work with Mr. Strachan who was the conduit, we Would probably be able to provide them. Mr. Colson headed up the group called the--- Mr. DASH. This was Gemstone you were referring to ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes: I was referring to Gemstone, but to be fair. to Mr. Howard, I didn't say this was Gemstone information coming from wiretaps, Mr. DASH. Now. did you have any discussion -with Sally Harmony prior to her testimony? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. Mr. DASH. 'Could you give us briefly what that, discussion was? Mr. MAGRUDER. It was the type of discussion we had with a number Of employees who were being questioned by the U.S. attorney's office: generally speaking, that we hoped they would do nothing that would affect the President's election type of discussion Other people did discuss With others, Miss Harmony and other people, more detailed facts about this. Mr. DASH. What did she say to you when you said that? Mr. MAGRUDER. She indicated that there would be, no problem with her testimony. Mr. DASH. Did you make that report to Mr. Mitchell? Mr. MAGRUDER. Again, I think there were other individuals who were more directly involved---- [01.04.02--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.24.33] Mr. THOMPSON. Did you tell the prosecutors about the Ellsberg break-in? Mr. Dean. Yes, I did. Mr. THOMPSON. So you had resolved that question? Mr. DEAN. NO, I did not tell them the totality of It. What I said was that they had evidence in their files that they should reexamine because it indicated a break-in I did this because there is case law my lawyer told me about,. He said, John, you are. committing another crime if you do not tell and you have to reveal this to them and they are on that case. He said, there is an ongoing prosecution. You must give them enough so that they can look at their files and make the determination. [00.25.05-MORE attempts to dismantle DEAN'S CREDIBILITY] Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Dean, is it your testimony that you were, not in effect bargaining for immunity or seeking immunity? Mr. DEAN-. My lawyers, were very heavily discussing immunity with the prosecutors at that time. Mr. THOMPSON. And you failed at, the U.S. attorney's office in that attempt, did you not? Of course, I might add that that is a very proper thing for attorneys to pursue. The fact is they -were. Mr. DEAN. That, is right. What happened is my lawyers worked out, what they called a phase I with the--- Mr., THOMPSON. Phase, I? Mr. DEAN. Phase, I, in which I would--- Mr. THOMPSON. You did not have any better luck than the other phase I. Mr. DEAN. I -would discuss with the prosecutors everything I could remember. everything I could tell them and the evidence could -not be used against me so they could assess what they wanted to do with that. That was the design of phase 1, which I did. Mr. THOMPSON. All right. And then contact was made -with Mr. Dash. Mr. DEAN. Mr. Dash made contact -with us. Mr. THOMPSON. Well, either way you want to put it, you discussed the matter with Mr. Dash, who very properly, of course, was seeking any information he could get and talked with you about these matters. Then, for the first, time. as far as I know--you correct, me. if I am wrong--after that, some time after that, the stories started appearing quoting sources close to you to the effect, that you had met with Nixon more than 40 times to discuss the coverup, that Nixon had substantial knowledge, about -what the, White, House people were doing and all those things. [00.26.52-THOMPSON challenges DEAN again] Now, I do not want to leave an unfair implication if I am wrong about this, but the obvious question is whether or not you -went to the prosecutors gave them what you thought, might be enough to get immunity, and having failed there, came to this committee and offered a little more in order to get immunity for this committee. Was that or Was that not your strategy? Mr. DEAN,. I believe that is not correct. Mr. THOMPSON. In what, points does that thesis break down? Mr. DEAN. Phase I had effectively gone into' abeyance. Mr. THOMPSON. Were we considered phase II? Mr. DEAN. No, no, I am talking about the off the record discussions with the prosecutors had gone into abeyance by the time Mr. Dash contacted us, because we were giving them so much information so fast and the thing was tumbling so quickly that they were in pursuit of it and it became more and more difficult for me. There -also was the increasing demand for a special prosecutor. The prosecutors didn't know their own status. Meanwhile, Mr. Dash asked to discuss it with my attorney and he said, you are going to be called. you are going 'called soon and I want to know what it is all about. So he was given the story, Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, you did get immunity from this committee, use immunity. One last question, Mr. Dean. The reason I ask this, of course. is that your statement is replete with references about your desire to uncover the coverup and your desire to tell the truth in all these matters. Before you were, forced out of the White House--as you stated, you started making contact with the prosecutors on April of this year, you had substantial difficulty with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman concerning their desire, to get Mitchell to take the rap and get them off the hook. Why didn't, you resign, call a press conference, and tell the, entire truth about the matter if you wanted it to come out, substantially, before you--- Mr. DEAN. When I was at Camp David-I went up on the 23d. On the 25th, I talked to a lawyer, and I told him I wanted to take some steps. He cautioned me, saying, for gosh sakes. don't do anything until you do talk to a lawyer. So it, was when I came back from Camp David on the 28th that I again began calling to obtain a criminal lawyer. He told me--he said, John, he said, I know you want to get the truth out, and that was the first thing we told the prosecutors. He said, you don't have to run in a machinegun to do it. You have a Constitution, you can protect your rights, YOU can go forward, and I am going to represent you, I am going to represent you the best way I know as a member of the bar and I will give you the best counsel I can. I have tried to follow his counsel and simultaneously get the truth out. [00.29.54]
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations hearing on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Committee Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey continuing to discuss acoustic analysis carried out on the Dallas Police audio transmission. Blakey discusses credentials of Ernest Aschenasy, who also assisted in the analysis of U.S. President Richard Nixon’s audio tapes during the Watergate investigation. Blakey asks to call Professor Mark Weiss and Aschenasy as witnesses. Committee Chairman U.S. Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH), seated with U.S. Representatives L. Richardson Preyer (D-NC) and Samuel L. Devine (R-OH), calls Weiss and Aschenasy as witnesses, who are sworn in.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973 (1/2)
[00.56.34-Sen. INOUYE continues to pose to DEAN questions submitted by the WHITE HOUSE, which challenge DEAN'S testimony and insinuate that DEAN was the central figure in the Watergate and the Coverup] Senator INOUYE. Then your testimony, your answer to the question, did you have authority from anyone else to make much an offer is, no. Mr. 'DEAN. That is correct. Senator INOUYE. And was it on your own initiative, the, answer is yes? Mr. DEAN. Yes. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, did I understand you to testify earlier that, you had led Mr. Caulfield to believe you were assisting him in obtaining approval and funding for what he called Operation Sandwedge but that in fact you let Operation Sandwedge die a natural death ? Mr. DEAN. I wasn't encouraging Caulfield. Mr. Caulfield was anxious for my assistance. I told him that I would talk to Mr. Mitchell about it, which I did. Mr. Mitchell virtually rejected it out of hand. In an effort to save a man's feelings who had spent a great deal of time, he had involved a number of other good friends of his own who had major positions and had taken time off to work on the project, rather than come, back and bluntly say, "You have been shot out of the water" and it had been disapproved, I realized that through a period of time he would realize the plan was going nowhere and it did die a natural death. [00.57.54-the WHITE HOUSE questions to DEAN try to find inconsistencies in DEAN'S testimony with regard to intelligence activities. DEAN had claimed to be ignorant of such activities] Senator INOUYE. I call your attention to Exhibit No. 34-12 which is a memorandum for the Attorney General from John Dean, dated January 12, 1972, and I call your attention to the -first sentence of the second paragraph, which says: Operation Sandwedge will be in need of refunding at the end Of this month, so the time is quite appropriate for such a review. Mr. Dean, if you let Operation Sandwedge die a natural death, why did you state, to Mr. 'Mitchell that it would be in need of refunding at the end of January? Mr. DEAN. Well, as I testified to this committee, after the November 21 meeting that Mr. Caulfield had had with Mr. Mitchell, he continued to do various investigative assignments. He was doing an investigative assignment with Mr. McCloskey; Mr. Mitchell -was interested in that. He continued to call what had formerly been just his relationship with Mr. Ulasewicz Operation Sandwedge. Mr. Ehrlichman had raised with me the fact that he thought Mr. Ulasewicz could be of assistance, he would like to keep him around and that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Caulfield should decide what Mr. Ulasewicz's future should be. This is the result of the label that, Mitchell understood all of Caulfield's operations and I think he, had a misimpression that, dating back to somewhere in 1969, I think Mr. Mitchell assumed that everything had been called Operation Sandwedge. At least, in my conversations with him, that, is the way he, reeferred to it. So rather than go into a lengthy explanation when I was communicating with him on this matter, I merely called it, Operation Sandwedge. [00.59.54-The WHITE HOUSE questions to DEAN try to suggest that DEAN was in fact very knowledgeable and active in intelligence operations against demonstrators] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Dean, you have depicted all others in the White House as excessively preoccupied with political intelligence, use, of covert methods and security, and yourself as a restraining influence on these preoccupations. Yet. your background of responsibilities at the Justice Department, seems to suggest that your experience in these, very types of activities might have contributed to your being invited to join the White House staff. What, precisely, were your duties in connection with demonstrations while, you were at the Justice Department? [01.00.32-DEAN states that he was a restraining influence on the wishes of others at the White House to crack down on demonstrators] Mr. DEAN. Well, I would like to address myself to the first, part of the question before I answer the second part of the, question regarding being a restraining Influence. I do believe I was a restraining influence at the White House to many wild and crazy schemes. I have testified to some of them, some of them I have not testified to. Many Of the memorandums that came into my office became a joke, in fact, some of the things that were being suggested I think if you talk to some of the other members of my staff or if your investigators would like to talk to them, they would tell you some of the, things that we would automatically just file--just like the political enemies project. Many of these just. went right into the file and never anything further; until extreme pressure was put on me to do something did I ever do anything. So I do feel I had some restraining influence. I did not have a disposition or a like for this type of activity. [01.01.34]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973 (1/2)
[01.00.08] And subsequently on the, 28th or 29th when I talked, to Mr. Krogh I was very curious myself to find out what, it was. and that is when I asked Mr. Krogh if, in fact, Mr. Ehrlichman had authorized the burglary of the doctor's office and he had told me that he didn't think Mr. Ehrlichman knew in advance. Senator INOUYE. Didn't you believe that the offer of money for silence was a criminal offense? Mr. DEAN. Yes, I did. Senator INOUYE. Why did you say that these problems were more technical and political than legal ? Mr. DEAN. That, isn't the way I believe I cast it. When I said they were indictable I meant despite the, degree of technicality as an indictment, I can't say I was a criminal lawyer but I did recognize an obstruction of justice. Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "He gave no hint, however, of his orchestration of perjured testimony by Magruder and others. Ehrlichman suggested that everyone be made to appear before the grand jury and waive executive privilege." Mr. DEAN. I have no recollection of that at, all. To the contrary, when we met subsequently I kept shaking my head and saying, "No," Ehrlichman, Dean and Haldeman are indictable and the tone of the conversation was not going to come forward but rather to continue the coverup and I think the, subsequent meetings on the 22d with Mr. Mitchell, if the President indeed had received the message. I was trying to give certainly wouldn't have engaged in the conversation with Mr. Mitchell that afternoon which would leisurely discuss the status of this committee and the like. Certainly nothing of any significance occurred at all after that 21st meeting. [01.02.03] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "Dean thought this would be a good idea but only if the persons who appeared before the grand jury were given immunity." Mr. DEAN. 1 don't recall that at all. I do recall general discussions that I thought, that one of the best ways to get the truth out would be if people could receive immunity because I knew a lot of people would be unwilling to talk or that their stories would be less than forthcoming if they felt they were going to incriminate themselves. Senator INOUYE. Should it be I do not recall or it did not happen? Mr. DEAN. The reference to the discussion of immunity? Senator INOUYE. Yes. It is very important. I note throughout your testimony your power of recollection is immense but oftentimes you have testified that you cannot recall. Mr. DEAN. I am sorry, with regard to this-- Senator INOUYE. Is there a possibility that it did happen? Mr. DEAN. Yes, it is. I do not recall specifically, Senator. [01.03.05] Senator INOUYE. [QUOTING W.H. MEMO ATTACKING DEAN'S TESTIMONY] "At, another meeting that day Ehrlichman strongly opposed immunity." Mr. DEAN. I never heard that. Senator INOUYE This did not happen? Mr. DEAN. Not to my knowledge. Senator INOUYE. "On -March 23 Dean was sent to Camp David in order to complete the long-promised report. Dean was at Camp David for 6 days but came down on the night, of the 28th and delivered nothing." Mr. DEAN. That is correct, I delivered nothing because I had, as I have testified, had earlier conversations about my testimony. Every time I revealed the slightest inch of my knowledge, recollections began to change, characterizations began to change. I was asked to handle testimony in different ways. Wen I came down from Camp David there was no doubt in my mind that I wasn't going to play the coverup game and I wasn't I going to give them any further information with which they could play the coverup game. [01.04.08-TAPE OUT]
LAWMAKERS
DUKE/WERTHEIMER in studio. Discussion of O'CONNOR'S performance. WERTHEIMER says SENATORS were likely very impressed, O'CONNOR one of calmest witnesses ever to sit before the judiciary committee. Few clues given about O'CONNOR'S potential votes as a JUSTICE, WERTHEIMER calls O'CONNOR a "shoe-in".
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Senator INOUYE. You had reason to believe that these men were involved in activities which would be dangerous to the existence to the United States of America? Mr. McCORD. No sir. Senator INOUYE. Then why did you carry on these activities, you're well aware of what national security was all about. Were they involved in syndicated criminal activity? Mr. McCORD. (confers with his lawyer) I can go into the reasons behind some of the motivations that I had, if you want me to do so sir which pertain to testimony I've previously given relating to the .... Senator INOUYE. I believe it's very important because I for one would like to know why the sudden change of heart? Mr. McCORD. In what sir? Senator INOUYE. In being concerned about justice and legality. (pauses, stares at Senator Inouye) 'Cause I can't believe that you were not aware of the illegality of all these acts, and that these were political activities. Mr. McCORD. I've admitted sir, yes sir I've admitted that the acts were both wrong on my part, it was a mistake on my part. I stated that in the beginning and I restated at this time that my motivation ..... Senator INOUYE. Were you aware at the time you were in the sixth floor of the watergate that it was illegal? Mr. McCORD. (confers again with his lawyer) Yes, of course. Senator INOUYE. Why did you, as one who has served this country so well, as a colonel in the air force, distinguished service in the FBI and CIA decide to carry out these illegal acts? The only thing you've done wrong so far is to receive a traffic ticket. Mr. McCORD. Sir, I can repeat my situation that lead me into the decision to join in this operation which involved a series of discussions which involved the White House itself, the council to the president, that top lawyer, involved the top lawyer of the committee for the re-election of the president and involved the attorney general himself in his capacity as attorney general of the United States, who had the authority. Senator INOUYE. Were you aware .... Mr. McCORD. I realized that acts are illegal, that these acts are illegal under normal circumstances, but that he has a power and authority to make them legal by his oral approval of it, and in particular by what I was convinced was his approval ..... Senator INOUYE. But you knew that the attorney general was soon to become chairman of the committee to re-elect the president. Mr. McCORD. That I was aware of, but I was also aware that the matter had been approved while he was attorney general, had been considered while he was attorney general, had been considered jointly with the council to the president of the united states while he was attorney general. Senator INOUYE. And you knew then on all the front pages of the United States press you had comments about Mr. Mitchell to become soon the chairman of this party. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir, sure. Senator INOUYE. So you knew that his activities may be political in nature. Mr. McCORD. They very well may be and part of the reason attributed to the operation itself was political, no question about it. But, I previously stated as well that I was convinced that over his, I knew that over his desk came many matters which I had no knowledge of and in particular I was concerned about violence and demonstrations, particularly violence which already were being reported to occur, that were planned to be occurred, to take place at the Republican National Convention in Miami. We had many reports of that, first of all in the convention in San Diego upwards of a quarter of a million people. I was also aware that the attorney general in his capacity had very broad access to information which I felt I might not be privy to, Mr. Liddy might not be privy to, but would possibly have a bearing upon the relationship and the association of some of these demonstrators to certain members of either the democratic national committee or to the McGovern headquarters and in fact one of the groups now under indictment in Tallahassee Florida did in fact have an office within the democratic national committee.
Budget Reconciliation Act 1981 Debate
U.S. House Representative Leon Panetta (D-CA), Chairman of the Budget Committee Task Force on Reconciliation continues to defend the committee's work, noting the committee's job was to cut the budget, not specify where it was to be cut. Rep. Panetta: "I ask you from a reconciliation point of view, from a process point of view, but most importantly, from an institutional point of view, that we not surrender the only power we have here, the power to check and balance the Executive. That line is going to have to be drawn sometime, and I urge you to draw it now by supporting the rule." Rep. Panetta leaves the House floor as Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA) recognizes Rep. Del Latta (R-OH); adult Caucasian male and female clerks seated around House rostrum. Rep. Latta yields one minute of time to Rep. Gene Taylor (R-MO).
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:57:52) Hearings coverage hosts NINA TOTENBERG voices over segue back to House Banking Committee Hearings at which JEAN HANSON, JOSHUA STEINER, DENNIS FOREMAN, and JACK DEVORE testify - this House hearing footage runs to the end of the tape