Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.37.07-THOMPSON continues to ask DEAN about the finances of the COVERUP and DEAN'S dealings with the money] Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you about this entire fund. I think this merits some questioning with regard to the remaining money that was there: $10,350 that you said was not used. So you took $4,850 because you did not want it to be used in coverup activities or used to perpetuate the coverup. [00.37.35-THOMPSON tries to suggest that DEAN'S dealings with the funds were related to DEAN'S activities in the rest of the coverup, including taking materials from HUNT'S safe] Let us place this in context with Your own situation at, that time. Is it, not true that on October 11, Mr. Hunt had filed a motion to suppress in the criminal case in which he was involved at that time, alleging in an affidavit as part of its motion that certain documents or certain materials had not been turned over to the authorities when his safe was cleaned out? Mr. DEAN. I do not, recall the date when he had filed that motion, whether it was October 11. I recall there, was a motion filed to that effect. In fact, I recall that we received a letter at the White House. that it 'was a draft letter by Mr. Bittman to Mr. Colson that I received from Mr. O'Brien indicating the fact that such a motion might be filed and in that letter, the question was raised as to where given items that were in the safe were located. This immediate raised to me the problem of the fact that materials, had not one directly to the FBI, but rather had gone directly to Mr. Gray. So I was aware. of the fact that that motion was in the works and was going to be filed. [00.38.59] Mr. THOMPSON. And the basis of that motion was, at least One of the points, as I understand In the affidavit was that certain materials had not been turned over from his safe, had been withheld, and something had happened to them, is that not correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. All right, and you -were one, Of the Ones involved. I believe you said Mr. Ehrlichman told you to see, that the safe, was cleaned out. You were the one who, I believe, held a suitcase for a while, carried it around in the trunk of your car? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. YOU were the one who turned over documents to Mr. Gray? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON. In order that they would not be leaked, I believe you said. Did you -not consider when this motion was filed, -when this affidavit was filed, that there was some amount of pressure on you, that you might be called in a hearing in the criminal case in order to explain what might have happened to those documents? Mr. DEAN. Indeed, I was quite, aware -when the motion was filed and I was called down to visit with the prosecutors, with the fact that I was going to be called to testify. That is -what compelled me to go and tell Mr. Petersen that in fact, the documents had not all been turned over directly to the agents. Mr. THOMPSON So you -were concerned about that at that time? Mr. DEAN. I was concerned about what? Mr. THOMPSON. The fact that this motion had been filed and you knew that, you had been actually the one who had, in effect, diverted some of those materials. Mr. DEAN,. Let us understand this. I had been asked to deep six and shred documents. Mr. THOMPSON. You testified as to that. [00.40.27] Mr. DEAN. I did not want to deep six and shred documents. As far as I was concerned, I had been prepared to testify -when my name became known that in Mr. Gray's testimony my name was going to come out. Mr. THOMPSON. You had been prepared to testify that you had given him certain documents and that they were extremely sensitive and I believe you said you did not, tell him that they should never see the light of day. Mr. DEAN. That is not what I remember. I believe I testified yesterday that I said they were not to be made public. [00.40.55] Mr. THOMPSON. Were you prepared to testify that you carried the suitcase around in your car for a few days to decide -whether or not you would deep six it? Mr. DEAN. If I had been called, that would have come out. Mr. THOMPSON. Would that not have been a certain amount of pressure on you, coming in and testifying truthfully is one thing but wanting to do that or in trying to prevent yourself from being placed in a situation where you would have, to do that--you did not want to go down there? [00.41.19] Mr. DEAN. Mr. Thompson, you cannot believe the amount of pressure that, came on me after the Gray hearings by people not wanting we to testify. It became inevitable that I might have to testify. [00.41.31-IS THOMPSON suggesting DEAN wanted to take the cash and skip the country to avoid testifying? What is his point?] Mr. THOMPSON. I am talking about the specific point. I am talking about 'whether or not, on the, day before you took this money out, and, of course, the records speak for themselves--I believe it, was October 11 of that year--that the day before you took the, money out, this motion was filed and in your mental condition at the moment, whether it was a matter of great concern to you? Mr. DEAN. I would not, testify it was a matter of great concern; no, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. Would you carry a suitcase around with documents in it- Mr. DEAN. That was a long way off and let, me tell you the interviewing events. After the letter came to my attention before the motion was filed, I had conversations with Mr. O'Brien about this. I told him that if the motion were filed by Mr. Bittman that a lot of problems might be created for the White House. Mr. THOMPSON. When was this conversation? Mr. DEAN. Well, it was well in advance of the filing of the motion. Mr. THOMPSON. Was it well after October--before the motion was filed? Mr. DEAN. Yes, it was. Mr. THOMPSON. And what was the substance of the conversation? Mr. DEAN. I told him that, it would create real problems for the White House if it was. I didn't get explicit with him. [00.42.39]
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. It was when I joined the White House staff in July of 1970 that I became fully aware of the extent of concern at the White House regarding demonstrations and intelligence information relating to demonstrators. It was approximately 1 month after I arrived at the White House that I was informed about the project that had been going on before I arrived to restructure the Government's intelligence gathering capacities vis-a-vis demonstrators and domestic radicals. The revised domestic intelligence plan was submitted in document form for the President's approval. The committee has in its, possession a copy of that document and certain related memoranda pursuant to the order of Judge Sirica. After I was told of the Presidentially approved plan that called for bugging, burglarizing mail covers and the like, I was instructed by Mr. Haldeman to see what I could do to get the plan implemented. I thought the plan was as totally uncalled for and unjustified. I talked with Mr. Mitchell about the plan and he said he knew there was a great concern or desire at the White House to see that the plan was implemented. But he agreed fully with FBI Director Hoover who opposed the plan, with one exception. Mitchell I thought that an interagency evaluation committee might be useful because it was not good to have the FBI standing alone without the information of other intelligence agencies and the sharing of information is always good and avoids duplication. After my conversation with Mitchell, I wrote a memorandum requesting that the evaluation committee be established and the restraints could be removed later. I told Mr. Haldeman that the only way to proceed was one stop at a time, and this could be an important first step. He agreed.
LAWMAKERS, March 29, 1984
[19.56.38-WETA credit/sponsor credit/title sequence] [19.57.26-Paul DUKE, Cokie ROBERTS, Linda WERTHEIMER in studio, seated around triangular desk, DUKE faces camera] DUKE introductions of co-hosts. This weeks program: a profile on Gary HART'S 10 years in CONGRESS as his bid for PRESIDENT causes a stir; "CARPETBAGGER" challenge to HOUSE members up for REELECTION; and a discussion of HOUSE vote on a bill to make it tougher to disqualify people from SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BENEFITS-for 3 years "cheaters" have been targeted by the administration with sometimes severe results. [19.58.06-Rep. Barney FRANK (D-MA) seated at desk] FRANK-many were taken by surprise by the stories of cruelty to genuinely needy people over the past years. DUKE v.o.-the search for "cheaters" produced an avalanche of complaints that truly disabled were cut. [19.58.19-Louie BELLUCCI, an older middle-aged man seated,] DUKE v.o.-BELLUCCI suffers from nerve disorder, result, almost constant pain. BELLUCCI says if his benefit is taken away, he will lose his apartment, won't afford food, gas money, etc. [19.58.54] shot of apartment door knocker. BELLUCCI opens door to walk out. DUKE v.o.-he will go to Social Security office to appeal decision. Since 1981, 470,000 recipients have been taken off rolls. [shot of men and women entering a revolving door into an office-shot of woman sitting across desk from a social worker-close shot of paper that woman is reading] DUKE v.o.- 2 thirds of removed recipients have been restored, but appeals process takes about nine months, and there is no benefit in the meantime. Process terrifies recipients and wreaks havoc with the DISABILITY system. [19.59.26-Lou ENOFF, Social Security Administration, seated] ENOFF says that no one knew that the review system in place would not be adequate for the mass of appeal cases that followed the 1981 reforms. [19.59.38-Rep. FRANK at desk] DUKE v.o.-REAGAN administration says problems were inadvertent, but critics say the changes were too harsh and too hasty. FRANK-the ADMINISTRATION has said to 10s of thousands of sick people their illnesses no longer qualify for disability, even though the illness hasn't changed. [19.59.56-shot of front center podium of HOUSE chamber] DUKE v.o. when the reform bill to alleviate the denial of benefits reached HOUSE FLOOR this week, was bipartisan support. REPUBLICANS joined in criticism of REAGAN ADMINISTRATION position. [20.00.06-Rep. Christopher SMITH (R-NJ), standing to speak to HOUSE] SMITH says was troubled by numbers of truly disabled losing benefits. [20.00.14-Rep. Barber CONABLE (R-NY)] CONABLE-Executive Branch in retrospect implemented reviews in way that did not take into account the problem of length of appeal for disabled people denied benefits. [20.00.27-DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN speaking] DUKE v.o.-DEMOCRATS took opportunity to call the ADMINISTRATION "callous". [20.00.36-Rep. Claude PEPPER (D-FL) addresses HOUSE] PEPPER says it is the "cruelest, most sordid story in the history of our country". [20.00.59-Rep. Fortney STARK (D-CA)] STARK says the system has "struck fear in the hearts" of vulnerable citizens. DUKE v.o.-reform bill sailed through the HOUSE 410 to 1, but REPUBLICANS still insisted that DISABILITY needs to be monitored to get rid of abuses. [20.01.17-Rep. Bill ARCHER (R-TX)] ARCHER reminds colleagues that CONGRESS mandated the investigation, because many knew of cases where beneficiaries were fit to work or actually working for pay while drawing DISABILITY. "Cheaters" undermined credibility of entire program. [20.01.40-activity on the podium of the HOUSE chamber] DUKE v.o. the ADMINISTRATION has responded by proposing to delay the reviews of DISABILITY cases in order to prevent a new law from passing. Many REPUBLICANS think the timing of this is suspicious. [20.01.51-Rep. John HEINZ (R-PA)] HEINZ-A charitable interpretation is that the problem took this many months to come to the WHITE HOUSE'S attention [HEINZ'S tone is doubtful]. [20.02.15-ENOFF] ENOFF says there is no sudden surge of interest by the WHITE HOUSE in response to CONGRESS' proposals, there has been interest all along. [20.02.22-Rep. FRANK] DUKE v.o. FRANK argues the interest is greater on CAPITOL HILL. FRANK-There is bipartisan support for the idea that sick people who are already saddened by disability to some degree do not need the aggravation, and the government should leave their benefits alone. [20.02.42-DUKE] DUKE-the fight isn't over, but it's clear that legislation or moratorium will prevent people losing benefits while appealing their cases. It shows the difficulty in trying to provide for the needy while removing non-needy from rolls. [20.03.05-ROBERTS] ROBERTS-Also dramatizes the difficulty of REPUBLICANS in an ELECTION YEAR, not wanting to be portrayed as heartless, REPUBLICAN legislators beg WHITE HOUSE to do something. It seems the WHITE HOUSE is willing to end the removals until after the ELECTION. [20.03.30] DUKE-Does this necessarily mean that there will be a new wave of Social Security SPENDING on the HILL? ROBERTS-No, the recent budget from the HOUSE budget committee recommended program spending increases not to exceed rate of inflation, except for DEFENSE (duh). It's a moderate budget for HOUSE DEMOCRATS in an ELECTION YEAR. [20.04.12]
Carter Speech on Inflation
U.S. President Jimmy Carter is announced, enters the East Room of the White House to applause from audience; Carter takes podium. President Carter calls for intensifying the anti-inflation plan, speaks on rising inflation and interest rates. Audience includes Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jim McIntyre, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Edmund Muskie (D-ME), and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury William Miller.
Summer of Judgment Pt 2 of 2
MS/CUs Rep. JAMES MANN (D-SC): "The President, if he goes to trial, is going to trial not only knowing what the charge is, but knowing what every iota ... of evidence that's been made ot this committee." MSs Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH) stacking volumes of evidence to illustrate how unwieldy it would be in trial. MS Chairman PETER RODINO (D-NJ) speaking to House Judiciary.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations hearing on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Professor Mark Weiss continuing to discuss the Dealey Plaza acoustics recreation and the original Dallas Police audio transmission of Kennedy assassination. Weiss points out that a new variable needed to be added: the microphone on the Dallas Police motorcycle was in motion, so the experiment’s microphone needed to be put in motion, matching the bike's speed. Once the microphone was put in motion, the experiment produced an echo set matching the impulses on the Dallas Police audio transmission with greater accuracy.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, Testimony of James W McCord (Jim McCord)
James McCord. The sentence that I began: Around 4:30 p.m. that afternoon, January 8, while waiting for a taxi after the court session, Bernard Barker asked my attorneys and me if he could ride in the cab with us to Bittman's office, which we agreed to. There, he got out of the cab and went up toward Bittman's office which I agreed to. There he got out of the cab and went up towards Bittman s office. I had been under the impression during the cab ride that Bittman was going to talk to both Barker and me jointly and became angered at what seemed to me to be the arrogance and audacity of another man's lawyer calling in two other lawyer's clients and pitching them for the White House. Alch saw my anger and took me aside for about a half hour after the cab arrived in front of Bittman's office, and let Barker go up alone.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
John Dean. During the morning of the 15th the indictments had been handed down. I think there was a general sigh of relief at the White House. I had no idea that I was going to be called to the President's office. Mr. Haldeman was quite aware of the fact that I had spent a great deal of time, that he had spent a great deal of time, that Mr. Ehrlichman had spent a great deal of time, on this matter. In the late afternoon I received a call requesting I come to the President's office. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Do you know who made the call? John Dean. The call came to my secretary, as I recall, and she said, "You have been asked to come to the oval office" so I don t know who called but it was one of the secretaries who conveyed those types of messages. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). All right, go ahead, sir,
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Later that afternoon I attended a second meeting in Ehrlichman's office with Colson. I recall Ehrlichman asking where Hunt was. I said I had no idea and Colson made a similar statement. At that point, before the meeting had started, Ehrlichman instructed me to call Liddy to tell him to tell Hunt to get out of the country. I did this without even thinking. Shortly after I made the call, however, I realized that no one in the White House should give such an instruction and raised the matter. A brief discussion ensued between Ehrlichman and myself. As I recall, Ehrlichman said that he did not a fugitive from justice, so why not. I said that I did not think it was very wise. At this point Colson chimed in that he also thought it unwise and Ehrlichman agreed. I immediately called Liddy again to retract the request but he informed me that he had already passed the message and it might be too late to retract.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, Testimony of James W McCord (Jim McCord)
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now, would you have acted any differently with regard to this plan if you believed that Mr. Liddy was masterminding these plans on his own? James McCord. Yes, I would. Samuel Dash, attorney. And what would you have done? James McCord. Had the proposal for the operation been that of Mr. Liddy or Mr. Hunt or any other individual acting separately and apart from the White House or the Department of Justice, I would not have participated. I have a personal opinion that some others would not have participated, but that may not be relevant to your question. My question is a categorical answer to that, I would say that the decision made to participate was not one made immediately, but only after I saw that the gentlemen involved had given careful consideration to this operation over a period of time, including a 30-day waiting period which to me was highly significant.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Mr. McCORD. (continues) My response was that I felt a massive injustice was being done, that I was different from the others, that I was going to fight the fix case and I had no intention of either pleading guilty, taking executive clemency or agreeing to remain silent. He repeated the statement that the government would have difficulty in continuing to be able to stand. I responded that they do have a problem, but that I had a problem with a massive injustice of the whole trial being a sham and that I would fight it every way I know. I should make a correction in the sentence that I just read, when I say the whole trial being a sham, because I did not at that point in time make any reference at any time to Judge Sirica, made just the contrary of his being anything but an honest and a dedicated judge and I don't want the sentence to be mis-read. He asked for, talking about Caulfield asked for a commitment that I would remain silent and I responded I would make none. I gave him a memorandum on the dates of the two calls of mine in September 1972 and October 1972 that I was sure had been intercepted and said that I believed the government had lied about them. He said he would check and see if in fact the government had done so. (shot of UNIDENTIFIED MAN seated in courtroom) On Monday night, January 15, 1973 Caulfied called me again at the phone booth at Route 355 near my residence. I informed him that I had no desire to talk further, that if the White House had any intension of playing the game straight and giving us as semblance of a fair trial, they would check into the perjury charge of mine against Magruder and into the existence of the two intercepted calls previously referred to and I hung up. On Tuesday morning, the next morning about 7:30 Mr. Caulfield called my residence, but I had already left for court. On Tuesday evening, Caulfield called and asked me again to meet with him and I responded not until after they had something to talk about on the perjured testimony and intercepted calls. He said words to the effect "give us a week" and a meeting was subsequently arranged on January 25, 1973 when he said he would have something to talk about. About 10:00 A.M. on Thursday January 25, 1973 in meeting lasting about 12:30 A.M., correction 12:30 P.M. (Senator Ervin seen writing correction, MS Mr. McCord reading statement, lawyer Fensterwald seated next to him) We drove in his car toward Warrington, Virginia and returned, that is we drove there and returned. And a conversation ensued which repeated the offers of executive clemency and financial support while in prison and re-habilitation later. I refused to discuss it. He stated that I was "fouling up the game plan" and I mad a few comments about the game plan. (courtroom laughs) He stated that "they" had found no record of the interception of the two calls I had referred to and said that perhaps it could wait until the appeals. He asked what my plans were regarding talking publicly, and I said that I planned to do so when I said I was ready. That I had discussed it with my wife, and she said that I should do what I felt I must, and not to worry about the family. I advised Jack that my children were now grown and could understand what I had to do when the disclosures came out. He responded by saying "you know that if the administration gets its back to the wall, it will have to take steps to defend itself." (UNIDENTIFIED man seated in courtroom, looking up towards committee members and witness) I took that as a personal threat, and I told him in my response that I had a good life, my will was made out, I had thought through the risks, would take them when I was ready. He said that if I had to go off to jail that the Administration would help with the bail premiums. I advised him that it was not a bail premium, but a hundred thousand dollars straight cash, and if that was a problem I would have to worry about through family and friends. On the night before sentencing, Jack called me and said that the Administration would provide the hundred thousand in cash if I could tell them how to get it funded through a intermediary. I said if I we ever needed it I would let him know. I never contacted him thereafter, neither have I heard from him. And that completes the statement.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.13.11] Senator GURNEY. You gave each one that amount? Mr. PORTER, No, sir; total aggregate approximately $300 to pay for Signs and paint and maybe a keg of beer afterward or something like that. I paid a hundred dollars, I believe approximately a hundred dollars to Mr. Roger Stone on one occasion to go to New Hampshire to leave a leaflet I believe, at, Senator McGovern's headquarters, and I paid, another $200 to Mr. Stone, the same Mr. Stone, to go a second time to New Hampshire to make a cash contribution to Mr. McCloskey's campaign. These were all at the direction of Mr. Magruder. Gave Tom Bell $350 at Mr. 'Magruder's direction for the printing of a small pamphlet having to do with Senator Muskie's candidacy. Approximately $25 went for stamps, and about a thousand dollars, approximately went to Mr. Magruder on about probably two or three occasions when his aide would come and say "Jeb wants $300 or Jeb wants $500." I don't know the purpose of that and I gave approximately $3,000 to Mr. Ken Rietz who was then the youth director, director of the President's youth campaign. Total amount that was passed pre-April 7 period was approximately $49,500. After April 7, I gave $3,300 to Mr. Liddy at' Mr. Magruder's direction for purposes I did not, know, I gave approximately $90 to my chief scheduler, Mr. Curtis Herge, which I understand was passed on to his secretary to pay for her parking for 2 months, rather than a raise. I gave another $450 over a 3-month period to the same -Mr. Roger Stone for salary supplement until such time as I could talk Mr. Odle in raising his salary to $550 a month. I gave $4,400 to Mr. Phil Joanou at, Mr. Magruder's direction, I did not, know the purpose of that money. I gave $4,000 to Mr. Robert Odle on two occasions of $2,000 each- I did not, know the purpose of that money. I think I took out about $300 for cash expenses or, the trip to California with the Mitchells and the Mardians and the Magruders and the LaRues on the weekend of the 17th. I gave $750 to Mr. Ken Wrights on two occasions, one I think a $300 payment and the other a $450 payment. I think Mr. Wrights told me what that money was used for but I do not remember whether it, was the first or second time he told me but I understood later it was for the gentleman sitting out, in front of the White House, Mr. Brill. I made total payment of about $6,000 over a 3-month period again to Mr. Stone that was passed on to a Mike, I cannot remember his last, name again now, I believe it was McMinaway, from Louisville, Ky., who worked in two or three of the primary campaigns as kind of an eyes and ears; and kept the campaign, kept Mr. Stone informed of morale and this kind of movement and that sort of thing. That totals about $19,000. The total was approximately $69,000, $52,000 before April 7 and about $17,000 after April 7, Senator GURNEY. When Mr. Sloan, who was testifying before us, he testified he had given you $100,000, as I recall. Mr. PORTER. I understand. Senator GURNEY. Can you account for the discrepancy between your testimony and his? Mr. PORTER. Senator Gurney, this discrepancy was brought to my attention around early July of last, year, and I at that time said that Mr. Sloan was wrong and that it had been approximately $65,000 or $70,000 find that Mr. Reisner, I had asked independently to come in and check those amounts. Now, I can't account for it any other way than to tell you that is my best memory of the approximate amount that Mr. Sloan passed to me. I noticed in Mr. Sloan's testimony on Thursday that the figure of $100,000 that was up on the board that was one, figure he was a little unstable on and unsure of. I believe he did say he, was not exactly sure of that amount but that was to the best of his memory. Senator GURNEY. Did you and he ever get together and reconcile--- Mr. PORTER No Sir, not at any time. Senator GURNEY. [continuing]. Amounts of money? Mr. PORTER. Never. [00.18.18]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.59.01] You will note that it is on White House stationery dated January 2. 1973, a very brief and to the point: To* John Dean. From: Charles Colson. Now what the hell do I do? Tell us the significance of that. [Laughter.] Mr. DEAN. Attached to that, there was a very small memorandum or note in the corner. Attached to the letter Is the part of the exhibit, It is a letter from Howard Hunt to 'Mr. Colson. This came to me while I was--to my attention while I was, on a telephone conversation with 'Mr. Colson and having just returned from California I had a conversation with Mr. O'Brien in the evening of the 2d of January concerning Mr. Hunt's status and his desire to plead guilty and to get assurances for Executive clemency. I had a call from Mr. O'Brien the next morning on the same subject, had had a call from Mr. Colson, who told me Mr. Bittman was trying to reach me. He asked me if I had seen letter and I said I had not. and while we were talking, I dug the letter out of my mail. As a result of this letter and our conversation he asked me, he was indicating that he didn't still--he still wanted to keep at arm's length from Mr. I Hunt. He had throughout the matter tried to keep at arm's length to Mr. Hunt. I told him I would have to talk to Mr. Ehrlichman before I could make any suggestion. I went to told him the situation and Mr. Ehrlichman told Mr. Colson he thought he ought to meet with 'Mr. Bittman mad subsequently they did meet. Senator TALMADGE. Now, Will you look of exhibit No. 34-7 that you Inserted in your testimony yesterday, It is also an interesting document. As I recall your testimony as you presented that yesterday, it is a list of all of the people that you thought had violated the law and what the laws may be that they violated, is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is Correct. Senator TALMADGE. Let us start with the top of the list. now, That is in your own handwriting, is it not? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. This is a copy thereof? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. What is the significance of the letters in The top left-hand part of that sheet? Mr. DEAN. The list is broken down into two parts, Senator. One says "pre" and the other is "post.'! Senator TALMADGE. By "Pre" you mean Prior to the Watergate break-in? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. The planning and discussion of those events? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. And You list in that category Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, and Mr. Strachan, Is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. Now, you have a star by Mr. Mitchell's name and no star by Mr. Magruder. Mr. DEAN. Maybe if I explain the whole list, it would save some questions for you. Senator TALMADGE. Surely. Mr. DEAN. I have listed for pre: Mitchell. Magruder Strachan, post: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, LaRue. -Mardian, O'Brien, Parkinson, Colson, Bittman, Kalmbach, Tony--I have by that the word "source." I will explain that in a minute; Stans. Now, beside several of the names, after I did the list--just my first reaction was there certainly are an awful lot of lawyers involved here. So I put, a little asterisk beside each lawyer, which was Mitchell, Strachan, Ehrlichman, Dean, Mardian, O O'Brien, Parkinson, Colson, Bittman, and Kalmbach. Then I put, as we were discussing the development of the list, the evidence that I knew sort of firsthand or had reason to believe that others had firsthand evidence of, that I thought that a very strong case might be made against. The ones that I was not as sure about ,were those I put a question mark on, This was just something I -was working out in my own mind in a discussion I had with my lawyer as a result of discussions he had also had with some of the prosecutors. Senator TALMADGE. Any significance to the star? That they are all lawyers? Mr. DEAN. -No, that was just a reaction myself, the fact that how in God's name could so many lawyers get involved in something like. this? Senator TALMADGE. What do the checkmarks indicate on the left-hand side of the paper? Mr. DEAN. I do not know. Senator TALMADGE. NOW, you have, parentheses there and some other things there. I presume--what is that language on the right? Mr. DEAN. That is because I had had earlier discussions with Mr. Ehrlichman---- [01.04.28-tape out]
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. After Liddy was hired at the reelection committee, I informed my staff, principally Mr. Fred Fielding and Mr. David Wilson, that they should assist Liddy in becoming familiar with the election laws. I made my election law file available to Liddy and believe that he used them and he had periodic contact with my staff and myself on election law matters. I can recall that I had several discussions with Liddy about his responsibilities with the reelection committee in complying with the election laws. He told me that he had more work than there were hours in the day to complete it. I urged him to get volunteer lawyers to assist him and suggested several names of lawyers who might assist him. I can also recall that several weeks after Liddy left the White House he was asked to turn in his White House pass. Liddy came to me and asked me to intervene on his behalf so that he might retain his pass he and avoid the cumbersome procedures of clearance every time he wished to enter the White House. I thought that my office would have a good deal of contact with Liddy, so I requested that he be permitted to keep his pass. This request was turned down, however because they had decided to provide a fixed number of passes for the people at the reelection committee and Magruder would decide who got the passes. I so informed Liddy and never heard any more about the matter.
JFK Assassination Hearings - The Conclusion
(02:01:38) Opens with Chief Counsel Professor ROBERT BLAKEY summarizing the findings of an engineering consultant whose testimony was not heard because of time constraints, Blakey says this engineer has found that based on the trajectory of the bullet which hit JFK's head he finds it "highly unlikely" it could have been fired from the Texas School Book Depository (02:02:09) Funny audience shot (02:03:00) Blakey is recognized by Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES, Blakey takes a couple minutes to thank the committee and his staff for their professional and politic-free work (02:05:00) Stokes thanks Blakey and the staff (02:06:23) Stokes recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD, Dodd has a question for Blakey about an unidentified bullet fragment found in JFK's limosine - Blakey says he cannot reference this fragment from memory (02:07:40) Stokes recognizes Representative ROBERT EDGAR, Edgar thanks Stokes for being chairman, Stokes in turn thanks all of the House Committee members (02:09:39) Stokes gives his closing statement in which he says among other things that he admits these investigations into JFK and Dr. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR's assassination did not tie up all the loose ends, he also says that in the future these sorts of cases must be better and further investigated when they actually happen, Stokes also gives dates of when the committee's conclusion reports about the two assassinations will be released and published (02:15:57) Stokes adjourns committee (02:16:10) Hearings host PAUL DUKE voices over shot of hearings room summary of the day's testimony (02:17:10) Shot changes to broadcast booth, Duke discusses with panel member JEREMIAH O'LEARY of the Washington Star the day's testimony and the conclusion of the investigation (02:20:18) Chairman Stokes appears and is interviewed by Duke, Duke tries in vain to get Stokes to say whether or not he feels there was a conspiracy in the JFK and King assassinations, Duke also discusses what will happen now with the JFK investigation, especially since today's new evidence has come to light, strongly implicating a second shooter (02:27:00) Duke closes out the hearings coverage (02:27:34) WETA logo (02:27:43) PBS funding credit (02:27:51) PBS logo
More Opening Day 98th Congress, 1983
Opening Day 98th Congress, U.S. House Representative and Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) continues to explain and advocate reasons behind proposed rule change #5 to House of Representatives, which would address how legislative amendments of a limiting nature attached to appropriations bills would be addressed at discretion of bill's manager. Wright moves to 6th proposed rule change, but first yields to Rep. Barber Conable Jr. (R-NY), who seeks clarification on 5th proposed rule change. Conable is concerned that too much power becomes concentrated in Appropriations Committee, disenfranchises the House as a whole. Wright says that is not the case; the rule change only prevents individuals from dragging out a process the majority does not want to go along with.
Congress: We The People 8/23/1983
Host Ed Newman, One of the most dramatic breakthroughs in gaining access to Congress came in 1979 when the House of Representatives opened its Floor debate to TV coverage. Series editor Norman Ornstein knows that access was not gained easily. I remember, Norm, that when Sam Rayburn was Speaker, he was against any television coverage, even of Committee hearings. Norman Ornstein, Rayburn was afraid TV would distort the time honored ways in which the House conducted its business from Floor debate to the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing. And that sentiment was shared by many of his colleagues. Many of those misgivings disappeared after TV cameras were finally installed in the House. But then the issues came before the Senate.
LAWMAKERS, May 10, 1984
20.07.07-PIKE argues that CONGRESSMEN want to hide the things they say in debate from the PUBLIC, revising their remarks before printing and censoring footage. Discussion of access to TV FOOTAGE of HOUSE, self-serving to CONGRESSMEN. 20.09.15-ROBERTS-measures to tightly control HOUSE debate footage were withdrawn. Shot of a DEMOCRATIC party campaign director, defends the withdrawal of the bill. Discussion of use of HOUSE footage by CHALLENGERS in CAMPAIGN ADS-illegal for current HOUSE members to use footage in CAMPAIGNS. ROBERTS v.o. notes that REPUBLICANS have TAPED every word spoken in this session of CONGRESS as a deterrent to DEMOCRATS. REPUBLICAN Campaign Committee chief says this is "insurance" against DEMOCRATS' attacks. Shot of BAUER, says public will be subject to manipulated footage out of context. Shot of directors in HOUSE video camera control room. Shot of Rep. BILL ALEXANDER, says the law should extend ban on HOUSE FLOOR footage to challengers' ads as well. 20.11.46-Shot of HOUSE podium. ROBERTS v.o.-ALEXANDER has, however, hired media consultants to get footage of DEMOCRATS in debate on T.V. NEWS. Shots of MEDIA CONSULTANT on phone. Shot of BARNEY FRANK speaking in debate. ALEXANDER says if DEMOCRATS make good points in DEBATE, it's fair to push the footage to TV networks and stations. Shot of a Washington bureau chief for Kansas TV station, discusses a KANSAS congressman getting on the TV news about once a week, valuable exposure, for free. 20.12.49-Shot of JOHN FLORESCU, a media consultant hired by DEMOCRATS. Discusses wish to exploit the media to the max. ROBERTS v.o. discusses rush of both REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS to exploit CABLE T.V. and C-SPAN, writing speeches with T.V. in mind. 20.14.07-ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER in studio. Discussion of CONGRESS' relation to MEDIA. WERTHEIMER discusses practice of CONGRESSMEN filming speeches in empty HOUSE CHAMBER that look like real debate speeches, to send to TV. 20.15.30-WERTHEIMER with news briefs. Fallout over SOVIET OLYMPIC BOYCOTT. Shot of Rep. FRANK ANNUNZIO arguing that OLYMPIC OFFICIALS have been "kissing their hammer and sickle" to get SOVIETS to participate in OLYMPICS. RESIGNATION of REAGAN economic adviser MARTIN FELDSTEIN. DEMOCRATS sorry to see him go because he often disagreed with REAGAN. Shot of Rep. WILLIAM RATCHFORD, calls FELDSTEIN lone voice in WHITE HOUSE for reducing DEFICIT. SETTLEMENT in LAWSUIT by VIETNAM VETERANS against manufacturers of AGENT ORANGE. Shot of Rep. TOM DASCHLE, outdoors, CAPITOL in background. DASCHLE says the settlement is proof that AGENT ORANGE is linked to VETERANS' problems, a strong case for GOVERNMENT action to assist VIETNAM VETERANS. RECEPTION to show the PHOTOGRAPHIC talents of CONGRESSMEN. Shots of PHOTOS taken by MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 20.17.50-WERTHEIMER-story on observance by SENATE of 110th birthday of HARRY TRUMAN. SHOT OF SENATE chamber, all seats filled. Shot of woman in military uniform singing "I'm Just Wild About Harry". Shot of TRUMAN relatives. Shot of Rep. ALAN WHEAT, young CONGRESSMAN from TRUMAN'S home district. WHEAT calls TRUMAN "man of the people". Shot of SENATORS applauding. 20.18.45-old b/w film shot, TRUMAN addressing radio microphones from SENATE chamber, asking for SENATE'S help in succeeding ROOSEVELT. Old b/w shots of WHITE HOUSE flag at half mast, TRUMAN taking OATH OF OFFICE. Shot of Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER, discussing his memory of TRUMAN taking office. Still shots of TRUMAN, in SENATE COMMITTEE MEETING, a PORTRAIT. 20.19.55-Shot of TRUMAN biographer DAVID McCULLOUGH. Discusses TRUMAN'S SENATE career. Rep. PEPPER says TRUMAN wasn't a powerful SENATOR until the TRUMAN COMMITTEE on NATIONAL DEFENSE. WERTHEIMER v.o.-TRUMAN COMMITTEE an effort to study expenses of WORLD WAR. Shots of WWII era ARMY CONVOY, BOMBERS, SOLDIERS marching. Shot of TRUMAN inspecting BOMBERS on AIR BASE. WERTHEIMER-v.o.-TRUMAN COMMITTEE saved TAXPAYERS $15 billion by stopping WAR PROFITEERING. Shot of Rep. PEPPER, discussing TRUMAN COMMITTEE being aggravating to F.D.R.. 20.21.13-Old B/W film of TRUMAN shaking hands with supporters, signs for 'TRUMAN FOR VICE-PRESIDENT" at a CONVENTION, TRUMAN with FDR, TRUMAN marching ahead of group of ARMY OFFICERS in a VICTORY PARADE. McCULLOUGH calls TRUMAN an exceptional man. Shot of SENATE podium, singing of "God Bless America" in honor of TRUMAN'S 100th birthday. 20.22.18-WERTHEIMER/ROBERTS in studio-discussion of TRUMAN'S presidency seeming much better in history than it did to people at the time. ROBERTS signs off. 20.23.05-closing credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.43.17] Senator WEICKER. NOW, let, us move to January 1973. 1 would like to ask a question here. Am I correct in gathering from your testimony that you never spoke or met with Mr. Haldeman from June 18, 1972, to January of 1973? Mr. MAGRUDER. No; that is not. correct, I spoke with him on numerous occasions and met with him on numerous occasions but did not discuss the Watergate situation in substantive detail. We talked about it. I can recall once or twice talking to him about it as a problem, but not in the same sense; more as to handling it from the campaign standpoint in relation to charges made. by Senator McGovern or whatever. Senator WEICKER. Well, now, in your conversation on June, 18 with Mr. Haldeman, his last instruction to you was to get back to Washington, was it not? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. And to get things in hand. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. And you went back to Washington? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, Sir. Senator WEICKER. Now, after you got, back to Washington and surveyed the scene, did you get back in touch with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MAGRUDER. No; I got back in touch with Mr. Strachan the Monday night. Well, I talked with Mr. Strachan on Monday. As a matter of fact, he was in Washington, and of course after our meeting on Monday night and after I destroyed the Gemstone file, I related those facts to Mr. Strachan not to Mr. Haldeman. Senator WEICKER. I see. So that aside from incidental matters relating to the campaign, there was no real discussion between yourself and Mr. Haldeman as to the break-in at the, Watergate and related activities between June 18 and January of 1973? Mr. MAGRUDER. To be Very specific, Senator, Mr. Haldeman. an. the way I worked with him when I worked with him and later when I worked for Mr. Mitchell, is I worked strictly through Gordon Strachan in this case,, or one of his assistants, Only when he called me did I respond. I cannot even recall any time, that I initiated a call to Mr. Haldeman. Senator WEICKER. All right. Mr. MAGRUDER. Except In the January meeting , when I requested an interview. Senator WEICKER. _Now we move to January 1970 and the meeting with Mr. Haldeman. The main purpose of this meeting, as I gather it,, was to talk about jobs, for Mr. Porter and yourself is that, correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. Now. you have heard Mr. Sloan's testimony in which he said in response to a question that I asked him that it did Produce discussion on his part, the statement, of policy On the case was that no individual who had become a Watergate figure or prominent Government official would be placed In office until the issue was totally resolved. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. sir. Senator WEICKER. Can you give me any indication as to why this general policy was excepted in your case? Mr. MAGRUDER. 1 did not know that was the general policy , Senator. Senator WEICKER. Well, what was nature of the conversation between you and 'Mr. Haldeman on jobs? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, the nature of the discussion was basically, they had considered sending me to the Senate for confirmation for One or two jobs that required Senate confirmation. During that discussion he and I agreed that at this time--at that time--it would be inappropriate to go through that process. We both agreed to that. And so as an interim measure, we agreed to a position that turned out to be Director of Policy Development at the Commerce Department. which happened to be a level 4 job that did not require Senate confirmation And we did not discuss, I think, that job at that time,. We discussed the prospects of that kind of a job as an interim measure until the Watergate situation had been completely Settled. Senator WEICKER. Then after the conversation about jobs was over With. did you Indicate to him your concern about the Watergate matter? Mr. MAGRUDER. It was the other way around, Senator, I Initiated the discussion on the Subject of the Watergate because of what I considered to be beginning memory of difficulties on the part of some of the. participants that I thought could have related to my own particulars situation. Senator WEICKER. And you related it to him at that time in January? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, Sir. Senator WEICKER. The situation as to the Watergate, as to what was going on, relative to your participation and the story being contrived? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, and it was particularly at that time also in relation Mr. Porter because he was having difficulty with the personnel department at the White House and I wanted to be sure Mr. Haldeman understood how cooperative Mr. Porter had been. Senator WEICKER. Was this before or--was this conversation with Mr. Haldeman before or after the trial? Mr. MAGRUDER. It was before the trial before the inauguration, sometime early in January, after the first of the year. [00.48.54]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.43.22-BAKER questioning DEAN on his March 13, 1973 meeting with NIXON in which NIXON allegedly told DEAN it would be "no problem" to raise $ 1 million for the express purpose of keeping the Watergate BURGLARS silent at their trials] Senator BAKER. I take it from that that Mr. Haldeman was present during this portion of the conversation? Mr. DEAN. Yes, he was. Yes. he was. Senator BAKER. Go ahead, Sir. [00.43.32] Mr. DEAN. It was then he -asked me -who was putting the pressure for this, and I said it was principally coming through his attorney and at that point the President raised the fact that Mr. Hunt, or he had had discussions with -Mr. Haldeman--I mean with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Colson about clemency for Mr. Hunt. Senator BAKER. I am sorry, my mind wandered. At that time he, the President, said that he had had conversations? [00.44.03-NIXON had been informed of the COVERUP strategy of EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY for the defendants by at least two people before meeting with DEAN in MARCH 1973] Mr. DEAN. That is correct. And he also went on to tell me that, with some expressions of annoyance, Mr. Colson had been told not to raise this with him, and he also said that Colson had raised it with him though, contrary to an instruction that he had received from 'Mr. Ehrlichman. Senator BAKER. Was Mr. Haldeman present during this portion of the conversation? Mr. DEAN. Yes. he was. Senator BAKER. Go ahead. sir. [00.44.30-DEAN informed NIXON that there was MONEY LAUNDERING involved in the PAYOFFS and the COVERUP] Mr. DEAN. From there, he then asked me, he said, "How is this money handled?" and I said, "Well, I don't know all the details but I know there is a laundering process so the money cannot be traced to any source." And I explained what, I knew about, the laundering process, and I said, "I am learning about things I newer knew about and the, next time I will know better how to handle these matters," and I do remember very vividly at this point Mr. Haldeman commenced with a rather good belly laugh. He thought this was quite funny, and that was that, the meeting really ended on that note. There was no further discussion on that -point. [00.45.15] Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir. Would you move on to the next occasion. Let me, while you -are, looking-- Mr. DEAN. I just don't want to in' miss any of the points I have in here. I am very clear -in my mind an the principal ones but I want to make sure there is no minor point that I miss also. Senator BAKER. All right. I fully understand that. I am asking you to hurry through this, and you should fully understand, Mr. Dean, if there are other points in your testimony that bear directly on this question, the fact that you don't identify them now does not mean that you do not stand on your statement as previously made. I am simply trying to organize it for the committee's purposes. Mr. DEAN. I understand. Senator BAKER. While you are looking let me ask you this: It seems Mr. Haldeman was present during, that meeting most of the time. Was there any significant conversation between you and the President before Mr. Haldeman came in? [00.46.16-the question of who can CORROBORATE DEAN'S allegations] Mr. DEAN. As I say, this conversation had commenced before, Mr. Haldeman came in. It was interrupted and I went back--Mr. Haldeman sat down while I was telling the President about this and then Stayed on during the remainder of the conversation. Senator BAKER. Do you remember at what point he came in, what point in your conversation? Mr. DEAN. I don't think I had gone much further than telling the President that there were problems in raising money. Senator BAKER. So it is fair to say, I assume, that Mr. Haldeman was there. for virtually -all of the. conversation? Mr. DEAN. Yes, I think that is correct. Senator BAKER. All right, sir, proceed if you will. Mr. DEAN. At least, you know, 90 percent of the conversation, I would say. Senator BAKER. Thank you. [00.46.56] Mr. DEAN. The next, occasion that I raised the matter -with the President myself was when he called me on the evening of the 20th, I had gone home, I was at home, as I recall, it must have, been about, I don't know, 7:30, 7:15, sometime, in that period of time, he called me and I went down to my living room to take the call. Senator BAKER. This was on March 20? Mr. DEAN. That, is correct. March 20. We -were having a rather rambling conversation. I at this point, because. of events that had proceeded over the last couple of days, told the President I would like to meet with him the next morning to discuss the implications of the, Watergate case that I thought I ought to bring to his attention as they affected the White House staff and himself. And he said, well, why don't you try to meet with me about 10 o'clock the next morning. Then We'll go to the meeting at 10 o'clock. That, was on the 21st. [00.48.00-DEAN testifies about preparing his "CANCER ON THE PRESIDENCY" speech to NIXON] As I told you, after the conversation with the President, and on the evening, the preceding evening. and the next, morning I thought, both on my way to work in the morning and when I entered the office in the, morning how I could most dramatically present the situation which I thought had to end that very day--it could not proceed another hour as far as I was concerned--in a way that would be very meaningful to the President and based on my thought and my--some discussion I had had with Mr. Moore the preceding, day, I decided I Would tell the President that there was a cancer growing on the Presidency and something had to be done about the cancer because It was growing daily and if there were not immediate surgery, it was going to kill the President himself. So I started with lines to that effect. [00.49.14]
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCORD continues reading statement: On Fri, December 29, 1972, I visited Bernard Shankman's office in Washington, D.C., and let him read a statement which I had prepared, which I proposed to read to the press on Dec 30, 1972, releasing Alch as my attorney. I believed that although Shankman bad been present at the first meeting he was not a party to the events previously described. Shankman suggested that I give Alch an opportunity to meet with me and explain why he had undertaken the course which he had, and such a meeting was set up for Tues, January 2, 1973, in Washington. Alch failed to appear, and I delivered a letter to Judge Sirica, releasing Alch as my attorney. Alch immediately called, asked to meet with me on January 3, 1973, and asked to continue as my attorney. We met and Alch stated that he, in conveying the request made of me on Dec 21 & 26, 1972, was acting out of what be felt to be my own best interests. By this time, I was convinced that the ploy to lay the operation at CIA's doorstep had been headed off, and agreed to give him a second chance. By this time, I was also convinced that, the White House had fired Helms in order to put its own man in control at CIA, but as well to lay the foundation for claiming that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation, and now to be able to claim that "Helms had been fired for it." There had been indications as early as July that the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, was claiming that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. Mrs. Hunt had told me in late, July 1972 that Paul O'Brien had told Howard Hunt in July that the Committee To Re-Elect the President had originally informed him that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. Mrs. Hunt said that her husband had denied to O'Brien that it was a CIA operation. By early December 1972, it appeared that the White House, was beginning to make its move. The events of Dec 21 & Dec 26, 1972, only confirmed this in my mind. Further, based on an earlier discussion w/ Robert Mardian in May 1972, it appeared to me that the White House had for some time been trying to get political control over the CIA assessments & estimates, in order to make them conform to "White House policy." One of the things this meant to me was that this could mean that CIA estimates and assessments could then be forced to accord w/ DOD estimates of future U.S. weapons and hardware needs. This could be done by either shifting an intelligence function to DOD from CIA, or by gaining complete control over it at CIA.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
During the afternoon of the 20th, Fielding and I began going through the cartons of Hunt's material. I remember looking in the briefcase which contained electronic equipment. I frankly I do not know what it was it contained, but it contained loose wires, chapsticks for your lips with wires coming out of them, instruction sheets for walkie-talkies, and as I recall, there were also some antennas in there. We then began sorting the documents. The bulk of the papers were classified cables from the State Department relating to the early years of the war in Vietnam. These were separated out from the rest of the papers. The other papers I assumed related to Hunt's work at the White House. Also, there were personal papers. I will attempt to the best of my recollection to describe the papers and documents that were found in the safe. I must point out however that I personally did not look at all the documents or read all the documents rather it was a combined effort by Fielding and myself to determine what was in Hunt's safe.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
First, among his personal papers were copies of his submissions for his per diem pay as a consultant, a few travel vouchers and an envelope containing materials of a personal nature relating to his wife. Among the papers that I assumed related to his work at the White House were numerous memoranda to Chuck Colson regarding Hunt's assessment of the Plumbers Unit operation and critical of Mr. Krogh's handling of matters, a number of materials relating to Mr. Daniel Ellsberg such as news clippings and a psychological study of Ellsberg which apparently had been prepared by someone who had never actually met or talked with Mr. Ellsberg, a bogus cable that is other cables spliced together into one cable regarding the involvement of persons in the Kennedy administration in the fall of the Diem regime in Vietnam, a memorandum regarding some discussion about the bogus cable with Colson and Mr. William Lambert, some materials relating to an investigation Hunt had conducted for Colson at Chappaquiddick, some materials relating to the Pentagon Papers and a paperback book containing the published Pentagon Papers.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Mr. Stans also explained that he had checked with Sloan to find out how this money had ended up in Mr. Barker's bank account. And Sloan reported that he had given the checks to Liddy and requested that he cash them. He said he had no idea how Liddy had cashed them, but surmised that he had obviously used Barker to cash them. I was also told, and I do not recall specifically who told me this, that this money had absolutely nothing to do with the Watergate. It was unrelated and it was merely a coincidence of fact that Liddy had used Barker to cash the checks and Liddy had returned the money to Sloan. I was told that the investigation of this matter which appeared to be connected with Watergate but wasn't was unfounded and would merely result in an unnecessary embarrassment to the contributors. Accordingly, Mitchell and Stans both asked me to see if there was anything the White House could do to prevent this unnecessary embarrassment. I in turn, related these facts to both Haldeman and Ehrlichman.