Master 10361 Part 1 Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 18, 1973. Testimony of James W McCord (Jim McCord) accompanied by Bernard Fensterwald Jr, Counsel Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now specifically, Mr. McCord, when you speak of political activity, political intelligence, bugging activities, what do you mean in terms of how that was to be attained. Try to be as specific as you can, from your knowledge of what Mr. Liddy told you. James McCord. The area of political espionage and intelligence, I can set that one aside pretty quickly. He did not elaborate in much detail at all to me personally. Apparently others were involved with him which I can refer to later in the conversation, specifically Mr. Hunt, E. Howard Hunt. The topic of photography, clandestine photography, in which he was preparing the budget and preparing to meet with the gentlemen I have referred to before in planning sessions dealt with photographic equipment and the cost of photographic equipment and specific items of equipment that would be used against the Democratic Party, the Democratic hierarchy in Washington primarily, but also in Miami, Florida. The electronic devices which he referred to specifically were of a variety of types.
Samuel Dash, attorney. I am not asking specifically what the types were but how were they to be used, where were they to be placed from your understanding? James McCord. The initial interests specified by Mr. Liddy in this regard were, No. 1 against Mr. Larry O'Brien, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee in Washington DC, at his residence and subsequently at his office in the Watergate office building, perhaps other officers of the Democratic National Committee. The McGovern headquarters in Washington DC were mentioned quite early in 1972. And there was some general reference to the Democratic National Convention facility or site wherever it might be located at their convention in the summer of 1972.
Samuel Dash, attorney. All right now, Mr. McCord in connection with this assignment, in which you were having these discussions with Mr. Liddy, did you come to associate yourself with Mr. E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio Gonzales? James McCord. Yes, I did. Samuel Dash, attorney. And as a result of that association and your agreement with Mr. Liddy, did you, with Mr. Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, and Gonzalez illegally enter the Democratic National Committee headquarters on two occasions one on or about May 30, 1972, and the other in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972? James McCord. I did. Samuel Dash, attorney. On the first, occasion on or about May 30, 1972, did you installed two telephone interception devices or wire taps on two office telephones. One on the telephone of Spencer Oliver and the other on the telephone of Lawrence O'Brien? James McCord. I did.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Leaving aside for the time being why you broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on the second time on June 17 and what circumstance led to your arrest, you were in fact arrested by plainclothes men of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police shortly after you entered, is that true? James McCord. That's correct. Samuel Dash, attorney. And it s that the arrest which led to your present conviction? James McCord. That's correct. Samuel Dash, attorney. Will you tell the committee, Mr. McCord, why after a lifetime of work as a law enforcement officer without, as you have testified, any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Liddy to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretapping and specifically the two break ins on May 30 and June 17 of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate? James McCord. There were a number of reasons associated with the ultimate decision of mine to do so. One of the reasons, and a very important reason to me, was the fact that the Attorney General himself, Mr. John Mitchell, at his offices, had considered and approved the operation, according to Mr. Liddy. Secondly, that the counsel for the President, Mr. John Dean, had participated in those decisions with him. That one was the top legal officer for the United States at the Department of Justice and the second gentleman was a top legal officer in the White House. That the matter had apparently been given
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Stop there, if you will, just for a second. I noticed you said Mr. Mitchell had approved according to Liddy, did you have personal knowledge of Mr. Dean's participation or was this also according to Mr. Liddy? James McCord. Mr. Dean's participation came to me through two sources, one was Mr. Liddy. One was Mr. Hunt, E. Howard Hunt, in discussions which subsequently came to me. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). I might say if I may, Mr. Chairman, that we have no desire to try to impede the progress of the testimony or to try to adhere strictly to the rules of evidence, such as the hearsay rule, which would otherwise apply in a court of law, but it would be helpful to me and I believe to the committee if in each instance when the information you give us is not of your own personal firsthand knowledge, you would identify it as such and give us the source. James McCord. Yes, sir: I believe I was responding to the question of counsel, what were my reasons which involved in my case, a conclusion and motivation and intent as opposed to what someone had told me. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). We will adhere as much as possible to the rules of evidence which have been established and used in all the courts and I would say that your testimony is to the effect that you were assured by Mr. Liddy that John Mitchell and John Dean and Jeb Magruder had approved Mr. Liddy's proposed operations and you also received assurance not only as to Mr. Dean from Mr. Liddy, but also from Mr. Hunt that was based on what you were told by Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt. James McCord. That is correct, sir.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). I would say that under the rules of evidence at the present stage of this hearing, will not be admissible to show any connection with this matter by John Mitchell, John Dean, or Jeb Magruder but that the testimony which Mr. McCord is giving is relevant to show the motives which prompted Mr. McCord to participate in the matter. James McCord. Yes, sir. I am explaining, I am not a lawyer, I am a layman. I will try to give the information of my knowledge, whether it is first hand or second hand for the benefit of this committee and you can stop me at what point you may feel is proper to do so. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Mr. Chairman if I might just elaborate at that point. I thoroughly agree with the statement made by the chairman, I associate myself with him as to its content, and form. And I once again am not trying to impede the progress of your testimony, it would be very helpful to us however, if when your information is not firsthand information you would identify it so we can simply note it to for our records, to that effect. James McCord. Would be glad to do so. Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Thank you.