Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Master 10362 Part 1 Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 18, 1973 - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Mr. James McCORD. .....convey this message to me and he was only doing what he was told to do. He repeated this last statement several times during the course of the meeting we had then, and I might add during subsequent meetings which he and I had. My response was that I would not even discuss Executive clemency or pleading guilty and remaining silent, but I was glad to talk with him, so that there was no misunderstanding on anyone's part about it. (McCord's lawyer whispers to him, "You might explain that the trial was going on...") I might explain that the trial was going on during this period, this was the first week of the trial which began on January 8. Caulfield stated that he was carrying the message of Executive clemency to me "from the very highest levels of the White House." He stated that the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, Florida, that weekend, referring to the weekend following January 8, or following meeting that we were in then, and that the President had been told of the forthcoming meeting with me and would be immediately told of the results of the meeting.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Senator Sam ERVIN. Now the same rule previously announced that this evidence is competent to show what, if anything, John Caulfield did to induce Mr. McCord to plead guilty and keep silent. It is not any evidence at the present state of the hearing that connects or that makes any indication whatever and has any relevancy as to the President. Mr. McCORD. Precisely, yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. McCORD. He further stated that quote "I may have a message to you at our next meeting from the President himself," I advised Caulfield that I had seen the list of witnesses for the trial and had seen Jeb Magruder's name, appearing as a Government witness. I advised him that it was clear then that Magruder was going to perjure himself and that we were not going to get a fair trial. Further, I told him that it was clear that some of those involved in the Watergate case were going to trial, and others were going to be covered for-- (I was referring to John Mitchell, John Dean, and Magruder) and I so named those individuals incidentally in the conversation, and I said that this was not my idea of American justice. I further-- Senator ERVIN. The same ruling applies so far as John Mitchell, John Dean, and Magruder are concerned, that is that it does not connect them, legally speaking. Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir. I further advised Caulfield that I believed that the Government had lied in denying electronic interception of my phone calls from my residence since June 17, 1972 and that I believed that the administration had also tapped the phones of the other defendants during that time. I mentioned two specific calls of mine which I had made during September and early October 1972, which I was certain had been intercepted by the Government, and yet the Government had blithely denied any such tapping. These were my words to Mr. Caulfield.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Yes, sir. I further advised Caulfield that I believed that the Government had lied in denying electronic interception of my phone calls from my residence since June 17, 1972, and that I believed that the administration had also tapped the phones of the other defendants during that time. I mentioned two specific calls of mine which I had made during September and early October 1972, which I was certain had been intercepted by the Government, and yet the Government had blithely denied any such tapping. These were my words to Mr. Caulfield. I compared this denial to the denial that the Government had made in the Ellsberg case, in which for months the Government had denied any such impermissible interception of the calls, and yet in the summer of 1972 had finally been forced to admit them when the judge ordered, by court order, a search of about a dozen Government agencies, and calls intercepted were then disclosed. I might state separate from the record at this point, that as I have previously stated, I had no knowledge whatever of any activity monitorial or what have you, of Mr. Ellsberg's calls as have previously come out-- as have earlier come out in the newspapers in the past few days. It is purely coincidence that I happen to mention the Ellsberg case at that time, I had been following the case in the papers and I knew the history of the case. To go on with the statement: I stated that if we were going to get a fiction of a fair trial, through perjured testimony to begin with, and then for the Government to lie about illegal telephone interceptions that the trial ought to be kicked out and we start all over again, this time with all of those involved as defendants. At least in this way, " some would not be more equal than others" before the bar of justice and we would get a fair trial. The executive clemency offer was made two or three times during this meeting, as I recall and I repeated each time that I would not even discuss it, nor discuss pleading guilty, which I had been asked to do in the first telephone call received on the night of January 8, from Caulfield's friend, whose identity I do not know. I told him, referring to Mr. Caulfield that I was going to renew the motion on disclosure of Government wire tapping of our telephones. Caulfield ended the conversation, by stating that he would call me the next day about a meeting that same afternoon, Saturday January 13, and that if I did not hear from him, he would want to talk with me by telephone on the evening of Monday January 15, 1973. I did not hear from Caulfield on Saturday, but on Sunday afternoon he called and asked to meet me that afternoon (Senator Ervin seen writing or taking notes) about an hour later, at the same location on George Washington Parkway. He stated that there was no objection to renewing the motion on discovery of government wire tapping and if that failed, that I would receive executive clemency after ten to eleven months. I told him that I had not asked anyone's permission to file the motion. He went on to say that quote "the President's ability to govern is at stake, another teapot dome scandal is possible and the government may fall. Everyone else is on track but you. You are not following the game plan (courtroom erupts in laughter, McCord takes a drink of water) get closer to your attorney. You seem to be pursuing your own course of action. Don't talk if called before the Grand Jury, keep silent, and do the same if called before a congressional committee." I might add that two congressional committees had prior to that date, been conducting investigations into this case, I believe it was the Patman committee and Senator Kennedy's, Senator Patman and Senator Kennedy's committees.
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.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Mr. Sam DASH. I have one further question. Mr. McCORD. I will answer any question. Mr. DASH. Have you ever made that statement before this select committee, other than when you appeared before Minority counsel and myself a couple of days ago. But, have you ever made that statement before this committee, before the Grand Jury or before any investigating body until this time? Mr. McCORD. No sir. Mr. DASH. Could you please state to the committee why when you were making statements at earlier times before this committee, before the Grand Jury and other inquiring bodies you failed to disclose that information? Mr. McCORD. I'd be glad to. To take the Grand Jury, and get that one out of the way, when I appeared before the Grand Jury I told them, they inquired about political pressure. I raised the pressure that had been put to me by the Hunt's and told them as well that there was a personal friend who was involved also in political pressure against me, that personally at that point in time it was very painful thing to go into it, that I would be glad to do it at a later time and I hoped that they would defer that question till subsequent questioning and I would be glad to answer it, they said they would do so. I believe when I appeared before the Executive Committee here on March 28th, that your senators asked me the same question, and that I said "yes, there had been political pressure applied to me". That one such pressure had been by a government, one of your senators asked me if it were by a government employee, I think Senator Montoya and I responded "yes" and he asked if it were anyone with the White House and I said "no". He asked if it were from the Department of Justice, and I said "no". It was clear, I think to the Committee that I would like to able to answer that question at a later time, the reason for the delay is that I wanted to be as accurate as I could about the information and get it all together because it involved the President of the United States, in my opinion. And it was a very serious matter and I wanted to be very careful about it and accurate. Mr. DASH. I have no further questions Mr. Chairman.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Senator ERVIN. Go ahead. Mr. Fred THOMPSON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCord, I'd like to limit my questions to one area, and that's what you know about the planning of the Watergate break-in. First of all, I'd like to separate what Mr. Hunt told you someone said about it, from what Mr. Liddy told you someone said about it. Did Mr. Hunt indicate to you that he knew anything about these meetings that Mr. Liddy referred to with Mitchell, Magruder and Dean? Mr. McCORD. Your question is did Mr. Hunt indicate that he knew anything about the meetings? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes sir. Mr. McCORD. Yes he did. Mr. THOMPSON. What did he say about those meetings? Mr. McCORD. (silent) Mr. THOMPSON. Did he indicate that he was present at any of those meetings? Mr. McCORD. I'm trying to recall exactly the context of the discussions, if I may go into that I will .... Mr. THOMPSON. Yes sir. Mr. McCORD. The meetings, as best I recall, in which these references by Mr. Hunt took place, took place in Mr. Hunt's office, in the Robert F. Mullen company offices at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue. They took place in April and May of 1972, to the best of my recollection Mr. Liddy was present in all of the discussions. Mr. Liddy during those discussions, as best I recall, would raise the topic of the planning and the progress of the operation itself, it's going forward and comments about what Mr. Mitchell was saying to him about what should be done in terms of the priorities of the operation. That is which ones would be done first and second. Mr. Hunt's comments, his exact words I can't recall, but his comments made to me, not to me, made in the three way discussion that were taking place during that period of time, indicated to me that he had separate independent knowledge, perhaps from Mr. Liddy, perhaps from other sources of his own that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean and Mr. Magruder had planned the operations in the Attorney Generals office to begin with, and that at least Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder had had subsequent discussions after the first meeting in the Attorney Generals office and that Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell had had discussions with Mr. Liddy in Mr. Mitchell s offices at the Committee to Re-Elect the President regarding the ongoing plans to carry out the operations. Does this answer your question somewhat? Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think it naturally raises several other questions. What did he say as best you can recall to indicate to you that he had any independent knowledge other than what Mr. Liddy might have told him? Mr. McCORD. I think he would refer to comments to garden as though "as you and I have discussed before". Mr. THOMPSON. Well that would not fall in that category then ... Mr. McCORD. It would fall in that category (very stern) Mr. THOMPSON. As things that Mr. Hunt had learned separate and appart from what Mr. Liddy had told him? Mr. McCORD. It would fall in the category I said two things, I said one what Mr. Liddy had told him before and secondly what it appeared to me he had learned from others. And I've mentioned to this committee a name of another individual .... (McCords lawyer says "don't name that now") Mr. McCORD. ... but I will not raise it at this point, that Mr. Hunt referred to in conversations in which we were talking about the Watergate operations and the planning for the operations ... Mr. THOMPSON. I think you should refer to it. The name .... Mr. McCORD. I previously referred to the name of Mr. Colson that was interjected into the conversation by Mr. Hunt in the meetings with Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt and me in his offices, Hunt's offices at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue and specifically when Mr. Hunt had a plan, a typed plan, operational plan for the entry of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. (lawyer makes comment to McCord) Beg your pardon.