Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord). McCord reading a statement vis a vis pressure on him to falsify his testimony at trial to deflect suspicion from the White House. Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
[close-up of Jim McCORD and counsel] Mr. James McCORD. Alch went on to mention testimony, or a statement, made to Federal authorities by Gary Bittenbender, a Metropolitan Police Department undercover police officer, whom I had seen at the courthouse, on June 17, 1972, when the five of us who were arrested were arraigned, in which Bittenbender purportedly claimed that I had told him that day that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I advised Alch that if Bittenbender had made such a statement under oath that he had perjured himself, and that I had not made such a claim. Bittenbender can be interviewed to determine the circumstances under which he had made such a statement, and whether his statement was in fact an honest error of impressions based on events which occurred in court on that day, which could have misled him. Those were that some of us were identified in the hearing in court as formerly Connected with CIA. Alch went on to mention the name of Victor Marchetti whom he was considering calling to describe CIA training in which its employees were trained to deny CIA sponsorship of an operation if anything went wrong and its participants were arrested. He also requested that I meet with him in Boston on December 26, 1972, which I did. There he opened the discussion by showing me a written statement of an interview with Bittenbender, in which Bittenbender, claimed that on June 17, 1972, I had told him that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I repeated to Alch my earlier statement, that Bittenbender had either perjured himself, or had made a false statement to Federal authorities. I told Alch that I could not use as my defense the story that the operation was a CIA operation because it was not true. In addition, I told him that even if it meant my freedom, I would not turn on the organization that had employed me for 19 years, and wrongly deal such a damaging blow that it would take years for it to recover from it, [cut wide shot of committee table, with reporters in foreground) and finally that I believed the organization to be one of the finest organizations of its kind in the world and would not let anyone wrongly lay the operation at the feet of CIA. By now, I was completely convinced that the White House was behind the idea and ploy which had been presented, and that the White House was turning ruthless, in my opinion, and would do whatever was politically expedient at any one particular point in time to accomplish its own ends. In addition, I earlier had determined to tell the true story. of the Watergate operation, and it was now only a matter of a propitious time to do so.
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 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord continues reading statement: Among other things, this also smacked of the situation which Hitler's intelligence chiefs found themselves in, in the 1930's & 1940's when they were put in the position of having to tell him what they thought he wanted to hear about, foreign military capabilities and intentions, instead of what they really believed, which ultimately was one of the things which led to Nazi Germany's downfall.[file under "EERIE ALLUSIONS TO NAZI GERMANY"] When linked with what I saw happening to the FBI under Pat Gray-- political control by the White House, it appeared then that the two Government agencies which should be able to prepare their reports and to conduct their business, with complete integrity and honesty in the national interest, were no longer going to be able to do so. That the Nation was in serious trouble has since been confirmed in my opinion by what happened in the case of Gray's leadership of the FBI. E. Howard Hunt has additional information relevant to the above. Hunt stated to me on more than one occasion in the latter part of 1972, that he, Hunt had information in his possession which "would be sufficient to impeach the President.'' In addition, Mrs. E. Howard Hunt, on or about November 30, 1972, in a personal conversation with me, stated that E. Howard Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman, had read to Kenneth Parkinson, the attorney for the Committee To Re-Elect the President, in which letter, Hunt purportedly threatened "to blow the White House out of the water." Mrs. Hunt at this point in her conversation with me, also repeated the statement which she, too, had made before, which was that E. Howard Hunt had information which could impeach the President. I regret that this memorandum has taken this length to set forth. In view of the nature of the information which I had to furnish, however, it appeared that there was no other way to adequately set this material forth, and to do so in the proper context, without deleting material highly relevant to the events being reported. I shall be glad to appear and answer questions under oath on the material which appears in this memorandum. It has my signature.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord continues reading statement: I have a further addition relevant to that, in the statement which I could read at this time. The topic of it is the December 1972 letter to John Caulfield. This letter is relevant to the May 4, 1973, memo submitted to Senate Watergate committee and the Federal grand jury, on the subject of pressure to place the blame on CIA for the Watergate operation. A letter was written to John Caulfield during the week of December 25, 1972; reference to this letter appeared in the press the last weekend. Angered-- speaking of my own feelings and at the time the letter was written-- angered because of what appeared to me to be a ruthless attempt by the White House to put the blame for the Watergate operation on CIA where it did not belong. I sought to head it off by sending a letter to Caulfield. This letter was couched in strong language because, it seemed to me at the time that this Was the only language that the White House understood. The letter read in substance as follows, to the best of my memory: "Dear Jack: I am sorry to have to write you this letter. If Helms goes and the Watergate operation is laid at CIA's feet where it does not belong, every tree in the forest will fall. It will be a scorched desert. The whole matter is at the precipice right now. Pass the message that if they want it to blow, they are on exactly the right course. I am sorry that you will get hurt in the fallout." The letter was unsigned and did not contain any message requesting any contact with Caulfield, nor any request for the White House to get me off in the case. I in fact, sought no such contact at any time. If I had to talk with Caulfield it would not have been necessary to go through complicated arrangements and a trip to William Bittman's office as occurred on January 8, 1973. I need only have made a phone call to Caulfield's office or home. At no time did I ever initiate any such Call to Caulfield.