Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973 Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. (continues reading opening statements) I advised Mr. McCord that I had kept abreast of newspaper coverage of the Watergate incident and in all honesty I could discern no effort on anyone s part to foist upon him prime responsibility for the offenses charged. He disagreed with me and I told him that I would subsequently discuss the matter with other defense council. At another time prior to January 1973 Mr. McCord advised that he had made telephone calls to the Israeli embassy on September 19, 1972 and to the Chilean embassy on October 10, 1972. He did not divulge the contents of these telephone conversations. (Senators looking over written statements) He explained his purpose as follows: He told me that he was convinced that the government had telephone taps on the phones of these embassy s, but would not admit to such activity. He was certain that his calls had been intercepted. He instructed that I make a motion in court requiring the government to disclose any and all intercepted communications in which he was involved. His theory was that the government, rather than reveal such activity would dismiss the case against him. I asked him what these calls were about. He told me that they were phone calls relative to the case. I now understand that these phone calls were not of any relative substance, which fact Mr. McCord had not told me originally. I received a letter from him dated August twenty three reflecting these thoughts, copies of which I have made available to this honorable committee. It is a two page letter and in the interest of expediency I shall not read the letter in it's entirety, it deals with the subject of the consequences of the government intercepting telephone calls. However, I would respectively call to the attention of this honorable committee the last paragraph of the letter which reads as follows and I quote, "Enjoyed the visit with you, and appreciated your advice. I've got a great lawyer and am well aware of that fact. With best regards, Jim."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. ALCH. In addition I have provided this honorable committee with copies of an undated memorandum from Mr. McCord reflecting four telephone calls, one from Chili to Mr. McCord's office. Another from Mr. McCord's office to the Chilean military attach , the call to the Israeli embassy from Mr. McCord's home and a similar call to the Chilean embassy. And I would respectfully invite the committee's attention to the fact that the first two of these calls occurred prior to my ever meeting Mr. McCord, before I ever represented the man. As a result thereof, I made an appropriate motion for disclosure of any government electronic surveillance in anyway pertaining to Mr. McCord. Mr. Silbert's response was that he had no knowledge of any such surveillance. Again, at my clients insistence I made a second similar motion at the bench during trial explaining to Judge Sirica that I was doing so at my clients insistence, that such calls had in fact been made and had been electronically intercepted. The government again stated it's total lack of knowledge of such activity and accordingly no action was taken on my motion. My actions in this regard were consistent with and occasioned by my determination to defend my client to the best of my ability by utilizing any and all legal and proper means. In retrospect I must conclude that my efforts were not to say the least appreciated. With regard to opportunities presented to Mr. McCord to tell all that he knew with regard to the Watergate operation I state the following: On or about October 25, 1972 the government conveyed to local council, my local council Mr. Bernhard Shankman of Washington and my associate Mr. Johnson an offer to accept from Mr. McCord a plea of guilty to one substantive count of the indictment and in return for his testimony of a government witness a recommendation of leniency would be made to the court. The government indicated however, that it could not and would not recommend any type of suspended sentence which would allow Mr. McCord to remain in liberty. This offer was transmitted to Mr. McCord and was unequivocally rejected.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. ALCH. In November of 1972 a second plea offer was received from the prosecutors. At this time the offer was essentially similar to the first offer except that Mr. McCord would have to plead to three counts of the indictment instead of one. The explanation for this change of position was that the governments case had grown considerably stronger. This offer which also involved Mr. McCord testifying as a government witness was related to and again rejected by Mr. McCord. I advised Mr. McCord after a in-camera session with Chief Judge Sirica during trial, that there still existed an opportunity for him to appear before the grand jury. Even at that stage of the trial, to make full disclosure. I have been informed that the committee has been provided with a transcript of the in-camera preceding and I therefore will not attempt to paraphrase the words of Chief Judge Sirica. Nevertheless, I relayed this information to Mr. McCord and this third opportunity was again turned down. I take the liberty of bringing these three instances to the attention of this honorable committee since in my opinion Mr. McCord in portions of his testimony before you implied that I had pressured him to plead guilty and to remain silent. Senators, I state to you that this is not so, and respectfully refer you to the question asked of Mr. McCord by Senator Ervin on May 18, 1973 and I quote, "Question: Now did your lawyer urge you to enter a plea of guilty, I am talking about Mr. Gerald Alch. Answer: I do not recall that, no sir." That portion at least of Mr. McCord's testimony is accurate. With regard to the allegations of Mr. McCord to the effect the I suggested that the CIA be brought into the case in a defense posture I state the following: As here to fore explained I had decided to base Mr. McCord s defense on the theory of duress for two basic reasons, one: it was the only legally recognized defense that I felt was supportable. Two: more importantly, it appeared to be the factual truth based upon Mr. McCord's explanation of his own motive.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. ALCH. In December of 1972 I attended one of several meetings of defense council, the purpose for which was to discuss various aspects of trial strategy. I proceeded to explain the defense that I was contemplating duress. A discussion ensued, where in some of the other defense attorneys reasoned that this security motive, and by that they were referring to my contemplated defense of duress based upon what Mr. McCord had told me would be applicable only to Mr. McCord in view of his position as Chief of Security for the Committee to Re-elect the President. In the general discussion that followed, (MS Senator Baker and Fred Thompson seen listening to Mr. Alch) the question arose as to whether or not the CIA could have been involved. It was pointed out by others and I emphasize by others because at this point my defense of Mr. McCord had been formulated, based upon what he had told me and with his concurrence. It was pointed out by others that all of the individuals apprehended in the Watergate complex had some prior connection with the CIA and that one of the cuban americans had been in possession of what appeared to be CIA forged documents. Before the meeting went onto to other topics, it was agreed that each lawyer would ask his respective client whether or not he had any knowledge of any CIA involvement. When the meeting terminated I telephoned Mr. McCord at his office by pre-arrangement and asked him to meet with me and my local council Mr. Bernard Shankman at the Monocle Restaurant for lunch. During lunch, which lasted for approximately 45 minutes I asked Mr. McCord whether to his knowledge the CIA was in anyway involved with the Watergate venture. He did not directly respond to this specific question, but did become quite upset at what he believed to be the antagonism of the White House against the CIA. He cited the dismissal of Mr. Helms as CIA Director and the appointment of Mr. Slesinger in his place as an attempted "hatchet job" by the administration against the CIA. He did venture his observation that if any CIA officials were subpoenaed, that they would not and could not comply with said subpoena.