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
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. (continues reading opening statements) Because of the brevity of the luncheon and because of the obvious need for more detailed pre-trial meetings, I asked Mr. McCord to come to Boston for a few days, which he agreed to do. On or about December 26, 1972 Mr. McCord came to Boston and initiated our conversation by stating that the CIA was not involved and that he would have no part of any attempt to involve that agency. He asked that I relay this position to other defense council at our next meeting which I agreed to do and in fact did. I did not after advising other defense council of Mr. McCord's denial of CIA involvement engage with other council in any further conversation of any potential defense involving the CIA. At no time did I suggest to Mr. McCord that the so called CIA defense be utilized, for the defense of duress had already been agreed upon, but I merely asked him whether or not there was a factual basis for this contention. Mr. McCord's allegation that I announced my ability to forge his CIA personnel records with the co-operation of the then acting CIA director Mr. Slesinger is absurd and completely untrue. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Slesinger, nor the privilege of talking with the man. No such statement was ever made. I have no contact with the director of the CIA, let alone an agreement involving the forging of documents. My local council Mr. Bernard Shankman who was present at the Monocle Restaurant can corroborate that I did not say that. The remainder of my discussion with Mr. McCord in Boston was devoted to further analysis of the duress defense, and when the meeting ended I told him I would keep in daily telephonic contact with him until our next meeting which I tentatively scheduled for the first week of January 1973.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. Between December 26 '72 and the first week of January 1973 I attempted to contact Mr. McCord on several occasions by telephone, but each time that I called I was told that he was not in and my requests for a return call were not answered. This puzzled me, for up to that point it was Mr. McCord's habit to return my calls immediately upon him receiving any message from me so to do. On or about January 2, 1973 I received a call from local council Bernard Shankman who advised me that Mr. McCord had or was about to deliver a letter to Chief Judge Sirica dismissing me as his council. This was a shock to me, for at our last meeting in my office on December 26, 1972 we parted on a most cordial note and in complete agreement upon the theory of his defense. I asked Mr. Shankman to advise Mr. McCord that I would fly into Washington on January 3, 1973 to speak with him on this matter. I did meet with Mr. McCord after I had learned that a letter of dismissal had in fact been given to Chief Judge Sirica and that Chief Judge Siricas position was that I was still council of record and that this development would not afford a basis for a continuance. When I met Mr. McCord he picked me up at the airport in Washington, I expressed to him my astonishment at his action and asked him why he had acted in such a way. Mr. Shankman had told me that one reason sited to him by Mr. McCord was the question regarding the CIA defense. I brought this up to Mr. McCord and said to him in substance, I thought that issue was you laid to rest by mutual consent when you denied any factual involvement on the part of the CIA at our last meeting in Boston. He agreed that it was, but said that was not the reason for his letter. He claimed that I had not been maintaining sufficient contact with him and that he was unsure of my being adequately prepared for trial. I told him that in my opinion this was not so, that he had the right to any lawyer of his choice and that if he wished to dismiss me that was his prerogative. I pointed out what I had viewed as a most satisfactory attorney client relationship, based upon mutual trust and confidence and suggested that if he had any grievance with me, he should advise me of the same face to face, rather than refusing to answer my phone calls and unilaterally without my knowledge delivering to the judge a letter of dismissal. When I said this he became defensive. Apologized for what he described as a "lack or communication and mis-understanding", and expressed his desire to maintain me as council. Again he voiced his confidence in me, and extended his hand in affirmation of that confidence.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. On January 8, 1973 the first day of trial, I learned that Mr. William O. Bitman's client, Mr. Hunt had offered to plead to any and all counts of the indictment immediately prior to trial. But, that Chief Judge Sirica had said that he would not entertain any change of plea until after jury selection and opening statements. This appeared to me to be highly prejudicial to my client, for it would tend to give the jury the impression that after the government's opening statement one of the defendants had thrown in the towel so to speak overwhelmed with weight of the evidence against him. I felt that this could and should have been avoided by a change of plea being resolved prior to the commencement of trial since this had been the request of defendant Hunt. I had told Mr. McCord that our routine once trial began would be for him to spend sometime each day immediately after court with Mr. Shankman and myself to review what had gone on that day and to discuss what was to happen the following day. I wanted to discuss with Mr. Bitman the details of his clients proposed change of plea in order to ascertain whether or not there would be a basis for a miss-trial. It was agreed that we would meet at his office immediately after court was concluded for that day. Mr. Shankman, Mr. McCord and I hailed a cab and at the last minute co-defendant Barker asks if he could ride in the cab with us. Where at that time Mr. Barker was going or why he was going to Mr. Bitman's office as I eventually ascertained I do not know. There was no significant conversation with Mr. Barker in the cab. Mr. McCord has alleged that I told him that the purpose of going to Mr. Bitman's office was that Mr. Bitman wanted to talk with him (Mr. McCord) about "who's word he would trust regarding a White House offer of executive clemency" and that Mr. Bitman wanted to talk to Mr. Barker as well. This is not true. I merely said to Mr. McCord that prior to the schedule daily post court meeting between he, Mr. Shankman and myself that we would stop at Mr. Bitman's office for I wanted to discuss with him the ramifications and the details of Mr. Hunt's proposed change of plea.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 23, 1973
Mr. Gerald ALCH. When we arrived at Mr. Bitman's office Mr. McCord has alleged that I sensed his anger at Mr. Barkers presence and therefore delayed going up to Mr. Bitmans office for approximately thirty minutes. The simple truth is, the I suggested when we got out of the cab that we three have a cocktail and Mr. McCord, Mr. Shankman and I went to a restaurant directly across the street from Mr. Bitmans office for just that purpose. When we arrived at Mr. Bitmans office I went with Mr. McCord and Mr. Shankman to the firms library and went back to Mr. Bitman's office to see if he was there. I had a discussion with him, Mr. Bitman in which he confirmed the judge's refusal to entertain any change of plea by Mr. Hunt until after opening statement. At this point, I recall mentioning to Mr. Bitman that I felt my client was becoming a bit paranoid, that he felt he was being made "the patsy" or the fall guy. I mentioned it at that time since in my mind that allegation made to me by Mr. McCord seemed inconsistent with Mr. Hunt's desire to plead guilty. After I mentioned Mr. McCord s apprehension, my recollection is that Mr. Bitman said in words or substance, tell Mr. McCord he'll receive a call from a friend of his. Mr. Bitman did not mention the White House as alleged by Mr. McCord. The identity of this friend was not made known to me, nor did I make inquiry in this matter. I considered the possibility without actually knowing .....(looking through paperwork)....that the purpose of this call was to allay Mr. McCord's fears that his co-defendants were turning against him and that the caller could very well be Mr. Bitman's client Mr. Hunt, this was surmised on my part. I considered this possibility in view of the context of the conversation immediately proceeding Mr. Bitman's remark, that is my statement in accordance with Mr. McCord's request of his apprehension with regard to his co-defendants. I subsequently told Mr. McCord just what Mr. Bitman had told me, that he would receive a call from a friend. I did not mention the word the White House because Mr. Bitman did not mention those words to me. Mr. McCord nodded, said OK and had no further response to my statement.