Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator Sam ERVIN. I believe Sir Edward Coke, keep time on ten minutes strictly, all senators ten minutes. I believe Sir Edward Coke said that one scratch of a pen is better than the slippery memory of a multitude of witnesses. Hasn't that been proven true in your practice as trial lawyer? Mr. Gerald ALCH. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the remark.... Senator ERVIN. Well, isn't there a hazard where two men communicate with each other by word of mouth, isn't there a two fold hazard in that communication and first that the man who speaks may not express himself clearly and may not say exactly what is in his mind, and if he does the man at hazard might not, may put a different interpretation on the words in the man that spoke them. Mr. ALCH. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Yeah, (laughter) that's well illustrated by something that came out here this week. Mr. McCord testified that Mr. Caulfield told him that the President was interested in this order of executive clemency and Mr. Caulfield said he never mentioned the Presidents name he merely said the highest levels of the White House. So, Mr. Caulfield meant one thing and Mr. McCord understood another. Mr. ALCH. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. I believe you made a little mistake yourself in your statement, you talked about, you said that you understood Mr. McCord say Caldwell well he was obviously talking about Caulfield. Which is quite a natural mistake... Mr. ALCH. Yes sir, that's my recollection.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. I think you are a little irritated with your client, I do not blame you, I got irritated with my clients when they did not take my advice and went around talking to other people. Mr. ALCH. Senator, if I may, you as a lawyer can well appreciate the fact that you do your best for your client. If he is pleased, that is the ultimate goal. You cannot guarantee whether he is going to get convicted or acquitted. What upset me is how the man turned on me with what I have alleged and believe with all my heart to be false accusations in the manner, in the framework of which he did. Of course, I am upset.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. Well, the first thing, as you stated to Mr. Dash, you were offended by his apparent charge that you had suggested to him that they blame this on the CIA. Mr. ALCH. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. Let us see if there was not a little justification for him in making a mistake on that. You testified you attended a meeting of all of the lawyers involved in the case. Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. As I understand, Mr. Bittman was appearing for Mr. Hunt. Mr. Henry Rothblatt was appearing for Sturgis and Martinez and Gonzales and Barker, and you were appearing for McCord and who was appearing for Liddy? Mr. ALCH. Mr. Peter Margoulis. Senator ERVIN. Now, there was a meeting of most of these lawyers and it had been pointed out in the press that Mr. Sturgis had apparently CIA credentials issued in the name of Mr. Martin, I believe. Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. It was also apparent, in that it came out in-the press, that other members of those of the group who broke into the Watergate had false credentials? Mr. ALCH. That is correct, sir. Senator ERVIN. And the press had suggested since McCord had been involved in the CIA, and Hunt-had worked for the CIA, and Barker had been in the Bay of Pigs operations, CIA and possibly others, that perhaps there was a CIA involvement. Was that not speculated in the press? Mr. ALCH: In the press; yes, sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator: ERVIN. And at this meeting, of course, the first thing a lawyer tries to find out from his client is what kind of defense, if any, he has got, is that not true? Mr. ALCH. Of course. Senator ERVIN. So the lawyers would be discussing at that time what possible defense they had, and it was suggested by one of the other counsel that perhaps they could get evidence that would sustain a defense that would lay this break-in on the CIA, was it not, at the meeting with lawyers? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. But, Senator, I do not mean to split hairs but I do wish again to point out that it did not come out in the sense that "let us make this a CIA defense." It did not come out that way It was not presented that way. The way it was presented was, could this be a CIA defense because of all of these things? Let us go back and ask our client. That is the way it happened. Senator ERVIN. Well, the only way the lawyers can find out whether their clients have a defense is to discuss matters like this. Mr. ALCH. Ask them. Senator ERVIN. And try to investigate it. Mr. ALCH. Of course. Senator ERVIN. And it was suggested in this meeting of lawyers by some attorney other than yourself? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. That the lawyers involved should try to ascertain from their clients whether the CIA was involved, whether they had any knowledge enough to implicate CIA, was it not? Mr. ALCH. That is right. Senator ERVIN. And immediately after that you went in and talked to Mr. McCORD about it, did you not? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Asked him? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. Now, do you not think that it is possible that a man who had read in the newspapers about the alleged involvement of the CIA or the suggestion involving the CIA, who is asked by his attorney about the matter might think that his attorney was indicating to him that that was a possible defense? Mr. ALCH. No, for this reason: If it was that type of potential if it was that type of potential misunderstanding, assuming arguendo, this might be so. But in Mr. McCord's statement he brought this out under the general heading of pressure , my bringing pressure upon him, which to me negated or diminished the chances of it being a misunderstanding. To me, it implied more, it sounded more of intentional misrepresentation. Senator ERVIN. Well, the word "pressure" is used by different people. There are all kinds of pressures, are there not? There are heavy pressures and light pressures. Mr. ALCH. True. Senator ERVIN. Now, it is in evidence here that Mr. McCord in December, previous to the time of the trial, had become so much concerned about the possibility of involvement of CIA that he had written a letter to Mr. Caulfield saying in effect, it would be a mistake to involve the CIA because if they did, all the trees in the forest. would fall and there would be a scorched earth. Do you not know that Mr. McCord showed extreme loyalty to the CIA? Mr. ALCH. Don't I know it now? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. ALCH. I know that is what he says, yes.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. Did you tell Mr. McCord when you met with other lawyers that you all were discussing the possible defenses? Mr. ALCH. I did. Senator ERVIN. Now, in all fairness to Mr. McCord, do you not think it is possible that Mr. McCord thought that you thought they ought to see if they could involve the CIA? Just in fairness to him? Mr. ALCH. I will answer it as fairly as I can in this manner, sir. I do not enjoy coming down asking to appear before this honorable committee for which I am most grateful, and in effect calling a man a liar. My nature is such that I do not enjoy doing it. What you are suggesting is that there may have been, if I may take the liberty of interpreting your remark, that there may have been a misunderstanding on Mr. McCord's part about that particular aspect of it. With the exception of my objecting to him categorizing that as pressure, that may be. I am not looking to bury Mr. McCord. My presence here is a reaction, not an action. But I keep going back to this: You cannot interpret a lawyer saying "I am going to forge CIA documents with the assistance of the CIA Director," out of my saying "What do you want for lunch," or "see you in Boston," or "we are discussing a CIA defense." Either those words were said or they were not. Now, when I watched television last night, Senator, I heard and saw Mr. McCord again reiterate that I said those words. I have already advised the committee that at this meeting there was another lawyer present, I invite you to contact him. However, I also saw Mr. Fensterwald deny that he said to me on the telephone, "We are out to get the President." Senator ERVIN. Well now, wait a minute on that. Did Mr. McCord ever mention the President to you at any time in any conversation he ever had with you? Mr. ALCH. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. McCord was not present so far as you know, and did not overhear any of the phone conversations between you and Mr. Fensterwald on that point? Mr. ALCH. Not to my knowledge, but my record - Senator ERVIN. So far as it appears down to this day, there is no evidence that Mr. McCord ever mentioned the President of the United States except he said that Mr. Caulfield mentioned the President of the United States in a conversation with him. Mr. ALCH. That is correct. Except that when the remark was made to me by Mr. Fensterwald, he was Mr. McCord's counsel and he said we - he used the word "we".
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. The minds of human beings are very fallible I found through a long practice of law - and also legislative bodies. and I have heard a lot about this, and read a lot in trying to prepare. I have got much information and misinformation about this matter and I do not know the precise source of all of these things. Now, Mr. McCord says, someone, I believe he said you, suggested that if they changed the record at the CIA to show he had been called back to duty, there might be a chance to have a defense of that kind. You say you never said that? Mr. ALCH. Mr. McCord said much stronger words than that, Senator. He said I told him that I could effectuate the forgery of his CIA records with the cooperation of the CIA Director. That is pretty strong talk. Senator ERVIN. I do not believe that is the testimony Mr. McCord gave this committee. Mr. ALCH. The record, of course, will clear it up. Senator ERVIN. The record will speak for itself. My recollection, and I do not guarantee, but my recollection is that he said you, or somebody, said that by letting the record of the CIA show-wait a minute now, here is McCord's statement. He said "Alch said," that is you, "my personnel records at CIA could be doctored to reflect such a recall. He stated Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose new appointment had just been announced, could be subpoenaed and would go along with it." Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Senator ERVIN. He did not accuse you of anything except saying that the records could be doctored, that you advocated that. You were just expressing a surmise? Mr. ALCH. Well, Senator, perhaps through a lawyer's - and an experienced lawyer's - eyes, looking at it really close, dissecting it, that conclusion might be proper. But not to the average person who reads it on the street. Senator ERVIN. Now let's see, you also, if I infer from your statement, you also took offense of the fact that Mr. McCord had stated that you had recommended he enter a plea of guilty. Am I correct in that? Mr. ALCH. No, sir. I specifically pointed out that in response to your question, he said I did not. Senator ERVIN. Let's talk about this plea of guilty a minute. You stated in your statement that you learned from Bittman that Hunt was contemplating pleading guilty? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you also learned that later, a short time later, that Henry Rothblatt's clients were contemplating pleading guilty? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you discussed with McCord the fact that this would be a very bad thing to happen to his defense? Mr. ALCH. No, sir. I told him that I was of the opinion that it would prejudice him because of the reaction to the jury. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Well, that would be prejudicial to his case, would it not? Mr. ALCH. His case but not his defense. Senator ERVIN. Now, as a matter of fact, the assistant district attorney in charge of the case three times approached you with a view to negotiating a plea of guilty? Mr. ALCH. Two times. Senator ERVIN. On the part of McCord? Mr. ALCH. Two times to my recollection.