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
Mr. DASH. Did you ever mention during either of the two meetings at the Monocle Restaurant and in your office in Boston when you asked Mr. McCord about the CIA involvement, the name Victor Marchetti, who might be a witness on CIA training? Mr. ALCH. I did mention the name Victor Marchetti, not in the context of his being a witness. It came up this way: In the course of discussing Mr. McCord's background with the CIA, I mentioned to him that I had recently heard that a man by that name had come out with a book about the CIA. I mentioned that to Mr. McCord. He said to me words to the effect that Mr. Marchetti was not in good grace with the CIA or any ex-members of the CIA. He said he did not think highly of the man and that was the extent of the conversation. Mr. DASH. Did you know Mr. Marchetti at all? Mr. ALCH. Never met the man in my life. Mr. DASH. Was there any discussion as to whether Mr. Marchetti would be a good witness on CIA training to indicate that CIA men are trained to disavow any relationship with the CIA? Mr. ALCH. There was a discussion with Mr. McCord with regard to his background with the CIA. In that context, I mentioned to him whether or not Mr. Marchetti's book might be a good reference point. He said it would not be.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Now, after your meeting of December 1972 at the Monocle Restaurant with Mr. McCord, did you call your partner, Mr. Bailey, and raise the question of the CIA defense? Mr. ALCH. I did. Mr. DASH. What was the nature of that call and what did Mr. Bailey have to say? Mr. ALCH. I would constantly keep Mr. Bailey advised of the development of all cases that I was working on. In the course of my conversation, and this conversation took place after the meeting at the Monocle but prior to my meeting with Mr. McCord in Boston, I told him of the conversation that had taken place in the lawyer's office and told him that I had asked Mr. McCord whether or not there was any factual basis to the CIA involvement. As I told you yesterday, Mr. McCord did not specifically respond to that question. It was my impression that that topic was going to be raised at our next meeting in Boston. Mr. Bailey told me that unless Mr. McCord or anyone else could come up with any factual evidence of any CIA involvement, that if Mr. McCord wished to pursue that defense without any such factual evidence, that I was to withdraw from the case and that I was to tell that to Mr. McCord. When Mr. McCord met with me in Boston at our next meeting, he initiated the conversation by saying to me, there is no CIA involvement and I will have no part of anything that is going to put the blame on the CIA. That rendered my withdrawal direction from Mr. Bailey moot.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Right, but that was a significant discussion with Mr. Bailey, was it not, concerning the CIA involvement, or the defense of the CIA involvement? Mr. ALCH. I would not say it was significant in the sense that I keep Mr. Bailey advised of all cases which I am involved in and which he is not involved in. He is the head of the office and his policy is that I let him know what I am doing all the time. Mr. DASH. But it did raise the possibility of Mr. Bailey's suggestions to you that you might withdraw from the case if it was put? Mr. ALCH. That was his suggestion to me. If there was no such defense rendered, fine. Mr. DASH. But that was not put forth in your discussion with the committee? Mr. ALCH. It was not.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. In your statement on page 10, you say during the meeting with defendants in December, and prior to your Monocle meeting with Mr. McCord, "The question arose as to whether the CIA was involved." Would you tell us how the question arose, who raised it? Mr. ALCH. This was at the meeting in Mr. Bittman's office attended by the lawyers? Mr. DASH, Yes. Mr. ALCH. It was at that point that I wanted to announce to my to the other defense counsel, what my contemplated defense would be. I did so. I told them that I was contemplating the defense of duress based upon what my client had told me. The reaction seemed to be that this would only be applicable to Mr. McCord in view of his being chief of security and that this particular defense could not inure to the benefit or could not be utilized by any other defendant. My response was, well, that is my contemplated defense; that is what I am going forward on. It was at that point that the question was raised of whether or not there was any CIA involvement. Mr. DASH. Now, do you know how that question was raised? Who raised it? Mr. ALCH. I am not sure. It may have been Mr. Bittman. I cannot be positive. That is a possibility. But may I stress that when it was raised, it was raised in this type of way: Is there any CIA involvement in this thing? And at that point, it was pointed out, the fact that all defendants had some prior connection with the CIA and at least one of them had been found with documents which purported to be or were alleged to be forged CIA credentials.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Then, as I understand from your statement, each of you were going to contact your clients and ask that question of them? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Mr. DASH. Now, were you aware, Mr. Alch, of every contact that may have been made with your client by others who may have suggested the defense of CIA involvement to them? Mr. ALCH, No, sir. I only knew what he told me. Mr. DASH. Therefore, any pressure that could have been visited upon Mr. McCord, you might not have been aware of, is that correct? Mr. ALCH. Entirely. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Dash, I do not come before this honorable committee to offer any judgment or opinion on allegations of Mr. McCord which pertain to activity not involving me. I do not know about those things. I came here to refute what he said about me.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Now, for example, are you aware that in December, which is the very month you raised the question of CIA involvement with McCord, that Mr. McCord sent Mr. John Caulfield a note complaining of a White House effort to blame the CIA for Watergate and threatening "That all the trees in the forest would fall if this effort continued." Were you aware of this? Mr. ALCH. I was not. Mr. DASH. So it is no fiction, really, that Mr. McCord was deeply concerned over what he believed was a conspiracy to have him implicate the CIA in the Watergate case? Mr. ALCH. I have no knowledge to contradict that statement by Mr. McCord. Mr. DASH. Actually, according to your own statement, when you first raised the CIA involvement with Mr. McCord in the Monocle Restaurant, you said he did not really respond to it, but launched into a complaint about how the White House was treating the CIA. I think that was your statement. Mr. ALCH. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Therefore, Mr. Alch, when you raised the question of CIA involvement with him for the very first time after the meeting with Mr. Bittman and the other lawyers, it is likely, is it not, taking into consideration the entire circumstances of Mr. McCord's concern, that Mr. McCord could have concluded that you had joined in the conspiracy he honestly believed existed to blame the CIA in the Watergate case? Mr. ALCH. In my judgment, that would be giving him the benefit of a doubt to which I do not believe he is entitled, for this reason: I suppose, hypothetically speaking, that it is possible for a man to misinterpret a question put to him as to whether or not the CIA was involved on the one hand, and a suggestion that it was on the other. That is a point of discrepancy, in answer to a hypothetical question, could possibly be the subject of a misinterpretation. However, on his allegation that I said to him words to the effect that I could cause his personnel records to be doctored and that the Director of the CIA would go along with it, it escapes me how that type of allegation can be a misunderstanding. I did not say it. You can't infer words of that nature unless they were said and I did not say it. And most fortunately, there was a third person present at this meeting.