NORTHEASTERN DNr/CHSiTY XHCOL cf 1/.W L;3R/
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO
H. Res. 803
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER SUFFICIENT
GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO
EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH
RICHARD M. NIXON
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Book I
EVENTS PRIOR TO
THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN
December 2, 1971-June 17, 1972
ycj.jrsy/
i./>/
'^.^
^'- ^- LAW LIBRARY
MAY-JUNE 1974
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1974
iM Uai^ti^i'LL ^o^-^'-^
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PETER W. RODINO, JR.,
HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts
JACK BROOKS, Texas
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin
DON EDWARDS, California
WILLIAM L. HUNGATE, Missouri
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Micliigan
JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania
JEROME R. WALDIE. California
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
JAMES R. MANN. South Carolina
PAUL S. SARBANES. Maryland
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio
GEORGE E. DANIELSON. California
ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New Yorlj
BARBARA JORDAN, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York
WAYNE OWENS, Utah
EDWARD MEZVINSKY, Iowa
New Jersey, Chairman
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan
ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois
HENRY P. SMITH III, New York
CHARLES W. SANDMAN, Jr., New Jersey
TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois
CHARLES E. WIGGINS. California
DAVID W. DENNIS. Indiana
HAMILTON FISH, Jr., New York
WILEY MAYNE, Iowa
LAWRENCE J. HOGAN. Maryland
M. CALDWELL BUTLER. Virginia
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
TRENT LOTT. Mississippi
HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin
CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
JOSEPH J. MARAZITI. New Jersey
DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio
John Doar, Special Counsel
Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Special Counsel to the Minority
Joseph A. Woods, Jr., Senior Associate Special Counsel
Richard Cates. Senior Associate Special Counsel
Bbrxakii W. Nrs.sBAi'M, Senior Associate Special Counsel
Robert D. Sack, Senior Associate Special Counsel
Robert A. Shelton, Associate Special Counsel
Samuel Garrison III, Deputy Minority Counsel
Fred H. Altshdler. Counsel
Thomas Bell. Counsel
W. Paul Bishop, Counsel
Robert L. Brown, Counsel
Michael M. Conway, Counsel
RUFUS Cormier. Special Assistant
E. Lee Dale. Counsel
John B. Davidson. Counsel
Evan A. Davis, Counsel
Constantixe J. Gekas. Counsel
Richard H. Gill. Counsel
Dagmar Hamilton. Counsel
David Hanes, Special Assistant
John E. Kennahan, Counsel
Terry R. Kirkpatrick, Counsel
John R. Labovitz, Counsel
Lacrance Lucchino, Counsel
R. L. Smith McKeithen, Counsel
Alan Marer, Counsel
Robert P. Murphy, Counsel
James B. F. Oliphant. Counsel
Richard H. Porter, Counsel
George Rayboun. Counsel
James Recm, Counsel
Hillary D. Rodham. Counsel
Stephen A. Sharp, Counsel
Jared Sta.mell, Counsel
RoscoE B. Starek III. Counsel
Gary W. Sutton. Counsel
Edward S. Szukelewicz, Counsel
Robert J. Traixor. Counsel
J. Stei'Hen Walker. Counsel
Ben a. Wallis, Jr.. Counsel
William Weld, Counsel
William A. White. Counsel
ERRATA
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF EEPRE8ENTATIYE8
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PUBSUANT TO
H. Res. 803
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH
RICHARD M. NIXON
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1974
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Qovernment Printing OfBce
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents
DONOHl
IKS, Texa
. KASTEf
RDS, Call
-. HUNGA
lERS, JR.
LBERG, 1
WALDIE
LOWERS
lANN. So
R BANES
IBERLIN
DANIEL
DRINAN
3. RANGB
lORDAN,
NTON, Ar
H HOLTZ
I'ENS, Uti
[EZVINS]
H. Altsi
iiAS Bell.
AUL BiSHi
;RT L. Bro
lAEL M. C
;s CORMIE
iE Dale. (
I B. Davie
A. Davis
:tantine .
ardH. Gi
.lAR Ham I
a Hanes. .
I E. Kenn
V R. Kirk
: R. Labo\
ance Ldc
Smith M
CONTENTS
Corrections in: p^k*?
Transcripts of Eight Recorded Presidential Conversations 1
Statement of Information:
Book II 4
Book VII 5
Book IX 7
Book X 8
Appendix I__ 17
Testimony of Witnesses: Book III, Charles W. Colson 21
Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, August 20, 1974 23
(lU)
DONOH
KS. Tex:
KASTE
tDS, Cal
HUNG.
KR.S, JR
-BEKG,
iVALDi:
OWERS
ANN, S(
IBANES
BERLU
DANIEI
3RINAI
rang:
3RDAN
TON, A
holt:
ENS, Ut
5ZVINS
I. Alts
IS Bell
IIL BiSH
r L. Bri
EL M. C
CORJIIl
Dale. '
B. DAvii
V. Da VI.'
ANTINE
RD H. G
lR Ha Ml
Hanes,
D. Kenn
R. KiRi
{. Labo
MCE LU(
MITH >
CORRECTIONS
TRANSCRIPTS OF EIGHT RECORDED CONVERSATIONS
[Note: Corrected portions of the text are italicized, where applicable.]
Page Line Corrected Text
9 34 shots and it'll be over. And, we'll give them a few
13 3 They've got a very weak man in Widnall, unfortu-
14 53 the Post [Note: Final period deleted.]
34 46 know, suppose that Felt comes out and unwraps the
35 3 he had a guarantee from somebodj^ like Time maga-
41 3 you see, it's best not to eiet'a/f — and I get Ziegler
49 8 some potential embarrassment for Ken Rietz, uh,
50 34 President: Talk to Elliot Gompers [phonetic].
54 19 when they convicted seven people.
54 51 always been very up close about it, but he is now getting
61 29 rectors; SAC's out of Chicago," wherever, and just
63 15 Maybe let him go over to U.S. News, or who
63 23 to give an interview. I would do it in U.S.
67 26 won't be witnesses.
67 27 They won't be witnesses
67 28 Won't be witnesses.
74 52 friend, friend [unintelligible] Segretti, in to be a Dick
Tuck on
95 9 [Note: Delete the line.]
95 12 that it's going to be, uh, well, it's cash money, and so
97 17 is the fellow who did the, the Chappaquiddick study
(1)
Page Line Corrected Text
110 26 he's very harmful, I mean I don't think — he must
126 43 — is covering-up. [Note: Final period added.]
135 4 [Unintelligible] it isn't something, it isn't, it isn't
139 37 least for a mistrial, i/not for a —
142 15 Magruder going to jail, fhapin going to jail, you
143 30 Well, I really don't know, will Petersen—l Would
156 46 ter based on the documentation from the FBI and
158 10 what kind oj work this is, but I agree that that's what
161 38 doesn't go because he's, he's got the lawyer privilege.
162 39 think they're—
162 40 They'll also—
162 41 feeling that, that, the, uh — Ervin's crack on tele-
169 5 in a row all laid. out. But, at least you advise them
170 21 decision of Judge Byrne's [unintelligible] on the bail.
175 18 he took so vocally in the Gravel case,
178 43 Yeah. He calls himself—
185 10 Kleindienst to get in a position where — It's all right
185 11 from foreknowledge through iiL^eiwc^iews^
185 29 It isn't nash — [unintelligible] er,
185 30 national [unintelligible] concerns me.
185 31 [Unintelligible]
185 34 for [unintelligible]. I have nothing but intuition, but
186 2 on a legal matter and you don't want them to be, uh,
used as
Page Line Corrected Text
186 [Note: After the last line on the page, add the following :]
At this point, a porticm of the discussion has been
deleted.
188 35 other basis, then I think a leave of absence is then
189 52 Petersen on corroboration, [Note: Comma replaces
])eriod.]
195 23 you simply said, "Hunt needs this money." And you
203 36 about it. You're to say, "I, / told the President about
215 14 Lou Lavelle [phonetic] went. [Unintelligible]
218 10 leave the staff until their, their name is cleared?
218 22 trier of the facts.
3f
CORRECTION
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: BOOK II
PARAGRAPH 53.1, PAGE 594
[Note: Corrected portions of the text are italicized.]
Transcript Prepared by the Impeachment Inquiry Staff for
THE House Judiciary Committee of a Recording of a Meet-
ing Among the President, H. R. Haldeman and John Dean
ON September 15, 1972*
President. [Unintelligible]
Haldeman. John, he is one of the quiet guys that gets a lot done.
That was a good move, too, bringing Dean in. But it's —
President. Yeah.
Haldeman. It — He'll never, he'll never gain any ground for us.
He's just not that kind of guy. But, he's the kind that enables other
people to gain ground while he's making sure that you don't fall
through the holes.
President. Oh, You mean —
Haldeman. Between times, he's doing, he's moving ruthlessly on
the investigation of McGovern people, Kennedy stuff, and all that
too. I just don't know how much jjrogress he's making, 'cause I —
President. The problem is that's kind of hard to find.
'The Quotation marks used in this transcript are for convenience and do not indicate icrbatim quotation by tiic
speaker.
(4)
CORRECTION
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: BOOK VII— PART 1
PARAGRAPH 7.1, PAGE 229
[Note: Corrected portions of the text are italicized.]
7.1 Summaries of FBI Letters Reporting on Wiretaps of NSC
Employees
Mr. N.
A total of 27 summaries were prepared from the electronic sur-
veillance of Mr. N.: fourteen were addressed to the President starting
on July 10, 1.969 and ending on May 11, 1970; copies of those letters
were also sent to Dr. Kissinger and, in addition, three others were
addressed to Dr. Kissinger in May 1969. Eighteen were addressed to
H. R. Haldeman between July 1969 and February 10, 1971. The
summaries reported conversations between Mr. N. and journalists,
representatives of special interest groups and members of politicians'
staffs expressing opposition to the Vietnam war. The summaries also
reported the activities of potential Democratic candidates as those
activities were mentioned to Mr. N. and the activities of a Democratic
candidate for the Presidency by whom Mr. N. was employed in the
latter part of the time covered by the wiretap. One summary re-
ported Mr. N.'s refusal to follow a suggestion that he leak to a journal-
list a statement by Kissinger.
None of the summaries reported on discussions of classified material.
Detailed material contained in the summaries has been withheld from
publication by the House Judiciary Committee to protect the privacy
of the individuals involved.
(5)
CORRECTION
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: BOOK VII— PART 1
PARAGRAPH 11.1, PAGE 281
[Nole: The corrected portion of the text is italicized.]
11.1 Summaries of FBI Letters Reporting on Surveillance of
Three White House Staff Members
Mr. F.
Reports were sent to the President on November 6, 1969, to Henry
Kissinger on January 15, 1970 and to H. R. Haldenian on May 21
and June 23, 1970, reporting information on Mr. F., a White House
aide. All reports on Mr. F. related to conversations between Mr. F and a
newsman who was also the subject of a wiretap. Mr. F. was reported only
to have discussed various domestic speeches or papers deahng with
economics, the State of the Union and the political philosophy of the
Administration.
None of the summaries reported on discussions of classified material.
Detailed material contained in the summaries has been withheld from
publication by the House Judiciary Committee to protect the privacy
of the individuals involved.
(6)
CORRECTION
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: BOOK IX
PARAGRAPH 90, PAGES 92, 569, 983
90. On April 12, 1974 Jaworski wi-ote to Senator Charles Percy
stating that the government was obligated to produce at trial the
material requested in Jaworski's March 12, 1974 letter respecting
the trial of United States v. Mitchell, and that the failure of the White
House to produce other requested evidence was impeding grand jury
investigations of matters unrelated to the Watergate cover-up.
Letter from Leon Jaworski to Charles Percy, April 12 1974, PaRe
Congressional Record S7103-04 " 984
(7)
CORRECTIONS
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: BOOK X
PAGES 14, 27
Page I4, last line should read:
which contains autograph signatures and seals. "'*• During the
early stages of
Page 27, add:
64A.1 Chattel Deed from Richard M. Nixon to The United
States of America, March 27, 1969 (executed April 10,
1970). Jomt Committee Report, A295-310.
[Note: Document 6I1.A.I, which was omitted from Book X, follows:]
(8)
A- 295
Exhibit 1-44
CHATTEL DEED
from
RICHARD M. NIXON
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dated: March 27, 1969
10
A-296
CHATTEL DEED
from
RICHARD M. NIXON
to
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The undersigned, Richard M. Nixon, does hereby
give, assign, transfer, set over and deliver unto The
United States of America all of his right, title and
interest in and to the papers, manuscripts and other
materials (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the
Materials") which are listed and described in Schedule A
annexed hereto and hereby made a part hereof, to have and
to hold the same to The United States of America forever.
This conveyance is made to The United States
of America without any reservation to the undersigned,
Richard M. Nixon, of any intervening interest or any right
to' the actual possession of the said Materials, it being
understood that the delivery of this Chattel Deed to the
General Services Administrator shall convey to The United
States of America the right and power immediately to take
possession of the said Materials and to hold, use and
dispose of the same, provided, however:
11
A-297
1. The undersigned shall have the right
of access to any and all of the Materials and
the right to copy or to have copied any and all
of the Materials by any means of his selection,
and to take and retain possession of any or all
such copies for any purpose whatsoever. During
such time as the undersigned shall hold the
office of President of the United States, no
person or persons shall have the right of access
to such Materials except the undersigned and
those who may be designated in writing by the
undersigned, and in the case of any person or
persons so designated, such right of access
shall be limited to those Materials as shall be
described in the instrument by which he, she,
it or they shall be designated, and for the pur-
poses specified in such instrument; and, if such
instrument shall so provide, the person or persons
designated therein shall have the further right
to copy such of the Materials as shall be described
in such instrument and to take and retain possession
of such copies for such purposes as shall be speci-
fied in said instrument. The undersigned shall
have the right and power at any time during his
12
A- 298
lifetime to modify or remove this restriction
as to any or all of the Materials and/or to
grant access to any group or groups of persons
by notification in writing to the General
Services Administration or other appropriate
agency of The United States of America.
2. If a Presidential archival depository
shall be established for the housing and pre-
servation of the Materials pertaining to the
career of the undersigned in public service,
then, as soon as practicable after the estab-
lishment of such depository, the Materials
shall be transferred to and thereafter be
housed and preserved at such Presidential
archival depository. Until the establishment
of such a depository, the Materials shall be
housed and preserved at a place to be selected
by the General Services Administrator or other
appropriate agency of The United States of
America.
3. Notwithstanding the foregoing restric-
tions, employees specifically designated by the
archivist of the National Archives and Records
Service shall, in the course of performance of
their necessary archival duties, have such access
13
A-299
to the said Materials as shall be necessary
for normal archival processing activities.
4. None of the foregoing restrictions
is intended to prevent the Materials from
being used exclusively .for public purposes,
and in no event shall any of the said restric-
tions be so construed, nor are they intended
to vest in the vinder signed any ownership or
title thereto.
This instrument may be executed in duplicate,
or triplicate, each of which shall be deemed an original.
Dated: March 27, 1969.
RICHARD M. NIXON
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA
Edward L. Morgan
Deputy Counsel to the President
14
A-300
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
On this, the ^^5 day of April, 1969, before
me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
EDWARD L. MORGAN, known to me tc be the person whose name
is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he is Deputy Counsel to the President of the
United States and that he executed the foregoing instru-
ment on behalf of the President, acting in his capacity
as such Deputy Counsel, and that, as such Deputy Counsel,
he is authorized to sign such document on behalf of the
President of the United States.
IN WITNESS tVHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and official seal the day and year first above written.
My commission expires:
c^:^.^^^'-^^^
^'^a^^^ t
■^ Notary Public
^'
— :^c- --.-.■
•:.>'Z~j. ::>.. ':
! V V:ii>' ., -l/r:
;5 cr s-
15
A- 301
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
EDWARD L. MORGAN, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
That he is Deputy Counsel to Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States of Air.erica; that he was
duly appointed and was acting in said capacity as such
Deputy Counsel on March 27, 1969; that in said capacity
he did, on behalf of, and as Deputy Counsel and agent for
the said Richard M. Nixon, deposit at the National Archives
Building, in the City of Washington, District of Columbia,
pursuant to the express direction of the said Richard M.
Nixon, all of those Materials specifically set forth in
Schedule A attached hereto, being that Schedule A attached
to that certain Chattel Deed from Richard M. Nixon to The
United States of Anierica dated March 27, 1969.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto affixed my
hand this 3.^<»* day of April, 1969.
Edward L. Morgan f
Deputy Counsel to the President
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO Before me this «?/o^ da
of April, 1969.
My commission expires:
16
A-302
SCHEDULE A ANNEXED TO AND PART
OF CHATTEL DEED FROM RICHARD
MILHOUS NIXON TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, DATED M°iRCH 27, 1969'
The materials conveyed by- the Chattel Deed of
which this Schedule A is a part, herewith deposited and
housed in the National Archives Building, Washington,
D. C, constituting six hundred thousand individual items
contained within 1,176 file boxes, are more particularly
described as follows:
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE AS VICE PRESIDENT
Boxes "AANDAHL through ZWIENG"
Boxes 18 through 845, inclusive
828 Boxes
APPEARANCE FILE 1948-1962
Boxes 1 through 173
Til. CORRESPONDENCE RE INVITATIONS 1954-1961
IV. FOREIGN TRIP FILES AS VICE PRESIDENT
116 Boxes
VISIT OF KHRUSHCHEV TO UNITED STATES
Total: 1,176 Boxes
CORRECTION
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: APPENDIX I, PAGE IV
Page IV, add:
June 10, 1974, Letter from the President to Chairman Peter W.
Rodino, Jr.
[Note: The June 10, 1974 letter, which, was omitted from Appendix I,
follows:]
[Extract from Presidential Documents: Richard Nixon, 1974, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 592-594.]
SUBPOENA OF PRESIDENTIAL TAPES AND MATERIALS
The President's Letter to Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman of
THE House Judici.\ry Com.mittee, in Response to the Com-
mittee's Subpoena. Dated June 9, 1974. Released June 10,
1974
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In your letter of May 30, j'ou describe as "a grave matter" my
refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas of May 15. You
state that "under the Constitution it is not within the power of the
President to conduct an inquiry into his own impeachment," and add
that "Committee members will be free to consider whether your re-
fusals warrant the drawing of adverse inferences concerning the sub-
stance of the materials ..."
The question of the respective rights and responsibilities of the
Executive and Legislative branches is one of the cardinal questions
raised by a proceeding such as the one the Committee is now conduct-
ing. I believe, therefore, that I should point out certain considerations
which I believe are compelling.
First, it is quite clear that this is not a case of "the President con-
duct (iiig) an inquiry into his own impeachment." The Committee is con-
ducting its inquiry; the Committee has had extensive and unprece-
dented cooperation from the White House. The question at issue is not
who conducts the inquiry, but where the line is to be drawn on an
apparently endlessly escalating spiral of demands for confidential
Presidential tapes and documents. The Committee asserts that it
should be the sole judge of Presidential confidentiality. I cannot accept
such a doctrine; no President could accept such a doctrine, which has
never before been seriously asserted.
What is commonly referred to now as "executive privilege" is part
and jiarcel of the basic doctrine of separation of ])owers — the estab-
lishment, by the C^onstitution, of three sejjarate and co-equal branches
of Government. Wliile many functions of Government recjuire the
(17)
18
concurrence or interaction of two or more branches, each branch
historically has been steadfast in maintaining its o\vn independence
by turning; back attempts of the others, whenever made, to assert
an authority to invade, without consent, the privacy of its own
deliberations.
Thus each house of the Congress has always maintained that it
alone shall decide what should be provided, if anything, and in what
form, in response to a judicial subpoena. This standing doctrine was
summed up in a resolution adopted by the Senate on March 8, 1962,
in connection with subpoenas issued by a Federal court in the trial of
James Hoffa, which read: "Resolved, that by the privileges of the
Senate of the United States no evidence under the control and in the
possession of the Senate of the United States can, by the mandate of
process of the ordinary courts of justice, be taken from the control or
possession, but by its permission . . .". More recently, in the case of
Lt. William Calley, the Chairman of the House Armed vServices sub-
committee refused to make available for the court-martial proceeding
testimonj' that had been given before the subcommittee in executive
session — testimony which Lt. Calley claimed would be exculpatory. In
refusing, the subcommittee chairman, Representative Hebert, ex-
plained that the Congress is "an independent branch of the Govern-
ment, separate from but equal to the Executive and Judicial branches,"
and that accordingly only Congress can direct the disclosure of legisla-
tive records.
Ecjually, the Judicial branch has always held sacrosanct the pri-
vacy of judicial deliberations, and has always held that neither of the
other branches may invade Judicial privacy or encroach on Judicial
independence. In 1953, in refusing to respond to a subpoena from the
House Un-American Activities Committee, Justice Tom C. Clark
cited the fact that "the independence of the three branches of our
Government is the cardinal principle on which our Constitutional
system is founded. This comjilete independence of the judiciary is
necessary to the proper administration of justice." In 1971, Chief
Justice Burger analogized the confidentiality of the Court to that of the
Executive, and said: "No statute gives this Court express power to
establish and enforce the utmost security measures for the secrecy of
our deliberations and records. Yet I have little doubt as to the in-
herent power of the Court to protect the confidentiality of its internal
operations by whatever judicial means may be required."
These positions of the Courts and the Congress are not lightly
taken; they are essential to maintaining the balances among the three
branches of Government. Equal firmness by the Executive is no less
essential to maintaining that balance.
The general applicability of the basic principle was summed up in
1962 by Senator Stennis, in a ruling upholding President Kennedy's
refusal to provide information sought by a Senate subcommittee.
Senator Stennis held: "We are now come face to face and are in direct
conflict with the established doctrine of separation of powers. ... I
know of no case where the Court has ever made the Senate or the
House surrender records from its files, or where the Executive has
made the Legislative Branch surrender records from its files — and I
do not think either one of them could. So the rule works three ways.
Each is supreme within its field, and each is responsible within its
field."
19
If the institution of an impeachment inquiry against a President
were permitted to override all restraints of separation of power, this
would spell the end of the doctrine of separation of powers; it would be
an open invitation to future Congresses to use an impeachment in-
quir}' , however frivolously, as a device to assert their own supremacy
over the Executive, and to reduce Executive confidentiality to a
nullity.
My refusal to comply with further subpoenas with respect to Water-
gate is based, essentially, on two consideratidns.
First, preserving the principle of separation of powers — and of the
Executive as a co-ecjual branch — recjuires that the Executive, no less
than the Legislative or Judicial branches, must be immune from un-
limited search and seizure by the other co-equal branches.
Second, the voluminous body of materials that the Committee
already has — and which I have voluntarily provided, partly in re-
sponse to Committee requests and partly in an effort to round out the
record — does give the full story of Watergate, insofar as it relates to
Presidential knowledge and Presidential actions. The way to resolve
whatever ambiguities the Committee may feel still exist is not to
pursue the chimera of additional evidence from additional tapes, but
rather to call live witnesses who can place the existing evidence in
perspective, and subject them to cross-examination under oath. Simply
multiplying the tapes and transcripts would extend the proceedings
interminably, while adding nothing substantial to the evidence the
Committee alreadj^ has.
Once embarked on a process of continually demanding additional
tapes whenever those the Committee already has fail to turn up
evidence of guilt, there would be no end unless a line were drawn some-
where by someone. Since it is clear that the Committee will not draw
such a line, I have done so.
One example should serve to illustrate my jioint. In issuing its
subpoena of May 15, the Committee rested its argument for the
necessity of these additional tapes most heavily on the first of the
additional conversations subpoenaed. This was a meeting that I held
on April 4, 1972, in the Oval Office, with then Attorney General
Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman. The Committee insisted that this was
necessary because it was the first meeting following the one in Key
Biscayne between Mr. Mitchell and his aides, in which, according to
testimony, he allegedly approved the intelligence plan that led to the
Watergate break-in; and because, according to other testimony, an
intelligence plan was mentioned in a briefing paper prepared for Mr.
Haldeman for the April 4 meeting. Committee members made clear
their belief that the record of this meeting, therefore, would be crucial
to a determination of whether the President had advance information
of the intelligence activities that included the break-in.
As it happens, there also was testimony that the ITT matter had
been discussed at that Ajnil 4 meeting, and the Committee therefore
also requested the April 4 conversation in connection with its ITT
investigation. On June 5, 1974, a complete transcript was provided
to the Committee for the jjurposes of the ITT probe, together with
an invitation to verify the transcript against the actual tape. This
transcript shows that not a word was spoken in that meeting about
intelligence plans, or about anything remotely related to Watergate —
as the Committee can verify.
20
I cite this instance because it illustrates clearly — on the basis of
material the Committee already has — the insubstantiality of the
claims being made for additional tapes; and the fact that a Com-
mittee demand for material does not automatically thereby convert
the recjuested material into "evidence."
As for your declaration that an adverse inference could be drawn
from my assertion of Executive privilege with regard to these addi-
tional materials, such a declaration flies in the face of established law
on the assertion of valid claims of privilege. The Supreme Court has
pointed out that even allowing comment by a judge or prosecutor on
a valid Constitutional claim is "a penalty imposed by courts for
exercising a Constitutional privilege," and that "it cuts down on the
privilege by making its assertion costly." In its deliberations on the
Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, the House of Representatives —
in its version — substituted for specific language on the various forms
of privilege a blanket rule that these should "be governed by the
principles of the Common law as they may be interpreted by the
courts of the United States in light of reason and experience. . . ."
But as adopted in 1972 by the Supreme Court — the final arbiter of
"the principles of the Common law as . . . interpreted by the courts,"
and as codification of those principles — the Proposed Federal Rules
clearly state: "The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceed-
ing or in a prior occasion, is not the proper subject of comment by
judge or coimsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom."
Those are legal arguments. The common-sense argument is that a
claim of privilege, which is valid under the doctrine of separation of
powers and is designed to protect the principle of separation of powers,
must be accepted without adverse inference — or else the privilege itself
is undermined, and the separation of powers nullified.
A proceeding such as the present one places a great strain on our
Constitutional system, and on the pattern of practice of self-restraint
by the three branches that has maintained the balances of that system
for nearly two centuries. Whenever one branch attempts to press too
hard in intruding on the Constitutional prerogatives of another, that
balance is threatened. From the start of these proceedings, I have tried
to cooperate as far as I reasonably could in order to avert a Constitu-
tional confrontation. But I am determined to do nothing which, by
the precedents it set, would render the Executive branch henceforth
and forevermore subservient to the Legislative branch, and would
thereby destroy the Constitutional balance. This is the key issue in
my insistence that the Executive must remain the final arbiter of
demands on its confidentiality, just as the Legislative and Judicial
branches must remain the final arbiters of demands on their
confidentiality.
Sincerely,
Richard Nixon
[The Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciarvi
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515]
CORRECTIONS
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES: BOOK III
CHARLES W. COLSON
[Note: Corrected portions of the text are italicized.]
Page Line Corrected Text
404 14 the counsel that he was deaUng with. Mr. Kahnbach
said he had
404 34 Jacobson and Semer, I guess — just never could get
away from the idea
405 47 plaints in the Congress about it, and I think Mr.
Harrison wrote some
407 20 people, including my assistant, Mr. Cashen. Mr. Cashen
told me that
407 2.3 Mr. Harrison advises me that Mr. Cashen called him
that day, and
415 22 was then negotiating almost impossible, because it
disclosed jor
440 17 things in chronological order. He was — I have now
read my own grand
450 24 advance the creation of the plumbers. Also that he
recalled discuss-
460 39 dummy committees that had been estabUshed, the
intent was
470 21 Mr. Mitchell used to meet regularh' in Mr. fZaWeman's
office to dis-
482 31 ojfense that I can in conscience and honesty say I did
do. This is one
494 41 present, Bryce Harlow —
498 19 of, thank God, we didn't discuss clemency or words to
that effect, I believe
(21)
22
Page Line Corrected Text
498 22 onlj' time I ever recall him saying "thank God —
498 31 always said, well, you know, maybe he said, thank God
or yes, good,
503 48 Mr. Colson. 1971. I could not say independently, Ms.
Holtzman,
504 24 later that there had been a covert attempt to obtain
Jiles.
504 40 Magruder and Mitchell. I called Magruder and said
hear
507 3 alluded to in the March 30 memo where I say that
Merriam's testimony
508 31 it was discovered that they were taking documents
out of the NSC is
514 14 interviews {in alias).
CORRECTIONS
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, AUGUST 20, 1974
[Note: Corrected portions of the text are italicized, where applicable.]
Page Line Corrected Text
51 35 checks totalling $1 14,000, /o?7/' bearing the name Ogarrio
and one
51 36 bearing the name Dahlberg, which had passed through
the bank account of Watergate
96 [Ahte: The section heading should be IV rather than III.]
127 [A'ote: The footnote reference in Section B, line 5 should be
number 1. The number of the footnote at the bottom of
the page should be number 1. Subsequent footnotes
should be renumbered accordingly.]
183 [Note: Delete the entire text.]
354 48 sought to answer these c^uestions in the affirmative.
354 49 ' Robert McClory.
354 50 We concur in full with the foregoing views on Article
III.
354 51 George E. Danielson.
354 52 Hamilton Fish, Jr.
(23)
o
HARO
JACK
ROBEl
DONE
WILLI
JOHN
JOSH!
JEROt
WALT
JAME!
PAUL
JOHN
GEOR(
ROBEl
CHAR]
BARBj
RAY T
ELIZA
WAYN
EDWA
FOREWORD
By Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary
On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a
vote of 410-4 the following Hoxise Resolution 803:
RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as
a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the
Chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with
the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed
to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient
grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exer-
cise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M.
Nixon, President of the United States of America. The
committee shall report to the House of Representatives
such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other
recommendations as it deems proper.
Beginning in November 1973, acting under resolutions referred to
the Committee by the Speaker of the House and with a special appropria-
tion, I had begun to organize a special staff to Investigate serious
charges against the President of the United States.
On May 9, 1974, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
I convened the Committee for hearings to review the results of the
Iiiq)eachment Inquiry staff's investigation. The staff began its initial
presentation the same day, in executive session, pursuant to the Com-
mittee's Impeachment Inquiry Procedures adopted on May 2, 1974.
By June 21, the Inquiry staff had concluded its initial presen-
tation.
On June 25, the Committee voted to make public the initial pre-
sentation including substantially all of the supporting material-^ i \ ' -- r>
M.U. !AVV LIBRARY
(III)
-2-
presented at the hearings. The Committee also voted to make public the
President's response, which was presented to the Committee on June 27
and June 28 in the same form and manner as the Inquiry staff's initial
presentation.
Statements of information and supporting evidentiary material
were compiled by the Inquiry staff in 36 notebooks and furnished In
this form to each Member of the Committee. The notebooks presented
material on several subjects of the Inquiry: the Watergate break- in
and its aftermath, ITT, dairy price supports, domestic surveillance,
abuse of the IRS, and the activities of the Special Prosecutors.
The staff also presented to the Committee written reports on
President Nixon's income taxes. Presidential impoundment of funds
appropriated by Congress, and the bombing of Cambodia.
Fifteen notebooks were furnished to the Members of the Committee
relating to the Watergate break-in on June 17, 1972 and to events fol-
lowing the break-in, through April 30, 1973. In each notebook a state-
ment of information relating to a particular phase of the investigation
was immediately followed by supporting evidentiary material, which in-
cluded copies of documents and testimony (much already on public record) ,
transcripts of Presidential conversations and affidavits.
The fifteen volumes relating to the Watergate phase of the
Inquiry were divided into four books, as follows:
Book I - Events Prior to the Watergate Break-In
12/2/71 - 6/17/72
Book II - Events Following the Watergate Break-In
6/17/72 - 2/9/73
(IV)
-3-
Book III - Events Following the Watergate Break-In
f>i2on2 - zmm
Book IV - Events Following the Watergate Break- In
Z/lim - 4/30/73
Book I dealt with events prior to the Watergate break- in. Book
II dealt with allegations involving Presidential interference with the
official Department of Justice investigation. Book III dealt with alle-
gations concerning payments of "hush" money to Watergate defendants to
Insure their silence, offers of leniency and executive clemency, and
the instigating or making of false statements to persons connected
with an official investigation of Watergate; Book III also included
a chronology of events between February 9 and March 22, 1973. Book
IV dealt with events relating to the President's investigation of the
Watergate break- in and alleged cover-up between March 22 and April 30,
1973.
Every effort was made to preclude inferences in the presentation
of this material. A deliberate and scrupulous abstention from conclu-
sions, even by implication, was observed.
With respect to the Presidential recorded conversations, the
Committee determined to hear the recorded conversations in their
entirety. The Presidential recorded conversations were neither para-
phrased nor summarized by the Inquiry staff. Thus, no inferences, or
conclusions were drawn for the Committee. During the course of the
hearings. Members of the Committee heard each recording and simultane-
ously followed transcripts prepared by the Inquiry staff. Each of
(V)
-4-
these transcripts is reprinted under the appropriate Statement of
Information.
During the course of the hearings , the Committee found it neces-
sary to issue four subpoenas to President Richard Nixon requiring tape
recordings of 98 Presidential conversations as well as all papers and
things prepared by, sent to, received by, or at any time contained in
the files of H. R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, Charles W. Colson, John
Dean, III, and Gordon Strachan to the extent that such papers or things
related or referred directly or Indirectly to the break-in and electronic
surveillance of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in the
Watergate office building during May and Jime of 1972 or the investiga-
tions of that break- in by the Department of Justice, the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, or any other legislative,
judicial, executive or administrative body, including members of the
White House staff.
The Committee also subpoenaed the President's daily diaries (logs
of Presidential meetings, telephone calls, and other activities) for the
periods April through July 1972, February through April 1973, July 12
through July 31, 1973 and October 1973.
In response to these subpoenas, the President furnished only
edited White House transcripts of 31 of the subpoenaed conversations
between March 17 and April 18, 1973. These edited transcripts were
summarized by the Inquiry staff and made a part of the evidentiary
material presented to the Committee. To the extent that the President
declined to comply with the Committee's subpoenas and produce the
(VI)
-5-
required material, the record of the Committee now made public in these
volumes is incomplete.
In a few instances. Ranking Minority Member Mr. Hutchinson and
I detennlned, pursuant to authority granted us by the Committee, to
defer the release of evidentiary material or to delete it for one of
the following reasons :
1) Because the public interest in making the material public was
outweighed by the potential prejudice to the rights of defendants under
Indictment and awaiting trial.
2) Because the information was classified or otherwise required
confidential treatment,
3) Because the material was only marginally pertinent and was
considered to be defamatory, degrading or embarrassing, or,
4) Because the material was not pertinent to Presidential
responsibility within the outer limits of an impeachable offense within
the meaning of the Constitution.
The Committee on the Judiciary is working to follow faithfully
its mandate "to investigate fully and completely" whether or not suf-
ficient grounds exist to recommend that the House exercise its constitu-
tional power of impeachment.
I believe that the readers of these volumes will see that the
Committee's primary effort in carrying out its mandate has been to ob-
tain an objective, impartial presentation which will enable each Member
of the Committee to make an informed judgment in fulfilling his or her
constitutional responsibility.
(VII)
-6-
I also believe that the publication of the record of these hear-
ings will provide readers with a clear idea of the particulars of the
investigation and that the proximity of the evidence will assure them
that no statement of information is offered without supporting eviden-
tiary material.
^6J&1^
July- 1974
(vm)
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ill
Introductory Note xi
Opening Statement of Chairman Peter W. Rodlno, Jr 1
Statement of Information 5
Statement of Information and Supporting Evidence 29
(IX)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The material contained In this volume is presented in two sec-
tions. Section 1 contains a statement of information footnoted with
citations to evidentiary material. Section 2 contains the same state-
ment of information followed by the supporting material.
Supporting material consists of information obtained at hearings
before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities;
information developed in executive session by other Congressional com-
mittees; information furnished to the Committee by the Grand Jury of
the District of Columbia and by other grand Juries; information fur-
nished to the Committee by government agencies; transcripts of tape
recordings of conversations among President Nixon and his key associates
prepared by the Committee staff; information furnished to the Committee
by the President, the Executive Departments of the Government, the
Special Prosecutor, and other information obtained by the Committee,
much of which was already on the public record.
Each page of supporting evidence is labeled with the footnote
number and a description of the document or the name of the witness
testifying. Copies of entire pages of documents and testimony are
included, with brackets around the portions pertaining to the state-
ment of information. Markings on the documents Include item numbers
and receipt stamps of the House Judiciary Committee and other agencies
from which the Comnittee received material.
(XI)
-2-
In a few Instances, names of persons in sensitive positions
ve been deleted from documents at the request of the CIA, FBI and
ather investigative agencies. Some documents contained deletions when
the Committee received them.
In the citation of sources, the following abbreviations are
used: "SSC" for Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign
Activities; "SJC" for Senate Judiciary Committee; and "HJC" for House
Judiciary Committee.
(XII)
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
Thursday, May 9, 1974
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D. C.
The Conmlttee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 o'clock p.m.. In
Room 2141, Raybum House Office Building, the Honorable Peter W. Rodlno
(Chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Rodlno (presiding), Donohue, Brooks,
Kastenmeler, Edwards, Hungate, Conyers, Ellberg, Waldle, Flowers, Mann,
Sarbanes, Selberllng, Danlelson, Drlnan, Rangel, Jordan, Thornton,
Holtzman, Owens, Mezvlnsky, Hutchinson, McClory, Smith, Sandman, Rails-
back, Wiggins, Dennis, Fish, Mayne, Hogan, Butler, Cohen, Lott, Froeh
Moorhead, Marazltl and Latta.
Also present: Jerome M. Zelfman, General Counsel; Gamer F.
Cllne, Associate General Counsel; Franklin Polk, Associate Counsel;
John Doar, Special Counsel; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Minority Counsel;
Samuel Garrison III, Counsel; and Evan Davis, Counsel.
Mr. Rodlno. The meeting will come to order.
(1)
OPENING STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN RODINO OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Rodlno. Three months ago the House of Representatives con-
sidered H. Res. 803. The resolution read as follows:
"RESOLVED, That the Cotranittee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for the
purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the Committee, is
authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether
sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise
its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the
United States of America. The Committee shall report to the House of
Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other
recommendations as it deems proper."
The House adopted that resolution by a vote of AlO to A. We
are proceeding under the mandate of that resolution.
I do not need to stress again the importance of our underteiking
and the wisdom, decency and principle which we must bring to it.
We understand our high constitutional responsibility. We will
faithfully live up to it.
For some time we have known that the real security of this nation
lies in the integrity of its institutions and the trust and informed con-
fidence of its people. We conduct our deliberations in that spirit.
We shall begin our hearings by considering materials relevant to
the question of Presidential responsibility for the Watergate break-in
and its investigation by law enforcement agencies. This is one of six
areas of our inquiry. We expect to continue our inquiry until each area
has been thoroughly examined.
(2)
First, we will consider detailed information assembled by the
staff. This consists of information already on the public record, infor-
mation developed in executive session by other Congressional committees,
information furnished by the Federal grand jury of the District of
Columbia, and other information.
After today the Committee will meet regularly, three days a
week, for all-day sessions beginning next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
The Chairman will, as circumstances dictate, be ready to notice
such business meetings as may be necessary.
During the initial presentation. Special Counsel and Minority
Counsel will explain and summarize the materials.
Our proceedings are governed by the Rules of Confidentiality
that the Committee adopted on February 22nd and the Rules of Procedure
adopted May 2nd. The Committee has the power to modify or change these
rules during the course of the hearings .
Some of the materials which the Committee will consider have
been held confidential by the staff, by Mr. Hutchinson and myself. This
material includes tape recordings of conversations among President Nixon
and his key associates. We will listen to these recordings during these
hearings .
After the Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to con-
sider this material it will decide if and when, in the national interest,
this material should be made public.
The Judiciary Committee has determined that President Nixon
should be accorded the opportunity to have his counsel present through-
out the proceedings. Mr. James St. Clair is present today. After the
(3)
Initial proceedings are completed, Mr. St. Clair will be afforded the
opportunity to respond to the presentation, orally or in vnriting, as
determined by the Committee. He and his assistant understand the Com-
mittee's Rules of Procedure and the Committee's Rules of Confidentiality,
and they are bound by those rules.
Our proceedings will be conducted under the Rules of the House
of Representatives. Technical rules of evidence do not apply. We are
governed by the Constitution of the United States which vests the sole
power of impeachment in the House.
******
On Jime 25, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary voted to make
public the statements of information and evidentiary material which
were presented by the staff to the Committee in executive session from
May 9, 1974 through June 21, 1974.
[The material referred to follows . ]
(4)
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
EVENTS PRIOR TO
THE WATERGATE BREAK- IN
December 2, 1971 - June 17, 1972
(5)
1. On December 2, 1971 Gordon Strachan reported in writing to
H. R. Haldeman, Assistant to President Nixon, on activities relating
to the President's re-election campaign. In his Political Matters
Memorandum of that date Strachan reported:
John Dean — The Attorney General discussed with
John Dean the need to develop a political intelli-
gence capability. Sandwedge has been scrapped.
Instead, Gordon Liddy, who has been working with
Bud Krogh, will become general counsel to the Com-
mittee for the Re-Election of the President, ef-
fective December 6, 1971. He will handle political
intelligence as well as legal matters. Liddy will
also work with Dean on the "political enemies" pro-
ject.
Jack Caulfield will go over to the Committee when
the Attorney General moves. Caulfield will handle
the same projects he currently does. In addition
he will assume responsibility for the personal pro-
tection of the Attorney General.
5'age
1.1 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R.
Haldeman, December 2, 1971 (received from
White House) 32
1.2 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2448-49 37
1.3 President Nixon statement. May 22, 1973,
9 Presidential Documents 693, 695 39
1.4 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 924-25 41
1.5 John Caulfield testimony, 1 SSC 251-52 ,-• 43
(7)
2. In response to a Political Matters Memorandum from Strachan
dated December 6, 1971, Haldeman approved Gordon Liddy's transfer to
the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) at an increase
of $4,000 per annum above his White House salary, as an exception to
the rule that no White House employee would receive a salary at CRP
higher than that which he was receiving at the White House.
Page
2.1 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R.
Haldeman, December 6, 1971 (received from
White House) 46
(8)
3. On January 27, 1972 Attorney General John Mitchell, John Dean,
Jeb Magruder, acting CRP campaign director, and G. Gordon Liddy, who
had assumed his position as CRP counsel, met in Mitchell's office.
At this meeting Liddy proposed a $1 million political intelligence
operation, which contemplated the use of electronic surveillance of
political opponents, abduction of radical leaders, muggings, and the
use of call girls. Mitchell rejected the proposal.
Page
3.1 John Mitchell log, January 27, 1972
(received from Senate Select Committee
(SSC)) 3^
3.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 787-88 3^
3.3 John Mitchell testimony, 5 SSC 1843 58
3.4 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 929-30 59
(9)
4. On February 4, 1972 Attorney General Mitchell, John Dean,
Jeb Magruder and Gordon Liddy met in Mitchell's office. Liddy pre-
sented a modified version of his proposal with a budget of $500,000.
The proposal included plans for electronic surveillance of political
opponents. Magruder and Dean have testified that the targets included
the office of Lawrence O'Brien, the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) ; the DNC headquarters; and the Democratic Convention
headquarters at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami, Florida. Magruder
has also testified that the office of Henry Greenspun, editor of the
Las Vegas Sun, was mentioned as another target. Mitchell has denied
that there was discussion of specific targets. The meeting ended when
Dean stated that these subjects should not be discussed in the office
of the Attorney General of the United States. Following the meeting.
Dean reported on the meeting to Haldeman.
Page
4.1 John Mitchell log, February 4, 1972 (received
from SSC) .62
4.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 789-90 64
4.3 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 930 66
4.4 John Mitchell testimony, 4 SSC 1611-12 67
4.5 John Dean testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
November 19, 1973, 23-29 (received from
Watergate Grand Jury) 69
(10)
5. In February 1972 H. R. Haldeman directed that $350,000 cash
in campaign funds be placed under his unquestioned personal control.
The money was picked up by Gordon Strachan, Haldeman's assistant, in
early April 1972. Strachan in turn delivered it to Alexander Butterfield,
a deputy assistant to the President. Butterfield delivered the money
to a personal friend for safekeeping. This fund was maintained sub-
stantially intact until after the November election.
Page
5.1 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman
February 1, 1972 (received from White House) 78
5.2 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman,
February 16, 1972 (received from White House) 84
5.3 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 7 SSC 2878-79 90
5.4 Maurice Stans testimony, 2 SSC 698 92
5.5 Hugh Sloan testimony, 2 SSC 536-37 93
5.6 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62 95
5.7 Herbert Kalmbach testimony, 5 SSC 2095-96 99
(11)
6, Prior to March 30, 1972 Charles Colson, Special Counsel to
the President, met with Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, a White House
consultant who had served with Liddy in the "Plumbers" unit. During
the meeting Colson telephoned Jeb Magruder. Colson has stated that he
urged Magruder "to resolve whatever it was Hunt and Liddy wanted to do
and to be sure he had an opportunity to listen to their plans."
Page
6.1 President Nixon statement. May 22, 1973,
9 Presidential Documents 693, 695 102
6.2 Charles Colson memorandum for the file,
June 20 , 1972 (received from SSC) 104
6.3 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3683-84 110
6.4 Fred LaRue testimony, 6 SSC 2284 112
6.5 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 793-94 113
(12)
7. On March 30, 1972 former Attorney General John Mitchell,
who had been officially designated CRP Campaign Director; Jeb Magruder,
Mitchell's chief of staff; and Fred LaRue, a special assistant to
Mitchell, met at Key Biscayne, Florida to discuss campaign matters.
Liddy's intelligence-gathering plan, now budgeted for $250,000, was
again discussed. Magruder has testified that Mitchell approved the plan,
and that the plan specifically approved entry into the DNC headquarters
and, if funds were available, entry into the headquarters of presidential
contenders and Democratic convention headquarters at the Fontainebleau
Hotel in Miami, LaRue has testified that Mitchell stated that they did
not have to do anything on the plan at that time. Mitchell has testified
that he rejected the plan. After the March 30, 1972 meeting, Magruder
asked his assistant, Robert Reisner, to tell Liddy that his proposal had
been approved. Reisner telephoned Liddy and conveyed Magruder 's message.
Page
7.1 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 794-95. ^16
7.2 Fred LaRue testimony, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344. ng
7 . 3 John Mitchell testimony , 4 SSC 1613-16 122
7.4 Robert Mardian testimony, 6 SSC 2429-30 126
7.5 Robert Reisner testimony, 2 SSC 492-93 128
7.6 Fred LaRue testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
April 18, 1973, 7-12 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) 130
7.7 Jeb Magruder testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
May 2, 1973, 22-25 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) 235
7.8 Robert Reisner testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
August 15, 1973, 38-44 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) 140
(13)
8. On March 31, 1972 Gordon Strachan reported in writing to H.R.
Haldeman in a Political Matters Memorandum that Magruder had reported
that CRP "now has a sophisticated political intelligence gathering
system including a budget of [$]300[000] •" Strachan attached tabs to
the Memorandum, including a tab referring to political intelligence
reports on Senator Humphrey's Pennsylvania campaign organization by a
source identified as "Sedan Chair II." On or before April 4, 1972
Strachan prepared a talking paper for Haldeman' s use during a meeting
with Mitchell scheduled for April 4, 1972 at 3:00 p.m. The talking
paper included a paragraph relating to the intelligence system, rais '
questions as to whether it was adequate and whether it was "on track.
(As indicated below in Paragraph 9, both the Political Matters Memorandum
and the talking paper were destroyed following the break-in at the
Watergate offices of the DNC.)
Page
8.1 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2441-42,
2452-54 148
8.2 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3036-37 153
(14)
9. On April A, 1972, from approximately 3:00 p.m. until
approximately 4:00 p.m., Mitchell and Haldeman met in Haldeman's White
House office. Haldeman has testified that he does not believe political
intelligence was discussed at the meeting. From 4:13 p.m. until 4:50 p.m.,
Haldeman and Mitchell met with the President. Haldeman testified that his
notes of this meeting indicate a discussion of the "ITT-Kleindienst" hearings
and the assignment of regional campaign responsibility and do not indicate
a discussion of intelligence. Haldeman later returned to Gordon Strachan
the talking paper specified in the preceding paragraph. It was Haldeman's
practice to indicate on the talking paper agenda matters that had not been
discussed. In this instance there was no such indication with respect to
the agenda items covering political intelligence. Strachan has testified
that on June 20, 1972, shortly after the break-in at the DNC headquarters
in the Watergate office building, he showed Haldeman the Political Matters
Memorandum referring to the sophisticated intelligence gathering system
and other sensitive materials from Haldeman's files, and that he was
instructed by Haldeman to clean out the files. Strachan immediately
destroyed the Political Matters Memorandum, the talking paper he had prepared
for the April 4, 1972 meeting between Mitchell and Haldeman, and other
sensitive documents. Haldeman has testified that he has no recollection of
giving Strachan instructions to destroy any materials.
Page
9.1 Meetings and conversations between the President
and H.R. Haldeman, April 4, 1972 (received from
White House) 157
(15)
Page
9.2 John Mitchell log, April 4, 1972 (received from
SSC) 159
9.3 H. R. Haldeman calendar, April 4, 1972 (received
from Watergate Grand Jury) 161
9.4 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3180-81 162
9.5 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2454, 2458-59 164
9.6 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 7 SSC 2880 167
9 . 7 John Dean testimony , 3 SSC 933-34 168
(16)
10. On or about April 7, 1972 Gordon Liddy showed a budget of
$250,000 to Hugh Sloan, Treasurer of the Finance Committee to
Re-elect the President (FCRP) . Liddy told Sloan that he would be
coming back to Sloan in a day or two to pick up the first cash payment,
which was to be $83,000. Sloan telephoned Magruder, who authorized
Sloan to disburse to Liddy the $83,000 requested. Magruder told
Sloan that Magruder was to approve all subsequent disbursements of
money to Liddy.
Page
10.1 Hugh Sloan testimony, 2 SSC 538-39. 172
10.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 795-96. 174
(17)
11. On or about April 7, 1972 Sloan met with Maurice Stans,
Chairman of FCRP . Sloan told Stans that Magruder had approved a cash
disbursement of $83,000 to Liddy. Stans met with Mitchell to confirm
Magruder 's authority to authorize the requested disbursement. Mitchell
told Stans that Magruder had the authority to authorize expenditures to
Liddy. Stans then met with Sloan and confirmed Magruder 's authority to
approve the disbursement of funds to Liddy. Stans has testified that
when asked by Sloan the purpose for which the money was to be expended,
he replied, "I don't know what's going on in this campaign and I don't
think you ought to try to know."
Page
11.1 Hugh Sloan testimony, 2 SSC 538-39 178
11.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 795-96 180
11.3 Maurice Stans testimony, 2 SSC 697, 727 182
11.4 John Mitchell testimony, 4 SSC 1616-18 184
(18)
12. On or about April 12, 1972 Gordon Liddy gave James McCord,
security consultant for CRP, $65,000 for purchasing electronic
equipment and for related purposes.
Page
12.1 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 169-70. 188
12.2 Accounting of expenditure of $76,000, submitted
for the record by James McCord, 1 SSC 448 190
(19)
13. In April 1972 Assistant to the President H. R. Haldeman met
with Gordon Strachan and instructed Strachan to contact Gordon Liddy
and advise him to transfer whatever "capability" he had from the
presidential campaign of Senator Edmund Muskie to the campaign of
Senator George McGovern. Strachan met with Liddy in Strachan 's
White House office and told Liddy of Haldeman 's desire to have Liddy 's
"capability" transferred from the Muskie campaign to the McGovern
campaign. Haldeman has testified that he does not recall giving
Strachan that instruction.
Page
13. 1 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2454-56 192
13.2 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3038. 195
(20)
14. In April 1972 Gordon Liddy told Howard Hunt that the DNC head-
qtiarters would be a target of electronic surveillance.
Page
14.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3708, 3764,
3792 198
35-647 O - 74 - 3
(21)
15. Shortly before May 25, 19 72 a group, including Bernard
Barker, Eugcnio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez and Frank Sturgis, came
to Washington, D.C. from Miami, Florida in response to a request
from Howard Hunt to Barker for a team of men to conduct a mission.
On or about May 25 and May 26, 1972, two unsuccessful attempts were
made to enter surreptitiously the premises of the DNC , and one un-
successful attempt was made to enter surreptitiously Senator McGovern's
headquarters .
Page
15.1 Bernard Barker testimony, SSC Executive Session,
May 11, 1973, 196-97 202
15.2 Bernard Barker testimony, 1 SSC 371, 377 204
15.3 Virgilio Gonzalez testimony, SSC Executive Session,
December 10 , 1973 , 9-11 206
15.4 E. Howard Hunt testimony, SSC Executive Session,
December 17 , 1973 , 13-15 209
15.5 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 399-400 212
(22)
16. On or about May 27, 1972 under the supervision of Gordon Liddy
and Howard Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Gonzalez, and Sturgis broke
into the DNC headquarters. McCord placed two monitoring devices on the
telephones of DNC officials, one on the telephone of Chairman Lawrence
O'Brien, and the second on the telephone of the executive director of
Democratic state chairmen, R. Spencer Oliver, Jr. Barker selected
documents relating to the DNC contributors, and these documents were
then photographed.
Page
16.1 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 128, 156-57 216
16.2 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3710-11 219
16.3 Bernard Barker testimony, SSC Executive Session,
May 11, 1973, 165-66. 221
(23)
17. On May 28, 1972 Alfred Baldwin, an employee of CRP, began
intercepting conversations derived from the monitoring devices placed
in the telephones at the DNC. Baldwin was unable to pick up the signal
from the device placed in Lawrence O'Brien's telephone. Between May 28
and June 16, 1972 Baldwin monitored approximately 200 conversations
and each day gave the logs and summaries to McCord. McCord delivered
these logs and summaries to Liddy, except on one occasion when Baldwin
delivered the logs to the CRP headquarters.
Page
17.1 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11 224
17.2 Alfred Baldwin testimony. United States v. Liddy,
January 17, 1973, 951 228
17.3 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 157, 232-33 229
(24)
18. During the first or second week in June 1972, Magruder received
transcripts of conversations intercepted from the DNC headquarters. The
transcripts were typed on stationery captioned "Gemstone." In addition
to the transcripts, Magruder was supplied with prints of the documents
photographed during the initial entry into the DNC headquarters. During
this period, Magruder handed his administrative assistant, Robert Reisner ,
documents on the top of which was printed the word "Gemstone." Magruder
Instructed Reisner to place the Gemstone documents in a file marked "Mr.
Mitchell's file," which was to be used for a meeting between Magruder and
Mitchell. Shortly after the June 17, 1972 break-in at the DNC headquarters,
Magruder told Reisner to remove the Gemstone files containing transcripts
of conversations and other politically sensitive documents from the CRP
files. Thereafter Reisner destroyed certain documents.
Page
18.1 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 796-97, 800 234
18.2 Robert Reisner testimony, 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 526 .237
18.3 "Gemstone" stationery, SSC Exhibit No. 16, 2 SSC 877 242
18.4 Sally Harmony testimony, 2 SSC 461, 467 243
(25)
19. Before June 17, 1972 Liddy, Hunt, Barker and McCord engaged
in certain preliminary intelligence activities preparatory to the
Democratic National Convention to be held in Miami, Florida.
Page
19.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3688, 3785-86, 3795.-246
19.2 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 184-85 250
19.3 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 401-02 252
(26)
20. On June 17, 1972 at approximately 2:00 a.m., McCord, Barker,
Sturgis, Gonzalez and Martinez were arrested for burglary in the
Watergate offices of the DNC. On September 15, 1972 Howard Hunt,
Gordon Liddy, and the five men who had been arrested at the DNC head-
quarters were named in an eight-count indictment charging, among other
offenses, conspiracy illegally to obtain and use information from the
offices and headquarters of the DNC. Hunt, Barker, Sturgis, Gonzalez
and Martinez entered pleas of guilty. Liddy and McCord stood trial and
were convicted on all charges. On August 16, 1973 Jeb Magruder pled
guilty to an information charging, among other offenses, conspiracy
unlawfully to obtain and use information from headquarters of the DNC.
Page
20.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3688 256
20.2 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 128 257
20.3 United States v. Liddy indictment, September 15,
1972, 1, 8 258
20.4 Paul Leeper testimony, 1 SSC 105-06 260
20.5 Carl Shoffler testimony, 1 SSC 118 262
20.6 United States v. Liddy docket, 1-2, 21, 25 263
20.7 United States v. Magruder information,
August 16, 1973, 1-3. 267
20.8 United States v. Magruder order,
August 20, 1973 270
(27)
STATEMEOT OF INFORMATION
AND
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVENTS PRIOR TO
TOE WATERGATE BREAK- IN
December 2, 1971 - June 17, 1972
(29)
1. On December 2, 1971 Gordon Strachan reported in writing to
H. R, Haldeman, Assistant to President Nixon, on activities relating
to the President's re-election campaign. In his Political Matters
Memorandvun of that date Strachan reported:
John Dean — The Attorney General discussed with
John Dean the need to develop a political intelli-
gence capability. Sandwedge has been scrapped.
Instead, Gordon Liddy, who has been working with
Bud Krogh, will become general counsel to the Com-
mittee for the Re-Election of the President, ef-
fective December 6, 1971. He will handle political
intelligence as well as legal matters. Liddy will
also work with Dean on the "political enemies" pro-
ject.
Jack Caulfield will go over to the Committee when
the Attorney General moves. Caulfield will handle
the same projects he currently does. In addition
he will assume responsibility for the personal pro-
tection of the Attorney General.
'Page
1.1 Memorandxim from Gordon Strachan to H. R.
Haldeman, December 2, 1971 (received from
White House) 32
1.2 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2448-49 37
1.3 President Nixon statement, May 22, 1973,
9 Presidential Documents 693 , 695 39
1.4 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 924-25. 41
1.5 John Caulfield testimony, 1 SSC 251-52 ,-• 43
(31)
1.1 GORDON STRACHAN J^:M'^R^]!DllM^^DECFf^f_FR^ _2j_ 1971
THE V/MITE HOUSZ
WA S H I M G T O M
Administratively Confidential
December 2. 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT :
001094
H.R. HALDSRAN
GORDON STRACHANf^
Political Matters
The Nixon Finance Coinmittee of Lee Nunn and Hugh Sloan
has received 1,700 and disbursed 630, leaving a balance
of 1,070. The receipts are low because fundraising was
curtailed before the November 9 Rl^IC dinner and Secretary
Stans does not return from Russia until December 6. On
his return the Attorney General is prepared to discuss
with hijra the position of Financial Chairman for 1972.
Herb Kalmbach now has pledges of 11,600 but "in the barn"
receipts are only 1,000. Hov/ever, he believes there will
be a 95% delivery on the pledges.
The RNC financial situation will be reviev/ed by the Attorney
General on December 4. Magruder will meet with Tom Evans
on December 2 and 3 to get detailed budget and receipt
figures from the RNC v^ith particular focus on the November
9 dinners.
Concerning ambassadorships, Kalmbach will get a case by
case determination from the Attorney General as he did in
the case of John Safer. Kalmbach has tried to approach
Flanigan but continues to have the same problems of having
telephone calls returned and reaching an understanding.
The Committee for the Re-Election of the President has a
December budget of 100,000, of which 50,000 is salary,
16,000 travel and entertainment, and 36,000 operating
expenses. The budget submitted to the Attorney General
does not list the 40 employees and their individual salaries.
Cliff Miller — He met with the Attorney General on December
2 for one hour to review the Campaign. The Attorney General
asked Miller to know the details and to supply independent
advice on polling and research, advertising, the PR - press
area, and teleohone - direct mail. Miller expressed his view,
that the v/eakest part of the Campaign was Harry Flemmmg s
(32)
2.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, DECEMBER 2, 1971
-2- 14^0
field operation. The Attorney General acMMted that there was
a problem, which the Attorney General planned to alleviate by
bringing in "fellov/s with a little more stature", such as
Mardian. Also, the Attorney General has kept Flemming under
"very close reins" so far. nr»-trjo'
0010.3^
The Attorney General agreed that it might be a good idea to
have Miller or someone else go to Hevr Hampshire to take an
independent look at the Nev/ Hampshire campaign operation.
The Attorney General is concerned that the Shumway move did
not proceed quicker and with more careful checking by
Miller. Miller assured him that all parties v/ere now in
agreement and that he will work directly v/ith Fred Malek.
Without any hard evidence. Miller believes that the Attorney
General is pleased with Magruder's performance.
Harry Dent — The Attorney General is being urged to talk
to Governor Holton about a Byrd Coalition candidate for
Senator Spong's seat so that Virginia will be an easy victory
for the President.
Ehrlichman received a political briefing from Dent on North
Carolina in connection vrrith his trip to Duke University. The
memorandum emphasizes the impending party primary fight
between Jim Holshouser and Jim Gardner for the governorship
and the problems getting Jim Broyhill to run for Senator
Jordan's Senate seat. However, "the President seems to be in
good shape in North Carolina".
After you questioned vrhether Wallace would forfeit delegates
or electors if he runs in the Democratic primary in Florida
and then as an independent in another state. Dent double
checked. The Florida Democratic Executive Committee passed
and then rescinded a provision that would have denied Wallace
his delegates. The Secretary of State did not follow the
Democratic party's example and rule that he would also lose
his electors.
Dent talks v^ith Kevin Phillips periodically. Last week the
Attorney General "hit Phillips hard" on some of his recently
published remarks. Dent has the highest regard for Phillips'
"political brain" and says that although Phillips hates Colson
Ehrlichman, Flemraing and Kleindienst, he is only beginning to
turn sour on the Administration. Dent, at the Attorney
General's direction, will continue to stay in touch v/ith
Phillips, but Dent believes you should see Phillips briefly
to convince him that the President still looks to Kevin Phillips
for political advice,
(33)
\^\
1.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, DECEtmER 2, 1972
-3-
Arrange Haldeman meeting v/ith Phillips
. advice tl
00109G
/^ /l.-^rf /^/ /^Receive Phillips political advice through the
(C, -^ i^''"" t Attorney General and Dent
other
Dent attended the Repxiblican Governors Conference on
Novmeber 20-21 in Indiana and reports that "their public
statements and actions vrere very good". The Governors
v;ant to be more political and help the President. They
also feel that more information should be made available
to the Vice President.
Martha Mitchell v/as a "smash hit" at a GOP fund raising
appearance in South Carolina, November 19,
Dent is urging the Attorney General to contact the Vice
President to have him reconsider his change of plans
cancelling his appearance before the Southern GOP Conference
on December the 4th.
vrallace Eenley is tracking George Wallace and reports that
he has resicmed himself to rimning as an independent in
Alabama because of his problems v;ith the Legislature. The
new AIP platform is like a reprint of the Burchers Blue Book.
The AIP "ational Convention will be held in Toledo. The
date has not been set.
Hurrav Chotiner — Because of Governor Peterson »s unpopularity
in New Hanp shire , Chotiner advised you and the Attorney
General that he believes Peterson vrauld "make an excellent
accoir.tee so~ie-.vhere in the Administration".
Cliff vfnite is still meeting v;ith Conservatives and blaming
the President for the U.N. result.
John Dean — The Attorney" General discussed with John Dean
the need "to develop a political intelligence capability.
Sandwedge has been scrapped. Instead, Gordon Liddy, v/ho has
been working with Bud Krogh, will become general counsel
to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, effective
Decemb-r 6, 1971. He will handle political intelligence as
well as legal matters. Liddy will also work with Dean on the
"political enemies" project.
(34)
1.1 GORDON STRACHAN mMORANDUM, DECEmER2, 1971
-d-
Jack Caulfield v/ill go over to the Committea v/hen ths
Attorney General moves. Caulfield v/ill handle the seime
projects he currently does. In addition he vrill assun-ie
responsibility for the personal protection of the Attorney
General.
Cajnpaign Related Action Memo — A Sigma Delta Chi Convention
identified the Cam.paign's principle issues as the economy
(107 of 122 votes) , international affairs (9) , and law and
order (3) . ^>nT.ile reading the news sumioary report of this
the President "strongly stated that the Democrats must
not be allowed to get av/ay v/ith this . . . international
affairs is our issue and the economy is theirs — regardless
of what happens to it because the liberals can always
promise more". You, Ehrlichman , /-aAdj Gc^spn received the
memorandum. UUi.U._j /
You, Ehrlichman, and Colson were also advised that "our
political types v/orking the precinct in the ghetos and
Navaho Reservations for Republican converts would do v/ell
to focus their attention upon the Holy Name Society, the
Women's Sodality, and the Polish-American Union".
Magruder's Projects — The weekly report submitted to the
Attorney General on December 1 is briefer and better than
previous reports. It is attached at Tab A for your review
instead of being summarized because you had asked about
the youth registration drives, which are covered in some
detail.
Magruder reports that the Attorney General met with Lyn
Nofziger on December 1. On November 4 you and the Attorney
General talked about the importance of getting a Nofziger
interpretation of the Dole-Evans split. Unfortunately,
Magruder believes this subject was not covered because the
meeting focused on the California situation.
Magruder will meet with Tom Evans of the RNC on December
2 and 3 to get his views o-f the role of the RNC in the
Campaign. Magruder and Flemming meet v/ith the Attorney General
on December 4 to decide on the role and budget of the RNC vis
a vis the Committee. On December 6 th.e Attorney General,
Magruder and Flemming will tell Tom Evans of their decisions.
Tom Evans will explain the decisions to the RNC at the
meeting in Washington on December 9-12. Besides the Budget,
Wagruder considers the voter registration and gat out the
vote functions as the only important areas that have not
been resolved.
(35)
1.1 GORDON STRACHAN mMORANDUM, DECEmER 2, 1971
.- 'in
i'agruder and some of his top people have rr.oved into nav; offices
adjoining Mudge Rose Guthrie and Alexander at 1701 because
everyone is still under the impression that the Attorney
General will become a partner in the law firm v/hen he leaves
Justice. You may already have discussed this matter of
joining the firm with the Attorney General pursuant to
the Len Garment memorandum.
Magruder now receives a copy of the nev7s summary. He says
he needs another copy for Harry Flemming and Ken Rietz.
Approve additional copy of nev/s summary
'Cancel Magruder ' s nev^s s\ammary
Other 001093
Magruder submitted memoranda • to the Attorney General
on transient voters, vramen in the Campaign, the Middle
American, and the functions of a Citizens organization.
The Attorney General has not yet reviewed them. The one
on the Middle American received substantial input from
Colson but is very long. You will receive it for reading
on one of the trips this month.
(36)
2.2 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 23, 1973, 6 SSC 2448-49
2448
Mr. Straciiax. No; not all niattors would be coinnumicated for
action. He had very little interest, for e.xample, in what the field
organization would be doing. I would advise him on an FYI basis of
who had been selected to head the campaigns in the various States
ImtJig showi'd very little iutei'est in tluit.
r^Afc Dasii. When you made your reports to Mr. Haldeman, espe-
cially those reports that came from the committee, coidd you briefly
I tell us, but in some detail, what kind of reports you made? How did
you report to Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Stkachax. Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement I
prepared periodically, usually once a week or once every 2 weeks
memorandums entitled ''Political Matters Memos."
These memorandums would summarize the information that I had
accumulated from the politically active people on the White House
staff, Mr. Colson, Mr. Dent, information I had accumulated from
1701, from the various State organizations, he had quite an interest.
Mr. Dash. Wlien you say 1701 what are you referring to?
Mr. Strachan. That is the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
He had quite an interest in California so I would talk with the
California people, and then I would write a memorandum, usually
quite long, 8, 9, 10 pages, with several attachments as backup. The
main purpose of attaching the tabs would be that I would refer in
the paragraphs to information that I thought he should read in the
original form, and would attach it as a tab.
Mr. Dash. Were some of your communications in an oral form
rather than in a memorandum form?
Mr. Strachax. He prefers to communicate in writing. Of course, I
would have oral commimications with him but the great bulk of
information that he received from me regarding the campaign would
be in writing.
Mr. Dash. All right, now, when he received from you a political
matter memorandum with the various items indicated, and the tabs,
how would he respond to you concerning those items that were brought
to his attention by you ?
■Vlr. STR.VCHAX. Well, he would always read with a pen and he would
write his comments beside them or check the item as he read each
particular paragraph. Occasionally he would write his views on the
political matters memo the paragraph that dealt with the particular
subject.
Mr. Dash. In instances, I take it, you would be given, or at least
get indications from him, as to what he wanted you to do to follow
up on various matters ?
Mr. Stkachax. Well, usually, his comments on the side would be
cryptic and humorous. If he had a disagreement as to the way things
were being done at the committee, he would send a memorandum to
John Mitchell or on occasion to Jeb 3i[a<T:rudei-. or make a note to me
that I shoidd contact a particular indindual about something.
Mr. Dash. Now, when, on the basis of any particular information
that you presented Mr. Haldeman in the form of, say, a political mat-
ters memorandum, he wanted to have a meeting with somebody, would
you prepare any particular paper with regard to that meeting?
Mr. Stkachax. Yes. I would prepare what would be characterized
as a tallring paper. They were fairly structured, formalized in Mr.
(37)
1.2 GORDON STHACHAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 23, 197 Z, 6 SSC 2448-49
2449
Haldeinau's office. Prior to a meetincr, for example, with John ilitchell,
I would prepare a talking paper of subjects I thought he should cover
■with him.
Mr. Dash. By the way, when Mr. Haldenian would put a check,
I I think you mentioned, lay an item, what would that mean to you?
I^Mr. Stkachax. That would indicate that he had read it.
^'^^^. Dash. Now, do you recall whether Mr. Magrxider, who frequent-
ly, I take it, did give you information concerning the Committee for
the Re-Election of the President, gave you any information concern-
ing an intelligence plan prior to ]\Iarch 30, 1972?
Mr. Str-vchan. Prior to March 30, 1972 ?
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Mr. Strachax. No ; he did not.
INIr. Dash. Now, have you read or heard ISlr. Magruder's testimony?
Mr. Stil\ch.\n. Yes; I have.
Mr. Dash. We have the testimony here, but I think I can expedite
matters by briefly referring to it. Mr. Magruder did testify that cer-
tainly after the February 4, 1972, meeting, he communicated to you
about the meeting, about the contents of the meeting, and in fact, sent
you copies of the notes or memorandums of the so-called Liddy plan
that had been presented to Mr. Mitchell in ^Nlr. Mitchell's office where
Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Liddy met with Mr. Mitchell. Are you
familiar with Mr. Magruder's testimony in that regard ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes ; I am.
Mr. Dash. Did ]Mr. ]NIagruder do that?
Mr. Strachax. No; he did not. Mr. ^Magruder — and I have read his
testimony carefully — relies on the fact that automatically, materials
would have come over to me. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has
established that that is not true. Materials do not automatically come
over to me. And in this particular case
Mr. Dash. How did the Federal Bureau of Investigation establish
that that is not true ?
Mr. Str.\chax. They interviewed several of his secretaries and
people in his office and they indicated that matter's were not always
sent to Jlr. Strachan or to the Wliite House, that they would be held
back at the express direction of Mr. ilagruder.
Mr. Dash. \Yould it be true that important matters, matters of sig-
nificance, would be sent over to you? "Would you not agree that a
plan such as the so-called Liddy plan to engage in electronic surveil-
lance for political intelligence was a significant matter?
Mr. Str^vchax. Obviously, that is a significant matter, but I think
Mr. Magruder probably relied upon the fact that John Dean was
present at the meeting to report to the appropriate people at the White
House.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us at this point about that separate re-
lationship? A\Tiat was Mr. Dean's relationship with Mr. Haldeman
as apart from your relationship ?
Mr. Str.\chan. Well, ilr. Dean had line responsibility as distin-
guished from mine of staff responsibility. He would have a certain
amount of independent authority and woidd function on projects on
his own and repoit to Jlr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman on matters
on which he needed guidance.
(38)
jl.S PRESIDENT NUON STATEMENT, MAY 22, 1972, 9 PBESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 693, 696
PRESIOENTlAl DOCUMENTS: RICHARD NIXON, 1973
Kun/.ic;, "ho is now ;in a-so( iatc jucl.^c of llic U.S. 0.u,t
of Claims.
Mr Sampson has been Aclinc; Adminislralor of Gen-
eral Ser^ircs since June 2, 1972. He joined the General
Ser\iccs Vdministration in 1969 as Coinni.ssioner of ihc
Federal SuppK Ser^icc. From 1970 to 1972 he was Com-
n,i-.sioncr of the Public BuUdin". Service in GSA and the
first Deputy Administrator of GSA for Special Piojects.
He came to the General Services Administration after
6 vcars in Pennsvlvania State i^oveniment, where he was
sccretao' of administration and budget secretary under
Gov. Ravmond P. Shafer, and dcputv secretary for pro-
curement, department of property and supplies, under
Gov William \V. Scranton. Prior to entennt; government
scr^■ice, he was employed bv the General Electric Co. for
1 2 vears.
Mr. Sampson was born on October R, 1926, in Warren,
R I He received his B.S. degree in business adnunis-
tration from the University of Rho<lc Island in 19.^1 and
has done graduate work at the George Washmgton
University.
Active in several profes.siona! organizations. Mr. Samp-
son was presented the S^nerg^ III Award for outstanding
contributions toward the advancement of architecture by
the Societv of American Registered .\rchitects in 19/2.
In 1973 he w.as selected .xs one of the Top Ten Public
Works Men of the Year, and he was named an honorary
member of the American Institute of Architects.
He and his wife, Blanche, have four rhildren and reside
in Washington, O.C).
vote: For tl.c Prr^id'-nt's st.icrmrnl upon ann.nmrms his intention
to nomin.itc Mr. Satn|)~on, sec tho ,ir<ccrlint; item.
I will not abandon my responsibilities. I will continue
to do the jol) I was elected to do.
In the acioinpanying statement, I have set forth the
facts as I know them .ls they relate to my own role.
With regard to the specific allegations that h.ive been
made, I can and do state categorically.
1. I.had no prior knowledge of the Watergate
operation.
2. I took no part in. nor was I aware of, any subsequent
efTorts that may have been made to cover up
Watergate.
3. At no time did I authorize .any ofTer of executive
clemency for the Watergate defendants, nor did I
know of any such offer.
4. I did not know, until the time of my own investiga-
tion, of any efTort to provide the Watergate defend-
ants with funds.
5. At no time did I attempt, or did I authorize others
to attempt, to implicate the CI.-\ in the Watergate
m.attcr.
6. It w.as not until the time of my own investigation
that I learned of the break-in at the office of Mr.
Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and I specifically authorized
the furnishing of this information to Judge Byrne.
7. I neither authorized nor encouraged svibordinates to
engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics.
In the .accompan\-ing statement, I have sought to pro-
vide the background that may place recent allegations in
pcnipectivc. I have specifically stated thai executive
privilege will not be invoked as to any testimony concern-
ing possible crimln.al conduct or di5cus,sions of possible
criminal conduct, in the matters under investigation. I
want the public to learn the truth about Watergate and
those guilty of any illegal actions brought to justice.
n
The Watergate Investigation
Slalctiicnts by the PrciUhnt. May 22, 1973
Recent news accounts growing out of testimony in the
Watcrg.-ite investigations have given gros.sly misleading
imprc'i.sions of many of the facts, as they relate both to my
own role and to certain unrelated activities involvmg na-
tional security.
Already, on the basis of second- and third-hand hearsay
testimony bv persons cither ronvic led or themseUes under
invest ig.ation in the < ase, I have fou.ul my.sclf accused of
imolvement in activities I never heard of until I read
about them in news acctuints.
These impressions could also lead to a serious miMindor-
standing of thosr n.itional se. urily .u tivities which, ihoiigh
totally unrel.itod to Watci-.ile. have become ciUanglal in
the case. Thev (ouUI lead lo further compromise of seiiM-
tive national security information.
Allegations surrounding the Watergate afTair have so
cscal.atcd that I feel a furtiier st.atemcnt from the President
is required at this time.
A climate of sensationalism has developed in which
even second- or third-hand hearsay charges arc headlined
as fact and repeated as fact.
Important national security operations which them-
selves had no connection witli Watergate have become
entangled in the case.
,\s a result, some national security information has
already been made public through court orders, through
the sui)poenaing of documents, and through testimony
witnes.ses have given in judici.al and Congiessional pro-
ceedings. Other sensitive documents are now threatened
with disclosure. Continued silence about those operations
would compromise rather than protect them, and would
also sene to perpetu.ite a gros.sIy distorted view— which
recent parli.d di-closurcs hive given— of the nature ai\d
purpose of those operations.
(39)
l.Z PRESIDENT NIXON STATEMENT, MY 22, 1972, 9 PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 693, 696
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: RICHARD NIXON, 1973
mcmoraTidiini of the options approved. After rcconsidcr-
atinn, however, prompted by the opposition of Director
Hoover, the agencies were notified 5 days later, on July 28,
that the approval had been rescinded. The options initially
approved had included resumption of certain intelligence
operations which had been suspended in 1966. These in
turn had included authorization for surreptitious entry —
breaking and entering, in cflect — on specified categories
of targets in specified situations related to national
security.
Because the approval was withdrawn before it had
been implemented, the net result wa.s that the plan for
expanded intelligence activities never went into effect.
The documents spelling out this 1970 plan are ex-
tremely sensitive. They include — and are ba.scd upon —
assessments of certain foreign intelligence capabilities and
procedures, which of course must remain secret. It was
this unused plan and related documents that John Dean
removed from the White House and placed in a safe
deposit box, giving the keys to Judge Sirica. The same
plan, still unused, is being headlined tcxJay.
Coordination among our intelligence agencies con-
tinued to fall short of our national security needs. In
July 1970. having earlier discontinued the FBI's liaison
^s■ith the CI.\, Director Hoo\er ended the FBI's normal
liaison with all other agencies e.\cept the White House.
To help remedy this, an Intelligence Evaluation Com-
mittee wa.s created in December 1970. Its members in-
cluded representatives of the White House, CIA, FBI,
XS.\, the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Defense,
and the Secret Service.
The Intelligence F.valuation Committee and its staff
were instructed to improve coordination among the in-
telligence community and to prepare evaluations and esti-
mates of dome-tic intelligence. I understand that its
activities are now under investigation. I did not authorize
nor do I have any knowledge of any illegal activity by
this Committee, ff it went beyond its charter and did en-
gage in any illegal activities, it was totally without my
knowledge or authority.
The SrF.cui. Investic.atioxs Unit
On Sunday, June 13, 1971, The New York Times pub-
lished the first installment of what came to be known as
"The Pentagon Papers." Not until a few hours before
publication did any responsible Cinernnicnt olficial know
that they had been stolen. Most olficials did not know they
existed. No senior olficial of the Government had read
them or knew with certainty what they contained.
All the Government knew, at fit^t, was that the papers
comprised 47 volumes and some 7.01)0 p.iges, which had
been taken from the most •-cii^itive files of the D<-p.irlmeiits
of St.ite .ind Dtfrnve aiul the CIA, Cdvering niililary and
diplomatic nio\es in a war that \s,is still going on.
Morccner, a majority of the documents published with
the first three installments in The Times had not been
included in the 47-volumc study — raising serious ques-
tions about what and how much else might have been
taken.
There was ever)' reason to believe this was a security
leak of unprecedented proportions.
It created a situation in which the ability of the Gov-
ernment to carr)' on foreign relations even in the best of
circumstances could have been severely compromised.
Other governments no longer knew whether they could
deal with the United Stales in confidence. Against the
background of the delicate negotiations the United States
was then involved in on a number of fronts — with regard
to Vietnam, China, the Middle East, nuclear aims limi-
tations, U.S. -Soviet relations, and others — in wliich the
utmost degree of confidentiality was vital, it posed a threat
so grave as to require extraordinary actions.
Therefore during the week following the Pentagon
Papers publication, I approved the creation of a Special
Investigations Unit within the White House — which later
came to be known as the "plumbers." This was a small
group at the White House whose principal purpose was
to stop security leaks and to investigate other sensitive
security matters. I looked to John Ehrlichman for the
supcrv-islon of this group.
Egil Krogh. Mr. Ehrlichman's assistant, was put in
charge. David Young was added to this unit, as were
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy.
^^Thcunit operated under extremely tight security rules.
Its existence and functions were know n only to a very few-
persons at the White House. These included Messrs.
Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean.
At about the time the unit w.as created, Daniel Elb-
berg was identified as the person who had given the Penta-
gon Papers to The New York Times. I told Mr. Krogh
that as a matter of first priority, the unit should find out
all it could about Mr. Ellsbcrg"s a-ssociatcs and his motives.
Because of the extreme gravity of the situation, and not
then knowing what additional national secrets Mr. Ells-
berg might disclose, I did impress upon Mr. Krogh the
vital importance to the national security of his assign-
ment. I did not authorize and had no knowledge of any
illegal means to be used to achieve this goal.
However, because of the emphasis I put on the crucial
importance of protecting the national security, I can
understand how highly motivated individuals could have
felt justified in engaging in specific activities that I would
have disapproved had they been brought to my attention.
Consoquciilly, as President, I must and do assume re-
sponsibility for such actions despite the fact that I at no
time approved or had knowledge of them.
I also assigned the unit .-i number of other in\ cstigatory
matters, de.iling in p.irt with compiling an accurate rec-
onl of c\eiiis rcl.ilcd to the \'ictnam w.ir. on vvhich the
Governnunt's records were inadequate ^many previous
(40)
2.4 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 25, 1973, 3 SSC 924-25
924
Mr. De.\n. Again, because of the very sensitive nature of informa-
tion contained in these documents, and tlie problems that information
might unfairly cause those individuals, I shall not discuss the docu-
ments further, other than to point out to the committee that tlie inter-
est in Mr. Larry O'Brien dates back, from my records, to the time I
first joined the White House statl in July 1970, wl^de the interest in
Senatoi"s ]Muskie and McGovern developed as the reelection campaign
developed.
I would now like to turn to a political intelligence and security plan
that was designed for the campaign, but ultimately was rejected.
r~
I slo
I am
I wh
I ass
Operatiox Saxdnvedge
While Caulfield was a member of my staff, the use of ilr. Ulasewicz
slowly diminished, in that I had no need for such investigative work,
and I only requested Caulfield to obtain investigative information
when someone else on the staff requested it. While I did try to fiaid
assignments for Caulfield that related to the work of the counsel's
office it was difficult in that he was not a lawyer.
Mr. Caulfield was aware of this situation and in the spring of 1971
he came to me and told me that he was thinking of leaving the AMiite
House staff and establishing an investigative/security consulting cor-
poration. He felt that there was a need and a market for what he
described as a "Republican intertel" — Intertel being a firm being a long
established firm that has been in existence working in this field. He
told me that he could have a goin^ concern by campaign time and that
his firm could provide investigative/security assistance to the
campaign.
We casually discussed this on several occasions. Tiie basic and initial
concept he had developed was an operation that could be funded by
contracts with corporations. Mr. Caulfield's firm would [)rovide services
for these corporations, but it would also provide free services to the
1972 reelection campaign. I recall telling Caulfield that T could not help
him in the intelligence field because I did not have any expertise in
the area but I advised him that he should work with a law^-er in de-
veloping the concept he had outlined to n^e because it was fraught with
legal problems. For example, I told him corporations oie prohibited
under Federal law from making direct campaign contributions.
Shortly after these conversations, Caulfield informed me that he had
formed a group to develop a plan to submit to Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr.
Haldeman, and Mr. Mitchell. The planning group intended to Ixcome
the principal officers of the corporation once it commenced its activity.
Caidfield and the group spent several months devolopinrr their plnns
and in early August or September of 1971 Caulfield brought mu a copy
of a memorancium entitled Operation Sandwedge and told me he
was seeking a meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman to discuss the matter and
requested that I assist him in gettinsr a meetin.T with Mr. ^Mitchell. I
do not know if Mr. Caulfield met with Mr. Ehrlichman. If he did, I
was not present and have no knowledge of the meeting.
I read the memorandum and found it to be a privately operated ex-
tension of the types of things that Can' field had boon nerformincr for
Ehrlichman. I returned the memorandum to Caulfield and told him
I would raise it with IMitchell. To the best of my recollection Opera-
(41)
2.4 JOHN DEAN TESTIWNY, JUNE 25, 1973, 3 SSC 924-25
925
tion Sauchved<To. envisioned the creation of a corpoi-ation called Se-
ciuitj Consulting Group, Inc., which was to have ollices in Washin;;-
ton, Chicago, and New York. It was to have an "overt" and "covert"
capacity. The covert capacity would have operated (JUt of Xew York—
presumably under the aegis of Mr. Ulasewicz — and was to be separate
and apart from the other operations in Washington and Chicago. The
principal activity of the Security Consulting Group, Inc., was to pro-
vide private security for all phases of the campaig/i, but the Xew York
"covert" operation would have the capacity to provide "bag men" to
carry money and engage in electronic surveillance — if called upon to
do so.
Although I returned the copy of the Operation Sandwedge memo-
randum given me by Caulfield, I did find in my records a copy of the
proposed budget, which reflects some of the items I have just men-
tioned. I also found a number of memorandums relating to the cam-
paign security aspects of the plan. I have submitted these documents
to the committee.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 34-9.*]
Mr. Deax. I did discuss Operation Sandwedge with Mr. Mitchell. I
recall that he was not interested at all. He told me that he thought
Jack Caulfield was a fine person, but he felt the principal problems
would relate to security and the problems that demonstratoi-s might
pose to the campaign. Mitchell said he "wanted a lawjer to handle any
such operation and asked me to think about candidates. I told him that
Jack Caulfield had requested an opportunity to discuss his plan with
him, and I told him that I told Jack I would convey the message.
Mitchell did not wish to discuss the proposal, so T kept putting Caul-
field off when he raised it with me because I liked Jack and did not
want to hurt his feelings, so I continued to keep putting him off.
I also recall that Ehrlichman laised Operation Sandwedge with
me. I do not know if this was a result of his meeting with Caidfield or
Caulfield sending him a copy of the memorandum. Ehrlichman told
me that he would like to keep Tony Ulasewicz aiound during the cam-
paijm, but he did not think much of Caulfield's proposed grand plan.
.Ehrlichman told me that Mitchell knew about Tony ITasewicz and
that Mitchell and Jack should talk al)out Tony's future.
Meanwhile, Caulfield kept requesting an answer (m his plans. He
had his lieart set on his proposal; he had s]x>nt long lioui-s preparing
it and T knew he was going to be very disappointed to learn that it had
been shot down. Every few weeks Caulfield would sond an item to me
to prompt me to take some action. I have submitted to the committee
tlie tvpe of items he would send.
fTlie document refeired to was marked exhibit No. o4— 10.**]
ill-. Df.ax. T would iust file them and do nothinsr. as I had decided
that tlie best coui-se of action to save Jack's feelin.is was to let the
matter die a natural death thi-oug)i no action. Indeed, tliat happened.
Bv November 1071, CaulfieVl realized that his plan was dead and
lie abandoned the idea. Realizing this, he told me he would like to work
for ^fr. >ritchell durinir the cami)aign as an .•iidi--de-cnmp. and re-
nuested that I assist him in gettinir an appointment with Mitchell.
T aiianired for him to meet with ^fr. ^Fitchell on November 24. lOTl.
(42)
P'
n
I ™
1.5 JOHN CAULFIELD TESTIMONY, MAY 22, 1973, 1 SSC 251-52
251
at which Air. Mitchell told me that while my work was highly thought
of, there had been a decision made to "semimilitarize" the U.S.
Marshal's Office and therefore they were considering a retiring, high,
military official for this post. Between December 196S and April of
1969, I was interviewed for and pursued a variety of possible ap-
pointive jobs in Washington.
~ In late March 1969, 1 received a telephone call from Mr. Elirlich-
man who asked me if I would visit him in his office a day or two later.
I did so and at that meeting he asked if I would be willing to set up a
private security entity in Washington, D.C, for purposes of providing
investigative support for the ^Vliite House. I told him that I would
think this over but by the time I had returned home that evening, I had
decided that I did not wish to do this. I called him the next day with
a counterproposal, namely, that I join the White House staff under
Mr. Ehrlichman and, besides providing liaison functions with various
law enforcement agencies, thereby be available to process any investiga-
tive requests from the White House. I mentioned to him that if he
agreed with my proposal I would intend to use the services of one Mr.
Anthony Ulasewicz who was a detective with the New York City
Police Department nearing retirement. He said he would think
about it and get back to me.
A few days later I received a call from his office asking if I would
come to Washington to discuss the matter and that meetmg resulted
in my appointment to the White House staff on April 8, 1969.
My duties at that time consisted of being a White House liaison
^vith a variety of law enforcement agencies in the Federal Govern-
ment, through arrangements worked out with Mr. Ehrlichman, Air.
Herbert Kalmbach, and Anthony Ulasewicz. Mr. Ulasewicz retired
from the New York City Pohce Department and was paid on a
monthly basis by the Kalmbach law firm, that employment com-
mencing on July 9, 1969. During the next 3 years, first on orders
from Mr. Ehrlichman and later in some instances, on orders from
Mr. John Dean, Mr. Ulasewicz, under my supervision, perfonned a
variety of investigative functions, reporting the results of his findings
to the White House through me. I do not fully recall all of the inves-
tigations performed in this fashion but have available a list of those
■which I do recall if the committee wishes to examine it.
In July of 1970 Mr. John Dean became counsel to the President
and Mr. Ehrlichman was named to the position of Presidential Assist-
ant for Domestic Affairs. Thereafter I worked directly for Mr. Dean,
but on occasion, Mr. Ehrlichman continued to call upon me directly
for investigative work involving the services of Mr. Ulasewicz.
In the spiing of 1971, I began to notice that, for some reason, the
amount of investigation work handled by Mr. Ulasewicz through me
had diminished. Aluch of the talk around the White House was be-
ginning to center more and more on the 1972 Presidential election and
I begun to examine ways in my mind in which I might become in-
volved. Since I had perfonned security duties in the 196S election
campaign, and realizing some of the security demands of a Presidential
campaign, I uished to become involved in the security area of the
campaign.
Toward that end, I composed a memorandum suggesting that an
outside security capabiUty be formed to handle the demand of the
(43)
L
1.5 JOHN CAULFIELD TESTIMONY, MAY 22, 1973, 1 SSC 252-62
252
1972 rainpai^. Such aa organization woiilJ lia\c a fupability to per-
form various security functions to insure the security of the traveling
staff, the Committee To Re-Elect tiie President licadquartcrs, the
convention site and would employ various guanls and security people.
In short, I was suggesting the formation of a capability to co\er all
the security needs of a Presidential campaign. The name I gave to
this suggested operation was "Saniiwedge."
I further suggested that I leave the White House staff and set up
this security entity, if it were approved, and suggested a budget of
appro.\imately S3U0,000 to $400,000. I gave the memorandum to
Mr. Dean and got the strong impression from him that it went to
higher levels, but I have no knowledge of who saw it. During the
summer of 1971, I had high hopes that my proposal would be ac-
cepted and had one other direct conversation at lunch about its con-
tents with Mr. Dean and with Mr. Jeb Magruder. Between the end
of June and October of 1971, I iiiquired of Mr. Dean as to the status
of my proposal on numerous occasions but ultimately was told by
Mr. Dean that he didn't think my suggestion was "goLng anywhere."
I was disappointed that my memorandum had been refused. I ne.xt
spoke with Mr. Dean concerning obtaining a position as a personal
aide to John Mitchell, when be became campaign director. Mr. Dean
agreed to ask Mr. Mitchell if such a position was available; he did so,
and on November 24, 1971, he accompanied me to an interview at
Mr. Mitchell's office.
I explained to Mr. Mitchell that what I wanted was a position
similar to that occupied by Dwight Chapin in relation to the President
and that in addition to handling the kinds of activities that Chapin
handled for the President, I could be of value to Mr. ^litchell as a
bodyguard. Mr. Mitchell listened to what I had to say but was non-
committal as to what status 1 would occupy with him. He said, how-
ever, that we would "get that all straightened out when I anived at
the reelection committee." He was unsure as to when he w^ould join
the reelection committee but thought that it would be sometime in
January or February- of 1972. I left his office and walked back to the
White House by myself. Mr. Dean remained and as I was walking
through Mr. Mitchell's outer office I noted Mr. Gordon Liddy sitting
with ^Ir. Dean evidently waiting to see ^Ir. Mitchell.
At that time, I was sure I had a position with Mr. Mitchell but the
nature of my duties was quite unsettled. Ultimately, on the 1st of
March 1972, I went to the reelection committee to commence my
duties there. It soon became clear to me that Mr. Mitchell regarded
me only as a bodyguard which was not what I had had in mind at all.
During March I took two trijps with Mr. Mitchell outside of Washing-
ton, one brief trip to New \ork City and the other to Key Biscayne,
Fla. Since Mr. Mitchell regarded me as his pei-sonal bodyguard I
carried a revolver in my briefcase.
By the time the trip to Florida occurred in late March, I was ali-eady
in touch with a friend of mine at the Treasury Department about
possible emplojTTient there. After being in Florida for approximately
2 to .3 days, I received word that my house m Fairfax, Va., had been
burglarized and so I flew home to attend to my wife and family. Mr.
Fred LaRue had joined us in Florida after our arrival and upon ray
departure, he asked that I leave my revolver in his possession since
(M)
2. In response to a Political Matters Memorandum from Strachan
dated December 6, 1971, Haldeman approved Gordon Liddy's transfer to
the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) at an increase
of $4,000 per annum above his White House salary, as an exception to
the rule that no White House employee would receive a salary at CRP
higher than that which he was receiving at the White House.
Page
2.1 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R.
Haldeman, December 6, 1971 (received from
White House) 46
(45)
2.1 GORDON STRACHAN mMORAMDUM, DECEMBER 6, 1971
.^j
7 .■ y^ - ■, .ij 1 ^
./ .•■-c.-ini&i;f^sfivalK/ Cor.'f idantial
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Decarriier ,54 1971 t^ "
*.! H.R. HaiiDS-niil
1//-'
;y
GORDON STRACHAN
&/
5<.
/>■
Political Matters
Jeb "^'lagrudar mat with, the ''Attorney General for fo^Ir hours
on Decaiober 4 . Some of the natters covered require
decisions by you:
1) Julie Nixon. Eisenhower - "Registration '72"
Jeb I'lagruder has recoitimended to the Attorney General
that Julie Nixon. Eisenhower become the Honorary
Chairman for "Registration '72", which is a joint
registration effort by the Committee (Ken Rietz) and
the RJMC (Ed DeBolt) in the largest counties of
California, Florida, and Texas. This position
would require Julie to "make appearances, write letters,
and othar^'/ise get publicity" for these registration
drives. In terms of a particular scheduling requirement,
she would have to appear at the RJIC meeting this wee!c for
the announcement. Dave Parker reports that she will as.
in Virginia and so is available. The Attorney General
defers entirely to you on whether she should become
Honorary Chairman. The Attorney General feels that yoi:
should consider if this appointment of Julia Nixon
Eisenhower as Honorary Chairman of Registration ' 72
is "too gimmicky". (The original memorandum to the
Attorney . General is attached at Tab A.)
Yes, Julie Nixorr Eisenhower is to be named
"Honorary Chairman of Registration '72
No, Julie is not to be Honorary, Chairman
Other
2) RNC Budget - vrhite House Support
The RNC is currently preparing their budget for 19 72.
The Attorney General will receive a report from Tom
(46)
000I7.J
r-lo
2.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEWRAllDUM, DECEMBER 6, 1971
-2-
Evar.3 today on the csr.eral financial . condition of the
RZ.'C. A cop7 of th3 report '■..-ill be forr/ardsd for yoa.
In 1971 the ivhite House subsidiairx^ account was $500,000.
This paid for advancer^.en, vrhite House special events
and receptions, the Colson/Klein printing and distribution,
of materials, and the Vice President's expenses. Toitl
Evans of the RI-IC v/ants to continue to have a vrnite House
account of 500 to pay for these support activities.
The Attorney General estimates that there will be an
additional 1,000 in "political expenses" for the t'Thite
House in 1972. The Attorney General believes that
their should be a single VThite House political account
of 1,500 for 1972. According to Magruder the Attorney
General believes this account should be controlled
at the Coi?iaittee instead of the RNC to assure a unified
accounting mechanism and to protect against any "McCloskey
type" criticism of the RNC for giving financial assistance
to the political activities of the President.
Since Tom Evans and the RNC must be told before the RNTC
meeting this weak, the Attorney General asks that you
consider this general approach without the specific
budget information from the RNC.
Recommendation :
That you approve of the transfer of all "political e:cpenses'
r the
the/ I
__„,*» for the ;',Tiite House to the Committee for the Re-Election
G-^41' of the/ President.
_Approve Disapprove
Comment
If you approve I will inform the Attorney General through
Magruder. Upon receipt of the detailed Ri^iC budget information
Bruce Kehrli (as the new Staff Secretary) and I will
develop recommended procredures with Hugh Sloan and Jeb
Magruder.
3) The Nixon Re-Elector
Jeb Magruder, Lyn Nofziger and Frank Leonard prepared the
materials at Tab B regarding a "caip.paign publication to
get the message out to the organization". The format
would be sim.ilar to that of 1968. The Attorney General
basically thinks it vrauld be a good idea but asks vmether
you believe it is a generally good or bad idea. If you
00017u
(47)
1 '-iK
2.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, DECEMBER 6, 1971
give vo'ur general approval, I'.agruder vi-ill have Peter
Dailay prepare a detailed proposal for revievy by yo'i
and the Attorney General . Frank Leonard '".■rould have
prirriary responsibility for the publication that may be
called the Nixon Re-Elector .
RecoiTjr.endation :
That you approve the general idea of a tabloid publication
for the Campaign similar to the Nixon Re-Siector, subject
to revie-/ of the Feter Dailey detailed proposal.
'r>\i ' Approve Disapprove
/ '
Comment
4) Committee Press Relations
The question of whether and at what salary Van Shumway is
to move to the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President raises several related matters. According to
Magruder, the Attorney General assumes that the
President vrill announce his candidacy for re-election
on January 6 . Although Magruder is not pri-/y to the
decision he believes that there will be just a low-
key Presidential statement. The candidacy will not
be announced at a press conference or during a
"conversation with the President" as had been suggested.
f^'^^ It may be that the Attorney General has reviewed these
^
matters with the President.
The Attorney General expects that after the announcement,
Ziegler will not answer "political questions" but rather
will refer them to the Committee. This means that on
January 6 the Committee must have a sophisticated
individual to handle the ■questions . If Shumway cannot
definitely be transferred to the Committee by January 6
or some other date certain, the Attorney General believes
the Committee must hire someone else. The Attorney n Q/_-
General respects the fact that Shurn'.-/ay must be replaced f^'^^'-^V^Q
but also appreciates Malek's assessment of the chances „ "■'iS^M
^ ^' KQf finding a replacement: 50/50 for Shumway replacement --iP^r^L
j^ i^iw January 3; 75/25 by January 15; but 25% chance that it^'j^j^
.•?~^ v/ill be impossible to obtain a Shum.way replacement that (liO'^,Q*'
■> J- '*-VAis 'acceptable to Colson and Klein. The Attorney General iip-^^^
\\.y - "^ J^ klnts the press man at the Committee to be compatible -^^i&if^^'
i '^V^ V\ v;ith CaJcS^^>-cr — ffhe Attorney General rejected Jim Holland,
Jihev^^Tcapable PIO at the Post Office because Colsc
■r
OOOIT^^J'
^ ^P^ ly^^^t^
^ — -^r^*-;^ .c:::^
(48)
2.1
GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM. DECEMBER 6. 2971
One cilterr.aciva v/ould be to have Ciiff .-iilior b=cc— ---
press nan on January 3. Ha currently has no ccsration'al
responsibilities but serves as a "consultant" ^o th-
Attorney General on public relations, oress , oollina
and research, and advertising. The Attornav Gereral
has given sona thought to r-.aking Cliff Miller th° too
PR man for the Caiupaign. He could serve as the Herb'
Klein of the 1968 Campaign for 1972. The possibility of
Miller performing this function is increasing because
. Coison told Hagruder not to consider veal Free-^an
'because Colson may be hiring hiiu. -- — — ^
Hagruder wants a "reading" from you about Cliff ^Iiller
as the top PR man so that he can advise the Attorn-y
^f:'f"?'.tf^^''.'^^^^^ ysars of observation Higby believes
Clix.f Miller is not that good. The one orojact I have
worked With Miller on — the Shuin^av transfer — leads
me to the saits conclusion .
I I Agree, Miller not strong enought to handle
p 5^ ^n^ ( 7 top PR spot in Campaign
^ -— , Disagree, Miller strong and should be considered
I 7 by the Attorney General . "^
.0^^^ !i^ ^" ^® meantime, Ann Dore , a New Ybrk PR oerson recruited
r yr . ^^ Wagruder and Miller, will begin handliiig some press
~^f\ \j relations at the Committee, work with the 10 Nixon State
\r \.y Chairmen to prevent another New Hampshire press announcement
■^ « ^V disaster, and eventually work with the surrogate candidates
V'!?^ on radio and TV coverage. She begins December 13. . .
■^
The net result of this sketch of the Committee's press/PR
situation is that you must decide whether Malek should
be instructed to have a replacement for Shunn^ay locked
with Colson and Klein by a date, hopefully Januarv sT
_Yes, Malek must find a Shumway replacement iiY
^X^, I a date certain
^ J^^ - ^<2j<o, Malek should assist Magruder in finding somaons
l:? V ' ^Ise to handle press relations at the Coiatiittee
r
other _
000I7d
5) General Counsel to the Committee
(49)
Z.l CORDON STFACHAN MEMORANDUM, DECEMBER 6, 1971
Gordon Liddy v/ill bacoma General Counsel to the Coirnitcea
for the Re-Election of the President on Deceirier 14. He
has been '.vorking with Bud Krogh on the declassification
project. Liddy is paid $26,000 by the Doir.estic Cou_r.cil.
y
<rf^
\/a.a increase. Dean agrees that Liddy should receive an
'increase to $30,000 because of his age (41), experience,
and prior sacrifice. The Attorney General said the
Committee will hire Liddy, and he vran't be paid any less
than he is receiving from the Domestic Council. Magruder
has put a hold on Liddy' s transfer to the Coinuittee at
$30,000 because of the rule that no one goes to the
Committee a salary higher than he is receiving at the
White House. Dean and Krogh are familiar with this rule,
but strongly urge an exception in this case.
/ ^
r<;f , Grant exception, Liddy to receive 30,000 par
7 ' annum at Committee
Deny exception, Liddy accept job at 25,000 or
find someone else
Other
The subject of salaries at the Committee appears in the
talking paper for you to cover with the Attorney General.
An updated version of this talking paper of subjects
oending will be submitted seaarately. .^ f ?
__— ■ 0'>^-^ '^ .
Other matters v;-hich Magruder discussed v?-ith the Attorney
General which do not require decisions by you include:
dvertising Advisory Group
The Advertising Advisory "Group (list attached at Tab C)
will hold its first meeting December 9. The group
will meet periodically to advise Peter Dailey.
2) Direct Mail Fund Raising
The Richard A. Viguarie Company will probably handle
direct m.ail fund raising for the Committee. In addition,
the Attorney General has authorized the Vigueria Company
to conduct direct mail fund raising for form.er Senator
McCarthy on the condition that he run "in another party",
not as a Dem.ocrat.
00017;;)
(50)
2.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDA, DECEmEB g, 1971
Ar.aricans for Agne-.v Group
Tha Attornay General decided against doing an%-thing to
^courage or discourage the A.'nericans for Agnev/ group
that recently sent out a 50,000 mailing over John VJayne's
signature.
'^) The Middle Level Cai-npaign Strategy Group
The middle level Campaign Strategy Group ir.et on Noveiabar
-?S and December 1. The minutes are attached at Tab D.~
The minutes cover New Hampshire Campaign details. Campaign
publications, and suggestions for the Florida primary.
^ooiso
(51)
3. On January 27, 1972 Attorney General John Mitchell, John Dean,
Jeb Magruder, acting CRP campaign director, and G. Gordon Liddy, who
had assxmed his position as CRP counsel, met in Mitchell's office.
At this meeting Liddy proposed a $1 million political intelligence
operation, which contemplated the use of electronic surveillance of
political opponents, abduction of radical leaders, muggings, and the
use of call girls. Mitchell rejected the proposal.
Page
3.1 John Mitchell log, January 27, 1972
(received from Senate Select Committee
(SSC)) 54
3.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 787-88 5g
3.3 John Mitchell testimony, 5 SSC 1843 58
3.4 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 929-30 ^9
35-647 O - 74 - 5
(53)
3.1 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, JANUARY 27, 1972
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
Mr. Mitchell -- Thursday, January 27, 1972
7:20 Arrived in NBC Studio, 4001 Nebraska Avenue,
Today Show
7:30 Introduction
7:38 Interview begins
7:50 Interview ends
7:55 Left for Department of Justice
8:25 Arrived in office
9:00 SAW Anfcassador Graham A. Martin, Arab.
to Italy
9:30 SAW Russ Ergood
10:00 SAW Pat Gray
10 : 10 SAW Harry F lemming
10:25 Dr. Kissinger called 5 t.
E
11:10 SAW Charles Turgeon
11:15 SAW J din Dean, Gordon Liddy and Jeb
Magruder
12:20 Ret. Bob Mardian's call § t.
1:15 Ret. Fred Malek's call 5 t.
1:20 Ret. Bill Cramer's call § t.
1:25 SAW Harold Clancy and Bob Collier
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(54)
3. 1 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, JANUARY 27, 1972
/
\::. iv:iLc-'\.-U -- T:utr';c:-v. Jan-ic^rv 27. 1972
7:20 ■ Arrived in NBC S:;-adio, 4C01Ncbr2.sV-aVvvcr.uG,
7:30
7:3S
7:5C
7:55
8:25
9:CC
9:30
10:00
10:10
10:2?
11:10
11:15
E
12:20
1:15
"1:20
^
To cay S.tow
Ir'.troducLior.
Interview begins
I::'. e r vl ev/ cVi.ds
—eft lor Dcpartrr.e:it of Justice
Arrived in office
S.V^7 Apiba.qi^adov Gvcharr; A. l>.'r.rtir!, An'.'o.
lo ILaly
c A ■» '. '■ rj
:l(.i.ss r.j-rrooc.
SAW 'A:'; Gvuv
S.W/ Marrv Flenin";
^r. ;<>..' .-:S'.: v.: or ca: .or. U
SAV/ Cluirles T v.\ r ■.; c^ o n
SAVv^ Jo! in Per.;-'., Cordon Liddr a.-id Jeb
Aro.;'i.-d^M-
:io;.. liob \f-
.-• call ?< t.
•v.v'^ v.-
c.-. .- f< —
-.d. T-iib Co'"
(55)
n(
r
3.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1972, 2 SSC 78?-8t
787
tioned particularly Mr. Dean. He did mention other individuals but;
I cannot recall their names, and indicated he had been told he would
have apiiroximately $1 million budget. I indicated to him at that time
that $1 million budget was a sizable budget and that he should prepare
the background documents necessary' to justify this budget and that
he would then have an opportunity to present the budget to the Attor-
ney General.
~ Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when Mr. Liddy did present
his plan to the Attorney General, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. M.AGRUDER. Yes. In February I set up an appointment with
Mr. Mitchell and John Dean on February 27 at 4 in the afternoon.
Mr. D.\SH. On February
JNIr. iL\GRUDF.R. The first meeting was February 27.
Mr. D.\SH. May I refresh your recollection, Mr. Magruder, do you
mean February 27 or January 27?
Mr. Magrcder. I am sorry, January 27, 1971. And we had a meet-
ing in Mr. Mitchell's office at 4 in the afternoon as I recall it.
Mr. Dash. "VVho attended that meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office on
January 27 ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Liddy, and myself.
Mr. Dash. Prior to the meeting on January 27, did you know any
of the details of the plan that Mr. Liddy was going to present on that
day?
Mr. Magruder. No, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Could you describe in detail what occurred on January 27
in Mr. Mitchell's office?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Liddy brought with liim a series of charts, thej-
were professionally done charts, and had color, some color, on each
of the charts. As I recall there were approximately six charts. Each
chart contained a subject matter and was headed by a code word. I
cannot recall many of the code words, tlie one I do recall is Gemstone.
I think one was called Target but I cannot specifically recall the other
code words. Each chart had a listing of certain types of activities with
a budget and, as I recall, there was one chart that totaled up the activi-
ties and the budget totaled to the $1 million figure that he had men-
tioned previously.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Liddy was presenting this in the form of a show
and tell operation?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Dash. "WTiat were the size of these charts?
Mr. Magruder. As I recall, they were approximately probably the
size of the chart that is on the display stand.
Mr. Dash. Were they on an easel or display stand in the Attorney
General's office?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Do you have any idea where these charts were prepared
or who prepared them?
Mr. ^fAGRUDER. \o. I do not.
Mr. Dash. You say the charts dealt with various projects and they
had code names on them. Could you give us to your best recollection
what some of these projects were ?
Mr. MAGnuDF.R. This was, of course, the projects, including wire-
ta()ping. ekrtrouic surveillance, and photography. There were projects
(56)
3.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1972, 2 SSC 787-
788
relating to the abduction of individuals, particularly members of
radical groups that we were concerned about on the convention at San
Diego. Mr. Liddy had a plan where the leaders would be abducted and
detained in a place like Mexico and that they would then be returned
to this country at the end of the convention.
He had another plan which would have used women as agents to
work with members of the Democratic National Committee at their
convention and here in Washington, and hopefully, through their
efforts, they would obtain information from them.
Mr. Dash. With regard to these women
Senator Erven. I am going to ask the audience to please, refrain
from laughter or any kind of demonstration.
Mr. Dash. With regard to the use of these women as agents, did
this involve the use of a yacht at Miami?
Mr. Magruder. He envisioned renting a yacht in Miami and having
it set up for soimd and photographs.
]Mr. Dash. And what would the women be doing at that time?
Mr. ilAGRXiDER. I really could only estimate, but
i\Ir. Dash. Based on his project, from your recollection. What did
he indicate?
Mr. Magruder. Well, they would have been, I think you covdd
consider them call girls.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall any project dealing with a mugging proj-
ect involving demonstrators?
JMr. jNIagrttder. I do not specifically recall that.
jNIr. Dash. Now, what was the total budget that he presented at
this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately $1 million.
Mr. Dash. How long did Mr. Liddy's presentation take?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately 30 minutes.
' Mr. Dash. Mr. ilagruder, what was Mr. Mitchell's reaction, Mr.
Dean's reaction, and your own reaction when you heard this
presentation ?
INIr. ^Iagruder. I think all three of us were appalled. The scope
and size of the project was something that at least in my mind was
not envisioned. I do not think it was in jNIr. JNIitchell's mind or Mr.
Dean's, although I can't comment on their state of mind at that time.
Mr. [Mitchell, in an understated way, which was his method of deal-
ing with difficult problems like this, indicated that this was not an
acceptable project.
Mr. Dash. And did Mr. Mitchell give Mr. Liddy any instructions
at the end of this meeting?
^Ir. Magruder. He indicated that he would go back to the drawing
boards and come up with a more realistic plan.
Mr. Dash. So it would be triie that Liddy, at least, left that meet-
ing without being discouraged from continuing to plan an intelligence
operation.
^[r. [Magruder. I would say he was discouraged, but he was given
the right to come up with a more reasonable plan.
^ Mr. Dash. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Liddy after the
meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, he left with Jolin Dean and I on our wav back
to the committee and indicated his being disturbed because he had
(57)
1
n
L
S.3 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 11, 1973, 5 SSC 1843
1S43
Mr. Mitchell. Authorize their transmission and inspection by
whom, sir?
Senator Moxtoya. The transmission of FBI reports to the CRP or
the inspection of FBI reports at the Department of Justice.
]Mr. Mitchell. No, sir.
Senator Moxtoya. Do you know of anyone who did ?
Mr. JIiTCHELL. No, sir; I do not.
Senator ]Moxtoy.\. Do you know whether or not these reports were
received at the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. ^IiTciiELL. I have no knowledge of any such procedure.
Senator Montoya. This has been testified to that effect heretofore.
Mr. Mitchell. Senator, are we to make perfectly clear we are talk-
ing about FBI reports?
Senator ^[qxtoya. Yes.
Mr. iliTCiiELL. "Well, then, my answers that I have given you stand.
I was not aware that anybody testified that FBI reports were being
received by the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Senator Moxtoya. Xow, let us go back to the meetings that you had
at the Department of Justice with respect to the Liddy plan on
January 27. To put the matter in proper focus, it is my understanding
that you met Mr. Liddy on or about November 1971 when Mr. Dean
brought him to you and introduced him to you, is that correct?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes. sir; November Si.
Senator Moxtoya. Then, subsequent to this, and to wit, on January
27, you, Mr. Liddv, ilr. Magruder, and Mr. Dean met in your Depart-
ment of Justice office, where the original Liddy intelligence operation
unfolded in charts?
Mr. ^IiTCHFLL. That is correct, sir.
Senator Moxtoya. Now, how long did you spend at this meeting?
Mr. Mitchell. Tl>e meeting, according to the recollection that I
have, which comes mainly from my log, was 1 hour or less and there
were other — there was another subject matter discussed, which, of
course, was the upcoming election law.
Senator Moxtoya. Now, what was specifically discussed? Will you
please relate tlie dialog that occurred there in the discussion of the
Liddy intelligence-gathering plan?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, Senator. I could not possibly relate a dialog
that took place that long ago. But I can tell you that the format of it
was that Mr. Liddy unfolded his program and everybody just sat with
their mouths open while he discussed it and then it was terminated and
that was the basis of it. There was not any dialog with respect to the
discussion of it other than to shut it off and tell him to go bum it.
Senator iloxTOYA. Then, was there any discussion or statement
m^ade — -was there any discussion there or any statement made to the
effect that he should go back and scale the plan down
Mr. Mitchell. No.
Senator Moxtoya [continuing]. Because the $1 million budget that
it encompassed was excessive?
Mr. jMitchell. No; Senator, the discussion, as I recall it, was to the
effect that that is not what the individuals that were participating in
that meeting — certainly. Mr. Dean and myself — had in mind. What
we had in mind was going back to information-gathering and taking
care of socurit v ap-ainst demonsttatoi-s rather than the contents of that
particular proposal.
(58)
3.4 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 25, 1973. 3 SSC 929-30
929
a pood deal of contact with Liddy, so I requested that he be permitted
to keep his pass. This request was turned down, however, because
they had decided to provide a fixed number of passes for the people
at the reelection committee and Magruder would decide who got the
passes. I so informed Liddy and never heard any more about the
matter.
Ltddt's Plax — Meetings ix Mitchell's Office
The next time I recall meeting with ^Ir. Liddy — I might say before
this that I did have a brief occasion to see him in early Januaiy, I
believe about the 9th through the 14th or loth, when he attended a
general conference in San Diego on the entire scope of the conven-
tion and the security problems that were going to confront the com-
mission in San Diego.
"■ After that, the next time I recall meeting Mr. Liddy was at a meet-
ing in Mitchell's office on January 27, 1972. Magruder called my office
to set up the meeting and only after I called Magruder to ask why lie
wanted me to attend the meeting did I learn that Liddy was going
to present his intelligence plan. I met Magruder and Liddy at ^Mitchell's
office. Liddy had a series of charts or diagrams which he placed on an
ea?el and the presentation by Liddy began.
I did not fully understand everything Mr. Liddy was recommend-
ing at the time because some of the concepts were mind-boggling and
the charts were in code names, but I shall attempt to reconstruct the
high points that I remember as best I can. Liddy was in effect making
a sales pitch. He said that the operations he had developed would be
totally removed from the campaign and carried out by professionals.
Plans called for mugging squads, kidnaping teams, prostitutes to
compromise the opposition, and electronic surveillance. He explained
that the mugging squad could, for example, rough up demonstrations
that were causing problems. The kidnaping teams could remove
demonstration leaders and take them below the Mexican border and
thereby diminish the ability of the demonstrators to cause problems
at the San Diego convention. The prostitutes could be used at the
Democratic convention to get information as well as compromise the
persons involved. I recall Liddy saving that the girls would be high
class and the best in the business. When discussing the electronic sur-
veillance, he said that he had consulted with onv> of the best authori-
ties in the countrv and his plan envisoned far more than bugging and
tapping phones. He said that, under his plan, cominunication between
ground facilities and aircraft could also be intercepted.
I might also add that he gave an elaborate descrir)ti<')n of intei'cepting
various microwaves to travel around the countrv through various com-
munication facilities and T cannot explain to the committee what that
was, because to this day. I do not imderstand it.
Each major aspect of his proposal was on a chart, with one chart
showing the interrelationship with the others. Each operation was
f^iven a code name. I have no recollection of the^e code names. "With
rpfrard to surveillance, and T do not recall that this was necessarily
limited to electronic surveillnnce. he suc^estpd seveiol potentinl tarcrots.
T cannot recall for certain if it was during this meeting or at the second
meeting in p^rlv Fobruarv that hf sufjgestpd the potctinl tar.'rets. The
targets that I recall he sujrirested were Mr. Lai iv O'Brien, the Demo-
cratic headquartoi-s. and the Fontainebleau Hotel during the Demo-
(59)
u
Z.4 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY. JUNE 25. 1973, 3 SSC 929-30
930
cratic Convention. Mr. Liddy concluded his presentation by sa\-ing
that the plan would cost approximately $1 million.
I do not recall Magruder's reaction durins; the presentation plan
because he was seated beside me but I do recall Mitchell's reaction to
the "Mission Impossible" plan. He was amazed. At one point I gave
him a look of bewilderment and he winked. Knowing Mitchell, I did
not think he would throw Liddy out of the office or tell him he was
out of his mind, rather he did what I expected. ^^Tion the presentation
was completed, he took a few long puffs on his pipe and told Liddy
that the plan he had developed was not quite what he had in mind and
the cost was out of the question. He suggested to Lid(iv he go back and
revise his plan, keeping in mind that he was most interested in the
demonstration problem.
I remained in Mitchell's office for a brief moment after the meeting
ended, as the charts were being taken off the easel and disassembled
and Mitchell indicated to me that Mr. Liddv's proposal was out of the
question. I joined Magruder and Liddv and as we left the office I told
Liddy to destroy the charts. Mr. Liddy said that he would revise the
plans and submit a new proposal. At that point I thought the plan
was dead, because I doubted if Mitchell would reconsider the matter.
I rode back to mv office with Liddy and Magruder, but there was no
further conversation of the plan.
The next time I became aware of any discussions of such plans oc-
curred, I believe, on Februarv 4, 1972. Magruder had scheduled
another meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office on a revised intelligence plan.
I arrived at the meeting very late and when I came in, Mr. Liddy was
presenting a scaled down version of his earlier plan. I listened for a
few minutes and decided I had to interject myself into the discussions.
Mr. Mitchell, I felt, was being put on the spot. The only polite way I
thought I could end the discussions was to inject that these discussions
could not go on in the Office of the Attorney General of the L^nited
States and that the meeting should terminate immediately.
At this point the meeting ended. I do not know to this day who kept
pushing for these plans. Whether Liddy was pushing or whether
Magruder was pushing or whether someone was pushing Magruder, I
do not know. I do know, in hindsisrht, that I should have not been as
polite as I was in merelv suggesting that Liddy destroy the charts
after the first meeting. Rather, I should have said forget the plan
completely. After I ended the second meeting. I told Liddy that I
would never again discuss this matter with him. I told him that if any
such plan were approved, I did not want to know. One thinsr was cer-
tain in my mind, while someone wanted this operation, I did not want
any part of it, nor would I have anv part of it.
After this second meeting in Mitchell's office, I sought a meeting
with Mr. Haldeman to tell him what was occurring, but it took me
several days to get to see him. I recall that Higby got me into Halde-
man's office when another appointment had been canceled or post-
poned. I told Haldeman what had been presented by Liddv and told
him that I felt it was incredible, unnecessary, and unwise. T told him
that no one at the White House should have anythini to do with this.
T said that the reelection committee will need an ability to deal with
demonstrations, it did not need bugging, mugging, prostitutes, and
kidnapers. Haldeman agreed and told me I should have no further
dealings on the matter.
(60)
4. On February 4, 1972 Attorney General Mitchell, John Dean,
Jeb Magruder and Gordon Liddy met in Mitchell's office. Liddy pre-
sented a modified version of his proposal with a budget of $500,000.
The proposal included plans for electronic surveillance of political
opponents. Magruder and Dean have testified that the targets included
the office of Lawrence O'Brien, the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) ; the DNC headquarters; and the Democratic Convention
headquarters at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami, Florida. Magruder
has also testified that the office of Henry Greenspun, editor of the
Las Vegas Sun, was mentioned as another target. Mitchell has denied
that there was discussion of specific targets. The meeting ended when
Dean stated that these subjects should not be discussed in the office
of the Attorney General of the United States. Following the meeting,
Dean reported on the meeting to Haldeman.
Page
4.1 John Mitchell log, February 4, 1972 (received
from SSC) 62
4.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 789-90 64
4.3 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 930 66
4.4 John Mitchell testimony, 4 SSC I6II7I2 67
4.5 John Dean testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
November 19, 1973, 23-29 (received from
Watergate Grand Jury) 69
(61)
4.1 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, FEBRUARY 4, 1972
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
Mr. Mitchell -- Friday, February 4, 1972
2:55 Called Harry Flemming and talked.
3:15 Called Sen. Sears and talked.
3:30 Called Director J . Edgar Hoover, and talked.
4:00 SAW John Dean, Gordon Liddy and Jeb Magruder.
4:30 Harry Dent called and talked.
4:50 Called Sen. Case and talked.
5: 15 SAW J. Hushen and DAG.
6:30 Left office.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Conmittee staff
(62)
y
4.1 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, FEBRUARY 4, 1972
Mr. X^itchcll -- Frifi/tv. r.:b -;:/irv 4,
2:55 Called l.'arrv Fl.Tnmi:!^ and ti^lhed. ^ J,
3:15 Called Sc-n. Sears and talked.
3:30 Called Director J. Edgar Hoover, and ta-.ked.
Jo 'in
^
4:00 SAV>7Doaii Gordon Llddr t'.nd Jeb Magi-^rcer.
4:30 Hari-y Di^nt called and talked.
4:50 Called Sen. Case and talked.
5:15 SAW J. [lushen and DAG.
6:30 Leil office.
(63)
p
n
4.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTUiONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 789-90
789
assumed that everyone would have accepted this project at face value.
We indicated that certain of these things were inappropriate and
that he would have to redo them and come back at a later date.
Mr. Dash. Did you make any report of tlic meeting to anyone after
tlic niGctiii*^?
Mr. MAGKtJDER. Yes, I made a report to Mr. Strachan at the "Wliite
House. ,.1 . .
Mr. Dash. Now, did you disclose everything concerning that meet-
ing to Mr. Straclian ? , , ,r T-ll
Mr. Magruder. I do not recall at tliat meeting whether Mr. L.iddy
had had tliese charts put into 81/2 x 11 size to hand out. If he had, I
would have sent those over to Mr. Strachan. I do remember discussing
it. I do not recall in this meeting whether we had workmg papers and
so I can't recall specifically ; I think just on the phone I discussed the
general nature of his proposal. r ^ i •
Mr. Dash. Was this telephone conversation with Mr. btrachan in
which you reported the general nature of the discussion consistent with
your general reporting to Mr. Strachan as you did from time to time,
matters that should get to the White House statf ^
Mr. ALvGRUDER. Yes, everything that I did at the committee, every-
thing that we did was staffed to Mr. Strachan so that he could alert
other officials at the White House as to our activities.
Mr. Dash. Was there a second meeting on the Liddy plan, Mr.
Magruder?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, the following week in February, ^ ebruary 4,
as I recall, we met at II in the morning.
Mr. Dash. How did that meeting come about, who attended?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Liddy indicated that he was ready to discuss a
reduced proposal. I alerted Mr. Dean and he set up an appointment
with Mr. Mitchell and we reviewed a reduced proposal.
Mr. Dash. Where was this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. At the Justice Department.
Mr. Dash. Was it in Mr. Mitchell's office ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. We met in Mr. Mitchell's office. He did not have
charts this time, but rather had
Mr. Dash. You mean Mr. Liddv did not ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Liddy did not have charts. He had them reduced
on Si/o X 11 pages and the scope was reduced considerably.
Mr."DASH. What was retained and what was out?
:^Ir. iLvGRUDER. I cannot recall specifically what was in or what was
out. I do know that the discussion, after his discussion with us, related
only to the wiretapping and photography and not to any of the other
pro'jects. They had been basically discarded.
Mr. Dash. I think you may have testified to this, but who was present
at tliis second meeting. Mr. Magruder ^
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Liddy, and myself. Mr.
Dean came in approximately 15 minutes or so late, but was there for
most of the meeting. . .
Mr. Dash. At this time, as you have stated, the project primarily
dealt with wiretapping and photoiiiaphing. Wore any targets specifi-
callv nuMitioued, cither bv Mr. Liddy or anybody at the meeting?
Tslv M \<;kit>i:r. At that meeting, wo did discuss potential targets, we
discussed the potential target of the Democratic National Conunittee
(64)
L
4.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 24, 1973, 2 SSC 789-90
790
headquarters, primarily because of information we liad relating to Mr.
O'Brien that we felt would be possibly damaging to the Democratic
National Committee. We discussed the possibility of using electronic
surveillance at the Fontainebleau Hotel, which was going to be the
Democratic National Committee headquartei-s, and we discussed the
potential of using the same method at the Presidential headquarters.
At that time, we did not know who the candidate would be, so it was
simply an indication that that would be a target of interest.
Also at that meeting, Mr. Mitchell brought up that he had informa-
tion as I recall, and I think it was Mr. Mitchell — it was either Mr.
Mitchell or Mr. Dean — that they had information relating to Senator
Muskie that was in Mr. Greenspim's office in Las Vegas. He was a pub-
lisher of the newspaper in Las Vegas.
Mr. Dash. Do you know his full name ?
Mr. Magruder. As I recall, Mr. Henry Greenspun, I think, or spun —
Greenspan or Greenspun, I think was his name. He is the publisher
of the Las Vegas newspaper.
Mr. Liddy was asked to review the situation in Las Vegas to see if
there would be potential for an entry into Mr. Greenspan's
Mr. Dash. Potential for what ?
Mr. Magrctder. Potential for an entry into Mr. Greenspun's office.
ilr. Dash. Do you know what it was they were looking for in
Mr. Greenspun's office?
ilr. Magruder. No, I do not.
Mr. D.\SH. Do you know what the information was that Mr. Mitchell
mentioned concerning ^Slr. O'Brien?
ilr. Magruder. Yes. We had had information from reliable sources
that at the Democratic National Convention, they had a business
exposition. The business exposition was being put on by a separate
business exposition company. It was our understanding that the fee
the business concern paid to this business company was then kicked
back or partially kicked back to the Democratic National Committee
to assist them in the payment of their debts.
Mr. Dash. Aside from that kind of information, what was the
general information or general kind of information that you would
be looking for in these break-ins or electronic surveillance?
Mr. Magrtjder. Well. I think at that time, we were particularly
concerned about the ITT situation. Mr. O'Brien has been a very effec-
tive spokesman against our position on the ITT case and I think
there was a general concern that if he was allowed to continue as
Democratic national chairman, because he was certainly their most
professional, at least from our standpoint, their most professional
political operator, that he could be very difficult in the coming cam-
paign. So we had hoped that information might discredit him.
:Mr. Dash. All right.
How did that meeting end? AVhat was Mr. ^Mitchell's reaction to
tliis presentation at the second meeting?
]Mr. Magruder. It still was disapproval or, let's say, I should say
we agreed that it would not be approved at that time, but we would
take it up later; that lie just didn't feel comfortable with it even at
that level.
Mr. Dash. But again, would it be true to say that at least Mr. Liddy
was encouraged to continue in his planning?
(65)
fl
I ex
I ai
4, 3 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, JWE 25, 1973, 2 SSC 930
930
cratic Convention. Mr. Liddy concluded his presentation by saying
that the plan would cost approximately $1 million.
I do not recall Magruder's reaction during the presentation plan
because he was seated beside me but I do recall AlitolieU's reaction to
tlie "Mission Impossible" plan. He was amazed. At one point I gave
him a look of bewilderment and he winked. Knowing Mitchell, I did
not think he would throw Liddy out of the office or tell him he was
out of his mind, rather he did what I expected. ^^Hicn the presenl-ation
was completed, he took a few long puflfs on his pipe and told Liddy
that the plan he had developed was not quite what ho had in mind and
the cost was out of the question. He suggested to Liddy he go back and
revise his plan, keeping in mind that he was most interested in the
demonstration problem.
I remained in Mitchell's office for a brief moment after the meeting
ended, as the charts were being taken off the easel and disassembled
and Mitchell indicated to me that Mr. Liddv's proposal was out of the
question. I joined Magruder and Liddv and as we left the office I told
Liddy to destroy the charts. Mr. Liddy said that he would re\-ise the
plans and submit a new proposal. At that point I thought the plan
-was dead, because I doubted if Mitchell would reconsider the matter.
I rode back to mv office with Liddy and Magruder. but there was no
further conversation of the plan.
The next time I became aware of any discussions of such plans oc-
curred, I believe, on Febmai^ 4, 1972. Magruder had scheduled
another ■meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office on a revised intelligence plan.
I arrived at the meeting very late and when I came in, ilr. Liddv was
presenting a scaled down version of his earlier plan. I listened for a
few minutes and decided I had to interject myself into the discussions.
Mr. Mitchell, I felt, was being put on the spot. The only polite way I
thought I could end the discussions was to inject that these discussions
could not go on in the Office of the Attorney General of the United
States and that the meeting should terminate immediately.
At this point the meeting ended. I do not know to this day who kept
pushing for these plans. Whether Liddy was pushing or whether
Magruder was pushing or whether someone was pushing Magruder, T
do not know. I do know, in hindsight, that T should have not been as
polite as I was in merelv suggesting that Liddy destroy the charts
after the first meeting. Eather, I should have said forget the plan
completely. After I ended the second meeting, I told Liddy that I
would never again discuss this matter with him. I told him that if any
such plan were approved, I did not want to know. One thin? was cer-
tain in my mind, while someone wanted this operation, I did not want
any part of it, nor would I have anv part of it.
After this second meeting in Mitchell's office, I sought a meeting
with Mr. Haldeman to tell him what was occurring, but it took me
several days to get to see him. I recall that Hiffbv got me into Halde-
man's office when another appointment had been canceled or post-
poned. I told Haldeman what had been presented by Liddv and told
him that I felt it was incredible, unnecessary, and \mwise. I told him
that no one at the White House should have anythinJT to do with this.
I said that the reelection committee will need an ability to deal with
demonstrations, it did not need bugging, mugging, prostitutes, and
kidnapers. Haldeman agreed and told me I should have no further
dealings on the matter.
(66)
4.4 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 1973, 4 SSC 1611-12
1611
Mr. Dash. Now, just carrj-ing on from what my previous observa-
tion was as to wliat Mr. Liddy may have come away from the meeting,
obviously ilr. ilaorruder and Mr. Liddy did not get the impression
that you completely disapproved of the program because they did set
up only 8 days later a meeting in your office on Februarj- 4 with the
same participants in which they presented a half million dollar pro-
gram I undei-stand which included electronic surveillance.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, Mr. Dash, I would disagree with the testimony
to which you refer insofar as Mr. Magnider or Mr. Liddy either one
of them was invited back under the basis of the same concept with re-
spect to the presentation of a plan, and I think Mr. Dean, if I recall
his testimony, agrees a little bit more with what my recollection was
and it was to the point of this was not what we were interested in.
What we were interested in was the gathering of information and the
securitv and protection against the demonstrations.
Mr. D.\SH. But nevertheless Mr. Magnider and Mr. Liddy did come
back and Mr. Dean attended that meeting with you, on February 4,
and did present a scaled down version which included electronic sur-
veillance and break-ins, did it not ?
Mr. Mitchell. It did that but there again there are faulty recol-
lections with what was discussed at that meeting, what the concept of
it was. I violently disagree with Mr. Magruder's testimony to the point
that the Democratic National Committee was discussed as a target for
electronic surveillance for the reasons that he gave, number one with
respect to the Democratic back story. We are talking now about the 4th
of February'.
Mr. D.A.SH. Yes, I know, the reason for centering in on Mr. O'Brien,
I believe
Mr. Mitchell. That is correct, and, of course, the newspaperman
did not have his column that Magruder referred to until the 23d of
February. He said we were focusing on the Democrats and Mr. O'Brien
because Jlr. O'Brien's vocal activities in connection with the ITT case,
and Mr. Anderson did not publish his column until the •29th of Febru-
ary, and so that what I am pointing out is that this meeting was a
relatively short meeting and it was rejected again because of the fact
that it had these factors involved. But these targets were not discussed.
Mr. Dash. Were any targets discussed, Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Mitchell. To the best of my recollection, there were none.
Mr. Dash. Do you also disagree with Mr. Magruder's testimony that
you actually volunteered a particular target which was Hank Green-
spoon's office in Las Vegas for the purpose of obtaining some docu-
ments that might involve a political candidate?
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Dash, you gave me a great opportunity to correct
the record on this. You know, j\Ir. Magruder said that it could have
been Mitchell or Dean and then when you picked up the questioning
you said Mitchell, so we are now correcting that record. To the best of
my recollection, there was no such discussion of any
Mr. Dash. However, your recollection is there was no discussion
ofit?
Mr. Mitchell. No discussion whatsoever.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Dean's reaction at that meeting?
(67)
4.4 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 197Z, 4 SSC 1611-12
1612
Mr. MiTCTiELL. I recall both of our reactions to it. Althou<:^h it has
been given, Mr. Dean's reaction has been given a different connotation
and, of course, it depends on who is telling the story and under what
circumstances to who looks like the White Knight and who looks like
the Black Knight, of course.
The fact of the matter is that Dean, just like myself, was again
aghast that we would have this type of presentation. John Dean, as I
recall, not only was aghast at the fact that the program had come back
again with electronic surveillance, perhaps a necessary entry in con-
nection with it, I am not sure that entries were always discussed with
electronic surveillance because they are not necessarily synonymous,
but Mr. Dean was quite strong to the point that these things could not
be discussed in the Attorney General's office, I have a clear recollection
of that and that was one of the bases upon which the meeting was
__J)roken up.
Mr. Dash. And broke up on that basis, I believe.
Mr. MrrcHELL. And broke up, along with my observations.
Mr. D.\SH. What specifically did you say ?
Mr. Mitchell. I cannot tell you specifically any more than I can
tell you specifically what Mr. Dean said but my observation was to
the point that this was not going to be accepted. It was entirely out of
the concepi of what we needed and what we needed was again an
information-gathering operation along with, of course, the program
to get information on and to be able to have security against the dem-
onstrators that we knew were coming.
As you recall, Mr. Dash, at this particular time they had already
started to form in substantial numbers in San Diego in connection
with the proposed convention, even though that convention was not
to happen until August of that year.
Mr. Dash. Well, since this reappearance, and presentation of the
so-called Liddy plan to you which included these obviously objection-
able portions to you as you testified, and since you did not take any
violent action at the preceding meeting, did you take any action
against Mr. Liddy as a result of his coming back again on February 4
and f^-presenting it ?
Mr. Mitchell. Other than to cut off the proposals; no.
Mr. Dash. A\niy not? Here is a man talking to you as Attorney
General about illegal wiretapping and perhaps break-ins. TVIiy, if
you did not have him ordered arrested for trying to conspire to do
things like this, why didn't you have him fired ?
ilr. Mitchell. In hindsight I would think that would have been a
very viable thing to do. And probably should have been done. Liddy
was still an employee of the campaign and I prosiuned that he would
go back to the duties that he was performing without engaging in
such activities.
Mr. Dash. Well, you had to be aware at least at that time, Mr.
Mitchell, that Liddy could become a very embairassing employee of
the campaign.
Mr. Mitchell. Not necessarily, unless he violated directions imder
which he was operating to tliat point there was no such, there was no
such evidence that he was violatiu<r.
(68)
4.S JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, NOVEMBER 19, 1973, 23-29
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LJ y 23
BY MR, FRAMPTON:
Q Now, on or about February 4, 1972, <iid you attend
another meeting In Mr. Mitchell's office at which the same
people were present — that is, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Liddy and
Mr. Magruder and yourself?
A I did, yes.
Q And who called you about this meeting or contacted
you about it?
A Again, It had been set up by Mr. Magruder, as the
first meeting had, also.
Q Did he tell you what the purpose of the meeting was
before you arrived?
A I was aware of the fact that Mr. Liddy was going to
present his revised plan.
Q Now, who was present when you arrived at Mr. Mit-
chell's office?
A Well, I arrived at the meeting quite late. I don't
know how long It had been proceeding before I arrived. I had
some hesitations about even going to the meeting and then
thought I ought to go ahead and go and see what was going on.
When I arrived, the meeting was in progress and Mr.
Liddy and Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell were talking a bout
some of the same things that had been talked about in the
first presentation. This was really sort of a scaled-down
version,
(69)
4.S JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, NOVEmFR 19, 1973, 23-29
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
24
Q Did Mr. Liddy again have charts?
A He didn't have charts. He had handed out some
papers, as I recall, and I believe they were budget papers
on the revised budget for the plan,
Q When you say papers, you mean eight by eleven?
A Eight by eleven, right.
Q Or legal size?
A Typing size. Eight by eleven, right, I believe was
the size.
Q Did you say that the others at the meeting had
copies of these documents?
A Yes, they did.
Q While you attended the meeting, was there some dis-
cussion of the substance of the scaled-down proposal?
A Well, there was enough discussion that I was aware
of what was going on, and 1 don't know how long I was at the
meeting, but it wasn't three, four, five minutes when I
thought that 1 should interject myself in the meeting and I
didn't think it was appropriate to be discussing these things.
So I tried to do it in as graceful a way as I could, but I
said to all present, I said I thought the meeting should stop;
that these were matters that should not be discussed in the
office of the Attorney General of the United States.
Q Now, did you learn, while at the meeting, what the
budget for Mr. Liddy' s scaled-down program was?
(70)
4.5 JOm DEAN TESTIMONY, NOWmER 19, 1973, 23-29
WATERGATE GRAND JURY _^__
25
A As I recall it, it had been cut in half.
Q And did you learn whether the revised or scaled-
down plan also entailed a considerable amount of electronics
surveillance?
A I was certainly aware of the fact that it did in-
volve electronics surveillance, yes.
Q Now, during either of these meetings, or both of
these meetings, were any targets discussed for surveillance
or other surreptitious intelligence?
A Yes. I can't tell you in which meeting, for certain
I recall discussion of this, but I do recall a couple of
potential- type targets being mentioned.
I remember one was the Fontaine Bleu Hotel in Miami,
because I remember Mr. Liddy saying that they had already
explored the possibility of getting rooms in the hotel near
some of the candidates who would be staying in that hotel.
Q Democratic candidates?
A Democratic candidates, yes, during the Democratic
Convention. I also remember a discussion of Mr. Larry O'Brien
as a target. I recall a discussion of the Democratic Head-
quarters as a potential target.
Q When you say Democratic Headquarters, what do you
mean by that?
A Well, you know, 1 can't recall — in ray mind now,
of course, the DNC here in Washington jumps into ray head.
(71)
4.5 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, NOVEffBER 19, 2972, 23-29
VATERGATE GRAND JURY
ov
26
Whether it was necessarily limited to that, at the time, I'm
just not certain.
Q Now, was there any particular interest in getting
infonnation about Larry O'Brien, among the White House staff,
at this time?
A Well, there had been a long interest in Larry O'Brie
at the VThite House. The first time I became aware of it was
about a month after I joined the White House staff when Mr.
Haldeman sent me a request -- and this is really the first
sort of political intelligence request I had ever had — to
get certain information about Larry O'Brien.
So it started as early as August of 1970, and there
had been periodic requests along the way that had come to my
attention for information about Mr. O'Brien, and I was aware
of general interest, in the White House, in Mr. O'Brien, yes.
Q After you said that these matters ought not to be
discussed in the presence of the Attorney General anymore,
did that break up the meeting?
A Yes, it did.
Q And did Mr. Mitchell say anything, to your knowledge
to Mr. Liddy about the future of this plan, at that time?
A There may have been discussion, but I don't have
any recollection of it. I think my comments put a real damper
on the meeting. That ended it.
Q Now, as you were leaving the meeting -- after the
(72)
4. S JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, NOVEMBER 19, 1973, 23-29
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
27
meeting -- did you again have a conversation with Mr, Liddy?
A I did.
Q And what was the subotance of that conversation?
A I told him that I would not talk to him any further
about this matter. I said it just wasn't something that I
was going to be at all interested in or be willing to talk to
him about.
Q Did you tell Mr. Liddy then, in substance, that if
this plan went forward you didn't want to hear about it any-
more, you didn't want to have any discussions with him about
it?
A That is correct.
Q And did you also have a conversation with Mr.
Magruder?
A Mr. Magruder was present when that conversation
transpired and he was aware of my comments to Mr. Liddy.
Q So as far as your own knowledge of the substance of
the meeting was concerned, Mr. Mitchell did not disapprove
Mr. Liddy' s overall going ahead with this plan, or some in-
telligence plan?
A Well, of course, I can only speak for the part of
the meeting I was present at and there was no disapproval
then, no.
Q Now, did you shortly thereafter seek an opportunity
to report on these meetings to Mr. Haldeman?
(73)
4.5 JOHN DEAN TESTIMNY, NOVEMBER 19, 1973, 23-29
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
ov
A Yes, I did.
Q And dtd you get a meeting with him?
A Well, I recall some difficulty in scheduling the
meeting. So Mr. Higby was aware of the fact that I wanted
to see Mr. Haldeman and, as had been done on other occasions
when I wanted to see him, Mr. Higby worked me into the schedulie
when another meeting had either been postponed or cancelled or
delayed, and made an opportunity for me to get in there and
see him.
Q And what was said by you and Mr. Haldeman when you
made this report to htm?
A Well, I described to Mr. Haldeman what had been
going on in Mr. Mitchell's office. I gave him a brief descrlp
tion of the type of plan that Mr. Liddy had developed. I told
him that I certainly didn't think that muggings and buggings
and prostitutes and the like were necessary to deal with the
problems as I saw them, and that I didn't really want to have
any part of this, and I didn't think anybody at the White
House should have any part of it.
And Mr. Haldeman agreed that I, indeed, shouldn't,
and so instructed me.
Q In substance, what did he tell you?
A He told me that he agreed that, you know, this was
not necessary and I shouldn't have any part of it.
Q So he just told you to stay out of it?
(74)
4. 5 JOm DEAN TESTimNY, NOVEMBER 19, 1973, 23-29 'i
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
I , DV
I A That s correct.
Q Now, in February and March did you have any further
conversations with Mr. Liddy about legal matters or other
matters?
A Well, as I referred to earlier -- and I was referrin
in the broader context of when Mr. Liddy first went over and
continued after -- he would come to my office and seek in-
formation regarding election laws, or he would prepare memo-
randa on a given matter of the election law.
They would often be referred to my office to deter
mine whether I fully agreed or might disagree with Mr. Liddy* s
opinions. So I did have contact with htm, and I can recall
one instance when he came to my office and he wanted to talk
about the Intelligence plan, which he said he just couldn't
get off the ground.
And I said, "Well, Gordon, you recall that we're
not going to talk about that." And he said, "Yes, I under-
stand." And we did not talk about it.
Q Now, when he said he couldn't get it off the ground,
what did he mean by that?
A Well, he couldn't get it approved is what the sub-
stance of the conversation was.
Q Now, in about late March of '72, did you learn that
Liddy and Magruder had had some kind of an argument or dis-
agreement — falling out?
(75)
5. In February 1972 H. R. Haldeman directed that $350,000 cash
in campaign funds be placed under his unquestioned personal control.
The money was picked up by Gordon Strachan, Haldeman 's assistant, in
early April 1972. Strachan in turn delivered it to Alexander Butterfield,
a deputy assistant to the President. Butterfield delivered the money
to a personal friend for safekeeping. This fund was maintained sub-
stantially intact until after the November election.
Page
5.1 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman
February 1, 1972 (received from White House) 78
5.2 Memorandum from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman,
February 16, 1972 (received from White House) 84
5.3 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 7 SSC 2878-79 90
5 . 4 Maurice Stans testimony , 2 SSC 698 92
5 . 5 Hugh Sloan testimony , 2 SSC 536-37 93
5.6 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62 95
5.7 Herbert Kalmbach testimony, 5 SSC 2095r.96 99
Cri)
5.1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
February 1, 19 7 2
;:e::ora?;dum fO!R
FROM :
SUBJECT:
H.R. HAhUZ-AA'J
GORDOri STPACHAN ^
Political Matters
r Finances
1) Haj
and r«
Secrei
con sic
1) Herb Kalrpi>ach reviewed his current financial situation
and related hard decisions with the Attorney General and
Secretary Stans on January 28. Kalwiach asked that you
consider :
sit .hPA
balartca qJ
"/b ^^^^
^^^^^^____ ~2,QXL.d1us
^,^^^^_^_„_„ jSersonal control. From the original 1.2,
-cv'^ntto Lee Nunn for the Kentucky Governorship Race. __
■^enF"to'(l'auirieiQ ror aat^dWeU^ti; and j\j has 'been disburs ed
to Derge for polling over the last six months. Of the
900, 230 is in "green" boxes, 570 is in a New York checking
account and 120 is in a Newport checking account;.
b) In light of the cair.paign spending legislation , _ ,
Stans, Kalmbach, and Dean recommend that the 690 in •?
accounts be spread, back into legal commi t tees_5n4_kept ^ ji'^
undar Finance Chairman Stans' control. Th<; 230_greea^ ^
would be put in a Riggs box with access by arTy corabinatxon^>
of tv7o of the following people: Tom Evans. New York ~/^^V^
France Raine, Jr. (who Kalrjihach. wants, to use generally _j^«T^
in the finance area)" — ~ana Kairabaxrh. If t*ais recom- ' -^
mendation is not accepted Kalmbach is willing to retaxn
personal control of the 900 and run the very high risk
af- violating the crxminal provisions of the campaign
spending legislation. Stans is opposed to payxng for
any polls other than through a correct committee; the
risk from using green is just too high. -^ ^
^fK
ffb
■r^
Recommendation :
That the advice o&^tans, Kalmbach, and Dean be followed
in that the 690y<^uld be put in legal committees; that
only the /^^STT? green would be held under KalmJoach's personal
control J^^ei^ that any polling v/ould be paid for by
reqular Nixon Fioance Committees
/ -^ ^
n
Ap'
Drov
I
Qo
^.-nan
G"
^
A-^
(78)
1^ \iX
5,1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
-2-
c) Kalirbach. is v'jry cop.cernsd about his involvon^nr. in
the milk producers situation. Ha believes that Jacob33n
and ^ialso■.1 v.ill d-ilivar though thay have cut the original
2,000 coriTiitm.Dnt back to 1,000. Kalrobach's conccirn center:
around the recent press disclosures that link Jack
Gleason and the '70 car?.paign election funding. Kalrrbach
v/111 accept the risk of being subpoaned by the court in
connection v^ith the Nader milk suit. The Attorney General
believes Kalmbach should continue to handle the Eilk
project, but Kalmbach v/ants your advice.
Recommendation :
That KaltTvbach not be involved in the milk project
"because of the risk of disclosure.
(3,-5 \3, Approve Disapprove
■?^^ . - C;l!^(?c1.-r.ment ^ U^ ^jJk. , fM? /hf—
^^^ r^ V^( -:, —-,
'•> ■ ■ »
d) Kalmbach cleared the Ed Nixon campaign post v;ith
the Attorney General. Ed Nixon will begin February 1st,
at 25 per year plus expenses, living costs, and travel.
KaliTibach estimates the total will be "thrilling" but is
pleased that he will be off the Foundation payroll.
e) Governor Nelson Rockefeller is in. Kalmbach ' s 100 clxib
with a 2 50 commitment.
2) Stans will officially move to the Nixon Finance Conutiittee
^ -^ on February 16. In the meantime, he, Kalmbach, Hofgren,-
>" , . Nunn, and_Sloan are conducting a 60 day blitz-to get ^.
. -cf^ funds in before the campaign spending legislation
■^0 • _ becomLes law.
.-' \ ' VJhen Stans arrives at 17.01 he will send a personal letter
'■'• to the 5000/$3000+ contributors. He v/ill also authorize
a much larger Walter Wentz — Readers Digest direct m.ail
appeal from various lists.
The current financial position of 1701 is 3,600 received,
1,300 disbursed, leaving a 1,600 balance of v/hich only
50 is in green.
Stans is moving into operational responsibility, but there
is still no budget set for the various parts of the 1701
fc L forts .
Thro.igh P'alr"bach , Scans is roquescLng Executive Mess
Pr iv llig--::; . As you may rocall , Cabinet Officers h?A'e
(79)
S. 1 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
-3-
honorary rn^inber'sh-ips in the regular_^ White House Staff
Me33. To my );nov,-l edge , only Secretary Kodgson uses
this privilege.
Recorp-me.i-datioii : , J .^ ,^ ^^^
f J
\A That Starts receive , Executive Mess privileges.
^-,'-^1^^ Approve „/ ~f , _^ Disapprove
c-
Correnent
Harry Dent
1) He believes that the President's "drop by" at the Bob
Brown dinner v/as one of the most important, successful,
politically astute moves made toward blacks in this
Administration;
2) Hugh Chatham may seek and win the North Carolina Senate
seat in 1972; Pete Domenici may beat Dave Cargo for the
nomination to seek the New Mexico Senate seat;
3) Thurston Morton may lead a drive to get Louie Nunn into
the Kentucky Senate race if there is some financial assistance;
4) The frist practical test of the Harry Dent theory of
obtaining black votes has developed since your meeting with
Mr. Dent during the week of January 12. Don Johnson of
the Veterans Administration reports that the Urban League
■ claims that the President promised Whitney Young, in Oval
Office meetings, 9 million in make-work projects. Dent
says there is no written record of this promise. Dent says
Len Garment v/ill favor creating these jobs for the Urban
League. Garment has not been contacted personally because
he has been on a trip and unavailable. Dent is convinced
that Don Johnson can reject this request without undue politica
flak. Dent strongly recommends that he do so, and that any
available funds be channelled to Dent/Bob Brown recruited
blacks who can deliver for the President on November 7, 1972.
I am not sure whether you have discussed Dent's theory of
Southern black voters with the Attorney General. Dent has
not contacted the Attorney General.
Recommendation :
_ r., r If you have not discussed the Dent/Brown theory with the
r^l:->!^ Attorney General, Dent should be advised to do so and then
'^/ 3 follov/ the Attorney General's advice on the disposition of .the
Urb-^r: L-jaguo requc:st'.
I /.^
h-^^rz-.--- • ■C'/ DisaDprovc
(80)
S.l GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRVARY 1, 1972
3) Roso iVary Woods and Clark iIacGrer;or vsre ir.vited to
Kd'cry Dent's Political Issues Group meeting but did not
attend. At that meeting all strongly urged that yc-i tell
Frank Shakespeare to make sure no USIA prestige poll
similar to the one that damaged Hixon in 1960 is conducted
in 1972. A talking paper v/as prepared for you, but there
was only a "check mark" on the cover memorandum (original
attached at Tab A) v.'ith no indication whether you accented
or rejected the advice of the Political Issues group.
^yes, Haldeman will cover with Shakepseare
_No, the Attorney General will cover with Shakespeare
_Neither Haldeman nor the Attorney General will cover itj
G>-?J>?
1 drop the suggestion
VV^ other
■^■v'
7
According to Magrudar, rumors are circulating in the
Washington Press Corps that Shakespeare will be leaving
USIA to join the Campaign. Magruder checked with the
Attorney General and he confirmed that Shakespeare will
not join the Campaign.
Fred LaRa=
He has begun sitting in the Campaign Strategy meetings, working
with Flemjtiing, and generally making a contribution to the
. (l.xO , Campaign. • '
/^•» "^ » The Attorney General has asked LaRue to assume supervisory
J, control of the RNC . In that connection, LaRue has asked that
•^; ■ r^you send the memorandum attached at Tab B to the White House
Staff. It would enable LaRue to determine v/ho is asking
for v;hat at the TQiC . •>.^>/ ^_^-i '^^ ^^ ^f^._3
Cliff Miller
On January 27 Miller told the Attorney General that Karry
Flemjp.ing and the field operation needed Fred LaRue to add
stature and ability. The Attorney General agreed and plans
on meeting with Flemming and LaRue this week.
The Attorney General told Miller that he would set the date
of his official move to 1701 in a discussion v;ith the President
on January 29. Miller does not knov; v/hat v/as decided.
(81)
4^
S.l GORDON STBACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
-5-
RMC Convention
1) Johr. Dean suran.arized an Ir.tell igenca Evaluation Co:,'.-^.itt33
' report on the dsipons tr^tions planned for the Republican
National Convention in San Diego (Tab C) ;
■^2) Bill TiTTLiTions submitted three memoranda to the Attorney
^,,r^ i General on San Diego and the 1972 Convention. The first
tj VV indicates that original estimates of incone and costs must
^^1 he revised substantially. As to income, the City of San
Diego is failing to honor its corrmiitment to pay for
convention hall expenses. The R2IC is "reluctant" to accept
the ITT-Sheraton money. Expenses projected by Dick Herraan
are not essential. Timmons is asking for authority from
the Attorney General to direct Herman to cut expenses and
force San Diego to deliver on its coramitments . The second
m.emorandum describes the success Timmons had, working v/ith
the Attorney General, in persuading Senator Scott to accept
the position of "floor leader". Finally, Timmons notes
that LIFE has an_^investigative reporter v/orking on v/hat may
be a rather negative article on San Diego, the RNC Convention,
and C. Arnholt Smith. (Timmons' three memoranda are attached
at Tab D) .
Jack Gleason
As you know. Jack Gleason 's name has appeared in the recent
"milk money" stories in the STAR. Gleason is "sick and fed
up with this type of material appearing in the press".
Gleason blames Bob O'Dell and Eleanor Williams at the RNC.
However, Gleason is_also.mad at Colson stemming from Colson's
"summ.oning" him to his office and "accusing" Gleason of
leaking derogatory information to the press about Colson.
Gleason is seeking advice whether he should have a quiet, off
the record, -diseussion-with reporters Jules Khitcover and Polk
to demonstrate that Gleason is a "nice" guy. It's hard to
imagine a vv^orse idea than having Gleason talk v/ith reporters,
.but told Gleason I would check. ,j?fi
,??"
^^
.(i*-
^^Cp' Yes, Gleason see reporters •^ %ir-
(^ o^ f^ -t^f^o, Gleason should continaa to avoid reporters
S^ Other
Don P.LCTsfeld *^
One menorandu.-'. on the conservative recruitnent procedure in.
England arrived. An anonymous memorandum on the Indiana
sltu^.tion urcc-s cultivation oT Ir'./in Miller.
(82)
S.l GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
-S-
;3qruder '
Pro) sets
L->'
1) Schedule Matters — Updated lists of surrogate candidates'
^ -^ aDoaarances in Na;-/ Hampshire and Florida are attached
'v Tab E. -■ • .'• ,
Zz.d^-^'?
' 2) Older Voters — You asked v/hat the various Administration
''Officials v;ere doing to cultivate the older voters. Ken
Cole does not receive reports from Vicki Keller of the Doraestic
Council but does regularly reviev/ her work. But! Evans, Colson's
• older voter's project manager is following an older voter
plan developed in Colson's office. A final version of the
^ report v/ill be submitted to you and the Attorney General. Kellei
^Y-,-A and Evans are v/orking with Arthur Fleiraning and Danny Todd of
?U)>?' the Committee to Re-Elect the President.-^
V5l 3) Magruder as Spokesman — i^lagruder was quite upset by youi
January 17 memorandum to the Attorney General indicating
that Magruder should not be a spokesman for the Campaign.
Magruder emphasizes that he and the Attorney General agree
but that since May until February 7 there was no one else who
could "get out the lines requested". There were only
three series of interviews and most v;ere quite positive.
Magruder anticipates another series around the time of the
Attorney General's move, but Shuravvay will handle the
Committee's relations with the press at that time.
4) Polling -- The Attorney General directed Magruder to
give Bob Teeter three weeks to deliver on his poll results
scheduled or seek employment elsewhere. Magruder believes
Teeter v/ill now begin delivering the results and the projects
you have requested. However, the Campaign polling system is
currently v/orking poorly. You are receiving chunks of survey
data v7ith no recominendations as to v/hat should be held by
■-you and the Attorney General and what should be distributed
to Peter Dai ley, Harry Flemming and other members of the
Ccim.paign Strategy Group. I v/ould welcome the assignment of
reviev/ing these materials, recommanding data for release, and
processing requests to Tefeter. One alternative, which
Magruder is urging, is a meeting v/ith you, the Attorney
General, Teeter, and Magruder to resolve the polling
problems of the quantity and quality of Teeter's work and the
access to polling information.
Halderrian meet v/ith the Attorney General, I'.agruder, and
Teeter
<"P-
_Strachr-n reviev; polling m.aterials
Other
(83)
5.2 GORDON STRACHAFi MEMORANDUM, F^EBFUAItY 16, 1972
mU Copy #! of ^
February IF,, 13 7 2
iME?:ORANDL!M F'OR:
FROM:
SUBJECT-.
0012^^
H.R, halqema:i
GORDON STPACHAt.
Political Matters
G,
Finances
IL^lerb Kalmbach v/ill serve as Associate Chairman of the
o^nance Committee under Secretary Stans . The Attorney
General concurs.
2) Kaimbach cleared with the Attorney General and Stans
the 350 in green under your unquestioned personal control.
A separate box of green is being developed for the Campaign.
3),^^f:alrvi:>ach will receive an additional 100 from Dick Watson
m Paris raising Watson's total from 200 to 300.
4) K^rTmbach is working with the milk people to increase
■fe 233 currently banked to 1,000 by April 7.
5) Kalmbach saw Don Nixon and informed him that he should
chsLniisl all requests of the White House through Kalmbach.
tilefxs is exactly the same treatment Jack Drown receives.
6) Kal5±iach granted the fullrtime gardner at San Clemente,
Brigefclo Garcia, a $2 5 per month raise bringing his monthly
flary to $539.00.
7) Concerning the Stair stroTy on Kalmbach, discussions with
John Dean, Fred Malek, Jack Gleason, Hugh Sloan, Jeb
Magruder, and Herb Kalmbach developed these tentative con-
clusions :
a) The material is primarily the result of thorough
investigative reporting by skilled newspapermen;
b) The material was probeibly not directly leaked but
rather the result of careless, loose talk disclosing
the only new information, Kalmbach 's name;
c) Information from 196 8 may have come from Dan Hofgren
(Herb Kalmbach lectured him harshly) ; the 1970 information
msrv^^rSve come from Eleanor Williams (Jack Gleason and
?rb Kalmhach say she is vindictive and cannot be influenced)
and the 19 72 information may have come from Jon Huntsman,
who was mentioning Kalmbachs name to people when leaving the
l-;hite House Staff. Kalmbach personally talked to him. These
-M
(84)
5. 2 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORAHDUM, FEBRUARY 16, 1972
m OOl^iOO
.<^-^^
tentative conclusions regarding sources of information
have not been confirFad by polygraphs.
''j~yZ) The budget corr-mittee for the Committee for the Re-EIection
'^ of the President will be Stans and the Attorney General
,w ^•^Co-Chairnan, Herb Kalirbach as Associate Chairman, and
-^''^"^"'^^J-.-s^s'liunn , Cliff Miller, and Fred ;!alek. as rcenbers . Magruder
is not on the Coirmittee. Paul Barrik, a Star.s' recruit,
v/ill act as Controller and Hugh Sloan v/ill continue as
Treasurer.
A -7^
9) Within the strictly finance area, Stans v/ill be Chairman
and Leonard Firestone, Gus Levy, Max Fisher, John Rollins,
and,y«rs . Ogden Phipps will serve as Co-Chairmen . In
lOUse the Vice Chairmen v/ill be Dan Hofgren, Lee Nunn,
and Newell Weed.
10) Stans' goal of 10,000 in by the Campaign Spending
-legislation effective date of April 7 is approximately
one-third complete.
11) The Campaign has raised 5,000 but spent 2,000 in its
first__jiine months. Expenses for January totalled 550 while
J^ected expenses for February are 900. The Attorney
General has asked Magruder for a list of the 124 employees
and their salaries. ^ xj ^ '
0*
'A
Harry Dent
"Tl^ia^.
^C^^'k^s. >^^<=2^
1) Magruder believes h4-<ya§Th'e"sbufce of/^he February 14
Evans and Novak story on political aides at the White
HpjJ-se' criticizing the "consciously aiding" comment you
made. The meeting could have been the Campaign Strategy
Group meeting of February 7. Magruder has re-cast the
Campaign Strategy Group to exclude Dent.
2)JJent advised the Attorney General that if Governor Nunn
loes not seek John Sherman Cooper's Senate seat, Robert
Gable should be encouraged. Gable is a wealthy, loyal
Republican .
3)^^&Snt advised the Vice President that he should speak to
ne California Republican Assembly on April 8. Governor
Reagan urged that the Vice President appear, and the Vice
President accepted.
4) In the Nev/ Mexico Senate race Dave Cargo may cause
proi>>Sms in the GOP primary even though our 1970 candidate
Jr Governor, Domenici, is the only one v/ho could beat
the Democrat, Jack Daniels.
(85)
5.2 GORDON STRACHAN MFMOMNDUM, FEBPUAFY 16, 197 Z
-3-
Ui:>
m
001301
5) A nationv/ide voter turnout surv'sy indicata^ that only
in th-2 South has there been a rise in voter turnout, v/hile
the key states, Ohio and Missouri, suffered a decline of
J^r-?^ and 8.1% respectively between 1960 and 1968. The
rise in the South is attributed to the black vote while the
decline in certain states is attributed to apathy.
6) VJ'allace Henley monitors George Wallace for Harry Dent
throygh Tom Turnipseed, Wallace's former Campaign Manager.
fhird party challenge by Wallace in November is not
'anticipated but could develop if Wallace receives enough
money and publicity.
7) V>fest. Virginia Governor Arch Moore v/ill seek re-election
accQjfding to Dent because he has a pollshov/ing him
k^d of Jay Rockefeller. The President leads all
'Democratic contenders in West Virginia by at least 13%
when Wallace is in the race.
8) David Treen lost the Louisiana Gubernatorial race to
Congressman Ed Edwards because of the solidarity of the
D^sracratic Party and the heavy black vote. Dent believes
that this relatively narrov; defeat augurs well for the
President even if Wallace is in the race.
9) In North Carolina, Charlie Jonas, Jr. has turned out
to be a V7eak Nixon Chairman who v/ill not dissociate the
Jim Holshouser effort to become Governor. Dent has assured
e Attorney General that he will continue to try to
separate the Nixon and Holshouser operations and to
prevent any other campaigns from tieing into the President's
campaign.
Don Rumsfeld
He^or^varded an anonymous political assessment of Hawaii
jfiich indicates that "the likelihood of the President
carrying Hawaii seems very slender". There are no races state wide
in Hawaii in 1972.
Tom Evans
1) The primary respgnsibilities of the RNC in the 1972
Campaign v;ill be voter registration, voter turnout, and
ballot'security . The registration drive (Target '72)
bpg^rT in Florida and Texas in January and will continue
'through the spring. Ed DeBolt at the RNC is the man
responsible to register 1 1/2 million Republicans by
May 15 and 8 million by October 1972.
(86)
S.2 GORDON STMCHAH MEmMNDUM, FEBRUARY 16, 1972
00130:;^
2) Tom Evans asked Jeb H=igrudor to censure John Lofton
for his POW v/ife call last waek . Evans docs not feel
he controls Lofton. Chuck Colson is exerting nore control
over Lofton and Monday with only occasi^al compiajjnts
from Evans . (^f^l^ ^ j ^ _ j . , . 57 ^ . _ . . y^ . ^^
Charlie McWhorter
continue Xo t
X^^^
During the campaign he yxZY continue Jco travel at AT&T's
expeni^e. However, he has ternvlnated his formal ties
tiVa the Vice President's office to protect against any
suggestion of impropriety.
( •3»'' i-U
Magruder's Projects
1) Advertising — The nev7spaper ads that Peter Dailey
prepared and you reviewed on February 14 will run in New
Ham.pshire. You did not view the TV spots which are not
eduled to run in New Hampshire. The decision as to the
extent of the media campaign in Florida will be made
when the Florida follov7-up telephone poll arrives.
2) New Hampshire/Florida — The extensive direct trail
($75J)00 in New Hampshire and $100, 000 in Florida) and
telTephone ($25,000 in New Hampshire) campaigns are continuing
as planned.
3) VJisconsin — A campaign plan prepared by the Davis
Agency for Nixon State Chairman John Maclver has been
submitted to "' '^~- ^ — ■"■• ^-^ -"' — ---- — •--
Attorney Ger
) Farm -- Claytor
ired John Foltz, visited Secretary Butz , farm Senators
and Congressmen, and worked with USDA on the rural development
issue.
5) Elderly — Fred Halek has been asked to "untangle" the
' te. House/1701 confusion. His report is due March 1.
Arthur Fleraming is now scheduled by the 1701 speakers bureau.
Danny Todd and Peter Dailey are re-working HEV7 films for the
elderly.
6),^xepoke5nen Resources -- Schedules for New Hampshire, Florida
md VJisconsin are submitted weekly.
(87)
5.2 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORANDUM, FEBRUARY 16, 1972
^7
G^'
<^'
00068/ -5-
7) Califorr
xW^
-- The California delegation list for the
Rin'C Convention has baen submictec! to the Attorney General.
The Los Angeles County list has not been completed.
JPna Attornev General authorized $150,000 for a special
1,000,000 new young voters drive in California under the
direction of Ken Rietz.
8) Campaign Strategy Group — At the February 7 meeting
the group approved the title for the campaign newspaper ■
(The Re-Elector) . Bob Teeter inf orroed the group that the
"p.E^sident was in good shape in 17 of 19 target states,
'"^nd was running ahead of his 1968 margin. Important
issues are Vietnam, inflation, and order/calmness (in the
President's favor), environment, race, health care (even),
unemployment, crime/drugs (negative)."
9) Campaign Briefing — Fred Malek an^Jei ^S^ruder are
considering a briefing for the White Manse St^f f on the
activities at the Committee for the Se-iDlection of the
President. ^^ ^ ^ ^^..^Z^ t^^^
10) Media Monitoring — Van Shumway is establi^ing state
by state systems to review press coverage and to coionteract
egative comments. The Illinois program with v;eekly reports
will serve as the model. The Attorney General does not
receive the proposal, but Shumv/ay is proceeding v;ith
Magruder's concurrence. ^^ f~^, — ^ ^ »x_^ ^ ^
11) RNC ConventJ
lyiJM^ AXjM,:^
■i^^
ifflTons ani_i nigraaer nave askea tne
Attorney Genp^iT^'o >stab^ish a permanent office in San
Diego withxfhick Cudlio^ Executive Director. No decision
has been rs.4ched_:__JDitttmons is meeting bi-weekly with Senator
Dole, Representative John Rhodes, Dick Herman, John Dean
and Bryce Harlov; on plans for the Convention.
12L.J^ewYork — The Attorney General is using Bob Karik
(■generally considered the best m.an at 1701) as the staff
man for regular contact with Governor Rockefeller's staff.
13) Magruder is seeking authority for approval of Campaign
media by Cliff Miller instead of you for the V;hite House.
Repeated explanations to Magruder that you only v;ant to see
the material on an FYI basis have not convinced him. that this
is unnecessary. Magruder frequently finesses Miller (e.g.
the infamous RNC film) in spite of the fact that Miller is
the final m.edia reviev; for the Attorney General. . However
lov/ your interest in the media materials you should continue
to receive them on an_E"YI, not approval, basis.
(88)
5,2 GORDON STRACHAN MEMORAWUM, FEBRUAFY 16, 1972
-6-
IIM9
001303
14) Magruder and Colson are increasingly at odds. The
ir.ost recent dispute concerns the "line" as to v/hether
Kuskie should be personally attacked on his v.'ar stand.
After your "consciously aiding" statement Magruder and
Miller thought they had an agreement on behalf of the
At^.orney General that Colson v/as not to continue
programming hits at Muskie. Colson continued the
attack on Muskie through Cabinet and Hill spokesmen.
Magruder plans on seeking authority from the Attorney-
General to be the only contact with the spokesmen to
the express exclusion of Colson.
tt^a.
^m\
(89)
5.3 H.R. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, JULY 30, 2973, 7 SSC 2878-79
2S7S
for information purposes and usually took the form of a summary
memorandum, backed up by a huge amount of supporting material
which I rarely read.
In the specific case of advertising and promotional materials the
standard procedure required a final signoff by me before the ads or
materials were considered approved. Thus, in tliis particular area I
did, in effect, exercise approval authority but even here I did not have
control over either the persomiel or the policies involved in developing
the material. I only had a final signotf on the end product.
Strachan also routed these materials to others in the "White House
who were concerned with them.
I 'also had a particular interest in polls and in scheduling and paid
more detailed attention to these areas.
I think it was very clear to all concerned that the committee was
running the campaign, not the "White House.
I do not believe I had control over any funds at the committee nor
did I exercise any authority or direction as to the utilization of funds,
except in a general sense. I never signed a campaign check.
I was, to some degree, involved in the decision process regarding
fimds to be used for advertising and polling. The committee also
allocated funds to pay for expenses incurred by the President or the
"White House that were clearly campaign expenses as contrasted to
Government expenses. This would include such things as cost of cam-
paign travel, advance men, et cetera.
Some indication of my role in the campaign may be found in the
fact that I v"isited the committee headquarters only once during
the entire campaign period and that was on the occasion of the Presi-
dent's visit to see the headquarters and meet the campaign workers.
Also, I had very few meetings with any members of the staff of
the Committee To Re-Eleot the President, except those with John
Mitchell which were on a frequency of about once a week during the
time he was campaign director. In addition to that, I did sit in the
semiweekly campaign review meetings held in John Ehrlichman's
office and, of course, as has been indicated, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Mac-
Gregor sat in the regular morning 'White House staff meeting so that
there could be full coordination between the White House and the
committee on overall strategy.
My contact with the campaign, in other words, was through fairly
infrequent meetings with Mr. Mitchell and fairly infrequent meetings
with Gordon Strachan of my staff; but I kept in general touch with
campaign activities through Strachan's summary memorandums and
the meetings described above.
THE $330,000
Prior to the April 7 date on which the new campaign spending leg-
islation took effect it was agreed by Mitchell, Stans, I believe Mr.
Kalmbach and me that $350,000 of the 1968 surplus cash funds should
be set aside to cover possible needs for special private polling by the
"Wliite House apart from the regular polls conducted by the commit-
tee. This was in anticipation of a possibly hard-fought close election.
I imderstand from Gordon Strachan that he received the cash from
Hugh Sloan on April G. He, in turn, arranged to have this cash held
(90)
te
I -
I th
5.Z H.R. HALDEmN TESTIMONY^ JULY 30^ 1973, 7 SSC 2878-79
2879
in a safe deposit box or safe by another individual outside the Gov-
ernment. It is my undei-standing from Strachan that this transfer ^yas
made immediately and the entire $350,000 was placed m safekeepmg
outside the "WTiite House. i- u ^ n
I did not feel we should keep such a large amount ot cash at the
White House, nor did I feel it was a good idea for it to be in the physi-
cal custody of a member of the "V\Tiite House staff which was why
these arrangements were made. I never at any time saw or handled
the currency, and I must rely on Strachan's reports to me as to how
it was handled. -,.1 i i
I have been informed by Strachan that there was one withdrawal
in April or Mav of 1072 of $-22,000 to pay for some advertising not
directly related" to the election campaign. This was at the request of
Dick Howard of Chuck Colson's office. I think Strachan said the
money was delivered directly to the advertising agency.
The balance of $328,000 was not used. I instructed Strachan after
the election in November to turn over the unused funds to the commit-
tee since the "White House had no further need for them. I told him
to work out with John Dean the means of doing this. Strachan has
informed me that the funds were turned over in January 1973, al-
though he incurred some difficulty in doing so after he took possession
of the funds on November 28, 1972. , ,
- In December I became aware, probably via Dean, that there was
some difficulty in turning over the cash to the committee, presumably
because it posed reporting problems. .
At a later time, Dean mentioned to me the committee's need for
funds for legal and family support for the Watergate defendants I
su<^gested to Dean that he try to work out a way of solving both the
problems of our desire to deliver funds to the committee and the com-
mittee's need for funds. , ,, ^ ^ c ^x.
Dean later told me that he had worked this out and that part ot the
cash, I believe $40,000, could be delivered immediately to the commit-
tee via Fred LaRue. He had Strachan do this, I am told, and several
days tliereafter. Dean had Strachan deliver the balance to LaRue.
To sum up: xVfter my original instruction to Strachan to transfer
the money to the committee, my involvement in the transfer of the
funds was entirely through John Dean. He told me of the problem m
transferring the $350,000 to the committee. He told me he had worked
out the problem. He told Strachan how, when, and to whom to
make the transfer. He told me the transfer had been made.
He did not, at anv time in this sequence, advise me or imply that
the transfer itself or the purpose of the transfer was to buy the
Watergate defendants' silence or that it was in any way illegal or
improper. . - j *
It is my understanding, that all this took place in the period ot
November to January, but I am not sure of the timing.
I have no recollection of any knowledire of the reported transaction
on November 28 when Dean had Fred Fielding of his office pick up
$22,000 in casli from Mr. Stans. osteu?ibly for the purpose of replacing
the $22,000 that had been expended from the $350,000 in April.
I do recall that one of Dean's ]n-obloms in the process of transferring
the $350,000 to the committee was the fact that $22,000 had been
(91)
r
L
5.4 MAURICE STANS TEST I MOM , JUNE 12, 1973, 2 SSC 698
698
my knowledge, Mr. Sloan did not tell me about that budget and I did
not know that Mr. Liddy had authority to draw an amount of money
of that size.
Now, with respect to Bart Porter, I think that Mr. Sloan's recollec-
tion is somewhat confused, because my understanding of it is somewhat
different. I had learned prior to April 7 that Mr. Porter had a cash
fund in his safe, that he sometimes received money from one or more
sources and used it to pay for certain campaign purposes. I objected
to that, because I wanted there to be only one treasurer in the cam-
paign. So there was an understanding which Mr. Sloan has confirmed
in his testimony that Mr. Porter would not receive any more money
from him. And to the best of my knowledge, he did not receive any
money from Mr. Sloan after April 7.
Now, subsequently, some date in August, I asked Mr. Sloan how
much money he had given Porter after April 7, and he said none.
More importantly, on September 6, I met with Mr. Sloan's attorney,
and the attorney for the committee, to learn some more information
about Mr. Sloan's activities after April 7, and Mr. Sloan's attorney
told us that after April 7, Sloan had given Porter only $500. Both the
committee's attorney, Mr. Parkinson, and I have our notations of
that conference. Subsequently, as you know, it was developed that
Mr. Porter had received So, 300 from Mr. Sloan and that was cited by
the General Accounting Office. Later, it evolved that the amount was
$11,000, and I understand Mr. Porter testified last Friday or Thursday
that he received $17,000 from Mr. Sloan. So I have no knowledge of
those transactions or the use to which they were put, except as I have
learned subsequently in testimony.
Mr. Edmisten. So we have some conflicting testimony again regard-
ing the transaction.
Mr. Stans. I do not want to be critical, but I believe that Mr.
Sloan's memory in that respect is faulty and perhaps confused. He
may have discussed with someone else the question of authority to give
money to Bart Porter.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Stans, did you learn of the payment of
cash of some $350,000 from the finance committee to Gordon Strachan
and when that payment was made?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I learned a little bit more about it, I think, than
Mr. Sloan did, because back in February of last year, I heard from
someone — I think it was Mr. Kalmbach, but I am not sure — that the
White House would like to have some of the 196S money that he had
turned over to our committee, to use for special polling purposes. No
amount was mentioned at that time and I have no recollection of any
other discussion about this subject imtil after the $350,000 was given
by Mr. Sloan or Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan. I believe that
Mr. Kalmbach takes full responsibility for that transaction. At a later
date, I asked Mr. Sloan if the White House had ever gotten the money it
wanted, and he said, "Yes, they got $350,000". I do not think that the
difference in our recollections is material on this point, because I
certainly would not have objected to the item in any event, had I been
asked about it beforehand. I did not object to it when I heard about it
in February. I think it was a perfectly proper transaction.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, Mr. Stans, I do not want to drag this out, but,
I think the committee does want to know something about all of the
allegations that have been made regarding four so-called Mexican
(92)
.1 I
5.5 HUGH SLOAN TESTIMONY, JUIJE 6, 1972, 2 SSC 536-37
536
In the case of Mr. Kalrabach, he, in a period from March 1971
up until Secretary Stans came into the campaign, was essentially my
senior, from whom I took instructions. He was the principal fund
raiser for the President's reelection campaign, during that period.
He, over this period from March until April 7, received, to the best
of my recollection, appro.ximately $250,000 in caah. I would qualify
that by saying that in raising the funds, there were occasions, and
I cannot give you what proportionate amount, where we would raise
the funds, not give it to me but give me the name of the donor, so in
terms of my own internal bookkeeping, I would receive the funds
from that individual to Mr. Kalmbach. So the entire $250,000 figure,
that amount of money did not physically go through my hands.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know of your knowledge why Mr. Kalm-
bach received, either by holding on to receipts of his own or b}' actual
disbursement by you, this amount, $250,000?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I have no knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive any receipt from Mr. Kalmbach con-
cerning any money that was received by him from you?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. Not only in the case of cash, but in this entire
pre-April 7 period, receipts just were not used in the campaign,
period.
Mr. Dash. Then will you go to the next person listed?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Gordon Strachan, who was the political liaison
between Mr. Haldeman at the White House and the campaign
committee. This $350,000, Mr. Kalmbach, on a day just prior to
April 7, and I am not sure of the precise date but my best recollection
would be within 10 days prior to the effective date of the new law,
came to me and indicated that he had had a request from the White
House for $350,000 in cash, would I get that together for him. In
the conversation, he indicated that he had talked to Bob Haldeman.
At some point in the same day, Mr. Strachan was present in the
committee. Mr. Kalmbach indicated to me that Mr. Strachan would
arrange to have this picked up. I had put the money in a briefcase
and I do not believe I was there when the money was physically
picked up, so I do not confirm that Mr. Strachan in fact personally
picked this up. But I either turned it over to Mr. Kalmbach or to
my secretary. I believe I was going out to lunch and was not there
when this was picked up.
Mr. Dash. With regard to the $350,000 or any other cash, could
you tell us what denominations generally the cash was in?
Mr. Sloan. I would say generally the cash was in $100 bdls, although
at times, there were $50's, $20's, llO's. At one point, I think we even
had some $1,000 bills.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to Mr. Porter.
Mr. Sloan. I might add one further remark about the $350,000.
To the best of my recollection, after having the authority from Mr.
Kalmbach to do this, there was a meeting in Secretary Stans office
in which he was present and I was present. I do not believe this was
the subject of the meeting. I think it was a very brief reference. My
recollection is that Mr. Kalmbach indicated to Mr. Stans that he had
had this request for $350,000, that he had asked me to get it together.
My best recollection is that Mr. Stans said fine.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know of your own knowledge the purpose
or reason for the $350,000 being sent to the Wliite House?
(93)
5,5 HUGH SLOAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 6, 297Z, 2 SSC 536-3/
l_
537
Mr. Sloan. No sir, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Go to the ne.xt person, please.
Mr. Sloan. jMr. Herbert Porter, who was a member of the staff of
the Committee to Re-Elect the President. He was in charge of
scheduling surrogates, speakers for the President, in place of the
President. This S100,000 covered a period probably starting in either
December 1971 or January 1972. Pie had a blanket authority to
draw cash funds from Mr. Magnider. He would come to me and
indicate on various occasions, I need 510,000, would you have it
ready for me.
This $100,000 is not a single disbursement. The increments of
disbursement or distribution were probably in the range of 810,000
to $15,000 over a period of time, running up to April 7 and beyond.
To the best of my recollection, I turned over approximately 56,000
to Mr. Porter following the April 7 date, under my understanding
that these were committee funds.
In that case, he — excuse me.
Mr. Porter, I understand from his testimony to the General Ac-
counting Office, puts the figure higher, at $11,000. So I say, this is
from memory. I would not dispute his recollection. I believe he also
recollects the total figure to be somewhat less.
I had instructions, and I forget from whom — possibly Mr.
Magruder — that Mr. Porter would receive no further funds after
Apnl 7.
When Mr. Porter came to me with that request, I went to Mr.
Stans. I asked him — I indicated to him that ray clear understanding
was that Mr. Porter would no longer receive any cash funds. He
indicated to me at that time that that was his understanding as well,
that he would take the matter up with Mr. Mitchell and let me know.
On his return, he indicated to me that I should continue making
payments on request from Mr. Porter.
Mr. Dash. I think you have indicated that Mr. Porter had a blanket
authority from Mr. Magruder and that later you checked or it was
checked with Mr. Mitchell. Generally, who had the authority to
approve your making cash payments to anybody?
Mr. Sloan. In the earlier period, it would have been Mr. Kalmbach
alone. He did not physically spend much time in Washington, D.C.
He would be in and out every week or two. He would \isit with Mr.
Mitchell. At some point in time, fairly early, he indicated to me — and
I believe that initially, it was with regard to all funds — that I was not
to disburse any money without Mr. Mitchell's approval.
Mr. Dash. This is what period you are now talking about?
Mr. Sloan. This would be prior to Mr. Mitchell lea\'ing the Justice
Department. It would be in probably the summer of 1971.
Mr. Dash. Did you check with Mr. Mitchell to get his approval on
making cash payments?
Mr. Sloan. What happened in this regard was essentially that I
don't believe any cash payments came up before the authority issue
was resolved. What had been done prior to my assuming the disburse-
ment side of the campaign, going back to the Citizens Committee,
when we first moved into the campaign, before there was a division of
the finance and pohtical arms, of the campaign, Mr. Harry Flemming
was handling the disbursement side and I was handling the receipt
(94)
5.6 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 23, 1972, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62
2494
Mr. Straciian. Well, I cannot take notes in the Executive Office
Building, but my best recollection is that it was shortly after the
June 30, 1971, talking paper.
Senator Gcrxet. You testified that you prepared political memos
dail}', as I recall, from Mr. Haldeman and some of them were rather
lengthy. Where did you get your information that went into these
memos?
Mr. Stilvchax. The memorandums were not prepared daily. They
would be prepared as frequently as once a week, usually once every
2 weeks, sometimes as late as once every 3 weeks, and I would get the
information by talking to people on the White House staff who were
politically active, such as Mr. Dean or Mr. Colson; people in the
States, and particularly California, in which Mr. Haldeman had quite
an interest; people at 1701.
Senator Gctsxey. Who did you contact at the Committee To Ke-
Elect the President?
Mr. Strachan. I would try to contact many of the senior individuals
personally.
Senator Gurxet. Who ?
Mr. Strachan. Mr. Teeter for the polling information ; Mr. Dailey,
Mr. Joanou for advertising information; Mr. Flemming for reports
on the field organization; Mr. Marik for reports on general research
done in the campaign. There was a fellow in charge of direct mail, Bob
Morgan.
Senator Gurney. How about Magruder ? Did you talk to him ?
Mr. Strachan. Definitely.
Senator Gurney. How often ?
Mr. Strachan. Probably daily.
Senator Gurney. What kind of information did he give you ?
Mr. Stri\chan. Well, most memorandums submitted to Mr. Mitchell
would be submitted through Mr. Magnider ; that is, the memorandums
to Mr. Mitchell would have Mr. Magruder's signature on them, and
his office would be a funnel for much of the information, if they had
decided that internal disputes had been resolved at 1701, to send copies
of memorandums to me.
Senator Gurney. How often did Magruder send you memorandums ?
Mr. Str-\chan. I recei\-ed packages of information from the com-
mittee daily.
Senator Gurney. But your testimony is that he never told you any-
thing about surveillance or wiretapping and bugging, is that correct I
^^—^ Mr. Str.\chan. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. The $350,000 — do I understand — I can't under-
stand why this went to this Lilly. This was supposed to be used in the
White House for polling or something in connection with the cam-
paign. Why would you pick it up and then it be given to somebody
who later gave it to somebody else? What was the point of that?
Mr. Strachan. Well, various pollsters who would conduct the polls
for us would Jiave to be paid and neither ^Ir. Butterfield nor I could
go very far from the Wiiitc House physically.
Senator Gurney. Well, what about Lilly? Is he connected with the
White House at all ?
Mr. Strachan. Xo, he is not. He is a personal friend of Mr. Butter-
field who could travel.
(95)
5.6 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIWNY, JULY 23, 1972, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62
2495
Senator Guknev. Why would he, not connected with the 'WHiite
House at all, be given $350,000 worth of money that was supposed to
be used in this campaign inoiie way or another?
Mr. Stkachax. Because he could take the cash to a polling organi-
zation in Princeton or if we conducted one in California, to the pollster
in California.
Senator Gurxey. How many people were on the White House staff
during this period of time?
Mr. Stuachan. Well, there is quite an argument as to who is offi-
cially on the White House stalf and who isn't. I would guess somewhere
in the neighborhood of 400, but that is just a ballpark guess.
Senator Gurxey. Don't you think it would be possible to find one of
these 400 who could have been entrusted with the custody of the
$3.50,000?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, and that was one of the alternatives posed to Mr.
Haldeman in the memorandum.
Senator Gurxey. But why would it be given to somebody totally
unconnected with the "White House? That is a very large sum of
money which would be used in this campaign.
Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Butterfield indicated that he had known
the man for a long time, that he was able to travel and that he would
be willing to accept the custody of the cash. Mr. Dean had indicated
that neither he nor anyone that he could think of on the WTiite House
staff would be able to do it.
Senator Gxjrxey. You mean not one of those 400 would be able to
have custody of this $350,000 ?
Mr. Strachan. Well, I am not sure how many people Mr. Dean
asked. He told me that he would not be able to arrange for the holding
of the money fairly close to the campaign spending law enactment
date, and so I scrambled for some alternatives to present to
Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Gurnet. Was Mr. Liddy somebody — Lilly, I guess — some-
body who constantly handled large sums of money in custody for other
people ?
Mr. Str;\chan. I don't know. I have never met the man.
Senator Gurxey. When the $350,000 was returned, you had left the
White House staff, hadn't you ?
Mr. Strachan. That is correct.
Senator Gurxey. ^Vhy was it that you returned it and not somebody
who was working at the \Yhite House then?
Mr. Strachax. It was just one of the matters that I had been asked
to do before I left the WTiite House staff that I hadn't wrapped up. It
was like my functions with the Kennedy Center. I was Mr. Haldeman's
staff" man and I went to a meeting on his behalf in January, although
I was off the White House staff. It was a matter — the last matter that I
had not taken care of prior to leaving.
Senator Gurxey. Cleaning up pieces of business?
Mr. Strachan. That is correct.
Senator Gurxey. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. "Slv. Chairman, thank you very much. I thank
Senator Talmadge for lotting me go out of sequence so I can take
care of another matter shortlv and tlieii return to tlie committee.
(96)
w
I St
U
v
n
6.6 GORDON STEACHAN TESTIMONY^ JULY 23, 197S, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62
2461
wards, when IVrr. Dean attended all tliese meetinpcs over at the com-
mittee, he would be the one that would communicate this information
to Mr. Haldeman if anybody did ?
Mr. STi{.\cnAX. That is correct, and I would guess that he would
report directly rather than through me or one of his aides. But I didn't
know that for a fact.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you became aware of a
transfer of $350,000 from the Committee To Re-Elect the President to
Mr. Haldeman or the White House under Mr. Haldeman's control?
Mr. Strachan. Yes. The subject had been discussed for a couple of
months before that.
Mr. Dash. "WTiat time now are we talking about?
Mr. Strachan. This would be from December 1971 through April
1972. ilr. Haldeman — his office conducted extensive polling: — and he
told me at one point, when I was having discussions with Air. Kalm-
bach, to make sure that we have an ample supply of cash to pay for
these polls.
I talked with John Dean about it, tried to arrange for John Dean a
method for holding the money. He eventually told me that he could
not do it.
On April 6, I prepared a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman saying
that we are going to get that money from the committee before the
new finance law and we have to get it very soon ; John Dean can't make
arrano^ements. You have four other alternatives. He checked the one
indicating that I should go and pick up the money.
Mr. Dash. "Which one was that?
Mr. Strachan. Alex Butterficld had a friend who would hold the
money. And I went and got the money, brought it back to Alex, and
presumably
Mr. Dash. Wlien you say went and got the money, where did you
go?
Mr. Strachan. T went over to 1701. to the Committee To Re-Elect
the President, either INIr. Kalmbach's office or to Mr. Sloan's office.
Mr. Dash. Was this in cash ?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, it was.
Mr. Dash. And you returned it back to the White House?
Mr. Strachan. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. You turned it over to Mr. Butterfield ?
Mr. Strachan. Well, I eventually turned it over to him. I walked
into his office and the two of us began counting it and he said he would
get it to his friend.
Mr. D'SH. .\ctually, what was that money for? Was that for the
command or the disbursement of Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Str.\chan. Pardon?
Mr. Dash. Was this money that was taken over to the White House
and turned over to Mr, Butterfield and then to his friend, was the dis-
bursement of that money really at the discretion of Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Str=\chan. Definitely.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you become aware of the fact that any money
was in fact spent from that $3.50.000 ?
]Mr. Strachan. Yes. Somewhere around the time of the PTanoi-Hai-
phong bombing, 'Sir. Howard came to me and indicated that Mi-. Col-
son had an approved advertisement — I believe it was under the aus-
(97)
L
5.6 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY^ JULY 2Z, 1972,, 6 SSC 2494-95, 2461-62
2462
pices of Tell It To Hanoi, but in any event, it concerned indicating:
public support for the Iximbinfj and minin<r decision. Mr. Howard said
that Mr. Colson needed $22,000 and I asked Mr. Haldeman if we
should authorize that expenditure. He said yes, and the money was
delivered.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when the $350,000, or what
was left of it, was returned to the Committee for the Re-Election of
the President, or to a particular pereon there?
Mr. Str.vchan'. "Well, we should back up a little, I think. After the
election, I got the money back from Mr. Butterfield and
Mr. Dash. Why did you get it back from Mr. Butterfield after the
election ?
Mr. Strachan. Because Mr. Haldeman had told me to return the
money to the committee.
Mr. Dash. Then what happened ?
Mr. Str.\chan. Then John Dean told me that he wanted to have
the $350,000 intact and Fred Fielding gave me $22,000, which I placed
with the'$320.000
Mr. Dash. Well, let's back up a bit here. You said John Dean told
you he wanted the $350,000 intact. Was there any specific incident
or event at that time when Mr. Dean conrniunicated that to you ?
Mr. Strachan-. Yes.
Mr. Dean had told me. Chapin and me that Earl Silbert from the
prosecutor's office wanted to interview us and that that interview was
scheduled on November 28, and Mr. Dean indicated that one of the
questions might be whether or not the $350,000 was in fact intact.
Mr. Dash. All right, now. You said Mr. Fielding brought back the
$22,000.
Do you know where Mr. Fielding obtained that $22,000?
Mr. Strachan. Well, I assumed at the time that he had received it
from Mr. Stans. I have read his deposition. I don't personally know
where he got the money.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at any time that Mr. Dean had received
any large sum of money, specifically around $15,200, from the unspent
amount of the $22,000 that had originally been taken out of the
$350,000?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, there is some confusion as to that amount
Dick Howard and I did go to John Dean's office and give him some
cash in lan envelope. I don't think any of the three of us counted, it.
I always thought it was $7,000, but either $7,000 was spent on the ads
and $15,000 was left, or $15,000 was spent on the ads and $7,000 was
left.
Mr. Dash. I think we have Mr. Dean's testimony that he at least
received $15,200, and I take it that it would be in his interest to have
given a lesser sum, so
Mr. Str.\chax. Oh, I wouldn't dispute Mr. Dean's account, for
sure.
Mr. Dash. So I take it he did receive $15500.
Can you tell us why you brought this balance or this amount back
to Mr. Dean when it had been taken originallv from the $350,000
pot?
(98)
n
5.7 HERBERT KALMBACH TESTIMONY, JULY 16, 1973, 5 SSC 2095-96
2095
Mr. Kaliibach. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you describe the nature of that contact or any as-
signments that you gave Gordon Liddy ?
Mr. Kalmbach. As best as I can lecall, Mr. Dash, my first acquaint-
ance with Mr. Liddy was in tlie latter part of ilarch, although I think
I had lunch with others, with ^Ir. Liddy in January, when I first met
him, and the first time that I had really worked with him was in the
latter part of March when he came aboard the finance committee as
counsel to the committee.
In my position as associate chairman I gave him several assign-
ments asking for legal opinions and the like, and I can recall one or
two trips that I asked him to take, to contact attorneys for contributors
to help in legal problems.
Mr. Dash. You had no contact with him or any relationship with
him on any intelligence or fact-gathering operations?
Mr. Kauibach. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you give Mr. Stans an advance on his expenses
in February 1972?
Mr. Kaliibach. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. How much ?
Mr. Ivaliibach. I gave him $50,000.
Mr. Dash. "VVhy did you give him that ?
Mr. KALiiBACH. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. Dash. Why did you give him that ? Why ?
Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. Stans had come to me and asked me for these
fimds as an advance for personal expenses for the forthcoming
campaign.
Mr. Dash. Was a receipt given to you for that ?
Mr. IvAL^rBACH. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, are you aware of the transaction whereby $350,000
left the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, the finance
committee, and went over to the "Wliite House ?
Mr. Ivalmbach. I am.
Mr. Dash. Can you tell us briefly of your own knowledge how that
took place?
Mr. Ivalmbach. About the last part, the last week in ]March or very
early in the first few days of April, and I am not certain, I was called
by Mr. Higby from the "Wliite House and was asked as to how much
cash would be available for transfer to the White House. I then
checked with Mr. Sloan. I called Mr. Higby back and told him that I
had found there was $350,000 in cash in Mr. Sloan's safe that would
be available.
Then Mr. Higby — I think there were one or two additional calls
back and forth and it is my recollection that ^Ir. Higby then called
and informed me that ]Mr. Strachan would come over to the finance
committee and pick up the $350,000 tliat afternoon. And again, this
was within a week of April 7 or thereabouts.
I then spoke to ^Ir. Sloan and asked Mr. Sloan to give me the f\inds
in time for the pickup by Mi-. Strachan, which he did. And as I best
remember it, ifr. Dasli, the funds were put in my office in tlie finance
committee. Mr. Strachan came over at 1:30 or 2 in the afternoon —
I am not certain — and picked up the briefcase from my office and then
left the office.
(99)
5.7 HERBERT KALMBACH TESTIMONY, JULY 16, 1973, S SSC 2096-96
2096
jMr. Dash. Those funds weieall ia cash?
iMr. IvALMBAcir. Yes, sir, tliey wcic.
Mr. Dasfi. Do you know tlie dcMoniiuation of the hills that went
over?
Mr. Iv,M,MBAr.if. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Dash. iS'ow, you mentioned Mr. Higby and ^U: Scracliait. You
are aware that Jlr. Higby and Jlr. Stiachan are both assistants of
jMr. Haldeman?
Mr. K.vLirnACFr. I am.
Mr. Dash. And you loiow that they could have been
Mr. IvALMBACH. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you know why tl\e request, why tlie $350,000 was
needed?
Was any information given to you ?
Mr. KALitBACH. I am not certain, Mr. Dash, that it was expressed
to me, the purpose. But I know that it was my assumption, and it
may have been expressed to me, but it was my assumption that it
would be used for polling purposes.
Mr. Dash. "iVhen did this take place ?
^^„^Mr. Kalmbach. I would think within 7 days of April 7, 1972.
Mr. Dash. Xow, following this, Mr. Kalmbach, the break-in at the
AVatergate on June 17, did you receive a call from ilr. Stans asking
you to come to "Washington? Shortly after that period?
Mr. IvAL:irBACH. Excuse me, Mr. Dash. "Would jou repeat that
question ?
Mr. Dash. I said following the break-in at the "Watergate, which
took place on Jime 17, sometime after that period, did you receive a
call from Mr. Stans to come to "Washington from California?
Mr. KAL:jrBACH. Yes, my recollection is that I received a call from
Mr. Stans, probably early in the week, the 20th or thereabouts, to
come to "Washington and to meet with ilr. Sloan to reconcile my cash
records. There was no reference at all to the "U'atergate break-in.
IMr. Dash. Xow, did you report to Mr. Stans after that meeting?
Mr. K.VLirBACH. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. "Wliat, if anything, did you say to ilr. Stans?
Mr. KrVLMBACH. I just informed him that I had met with ifr. Sloan
and that we were in agreement on the cash records, and he said, fine,
and as far as he was concerned, I was discharged from that respon-
sibility and my accounts had balanced.
i\[r. Dash. Did you destroy any records after that meeting with
Mr. Sloan?
Mr. KAL>rBACH. Yes, I did. I destroyed my own personal cash rec-
ords, knowing that the original record was in the finance ofBce.
iNfr. Dash. Xow, on your visit to Washington on June 21 or June 22.
did you discuss the Watergate break-in with anybody? That was
right after that peiiod of time ?
Mr. Kal5[bach. Xo, other than in casual convei-sation, I can't i-ecall
that I did, :\rr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Wasn't tliat a kind of topic of oonvei-sation over at the
committee?
Mr. KALiruACH. It was, hut otiier than just being a very major new.s
item, that was tlie extent of it. I didn't (.li.-cuss it beyond tiiat.
^fr. Dash. It was a inajoi- news itetu especially witli relation to the
(•(inunittce, was it not?
(100)
6. Prior to March 30, 1972 Charles Colson, Special Counsel to
the President, met with Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, a White House
consultant who had served with Liddy in the "Plumbers" unit. During
the meeting Colson telephoned Jeb Magruder. Colson has stated that he
urged Magruder "to resolve whatever it was Hunt and Liddy wanted to do
and to be sure he had an opportunity to listen to their plans."
Page
6.1 President Nixon statement, May 22, 1973,
9 Presidential Documents 693, 695 102
6.2 Charles Colson memorandum for the file,
June 20 , 1972 (received from SSC) 104
6.3 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3683-84 110
6.4 Fred LaRue testimony, 6 SSC 2284 112
6.5 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 793-94 113
..e«o-„-a ^^^^^
6.1 PRESIDENT NIXON STATEMENT, MY 22, 1973, 9 PRESIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS 693, 695
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: RiCHARD NIXON. 1973
Kiin^ic:, who is llo^s■ an assni i.itr iudt;c of llic U.S. Cloiut
of Claims.
Mr. Sanip-nn has liccn .\rlln;; .Xdininislrator of Ci'ii-
eral Scnircs siiirc June 2, 1972. He joined the Gener.d
Services .\dniinistration in 1969 a.s Commissioner of the
Federal Supply SeiAicc. From 1970 to 1972 he uas Coni-
niLssioncr of the Public Buildins^s Scr\icc in GSA and the
first Deputy Administrator of GS.V for Special Projects.
He came to the General Ser\ices Administration after
6 vears in Pennsylvania State t;o\eniment, where he was
secretary- of administration and budget secretary under
Gov. Ra\mond P. Shafer, and deputy secretary for pro-
curement, department of property and supplies, under
Gov. William ^V. Scranton. Prior to entering government
service, he was emplo\ed by the General Electric Co. for
12 years.
Mr. Samp>on ua^ born on October 8, 1926, in Warren,
R I. He recei\ ed his B.S. decree in business adminis-
tration from the University of Rhode Island in 19.') 1 and
has done graduate work at the George Washington
Uni\ersity.
Acti\e in several professional organizations, Mr. .Samp-
son was presented theS\ncrg\ III Award for outstanding
contributions toward the ad\ancement of architecture by
the Society of .American Registered .\rchitects in 1972.
In 1973 he was selected as one of the Top Ten Public
\Vorks Men of the Year, and he was named an honorary
member of the American Institute of .\rchitects.
He and hi.-- \\ ife, Blanche, have four children and reside
in \\'ashington. TtC.
note: For llir Pr.-.icl.-ni's st.ilcni.iil upon nMiinniirins his intention
to nomln.Ttc Mr- S-imp'on, sec th--- jtrri rclitic ilciii.
The \Vatcrgaic Investigation
, Slalcnirnls by the PrcfUlcnl. May 22, 1973
Recent ne\\s accounts grouiiig out of testimony in the
Watergate in\cstig.itions ha\e given grossly tnisleading
impre-sions of in.iny of the facts, .is they rel.ite both to my
own role and to certain imrelated actl\ities in\oKing na-
tional security.
.'Mreadv. on the b.isis of secontl- and third-hand hcarsav
testimonv hv persons eillu i ron\ i< led or thrmscKes uiiiUr
investigation in the < a^e, I li.i\c found mv-^elf .mused of
involvement in .uti\itie^ I never he.ud of until 1 re.id
about them in new^ .iccounl-.
These impre-sions i ouUI aUo lead to .i serious misunder-
standing of those n.iiional sci unl\ .ii ti\ itics whii h. ihoutjh
totally unrrl.m-d lii WateiuMtc. li.ue Ik rome entaii!.;!ed in
the c.a.se. Thcv i .uiUI le.id to turllicr i ompnimisc of sensi-
tive national security inform. itii>n.
I will not abandon my responsibilities. I will continue
to do the job I w.ts elected to do.
In the accompanying statement, I have set forth the
facts .as I know them a.s they relate to my own role.
With regard to the specific allegations that have been
made, I can and do state categorically:
1. I .had no prior knowledge of the Watergate
operation.
2. I took no part in. nor was I aware of, any subsequent
efforts that may have been made to cover up
Watergate.
3. At no time did I authorize any offer of executive
clemency for the Watergate defendants, nor did I
know of any such offer.
4. I did not know, until the time of my own investiga-
tion, of any effort to provide the Watergate defend-
ants with funds.
5. At no time did I attempt, or did I authorize others
to attempt, to implicate the CIA in the Watergate
matter.
6. It was not until the time of my own in\estigation
that I learned of the break-in at the office of Mr.
FJlsberg's psychiatrist, and I specifically authorized
the furnishing of this information to Judge Byrne.
7. I neither authorized nor encouraged subordinates to
engage in illegal or improper campaign tactics.
In the accompanying statement, I have sought to pro-
vide the background that may place recent allegations in
perspective. I have specifically stated that executive
privilege will not be invoked .is to any testimony concern-
ing possible crimin.il conduct or discussions of possible
criminal conduct, in the matters under investigation. I
want the public to learn the truth about Watergate and
those guilty of any illegal actions brought to justice.
Allegations surrounding the Watergate affair have so
escalated that I feel a further statement from the President
is required at this time.
A climate of sensationalism has developed in which
even .second- or third-hand hearsay charges arc headlined
.as fact and repeated .as fact.
Important n.ational security operations which them-
selves had no connection with Watergate have become
entangled in the case.
.As a result, .some national security information h.as
already been made public through court orders, through
the subpoenaing of docimicnts. and through testimony
witnesses h.ive given in judici.al and Cong-.'essional pro-
ceedings. Other sen-itive docimients are now threatened
with disclosure. Continued silence about those operations
would compromise rather than protect them, and would
also serve to perpetu.ite a grossly distorted view — wliich
recent parti.d disclosures have given — of the nature and
purpose of those operations.
(102)
6.1
PRESIDENT NIXON STATEMENT, MAY 22, 1972, 9 PRESIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS 692, 69 S
PRESIDENTIAl. DOCUMENTS; RICHARD NIXON. 1973
mcmoraiicliini of the options approved. After reconsider-
ation, however, prompted hy the opposition of Director
Hoover, the agencies were notified 5 days later, on July 28,
that the approv nl had been rescinded. The options initially
approved had included resumption of certain intelligence
operations which had been suspended in 1966. These in
turn had included authorization for surreptitious entry —
breaking and entering, in effect — on specified categories
of targets in specified situations related to national
security.
Because the approval was withdrawn before it had
been implemented, the net result was that the plan for
expanded intelligence activities never went into effect.
The documents spelling out this 1970 plan are ex-
tremely sensitive. They include — and are based upon —
assessments of certain foreign intelligence capabilities and
procedures, which of course must remain secret. It was
this unused plan and related documents that John Dean
removed from the AVhite House and placed in a safe
deposit box, giving the keys to judge Sirica. The same
plan, still unused, is being headlined today.
Coordination among our intelligence agencies con-
tinued to fall short of our national security needs. In
July 1970. having earlier discontinued the FBI's liaison
with the CI.\, Director Hoover ended the FBI's normal
liaison with all other agencies except the White House.
To help remedy this, an Intelligence Evaluation Com-
mittee was created in December 1970. Its members in-
cluded representatives of the White House, CIA, FBI,
N'S.\, the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Defense,
and the Secret Service.
The Intelligence Fvaluation Committee and its staff
were instructed to improve coordination among the in-
telligence community and to prepare evaluations and esti-
mates of dome-tic intelligence. I understand that its
activities arc now under investigation. I did not authorize
nor do I have any knowledge of any illegal activity by
this Committee. If it went beyond its charter and did en-
gage in any illegal activities, it was totally without my
knowledge or authority.
I Oi
I lishec
The Specui. Investigations Unit
On Sunday, June 13, 197 I, The New York Times pub-
ished the first installment of what came to be known as
"The Pentagon Paper-." Not until a few hours before
publication did any responsible G<)\eninieiu odlci.d know-
that they had been stolen. .Most officials did not know they
existed. No senior olficial of the Government h.id read
them or knew with certainty what they contained.
.Ml the Government knew, at first, was that the p.ipers
comprised 47 volumes and some 7,000 pages, which had
been taken from the most seiisiti\ c files of the DcpartTnents
of State and Defense and the Cl.A, covering nuliiaiT .md
diplomatic nio\es in a war that was still going on.
Moreover, a majority of the documents published with
the first three installments in The Times had not been
included in the 47-volumc study — raising serious ques-
tions about what and how much else might have been
taken.
There was every reason to believe th'is was a security
leak of unprecedented proportions.
It created a situation in which the ability of the Gov-
ernment to carry on foreign relations even in the best of
circumstances could have been severely compromised.
Other governments no longer knew whether they could
deal with the United States in confidence. Against the
background of the delicate negotiations the United States
was then invoked in on a number of fronts — with regard
to Vietnam, China, the Middle East, nuclear arms limi-
tations, U.S.-Soviet relations, and others — in which the
utmost degree of confidentiality was vital, it posed a threat
so grave as to require extraordinary actions.
Therefore during the week following the Pentagon
Papers publication, I approved the creation of a Special
Investigations Unit within the White House — which later
came to be known as the "plumbers." This was a small
group at the \Vhitc House whose principal purpose was
to stop security leaks and to investigate other sensitive
security matters. I looked to John Ehrlichman for the
supervision of this group.
Egil Krogh. Mr. Ehrlichman's assistant, was put in
charge. David Young was adtled to this unit, as were
E. Howard Hunt and G. Cordon Liddy.
The unit operated under extremely tight security rules.
Its existence and functions were known onlv to a very few
persons at the White House. TTiese included Messrs.
Ilaldcman, Ehrlichman, and Dean.
At about the time the unit was created, Daniel Ells-
berg w as identified as the person who had given the Penta-
gon Papers to The New York Times. I told Mr. Krogh
that as a m.attcr of first priority, the unit should find out
all it could about Mr. Ellsbcrg's associates and his motives.
Because of the extreme gravity of the situation, and not
then knowing what additional national secrets Mr. Ells-
berg might disclose, I did impress upon Mr. Krogh the
vital importance to the national securitv of his assign-
ment. I did not authorize and had no knowledge of any
illegal means to be used to achieve this goal.
However, because of the cmph.asis I put on the crucial
importance of protecting the national securitv, I can
understand how highly motivated individuals could have
felt justified in engaging in specific activities that I would
have disapproveil h.id they been brought to mv attention.
Consequently, as Prcsiilent, I must and do assume re-
sponsibility for such actions despite the fact that I at no
time approved or h.ad knowledge of them.
I also assigned the luiit n number of other invcstigatorv
matters, dealing in part with compiling an accurate rec-
ord of events related to the Vietnam war, on which the
Government's records were inadequate (many previous
-Number 21
(103)
6.2 CHARLES COLSON MEMORMWUM, JUNE 20, 1972
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
June 20. 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE
SUBJECT: Howard Hunt
The last time that I recall meeting with Howard Hunt was mid-
March. According to my office records, the date was March 15.
At that time I was under the impression that Hunt had left the
IVhite House and was working at the Committee for the Re-election
of the President.
I may have seen Hunt once or even possibly twice subsequent to
that time. These were (or this was), however, a chance encounter.
I do recall seeing him outside of my office during a day this Spring;
I recall inquiring about his health since he had told me in March he
had bleeding ulcers. During the brief conversation in the corridor,
nothing was discussed of any of Hunt's work or his areas of responsi-
bility. As I recall, he merely told me that he had been very busy
and that after getting some rest, his health had been restored.
I also talked to him on the telephone the night Governor Wallace was
shot sinply to ask him for his reactions on what he thought might
have been the cause of the attempted assassination. (Hunt was known
of something of an expert of psychological warfare and motivations
when in the CIA.)
The only other commimication I can recall subsequent to March 15
was a memo I sent to Howard in connection with what I thought his
duties were at 1701, i.e. security at the Republican Convention.
Steve Bull told me he had a friend in Miami who had been stationed
in the White House but was now in the Miami office of the Secret Service
who wanted to be of help to whoever was handling security for the
convention. I merely sent Hunt a note suggesting that he get in touch
with Bull's friend.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(104)
6.2 CHARLES COLSON MEMORANDUM^ JUNE 20, 1972
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
To the best of my recollection. Hunt came to me during the month
of January and said he had no work to do here and no one was giving
him any assignments and that this was the only campaign year he
would ever probably have a chance to participate in, that he cared
only about one thing, the re-election of the President, and that he
wanted to be of help in any way he could, for pay or not for pay. I
told him I had nothing in my office, but that I thought once the Com-
mittee was organized and Mitchell was in charge, there would be work
for him to do at the Committee. I told him that I would be sure the
Committee was aware of his desire to help. I did nothing further.
n
A few weeks later Hunt dropped by my office with Gordon Liddy, from
the Committee. I believe this was in February, possibly early in the
month, although my office records do not show the visit. Hunt said
he was in the building and just wanted to talk briefly. Both he and Liddy
said that they had some elaborate proposals prepared for security
activities for the Committee, but they had been unable to get approval
from the Attorney General. I explained that Mitchell would soon be
at the Committee and that they should be persistent and see him because
he was the only one who could authorize work they would be doing. I
have a vague recollection that Liddy said, "We [referring to Hunt and
himself] are now over at the Committee working and we are anxious
to get started but can't find anyone who can make a decision or give
us the green light" or words to that effect. IVhile Liddy and Hunt were
in my office, I called Jeb Magruder and urged them to resolve what-
ever it was that Hunt and Liddy wanted to do and to be sure he had an
opportunity to listen to their plans. At one point. Hunt said he wanted
to fill me in and I said it wasn't necessary because it was of no
concern to me, but that I would be glad to urge that their proposals,
whatever they were, be considered. There was no discussion that I
can recall of what it was that they were planning to do other than the
fact that I have the distinct impression that it involved security at
the convention and/or gathering intelligence during the Democratic
National Convention.
In March, Hunt sent me a memo explaining that when he retired from
the CIA he had failed to designate survivor benefits for his wife and
in view of the fact that he had had severe ulcer attacks, he wondered
if this could be changed in view of his present government service. I
told him to take the matter up with Dick Howard, which he did. Dick's
memo to Kehrii, copy attached, was the result. I assume Dick Howard
discovered at this time that Hunt was still on the rolls even though not
working for us.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(105)
6.2 CHARLES COLSON MEMORANDUM, JUNE 20, 19 72
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
I had assumed throughout Hunt's tenure in the White House that he
was charged to someone else's budget. I signed the original request
for him to be a consultant because everyone else was in California at
the time it was decided to bring him in. Shortly after he came on
board, however, he was assigned to David Young and Bud Krogh and
I didn't consider at any time after that that Hunt was under my super-
vision or responsibility.
From time to time after Hunt had come on board, he did talk to me,
normally to express his frustrations in being unable to get things
through the David Young operation. Of course, on occasion also we
talked socially emd about politics, something Howard and I had done
from time to time over the years.
Charles W. Colson
indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(106)
6.2 CHARLES COLSON MEmRANDUM, JUNE 20, 1972
Ju.-a 20, 1972
2v£E:Mo:i_\2iDu:j/i ~ro3. TZ-iz yiL.:z.
SUBJECT: I-Icr-A-^rd Huri
c£ ch.s Prsaic-SJir-
1 m— y ha— s ssea Hu^ osic^ or evsji posaibly trwice su'bsec'-ini '^o
I do rscali seeii:^ Idzn cr-:i:^d2 ex rr:y o£fics d-.;ri:2.5 a. da.y fhia -tZ^rizi^:
I alio tolZiisc tp. Iiim c:s tie. i slapione lie: -li^^: CIovv;r::;c;r Y/iLLacs —-=3
■SS3V2 BuH iaid ma xi?; hn£ :i friend Lz: iCi^-rrd wio Imd been cirs-iicr^ad
In tiia ',7!hi';c Houja be: "7771.3 :::o-?»' i~ tbc I'-UjLmi c£fi=^ o£ cb^ -Sacr^'c Ser->-i
v/'cr.o v.-^-nl-.-id bo ca ol.lial^i £0 ■:7b.oev:r- —"^j lin-dlinj ciecurii:^- for rbe
-vvitb Bull'3 £ri=nd.
r
(107)
6.2 CHARLES COLSOU MEMORANDUM, J WE 20, 1972
SIij* Co=a=iitc^2. I saZia-ra tloi^ T/as ia irobzri=..ry, possibly sajrl" ii -Lie.
in rr.y oHice. I collet -Jsb v/iisrudar =.== ur^-id ti.a=: co r.-isdlv^ wiiit-
!£-.,. Cli^li^ i^ic fsilsd to caaij;::;^^^ ci2jr--'ivor borcaiiis 10- iii3 Tvii^ s^d ■
^i:;cov^ro;I ai tbrauL::::- Li^c-i ::v;=; Tn:j ScL
(108)
C.2 CHARLES COLSON MEMORANDUM, JUNE 20, 1972 -j"
vision or r^sspoosibiiib^r.
iFrora. tizne i;o Irri^ aiiar Hunc bi£ coizia en lio-^ircl, I-a -IIJ. tcil^ io mo,
norri^illy io e-orsda nis £ruoi:rs.hicc3 in bain^ iionbli to ^lii tbin^a
thrcign tb.> Dc.-/i£ Ys'zng opershion. Of courj:;, on ccc^iislon also -.vs
t-nilcsd socially a^d nbou!: TDclii£=3, somtihbinj liO'P/ard al-id I Ii2.d ione
Cha^-ias V/. Cdsoa
(109)
6.3 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, SEPTEMBER 24, 197 Z, 9 SSC 3682-84
3683
the overall plan, has any relevance to your recent testimony before the
executive session or before this committee ?
Mr. Sachs. I am a little troubled, Mr. Dash, by your use of the word
"relevance."
Mr. Dash. Why?
Mr. Sachs. You might want to ask me that.
Mr. Dash. I will put the question more directly, Mr. Hunt.
lAre you now giving us your best recollection of what truthfully
transpired in January as opposed to what you were telling us earlier
during the period of interrogation?
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear. I got lost about 10
minutes ago.
Is the burden of the query that Mr. Hunt is now giving us informa-
tion for the fii-st time and only recently gave it to us in executive ses-
sion as distinguished from his earlier appearances in executive session
by reason of or connected with the fact that he is attempting to change
his plea from guilty to not guilty ?
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Senator Baker. Is there any implication in counsel's question that
the two are not inconsistent, but rather that this is additional informa-
tion that may have bearing on the application of Mr. Himt to change
his plea?
Mr. Dash. The last question I put to Mr. Hunt, and perhaps he can
answer it is : Is there any motivation on your part to give us this more
recent testimony concerning Mr. Colson's awareness of the plan con-
nected in any way to your motion to withdraw your plea of guilty ?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir; and if I may consult with counsel, there is an-
other point I would like to make pertinent to this.
I would like to add, Mr. Dash, that my legal position vis-a-\'is the
motion does not depend upon Mr. Colson's knowledge or nonknowl-
edse at that time.
Mr. Dash. All right. Now, Mr. Hunt, after the February 4 meeting
that Mr. Liddj' had with the former Attorney General in which there
was another turndown on the so-called Liddy plan, did Mr. Liddy ask
you to introduce him to Mr. Colson ?
Mr. Hunt. He did.
IVfr. Dash. What reasons did he give yoti for this?
Mr. Hunt. He indicated to me that, first of all, he admired Chuck
Colson as a man who got things done. He expressed his own desire for
a substantial position in the forthcoming administration. He indicated
to me that inasmuch as John Mitchell would be leaving the adminis-
tration and he, Liddv, was known and identified as a Mitchell man.
that Mr. Liddv would like to touch base with Mr. Colson. who would
be staying on in the administration at least throush the election, and
so have another power base, as it were, on which he could depend at
such time as
IVfr. Dash. Did vou arrange such a meeting?
'\W. Hunt. I did.
M'r. Da.=!H. And do you know when that, approximately, took place?
Afr. ?TuNT. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. But do vou recall it was in the month of February?
Mr. Hunt. "Mny T consult my notes, 'Mr. Dash ?
(110)
PC
n
6.S E, HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, SEPTEmER 24, 1973, 9 SSC 3683-84
3684
I would relate it to the phone call concerning which Mr. Magriider
has already given testimony.
Mr. Dash. All right, now, did you introduce Mr. Liddy to Mr.
Colson?
Mr. Utts-t. I did.
Mr. Dash. After you did, what did you do ?
Mr. HtiXT. I withdrew to the back of the room and sat, smoked my
pipe, leafed through a magazine while Mr. Liddy conversed with Mr.
Colson.
Mr. Dash. Why did you withdraw to the back of the room ?
Mr. HtTXT. Mr. Liddv having given me the preamble, the reasons for
his desire to meet Mr. Colson, I felt that it was a personal matter and
did not want to involve myself or interpose mj'self in any way.
Mr. Dash. How long did the meeting take place ?
Mr. Hunt. Approximately 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. Dash. Did you observe Mr. Colson use the telephone during
that meeting?
^fr. Httnt. On several occasions.
Mr. Dash. After the meeting, did you have a conversation with Mr.
Liddy?
Mr. Hunt. I did.
ivrr. Dash. What did Mr. Liddv tell you ?
Mr. Hunt. He said, "I think I mav have done us some good."
Mr. Dash. At that time what was your interpretation of that
message ?
Mr. Hunt. I realized that he had been speaking with Mr. Colson
about the Oemstone operation.
Mr. Dash. Whv did vou draw that interpretation from the state-
ment, "T think I have done us some good" ?
Mr. Hunt. Because that was the only common subject concerning
which he could have done us any good.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, the committee has alreadv heard testimonv from Mr. Magru-
der that while you were in Mr. Colson's office Mr. Colson telephoned
Mr. Magruder and ur^ed him, "to get off the stick and get the budget
approved for Mr. Liddv's plans."
Now, what plans of ]\fr. Liddy could Mr. Colson have been referring
to at that time?
Mr. Hunt. It could only have been the Gemstone concept.
Mr. Dash. Why do you say that ?
Mr. Hunt. That was the onlv one that was under consideration.
Mr. Dash. During part of this period, Mr. Hunt, when you were
working for Mr. Liddy between December 1971 and March lOT^. did
you receive anv other assignments from Mr. Liddv for political espio-
nage against Democratic candidates for the Presidency? Specifically
did von have a dealing with a person known to you as Fat Jack?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could vou describe how these dealings took place and
what the assignment was?
Mr. Hunt. There came a time when ifr. Liddv asked me as an
accommodation to meet with n f^ntleman who was hnndlinjr an a<rent
inside Muskie headquarters. He described the gentleman's physical
(111)
L
L
6.4 FRED LaRUE TESTIWNY, JULY 18. 1973, 6 SSC 2284
2284
Mv-LaRut;. Yes, sir, I raised the question and speculated with Mr.
Magruder on several occasions as to how this came about.
Mr. Dash. Well, then, it is not tiue that you did not talk to him
until March or April but that you discussed this actually during tlie
months of June, July, or August 1972 ?
Mr. LaRite. After the break-in, yes, sir.
Mr. D.'VSH. And what did Mr. Magruder say to j'ou when you dis-
cussed this with him about his role or his participation in the break-in ?
Mr. LaRue. Mr. Magruders conversations with me were reflected
in his testimony up here. He told me virtually — told me the same thing
that he testified to before this committee as to his role in the break-in.
Mr. Dash. In other words, he made a complete confession to you ?
Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you know when was the first time he did that? Ap-
proximately ? I do not want to push you to a date.
Mr. LaRue. I have no specific recollection of dates, Mr. Dash, but I
jvould say in the period of a week or 10 days after the break-in.
Mr. Dash. And did he not, Mr. LaRue, tell you about a phone call
that he received from Mr. Colson concerning the so-called Liddy plan?
Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what he told you about that phone call ?
Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, this conversation occurred as a
result of speculation that Magmder and I were having on who may be
involved or who may have had knowledge of the Watergate break-in.
He told me that he had had a call from Mr. Colson, I think sometime
in the period of March or April, in which Mr. Colson had asked Mr.
Magruder why they could not get an approval on the Liddy budget.
Mr. Dash. Did he tell you then or remind you that he imderstood
that you were present at his side, in the room, when he received the
phone call from Mr. Colson ?
Mr. LaRue. I do not recall any such discussion, no, sir.
Mr. Dash. You Icnow of his testimony before this committee, in
which he has testified that you were in the room ?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I am aware of that. My recollection is as I have
just stated.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you state that ilr. Magruder told you every-
thing, it was about a week or so after the break-in. Was anybody else
present when he said that to you or told you about this?
Mr. LaRue. Not that I recall. As I recall, it had been a discussion
between just Mr. Magruder and I.
Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. LaRue, when and where did you actually first
hear about the June 17 break-in matter ?
Mr. LaRue. At the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles, Calif.
Mr. Dash. Were you with anybody else at that time ?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, we were on a trip. Present were Mr. Mitchell,
Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Porter, I think Air. Caldera from
the committee. I mean these were the people who were present from the
reelection committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, can you tell the committee as clearly as you can
recall, how that news came to you, who first learned about it and how
you learned about it, and what was done?
Mr. LARtrE. As I recall, Mr. Dash, we were having breakfast on — I
think Saturday morning — I giiess that would be June 17. R[r. Ma-
gruder was paged, went to the telephone. He came back to the tiible
(112)
6.5 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 793-94
793
Mr. Magrttder. He indicated that ]Mr. Hunt had completed his
assi<jnments at the ^^^ute House, and since we were now engaged in
intelligence activities, he thought I would find Mr. Hunt very valu-
able. I only met Mr. Hunt once, so I was not really quite sure in what
terms lie would be valuable. So I indicated to Mr. Howard that he
should refer Mr. Plunt to ilr. Liddy and that Mr. Liddy would
employ him. I did not know at that time that he and Mr. Liddy had
worked together before.
]Mr. Dash. Now, also concerning this altercation you had with Mr.
Liddy and your decision to terminate his employment, did you receive
any communication from any other person from the White House
concerning Mr. Liddy?
Mr. M.^GRUDER. Yes, evidently Mr. Liddy, after he left my office,
went and saw Mr. Dean and then Mr. Strachan. I received a call from
Mr. Dean encouraging me not to become personally concerned about
Mr. Liddy, that I should not let mj' personal animosity and his get
in the way of the project. And then I went over to the White House
and was working with Mr. Strachan on normal campaign matters,
and he brought up the same subject and, as we walked back to the
committee — ^it was a Friday afternoon, I recall, and it was raining —
he indicated that although he had the same personal difficulties with
Mr. Liddy, that probably Mr. Liddy was quite professional in this
intelligence gathering, and we should retain him in this area.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Egil Krogh ever talk to you concerning cither
Mr. Liddy or :krr. Hunt?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Krogh did talk to me about Mr. Liddy, and
mentioned to me a number of times "we should keep tight control over
him but he was very effective.
Mr. Dash. Did you know at any time of Mr. McCord's participa-
tion in Mr. Liddy's plan?
Mr. ^Lvgrttder. No.
Mr. Dash. After the February 4 meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office,
when the plan was not still approved, did there come a time when any-
one else at the White House urged you to get the Liddy plan approved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. Mr. Charles Colson called me one evening and
asked me, in a sense, would we get off the stick and get the budget
approved for Mr. Liddy's plans, that we needed information, particu-
larly on Mr. O'Brien. He did not mention, I want to make clear, any-
thing relating to wiretapping or espionage at that time.
Mr. Dash. But in that discussion, did you get the impression j'our-
self that he knew what the Liddy plan was?
Mr. iL\GRUDEK. Again I want to be careful. I knew Mr. Hunt was a
close friend of Mr. Colson's, he had been referred to me earlier by
Mr. Colson. I did make the assumption that he did know but he did
not say that he did know but he did not say that he was aware of the
specifics and never did say that to me at any time.
ilr. Dash. Would Mr. Colson be one of those persons who would be
in line of communication to whatever Mr. Strachan was communicat-
ing to the White House ?
Mr. Magruder. I think Mr. Strachan worked closely with !Mr.
Colson, but his line of command was through Mr. Haldeman.
n
(113)
6.5 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 24, 1973, 2 SSC 792-94
794
Mr. Dash. Was anybody present when you received that telephone
call from Mr. Colson?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. LaRue was.
Mr. Dash. Were there any further contacts that you had with Mr.
Colson's assistant, concerning the call that Mr. Colson made to you ?
Mr. Magrtjder. Mr. Howard and I were fairly good friends. He had
worked for me at the AVhite House, and a number of times we discussed
the general intelligence-gathering situation, and he did indicate what
he thought was the professionalism, particularly of Mr. Hunt, and the
need to gather this information. But I would like to make it clear there
was a general, I think, atmosphere in the White House and the com-
mittee of the need to gather information. This was not necessarily
information that would be gathered illegally.
Mr. Dash. Were Mr. Howard's discussions with you also urging you
to try to pursue the Liddy plan?
__Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you had a third and
final meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the Liddy plan, on or about
March 30,1972?
Mr. jNLagrttder. Yes, we had. There had been a delay in the decision-
making process at the committee because of the TTT hearings. ^Ir.
Mitchell was on vacation at Key Biscayne. I went down to Key
Biscayne, ]Mr. LaRue was there, and we met and went over approxi-
mately 30-some decision papers mainly relating to direct mail and
advertising, the other parts of the campaign.
The last topic we discussed was the final proposal of Mr. Liddy's
which was for approximately $250,000. We discussed it, brought up
again the pros and cons. I think I can honestly say that no one was
particularly overwhelmed with the project. But I think we felt that
the information could be useful, and Mr. jNIitchell agreed to approve
the project, and I then notified the parties of Mr. ]Mitchell's approval.
Mr. Dash. What was the form, by the way, of the memorandum
or decision paper that was presented to Mr. Mitchell at this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. It was unlike our normal decision process where
we had an "approved, disapproved, comment" line at the bottom. It
was simply the same 8V2 x 11 blank sheets typed up with the basics
of the plan, the number of people he would have to hire, the mimber
of electronic surveillance equipment and amounts he would have to
purchase, and so on, and I used a system which I think ^Ir. Reisner
has discussed where I made three copies of each document that I would
discuss with ]Mr. jNIitchell, one copy went to Mr. Strachan for ]Mr.
Haldeman.
The other two copies I brought with me to Key Biscayne, I gave
Mr. ^litchell the one copy, he did some markup on some of it, I cannot
recall what he marked on these papers, indicated his approval, did
not indicate it in any formal sense by initialing it or writing. Just
indicated the project was approved.
Mr. Dash. Now, on the project prior to going down to Key Biscayne
yoTi would send over a copy to Mr. Strachan?
Mr. ^Magruder. My formal position with Mr. ]\fitchell was we would
send over key papers before we discussed it with Mr. Mitchell, so if
there was any questions in those papers Mr. Haldeman or ilr. Strachan
could get back to us their opinion on a subject.
:ii4)
7. On March 30, 1972 former Attorney General John Mitchell,
who had been officially designated CRP Campaign Director; Jeb Magruder,
Mitchell's chief of staff; and Fred LaRue, a special assistant to
Mitchell, met at Key Biscayne, Florida to discuss campaign matters.
Liddy's intelligence-gathering plan, now budgeted for $250,000, was
again discussed. Magruder has testified that Mitchell approved the plan,
and that the plan specifically approved entry into the DNC headquarters
and, if funds were available, entry into the headquarters of presidential
contenders and Democratic convention headquarters at the Fontainebleau
Hotel in Miami, LaRue has testified that Mitchell stated that they did
not have to do anything on the plan at that time. Mitchell has testified
that he rejected the plan. After the March 30, 1972 meeting, Magruder
asked his assistant, Robert Reisner, to tell Liddy that his proposal had
been approved. Reisner telephoned Liddy and conveyed Magruder 's message.
Page
7.1 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 794-95. 13^5
7.2 Fred LaRue testimony, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344. 118
7.3 John Mitchell testimony, 4 SSC 1613-16 122
7.4 Robert Mardian testimony, 6 SSC 2429-30 126
7.5 Robert Reisner testimony, 2 SSC 492-93 128
7.6 Fred LaRue testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
April 18, 1973, 7-12 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) 130
7.7 Jeb Magruder testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
May 2, 1973, 22-25 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) .136
7.8 Robert Reisner testimony, Watergate Grand Jury,
August 15, 1973, 38-44 (received from Watergate
Grand Jury) 140
(115)
7.1 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIWNY, JUNE 14, 197Z, 2 SSC 794-95
794
Mr. Dash. Was anybody present when you received that telephone
call from Mr. Colson?
Mr. Magrxtder. Mr. LaRue was.
Mr. Dash. Were there any further contacts that you liad with Mr.
Colson 's assistant, concerning the call that Mr. Colson made to you ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Howard and I were fairly good friends. He had
Avorked for me at the White House, and a number of times we discussed
the general intelligence-gathering situation, and he did indicate what
he tliought was the professionalism, particularly of Mr. Hunt, and the
need to gather this information. But I would like to make it clear tlicre
was a general, I think, atmosphere in the White House and the com-
mittee of the need to gather information. This was not necessarily
information that would be gathered illegally.
Mr. Dash. Were Mr. Howard's discussions with you also urging you
to try to pursue the Liddy plan?
Mr. IVIagruder. Yes.
Mr, Dash. Now, did there come a time when you had a third and
final meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the Liddy plan, on or about
March 30,1972?
]Mr. Magruder. Yes, we had. There had been a delay in the decision-
making process at the committee because of the ITT hearings. Mr.
Mitchell was on vacation at Key Biscayne. I went down to Key
Biscayne, Mr. LaRue was there, and we met and went over approxi-
mately 30-some decision papers mainly relating to direct mail and
advertising, the other parts of the campaign.
The last topic we discussed was the final proposal of Mr. Liddy's
which was for approximately $250,000. We discussed it, brought up
again the pros and cons. I think I can honestly say that no one was
particularly overwhelmed with the project. But I think we felt that
the information could be useful, and Mr. Jlitchell agreed to approve
the project, and I then notified the parties of Mr. Mitchell's approval.
\Mr. Dash. A\'Tiat was the form, by the way, of the memorandum
or decision paper that was presented to Mr. Mitchell at this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. It was unlike our normal decision process where
we had an "approved, disapproved, comment" line at the bottom. It
was simply the same 8V2 x 11 blank sheets typed up with the basics
of tlie plan, the number of people he would have to hire, the mimber
of electronic surveillance equipment and amounts he would have to
purchase, and so on, and I used a system which I think ilr. Reisner
has discussed where I made three copies of each document that I would
discuss with Mr. Mitchell, one copy went to Mr. Strachan for Mr.
Haldeman.
The other two copies I brought with me to Key Biscavne, I gave
Mr. Mitchell the one copy, he did some markup on some of it, I cannot
recall what he marked on these papers, indicated his approval, did
not indicate it in any formal sense by initialing it or writing. Just
indicated the project was approved.
Mr. Dash. Now, on the project prior to going down to Key Biscayne
you would send over a copy to Mr. Strachan?
Mr. M.vGRUDER. My formal position with Mr. Mitchell was we would
send over key papers before we discussed it with Mr. ^litchell, so if
there was any questions in those papers Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Strachan
could get back to us their opinion on a subject.
(116)
7,1 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 794-96
795
3\Ir. Dash. All right.
Now, this ([uartcr-millioii-dollur project you ssiy Mr. Mitchell
approved in Kc}' Biscayne, what was that project specifically as you
recall ?
Mr. jNLvgrudkr. It was specifically approved for initial entry into
the Democi-atic National Committee headquarters in Washington,
and that at a further date if the funds were available we would con-
sider entry into the Presidential contenders' headquarters and also
potential at tlie Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami.
Mr. D.vsH. AMien you returned to "Washington, Mr. Magnider, did
you communicate to anyone that the Liddy plan on the quarter million
dollar budget was approved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I attempted to reach Mr. Liddy while I was
at Key Biscayne because he had indicated time problems. I was unable
to do so, so when I came back to Washington I indicated to Mr. Reisner
that Mr. Liddy's project had been approved and would he notifj-
Mr. Liddy ? I called Mr. Strachan and indicated to him that the project
had been approved, and I indicated to Mr. Sloan that Mr. Liddy would
be authorized to draw $250,000 over the entire period of the campaign
but that he probably would need a sizable amount of that initially.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you say that project as approved included the
entry of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and per-
haps other entries, did that also include the use of electronic surveil-
lance oi- bugging ?
Mr. Magruder. I am sorry ?
Mr. Dash. When you said the project that was approved in Key
Biscaj'ne
]Mr. ^Iagrcder. With Mr. Strachan I discussed it in detail.
Mr. Dash. I am not referring to Mr. Strachan but the project Mr.
ilitchell approved in Key Biscayne. I think you said the project
included an approval of the entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters. Did it also include use of electronic surveillance
and bugging?
Mr. SIagki.'dek. It included electronic surveillance and photography
of documents, photographing of documents.
Mr. Dash. ^Ir. Sloan was told what ?
Mr. Magruder. That Mr. Liddy was allowed to draw $250,000.
Mr. Dash. But Mr. Strachan was given a fairly complete report on
wliat was approved.
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall ilr. Sloan questioniiig an initial large sum
of monev, $8:5,000 which Mr. Liddv requested after the approval of
the plan?
jMr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what happened and how that was
resolved ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, he had called me and said that Mr. Liddy
wanted a substantial sum at that time, I did not recall the amount, but
Mr. Sloan indicates it is $8:5,000 and I would assume lie is correct. I
indicated tiiat Mr. Liddv did have that approval. Mr. Sloan evidently
then went to Mr. Stans.'Mr. Stans went to ^fr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell
canu" back to me and said wliy did (iordon need tliis much money and
I explained to him this was in ert'ect front-end money that lu- needed
(117)
OI
!_
7.2 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, JULY 18-19, 197Z, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344
2280
Mr. TjaRlt.. Xo; I did not. It was iny iinderstandinir tliat Mr. Liddy
was working on .some intelli_Lrence activities, my nnderstandin": was.
iji connection with the Republican Convention that was to be lield in
San Diego.
Mr. B.\sii. Were you aware that Mr. Liddy was receiving sums of
money from the Kepublican campaign i
Mr. L.vRuK. No, sir.
[Disturbance in audience.]
Mr. Dash. Xeither my question nor your answer accomplished that,
I am sure.
Now, you were not aware then from your testimony that INIr. Liddy
was involved in any intelligence plan or planning than the one you
have just testified to with relationship to the convention?
JNIr. LaRtje. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. What brought you to Key Bisca\ne at the end of ilarch,
I take it, it was around ilarch 29. When did you go to Key Biscayne?
:Mr. LaRue. As I recall, ^Lirch -22 or March 23.
ilr. Dash. What was the reason for your going?
]Mr. LARrK. Accompanied the Mitchells on a vacation.
Mv. Dash. You said you arrived around the 22nd ?
ilr. LaRue. March 22 or ^larch 23, as I recall.
Mr. Dash. All right ; who else was there?
Mr. LaRck. Mr. and ]Mrs. ^Mitchell, their daughter, Miss Forzberg,
^Irs. Mitchell's secretary, Mr. Caulfield, who was ^Ir. Mitchell's se-
curity man. Later on we were joined by Mr. Tom Wentz, who was
another security man and myself.
ilr. Dash. Did Mr. Jeb Magruder come down to Key Biscayne
around that time?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, it was later, several days later, as I recall,
March 29.
Mr. Dash. Do you know what the purpose of Mr. Magruder's visit
to Key Biscayne was about?
ilr. LaRlte. Yes, sir, I do. ilr. Magruder and Mr. Flemming came
down to Key Biscayne to discuss seveial political problems, and to
discuss with >[r. Mitchell several activities tiiat needed decisions made
relating to the campaign.
Mr. Dash. Were you present when the so-called agenda items were
being discussed between Mr. iEagruder, Mr. Mitchell took place?
Mr. LaRlt:. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. How n\any were there?
^Ir. LaRi-e. I can't recall any specific number, ilr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Was it a large number?
ilr. LaRue. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Xow, prior to the actual meeting in wliich the agenda
items were discussed, were you given a copy of any of these agenda
items?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. I was given — ^I requested a copy of all of them.
Mr. DASir. .Vll right. Was any particular one of interest to you ?
ifr. LaRue. Yes, sir. In reviewing the items — priorityizing them for
the meeting the ne.xt day, I ran aci'oss a pai)er which discussed or out-
lined a plan of electronic surveillance. There was a budget attached
to this.
^Ir. Dash. Who gave vou that, those agenda items?
(118)
a
n
7.2 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, JULY 28-19, 2973, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344
2281
ilr. LaRlt;. Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Dash. Now could you describe in as much detail as vou can
the discussions concerning the political intelligence plan? Did you
know it was Mr. Liddy's plan? Did you know that that plan was
being proposed by Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. LaRue. As I recall there was no reference to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Dash. WHien did actually Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell ar-
rive at the discussion of that plan? Was it at the beginning or the
end ?
Mr. LaRue. This was at the end of the meeting because I had
placed this paper at the bottom of the list of proposals that would
be discussed.
Mr. Dash. Wliy did you do that?
Mr. LaRue. Well, there were actually two reasons, Mr. Dasli. We
did not know if we were going to finish, if we had enough time to
finish a discussion on all of these proposals during this meeting. I
had, a? I indicated, had put them in what I considered priority orcler
and I placed this on the bottom. I discussed this with Mr. Magruder
that morning and also indicated to him that I would prefer that the
discussion of that paper, if we got to it, would be only in the presence
of he, Mr. Mitchell, and myself and that we find some way to excuse
Harry Flemming from the meeting.
Mr. Dash. Did you find any way to excuse Harry Flemming from
the meeting?
Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. So he left?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And there did come a time when vou did becin to discuss
the so-called intelligence plan ?
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall the budget on that plan ?
Mr. LaRue. Pardon me?
Mr. Dash. Do you recall the budget on that plan ?
Mr. LaRue. There was a budget attached to that plan; ves, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall the amount of that budget?
Mr. LaRue. No specific amount — to the best of my recollection, it
was several hundred thousand.
Mr. Dash. Would a quarter million, $250,000 be the figure?
Mr. LaRue. I have no specific recollection of that.
Mr. Dash. All right. Could vou tell us once that plan was beino- .
presented what took place? What did ilr. Mitchell say, what did
you say, what did Mr. Magruder say ?
Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, Mr. Magruder. as in the previous
proposals, handed this paper to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. ilitchell read it.
he asked me if I had read it and I told him I had. He asked me what
I thought of it and I told him I did not think it was worth the risk
Mr. Dash, ■\^^lat did Mr. Mitchell say to that ?
Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mitchell, to the best of mv recollection, said some-
thing to the effect that, "Well, this is not something that will have
to be decided at this meeting."
jNIr. Dash. All right. To your recollection then, ilr. Mitchell did
not reject that plan out of hand at that time, did he?
Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection ; no sir.
(119)
7.2 FRED LaWE TESTIMONY, JULY 28-19, 1973, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344
2282
Mr. Dash. Xow, do you know wlieii Mr. ^Magiiulor left Key
Biscayne?
Mr. LaKue. As I recall this meeting was on March "0, and to the best
of my i-ecollection,lie left the following day.
Ml-. Dash. And tlierefore there was ample op])ortunity for ^[r.
MagTuder and ilr. Mitcliell to meet together, was there not, between
the time that this plan was being discussed in your presence and the
time Mr. Magruder left?
Mr. LaRue. Well, I can't state that there was ample opportunity,
no sir. That would not be a correct statenient. ilr. Dash, because Mr.
ifagruder left the house in which we were staying, as I recall, you
know, sometime shortly after that meeting, and I doivt i-ecall ilr.
Magruder returning to tlie house during the time he was in Key Bis-
cayne, and I was at the house all during this time.
Mr. Dash. Do you i*ecall Mr. Mitchell leaving the house '.
Mr. LaRue. I do not ; no, sir.
iNIr. Dash. Would it be possible that he did?
Mr. LaRue. It would certainly be possible, I guess, Mr. Dash, but
I have no recollection.
Mr. Dash. Now, during the time that they were in the house to-
gether and with you during the meeting, were you in the room at all
times?
Mr. LaRue. I could not state definitely that I was in the room at
all times, no, sir.
Mr. Dash. You could not state it. As a matter of fact it is quite
possible that you were out of the room at certain times.
Mr. LaRue. That is a possibility. I have no recollection of that.
y[v. Dash. It is also possible, is it not, that you were on the tele-
phone anumber of times?
Mr. LaRue. Pardon me.
Mr. Dash. It is also possible, is it not. that you were on the telephone
a number of times?
ilr. LaRue. Yes, sir. However, I would like to state now that there
were telephones in the room in which we were holding the meeting.
Mi-. Dash. And. therefore, ilr. LaRie. would it be fair to say that
}-ou could not state to this conmiittee that at no time while ilr. Ma-
gruder was meeting with Jlr. Mitchell in Key Biscayne he did not get
some indication of approval from Mr. Mitchell concerning this plan?
Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash. I am sorry. I didn't hear your question.
Mr. Dash. Would it be fair. Mr. LaRue to state that you cannot,
from your own recollection, tell this connnittee that at no time while
Jlr. ilagruder was meeting with ilr. Mitchell, in Key Biscayne, that
Mr. Mitchell did not approve the so-called Liddyplan or this intelli-
gence plan ?
Jlr. LaRue. ilr. Dash, I am very sorry, I still don't know if I un-
derstand your question.
ilr. Dasit. Let me try to simplify that question. I am just trying
to have }ou state to the connnittee wiiethei' you, of your own knowl-
edge, can state to the committee that at no time during the time w..en
Mr. Magruder was down at Key Bi.scayne that Mr. Mitchell approved
or disapproved that intelligence plan.
Mr. LaRuk. That is correct.
(120)
7.2 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, JULY 18-19, 1973, 6 SSC 2280-82, 2344
2344
you come from a State like the State of Mississippi, where they have
^reat faith in the fact that the laws of God are embodied in the King
James version of the Bible, and I think that those who participated in
this effort to nullify the laws of man and the laws of God overlooked
one of the laws of God which is set forth in the seventh verse of the
sixth chapter of Galatians :
Be not deceived. God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
he also reap.
[Applause.]
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, whatever few mundane questions I might
have to follow up I don't believe I really need to ask, and I think the
record is complete. I have no further questions.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I can't resist the temptation.
[Laughter.]
I have already been cautioned that my analogy to the revised stand-
ard version instead of the King James version may be controversial, so
I will refrain from that.
But I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that, as we have with other wit-
nesses, I want to thank Mr. LaRue for his testimony. I think it is
unique. I think it is useful. I think it is important. I think that it is
m conflict and in corroboration with other testimony that we have
received. At some point, the committee will have to turn its attention,
presumably, to the matter of weighing the evidence, if we can't rec-
oncile those conflicts, in deciding where the truth lies. We will turn
to whatever sources of information we can receive or gain access to in
that respect.
But I think we ought to conclude with this witness as we have with
others, by saying, you have made a valuable contribution to the rec-
ord, and for my part, we are grateful for it.
Thank you.
Mr. LaEtte. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Ervin. I would like to order at this time, if there is no ob-
jection on the part of any member of the committee, that xeroxed
copies of the correspondence which Mr. Vinson has furnished the
committee be printed at the appropriate point in the record.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 88.*]
Senator Ervix. Mr. Vinson, do you have a statement?
Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, if the committee will indulge me for about 2
minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have the transcript of vesterdav's hearino-
and there is one matter I should straighten out "before Mv. LaRue
departs.
On page 4579, Mr. Dash asked a question :
As a matter of fact, it is quite possible that you were ont of the room at cer-
tain times?
This refers to the March 30 Key Biscayne meeting, which we have
heard so much about.
Mr. LaRue. That is a possibility. I have no recollection of that.
Mr. LaRue told me this morning that he was replyine in the time
tram>i of the dusciission of the memorandum aI)out the Liddv plan In
tact, as Mr. LaRue had told the staff previously, he has a specific recol-
lection of being in and out of the room several other times, mav have
been out of the room, has no specific recollection at this time. "
r
L
(121)
7.Z JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 1973, 4 SSC 1613-16
1613
Mr DvsH. He did not indicate any responsibility to you at least
in the presentation of the t.o plans that he gave you on January ..
^'"m!- tf "clfrr L'f am not sure I understand your question. Mr. Dash
\\\- lUsH. Cemxinlv, from your point of view, he did not exercise
°t? ^?^::^rS^5^r :?::S^ a! ^-responsiveness to my desires
•"Sr.^:;^'^S^u^;oXS;?K the January 2T meeting or the
^\Yr" MixtnEr L To the best of mv recollection, no ; Mr. Dash.
Mr. I)"": Did you ever take it up with Mr. Haldeman or anybody
in the White House?
Mr dS^" Werf >" ^a^are that Mr. LWd, left.the Fcbruary^^^^^^^^^^
'^^M? Mitchell. I cannot conceive of anybody leaving that meeting
with such an understanding. +i.„f Afr Arrrord and Mr.
Mr D^SH. Were you aware, by the way, that Mr. McLord ana
Hunt were involved in the planning operation ^
Afr Mitchell In no way. I have never met Mr. Hunt. 1 ck) not Knou
have believed would have been involved m such activit% .
Mr DvsH Now after the February 4 meeting, did you receue any
urging or F-e'ssures from anybody in the White House with regard to
approving the Liddy plan ?
• M^DSn'^S^i^nce again Mr. MitchelVancUo.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*!Mapping ^McafSemgence plan sc&e'd do.n no,- .0 a pr.c. .as
"'fc,™? recall the meeting with Mr. Magruder and yourself down at
Kev Biscavne on March 30 ]
aTt- AriTTTTFtT Yes- 1 do. ^Ir. Dash.
l\v's'o;"a v^caTion'and it gave an "PP-tunitv to catch up on son.
of the things that were happening m the C— .^e^^^^
President that I was to be associated with shoitlx. 1 heie ^<^^^^ u. >
nection with the operational program, programmatic side ot the
Af.- f>^c1r T understand— T am sorry, continue. .
l\r M TCHFLL Mr LaKue had come down with us and was living
in'he hoS with us and he sat in on all of these meetings that we had
^^■\';rD;:rxr I'lmderstand Mr. Magrnder came down not only
with this ;o-called Liddy plan proposal but he had a number of other
items on the agenda.
(122)
r
7.3 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 2973, 4 SSC 1613-lP
1614
Mr. MiTCHEix. Yes; he had a substantial number of items on the
agenda because I had been otlierwise cnj^aped and had for weeks. I had
not had an opportunity to meet with tliese people. I was about to
become officially associated with the campaign and he came down with
a big stack of documents that were to be considered immediately.
IMr. D.\si[. Would it be fair to say, ]Mr. Mitchell, that the so-called
quarter million dollar Liddy plan for wiretapping: and break-in was
actually different in degree and kind than any other agenda item that
he was presenting to you ?
Mr. Mitchell, ilr. Dash, you can rest assured of this. There were
no other such plans in the documents that were submitted.
Mr. Dash. '\\Tiat would have given Mr. ilagruder the idea that you
would even consider this proposal again if you had indeed, as you
stated, rejected it so categorically twice before ?
Mr. Mitchell. "Well, I would have presumed that you would ask
Mr. Magruder that question when he was here, ilr. Dash, but in hind-
sight I presume there were other people interested in the implementa-
tion of some type of activity in this area. Because I believe that Mr.
Magruder was very clearly aware of the position that I had taken in
connection with it.
Mr. Dash. So that it is at least your present feeling that he was
acting under some pressure for somebodj- to represent this plan to you ?
Mr. Mitchell. This has been continued to be my feeling but I have
no basis for knowing that.
Mr. Dash. Do you know who might have been involved?
Mr. Mitchell. No, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Has anybody ever told you other than any testimonj*
which has appeared before this committee ?
Mr. Mitchell. No, the only information I have had has been the
testimony that has been before this committee, and, of course, that is
pretty wide ranging, you can almost take your pick of quite a number
of such influences.
Mr. Dash. Now, what is your recollection of what decision you made
in Key Biscayne on the so-called Liddy plan?
Mr. Mitchell. "Well, it was very simple. This, again. "We don't
need this, I am tired of hearing it, out. let's not discuss it any further."
This sort of a concept.
Mr. Dash. It was as clear as that?
Mr. Mitchell. In my opinion, it was just as clear as that.
I believe I recall. Mr. Dash, that this was part of a long agenda that
for some imknown reason, they kept this to the last, or the next to the
last. "\^niether somebody thought they were going to sneak it through
or whether there woidd be less resistance or what, I don't know. But
this is my recollection.
Mr. Dash. Well, then, could Mr. Magruder have been in any way
mistaken as to what your position was '.
Mr. ^Mitchell. I would hope not.
Mr. Dash. Then how do vou e.x[)lain, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Magruder's
sworn testimony that j-ou, however reluctantly, ai)proved the quarter
million dollar Liddv plan at Key Hiscavne?'
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Dash, I can't explain anybody's testimony up
hero excejit my own.
(123)
7,Z JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 1973, 4 SSC 1613-16
1615
Mr. Dasti. WpII. incleed, if you had not approved the plan
:Mi-. MiTCifKU.. I reallv shook him up, didift 1 >
ilr DASrr. Well. I will trv another question.
You had not approved the plan, but these thmps occurred accord-
incr to the testimony of a number of witnesses. Why would Mr. :Marrru-
der call :^Ir. Reisner to have Liddv call him in Key Biscavne and then
as soon as Mr. Ma-ruder retunied to Washin-ton he told Mr Reisner
to tell Liddv that'his plan had been approved and lie told hloan that
you had authorized Liddy to draw a total of a quarter of a million
\ow" :Mr Sloan, INIr. Reisner, and ilr. Ma-inider have so testified
that th'is occurred just after the March 20 meeting.
ilr MrrciFFXL. I can't describe or prescribe the activities ot other
people, Mr. Dash, assuming that that long statement of yours is cor-
rect. I can't describe the , , , i •. ^i y\ a
Islv D\sn Well, perhaps vou may not be able to describe the actni-
ties, but was Mr. Magruder capable of leaving a meeting m I\ev
Biscavne with you on :March ?>0. in which you rejected for a third
time the Liddy plan, and completely on his own. lied to Mr. Reisner,
Liddy, and Sloan about your approval of the quarter million dollar
plan?
Mr. Mitchell. Is he capable of it ?
I wasn't privv to the conversation, but if it happened——
Mr. Dash. Well, we have this testimony under oath before this
committee, bv all three witnesses. , .u t ^^,„
Mr MiTCHFLL. Well, with respect to all three people that were
involved, if there is a problem there, it is a pi-oblem of misunder-
standing or a contravention of my orders. _ -, , • i
Mr. Dash. I think you testified that he couldn t possibly misunder-
^"^ Mr~MiTCHELL. This would certainly have been niv recollection
upon the basis of the conversation that was involved. Of course, tor-
tunately, theie was a third party there and I am sure that he will have
some opinion on the subject matter one way oi- the other.
ilr. Dash. Who is that ? ,.-•.,<.. i,
Jlr. Mitchell. Mr. LaRue. who was in this meeting with us through-
out the activity. . . ^i ^ i • i. j
Mr D\sh. bo you know what his testimony is on that subject '.
i£r AIiTCHFi.L. No, I don't know what his testimony will Iw. Mr.
Dash but l>,iv. LaRue was there, and we have talked about it. ob-
viously, since that event occurred over the months that have inter-
vened'since the Watergate event of June 17, and I am quite sure that,
for instance, he told Mr. Parkinson and :\Ir. O'Brien that there was
no such approval at this particular time.
Mr D \SH. Well, did you ever have any meeting with :Mr. :Magnider
down at Key Bisca^nie at which ^fr. LaRue was not there i
ilr MiTciiELL. I don't see how there could have been Mr LaRue was
stayiiK- in the House with us. we were meeting in what they call the
Florida room in the particular house. The meetings went on tor quite
a number of hoiu^ and we went through these documents and to the
bestofmv recollection. Mr. LaRue was there.
^iv. Dash. Do vou recall what Mr. LaRue said there^
(124)
L
7, 2 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 1972, 4 SSC 1613-16
1616
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I don't think Mr. LaRue was very enthusiastic
about this project and I think he concurred in the fact that it should
not be approved.
Mr. Dash. Now, if Mr. Magruder didn't come away with the idea
that you had approved it and nevertheless, very sliortly after he re-
turned, set it in motion by approving the payment to Mr. Liddy of
funds to carry out this plan, do you have any idea who above you could
have given him authority to do this?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, Mr. Dash, I don't know whether it would be
above me, but there could very well have been pressures that came from
collateral areas in which they decided that this was the thing to do. I
can't speculate on who they might be. I am sure that there could be
such pressures.
Mr. Dash. Generally, though, from your knowledge of Mr.
Magruder and the working of Mr. Magruder, would Mr. Magruder
on his own undertake to carrj- out this plan ?
Mr. Mitchell. You are asking for an opinion again.
Mr. Dash. An opinion, yes.
Mr. Mitchell. I think it is a matter of degree, Mr. Dash. I think
you will find when you get into your additional investigations that
there were a lot of activities in the so-called dirty tricks department
and so forth that were carried on without my knowledge by the gentle-
men who were at the committee. So, it is a matter of degree.
Mr. Dash. Well, a matter of degree. But here, althougli Mr. Magru-
der had a continuing authority to approve expenditures, if Mr. Magru-
der actually knew that you had barred or rejected a particular pro-
gram, would you expect Mr. Magruder to approve the payment of a
quarter of a million dollars to Mr. Liddy for that program?
Mr. Mitchell. I don't believe that Mr. Magruder paid a quarter of a
million dollars to Liddy.
Mr. Dash. Well, approved
■Tr. Mitchell. What he had done was continue what he had been
doing before, made payments along the way to Liddy for Liddy's in-
telligence-gathering activities.
Mr. Dash. Well, that is not according to Mr. Magruder's testimony.
According to ]\Ir. Magruder's testimony, he had given this money not
for general intelligence activity, but tlie so-called Liddy plan.
Mr. Mitchell. Oh, you are talking about the later date?
Mr. Dash. Yes. Would you expect, taking as a matter of degree, that
Mr. Magruder may have acted on his own ? Having your rejection to a
particular program, would you have expected Mr. Magruder to have
approved the expenditures of large sums of money ?
Mr. Mitchell. I certainly would not have expected it, Mr. Dash, no.
Mr. Da.«h. Now, shortly, and I think again this is a restatement of
what occurred, shortl}' after the March 30 meeting in Key Biscaj-ne,
Liddy in April did ask for an initial payment from Mr. Sloan on a
quarter million dollar budget. Mr. Sloan has so testilied th.at Liddy
asked that the initial payment be $S3.000. Were you aware of that re-
quest of Mr. Liddy's?
Mr. MiTCHiXL. I am not aware of the request, Mr. Dash, with respect
to the dollar amount, and I am sure that the committee recalls the
dialogue from Sloan to Stans to Mitchell to Stans to Sloan with respect
(125)
r
7.4 ROBERT MARDIAN TESTIMONY, JULY 20, 1973, 6 SSC 2429-30
2429
jNIr. Mardiax. The Internal Security Division never requested a
sinf^le wiretap during my tenure.
Senator Weicker. You then make it a matter of record the Division,
during your tenure, never requested a wiretap of Division 5 of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
Mr. JVIAR0IAN. To my knowledge, sir, all those requests had to come
from persons designated by the President of the United States and
they could only be made to one person and that is to the Director of the
FBI.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Counsel.
Mr. Hamiltox. Mr. Mardian, I have just a few questions, and I
would first like you to clarify an apparent conflict in the record from
yovir testimony yesterday so 'the record will be straight. At page 4794
you said : ''Mr. Magruder said to Mr. Mitchell that he had authorized
$250,000 and this seemed but a very small part of that sum. That is
how the $250,000 budget came up." Let me say in saying that to you
there is, what I take it to be, a typographical error; the first three
words are "Mr. Magruder lied to ilr. Mitchell." I think that should
read "Mr. Magruder said to Mr. Mitchell."
Mr. Mardiax. Said, yes.
Mr. Hamiltox. However, at page 4797, this is the testimony, the
question was "And did you subsequently confirm that the budget that
had been allocated to Mr. Liddy was actually $250,000 and your answer
was this : "To this dav that matter has never been confirmed to me."
And it appears there is some conflict here, and I would like for you to
clear that up.
Mr. Mardiax. Read that again, please.
Mr. Hamiltox. The last quote, Mr. Mardian ?
Mr. Mardiax. Yes.
Mr. Hamiltox. The question was : "And did you subsequently con-
firm that the budget that had been allocated to Mr. Liddy was actually
$250,000?"
Mr. INIardiax. To this day that matter has never been confirmed to
me. I think I was referring to a question relating to the $199,000 and
that is how I understood it. So I would — I must have misunderstood
the question or they took the figure down incorrectly.
Mr. Hamiltox. I would be happy to read the statement. "I was never
apprised of the fact there never had been any agreement on the amount
of disbursement. I think Mr. Sloan's testimony was that it was
$199,000."
Mr. Mardiax. Yes ; that is what I would have been referring to.
Mr. Hamiltox. I think the question is: Did you ever have con-
firmation from either jNIr. ^Mitchell or ilr. Magruder that the budget
that had been approved for Mr. Liddy's dirty trick operations and
black advance operations was $250,000 ?
Mr. Mardiax. Yes. I think I testified that I am not sure in what con-
text it arose, whether it arose in California, whether it arose immedi-
ately thereafter, ilv best recollection was that it arose in connection
with the confrontation between— that I had with Mr. JLagruder in Mr.
Mitchell's presence when I asked about — when I asked him how much
money lie had given Mr. Liddv; and he replied "$4-0.000,'" and I said
in surprise: "^0.000." and it was echoed bv IMr. Jlitchell. "$40,000."
(126)
L
7.4. ROBERT MEDIAN TESTIMONY, JULY 20, 1972, 6 SSC 2429-30
2430
He then said, "That is a small part" or something "of that — of the
$250,000 you authorized." 'Sir. jMitchell's reply, as I recall, was "Yes,
but the campaign hasn't started yet."
Mr. HAitiLTON. So there was no denial by Mr. Mitchell in your
presence that he had authorized a $250,000 budget?
' Mr. Mardian. That is what I think I testified to.
Mr. Hamilton. All right.
Mr. Maedian. I think I testified I don't recall Mr. Mitchell saying
"Yes, I approved $250,000" but simply when that question came up
he did not deny it.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, on page 4827 you testified that after Mr.
Mitchell inforrned you that he could not fire jNIr. Magnider and Mr.
Porter you advised him to prepare a memorandum for the file to pro-
tect himself, and you then said that he instructed you to have one pre-
pared and that Mr. O'Brien was going to be the actual author of this
memorandum ?
Mr. Makdian. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hamilton. Now, what facts did you intend to put into this
memorandum ?
Mr. Mardlan. To put in all the facts that Mr. Mitchell was aware
of at the time the discussion took place.
Mr. HA3m/roN. Could you fix that time for us ?
Mr. Mardlan. I am sorry; it would have been immediately before
July 1, probably, maybe I would guess that is in the timefi-ame.
Mr. Hamilton. About July 1 ?
Mr. Makdian. Yes.
Mr. Hamilion. And you also testified, Mr. Mardian, at page 4827
of the transcript, that after Clark MacGregor had made certain "flat
statements," I believe was the term you used, regarding noninvolve-
ment of campaign personnel, you complained to him that certain
of his statements were imtrue and unsuccessfully attempted to brief
him about the tremendous exposure of certain people in the campaign.
Now, in this briefing that you tried to give Mr. MacGregor, what
facts were you going to tell him ?
Mr. Mardian. I was going to tell him of the involvement of — I
thought he ought to know about the involvement of Mr. Magruder and
Mr. Porter with reference to their activities.
Mr. Hamilton. When you say "the involvement of Mr. ]Magruder."
you mean the involvement as recounted to you by Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. Mardian. No; I was not going to relate what Mr. Liddy
told me but I felt that any admission on the part of these men, and I
felt this admission was going to come forward, at least as far as dirty
tricks and other unethical activities were concerned, that they had to
come out even if they didn't admit to the Watergate adventure, who
were still employed in the Committee To Re-Elect the President would
reflect adversely on the President of the United States in his cam-
paign for reelection.
jMr. Hamilton. Are you saying you were not going to tell Mr. iVIac-
Gregor that it was your feeling that Mr. Magruder had been involved
in the Watergate affair?
Mr. Mardian. I wasn't going to accuse Mr. Magruder. I think I was
going to tell him my suspicions and I felt he ought to know those
suspicions before he made any further statements.
(127)
r
7.5 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, JUNE S, 1973, 2 SSC 492-93
492
scheduled an appointment, he would from time to time stop in my
office, indicate the nature of his business. He from time to time had
stopped in and on one occasion I can remember hin^ giving me a
sheet of paper which I would identify only as being a blank sheet
of paper with such typing on it. I don't remember. A letterhead. On
this sheet of paper, the only recollection I have of the sheet of paper
that we have discussed is there was some figures in the right-hand
side of the page. Mr. Liddy made the statement to me that he hated
to wTite something like this down and that is literally the extent of
the statement. It was clear to me that I shouldn't, that it wasn't for
my consumption either because of the way in which he gave me the
piece of paper, as he handed it to me it was put face down on the
desk, and I would say within a matter of minutes given to Mr. Ma-
gruder and that is
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember if there was a total amoimt on
the paper?
Mr. Reisner. We discussed this. My best recollection is there could
have been a total and I seem to remember the figure "250." Sub-
sequently I have read newspaper accounts indicating there was
$250,000 in a certain alleged budget. It is supposition on my part to
say what the piece of paper was. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did Mr. Magruder go to Florida in late
March 1972?
Mr. Reisner. In late March 1972, yes, he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that reflected in the documents in front of you,
that trip for March 29, 30, and 31?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. On the 29th there is an entry saying "Jeb
leaving for Miami."
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know who he was going to see?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, at that time it is my recollection that Mr.
Mitchell was at Key Biscayne and that Jeb had a meeting with Mr.
Mitchell in Key Biscayne and that is who he was going to see.
Mr. Lenzner. And are there any notations reflecting Mr. Liddy's
name on any of those dates in your documents?
Mr. Reisner. OK. I think what you are referring to is, well it says
"leave for Key Biscayne" also on the 29th, on the 30th; there are a
number of references to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Lenzner. In the upper left-hand corner of the 30th, what does
that reflect?
Mr. Reisner. It says "Get Gordon Liddy."
Mr. Lenzner. What does that represent?
Mr. Reisner. It says, that column I beheve would have referred
to the fact that I had been asked to get Gordon Liddy. But mj^ best
recollection of this is that the reason I was asked to get Gordon
Liddy, I was asked to reach him and have him caU Mr. Magruder.
That is just a vague recollection. It could have come at another time
but it makes sense in conjunction with this entr}^
Mr. Lenzner. And that entry is in your handwTiting; is that
correct?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Mr. Magruder was not in Washington at the time as is indicated
here also and I think that was the reason for being asked to get Mr.
Liddy to call him.
(128)
7.5 ROBERT REISNER TESTimNY . JUNE 5. 1973. 2 SSC 492-93
493
Mr. Lenzner. There is an entry on March 31 in the upper right-
hand comer — Mr. Liddy's name.
Mr. Reisner. Gordon Liddy give answer.
Mr. Lenzner. What does that repre.sent?
Mr. Reisner. The nature of this diary is that it is not a diary, the
nature of this log, is a recording of activities that are taking place in
the office. It is just a random recording of interruptions. It appears
from the way in which this appears that Mr. Liddy would have
interrupted me and said he needed an answer. I don't know whether
this represented a phone call, Air. Liddy simply stopping by the
office. This illustrates the purpose for keeping the log in the first
place. There were lots of interruptions like that and a lot of activities
and that was the reason for writing it down, just to remember it.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, after Mr. Magruder returned from Florida,
did he give you a message or instructions to pass on to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Reisner. No, I am not certain it was when he returned
from Florida. What I remember was on one occasion — the timing
of the occasion roughly coincides with this — Mr. Magruder stand-
ing in my doorway and telling me to call Mr. Liddy. Now, it was
his habit to frequently do that. That was the nature of my job.
He would come and give me numerous instructions and I was to pass
on approvals, disapprovals, that sort of thing, reactions to decisions
or matters that he was handling. He appeared in my doorway and
said, "Call Liddy, tell him it is approved or tell him it is approved
and that we need to get going in the next 2 weeks." That was a
perfectly characteristic thing for him to say because I frequently
called other senior members of the committee and told them similar
things. I made such a phone call. I related roughly in time to this
because I have the feeling that the first week or two in April had
something to do \vith the 2 weeks. That is a very vague recollection.
I called Mr. Liddy and his reaction was a httle bit di&erent than the
reaction of most people that I communicated this kind of decision
to and I remember it; he said "But I can't, it is going to be hard,"
or something like that, and he protested and I indicated to him that
he was going to have to talk to Mr. Magruder about it, that I didn't
know what I was telling him about, that whatever he had talked
about with Mr. Magruder was approved and if it made sense to him
then I was glad to pass it on to him. He said he subsequently did talk
to Mr. Magruder on a number of occasions. I assume whatever the
matter was was resolved.
Mr. Lenzner. I am going to show you now, Mr. Reisner, some
documents which have previousl}' been used here and ask you if
there came a time in June of 1972 when you observed those documents
in the possession of Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Reisner. These documents were shown to me by you and
other members of the staff. They seem to me to be similar to docu-
ments that I observed. I remember on one — on two occasions seeing
something similar to the envelope. I remember seeing something
similar to the material — to this letterhead.
I believe I tried to describe this on one earlier occasion and that was
when I appeared before the grand jury and was asked about the nature
of observing documents similar to this. At that time, I identified
documents which are not e.xactly like this. Upon seeing them on a
(129)
7,6 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, APRIL 18, 2973, 7-12, WATERGATE GRAND JURY 7
0 And were you in the offices cf the Connittes to Ra-elect
the President on a fairly rep,ular basis?
A Yes. I would generally corae in Monday or Tuesday,
spend the balance of the week and than go hone Friday. Soaetiraes
if there was soraething of a pressing nature I night stay over
for the weekend, I might coae up on a few occasions only tv;o
or three days a week.
• Q All right. Now turning your attention, sir, to April,
1972. Did there ccrae a tiine that you visited Key Biscayne,
Florida?
A Yes, sir. I think in the latter part of March I
accompanied the Mitchells to Key Biscayne for, I think, probably
ten days or tv70 weeks for Easter vacation.
Q All right, and where did you stay in Key Biscayne?
A V7e stayed at, I think it's called the 3520 House or
something of that nature. It's a house that is — it is not
adjacent to it but in the vicinity of the corr,pound of Key
Biscayne.
Q VJhen you say compound is that the Presidential - -
'A The Presi.dential Compound at Key Bisca^me.
Q Did there come a time V7hile you were dovm there that
Mr. Mitchell was visited by Mr. Magruder?
A Yes.
Q And also by Mr. Fleming?
A That is correct.
Q Can you tell us what -.ranspired at that tine, the
circumstances, etc.?
A Yes. Mr. Magruder and Mr. Fleming got into Key Biscayne
(130)
7.e FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, APRIL 18, 1973, 7-12, WATERGATE GRAND JURY 8
one afternoon -- I can't be specific as to dates. I \i70uld, you
know, looking back from Easter Sunday, I would assume it would
be the 4th, 5th or 6th of April. Mr. Magruder came over tothe
compound and brought some briefcases with several memoranda that
required — what we call action memoranda, required signing off
on by the campaign director. He came over to the house where we
were staying. Mrs. Mitchell became quite upset about this because
she did not want Mr. Mitchell's vacation interrupted by any working
sessions and so I informed Mr. Magruder to leave his briefcases
there and go on back to the hotel where he was staying and I
would be back in contact with him.
Q And then did you have occasion to examine the contents
of the briefcases?
A Yes. I think I told him that I would go through the
memos and priortize them so that we could -- in case we didn't
have time to complete action on all the memos, that at least
we would get the more pressing ones out of the way,
Q And did you go through them to - -
A Yes.
Q - - to determine the priority?
A Yes, that night I went through them. In the interim
we had gotten Mrs. Mitchell calmed down and she agreed that we
could spend the next day at the other end of the house and, you
know, work on these, whatever — work on whatever problems and
decisions we had to make.
(131)
7.6 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY, APRIL 18, 197 Z, 7-12, mTEBGATE GRAtlD JURY
BY >iR. GLANZER:
Q So you did determine vhat the priorities were with
respect to these memos, 1 take it?
A That is correct.
Q Incidentally, did Mr. Fleming come over with Mr.
Magruder?
A No, he did not. I don't know if he came on the same
flight or not. I don't know exactly what time he got to Key
Biscayne, whether they came together or - -
Q But he did not come to this meeting?
A No, he did not come in that afternoon when Mr. Magruder
came over.
Q You did make a determination of which action memos had
to be acted upon and the order in which they would be acted upon?
A I, you know, to the best of my ability, prioritized the
memos so we could proceed on the more important ones first.
Q As you reviewed these memos did you come across a memo
JtW: this page CONTAINED THE ABOVE DELETION WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COmiTTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(132)
7.6 FRED LaBUE TESTIMONY, APRIL 18, 1973, 7-12, WATERGATE GRMW JURY ij
that in substance discusssd or had a topic in it or subject
matter tvhich related to electronic surveillance?
A That is correct.
Q Electronic intrusion?
A Yes, I did.
Q Do you recall the substance of it?
A I can't recall the specific substance of the memo. I
recall — the only thing I can specifically recall, because it
caught my attention, was that the memo did discuss an operation
regarding or involving electronic surveillance and that there
was a budgetary figure attached to the nemo.
Q Do you remember any more details in the memo about any
targets of the electronic surveillance or anything like that?
A I can't honestly sit hers and tell you I could, I mean -
0 Apart from the general fact that it was obviously - -
A I can't recall what the target was; no, sir, I really
can't.
Q But it was obvious that it was electronic intrusion
related to the adversary party?
A That is correct.
Q Now you mentioned the budgetary figure. Can you tell
us the sum of money?
A I cannot give you a specific sura of money. I can only
state that, as I recall, it involved a figure of several hundred
thousand dollars.
Q All right, sir. Did there come a time that there was a
meeting at which this memo was discussed?
(133)
35-647 O - 74 - 10
7.6 FRED LaRUE TESTimm, APRIL 18, -1973, 7-12, WATERGATE GRAND JURY H
Q This was au action ir:emo, I take it?
A This vas an action oerao; yes, sir. P^X /
Q V/hich required a sign off?
A Yes.
Q By the campaign chairman?
A Yes.
Q By Mr. Mitchell?
A Yes.
Q Did there come a time there was a meeting?
A Yes, we had a meeting next day.
Q Vfho was that?
A At that meeting was Mr. Fleming, Mr. Magruder and
Mr. Mitchell and I.
Q Was Mr. Fleming present when that memo was discussed?
A No, he was not.
Q How was that arranged that he was not?
A Next morning when Mr. Magruder came over I asked him
as to what in the world was this memo regarding this electronic
surveillance. I said this was the first knowledge I had of any
such contemplated course of action, and he said that the memo
required action. I said, "Well, I don't want to bring this up
with Mr. Fleming in the room, and I've got it on the bottom of
the stack. Uhen v;e get through with everything else we can
maneuver Mr. Fleming out of the room and take this matter up."
Q And V7as that done?
A Yes, that v;as.
Q All right. VTho sat in on the meeting?
A At the meeting at which the memo was discussed was
Mr. Ma;>ruder, Mr. Mitchell and myself. ^'/
(134)
an
L
7.6 FRED LaRUE TESTIMONY. APRIL 18. 1973, 7-12. WATERGATE ORAm JURY 12
O And can you tell us in substance v;hat was said at tha
naeting and by whom, to the best of your recollection?
A To the best of ray recollection the memo was given, as
I recall, by I-ir. Magruder to Mr. Mitchell. He read the memorandum.
He looked over at me and he asked if I had seen this and I said
I had, and he said, "l-Hiat do you think?" I said, "I don't think
it's worth the risk," As I recall, Mr. Mitchell sat there a few
tainutes, or few seconds, and he said, "Well, we don't have to do
anything on this novj."
Q All right. And was that the end of the meeting?
A That was the end of the meeting.
Q All right. Now thereafter did there come a time that
this matter of electronic surveillance came to your attention
in one form or another?
A Yes, on two or three occasions there were situations
in which I was at meetings or had conversations with people
where, I don't say this specific memo was raised, but allusions
to some sort of operation going on or other operations contem-
plated. You want me to go on?
Q Yes, could you give us details of that?
A There was one meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office a^id
which V7a3 attended by Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Liddy and
myself. The purpose of this meeting, as I recall, was to discuss
the convention, the Republican Convention, and at that time it
was Miami Beach. During the course of this meeting Mr. Liddy
raised the concept that Senator McGovem would be occupying the
same room at the Democratic Convention which Mr, Mitchell would
be occupying at the Republican Convention, and that it would afford
vl35)
7. 7 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, MAI 2, 1973, 22-25, WATERGATE GRAND JURY
22
D'
I Mar(
Q Now,- I want-to ^Jirect-your-attention- to on -or about
March 29th, 1972. Did you have occasion to go down to Key
Biscayne in Florida?
A Yes.
Q And for what purpose?
NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED THE ABOVE DEUriON WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.
(136)
OM
7.7 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, MAY 2, 1973, 22-25, WATERGATE GRAND JUEY 23
A The purpotro \:3.z rr.an^'-fold. Ue had -- Mr. !;itchell
had not been actively involved in the car^pci^a in the oast
number of weeks because of the ITT problem, and he was on
vacation.
So I had approximately 30-sorae decision papers for
Kr. Mitchell for our discussion and we were lagging behind in
the campaign. So I went doam there, basically, to get many
decisions from him.
Q Did you have with you a proposal concerning the
Liddy project?
A Yes. Liddy, of course, was anxious to get his pro-
ject going and we had held it because I hadn't had an opportu-
nity to discuss any of these proposals with Mr. Mitchell, and
our agreement with Mr. Mitchell was that nothing was done in
the campaign without his approval. So I could not give Mr.
Liddy any approval on his project, and so he was being held
up and claimed that he was having great difficulty.
So one of the proposals that we brought down was Mr.
Liddy' s third proposal for this intelligence gathering.
Q Now, when you say "brought down the proposal", what
was the form of that proposal and was it any different infom]
from other proposals that you brought to Mr, Mitchell at that
time?
A Yes, it was different. Most of the proposals to Mr,
Mitchell had a standard form. They were to Mr, Mitchell as
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
](i
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.3
24
25
(137)
7.7 ,1EB MAGRUDF.R TESTIMONY, MAY 2, 1973, 22-25, WATEPGATF. GRAND JURY 24
Attorney General, from ra^ vVith copies to Mr. Haldexnan, ar.J
they discussed a project and then asked for approval, dis-
approval, for both the project and the funds necessary.
This, because of the sensitivity of the nature, I
only had these blank sheets of paper with the various budgets
for each of the activities on theni. Not a formal proposal
as I would have had on the other activities.
Q And who was at Key Biscayne besides Mr. Mitchell?
A Mr. Mitchell was there with his wife and his daughte
Mrs. Mitchell's social secretary, and Fred LaRue was staying
at the house at Key Biscayne.
Q And did you have occasion to discuss the Llddy pro-
posal with Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mitchell?
A Yes.
Q And what was the nature of this package or this
proposal?
A This proposal would only include, basically, wire-
tapping for the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate
for the possible surveillance, electronically, of the Democrat
National Convention Headquarters at the Foutain Bleu; and for
possible electronic surveillance at the Democratic Headquarter
and, at that time, we were getting to realize that Mr. Muskie
was failing and so it would be someone else, so we didn't have
a specific individual in mind at that time.
All of the other activities had been eliminated from
the proposal.
25
(138)
7 JE3 MGRUVER TESTIMONY, MAY 2, 1973, 22-25, WATERGATE GRAND JURY 25
Q And -uhat was the si^'^e of t^-.e nrojjosed budget?
A Approximately $250,000.
Q All right. And did you, at that meeting, discuss
with Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mitchell the various pros and cons with
respect to that budget?
A Yes. Mr. LaRue had been aware of Mr. Liddy's pro-
posals but not in the depth that we had, because he had not
attended those past me«atiags.
Mr, LaRue had some misgivings relating to the projec
Mainly that the possibility was limited information; that, of
course, this was illegal; and I think we all agreed that there
was potentially problems in dealing with Mr. Liddy because" of
his stability.
But, basically, we did agree to firm the projects,
because we felt that there were enough individuals that were
interested in this information and we thought that there
possibly could be some use put to this information by ourselve
as well as other individuals at the White House.
Q Now, after the meeting, did you report the results
of that meeting to anyone?
A Yes. I had a standard procedure where Mr. Reisner,
who was my assistant. If I was in Washington, I would sit dowh
with him and go over all the decisions. Of course, we had a
tremendous amount of decisions, many of thera quite critical,
because they'd been held up for quite a bit of time.
(139)
7.8 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST IS, 1973, 38-44
WATERGATE GRAND JURY 33
or "I've got to have an answer,'' really was ciore of vjhat he
was saying.
Q Ana did you pass these messages onto Mr. JIagruder?
A That was the kind of thing that lots of people in
the caaipaign XJould do. Sometinies they'd call me, and that
vas really the nature of my job, to sit in front of Magruder's
office and just —
Q But did you pass these things along?
A Oh, yes, I would have, definitely.
Q And what did Mr» Magruder say when you passed that
' particular message along?
■ A Just, "Okay."
rQ Did there come a time v;hen Mr. Hagruder told you tc
tell Mr. Liddv that he had approval?
A That's right. I'm very vague on the time of this,
but the reason I place the time at the beginning of April was
that part of the message to Mr. Llcdy was to tell hira to get
going within two weeks and when I passed that raessage on, I
have the feeling that "tr.vo weeks", that I was thinking in
terras of vjhen V.io weeks ^jould be, and the time was going to
be the first two v^eeks of April,
Mr. T^agruder, as T remember, stopped in the entrance
to ay office and said, "Call Liddy and tell him its approved.
Toll hLra we want to get •jo? .ig in the next t^JO weeks." And,
S.Z I rerGember, part of the rnessage may have been, "Tell hia
(140)
0
^
7.8 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST IS, 1973, 28-44
WATERGATE GRAND JURY 39
che first part is approved,'' buc that's as close as I can coma
to ::r. Magruder's message,
Q t./han do you place the tima of this event?
A In tha begir.ning of April, is the bast I can do.
Q And was this by telephone or in person with Mr.
T'agr'jder?
A As- I remeiaber, Mr. Magruder stopped in the entrance
to lay doorx^ay and told ir.e to tell Mr. Liddy that.
Q Was this after his return from Key Biscayne?
A Well, if I'm correct about the date, then it would
be after his return from Key Biscayne. However — and I think
ray general reluctance about this is that I don't remember it
in reference to Key Biscajme. I just remember it in the
beginning of April.
Q Did he call you from Key Biscayne and give you a
similar message?
A Not that I renember.
Q Did he call you from Key Biscayne at all?
A Yes, he did.
Q Vfnat was the purpose of it?
A I think he called me a number of tLT.es and probably
-- xjell, he would have called me for the normal kinds of things
he would call me about.
He took to Key 3isca3me with him 26 or 30 documents
that he needed approval on — 26 or 30 documents that he needed
(141)
7.8 ROBERT PEISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST IS, 1973, 38-44
WATERGATE GRAIW JURY
40
■ ' at^proval on -- and as ha, maybe, got approval, he would call
-■; ae and say, "Call so-and-so and cell him that his plan is
■ approved but that he should only spend so much ^oney," and
' : that sort of thing. I mean, he was calling me and giving me
I'l
instructions.
\\
'•'I Q I'd like to show you a book marked RR-l, and can you
I:
' ji identify this, please?
Sj'j A Yes. It's a log that I kept. It's not an accurate
il
"i! calendar but a log that I kept during the year 1972.
10
Q All right. When you say it's a log, it's a log of
13 II your activities or a log of Mr. Magruder's activities?
I!
12 'j A It's a log of iny activities in 1972.
13 |! Q Does it also reflect some of Mr. Magruder's activi-
1-
l;
14 1! ties?
15 1! A Yes, it does. Particularly because my job was
il, ':l related to his and, therefore, my activities related to his.
ji
17 11 Q Kow, concerning the Key Biscayne meeting, does it
•i
l.-^;i indicate in your diary whan Mr. Magruder left for Florida?
,,.. - ^ Yes- It indicates that he was scheduled to leave
J... at 11:00 o'clock on Wednesday, the 29th, and there also is an
,1
CI ;1 entry —
..••;' Q Let me just ask you, does your recollection conform'
•..; " to that? Do you have any personal knowledge that he did leave
■J! \. on that day?
.,. ; A Well, no, I don't, but there also is an entry of ray
(142)
I 7.8 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST 15, 1973, 38-44
I WATERGATE GRAND JURY 41
activities saying that he would leave for Miarai, unless there
^1 was scrae other entry which I don't see.
'^ • I believe that he did leave on tne 2Jtn.
•:■ Q Okay. Now, there's an entry on the 30th. Would
"• you like to read that to the Grand Jury -- at 4:00 o'clock?
A The entry on the 30th refers to the matter that we
- were just discussing, where he did call asking that decisions
^ . be transmitted concerning activities that he had memoranda
H^ in Florida about and he was getting approval for the memoranda.
II
10 ;' Q Now, what were those specific items? Did they in-
'iii; elude the Liddy proposal?
12^: A Not that I can see here. it seems that the decisions
1^ ;! that he was getting approval on were concerning, the plans for
uli the Maryland primary. Some sort of a decision, and I had to
-/ transmit that to Al Calpia; and something concerning the con-
•.■',: vention, that related to Dick Herman and Bill Timmins.
1- r Q yas there any reference to Mr- Liddy on the 30th?
A Yes. There's a request that I get Gordon Liddy, and,
i:)[ to the best of my recollection, what I was asked to do was to
find Mr. Liddy and have him call Mr. Magruder in Florida.
Q And, therefore, your entry on Thursday, March 30th,
j-2 ■ indicates to you that Mr. Magruder had either before leaving
,; or from Florida asked you to get Mr. Liddy to call him in
Florida?
A Tl-iat's correct I think. he left on the 29th and I
(143)
7.8 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST IS, 197 Z, 38-44
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
42
was asked by Mr. --
- Q And that entry is at 9:00?
" I A That's just a rough entry.
\j| Q Somewhere in the area of 9:00 o'clock a. a.?
' A Well, I could have been called the previous evening
and had written down that I had to find him and I might have
' • written that on the calendar to do that early in the day.
'" ! Q Did you get Gordon Liddy?
" i^ A As I remeniber, I had hia call Mr. Magrudar in Miami.
Q All right. Now, on the 31st, I note that there's
an entry that just says Key Biscayne. Does that indicate that
. . . , I
IS where Mr. Magruder was? :
A Yes, it does.
Q Is there also a mention of Mr. Liddy on the 31st?
A Yes. There's a column in this log which I use just
to note the things that xvere coming up that were interrupting
me, because there were a lot of activity and a lot of inter-
ruptions and just so I didn't forget about things that I'd
been asked to do.
And in that column -- which I think means it was an
interruption — there is the word Gordon Liddy and then it
says next to him, "Give answer", and I believe that what that
refers to is Mr. Liddy must have stopped by my office on
Friday morning and said he talked to Magruder yesterday, '"T
need an answer" or "I'm waiting for an answer,' or something
(144)
; 7.8 ROBERT EEISNER TESTimNY , AUGUST 15, 197S, 38-44
f WATERGATE GRAND JURY ' r o
1 ~~ " ' — — ' ^+-3
like that.
>J Q Is it possible that that meant Mr. Magruder had
called you and give an answer to Mr. Liddy?
A Because I do not have a specific recollection of
that, that is a possible interpretation.
' Q Mow, and then following this soraetlrae -- because
• li you think it's in early April -- you did, in fact, give Mr.
'^ II Liddy an answer?
•' j! A Yes. Except that I have no recollection of being
ii
^■'' ■; called by Mr. Magruder and asked to give Mr. Liddy any answer J
IT^ Q Your recollection is he was in the doorway when he
^2 ;; asked you. And what was Mr. Liddy' s reaction to your saying,
J^ i! "It's approved. Get started in the next two weeks?"'
A Well, he used to call a lot of people in the cam-
paign and give them messages exactly like that. "The Maryland
plan is aoproved," or something like that, and I wouldn't know
I
what the Maryland plan was, but I assume that Bob Merrick —
'.jho had submitted the Maryland plan -- knew what it was and
when I said it was approved, he knew what that meant.
So I called Mr, Liddy, and his reaction was not
characteristic of other people in the campaign. He said,
"But I can't,'' or "It's going to be difficult. I've got
people," or something like that.
So I said to Mr. Liddy, ''I don't know what it is
that you're talking about. You're going to have to discuss
(145)
I 7.8 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, AUGUST IS, 1973, 38-44
WATERGATE GRAND JURY
44
that with Mr. Magruder." And he said, ''VJell, all right.'"
"^vV I said, "You're just .goLr.g to have to talk about it to Mr.
'■s^ 'f-agruder. I don't know what it is that you and he were talking
about.'-
j
Q Now, I'd also like to show you what is marked MG-1,
and can you identify this please?
A Yes, that's Nr. Magruder's calendar — diary.
Q And do you know what year it's for?
'; A Yes. 1972.
'" ': Q Now, I note, in MG-1, under Thursday, March 9th,
there's an entry that just says, "8:00 - Gordon Liddy." Be-
-•■> ■
neath that it says, in a different pen, "Florida Rally. Leave
-■' 11:00."
Kow, can you explain what that entry on the 9th
tneans or those two entries on the 9th?
A Well, I assune the 3:00 o'clock entry, which is
•written in Mr. Magruder's handwriting, indicates that Mr.
Hagruder had at sometime, perhaps the previous evening, called
Mr. Liddy and made an appointment to see Mr. Liddy at 8:00
o'clock in his office.
The other entry indicates that Mr. Magruder then,
after that, left for Florida on a chartered airplane with a
large number of other people for a rally that took place in
Florida.
Q r-o\-7, would this have been the "Get Out the Vote
(146)
8. On March 31, 1972 Gordon Strachan reported in writing to H.R.
Haldeman in a Political Matters Memorandum that Magruder had reported
that CRP "now has a sophisticated political intelligence gathering
system including a budget of [$]300[000] ." Strachan attached tabs to
the Memorandum, including a tab referring to political intelligence
reports on Senator Humphrey's Pennsylvania campaign organization by a
source identified as "Sedan Chair II." On or before April A, 1972
Strachan prepared a talking paper for Haldeman 's use during a meeting
with Mitchell scheduled for April 4, 1972 at 3:00 p.m. The talking
paper included a paragraph relating to the intelligence system, raising
questions as to whether it was adequate and whether it was "on track."
(As indicated below in Paragraph 9, both the Political Matters Memorandum
and the talking paper were destroyed following the break-in at the
Watergate offices of the DNC.)
Page
8.1 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2441-42,
2452-54 148
8.2 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3036-37 153
(147)
p
n
8.1 GORDON STRACHMl TESTimNYy JULY 20, 22, 1973,
6 SSC 2441-42, 2452-54
2441
that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean were shocked by Liddy's plan; Mr.
Magruder's staff man, Gordon Liddy, was apparently quite humil-
iated, and nothing was approved. In other words, if those meetings
were routinely reported to Mr. Haldeman, as evidence of Mr. Ma-
gruder's administrative ability and judgment, the January and Feb-
ruary meetings would not very likely inspire the confidence of Mr.
Haldeman or the President.
Yet, Mr. Magruder testified that "as he recalled" he returned to
his oflSce after both these embarrassing meetings and routinely called
Mr. Haldeman's staff assistant, me, and told me about his blunder,
presumably so that I could inform Mr. Haldeman. That testimony is
difficult to reconcile with good sense. Presumably, Mr. Magruder knew
that Mr. Dean would report on the meetings to Mr. Haldeman — as
Mr. Dean has testified he did — why would Mr. Magruder want two
people reporting the same disaster to Mr. Haldeman?
~ It is true, however, that Mr. Magruder called me after he returned
from the March 30, 1972, meeting at Key Biscayne with Mr. Mitchell
and Mr. LaRue and reported on about 30 major campaign decisions.
Each of these decisions was briefly described in that rather short
phone conversation. During this call, he told me, and I am repeating his
words rather precisely : "A sophisticated political intelligence-gather-
ing system has been approved with a budget of 300." Unfortunately
he neither gave me, nor did I ask for any further details about the
subject.
Soon thereafter I wrote one of my regular "political matters"
memos for Mr. Haldeman. This particular memo for early April was
8 to 10 pages long with more than a dozen tabs or attachments, but it
contained only one three-line paragraph on political intelligence. That
paragraph read almost verbatim as Mr. Magruder had indicated to
me over the phone. I wrote in the memo to Mr. Haldeman — Again this
is almost a quote :
Magruder reports that 1701 now has a sophisticated political intelligence-
gathering system with a budget of 300. A sample of the type of information they
are developing is attached at tab "H."
At tab "H", I enclosed a political intelligence report which had been
sent to me from the committee. It was entitled Sedan Chair II. This
report and two others somewhat like it that I had received began with
a statement such as, "A confidential source reveals" or "a reliable
source confidentially reports." This was followed by a summary of
some political information.
In April 1972, I was mainly interested in reporting to Mr. Halde-
man on those 30 campaign decisions and other relevant political items.
I did not give much thought to what Mr. Magruder meant by "sophisti-
cated political intelligence-gathering svstem." Nor did I give much
thought to the real identity of Sedan Chair II, but I remember that
the information dealt with Senator Humphrey's Pennsylvania
organization.
However, on June 17, 1972, and afterward, as the news began imfold-
ing about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee, I cer-
tainly began to wonder who else but people from 1701 could have been
involved. I suspected that maybe the "Watergate break-in was part of
the sophisticated political intelligence operation Mr. Magruder had
(148)
L
8.1 GORDO}! STPACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 20, 23, 1973
6 SSC 2441-42, 2452-54
2442
mentioned to me on the phone in early April. And worse, I feared that
Sedan Chair Il's so-called coididential source might really have been
a wiretap, or might in some way have been connected with the "Watei'-
gate break-in. 1 immediately tried to call Mr. Magruder so I could
have a report for Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Magruder did not return my calls
on Saturday and I was not able to reach him until around noon on
^unday, when I again called him in California.
When I finally reached him and began to ask him what he knew
about the Watergate break-in, he cut me oil' and said that he had been
on the phone with Mr. Haldeman that morning and the matter was be-
ing taken care of.
1 doubted that Mr. Magruder had actually spoken with Mr. Halde-
man so I called Mr. Higby who clears most calls to Mr. Haldeman. Mr.
Higby told me that i\ir. Magruder had talked to Mr. Haldeman and
that Mr. Ehrlichman was handling the entii-e matter.
I met with Mr. Haldeman on June 19 or 20 and showed him the
April political matters memo that mentioned the intelligence gather-
ing system. After speaking to him, I destroyed that memo and Sedan
Chair II, as well as several other docmnents I have told this committee
and the prosecutors about. I also told Mr. Dean that I had destroyed
a political matters memo to Mr. Haldeman showing a $300,000 intelli-
gence budget at the committee and three confidential source memos
which I said could possibly have been wiretap reports with the sources
carefully camouflaged. I did not tell Mr. Dean that I had, in fact,
destroyed wiretap logs, because I was not then sure what they were, I
only had suspicions.
1 also told the prosecutors in April of this year what specific items
I destroyed. And I told them I still suspected Sedan Chair II might
have been a wiretap summary. It was not until Mr. Keisner and Mr.
Porter testified before this committee in June that I learned Sedan
Chair II was not an illegal wiretap, but was, instead, an informer
planted in the Humphrey camp. In fact, you will recall that Mi-.
Magruder's testimony has established that 1 never received his wire-
tap data. Nor could 1 have passed it on to others or shredded a wiretap
transcript. He says he made only one copy of the Watergate wiretap
log, code-named "Gemstone." He testified that it was so sensitive that
he would not let it out of his office.
Turning to matters after the election, I have told the committee
that I returned approximately $350,000 in cash to Fred LaRue. I
was not told by anyone, nor did I know what use was being made
of this money. I had received the money from the campaign commit-
tee on Mr. Haldeman's instructions and, at that time, returning it
to Mr. LaRue seemed appropriate since he was the top official left
at the committee. I took it to him in December 1972, or January 1973,
after I had left the AVhite House stall'. This money was the fund I
had picked up in April 1972, for the purpose of conducting AVhite
House polling. It had not been used to pay polling expenses or orig-
inally plaimed and after the election I had been askmg Mr. Haldeman,
Mr. Dean, and Mr. Higby what to do with the money.
The delivery to Mr. LaRue was made in two parts, on two occa-
sions. In December or January, after talking to Mr. Dean, I took
approximately $40,000 in two envelopes to Mr. LaRue at his apart-
ment at the Watergate. I lived two blocks away and the debvery
was made on my way home from work.
(149)
8.1 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 20, 23, 197?.
6 SSC 2441-42, 2452-54
2452
that would strike me as far more sensitive a "?f ^-^J° ^^'L^j *^^^^f ^^'j^^
normal messenger channels than some file which other witnesses nave
indicated was not patently illegal on its face. • ., . „^-„or
Mr D Jh In other words, what you are saying is that you never
did see the Gemstone file, Mr! Magruder never invited you over to see
it^ and that prSr to March 30, you had no knowledge of any so-called
Liddy intelligence plan ?
Mr. Strachan. That IS correct. ^ -xr i,on9
r- Mr. Dash. Now, did that change, at least after March 30 ?
Tf it did could vou tell us how it changed 5
Mr Sic^N.^Yes ; I was aware that Mr. Magruder would be going
down toXT^iscayn; to review several campaign decisions that had
ncrnmulated during John Mitchells working on the iil P^ot-iem.
He c^l ed meupin an apparently fairly brief telephone conversation
?nd'?evkw"5 Z 30 or sfpendini campai^ ^T^^rreafteTa SklS
that telenhone conversat on and prepared shortly thereatter a pouucai
mattlrl memor^dum for Mr. Haldeman, summarizing that telephone
f>nTivpr<;ation as well as other information. ,.,.,. , j t ; j j.,t
Mr.l)ASH Ld what did that include ? I mean did it include a Liddy
'°SJ'^S^?iTj Yes; Mr. Magruder told me that a sophisticated
poUticall^temJnce gathering System had been approved and I re-
ported that to Mr. Haldeman. ^-F f>,o itpm=i for deci-
Mr D^SH. Were you aware that that was one of the items for deci
sion that" went down to Key Biscayne with Mr. Magruder f
Mr. l^rScTth^l? it'was ater he came back that he imported that to
you?
£l^„"S?o'SrrpUimate.y when he mad. that report
'°£"steachan Well, it was shortly thereafter, I would giiess either
Friday MarfhJi.mavbe Saturday. My secretary recalls havmg typed
""mTSTs?," W U i! elSin your mind that Mr. Magntder reported
tha^jS MMetl had'in tact'approved a sophisticated mtell.gence
Ssi^P^ttfrii^-^Sti^hSi^SL^^^^^^^
'"i&.rwXt\i?o%^^^
t^eVi;iii^a;fy£r;:ssi;™:;^s;ifw[t'i,'i^
(150)
?, 1 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 20, 2Z, 197 Z
6 SSC 2441-42, 2452-54
2453
sophisticated intelligence plan, that $300,000 budget, in that political
matters memorandum.
Do you recall the number of that memorandum ?
Mr. Str.\chan. Yes; it was Dolitical matters memorandum No. 8.
Mr. Dash. And how many political matters memorandums did you
write after that, if you can recall approximately ?
Mr. Strachan. "Well, through the campaign and toward the end
of the campaign, they got a little further apart, but I wrote 28.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive any information or indication that Mr.
Haldeman, in fact, read the political matters memorandum No. 18
with specific reference to the sophisticated intelligence plan with a
budget of $300,000?
Mr. Strachan. Yes; it was Mr. Haldeman's practice when he would
read such a memorandum to make notes and check off those para-
graphs which he had indicated and then he would write it up in the
upper right-hand corner '"To Strachan," in this case indicating the
memorandum should be returned directly to me, and I would go
through his memorandums after he had read them, and this partic-
ular one I reread, and noted his checking off of all the paragraphs
that I had prepared for him.
Mr. Dash. Was there any other comment besides that particular
one?
Mr. Strachax. Besides the paragraph that you are concerned about
there was simply a blank check.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time shortly afterwards when you
were asked to do anything about that particular matter ?
Mr. Strachan. I am sorry.
Mr. Dash. Did there come a time shortly afterward when you were
asked to write either any other paper or memorandum or take any
further action with regard to that particular matter?
Mr. Strachan. I am sorrv', I do not understand the
Mr. Dash. "Well, you testified that you submitted to Mr. Haldeman
a report on your political matters memorandum concerning this so-
phisticated intelligence plan, and then that this was checked off, indi-
cating to you that he had read it. "What happened afterward concern-
ing that particular matter? Did that just stay in your file or did Mr.
Haldeman take any further action on it to your knowledge ?
Mr. Strachan. "Well, after the memoi-andum came back out Mr.
Haldeman was going to meet with ilr. Mitchell on April 4.
Mr. Dash. How did you learn about that?
Mr. Strachan. Mr. Haldeman had a system on his telephones
where he could push a button and have one of his personal aides moni-
tor the telephone conversation.
Mr. Dash. Would this be similar to an extension phone where some-
body would be asked to get on an extension phone and just listen in?
Mr. Strachan. Well, it would be different from an extension phone
because you could not detect the fact that it was picked up. and there
was no way that the person listening on the phone could make any
noise either by talking or by a secretary typing to indicate that there
was someone else on the phone.
Mr. Dash. How were you notified or how was it indicated to you
that you were to pick up the line ?
(151)
1 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 10, 23, 1973
6 SSC 2441-42, 2452-54
L
2454
Mr. StrxVCHax. Well, there was a button on the call director phone
that I had which would buzz wlien I was to pick that line up, and I
pushed down the button and began listening to the conversation
usually at that time which was already in progress.
Mr. Dash. All right. In this particular case now with a call, I take
it, you are testifying to Mr. Mitchell, could you tell us, having picked
up the line, what you heard ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was either
going to return or had returned from Florida, and Mr. Haldeman
jokingly said, "Well, that is clearly a mistake. You ought to stay down
there and vacation some more," and Mr. Mitchell indicated that "Well,
we had better get together and talk about some matters." Haldeman
asked him if 3 o'clock that day would be convenient.
Mr. Dash. And that day was when ?
Mr. Strachax. April 4.
Mr. Dash. 1972?
Mr. Strachax. W72.
Mr. Dash. And was there, in fact, a meeting on April 4, 1972, be-
tween Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, I did not attend the meeting so I could not
testify that there was in fact but I prepared a talking paper for the
meeting and we would prepare a folder which would include the talk-
ing paper, and the talking paper went into his office and came back
out afterwards.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, in this talking paper, did you include the item of the sophisti-
cated intelligence plan with a budget of $300,000 ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes. In most talking papers I woidd frequently pose
the question is the intelligence system adequate? Is the proposal on
track, just to get the conversation going on the subject, and in this
particular one I did include that paragraph.
Mr. Dash. Now, prior to that meeting and when you were pre-
paring that talking paper, was there any other political intelligence
plan, operative or being considered to your knowledge?
Mr. Strachax. No ; not to my knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive back that talking paper after you had
given it to Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And to your knowledge, was there any indication as to
whether all the items on the talking paper had been discussed?
Mr. Strachax. Well, usually if a matter had not been discussed he
would indicate that it should be raised again. In this case it was not
raised again, indicating that he would have covered the subiect.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that talking paper then when you
received it back?
Mr. Strachax. I put it back in the file with the political matters
memo 18 files.
Mr. Dash. And there was no indication from Mr. Haldeman that he
had either not discussed it or it needed any further action on your
part?
Mr. Strachax. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time after that meeting between
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman, and also in the same month of April,
(152)
8.2 H.R. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, JULY 31, 1973, 8 SSC 2036-37
3036
manned when I was in the office. If my principal secretary wasn't
there, another frirl would fill in while she left the desk.
The log does have some potential inaccuracies in the effort to record
my participation in meetings outside of my office because then she
■was only aware that I had left the office and was not always aware
where I had gone or with whom I had met.
Mr. Dash. Well, then, leaving aside any report that Mr. Dean made
to you of these meetings, were you not informed by Mr. Strachan
through a political matters memorandum of a sophisticated intelli-
gence system that the Committee for the Re-Election of the President
had developed for the approval of Mr. Mitchell sometime shortly after
March 30?
Mr. Haldeman. I don't recall Dean so informed but I don't recall
any of the other 30 or 29 decision items that were apparently also
covered in that memorandum and it is not surprising that I wouldn't.
Mr. Dash. Would a political matters memorandum dealing with a
sophisticated intelligence plan for the committee at a budget of
$300,000 strike your attention?
Mr. Haldeman. As Mr. Strachan has described it, a three-line item
in a rather thick political matters memorandum dealing with, among
other things, apparently 30 decisions that had been made by Mr.
Mitchell at the Key Biscayne meeting, would not strike my attention ;
no.
Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall asking or 'having Mr. Strachan pre-
pare a talking paper that covered a number of these items and includ-
ing the intelligence plan ?
Mr. Haldeman. No ; and that wouldn't be the normal process Mr.
Dash. You are referring to, I assume, the talking paper that he referred
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Mr. Haldeman [continuing]. In terms of the
Mr. Dash. That is right.
Mr. Haldeman [continuing]. Meeting I was to have sometime
shortly after that
Mr. Dash. The April 4 meeting.
Mr. Haldeman [continuing]. With Mr. Mitchell. And Mr. Strachan,
when he knew that I was having a meeting with Mr. Mitchell or hav-
ing a meeting with anyone else with regard to the campaign or the
committee, on his own initiative and within his area of responsibility
prepared for me a talking paper listing those items of discussion that
he assumed would be useful or desirable to discuss at that meeting. The
talking papere were not drawn up jointly by the two of us and I did
not tell him what to put on them. I knew what I wanted to talk about.
What he was doing was trying to jog me by way of a talking paper on
items that I might not think about that he thought might be useful to
discuss.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you received a political matters memorandum
and read the item, how did you indicate that you had noted the item
or read it?
Mr. Halde^ian. Varying ways. I sometimes made margin notes. I
sometimes made checks by items, and I sometimes made no mark at all.
(153)
8.2 H.E. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, JULY Zl, 197 S, 8 SSC Z0Z6-Z7
u
3037
Mr. Dash. And if you had read it and made a check that would ap-
pear on them, I take it?
Afr. Haloem-vx. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. And if there was a talking paper for a meetinjj with Mr.
Mitchell on April 4, that would be part of that political matters file,
would it not?
Mr. Haldeman". I don't know.
Mr. Dasfi. I am asking the question if there were such, it would be
part of the file, would it not?
Mr. Haldeman. I don't know that it would be. I am not
Mr. Dash. A number
Mr. Haldeman [continuing]. I am not sure I undei-stand what you
mean.
Mr. Dash. Are there a number of political mattere memorandums
you received — you say you received a number.
Do you recall how many political matters memorandums Mr.
Strachan sent you?
Mr. Haldeman. Over the 2 years?
Mr. Dash. No; during the period, say, from January 1972, through
June 17, 1972.
Mr. Haldeman. I don't recall a number. I would have to guess.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Mr. Haldeman. Probably in that sort of a period it would be 10,
something like that.
Mr. Dash. All right; his testimony is that this particular political
matters memorandum was numbered No. 18 and if you wanted to find
out what was included in political matters memorandum No. 18 to
refresh your recollection right now, where would you go?
Mr. HALDEjr AN. I would go to Mr. Strachan.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Strachan doesn't have the document, I take it. Would
the document be at the White House ?
Mr. Haldeman. Well, I understand from Mr. Strachan's testimony
that he destroyed the document, so I presume it wouldn't be.
Mr. Dash. It is not at the White House ?
Mr. Haldeman. I don't know whether it is or not, Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Have you gone to the White House in preparation for
your testimony?
Mr. Haldeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. To look at papers of yours ?
Mr. Haldeman. I have looked at my notes, yes.
Mr. Dash. Your notes. Have you looked at any of the political mat-
ters memorandum?
Mr. Haldeman. No; I haven't.
Mr. Dash. You heard Mr. Strachan's testimony prior to your testi-
mony here. Did you go to the White House to see if there was a politi-
cal matters memorandum No. 18 at the ^\Tiite House?
Mr. Haldeman. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now ^^^. Strachan has testified that he did present to
you, shortly after the break-in when you returned to Washington,
this particular political matters memorandum No. 18, which included
the reference to the sophisticated intelligence plan at $300,000 and
the talking paper and I think some other matters, and that you said,
and this is his testimony, you said that the file should be clean after
(154)
9- On April 4, 1972, from approximately 3:00 p.m. until
approximately 4:00 p.m., Mitchell and Haldeman met in Haldeman's White
House office. Haldeman has testified that he does not believe political
intelligence was discussed at the meeting. From 4:13 p.m. until 4:50 p.m.,
Haldeman and Mitchell met with the President. Haldeman testified that his
notes of this meeting indicate a discussion of the "ITT-Kleindienst" hearings
and the assignment of regional campaign responsibility and do not indicate
a discussion of intelligence. Haldeman later returned to Gordon Strachan
the talking paper specified in the preceding paragraph. It was Haldeman's
practice to indicate on the talking paper agenda matters that had not been
discussed. In this instance there was no such indication with respect to
the agenda items covering political intelligence. Strachan has testified
that on June 20, 1972, shortly after the break-in at the DNC headquarters
in the Watergate office building, he showed Haldeman the Political Matters
Memorandum referring to the sophisticated intelligence gathering system
and other sensitive materials from Haldeman's files, and that he was
instructed by Haldeman to clean out the files. Strachan immediately
destroyed the Political Matters Memorandum, the talking paper he had prepared
for the April 4, 1972 meeting between Mitchell and Haldeman, and other
sensitive documents. Haldeman has testified that he has no recollection of
giving Strachan instructions to destroy any materials.
Page
9.1 Meetings and conversations between the President
and H.R. Haldeman, April 4, 1972 (received from
White House) I57
(155)
Page
9.2 John Mitchell log, April 4, 1972 (received from
SSC) 159
9.3 H. R. Haldeman calendar, April 4, 1972 (received
from Watergate Grand Jury) 161
9.4 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3180-81 162
9.5 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2454, 2458-59 164
9.6 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 7 SSC 2880 167
9.7 John Dean testimony, 3 SSC 933-34 168
(156)
9.1 MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AMD H.B. HALDEMAN
APRIL 4, 1972 ~~
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Conanittee staff
H.R. Haldeman
24
April 1, 1972
PM
5:28 5:30 President placed local call to Haldenian
7=11 7:12 President placed local call to Haldeman
April 2, 1972
2:23 2:27 President placed local to Haldeman
2:45 3:25 President net with Haldeman
April 3, 1972
AM
PM
9:1!
9:55
10:23 11:35
4:32
5:36
6:07
4:53
5:48
6:10
President met with Haldeman
(Kissinger 9:49 - 9:59)
President met with Haldeman
President net with Haldeman
(Butterfield 4:41 - 4:42)
(Ehrlichman 4:52 - 5:36)
President met with Haldeman
President placed local call to Haldeman
April 4, 1972
AM 9:44
10:48
10:06
11:45
4:13
6:03
4:50
6:18
President met with Haldeman
President met with Haldeman
President met with Haldeman
(Mitchell 4:13 - 4:50)
President met with Haldeman
April 5, 1972
AM 10:05 11:39
PM
2:54
5:43
4:30
6:18
President met with Haldeman
President met with Haldeman
(David Parker 2:54 - 4:05)
(Ens. 5 Mrs. D. Eisenhower 2:54 - 4:05)
(Mr. 5 Mrs. Cox 2:54 - 4:05)
President met with Haldeman
(Kissinger 4:59 - 6:18)
(Wm. Rogers 5:00 - 5:51)
(Mr. Andrews 5:04 - 5:06)
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Conunittee staff
(157)
9.1 MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND H.R. HALDEMAN
APRIL 4, 1972
If. T. W. -1.1- a
: I 1 . ^ :,?.
7A
Or
7:11 ■:.^?. .' . •'. r-L ,;• - • ■= '.-I ■■ L'o i:
••;..:! I /'.. 197?.
2:45 3:25 i^oi^jrloilf; juct vvitU I", ;!,.-i..A.ii
April 3. 1972 ...
/x\^ 9:13 9:55 1' • :>■ :x:i .ii.t ^.•tll J'r' '..■ :AU
{Kis~;.v;oi: 9:49 - 9:i?)
10:23 11:35 i^.-isitcnt met with Koldci-n-.n
pr,i •'-:32 1:53 P rosidr^-.t met '-vicli rr--I<-!.^m?in
(Bv'tt.eriield 4:41 - 4:1-2)
(Ehrlich:Ti-.n 4:52 - 5:36)
5:36 5: =3 President ir^et with H^.Tccn-j^in
6:07 6:i0 Presider.t i^Vv: "- 1 I0---I .-..-U to I-TrJil-irV.-un
/:,>ril 4, 19 72
t^y^i^ C.44 10:06 .'.:?,•.. it ..^/:t with Ii;^Tdi.:rian
10:4S . rl:^3 ;■> .. I. -ii :!::it^vlth I-£l:lc!r:aa
"ITT; .-:.i 3 .::£0 l^:.:...:dr- '. -. :>. -Ith Haldo!^-an
— (Mil.: rU -::13 - 4:fG>
•':, :0 3 6 : ! 8 Pro si dor=t r.-.e t v»-ith Maldc maix
April 5. 197 2 .
AM 10:C5 11:39 -• • -idv-.t >-et ^vith Kalr
^;w ^.51 v.:o '. :• -^ .:t-v:thir ■■
:0.-)
- ;:05)
(158)
Indistinct document retjrped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
9.2 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, APRIL 4. 1972
Mr. Mitchell -- April 4, 1972 -- Tuesday
8:15 AG arrived in office
8:30 AG SAW Mardian and DAG
9:20 AG SAW Mardian, LaRue and Dick Hermen
10:15 AG called Clark MacGregor
1 1 : 15 AG SAW Cliff Miller, Fred LaRue, Mardian and
Magruder
11:40 DAG called AG and t.
12:30 Haldeman called AG and t.
1:10 AG called Bebe Rebozo
2:45 AG left for meeting with Haldeman
5:00 AG ret. to office
5:05 AG ret. Stans call and t.
5:07 AG ret. DAG's call and t.
5:10 AG SAW Fred La Rue
6:10 AG left office
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(159)
9.2 JOHN MITCHELL LOG, APRIL 4, 1972
Lc.:!-c!.l -- Aoril '. . 19/? -■• iV..:../
/
£:15
8:30
9;?C
10:15
11:15
11:40
12:30
1:10
2:45
D
5:00
1 ('
5:05
I ^
5:07
5:10
6:10
AC aiivivod ill orfic:
AC SA'.-: >2=i'i''.^^ '■'■•"-I pi^I'.
AC S/.'..' >;.-'■ yd). an . LrT^r: ar.d DicV. H:r:.cn
AC called Clark. MJcCrg5,cr
AC SA'..' Cliff Xiller, FredJLaRit^ , Mardian ac.J
N?.f.r'.--'.e_c
I)Ar]^ c/'noc* AC a. ;• t.
K£ldo;;^:i c?.llf>.' AG a:..? t.
AG called Babe- Rcbozo
AG left for F.sctins v.-ith Hal clez'.n
AG ret. to office • .
AC rcL. SL.-rj; c.il) «r:'. t.
AC ret. DACjr. Cv-M. .-.:.J r.
AG SAK JvCa! I.;^ Y.:'.:
AG ]<?ft o.'"fic.
^6^^/175 . ssx: ■/o.^//y
(160)
9.3 H.R. HALDEMAN CALENDAR, APRIL 4, 1972
CN
157? APBit
1 2 i i 6 7 t
9 10 II 12 13 'J 15
16 17 18 W :0 31 72
I ". J' ?3 j6 2' n }',
^
Tuesday^ April jk'
(161)
p
9.4 H.E. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, AUGUST 1, 1973, 8 SSC 3180-81
3180
Mr. Haldeman. That is correct. And it wasn't.
Senator Ervix. And you knowing that while you deny authorship
of this ? Do you deny authorehip of this ?
Mr. HALDEitAN. I deny dictating this memorandum, but I have ac-
cepted responsibility for its contents, Mr. Chairman.
^Senator Ervin. 1 will come back. Wait a minute, Mr. Strachan was
your liaison between you and the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent, was he not?
Mr. Haldeman. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And he brought you memorandums and documents?
Mr. Haldejian. He sent them to me, yes.
Senator Ervin. And he testified that he brought you a memorandum
which stated at Key Biscayne on the 30th of March, John Mitchell
had approved of what he called a sophisticated intelligence plan and
that you put a mark indicating that you had read that. You say he did
not bring you that or do you say you just do not have any recollection
of it?
Mr. Haldeman. I said I did not have any recollection of that specific
item or of that memorandum in the clear specific sense. I have no ques-
tion that I was sent political memorandum No. 18 to which he referred.
I do not think itwas quite as specific as you just made the reference to
the thing. As I recall Mr. Strachan's testimony, which is the only thing
I can go on, he said that among the other 30 items that he reported
from that meeting was one saying the committee now has a sophisti-
cated intelligence operation budgeted at $300,000.
Senator ER\aN. Now, did Mr. Strachan have a custom of preparing
what I call talking papers for you when you were going to have inter-
views with people?
Mr. Haldeman. When I was having meetings with Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Er\in. Right after the Key Biscayne meeting of ]March 30,
1972, Mr. Mitchell had an appointment with you, did he not, in the
White House?
Mr. Haldeman. We met on April 4.
Senator Ervin. April 4. And Mr. Strachan has testified here that he
prepared for you a talking paper mentioning this same subject as
something you should make inquiry of Mr. Mitchell about. Now, do
you recall that talking paper?
Mr. Haldeman. No, I do not in any — not specifically, but Mr.
Strachan had a practice of preparing the — a paper that would include
his suggestion of items that might — that I might want to raise in
meetings with Mr. Mitchell.
'Senator Ervin. Now, I take it you are not denying that he furnished
you such a talking paper but you merely state you have no recollection
of having seen it. Is that correct?
Mr. Haldeman. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Senator Gumey.
Mr. Haldeman. I might, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just on that same
point, however, follow up with the point that in that meeting with
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Strachan in liis own testimony said he had no knowl-
edge of what was discussed, that those talking papers were his sug-
gestion of things he thought I might want to raise with Mr. ^litchell.
He has no knowledge that I did raise any of them with him, and I do
not believe that that was discussed at the meeting of April 4 with
(162)
9.4 H.H. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, AUGUST 1, 1973, 8 SSC 3180-81
3181
Mr. Mitchell, because that meeting was in conjunction with the meet-
ing Mr. Mitchell and I had with the President the same day at which
other matters were discussed relating to the ITT meeetings, and the
plans that Mr. JNIitchell was making for assigning regional campaign
responsibility to individuals that he reviewed with the President.
^^^^Senator Ervin. Senator Gumey.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am sure there are many more questions that could be asked of the
witness on various phases in this whole Watergate affair but as I
understand this phase, it is restricted to the break-in and the coverup.
I think the witness has testified very fully on that. Frankly, I cannot
think of any other questions that I could ask him that would shed any
more light on those two issues. I think that the central theme of what
we are trying to get at in this phase is the involvement or noninvolve-
ment of the President of the United States in the break-in and the
coverup, and as I say, I cannot think of a single question to ask the
witness on this.
The committee has agreed. I think — we have discussed it in executive
session — that it is important to expedite this phase of the hearings so we
can get them over, hopefully, next week. My own personal view is that
I think these hearings are damaging this Government seriously, the
Nation, and also its relations in the world abroad. Therefore, I do not
intend to ask any more questions of this witness.
Senator Ervix. Senator Inouye.
Senator IxotrrE. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Haldeman, just for the record, since there are a few unanswered
questions relating to the tapes, will you tell the committee as to who
knew about the existence of the recording system in the AVhite House ?
Mr. Haldemax. Other than the members of the Technical Security
Division of the Secret Service, and I do not know who in that ori.a-
nization knew of it, but it was the smallest numl)er of people feasible
within the requirements they had technically to conduct the prepara-
tion of the tapes and the storage of them.
The only other people that I am aware of that knew of the existence
of the tapes at the time I was at the "V^Tiite Hous-.' were the President,
myself, Alex Butterfield, and Mr. Higby. I did not know Mr. Butter-
field's secretary was aware of them but I understand he has so testified.
I do not believe anyone else did and I do not recall whether Mr. Butter-
field has indicated that anyone else did. If he has and if j-ou want to
check those names with me, I can confirm my knowledge as to their
knowledge.
Senator Ixoute. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion— was he aware of this ?
Mr. Haldejiax. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Ixoun;. Was the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency aware of this ?
Mr. Haldemax. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Ixotm;. Did you have a room that was secure, with no
recording devices, where Mr. Helms could discuss highly sensitive mat-
tei-s with the President of the United States?
Mr. Haldemax. Well, there were only two rooms — excuse me, three,
Ix-cause the Cabinet room also had this capability on a switched-on-
and-oft' basis. The onl}- two i-ooms which were covered by this taping
(163)
9,5 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 23, 1973, 6 SSC 2454, 2458-59
2454
Mr. Str.\ciian. Well, there was a button on the call director phone
that I had which would buzz when I was to pick that line up, and I
pushed down the button and began listening to the conversation
^^^^ usually at that time which was already in progress.
' Mr. Dash. All right. In this particular case now with a call, I take
it, you are testifying to Mr. Mitchell, could you tell us, having picked
up the line, what you heard ?
Mr. Straciian. Well, Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was either
going to return or had returned from Florida, and ilr. Haldeman
jokingly said, "Well, that is clearly a mistake. You ought to stay down
there and vacation some more," and Mr. Mitchell indicated that "Well,
we had better get together and talk about some matters." Haldeman
asked him if 3 o'clock that day would be convenient.
Mr. Dash. And that day was when ?
Mr. Strachax. April 4.
Mr. Dash. 1972?
Mr. Strachan. 1972.
Mr. Dash. And was there, in fact, a meeting on April 4, 1972, be-
tween i\Ir. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, I did not attend the meeting so I could not
testify that there was in fact but I prepared a talking paper for the
meeting and we would prepare a folder which would include the talk-
ing paper, and the talking paper went into his office and came back
out afterwards.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, in this talking paper, did you include the item of the sophisti-
cated intelligence plan with a budget of $300,000 ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes. In most talking papers I would frequently pose
the question is the intelligence system adequate? Is the proposal on
track, just to get the conversation going on the subject, and in this
particular one I did include that paragraph.
Mr. Dash. Now, prior to that meeting and when you were pre-
paring that talking paper, was there any other political intelligence
plan operative or being considered to your knowledge?
Mr. Strachax. No ; not to my knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive back that talking paper after you had
given it to Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And to your knowledge, was there any indication as to
whether all the items on the talking paper had been discussed?
Mr. Strachax. Well, usually if a matter had not been discussed he
would indicate that it should be raised again. In this case it was not
raised again, indicating that he would have covered the subiect.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that talking paper then when you
received it back?
Mr. StR:\chan. I put it back in the file with the political matters
memo 18 files.
Mr. Dash. And there was no indication from Mr. Haldeman that he
had either not discussed it or it needed any further action on your
part?
Mr. Strachax. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time after that meeting between
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman, and also in the same month of April,
(164)
L
t
n
9.5 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIWM, JULY 23, 1973, 6 SSC 2454, 2458-59
2458
Mr. Dash. Did you also pull out that memorandum or these little
notes that you had taken concerning tlie communication that you had
from Mr. Haldeman to contact Mr. Liddy about his capabilities being
switched from Muskie to McGovern ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, I pulled that document out but I did not take
that up to Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, what did you believe at that time when you took the docu-
ment out ?
Did you believe that a break-in at the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters was in fact related to this plan?
Mr. Strachan. I didn't know for sure, but I had pretty strong
suspicions.
Mr. Dash. Did you meet with Mr. Haldeman shortly after you pulled
that file out ?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us when ?
Mr. Strachax. I believe it was the morning of June 20. He had
returned from Florida, I had given a note to Mr. Higby that I thought
I should see Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Haldemaji summoned me to his office,
and I walked in with the political matters memorandum.
Mr. Dash. I think you had indicated that you were somewhat con-
cerned about Mr. Haldeman's reaction to you about not being informed.
Were you still concerned when you met with Mr. Haldeman on June
20?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, I was scared to death. I thought I would be
fired at that point for not having figured that out.
Mr. Dash. Were you fired or did he berate you ?
Mr. Strachan. No, he did not berate me. He said almost jokingly,
"Well, what do we know about the events over the weekend?" And I
was quite nervous and retreated to sort of legal protective terms and
I said, "Well, sir, this is what can be imputed to you through me, your
agent," and opened the political matters memorandum to the para-
graph on intelligence, showed it to him. He acknowledged his check
and that he had read that, and said that he had not read the tab, which
had been attached, turned, began reading it, said, maybe I should
have been reading these, these are quite interesting, and read the tab.
Mr. Dash. What tab was that ?
Mr. Strachan. That was Sedan Chair H.
Mr. Dash. Then what, if anything, did you tell him or did he tell you
after he had gone through this memorandum again ?
Mr. Strachan. He told me, "Well, make sure our files are clean."
Mr. Dash. Wliat did that mean to you?
Mr. Strachan. Well, I went down and shredded that document and
others related.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you do that on your own initiative as such, or
did you feel that you were makin^ sure that you were following Mr.
Haldeman's instruction that you should make sure the files are clean?
Mr. Strachan. No, I believed I was folio mng his orders.
Mr. Dash. And you shredded all of No. 18, the political matters
memorandum No. 18 ?
Mr. Strachan. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. What about the memorandum that you had made on the
communication with regard to Mr. Liddy ?
(165)
9.5 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 2d, 1973, 6 SSC 2454, 2458-59
2459
Mr. Strachax. Yes, I shredded that also.
Mr. Dash. Were there any other documents that you shredded ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes, I did go throutrh and make sure our files were
clean. I shredded the talking paper between Mr. Haldeman and Mr.
Mitchell on April 4, 1 shredded a reference to ilr. Segretti, I shredded
Mr. Segietti's telephone number.
Mr. Dash. WTiat reference was that to Mr. Segretti ?
Mr. Stk.\ciiax. Well, there had been a dispute between whether or
not Mr. Segretti should continue out in the field fimctioning some-
what independent. ]Mr. Magruder wrote a memorandum to Mr.
INIitchell entitled "Matter of Potential Embarrassment" in which he
described this individual in the field and how that individual should
be under the direction of Mr. Liddy. Mr. Mitchell had a copy of that
and Mr. Haldeman had a copy of that. And ilr. Haldeman had told
me to call up Mr. Segretti and to tell him to expect a call and his di-
rections from Mr. Liddy. I shredded that memorandum also.
Mr. Dash. Were there any other documents that you shredded?
ilr. Str,vchax. Well, we gave the committee a list.
Mr. Dash. You may have stated, but did that include the talking
paper that vou had prepared for Mr. Haldeman for his meeting with
Mr. Mitchell on April 4 ?
Mr. Strachax-. Yes, I think I said that that was one of the items.
Mr. Dash. Now, after you shredded these papers on the 20th of
___^_^ June 1972, did you inform "anybody that you had done this?
Mr. Str.vchax. Yes, I went over to John Dean's office and gave him
a list orally of the documents that I had shredded and told him that
those had been ISlv. Haldeman's instructions.
Mr. Dash. ^\niy did you inform John Dean ?
Mr. Strachax-. Well, John Dean was, as you know, the counsel to
the President and the man who would presiunably be handling this
problem.
Mr. Dash. Did you inform anybody else?
Mr. Str:VChax. No.
Mr. Dash. Now, have you since had an opportunity to go through
the T\Tiite House records to look at the various memorandums that
you have prepared in the past ?
Mr. Strachax-. Yes, I have gone back into an Executive Office Build-
ing office, i-oom 522, to go through the files.
Mr. Dash. And did these files still have the political matters memo-
randimi that you had prepared for !Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Str^vchax. Well, they contained all political matters memo-
randums except Xo. 18.
Mr. Dash. IS was missing?
Mr. Str.\chax. That is right.
Mr. Dash. So you reaffirmed the fact that you had destroyed 18 ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, I did not forget that.
Mr. Dash. No. It had not been replaced, anyway ?
Mr. Str-vciiax*. No.
Mr. DASJr. Now, later, did you ever inform INIr. Haldeman that you
wanted to make sure that the files were clean or that you had destroyed,
in fact, the particular files that you w-ere worried about?
Mr. Strachax. Yes. On July 1, T was invited to go out with the
Presidential party on Air Force One. There were going to be a series of
discussions out there with ■Mr. ]MacGregor and Mr. Malek regarding
(166)
r
L
9.6 H.R. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, JULY 30, 1973, 7 SSC 2880
2880
disbursed. So it is quite possible that he did have it replenished
prior to ha\nng the cash turned over to LaRue, but I do not believe that
he ever reported this fact to me.
In fact, Gordon Strachan's report to me in April of 1973 was that
the $22,000 had not been replaced and that he had delivered only
$328,000 to Mr. LaRue and not the full $350,000. However. Strachan
also told me after his grand jury appearance that he had told them,
the grand jury, that he had delivered $350,000. I said that was con-
trary to what he had told me and he said he had made a mistake at
the grand jury. I urged him to correct it, if that was the case. He
told me later he had called Mr. Silbert about the mistake and was
told he could correct it before the grand jury. "When he appeared at
the courthouse to do so, the U.S. attorneys would not let him do it,
and instead warned him he had committed perjury, was in serious
trouble, should start preparations to go to jail, and should hire a
lawyer.
WATEEG.\TE
I had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the planning or execu-
tion of the break-in or bugging of the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not see any material produced
by the bugging of the Democratic headquarters.
After the June 17 break-in, I asked Gordon Strachan whether
he had had any knowledge of such an operation. He said he had not;
but that he realized in thinking back that there had been three "in-
telligence reports" received by him identified by the code name "Sedan
Chair" that said something to the effect that "confidential sources
report that * * *". He said he did not at the time know the identity
of the confidential sources. He realized after the Jime 17 break-in,
thinking back, that these reports could have been based on the Water-
gate or some other wiretap source.
I have absolutely no recollection of seeing an}- such report and it
is quite likely that I did not see it even if it was included in a Strachan
transmission to me since I rarely, if ever, read through or even looked
at all of the materials that he sent in to me in these reports.
I do not recall ever seeing any material identified by the name "Gera-
stone."
I have no recollection of giving Mr. Strachan instructions to
destroy any materials, nor do I recall a later report from Strachan
that he had done so or that the files were clean.
Mr. Strachan has made clear in his testimony that he destroyed
materials not because he thought the contents concerned crinunal
activity, but because he felt if the\- ever became public they would
be politically embarrassing. He confirmed that he had reread the con-
tents many times and that they did not suggest any illegality or crim-
inal activity; they suggested matters which, if they became piiblic,
would be |)oliticalIy embarrassing.
I should point out that on two occasions in April lf)73 — once to me,
before his grand jury appearance and the other to John Ehrlich-
man — Strachan listed the areas of what he consideivd to be tough
questions or trouble spots. On neither of these occasions did he men-
(167)
H
[— -
I sh
9.7 JOHN DEAN TESTIWNY, JUNE 25, 1973^ 3 SSC 933-34
933
feiisive and stated that he was merely on his payroll as a consultant
because Ehrlichnian had so requested. He asked nie to determine if
Hunt was still on his payroll and I said I would chock. Colson also
expressed concern over the contents of Hunt's safe. Several weeks
later — probably 4 or 5 — T learned from Paul O'Brien, who was
representing the reelection committee, that he had learned from Mr.
Hunt's attorney, Mr. William Bittman, that Hunt and Colson spoke
on the telephone over the weekend of June 17-18, and that Hunt had
told Colson to get the materials out of his — Hunt's — office safe.
Mr. Hugh Sloan called me to tell me he was worried. At that time
I knew of no reason why Mr. Sloan should be worried so I told him
not to worry. He told me that he would like to meet with me and I
told him that I was trying to find out what had happened and re-
quested we meet in a few days. I do not recall the precise date we did
meet.
I next contacted Liddy and asked him to meet with me. He said he
would come to my office. As he came into the office I was on my way
out. I suggested we take a walk. It was shortly before noon and we
walked down I7th Street toward the Corcoran Gallery.
I will try to reconstruct the conversation to the best of my memory.
While I cannot recall every detail, I do indeed recall the major items
we discussed.
Mr. Liddy told me that the men who had been arrested in the DXC
were his men and he expressed concern about them. I asked him why
he had men in the DXC and he told me that Magruder had pushed
him into doing it. He told me that he had not wanted to do it, but
Magruder had complained about the fact that they were not getting
good information from a bug they had placed in the DXC sometime
earlier. He then explained something about the steel structure of the
Watergate Office Building that was inhibiting transmission of tlie bug
and that they had gone into the building to correct this problem. He
said that he had reported to Magruder that during the earlier entry
of the DXC offices they had seen documents — ^which I believe he told
me were either Government documents or classified documents — and
Magruder had told him to make copies of those documents.
Liddy was very apologetic for the fact that they had been caught and
that Mr. McCord was involved. He told me that he had used Mr.
McCord only because Magruder had cut his budget so badly. I asked
him why one of the men had a check from Mr. Howard Hunt and he
told me that these men were friends of Hunt and Hunt had put him
in touch with them. I do not recall Liddy discussing any further in-
volvement of Hunt, other than Himt's putting him in touch with the
Cubans. I asked him if anyone from the White House was involved
and he told me no.
As the conversation ended he again expressed his apology- and his
concern about the men in jail. I told him I couldn't help and he said he
understood. He also told me that he was a soldier and would never talk.
He said if anvone Avished to shoot him on the street, he was ready.
.\s we parted I said I would be unable to discuss this with him further.
He said he luiderstood and T returned to my office.
After returning to mv office I arranged a meeting with Ehrlichnian
in his office for mid-aftei'iionu. Gor-don Straclian came to mv office
shortly after I had met with Liddy. Strachan told mo that ho had boon
(168)
9.7 JOHN DEAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 25, 1973, 3 SSC 933-34
934
L
instructed by Haldeman to go through all of ilr. Haldeman's files
over the weekend and remove and destroy damaging materials. He
told me that this material included such matters as memorandums from
the reelection committee, documents relating to wiretap information
from the DNC, notes of m.eetings with Haldeman, and a document
which reflected that Haldeman had instructed Magruder to transfer
his intelligence gathering from Senator Muskie to Senator McGovern.
Strachan told me his files were completely clean.
I spoke with Mr. Kleindienst and he told me that both the FBI
and the D.C. Metropolitan Police were investigating, and he assumed
that the FBI would take full jurisdiction of the case shortly. He also
alluded to his encounter with Liddy at Burning Tree Coimtry Club,
but did not explain this in full until I later met with him. I do not
have a record of when I met with Mr. Kleindienst, but it was either
on Monday, the 19th, or the next day. I will describe that meeting
shortly.
I met with Ehrlichman in the mid-afternoon and reported in full
my conversation with Liddy. I also told Ehrlichman about the earlier
meetings I had attended in Mitchell's office in late January and early
February and my subsequent conversation with Haldeman. He told
me he wanted to meet later with Colson and told me to attend. Ehrlich-
man also requested that I keep him advised and find out from the
Justice Department on what was going on. I did not mention my con-
versation with Strachan because I assumed that Ehrlichman was aware
of this from Haldeman himself.
Later that afternoon I attended a second meeting in Ehrlichman's
office with Colson. I recall Ehrlichman asking where Hunt was. I said
I had no idea and Colson made a similar statement. At that point, be-
fore the meeting had started, Ehrlichman instructed me to call Liddy
to have him tell Hunt to get out of the country. I did this, without
even thinking. Shortly after I made the call, however, I realized that
no one in the White House should give such an instruction i-nd raised
the matter. A brief discussion ensued between Ehrlichman and myself.
As I recall, Ehrlichman said that he was not a fugitive from justice,
so wh)- not. I said that I did not think it was very wise. At this point,
Colson chimed in that he also thought it unwise and Ehrlichman
agreed. I immediately called Liddy again to retract the request but he
informed me that he had already passed the message and it might be
too late to retract.
Following this brief telephone skirmish reG:ardin<r Hunt's travel
plans, the meeting turned to Hunt's status at the Wliite House. I had
learned from Fred Fielding, who I had asked to check on it, that Hunt
had not drawn a check from his White House consultantship since late
March of 1072. But as far as I knew, the records indicated that Hunt
was still a White House consultant to Colson. After discussions of this
bv Colson, who at this point was disowning Hunt as a innmbor of his
staff, Ehrlichman called Mr. Bruce Kehrli and requested that he bring
Hunt's personnel records up to Elirlichman's office. Before Kehrli ar-
rived, Colson raised the matter of Hunt's safe. Colson, withoiit getting
specific, said it was imperative that someone iret t!io contonts of Hunt's
safe. Colson sugjrested, and Ehrlichman concurred, that I take custody
of the contents of the safe.
(169)
10. On or about April 7, 1972 Gordon Liddy showed a budget of
$250,000 to Hugh Sloan, Treasurer of the Finance Committee to
Re-elect the President (FCRP) . Liddy told Sloan that he would be
coming back to Sloan in a day or two to pick up the first cash payment,
which was to be $83,000. Sloan telephoned Magruder, who authorized
Sloan to disburse to Liddy the $83,000 requested. Magruder told
Sloan that Magruder was to approve all subsequent disbursements of
money to Liddy.
Page
10.1 Hugh Sloan testimony, 2 SSC 538-39. 172
10.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 795-96. 174
(171)
10.1 HUGH SLOAN TESTIMONY, JUNE 6, 1973, 2 SSC 538-39
538
side. Dunne; that period of time, he had established a procedure with
Mr. Mitchell of sending down a monthly budget in writing. I inherited
that procedure from him and with regard to the operating e.xpenses of
the committee, each month, I would send down to the Ju.stice Depart-
ment a memorandum outlining the projected expenses of the campaign
at that point for the following month. Generally, his secretary would
call back and say fine. So that anything that fell \?ithin that budget
would be approved in that kind of way. Any extraordinary- item, I
would have to call him and call his secretary and ask him.
Mr. Dash. When you said call him, you meant Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And his secretary, who would that be?
Mr. Sloan. Miss Lee Jablonski. What was happening was that
Mr. Magruder was meeting with Mr. Mitchell regularly at the Justice
Department with regard to planning for the political side of the
campaign. During those meetings, he evidently was discussing financial
matters, expenditures, and so forth, and getting clearance from Mr.
Mitchell to go ahead and make those expenses. Following the strict
instructions I had from Mr. Kalmbach, when Mr. Magruder came
back to me and said, this has been approved, I would turn around and
call back do\vn to the Justice Department. I understand from Lee
Jablonski at that point in time that Mr. Mitchell was getting irritated
about being double-teamed on the same issue and issued instructions
for Mr. Magruder and I to work out the clearance authority for
expenditure.
This was resolved in terms of Mr. Magruder saying to me, any-
time I ask you for money, you can count on the fact that this has
Mr. Mitchell's clearance. Conversely, he indicated to me that anything
I said with regard to the finance committee, he would assume that
I had Mr. Stans' permission. Although Mr. Stans had not come into
the campaign at that point, it was knoAsm he would be assuming the
finance chairmanship.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to that $100,000, approximately, that
Porter received, do you know of your own knowledge why he received
that money?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Liddy 's situation is very similar to Mr. Porter's
situation.
Mr. Dash. Talking about Mr. Liddy, who is Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me. Mr. Gordon Liddy was at that period of
time, the time he began receiving cash pavTnents, was general counsel
to the political committee, the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
At a subsequent time, he became general coimsel for the Finance
Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Dash. I think the chart shows a total amount of $199,000. Is
that correct, to the best of your recollection?
Mr. Sloan. To the best of my recollection, j'-es, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you review verj- briefly how that money was
paid to him and under what circumstances?
Mr. Sloan. It was a similar type of arrangement. Mr. Porter had
blanket authority from Mr. Magruder to come to me and give me a
(172)
L
10. 1 HUGH SWAN TESTIMONY, JWE 6, 1973. 2 SSC 538-39
539
figure of how much cash he woulil need. He generally, up to that time,
received funds in the same t^pe of increments as Mr. Porter re-
ceived them — generally 810,000 or S15,000 at a time. There came
a time when, it came very close to the April 7 date and I am not
positive whether it was before or after and my best recollection would
be the chart. He came to me with a budget of .$250,000. He did not
release that from his hand; he merely showed me the figure. He said,
I %vill be coming to you for substantial cash payment, the first item
of which will be .$8-3 000 and I would like to pick that up in a day or
two.
He said, in the case ol these additional e.vpenditures, distributions
beyond what I had given him previously, he indicated that the [)ro-
cedure had changed, that I was to clear each and every distribution
from that point on with Mr. Magruder. I called Mr. Alagruder with
regard to this $250,000 budget. He indicated to me that what Mr.
Liddy told me was correct, that I was to go ahead and pay the $8-3,000
on request, but that subsequent distributions were to be personally
cleared with him by telephone prior to their being made and he wanted
at that time to review both the timing and the amount.
Confronted wth this, I at that point in time took up with Secretary
Stans. I went to see him. I indicated to him that here was a situation
where we had a budget running into the post-April 7 period out of
pre-April 7 cash funds. I said in my judgment, because I had been
sitting on top of the total figures that it seemed to me that the cash
distributions were becoming massive and that this particular distribu-
tion of $83,000 was totally out of line with anything we had done
before.
At that point in time, I requested that he reconfirm to me Mr.
Magruder's authority to make these kinds of decisions and he indi-
cated to me that he would take the matter up with Mr. Mitchell.
He returned from that meeting with Mr. Mitchell and he confirmed
that Mr. Magruder continued to have this authority, that I should
pay these funds, and with regard to my ciuestion of concern about
purpose, he said, "I do not want to know and you don't want to know."
Mr. Dash. Now, you have referred in the testimony, Mr. Sloan, to
a pre-April 7 period and a post-April 7 period. So that we fully under-
stand what you mean by that, this did refer to a new law, election law?
Mr. Slo.\n. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. That was passed that took effect as of April 7?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you very briefly indicate that was the significance
of pre-April 7 funding and post-April funding?
^Ir. Sloan. Well, the pre-April 7 period, as I understand it, from
certainly the 1968 election and precedent, the interpretation had been
put on the Corrupt Practices Act, that prenomination fundraising
activities of Presidential candidates were not required to be reported.
This made a tremendous difference in terms of the administrative
overhead, how many people j'ou had to keep track of, no requirement
to have receipts. From an internal standpoint it is obviously a much
easier thing; to deal with. There was no disclosure.
(173)
r
10.2 JEB MAGRUDEE TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 795-96
795
Mr. Dash. All right. ^.ru. -u ^^
Now, this quiirter-million-dollar project you say Mr. Mitchell
approved in Key Biscayne, what was that project specifically as you
rpciill^
Mr Magruder. It was specifically approved for initial entry into
the Democi-atic National Committee headquartere in Washington,
and that at a further date if the funds were available we would con-
sider entry into the Presidential contenders' headquarters and also
potential at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami.
Mr Dash. Wien vou returned to Washington, Mr. Magi-uder did
you communicate to anyone that the Liddy plan on the quarter million
dollar budget was approved?
Mr Magruder. Yes, I attempted to reach Mr. Liddy while I was
at Key Biscavne because he had indicated time problems. I was unable
to do so, so wiien I came back to Washington I indicated to Mr. Keisner
that Mr Liddy's project had been approved and would he notity
Mr Liddv ' I called ilr. Strachan and indicated to him that the project
had been approved, and I indicated to Mr. Sloan that Mr. Liddy would
be authorized to draw $250,000 over the entire period of the campaign
but that he probably would need a sizable amount of that initially.
Mr D vsH. Now, when you say that project as approved included the
entry of the Democratic National Committee headquarters and per-
haps other entries, did that also include the use of electronic surveil-
lance or bugging ?
Mr. M.VGRTJDER. lamsorry? i • t-
Mr. Dash. When you said the project that was approved in Key
'm^ Tl^-der. With :\rr. Strachan I discussed it in detail
Mr DvsH. I am not referring to Mr. Strachan but the project xMr.
Mitchell approved in Key Biscayne. I think you said the project
included an approval of the entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters. Did it also include use of electronic surveillance
and bugging? . .,, lit x,„
:klr. Magruder. It included electronic surveillance and photography
of documents, photographing of documents.
~ Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan was told what? e-,-rvnnri
Mr M vGRUDER. That Sh: Liddv was allowed to draw $2o0,000.
Mr. Dash. But Mr. Strachan was given a fairly complete report on
what was approved.
Mr. Magruder. Yes. . . .-,•,, „
Mr D isH. Do vou recall Mr. Sloan questioning an initial large suni
of money, $83,000 which Mr. Liddy requested after the approval of
the plan?
Mr. :Magruder. Yes. , j i, ..i „«. „.,=
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what happened and how that v\as
"'Mr.''M'AGRUDEn. Well, he had called me and said that Mr. Liddy
wanted a substantial sum at that time, I did not recall the amount, but
Mr. Sloan indicates it is $8:5,000 and I would assume he is correct i
indicated that Mr. Liddy did have that approval Mr. ^loan evuUMith
then wrnt to Mr. Stans. Mr. Stans wont to :\Ir. Mitchell, Mr. :Mitchcll
came back to me and said whv did Cordon need this much money and
I explained to him this was in etl'ect front-end money that he needed
r
(174)
10.2 JEB MAGRUDEE TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 795-96
L
796
for the equipment, and the early costs of getting this kind of an opera-
tion together. Mr. Mitchell understood, evidently told Mr. .Stans it had
been approved and the approval was complete.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive, Mr. Magruder, any piogress reports
after the approval hy Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. Magruder. No, I did not.
Mr. D.vsH. Did you know that there was to be an entry in the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I assumed that it would be. I did not know
specifically when Mr. Liddy would do that, as I recall. I do not re-
member that he discussed the exact date with me, no.
^[r. Dash. "Well, do you recall a discussion that you had with
Mr. Liddy concerning an effort to enter the McGovern headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. I think after the, as I recall, it was after the
first entry of the DNC headquarters, Mr. Strachan and I were in my
office and Mr. Liddy came in, not in a formal meeting sense, just came
in and indicated that he had had trouble the night before, that they
tried to do a survey of the McGovern headquarters and Mr. Liddy
indicated that to assist this he had shot a light out. At that time both
Mr. Strachan and I both become very concerned because we under-
stood from Mr. Liddy that he would not participate himself nor
would anyone participate in his activities that could be in any way
connected with our committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, after this entrj' into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters, which you have testified to before this committ€e,
which occurred on May 27, or around Memorial Day weekend of 1972,
did Mr. Liddy report that to you?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
ilr. Dash. And -what did Mr. Liddy tell you when he reported that ?
Mr. ]\L\grlt)er. He simply indicated that he had made a success-
ful entry and had placed wiretapping equipment in the Democratic
National Committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he report to you at all that he had a monitoring
station at the Howard Johnson motel across the stieet?
Mr. Magruder. My underetanding, my recollection was that he had
it in the truck somewhere but I guess he did not. That is, my recollec-
tion was that it was in the truck but I gather it was in the Howard
Johnson.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at any time of Mr. Baldwin's participa-
tion in this?
^fr. Magruder. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. When did you get any of the fruits or the results of
this bugging and photography operation ?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately a week, a week and a half after
the initial entry we received, I received, the first reports: they were
in two forms, one was recapitulation of the telephone conversations.
They were done in a form in which you would know they were tele-
phone conversations but they were not direct references to the phone
conversations. And the second, photography, the pictures of docu-
ments that they had taken at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters.
Jlr. Dash. AVas there any special feature about these photographs?
(175)
11. On or about April 7, 1972 Sloan met with Maurice Stans,
Chairman of FCRP . Sloan told Stans that Magruder had approved a cash
disbursement of $83,000 to Liddy. Stans met with Mitchell to confirm
Magruder 's authority to authorize the requested disbursement. Mitchell
told Stans that Magruder had the authority to authorize expenditures to
Liddy. Stans then met with Sloan and confirmed Magruder 's authority to
approve the disbursement of funds to Liddy. Stans has testified that
when asked by Sloan the purpose for which the money was to be expended,
he replied, "I don't know what's going on in this campaign and I don't
think you ought to try to know."
Page
11.1 Hugh Sloan testimony, 2 SSC 538-39 178
11.2 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 795-96 180
11.3 Maurice Stans testimony, 2 SSC 697, 727 182
11.4 John Mitchell testimony, 4 SSC 1616-18 184
(177)
11.1 HUGH SLOAN TESTIMONY, JWE 6, 2973, 2 SSC 5S8-S9
638
side Durin- that period of time, he had established a procedure with
Mr MitcheU of sending down a monthly budget m \v-ntmg. I mhentec
that procedure from him and with regard to the operating expenses of
the committee, each month, I would send down to the Justice Depart-
ment a memorandum outUning the projected expenses of the campaign
at that point for the following month. General y his secretary would
call back and say fine. So that anythmg that fell ^vithm that budget
would be approved in that kind of way. Any extraordinary item, I
would have to call him and call his secretary and ask him
Mr. Dash. When you said call him, you meant Mr. Mitchell.^
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. ,, .- . u 9
Mr Dash. And his secretary, who would that be.'
Mr' Sloan. Miss Lee Jablonski. What was happemng was that
Mr. Magruder was meeting with Mr. Mitchell reguarly at the Justice
Department with regard to planning for the political side of the
campaSi During those meetings, he evidently was discussing financial
maTiTexpenditures, and so forth, and g^^^^g ^l«™^t bTtric't
Mitchel to go ahead and make those expenses. FoUowmg the ^tnct
toe ions I had from Mr. Kalmbach, when Mr ^^^g^'^der c^ame
back to me and said, this has been approved, I would turn around and
call back down to the Justice Department. I understand from Lee
JablonslS at that point in time that Mr. Mitchell was gettxog imtated
about being double-teamed on the same issue and issued iQ-tru<:tion.
for Mr. Magruder and I to work out the clearance authority for
'Thif was' resolved in terms of Mr. Magruder s^J'i'^g.to me, any
time I ask you for money, you can count on the fact tliat thi^ ha=
M? Mitchell's clearance, inversely, he indicated to me that anythmg
I said with regard to the finance committee, he vvould assume that
I had Mr. StaL' permission.. Although ^'^^ ^tans ^d not ^™Vth«
the campaign at that point, it was known, he would be assuming the
^Mr'DAsnXw'ltth regard to that $100,000, approximately, that
Porter received, do' you know of your own knowledge why he received
that money?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I do not . . , , ,
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to Mr. Liddy.' Pnrter's
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Liddy's situation is very simdar to Mr. i'orter s
"" Mr Dash Talking about Mr. Liddy, who is Mr. Liddy?
M 'Iloan ExSe me. Mr. Gordon Liddy was at that penod o
time, the time he began receiving ^^^ V'-Tr£' Elect'IhrPre "len
to the political committee, the Committee To I^^-^^^.^i^.f^f ^|,^ '^^^^^^
At a subsequent time, he became general counsel for the Fmance
Committee To Re-Elect the President. * ^r «iqq nno Is
Mr Dash. I think the chart shows a total amount of §199,000. 1^
that correct, to the best of your recollection?
Mr Slo\n To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.
^llr Dash.' Could you revie'w very briefly how that money was
paid to him and under what circumstances?
Mr Sloan It was a similar tyi)e of arrangement. Mi. Porter had
blanket authority from Mr. Magruder to come to me and give me a
(178)
n.l HUGH SLOAN TESTIMOflY, JUNE 6, 1973, 2 SSC 538-39
539
figure of how much cash he would need. He generally, uf) to that time,
received fimds in the same type of increments as Mr. Porter re-
ceived them — generally $10,000 or S15,000 at a time. There came
a time when, it came verj' close to the April 7 date and I am not
positive whether it was before or after and my best recollection would
be the chart. He came to me with a budget of .$250,000. He did not
release that from his hand; he merely showed me the figure. He said,
I will be coming to you for substantial cash payment, the first item
of which will be .$83 000 and I would like to pick that up in a day or
two.
He said, in the case ot these additional expenditures, distributions
beyond what I had given him previously, he indicated that the pro-
cedure had changed, that I was to clear each and every distribution
from that point on with Mr. Magruder. I called Mr. Magruder with
regard to this $250,000 budget. He indicated to me that what Mr.
Liddy told me was correct, that I was to go ahead and pay the $83,000
on request, but that subsequent distributions were to be personally
cleared with him by telephone prior to their being made and he wanted
at that time to review both the timing and the amount.
Confronted with this, I at that point in time took up with Secretary
Stans. I went to see him. I indicated to him that here was a situation
where we had a budget running into the post-April 7 period out of
pre-April 7 cash funds. I said in my judgment, because I had been
sitting on top of the total figures that it seemed to me that the cash
distributions were becoming massive and that this particular distribu-
tion of $83,000 was totally out of line with anything we had done
before.
At that point in time, I requested that he reconfirm to me Mr.
Magruder's authority to make these kinds of decisions and he indi-
cated to me that he would take the matter up with Mr. Mitchell.
He returned from that meeting with Mr. Mitchell and he confirmed
that Mr. Magruder continued to have this authority, that I should
pay these funds, and with regard to my question of concern about
, purpose, he said, "I do not want to know and you don't want to know."
Air. Dash. Now, you have referred in the testimony, Mr. Sloan, to
a pre-April 7 period and a post-April 7 period. So that we fully under-
stand what you mean by that, this did refer to a new law, election law?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. That was passed that took effect as of April 7?
Mr. Sloan'. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you verj' brief!}' indicate that was the significance
of pre-April 7 funding and post-April funding?
NIr. Sloa.n. Well, the pre-April 7 period, as I understand it, from
certainly the 1968 election and precedent, the interpretation had been
put on the Corrupt Practices Act, that prenomination fundraising
activities of Presidential candidates were not required to be reported.
This made a tremendous difference in terms of the administrative
overhead, how many people j'ou had to keep track of, no requirement
to have receipts. From an internal standpoint it is obviously a much
easier thing to deal with. There was no disclosure.
(179)
r
L
of
r
11.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 795-96
795
Mr. Dash. All right.
Novs-, this qiKirtor-iiiillion-dollar pioject you say Mr. Mitchell
approved in Key Biscayne, what was that project specifically as you
recall ?
Mr. jM.xgruder. It was specifically approved for initial entry into
the Democratic National Committee lieadquarters in Washington,
and that at a further date if the funds were available we would con-
sider entry into the Presidential contenders' headquarters and also
potential at tlie Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami.
Mr. Dash. ^\lien you returned to Washington, Mr. Magruder, did
you communicate to anyone that the Liddy plan on the quarter million
dollar budget was approved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I attempted to reach Mr. Liddy while I was
at Key Biscayne because he had indicated time problems. I was unable
to do so, so when I came back to Washington I indicated to Mr. Reisner
that Mr. Liddy's project had been approved and would he notify
Mr. Liddy ? I called Mr. Strachan and indicated to him that the project
had been approved, and I indicated to Mr. Sloan that Mr. Liddy would
be authorized to draw $250,000 over the entire period of the campaign
but that he probably would need a sizable amount of that initially.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you say that project as approved included the
entrj' of the Democratic National Committee lieadquarters and per-
haps other entries, did that also include the use of electronic surveil-
lance or bugging ?
Mr. >LvGRUDER. I am sorry ?
Mr. Dash. When you said the project that was approved in Key
Biscayne
Mr. Magruder. With Mr. Strachan I discussed it in detail.
Mr. Dash. I am not referring to Mr. Strachan but the project Mr.
Mitchell approved in Key Biscayne. I think you said the project
included an approval of the entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters. Did it also include use of electronic surveillance
and bugging?
, Mr. ilAGRUDER. It included electronic surveillance and photography
o^f documents, pliotographing of documents.
Mr. Dash. ilr. Sloan was told what?
Mr. Magruder. That Mr. Liddy was allowed to diaw $2.50,000.
Mr. Dash. But Mr. Strachan was given a fairly complete report on
what was approved.
ilr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Sloan questioning an initial large sum
of money, $8;5,OOb which Mr. Liddy requested after the approval of
the plan?
ilr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Da.sh. Could you tell us wliat happened and how that was
resohed?
Mr. Magruder. Well, he had called me and said that IMr. Liddy
wanted a substantial sum at that time, I did not recall the amount, but
Mr. Sloan indicates it is $.S;?,000 and I would assume he is correct. I
indicated tliat ^Iv. Liddy did have tliat api)roval. Mr. Sloan evidently
then wont to Mr. Stans."Mr. Stans went to Mr. Mitcliell, Mr. Mitchell
came back to lue and said why did (iortloii need this niuoli money and
I explained to him this was in effect fiont-end money that lie needed
(180)
11.2 JEB MAGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 14, 1973, 2 SSC 795-96
796
L
for the equipment, and the early costs of petting this kind of an opera-
tion together. Mr. Mitthcll understood, evidently told Mr. Stans it liad
been approved and the approval was complete.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive, Mr. Magruder, any progress reports
after the approval by Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. ftLvGRiTDER. No, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Did you know that there was to be an entry in the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters?
Mr. Magrctdek. AVell, I assumed that it would be. I did not know
specifically when Mr. Liddy would do that, as I recall. I do not re-
member that he discussed the exact date -with, me, no.
Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall a discussion that you had with
Mr. Liddy concerning an effort to enter the McGovern headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. I think after the, as I recall, it was after the
first entry of the DNC headquarters, Mr. Strachan and I were in my
office and Mr. Liddy came in, not in a formal meeting sense, just came
in and indicated that he had had trouble the night before, that they
tried to do a survey of the McGovern headquarters and Mr. Liddy
indicated that to assist this he had shot a light out. At that time both
jNIr. Strachan and I both become very concerned because we under-
stood from Mr. Liddy that he would not participate himself nor
would anyone participate in his activities that could be in any way
connected with our committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, after this entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters, which you have testified to before this committee,
which occurred on May 27, or around Memorial Day weekend of 1972,
did Mr. Liddy report that to you ?
Mr. Magrtjder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And -what did Mr. Liddy tell you when he reported that?
Mr. Magruder. He simply indicated that he had made a success-
ful entry and had placed wiretapping equipment in the Democratic
National Committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he report to you at all that he had a monitoring
station at the Howard Johnson motel across the street?
Mr. iL\GRUDER. My understanding, my recollection was that he had
it in the truck somewhere but I guess he did not. That is, my recollec-
tion was that it was in the truck but I gather it was in the Howard
Johnson.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at any time of Mr. Baldwin's participa-
tion in this?
Mr. Magruder. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. When did you get any of the fruits or the results of
this bugging and photography operation ?
jNIr. Magrxtder. Approximately a week, a week and a half after
the initial entry we received, I received, the first reports; they were
in two forms, one was recapitulation of the telephone conversations.
They were done in a form in which you would know they were tele-
phone con vei-sat ions but they were not direct references to the phone
conversations. And the second, photography, the pictures of docu-
ments that they liad taken at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters.
Mr. Dash. Was there any special feature about these photographs?
(181)
r
11.3 MAURICE STANS TESTIMONY, JUNE 12, 13, 1973, 2 SSC 697, 727
697
Mr. Edmisten. And then during his tenure in the finance committee
you rehed upon his advice a great deal.
Mr. Stans. I rehed upon his legal advice a great deal.
Mr. Edmisten. Right.
Did he give you the advice regarding the pre-April 7 contributions
and those after? Did you rely u])on his legal achnce?
Mr. Stans. Yes, as one of the sources of legal advice I did rely on
his.
Mr. Edmisten. Were you aware that he was receiving cash from
Mr. Bart Porter and Mr. Hugh Sloan?
Mr. Stans. Prior to April 7 I was aware that he had received cash
on some occasions. I was not aware of the amounts in total or on any
one occasion, and I was not aware that the total was anywhere as
large as it was. I thought it consisted of relatively small amounts of
money. I had heard at one point or another that Mr. Liddy was re-
ceiving money for use in the primaries.
Mr. Edmisten. That is the only reason that you had knowledge of
what was brought to your attention?
Mr. Stans. It was one of the things that was mentioned at one time
or another.
Mr. Edmisten. I am sure, Mr. Stans, that you are famUiar with Mr.
Sloan's testimony before this committee that he discussed with you a
payment of $83,000 to Mr. Liddy. Now, what is your testimony on
that transaction?
Mr. Stans. Somewhere around the 6th of April Mr. Sloan came to
me and said that Gordon Liddy wanted a very substantial amount of
money. I don't recall the amount he named and last August, which
was much closer to the time, I recalled in testifying in a deposition
to the Federal district attorney's office that I thought the amount was
$30,000 but I recalled that only vaguely. In any event I don't think
the amount is very important. Mr. Sloan said, "Liddy wants a sub-
stantial amount of money. Should I give it to him?"
And I said, "I don't know. I will find out from John Mitchell."
I will quote my conversation with John Mitchell as best I can para-
phrase it. It is not precise. But I saw John Mitchell a relatively short
time after and said, "Sloan tells me that Gordon Liddy wants a sub-
stantial amount of money. What is it all about?"
And John Mitchell's reply was, "I don't know. He \vill have to ask
Magruder because Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he
directs the spending."
I said, "Do you mean, John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay
these amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy that he should do
?" and he said, "That is right."
Now, that is my recollection in a paraphrase of the discussion that
took place. I went back to Sloan and reported it to him and found out
.that he had already talked to Magruder and had the same information.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, let's go through the transaction that Mr.
Sloan testified to here with reference to payment of cash to Mr.
Herbert Porter after April 7. Did he have a conversation with you?
Mr. Stans. I would like to go back to the previous answer and add
one more point.
Apparently, from the testimony, Mr. Liddy showed Mr. Sloan a
budget of $250,000 against which he intended to draw. To the best of
(182)
M
11. Z MAURICE STANS TESTIMONY, J ME 12, 13, 1973, 2 SSC 697, 727
727
Mr. Stans. Before I ansu er that, may I say that with respect to
the meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 24th, I have checked my records
last night and I do not have any record of a meeting with Mr. ^^itchell
on the 24th of June. Now, that does not mean that I may have met
him in the hall, the building, on the street, or even dropped in his
office, but I have no record of this meeting having taken place.
I did have lunch with Mr. Mitchell in his office on the 23d.
Now, with respect to the remark that was made after I checked
with Mitchell about the authority of Magruder to ask Sloan to make
payments to Liddy, I recall the occasion but that was not the whole
conversation, and I am not quite sure that it is entirely accurate but
it is the substance of what was said. But last week when Mr. Sloan
testified he also put that remark in a much larger context and that
context was much broader than the matter of payments to Liddy and
it was quite accurate. As I recall, he said the context was one of total
frustration that I had and he had with the spending program of the
campaign committee.
At that point we had received a budget of S34 million and it was
incomplete on its face because some items were not priced out. It
meant they were going to spend $40 million. I had argued when I
came on the committee and even before, that the campaign ought to
run, with the President in office, for $25 or $30 million. It was evident
we were in a situation in which the campaign committee was calfing all
the signals, was m.aking all the commitments. We really had nothing to
say about it, and it was one, as I said, of total frustration with the whole
situation. I threw up my hands, and I say that literally and I think
Mr. Sloan quoted that specifically, that we were just not going to have
any influence in this situation.
" The remark I made, and I cannot quote it precisely, was something
to the effect that "I don't know what's going on in this campaign and
I don't think you ought to try to know." We were the cashiers, we
received the money, and we paid the bills. They had the responsibility
for everj'thing they did. If they did it right they got the credit. If
they did it wrong they got the blame and it did not seem that it was
incumbent upon us to question the propriety of any payment, whether
^ was to Mr. Liddy or anybody else, and we did not.
Senator Inouye. Wasn't this rather uncharacteristic of j'our back-
ground, sir, as one who had received all of the honors that a certified
public accountant can ever hope to get, one who has been described
as having an accountant's mentality, one who is a stickler for details,
one who insists upon putting the right notes on the debit side and the
right notes on the asset side, that you would put up your hand and say
"Ido not want to know?"
Mr. Stans. It was uncharacteristic of my background as an ac-
countant but it was not uncharacteristic of the responsibilities I had
in this campaign which had absolutely nothing to do with accounting.
My job was to raise an unbelievable amount of money, S40 million or
more.
Senator Inouye. And j'ou were not curious about how these funds
were being spent especiall_v since you read in the paper about the break-
in on the ISth, you heard about the accounts of the Dahlberg money
on the 23d, you read about it in the paper, and then you heard about
Mr. McCord being one of those arrested, weren't you a bit suspicious?
(183)
m
11.4 JOHN MITCHELL TESTimM, JULY 10, 1973, 4 SSC 1616-18
1616
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I don't think Mr. LaRue was very enthusiastic
about this project and I think he concurred in the fact that it should
not be approved.
Mr. Dash. Now, if Mr. Magruder didn't come away with the idea
that you had approved it and nevertiieless, very shortly after he rei-
turned, set it in motion by approving the payment to Mr. Liddy of
funds to carry out this plan, do you have any idea who above you could
have given him authority to do this?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, Mr. Dash, I don't know whether it would be
above me, but there could very well have been pressures that came from
collateral areas in which they decided that this was the thing to do. I
can't speculate on who they might be. I am sure that there could be
such pressures.
Mr. Dash. Generally, though, from your knowledge of Mr.
Magruder and the working of Mr. Magruder, would Mr. Magruder
on his own undertake to carry out this plan ?
Mr. Mitchell. You are asking for an opinion again.
Mr. Dash. An opinion, yes.
Mr. Mitchell. I think it is a matter of degree, Mr. Dash. I think
you will find when you get into your additional investigations that
there were a lot of activities in the so-called dirty tricks department
and so forth that were earned on without my knowledge by the gentle-
men who were at the committee. So, it is a matter of degree.
~ Mr. Dash. Well, a matter of degree. But here, although Mr. ilagru-
der had a continuing authority to approve expenditures, if Mr. Magru-
der actually knew that you had barred or rejected a particular pro-
gram, would you expect Mr. Magruder to approve the payment of a
quarter of a million dollars to Mr. Liddy for that program I
Mr. Mitchell. I don't believe that Mr. Magruder paid a quarter of a
million dollars to Liddy.
Mr. Dash. Well, approved
Mr. Mitchell. What he had done was continue what he had been
doing before, made payments along the way to Liddy for Liddy's in-
telligence-gathering activities.
Mr. Dash. Well, that is not according to ilr. Magruder's testimony.
According to ^Ir. ^lagruder's testimony, he had given this money not
for general intelligence activity, but the so-called Liddy plan.
Mr. Mitchell. Oh, you are talking about the later date?
Mr. Dash. Yes. Would you expect, taking as a matter of degree, that
Mr. Magruder may have acted on his own ? Having your rejection to a
particular program, woidd you have expected Mr. ^lagruder to have
approved the expenditures of large sums of money ?
ilr. Mitchell. I certainly would not have expected it, Mr. Dash, no.
Mr. Dash. Now, shortly, and I think again this is a restatement of
what occurred, shortly after the March ,"0 meeting in Key Biscayne,
Liddy in April did ask for an initial payment from Mr. Sloan on a
quarter million dollar budget. Mr. Sloan has so testilied tl'.at Liddy
asked that the initial payment be $83,000. Were you aware of that re-
quest of Mr. Liddy's?
Mr. Mitchell. I am not aware of the request, Mr. Dash, with respect
to the dollar amount, and I am sure that the committee iccalls the
dialogue from Sloan to Stans to Mitchell to Stans to Sloan with respect
(184)
11.4 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIWNY, JULY 10, 1973, 4 SSC 1616-11
1617
to it in which amounts were not discussed. It was a question of did
, Magruder have continuing authorization to authorize expenditures,
and of course, the answer was yes.
Mr. Dash. Well, it is more in direct disagreement with Mr. Sloan's
testimony or Mr. Stans' testimony, but according to Mr. Sloan's testi-
mony, he was quite concerned about the sizable amount, $8.3,000, and
went to Mr. Stans to see if Mr. Magruder had such authority and then
Mr. Stans went to you. According to the testimony of Mr. Stans, on
May If), for the record — just paraphrasing it — -Mr. Stans, althougli not
meaning a particular amount, asked whether, if any amount that Mr.
Magruder wanted to give Mr. Liddy would be all right, and that you
had said yes.
Mr. Mitchell. I said that Magruder had continuing authority to
authorize expenditures of money. Up until that time, I guess he had
expended $3 or $31/9 million.
Mr. Dash. But did you recall that in this particular case, Mr. Stans
was asking you about Liddy ?
Mr. Mitchell. I don't have that recollection on the issue of Ma-
gruder's continuing authority, but I would not challenge or dispute
Mr. Stans' statement on the subject.
Mr. Dash. Well, that was his testimony. Now, you had just had a
meeting with Mr. Magruder on March 30, in which INIr. Magruder was
asking you to approve a quarter million dollar plan that would au-
thorize giving Liddy this kind of money. Your statement now, then,
is that you did tell Mr. Stans that Mr. Magruder could pay Mr. Liddy
any sum of money that Mr. Magruder wanted to pay him.
Mr. Mitchell. Don't put it in the context of any sum of money.
It was a fact that existed, Mr. Dash, in connection' nith Liddy had
been in the intelligence and information gathering field. I think Mr.
Stans has testified up here that to that time, he had been authorized
$125,000 and it is again in the context of the fact tliat Magruder had
continuing authority to authorize moneys and Mr. Stans said, with
respect to Liddy, I can take it on the same basis to authorize money
in connection with the ongoing programs that Liddy had been carrying
out.
Mr. Dash. That would be true, Mr. Mitchell, in the abstract.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, this is the abstract, Mr. Dash, because there
were no sums involved and none discussed, and this has been the
testimony.
Mr. Dash. Well, Mr. Stans felt it necessary to come back to you
and this was shortly after you were aware thatMr. Liddy was seeking
to get approval of a plan for a quarter of a million dollars.
Mr. Mitchell. Xo, we had had no discussion whatsoever with respect
to approval of a Liddy plan of a quarter of a million dollars, and
Mr. Stans has testified that he never heard about it. .\nd I am so
testifying that I never heard about it in connection with the discussion
of whether or not the authorization from Magruder to Liddy had
anything to do with a quarter of a million dollar plan.
Mr. Dash. But shortly after the March 30 meeting, you were being
a.sked by Mr. Stans if Mr. Magruder could pay sizable amounts to M°
Liddy?
(185)
11.4 JOHN MITCHELL TESTIWNY, JULY 10, 2973, 4 SSC 1616-18
1618
Mr. Mitchell. No, there weren't any sizable amounts. "VVe didn't
talk about numbers, we didn't talk about sizable amounts at all. What
we talked about was did Magnider have continuing authorization,
Stans said, to provide money to Liddy. I say continuing authorization
and it is still the fact that it is continuing authorization to Liddy. We
are not talking about a quarter of a million dollars, we are not talking
about sizable amounts, we are talking about what was conceived to
be an ongoing program that had already expended $125,000.
Mr. Dash. Just one last question on this, Mr. Mitchell. Then why
was it necessary for Mr. Stans to come to you if it was not a sizable
amount involved?
Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Stans has already testified that he didn't know
the amount involved and didn't discuss it with me.
Mr. Dash. I think Mr. Stans' testimony is that he asked you if any
amounts were to be paid by Mr. Liddy, would that be all right?
Mr. Mitchell. I do not recall on that basis, Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Let me just read to you, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Stans' testi-
mony on page 1644.
"I said" — meaning Mr. Stans — "you mean, John, that if ^Vlagruder
tells Sloan to pay these amounts to Gordon Liddy that he should do
so ? And he said, that is right."
Mr. Mitchell. Would you go back and pick it up so I can hear the
prior testimony ?
Mr. Dash. Let me just go back.
"I will quote the conversation with John Mitchell as best as I can
paraphrase it. It is not precise. But I saw John Mitchell a relatively
short time after and said, Sloan tells me that Gordon Liddy wants
a substantial amount of money. What is it all about?
"And John Mitchell's reply was, I do not know. We will have to ask
Magruder, because Magnider is in charge of the campaign and he
directs the spending."
Mr. Stans said, "I said, do you mean, John, that if Magruder tells
Sloan to pay these amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy, that he
should do so? And he said, that is right."
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I would respectfully disagree with ilr. Stans
on the fact of substantial amounts or that the discussions had to do
with respect to the authorization by Magruder in the continuity of
the way he had been acting. This was as I was coming aboard in
connection with the campaign.
Mr. Dash. Xow, Mr. Mitchell, were you aware that on or about
May 27, 1972, there was in fact a break-in of the Democratic National
Committee headquarters at the Watergate ?
Mr. Mitchell. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. And did you know of the code name, "Gemstone" or any
of the wiretap proofs that came from the break-in?
Mr. Mitchell. Not until a great deal later down the road, Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. When you say that, how far down the road ?
Mr. Mitchell. I am not quite certain. I believe it would be sub-
stantially down the road.
Mr. Dash. Before June 17 or after June 17 ?
Mr. Mitchell. Oh, much after June 17.
(186)
12. On or about April 12, 1972 Gordon Liddy gave James McCord,
security consultant for CRP, $65,000 for purchasing electronic
equipment and for related purposes.
Page
12.1 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 169-70. 188
12.2 Accounting of expenditure of $76,000, submitted
for the record by James McCord, 1 SSC 448 190
(187)
n
22.1 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY. MAY 18. 197 Z. 1 SSC 169-70
169
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, approximately S2,000 a month during the period
of time that the operatiou was undenvay.
Senator Gurney. And that began when?
Mr. McCoRD. April 1972.
Senator Gurney. And how was that paid?
Mr. McCoRD. In cash by Mr. Liddy.
Senator Gurxey. How many of those payments did you receive?
Mr. McCord. There were payments through June. I think they
totaled appro.ximately 816,000. I do not recall specifically, but I
have the notes here if I may refer to them.
Senator Gurxey. Now, then, would you describe to the committee
the other pay arrangements after the break-in and after you were
apprehended?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, sir. The payments were made by Mrs. Hunt.
Senator Gurney. In what amounts and at what time?
Mr. McCord. Calls came to me by Mr. and Mi-s. Hunt in July.
Senator Gurney. How much?
Mr. McCord. We were paid in cash. There was a lump-sum pay-
ment in August — in July of 1972 — for 5 months "salary," in quotes,
at S3, 000 a month, total of 815,000, and subsequently legal fees.
Senator Gurney. And when was that?
Mr. McCord. In November, as I recall it, of 1972, and subse-
quently
Senator Gurney. And how much was that?
Mr. McCoRD. Total of 825,000 for legal fees.
Senator Gurney. That was November, then?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes.
Senator Gurney. Go on.
Mr. IvIcCoRD. And then again in November, 2 months payment of
83,000 each, a total of 86,000.
Senator Gurney. So it was 815,000, 825,000, and 86,000; is that
correct?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. And those all came from Mrs. Hunt?
Mr. McCord. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. Did anybody else pay j'ou an\- cash?
Mr. McCord. No.
Senator Gurney. How much did you pay your lawj-er?
Mr. McCord. Appro>dmately 830,000.
Senator Gurney. Thirty?
Mr. McCord. Thii-ty, yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Were there any other payments?
Mr. McCord. There were other pa>-ments \o another lawj^er which
I had and Mr. Rothblatt, which I made some pajTiients to.
Senator Gurney. I don't particularly want to pry into that urdess
you waut to give the information?
Mr. McCord. Wliichever you prefer.
Senator Gurney. I am interested in some other pa^Tuents, though.
Weren't there pajTnents made as far as either purchase of equipment
or expenses in connection with the electronic business?
Mr. McCord. Oh, yes. I testified to that in executive session, sir,
in whirh there was a total received of approximately 86,000, 1 believe,
a total of .S76,000 in all for eciuipment and other related costs, 861,000
(188)
22.1 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY, MAY 18, 297Z, 1 SSC 169-70
170
as an initial payment and about S4,000 subsequent — -55,000 subse-
quently for additional equipment piu-chases.
Senator Gurney. Now, did you say 61 and 5?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurnet. I thought you said
Mr. McCoRD. There is a total of 576,000 in all, which covered all
payments for all purposes prior to June 17, 1972.
Senator Gurney. There was another 510,000 payment later?
Mr. McCoRD. No sir, there was an initial 561,000 plus 55,000 for
equipment, plus another 511,000 subsequently, but a total of 576,000
prior to June 17, 1972.
Senator Gurney. Now, I do not want to quibble, but I have 61, 5,
and 11.
Mr. McCoRD. That is a total of §76,000.
Senator Gurney. Seventy-seven that brings to me. A total of
577,000?
Mr. McCoRD. SLxty-one — I am sorry, sir; 61 and 4 are 65 and 11 —
the total amount was 576,000. I will get the figures.
Senator Gurnet. Sixty-one, 4, and 11, is that it?
Mr. McCoRD. I can recite them for you. April 12, 561,000 plus
54,000, a total of 565,000; May 8, 54,000; Memorial Day weekend,
two 51,000 amounts; in June, 55,000. A total after May 8th of $11,000.
The total of that is 576,000.
Senator Gurney. Now, then, how was this disbursed?
Mr. McCoRD. In cash by Mr. Liddy.
Senator Gurney. I mean how did you spend it?
Mr. McCoRD. Would you like the expenditures? They were ex-
pended in cash for the most part. There were some by check for some
walkie-talkie equipment.
Senator Gurnet. Do you have a detailed account of how you spent
it?
Mr. McCoRD. Oh, yes.
Senator Gurnet. Do you have it with you?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes sir.
Senator Gurney. Is it a long one? Will it take some time?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes sir, it is rather lengthy. I can read it if you want.
Senator Gurney. I wonder then, Mr. Chairman, if we could receive
that for the record. I do not really see any point in going all through
that.
Senator Ervin. If you will let the committee have the account,
we will make a copy and return your original to you.
Mr. McCoRD. All right, sir, we can do that.*
Senator Gurney. But ray understanding is that the accoimt which
you are going to present the committee shows the complete disburse-
ment and spending for 577,000, is that correct?
Mr. McCord. $76,000, sir, as I recall it.
Senator Gurney. 576,000?
Mr. McCord. That is correct. There were budget receipts and so on
that were prepared on this and were shown to Mr. Liddy, referring for
all the paj-ments.
•See p. 448.
(189)
12.2 MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY JAhfES MoCORD^ 1 SSC 448
By JAMES W. McCORD, Jr.
Accounting of How $76,000 was Spent
Reconstruction of Technical Equipment and Related Receipts and Expenditures,
Approximations
Receipts: Amount
April 12, 1972 $65,000
May 8, 1972 4,000
May 26, 27, 1972 2,000
June 1972 5,000
Total receipts 76,000
Expenditures:
Equipment:
BeUand Howell Co., Conn... 3,800
Watkins Johnson Co., Rockville 3, 500
Stevens Laboratory, Chicago 5,400
Miles Wireless Guitar Co., New York City. 3, 000
Unidentified company. New York City — purchase of 1
transmitter 1, 000
Unidentified company, Chicago — purchase of 1 brief-
case recorder 700
Olden Optical Co., New York City ($700 plus $400)... 1, 100
Business Equipment Center, Washington, D.C 2,000
Hechingers, Washington area stores 500
Lafayette Radio, Washington and Maryland area
stores 1, 000
Miscellaneous purchases, tools and equipment, Wash-
ington, D.C, Chicago, and New York City 12, 750
Unidentified store. New York City — recorders 700
Unidentified store, New York City — recorders and
accessories. 2, 600
Total... 38, 050
Truck 4, 500
Rentals:
Howard Johnson Motel 900
Gatti Mortgage Co 1, 750
Total.. - 2, 650
Overhead 12,000
Subtotal 57, 200
Balance remaining, used for legal fees 18, 800
Total expenditures 76, 000
(448)
(190)
13. In April 1972 Assistant to the President H. R. Haldeman met
with Gordon Strachan and instructed Strachan to contact Gordon Liddy
and advise him to transfer whatever "capability" he had from the
presidential campaign of Senator Edmund Muskie to the campaign of
Senator George McGovern. Strachan met with Liddy in Strachan' s
White House office and told Liddy of Haldeman 's desire to have Liddy 's
"capability" transferred from the Muskie campaign to the McGovern
campaign. Haldeman has testified that he does not recall giving
Strachan that instruction.
Page
13.1 Gordon Strachan testimony, 6 SSC 2454-56 192
13.2 H. R. Haldeman testimony, 8 SSC 3038 195
(191)
IZ.l GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 23, 1973, 6 SSC 2454-56
2454
Mr. StiwVCiiax. Well, there was a button on the call director phone
that I had which would buzz when I was to pick that line up, and I
pushed down the button and began listening to the conversation
usually at that time which was already in progress.
Mr. D.\SH. All right. In this particular case now with a call, I take
it, you are testifying to Mr. Mitchell, could you tell us, having picked
up the line, what you heard ?
Mr. Str.\ch.\x. Well, Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was either
going to return or had returned from Florida, and Mr. Haldeman
jokingly said, "Well, that is clearly a mistake. You ought to stay down
there and vacation some more," and Mr. ilitchell indicated that "Well,
we had better get together and talk about some matters." Haldeman
asked him if 3 o'clock that day would be convenient.
Mr. D.\SH. And that day was when ?
Mr. Strachax. April 4.
Mr. Dash. 1972?
Mr. Strachax. 1972.
Mr. Dash. And was there, in fact, a meeting on April 4, 1972, be-
tween ilr. Haldeman and 3klr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Strachax. Well, I did not attend the meeting so I could not
testify that there was in fact but I prepared a talking paper for the
meeting and we would prepare a folder which would include the talk-
ing paper, and the talking paper went into his office and came back
out afterwards.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, in this talking paper, did you include the item of the sophisti-
cated intelligence plan with a budget of $300,000?
Mr. Strachax. Yes. In most talking papers I would frequently pose
the question is the intelligence system adequate? Is the proposal on
track, just to get the conversation going on the subject, and in this
particular one I did include that paragraph.
Mr. Dash. Now, prior to that meeting and when you were pre-
paring that talking paper, was there any other political intelligence
plan operative or being considered to your knowledge?
Mr. Strachax. No ; not to my knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive back that talking paper after you had
given it to Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Strachax. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And to your knowledge, was there any indication as to
whether all the items on the talking paper had been discussed?
Mr. Strachax. Well, usually if a matter had not been discussed he
would indicate that it should be raised again. In this case it was not
raised again, indicating that he would have covered the subject.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that talking paper then when you
received it back?
Mr. Strachax. I put it back in the file with the political matters
memo 18 files.
Mr. Dash. And there was no indication from Mr. Haldeman that he
had either not discussed it or it needed any further action on your
part?
Mr. Strachax. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time after that meeting between
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman, and also in the same month of April,
(192)
13.1 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 23, 19? S, 6-SSC 2454-56
2455
that Mr. Haldeman asked you to give some communication to Mr.
Gordon Liddy ?
Mr. Str^vchax. Yes. Mr. Haldeman called me up into his office. I
carried a clipboard and he told me to contact Mr. Liddy and tell him
to transfer whatever capability he had from Muskie to AIcGovern with
particular interest in discovering what the connection between Mc-
Govern and Senator Kennedy was.
Mr. Dash. Was that the limit of the instruction that you had?
Mr. StrcVCiiax. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that instruction? Did you make
a record of it ?
Mr. Stil\chax. Well, I had taken notes as he had dictated that to
me. I walked down to my office, called Gordon Liddy, had him cleared
into the White House, had him come over to my office, and literally
read the statement to him.
Mr. Dash. When he came into your office could you describe what
Mr. Liddy did, if anything?
Mr. Strachan. Yes. Mr. Liddy reached over and turned on the
radio. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dash. Do you know why he did that ?
Mr. Strachan. Well, I have heard descriptions later that is what
you do if you want to drown out and prevent a bug from picking up
the conversation.
Mr. Dash. Did you in fact have any bug in the room at that time ?
Mr. Strachan. I have no way of knowing. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dash. At least to your knowledge that you hadn't installed one
yourself?
Mr. Strachan. No ; not that I installed.
Mr. Dash. Now he turned on the radio and how did you communi-
cate the Haldeman message to Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. Strach^vn. I said that Mr. Haldeman had asked me to give him
this message, and read it to him.
Mr. Dash. In other words, you read it almost word for word as you
got it from Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Strachan. Yes, I opened my clipboard and just read it.
Mr. Dash. And you didn't give any further explanation as to what
you meant by transfer his capabilities from Mr. Muskie to Mr. Mc-
Govern. What capabilities?
Mr. Strachan. No.
Mr. Dash. Did you know what capabilities he was referring to?
Mr. Strachan. No, I didn't except I suspected that there were plants
in Muskie's campaign. It was fairly common knowledge that Muskie's
driver was either in the pay of the CRP or supplying information to
us. I presumed that these employees would be transferred over to Sen-
ator McGovem.
Mr. Dash. We know already from the testimony, even from Mr.
Mitchell, that the so-called March 30 Liddy plan included fairly sophis-
ticated electronic surveillance plans and, as you liave indicated, it
was that plan that Mr. Magruder said was approved by Mr. Mitchell
which you submitted to Mr. Haldeman. With that kind of knowledge,
would you also now assume that those capabilities could also have in-
cluded electronic surveillance?
(193)
23. 1 GORDON STRACHAN TESTIMONY, JULY 23, 1973, 6 SSC 2454-56
2456
Mr. Strachan. Well, it's quite an assumption, but I think you would
have to make it.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Liddy ask you any questions of what did you
mean or did he seem to understand what that message meant?
Mr. Strachan. Oh, he seemed to understand and didn't spend very
much time and left.
Mr. Dash. And left.
. Did you learn anything afterwards as to what he did or did not
do?
Mr. Strachax. No, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Was any further report made through you to Mr. Halde-
man concerning whether he carried out that mission ?
Mr. Strachan. No, not through me.
Mr. Dash. Now, if Mr. Haldeman actually wanted Mr. Liddy to have
that instruction and asked you to communicate that to Mr. Liddy, I
take it Mr. Haldeman would be interested in seeing that instructions
of his were carried out.
Mr. Strachan. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. I think you have indicated that Mr. Haldeman was very
well organized and wanted to have all the facts.
Would you be the only one, the only avenue or conduit through
which a communication back — as to whether Mr. Liddy had followed
that instruction would get back to Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Strachan. No. The information could have come back through
a variety of channels.
Mr. Dash. Would you assume that Mr. Haldeman would have pur-
sued that and that a communication would have gotten back to Mr.
Haldeman? I ask that with respect to your personal knowledge of
Mr. Haldeman's working habits and what Mr. Haldeman did when
he sent a communication and what he expected after he sent a communi-
cation for a particular action.
Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Haldeman would normally follow up on
particular matters. Whether he would get a report back on all messages
that he delivered, frequently he just assumed something was going to
be done, and that he would not have to follow up on it.
Mr. Dash. If he gave orders for something to be done and bhey
weren't done, what was Mr. Haldeman's usual reaction ?
Mr. Strachan. Well, to his personal aides he would explain his
dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms.
Mr. Dash. Now, when was the first time that you heard about or
learned of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee head-
quarters of the Watergate on June 17, 1972 ?
Mr. StR:\chan. I was sitting in my car outside Rodman's Drug Store,
my wife was out shopping and I heard it on the radio.
Mr. Dash. What passed through your mind when you beard that
news?
Mr. Strachan. Shock, disbelief, surprise.
Mr. Dash. What did you do ?
Mr. Str.\chan. Well, I drove to the White House to wet a telephone
number for Mr. Magruder in California, to call him and find out if he
knew anything about it.
Mr. Dash. Did you reach Mr. Magruder?
(194)
u
1Z.2 H.R. HALDEMAN TESTIMONY, JULY 31, 1973, 8 SSC Z0Z8
3038
he had indicated that this particular file might link you by some way
to tlie break-in or the activity of the break-in. Do you recall that con-
versation with Mr. Strachan?
>Mr. HALDE>rAN. I don't recall the conversation. I don't recall the
testimony as being quite as you have described it. And as I said in my
statement, I don't recall Mr. Strachan or my giving Mr. Strachan
such an instruction.
^f r. D.vsii. Such an instruction to see that the file would be clean ?
Mr. Haldeman. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. You didn't use that expression.
INIr. Haldemax. I don't remember using it, no, sir.
']\Ir. Dash. Do you have any explanation as to why, after that
meeting, Mr. Strachan would go out and shred that political matters
memorandum No. 18?
Mr. Hai^deman. Well, by Mr. Strachan's statement, which is the
only really source I can use for knowing why, he indicates that he
destroyed what he considered to be politically embarrassing material
and as I recall under direct questioning he quite specifically said that
he did not think he was destroying anything that contained any
evidence of illegal activities.
Air. Dash. But on the direct questioning he said that he did it not
on his own initiative but on your instructions.
Mr. Haldemax. He said that in his statement, I believe.
Mr. Dash. Yes.
Mr. Haldemax. No. I guess that is right. It was not in his state-
rnent. It was questioning.
Air. Dash. Yes. Now, do you recall after receiving the political
matters memorandum — you don't actually recall receiving that polit-
ical matters memorandum — do you recall telling ilr. Strachan in
April, sometime shortly after the meeting with Mr. IMitchell, that he
should contact Mr. Liddy and tell Mr. Liddy to transfer his capa-
bilities from Mr. Muskie to Mr. McGovern with special emphasis on
the relationship to Senator Kennedy?
Mr. Haldeman. No, I don't.
'Mr. Dasii. You don't recall giving him that instruction?
Mr. IIaldejeax. No, sir.
ifr. Dash. Do you have any idea why Jfr. Strachan would testify
imder oath here that he received that instruction from you?
Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Dash, I think that my attempt to determine why
somoone else does something is something that I should not get into.
Mr. Dash. All right.
Mr. Haldejiax. I sincerelj' feel that in this whole thir\g we have
bogged down so much into opinion of what one pei-son thinks some
other person might have done rather than what that person knows he
did oi- didn't do.
Mr. Dasit. "Well, you saj- that Mr. Strachan worked for you fi^om
1970 on.
Mr. HAi.nEMAX. That is correct.
^fr. Dash. Did you during that period of time develop an opinion
concerning his loyalty, concerning his chai-acter for veracity?
^\y. H Ai.nEjrAX. Yes. I had a very high opinion of both his loyalty
and liis thorou^rhness and his veracity.
(195)
14. In April 1972 Gordon Llddy told Howard Hunt that the DNC head-
quarters would be a target of electronic surveillance.
Page
14.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3708, 3764,
3792 198
(197)
14.1 E. HOWARD HUIJT TESTimNY, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1973
9 SSC Z708, 3764, 3792
3708
^^^. HuN'T. If was that foroion moiievs wei'e rennrted to \w — tolia\e
been sent or rereivod bv tlie Democratic Xational Committee.
Mr. Thompson. And wlien was tliat information related to you?
Mr. Hunt. In April of 1972.
Mr. Thompson. April of 1972?
Mr. HxTNT. Yes, sir.
Mr. TitOMPSOX. Had the Watercfate plans, to your satisfaction, been
approved prior or subsequent to that time ?
Mr. Hunt. The actual Watergate break-in was not approved. That
aspect of the Gemstone program vras not approved until the time co-
incident with my receipt of the information concerning the report
having to do with the receipt by the Democratic National Committee
or the probable receipt of foreign moneys.
Mr. Thompson. But the discussion about the Gemstone plan had been
taking place prior to that time, had it not, according to your informa-
tion?
jNIr. Hunt. Beginning in November of the prior year.
Mr. THOjrpsoN. In your mind, when did you agree to become part
of that plan?
Mr. Sachs. Could you specify what plan? Do you mean the Gem-
stone or "Watergate?
Mr. Tno^rpsoN. I am talking about the Gemstone plan.
Mr. Hunt. Almost as soon as Mr. Liddy made the proposal to me.
He having invoked the names of the Attorney General and Mr. Dean
at that iuncture.
Mr. THOjrpsoN. That would have been in December of 19
Mr. Hunt. Late November.
Mr. Thompson. 1971 ?
IMr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Late November?
Mr. Hunt. I had no hesitation in associating myself in the operation,
fr. Thompson. I see. When did it first come to your attention that
the Democratic National Committee headquarters was going to be
broken into?
Mr. Hunt. Not until April the following year.
Mr. TnoarpsoN. Was this before or after you were informed that
foreign money was coming into the DNC ?
Mr. Hunt. Not until — perhaps I misunderstood you, Senator, the
Watergate
IMr. Thompson. I am not a Senator. T appreciate it anyway.
^Ir. Hunt. I beg your pardon, Mr. Thompson, excuse me, sir.
We did not begin to formulate plans for the Watergate break-in
until after reception of the report to the effect that foreign moneys
were being received bv the Democratic National Committee.
]Mr. TnoiiPSON. But a plan was underway which included the pos-
sibilitv of surreptitious entry before that time.
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
itr. Thompson. And in your mind you associated with that plan the
authority of the Attorney General, although you did not know the
specifics at that particular time as to why he was authorized to set
such a plan in motion. Wliat I am getting at, ifr. Hunt, is, I wonder
what was in your mind at that time as to what the Attorney General
(198)
is
( ^
I the
r
L
1^.1 E, HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY:, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1973
9 SSC 3708, 2764, 2792
3764
. Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. It had been my understanding, my perception,
if yon will, from Novombor 1071 onward, when— and I go back to tlie
time, now, when I was approached by Mr. Liddy— that he, ha\nng
invoked first the name of the then Attorney General, John N.
Mitchell, and the higliest legal authority at the ^^^litc House, the
counsel to the President, John W. Dean, that these two men certainly
possessed a delegated authority from the President of the United
States to engage in the contemplated acts.
Senator Gxtknet. Well, but of course, the contemplated acts which
he told you about in November of 1971 was an intelligence-gathering
plan for the upcoming Presidential campaign. Is that not right?
]\Ir. HuxT. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurnet. That did not involve at that time any discussion
between you and Mr. Liddy about a burglary of the Democratic Na-
tional Committee headquarters, did it?
Mr. Hunt. Not at that time ; no, sir.
Senator Gurnet. And was not Mr. INIitchell, even though he was
Attorney General then; it was well known in Washington and all
around the countiy that he was going to be the campaign director of
the campaign to reelect Mr. Nixon. Is that not right?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurnet. And that whatever actions I suppose he was tak-
ing at that time or launching of intelligence gathering had to do with
a political campaign and nothing to do with the national security of
the United States, is that not a fact?
Mr. Hunt. Yes. sir; but I would go back to the initial requirements
given Mr. Liddy by the Attorney General which comprehended elec-
tronic surveillance and entry operations.
Senator Gurnet. Do you have any evidence that you can give the
committee that the President of the United States authorized this?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
Senator Gurnet. Let us go back to that first contact of November
1971 by Mr. Liddy. Tell us as briefly as you can, because our time is
limited here, wh.at did he tell vou ?
Mr. ITuNT. In aocoid with your iniunrtion to be brief. Senator
Gurney, T will simplv say that ^fr. Liddv told me that he had been
approached by ^fr. John Dean in behalf of the Attorney General,
that the .\ttorney General wanted 'Mv. Liddv to become the general
counsel for tlie Gommittee To Pe-Elect the President but that there
would he an ancillary and even more important job connected with
that : that the Attorney General had in mind that he was proposing the
establishment of a larire-scale intellijrcnce, counterintelligence collec-
tion program with half a million dollars as openers, and would my co-
operation be availalile along with that of n;v four Miami friends, and
Iierhaps others, whom Mr. Liddy had met previously in conjunction
witli the LUsberg afl'air.
Senatr)!- Gurnet. And your reply was?
■Mr. Ht NT. Yes.
Senator Gurxev. .Vnd wliat happened next?
Mr. TTiTXT. l\rr. Liddy told me that he r>lanned to check out his
proposed ]iarticipation with Tkfr. Egil Krogh, Jr.. and once having
cleared tliat hurdle, he and Afr. Dean — again, this is heai-say. Senator.
(199)
n
L
14.1 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1973
9 SSC 3708, 2764, 3792
3792
Senate was in executive session on a matter relating to the Trident
submarine. I have one or two other questions that I understand you
have indicated a willingness to discuss in executive session and I expect
we may call you for that purpose but not at this time and under those
circumstances and with that agreement, Mr. Chairman, I have no fur-
ther questions at this time.
Senator Ervix. Senator Gurney.
Senator Gueney. Just two quick questions, Mr. Ciiairman.
Is it true, my understanding, that the break-in of the Democratic
headquarters, Mr. Hunt, was not a part of the original Gemstone plan,
is that correct?
Mr. HuxT. Rather than give you a yes or no. Senator, and I again
beg your indulgence in this matter, the original Gemstone plan took
into consideration and budgeted for electronic surveillance and entry
operations.
Senator Gtjrney. But no specifics as to what place was to be entered
or broken into?
Mr. Hunt. Not at that time ; no, sir.
Senator Guenf.y. The first you heard about it was when Mr. Liddy
told you in April 1972, is that a fact?
Mr. Hunt. At about the time that he introduced me to Mr. McCord ;
yes, sir.
Sentor Gurney. Did he tell you at that time who authorized the
break-in ; who directed him to do this break-in ?
Mr. Hunt. I am trying to reconstruct his words, I have not ever
been asked this question before, to the best of my recollection. Senator.
It took place one afternoon, he came to my office, and said. "Guess
what we are going to hit," or words to that effect. I said, ""\Yliere?"
and he said "DNC headquarters." And I assumed that, again if as-
sumptions are permissible at this point, that his principals were and
continued to be the Attorney General, the former Attorney General,
and ilr. Jeb Stuart Magruder.
Senator Gurney. Did he mention to you that "Mr. Magruder has
ordered us to do this as our next job" ?
Mr. Hunt. Xo, sir, he did not.
Senator Gurney. Did he mention to you that "John Mitchell has
instructed us to do this as our next operation" ?
Mr. Hunt. No. sir; but on the occasion of the second entrv asainst
which I argued so vociferously over a period of 3 davs, he indicated
to me in the strongest terms that it was Mr. Mitchell who was insistent
upon the second entry.
Senator Gurney. Wliat about the ^VfcGovern attempted break-in?
I understand it really was not broken into, but there still was a plan
perhaps to go into that— that is correct, is it not ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes. sir.
Senator Gurney. Did he tell you who ordered that ?
AFr. Hunt. No, sir.
Senator Gi'rney. Now, you also mentioned in coinection with the
break-in at the Democratic national headouarters that this involved
national security, at least von thought it did becaise a reason given
(200)
15. Shortly before May 25, 1972 a group, including Bernard
Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez and Frank Sturgis, came
to Washington, D.C. from Miami, Florida in response to a request
from Howard Hunt to Barker for a team of men to conduct a mission.
On or about May 25 and May 26, 1972, two unsuccessful attempts were
made to enter surreptitiously the premises of the DNC , and one un-
successful attempt was made to enter surreptitiously Senator McGovern's
headquarters.
Page
15.1 Bernard Barker testimony, SSC Executive Session,
May 11, 1973, 196-97 202
15.2 Bernard Barker testimony, 1 SSC 371, 377 204
15.3 Virgilio Gonzalez testimony, SSC Executive Session,
December 10, 1973, 9-11 206
15.4 E. Howard Hunt testimony, SSC Executive Session,
December 17, 1973, 13-15 209
15.5 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 399-400 212
(201)
15.1 BERNAPD BARKER TESTIMONY, mY 11, 1973, 196-97, SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
r
Mr. Hamilton. Okay. I have just a couple of questions.
Do you remeiiber the date of Mr. Hoover's death?
Mr. Barker. No, I do not, sir.
Mr. Hamilton. But approximately when was it?
Mr. Barker. May.
Mr. Dash. We can get that. That is something that we
can confirm all right.
Mr. Barker. Yes. Yes. I hate to -- I want to apologize
because I am not very good on dates.
Mr. Hamilton. IVhat was the date of your second trip
to Washington?
Mr. Barker. That was--
Mr. Hamilton. Do you know when you came up?
Mr. Barker. Over a vacation, that is right.
Mr. Dash. Is that Memorial Day?
Mr. Barker. Memorial Day.
Mr. Hamilton. Do you know exactly what day you came
up here?
Mr. Barker. Well, we came up, we stayed up here almost
about, I would say, a week or more, because there were two
operations. We came up for two operations, entry into
McGovem's, and an entry into the Watergate. We stayed
around at the Hamilton Hotel, and 1 have to -- I took -- the
thing was not set up, and eventually we were told we were
not going to do it, and in the meantime I had the men visit
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
196
(202)
IS.l BERNARD BARKER TESTIMONY, MAY 11, 1973, 196-97, SSC EXFCUTIVE SFSSIOIJ
Indistinct doctment retyped by
House Judiciary Conmlttee staff
the historical places here, and I took them to Annapolis, and
showed them the Naval Academy in Annapolis, and the Lincoln
Memorial, and other historical places, and the Capitol.
Mr. Hamilton. How did you get this assignment? Were
you called by Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Barker. I was given this directly by Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hamilton. Directly over the telephone or face-to-
face?
Mr. Barker. Face-to-face.
Mr. Hamilton. When was that? Did he come to Miami, or
was it when you were up here before?
Mr. Barker. IVhich operation are you talking about?
Mr. Hamilton. I am talking about the second trip up
here when you were going to McGovem headquarters and went in
the Democratic headquarters for the first time.
Mr. Barker. Usually I would be called and he would say
bring so many men, I need so many men, and come up with them,
and then I would get here and I would either meet him at the
Mullins [sic] headquarters or at his home. I am a friend of
his family. And then we would talk about it, and then he
would tell me what the operation was.
Mr. Hamilton. How did it happen this time, do you
remenfcer?
Mr. Barker. I think it was at the Mullin [sic] Company, to
the best of my recollection.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
197
(203)
n
15.2 BERNARD BARKER TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 371, 377
371
Senator Talmadge. How did you get involved in the Bay of Pigs
operation?
Mr. Barker. The same way I got involved in the Ellsberg one. I
considered it my duty to help my country.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Hunt recruited you?
Mr. Barker. That is in Cuba. No. In Cuba.
Senator Talmadge. Who?
Mr. Barker. At the Ameiican Embassy.
Senator Talmadge. Now, did you ever work for the CIA at any
other time except when you were ^vith Mr. Hunt in the Bay of Pig3
operation?
Mr. Barker. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Talmadge. Not to your loiowledge.
Now, I believe you made — j'ou were in volved in the Elisberg break-in
in Cahfornia.
Air. Barker. That is correct, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Have you pled guilty to that and have you
been sentenced?
Mr. B.\RKER. No, that trial is in the future. That trial
Senator Talmadge, The trial has not been held?
Mr. Barker. That I know, no sir, no.
Senator Talmadge. How many times did you attempt to break into
the Democratic National Committee before you succeeded?
Mr. Barker. To the best of my recollection, there were four tries,
two of which were successful.
Senator Talmadge. Two were successful — the last one when you
were arrested. The first one, I believe, was over the Menioriiil Day
weekend last year. Two previous attempts were unsuccessful?
Mr. Barker. That is correct.
Senator Talmadge. How did they happen to prove imsuccessful?
Mr. Barker. One was — we had a banquet and to the best of my
knowledge, someone was staying late in the Democratic headquarters
and the mission was aborted.
Senator Talmadge. In other words, it was occupied and aborted the
first time. What about the second time?
Mr. Barker. The second time, an entry was tried on just walking
into the building on the excuse we were going to another floor. It did
not work. We left.
Senator Talmadge. Were there any other instances except the
four times you attempted to break into the Democratic National
Committee headquarters, two of which v.cre successful, and the Ells-
berg psychiatrist's, that you were involved in the break-in?
Air. Barker. We had plans to enter McGovem's headquarters,
but they were never actually attempted.
Senator Talmadge. That was aborted also?
Mr. Barker. Yes.
Senator Talmadge. Now, isn't it true that some lawyers showed up
immediately after you went to jail following the break-in at Demo-
cratic national headquarters?
Mr. B.\rker. That is correct.
Senator Talmadge. And j'ou did not send for them?
Mr. Barker. No.
Senator Tal^l^dge. Or any other membei-s of j'ouv break-in group?
(204)
15.2 BERNARD BARKER TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 271, 377
P
Senator Gurney. That is what I want to know. T mean he went to
Miami, as I understand it, and he got in touch ^\'ith you and ho must
have said ''Bernard, I have another mission for you."
]\[r. Barker. That is correct.
Senator Gurxey. What did he sa\-, what was the mission?
Mr. B.\RKER. All he said was a double mission and he would explain
to me when we got there, he gave me the general information, as sa\-ing,
"Get your men in training going up and down staii-s. Thej' must be
in good physical condition."
This I passed on to my men. I think he mentioned it involved
surreptitious entry similar to the one we had done in California, but
he did not say anything else specifically to me at that time nor did
he have to give me any further explanation.
Senator Gurnby. Did he say to j-ou it was going to be the
Democratic national headquarters?
Mr. B.\RKER. No, he did not, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did he say to you it was going to be in Senator
McGovem's campaign headquarters?
Mr. Barker. No, he did not.
Senator Gurney. Now then at some point in time you went to
Washington?
Mr. Barker. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. Will you tell us about that?
Mr. Barker. I anived with my team in Washington, they went to
the Hamilton Hotel. I met with Mr. Hunt and there is where Mr.
Hunt gave me the general description of our double mission and I
asked then, had the mission then— this I did not communicate with
the men until just about entry time.
Senator Gurney'. Did he tell you at that time it was the Democratic
national headquarters and Senator McGovern's headquarters?
Mr. Barker. To the best of my recollection this was the time when
he said this to me. Previous to this, the only information I had is tliat
were going to have some kind of a banquet at the Watergate,
enator Gurney. A banquet?
Mr. Barker. Yes.
And we did have that banquet at the Watergate. Then at that time
is was explained to me that the bancjuet in itself was a cover for the
entry.
Senator Gurney. Well, did he tell you at that time what documents
you were going to look for?
Mr. Barker. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. And what did he say?
Mr. Barker. He said to look for any documents involving con-
tributors, both foreign and national. If 1 had any doubts as to the
documents I could contact him over our communications.
Senator Gurney. Now the first and second entries, of course, were
unsuccessful, the third entry was, and what documents did you photo-
graph there?
Mr. Barker. It was quite evident when I searched the documents
that this was not the right place to look for the type of documents
that we were searching for.
Senator Gurney'. Where did you think was the right place?
(205)
15.3 VIRGILIO GOnZALEZ TESTIMONY, DECEMBER 10 1973 9-11
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION '
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
I hapi
Mr. Liebengood. IVhat took place at the banquet? IVhat
happened at the banquet?
Mr. Gonzalez. Nothing happened. We watched some movies
over there. We had a big dinner, and after that is finished,
we finished with the dinner, and Mr. Hunt and myself hided
in the closet in the dining hall.
Mr. Liebengood. When did -- when was the decision made
for you and Mr. Hunt to hide in the closet?
Mr. Gonzalez. After we finished the dinner. Hunt told me
we had better stay tonight over here because we are trying to
get inside the building. And I said you and I will stay together
over here.
Mr. Liebengood. I see.
Did you discuss an entry operation in the building prior
to the dinner?
Mr. Gonzalez. No.
Mr. Liebengood. You never discussed that with anybody?
Mr. Gonzalez. We never discussed anything. I find out
we go inside the building after we finish the dinner over there.
Mr. Liebengood. So after the dinner, Mr. Hunt approached
you and told you, we are going to make an entry?
Mr. Gonzalez. You stay with me over here. We are trying
to get inside the building.
Mr. Liebengood. Did he tell you where you were going to
try and get inside?
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(206)
15.3 VIRGILIO GONZALEZ TESTimNY, DECEmER 10, 19 73, 9-11
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
10
Mr. Gonzalez. No, sir.
Mr. Liebengood. IVhat did you do, you and Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Gonzalez. We hid inside the closet, and waited after
the people come in and clean the table and everything.
Mr. Liebengood. You are in a closet in a banquet room?
Mr. Gonzalez. Right. IVhen everybody was leaving, we walk out
an [sic] we tried to open the back door. The door going inside
the building, I find out that it had the alarm connected. It had
ABT or something like that.! said we are not supposed to be
opening that door. If we open that door, the alarm will go
off.
Mr. Liebengood. Okay--
Mr. Gonzalez. And we decided to wait, and he finds a tele-
phone in a room over there. He made a phone call. I do not
know who he is called, because I hid in the closet again.
Mr. Liebengood. This is the banquet room?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Liebengood. Okay.
Mr. Gonzalez. We had one door to escape in case we wanted
to get out, but it is next to the garage exit. That means you have
cars coming in and out all of the time.
Mr. Liebengood. The garage exit?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, I said there is a big glass door; if I
start walking on that door, somebody could see me. We never have
a chance to pick that door. He said we should wait here all
Indistinct document retyped by
Bouse Judiciary Committee staff
(207)
15.3 VIRGILIO GONZALEZ TESTIMONY, DECEMBER 10, 1973, 9-11
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
11
night until somebody came and opened the door.
About 6:00 o'clock in the morning, we walked out of the
closet, and found the door open already, and we got out of the
building. I think the next night is when we got inside the
building.
Mr. Liebengood. IVhat equipment do you require to pick a lock?
Mr. Gonzalez. A set of picks.
Mr. Liebengood. Did you have them with you at the banquet?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Mr. Liebengood. IVhy did you have them? Do you carry them with
you all the time?
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. That is my personal property, not tools.
Mr. Liebengood. You carry them around everywhere?
Mr. Gonzalez. No, not everywhere. I carried them that night
because when we flew over here, I got it in my pocket and that is
where I keep it that night.
Mr. Liebengood. My question is, did you go to the banquet
expecting to break in?
Mr. Gonzalez. No, I am not expecting to break anything
that night, but I am coming from Miami, and I have got that
thing in my pocket, because Mr. Hunt no expected to have to pick
any door. He expected we open the door from the inside, and
we keep on going.
Mr. Liebengood. I see.
LSo you waited until 6:00.
Mr. Gonzalez. The next morning.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(208)
15.4 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, DECEMBER 1? , 1972 13-15
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff i
for the outside, rush to Dr. Fielding and so forth.
These men arrived in work clothes, spoke Spanish with the
charwoman and asked if they could leave it in the office, which
they did. The purpose of that, so they would be able to punch
the interior lock button on the door and leave it open for later
return that night so the door would not have to be forced.
That, in fact, took place.
Mr. Liebengood. The door was unlocked when they arrived
through the window, as far as you know?
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Mr. Liebengood. This was after — his offices were not
open that day at all, were they?
Mr. Hunt. I cannot say. I did not take any interest in
him until about 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock that night. Then I went
out to his home, IVhen I left the hotel, I checked his parking
slot at his professional building and saw it was empty and
then drove out to his home and saw that his car -- I think it
was a Volvo -- was there in his gargage I set upon fixed sur-
veillance on that.
I Mr. Liebengood. Now sir, I would like to move away from
I that break-in to the first attempt to enter the Watergate
complex.
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Liebengood. The office of the DNC. hTien was the
first time -- I do not necessarily refer to the first successful
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(209)
15.4 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, DECEMBER 17, 1973, 13-15
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct docxnnent retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
14
entry?
Mr. Hunt. You mean the aborted attempt the night before?
Mr. Liebengood. Was that the first attempt, or was there
a prior attempt?
Mr. Hunt. That was the first attempt. That was the night
that we had the banquet. That was an aborted attempt.
Mr. Liebengood. Would you tell us what the entry plan was
on that occasion?
Mr. Hunt. The entry plan was to gain access after normal
hotel hours to that particular floor, the ground level floor,
because Mr. McCord and I had determined that there was a door
through which entry could be made to the Watergate office
buildings from the Watergate Hotel where we had the banquet,
that we could arrive on scene at the lower elevator level .or
the stair level for that matter, and go right up to the Demo-
cratic National Committee Headquarters.
Our problem was, after the banquet was over, a security
guard came around about 11:00 o'clock and said they were closing
down, would everybody please leave. Everybody left except
Gonzalez, myself. We stayed down there for the
night until the door was opened in the very early morning and
we were able to leave.
Mr. Liebengood. There must have been seme reason why you
and Gonzalez stayed behind.
What was your purpose in staying behind?
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(210)
15.4 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, DECEMBER 17, 1973, 13-15
SSC EXECUTIVE SESSION
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
Mr. Hunt. We stayed behind because we felt we might be
able to gain — to reopen the door that had been locked behind
them, at the same time open the door that led into the passage
that vrauld connect with the 17atergate office building. Gonzalez
in his attempt to pick a particular lock on the inside was
to no avail. At the same time v/e noticed there v/as an alarm,
magnetic door alarm, on the egress door, so we were unable to
get out that way, so we simply stayed there for the night.
Mr. Llebengood. All right, sir.
Mr. Hunt. He was sent do\m to Miami in the morning to
pick up additional tools, came back that evening. It was that
night that we made the first successful entry.
Mr. Llebengood. Was there not another entry attempt in
between the dinner and the entry, an attempt that was made to
use the elevator to go on up to the eighth floor and then down
to the sixth floor?
Mr. Hunt. I recall something about that, but it seems
to me that was more in the nature of a familiarization tour,
that llcCord took not more than one or two of the men up there
and v;alked them down to the sixth floor to show them the actual
door. Then they simply got back into the elevator. It was
simply a familiarizing with the operational problem of the two
glass doors that opened into the Democratic National headquarters.
Mr. Llebengood. Let's talk about that a minute.
;!r. Hunt. Yes?
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
15
(211)
r'
IS. 5 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 399-400
399
Senator Weicker. Did you have any questions of him as to exactly
what was going on at that time?
Mr. Baldwin. No, \ had just driven approximately 6 hours and he
said, "As soon as you get unpackeil and relaxed, I will explain this."
I said, "All right, I will take a shower and shave and join you."
Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, was there a sequence of
events leading up to a visit by other pei-sons to the room that afternoon?
Mr. B.vLDWiN. Well, I was told that some other individuals would
be coming into the room. They were part of the security force and in
view of their position, they woidd be introduced under aliases to me
and that I would also be introduced in this way. He said, there is
no reflection on you, but because of the nature of the work you are
involved in, I am going to use an alias for you and an alias for them.
I will be introducing them
Senator Weicker. Wliat was the alias he gave to you?
Mr. B.vLDWiN. He asked me to use the alias of Bill Johnson, the
alias I used when I was calling in reports on my surveillance operation.
Senator Weicker. Would you like to continue your narrative to
the committee as to what happened that afternoon?
Mr. Baldwin. Are you asking me regarding the introductions of
the indi\'iduals that came to the room. Senator?
Senator Weicker. I gather from what you told the committee,
that you were already told there would be a visit by individuals from
the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. B.ALDWi.\. That is correct. Two individuals came into the room
and when they entered the room, Mr. McCord turned to me and he
said at this point — he introduced me. "Al," he said, and I believe he
said "Ed," and then he got all confused because he had not used the
aliases.
Senator Weicker. He had not used the aliases which you were
supposed to use?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct. He said— I do not know if he said
at that point, "Ed, go in — ■" he had to retract. Then he had to intro-
duce me under my alias and he coidd not remember, then he just
introduced us under our personal names.
Senator Weicker. Now, subsequently, have you identified who
those two men were who came in the room?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, and at the FBI photographic dis-
lay, they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt.
" Senator Weicker. That same evening, May 26, was there a trip
to McGovern headquartei-s?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct; there was.
Senator Weicker. Would you describe to the committee that trip
and the evening's activity at McGovern headquarters?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, the purpose of my returning from Connecticut
was to work that weekend. Mr. McCord atlvised me that we would
have to work that weekend. I did not know we were going into Mc-
Govern headquarters until we arrived at the scene. Prior to arriving
there, we stopped to buy some batteries. He sent me in to buy them,
then we proceeded to ^IcGovern headquarters.
As we went by the McGovern headquarters, he pointed to a
buikling, said, this is what we are interested in, we have got to meet
some people here. Then he proceeded to explain that we have to find
(212)
15.5 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1972, 1 SSC S99-400
400
our individual; one of our men is here. He vdW be in a yellow Volks-
^rff"'T r?- ^""u ^^'^' °P^" ^""^ ^^^ Volkswagen, for the man sittin..
'"mi^ >, T.u^ ^'^'" mentioned "boy." I do not think he said
man , he said there is a boy sitting in a Volkswagen.
^.fkt ' lu ""^^ °"*' °^ °"^ P^*^P'e inside the headquarters." The
problem was there was a man standing outside the headquarters which
was a second-story headquarters above— I believe there were s ores-
there was a cham across them.
This individual was there. This was late in the evening, approx-
Zf^-, °^ ^°u'^'°1^ '? ^^^ ^^'■'^ morning houre, and MrMcCord
uas quite upset by the fact that this individual was standing in front
ot the door. He had no business being there, according to iMr. McCord
He should not have been there
pani?;[aTaTd"eSr- ""'^ ^^" "^^^ '^"^ °^^^^ ^^^^^^'^ ^' ^^at .
Mr. B.^LDwiN. That is correct. Mr. McCord had been in communica-
tion over a walkie-talkie umt with some other individuals and at one
pomt, as we proceeded dou-n the same street that McGovem's head-
quarters IS located on, we stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An
mdmdual alighted from the car, came into the front seat of Mr
^dhddu 1 ^^^' °^'^'" ^° ■^ '^'^^ between Mr. McCord and this
Senator Weicker. Can you tell me who that individual was?
Mr. Baldwin. That was Mr. Liddy
Senator Weicker. And did you succeed in getting into the Mc-
Liovem headquarters on that evening'
A-^flu^.t'^Tn- ^''' ^}^l ''™7^ ^™""^- ^^^- McCord and Mr. Liddy
llifi the talking and they drove around, I do not know the e.xact
length of time But it was over a half hour. As a matter of fact, we
nn,-iy^ Ti! ^^^T^^y adjacent to the building. There was a problem
01 lights. They discussed whether or not their man was inside There
JS^e several problems Mr. McCord said, we ^vill abort the mission.
w..trirT 9 w'^l ^^^""^ ^^f y^'"'' primary job during the first 2
week of Juie "^ "°'^ *^^ ^""^ °^ ^^^^ *° *^^ ^"^^
Mr B.4LDWIN. I was instructed to monitor all telephone conversa-
tions that were being received over these units that were in the Howard
Johnson room and to make a log of all units
Senator Weicker. With reference to overheard telephone conversa-
tion and exckidmg anything to do ^vith personal lives of those who
were overheard, can you tell the committee the content of any con-
versations of a political nature?
Senator Ervin Senator? I am afraid we made a mistake when we
passed the Omnibus Cnme Act. It may be illegal for him to say any-
thing about the conversation. I think maybe we were veiy foolish
when Congress passed that law, but I believe it is the law
Mr. Baldwin. I ^vill decline to answer that respectfully. Senator,
based onl8 section 2515, prohibition of the use of eWdence of inter-
cepted ^vire or oral communications, which specifically states under
this Federal statute that if I divulge those contents, I am subject to
possible prosecution. ■'
Senator Ervin. On that basis I would suggest you not ask him.
benator Weicker. About how many calls did you monitor'
(213)
16. On or about May 27, 1972 under the supervision of Gordon Liddy
and Howard Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Gonzalez, and Sturgis broke
into the DNC headquarters. McCord placed two monitoring devices on the
telephones of DNC officials, one on the telephone of Chairman Lawrence
O'Brien, and the second on the telephone of the executive director of
Democratic state chairmen, R. Spencer Oliver, Jr. Barker selected
documents relating to the DNC contributors, and these documents were
then photographed.
Page
16.1 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 128, 156-57 216
16.2 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3710-11 219
16.3 Bernard Barker testimony, SSC Executive Session,
May 11, 1973, 165-66. 221
(215)
tl
n
16.1 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY, MAY 18, 1973, 1 SSC 128, 156-57
128
equipment and the co.st of |)hotog:rupliic equipment and s[)ecific items
of equipment that would be used against the Democratic Party, the
Democratic hierarchy in Washington primarily, but also in Miami,
Fla. The electronic devices which he referred to specifically, were of a
variety of types.
Mr. D.\.SH. I am not asking specifically what the types were, but
how were they to be used, where were tliey to be placed from your
understanding?
Mr. McCoRD. The initial interests specified by Mr. Lidd\' in this
reganl were, No. 1, against Mr. Larry O'Brien, then ciiairman of the
Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C.. at his resi-
dence and subsequently at his office in the Watergate office building;
perhaps other officers of the Democratic National Committee. The
McGovera headquarters in Washington, D.C., were mentioned quite
early in 1972. And there was some general reference to the Democratic
National Convention facility or site wherever it might be located at
this convention in the summer of 1972.
Mr. Dash. All right now, Mr. McCord; in connection with this
^ignnient, in wliich j'ou were liaving these discussions with Mr.
Lidtly, di'.l you come to a.-^sociate yourself with Mr. E. Howard Hunt,
Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio
Gonzales?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes; I did.
Mr. D.A.SH. And as a result of that association and your agreement
with Mr. Liddy. did you with Mr. Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, and
Gonzalez illegally enter the Democratic National Committee head-
quarters on two occa.sions one on or about May 30, 1972, and the
other in the earlv morning houi-s of June 17, 1972?
^[r. NfcCoRD.'l did.
Mr. D.\SH. On the first occasion on or about May 30, 1972, you
installed two teleplione interception devices or wire types on two
office telephones; one on the telephone of Spencer 01i\er and the
other on the telephone of Lawrence O'Brien?
Mr. McCoRD. I did.
Afr. D.\SH. Leaving aside for the time being why you broke into
the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate
on the second time on June 17 and what circumstance leil to your
arrest, you were in fact arrested by phdnclothesraen of the District
of Columbia ^tetropolitan Police shortly after you entered; is that
true?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct.
Mr. D.\sH. Is that the arrest which led to your reconviction?
\Ir. ^[cCoRD. That is correct
Mr. D.\sH. Will you tell the committee, Mr. McCord, why, after a
lifetime of work as a law enforcement officer without, as you have
testified any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Liildy
to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretappin? and
specifically the two break-ins on May 30 and June 17 of the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?
Mr. McCoRD. There were a number of reasons associated with the
ultimate tiecision of mine to do so. One of the reasons, and a very
important reason to me was the fact that the Attorney General him-
self, Mr. John Mitchell, at his office had cousiilered and approved the
operation, according to Mr. Liddy.
(216)
u
16.1 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY, MAY 18, 1973, 1 SSC 128, 156-57
156
Senator Baker. I do not want to lead you into that but I giiess
what I am really reaching for was whether or not a^i a result of your
previous experience at CIA or otherwise you were acquainted 'vith and
thoroughly famihar with electronic surveillance techniques and cliiOvies-
tine operations such as that wliich was conducted at the Watergate.
Ml-. McCoRD. I am still — basically still — in the same position, sir,
respectfully, sir, in face of the split legahty of this problem, one of
trying to cooperate with you fully and the other one trying to comply
with what I previously stated.
Senator Ervin. It is a httle difHcult to hear you. I believe if you
would move the microphone in front of you and just talk a little bit
louder it would be better.
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, sir, I will try to.
Senator Baker. I am not going to spend much time on it but really
all I am reaching for is whether or not you were familiar with elec-
tronic surveillance techniques, and with clandestine operations such
as was conducted at the Watergate regai'dless of how you knew it.
Mr. McCoRD. I learned some electronics from the FBI, sir. I think
I can answer that question without violating the general problem,
th^jther thing.
|benator Baker. Fine. Did you enter the Watergate complex of
I the Democratic National Committee on one or more than one
I occasion?
I Mr. McCoRD. The Democratic National Committee?
Senator B.vker. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCoHD. I believe I have testified that twice and that b
correct, sir.
Senator Baker. All right, sir. When was the first time?
Mr. McCoRD. Memorial Day weekend.
Senator B.akes. Do you remember the date?
Mr. McCoRD. 1972.
Senator Baker. Do you remember the day?
Mr. McCoRD. I can check it. The evening of May 27, 1972.
Senator Baker. About what time?
Mr. McCoRD. 1:30 p.m., that evening, or it could have been the
following day.
Senator Baker. WTio was with you on this first break-in?
Mr.^ McCoRD. The other— the seven Cuban Americans that I
have testified to previously, I beUeve, in this committee.
Senator Baker. What did you do?
Mr. ^IcCoRD. The entire group went into the Democratic National
Committee through an entry into, the door itself. I went in and
joined them to perform the work of the electronic assignment that
I had as a member of the team.
Senator Baker. What was the electronic assignment that you had?
Mr. McCoRD. Installation of the teclinical bugging devices in the
Democratic National Committee that were previously authorized^by
the Attorney General.
Senator Baker. Did you have instructions as to where they should
be placed?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes.
Senator Baker. Where?
(217)
26.1 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY, MAY 18, 1973, 1 SSC 128, 156-57
157
Mr. McCoRD. Iq the offices themselves in connection with senior
personnel officers of the Democratic National Committee, and specifi-
cally, Mr. O'Brien's telephone extension.
Senator Baker. How many bugs did you plant?
Mr. McCoRD. Two.
Senator Baker. And where were they?
Mr. JVlcCoRD. Two were in offices that face Virginia Avenue. I
think you have a sketch up on the board.
Senator Baker. One of them was on Mr. O'Brien's telephone?
}^[t. McCord. That was an e.xtension of a call director, that was
identified as Mr. O'Brien's. The second was Mr. Oliver's
Senator Baker. The second one was where?
Mr. McCoRD. In a telephone that belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver,
who is an executive director of the democratic State chairmen of the
organization.
Senator Baker. Were you specifically instructed by someone to
plant those two bugs or just the O'Brien bug? Would you give us some
detail on that?
Mr. McCoRD. Sure.
Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions from Mr. John Mitchell.
He set the priorities. Mr. Mitchell had stated priorities of the installa-
tion were first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices and such other installations
as that mipht provide information of interest to Mr. Mitchell and to
whoever else the monitoring was to go to beyond Mr. Mitchell.
Senator B.\ker. So the Oliver phone was bugged more or less by
your choice, then, as distinguished from the O'Brien phone?
Mr. McCoRD. No, I think the basic choice was this; the wording
from Mr. Liddy was that Mr. Mitchell wanted it placed in a senior
official's office, if not A^lr. O'Brien's office, some other; in other words,
t\yo such installations.
Senator Baker. Did you tape the doors on this first break?
Mr. McCoRD. No, I did not, Mr. Hunt did.
Mr. Baker. But they were taped?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct.
Senator Baker. Now, you weren't apprehended on tliis first oc-
casion, Memorial weekend. What was the purpose of the second
entry into the Democratic national headquarters?
Mr. McCoRD. You want hearsay information again, of course.
Senator Baker. Yes, as lon» as it is identified as hearsay.
Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Liddy had told me that Mr. Mitchell, John
Mitchell, liked the "takes" in quotes; that is, the documents that had
been photographed on the first entry into the Democratic National
Committee headquarters and that he wanted a second photographic
operation to take place and that in addition, as long a.s that, team was
going in, that Mr. ^Litchell wanted, had passed instructions to \lr.
Liddy to check to see what the malfimctioning of the second device
that was put in, second, besides Mr. Ohver's, and see what the problem
was, because it was one of the two things — either a malfunction of the
equipment or the fact that the installation of the device was in a room
which was surrounded by four walls. In other words, it was shielded,
and he wanted this corrected and another device installed.
He also said Mr. Mitchell wanted a room bug as opposed to a device
on a telephone installed in Mr. O'Brien's office itself in order to trans-
I fro
I off
(218)
16.2 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY. SEPTEmEE 24, 1973. 9 SSC 3? 10 -21
3710
jNIr. Thompson". Do you believe you remember wliether or not he
told you the particular agency or you just concluded that in your own
mind? Did lie tell you that it was an agency or did you conclude that
in your own mind ?
Mr. Hunt. I would go back to our mutual experience in the Plumbers
organization at which time we were receiving daily reports from most
of the investigative agencies of the Government with relation to the
Ellsberg case. Mr. Liddy had on the basis of prior associations with
the FBI a private channel, a person or persons wlio would telephone
or send him memorandums from time to time, providing him with in-
formation which was not distributed generally within the "\Miite
House, that is to say there were realh' two channels of reporting from
the FBI into the "\^1lite House. There was the J. Edgar Hoover chan-
nel to, let us say, ]Mr. Ehrlichman and ilr. Krogh, who would see copies
of those memorandums. There were also materials that were coming to
^Ir. Liddy from Mr. Mardian in the Justice Department, and I believe
telephonic information that came to jNIr. Liddy from close and old-
time associates of his at the FBI. So I had every reason to believe that
he was still well plugged into the Bureau.
jNIr. TiiOMPsox. Did he tell you precisely the source of these foreign
moneys, the country?
]Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
^Ir. Thompson. And the individual, what did he tell you?
Mr. Hunt. Cuba.
Mr. Thompson. What would be the normal procedure with regard
to investigating a matter like that, if any organization in this country
was receiving money from a foreign country, especially a Communist
country?
Mr. Hunt. The practice normally would be to lay a requirement
on the CIA abroad and the FBI at home. However, the President had
established the Plumbers unit because certain traditional agencies of
the Government had been deemed inadequate in the performance of
their duties.
Mr. Thompson. Was the Plumbers unit in any way operative in
April of 1972?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not they were looking into
this matter?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You don't know whether or not they were ?
Mr. Hunt. I am quite sure they were not.
Mr. Thompson. Nobody else was, as far as you know ?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
Mr. TnoirpsoN. With regard to the actual scene, who was in charge
of the various operations on the night of the break-in, the early morn-
ing hours of Jime 17, 1972 ?
^^^^ Mr. Hunt. The responsibilities were the same as they were during
the prior break-in on May 27, and that is to say T was in overall charge
of the entry operation. I planned it. and with Mr. ^fcCord's help
surveyed the groundwork, developed the operational plan. Mi-. Mc-
Cord liad certain electronic responsibilities, the precise nature of which
I was unaware. My team, that is to say. the four men from Miami.
(219)
16.2 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY^ SEPTEMBER 24, 1973^ 9 SSC 3710-12
3711
were cliarged with photoo;r.aphing documents tliat would bear on the
object of our search while Mr. McCord went about his electronic
.business.
Mr. Thompson. Did you tell any of the Cuban-Americans about the
foreign money information that you had ?
Mr. HiTNT. I did.
Mr. Thompson. Who did you tell ?
Mr. Hunt. I told Mr. Barker, and this was the basis on which I
secured his cooperation initially.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not he related this to the
people he enlisted to assist him in the operation ?
Mr. Hunt. I believe he may have. If I can amplify a bit, Mr. Thomp-
son, when I approached Mr. Barker with the requirement for an entry
into Democratic national headquarters I told him that we wanted to
verify a report to the effect that Castro money was reaching the Demo-
cratic National Committee coffers, and Mr. Barker's immediate re-
sponse was "there are rumors all over Miami, I have heard all about
it, you don't need to tell me anything more."
Mr. Thompson. Did you tell him anything more about it?
Mr. Hunt. I knew nothing more about it.
Mr. Thompson. He operated then on your information?
Mr. Hunt. He did.
Mr. Thompson. Was there any financial reward in any way for Mr.
Barker or any of the other Cuban-Americans out of the Wateigate
break-in?
Mr. Hunt. There was compensation for them for time lost from
their normal businesses, yes.
Mr. Thompson. Was there anything additional to that?
Mr. Hunt. \ot that I know of ; no, sir.
Mr. Thomi'.'jon. ^Aliat about the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office,
was there any pecuniary benefit coming out of that for them other than
just e.xpenses. time, or monev for time lost from wo7k, that sort of
thing?
Mr. Hunt. No. sir, that was all.
Mr. Ttiompson. ^^Hiat was told the Cubans with regard to that op-
eration, with recrard to the reason and necessity for the break-in in
Dr. Fielding's office.
ilr. Hunt. T told Mr. Barker originally in Jliami that a break-in
would be necessary; an entry operation would be necessary on the
west coast as we had information to the etTect tliat a man whom I
b'^'ieve I described as a traitor to the United States was passing classi-
fied information to a foreign power.
Mr. Thompson. Were you the one who enlisted Mr. Barker's aid to
conrie to Washinsfton during Mr. Hoover's funeral ?
Mr. Hunt. I was.
Mi-. Thompson. Did he in turn enlist the aid of other Cuban-Amer-
ic;ms to come with him ?
Mr. Hunt. He did.
Mr. Tnn:\rpsON. "NAHiat was the reason for your aTTangements for
thorn to come to Washinirtou?
Mr. Hunt. This was in lesponse to an ur<rent recuiirement by ^Ir.
Liddv who indicated to mc that he had information, and a^ain I
(220)
16.3 BEBNAW BARKER TESTIMONY, MAY U, 1972, 165-66, SSC EXECUTIVE SESSIOIl
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Conmittee staff
Mr. Hamilton. They wore counting on the assistance o£
Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Barker. No. They were counting on forming part of
the group that with mc would be involved in the eventual
liberation of Cuba. What I said was that I personally
transferred and motivated these men in that manner. They
were self-motivated in that, but I transferred that motivation
to them.
Mr. Hamilton. And all of the men that you brought in,
Mr. Martinez, Mr. Sturgis, Mr. Gonaalcz, were experts in
photography, was that what you said?
Mr. Barker. No, sir. No, sir. Mr. Martinez was
comparatively expert in photography. Mr. Sturgis was more
or less of a guard. Mr. Gonzalez was an expert in — he was
a locksmith.
Mr. Hamilton. What is your knowledge as to the other
people involved in the Watergate affair, including the
seven of you who were convicted?
Senator Baker. Before you get to that, you are getting
into another line of questioning that obviously ought to be
pursued and pursued at length. But, just so that I can
abbreviate my participation in the examination at this
point, let me make another inquiry to Mr. Barker about the
matter he mentioned. That was the photography operation and
documents involved. Did you, in fact, conduct photography
to
r
I Mr
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
(221)
16,5 BERNARD BARKER TESTIimY , MAY 11, 197Z, 165-66, SSC EXECUTIVE SFSSION
166
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
operations inside of Watergate?
Mr. Barker. Yes, wo did, sir.
Senator Baker. Can you tell me how many documents you
photographed?
Mr. Barker. I personally selected most of the documents
that wore photographed.
Senator Baker. What were those?
Mr. Barker. All that I know is there were documents
that involved persons that were connected with — you sec,
let me explain to you exactly what I was looking for which
I did not find. I was looking for people that contributed
money. The files and the office that I looked into, I could
tell right away that they were not the appropriate things,
so I tried to find anything that had numbers in it and that
talked about people that could possibly help who contributed
to this.
Senator Baker. Just to make sure I understand the
events we. are talking about, was this on June 17th or was
thison [sic] a previous occasion?
Mr. Barker. On both occasions.
Senator Baker. Fine. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Barker. No, no. On the first occasion. On the
second occasion we did nothing, sir. Senator, this was on
the first occasion. It would have been the same idea on
the second occasion.
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Conmlttee staff
(222)
17. On May 28, 1972 Alfred Baldwin, an employee of CRP, began
intercepting conversations derived from the monitoring devices placed
in the telephones at the DNC. Baldwin was unable to pick up the signal
from the device placed in Lawrence O'Brien's telephone. Between May 28
and June 16, 1972 Baldwin monitored approximately 200 conversations
and each day gave the logs and summaries to McCord. McCord delivered
these logs and summaries to Liddy, except on one occasion when Baldwin
delivered the logs to the CRP headquarters.
Page
17.1 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11 224
17.2 Alfred Baldwin testimony. United States v. Liddy,
January 17, 1973, 951 228
17.3 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 157, 232-33 229
(223)
17.1 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11
400
our individual; one of our men is here. He will be in a yellow Volks-
wagen, keep your eyes open for the Volkswagen, for the man sitting
in it — 1 believe he even mentioned "boy." I do not think he said
"man"; he said there is a boy sitting in a Volkswagen.
He said, "We have one of our people inside the headquarters." The
problem was there was a man standing outside the headquarters, which
was a second-story headquarters above — I believe there were stores —
there was a chain across them.
This individual was there. This was late in the evening, approx-
imately 1 or 2 o'clock in the early morning hours, and Mr. McCord
was cjuite upset by the fact that this individual was standing in front
of the door. He had no business being there, according to Mr. McCord.
He should not have been there.
Senator Weicker. Did you meet any other individuals at that
particular address?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct. Mr. McCord had been in communica-
tion over a walkie-talkie unit with some other individuals and at one
point, as we proceeded down the same street that McGovem's head-
quarters is located on, we stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An
individual alighted from the car, came into the front seat of Mr.
McCord's car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and this
individual.
Senator Weicker. Can you tell me who that individual was?
Mr. Baldwin. That was Mr. Liddy.
Senator Weicker. And did you succeed in getting into the ^rlc-
Govem headquarters on that evening?
Mr. Baldwin. No, they drove around. Mr. McCord and Mr. Liddy
did all the talking and they drove around, I do not know the e.xact
length of time. But it was over a half hour. As a matter of fact, we
drove up the alleyvvay adjacent to the building. There was a problem
of lights. They discussed whether or not their man was inside. There
were several problems. Mr. McCord said, we will abort the mission.
Senator Weicker. What was your primary job during the first 2
weeks of June? We have moved now from the end of May to the first
week of June.
Mr. Baldwin. I was instructed to monitor all telephone conversa-
tions that were being received over these units that were in the Howard
Johnson room and to make a log of all units.
Senator Weicker. With reference to overheard telephone conversa-
tion and excluding anything to do with personal lives of those who
were overheard, can you tell the committee the content of any con-
versations of a political nature?
Senator Erv[n. Senator? I am afraid we made a mistake when we
passed the Omnibus Crime Act. It may be illegal for him to say any-
thing about the conversation. I think maybe we were veiy foolish
when Congress passed that law, but I believe it is the law.
Mr. Baldwin. I will decline to answer that respectfully, Senator,
based on 18 section 2515, prohibition of the use of evidence of inter-
cepted wire or oral communications, which specificallj- states under
this Federal statute that if I divulge those contents, I am subject to
possible prosecution.
Senator Ervin. On that basis I wovdd suggest you not ask him.
Senator Weicker. About how many calls did you monitor?
(224)
I W€
I W€
17.1 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11
401
Mr. Baldwin. Approximately 200.
Senator Weicker. Will you describe how you recorded them?
Mr. Baldwin, Initially, the first day, it was on a yellow legal pad.
Mr. McCord took the actual log and copy that I had made. Subse-
quently, he returned to the room, I believe it was on Labor Day
Monday, with an electric typewriter. He asked me to transcribe my
notes into typewritten form, making up duplicate copies, an original
and an onionskin. That is what I proceeded to do.
Senator Weicker. Then, who would you transmit those logs to,
Mr. McCord?
Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord received both the original and onion-
skin, that is correct.
Senator Weicker. At any time, did you hand those logs to individ-
uals other than Mr. McCord?
Mr. Baldwin. The one incident where I wEis telephoned from Miami
and told to deliver the logs to the Republican headquarters, the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President, on Pennsylvania Avenue, which I
senator Weicker. Now, during these first 2 weeks in June, did you
engage in any other activities? Physically, did you go over to the
Democratic National Committee?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, I did.
Senator Weicker. Would you describe that particular incident?
Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord appeared in the room on Monday, I
believe it was the 12th of June, and advised me that — well, he fur-
nished me a SlOO bill and said, you are going to have a ball this week,
here. I am going to go over to the restaurant. I want you to hang
around in the cocktail lounge, the restaurant, do visual surveillance of
anybody from the Democratic headquarters. He gave me a prete.xt to
take a tour of the Democratic headquarters.
I did not agree with his approach and I asked him if I could do it a
different way. I followed that way and I was given a tour of the
Democratic headquarters that day.
Senator Weicker. Prior to the weekend of June 16 did Mr. McCord
discuss the plans for the rest of that weekend and any subsequent
plans?
In other words, what was the schedule of events for the weekend of
June 16?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, after the tour. Senator, of the McGovem head-
quarters it was obvious that Mr. Lawrence O'Brien was not in the
Washington area, that he had been to Miami and was working in
Miami.
Senator Weicker. May I ask you this question, Mr. Baldwin, are
you talking about McGovem headquarters or the Democratic Na-
tional Committee?
Mr. Baldwin. I am talking about the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters. After my tour there part of the information I re-
ceived there Mr. O'Brien had not been in Washington for the past
month or so or longer. He had been in Miami and Mr. McCord was
quite jjleased to hear this. And it api)eared to me that it called for
a rcscheduhng of the timetable because he got quite upset with the
fact that I would have to, he would try to make some arrangement
for me to go to Miami. He had already discussed \vith me the fact
(225)
17.1 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1972, 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11
410
I ■=
I the
I ^
Senator Ervin. Did you ask Mr. Baldwin about what he did vdth
the information lie got from the wiretap?
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I could have possibly mi.ssed
such a question, I \vill ask him again in an}^ event. To whom did you
gave this information, the information on the %viretaps?
Mr. Baldwin. Other than the time I dehvered it to the Committee
To Re-Elect the President, I gave it to James McCord at all times.
The onionskins were still in his briefcase the night I locked his briefcase.
Some of them, I can't specify that ever}' single copy of the logs were in
his briefcase, but the night I delivered the logs to his home copies of
quite a few of the conversations were in his briefcase.
Senator Weicker. It is your testimony then that you gave these
items to Mr. McCord %vith the exception of one time when you
delivered them to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct.
Senator Weicker. Whom did you give them to on that occasion?
Mr. Baldwin. I left them with a guard that was in the lobby. I
arrived after 6 o'clock and the guard was stationed in the lobby, the
offices had been closed.
Senator Ervin. I don't know whether it was brought out in what
form he put them in.
How did you take the information which you gave to Mr. McCord
with the exception of that one occasion — what form was it in?
Mr. Baldwin. I am sony, Senator, do you mean the actual way
of transcribing?
Senator Ervin. The information you got while you were at the
Howard Johnson from the Democratic headquarters, what form was it
in when you gave it to Mr. McCord?
Mr. Baldwin. The initial day, the first day that I recorded the
conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day, I believe it
is Memorial Day, on the holiday of May, I believe it was, 2Sth when
he returned to the room he brought an electric tj'pewriter, he instructed
me in the upper left-hand corner to print, or by typewriter, the unit,
the date, the page and then proceed down into the body and in
chronological order put the time and then the contents of the con-
versation.
I used, as unit I used, the exact frequency that we were monitoring
and after about 2 days Mr. McCord came back and said change that,
anybody reading these things is going to know the frequency.
Senator Ervin. And you typed a summar>' of the conversations
you overheard?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, they weren't exacth' a summar\', I would say
almost verbatim. Senator.
Senator Ervin. Almost verbatim.
And the names of the people who, as far as you could identify'
them, were using the phones?
Mr. Baldwin. Well that is correct. Initially, it was verj' hard to
establish names for maybe the first day or two. But subsequent to
that you see the problem was I had never worked one of the imits
before and after Mr. McCord instructed me on how to operate it, I
could tune it so that the minute the call was either going out or
coming in I would then be in on the beginning but prior to that I
would receive a little indication on the scope and I would be into the
(226)
17.1 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24^ 1973^ 1 SSC 400-01, 410-11
411
conversation so I would not know who they asked for or who was
caUing. Professional, that was correct.
Senator Ervin. Then vou gave all the typeAvritten transcnptions
of what you heard to Mr. McCord except on one occasion you men-
Uoned?
Mr. B.\LDWix. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Ervin. You did not keep any carbon copies?
Mr. Baldwin. No. Mr. McCord had the onionskins and they were
still in his briefcase the night I locked it.
Senator B.\ker. Mr. Baldwin, it is 10 minutes after 5 in the after-
noon. Rather than proceed much further \vith the questiomng I am
going to ask you a C[uestion or so, or rather, a few questions about a
topic or so. Counsel and other members of the committee necessarily
will defer their questions until later. May I assume you are agreeable
to returning at the committee's pleasure to answer questions?
Mr. B.^LDWix. Yes.
Senator B.\ker. The first witness we have had in a long time who has
been able to smile. . ,- ,n7o
On the night in question, or, rather, the morning of June 1/, 197^,
when you were standing on the balcony of Howard Johnson's, you
testified that vou saw the lights come on on the eighth floor, you saw
two men on the balconv of the si.xth floor, you called on your walkie-
talkie on the second occasion and said, are your men dressed casually?
Someone replied, no, they are dressed in business suits. Did you know
whom you were talking to?
Mr. Baldwin. No, I did not, Senator. .
Senator Baker. Who had you been talking to previously inside the
Democratic National Convention?
Mr Baldwin. With the walkie-talkie? Well, I hadn't used the
walkie-talkie with anybody. Mr. McCord had used the walkie-talkie
at all times. As I sav,' he had gone across the street.
Senator Baker. Could you distinguish from the qualitv of the
reception whom vou were talking to? Could you recognize the voice.'
Mr. Baldwin.' McCord's voice I could recognize. My assumption
that I had to make was that there were two other units besides mine m
operation, one unit that was turned on and the other unit that was
turned off, because it was very obvious that one of the units was not on
at a particular point. .
Senator Baker. All I am striving for is to know if you could identity
the person you were communicating with when you asked, are your
men dressed casually? . . , - ,
Mr. Baldwin. I would be taking a— I am not positive of it, but at
this point, I would not want to implicate somebody wnthout being
positive of it. I would recognize the voice subsequently as being
Mr. Hunt's, since I have heard it on several occasions. ^
Senator Baker. Hunt was insiile the Democratic National Com-
mittee? r L • 1- • 1 1
Mr. Baldwin. Senator, I did not know where any of the uuhviduals
were other than Mr. McCord, when he walked across the street. I had
no knowledge how nianv or who were across the street. ,
Senator Baker. The voice who replied, "No, our men are m busi-
ness suits," was not Mr. McCord's?
Mr. Baldwin. Absolutely. I would know Mr. McCord's.
(227)
17. Z ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, JANUARY 17, 197 Z, 951, U.S. V. LIDDY
951
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Committee staff
r
A No, I do not. I can't even say for a fact the memo
he typed that day came from the information. He did use a type-
writer to typo the memo in the room.
Q Did there come a time you learned what telephone was
being monitored in the Democratic National Committee?
A Yes, I did.
Q V/hose phone was it?
A The phone of Spencer Oliver.
Q Were you monitoring all the calls on that line?
A That is correct, all calls.
Q In-coming and out-going?
A That is correct.
Q From your monitoring of that telephone were you able
to identify some of the individuals v;ho used the phone besides
Mr. Oliver?
-A That is correct.
0 Can you toll us who those individuals were —
("r. MORGAN: (Mr. Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq. represent-
ing the ACLU) Your Honor, at this point I would like to
interpose an objection. That is content under the statute —
THE COURT: — You mean disclosing the individuals is
disclosing the content of the conversation?
TPv. SILBERT: Your Honor, I was going to appraoch [sic] the
bench after ho identified who it was he overheard.
"d. .'■r?v.GAI,': The identity is specifically covered by
Indistinct document retyped by
House Judiciary Comnlttee staff
(228)
17.3 JAMES McCORD TESTIWNY^ mY 18, 22, 1973, 1 SSC 157, 232-3S
157
Mr. McCoHD. In the offices them.selvcs in connection with senior
pefsonnel officers of the Democratic Xtitional Committee, and specifi-
cally, Mr. O'Bnen's telephone extension.
Senator Baker. IIow many bug.s did you phmt?
Mr. McCoRD. Two.
Senator Baker. And where were they?
Mr. McCoRD. Two were in offices that face Virginia Avenue. I
think you have a sketch up on the board.
Senator B.aker. One of them was on Mr. O'Brien's telephone?
yir. McCoRD. That was an extension of a call director, that was
identified as Mr. O'Brien's. Tiie second was Mr. Oliver's
Senator Baker. The second one was where?
Mr. McCoRD. In a telephone that belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver,
who is an executive du'cctor of the democratic State chairmen of the
organization.
Senator Baker. Were you specifically instructed by someone to
plant those two bugs or just the O'Brien bug? Would you give us some
detail on that?
Mr. McCoRD. Sure.
.Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions from Mr. John Mitchell.
He set the priorities. Mr. Mitchell had stated priorities of the installa-
tion were first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices and such other installations
as that might pro\'ide information of interest to Mr. Mitchell and to
whoever else the monitoring was to go to bej'ond Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Baker. So the Oliver phone was bugged more or less by
your choice, then, as distinguished from the O'Brien phone?
Mr. McCoRD. No, I think the basic choice was this; the wording
from Mr. Liddy was that Mr. Mitchell wanted it placed in a senior
official's office, if not Mr. O'Brien's office, some other; in other words,
two such installations.
Senator Baker. Did you tape the doors on this first break?
^[r. McCoRD. No, I did not, Mr. Hunt did.
Mr. Baker. But they were taped?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct.
Senator Baker. Now, you weren't apprehended on tliis first oc-
casion, Memorial weekend. What was the purpose of the second
entry into the Democratic national headquarters?
Mr. McCoRu. You want hearsay information again, of course.
Senator Baker. Yes, as long as it is identified as hearsay.
Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Liddy had told me that Mr. Mitchell, John
Mitchell, liked the "takes" in C(Uotes; that is, the documents that had
been photographed on the first entry into the Democratic National
Committee headquarters and that he wanted a second photographic
operation to take place and that in addition, as long as that team was
going in, that Mr. Mitchell wanted, had passed instructions to Mr.
Liddy to check to see what the malfunctioning of the second device
that was put in, second, besides Mr. Oliver's, and see what the problem
was, because it was one of the two things — either a malfunction of the
equipment or the fact that the installation of the device was in a room
which was surrounded by four walls. In other words, it was shielded,
and he wanted this corrected and another device installed.
He also said Mr. Mitchell wanted a room bug as opposed to a device
I ca
I en
on a telephone installed in Mr. O'Brien's office itself in order to trans-
(229)
17. Z JAMES McCORD TESTIWNY, MY 18, 22, 1973, 2 SSC 157, 2S2-Z3
232
Mr. McCoRD. It is accurate and coiTect to the best of my recol-
lection, yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Why did you turn down the overtures toward
Executive clemency?
A-Ir. McCoRD. Well, there are a number of reasons. In the first
place, I intended to plead not guilty. I intended to fi^ht the case
through the courts of appeal, and I never had any intention of taking
E.xecutive clemencj- or pleading guilty, either; both of which were
usually connected together when the terms were used. In other words,
if you plead guilty, there ■will be E.xecutive clemency offered to you.
My basic position was essentially that I would not even dispute it,
either one.
Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. B.A.KER. Thank you. Senator Montoya.
[Whereupon at 12:40 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at
2 p.m., the same day.]
Afternoon- Session, Tuesday, Mat 22, 1973
Senator Ervin. The conunittee will come to order.
Counsel will proceed.
Mr. Dash. Mr. McCord, I just have a few questions. There were
many questions put to you for the period of your testimony, and I
just have a few, and I do understand Minority Counsel Thompson
has some questions.
^TL think that one of the areas that has not been covered is the role
of the person who was on the other side of the wiretap which you
installed the end of May 1972. Now, did you employ Mr. Alfred
Baldwin for that purpose?
NLr. McCoRD. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. What was his particidar assignment with regard to
monitoring the wiretap?
Mr. McCoRD. His assignment was to listen on a radio receiver
that received the transmissions from the Democratic National Com-
mittee telephones, in which the electronic devices had been installed
in cormection with the two dates of Memorial Day weekend and
June 17, 1972.
Mr. Dash. Where was he located when he was doing this monitoring?
Mr. McCoRD. On the seventh floor of the Howard Johnson Motel
across the street from the Democratic National Committee
headquarters.
Mr. Dash. Now, INIr. McCord, can you see the chart on the easel
there? [Exhibit No. 12,_p. 101.]
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. The drawing purports to show the Howard Johnson
on your right and the Watergate Office Building on your left. Now,
does it represent the room 723 which was used by Mr. Baldwin for
monitoring of those telephones?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, it was.
I 9^ ^
I inst
I Bal
(230)
17. Z JAMES McCORD TESTIMONY, MAY 28, 22, 1973, 1 SSC 157, 232-33
233
Mr. Dash. And he was just right across the street in doing that?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. In his monitoring how was he recording what he was
hearing?
Mr. McCoRD. He was listening with headphones to the conversa-
tions that were being transmitted and would take down the substance
of the conversations, the time, the date on the yellow legal-sized
scratch pad, and then ultimately would type them up a summary of
them by time, chronological summary, and turn that typed log in
to me and I would deUver them to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Dash. Did you deliver them to Mr. Liddy directly?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you were delivering
those logs that they were retyped?
Mr. McCoRD. I know of at least one instance in which that occurred
because I saw them being retyped.
Mr. Dash. Was it your imderstandiag that that occurred on more
than one occasion, even though you yourself may not know?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes.
Mr. Dash. What was the purpose of retyping the log, did Mr. Liddy
explain that to you?
Mr. McCoRD. I believe some general explanation, in substance that
he wanted them in a more final complete form for discussion with Mr.
Mitchell and whoever else received them.
Mr. Dash. Now, who did this retjrping?
Mr. McCoRD. Sally Harmony, H-a-r-m-o-n-y, who was the secre-
tary to Mr. Liddy at the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President.
Mr. Dash. Did you have occasion to observe her typing the logs?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. Did you have occasion to talk to her whUe she was
doing it?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. In that conversation you had with Sally Harmony,
did she give you any indication that she understood what she was
doing when she was retyping that log?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes, she did.
Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, could you briefly describe, without
going into any of the contents what a log would be, what actually
would be entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type and
then be retyped by Miss Harmony?
Mr. McCoRD. It would be similar to any other telephone conversa-
tion that one person might make to another beginning with a state-
ment on his log of the time of the call, who was calling who; a summary
of what was said during the conversation itself, including names of
persons who were mentioned that Mr. Baldwin apparently believed
were of sufficient significance to set forth in the log.
Mr. Dash. Then it would be true that anybody reading that would
l^ve no difficulty knowing it came from a telephone conversation?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct.
Mr. Dash. I think you testified earher, and I just wanted to get it
clear for the record, that j'our discussions with Mr. Liddy concerning
meetings he had with the Attorney General, indicated that Mr.
(231)
18. During the first or second week in June 1972, Magruder received
transcripts of conversations intercepted from the DNC headquarters. The
transcripts were typed on stationery captioned "Gemstone." In addition
to the transcripts, Magruder was supplied with prints of the documents
photographed during the initial entry into the DNC headquarters. During
this period, Magruder handed his administrative assistant, Robert Reisner ,
documents on the top of which was printed the word "Gemstone." Magruder
instructed Reisner to place the Gemstone documents in a file marked "Mr.
Mitchell's file," which was to be used for a meeting between Magruder and
Mitchell. Shortly after the June 17, 1972 break-in at the DNC headquarters,
Magruder told Reisner to remove the Gemstone files containing transcripts
of conversations and other politically sensitive documents from the CRP
files. Thereafter Reisner destroyed certain documents .
Page
18.1 Jeb Magruder testimony, 2 SSC 796-97, 800 234
18.2 Robert Reisner testimony, 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 526 237
18.3 "Gemstone" stationery, SSC Exhibit No. 16, 2 SSC 877 242
18.4 Sally Harmony testimony, 2 SSC 461, 467 243
(233)
18.2 JEB MGRUDER TESTIMONY, JUNE 24, 1972, 2 SSC 796-97, 800
796
for the equipment, and the early costs of getting this kind of an opera-
tion togetlier. Mr. Mitdiell undei-stood, evidently told Mr. Stans it had
been approved and the approval was complete.
Mr. Dash. Did yon receive, Mr. Magruder, any ^jrogress reports
after the approval by Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. Magrttder. No, I did not.
IMr. Dash. Did you know that there was to be an entry in the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I assumed that it would be. I did not know
specifically when Mr. Liddy would do that, as I recall. I do not re-
member that he discussed the exact date with me, no.
Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall a discussion that you had with
Mr. Liddy concerning an effort to enter the McGovern headquarters?
Mr. Magruter. Yes. I think after the, as I recall, it was after the
first entry of the DNC headquarters, Mr. Strachan and I were in my
office and Mr. Liddy came in, not in a formal meeting sense, just came
in and indicated that he had had trouble the night before, that they
tried to do a survey of the McGovern headquarters and Mr. Liddy
indicated that to assist this he had shot a light out. At that time both
Mr. Strachan and I both become very concerned because we under-
stood from Mr. Liddy that he would not participate himself nor
would anyone participate in his activities that could be in any way
connected with our committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, after this entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters, which you have testified to before this committee,
which occurred on May 27, or around Memorial Day weekend of 1972,
did ]Mr. Liddy report that to you?
Mr. MAGRtTDSR. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And what did Mr. Liddy tell you when he reported that?
jNIr. Magruder. He simply indicated that he had made a success-
ful entry and had placed wiretapping equipment in the Democratic
National Committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he report to you at all that he had a monitoring
station at the Howard Johnson motel across the street?
Mr. Magruder. My understanding, my recollection was that he had
it in the truck somewhere but I guess he did not. That is, my recollec-
tion was that it was in the truck but I gather it was in the Howard
Johnson.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at any time of Mr. Baldwin's participa-
tion in this?
Mr. iL\GRUDER. No, sir.
]\[r. Dash. When did you get any of the fruits or the results of
this bugging and photography operation ?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately a week, a week and a half after
the initial entry we received, I received, the first reports; they were
in two forms, one was recapitulation of the telephone conversations.
They were done in a form in which you would know they were tele-
phone conversations but they were not direct references to the phone
conversations. And the second, photography, the pictures of docu-
ments that they had taken at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters.
Mr. Dash. Was there any special feature about these photographs?
r
I th
(234)
18.1 JEB MAGRUDEE TESTIWIH, JUNE 14, 1972, 2 SSC 796-97, 800
797
Air. Maokudki;. AVell. the famous fingei-s were oa the photojjiajihs,
the tubhei- gloves witli the fingei-s.
Mr. D.\8H. Xow, the documents from which you say the capitulation
of the teieplione convei-sations — where were they placed and what was
the fonn of those documents?
ilr. Maoruder. They were under the Gemstone stationery. You have
seen it since I have.
Mr. Dash. Well, perhaps you can identify this for us.
Mr. Magruder. I can see it. I have not seen it since June 19.
Mr. Dash. Take a look at this exhibit which has been entered into
the record. Is that the form of the document?
Mr. Maoruder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall seeing an envelope of this kind ?
Mr. M.uiRroER. I think that it did come in that form. I remember
seeing the envelope. I can't recall whether the Gemstone material did
come in that envelope, but it could have vei-y well.
Mr. Dash. Xow, you say you received it in two installments.
Mr. Maoruder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And did both installments include the typewritten tele-
phone convei-sations and photographs?
Mr. Maoruder. As I recall, they both included that.
Mr. Dash. Did you show these so-called Gemstone materials with
the photographs, to anybody ?
Ml-. Maoruder. Yes, I brought the materials in to Mr. Mitchell in
y 8 :30 morning meeting I had each morning with him.
Mr. Dash. At that time, where was Mr. Mitchell's office located?
Mr. Maoruder. He was now in the campaign, and he had an office
in the campaign committee and he had an office in his law firm, and
we would meet in either office depending on his schedule, and at that
time, I showed him the documents, and I think as Mr. Reisner has
discussed, I also had two files. He, as I recall, reviewed the documents,
indicated, as I did that there was really no substance to these docu-
ments, and at that time, as I recall, it was at that time he called
Mr. Liddy up to his office and Mr. Mitchell indicated his dissatis-
faction with the results of his work.
Mr. Dash. Well, did he tell him anj'thing more than he was dis-
satisfied. Did he ask for anything more?
Mr. Magruder. He did not ask for anything more. He simply indi-
cated that this was not satisfactory and it was worthless and not worth
the money that he had been paid for it.
Mr. Dash. ^Ir. ^Magruder, did he mention anything about the fact
of the O'Brien information, he did not see any O'Brien telephone
Mr. ]\[agruder. There was no information relating to any of the
subjects he hoped to receive, and Mr. Liddy indicated there was prob-
lem with one wiretap and one was not placed in a proper phone and
he would coi-rect these matters and hopefully get the information that
was requested.
Mr. Dash. Did you show these documents, the so-called Gemstone
documents, to Mr. Strachan?
Mr. iEAORUDEi!. As I recall, because of the sensitive nature of these
documents, I called Mr. Strachan and asked would he come over and
look at them in my office rather than sending a copy to his office.
u
(235)
18.1 JEB MAGRUDEE TESTIMONY^ JmiE 14, 197Z, 2 SSC 796-97, 800
800
information. We did not, of course, know what type of investigation
would then be held. And we talked about types of alternative solutions.
One solution was recommended in which I was to, of course, destroy
the Gemstone file. So I called my office and
Mr. D.vsH. That solution came up as a result of that meeting?
Mr. Magrcder. Well, I think yes, it was generally concluded that
that file should be immediately destroyed.
Mr. Dash. Now, as to Mr. Dean's participation, by the way, in these
meetings, was Mr. Dean operating on his own, or what was your
understanding of Mr. Dean's role at these meetings?
Mr. Magruder. ^Ir. Dean was the person who had worked with us
on many of these legal matters. He had brought Mr. Liddy to the
meeting. He was a close associate of ours through Mr. Mitchell, and,
of course, all of us knew Mr. Dean very well. And he was one person
from the White Hoaise who worked with us very closely. It was very
natural for Mr. Dean in this situation to be part of our meetings at
this point in time because of his association and of his background.
Mr. Dash. And would he, from your understanding, be represent-
ing any White House interest at these meetings?
Mr. Magruder. I think you would really have to ask Mr. Dean that
question.
ilr. Dash. Now, did you instruct Mr. Keisner to destroy any other
files?
Mr. jNIagruder. As I recall, I asked Mr. Reisner to cull through
my files, pull out an}' sensitive material that could be embarrassing
to us. There was the suit that was placed against us by the Demo-
cratic National Committee that asked for immediate disclosure. As
I recall, we all indicated that we should remove any documents that
could be damaging, whether they related at all to the Watergate
or not.
r
^jMr. Dash. Mr. Sloan has testified before the committee, Mr.
Magruder. that shortly after your return and after the break-in, that
you asked him to perjure himself concerning the amount of money
that Mr. Sloan had given Mr. Liddy. Could you state your own
recollection of that discussion with Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Magruder. Well, the first discussion — we had two meetings on
Monday. The first meeting was when I detennined from him that the
money was our money, and we discussed that in his office. And he
came up to my office, and in attempting to allay his concerns or to
help him in some sense, give some advice, I think, we talked about
what would he do about the money.
My imderstanding of the new election law indicated that he would
be personally liable for cash fimds that were not reported. These
were not reported funds. So I indicated at that meeting that I thought
he had a problem and might have to do something about it.
He said, you mean commit perjury? I said, you might have to do
something like tliat to solve your problem and very honestly, was doing
that in good faith to Mr. Sloan to assist him at that time.
Now, later we met three times, twice that week and once after he
returned from his vacation. That was on the subject of how much
money had lieen allocated to Mr. Liddy. Now, I. in thinking of about
7 months from the time we authoi-ized the funds to the time of the
November election, I thought that ilr. Liddv should have riH?eived
(236)
18.2 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, JUNE 5, 1973. 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 526
491
dicated that Mr. Magruder had a meeting in the Attorney General's
office and that it was the intention at the time that this notation was
made that iMr. Liddy would accompany Mr. Magruder to that meet-
ing. This does not record the fact that such a meeting would have
n
t i\\cpT\ oIilCG
Mr. Lenzner. Now, for the same date, February 4, is there also
an indication that reads, file folders ready for AG?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, it does, at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you explain what that means?
Mr. Reisner. The nature of Mr. Magruder's, the way in which he
prepared himself to go to meetings with Mr. Mitchell, both during
the time that he was Attorney General and subsequently, was that he
had two large gray file folders. One of them contained documents
that Mr. Magruder wished to bring up \\ith Mr. Mitchell, the other
contamed copies, identical copies of those documents and for Mr.
Magruder's convenience so that if he handed Mr. Mitchell a copy
of a document he would himself have a copy to refer to, and that
is what this refers to. It means that those two folders were prepared
with the documents that he wanted to take to the meeting with him.
■ Mr. Lenzner. Prior to the meeting with Mr. Mitchell, did Mr.
Liddy ask you to obtain anything for him in preparation for that
in6Gtin^?
Mr. Reisner. I am not certain whether this was the meeting. I do
not remember Mr. Liddy going to meetings with Mr. Mitchell very
often. I presume this was the meeting. I can remember a conversation
with Mr. Liddy in which he came to me and indicated that he had
something of the nature of a visual presentation that he wished to
make and he was interested in being certain that there was an easel or
something that he could mount this on in Mr. Mitchell's office. 1
subsequentlv tried to determine whether there was such assistance. I
do not think I had it myself, I think I asked one of the secretanes to
call Mr. Mitchell's secretary to make that determination, and there
was none. That was the nature of the conversation and his inquiry.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever see Mr. Liddy with any charts or
packages? ■. , ■ , ■ i i
Mr. Reisner. I saw him with a package that I think might have
been charts and might not have been charts, I can't say.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember appro.ximatelj- when that \yas?
Mr. Reisner. I relate it to appro.vimatelv the same period of time.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if anybody else attended this meeting
on February 4 or was scheduled to attend it besides Mr. Liddy and
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know. I have been showTi the records that
were kept by the secretary who worked for me, Vicki Chern, and in
those records it indicates that Mr. Dean attended, would have been
invited to attend that meeting too. That is what the records show.
I have no recollection mvself. t -jj
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in February or March of 1972, did Mr. Liddy
furnish you with a document to give to Mr. Magruder?
M^. Reisner. I think that we have discussed a document which
Mr. Liddy gave to me. He from time to time would come mto my
ofhcc, which was located in front of Mr. Magruder's office, it was
adjacent, when Mr. Liddy was unable to get in to see Mr. Magruder,
because he was busy or for other reasons or perhaps he just hadu t
(237)
r
18.2 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, JUNE 5, 1973, 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 626
494
subsequent occasion, I think probably these are the ciocuments — I
mean, I think that this is the stationer}'.
Mr. Lenzner. You say the documents you saw at the grand jury
are not
Mr. Reisner. No, no, I have never been shown documents by
Mr. Silbert or his staff. He indicated that he might at some future
time do that. He, I do not think, has had an opportunity to do that.
But at the time, I was asked to try to identify what I saw. And when
I did so, I identified it slightly differently than this, but upon seeing
this, I think that this is the same document. I am just trying to be
accurate on that.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, approximately when did you see these docu-
ments and describe the circumstances surrounding your observations?
Mr. Reisner. During the week prior to June 17, and perhaps it was
during the 2 weeks ])rior to June 17 — I cannot be certain on exactly
the time— I observed documents similar to this here.
Mr. Lenzner. You are referring to the stationery?
Mr. Reisner. I am referring to the stationery with "Gemstone"
at the top.
Senator Ervin. The stationery has already been marked for
identification.
Mr. Reisner. It is exliibit 16 for identification.
On that occasion, it was simply in Mr. Magruder's hands or lying
on his desk. I am not certain. Subsequently, I was handed the docu-
ment and I was handed it in such a way that it was indicated to me
very clearly that it was not for me to observe, that it was not for
my conception.
At the time it was handed to me — that was the second time that
I saw it. It was during those 2 weeks prior to the 17th.
Mr. Lenzner. It was Mr. Magruder who handed them to you in
his office, is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he hand what appeared to be stationery and the
envelope together?
Mr. Reisner. My memory of the envelope is that it was slit open
and that the stationery was either in it slit open or on top of it and
that they were together.
Mr. Lenzner. What were his instructions? What were you sup-
posed to do with these materials?
Mr. Reisner. At that time, I was doing the activity that I
described a few moments ago; I was preparing Mr. Mitchell's files for
a meeting with Mr. Mitchell. Now, he was campaign director at this
time and it was a daily activity.
Mr. Lenzner. You were told
Mr. Reisner. I was handed the documents and I was asked to put
them in Mr. Mitchell's files. The nature of that is that things that
Mr. \Iagruder might have wished to take up vrith Mr. Mitchell were
put in the file marked "Mr. Mitchell's file," and that is all. That does
jot indicate any more than that.
Mr. Lenzner. Is it accurate also that you saw these on a third
occasion in Mr. Magruder's drawer?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lenzner. On either of those occasions, were there also photo-
graphs with the stationery and the envelope?
(238)
18.2 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY, JWIE 5, 1973, 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 526
506
place at the Wliite House or in the Executive Office Building. If it
was a member, more junior member of the staff, it probably took
place in our office.
Senator Ervin. What senior members of the WTiite House staff
would Mr. Magruder meet with at the White House?
Mr. Reisner. Here, to be precise, he did not meet that frequently.
He probably talked on the phone more with senior members of the
Wliite House staff. I think that he met with virtuallv all of the senior
members of the White House staff that were concerned with either
political activities of one kind or another or the campaign.
Senator Ervin. And who would tho,se senior membere be?
Mr. Reisner. That would have been Mr. Colson, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Ehrhchman, perhaps later, after the campaign got going and the plat-
form was important, Mr. Haldeman, perhaps. All of these men, of
course, were extremely busy. When Mr. Magruder went over there I
was not certam whether in fact he had been able to see them or not.
There were others.
Senator Ervin. Which members of the White House staff came down
to the committee headquarters of the Committee To Re-Elect the
President to see Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. It would have depended upon the subject of the meet-
ing. If the meeting concerned something that one of them was directly
mvolved in — Mr. Timmons was the man who oversaw the convention.
He would have come probably to the committee offices and met with
Mr. Magruder and other people concerned with the convention. I
would say that the more senior the member of the "V^Tiite House staff
the less likely he would have had time to come to the committee and,
therefore, they would have come less frequently.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Dean ever come to the Committee To
Re-Elect the President and consult Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did, and he did not come that frequently, he
came on several occasions that I saw him there.
Senator Ervin. Did you receive any instructions from Magruder
about the shredding of documents after June 17, 1972?
Mr. Reisner. Well, yes, sir. I received instructions that related to
documents that were later destroyed. What I received were instruc-
tions to look through the files and to try to centralize documents that
were sensitive politically. The purpose— the instruction was not, go
find pohtical things and shred them, the instruction was "Go find the
sensitive political documents that we have in our files and bring them
to me." And that is what I did. Some of these were subseqiiently
destroyed, because they appeared in his outbox and were marked
"destroy" and others I didn't see again.
Senator Ervin. What was the general nature of them?
Mr. Reisner. Virtually anythang — well, I think Mr. Magruder's
secretary and I looked through his own files. I think other people on
the committee did similar things and virtually anvthing that con-
cerned the opposition, contenders, that sort of thing,' that would have
been awkward or politically damaging to— well, no, even broader than
that. Anything that would have concerned the opposition.
Senator Ervin. As I understand one of the files that j-ou gave to
Mr. Odle at the time that Mr. Magruder called from California was
a file relating to the seven opposing contenders?
Mr. Reisner. I beheve it was, yes, sir.
(239)
(
n
18.2 ROBERT BEISNER TESTIMONY, JUNE 5, 1973, 2 SSC 491, 494, 606-07,526
507
Senator Ervin. In other words, that was done on candidates for
the Democratic nomination?
Mr. Reisner. To be specific, I gave Mr. Odle two files, one that
was contained inside another. One file was the file that has become
known as the Gemstone file and I don't know what the contents were.
I know from reading the newspaper now what I presume them to be.
The other file was a file concerned — it was called "attack" or "attack
strategy'." That concerned materials, that contained materials con-
cerning the opposition, but I am not certain of exactly what was
there on the 17th.
Senator Ervin. Did you receive any documents from ^'I^. Liddy on
June 16, 1972?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did.
Senator Ervin. What were they?
Mr. Reisner. I received an envelope that I believe was similar
to the one I identified as saying sensitive material on it. Mr. Liddy at
that time gave me this envelope, which was sealed and said to me,
"Here is an extra" or something like that; Magruder wanted a copy,
Magruder wanted an extra. That is the document that I received.
Senator Ervin. And you gave that to Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. No, I didn't.
Senator Ervin. What became of it?
Mr. Reisner. Here is what happened to it. I put it in my drawer
and that clearly would have fallen in the category, I presume, of
documents similar to the one I have called the Gemstone fiJe. The
reason it would have is that it came in a similar envelope and Laddy
had called it a copy.
On Monday morning, I discovered that I had not given that to
Mr. Magruder — I mean to Mr. Odle — as I had been instructed to do.
It was a copy, I presumed, of the material I had given to Mr. Odle
and it was not with it. In fact, I guess I hadn't done what I was asked
10 do, to get that sensitive material out of the oflSce.
At that point, I did not know Mr. Magruder was going to return
that Monday morning; it turns out he was already m Washington.
And thinking that it was a copy and sensitive material that should
have been gotten out of the office, I destroyed it.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Magruder came into the oflBce and I realized
I could have turned it over to him, so I realized it was a mistake on
my part. I am sure he is learning for the first time about this.
Senator Ervin. That was destroyed by shredding?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And that happened on June IS?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. When were you first interviewed by the prosecuting
attorney, Mr. Silbert?
Mr. Reisner. I met Mr. Silbert for the first time on April S of this
year.
Senator Ervin. And did you make a statement to liim, substantially
what you have made to the committee today?
Mr.' Reisner. Yes, sir. It was not on April S that I made this
statement. As a matter of fact, I had completely forgotten that action.
You are speaking of the shredding of that document or the
Gemstone?
Li
(240)
18.2 ROBERT REISNER TESTIMONY^ JUHE 5, 1973, 2 SSC 491, 494, 506-07, 526
526
fectly legal way, it would have been sensitive, but it would not have
been any more sensitive than anything else that was taken home.
I gave it to Mr. Odle because I was told to give it to Mr. Odle and
mj' relationship with Mr. Odle and his with Mr. Magruder was one of
trust. I mean there was no reason not to give it to him. I was just
asked to. I am certain I would have taken it home if Mr. Magruder
had said it the other way.
Senator Montoya. Did you on that day do any shredding?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you on any subsequent day do any
shredding?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Tell us about that.
Mr. Reisner. Subsequently, I, on Monday morning, as I have
indicated — on Friday I had been given a document. I presumed it
was a document. I had been given an envelope which was marked
"sensitive material." When I was given that envelope
Senator Montoya. Who gave you that envelope?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Liddy. When I was given that envelope by
Mr. Liddy, he indicated to me that it was a copy or an extra. It was
standard operating procedure for me to get rid of copies. There were
five copies made of all the documents that were given to Mr. Mitchell
and clearly, that was not necessary for the files. Many of them were
sensitive and I would get rid of them.
Now, on that Monday morning following the 17th, I discovered
that I had not in fact taken home that copy — I had not given that
copy to Mr. Odle as I had been instructed to.
Senator Montoya. I understood that from your testimony, but the
Soint I am trying to make is did you shred many documents after
une 17?
Mr. Reisner. Oh, no; not many. It is conceivable that
Mr. Magruder might have put something in his out box and said,
"destroy" — just \vritten "destroy" on the thing, or "shred", or
something.
Senator Montoya. Did you, on your own, take and examine files
and cull out sensitive documents and shred them?
Mr. Reisner. There is a distinction. The distinction is that if it
had been an original, it is extremely unlikely that I would have
destroyed something that was an original without having Magruder
indicate that he did not need it any more. If it was a copy, I am certain
I destroyed many copies.
f ""■""" Senator Montoya. Well, after June 17, did you receive any
instruction and pursuant to those instructions, if you did receive
them, proceed to categorize documents as sensitive or confiaential
and then proceed to shred them?
[Mr. Reisner. No, sir. The instructions were, find those sensitive
materials that may be in the files and give them to me, which is what
T did.
Senator Montoya. And I think you indicated in the previous testi-
mony that you wanted to centralize the sensitive document in one
particular file. That vou did, too, did you not?
Mr. Reisner. WTiat I did was I culled the files to find things that
were sensitive, gave them to Mr. Magruder. It is conceivable that he
put them all in one file. It is conceivable he might have given them
(241)
18.3 GEMSTONE STATIONERY, SSC EXHIBIT NO. 16, 2 SSC 877
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Exhibit No. 16
GEMSTONE
date,
source
(242)
18.4 SALLY IlARmNY TESTIMONY, JUNE 6, 1973, 2 SSC 461, 467
461
r
I cop
I to
Mr. Dash. I am specifically addressing my question not to content
but to identifying an}- names. So restrict the question to that.
Mrs. Harmony. The name of Spencer Oliver and another name
given as Maxie.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever receive any telephone logs from Mr.
McCord? Do you know Mr. McCord?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes; I have met Mr. McCord.
Mr. Dash. James McCord. How did you know Mr. McCord?
Mrs. Harmony. He was the security officer for the committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he ever come to you with any memos or telephone
logs for you to type?
Mrs. Harmony. On one occasion, he asked me, stopped at my
desk — Mr. Liddy wasn't in — and asked me for an envelope, put a
piece of paper in it, and put it on Mr. Liddy's desk.
On another occasion, he did give a folded paper to me, which I
looked at and recognized as being in the telephone conversations
that I had done before, that Mr. Liddy had dictated.
Mr. Dash. Did you type these telephone logs on any particular
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes; Mr. Liddy had printed a stationery with the
name "Gemstone" across the top of it. I don't recall, sir, that all of
these logs were typed on that particular stationery. I think probably —
Mr. Dash. Did you have any directions as to how you were to use
this stationery? When were you to use the so-called "Gemstone"
stationer^'?
Mrs. Harmony. I used it for the telephone conversations that I
typed.
Mr. Dash. For the telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. I would like to show you two pieces of stationery. Mrs.
Harmony, do you recognize the stationery as that which had been
delivered to you?
Mrs. Harmony. I recognize the way it is set up, yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Is that the stationery you used?
Mrs. Har.mony. Mr. Dash, I did not think the stationery was
white. It might have been.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive the delivery of the Gemstone stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And when was that?
Mrs. Harmony. I cannot recall specifically^ when it was deUvered.
Mr. Dash. Now, did the stationery have a kind of printing on it
like this?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir, I think it did although this at the bottom
I do not remember the warning.
Mr. Dash. Who was the printer who printed the Gemstone
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Post.
Mr. Dash. And do you know at whose direction?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know.
Mr. Dash. And Mr. Post has submitted under subpoena these
copies of stationery printed imder Mr. Liddy's orders and delivered
to you?
(243)
r
L
18.4 SALLY HAFMONY TESTIMONY, JmiE 5, 1973, 2 SSC 462, 46?
467
Mr. Thompson. The first one, when did you become aware of what
was in it?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy gave it back to me and asked me to type
it.
Mr. Thompson. Yon recognized the envelope as before?
Mrs. Harmony. No, no, that I cannot make as a factual statement.
It was out of the envelope but I assujned it was what Mr. McCord had
given since he had given me one after that.
Mr. Thompson. You believe there were eight of these memorandums?
Mrs. Harmony. That is a guess.
Mr. THOxrpsoN. When did you use the Gemstone stationery, the
printed Gemstone stationery, how many times did you use that?
Mrs. Harmony. Perhaps two or three, Mr. Thompson; I cannot
be definite on that.
Mr. Thompson. The printed Gemstone stationery was used only
on the illegal or the telephone bug results?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, as I recall.
Mr. Thompson. Going back again to the second category of the
general inteUigence information, lor a while there I believe you used
plain bond paper to type those memorandums?
Mrs. Har.mony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Did you for a time type the word "Gemstone"
across the top of it?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You had Ruby 1 and Ruby 2 references and so
forth?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. As far as the printing is concerned, that was onHy
used for the telephone bug material.
Let me ask you just another question or two, Mrs. Harmony. You
said Mr. Magruder contacted you in March of 1973. Actually, it was
after your first interview with the committee staff, was it not? He
contacted you on one occasion after?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Thompson, as I recall, it probably was after I
first talked to two of the people.
Mr. Thompson. That was on March 31, 1973?
Mrs. H.^RMONY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Did you discuss wth Mr. Magruder the fact that
you had talked with the committee staff?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know whether I discussed it with him or
not. He was aware that I had talked to them.
Mr. Thompson. Do you remember how the subject of Mr. Mitchell
was first broached?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir, I do not know how it was first broached.
Mr. Thompson. Had you had any preWous conversations with Mr.
Magruder from June 17, 1972, or say, July of 1972, when you left the
committee, up until this particular time?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I had talked with Mr. Magruder pre\'ious to
that.
Mr. Thompson, What did you talk about?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, at one time, I was out of a job, so I was sent
to Mr. Magruder to find another job with the committee.
Mr. Tho.mpson. Did 3-ou talk about the Watergate affair during
this period of time?
(244)
19. Before June 17, 1972 Liddy, Hunt, Barker and McCord engaged
in certain preliminary intelligence activities preparatory to the
Democratic National Convention to be held in Miami, Florida.
Page
19.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3688, 3785-86, 3795. .246
19.2 James McCord testimony, 1 SSC 184-85 250
19.3 Alfred Baldwin testimony, 1 SSC 401-02 252
(245)
35-647 O - 74 - 17
r
I th'
19.2 E. HOWARD HWT TESTIMONY, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1972
9 SSC 3688, 3785-86, 3795
3688
Mr. Dash. All right now, Mr. Hunt, with regard to the Democrat
Convention in Miami, did you give any a.<5signments to Mr. Barker?
Mr. Hunt. I did.
Mr. D.vsii. And what, if any, assignment did you give Mr. Barker?
Mr. HtjxT. We are speaking now only of the Democratic Convention.
Mr. Dash. Democratic.
Mr. Hunt. Mr. Barker's principal assignment was to develop a net-
work of informants along the Miami Beach hotel complex who could
report to us concerning campaign developments, convention develop-
ments, oolicies of individual Democratic candidates.
Mr. Dash. Did he also have an assignment to procure a houseboat
as a base for electronic surveillance ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And did he also have an assignment to recruit some per-
sons who might be disreputable looking young men, hippies, to pose as
McGovem supporters?
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Mr. Dash. What were they supposed to do ?
Mr. Hunt. They were supposed to demonstrate in front of the Doral
Hotel some evening and behave outrageously to bring discredit upon
" e bulk of the useful McGovem supporters.
Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Hunt, I think vou, in fact, did participate in the
break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the
Watergate on or about May 27, 1972, is that not true ?
Mr. Hunt. I do not know if the word "participate" embraces it
Mr. Dash. You did not make an entry- yourself?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir. I participated in it.
Mr. Dash. And is it not true that you recruited Mr. Barker to bring
up the team of Cuban-Americans to assist in this plan ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And is it true that it was his job to engage in photograph-
ing Democratic Party documents?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, it is true, is it not, that you also participated in the
second break-in, using the "participating" as you indicated before
that you definitely did not break in the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters on June 18, 1972 ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. ^Vhere were you situated when the entry team was
arrested ?
Mr. Hunt. In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel, which is another
building.
Mr. Dash. What did you do immediately after you were made aware
that an arrest had taken place ?
Mr. Hunt. I closed up Mr. McCord's briefcase, which contained elec-
tronic eouipment, and with Mr. Liddv, we left the premises. I drove
to the \^^lite House, wliere I inserted the briefcase belonging to >rr.
McCord, into my two-drawer safe. I went — I beliexc I called Mr.
Doufflas Caddy's apartment, he being an attorney.
Mr. Dash. Who is Mr. Caddy ?
Mr. Hunt. ^Ir. Douglas Caddy, an attorney and a former employee
of the ^^ullen Co., and asked him if he could receive me at that early
hour of the morning.
(246)
19.2 E, HOWARD HUNT TESTIWNY, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1973
9 SSC 3688, 3785-86, 3795
3785
Mr. Sachs. T tliink Mr. Hunt would want mc to say that it isn't that
lie doo.sn't I'pcl well, liut this has been ^oinj^ on for days and da^'S, and
I think it is fairly obvious really that he is rundown.
Senatoi- Ei'.m.v. Lei us see.
I think nia\l)c we have counsel also, I was trT,-ing to find in addition
how many questions tlie Senators have.
Mr. S-Vf'iis. Mr. Cliaiinian, if I might interrupt
Senator Envix. Yes.
Mi-. Sachs [continuinc:]. I do think it would be Mr. Hunt's prefer-
ence if it were possible to finish today, assuming he could have some
kind of a break now.
Senator Ervin. Yes, we will give him a break now and we will see
if we can finish. I know Mr. Hunt has been answering questions very
freely, I think, and he has been cooperating with the committee, and
the committee, I think, should cooperate with him. Whenever you are
ready to resume, just let us know.
Mr. Sachs. May we have a 10-minute break ?
Senator Ervix. Yes.
[Recess.]
Senator Envix. The committee will resume with Senator Talmadge.
Senator TALMAnnr.. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be very
brief, and this will conclude my questions of Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt, did you engage in any successful clandestine acti\-ities
that you have not informed this committee about?
Mr. Hi-XT. "Would you care to limit that, Senator, to a particular
period of time?
Senator Talmadge. During the time you were engaged in the opera-
tion of the Plumbers?
Mr. HtTXT. No.
^Senator Talmadof.. You did not. Now, was there a time when you
discmered that Mv. Larry O'Bi-ien. the cliairman of the Democratic
National Committee, and other officials had reserved a room at the
Sonesta Boach Hotel at Key Biscayne?
Mr. Hr.vT. Theie came a time. Senator, if you will permit me to
answer in the followinir fashion, that T was told by Mr. Liddy that
Mr. .Teh Stuart Magruder had informed him that such a reservation
had been made.
Senator TAiAfAuoK. Did you instinct INfr. Barker to reserve two
i-ooms at tlie Sonesta Beacl\ Hotel near tlie room reserved for Air.
O'Brien?
Mr. HrxT. Tt would have been for the purposes of suiTeillance.
Senator TAi,MAnr,F.. ^Y\\nt type of surveillance?
ATr. Hi'XT. Electronic surveillance.
Senator TAr.MAnr.F.. '\A1iose idea was that ?
Mr. HtXT. That was. as T understood it, Mr. ]\rairnider's idea. How-
ever, T would like to add. T was told subsequently by ^fr. Liddy in some
heat that he had determined ^fr. :^ragruder's initial information to be
inncciirate. That, in fact, Mr. O'Biien had not made such reservations.
Senator Talmadof.. So that oix" ration was aborted ?
Mr. Hi'NT. Tt was an opoi-ation that had no basis.
(247)
19.1 E, HOWARD HUtlT TEST IWNY, SEPTEmER 24 25 19 7 Z
9 SSC 3688, 3785-86, 3795 '
I he
I bu
3785
Senator Talmadge. Never proceeded, it was aborted, recalled,
killed?
Mr. Hunt. No, it never proceeded ; yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Now, did yon tell Mr. Barkef to find two safe
houses in the area of the Democratic National Convention liall?
Mr. Hunt. I recall telling him specifically to acquire space in one
building Avhicli was to the rear of Convention Hall. It had been sug-
gested to me that I instruct him to obtain second quarters, a second
site. If that is in fact so, I would suggest at this time that he received
instructions from Mr. Liddy to acquire space in a second site.
Senator Talmadge. For what purposes were these safe liouses to
be used ?
Mr. Hunt. For visual observation and for the housing of the opera-
tional units.
Senator TALifADGE. That is the Plumbers Unit?
ilr. Hunt. For Mr. Liddy, myself, and our close associates who
would be involved in the Miami Beach activities; yes. sir.
Senatoi- Talmaixje. "\^^lat criteria did you use in choosing these
places?
Mr. Hunt. Their accessibility to the con\ention site, gcogi-aphical
position.
Senator Talmadge. Did you instnict Mr. Barker to obtain informa-
tion on blueprints of the Fontainebleu Hotel in Miami Beach?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You did not.
Did you recruit Cuban employees at the Fontainebleu for po.ssible
intelligence activities within the iiotel ?
Mr. Hunt. They were not lecniitcd, Senatoi-. Mr. Barker and one
of his associates, I believe, apjiioaclied them with that in mind, but
they were not recruited.
Senator Taf^madge. That was also aborted. Is that correct ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. Mr. Barker and his fiiends weie in jail by then.
Senator Talmadge. Who gave the order to plan those activities?
Mr. Hunt. I did.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervix. Senator Weicker.
Senator Wekker. Mr. Himt, when you were i-esi)omling to the chair-
man's questioning, you made a statement that I would like to go back
to, if T could, and ask you the following question: How did looni 10,
what was known as room Ki in the old P^xecutive Office l^uilding, know
that Dr. Ellsberg had called a psychiatrist ?
Mr. Hunt. On the basis of an FT5I report.
Senator Weicker. So this would be on the basis of a wiretap?
Mr. Hunt. That was my construction of the source of the report,
Senator, based on my familiarity with the terminology and phrase-
ology used when a telephone intercei)t is being disguised in a re[)ort
that is for general disseuunation.
Senator AVeukei;. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Eiddy met
with Mr. Mardian over- at the Internal Security Division from time to
time, on the Ellsberg matter ?
(248)
19,1 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, SEPTEMBER 24, 25, 1973
9 SSC 2688, 3785-86, 3795 ___^
3795
Seniitor i\[oxToyA. Now, one final question: Do you tlefinitely state
to this coniinittee that tlicre was no ofler of clpinency made to you sinre
June 17 up to the present time?
Mr. IIuxT. I so state.
Senator JSLoxtova. Did you have any conversation with anyone at
the White House or at the CRP or any conversation conuminicated
to any of tliese people through your attorney, Jlr. Bittman, or his
successor, with respect to clemency ?
Mr. Hunt. No, sir.
Senator ]Moxtoy.\. Mr. Dean has testified here that there Avas an
offer of clemency made to you, and tliat the President had authorized
sucli otTer to be made to you. and it lias also been testified here pre-
viously by Mr. Caulfield,"by Mr. Dean, that offers of clemency were
communicated from higher — i)eople who were in the upper echelons
at the White House — tliat clemency would be extended to Mr. MeCord.
Are you aware of that situation ?
Mr. HuxT. I am aware of such testimony, sir.
Senator JIoxtoya. Yes. Did it appear to you unusual that you did
not receive such offers '.
Mr. HuxT. When I heard ]Mr. Caulfield testifyinor to his efforts to
get Mr. McCord to contemplate the reception of E.xecutive clemency,
^felt, I believe, an understandable sense of envy.
Senator ^Ioxtoya. Did you rccniit any of the Cubans for the Demo-
cratic National Convention at ^liami ?
Mr. Htjx't. The Cuban-Americans with whom I was in contact were
to be, were to have been, invohed during the Democratic National
Convention in !Miami. Is that responsive to yoiu- inquiry, Senator?
Senator Moxtoya. Well, did you go around and try to recruit any-
one in Miami for certain tasks during the Democratic National
Convention?
Mr. HtjxT. I personally? Not to the best of my recollection.
Senator Moxtoya. Did you use an alias in Miami prior to the Demo-
cratic National Convention, an alias of Edwardo?
Mr. HuxT. Yes. sir.
Senator Moxtoya. For what jnirposc did yon use this alias?
Mr. HuxT. Tliat was a hango\ei- from the Bay of Pigs days.
Senator Moxtoya. AVell. what was your mission and when did you
use this alias in iliami?
Mr. HrxT. I used that in 1960-61.
Senator jNIoxtoya. You didn't use it prior to the Democratic— im-
mediately prio)' to the Democratic National Convention?
Mr. HrxT. I was introduced from time to time by ^Ir. Barker to
certain Cuban exiles who — Mr. Barker would, on that occasion would
say, "That is Edwardo."
Senator ^Toxtoya. Why were you being introduced to these Cuban
exiles as Edwardo?
IVfr. IItxt. To indicate — in a nutshell — who T was and what I
represented.
Senator ^roxTovA. T didn't hear you.
Mr. Til- NT. To iiulicatc in vci v briof foirn who T was ami what
T represciitcd.
(249)
29.2 JAMES MaCORD TESTIMONY^ MAY 18, 1973, 1 SSC 184-85
184
d
n
dilFcient components that he was inteiejted in, the triiisi:ii-:.ion
deWccs and the recei\ang devices in particular.
Senator Montoya. And did you discuss ^^'ith Mr. Liddy at that
time as to manpower requirements and other necessary details to
carry out the plans?
Mr. McCoRD. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator Montoy.\. Give us the substance of those conversations.
Mr. McCoRD. He was interested in the overall cost, first of all,
of these types of operations, specifically referring to electronic oper-
ations, what the pieces of equipment would cost, what it took lo receive
them, what types of receivers were best. He was interested in the
best type of equipment in this sense for this operation. He wanted
to know how many pieces of equipment it would take for the Demo-
cratic National Committee, for e.xample, to transmit and receive
transmissions from the Democratic National Committee headquarters;
secondly, in connection mth the McGovern committee headquarters;
and thirdly, in connection with the Democratic National Convention
site in Miami, Fla.
Senator Montoya. What was the value of the equipment that
you used at the Democratic National Committee?
Mr. McCoRD. I would guess about 815,000 in total but I am not
sure.
Senator Montoya. §15,000?
Mr. McCoRD. Fifteen, yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. What was the value of the equipment that
you used in Miami?
Mr. McCord. I did not use any there, sir.
Senator Montoya. Were you contemplating using the same equip-
ment from the National Committee at the National Convention in
Miami?
Mr. McCord. No, sir, that was separate equipment.
Senator Montoya. 'Where else were you going to use equipment?
Mr. McCord. Those three places that 1 have stated — the Mc-
Govern conmiittee headquarters. Democratic National Comruittee,
and the convention site for the Democratic Party in Miami, Fla.
Senator Montoya. Doesn't it stand to reason that for the e.xpendi-
ture of S65,000, you were going to launch quite a few operations?
Mr. McCord. There were three separate locations and it would
take ■
Senator Montoya. Well, at the rate of 815,000 apiece, you would
have some equipment left for other operations.
Now, why v.as the budget so high?
Mr. McCoRD. Well, I think to answer your question, sir, there was
planned, for example, for the Democratic National Committee two
separate operations there, not just the one that was initialiy planned.
Mr. Liddy budgeted for what he felt was adequate equipment for all
three locations and it would not simply take just — you a^ked the
question of how much was the value of the equipment thnt was in-
stalled and I gave the figure of about 815,000.
The additional equipment that was taken in was an additional cost
factor there.
Does that answer your question, or have I not?
Senator Montoya. Let me ask you this: Did you assume when you
purchased this equipment for an approximate sum of S65,t.>00 that it
(250)
19.2 JAMES McCORD TESTIMONY^ MAY 18, 1973, 1 SSC 184-85
185
would be used solely for the three operations abo-it which you had
testified, or did you a"ssumc that this equipment woidd be used for other
operations, to which you would not be related in involvement?
Mr. McCoRD. Oh, yes, sir. This was a part of it.
Senator Montoy . Sir?
Mr. McCoRL). Yes, the walkie-talkie equipment, for e.cample, was
scheduled, as I understood it, for use in certain surveillance operations
by the Cuban individuals referred to against demonstrators and vio-
lence-oriented groups in Miami, Fla. So that was an example of my
reasons for answering yes to your question.
Senator Moxtoya. So then am I to assume that other than your
ovv-n involvement, there could have been other mvolvements iu other
parts of the country, or even in Washington?
Mr. McCoRD. The communications, the walkie-talkie eq'iipment
specifically, I knew of no other immediate platmed use of the electronic
equipment; such could have been possible.
Senator Mo.n'toya. How much telephone tapping equipment did
3'ou buy and was this just barely sufficient, or was this in surplus after
you had serviced the needs for the thi-ee places which you had in
mind at the time, namely, the Watergate, the Democratic convention
in Miami, and the McGovern headquarters?
Mr. McCoRD. In the neighborhood of 845,000 worth of equipr:ient
plaimed for those three locations and possible other use against
demonstrators in Miami.
Senator Montot.\. You had S20,000 left in equipment, would you
say?
Mr. McCoRD. Perhaps more than that, sir.
Senator Montoya. How much more?
Mr. McCoRD. You are referring to the — I mentioned the. Si5,000.
Senator Montoya. And then it stands to reason that you could
reuse some of this equipment you were using at Watergate and that
j-ou intended to use at Miami and also at McGovem headquarters,
is that not correct?
Mr. McCoRD. No sir, I believe they were planned to be used
concurrently.
Senator Montoya. Sir-?
Mr. McCoRD. I think it was planned to be used in three separate
operations concurrently.
Senator Montoya. Did you have any other employees under you
or under your direction who were performing any of the activities
\\-ithin the' master plan that you worked on initially?
,Ir. McCoRD. Just Mr. Baldwin.
Jenator Montoya. And you stated that one of tjie purposes or
objectives was to gather photographic information. Now who was in
charge of this division?
Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Hunt.
Senator Montoya. And who was in charge of political espionage?
Mr. McCoRD. Mr. Liddy, as I understand it, and Mr. Hunt were
jointly involved in the two" I understood Mr. Liddy was in charge. _
Senator Montoya. All right. Wlio was involved in electronic
surveillance?
Mr. McCoRD. I was.
Senator Montoya. All right.
(251)
19.3 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY, MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 401-02
401
Mr. Baldwin. Approximately 200.
Senator Weicker. Will you describe how you recorded them?
Mr. Baldwin, Initially, the first day, it was on a yellow legal pad.
Mr. McCord took the actual log and copy that I had made. Subse-
quently, he returned to the room, I believe it was on Labor Day
Monday, with an electric typewriter. He asked me to transcribe my
notes into typewritten form, making up duplicate copies, an original
and an onionskin. That is what I proceeded to do.
Senator Weicker. Tiien, who would you transmit those logs to,
Mr. McCord?
Mr. Baldwix. Mr. McCord received both the original and onion-
skin, that is correct.
Senator Weicker. At any time, did you hand those logs to individ-
uals other than Mr. McCord?
Mr. Baldwin. The one incident where I was telephoned from Miami
and told to deliver the logs to the Repubhcan headquarters, the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President, on Pennsylvania Avenue, which I
did.
Senator Weicker. Now, during these first 2 weeks in June, did you
engage in any other activities? Physically, did you go over to the
Democratic National Committee?
Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, I did.
Senator Weicker. Would you describe that particular incident?
Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord appeared in the room on Monday, I
believe it was the 12th of June, and advised me that — well, he fur-
nished me a $100 bill and said, you are going to have a ball this week,
here. I am going to go over to the restaurant. I want you to hang
around in the cocktail lounge, the restaurant, do visual surveillance of
anjbody from the Democratic headquarters. He gave me a pretext to
take a tour of the Democratic headquarters.
I did not agree with his approach and I asked him if I could do it a
different way. I followed that way and I was given a tour of the
Democratic headquarters that day.
Senator Weicker. Prior to the weekend of June 16 did Mr. McCord
discuss the plans for the rest of that weekend and any subsequent
plans?
In other words, what was the schedule of events for the weekend of
June 16?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, after the tour, Senator, of the McGovem head-
([uarters it was obvious that Mr. Lawrence O'Brien was not in the
Washington area, that he had been to Miami and was working in
Miami.
Senator Weicker. May I ask you this question, Mr. Baldwin, are
you talking about McGovern headquarters or the Democratic Na-
tional Committee?
Mr. Baldwin. I am talking about the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters. After my tour there part of the information I re-
ceived there Mr. O'Brien had not been in Washington for the past
month or so or longer. He had been in Miami and Mr. McCord was
([uite |)leased to hear this. And it appeared to me that it called for
a rescheduling of the timetable because he got quite upset with the
fact that I would have to, he wovilil try to make some arrangement
for me to go to Miami. He had ah-eadv di.scussed with me the fact
(252)
r^:
19.3 ALFRED BALDWIN TESTIMONY^ MAY 24, 1973, 1 SSC 401-02
402
that I would be going to botli the Democratk- uikI the Rei)iiblican
Conventions but in view of this information that Mr. O'Brien was
in Miami, this seemed to change his timetable for the rest of the
week. That week at several ditl'crent points he told me ho would
like to get my identification sewed up and get me down to Miami.
He had to confer with some other individuals regarding this, so if I
was ai)[)roved I would be going to Miairu.
■^■■^"^ Senator Weicker. Now, on June 16, at around 4:.30 p.m., did Mr.
McCord appear in the room at the Howard Johnson?
Mr. Baldwin. Yes, he appeared at Howard Johnson.
Senator Weicker. Wliat were your activities and his activities
between 4:30 in the afternoon and 10 o'clock in the evening?
Mr. B.\LDwiN. Do you want every detail, Senator?
Senator Weicker. I would like you to tell in a broad narrative sense
the committee as to what he did.
Mr. B.A.LDWIX. He gave me several instructions to buy some items
for him, which I did, try to obtain some batteries, regular flashlight
batteries, and what he called speaker wire which is regular wire.
I couldn't get thewire, so subsequently he left the room and went out.
Part of the activity, he tested some type of a device on the phone. He
tested a freestanding device next to the television, the — it has on it,
fire alarm unit on it, I believe. So based — and I did some soldering of
some batteries together during the course of that time.
He made phone calls, I beheve, received one or two phone calls in
the room. It was that general activity up to the point where he
decided — the difficulty was there was a gentleman working in the
Democratic committee.
Senator Weicker. Did you know at that time he had planned to go
into the Democratic National Committee?
Mr. B.\LDwiN'. No, not until he u as on the i)hone at one point that he
said, "We still can't go over there because there is somebody working,"
and then I looked across and there was somebody working in the
Democratic headquarters. He then told me, "We don't know whether
we are going to abort." Ai)proximatel}' a half hour or so later this
individual left and the tlecision was made to go across the street.
Senator Weicker. At 10 p.m., then, was it your contention that
Mr. McCord left the room?
Mr. Baldwin. I don't know the exact time — no, no, he left later
than 10 p.m.; you mean to go to the Democratic headquarters?
Senator Weicker. Yes.
Mr. Baldwin. He left at one point to go buy some equipment at a
radio discount store or some place and then returned ami then sub-
sequent to that he again w ent across, then he left to go to the— across
the street to the Democratic National Committee.
Senator Weicker. Did he give you any instructions as to what your
role would be on that particular evening?
Mr. Baldwin. The only instructions that I received was just prior
to him leaving, he removed a walkie-talkie unit. I believe hooked onto
his belt or he had it inside a belt loop, put it on the table next to the
television set and he said :
I am going across thestreot, wc havo got some people civcr there, I want yoii to
watch. If you see anything, anything at all, any activity get on this unit and let
us know.
(253)
20. On June 17, 1972 at approximately 2:00 a.m., McCord, Barker,
Sturgis, Gonzalez and Martinez were arrested for burglary in the
Watergate offices of the DNC. On September 15, 1972 Howard Hunt,
Gordon Liddy, and the five men who had been arrested at the DNC head-
quarters were named in an eight-count indictment charging, among other
offenses, conspiracy illegally to obtain and use information from the
offices and headquarters of the DNC. Hunt, Barker, Sturgis, Gonzalez
and Martinez entered pleas of guilty. Liddy and McCord stood trial and
were convicted on all charges. On August 16, 1973 Jeb Magruder pled
guilty to an information charging, among other offenses, conspiracy
unlawfully to obtain and use information from headquarters of the DNC.
Page
20.1 E. Howard Hunt testimony, 9 SSC 3688 256
20. 2 James McCord testimony , 1 SSC 128 257
20.3 United States v. Liddy indictment, September 15,
1972, 1, 8 258
20. A Paul Leeper testimony, 1 SSC 105-06 260
20.5 Carl Shoffler testimony, 1 SSC 118 262
20.6 United States v. Liddy docket, 1-2, 21, 25 263
20.7 United States v. Magruder information.
August 16, 1973, 1-3.
267
20.8 United States v. Magruder order,
August 20, 1973 270
(255)
r
L
20.1 E. HOWARD HUNT TESTIMONY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2973, 9 SSC 3688
3688
Mr. Dash. All ri<rht now, Mr. Hunt, with regard to tlic Democrat
Convention in Miami, did you give aii}' assignments to Mr. Barker?
Mr. HtrxT. I did.
Mr. Dash. And what, if any, assignment did you give Mr. Barker?
Mr. Hunt. We are speaking now only of the Democratic Convention.
Mr. Dash. Democratic.
Mr. HuxT. Mr. Barker's principal assignment was to develop a net-
work of informants along the Miami Beach hotel complex who could
report to us concerning campaign developments, convention develop-
ments, policies of individual Democratic candidates.
Mr. Dash. Did he also have an assignment to procure a houseboat
as a base for electronic surveillance ?
Mr. Httvt. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And did he also have an assignment to recruit some per-
sons who might be disreputable looking young men, hippies, to pose as
McGovem supporters?
Mr. HxjxT. Yes.
Mr. Dash. "Wliat were they supposed to do ?
Mr. Hunt. They were supposed to demonstrate in front of the Dora!
Hotel some evening and behave outrageously to bring discredit upon
the bulk of the useful McOovem supporters.
Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Hunt, I think vou, in fact, did participate in the
break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the
Watergate on or about May 27, 1972, is that not true ?
Mr. Hunt. I do not know if the word "participate" embraces it
Mr. Dash. You did not make an entry yourself?
Mr. Hunt. No. sir. I participated in it.
Mr. Dash. And is it not true tliat yon recmited Mr. Barker to bring
up the team of Cuban-Americans to assist in this plan ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And is it true that it was his job to engage in photograph-
ing Democratic Party documents?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, it is true, is it not, that you also participated in the
second break-in, using the "participating" as you indicated befoi-e
that you definitely did not break in the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters on June 18, 1972 ?
Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Where were you situated when the entry team was
arrested ?
Mr. Hunt. In room 214 of the Watergate Hotel, which is another
building.
Mr. Dash. What did you do immediately after you were made aware
that an arrest had taken place ?
Mr. Hu.VT. I closed up Air. McCoid's briefcase, which contained elec-
tronic eouipment, and with Mr. Liddv. we left the premises. I drove
to the "WHiite House, where I inserted the briefcase belonginir to Mr.
McCord. into my two-drawer safe. I went — I believe I called Mr.
Douglas Caddy's apartment, he being an attornej'.
Mr. Dash. Who is Mr. Caddy ?
Mr. Hunt. Mr. Dousrlas Caddy, an attorney and a former employee
of the Mullen Co., and asked him if he could receive me at that early
hour of the morning.
(256)
20,2 JAME^ McjCORD TFSTTMONY. MAY 18. 197^, 7 SSC 128
128
equipment and the cost of photographic equipment and specific items
of equipment that would be used against the Democratic Party, the
Democratic hierarchy in Washington primarily, but also in Miami,
Fla. The electronic devices which he referred to specifically, were of a
variety of types.
Mr. D.\sH. I am not asking specifically what the types were, but
how were they to be used, where were they to be placed from your
understandins?
Mr. McCoKD. The initial interests specified by Mr. Liddy in this
regaril were, No. 1, against Mr. Larry O'Brien, then chairman of the
Democratic Nationar Committee in Washino;ton, D.C.. at his resi-
dence and subsequently at his office in the Watergate office building;
perhaps other officers "of the Democratic National Committee. The
McGovem headquarters in Washington, D.C., were mentioned quite
earlv in 1972. And there was some general reference to the Democratic
National Convention facility or site wherever it might be located at
this convention in the summer of 1972.
Mr. D.\SH. All right now, Mr. McCord; in connection with this
assignment, in which you were having these discussions with Mr.
Lidiiv, did vou come to associate yourself with Mr. E. Howard Hunt,
Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio
Gonzales?
Mr. McCoRD. Yes; I did.
Mr. D.-vsH. And as a result of that association and your agreement
with Mr. Liddy. did you with Mr. Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, and
Gonzalez illegally enter the Democratic National Committee head-
quarters on two occasions one on or about May 30, 1972, and the
other in the earlv morning hours of June 17, 1972?
Mr. >[cCoRD."'l did.
Mr. D.\SH. On the first occasion on or about May 30, 1972, you
installed two telephone interception devices or wire types on two
office telephones; one on the telephone of Spencer Oliver and the
other on the telephone of Lawrence O'Brien?
Mr. McCoRD. I did.
Mr. D.\sH. Leaving aside for the time being why you broke into
the Democradc National Committee headquarters at the Watergate
on the second time on June 17 and what circumstance led to your
an-est, vou were in fact arrested by phunclothesraen of the District
of Columbia Metropolitan Police shortly after you entered; is that
true?
\Ir. McCoRD. That is correct.
Mv. D.\SH. Is that the arrest which led to your reconviction?
Mr. McCoRD. That is correct
Mr. D.\SH. Will you tell the committee, Mr. XlcCord, why, after a
lifetime of work as a law enforcement officer without, as you have
testified any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Liildy
to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretapping: and
specifically the two break-ins on Slay 30 and June 17 of the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?
Mr. McCoRD. There were a number of reasons associated with the
ulthnate decision of mine to do so. One of the reasons, and a very
important reason to me was the fact that the Attorney General him-
self, Mr. John Mitchell, at his office had considered and approved the
operation, according to Mr. Liddy.
(257)
fill;": ',•[ OPEN c'i'j^r
20.3 U.S. V. LIDDY INDICTMENT, SEPTEMBER 16, 1972, 1,8 ■^'-'1 -^ '-'^^
UNITED STATES DISTRIv^T COURT JAI/lLi K. DA/ut', Cl-r--
FOR TIIF. DISTRICT OF COLUMUIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on June 5, 1972
The United States of America : Criminal No. 'j.^"~'"J_yO
I Tl
Grand Jury Original
L
George Cordon Liddy, : Violation: 18 U.S. Code
also known as: Gordon Liddy and 371, 2511
George F. Leonard 22 D.C. Code
EverettE Howard Hunt, Jr., 1801(b),
also known as: Howard Hunt, 23 D.C. Code
Edward L. Warren and 543(a)
Edward J. Hamilton (Conspiracy; Interception
James W. McCord, Jr., of Oral and ^^;ire Communi-
also known as: Edward J. Warren and cations; Second Degree
Edward J. Martin Burglary; Unlawful
Bernard L. Barker, Possession Intercepting
also known as: Frank or Fran Carter Devices)
Eugenio R. Martinez,
also known as: Gene or Jene Valdes
Frank A. Sturgis,
also known as:Frank Angelo Fiorini,
Edward J. Hamilton, and
Joseph DiAlberto or
D 'Alberto
Virgilio R. Gonzalez,
also known as: Raul or Raoul Godoy
or Goboy
The Grand Jury charges:
FIRST COUNT:
1. At all times material hereto the Democratic National
Committee, an unincorporated association, was the organization
responsible for conducting the affairs of the Democratic Party
of the United States.
2. At all times material hereto the Democratic National
Committee had its offices and headquarters at 2600 Virginia
Avenue, N.U. , Washington, D.C.
3. At all times material hereto George Cordon Liddy,
also known as Gordon Liddy and George F. Leonard and herein-
after referred to as defendant Liddy, was employed as counsel
for the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President located at
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.U., Washington, D.C.
SidiC-rf- C
(258)
2P.3 U.S. V. LIDPy INDICTMENT, SEPTEMBER 15, 1972, 1, 8 7.-S',''^'r'-7p
-8-
r
nilRD COUNT:
On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia
the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord , Barker, Martinez, Sturgis,
and Gonzalez entered the rooms, that is, the offices and head-
quarters of the Democratic National Committee, with the intent
to intercept willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully oral communi-
cations made within these rooms and wire communications received
and sent from telephones located in these rooms. The terras
"oral communication" and "wire communication" are used by
the Grand Jury as they are defined in Title 18 U.S. Code § 2510.
(In violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b))
"FOURTH COUNT:
On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of
Columbia, the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez,
Sturgis, and Gonzalez willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully
did endeavor to intercept oral communications made within
the offices and) headquarters of the Democratic National
Committee .
(In violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511)
FIFTH COUNT:
On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of
Columbia, the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martirez,
Sturgis, and Gonzalez willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully did
endeavor Co intercept wire communications received by and sent
from telephones located in the offices and headquarters of the
Democratic National Committee.
(In violation of 18 U.S. Code 2511)
(259)
20.4 PAUL LEEPER TESTIMONY^ MAY 17, 197 Z, 1 SSC 105-06
105
Senator Baker. Just one second, just a second, I do not mean to
unduly interrupt counsel, but just so I can keep the continuity in
my mind, that man across the street was in the Howard Johnson?
Sergeant Leeper. That is correct.
Senator Baker. Where?
Sergeant Leeper. He was out on the balcony. I did not see him,
Senator. It was just called to my attention by Officer Shoffler.
Senator Baker. But you knew he was watching you?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. How long did he watch?
Sergeant Leeper. I do not know, sir. I did not even look over.
I just
Senator Baker. You had your guns out?
Sergeant Leeper. I did not have my gun out but Officer Shoffler
had his weapon out.
Senator Baker. And you were on the floor of the DNC, the Demo-
cratic National Committee?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. The balcony outside?
Sergeant Leeper. Well, it is referred to as the terrace.
Senator Baker. Who was that fellow?
Sergeant Leeper. It was later found to be James Baldwin.
Senator Baker. Do you know how long Baldwin watched?
Sergeant Leeper. I think from the time we pulled up in front here,
sir.
Mr. Dash. All right. Then, what did you do? Did you leave the
terrace at that time?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, we responded back in the area of the
hallway and we met up again with Officer Barrett down to this area,
checking the offices that were open as we came down the hallway, and
we came into this room here through a glass door. Officer Barrett was
the first man followed by myself and Officer Shoffler. Officer Barrett
responded uj) to this area here and I started into this little secretarial
cubicle here. Officer Shoffler was somewhere in this area and at this
point I heard Officer Barrett yell: "Hold it, come out."
Mr. Dash. Where was that voice coming from?
Sergeant Leeper. Officer Barrett?
-Mr. Dash. Yes; where was that voice coming from?
Sergeant Leeper. Right in this area here, Officer Barrett was right
in this area. At this time I responded back out of the cubicle into this
cubicle, jumped up on the desk, drawing m^' weapon and when I
looked over this glass partition there were five men standing in front of
a desk with their hands either raised above their heatls or at least
shoulder high wearing blue surgical gloves.
Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did you see them doing at the time
that their hanils were up when you had your guns out on them?
Sergeant Leeper. Some of the gentlemen, sir, had tried to remove
the gloves by using, you know, taking one hand and trying to throw it
oft' with the other.
Mr. Dash. Did you notice any kind of equipment or paraphernalia
in and around where you found the men?
Sergeant Leeper. Ves, sir. One of the men had, was carrying an
a.w.o.l. bag, an overnight bag, semilarge brown bag with his coat
(260)
20.4 PAUL DEEPER TESTIMONY, MAY 17, 1973, 1 SSC 105-06
106
draped over it contained various items, cameras, bulbs, clanips for
clamping the cameras to the desk, walkie-talkies, things of this sort.
Mr. Dash. Now, just going down toward the corner there from
that room where you apprehended the men, the comer toward the
bottom right comer, go all the way down to the large office in the
comer there.
Sergeant Leeper. Right in here, sir.
Mr. Dash. No; the large office in the comer, the very edge, whose
office is that?
Sergeant Leeper. That is the office of the chairman at that time
of the Democratic Party was LawTence F. O'Brien.
Mr. Dash. And was there entrance to that office from or access to
it from where you found the men you apprehended?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir. As you can see by the chart, sir, you
had access to that office.
Mr. Dash. And next to that office, to the left, whose office was that?
Sergeant Leeper. That is the deputy chairman, sir, Stanley L. Gra}^
Mr. D.ASH. Now, you at that point, what did you do with the men
he apprehended at that point?
Sergeant Leeper. We ordered them out from behind the desk and
lined them up along the wall, facing the wall, hands on the wall, feet
spread apart, and at that time I informed them who we were, thej-
were under arrest for burglary and ad\-ised them of their rights and at
that time, I directed Officer Barrett to begin a s3'stematic search of
each man.
Mr. Dash. Did you notice anything unusual about these men when
you arrested them, the way they were dressed?
Sergeant Leeper. They were well dressed, sir, in either suits, sport
coats and ties.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know the names of those people, did they
give their names at that time to you?
Sergeant Leeper. At that time, no, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did they give any names to you?
Sergeant Leeper. Later, when they were booked in the precinct,
taken to headquarters, 2.301 L Street, they gave us names which later
proved to be false names, aliases.
Mr. Dash. Did you later find out who they were?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you name the persons who you arrested in that
location by the names that later found out who they were to be?
Sergeant Leeper. Frank Sturgis, Bernard L. Barker, James
McCord, Eugenio Martinez, and I thhik it was Virgilio Gonzales.
Senator Ervin. Virgilio Gonzales?
Sergeant Leeper. I believe that is the way he pronounces his name.
Mr. Dash. Did you accompany them down to the station house?
Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, we sent three of them down in a patrol
wagon, one was transported, I think Mr. McCord, was transported
in 83 scout and I transported Mr. Barker in the old clothes TA(5
unit, the unmarked cruiser.
Mr. Dash. At a later time did you come back and make any search
of any room in the Watergate complex?
Sergeant Leeper. I came back to the Watergate complex but the
search was made by the Mobile Crime Unit. At the time we could
(261)
20. S GAEL SHOFFLER TESTIMONY, MAY 18, 297S, 1 SSC 118
118
e
L
Officer Shoffler. Carl M. Sholfler, sir. Police officer assigned to
special ser\'ices bureau, address is 300 Indiana Avenue XW.
Mr. Dash. Were you on duty in the early morning hours of Jun.e 17,
1972?
Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.
Mr. D.\SH. And what particular outfit or unit were you assigned
to?
Officer Shoffler. Second district tactical squadron, casual clothes
unit.
Mr. Dash. Were you at that time traveling with Sergeant Leeper?
Officer Shoffler. Sergeant Leeper and Officer Barrett and I were
partners that particular evening.
Mr. Dash. Did you answer with those other officers a call to come
to the Watergate complex?
Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions of the witness, Mr. Chair-
man. I think Senator Baker has some questions.
Mr. Tho.mpson. One or two questions.
Officer Shoffler, do you recall when you received the word from
headquarters to answer this call at the Watergate? Were you in the
car with Sergeant Leeper?
Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know, do you remember whether or not
you responded to the effect that a uniform car should not be sent?
Officer Shoffler. On nms on a casual unit response, if a casual
clothes unit takes the run normally a uniform car staj's out of the area.
I do not recall if particular instructions were given to them on that
evening to stay out of the area.
Mr. Thompson. But it would not have been unusual for you to make
such a request?
Officer Shoffler. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What time of the morning was this?
Officer Shoffler. Appro.vimately 1 :52 a.m.
Mr. Thompson. Were you working past your regular duty hours on
that occasion?
Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What were your regular dut}- hours?
Officer Shoffler. 4 p.m. to 12 p.m., sir.
Mr. Thompson. Why were you working overtime that particular
night?
Officer Shoffler. Our tactical squadron deals \\-ith whatever par-
ticular crime problem is — a problen^ at that time. We were ha\-ing, we
were experiencing a problem with office larceny and burglaries in the
downtown area, and felt that working over may produce results.
Mr. Thompson. When you got there at the Watergate who did you
meet at the Watergate complex?
Officer Shoffler. The guard, Mr. Frank Wills.
Mr. Thompson. What did Mr. Wills say to you at that time?
Officer Shoffler. Mr. Wills stated that he had discovered the doors
had been taped in a manner as to allow entrance.
Mr. Thompson. Did he state anything else to you?
Officer Shoffler. 1 asked him if there had been any prior burglaries.
We were aware of prior burglaries in the building but not at the partic-
ular floors. Ntr. Wills related to us there had been burglaries, 1 believe,
on the sixth and eighth floors.
(262)
United States vs.
20.6 U.S. V. LIDDY DOCKET, 1, 2, 21, 25
CRIMINAL DOCKET
IhiUtb <^tatr5 pistvirf (Cnurt for tlie pistvicl of Columbiii
Preceding
GE0RGE^j30RppN_LIDpY,ET AI. cr. No. .J-827-72^^ „_-Supplemf*ita Page No.
)KNEYS=
I.Peter L. Marqulis
"11 "Cannon 5t. „ „'
Eoughke£psie,_JUL
i. Thomas A.Kennelly
DATE^
9-i9-72
/o-Kenneily— Sf-^l^nn
i819 H St., NW
9-19-72
2. HTiiiam-er-Brtfcman- 2
c/Hogan & Hartrson
815 Conn, Ave. ,N.W^
.AustiQ-S.r-ilirtlec,
CO- counsel
815 Conn. Ave. N.W. i-ii»?3-
i3 /William Ohlhausen (RE1)_
3. John Albert Johnson _
OrieXenter' Pla'za, BosT'on
Mass.-
3. -Bvn rtrrd^-Sharrkmarr :
1511 K .'^C, NW_
37"-GETarl* -fricfi,-"^ -Gen-fie-r
-Hgirgy-^rjterfrWrtglrl^ —
(ret;)
BOND
^ ip_,_OOO^CLj-_l(yLPeB..
9310 Ivanhoe Road
Oxon Hill, Maryland
L^2 J^ --PE-i3N- APPi:AU.
$ l£j999599^^ie%- Beg^,
11120 River Road
Potomac. Maryland
^1601 099- Swrety-w/
Peerless Ins. Co. '
11120' River^Rff. |
«36Tee67e0--i6%-deo7j! „
#7_.wlnder_Cojjrt ]!
Rockville, Maryland :
Persona]
Frank Ai gelo Florini,aka
Edwapd J. Hamilton, and as
SiAlberto or
#6
(7/8/22)
#5FAlVin L. Newin;
815 Conn. Ave. ,N.W.
jDpald- Cupia—
Woodward Bldg.
815 Conn.Ave. .N.W.
^OgP^oodward Bldg
815 Conn.Ave. ,N.W.
6-22-72
^^K'^MMl
FPKAL
Sure.t.yi Xompajiy. ||
5229 Northwest, 4th St .
Miami, Florida l!
$40 , 000.00- 10% dep.
2271 - 16th Terrace,
Miami , Florida
7-28-72
.W.
$50,000.00, Wisconsiiij
(12/9/24)
__GONZALEZ_^ka__ .
JRaoul Godby or
Woodward Bldg.
■ Alvin L. Newmyer, Sr
^ gooiTth^r.yTTrwT
#7t Alvin -L-."Newmyer-,"Sr
__ _90p l^th St^ j_N ,W .
2^ JJ^niiiL -B.,_!iUi£hhlatJ^-
815 Conn.Ave. ,N.W.
'c
__C5/l.aZ26J
#4 5.6.7TDai iel E.Schultz(RE'I\ )_
I 1940 M.St.NW #310' ^
808 JJoodward Bldg.
Surety Company !|
2515 Northwest 1220 St.
Miami, Florida
6-22-72
.'^3: John Truman
1. -Cerrtci^ Plaza-
Bos ton, Mass.
$40.000:00- 10% Pep
930 Northwest 23rd ij
Svenue,'~'HramT7 Fla. li
(263)
20.6 U.S. V. LIDPy DOCKET^ 1, 2, 21, 25
CRIMINAL DOCKET
United States Bistiict Qlniirl fnr the Bistrict nf (Oolumbia
SIRICA, C.J,
UNITED STATES
CRIMINAL NO. B
BNEY Sllbert/Gtanzir^ampbell J^'J^—'^'Y
lEACH: ORIGINAL
SEE PRECEDING PAGE FOR
cHARGc IS iisr M^^?•^^^■?? r>r.r.
AAntji^) ,?^ nr.c. s4-^(a) ;(ron-
ATTORNEYS
LpjLra c J- J Interception of Oral &
wire Communications ; 2nd Degree
SEE PRECEDING PAGE
: ^urglarv;Unlawful Possession
n t ercep^ing Devices)
-WW7» ■fH.BO'
SEE PRI CEDING PAGE FOR
BONDS
1972Sep Il5
1972Sep
1972Sep I 18 |[ EACH: ORDER assigning case to Chief Judge Sirica for all purposes,
SIRICA, C.J.
1972Sep
15
PROCEEOrNGS
^actn
MCTMENT FILED
(8 Counts)
EACH: Pres en t ment of ind ictment made 6t filed in open Court; oral motion
by Earl Silbert. Asst US Atty. to have case specially assigned, heard &
granted; Judge to whom case will be assigned will be mdde knovm at a
[l later date. SIRICA, C.J. Rep-Nicholas Sokal
#l(Liddy): Appearance of Peter L. Maroulis, as counsel for deft.
#2 (Hunt): Appearance of William 0. Bittman, as counsel for deft.
#2(Hunt): Appearance of Austin S. Mittler, as co-counsel for deft.
#3(McCord): Appearance of John Albert Johnson as counsel for deft.
#4, #5, #6_& #7 (Barker, Ma rtinez, S t u r g i s & Gonzalez): Appearance of
Henry B. Rothblatt as counsel for deft.
I, EACH: Copy o f indictment given deft;
1972Sep
-i
ARI^IGNED: Plea of Not Guilty entered. (a.m.) #1, #2 (Liddy ,Hunt) Oral
motion by deft for release on personal recognizance heard in part; deft
released in custody of counsel for purpose of obtaining report from
D.C. Bail Agency; further hearing in matter continued until 2:00 p.m.
#4, #5,#6,#7: Motion by Govt, for separate Counsel
(.CONTINUE oy
(264)
20.6 U.S. V. LIDDY DOCKET, 1, 2, 21, 25
CRIMINAL DOCKET
^liiUril ^tali-s piolrict (Cnurt fur tlje pisJrid uf (Lulmiibia
united States vs. "^^^.^^^P^ "l^M^^^J^ Cr. No. ... l827-72^_ _ ^supplemental Page No. . ^1 .
n.»TB
PnocrEDiNcs
1973Jari"
15
#4,5,6,7: PLEA not Guilty withdrawn; Plea Guilty entered to Count 1
(Conspiracy - l8 USC 371); Counts 2 and 3 (Burglary II - 22 DCC l801(b) ;
Counts 4 and 5 (Interception of oral and wire communications - l8 USC
2511); and Counts 6 and 7 (Unlawful Possession of Intercepting
Devices - 23 DCC 543a); referred; surety bond of $100,000.00 set by
Court pending sentencing; committment; commitment issued.
SIRICA, C.J. Rep: N. Sokal P. Maroulis, Atty. #1; G. Alch, Atty. #3
H. Rothblatt, D. Cope, A. Newmyer, Attys. #4,5,6,7
#1,3: Trial resumed; same jury and 5 alternates; respited until
.Tan. If,, T57'^5 bond. (Reps: J. Maher and S. Hatch)
#l,3>'+j5.6,7: Transcript of Proceedings of 1-12-73, pages 300-352, in- |
eluding Court's copy; pages 302-352 included ORDERED SEALED AND ARE
FILED IN OPEN SAFE.
#4j^,<^,7; rarhnn rnpjy nf letter dated Jan, 12, iq73 siened bv all 4 def ts . 1
addressed to Henry Rothblatt, relative to desires of defts. to ple?.d !
guilty, etc., previously referred to as Court Exhibit #1 and ORDERED |
SEALED; UNSEALED this date and filed.
SIRICA, C.J.
1973Jan
16
#1,3: Trial resumed; same jury and 5 alternates; respited until 1-17-73;
bond. SIRICA, C.J. Reps: N. Sokal, J. Maher, E. Kaufman, N. Sokal
P. Maroulis, Atty. #1; G. Alch, B. Shankman, Attys. #2
197 3 Jan
l6
EACH: In re: Robert E. B. Allen, et al: Certified copy of ORDER USCA
J
dated 1-16-73 DENYING petition for re-hearing.
In re: Robert E. B. Allen, et al : Certified copy of ORDER USCA
dated 1-12-73 ORDERING that no evidence of the contents of any of the
allegedly illegally intercepted communications shall be admitted
except under certain conditions; further ORDERED that, in the event
of an appeal, the transcript of the in camera hearing, plus any evi-
dence submitted in connection therewith, shall be sealed and delivered
to the USCA.
Attachment (1).
"CONTINLIED"
1
i
I
11
(265)
20.6 U.S. V. LIDDY DOCKET, 1, 2, 21, 25
CRIMINAL DOCKeX
^lnitci> ^l;iti-s pisirirt Court for flic Jlistvirt nf OToIumbia
United States vs. GEORGE^GORDOK LIDDY ,_.ET AL cr. No. . 1827-7,2:. ^Supplemental Page No. 25"
1973Jan
1973Jan
1973Jan
1973Jan
1973Jan
2h
PROCntDlNCS
#1 et al: Transcript of Proceedings- excerpt of 1-23-73. pages 1277 thru
26
30
L2a8_;_Rej).^. Sx)kal ^CLer kls_c.opy (Bond Motion)
#1&3: Trial resumed; saino .jury and five alternates
1-26-73 at 9:30 A. M. Bond.
SIRICA, C.J. Rep; E. Kaufman, T. Dourian g: N. Sokal
Respited until
P. Maroulls £: G. _A1 chj,_ B. Shan'onan, At ty s_.
1 & 3: Trial resumed; same jury & five alts; defts' motion for mistrial
heard and denied; respited until 1-29-73 at 9:30 a.m.
SIRICA. C.J.
bond.
j;e£_- N .^ oka Ij _ ,G_. Jlorning. _CA Jl.ll_ . il^.VL ) J.Blair & N. Sokal
#1 Peter Maroulis ;_#3^GeraLd_Alch, ^Bernard ^hankmaiL.
A. 5. 6. 7: Record on Appeal delivered to USCA; Deposit of $7.00 by Don E.
Schultz; Rece ip_t_ f r om USCA fo r OrJRinal record.
Lr iaL _r e_sumed[ ; . same jury and five (5) alts.;
bond. Accommodations of Jurors filed.
respited until 1-30-73 ;|
Reps-a.m. N .Sokal & J.Maher; p.m.S.Hatch
Peter L. Marulis. Gerald Alch. Bernard Shantman.Attys
#1: Motion by deft Lj^ddy to dismiss the first count of the indictment .C/M'
1-29-73. SIRICA , C . J .
1.3: Trial resumed; same jury and alts.; alts, excused;
VERDTCT AS TO EACH: GUTT.TY AS TNDTCTED; jury polled and discharged; \
each deft bond review; each deft referred & committed; commitments issued.
Vierdict of jury filed: accommodations o f jurors, filed.
STRTCA.C.J. R eps-J.Maher & N.Sokal 1-Mr .Maroulis , Mr .Kennely,Attys
1973Jan
31
3-Mr.A1rh K Mr , f^hankman ^ Al-t-ys
f/l: Proposed instructions of the Govt.
SIRICA, C.J.
Proposed instructions of the deft .
SIRICA, C.J.
1973Jan
1973Jan
1973Feb
K^letal: EACH: Order vacating as moot the Court's Order of 10-4-72,
the amended Order of 10-6-72'i and the Order of 1-8-73 -- all relating
to extraiudicia 1 statements . (N) SIRICA. C.J.
31
#1: Motion for release of deft pending sentencing, c/s
#3: Motion for admit tance to bail pending sentence. C/S Attachment (1)
1: Response of Govt to motion of deft Liddy for bail pending sentence.
19"73Feb' 1
#3: Govt's response to motion for bail pending sentence, c/s
(CONTINUED)
(266)
20.7 U.S. V. MAGRUDER INFORMATION, AUGUST 16, 1973, 1-3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
iH/,
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JEB STUART MAGRUDER
Criminal No.
y/j)'- 73
Violation of 18 U.S.C. I 371
(Conspiracy to unlawfully inter-
cept wire and oral communications,
to obstruct justice, and to de-
fraud the United States of America)
INFORMATION
The United States of America, by its Attorney, the
Special Prosecutor, VJatergate Special Prosecution Force,
charges :
1. At all times material herein, the Democratic
National Committee, an unincorporated association, was the
organization responsible for conducting the affairs of the
Democratic Party of the United States. Its offices were
at the Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue,
N. W. in the District of Columbia.
2. At all times material herein, the Committee for
the Re-Election of the President was conducting campaign
activities on behalf of the re-election of Richard M. Nixon
as President of the United States, with office and head-
quarters at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. in the District
of Columbia.
3. At all times material herein, the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department
of Justice, an agency of the United States.
4. On June 5, 1972, a Grand Jury of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia was duly
(267)
20.7 U.S. V. MAGRUDER INFORMATION, AUGUST 26, 1973, 2-3
- 2 -
impanelled and sworn, and at a]l times material herein
beginning June 23, 1972, the said Grand Jury was con-
ducting an investigation in conjunction with the United
States Attorney's Office for said District and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether
violations of federal statutes had been committed in the
District of Columbia and elsev/here, involving unlawful
conspiracies (18 U.S.C. § 371), unlawful interception of
wire and oral communications (18 U.S.C. § 2511), burglary
(22 D.C. Code 1801 [b]) and unlawful possession of inter-
cepting devices (22 D.C. Code 543[a])^all statutes of the
United States and of the District of Columbia, and to
identify the individual or individuals who had committed
such violations.
5. From May"^ 1971 through November 1972, JEB STUART
MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, was the Deputy Campaign Director
of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.
Thereafter, he became Executive Director of the President's
Inaugural Committee.
6. From May 1971 through November 1972 Herbert
Lloyd Porter was the Director of Scheduling for the Committee
for the Re-Election of the President. Thereafter he became
Assistant Executive Director of the President's Inaugural
Committee. JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, was his
immediate superior in both positions.
7. Beginning in or around November 1971 and con-
tinuing thereafter through March 23, 1973, in the District
of Columbia and elsewhere, JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT,
unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did agree, combine, and
(268)
20.7 U.S. V. MAGRUDER INFORMATION, AUGUST 26. 1973. 2-3
- 3 -
conspire with co-conspirators unnamed herein to commit
offenses against the United States, to v/it: (a) to unlaw-
fully obtain and use, by illegal means and for illegal
ends, information from the offices and headquarters of
the Democratic National Committee and from related politi-
cal entities and individuals, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
i 2511 and other statutes of the United States and the Dis-
trict of Columbia; (b) to conceal, cover up, hinder, frus-
trate, impair, impede and corruptly endeavor to influence,
obstruct, and impede the investigation, apprehension, and
conviction of certain of the individuals involved in the
planning, implementing and carrying out of the above de-
scribed activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503
and 1510; and (c) to defraud the United States of America
and its Departments and Agencies, and more particularly
the Department of Justice, by hindering, frustrating and
impairing the lawful functions of the said Department
by craft, deceit, and dishonest means, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371.
8. It was a part of the conspiracy that JEB STUART
MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and others unnamed herein would
and did devise, implement, and carry out a strategy to
unlawfully break into the above described headquarters of
the Democratic National Committee, and the offices of re-
lated political entities and individuals, and unlawfully
intercept various wire and oral communications taking
place in said offices.
9. It was a further part of said conspiracy that
JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and other co-conspirators
(269)
20.8 U.S. V. MAGRUDER ORDER, AUGUST 20, 1973, 1-2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F 1 L> C {)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
.;AklE= F DAVEY. C!e:
UNITED STATES OF A^^ERICA
JEB STUART MAGRUDER
Criminal Case No. /-I5
/-^
ORDER
The matter having come before the Court on an infor-
mation filed by the Special Prosecutor as Attorney for
the United States, and defendant Jeb Stuart Magruder
having appeared in open court, represented by counsel,
and waived indictment and entered a plea of guilty, and
the Court having accepted the plea of guilty on August 16,
1973, it is now by the Court on this -<^ Qyib^ day of
August, 1973, with the consent of the Special Prosecutor,
ORDERED that having considered all the factors
governing release pending imposition of sentence, the
Court imposes the following conditions of release pur-
suant to 18 U.S. Code 3146(b) as necessary to assure the
appearance of defendant as required:
1. Defendant may travel anywhere within the Continen-
tal United States but may not travel outside the United
States without prior leave of the Court.
2. Defendant must report weekly, in person or by
telephone, to the District of Columbia Bail Agency, any
plans for travel within the United States and outside the
Metropolitan area of the District of Columbia.
(270)
20.8 U.S. V. MAGRUDER ORDER, AUGUST 20, 1973, 1-2
3. Defendant is to surrender his passport to the
District of Columbia Bail Agency within one week of the
entry of this Order.
4. Defendant is to remain in regular contact with
his attorneys and his attorneys are to assure his
appearance in court when and as required.
Consent: ^^^SX^^CnxJcJ C^O >C>,
Special Prosecutor
(271)
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRDNTING OFFICE : 1974 O - 35-647
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05705 5905
U^iilY C7I P COQQ
7^ '3 I Di.OD
f
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11