YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → John Ehrlichman (Part 4) Watergate Hearings Testimony

John Ehrlichman (Part 4) Watergate Hearings Testimony — Transcript

by Patrick O'Dare · 37,231 words · 6,660 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:02[Music]
0:12you mean to tell me
0:14in this committee
0:16that you consider private investigators
0:19going into sexual habits drinking habits
0:22domestic problems and
0:23personal social activities as a as a
0:26proper subject for investigation during
0:29the course of a political campaign
0:30senator i
0:32know of my own knowledge
0:33of incumbents in office who are not
0:36discharging their obligation to their
0:38constituents because of their drinking
0:40habits and it distresses me very much
0:43and there's a kind of an unwritten law
0:45in the media
0:46that that is not discussed
0:48and so the constituents at home have no
0:50way of knowing that you can go over here
0:53in the gallery
0:54and watch
0:55a member
0:57her onto the floor
0:59in a in a condition which uh of of at
1:02least partial inebriation which would
1:05preclude him from making any sort of a
1:07sober judgment on the issues that
1:09confront this country now i think that
1:11is important for the american people to
1:13know
1:14and if the only way that it can be
1:15brought out is through his a his
1:18opponent in a political campaign then i
1:20think that opponent has an affirmative
1:22obligation to bring that forward
1:26in the senate of the united states a
1:28resolution to establish a select
1:30committee of the senate to conduct an
1:32investigation and study of the extent if
1:34any to which illegal improper or
1:37unethical activities were engaged in by
1:39any persons acting individually or in
1:42combination with others in the
1:43presidential election of 1972 or any
1:46campaign canvas or other activity
1:49related to it from washington npac
1:52brings you gavel to gavel videotape
1:54coverage of today's hearings by the
1:55senate select committee on presidential
1:57campaign activities
1:59here is npac senior correspondent robert
2:02mcneil
2:03good evening today was the day that john
2:05ehrlichman didn't complete his testimony
2:08putting the select committee even
2:09further behind schedule and today was
2:12the day erlichman suggested to the
2:13committee that anthony yulazowicz the
2:15white house private eye who probed the
2:17personal lives of potential democratic
2:19candidates performed a legitimate
2:21service helping the electorate know of
2:24any defects in the character of
2:25candidates
2:26today also erlichman detailed his
2:29investigation of the watergate situation
2:31in april the former white house domestic
2:33aide says he concluded that jeb magruder
2:36participated in the break-in plans but
2:38the presidential lawyer herbert comback
2:41who furnished funds to the watergate
2:42defendants acted in good faith
2:45and erlickman concluded john dean didn't
2:47really tell the president the whole
2:49story at their meeting in late march
2:51despite dean's testimony to the contrary
2:54the questions raised a few days ago
2:56about national security haven't been
2:58resolved and once again the committee
3:00ends a weak work with more new questions
3:02than answers
3:04as you will see it was a different day
3:06for john ehrlichman today he was finally
3:08asked some detail relevant questions
3:10about watergate and his possible
3:13involvement in its cover-up jack murphy
3:15of the georgetown university law center
3:17here in washington is here with us now
3:19jack what specific points would you
3:21advise people to watch for tonight jim
3:23we got away from trivia and red herrings
3:25today i'd suggest to your viewers that
3:26they pay particular attention particular
3:28attention to senator gurney his
3:30examination with the pinpoint
3:31questioning of the critical meetings of
3:33march 21st and 22nd of this year between
3:36mr solderman erlichman dean and the
3:38president
3:39senator weiker will follow that with
3:41fascinating detail about the meeting
3:42between mr haldeman mr erickman and mr
3:45helms and general walters back in june
3:47of 1972
3:49and in addition he will give you some
3:50sense of the way the white house view
3:52acting director pat gray as late as as
3:55march of this year prior to gray's
3:57departure from the post in uh april 27th
4:00i believe it was of 73. finally senator
4:02irvin will fascinate i think your
4:04audience with his notions of the
4:05possible presidential responsibility for
4:08interference with grand jury
4:09deliberations as to who was responsible
4:11for the break-in okay thank you jack
4:14murphy will be back at the close of
4:16tonight's broadcast to discuss all this
4:18in more detail he'll be joined at that
4:20time by clark molina pulitzer
4:22prize-winning investigative reporter the
4:23des moines registered tribune syndicated
4:25columnist and former special consultant
4:28to president nixon
4:30as professor murphy indicated the former
4:32aide to the president was pressed on
4:34several fronts today to help you watch
4:36those here is npact's hour-by-hour
4:38viewing guide to the hearings in the
4:40first hour john ehrlichman begins to
4:42detail his watergate investigation for
4:45the white house from notes he gave the
4:47committee he says he was told it was jeb
4:49magruder who was pushing gordon liddy
4:51for more intelligence information
4:53he says in april of this year he learned
4:55that howard hunt had supplied a florida
4:57printer for three of donald segrete's
4:59dirty tricks agents
5:01in our number two ehrlichman says that
5:03at one point john dean wanted the
5:05president to negotiate blanket immunity
5:07for all white house staffers and
5:09erlichman says when he talked to gordon
5:11strong there was not a scintilla of a
5:13mention of shredding documents from mr
5:15haldeman's files
5:16also in that hour senator gurney
5:18questions erlichman about his meetings
5:20with dean
5:21in our number three in answering senator
5:23weiker's questions about white house
5:25horrors ehrlichman finds john mitchell's
5:28recollection hazy as he put it asked
5:30about cia involvement in the
5:32investigation ehrlichman says the
5:34president want him to deal with general
5:36welters instead of cia chief helms
5:39in the final hour senator weiker asks
5:41about conversations concerning the
5:43troubles patrick gray was having getting
5:45confirmed as fbi director at one point
5:48erlichman told dean to let gray hang
5:50there
5:51and in responding to senator irvin's
5:53questions about special treatment for
5:54maurice stans erlichman said he called
5:57the justice department on a request from
5:59the president as a result stands avoided
6:01a grand jury appearance
6:04now senator irvin is about to start the
6:06fourth day of john ehrlichman's
6:08testimony
6:15i didn't see your program last night but
6:17uh i told it and appreciate the very
6:19gracious things you said about me
6:21my manner
6:22i appreciate that i'm sorry i didn't see
6:24you
6:32senator irvin is congratulating senator
6:34baker on an appearance last night on the
6:37jackpot show in which apparently senator
6:39baker said very complimentary things
6:41about the chairman
6:42thank you very much mr ehrlichman when
6:45we recessed yesterday
6:48were discussing your interviews
6:50as part of the inquiry you had made in
6:52behalf of the president
6:55and in response to one of my questions
6:57you indicated that you had discussed
7:00or talked with mr o'brien
7:03mr comback mr dean mr mitchell and again
7:05with mr strong
7:08and
7:09you've indicated that you had maintained
7:12interview notes of some of those uh
7:14senator and i i neglected to say i also
7:16talked with mr crow
7:18because of something that came up in the
7:20course of these interviews that i wanted
7:21to inquire about so he would be an
7:23additional individual that i talked to
7:26we have no notes on mr comback mr dean
7:28mr mitchell or mr strong is there any
7:30reason for this
7:31uh
7:32you should have um there are notes for
7:36strawn and dean
7:38there are no notes for my talk with
7:40either
7:41for my talk with mr kombach
7:44we did turn over to the committee staff
7:47the transcript of my interview with mr
7:50mitchell which is a very
7:52very poor one it's not very helpful it's
7:54very sketchy
8:05do we have the copies of the combat dean
8:08mitchell and strong
8:10there are no combach uh uh notes uh
8:13senator there are dean and strong notes
8:16the the notes that i have here are
8:18o'brien dean
8:20coulson
8:22uh magruder
8:23and strong
8:25senator in a way whatever you have um
8:28you have what we got in other words that
8:31was intact delivered to us in that form
8:34and that we have no other notes
8:36then
8:38we have here mr ehrlichman
8:40one strong and you had two strong
8:43meetings there's there are only notes
8:44for one
8:45we have a reasona meeting
8:48no
8:49i think that uh that is actually the
8:57[Music]
9:00oh that's the dean meeting jd is up in
9:02the corner of it that's the dean meeting
9:03on
9:04april 13 at 3 p.m then we have an
9:06o'brien meeting yes
9:08and colson and shapiro right
9:11no you have
9:12you have the transcription of two tapes
9:16uh
9:17mitchell and
9:19magruder that are both very uh
9:22very hard to hard to read and hard to
9:24understand because the tapes are hard to
9:26understand you also have the tapes
9:28themselves
9:29and
9:32they're for whatever they're worth
9:34i don't think you can make much from it
9:36i received these notes early this
9:38morning mr ehrlichman and i i must uh
9:40confess that
9:43i find it very difficult to understand
9:45your hieroglyphics here right and so
9:49if i may ask you uh
9:51whenever the initial h appears is that
9:54for mr halderman not not necessarily
9:56you'd have to take it in the context
9:58senator that could also be hunt uh in
10:01some cases here although i used a double
10:03h for hunted on occasion
10:05j n m is john mitchell yes sir and j s m
10:10s magruder yes
10:12l or ld or lid is liddy
10:16well l id is certainly liddy and
10:19i don't uh
10:21i don't recall the uh
10:25yes i've used l also for liddy in the uh
10:29in the magruder notes
10:33and k o e k for krog i believe so yes
10:36and c c for colson yes
10:39now there's a
10:41greek symbol
10:43the symbol pi who is that that's the
10:45president that's the president of the
10:47united states
10:52if we may may we
10:54begin with your meeting with mr o'brien
10:57yes sir san clemente right
11:01please tell us what transpired and
11:03you're all right sir
11:04uh the circumstances of this meeting
11:07were that mr o'brien
11:09indicated that he had
11:12some information that he felt the
11:14president should have
11:16he called and asked for an appointment
11:18with mr haldeman
11:20in view of the fact that uh
11:22four or five days previously the
11:24president had asked me to get into this
11:26he was referred to me we met in my
11:28office at san clemente
11:30and
11:31uh
11:32he began to tell me
11:34about
11:36what he believed would be mr magruder's
11:39testimony
11:40um
11:42oh in the upper right corner you will
11:44see that that he told me that the
11:46purpose of his being on the coast was to
11:48see herb kombach in connection with some
11:50of the civil litigation which mr o'brien
11:53was handling for the committee to
11:55re-elect and this happened on april the
11:565th april 5 at 10 in the morning yes sir
12:00uh he said that
12:03there had been
12:04four meetings
12:05which led up to the watergate break-in
12:08and you will see the the
12:10meetings referred to by numbers with
12:12circles around them uh we start with
12:14number one which is actually the fourth
12:17one that he described to me
12:19which was a meeting between
12:20uh liddy dean and mitchell in the
12:23attorney general's office in november
12:25he said that mr mitchell what do you say
12:28uh
12:29that would have been 1971
12:33that that was a meeting which mr
12:34mitchell apparently did not recall which
12:36was held for the purpose of mr dean
12:38introducing liddy to mitchell
12:41the second meeting uh appears in the
12:44date notebooks of various parties
12:46and that was a meeting between dean
12:48liddy and magruder for the purpose of
12:50introducing lady to magruder and that
12:52was held on the 27th of january of 1972.
12:58there was a subsequent meeting
13:00on
13:01february 4
13:04involving dean leddy magruder and
13:06mitchell
13:08he said that
13:10the third meeting was quote cancelled
13:13that is to say the parties agreed
13:15that
13:17it would be described as a meeting that
13:19had been cancelled
13:21uh and then he refers later on to the to
13:23the construction of that uh that story
13:26or that that version
13:29he said that uh john dean uh according
13:32in this bear in mind i was here say
13:34twice removed this is magruder telling
13:36o'brien telling me
13:38he said that
13:40magruder said that dean
13:42kept holloman advised by memo of all of
13:44these meetings actually there were four
13:46meetings
13:47and then he starts through again the
13:50first meeting in november which i've
13:51described
13:52he said there was actually a third
13:54meeting which was not any of these that
13:57i have heretofore described where a
13:59million-dollar budget was proposed by
14:01liddy
14:02everyone at the meeting agreed that that
14:04budget would not be adopted
14:06did you say for what reason
14:08uh i didn't i didn't ask him i don't
14:10believe at that at that point was he
14:12because of the price tag alone uh i
14:15don't know senator from this
14:17conversation
14:18he didn't he didn't say
14:20he said that between meetings three and
14:22four
14:23uh mr colson phoned twice to jeb
14:26magruder
14:28now in parenthesis i have only according
14:31to jeb
14:33uh which indicated uh uh what mr o'brien
14:36told me that this was the only person
14:38he'd ever heard this from uh was
14:40magruder
14:41uh urging the the uh that this program
14:45go forward
14:46um
14:47i have the notation not price
14:50and uh i don't know to what that refers
14:53any longer that doesn't that doesn't
14:56jog my recollection at all
14:59he said that liddy had a commitment from
15:01krog that hunt had a commitment from
15:04coulson
15:05and
15:06these commitments i took it related to
15:11executive clemency that was the context
15:13in which that comment was made
15:17uh lydia had a commitment from crow yes
15:20sir that he could receive executive
15:22clemency that was that was what mr
15:24o'brien said that mr magruder had told
15:26him and mr hunt said that he had a
15:29commitment from mr chuck colson no yeah
15:32and i'm not saying that hunt said that
15:34bear in mind
15:36this is magruder speaking to o'brien now
15:40now this that because of this assertion
15:42i did contact kroge later on to
15:44determine when he had had contacts with
15:46lydia and and to try and either verify
15:48this or or set it aside
15:52and parenthetically circumstances
15:54indicated that he had had no contact
15:56either direct or indirect with lydia and
15:58so the
15:59the uh
16:01that was not borne out by anything that
16:02i could find collaterally in the time in
16:04which i work
16:06he said that the at the fourth meeting
16:09dean arrived late magruder dean liddy
16:12and mitchell attended the meeting
16:15there was an intelligence budget
16:18of 200 to 250 000
16:21dean said to lydia that he dean would
16:23have nothing further to do with this
16:25i asked him about charts
16:27and he said the charts did exist
16:30uh and the reason i asked him of course
16:32is that there was something in the press
16:33at this time about the existence of a
16:36set of charts
16:37he said that the code name gemstone was
16:40used
16:41that that term was not translated into
16:45what it what it really stood for at this
16:48meeting the parties he said uh
16:50apparently didn't know or that's what
16:52magruder told him
16:53uh i said was bugging involved and he
16:56said yes bugging was the one of the
16:58methods involved
16:59uh it also involved counter activities
17:02at the convention
17:04you know what the million dollar budget
17:06involved he didn't tell me
17:08uh this characterization at the bottom
17:11uh of the first page uh referred so far
17:14as i can recall to the 200 to 250 000
17:17budget
17:18he told me that uh there was a second
17:22intelligence operation at the committee
17:24to re-elect which was not involved in
17:26this series of four meetings
17:29um this involved uh
17:32a cab driver
17:34who volunteered at the muskie
17:36headquarters
17:38he had been recruited by a friend of ken
17:40reitz
17:41who was a former fbi man in tennessee
17:45he went into the muskie headquarters and
17:47volunteered and became senator muskie's
17:49chauffeur and a friend of the family and
17:52went to the muskie's house for dinner
17:54and
17:56soon began carrying all of the senator's
17:58mail back and forth and he photographed
18:01all the mail yeah he photographed all of
18:03the mail
18:04and who is this friend of ken reeds
18:06the fbi man i don't know i don't have
18:09his name but apparently your staff
18:10should because when the senate staff was
18:12looking for someone for this committee
18:14staff he was approached
18:16and so it shouldn't be too hard to find
18:19out who that was
18:21he declined the employment apparently
18:27the um
18:29uh one of the pieces of mail apparently
18:31was printed in evans and novak and so
18:33everybody in the muskie organization was
18:35questioned about it except the chauffeur
18:38and
18:39the chauffeur was a volunteer he was
18:40paid nothing
18:42eventually he was transferred
18:44from reach to
18:46howard hunt for purposes of
18:48management and reporting
18:52then
18:53i have a notation that reits
18:55became worried
18:57at some point about cash funds and i
18:59believe that refers
19:01back to this business of the transfer in
19:03other words reits didn't like
19:06what he saw about cash in the
19:08organization and he wanted out and at
19:11that point
19:12he discontinued any connection with this
19:14kind of activity and it and howard hunt
19:16took it over
19:19i have a note magruder was pushing
19:22and i think what that refers to is a
19:25statement that magruder was pushing
19:26generally for intelligence information
19:30uh
19:31he told me that magruder told him that
19:34there had been an entry into the
19:35democratic headquarters in may and a bug
19:37had been planted
19:39that he was satisfied
19:41that neither dean nor mitchell had
19:44knowledge of either the may or june
19:46breaking but that mr magruder did
19:51then he
19:52mentioned
19:54that
19:58he had been caught uh no i think this is
20:01mr o'brien speaking for himself
20:04he was he was advising caution with
20:07regard to john dean's uh objectivity
20:10in the advice that he might be giving
20:12the president in this matter what is
20:14hofgren hofgren is daniel hoffron and
20:18that name relates to the note that i
20:20will come to farther down on the page
20:26mr o'brien said that
20:29magruder reaches
20:31strong haldeman colson and the president
20:34in his
20:35story
20:37i said how does magruder reach the
20:40president
20:41and he said in this circumstance
20:45magruder fired gordon liddy he will say
20:48gordon liddy went to gordon strong
20:51and
20:53gordon strong came to magruder and said
20:57move him back
20:59that is this is strong talking to
21:00magruder saying move liddy back the
21:03president wants this project to go on
21:06i said is there any other way that this
21:08reaches the president and he said not
21:09that i know him
21:11now
21:14he said
21:17according to mr hofka
21:23mr magruder's wife
21:25was indicating
21:27to their friends apparently
21:30that there was a possibility that mr
21:32magruder would be indicted and that he
21:34was planning to leave the governor
21:37and that's the reference to the to
21:38hofgren at the top of the page
21:41now
21:43mr o'brien said that
21:46neither magruder nor mitchell in his
21:48o'brien's opinion were inevitably hung
21:50in this case by the evidence as he
21:53understood it to that point
21:54he said frankly john dean is the key
21:56problem
21:59mr o'brien was concerned about the
22:01post-watergate situation and about the
22:03handling of money and then he began
22:05telling me
22:06about this money situation which
22:08concerned him
22:10he told me about
22:12mr rivers
22:14mr combox
22:15a
22:16man who delivered 25 000 in cash to
22:20attorney bittman by leaving it in a
22:22phone booth
22:23and
22:24i said what became of the money and he
22:26said i believe it was deposited to their
22:28firm account
22:30he said there has been
22:32obstruction of justice in his opinion
22:35i asked him to define what he meant by
22:37that
22:38he said that a defendant in a in a
22:41criminal case is also a witness
22:43and the purpose of uh giving money to
22:45such a defendant becomes very important
22:48it's okay if one gives them attorneys
22:50fees and defense funds uh or possibly
22:53even subsistence but not consideration
22:56uh to not talk in other words the quid
22:59pro quo silence
23:01uh then he said uh money flow to howard
23:04hunt
23:05uh in turn to howard hunt's wife
23:08and then in turn nineteen thousand
23:10dollars to mr mccord which in turn went
23:13to mccord's attorney
23:15and this was an example that he was uh
23:17citing to
23:18he said uh tuesday of this week meaning
23:22the week of the fifth
23:25that
23:26mccord
23:29was going to present a letter to the
23:31court
23:34which
23:35uh implicated attorney parkinson
23:38uh he quoted mccord as saying this
23:40letter is a lie but i am going to get
23:42those these bastards
23:46he felt that having
23:48said that to the attorneys in the case
23:51that that comment was privileged
23:53but apparently mccord got cold feet he
23:56stood up to deliver the letter against
23:58parkinson in court but then he sat down
24:00without doing so
24:02then he characterizes uh mr mccord mr
24:05o'brien does
24:07in in the adjectives that you see there
24:10in the exhibit
24:13he said later
24:16uh and i don't know what oh i know it
24:19later refers to i was interrupted in
24:22this uh in this meeting
24:24and uh went out i believed to take a
24:26phone call and came back
24:29uh
24:31he said that mrs hunt has written a memo
24:35which names uh bittman and parkinson
24:38as involved in the money business
24:41uh that there's a memo from parkinson to
24:43dean to larue
24:46the memo
24:47went to larue
24:49because larue was responsible for
24:51obtaining the funds for this purpose
24:55just before howard hunt was sentenced
24:58which would have been in march uh uh
25:02as i recall although it doesn't say so
25:04here bittenman phoned o'brien who in
25:07turn passed a message to dean mitchell
25:09and larue that hunt was making a demand
25:11for seventy thousand dollars
25:14then he said in his opinion the
25:17attorney-client privilege will not cover
25:18meetings he was in
25:21or any conspiracy that he was in and
25:24that refers to john dean
25:26uh and then he mentioned to me that
25:28dean's attorney is mr hogan
25:31and the dean is represented in that he
25:33is actively counseling with an attorney
25:36uh
25:37he said that
25:39two blocks of money were delivered
25:43by mr mitchell
25:46i take it not personally but by the by
25:48the campaign to mr hall
25:52how many dollars i don't know
25:54i don't know and i don't think he knew i
25:56believe i asked him was this in cash i i
25:59don't know that either he just said that
26:01he because i was pressing him for any
26:03white house involvement and and uh all
26:05through these interviews senator that
26:07was the kind of the key question all the
26:09way through
26:11he said the night of watergate break in
26:14sloan and stands took cash home
26:15amounting to about 81 thousand dollars
26:17which they returned the next day this
26:19was given to larue on advice of martian
26:23and this money was used for subsistence
26:25for the defendants
26:27he said mr larue has a hundred thousand
26:29dollars now eighty-one thousand dollars
26:32of which he has held
26:33uh since that time since uh for for the
26:36past 11 months
26:40sloan said
26:42to o'brien that one to two million
26:43dollars in cash had come in
26:47uh stans uh reported
26:50that it was about a million seven
26:52which included 275 000 that had gone to
26:55combat and a 350 thousand dollar
26:59sum which had gone to the white house
27:01he said mr bryan said that one sheet of
27:03paper exists with a within accounting of
27:06this million seven on it
27:08and three people
27:09uh know uh where that accounting is who
27:13are the three people well i'll come to
27:14that later on in the account i think i
27:16better take this serious if you don't
27:18mind to explain the hieroglyphics as we
27:20go along
27:22he said that as far as his reputation
27:24was concerned mr stanz was quote done
27:26unquote but he o'brien did not foresee
27:29that mr stans would be indicted he is
27:31not guilty of any perjury it was had
27:34been very foxy in the in the statements
27:36that he had made
27:38that if he could spend a week with mr
27:40kombach and could get their their
27:42account straightened out he didn't
27:43foresee that there would be any
27:45liability in mr stands
27:48then we talked about the civil suits
27:51there were two the democratic suit and
27:53the common cause
27:54he felt that if the committee to reelect
27:57would only file with the congress
27:59a an accounting of all contributions
28:02that the common cause lawsuit could be
28:04mooted it would take somewhere
28:07between two weeks and six months to get
28:09those accounts in shape he didn't know
28:11just how long it would take
28:13he said that mr stanz was extremely
28:15opposed to doing this because this would
28:17break faith with the contributors who
28:19had contributed anonymously said if we
28:21do not do this i'm i'm satisfied we're
28:24going to lose the case
28:26in the democratic national committee
28:27suit
28:29settlement negotiations were underway
28:30because larry o'brien was now on the pay
28:33roll of dwayne andreas
28:35mr andreas held his future mr o'brien as
28:38long as the counter suits existed
28:39couldn't get credit he told me couldn't
28:41buy a house
28:43robert strauss wants to settle the case
28:45uh mr mitchell met with strauss the
28:47previous day
28:48uh the number that was being kicked
28:50around was a 500 000 settlement and he
28:53said there's five million dollars
28:55available in the committee to reelect a
28:57treasury to make that settlement
29:00howard hunt was a prime contract
29:03department howard hunt was a prime
29:04contact for segrete according to mr
29:07o'brien
29:08and i don't know what his source for
29:10this information is i think we've gone
29:12out of the magruder part of the
29:15source
29:16business now that hunt supplied a
29:18florida printer
29:20to three key segregated men one a man
29:23named norton from los angeles and a man
29:26from tampa and another man from florida
29:28whose names he didn't know and these
29:29three people performed dirty tricks what
29:33were the dirty tricks well the only the
29:35only one that i have a note of is
29:38the note generator of canuck letter
29:42and uh presumably he meant by that that
29:45either sigretti or one of these three
29:47people were the generator of that letter
29:50and what his source is for that i do not
29:52know
29:54i asked him about dwight chapin's
29:56involvement in this he said well chapin
29:58will take a bath by which he met uh
30:01his reputation or his his good repute
30:04will be affected
30:06he said someone is
30:09working newsmen for more favorable
30:11stories
30:12uh and his his source of information on
30:15that was uh
30:17a
30:18reporter named lasky
30:20who told him that this was this was
30:22going on
30:23uh he said that chapin had had a lot of
30:26segretic contact
30:29uh he said segreti had an immediate
30:31worry
30:32which was that he had received these
30:33payments of cash that you see here in
30:35the exhibit totaling forty thousand
30:37dollars
30:38uh by april 15th he was going to have to
30:39pay his income tax he needed guidance
30:42from somebody as to
30:44how to show that
30:46money as income or not and he lacked
30:49money to pay his taxes
30:53he said he's got the the problem of how
30:55one describes his business
30:57and
30:58how to deduct a business expense under
31:00those circumstances
31:02he said that mr segetti had kept a very
31:04complete diary in which he had
31:06catalogued all of his expenses
31:10he then
31:11told me about mr fensterwald who was an
31:14attorney representing
31:16mccord
31:18he said that uh
31:19mr ulch
31:21uh wanted out as mccord's attorney
31:23uh mccord had done some things which
31:26also did not approve of such as phoning
31:29the embassies at chile and israel with
31:31the thought that they were tapped so
31:32that he could be dismissed from the
31:34government's action against him
31:37mccord also had sent an unsigned letter
31:39to jack caulfield which
31:42mr o'brien described as sick
31:45which uh related to the cia and mr helms
31:48and so forth uh he said that uh caufield
31:52had taken the letter to mr dean
31:54uh caulfield had seen mccord three times
31:58i asked him whether caulfield had made
32:00any offers to mccord he said he didn't
32:01know he thought perhaps he had offered
32:03clemency but he thought also that this
32:06would be susceptible of proof because
32:08mccord very well may have taped him so
32:11to speak i hate to interrupt the cities
32:14but there's vote on them in the senate
32:16and the members of the committee have to
32:18go
32:19perform their senatorial
32:21years
32:24the senators are again working on
32:26amendments to the campaign reform act
32:28while they're on the senate floor we'll
32:30take a break
32:31public television's commentary the
32:33summer hearings will continue
32:35for station identification
32:46from washington impact continues its
32:49coverage of hearings by the senate
32:50select committee on presidential
32:52campaign activities here again
32:54correspondent robert mcneill
32:57senator baker brought the committee back
32:59to order and turned the questioning back
33:00to senator in nowhere
33:03the chairman has been temporarily
33:04detained and he asked me to recommence
33:07the hearings and to
33:10best permit senator norway to continue
33:12with his examination
33:14mr chairman i noticed that my time has
33:16expired but i wanted the committee to
33:20know that
33:21my line of questioning was a very simple
33:23one i just wanted uh the committee to be
33:26aware of the symbols in your notes and
33:29to better understand the uh
33:31your
33:33interview notes
33:34senator on that uh there's a there's a
33:37kind of a personal shorthand that runs
33:39through there of a few greek letters
33:41which i'll be glad to give a
33:43uh rosetta stone to the staff on if if
33:46they need it
33:48and will you provide us with your
33:50transcript of the meeting with mr
33:52mitchell also i have done so i believe
33:58again
34:01in a way is the everything that we
34:03received and
34:04yeah him the cassette and the transcript
34:07of the cassette council
34:09oh we have the uh
34:12yeah
34:14that's right do we have the tank of the
34:15measurement but i'm talking about the
34:16notes
34:18the thing i referred to in answering the
34:20senator's question was that tape and the
34:22transcript of the tape which is all that
34:24i have of that meeting
34:26uh i think mr vice chairman that
34:29mr strickland
34:31and mr
34:32hamilton had an exchange whereby the
34:35transcription we had was set up that
34:38right mr hamilton
34:42mr chairman now that i better understand
34:44the hieroglyphics and the
34:47notations and the symbols uh
34:50i i would
34:51like to yield a flaw permit me time to
34:54study these notes
34:56so that i can ask questions based upon
34:58these notes at a later time
35:00so i thank you very much mr ellen
35:03thank you uh senator noah senator gurney
35:05i understand has a few additional
35:07questions but since he hadn't returned
35:09to the hearing room yet i wonder
35:12senator weiker if you're
35:13in a position to continue with your
35:15examination
35:25mr price chairman before
35:27the senator begins if i could just put a
35:30concluding note on senator inouye's
35:34examination
35:37more or less to drop the other shoe
35:39these notes
35:41were not
35:43uh included in the president's papers
35:45unlike my other notes
35:47at the president's specific instance
35:49in order that they could be available to
35:51the attorney general and the prosecutors
35:55as
35:56source material and and of course the
35:58committee
36:00they were
36:02transmitted first by a phone call to the
36:04attorney general and then by
36:06a conference with a prosecuting attorney
36:08and then by an appearance at the grand
36:10jury during which these were all gone
36:12through in
36:13in great detail
36:16the
36:17report which you
36:19presented to the president
36:21sir
36:22my report to him was oral
36:25was it taped
36:26uh i have to assume so it was given in
36:30the executive office building office on
36:32what day sir
37:02on the 14th of april
37:06thank you very much sir i note that
37:08senator gurney has now returned to uh
37:12the committee table and if it's
37:13agreeable then we'll proceed with uh
37:15interrogation by senator gurney instead
37:17of senator wyker in the
37:19regular course he thank you mr chairman
37:24uh mr ehrlichman we have
37:26touched base once or twice on
37:29the combat transactions between him and
37:32you
37:34and i'd like to clean up one other point
37:37on that
37:38that was the conversation you had with
37:40him
37:42on april 19th telephone conversation i
37:45mean
37:47and this was the one that was taped we
37:50have a record of the tape here of course
37:56do you have a copy of that i believe i
37:58do
38:00let's turn to page
38:02five
38:04on that
38:07there was some conversation about
38:12his coming over and talking to you is
38:14this phone conversation as i understand
38:16it was just prior to the time he was
38:18going to appear before the grand jury
38:20yes like the day before
38:23and he was here in washington and
38:25talking to you and he
38:27said something about touching base with
38:29you before he went down to talk to the
38:31grand jury
38:33and you said to him well
38:35it's all right but of course they'll ask
38:37you about it and
38:38indicated maybe you don't want
38:41that information to come out
38:43so i'll start there if you want to that
38:46is if you want to come over and talk
38:47they'll ask you come back well lay and
38:50you said yes
38:52comeback said well maybe i shouldn't
38:55and you said they'll ask you to whom
38:56you've spoken about your testimony and i
38:58would appreciate it if you would say
39:00you've talked to me in california
39:02because at that time i was investigating
39:04this thing for the president combat and
39:07not now
39:09ehrlichman well i wouldn't ask you to
39:10lie come back no i know ellicott but the
39:13point is combat testimony was in
39:16california
39:18can you tell a committee what that would
39:20be all about i mean why would you want
39:23him to tell a grand jury that this phone
39:25conversation between
39:27you and him that day in washington would
39:30better be reported to be in california
39:32oh no no
39:34i was referring to a an interview that i
39:37had with mr comback in california
39:40in connection with this inquiry that i
39:42was doing for the president
39:44and
39:45by that i i simply did not want mr
39:47kombach
39:49to omit
39:50in in his testimony if i asked him what
39:52contacts he'd had with me be sure and
39:54tell them about that one in california
39:56because i was going to have to tell them
39:57about it and i didn't want him to be
39:59caught unawares
40:02that was a meeting which was not held in
40:05my office it was held in his automobile
40:08and
40:09uh i was
40:10i was a little concerned frankly that he
40:12might for some reason omit to to testify
40:15to it i was intending to testify to it i
40:18obviously would have to as to who i had
40:20talked to in the course of this
40:21investigation were you concerned about
40:24his reporting this particular
40:25conversation that we're talking about
40:27now no
40:28no
40:30matter of fact i turned over this
40:32transcript to the prosecutors and the
40:34grand jury
40:36how often did you tape conversations on
40:39the
40:40recording device you had in the office
40:43on your telephone
40:45i didn't hear the first part of your
40:46question how often did you use the
40:48recording device that you had on your
40:50telephone to record conversation uh
40:53in routine business very occasionally
40:56not not very often
40:58uh as i got into this
41:00watergate
41:02phase after march 30th
41:04i began more and more to use it with
41:07people that i thought were
41:08somehow or another involved in the in
41:11the matter and i used it
41:13in connection with the uh stories that
41:15came back to me about the the charges
41:18that were being leveled against me
41:20uh by mr dean
41:22in my calls to uh uh colson and claussen
41:25and curley and clark mcgregor people
41:27that i thought might provide me with
41:29some
41:31supporting
41:32evidence for my recollection as to what
41:34actually had happened
41:36well that could be understandable but
41:38how about combat now comeback was your
41:40very good friend
41:42was he not yes but he was also very
41:44knowledgeable in this case and he had
41:46been one of the people that i had
41:47interviewed
41:48uh to try and gather information for the
41:50president on the on the money end of
41:52this thing
41:54and uh so uh
41:56i considered him to be a
41:58a witness if you please in the in the
42:00inquiry because combat's reaction as i'm
42:03sure you know is total shock i
42:05understand recall i understand and that
42:07i i regret very much but i had a an
42:11assignment from the president that i
42:12felt i had to carry out matter of fact
42:14uh
42:15i
42:16did some checking on mr holman who's
42:18also my very good friend uh i did that
42:20because i felt i had to i had to bring
42:23to the president whatever information
42:24was uh available
42:26uh in the in the higher interest are you
42:28saying now this is during the period of
42:31time that the president had
42:34reassigned the business of watergate to
42:36you and from mr dean yes sir that's
42:38correct
42:41going going back to that
42:43that assignment of the
42:46investigation of the watergate to dean
42:48now i'm not talking about june july i'm
42:50talking about february
42:52of this year
42:54matter of fact i think dean
42:56talked to the president on february the
42:5827th and in that conversation with the
43:01president the president
43:03assigned
43:04the investigation of watergate at least
43:06that current phase of it to dean
43:09as i recall
43:11he said that he wanted dean to report
43:13directly to him
43:15i think he also said that it was taking
43:17up too much of your time and also
43:19holloman's time
43:21uh
43:22was that ever discussed with you or with
43:25haldeman the president's decision to
43:26have dean now become the
43:29the chief investigator of watergate
43:31february 27th
43:33uh
43:34yes senator except chief investigator i
43:37think is is slightly off the
43:40off the track
43:42uh
43:43the
43:44preoccupation at that time as far as the
43:47president was concerned
43:49was not in an investigation of the facts
43:52as nearly as it was to get some one
43:55person in the white house who was going
43:57to look after
43:59a number of
44:00existing problems with relation to this
44:02whole subject matter and they were
44:04primarily the problems of executive
44:06privilege and separation of powers as he
44:08saw it then not a question of of uh
44:11whodunit
44:12and
44:13so
44:15rather soon after
44:17this meeting we had at la costa which
44:19was at the result incidentally the
44:21meeting was a result of the president
44:23saying who's in charge and what plans
44:25are being made and and how's the work
44:27coming and this came at about the time
44:29this committee was created yes sir right
44:32that's concerned about what to do about
44:34the investigation of the committee
44:36how to respond to it yes sir that was
44:38that was certainly part of it go on uh
44:41coming out of that session
44:43as a result of our report back to him
44:46that the that the work was largely
44:48undone
44:49that a tremendous amount of work was
44:50left to be done in terms of of
44:53developing the administration's position
44:55on executive privilege and
44:57attorney-client privilege and and
44:59marshaling all of the of the uh
45:02files that had to be marshaled and all
45:03arrested
45:05and he said well
45:06uh
45:08i want dean to take charge of this i
45:10want you fellas to get out of it he said
45:12to me i've got something else i want you
45:14to do and i want you to press on it and
45:16so i started off on a an entirely
45:19different project that had to do with
45:20legislation
45:22and
45:23from about the
45:26third week in february
45:29the understanding was that i was out of
45:32it bob holderman was basically out of it
45:34and dean was the lead man in the white
45:36house on this whole subject of
45:38privilege the committee the grand jury
45:41and all of the collateral questions that
45:44were associated
45:47did dean make any reports to you after
45:49that or only to the president i saw very
45:52little of mr dean in in those
45:56months and
45:57quite a few weeks went by when i didn't
45:59see him at all
46:01or for that matter
46:03really
46:04talked to him very much
46:08let's see
46:10in the month of february
46:13after
46:14the president made that assignment i
46:16didn't see him at all
46:18the month of march i didn't see him at
46:19all for
46:20the first 20 days
46:23and then i saw him in connection with
46:25the
46:25hunt blackmail
46:28twice
46:30on the 20th and the 21st but that was
46:33the only subject that was discussed
46:35and then of course there was a meeting
46:37on the 22nd with mr dean and mr mitchell
46:40and and then the president
46:43then
46:44from then on
46:46uh
46:47i had virtually no contact with mr dean
46:50except one meeting
46:51with in in mr holman's company the day
46:55we got back from san clemente the 8th of
46:56april
46:59once on the 10th of april
47:01pardon me
47:05and then this meeting of the 13th of
47:07april for which the notes exist that are
47:09in senator inouye's
47:12hands
47:13just one further question on that
47:16was there any ever
47:18any suspicion in your mind that
47:21the president appointed dean to sort of
47:23be in charge of watergate on february
47:2527th because he might have had some
47:27suspicion that
47:29maybe you were involved or holloman
47:31involved or somebody else in the white
47:32house involved well what the president
47:34explained to them to me was
47:36that
47:37the central question here was one of
47:41executive privilege and the availability
47:43of presidential assistance
47:46to testimony before the congress you
47:48recall this had come up in the in the
47:50setting of peter flanagan and and uh
47:52coming before the what the judiciary
47:54committee declined and uh
47:58through my through my notes of meetings
48:01with the president there are three or
48:02four references
48:04to the president's strong concern
48:06that paulderman and i
48:09were
48:10test cases so to speak of the
48:12availability of presidential assistance
48:14to testify before the congress
48:16and
48:17i know there were some questions about
48:19his reference to us as principles i
48:21think you have to take it in that
48:22setting we were principles on the
48:24question of the availability of of
48:26assistance to testify
48:28now the the
48:30uh precedent that might be set
48:32by our testifying he was concerned would
48:36in turn open up uh henry kissinger's
48:39testifying and the whole and and the
48:41whole panoply so to speak of
48:43presidential assistance and very soon
48:45you would have a breakdown of the uh
48:48white house staff system because
48:49everybody be up here testifying like
48:51cabinet secretaries do every day and you
48:53couldn't get any work done
48:54so
48:55basically
48:58he thought that was where one drew the
49:00line and he wanted dean to focus
49:02very hard on that i don't think on the
49:0527th
49:07that the president was advised
49:09of any implication in this matter of
49:11either mr hallman or me
49:13and in point of fact he continued to be
49:17confident uh through the 30th i know and
49:21as a matter of fact i'm through the the
49:2316th of april because he had a report
49:25from mr peterson the assistant attorney
49:27general and from the attorney general to
49:29the effect that neither mr hallman nor i
49:32were criminally involved in this matter
49:34in any respect
49:35so uh and that was on the uh on the
49:38occasion of their meeting on that sunday
49:39which would have been the 15th
49:42uh so uh uh i don't think uh
49:45particularly the 27th of february but
49:47continuing on through the next three
49:49weeks that he had any real concern about
49:51that
49:52well you you mentioned
49:54meetings with dean so
49:56i guess it's a good time to go to those
50:00let's go to this meeting uh
50:03between
50:04you and
50:06mr holliman and mr dean
50:08following the march 21st meeting of dean
50:12with a present that's when the roof sort
50:14of started to cave in
50:16and i'm curious to know what transpired
50:19in that meeting between
50:21the three of you after the
50:24meeting between dean and the president
50:25when
50:26presumably according to dean's testimony
50:28substantiated by
50:31moore and what dean told moore
50:34dean told the president everything he
50:35knew about watergate
50:38then there was a meeting as i understand
50:40it uh
50:41between the three of you
50:44there was a meeting at uh
50:463 45
50:48on the 21st
50:51yes and then
50:53that meeting moved
50:55to the president's office at a after
50:57about an hour now could you describe
51:00first what happened
51:02in your office it was in your office
51:04wasn't it the first meeting
51:06i'm not sure uh i don't i don't recall i
51:10have in the log here 3 45 to 6 dean
51:14holloman that's the only thing it says
51:17doesn't say where
51:19although there's another note that day
51:21of the meeting it says holloman's office
51:23so i would assume perhaps this 3 45
51:25meeting was in your office
51:30i i don't know and well that's not my
51:32notes don't show but in any event it's
51:34either in mr hallman's office or mine
51:35i'm sure
51:38the uh
51:43the conversation
51:45who called the meeting do you remember
51:49no sir i do not
51:50i do not
51:52uh
51:55the conversation as i recall largely
51:58involved the question of
52:00uh testimonial availability of white
52:03house staff people it was this
52:05continuing question that was that was
52:07ongoing mr dean did not report
52:10in my hearing
52:12uh what he had told the president that
52:14day he never mentioned anything about
52:15his name
52:17not that i can recall at all uh he we
52:20were largely
52:22taken up both at that meeting and
52:25continuing in the meeting which took
52:26place in the in the president's office
52:28afterwards
52:29uh with the question of
52:32how to get the story out
52:34number one how to get white house people
52:37to testify fully under what
52:39circumstances whether they should be
52:40made fully available to this committee
52:43waiving all privilege or whether
52:45they should be made available fully to
52:47the grand jury and not to this committee
52:49at all
52:50whether the attorney-client privilege
52:52still existed as to dean and he talked
52:54to us quite a bit about the law of
52:56attorney-client privilege as i recall at
52:57that occasion
52:59and so it was it was that setting now mr
53:03dean and i got into a difference of
53:05opinion at that time about the question
53:07of immunity and how that should be
53:09handled
53:11as i recall right around this time i
53:14think now what do you mean about
53:15immunity well his theory his theory was
53:19that uh the president should negotiate
53:21blanket immunity for the white house
53:23staff with the
53:24uh attorney general so that the entire
53:27white house staff lock stock and barrel
53:29could testify freely before the grand
53:31jury as to any and all facts and clear
53:34the air and everybody be immune from
53:36prosecution
53:38that just didn't make any sense to me
53:40from either a practical standpoint or a
53:43public appearance standpoint
53:45uh and we got into a a difference of
53:49opinion on that well now and that was
53:51again a partnership
53:53why why did he say that well he was he
53:56was looking for formulae
53:58he had come up with a concept that there
54:01ought to be some kind of a
54:02of a
54:03commission an independent commission
54:05that would be set up
54:07but when somebody talks about immunity
54:09obviously they're afraid of ending up in
54:11the pokey did he say now we're all going
54:13to jail so we'd better get some immunity
54:15here no he said that he was concerned
54:18that people would not talk freely now mr
54:20dean
54:21is an immunity expert
54:23mr dean told us early in the game that
54:26he was the author of the statute
54:29which the congress
54:30eventually adopted granting immunity to
54:33people in in certain criminal situations
54:35so that they would testify against hires
54:38up or co-conspirators or whatnot and so
54:41he gave us quite a quite an accounting
54:43of the difference between use immunity
54:45and transactional immunity and the
54:46various technicalities of this and he
54:49explained that immunity was the sort of
54:52the lubricant that was needed in this
54:53thing to get people to come forward and
54:56to fully tell their stories
54:58uh now
55:00but if everybody is innocent of
55:02everything and well i don't think it met
55:04up with liddy why would people worry
55:06about immunity well i don't think at
55:07that stage
55:09that
55:10there was any there was any necessary
55:13assumption on our part that everybody
55:15was innocent of everything i think there
55:17was a there was it was implicit in that
55:19in the conversation that uh there were
55:22liabilities now we were thinking in
55:24terms of mr magruder we were thinking in
55:26terms of people at the committee but but
55:28mr dean was also implying uh to us
55:32that people in the white house would not
55:34come forward and testify freely without
55:36immunity this was a line that picked up
55:39i guess
55:41about this time and then was replayed
55:43over and over in his conversations with
55:45mr haldeman now did he mention to you in
55:48this discussion uh who would need
55:50immunity in the way no he did not no
55:52names not mentioned at all no sir not
55:54that i can not that i can recall now who
55:56did you think might because you had some
55:59discussion on this i
56:03i don't think that i don't think that i
56:05thought who might at that point bear in
56:07mind i had been
56:09i had been totally out of touch with
56:10this situation for some period of time
56:13my reaction to his proposal
56:15was to simply say to him that that was
56:18out of the question that that we simply
56:20could not expect anybody to grant
56:23immunity either on a blanket basis or on
56:25an individual basis to anybody in the
56:27white house now i said that rather early
56:29in the conversation and that may have
56:31inhibited
56:32any
56:33uh specifics that mr dean otherwise
56:36might have been willing to come forward
56:37with but what was mr holloman's reaction
56:40uh he didn't express a reaction that i
56:42can recall to that he was concerned as i
56:45recall with the general subject of
56:47executive privilege because he'd been
56:49hearing from mr mitchell strongly
56:51uh about executive privilege and he
56:53conveyed us mr mitchell's strong feeling
56:56that the executive privilege position
56:58that the administration was taking was
57:00untenable and and he didn't say anything
57:02about this conversation he'd had this
57:04long conversation earlier in the day
57:06with the president no sir
57:09did you know at that time about
57:12who or
57:13may have been knowledgeable about the
57:15break-in
57:16did you know at some point in time he
57:18told you that
57:21some people knew about it oh no
57:24but this was later that developed
57:26as a result of
57:29phone calls that bob holloman was
57:31getting
57:32while we were in san clemente following
57:35uh
57:36well we left i left
57:38i don't want to get bogged down yeah i
57:40left about
57:41five or six days later to california
57:44while we were out there we began
57:46realizing there was a strong conflict
57:48between dean and mitchell on this whole
57:51question of people going to the grand
57:52jury or the committee and so on and
57:55couldn't get a feel of it i didn't know
57:56what was behind it and i began trying to
57:58find out what was behind it
58:00and
58:01then i talked to mr o'brien
58:04and that is the first that i knew about
58:06these four meetings back in november and
58:08december and january and february where
58:10these plans were laid then i began
58:13inquiring through mr moore and others as
58:15to what mr mitchell might have testified
58:17to that was worrying him
58:19and why he didn't think dean ought to go
58:22near the u.s attorney or the or the
58:24grand jury and what his concerns were is
58:26it is it fair to say that up to this
58:29march 21st day
58:32you had no knowledge of what dean's
58:34activities were in connection with
58:35watergate and now i'm talking about
58:38possible illegal activities
58:41other than the combat business and
58:44this
58:45talk you had on executive clemency is
58:47that the fair thing to say i didn't know
58:50what he had had to do with the combat
58:52business except
58:54in the recruiting of mr combat well i'm
58:56only talking about what's transpired
58:58here in these this week right i do not
59:00know about what lay behind that in terms
59:02of these meetings in dean's office with
59:04larue and kombach you know nothing about
59:06his activities other than these little
59:09bits and pieces that we've mentioned
59:10well in in retrospect i evidently
59:13i evidently knew about bits and pieces
59:16but i never i never
59:18had enough
59:19to alert me to put it together i just i
59:22just uh well all right is there anything
59:24else that occurred in that one hour that
59:26we should know
59:29back to the march 21st meeting in your
59:32office
59:34you
59:35you will get better information i think
59:38on that meeting from mr holman since i
59:40believe he took notes during the meeting
59:42i did not what transpired in the
59:44president's office now when you move the
59:46meeting over there there was virtually a
59:48replay
59:50of this
59:51difference of opinion between dean and
59:53me on the question of immunity for the
59:55white house staff
59:56the president was advancing a
59:59premise
1:00:00at that meeting everybody goes to the
1:00:02grand jury nobody goes to the senate
1:00:04committee
1:00:05and
1:00:07we go to the grand jury right away and
1:00:09the white house staff marches down there
1:00:11and platoons if necessary and we get it
1:00:14all
1:00:15cleaned up and if there's any problem
1:00:17why the problems are smoked out was that
1:00:20the decision
1:00:22no i say it was advanced as a as a sort
1:00:24of a premise for argument
1:00:26and uh mr dean said well that's what
1:00:28i've been saying uh we ought to do that
1:00:30we ought to do it under a blanket
1:00:31immunity
1:00:32and uh that way all the truth will come
1:00:34out
1:00:35and i was saying i think that's just i
1:00:37just think that's wrong number one i
1:00:40don't think anybody in the white house
1:00:41is entitled to immunity if they've done
1:00:43something wrong then then
1:00:45they ought to take a penalty uh
1:00:48more than that i think it would be just
1:00:50terribly under misunderstood by the
1:00:52american people now what was holloman's
1:00:54position
1:00:55i again i you'll find that throughout
1:00:57these kinds of things mr holliman seldom
1:01:00if ever takes a an advisory position uh
1:01:03he just listens
1:01:05he listens he takes notes uh uh
1:01:09uh
1:01:10undoubtedly gives his opinion but he
1:01:12doesn't usually give it an open meeting
1:01:14of course he must have realized that he
1:01:16was involved in some way here i should
1:01:19think he'd have some opinion upon his
1:01:21future and a very important meeting like
1:01:22this i'm not sure that either he or i
1:01:26had any
1:01:28real appreciation at that point in time
1:01:32that we were in fact involved in this as
1:01:34you put it well but we do have the
1:01:36evidence that uh he instructed strong to
1:01:39shred some papers that might uh have
1:01:41some value senator
1:01:44i i must say that story has arisen in
1:01:47the last six weeks as far as i'm not
1:01:50saying you know anything about no simply
1:01:52saying i'm surprised
1:01:54i don't think he knew about it either i
1:01:55i interviewed strong at great length and
1:01:58my notes are here
1:02:00and i asked him
1:02:01because i was trying to find out about
1:02:02mr hallman frankly i said tell me
1:02:05everything you know
1:02:07about how holdemon might be tied into
1:02:09this thing
1:02:10and he gave me four or five
1:02:12instances
1:02:14of some contact that mr hallman might
1:02:16have had with the watergate business
1:02:18there was not a there was not a
1:02:19scintilla of a mention of shredding
1:02:22documents anywhere in that what you're
1:02:24saying is that we may get different
1:02:25testimony from the next witness well i
1:02:28and and i
1:02:29and i'm saying too that as we sat as we
1:02:32sat in this
1:02:34march 21st meeting
1:02:38i don't think mr holman or i
1:02:42had any contemplation that there was
1:02:44going to be a suggestion of our
1:02:45implications well now what did the
1:02:47president
1:02:48say to this uh difference of opinion
1:02:50between you and dean on immunity he he
1:02:53said that he would like to have us have
1:02:55a meeting with john mitchell
1:02:57and sit down and talk with him not only
1:02:59about that about the basic question of
1:03:02whether staff should appear here or at
1:03:04the grand jury or both but also
1:03:07recasting the administration's approach
1:03:10to the question of executive uh
1:03:12privilege because he knew that mr
1:03:13mitchell had very strong views on it and
1:03:15did the meeting end on that note yes sir
1:03:18all right now the next day you did have
1:03:20such a meeting did you not yes we did uh
1:03:22with
1:03:23the three of you and mr mitchell
1:03:25right and then uh that meeting
1:03:29likewise
1:03:31went over to the president's office in
1:03:33the afternoon would you describe
1:03:35those two meetings
1:03:37uh
1:03:38i was in only a part of the first
1:03:40meeting which was held mr holloman's
1:03:42office that was the day that secretary
1:03:44schultz came back from the monetary
1:03:46conferences
1:03:47and
1:03:49we were in the midst of a
1:03:51re-examination of phase three
1:03:54the economic
1:03:56program
1:03:57and i was sent to the airport to
1:04:00meet secretary schultz uh ride back with
1:04:03him in the helicopter and the automobile
1:04:05bring him up to date on what the
1:04:06president wanted to meet with him about
1:04:09and
1:04:09arrange for a time that afternoon when
1:04:12the secretary could come over and we
1:04:13could have a further meeting and get
1:04:15into
1:04:16the work that had been in progress
1:04:18during his absence
1:04:19the under secretary i guess it's called
1:04:21deputy secretary of treasury mr simon
1:04:24likewise wrote back and we had that
1:04:26session so i joined i rejoined excuse me
1:04:30the dean mitchell holderman meeting
1:04:33um
1:04:34not too long before it went over to the
1:04:36president's office
1:04:38inspired while you were there
1:04:41sir what transpired while you were there
1:04:43while i was there there was largely a
1:04:45discussion of executive privilege
1:04:47and mr mitchell's views uh that the
1:04:50klein dean's testimony uh
1:04:53or no i don't remember whether he
1:04:55testified but anyway the administration
1:04:56position
1:04:58uh had been too
1:04:59uh restrictive
1:05:01and that it was uh
1:05:03untenable both
1:05:05he thought from a legal standpoint and
1:05:06also
1:05:08from political standpoint
1:05:12now again
1:05:14in this meeting
1:05:17in the president's office
1:05:20there was no discussion of the gory
1:05:22details of watergate there was not there
1:05:25was not just the technicalities of
1:05:27perhaps how to bring out the whole story
1:05:30well the
1:05:31when when the four of us went to the
1:05:33president's office again
1:05:35it was largely
1:05:37how to get the whole story out
1:05:39the question again of the grand jury of
1:05:41immunity
1:05:42in john mitchell's presence with the
1:05:44president trying these various things
1:05:46out on john mitchell and it finally
1:05:48ended up with the president assigning to
1:05:50mr dean
1:05:51that he wanted mr dean to sit down and
1:05:54write out
1:05:55a statement
1:05:57as completely as possible
1:06:00of the facts of this whole of this whole
1:06:03subject map this is why he went to camp
1:06:05david some
1:06:07time later apparently and that that's
1:06:08what i was told that that uh
1:06:11he found it impossible to do this uh job
1:06:14with the gray hearings going on and the
1:06:16distractions and mr gray making
1:06:18accusations against him and so on this
1:06:20really puzzles me
1:06:22here on march 21st that's
1:06:25the day before we're talking about now
1:06:28supposedly from the testimony we have
1:06:30from mr dean
1:06:32and the testimony we have from mr moore
1:06:35that dean told moore
1:06:38dean told him all about watergate that
1:06:40is all dean knew about what again
1:06:44and then there's a meeting in the
1:06:45president's office between the president
1:06:47and dean and you and holdemon
1:06:51then there's another meeting between the
1:06:53three of you and mitchell and then you
1:06:55join the president this of course is the
1:06:57next day
1:06:59didn't the president say in any of these
1:07:01meetings now listen fellas here i've
1:07:03heard all about this from john dean
1:07:06what gives here what are we going to do
1:07:08now
1:07:09what plan do you have who's going to do
1:07:11what how are we going to get this out
1:07:13we've got to do it no discussion of that
1:07:16senator i have great difficulty in
1:07:19believing
1:07:20that the president was told what mr dean
1:07:23says he was told because of the
1:07:25president's approach to this which i saw
1:07:28in these two meetings
1:07:30uh
1:07:32now i don't know what mr dean told him i
1:07:34guess mr hallman was in one of those
1:07:36meetings or part of it and maybe he's in
1:07:38a position to take
1:07:40but he never told you anything about
1:07:42what transpired in the meeting between
1:07:44the president holliman and dean
1:07:46holliman did well he he told me that
1:07:48what mr dean's testified to is not true
1:07:52now
1:07:53uh
1:07:55i am i am
1:07:56forced to the assumption
1:07:58by the president's conduct afterward
1:08:01that one of two things was taking place
1:08:03either he still
1:08:05confidently believed
1:08:07that the white house was
1:08:09without blame
1:08:11and that mr mitchell was without blame
1:08:14and was acting accordingly or
1:08:16he was involved in
1:08:19setting
1:08:20a few snares on the trail
1:08:23and was playing it cool
1:08:26because
1:08:29he did not get into
1:08:32any of the
1:08:35january february march planning meeting
1:08:38business or the involvement of of john
1:08:40mitchell or any of those kinds of
1:08:42subjects which presumably mr dean had
1:08:44laid all out for him if you're to
1:08:45believe mr dean
1:08:48you mean
1:08:50put it another way he was in the process
1:08:52of getting the information out from
1:08:54everybody is that right i it would be
1:08:56one of the two and and the
1:08:59uh assignment to mr dean to go and write
1:09:02all this down
1:09:04uh would fit that hypothesis in other
1:09:06words he wasn't going to move against
1:09:09anybody until he had this down and could
1:09:11see what this fellow really had and
1:09:14then would go for well now
1:09:18round about this time was somewhat later
1:09:20and there were so many meetings here
1:09:22i've really forgotten
1:09:24which occurred when
1:09:26so i'm perhaps i'm going to have to rely
1:09:27on you for that but
1:09:29did the president uh lift the phone up
1:09:32anytime and say john i want you to come
1:09:34over to the office here and talk about
1:09:36watergate what you know about it no sir
1:09:39not until
1:09:40uh
1:09:41way late in the game he lifted up the
1:09:43phone one day
1:09:45and called me down and said i am
1:09:47satisfied that john dean is in this so
1:09:49deeply
1:09:50that he simply cannot any longer
1:09:53have anything to do with that's when he
1:09:55transferred the assignment to you yes
1:09:56sir and what date was that march 30.
1:09:59and
1:10:00tell us again precisely what transpired
1:10:03in that phone conversation beyond what
1:10:05you have already well that was a that
1:10:07was a meeting in the president's office
1:10:09uh on march 30.
1:10:11and
1:10:13it was
1:10:15as i recall quite brief we had had uh
1:10:19we were getting ready to leave that same
1:10:20day as a matter of fact for california
1:10:24and
1:10:25he called me down uh i'm looking for
1:10:29thank you for the time to help me
1:10:32recall the time of departure here
1:10:38yeah we left at three o'clock in the
1:10:40afternoon
1:10:41we had had a long meeting that morning
1:10:44with secretary schultz and mr sonnenfeld
1:10:46about
1:10:47the economy
1:10:49and that ran from nine to about
1:10:53i don't know what 10 or 11 something of
1:10:55that kind of a long long session as i
1:10:57recall
1:10:58he called me down for just about 10
1:11:01minutes at noon time
1:11:03and said
1:11:04what i just told you
1:11:07and i've said well
1:11:09what is it you expect me to do basically
1:11:12and he said i want you to step into what
1:11:14dean has been doing here
1:11:16i need to know about executive privilege
1:11:18i need to know about attorney-client
1:11:20privilege i need to know have somebody
1:11:22set this strategy with regard to
1:11:25testifying at the committee and the
1:11:27grand jury and these other places and i
1:11:29need to know where the truth lies in
1:11:31this thing
1:11:32and
1:11:33the only tip-off that i had had to that
1:11:36was a
1:11:38request from him
1:11:40uh
1:11:41on the
1:11:4227th i believe it was
1:11:46yes on the 27th is that the meeting
1:11:49between 11 and 1 with the president
1:11:51uh uh yeah i believe it yes yes indeed
1:11:55uh
1:11:56that was
1:11:57for the purpose of dictating to me
1:12:00a list of questions that he wanted put
1:12:03to the attorney general
1:12:06and
1:12:07i believe that telephone call to the
1:12:09attorney general which actually was not
1:12:11completed until the next day because he
1:12:12was traveling
1:12:14uh is in your is in your file uh phone
1:12:17call with plant east on the 28th and i
1:12:20then went down a handwritten list
1:12:23of questions that the president had put
1:12:25to me about the progress of the case
1:12:28about the involvement of john mitchell
1:12:30the possible any possible evidence that
1:12:32plaintiffs might have any possible
1:12:34evidence of anybody else being involved
1:12:36at the committee to reelect any evidence
1:12:38of any white house staff being involved
1:12:40and the president told me to tell the
1:12:43attorney general that if he had any such
1:12:45evidence or if he developed any such
1:12:47evidence that he was then to transmitted
1:12:50directly to the president not through me
1:12:52not through anybody else at the white
1:12:54house but direct to the president and
1:12:56that message i did as you see in the in
1:12:58the transcript there i did transmit to
1:13:00the attorney general
1:13:01[Music]
1:13:03do we have those questions that he no
1:13:06sir you do not they are a part of my
1:13:09notes of the meeting of the 27th which
1:13:12are in the president's file
1:13:16how many questions were there
1:13:19well
1:13:23there are about
1:13:2510 or 12 topics i think written out on a
1:13:28piece of paper and would you give us to
1:13:30the best of your recollection what the
1:13:31topics were and what the questions were
1:13:33i think i can do that best senator by
1:13:36uh
1:13:38looking at that telephone conversation
1:13:40and uh because i think that
1:13:43that that transcript is quite faithful
1:13:46to the list
1:13:47i just went down the list in talking
1:13:49with the attorney general i don't seem
1:13:50to have that in my
1:13:52the telephone uh the telephone call with
1:13:55mr kleindist on the 28th i wonder if the
1:13:59committee would hand this to the
1:14:02witness mr ehrlich and that apparently
1:14:04is it
1:14:04if we have another copy i wish i could
1:14:06have it too but i think it's better you
1:14:08have it at the moment
1:14:10we may have a copy of it here i may have
1:14:12stuck it back in
1:14:16and thank you very much
1:14:18thanks i have a copy you know
1:14:21uh actually the the first the first
1:14:25sentences i recall
1:14:26is only partly on this transcript and it
1:14:29said there are a number of things the
1:14:30president wanted me to cover with you
1:14:33and only the latter half of that
1:14:34sentence is
1:14:36is in the uh
1:14:38transcript and if we could mr ellington
1:14:40this is very important but if you could
1:14:43summarize these
1:14:45as briefly as can it'll help out the
1:14:47committee because i think my right time
1:14:49is running out here you'll see uh uh in
1:14:52the in the fourth paragraph i said
1:14:53number one he wanted me to ask you
1:14:56these two things that i did yesterday
1:14:58about the grand jury
1:15:00and about baker meeting senator baker
1:15:03and then we go into an inquiry
1:15:06about some statements that senator
1:15:08weiker had made to the press which
1:15:11he the president had asked pat gray to
1:15:13check into
1:15:15then um
1:15:18and the president wanted a report on
1:15:19whether senator weiker had any evidence
1:15:21or not to
1:15:22support these assertions
1:15:24that i i think perhaps you'd better
1:15:27explain a little more about senator
1:15:29baker who is not here since so we can
1:15:32know that there's no well the the
1:15:35president had designated john dean as
1:15:38the white house contact
1:15:41uh
1:15:42on watergate or the white house lead man
1:15:43on watergate as i say back in
1:15:46february he had also designated the
1:15:48attorney general
1:15:50as the
1:15:51contact to the committee
1:15:53uh and had asked the attorney general to
1:15:56be in touch with senator baker with
1:15:58regard to uh committee rules and and uh
1:16:02technical matters of that kind this was
1:16:04just a liaison so he could find out what
1:16:06was going on what the committee plan to
1:16:09do that sort of that's correct and uh so
1:16:12he was asking for a report from
1:16:15the attorney general on that by the way
1:16:18it comes back to me that in the meeting
1:16:20that uh dean and mitchell and holliman
1:16:22and i had in the president's office on
1:16:24the 22nd
1:16:26that the president picked up the phone
1:16:28and called the attorney general
1:16:30and had given him some questions
1:16:33uh to ask senator baker about committee
1:16:36timing and and uh that kind of thing so
1:16:38that he would be advised of the of the
1:16:41facts and he had not yet had the report
1:16:43back from the attorney general on that
1:16:47then this first page is about uh senator
1:16:50weiker's statements
1:16:52which was one of the items on the list
1:16:59then at the bottom of page two i said
1:17:01the president said for me to say this to
1:17:03you
1:17:04that the best information he has
1:17:07had and has is that neither dean or
1:17:10haldeman nor coulson nor i or anybody in
1:17:13the white house had any prior knowledge
1:17:15of this burglary
1:17:16he said
1:17:17that he is counting on you to provide
1:17:19him with any information to the contrary
1:17:21if it ever turns up
1:17:24and you just contact him direct
1:17:27now as far as the committee to re-elect
1:17:28is concerned he said that serious
1:17:30questions are being raised with regard
1:17:32to mitchell and he would likewise want
1:17:34you to communicate to him any evidence
1:17:37or inferences from evidence on that
1:17:38subject i think we had better stop there
1:17:41the chairman points out to me we do have
1:17:43a vote on the senate floor
1:17:50another floor vote this one dealing with
1:17:51railroads has interrupted the hearings
1:17:54public television's coverage of the
1:17:55senate watergate hearings will continue
1:17:57after applause for station
1:17:58identification
1:18:00unabridged coverage of these hearings is
1:18:02provided as a public service by the
1:18:04member stations of pbs the public
1:18:07broadcasting service
1:18:11from washington
1:18:12mpact continues its coverage of hearings
1:18:14by the senate select committee on
1:18:16presidential campaign activities here
1:18:18again correspondent jim lehrer
1:18:21picking up the hearings again senator
1:18:23gurney is going over john ehrlichman's
1:18:25investigation of the watergate that he
1:18:27conducted for president nixon
1:18:47well and go as long as you can there
1:18:50i mean for a while
1:19:01will resume the question of the witness
1:19:05i think we were there at the bottom of
1:19:07page two
1:19:09yes sir
1:19:11in the recess that i had skipped over
1:19:13the attorney general's uh remarks in the
1:19:15middle of page two where
1:19:17in in response to my general inquiry
1:19:21and the previous inquiry also
1:19:24he said that he has been emphasizing
1:19:26publicly that the president wanted the
1:19:28matter investigated to let the chips
1:19:30fall where they may but secondly that if
1:19:32anybody has any information we not only
1:19:34want it we expect to get it so that we
1:19:36can investigate it and if necessary
1:19:38indict other people
1:19:40and that anybody who withheld
1:19:41information would be obstructing justice
1:19:43that the the attorney general was saying
1:19:45this to the press and he was getting
1:19:47this out in every way that that he knew
1:19:49how
1:19:50now
1:19:51then
1:19:52at the top of page
1:19:54three
1:19:56uh
1:19:58the significance of the mccord letter
1:20:00which was
1:20:01drafted by mr mccord and handed to judge
1:20:04sirica and which judge soreka read
1:20:06publicly
1:20:08was discussed and evaluated by the
1:20:10attorney general
1:20:12then
1:20:14we returned to the question about
1:20:16whether or not mr mitchell
1:20:18were involved
1:20:20and that led to a
1:20:25statement by
1:20:27the attorney general
1:20:28that if mr mitchell were to be involved
1:20:32and he says here that he has no evidence
1:20:35at this time that he is but if he were
1:20:38that we should give some thought in such
1:20:40an event to having a special prosecutor
1:20:42that the attorney general would feel
1:20:43that he would have to recuse himself
1:20:46then i asked him for the president's
1:20:47information what the procedure would be
1:20:49for such a thing and
1:20:52the bottom of page three and the top of
1:20:54page four down to the middle of the page
1:20:56he describes
1:20:57that
1:20:58procedure and then
1:21:02we discussed
1:21:03and again this is an item on my list uh
1:21:06the matter of immunity
1:21:09who determines whether immunity will be
1:21:11granted mechanically
1:21:13and he said the department of justice
1:21:16determined that
1:21:18insofar as the grand jury was concerned
1:21:20but in so far as the senate committee is
1:21:22concerned that it made that
1:21:23determination
1:21:24in conjunction
1:21:26i don't think he said in conjunction
1:21:27with the court but that these were two
1:21:29separate procedures then another item on
1:21:31my list was the status of the court
1:21:33action which i've referred to previously
1:21:35in in testimony here an answer to a
1:21:38question by senator weiker
1:21:40and then finally
1:21:42i was asked to tell him that there was a
1:21:44possibility that the president wanted to
1:21:46see him in san clemente uh the following
1:21:49saturday
1:21:50the attorney general at that time was in
1:21:52arizona was planning to be in los
1:21:54angeles and in point of fact uh that
1:21:56meeting did take place in san clemente
1:21:59uh subsequent to this phone call
1:22:02now did the president tell you at the
1:22:03time he
1:22:05gave these questions to you why he was
1:22:07asking you to inquire of the attorney
1:22:10general rather mr dean did that come up
1:22:12it did not come up and i did not ask but
1:22:14in retrospect do you think it was
1:22:16because he was having
1:22:17props doubts about whether he was
1:22:19getting a full story or not up yes up
1:22:21until then mr dean had been the contact
1:22:25with the attorney general in matters of
1:22:26this kind and then on what date did
1:22:31the president give this full assignment
1:22:33to you to run watergate down for him two
1:22:36days later
1:22:38i think i'd better stop there mr
1:22:39chairman because i've taken
1:22:41my time
1:22:42but
1:22:43i i wouldn't want to cut you off this is
1:22:45a very serious investigation you're
1:22:47making if you feel
1:22:49that you should ask further questions i
1:22:51think you should but we could they'll
1:22:53very well
1:22:54you could proceed till noon noon if you
1:22:56have further questions then we can
1:22:58recess the lunchtime all right thank you
1:23:00mr chairman let let me then
1:23:02complete
1:23:04if we can the assignment you had from
1:23:07the president to now be the
1:23:10sort of chief watergate investigator in
1:23:11the white house would you
1:23:13tell the committee about that what you
1:23:15did and what you found and what you
1:23:18reported to the president i i have tried
1:23:20to disclaim the
1:23:22uh designation investigator senator
1:23:24because i don't consider what i did to
1:23:26be
1:23:27a an investigation
1:23:29uh to conclusive result well you
1:23:32certainly can define your role i didn't
1:23:34mean to imply something that you weren't
1:23:36doing i had to get up to speed on this
1:23:38uh i was not following the law of the
1:23:40matter
1:23:41and so the first thing that i did
1:23:44in another conversation with the
1:23:45attorney general is to arrange to have
1:23:47someone in the department of justice
1:23:49prepare for me
1:23:51a a thorough brief
1:23:53of the laws of of
1:23:55attorney-client privilege executive
1:23:57privilege obstruction of justice and all
1:23:59of these subjects that we seem to be
1:24:01encountering in this who is a a man
1:24:04named axel clyboomer
1:24:06clyburn clyde boomer clyde booma yes sir
1:24:11i can't
1:24:12[Laughter]
1:24:16oh perhaps you can try to spell it mr
1:24:18k-l-e-i
1:24:20boomer
1:24:24uh
1:24:25first-rate young man good lawyer
1:24:28who did the just the briefing and he
1:24:31moved to me
1:24:32uh by courier at san clemente a great
1:24:35deal of very useful um uh legal reading
1:24:40and i spent uh the first two or three
1:24:42days out there in uh trying to
1:24:46assimilate some of this background of
1:24:48law what dates are these oh this would
1:24:50have been
1:24:51the
1:24:53second third fourth of april along along
1:24:56in that period now the attorney general
1:24:58had been at san clemente on the 31st of
1:25:01march
1:25:02and i had had a brief meeting with him
1:25:04at that time and then he had had a
1:25:06private meeting with the president that
1:25:07day
1:25:08and uh
1:25:10then he he left
1:25:12uh
1:25:13finally uh
1:25:15mr o'brien's arrival at san clemente did
1:25:18you and the attorney general discuss
1:25:19watergate at all uh discuss the fact
1:25:21that i had this assignment but nothing
1:25:23of substance about facts not facts as
1:25:26such uh
1:25:27he indicated in this conversation on the
1:25:3028th just two days before or three days
1:25:32before that we had everything he had in
1:25:35effect that's the substance of his
1:25:37responses here and that continued to be
1:25:40the case uh in the brief conversation
1:25:42that i had with him before he saw the
1:25:43president i told him that i was trying
1:25:45to get on top of this that i would need
1:25:47some help some briefing help he said
1:25:49he'd find the best guy he could and he
1:25:51did and
1:25:53so we got into it
1:25:54uh uh
1:25:56the uh mr cly boomer sent me uh
1:25:59two big
1:26:01uh notebooks of of uh brief
1:26:04uh and uh as i say that was that was
1:26:07sort of heavy going and i just sat and
1:26:09read
1:26:11with mr o'brien's arrival however uh i
1:26:14that was my first interview and it
1:26:18brought me a whole new picture of this
1:26:21of this whole matter
1:26:22uh a lot of information and what mr
1:26:25o'brien gave me that i had never heard
1:26:27before you've ever counted most of that
1:26:29to the committee uh no i'm not quite
1:26:31through all right there's quite a bit of
1:26:33business in those notes about money
1:26:36about the involvement of people who had
1:26:39various funds of money and carried money
1:26:41around and who got money and how lydia
1:26:43got money and this kind of thing which
1:26:45was all
1:26:46a brand new subject to me at that point
1:26:49i reported uh in quite sketchy detail to
1:26:52the president after i had talked to mr
1:26:55o'brien
1:26:56and he urged me at that time you tell us
1:26:58very briefly what he told you about
1:27:00these
1:27:01money and other things uh mr o'brien yes
1:27:04yes
1:27:05he told me about a fund of money
1:27:08that existed at the committee to reelect
1:27:10of which he knew
1:27:12and he had a piece of paper that had a
1:27:14lot of
1:27:15a lot of information on it this was bart
1:27:18porter's account as he called it
1:27:20uh it was a it was in cash from sloan to
1:27:23porter
1:27:25about fifty thousand dollars of it
1:27:28was pre-april four seven money uh 37 000
1:27:32of it went to gordon liddy
1:27:34and then he has a whole lot of payments
1:27:37out most of which i believe mr porter
1:27:39has testified to here well let's not go
1:27:41over those right we already know right
1:27:43then
1:27:44he told me about some campaign
1:27:46violations campaign funding violations
1:27:48which he said the general accounting
1:27:50office knew of
1:27:51which involved
1:27:54oh nothing over about ten thousand
1:27:56dollars but a lot of different
1:27:58items he told me about liddy
1:28:03getting some money for uh cuban
1:28:05demonstrators in washington dc and
1:28:07you've had testimony on that i guess
1:28:09and so then
1:28:11i got into the question of who ran
1:28:14the committee to reelect at various
1:28:16times
1:28:17particularly during the planning period
1:28:20here
1:28:21he said that magruder
1:28:23said he was running the committee but he
1:28:26was seeing mr mitchell twice a day
1:28:27during this period of time and he felt
1:28:29it was safe to say
1:28:31that mitchell was running the committee
1:28:33even when he was attorney general
1:28:38now that's the that's the balance of the
1:28:40of the interview with o'brien but that
1:28:41gave me a lot of
1:28:43perspective on this thing that i had
1:28:45never had before did he give you any
1:28:46information on the planning of the
1:28:49break-in
1:28:50yes and i testified uh with senator
1:28:53inway about that those four meetings and
1:28:55uh and that whole business
1:28:57now uh
1:28:59i i i had only one other
1:29:02uh substantive interview while we were
1:29:04at san clemente in the remaining three
1:29:06or four days and that was with mr
1:29:07kombach
1:29:09i became aware through mr haldeman who
1:29:12was reporting to me
1:29:14conflicting conversations that he was
1:29:15having with mitchell and dean
1:29:18on this whole subject that should dean
1:29:19go to the grand jury or should dean go
1:29:21to the prosecutor
1:29:23and we began trying to understand what
1:29:26lay behind this well i had the
1:29:28background of mr o'brien's interview
1:29:31and we zeroed in on the fact that it had
1:29:33to do with these four meetings or three
1:29:35meetings or whatever there were
1:29:37and whether or not mr mitchell might
1:29:39have some exposure for perjury on
1:29:40account of having testified that the
1:29:42meetings were cancelled or not yes and
1:29:44so
1:29:46i
1:29:47i had bob holloman try and get a
1:29:49straight answer out of mr mitchell and
1:29:50he said he couldn't and so i called dick
1:29:53moore and asked him if he would talk to
1:29:55john mitchell because i knew they had a
1:29:57close relationship that was the reason
1:29:59for mueller's trip to new york no no it
1:30:02was not this was subsequent to that trip
1:30:04to new york
1:30:05this was i believe a telephone call
1:30:07which mr moore said he made to john
1:30:09mitchell and mr moore i believe also
1:30:11talked to
1:30:13mr mitchell's attorney although i'm not
1:30:15positive of that but any event mr moore
1:30:17reported back that mr mitchell was
1:30:19confident that he had not
1:30:21in any way
1:30:23violated any perjury statute
1:30:25and
1:30:26that he just didn't think it was
1:30:28a good idea for the president's lawyer
1:30:31to be going out and testifying in other
1:30:34words it was an attorney-client
1:30:35privilege kind of a position that he was
1:30:37contending for
1:30:38that didn't satisfy me
1:30:40mitchell now talking about dean
1:30:43that's correct that's correct
1:30:44this this thing continued to be a a
1:30:48nagging question and so
1:30:50we called john dean as we were headed
1:30:52back i had i talked to harlem and
1:30:54further about this dean was not talking
1:30:55to me all through this period of time i
1:30:57had not phone call one from him which
1:31:00was fairly unusual
1:31:02uh
1:31:03because i used to hear from from time to
1:31:05time on on various subjects including
1:31:07watergate
1:31:08but i was completely
1:31:11uh
1:31:12not on his telephone list and bob holman
1:31:14was hearing from him all the time so we
1:31:16talked about what he know that you were
1:31:20performing this role for the president i
1:31:21believe so i believe so i did not tell
1:31:24him but i think he he well knew it
1:31:26matter of fact just before
1:31:28we departed for california this question
1:31:30arose of mr dean being fired by his law
1:31:32firm for unethical conduct
1:31:35and i sent for his personnel package
1:31:38in order to check it
1:31:40the personnel package arrived in fred
1:31:42fielding's arms with scotch tape around
1:31:45it
1:31:46a number of times and he said what do
1:31:48you want this for
1:31:50and i said well there's a story
1:31:52and
1:31:53that refreshed my recollection i did
1:31:54have one phone call with john dean and
1:31:56that was on that subject he did call me
1:31:58at san clemente about that and said i
1:32:01understand that you wanted to get my
1:32:02personnel package and i said yes there's
1:32:04this story about your having been
1:32:07accused of unethical conduct and then he
1:32:09told me the
1:32:10long story which he recounted to this
1:32:12committee about how
1:32:14eventually he was able to get the
1:32:15attorney who charged him with that to
1:32:18retract the charges which satisfied me i
1:32:22but
1:32:23i think through fielding and through my
1:32:25conversation with fielding on that
1:32:26occasion mr dean must have known that i
1:32:28was
1:32:29actively in this in any event
1:32:31on the way back we called and asked john
1:32:34dean to meet us in my office when we
1:32:36returned to washington that night
1:32:38and he did so what date um
1:32:42well
1:32:439th 8th
1:32:44of
1:32:45april
1:32:55april the
1:32:568th between 5 and 7. right
1:33:00that was a saturday or sunday that was a
1:33:02sunday night
1:33:04and we had a two-hour with a two-hour
1:33:07meeting
1:33:08uh
1:33:09bob hollam and john dean and i
1:33:11to try and
1:33:13understand
1:33:14what this hang-up was between mitchell
1:33:17and dean
1:33:18because we still didn't have a feel for
1:33:20it
1:33:20and then for the first time mr dean
1:33:23talked to us about the four meetings or
1:33:24the three meetings back in january and
1:33:26february and explained
1:33:28some of the
1:33:30uh of the nuances of the cover-up story
1:33:34uh with regard to mr magruder and a
1:33:36meeting which he
1:33:38dean
1:33:38magruder and mitchell had had in mr
1:33:42mitchell's law office
1:33:43at a time when they were gathered with
1:33:45the attorneys in the case to discuss
1:33:49grand jury testimony where the three of
1:33:51them had retired to mr mitchell's
1:33:54partner's office away from the attorneys
1:33:56and had discussed how to
1:34:00reconcile their respective
1:34:02recollections of the
1:34:05uh
1:34:06events of the of the early
1:34:081972 period
1:34:12so
1:34:13that was the first time that i had from
1:34:14mr dean directly
1:34:17this uh this subject matter did he talk
1:34:20to you at that time about his
1:34:22orchestration of the perjury of magruder
1:34:25uh he did but he did in very delicate
1:34:27terms uh he did not
1:34:30uh in any way admit to me
1:34:32uh flatly that he had in fact
1:34:34orchestrated it uh
1:34:36to perjury uh uh he indicated that he
1:34:39had had a part in the preparation of the
1:34:42testimony uh
1:34:44that
1:34:45uh
1:34:47there were
1:34:48um
1:34:50uh well i i forgot it was a very it was
1:34:52a very um
1:34:55uh careful explanation which did not
1:34:58really implicate mr dean
1:35:00in suborning to perjury
1:35:03by any means
1:35:05but he he indicated that he was well
1:35:07familiar with
1:35:08the problems between magruder and
1:35:10mitchell on the one hand he felt that mr
1:35:13mitchell had problems
1:35:15uh which were causing mr mitchell to
1:35:18say that mr dean should not go and talk
1:35:20to the prosecutor or the grand jury uh
1:35:23and so this was this was very thoroughly
1:35:25discussed and and hashed over during
1:35:28that meeting these problems between dean
1:35:30and magruder
1:35:32specifically they involve who was
1:35:35responsible for the break-in in
1:35:37in giving the green light to it is that
1:35:39what you mean i gathered not i think
1:35:41they involved disputes in their
1:35:43recollection
1:35:44as to
1:35:46what took place at these uh liddy
1:35:48meetings so-called back in uh the early
1:35:51part of 1972
1:35:56did he
1:35:59go in at that meeting to any detail
1:36:02about his own involvement from
1:36:04june on dean i'm talking about
1:36:14uh
1:36:16we talked no not in not in evidentiary
1:36:19terms at all we talked about
1:36:22the president's desire president on the
1:36:25on the flight back as i recall
1:36:28we had a meeting on the flight back of
1:36:30about an oh nearly two hours about this
1:36:33and the president decided that he wanted
1:36:34mr dean to go to the grand jury
1:36:37and
1:36:38so we conveyed that to mr dean
1:36:41at that time what was his reaction to
1:36:43that
1:36:44he was still very much interested in the
1:36:46question of immunity
1:36:49he had some information as i recall
1:36:52about how the prosecutors
1:36:54felt about the white house and and uh
1:36:57so he imparted that to us that he didn't
1:36:59feel that
1:37:00anybody in the white house was a target
1:37:02of the of the prosecutors that they were
1:37:04after some people who had obstructed
1:37:06justice like martian and larue and and
1:37:09people at the committee uh but that
1:37:13he dean felt that something like
1:37:16an estoppel or functional immunity or
1:37:18something could be worked out with the
1:37:19prosecutors if he went to testify and he
1:37:21seemed generally in agreement with the
1:37:23uh with the idea that he go and testify
1:37:26was there any discussion at that meeting
1:37:28about
1:37:30your role in watergate or holderman's
1:37:32role in watergate that did not come
1:37:34until
1:37:36this meeting of the 13th of april
1:37:38well could we go into that yes sir
1:37:44on the 13th
1:37:46at
1:37:482 30 or 3 o'clock
1:37:50in the afternoon
1:37:52i had a
1:37:54conversation with dean which was
1:37:58apparently as a result of further
1:38:00contacts which he he had had with the
1:38:02prosecutor
1:38:04he told me that
1:38:07liddy
1:38:08had talked with the prosecutors off the
1:38:10record very completely and that they
1:38:13might get him to talk on the record that
1:38:17his attorney
1:38:19was going to try and get mr mitchell
1:38:22to support his view that lydia ought to
1:38:24talk on the record
1:38:27and
1:38:29it turned out that that was incorrect
1:38:32apparently but that that was at least
1:38:33what he told me and i suspect what was
1:38:36happening here was that the prosecutors
1:38:37were telling him this try and get him to
1:38:39move to to come forward and make a
1:38:42disclosure apparently the prosecutors
1:38:43were playing this kind of a game with a
1:38:45lot of these people at that time saying
1:38:47so and so has talked so you better come
1:38:49and talk
1:38:50and passing this word along
1:38:54he told me that hunt was back testifying
1:38:57before the grand jury at that time but
1:38:58lying
1:39:00uh
1:39:01that the the
1:39:03grand jury was also
1:39:05uh taking testimony or the prosecutors
1:39:07at least we're taking testimony from
1:39:08strawn and mccord
1:39:10that there would be no indictment of
1:39:11anyone in the white house
1:39:14that at all costs he felt a special
1:39:16prosecutor should be avoided in in this
1:39:19case
1:39:20uh because of the involvement he said of
1:39:23caufield and crowe
1:39:25now i didn't
1:39:27i didn't get the significance of that at
1:39:29the time but presumably that referred to
1:39:32some of caulfield's
1:39:35intelligence gathering activities and
1:39:37and krog's involvement with the plumbers
1:39:40he said it's a close question as to my
1:39:43dean's liability
1:39:46and and i have a note there that says
1:39:48then some before grand jury but i don't
1:39:50know what that means anymore it doesn't
1:39:53recollect anything to me he said they
1:39:55won't subpoena me
1:39:57but it's better if i cooperate
1:40:00now he went back into the meetings in
1:40:02mitchell's office
1:40:05about money i i was inquiring of him now
1:40:08about cover-up money
1:40:10he said that the way
1:40:12i got involved id got involved was that
1:40:16mitchell requested me to help
1:40:19he said larue and mr o'brien would urge
1:40:23that money be made available
1:40:25mitchell would postpone making a
1:40:27decision until the last minute and then
1:40:28the way he would get this thing off his
1:40:30desk would be by calling me dean
1:40:34he said the u.s attorney doesn't want to
1:40:36cause the white house problems they tell
1:40:39dean that magruder and mitchell are
1:40:41involved
1:40:42in the pre-watergate
1:40:45matter and that larue
1:40:47mitchell and martian are involved in the
1:40:49post-watergate matter
1:40:51he said i don't think jeb can crack a
1:40:54deal meaning a deal with the prosecutors
1:40:56for immunity
1:40:57then i have a little symbol on these
1:41:00notes which summarizes the exposure
1:41:03which he thought that bob holdeman and i
1:41:06had in this matter
1:41:08mine being my connection with herb
1:41:10kombach
1:41:12in the
1:41:13provision of money for the defendants
1:41:16and i have the number 350 which relates
1:41:18to the 350 000 fund which uh presumably
1:41:22involved bob holdem he said neither one
1:41:25of these
1:41:26uh are indictable
1:41:28but they're going to be they're going to
1:41:29be awkward to explain he said i don't
1:41:31think either one of them are are
1:41:34a problem for you in an ultimate sense
1:41:37he said this the probable scenario for
1:41:39the future will look about like this uh
1:41:41may 1st the grand jury's going to break
1:41:43this case
1:41:46about may 15th are going to be
1:41:48indictments
1:41:49then the attorney general's going to go
1:41:51to senator irvin
1:41:52and tell him that the hearings are going
1:41:55to prejudice the new case
1:41:57and that
1:41:58they couldn't possibly get a fair trial
1:42:01uh he'll ask that the
1:42:04hearings be held off a month or two
1:42:06until the trial is over and then he said
1:42:08in my personal opinion if he does if
1:42:09they are held off then there never will
1:42:11be senate hearings um so i don't know
1:42:15what john mitchell will do whether he
1:42:17would take a plea or what he would do
1:42:18under those circumstances
1:42:20uh almost surely if if john mitchell's
1:42:23indicted clint eastwood will resign and
1:42:25he said i think that joe sneed ought to
1:42:27be acting attorney general
1:42:30then he said the u.s attorney has
1:42:32assured me
1:42:34that i am not a target
1:42:36and neither is any other white house
1:42:38person
1:42:39were these notes made at the time of the
1:42:41meeting yes sir
1:42:43as as we talked did he uh
1:42:46did he tell you about all his
1:42:48involvement with
1:42:49the combat raising of money and
1:42:52these
1:42:54methods of paying it the little
1:42:56associates told us about no sir nothing
1:42:58that i hadn't heard until this uh
1:43:01testimony here well the attacks he was
1:43:03having with the larue at this particular
1:43:06time no
1:43:07um you recall he testified about about
1:43:10five different ways about looks of
1:43:12of uh
1:43:14anguish uh disbelief scorn uh what not
1:43:18on my face at the time he said that i
1:43:20was indictable uh in point of fact uh
1:43:24at the time he said i was not indictable
1:43:26but that the combat thing might be a a
1:43:29problem for me and being misunderstood i
1:43:31said well i just don't see how it could
1:43:33john and then we discussed just that the
1:43:36assumptions which i had made that
1:43:39there was nothing improper about it and
1:43:41so on yet at one of these meetings
1:43:43and i can't remember which one it was
1:43:45now because there was several in this
1:43:47time frame
1:43:49but dean uh testified as as i recall
1:43:52that there was a discussion between you
1:43:54and him and i think holloman
1:43:56on the fact that the best way to settle
1:43:58watergate would have mitchell uh
1:44:01come forward i guess that
1:44:03march march 21st march 21st council
1:44:06tells me do you recall
1:44:08anything on that whether there was a
1:44:11discussion
1:44:13or an
1:44:14agreement between you that that was the
1:44:16best thing to do there never was such a
1:44:19such an agreement
1:44:21i think there's a discussion yes during
1:44:23during that meeting and during
1:44:25subsequent meetings both uh
1:44:29meetings between mr holliman and me and
1:44:31meetings with holland dean and me on the
1:44:33two occasions that i think we had them
1:44:34subsequent to that
1:44:37there was a lot of speculation
1:44:39about john mitchell and his place in all
1:44:41of this
1:44:42and of course he was
1:44:44he was not saying anything to anybody at
1:44:47that point in time and uh
1:44:50none of us really had a had a feel for
1:44:52this i can recall at one of these
1:44:53meetings
1:44:55bob holloman said i wonder if we're
1:44:57taking all this anguish
1:45:00just to just to protect john mitchell he
1:45:02said i it was a question it was not an
1:45:04assertion
1:45:05but uh i think we all shared at various
1:45:08times that question in our minds as to
1:45:10whether
1:45:11the beating everybody was taking on the
1:45:13subject of watergate was because he was
1:45:15not coming forward now that was one of
1:45:17the reasons that the president asked me
1:45:18to meet with mr mitchell on the
1:45:20afternoon of
1:45:21what saturday the 14th of april
1:45:25to say to him for the president that if
1:45:28mr mitchell thought his silence was
1:45:30somehow serving the presidency that that
1:45:32was a misapprehension that the president
1:45:34didn't want him to sit silent if he knew
1:45:36something unless mr mitchell felt from
1:45:39his own personal standpoint that was an
1:45:42exercise of his own rights in which case
1:45:44that was up to him and i delivered that
1:45:46message to him at that time but that was
1:45:48a continuing question all the way all
1:45:50the way through this period of time now
1:45:52now through this period of time
1:45:53beginning with that assignment on is it
1:45:56march 31st 30th 30th march 30th
1:46:01were you reporting to the president what
1:46:03you were finding out uh
1:46:05i
1:46:06i reported to him after i talked with mr
1:46:08o'brien but very very briefly on that
1:46:11subject and it just said i'm beginning
1:46:13to get a feel for this thing but i've
1:46:14got so much hearsay here i don't think
1:46:17it's worth taking a lot of your time and
1:46:18he said well what's you know what do you
1:46:20what are you finding out
1:46:21and so i said well he tells me there
1:46:23were these meetings back in
1:46:25the early early times to and lady had
1:46:27this plan and so on and i took him kind
1:46:29of sketchily through the o'brien
1:46:30business and said look this is all here
1:46:32say two three and in some cases four
1:46:35times removed and i said we cannot
1:46:38move on something of this kind until we
1:46:40find out now in san clemente again when
1:46:42we came to this funny conflict between
1:46:45dean and mitchell
1:46:47i mentioned that to him and said we were
1:46:48trying to get to the bottom of it and
1:46:50two or three times he said have you got
1:46:52that figured out yet and uh when we
1:46:54talked on the airplane going back and we
1:46:56talked about dean going to the grand
1:46:58jury and he said finally well i'm not
1:46:59going to wait he's going to go
1:47:01uh
1:47:03he said have you ever figured out what
1:47:05that is and we said no we're going to
1:47:07see dean we don't know what that is well
1:47:09now did you make a complete report to
1:47:11the president yes sir when was that that
1:47:13was on saturday morning the 14th of
1:47:16april and what did you tell him well i
1:47:18told him
1:47:20basically
1:47:21a narrative
1:47:22of my interviews with these various
1:47:24people starting with o'brien
1:47:26and and running through um everybody
1:47:30that's on this list except
1:47:32um
1:47:33mitchell and magruder
1:47:35whom i had not yet with whom i had not
1:47:37yet talked and strong the second time
1:47:39when i got into the whole question of
1:47:41bob holderman's involvement well now so
1:47:43we can wrap this up and i can
1:47:47really release the flaw here
1:47:50did you at that time give him a complete
1:47:53account of watergate as we know it now
1:47:56and if you did not what portions did you
1:47:58not tell him that you didn't know
1:47:59perhaps we can get out that way quickly
1:48:02i didn't know for instance any of the
1:48:05behind the scenes business of the money
1:48:08uh beyond what paul o'brien had given me
1:48:12here and a little feel of it the dean
1:48:14had given me which i think i just
1:48:16described to you about as well as i can
1:48:20uh
1:48:22the
1:48:24subsequent interviews that that i had
1:48:26with
1:48:27particularly magruder that afternoon see
1:48:29the the outcome of this report to the
1:48:31president was he said i want to talk to
1:48:33magruder i want to talk to mitchell
1:48:35and
1:48:36and then he
1:48:37also told me that he wanted to find out
1:48:39more about bob holloman's involvement
1:48:41so those three followed that preliminary
1:48:43report and none of the things that i
1:48:45developed from any of them were included
1:48:47in it when i completed them then i came
1:48:50back and reported what those three
1:48:52individuals had told me and laid that
1:48:53out for
1:48:54and was that a fairly complete account
1:48:57of watergate
1:49:05it included
1:49:07the planning meetings it included the
1:49:09two entries
1:49:10and the reasons for going back
1:49:13it included
1:49:14uh
1:49:15quite a lot but but
1:49:17not the whole story of the cover-up by
1:49:19any means
1:49:20uh the fact that there had been one
1:49:22going on without all of the gory details
1:49:24right perhaps and obstruction of justice
1:49:27from both the committee and mr dean's
1:49:29part in it although i'm i'm frank to say
1:49:32i did not feel the
1:49:34sense the full implication
1:49:36of mr dean's involvement in the
1:49:38aftermath
1:49:39yet at that time and then what date was
1:49:41that that was on saturday the the 14th
1:49:45of april
1:49:46and what was the president's reaction uh
1:49:48that i must immediately advise the
1:49:50attorney general
1:49:51which i then did within the within the
1:49:53hour
1:49:54and that was the end of the meeting
1:49:57uh yes the meetings went on however the
1:49:59following day
1:50:01the president had a long meeting with
1:50:03the attorney general and mr peterson who
1:50:05in turn had had meetings with the
1:50:07prosecutor and i had another meeting
1:50:09with the president because i had seen
1:50:10gordon strong
1:50:12that morning
1:50:14while the president was talking sunday
1:50:15morning while the president was talking
1:50:16to the attorney general and mr peterson
1:50:19so then i had a further report to give
1:50:21to the president sunday following that
1:50:25meeting that he had can you very briefly
1:50:27tell us the important parts of that uh
1:50:30excuse me
1:50:34yes
1:50:35the council reminds me that i should say
1:50:37that we're we're advised that the
1:50:38attorney general had an all-night
1:50:40meeting
1:50:41saturday night
1:50:42with
1:50:43uh mr peterson and with the u.s attorney
1:50:46and the prosecutors
1:50:48and posted himself on things
1:50:51he then met with the president after
1:50:52church sunday morning i met with the
1:50:54president after that
1:50:56uh
1:50:57we then had a further meeting uh later
1:51:00on that sunday i one or two meetings i
1:51:02forgot which i got home and was told to
1:51:03turn around come back so i came back
1:51:05sunday night we had another meeting
1:51:07at which the president went over and
1:51:09over this information and i think it was
1:51:11at that time that i called mr gray
1:51:13and discovered that the documents had
1:51:15been destroyed so then we went over that
1:51:17at length and the implications of that
1:51:19and i have further conversations with
1:51:20the attorney or the
1:51:22attorney general i guess the next
1:51:24morning but this went on this went on
1:51:27over a period of about four days friday
1:51:29saturday sunday monday and then it was
1:51:31april the 17th that the president issues
1:51:34his statement that he had
1:51:35he was aware of new developments in the
1:51:37city
1:51:38i think i'd better stop there thank you
1:51:40mr ellicott thank you very much mr
1:51:41chairman
1:51:42the committee will stand and recess to
1:51:44two o'clock
1:51:48during the luncheon recess senator urban
1:51:50and the other committee leaders met with
1:51:52white house counsel lynn garman in the
1:51:54senator's office if the subject was
1:51:56national security work done by the
1:51:58plumber's unit no one was talking about
1:52:00it and when senator irving returned to
1:52:02the committee room he made no
1:52:03announcement we went right ahead with
1:52:04the questioning
1:52:10the committee will come to order and the
1:52:13and senator montalia will
1:52:15examine the witness
1:52:22thank you mr chairman
1:52:26mr ehrlichman
1:52:30have testified that
1:52:32during the
1:52:35period from june 17th
1:52:38or shortly thereafter
1:52:41up until the time you resigned
1:52:44your position at the white house that
1:52:46you intermittently
1:52:48kept up with the course of the
1:52:50investigation that was going on in-house
1:52:53out of house and otherwise
1:52:55yes sir
1:52:57and uh that
1:52:59shortly after june 17th
1:53:03according to testimonies uh presented
1:53:06here by mr strawn
1:53:08and i believe
1:53:10confirmed by you
1:53:12you were assigned
1:53:15the uh
1:53:17to be in charge of the investigation
1:53:20shortly after it occurred
1:53:21that's not correct senator all right
1:53:23give me your version of it
1:53:25well i think what mr strong testified to
1:53:28was that in a conversation with mr higby
1:53:31who apparently was in florida with the
1:53:33president on that weekend
1:53:36mr higby said
1:53:39that i knew about it or was in charge of
1:53:41it or some such thing
1:53:42the fact is that on that weekend of the
1:53:46watergate break-in
1:53:48i apparently was one of the few
1:53:52senior members of the white house staff
1:53:53who was here in the city
1:53:56and uh the rest were
1:53:58either with the president in florida or
1:54:00somewhere else
1:54:02and
1:54:03so
1:54:04for the
1:54:06brief time
1:54:07on the
1:54:08monday
1:54:09before the the president's party got
1:54:11back and i think they got back late
1:54:13monday as i recall
1:54:15i started the ball rolling
1:54:18and what did you do i called mr dean who
1:54:21had just returned from the philippines
1:54:23and he and i had a meeting on monday
1:54:26noon
1:54:27and from then on as far as i was
1:54:29concerned he had the ball
1:54:31who uh threw the ball to him i did
1:54:34what instructions did you give him i
1:54:36told him that i thought that it was
1:54:39important for us to keep
1:54:41well informed of all of the
1:54:44fast-breaking events
1:54:46in in this matter
1:54:48in order that our press office could be
1:54:52fully briefed and kept kept up with the
1:54:55with the
1:54:56developing events because i as i
1:54:58testified before i saw this as a
1:55:01real campaign issue did he report to you
1:55:05frequently on what he was uncovering
1:55:08i saw him
1:55:10a total of nine times in the next two
1:55:13weeks
1:55:14which is an unusually large number of
1:55:17times
1:55:18for my contacts with mr dean
1:55:20and what did you see him about during
1:55:22those nine times
1:55:24well among other things uh well let me
1:55:27let me just
1:55:28i mean with respect to watergate yes sir
1:55:41he told me
1:55:43a number of things and i have tried to
1:55:45make a list of them here and i'll i'll
1:55:46give them to you
1:55:49he told me about the
1:55:52the general facts of the of the
1:55:54surveillance of the of the democratic
1:55:56national
1:55:57committee headquarters
1:55:59the fact that the howard johnson motel
1:56:02had been employed as a as a listening
1:56:04post
1:56:05uh the fact that a hotel room in the
1:56:08watergate hotel had been found uh which
1:56:11had uh some of the the burglars
1:56:14possessions in it
1:56:16the fact that they used fictitious names
1:56:18and papers
1:56:20um and that they had large quantities of
1:56:22money and hundred dollar bills
1:56:25uh
1:56:26he told me about the fact that hunt had
1:56:29a safe
1:56:30uh still at the white house
1:56:32uh and then i've testified previously to
1:56:35the meetings which uh the meeting which
1:56:37we held monday afternoon to try and
1:56:39determine the facts with regard to
1:56:41hunt's employment at the white house
1:56:44and that was as a result of a report
1:56:46from mr dean
1:56:48well did you feel uh mr erdogan i don't
1:56:50want to go into all the detail
1:56:52did you feel that mr dean was telling
1:56:54you almost everything that he was
1:56:56uncovering on a day-by-day basis that
1:56:58was certainly my assumption senator yes
1:57:01and
1:57:02did this continue even after the first
1:57:04two weeks
1:57:06no sir
1:57:08before very long
1:57:10i left the city
1:57:12i believe it was the 26th
1:57:14or well i'll have to check that
1:57:20well of course the 24th and 25th i was
1:57:23away the president went to harrisburg
1:57:26to see the
1:57:27results of the agnes flood and so we
1:57:29were gone those two days and then the
1:57:3129th
1:57:33i left for a trip to springfield
1:57:35illinois lansing michigan northern
1:57:37california finally ended up at san
1:57:39clemente i think we can save some time
1:57:41uh mr erlickman
1:57:42i just want to go through with you over
1:57:44the
1:57:46communications that you had with mr dean
1:57:48with respect to watergate over the long
1:57:50span up until april the 15th of 1973.
1:57:55all right sir i think i mean in a
1:57:56general way i have that in summary form
1:57:58and perhaps i can give that to you
1:58:00rather quickly
1:58:02in the month of june i saw him nine
1:58:04times
1:58:05and eight of those times related to
1:58:08watergate
1:58:09in the month of july i saw him three
1:58:11times and only two times related to
1:58:13watergate
1:58:15in the month of august
1:58:16four times of which two times no pardon
1:58:19me of which no times related to
1:58:21watergate
1:58:23uh september three times
1:58:26i'm not able to tell you as to that one
1:58:29of those meetings was with regard to the
1:58:31foreign grain sales and i don't know
1:58:33what the other two were
1:58:34october i saw him twice
1:58:36once was a common cause lawsuit and i
1:58:38don't know what the other one was
1:58:40november i saw him four times
1:58:44one was with regard to the watergate two
1:58:46with regard to sigretti which
1:58:49i guess you lump in to that general
1:58:51subject
1:58:52december five times
1:58:54twice
1:58:55on the subject of watergate
1:58:57january seven times
1:59:00of which um watergate could be
1:59:02considered to have been the subject of
1:59:04three of those meetings
1:59:06february five times
1:59:09uh three of which
1:59:11including lacosta were on the subject of
1:59:14watergate marched three times
1:59:16um
1:59:17and uh
1:59:19one one of those times was with regard
1:59:21to the hunt blackmail
1:59:24uh well actually two of those were and
1:59:26the other one uh the question of uh
1:59:28testimonial testimonial appearance was
1:59:31that on march yes sir what about the
1:59:33january meeting didn't you testify about
1:59:35the january meeting uh with respect to
1:59:38mr hunt uh that yes and that's one of
1:59:40the three or that's actually two of the
1:59:42three that i that i mentioned
1:59:44and april three times and uh all of
1:59:47those were
1:59:48watergate battles
1:59:50so in effect you met quite a few times
1:59:52with mr dean about watergate yes sir
1:59:55and uh would you say that during those
1:59:58times which you met with him
2:00:01that you discussed fully all aspects of
2:00:04watergate
2:00:05white house possible involvement and
2:00:08also possible involvement of personnel
2:00:11at the crp well as it turned out not i
2:00:13thought so at the time but i now know
2:00:15that that wasn't the case well uh were
2:00:18you uh
2:00:19engaging in speculation with mr dean as
2:00:22to who might be involved as a result of
2:00:24these conversations uh on occasion we
2:00:26did
2:00:28and uh quite a few figures or names were
2:00:31uh discussed during your conversations
2:00:34is that not correct you mean a great
2:00:36number of people yes
2:00:38no i wouldn't say that senator
2:00:40well
2:00:42then
2:00:43as a result of all this information and
2:00:46what you independently collected
2:00:49uh you use this as a basis for
2:00:52briefing mr ziegler
2:00:54preliminary to any press conferences
2:00:56that you might have had uh that he might
2:00:58have had
2:00:59not inevitably no there would be times
2:01:01for instance when i was not with mr
2:01:03ziegler i had a i had an independent
2:01:05travel schedule and very often mr
2:01:08ziegler would have briefings and i
2:01:09wouldn't be available or he would be out
2:01:11of town with the president and i would
2:01:12be here in washington but we tried as
2:01:15nearly as possible to talk over
2:01:18particularly technical matters for
2:01:20instance when uh the civil depositions
2:01:22were being taken
2:01:24uh
2:01:25mr ziegler and i i recall had a
2:01:27conversation about a civil deposition
2:01:29what the rules of evidence were why
2:01:31hearsay could come into a civil
2:01:32deposition where it couldn't come into a
2:01:34trial the point of that well the point i
2:01:36want to make mr harlequin
2:01:38that
2:01:39you have testified here that on numerous
2:01:42occasions you did brief mr ziegler
2:01:44preliminary to any press conferences
2:01:46that he might have well
2:01:49i don't think i said it quite that way
2:01:51senator how did you say attempted to in
2:01:53part was
2:01:54that on more or less a daily basis mr
2:01:57ziegler and i would try and touch base
2:01:59about any
2:02:01current issues
2:02:02that needed uh
2:02:04my assistance and in in not in every
2:02:07case would he need my assistance for
2:02:09some of these things but where we had
2:02:11for instance the
2:02:13the issue of the clean water bill
2:02:16and the president's possible veto of
2:02:18that bill
2:02:19uh where we had the spending limit that
2:02:21was a hot issue in the congress mr
2:02:23ziegler and i would sit down and we
2:02:25would talk through
2:02:26what the what the central issues were
2:02:29why the president took the position he
2:02:31did what the other view was to try and
2:02:33give him a working knowledge of the
2:02:34subject matter and we tried to do that
2:02:36with various aspects of this case as it
2:02:39went along
2:02:40but you did you ever brief him on
2:02:42watergate on the
2:02:44on the part or concern of the white
2:02:47house and so forth
2:02:49well i
2:02:50i don't know quite what you mean by
2:02:52brief did you provide any input oh i'm
2:02:55sure then to the background
2:02:57which went into those press conferences
2:02:59i'm sure that i did at times
2:03:03now
2:03:06there were quite a few pronouncements
2:03:09by the white house
2:03:11by the president
2:03:13with respect to the watergate affair
2:03:16and i'm going to relate those
2:03:21in sequence on august the 29th
2:03:261972
2:03:29the president in response to a question
2:03:33stated this is part of his answer
2:03:37in addition to that within our own staff
2:03:40under my direction
2:03:41counsel to the president mr dean
2:03:44has conducted a complete investigation
2:03:46of all leads
2:03:47which might involve any present members
2:03:50of the white house staff or anybody in
2:03:52the government
2:03:53i can say categorically that his
2:03:56investigation indicates
2:03:58that no one in the white house staff
2:04:00no one in this administration presently
2:04:03employed was involved in this bizarre
2:04:06very bizarre
2:04:08incident then on
2:04:12a subsequent date
2:04:26the president in his october 5th 1972
2:04:30conference
2:04:32stated in response to a reporter's
2:04:34question
2:04:37as follows
2:04:39now
2:04:40when we talk about a clean breast
2:04:42let's look at what what's happened
2:04:46the fbi assigned 133 agents to this
2:04:50investigation it followed out 1800 leads
2:04:55it conducted 1500 interviews
2:05:01then
2:05:04subsequently on during the press
2:05:07conference of april 17 1973
2:05:11the president stated as follows
2:05:15on march 21st
2:05:17as a result of serious charges which
2:05:19came to my attention
2:05:21some of which were publicly reported
2:05:24i began intensive new inquiries into
2:05:27this whole matter
2:05:29last sunday afternoon the attorney
2:05:31general assistant attorney general
2:05:33peterson
2:05:34and i met at length in the eob
2:05:37to review the facts which had come to me
2:05:40in my investigation
2:05:42and also to review the progress of the
2:05:44department of justice investigation
2:05:52then he stated
2:05:54as a result on march the 21st i
2:05:58personally assume the responsibility
2:06:01for coordinating intensive new inquiries
2:06:03into the matter
2:06:05and i personally ordered those
2:06:07conducting the investigation to get all
2:06:09the facts and to report them directly to
2:06:12me
2:06:12right here in this office
2:06:15that was prior to the time
2:06:18that he assigned
2:06:20responsibility to you to conduct a
2:06:22further inquiry
2:06:24which was on march thirtieth
2:06:26nineteen seventy three is that correct
2:06:29well i thought that press conference you
2:06:31said was april 17 is that not correct
2:06:34that would have been yes but i'm
2:06:35referring to the date of march the 21st
2:06:38yes indeed
2:06:40all right now
2:06:45up to that time mr dean had been talking
2:06:48to you
2:06:49other people in the white house had been
2:06:51talking to you
2:06:53and there had been quite a few
2:06:56articles in the washington post
2:06:59by mr woodward and woodard and mr
2:07:02bernstein
2:07:04and in fact
2:07:06most of the information about what you
2:07:08were inquiring with all these fbi me
2:07:10people
2:07:11had already appeared in the washington
2:07:13post
2:07:15now did you read the washington post
2:07:17honor about that time what time senator
2:07:20uh during the during the course of your
2:07:22uh different conferences with mr dean
2:07:25during the course of your different
2:07:26inquiries were you reading the
2:07:28washington post about the
2:07:30uh what was being uncovered through
2:07:32woodard and
2:07:34mr
2:07:35bernstein well i wouldn't certainly want
2:07:37to leave the impression that the white
2:07:39house relied on the washington post for
2:07:42reliable information very much of the
2:07:44time the fact is that our new summary
2:07:47contained digests of what a great number
2:07:51of newspapers were printing both about
2:07:52the watergate and other matters
2:07:55well but as a matter of fact they were
2:07:56uncovering more than all these fbi
2:07:58people were no sir at least
2:08:01there's been
2:08:02[Music]
2:08:03no information coming to us that was
2:08:05more accurate than what these reporters
2:08:07were uncovering at the time then i think
2:08:09you're in trouble senator well i think i
2:08:11think the whole country is in trouble i
2:08:14i submit to you sir that the that the
2:08:16fbi reports
2:08:18which we were receiving at that
2:08:20time uh
2:08:23on on the face of them and from
2:08:24everything we knew about it and from
2:08:26everything the attorney general was
2:08:27telling us about it and everything that
2:08:29the uh sp the prosecuting attorneys were
2:08:32telling us uh
2:08:34could be relied upon all right now let
2:08:36me ask you this question
2:08:38you said that you conducted an inquiry
2:08:42pursuant to instructions from the
2:08:44president
2:08:45instructions which you received on march
2:08:47the 30th
2:08:49now who did you investigate
2:08:52who did you interview
2:08:54and
2:08:55with what objective in mind were you
2:08:58conducting this inquiry
2:09:00i was
2:09:02as i say it was not really an
2:09:04investigation in the technical sense of
2:09:06the word
2:09:07and i i have declined to identify it as
2:09:10such
2:09:11at all times
2:09:13but as i said before
2:09:15the people whom i interviewed included
2:09:18paul o'brien herbert comback john dean
2:09:21gordon strong charles colson john
2:09:24mitchell
2:09:25jeb magruder
2:09:28i had a
2:09:29telephone conversation with mr gray
2:09:32which may or may not be considered to be
2:09:35included in that
2:09:37and mr crowe
2:09:41did you
2:09:44interview mr larue no sir
2:09:46mr martian no
2:09:49mr comback yes
2:09:52mr stanz no
2:09:55mr sloan
2:09:56no
2:09:58back to uh turn him out of your office
2:10:00so to speak no i don't believe that's
2:10:02quite fair senator uh what i did
2:10:05was uh i think what
2:10:07i should have done which was to say to
2:10:09him before you talk to somebody in my
2:10:11situation go and talk to a lawyer since
2:10:13you're the treasurer and you tell me
2:10:15you've got the legal liability for all
2:10:17this and you haven't talked to a lawyer
2:10:20duke go talk to a lawyer first
2:10:23all right would you say that
2:10:27you conducted very
2:10:29intensive interviews with these people
2:10:33uh as i say senator i can't i can't
2:10:35claim this to be an exhaustive
2:10:37investigation i conducted
2:10:39i think reasonably thorough interviews
2:10:41they lasted between an hour and two
2:10:44hours most of them
2:10:46um when they conducted your office sir
2:10:48were they conducted in your office not
2:10:50in every case
2:10:52my principal concern
2:10:53was to try and get a feel for whether
2:10:56anybody in the white house
2:10:58was involved in this i felt that's the
2:10:59place i had to begin so most of my
2:11:01questions were not directed to what
2:11:05people like mr martian or mr larue did
2:11:07at the committee occasionally people
2:11:09told me those things but my principal
2:11:11focus was to say what do you know about
2:11:14people in the white house do you know
2:11:15about anybody else in the white house
2:11:17who might be involved or if they were
2:11:18talking about an individual in the white
2:11:20house i would say well what else do you
2:11:22know about him that might in any way
2:11:25involve him in this and my that was my
2:11:27principal focus but the
2:11:29other part of my job
2:11:31other than just interviewing these few
2:11:33people
2:11:34was to try and get on top of these very
2:11:37complex law questions which mr dean had
2:11:39been working with and which i had not
2:11:42and it took a great deal of my time and
2:11:45and i might say this was the this was
2:11:47the one of the president's principal
2:11:49focuses in this time was this dilemma of
2:11:52separation of powers executive privilege
2:11:55attorney-client privilege uh uh the
2:11:58whole
2:11:59the whole legal underpinning for this
2:12:02process if you will pardon me mr
2:12:03erlickman
2:12:05you testified about that this morning
2:12:07and i don't want to appear
2:12:10repetitious
2:12:12in my questioning
2:12:14and i don't want you to appear
2:12:15repetitious in your answers
2:12:18now i'm merely interested
2:12:20in trying to ascertain from you
2:12:22what type of an inquiry yes sir now
2:12:25during the interviews which you had in
2:12:27your office
2:12:28did you on occasion
2:12:31uh tape the conversations with these
2:12:33people on two occasions
2:12:35which were those occasions mr mitchell
2:12:37and mr magruder
2:12:42where are those tapes in the possession
2:12:44of your staff
2:12:45all right
2:12:46now
2:12:49did you uh
2:12:51transcribe any interviews
2:12:54uh or arrange for their transcription in
2:12:57the sense of sitting down and dictating
2:12:59a
2:13:00summary or anything of that case yes sir
2:13:03and who has those interviews
2:13:06well i
2:13:08i think what i did was to turn over my
2:13:10handwritten notes to the committee staff
2:13:13there is one such transcription
2:13:16of my interview with mr kombach
2:13:19which i don't think that i have given to
2:13:21the committee staff i'm not sure are you
2:13:24prepared to give it to us oh yes
2:13:25certainly certainly would you do that
2:13:28it may be that they have it that
2:13:30question came up this morning and i
2:13:31don't think we decided uh for sure do
2:13:34you have a phone call no no no this is a
2:13:37this is a narrative that i dictated
2:13:38after my interview with mr kombach
2:13:42mr dash did i not give you i think i
2:13:44gave the u.s attorney's office
2:13:47less than a one-page memo
2:13:50of a meeting with mr between mr
2:13:52ehrlichman and mr comback on april 6
2:13:551973.
2:13:58mr wilson i i have no recollection right
2:14:00right now i'm very sure you may have
2:14:02given it to the prosecutor's office
2:14:04you may have given it to the
2:14:05prosecutor's office but not to this
2:14:06committee i always meant to give you the
2:14:08same thing perhaps i didn't do it i know
2:14:10you've tried it but if you have it we'd
2:14:11like to have it sure thank you
2:14:14and then one of you is wrapped up in
2:14:16money now who um
2:14:20who else did you uh
2:14:22take notes on
2:14:24uh just those that i mentioned this
2:14:26morning senator
2:14:27uh do you want me to go through that
2:14:29list again
2:14:30uh no i don't
2:14:33i merely want to uh you to tell this
2:14:35committee
2:14:37uh what did you ascertain as a result of
2:14:39these interviews with respect to each of
2:14:41the individuals
2:14:43did they
2:14:46convey to you any indication that they
2:14:48might have been involved
2:14:50in the watergate affair
2:14:53prior to june 17th or in the cover-up
2:14:56after june 17th yes sir they did all
2:14:59right would you name those names
2:15:01yes sir uh i wonder if uh i could refer
2:15:04to my notes in order to do that
2:15:06accurately certainly maybe
2:15:39um
2:15:58i had
2:15:59this morning
2:16:03describe
2:16:04fully the contents of my interview with
2:16:07mr o'brien i believe
2:16:09the
2:16:11and also my interview with mr dean
2:16:14the one which
2:16:16remains
2:16:18which is responsive to your question i
2:16:20think is my interview with mr magruder
2:16:22on april 14th at four o'clock in the
2:16:24afternoon
2:16:26his attorneys mr sharp mr bierbauer were
2:16:28with him at the time of the interview
2:16:30and they had just come from an interview
2:16:32with the united states attorney
2:16:37the interview took about
2:16:39oh i would guess an hour and a half
2:16:42and
2:16:43if you like senator i can just take you
2:16:45quickly through
2:16:47the narrative of what mr magruder told
2:16:49me or i can
2:16:51pick things out if you're interested in
2:16:52something particular now just give me uh
2:16:55your conclusions from that interview
2:16:57conclusions from the interview were that
2:16:59mr magruder
2:17:03and according to him mr mitchell and mr
2:17:06larue
2:17:07participated in a
2:17:09an express and specific approval
2:17:12of the
2:17:13plan to
2:17:15break into and bug the democratic
2:17:18national committee headquarters
2:17:20uh that this was a
2:17:23an agreement or an approval which
2:17:25occurred in key biscayne at a meeting
2:17:27attended by the three of them
2:17:29and that
2:17:30in addition to
2:17:32that particular project
2:17:35mcgovern headquarters and the fontenblue
2:17:37hotel headquarters of the democratic
2:17:39convention were likewise to be
2:17:43bugged
2:17:45uh what date was this again this was a
2:17:47an interview which i held on april
2:17:49fourteen nineteen seventy three
2:17:52proceed uh
2:17:56accord and here you understand that this
2:17:58is what mr magruder is saying to me i
2:18:00can't vouch for the truth of this but
2:18:02it's it's what he reported to me
2:18:05that the
2:18:07proposal which was approved at that time
2:18:11had its genesis in a million dollar
2:18:13proposal
2:18:15which mr dean and mr liddy
2:18:17prepared
2:18:19i asked him specifically about mr dean
2:18:21because as i said i was focusing on
2:18:23white house people
2:18:25and his description of mr dean's
2:18:27participation in that
2:18:29planning was quite active
2:18:33mr liddy told mr magruder he said
2:18:37that mr dean had authorized the the one
2:18:40million dollar figure
2:18:42as the
2:18:43beginning budget level
2:18:45did you from your knowledge of the white
2:18:48house and the
2:18:50assignment of mr dean uh
2:18:53reach a determination that uh
2:18:55mr dean had that kind of authority oh no
2:18:58no indeed
2:18:59you didn't believe that did you
2:19:01what mr magruder was telling me yes
2:19:03i didn't know what to believe at this
2:19:05time senator i was getting so many
2:19:07different hearsay stories from so many
2:19:08different people i wasn't trying to
2:19:11evaluate what to believe and what not to
2:19:12believe all right proceed
2:19:15he said that he took me through the the
2:19:18four meetings in early 1972.
2:19:22well uh leave you testified to that and
2:19:24i don't want yes
2:19:25well except that this is this is out of
2:19:27magruder's mouth
2:19:29and then
2:19:30uh
2:19:31he said that at some point in time
2:19:35he informed
2:19:37mr strahn who was his primary contact at
2:19:40the white house
2:19:42that they had a
2:19:44an intelligence capability
2:19:47he said i got no problems for mr strong
2:19:50and so i read that as an okay from
2:19:52higher up
2:19:53i asked him whether he had any knowledge
2:19:55of whether anyone higher than mr strong
2:19:57in the white house had in fact approved
2:20:00this he said he had no knowledge of any
2:20:02higher-ups having done so only
2:20:05and the only people in the white house
2:20:07that he focused on
2:20:09as having had any connection whatsoever
2:20:11with this
2:20:12were mr colson mr strong mr dean and mr
2:20:15howard
2:20:16and uh may i interject here
2:20:19what particular authority did mr strong
2:20:22have
2:20:23vis-a-vis the white house
2:20:25mr strahn was about a fourth level white
2:20:28house staffer with almost no authority
2:20:31of his own
2:20:32well what particular assignment did he
2:20:35have
2:20:37during the campaign
2:20:40i understood that he was going from mr
2:20:42holderman's office to the crp and back
2:20:45and forth
2:20:46now
2:20:47did you know of this assignment no sir
2:20:50have you since found out about this
2:20:52assignment in the course of these
2:20:53hearings i've learned a great deal more
2:20:54than i ever learned when i was in the
2:20:56white house
2:20:57you mean you didn't find out while you
2:20:59were at the white house about mr
2:21:00strawn's assignment i knew almost
2:21:02nothing about the scope of mr strong's
2:21:05assignment while i was at the white
2:21:06house until
2:21:08late in you know in the in the march
2:21:10april period
2:21:11when i got into it and i began
2:21:12interviewing people and i and he was one
2:21:14of the people i interviewed well what
2:21:15did you find out about him then at that
2:21:17time yes oh that he was he was the
2:21:20liaison man between mr haldeman and the
2:21:23committee to re-elect for the purpose of
2:21:26keeping both ends of his liaison
2:21:29informed of the acts and desires of the
2:21:32other did you know him yes sir did you
2:21:35know him to be a very reliable young man
2:21:38well i didn't know him well enough to
2:21:40form an opinion as to his reliability
2:21:42now if he conveyed anything to the crp
2:21:45or brought anything to mr holderman from
2:21:47the crp
2:21:48would you say that he was carrying out
2:21:50his assignment properly
2:21:52i couldn't speculate as to that sir why
2:21:54can't you
2:21:55well i just don't have that kind of
2:21:57knowledge now as far as reliability is
2:21:59concerned something occurs to me that
2:22:00perhaps you ought to know
2:22:02my first interview with mr strong
2:22:05was on the occasion of his having just
2:22:07returned from the grand jury
2:22:10and he came in rather shaken
2:22:12and told me that he didn't know what to
2:22:14do
2:22:15and he was looking for somebody to give
2:22:17him some advice
2:22:18he said that he had just come back from
2:22:20testifying to the grand jury that he had
2:22:22delivered three hundred and fifty
2:22:23thousand dollars to mr larue
2:22:25and he said as soon as i left there i
2:22:28knew that was wrong
2:22:29i hadn't delivered three hundred and
2:22:31fifty thousand dollars to mr larue i had
2:22:33delivered some lesser some
2:22:35because i remember that they took some
2:22:37money out or i took some money out i
2:22:38forgot how he put it but some money had
2:22:40been taken out for advertising
2:22:43now what should i do
2:22:45and i said well you have an attorney he
2:22:46said no i don't and i said well that's
2:22:48the first thing i think you ought to do
2:22:49is get some advice the second thing it
2:22:51seems to me that you ought to do subject
2:22:53to your attorney's advice is to go and
2:22:55tell a prosecutor you think you've made
2:22:57a mistake in your testimony all right
2:22:59but that that is probably the only real
2:23:02gauge i have of mr strong's
2:23:05testimonial reliability
2:23:07then
2:23:08what did you find out about
2:23:11what conclusion did you reach with
2:23:13respect to mrs strong as a result of the
2:23:15interviews that you had
2:23:18that
2:23:21what he told me in the
2:23:24second interview that i had with him i
2:23:26felt was
2:23:27correct and the truth and that he was
2:23:29trying very hard to tell me everything
2:23:31he knew
2:23:32i had uh uh i had a favorable impression
2:23:35of of what he told me that that is of
2:23:38the of the uh his attempt to tell the
2:23:40truth well the point i'm trying to make
2:23:42did you reach any conclusion from the
2:23:44interviews with respect to him as to
2:23:46whether or not he was involved
2:23:48either in the
2:23:50pre-june 17
2:23:52complicity or after oh
2:23:57he told me
2:23:58that he had received from the committee
2:24:01to reelect
2:24:04noticed that they had an intelligence
2:24:06capability
2:24:09he did and i confronted him with what mr
2:24:11magruder had alleged which was that mr
2:24:14magruder had sent over to him a budget
2:24:16which had included specific reference to
2:24:19bugging and he said no he would have
2:24:21remembered if anything like that had
2:24:22come over he was sure that he had never
2:24:24seen anything like that
2:24:26he said that he did receive
2:24:29from mr magruder
2:24:31some material designated sedan chair
2:24:34and it looked to him like synopses of
2:24:39wiretap information uh of course we've
2:24:41learned since that sedan chair was not a
2:24:43wiretap but that was the only thing he
2:24:45said he received he said he got no
2:24:47gemstone material at all well mr
2:24:49erlickman
2:24:51i'm just interested in what you
2:24:52concluded as a result
2:24:54of the interviews with respect to these
2:24:56individuals my my conclusion with regard
2:24:58to mr strong
2:25:00was that he
2:25:02was a messenger that he was not an
2:25:05active uh planner
2:25:07or executor of any plan
2:25:10but simply a conveyor uh back and forth
2:25:14all right now what conclusion did you
2:25:16reach with respect to uh
2:25:19uh mr st mr comback
2:25:22well i my conclusion after talking with
2:25:25mr comback as you will see in this
2:25:27memorandum that we have now given the
2:25:30staff i take it
2:25:32uh
2:25:33perhaps it is best if i simply read you
2:25:36a short portion of that as it as my then
2:25:39contemporaneous conclusion that'd
2:25:40probably be the best evidence
2:25:42do you have that counsel i gave the only
2:25:44copy i have yeah
2:25:46do you want to just read it well let me
2:25:48uh
2:25:49i i'm running out of time now well all
2:25:52right very shortly very shortly senator
2:25:55uh i really wanted to get an indication
2:25:57as to which uh what kind of an inquiry
2:25:59you had conducted with respect to each
2:26:01individual all right my inquiry with him
2:26:04was as to his money raising efforts
2:26:08and whether or not he knew
2:26:11either directly or whether he knew
2:26:13circumstances surrounding his efforts
2:26:15which might have put him on notice that
2:26:17he was engaged in an effort to buy the
2:26:19silence of defendants and i was
2:26:21satisfied that he did not know all right
2:26:23what conclu what uh inquiry did you make
2:26:25about mr comback
2:26:28i interviewed mr kombach just briefly
2:26:30what inquiry did you you interviewed him
2:26:32yes sir all right and uh and you taped
2:26:35this conversation oh sir
2:26:37uh i i made this memorandum afterward
2:26:39which i've given to the staff all right
2:26:42and in that i think you will see that
2:26:43it's my conclusion that he acted in the
2:26:46best of faith thinking that he was
2:26:48simply engaged in raising money for
2:26:50the defense fund purposes that he's
2:26:52testified to all right then
2:26:55how many interviews did you conduct
2:26:58as a result of your being commissioned
2:27:01by the president
2:27:02to go into this
2:27:04well let me refer to my list again
2:27:1310
2:27:1410 yes sir how long did it take you to
2:27:17conduct these interviews well i did this
2:27:19in the period between the 5th of april
2:27:21and the
2:27:2214th of april
2:27:24all right
2:27:26now
2:27:29the president indicated that uh he had
2:27:32also
2:27:34uh
2:27:36i'm sorry senator the 15th of april i i
2:27:38beg your pardon because i saw mr strong
2:27:40at nine o'clock sunday morning the 15th
2:27:46now what was this uh
2:27:48statement of the president all about
2:27:50when he stated that on march the 21st as
2:27:53a result of serious charges
2:27:55which came to my attention some of which
2:27:57were publicly reported
2:27:59i began intensive new inquiries into
2:28:02this whole matter
2:28:04now what did he mean by that
2:28:06well i think what he meant by that was
2:28:08the series of events starting march 21st
2:28:13and culminating
2:28:15april 17th
2:28:17which would have been
2:28:19his conversation with mr dean on the
2:28:2121st the mccord letter to judge sarika
2:28:24on what the 23rd or whatever it was
2:28:28he is sending mr dean to camp david
2:28:31to write on his statement
2:28:33mr mr dean's return
2:28:36without the statement is turning the
2:28:38investigation over
2:28:40taking it from mr dean is turning the
2:28:42inquiry over to me
2:28:44my efforts to talk to witnesses through
2:28:46this time the parallel efforts and i
2:28:49don't mean to in any way diminish the
2:28:52efforts of the investigators in the
2:28:54department of justice and in the
2:28:56prosecutor's office who are doing an
2:28:58extraordinarily effective job right at
2:29:00this time you see when i talked to mr
2:29:02magruder for instance he had already
2:29:04been to see the u.s attorney and told
2:29:06them everything as a result of their
2:29:07efforts so these were all parallel
2:29:09efforts going on and there was a lot of
2:29:12there was a lot of reporting
2:29:13the president had his meeting with the
2:29:15attorney general and the and the uh and
2:29:17mr peterson on that sunday and they
2:29:20compared notes as to all of these uh
2:29:22investigations and then this all came to
2:29:24a head on that following tuesday i then
2:29:27would you say that
2:29:29up until march
2:29:32you were convinced
2:29:35and the president was convinced at the
2:29:38white house
2:29:39that there was no white house
2:29:40involvement yes sir you were convinced
2:29:43up to that time yes sir and i was saying
2:29:45that all across the country because i
2:29:47believed it and you kept saying this to
2:29:48the president on the basis of
2:29:50information which you were receiving
2:29:51from mr dean and others in the best of
2:29:53faith yes sir all right
2:29:56then why on january the third
2:30:00were you so concerned that mr hunt might
2:30:02blackmail the white house why was i so
2:30:05concerned yes well any time that
2:30:07somebody
2:30:08levels a a blackmail threat against well
2:30:12not excuse me that happened march 20th
2:30:14that did not happen john didn't you meet
2:30:16on january the third with respect to the
2:30:19hunt letter oh but that was not
2:30:20blackmail
2:30:22well
2:30:23he was asking for help
2:30:25yes but he was not making any threats
2:30:27that i knew of
2:30:28well
2:30:30i believe the testimony which has been
2:30:32induced here indicated that
2:30:34mr hunt was getting kind of nervous
2:30:37that mr parkerson imparted this
2:30:39information
2:30:41which he received from mr bittman to mr
2:30:43mitchell mr mitchell in turn imparted it
2:30:45to the white house and then this
2:30:47conference was convoked where you mr
2:30:50dean mr colson and others were present
2:30:52about the hunt letter i i'm sorry
2:30:54senator i don't think that's the way
2:30:56that meeting came about all right tell
2:30:57me how it came about my understanding is
2:30:59that mr hunt had written a letter to mr
2:31:01colson and i recall seeing the letter
2:31:04and that that plus a telephone call from
2:31:07either mr hunter mr bittman and i don't
2:31:09remember which to mr colson's office
2:31:12precipitated the meeting
2:31:14well why why would you have this vote
2:31:17only in the senate i will have to recess
2:31:25in a moment senator montoya will have
2:31:27some comments about a conflict in
2:31:29evidence public television's coverage of
2:31:31the senate hearings will continue after
2:31:33a pause for station identification
2:31:36unabridged coverage of these hearings is
2:31:38provided as a public service by the
2:31:39member stations of pbs the public
2:31:42broadcasting service
2:31:45mpact continues its coverage of hearings
2:31:47by the senate select committee on
2:31:49presidential campaign activities here
2:31:51again correspondent robert mcneill
2:31:54as the hearings resume senator montoya
2:31:57is wrapping up at that point senator
2:31:59weiker has some questions about the
2:32:00political espionage done by tony
2:32:02ulazewitz
2:32:08committee will come to order
2:32:34today
2:32:40yes
2:32:44uh mr
2:32:45ehrlichman
2:32:48i believe the last question i asked you
2:32:50was
2:32:53why was there so much concern around the
2:32:55white house
2:32:58about
2:32:59clemency for mr hunt on january 3rd
2:33:04in view of the fact that
2:33:07you have testified
2:33:09that up to that time you were all
2:33:10convinced there was no white house
2:33:12involvement
2:33:14well if i could
2:33:16first take the assumptions of your
2:33:18question senator
2:33:19i can't agree that there was so much
2:33:21concern around the white house for
2:33:23clemency for mr hunt
2:33:26the fact is well why did you have this
2:33:27conference we had the conference because
2:33:29mr colson had a very strong concern
2:33:32about mr hunt and his melancholy in his
2:33:35frame of mind and his
2:33:37his letter which said that mr colson in
2:33:39effect had abandoned his friend and uh
2:33:42mr colson was moved by this
2:33:44uh
2:33:46it was the occasion for a meeting about
2:33:48what kind of a contact mr colson might
2:33:51make
2:33:52with mr hunt to reassure him
2:33:54uh on a on a
2:33:56personal basis
2:33:58uh the purpose of the meeting
2:34:01was the
2:34:03mr colson strong desire to make a
2:34:05response to that letter which was a very
2:34:08compelling letter i believe it's in your
2:34:09in your exhibits
2:34:12so that's how they that's how the
2:34:13meeting originated
2:34:15well mr colson testified about this
2:34:18meeting in the context of mr hunt
2:34:21being very concerned
2:34:24and that he might
2:34:26blow the lid off
2:34:28and indicate something uh which would be
2:34:30unsavory to the white house mr colson
2:34:32said that i believe he did or someone
2:34:34else in the testimony of these of the of
2:34:37these hearings mr coulson hasn't been
2:34:38here yet senator no no i don't know
2:34:40someone else no i don't mean mr close mr
2:34:41magruder
2:34:43well mr magruder wasn't there all right
2:34:46now
2:34:50there was talk about uh
2:34:54clemency for some of the defendants at
2:34:57the white house was there not
2:34:58at that meeting there was talk about it
2:35:01and the talk was that under no
2:35:03circumstances should it be offered nor
2:35:06should it even be discussed did you
2:35:08communicate this to mr colson yes sir
2:35:11were you aware that
2:35:13mr caulfield had communicated an offer
2:35:15of clemency to
2:35:17mr mccord
2:35:19at that time
2:35:21now i believe that i believe that was uh
2:35:24right after january the third oh you you
2:35:26mean at some at at some other time today
2:35:28yes i'm aware of it i i heard of it uh
2:35:31quite a long time after it happened yes
2:35:33sir and i heard of it during my
2:35:35inquiry during the interviews of some of
2:35:37these people did mr caulfield ever
2:35:40communicate to you
2:35:42that
2:35:43pursuant to
2:35:44word from mr dean he had communicated an
2:35:47offer of clemency to mr mccoy sir
2:35:51now
2:35:54i will go into another matter
2:35:59i believe you have testified here
2:36:03that when the president
2:36:04authorized an investigation of the
2:36:06ellsberg matter
2:36:09that
2:36:10he talked
2:36:12to mr crow
2:36:14and that in that discussion there was no
2:36:17contemplation
2:36:18that a burglary should be committed
2:36:21it was never discussed
2:36:23all right
2:36:24and
2:36:25i believe you also stated that you were
2:36:27unaware
2:36:30that
2:36:33mr krogh or anyone else had given the
2:36:35authority but your testimony was that
2:36:38you assumed
2:36:39that mr crow had given
2:36:42permission
2:36:43to
2:36:45go into the ellsberg psychiatrist's
2:36:47office you assumed yes sir i think that
2:36:49was your testimony that's correct
2:36:51all right
2:36:53now
2:36:54let us go into the statute
2:36:57which is uh
2:37:021825-11 subparagraph three
2:37:08i believe that uh
2:37:09you and your attorney
2:37:12tried to justify this
2:37:14as a legal venture
2:37:17and not a burglary
2:37:20because of this paragraph three
2:37:24which
2:37:27gives to the president implied powers
2:37:31over
2:37:33the
2:37:34security of our nation
2:37:37now if
2:37:39this this particular thing or provision
2:37:44contemplates that the president takes
2:37:47such measures
2:37:48in order for them to be valid
2:37:52if your interpretation is correct
2:37:55the president did not take any measure
2:37:58to give authority
2:38:01the mr crow
2:38:04as you have testified
2:38:07you just assumed that he had authority
2:38:09but you're not sure that he did
2:38:12and therefore
2:38:14there was no authority imparted from the
2:38:16only person that could give that
2:38:18authority
2:38:19for the commission of this burglary
2:38:22and therefore wouldn't you say that it
2:38:24was
2:38:25not a legal venture in promotion of the
2:38:28internal security of this country
2:38:31well senator uh my assumption was not
2:38:33with regard to whether mr krogh
2:38:36had authority
2:38:37my assumption was with regard to whether
2:38:39he had authorized the act by
2:38:43mr hunt and mr liddy
2:38:45well how could he authorize it
2:38:49if the president had not contemplated it
2:38:52when he gave the original charter for
2:38:54this investigation to mr crow
2:38:57well i suppose it's the difference
2:38:58between a gener general agency and a and
2:39:01what we used to call a special agency in
2:39:03law school but wouldn't you say that in
2:39:05view of the provision upon which you are
2:39:07relying
2:39:09that specific authority
2:39:11from the only one who could give it
2:39:12namely the president of the united
2:39:14states was necessary in order to make it
2:39:16valid now i would think that uh
2:39:19since we're talking about a
2:39:20constitutional rather than a statutory
2:39:22power that a general delegation
2:39:26of capacity to mr crow
2:39:29would be required rather than some
2:39:30specific authorization of some specific
2:39:33act but this is not a statutory power
2:39:35this is a
2:39:36recital of a reservoir of constitutional
2:39:40power in the president that's what i
2:39:41just said
2:39:45so in view of the fact that there was no
2:39:48specific authority i'll ask you this
2:39:49question again
2:39:50by the president
2:39:52and in view of the fact that you are not
2:39:54sure whether mr crow
2:39:56had any authority to do so and he
2:39:59certainly didn't under the wording of
2:40:01this
2:40:02would you say that that burglary was
2:40:04legal
2:40:06well
2:40:06you again you're misstating what i
2:40:09understand about mr krogh's authority
2:40:11the thing that i said i had to assume
2:40:14was what passed between mr krogh and
2:40:17messer's hunt and liddy because i don't
2:40:19know
2:40:20i do know what passed between the
2:40:22president and mr krog and that was a
2:40:24delegation of very general authority on
2:40:26this subject
2:40:27and in my opinion that delegation of
2:40:29authority was very broad
2:40:31and very deep
2:40:34all right now i might say to the uh to
2:40:36you mr erickman that
2:40:39your testimony has uh
2:40:42been contradicted
2:40:45by many of the witnesses who have
2:40:46appeared here to four
2:40:49and i believe that this committee has
2:40:51the task
2:40:53of judging your testimony
2:40:56against the testimony of others with
2:40:58respect to other matters of substance
2:41:01and these other people are
2:41:05mr dean
2:41:06mr mitchell
2:41:08mr magruder mr strong mr larue
2:41:12mr comback and mr sloan
2:41:15believe you have uh
2:41:18indicated in your testimony
2:41:21something contradictory of theirs
2:41:24in one manner or another
2:41:27one detail or another
2:41:30and it is the duty of this committee
2:41:33to judge your testimony
2:41:35against this background
2:41:38and against all these threads of
2:41:40testimony offered by these individuals
2:41:42that's all i have to say mr chairman
2:41:44well i wouldn't want your remarks to go
2:41:47uncontradicted mr
2:41:49senator montoya
2:41:52i'm not aware
2:41:54of conflicts
2:41:55between my testimony and some of those
2:41:57that you read number one
2:41:59number two i understand the function of
2:42:01the committee to be legislative rather
2:42:03than adjudica adjudicatory
2:42:06so don't think that you're necessarily
2:42:09in the business of
2:42:11making findings of fact as to the
2:42:13testimony of specific witnesses but
2:42:15passing that for the moment
2:42:17it seems to me that
2:42:20whether there are
2:42:22conflicts in the evidence is not nearly
2:42:24as important as to whether or not
2:42:28conflicts in the evidence are supported
2:42:31one side or the other by corroborating
2:42:33independent evidence on material points
2:42:36and i hope that you will find it
2:42:37possible the other members of the
2:42:38committee will find it possible to
2:42:40examine the various extrinsic pieces of
2:42:43evidence such as the letter from the cia
2:42:45to the fbi and things of that kind to
2:42:48determine
2:42:49which
2:42:50of conflicting testimony is entitled to
2:42:53the greater way well i'm sure that we
2:42:54will do that i personally will i can
2:42:57assure you mr hurley thank you sir i'll
2:42:58weigh the weight of the testimony
2:43:01and i will also give consideration to
2:43:04any documentary evidence that you
2:43:06present here
2:43:07and certainly i think all the members
2:43:09will it's good thank you
2:43:11well i think the prime folks of this
2:43:13committee one of the prime functions
2:43:14outside of making recommendations for
2:43:16legislation is to find for the facts
2:43:18what the facts are
2:43:21from testimonial witnesses or from
2:43:22documents central wycombe
2:43:25mr chairman excuse me
2:43:28may this memorandum of april 6
2:43:32uh which i passed to the
2:43:35chair be included in the record at this
2:43:37point
2:43:43yes so the the reporter will mark it as
2:43:46exhibited admitted research thank you
2:43:51chairman i believe that a bell has just
2:43:54rung for a vote and this might be the
2:43:55proper time
2:43:57well we'll recess now and heard back as
2:43:59fast as we can run
2:44:04the senators paused again for a vote on
2:44:06amendments to the campaign reform act as
2:44:09they come back to the hearing room
2:44:10senator weiker has questions about
2:44:12campaign ethics conflicts and john
2:44:14mitchell's testimony and possible cia
2:44:17involvement in the cover-up
2:44:27senator
2:44:29you may examine the witness
2:44:38now mr elkman i'm going to refer to your
2:44:42opening statement
2:44:46the committee
2:44:47and specifically i'm on page 11
2:44:52of that opening statement
2:44:56and in the
2:44:58bottom paragraph you state that the
2:45:00council also has always had political
2:45:03duties
2:45:04the president is the nation's chief
2:45:06executive but he is also
2:45:09by long-standing tradition his political
2:45:11party's leader
2:45:15any president has a political role to
2:45:17play whether he's going to run for
2:45:18re-election or not
2:45:21but if he's a candidate then he is both
2:45:23an executive and
2:45:26a practicing politician
2:45:29every such politician wants information
2:45:34and the president in his politician role
2:45:38is no different from the others
2:45:43he needs and wants information about
2:45:45issues supporters
2:45:47opponents and every other political
2:45:49subject
2:45:50known to man
2:45:53for the year 69 to 70 when i left
2:45:56the post of council i attempted to
2:45:58gather some purely political information
2:46:00for the president
2:46:02as i was expected to do
2:46:05out of real concern for the proprieties
2:46:08i attempted to use only conventional
2:46:12non-governmental sources of information
2:46:15as one might hire political aids in a
2:46:17political campaign
2:46:19tony elassowitz was hired to do this
2:46:21chore of information gathering
2:46:24he was paid from existing nixon
2:46:26political money
2:46:27by check
2:46:29under an appropriate employer's tax
2:46:32number
2:46:33among other assignments he scouted the
2:46:35potential opposition for vulnerability
2:46:40so far as i'm aware
2:46:42during my tenure as council
2:46:44mr elassowitz conducted his assignments
2:46:47legally
2:46:48and properly
2:46:50in all respects
2:46:55now i'd like to read to you
2:46:59from testimony given by mr yolassowitz
2:47:01to this committee
2:47:06senator white now i'd like to if i could
2:47:08try to get into the general nature of
2:47:10the investigations
2:47:12the other investigations which you
2:47:13conducted
2:47:15is it a fact that
2:47:16these investigations or some of these
2:47:18investigations were background checks
2:47:20on individuals intended to develop
2:47:22questionable facets
2:47:24of the personal lives
2:47:26of these individuals mr elastowitz that
2:47:29is correct sir
2:47:31senator waker
2:47:33now when we were talking about
2:47:34questionable facets would this include
2:47:36sexual habits which is the elastowitz
2:47:38these were allegations and that might be
2:47:40included in the category i guess
2:47:43senator weiker that would be
2:47:45included in the category
2:47:47drinking habits
2:47:48ilassus yes sir
2:47:51senator weicker domestic problems
2:47:53glasswoods yes sir
2:47:56senator like
2:47:57personal social activities
2:47:59mr acids
2:48:01yes sir
2:48:03and then finally in concluding
2:48:06his testimony whereby he characterizes
2:48:09his inframation
2:48:11gathering
2:48:13mr eulassowitz
2:48:20senator waker i repeat my question how
2:48:22would you categorize the information
2:48:23which you turned over to mr caulfield
2:48:25she'll ask which i would say it senator
2:48:27weiker was it the national security
2:48:28nature that's what's no sir
2:48:31senator white domestic security nature
2:48:34no sir
2:48:35senator wyken dirk
2:48:38mr laskowitz no it would be of a
2:48:40political nature
2:48:42senator weiker political dirt
2:48:46mr yolassowitz paul writes here
2:48:51now since in your opening statement
2:48:53you indicated that
2:48:56you were the one that
2:49:01was responsible in when you were counsel
2:49:03to the president
2:49:06in turning over
2:49:08political
2:49:10information or information about issues
2:49:11supporters opponents and every other
2:49:13political subject known to man
2:49:15and since you were the one that hired mr
2:49:17elassowitz i wonder if you might not
2:49:20comment to this committee
2:49:23as to
2:49:24the information which you
2:49:28turned over to the president
2:49:32and again on the
2:49:34characterization that mr yelassowitz
2:49:37gave his own job
2:49:40i don't know what period mr ulasswoods
2:49:42was referring to in your in response to
2:49:45your question senator i can only speak
2:49:47for the
2:49:49about six or seven months that his
2:49:52tenure and mine overlapped
2:49:56i think that the
2:49:59investigations which he did at the time
2:50:01that
2:50:02i was counsel in
2:50:041969 and the first month or two 1970
2:50:07perhaps
2:50:09did not in any way relate to the
2:50:11political campaign of 1972
2:50:15uh so i don't know whether this is in
2:50:17the scope of your inquiry or not but
2:50:19just generally i think it's very much in
2:50:21the scope of the inquiry on the election
2:50:22campaign of 72 and i believe if i'm not
2:50:25mistaken this covers the period after
2:50:27the 68 election up through the 72 wow in
2:50:30any event
2:50:31the the one principal
2:50:34investigation that i recall
2:50:37uh which mr yelassowitz reported to me
2:50:40on
2:50:41and i'm sorry that i don't have a
2:50:45i don't think there were very many major
2:50:47ones
2:50:48of a political nature my recollection is
2:50:51that a great deal of what he did
2:50:53had to do with
2:50:57black panthers and other
2:51:00violent violent group
2:51:03intelligence and that's that's the other
2:51:04thing that stands out in my recollection
2:51:06but mr ulassowitz was
2:51:09sent to
2:51:10edgartown
2:51:13to
2:51:15keep track of the development of the
2:51:17chappaquiddick story
2:51:19and
2:51:20it slips my mind as to just what the
2:51:22date of that was but i do recall
2:51:25is keeping us informed on a regular
2:51:27basis of developments as they become it
2:51:29became available there and so that you
2:51:32transmitted this information to the
2:51:34president in uh in summary farther he he
2:51:37produced almost nothing that wasn't a
2:51:38matter of
2:51:40of
2:51:41newspaper
2:51:43uh
2:51:44reporting as as it turned out
2:51:47uh so there was very little to there was
2:51:49very little to pass on that would have
2:51:51been of any moment
2:51:53that you couldn't have read in an
2:51:54ordinary newspaper
2:51:56well of course mr lasso was testified
2:51:58that part of the information which he
2:51:59received was
2:52:00a matter of public record
2:52:02other information that he
2:52:05received was a matter of
2:52:07or was received or gotten in an
2:52:09investigatory way
2:52:12but uh
2:52:15why did you feel the necessity that to
2:52:17have somebody like mr ulassowitz
2:52:19investigate the black panthers uh
2:52:22oh is there some reason why possibly the
2:52:24law enforcement army is this another
2:52:26area that j edgar hoover was weak on he
2:52:28had a
2:52:29his connection with the new york police
2:52:32department at one point in time
2:52:34had been in
2:52:35intelligence involving
2:52:38violent
2:52:40groups of that kind
2:52:41and he had sources
2:52:43uh particularly in the new york police
2:52:45department intelligence division
2:52:47and so he would be the recipient of
2:52:49information because of that former
2:52:50association
2:52:52well i know but i i still isn't a
2:52:54satisfactory answer was there some
2:52:56inadequacy on the part of normal i
2:52:59previously normal law enforcement
2:53:00agencies right i previously testified i
2:53:02think senator that
2:53:04we were not getting
2:53:06an accumulation
2:53:08of intelligence from the police and the
2:53:11sheriff's offices and the state police
2:53:13of the of the various municipal and
2:53:15state organizations
2:53:17and that it was some time i think it was
2:53:19probably
2:53:21the second year or possibly into the
2:53:23third year before
2:53:25there was set up in the justice
2:53:26department a facility for accumulating
2:53:28all of this mr elastowitz in the six or
2:53:31seven months that he worked in the
2:53:33council's office when i was counsel
2:53:35did a kind of a makeshift job of getting
2:53:37some of this information and feeding it
2:53:39in
2:53:43so the effect during this period of time
2:53:45we all slept better at night knowing
2:53:47that mr ulassowitz was on the job is
2:53:49that right
2:53:51well i don't know about that senator
2:53:54well i'm going to pursue this for a
2:53:55minute because uh
2:53:57let's let's
2:53:59let's get into the hiring of mr
2:54:00ulassawins
2:54:02uh was he brought down to the white
2:54:04house and interviewed
2:54:07for a job by
2:54:09the
2:54:11personnel at the white house just how
2:54:13was he hired he was he was hired
2:54:16because he was well known to mr
2:54:18caulfield mr caulfield recommended him
2:54:20highly
2:54:21and he was hired
2:54:22by me
2:54:23uh after a very brief meeting but but
2:54:27principally on mr caulfield say so in
2:54:29recommendation
2:54:30well but where did you hire him
2:54:32where did i hire him right
2:54:34well i met him in an airport while i was
2:54:37on a trip to new york as i recall
2:54:40and mr caulfield
2:54:43as i recall it arranged a
2:54:46meeting for us
2:54:50i hired him i guess uh in the white
2:54:52house that is i made the decision and
2:54:55authorized mr caulfield and made the
2:54:58arrangements with mr kombach to pay your
2:55:00first your first meeting with them was
2:55:02in the
2:55:03vip lounge at laguardia airport that was
2:55:05the only meeting i ever had
2:55:07that was the only one yes sir
2:55:10so that
2:55:12is this some
2:55:16new situation whereby we're going to
2:55:18meet potential white house employees
2:55:21in the lounges of airports or well as i
2:55:24tried to say my opening statement he was
2:55:25not a white house employee
2:55:27and he was never held out to be and as a
2:55:29matter of fact the very point of having
2:55:31him was that we were not gathering
2:55:34political information with government
2:55:35people well i didn't feel that we ought
2:55:38to have government people in that
2:55:39business so we ought to have a fellow
2:55:41who was established on the outside it
2:55:43was paid on the outside
2:55:46and you have this anomaly of having to
2:55:48conduct
2:55:51some political activities both of a
2:55:53fundraising and of a staff and of an
2:55:56investigatory nature you do it with
2:55:58political funds and they have to be
2:56:00outside people
2:56:02well
2:56:03isn't it true
2:56:07certainly neither one of us
2:56:12he's in the
2:56:14position of being a novice here uh
2:56:16politically
2:56:18that the reason why you'd want him on an
2:56:20outside payroll would be that
2:56:24you wouldn't want to claim him if he
2:56:25were
2:56:26if he were found out would that be would
2:56:28that be a fair description well i don't
2:56:30think the way it was set up there'd be
2:56:31any way to disclaim him senator uh
2:56:34because he was being paid
2:56:37very directly
2:56:38from nixon campaign funds in the hands
2:56:41of a trustee committee
2:56:43and uh
2:56:44there just was no way to disclaim him
2:56:47there was no everybody
2:56:50would be able to find out
2:56:52mr eulasses ulassowitz's employer
2:56:55through just the employer number if
2:56:57nothing else well i'll tell you maybe
2:56:59everybody found out maybe everybody knew
2:57:01but we had to do an awful lot of digging
2:57:02around here to find out who mr
2:57:04elastowicz was and what role he had to
2:57:06go ahead and play
2:57:09i'd like to have your concept and i
2:57:12think this is very much now we're
2:57:13getting into the real essence of the
2:57:15business of this committee
2:57:17what is your concept of political
2:57:20information
2:57:22you see unfortunately unfortunately
2:57:26uh
2:57:27thanks to the committee reelect
2:57:29president
2:57:30and some of the witnesses that appeared
2:57:31here
2:57:32everybody thinks that the senators at
2:57:34this table and others engaged in
2:57:36politics
2:57:38go running around hiring illasowitz
2:57:40types to dig up dirt on each other
2:57:43and uh i just can't allow that to to fly
2:57:46without without contesting it because
2:57:48really it's going to make
2:57:49elections rather interesting in the
2:57:50future if it does
2:57:53and i wonder if you might since you were
2:57:55the one that was responsible for hiring
2:57:57this man and since we've had a
2:57:58description of
2:58:00by this man of exactly what his job
2:58:02consisted of which was dirt
2:58:05i wonder if you might tell the committee
2:58:07uh
2:58:08what your concept is of politics here in
2:58:11the united states in in so far as this
2:58:13type of activity is concerned well i
2:58:16think that certainly there is
2:58:19room for improvement in the practice of
2:58:21politics in this country there's no
2:58:23there's no argument about that but at
2:58:25the same time
2:58:26i think that each candidate
2:58:28who
2:58:29contests the candidacy of an incumbent
2:58:34has the obligation to come forward and
2:58:38contest the fitness of that incumbent
2:58:40for office both in terms of his voting
2:58:42record
2:58:43and in terms of his probity and in terms
2:58:46of his
2:58:47morals if you please and any other fact
2:58:50that is
2:58:51important or germane to the voters of
2:58:53his district or state or the country for
2:58:56that matter i think a candidate for
2:58:58office assumes that burden of proof he
2:59:00assumes a burden of proof of showing the
2:59:02unfitness of the incumbent
2:59:04and i don't think that in our political
2:59:07system that is limited to his voting
2:59:10record or his absenteeism
2:59:13if it were
2:59:14uh we would countenance the perpetuation
2:59:18of scoundrels in office
2:59:19who were thieves or who were fraudulent
2:59:22or who were
2:59:23profligate or otherwise unfit for office
2:59:26and so i think it's perfectly competent
2:59:28for a challenger
2:59:30to meet head on the issue of the fitness
2:59:34of an incumbent
2:59:35do you mean to tell me
2:59:38in this committee
2:59:40that you consider private investigators
2:59:43going into sexual habits drinking habits
2:59:45domestic problems and
2:59:47personal social activities as a as a
2:59:50proper subject for investigation during
2:59:52the course of a political campaign
2:59:54senator i know of my own knowledge
2:59:57of incumbents in office who are not
3:00:00discharging their obligation to their
3:00:02constituents because of their drinking
3:00:04habits and it distresses me very much
3:00:07and there's a kind of an unwritten law
3:00:08in the media that that is not discussed
3:00:12and so the constituents at home have no
3:00:14way of knowing that you can go over here
3:00:16in the gallery
3:00:18and watch
3:00:19a member
3:00:20talk her onto the floor
3:00:23in a in a condition which uh of of at
3:00:26least partial inebriation which would
3:00:28preclude him from making any sort of a
3:00:31sober judgment on the issues that
3:00:32confront this country now i think that
3:00:35is important for the american people to
3:00:36know and if the only way that it can be
3:00:39brought out is through his a his
3:00:41opponent in a political campaign then i
3:00:44think that opponent has an affirmative
3:00:45obligation to bring that forward
3:00:49well now this is getting very
3:00:50interesting
3:00:56again let's uh we contrasted similar
3:00:58situations uh yesterday and i just i
3:01:01again i i'm just not going to let these
3:01:03things get laid out in the table without
3:01:05giving
3:01:06another
3:01:08side to the
3:01:09to the argument
3:01:13i've had
3:01:15eight election campaigns in eight years
3:01:17six against democrats two against
3:01:19republicans
3:01:21i suppose it would be considered
3:01:22self-serving to say that i've never done
3:01:24anything like that so i won't so i'll
3:01:25refer to my opponents
3:01:29i know no democratic opponent out of the
3:01:32six and
3:01:33no republican opponent out of the two
3:01:35that has ever done
3:01:38what uh mr yelassowitz was doing or
3:01:43what you are in effect advocating here
3:01:47now it seems to me that it's up to the
3:01:49constituency whatever that constituency
3:01:51happens to be to make a determination as
3:01:53to the fitness of
3:01:55the man or the woman that they go ahead
3:01:57and elect
3:01:59but do you really want to bring the
3:02:01political system of the united states
3:02:04of our campaigns down to the level of
3:02:06what you're talking about right now well
3:02:08i i conceive it this way senator i i
3:02:11know that in your situation
3:02:13your lifestyle is undoubtedly impeccable
3:02:15and there wouldn't be anything uh at
3:02:17issue like that
3:02:19i'm your angel let's take it
3:02:21but i'll tell you
3:02:22i might
3:02:24i thought you were i
3:02:26believe believe me i'm not and i i worry
3:02:28about you sticking people on the
3:02:30landscape here
3:02:31i've probably got a greater worry now
3:02:33that i've heard about this and i didn't
3:02:35before i before i started it i'll put it
3:02:37that way well i think you'll you'll
3:02:38agree with me senator that that
3:02:41certainly uh someone with a serious
3:02:43drinking habit
3:02:44uh is of doubtful fitness uh for the
3:02:47kind of heavy duties that uh you bear
3:02:50for instance or that any senator bears
3:02:52in the center of the united states
3:02:54uh that is certainly a material question
3:02:58that has to be raised in a political
3:03:00campaign at least so it seems to me
3:03:02now
3:03:03if that is not something that
3:03:06the incumbent's opponent
3:03:08should bring out
3:03:10then you are leaving the constituency
3:03:13to the tender mercies of the
3:03:15uh journalists in the community as to
3:03:17whether or not that's reported to the
3:03:18constitution because they don't have any
3:03:20way of knowing
3:03:21really especially the the constituencies
3:03:24remote from here where people get here
3:03:25very seldom
3:03:27to make an observation so i would be
3:03:29very concerned about that and that seems
3:03:31to me to be a very legitimate subject of
3:03:34inquiry now maybe my standards are all
3:03:36haywire and that
3:03:39everybody in the congress ought to be
3:03:40immune from scrutiny on that subject but
3:03:43that just seems to me to be an
3:03:45indefensible position on your part
3:03:48you think that uh we have no scrutiny
3:03:50around here sir you think we have no
3:03:52scrutiny well
3:03:53in all candor uh i mean i got no i mean
3:03:56let's count them i mean they're all over
3:03:57here at this stage of the game and
3:03:59they're here all the time not just to
3:04:00hear you and i talk if there's anything
3:04:02that
3:04:04is quite obvious in washington dc it's
3:04:06that every aspect of our lives
3:04:08legislatively personally in every way
3:04:11is subject to the scrutiny of a free
3:04:13press and subject to the scrutiny
3:04:16at least the congress is subject to the
3:04:17scrutiny of the free press
3:04:20senator
3:04:24and also subject to the scrutiny of our
3:04:26of our constituencies
3:04:29our wives right
3:04:39i
3:04:41i want to state right now and i
3:04:43obviously you and i are at loggerheads
3:04:45on
3:04:46on a very basic issue here
3:04:49and one that i think not only relates to
3:04:51mr ulassowitz's activities
3:04:54i'm not so sure we don't come right back
3:04:58to the breaking in daniel ellsberg's
3:04:59office again
3:05:03that
3:05:04i am quite satisfied that our systems
3:05:10our institutions
3:05:12are perfectly capable
3:05:15of passing decent judgments
3:05:18fair judgments
3:05:20hard judges
3:05:24on
3:05:25political figures
3:05:28public officials
3:05:30without the covert
3:05:34operations of men like mr ulassani
3:05:38senator i i would only
3:05:40disagree with you by by saying this much
3:05:42i think that your assumptions with
3:05:44regard to the
3:05:47full
3:05:48reportage by the media of the of the
3:05:52personal conduct of people in public
3:05:54life
3:05:56guilds the lily
3:05:58unduly uh certainly
3:06:01you members of this committee are being
3:06:03subject to subjected to scrutiny
3:06:06by the television and by the writing
3:06:08press to a degree and your conduct is
3:06:10being evaluated measured in a way that
3:06:13seldom happens to a member of the united
3:06:15states senate or or the congress of the
3:06:17united states
3:06:18and i think it is possible for some
3:06:20members to exist
3:06:22uh uh under a under a uh
3:06:26in a sheltered situation for years and
3:06:28years and years here
3:06:31and perpetuate themselves in office so
3:06:33to speak because you know and i know
3:06:35that the advantages are heavily in favor
3:06:37of the incumbent
3:06:39you are in a position to favor reporters
3:06:41with uh stories and so on it's it's an
3:06:44uphill struggle for someone to
3:06:46to take on an incumbent united states
3:06:49senator uh
3:06:51under any circumstances and that and the
3:06:53press
3:06:54uh are not always as uh
3:06:57tough on
3:06:58others as they might be on the members
3:07:00of this committee in this setting so i
3:07:03think you and i have a difference of
3:07:05opinion but i think that reasonable
3:07:06minds can differ on this subject
3:07:08particularly in the area of drinking
3:07:10the area of fitness
3:07:12of that kind to discharge the duties now
3:07:15certainly there are limits
3:07:17and i would be the first to agree with
3:07:18you that there are areas where
3:07:21a subject matter that that would be
3:07:24totally offensive to me as they would be
3:07:26to you and i don't mean for a minute to
3:07:28contend uh for uh uh
3:07:32matters beyond those limits but i do
3:07:34think that uh that's one of the things
3:07:36that this this whole proceeding is about
3:07:38i think is an attempt to try and define
3:07:41uh the lines
3:07:43within which an inquiry as to an
3:07:45incumbent his life his performance his
3:07:48voting record our
3:07:50our
3:07:51subject of of proper inquiry yeah but i
3:07:54mean if
3:07:55if this is a matter of proper inquiry in
3:07:57the course of an election campaign i
3:07:59mean what why isn't a proper
3:08:01[Music]
3:08:03why isn't it proper inquiry as far as
3:08:04all members of congress are concerned
3:08:06insofar as the relationship between the
3:08:08executive and the branch and the
3:08:09legislative branch
3:08:11why not
3:08:13is this material in other words it's
3:08:15going to be used
3:08:16as between the executive and the
3:08:17legislative branches of guardian i don't
3:08:20think i understand
3:08:21well
3:08:22you apparently consider
3:08:24proper information to dig out to go
3:08:26ahead and win an election
3:08:27is it proper information to dig out to
3:08:29go ahead and carry an issue
3:08:32you mean blackmail no i don't i mean as
3:08:34between the legislative and the
3:08:36executive branches of government you
3:08:37mean in other words you have a piece of
3:08:39information or congressman and say
3:08:41congressman we no i don't think that's
3:08:42proper but it's proper election campaign
3:08:44i think it is proper to provide
3:08:46legitimate facts to an electorate that
3:08:48bear on the fitness of an incumbent
3:08:52well of course
3:08:54what you're saying and where we disagree
3:08:57and
3:08:59and i want to make this clear mr and if
3:09:00any other member of the committee wants
3:09:01to comment now i i i don't think anybody
3:09:04realizes what's being done here right
3:09:06now
3:09:08you definitely have two different
3:09:10concepts of politics in this country
3:09:12meeting head-on i might say senator let
3:09:15me finish and then i'll be glad to go
3:09:16ahead and listen to you sure
3:09:19i always thought
3:09:21that we settle these matters and basis
3:09:23of
3:09:24issues
3:09:26on what you stood for on a public stance
3:09:29that your opponent took that was a bad
3:09:31stance
3:09:32how you can present yourself how you
3:09:34move around and campaign
3:09:36but to sit here at this moment in time
3:09:38and tell me that we're going to settle
3:09:40our elections on the basis of sexual
3:09:41habits and drinking habits and domestic
3:09:43problems and personal social activities
3:09:46well i'll tell you you stick to your
3:09:48version i'm going to stick to mine
3:09:50senator i was going to say that in our
3:09:53in what we have asked the fbi to do
3:09:55to determine the fitness of an
3:09:57individual for appointment to the
3:09:58executive branch to the cabinet the
3:10:01sub-cabinet to the agency positions and
3:10:03so on these kinds of questions of
3:10:06fitness
3:10:07drinking habits
3:10:10habitual intoxication
3:10:12um
3:10:13immorality are all considered to be
3:10:16important questions
3:10:17to ask and to settle upon
3:10:20and uh
3:10:21the review as far as as i know in the
3:10:24selection of people in the in this
3:10:25administration has been in very rigorous
3:10:27and the standards have been very high
3:10:29well number one please don't put the fbi
3:10:31in the same category as mr elastowitz
3:10:33now i just don't think that's a fair
3:10:34comparison at all
3:10:36i think these are two entirely different
3:10:38entities i am proud of the federal
3:10:39bureau of investigation
3:10:41the subjects are the same senator
3:10:44i might add you keep on talking about
3:10:46the enormous advantage that an incumbent
3:10:48enjoys may i point out that according to
3:10:49your theory the president was the
3:10:51incumbent
3:10:52oh
3:10:54don't misunderstand me i think an
3:10:55incumbent president has an enormous
3:10:57advantage yeah but this one not only had
3:10:59an enormous advantage apparently he went
3:11:01around and had this type of information
3:11:03handed to him which uh
3:11:05added to the advantage that he had i
3:11:07would say made him rather unbeatable
3:11:11well in any event let's leave
3:11:15that subject for the time being although
3:11:18i find that unbelievable
3:11:30yesterday in response
3:11:32to a series of
3:11:34questions concerning the need for the
3:11:36plumbers
3:11:39you stated as follows
3:11:43and i assure you that the decision that
3:11:45was made in this matter
3:11:48to put investigators in the field
3:11:51was taken most reluctantly and for
3:11:54genuine purposes
3:11:56and the purposes are simply to
3:11:58supplement what was considered to be an
3:12:00inadequate effort
3:12:02at the time by the federal bureau of
3:12:03investigation
3:12:07now in order to satisfy yourself on this
3:12:10you ought to hear
3:12:12from mr mitchell
3:12:14that was your response you will find
3:12:16that in study counselor
3:12:18you have the transcript on page
3:12:215535 of yesterday's testimony
3:12:26now in order for you
3:12:28to satisfy yourself on this you want to
3:12:30hear from mr mitchell well now we have
3:12:33already heard from mr mitchell
3:12:36and he testified before this committee
3:12:39that the first that he had heard
3:12:42of the white house horrors the plumber
3:12:44plumber's operation was on june 21
3:12:461972
3:12:48this was after he had left as attorney
3:12:50general
3:12:52is mr mitchell lying
3:12:54as i said
3:12:55in my testimony the other day
3:12:57senator
3:12:59mr mitchell's recollection
3:13:02here is evidently hazy because
3:13:06the president authorized the creation of
3:13:08this unit on the 24th of july
3:13:11and
3:13:12asked that we meet
3:13:15with several members of the cabinet 24th
3:13:17of july 71 yes sir to meet with several
3:13:19members of the cabinet whose departments
3:13:21would be the subject of
3:13:24the special units stimulation so to
3:13:26speak to get them to perform better in
3:13:28this area of leaks
3:13:29on the 28th of july we had that meeting
3:13:32with mr mitchell
3:13:33at which mr young mr kroge and i
3:13:36uh briefed mr mitchell on the
3:13:39president's desires on the purpose of
3:13:40the special unit and
3:13:43what it would be doing
3:13:44uh what date was this july 28
3:13:471971 yes sir
3:13:52so that when mr mitchell said that the
3:13:54first he learned of the white house
3:13:56horrors was on june 21 there's been some
3:13:58debate it might have been june 20th 1972
3:14:01that was inaccurate yes sir
3:14:14now
3:14:16on
3:14:17i'm going to follow through some
3:14:19dates and times with you
3:14:22mr on the
3:14:2520th or 21st
3:14:27of june 1972
3:14:31mr mitchell
3:14:33according to his testimony learned for
3:14:34the first time which you've just
3:14:35indicated was not true but i'll foster
3:14:37according to his testimony learned for
3:14:38the first time the ellsberg breaking
3:14:40and other activities the plumbers which
3:14:42he called the white house horrors
3:14:45and mr mitchell was shocked by these
3:14:47revelations and feared the disclosure of
3:14:49these events might cost the president
3:14:51the election that's what he testified to
3:14:52in front of this committee
3:14:56now the next day
3:14:58june 22
3:15:001972
3:15:04at your office
3:15:09i beg your pardon the next day mr
3:15:11mitchell met with you
3:15:12at your office
3:15:14at 11 45
3:15:16a.m do you have that on your live yes
3:15:18sir
3:15:21which meeting
3:15:25followed a group meeting he had attended
3:15:27with you
3:15:28at nine o'clock right
3:15:33and which meeting followed a phone call
3:15:36between you
3:15:38and mr mitchell at 11 20 a.m that's on
3:15:42mr mitchell's according to mr mitchell's
3:15:44lives
3:15:46phone call in other words he met with
3:15:47you at nine or it was at a group meeting
3:15:48with you at nine o'clock on the 22nd in
3:15:50the morning
3:15:51mr mitchell's live show that he had a
3:15:53phone conversation with you at 11 20
3:15:56on june the 22nd
3:15:58and then at 11 45
3:16:00he meets with you
3:16:02now what did you and mr mitchell discuss
3:16:04at your 11 45 a.m meeting that you could
3:16:07not discuss
3:16:09either at nine o'clock when you met with
3:16:10a group or at 11 20 on the phone i don't
3:16:13know senator uh
3:16:15does his log show whether he originated
3:16:17that phone call or i did because i
3:16:19cannot reconstruct that meeting i just
3:16:21do not know what that meeting was about
3:16:23you mean the 11 45 maybe yes sir
3:16:25no
3:16:26all right
3:16:27it would it would depend and
3:16:29it would help me to reconstruct to know
3:16:31whether i had placed it in which case
3:16:33probably the president had asked me to
3:16:35to refer something to him or whether he
3:16:38had placed but i just draw a blank on
3:16:39i'm sorry to say
3:16:41do you think there's any possibility
3:16:45considering the fact that mr mitchell
3:16:46had received the report
3:16:49from messers larue and marty
3:16:51either the day before or two days before
3:16:53depending on which version you won
3:16:57that he specifically discussed with you
3:17:00this problem this problem of the
3:17:03break-in the white house horrors
3:17:05and
3:17:06his fear as to what it would do
3:17:08in the election
3:17:10i
3:17:11i would suggest that it had not happened
3:17:13that way for this reason
3:17:16i suspect that this meeting was
3:17:19convened
3:17:21as a
3:17:21for the reason contained in the phone
3:17:23call whatever that was and i i'm sorry
3:17:26to say i don't know what it was but had
3:17:28it been something that was in his mind
3:17:31in the morning when we all got together
3:17:33at uh 9 30 or 10
3:17:36he most likely would have stayed back
3:17:40as sometimes happened with some of those
3:17:42people in the meeting from time to time
3:17:44clark mcgregor for instance would stay
3:17:46back after everybody else left and we
3:17:48would talk about something that he had
3:17:49on his mind now i'm really surmising
3:17:52there i just don't know i can tell you
3:17:54this
3:17:55that at no time
3:17:57did mr mitchell express to me his
3:18:00concerns
3:18:01uh which he described here to the
3:18:03committee about the so-called horrors
3:18:08at no time i do not recall his ever
3:18:10doing so
3:18:12all right
3:18:18on the same day
3:18:21according to mr gray's statement to this
3:18:23committee
3:18:24in general walter's memo of june 28 1972
3:18:28mr gray routinely inquired
3:18:31into the possible cia involvement in the
3:18:33watergate case and was told
3:18:35by director helms
3:18:37that there was no involvement
3:18:41the next day on june the 23rd
3:18:45you and mr holloman called mr helms and
3:18:48general walters
3:18:50to a meeting in your office which
3:18:51meeting general walters
3:18:53characterized as follows
3:18:56and i think it's important to read
3:18:59this memorandum
3:19:02memorandum for the record this is
3:19:04general walters june 28 june 1972.
3:19:09on june 23rd 1300 on request i called
3:19:12with director helms on john ehrlichman
3:19:14and robert haldeman in european's office
3:19:16at the white house
3:19:18haldeman said that the bugging affair at
3:19:20the democratic national committee
3:19:21headquarters the watergate apartments
3:19:22had made a lot of noise
3:19:24and the democrats were trying to
3:19:25maximize it
3:19:27the fbi had been called in and was
3:19:29investigating the matter
3:19:31the investigation was leading to a lot
3:19:32of important people
3:19:34and this could get worse
3:19:38he asked what the connection with the
3:19:39agency was and the director repeated
3:19:40that there was none
3:19:43holloman said that the whole affair was
3:19:45getting embarrassing and it was the
3:19:46president's wish
3:19:48that walters call on acting fbi director
3:19:51pat gray
3:19:52and suggest to him that since the five
3:19:54suspects have been arrested
3:19:56that this should be sufficient
3:19:59and it was not advantageous to have the
3:20:01inquiry pushed especially in mexico etc
3:20:04may i stop here for one second the
3:20:06reason for my reading this memorandum to
3:20:08you is that obviously there are four
3:20:09participants in this meeting
3:20:11and i want each one to have a chance to
3:20:13go ahead and comment on it and even
3:20:15though all of it doesn't apply to you
3:20:17you are there you're one of the
3:20:18participants of this meet
3:20:21director helms said that he had talked
3:20:22to gray on the previous day and made it
3:20:24plain to him that the agency was not
3:20:26behind this matter
3:20:28but it was not connected with it and
3:20:30none of the suspects was working for nor
3:20:32had worked for the agency in the last
3:20:34two years
3:20:36he had told gray that none of his
3:20:37investigations was touching any covert
3:20:39projects of the agency current or
3:20:41ongoing
3:20:43hallman then stated that i could tell
3:20:44gray
3:20:45that i had talked to the white house and
3:20:47suggested that the investigation not be
3:20:49pushed further
3:20:52gray would be receptive as he was
3:20:53looking for guidance in the matter
3:20:57the director repeated that the agency
3:20:59was unconnected with the matter
3:21:01i then agreed to talk to gray's director
3:21:03erlichmann implied
3:21:06i could do the uh it looks like i should
3:21:09i would i don't want to say something
3:21:10that's incorrect here
3:21:13i should do this soon and i'll get a
3:21:15clean copy and i said i would try to do
3:21:17it today
3:21:19on leaving the white house i discuss the
3:21:20matter briefly with the director
3:21:23on returning to the office i called gray
3:21:25indicated this was a matter of emergency
3:21:26and he agreed to see me at 14 30 that
3:21:28day
3:21:29now
3:21:31that's general walters
3:21:34mr helms stated to this committee during
3:21:36an interview
3:21:37as follows
3:21:39a few minutes later holdem and
3:21:41erlichmann walked in
3:21:42and haldeman in no uncertain terms
3:21:45instructed walters to see pat gray at
3:21:47the fbi and instruct him not to pursue
3:21:49his investigation in mexico
3:21:51concerning algeria and dahlberg since it
3:21:53might involve the cia
3:21:56helms had no idea what they were talking
3:21:58about with respect to mexico and when he
3:21:59asked was told never mind what it's all
3:22:02about
3:22:03but they wanted walters to go to pat
3:22:04gray right then and there end of quote
3:22:06in the interview with mr helms
3:22:10now isn't it a fact
3:22:11that the meeting with director helms and
3:22:13general walters on june 23rd was an
3:22:16effort to hinder the watergate
3:22:17investigation
3:22:19senator that meeting was convened at the
3:22:21president's request
3:22:24i learned later that the president was
3:22:25operating on the basis of an independent
3:22:28source of information and out of a
3:22:29concern
3:22:31that an all-out fbi investigation
3:22:34might compromise some cia activity
3:22:38the
3:22:40my recollection of that meeting is at
3:22:43considerable variance
3:22:44with general walters
3:22:46in the general thrust and in the in the
3:22:49details
3:22:51in point of fact as i recall it
3:22:55we informed
3:22:56mr helms and general walters that that
3:22:58the meeting was being held at the
3:23:00president's request for the reasons that
3:23:02i just stated
3:23:03mr hallman said that the
3:23:06watergate was a an obvious important
3:23:09political issue and that the president
3:23:11had no alternative
3:23:13but to order a full all-out fbi
3:23:15investigation unless
3:23:17he was satisfied that there was some
3:23:20specific area
3:23:21in which the fbi should not probe
3:23:24for fear of
3:23:25leaks through the fbi
3:23:28of disassociated and disconnected cia
3:23:31activities that had no bearing on
3:23:32watergate
3:23:34as i recall there were
3:23:36a couple of basic questions that were
3:23:38asked of these gentlemen
3:23:39one was whether the cia was directly
3:23:41involved in the break-in itself and they
3:23:43said it was not
3:23:46the other was whether or not there were
3:23:48any disassociated cia activities past or
3:23:51present
3:23:53which might somehow be
3:23:55disclosed
3:23:57through a vigorous fbi investigation
3:24:00they did not make the same kind of a
3:24:02categorical negative response to that
3:24:06question as they had made to the other
3:24:08as a matter of fact my recollection is
3:24:10a response to the effect that they don't
3:24:12keep track
3:24:14that is the director and the deputy
3:24:15director of these regional
3:24:17activities such as the one in mexico
3:24:19they would want to check with a regional
3:24:21man
3:24:23now you have in your
3:24:24well they've done that sir they had done
3:24:26that now i think i think their letter of
3:24:29the 6th of july to the acting director
3:24:31the federal bureau of investigation
3:24:33shows that they had not done that and
3:24:35they did not do that and they did not
3:24:37assure the fbi until the
3:24:4227th of june
3:24:46as to the mexican situation
3:24:49and then they confirmed that oral
3:24:51assurance of the 27th of june in writing
3:24:54on the 6th of july
3:24:55and on the 6th of july is when director
3:24:58gray called the president and said i now
3:25:01have a memo from the cia assuring me
3:25:03that there is no problem and the
3:25:05president said let's go all out so that
3:25:08is the sequence of events
3:25:10why did the director call the president
3:25:14because he rece i assume it's because he
3:25:16had this memorandum oh no oh no
3:25:18why did the director call
3:25:21the president
3:25:22quite a fact i think the president
3:25:23called the director that's correct
3:25:27the director had called mr mcgregor
3:25:29that's true
3:25:32and he had expressed to mr mcgregor
3:25:36doubts as to this situation
3:25:39he felt this was the best way to go
3:25:40ahead and
3:25:41get in touch with the president the
3:25:43president called him back shortly
3:25:44thereafter well i wasn't i wasn't at the
3:25:46meeting between mr gray and mr mcgregor
3:25:48so i don't know what they said but i do
3:25:50know that you know the president told me
3:25:54that mr mcgregor said to him when he
3:25:56came and called on the president on the
3:25:586th of july
3:25:59that he had been talking to pat gray and
3:26:02that pat gray felt it was important that
3:26:04he talked with the president right away
3:26:05and the president picked up the phone
3:26:06immediately and called him
3:26:09and
3:26:10pat gray tell the president of his fears
3:26:12that there were those around them that
3:26:13were trying to wound them i had never
3:26:15heard that
3:26:17is it not a fact that general walters
3:26:20and pat gray both felt it was necessary
3:26:22to call the president on this matter
3:26:24that both of them had the same
3:26:25apprehensions that the investigation was
3:26:28being interfered with i think it was
3:26:29important for pat gray to have talked
3:26:31with the president too i hardly concur
3:26:34with that i hope you understand that
3:26:36when mr hallman and i met with the cia
3:26:39it was for the purpose only of conveying
3:26:41to those gentlemen the president's
3:26:42concern and the meeting did not
3:26:44culminate in any instructions to anyone
3:26:46except a request to general walters that
3:26:49he sit down and talk to pat gray
3:26:52about this matter and reassure pat gray
3:26:55if he could be factually reassured
3:26:57now that in fact is what happened and
3:27:00and mr haldon and i disconnected from
3:27:02this after that one
3:27:04uh 20-minute meeting
3:27:08all right let's drop back and time again
3:27:10here the meeting on june 23rd
3:27:13they're sitting here with the director
3:27:14of the cia
3:27:16and with general walters
3:27:18now wouldn't it be logical to address
3:27:20any request of the cia
3:27:23to the director of the cia not if you
3:27:25were told by the president that he
3:27:26wanted to work through general walters
3:27:30let me repeat mr helms's testimony
3:27:34or his interview brother his interview
3:27:36with this committee
3:27:38helms had no idea what they were talking
3:27:40about respect to mexico and when he
3:27:42asked when he asked was told
3:27:45never mind what it's all about
3:27:47but they wanted walters to go to pat
3:27:49gray right then and there
3:27:51the president's instructions were not to
3:27:53me they were mr holliman and he's going
3:27:55to be your best witness as to those
3:27:56instructions
3:27:58but my understanding of those
3:27:59instructions second hand is that the
3:28:01president said that he wanted
3:28:03general walters and pat gray to work
3:28:05this out between them
3:28:08and that was confirmed to me by the
3:28:09president a later time but i didn't know
3:28:11it at the time of this meeting
3:28:14and then we also have general walters
3:28:17memorandum which i've read to you
3:28:21in which he
3:28:22indicates concern over the watergate
3:28:25investigation in a political sense
3:28:28and you disagree with that
3:28:31i'm
3:28:33the memorandum that you read to me it
3:28:35was dated you have a copy of that
3:28:43and as a matter of fact after the the
3:28:45cia finally determined uh that it had no
3:28:48involvement
3:28:49or exposure on the 27th and orally
3:28:52inform the bureau to that effect
3:28:54it was then and only then that general
3:28:56walter sat down and reconstructed these
3:28:58meetings
3:29:00so in effect
3:29:03your testimony stands in conflict with
3:29:05the versions of that meeting told by
3:29:08as i've read them to you
3:29:10of both general wallers and director
3:29:12helms yes sir
3:29:20one last series of questions was
3:29:22chairman i'll
3:29:23move along here i'd like to if we could
3:29:26get to the taped telephone conversations
3:29:29conversations with you tape do you have
3:29:31both those before you uh which are those
3:29:34so these would be
3:29:35these would be
3:29:38these would be the two
3:29:40to t i find it strange in the united
3:29:42states would say which are those as if
3:29:43this were the normal
3:29:45practice
3:29:46uh
3:29:49these are the conversations with pat
3:29:50gray on march 7th or 8th
3:29:54and the follow-up conversation with
3:29:57john dean
3:30:00the same day whatever day that happens
3:30:02to be you have those
3:30:04and i i wonder if at this time if we
3:30:06might not
3:30:07mr chairman have these entered
3:30:11as exhibits
3:30:15uh what is shawn
3:30:16general exhibits
3:30:20i didn't quite get what you wanted under
3:30:22this exhibit the uh the two
3:30:26the transcriptions
3:30:28of the two tape telephone conversations
3:30:31the first between
3:30:32mr ehrlichman and pat gray the second
3:30:35one between mr ehrlichman
3:30:38and john dean
3:30:41did mr hardington identify the one that
3:30:44he was a party too
3:30:47he was part of the boatman chairman
3:30:51that the two will be the two papers to
3:30:54be marked exhibited and admitted as such
3:31:04i'm sorry i thought maybe you were late
3:31:06referring to the
3:31:09general general of walt's matter
3:31:20as the committee sorts out the
3:31:21transcripts of all those telephone calls
3:31:23we're going to take a short break public
3:31:25television's coverage of the senate
3:31:26watergate hearings will continue after a
3:31:28pause for station identification
3:31:31unabridged coverage of these hearings is
3:31:33provided as a public service by the
3:31:35member stations of pbs the public
3:31:38broadcasting service activities here
3:31:40again correspondent jim lehrer
3:31:44as we go back to the hearing senator
3:31:45wyker is asking mr erickman about
3:31:47hearings on patrick gray's nomination as
3:31:49fbi director
3:31:53all right let's get first to the uh
3:31:55conversation between yourself and uh
3:31:59and pat gray
3:32:02um
3:32:03the first the first portion of it
3:32:07let me try to synopsize that uh gray
3:32:10makes some preliminary
3:32:11more unless you want the whole thing
3:32:13read if you want the whole thing read uh
3:32:15we can do that
3:32:16that'd be better to handle it that way
3:32:18so there won't be any unfair why don't
3:32:20you just ask
3:32:21whatever you have on your mind senator
3:32:23and then
3:32:24see if i can answer well
3:32:27gray
3:32:28pat gray makes some preliminary remarks
3:32:29concerning his position that the
3:32:31judiciary these are phone conversations
3:32:33march 7th or 8th 1973 when pat gray is
3:32:36before
3:32:37the judiciary committee subject of his
3:32:39confirmation
3:32:41gray made some preliminary remarks
3:32:43concerning his proposition his position
3:32:45that
3:32:45the judiciary committee could only
3:32:47question his procedural conduct of the
3:32:49investigation not the substance since
3:32:50the urban committee would do that
3:32:52he also pointed out that the very same
3:32:54day the aclu submitted a letter to the
3:32:56committee stating the same position
3:32:59fray then went on to say quote and now
3:33:02i'm going into the exact quote
3:33:06and this is great erlang the thing i
3:33:09want to talk to you about is that i'm
3:33:11being pushed awfully hard in certain
3:33:13areas
3:33:14and i'm not giving an inch
3:33:16and you know those areas
3:33:18and i think you've got to tell john
3:33:20wesley to stand very tight in the saddle
3:33:23and be very careful about what he says
3:33:24and to be absolutely certain
3:33:27that he knows in his own mind that he
3:33:28delivered everything he had to the fbi
3:33:31and doesn't make any distinction between
3:33:34and then
3:33:35something goes on in audible but that he
3:33:37delivered everything to the fbi
3:33:41now
3:33:42what did you assume this to me what's he
3:33:44talking about here
3:33:46when he says and you know those areas i
3:33:48assume that he was i assumed he was
3:33:50talking about the method
3:33:52of delivery of the contents of hunt's
3:33:54safe the fact that some went to the
3:33:56washington field office and some went to
3:33:58the director directly
3:34:07right
3:34:09gray
3:34:10and that he delivered it to those agents
3:34:12this is absolutely imperative
3:34:16early all right
3:34:18gray
3:34:19you know i've got a couple of areas up
3:34:21there that i'm
3:34:22hitting hard and i'm just taking them on
3:34:24the attack
3:34:26erliquin okay gray i wanted you to know
3:34:28that
3:34:29erlichman good keep up the good work my
3:34:31boy let me know if i can help
3:34:35gray all right he can help by doing that
3:34:38erlichman good
3:34:39i'll do it
3:34:41you then immediately called mr dean is
3:34:44that correct yes sir
3:34:48and i'd like to go ahead if we could and
3:34:50read
3:34:51this
3:34:53conversation dean hello
3:34:56erlich
3:34:57hi i just had a call from your favorite
3:34:59witness
3:35:01dean
3:35:02which is
3:35:04ehrlich patrick jay gray
3:35:07dean o'really
3:35:08earlier he says to make sure that old
3:35:10john w dean stays very very firm and
3:35:13steady on his story that he delivered
3:35:14every document to the fbi
3:35:17and that he does not start making nice
3:35:18distinctions between agents and direct
3:35:20directors
3:35:22dean
3:35:23he's a little worried is he
3:35:25hurliquin well
3:35:26he just doesn't want there to be any
3:35:27question he says he's hanging very firm
3:35:29and there's a lot of probing around
3:35:32dean yeah he really is he's really
3:35:34hanging tough
3:35:36you ought to read the transcript it
3:35:37makes me gag
3:35:39ehrlich really
3:35:40dean oh it's awful john
3:35:42ehrlichman why did he call me to cover
3:35:44his tracks dean yeah sure i laid this on
3:35:47him yesterday
3:35:49erlichman oh i see
3:35:51okay
3:35:53dean i laid it on him to you know to
3:35:55fuse the issue so i don't have any idea
3:35:57what he said up there today
3:35:59ehrlich
3:36:00i see it was a funny phone call
3:36:03said he's going in to object to the
3:36:05jurisdiction of the group to get into
3:36:06the substance and their only
3:36:07jurisdiction
3:36:09was to and again
3:36:11in audible their procedural efforts and
3:36:14his competence and he says the aclu put
3:36:16a letter into the same effect
3:36:18theme
3:36:19yeah wally picked up an interesting one
3:36:21on the grapevine today the
3:36:23planned strategy now is to proceed in
3:36:25this one as it did in klein east
3:36:28ehrlich down to the point of calling you
3:36:30dean down to the point of calling me
3:36:32ehrlichman let him hang there well i
3:36:35think we ought to let him hang there let
3:36:36him twist slowly slowly in the wind
3:36:40dean
3:36:41that's right
3:36:43and i was in with the boss this morning
3:36:45and that exactly and that is exactly
3:36:47where he was coming out
3:36:49he said i'm not sure gray is smart
3:36:51enough to run the bureau the way he's
3:36:52handling himself
3:36:54ehrlichman
3:36:56well okay you're on top of it
3:36:58good
3:37:01now mr eloquent first of all
3:37:04that portion of the transcript which
3:37:06the dean says yes sir i laid this on him
3:37:08yesterday and you say oh i see okay what
3:37:11is being referred to there
3:37:13i don't know
3:37:14i don't know and never did know i don't
3:37:17think what mr dean had talked to him the
3:37:19previous day about
3:37:20i was looking as you were reading
3:37:23to see if i could see
3:37:25what had been transpiring
3:37:28in that particular week
3:37:30in those hearings
3:37:32and it seems to me that the
3:37:35the issue
3:37:38was
3:37:39primarily
3:37:43whether dean sat in on the interviews
3:37:46that the fbi conducted during the
3:37:47watergate investigation
3:37:50and
3:37:53the question of whether dean would
3:37:55come to the judiciary committee and
3:37:57testified
3:38:01i think that
3:38:03this was one of a series of telephone
3:38:05calls that mr gray made to me and mr
3:38:07dean at the close of his of his
3:38:09testifying every day
3:38:11to
3:38:15give us his view of how things had gone
3:38:18for the day
3:38:19sometimes rather optimistic
3:38:22but in direct response to your question
3:38:24i don't know to what that does refer
3:38:26that is to say what mr dean talked to
3:38:28him about the previous day
3:38:30in other words that would then go into
3:38:31the same area of
3:38:33i laid it on him too you know to fuse
3:38:36the issue however again your response
3:38:37would be similar there as to you don't
3:38:39understand what he was talking about
3:38:41well i would
3:38:43that's correct unless it refers back to
3:38:45this question of who the documents were
3:38:48delivered to if it refers to some other
3:38:50subject i don't know
3:38:52let me ask you a question uh
3:38:56yesterday
3:38:59you testified to two separate events
3:39:03one was the 15th of april
3:39:06where mr peterson and attorney general
3:39:11klein deans to inform the president
3:39:17and i think you said yourself also
3:39:21of the fact that the records the hunt
3:39:23records
3:39:24had been burned by pat gray
3:39:26and that precipitates the phone
3:39:28conversation
3:39:29no sir
3:39:31they
3:39:32had a conversation
3:39:33that precipitates the phone conversation
3:39:36to gray in the evening no
3:39:39at the time of that telephone call in
3:39:40the evening either the president nor i
3:39:43knew or had any reason to believe that
3:39:45mr gray had destroyed the documents
3:39:48well
3:39:51i think that it might be
3:39:54let me let me get back to that question
3:40:15i'll get back to that question in just a
3:40:16minute
3:40:20you also
3:40:22let me drop back in time at the
3:40:23beginning of april
3:40:25you went out and had a talk with
3:40:27judge byrne relative to the fbi
3:40:28directorship
3:40:32now it's clear from this take telephone
3:40:34conversation
3:40:38that you don't think any very much of mr
3:40:40gray
3:40:42unless for some reason other swinging
3:40:44around in the breeze is a new term of
3:40:45endearment that i don't
3:40:47know anything about
3:40:50and obviously from what john dean says
3:40:53the president doesn't think very much
3:40:55of pat gray
3:40:58he says that
3:41:00i'm not sure gray is smart enough to run
3:41:02the bureau of the way he's handling
3:41:03himself and obviously dean
3:41:06dean says
3:41:07as you say he makes me gag so john dean
3:41:10doesn't think very much
3:41:13of pat gray
3:41:15what in heaven's name is pat gray doing
3:41:17up there at these confirmation hearings
3:41:19as the nominee of the administration
3:41:21well senator i think you'll remember
3:41:23those confirmation hearings and the
3:41:25revelation
3:41:26of the manner in which
3:41:28mr gray responded
3:41:30during during the hearings and i think
3:41:32it's it's fair to say that there was
3:41:34pretty general disenchantment with the
3:41:36manner in which he handled himself
3:41:38during that time there is what i was
3:41:40looking at while you were reading was
3:41:42the various events that took place
3:41:45starting back around the first of the
3:41:47month
3:41:48in those hearings
3:41:50and
3:41:52climaxing
3:41:54on the 23rd of march with mr gray saying
3:41:57that john dean probably lied to the fbi
3:42:00and then later privately recanting that
3:42:03charge to uh to mr dean and
3:42:06and admitting that it was an
3:42:07overstatement and so on now
3:42:10at this point in time
3:42:12there was general disenchantment with mr
3:42:15gray's conduct
3:42:17in the process of confirmation there
3:42:19isn't any question about it
3:42:23but do you mean to tell me if there's
3:42:25just
3:42:26this degree of disenchantment
3:42:29that you're going to keep this man on as
3:42:31the nominee and then later on as acting
3:42:33director in fact until uh
3:42:37april the 27th when in fact it's uh pat
3:42:40gray that steps down is that correct
3:42:42well i think there must be some reason
3:42:44there must be some reason i i think the
3:42:48situation was evaluated as as being uh
3:42:52perhaps
3:42:54doubtful and and painful as it existed
3:42:57but but perhaps more painful to uh to
3:43:00withdraw the uh withdraw of the problem
3:43:03and
3:43:04so there was a there was a weighing of
3:43:06the uh
3:43:07of the uh alternative evils and uh it
3:43:10was it was felt on balance at
3:43:13some point in time along in there and
3:43:14i've forgotten about where it was but it
3:43:16must have been right about this time
3:43:18that that nomination was essentially
3:43:20doomed that it wasn't going anywhere in
3:43:22the in the committee and that uh it
3:43:25we had to set about finding some
3:43:27alternatives and somewhere along in this
3:43:29period of time the president begins
3:43:32active consideration of an alternative
3:43:34list
3:43:37but march 7th or 8th
3:43:39obviously from the language that
3:43:40everybody uses here
3:43:44you and you say the nomination is doomed
3:43:49and yet nothing happens
3:43:51until april 27th and and only then
3:43:56because at least a good portion of the
3:43:57pat gray story was made public
3:44:00on the uh
3:44:0126th 27th
3:44:03well senator the die was cast long
3:44:05before that and uh
3:44:08the as i explained to you yesterday i
3:44:10believe
3:44:11the only reason that the president for
3:44:13bore
3:44:15to remove mr gray prior to that date
3:44:17was in cooperation with the attorney
3:44:20general and the assistant attorney
3:44:21general who had asked him to permit them
3:44:23an opportunity to complete their work
3:44:27i haven't gotten april 15th yet uh on
3:44:30april 15th uh
3:44:32apparently matters come to your
3:44:33attention which involved specifically uh
3:44:36mr gray admitting that he destroyed the
3:44:38documents
3:44:40so we can now add 10 more days onto the
3:44:42time when pat gray is kept in place
3:44:46do you think there's any possibility
3:44:50of the fact that either pat gray was
3:44:53kept in place
3:44:56so that there was an acting director of
3:44:58the fbi under the control
3:45:02of you and mr haldeman
3:45:04or that pat gray was kept in place so
3:45:06that he could be a part of the monday
3:45:08night tv spectacular when you
3:45:10and
3:45:11haldeman and klein deans
3:45:24as you say the president was fully
3:45:26advised of the facts on the 15th
3:45:28as soon as
3:45:31he decided to move he immediately
3:45:32replaced mr gray with mr ruckel's house
3:45:34who was one of the names that had been
3:45:36on this alternative list for some time
3:45:39so that it was it was not a situation
3:45:42i can't think of any particular
3:45:47advantage to anyone
3:45:49in that delay except to the
3:45:50investigators
3:45:52and the that is to say mr peterson and
3:45:56the attorney general who felt that they
3:45:58had to they had to make their case
3:46:02on march 7th or 8th
3:46:07in discussing pat gray dean says he
3:46:09makes me gag
3:46:11you've got him hanging
3:46:13and the president
3:46:15says he's not smart enough to run the
3:46:16bureau
3:46:19now this is an evaluation made of the
3:46:21director the nominee for the direct ship
3:46:24of the
3:46:25federal bureau of investigation this is
3:46:27the man that is supposed to serve us all
3:46:31and these evaluations are made on the
3:46:337th or 8th of march
3:46:35and nothing happens
3:46:37and then on the 15th of april
3:46:39the man even turns to you and says burn
3:46:41the files
3:46:42he admits it
3:46:44and he's still held in place
3:46:47and you're telling me that basically all
3:46:49that was involved here was
3:46:51number one an investigation after april
3:46:5415th what would be the reason for
3:46:56holding in place between march 7th and
3:46:58april 15th
3:46:59well
3:47:00the decision was made to let the
3:47:02confirmation process run
3:47:05and
3:47:07that ran until
3:47:13let's see
3:47:16the first part of april as i recall
3:47:26the 6th of april
3:47:27did the president ask for his
3:47:28resignation
3:47:36i think not i believe that mr gray
3:47:39submitted his resignation and informed
3:47:41the president
3:47:43if the information about mr gray had not
3:47:44been made public do you think
3:47:47he still would have submitted his
3:47:48resignation on the
3:47:5027th of april
3:47:52well i i have no idea as to the state of
3:47:55the
3:47:56investigation at that point the
3:47:57president was working directly with the
3:47:59attorney general on that and with mr
3:48:01peterson
3:48:02and i think they were calling the tune
3:48:04pretty well as to the timing question
3:48:06do you think the president would have
3:48:08asked for his resignation
3:48:10by
3:48:11by the 30th i don't know senator have
3:48:13any idea
3:48:17i have no further questions
3:48:24when was it
3:48:25that you phoned on
3:48:28henry peterson
3:48:30assistant vice president in charge of
3:48:32the criminal division of the justice
3:48:34department and the person having
3:48:36general supervision of the prosecution
3:48:40and conveyed to him the president's
3:48:42request that marsh stands not be
3:48:44compelled to go before the grand jury
3:48:53i'm not sure mr chairman i could i could
3:48:56search this log and see if i could uh
3:48:59well it was sometime considerably before
3:49:02this on september wasn't it
3:49:04i would i would assume so yes
3:49:07i believe i have that i have that date
3:49:11uh in my log but i cannot recall it
3:49:14offhand i'll find it for you
3:49:16too it was before the bills of
3:49:18indictment were returned by the grand
3:49:19jury in september 1972.
3:49:22it was during the
3:49:24original grand jury process
3:49:27now you stated
3:49:28yesterday
3:49:30that some other witnesses were not
3:49:33required to go to grant good that's my
3:49:35grand jury that's my understanding but
3:49:37you didn't make any phone calls about
3:49:39them no sir
3:49:42i'm bound to say just by way of
3:49:45observation
3:49:47that your testimony that uh
3:49:50that that that uh mars stands was
3:49:53excused from going before the grand jury
3:49:56resort to requests made by the president
3:50:02under our system of
3:50:04criminal jurisdiction
3:50:08witnesses are supposed to go before the
3:50:09grand jury so that the grand jury may
3:50:11ask them questions
3:50:13even though there may be questions that
3:50:15the
3:50:16prosecuting attorneys do not see fit to
3:50:19act to ask
3:50:21now mister
3:50:24the testimony of mars stands
3:50:28was taken in the department of justice
3:50:32in the absence of the grand jury
3:50:34and in the presence of the prosecuting
3:50:36attorneys
3:50:40what that testimony was that the
3:50:42committee doesn't know
3:50:45and it has no way of getting access to
3:50:47it
3:50:50the
3:50:51mars stands
3:50:54was uh director of the finance committee
3:50:56to reelect the president
3:50:59and one can reasonably assume that he
3:51:01knew more about the finances
3:51:04involved than any other human being or
3:51:06should have known more about him
3:51:13if he had gone before the grand jury
3:51:19one of the i don't know whether it was
3:51:2016 man or 23-man grand jury
3:51:24but if he had gone before the grand jury
3:51:26any one of those grand jurors who had an
3:51:28inquisitive mind
3:51:32could have ascertained by questioning
3:51:35my stance
3:51:37what my stance testified before this
3:51:40committee
3:51:43and my stance test
3:51:45at that time they were investigating
3:51:48the break-in of the watergate
3:51:51it was known that five
3:51:53burglars had been caught in the
3:51:55watergate red-handed in an act of
3:51:57burglary in the headquarters of the
3:51:59democratic national
3:52:02committee
3:52:04it was known and one of them accord was
3:52:06the employ this the security office of
3:52:09the committee to reelect the president
3:52:12it was known that the other four
3:52:15burglars
3:52:17had in their possession at the time they
3:52:18were caught campaign funds belonging to
3:52:21the nixon campaign
3:52:24a few days later
3:52:28george liddy
3:52:30the chief counselor
3:52:32of the finance committee to re-elect the
3:52:34president of which stance was charitable
3:52:36was director
3:52:39and he howard hunt
3:52:42who was on the white house payroll
3:52:45and who had an office in the white house
3:52:48and who had been associated in the
3:52:51ellsberg matter
3:52:52with liddy were arrested and charged in
3:52:55effect with masterminding
3:52:58the
3:52:59burglary
3:53:01mars stands testified
3:53:06that uh
3:53:12instead of depositing such monies in the
3:53:14bank
3:53:16which would have made a documentary
3:53:18record of their receipts and
3:53:19disbursements possible
3:53:24he had one million seven hundred
3:53:26thousand dollars
3:53:29kept in two safes
3:53:32in cash
3:53:34in the office
3:53:36of his committee
3:53:41he testified
3:53:44that 100
3:53:46i mean over a million dollars of this
3:53:48money was disbursed
3:53:51in cash
3:53:56he testified that
3:54:01his treasurer
3:54:03w hunt jr
3:54:06i'm here to sloan junior
3:54:09came to him and told him that he had
3:54:11grave misgivings
3:54:14about disbursing thousands of dollars in
3:54:16cash
3:54:18to let it
3:54:20on the orders of
3:54:22jeb stewart magruder
3:54:24the deputy director of the st of the
3:54:27committee to record to re-elect the
3:54:29president of which
3:54:31john mitchell
3:54:32former attorney general
3:54:35was director
3:54:38he testified that pursuant to the
3:54:40misgivings expressed by him
3:54:43to him by
3:54:44sloan
3:54:46he held a consultation with mitchell
3:54:50he testified that after he held this
3:54:52consultation with mitchell he had a
3:54:54consultation with sloan
3:54:57and he told sloan that mitchell said
3:54:59that he should go ahead and continue
3:55:01these disbursements
3:55:04which sloane said ultimately around 299
3:55:07thousand dollars in cash to live it
3:55:11he also stated when the sloan that's
3:55:14been sloan soda
3:55:16reiterated his misgivings
3:55:19that he stands
3:55:20said
3:55:22to sloan
3:55:24i don't know what this money is being
3:55:26used for
3:55:27i don't want to know what this money is
3:55:29being used for and you don't want to
3:55:30know
3:55:31either
3:55:34now as with i'm not saying anything what
3:55:37the president's intention was
3:55:40the president auto never made a request
3:55:44which had the effect
3:55:46of bypassing the judicial process by
3:55:49which witnesses and investigations go
3:55:51before grand jurors on a subject to
3:55:54being questioned by grand juries
3:55:57but as a result
3:56:00of the president's request
3:56:03which you communicated to peterson
3:56:07and which peterson and the prosecuting
3:56:09attorneys complied with which they all
3:56:12never have done
3:56:15the grand jury
3:56:17which was trying to find
3:56:20whether any persons ought to be indicted
3:56:22and whether any persons had procured the
3:56:25the other the self of the seven original
3:56:28seven defendants
3:56:29to break into the watergate
3:56:33were implicated
3:56:36if sloan had given this testimony
3:56:39i mean stan said given this testimony to
3:56:41the grand jury he gave to this committee
3:56:45it would have indicated
3:56:48that the evidential tracks
3:56:52led directly from the watergate burglary
3:56:56into the office
3:56:59and to some of the high officials
3:57:03in charge of the committee to re-elect
3:57:05the president
3:57:07and the finance committee to re-elect
3:57:09the president
3:57:15and as a result
3:57:18of
3:57:19the prosecuting attorneys
3:57:23given mr stands of privilege that no
3:57:25citizen united states was entitled to
3:57:27have
3:57:29at request to the president
3:57:32the grand jury was deprived of the
3:57:34benefit of this testimony
3:57:39mr chairman and only the seven people
3:57:42originally arrested were indicted
3:57:45mr chairman
3:57:47yes
3:57:49lest the
3:57:51viewers be left with the impression that
3:57:53the grand jury didn't see the deposition
3:57:56i think it's important to note that the
3:57:58grand jury did in fact have that
3:57:59deposition read to them and it included
3:58:02the questions of the prosecutors and mr
3:58:05stan's response as i understand it and
3:58:07then of course the grand jury had the
3:58:08opportunity to indicate to the
3:58:10prosecutors any additional questions
3:58:12that they might wish to have asked of mr
3:58:16as as council advises me they could have
3:58:19asked that mr stans then be brought to
3:58:21the grand jury but you don't know what
3:58:23was in the deposition do you sir you
3:58:26don't know
3:58:27i just and you were not in the grand
3:58:28jury room i think you're leaving the
3:58:30impression mr chairman that the
3:58:31deposition was somehow or another kept
3:58:34away from the grand jury yes but
3:58:36their position has been kept away from
3:58:38this committee
3:58:39and i know from trying to extract
3:58:41testimony from mr stanz that you had to
3:58:44pull testimony out of him you had it had
3:58:46to get
3:58:47questions as strong as a two-team option
3:58:50are you suggesting are you suggesting
3:58:52that his testimony before the grand jury
3:58:54would have been available to this
3:58:55committee mr chairman no i'm not that's
3:58:58exactly what i'm talking about
3:59:00but the jury danger would have heard him
3:59:03would have seen mr stanz in person
3:59:06and the grand jury could ask them the
3:59:08questions if they weren't satisfied with
3:59:10what the
3:59:12attorneys were asking
3:59:14and instead of letting him go and be
3:59:16seen and heard by the grand jury
3:59:19they treat him like no american citizen
3:59:21was entitled to be treated they took his
3:59:23testimony secretly the nobody present
3:59:27except perhaps the reporter
3:59:29and the prosecuting attorneys
3:59:32and this committee can't find out what
3:59:33stan said before the grand jury
3:59:37and you don't know
3:59:38and i don't know
3:59:40but this is a kind of a situation
3:59:44that makes people grieve
3:59:46over justice
3:59:48being so treated
3:59:50even at the request of the president
3:59:52united states
3:59:54mr chairman
3:59:56i i
3:59:58have no quarrel with your major thesis
4:00:00that it's an extraordinary and unusual
4:00:02situation for one to
4:00:04give testimony for grand jury purposes
4:00:06by definite deposition instead of
4:00:08personally
4:00:09but i would make only one collateral
4:00:12point
4:00:13and this is not said in defense of
4:00:15anyone it's simply an observation had mr
4:00:18stans testify before the grand jury in
4:00:20person
4:00:21this committee would not have had that
4:00:23testimony either
4:00:25the important thing the point that you
4:00:27make and with which i fully agree is
4:00:29that the grand jury system did not
4:00:32function in the prescribed way
4:00:35the grandeur did not have face-to-face
4:00:37confrontation
4:00:38it was unique and it was different
4:00:41but for fear the
4:00:43image may be left that we
4:00:46were as a committee deprived of that
4:00:48testimony a grand jury's deliberations
4:00:51are and they ought to be in violent
4:00:54and they would not have been available
4:00:56to this committee in any event
4:00:59my point is
4:01:01this
4:01:02that if the grand jury had had the
4:01:04testimony
4:01:06which mr stans gave him in person
4:01:10they might well have concluded
4:01:13that there was a prima facie case
4:01:16that officials of the committed re-elect
4:01:18the president
4:01:20had hired these seven men
4:01:24to burglarize the watergate
4:01:26and the reason they are they might have
4:01:28indicted them for being accessories
4:01:30before the fact to a murder
4:01:33they didn't have the benefit of
4:01:35the testimony of mr stanz's evidence in
4:01:39person
4:01:41that's the chairman did the chairman
4:01:43chairman say murder i think you meant
4:01:45burnt
4:01:48there's there's a new surprise every day
4:01:50but i wasn't prepared for that
4:01:52may i answer may i answer that
4:01:54no i don't think it though i don't think
4:01:56that you're not defending anybody except
4:01:59mr arlington
4:02:00oh this would be not a witness mr wilson
4:02:02this would be defending mr erickman
4:02:04against that remark
4:02:07well uh you're another witness mr
4:02:10i mean mr wilson
4:02:12but you say i'm here defending mr eric
4:02:15yes you're healed of the family i i can
4:02:17make a pertinent answer to what you just
4:02:19said
4:02:21may i make it
4:02:24you i ruled on entirely two but if you
4:02:26can explain why mr stands ought to be
4:02:29treated in a different way or many other
4:02:31citizens in the united states when
4:02:33there's no law that allows it i'd be
4:02:35glad to hear your explanation how do you
4:02:37know that mr stan's deposition that went
4:02:40to the grand jury as any different from
4:02:42his testimony before this committee i
4:02:44don't even i don't i don't know because
4:02:47there's no way to tell it but i know
4:02:49that if he had uh testified before that
4:02:52commit for the grand jury
4:02:54and given the same evidence he gave
4:02:56before this committee
4:02:58the grand jury would have had a
4:03:00reasonable basis
4:03:03for uh
4:03:04reaching the conclusion
4:03:07that there was a primal basic case and
4:03:09that's all the grand jurors got to find
4:03:12that officers of the
4:03:14of the committee to reelect the the
4:03:17the uh president
4:03:20had procured this burglary
4:03:23and they could have presented them
4:03:26for indictment
4:03:28as accessories before the fact to
4:03:30burglary
4:03:34because there says that the money came
4:03:36right out of the committee to re-elect
4:03:38the president and mrs
4:03:40andrews
4:03:41right to these people
4:03:44the
4:03:46committee will stand in recess for 10
4:03:48o'clock 10 o'clock monday
4:03:50very
4:03:58john ehrlichman apparently has still
4:04:00more to say and the committee obviously
4:04:02has more questions so he'll return
4:04:04monday morning when the hearings resume
4:04:06erlichmann has not been the most
4:04:08talkative witness the committee has
4:04:09heard but several senators apparently
4:04:11find him the one who inspires the most
4:04:13fear with his view of presidential power
4:04:16as all but limitless perhaps as some
4:04:18have suggested this is nothing but a
4:04:20tactic designed to distract the
4:04:21committee from examining the specifics
4:04:23of the watergate break-in or cover-up
4:04:26still ehrlichman's comments on those
4:04:27points have served as a confirmation for
4:04:29many students of presidential power who
4:04:32saw a white house role growing at the
4:04:34expense of other branches of government
4:04:36the erlickman testimony may set a new
4:04:38record for the committee in terms of
4:04:40longevity outlasting even that of former
4:04:43presidential counsel john dean peter
4:04:45kaye has a report on what that means to
4:04:47the committee's timetable
4:04:49the length of erlightman's testimony
4:04:51means that the committee may have to
4:04:52abandon plans to recess on august 3rd
4:04:56several senators including senators
4:04:58talmage wyker and gurney indicate they
4:05:00might like to skip the recess all
4:05:02together and go plowing right through
4:05:04august but there are other opinions and
4:05:06one of them i got from rufus edmonston
4:05:08the deputy chief counsel
4:05:10now obviously mr ehrlichman will come
4:05:12back on monday and i i assume we'll
4:05:15finish him monday
4:05:16but uh i must say i have heard the
4:05:19chairman and the vice chairman
4:05:21on three or four occasions today say
4:05:23that the
4:05:25committee was going to go home for a
4:05:27while on august the 3rd
4:05:29and you know i i normally believe what
4:05:31uh senator irvin says now things may
4:05:33occur that we will not be able to leave
4:05:35but
4:05:35i'm simply saying that i know that the
4:05:37chairman and the vice chairman say that
4:05:39they
4:05:40are very anxious to go on the third and
4:05:42i
4:05:43i don't i can't go into who we will not
4:05:45hear in in other matters like that but
4:05:48you know we can come back and we can
4:05:50come back earlier than than the senate
4:05:51will come back
4:05:53but so i'm i'm making the bet that we
4:05:55will go home on the third now any takers
4:05:57i'll be happy
4:05:59another casually of the lengthy
4:06:01testimony is the watergate committee
4:06:03staff and on top of all its other
4:06:05troubles it has to prepare the
4:06:06committee's case against the white house
4:06:09this may go to court on the part of the
4:06:10committee next week possibly as early as
4:06:13monday until today there had been much
4:06:15criticism of the committee's questioning
4:06:17of john ehrlichman but it changed today
4:06:19according to our two observer experts at
4:06:22least who watched it with us jack murphy
4:06:24of the georgetown university law center
4:06:26and clark melanov pulitzer prize-winning
4:06:28investigative reporter the des moines
4:06:30registered tribune syndicated columnist
4:06:32and former special consultant to
4:06:34president nixon first mr murphy how did
4:06:37the questioning get better in your
4:06:38opinion well it was much sharper jim we
4:06:41had after three or four days now of
4:06:44rather general analysis of the
4:06:45constitutional powers of the respective
4:06:47branches of government and issues of
4:06:48national security some very hard
4:06:50questioning about detailed involvement
4:06:52of mr erlichman in the critical meetings
4:06:55in june of 1972
4:06:57january of 1973 march of 73 and april of
4:07:0073. i was particularly intrigued
4:07:03that senator gurney was the one who
4:07:05broke through the miasma of of
4:07:07generalities from which we
4:07:09forgive me wallowed all this week and
4:07:11brought us back home to the critical
4:07:13details with which this case should be
4:07:15concerned
4:07:16the uh effort of senator weiker after
4:07:18some of a false start on
4:07:20general concepts of politics in this
4:07:23country to
4:07:24produce information from mr erickman on
4:07:27the uh involvement of the cia and
4:07:29especially of that critical meeting on
4:07:31june 23rd of 1972 between general
4:07:34walters mr helms and mr haldeman and mr
4:07:36eric seem to me just
4:07:38fascinating beyond question and casting
4:07:40real light on uh that particular period
4:07:44i will be very intrigued to see what
4:07:45follow-up there will be in particular on
4:07:47that cia
4:07:48question clark do you agree that today
4:07:51at least there was some focus on the
4:07:53conflicts between witnesses howard
4:07:54lichtman's testimony differed with
4:07:56others
4:07:57today i think the committee zeroed in
4:07:59even senator montoya was able to zero in
4:08:03on the conflicts and he pointed up the
4:08:05specific conflicts of about seven or
4:08:08eight witnesses with uh ehrlichman
4:08:12and this would have ranged all the way
4:08:13from dean all the way through mitchell
4:08:16strawn and uh others but i think the
4:08:19most important thing today was the use
4:08:21of the tapes
4:08:23of uh conversations which erlichmann
4:08:26apparently
4:08:27uh obtained or took when he was thinking
4:08:30he was protecting himself and they came
4:08:32back to haunt him today
4:08:35uh the last time i saw anything like
4:08:36this was when
4:08:38jimmy hoffa back in 1957 was uh rocked
4:08:43by the
4:08:44dioguardia tapes new york city and where
4:08:47he was they were playing back his
4:08:49conversations today ehrlichman found
4:08:52himself faced with his own words and
4:08:54forced to try to make explanations of
4:08:57his conversations with dean where he was
4:08:59more of a co-conspirator
4:09:01than an aggressive investigator of the
4:09:04watergate cover-up course he knew they
4:09:06were coming because he had done the
4:09:08taping and had given the transcripts to
4:09:10the committee but he was caught with his
4:09:12own words and he would have rewritten
4:09:15those words a great deal and it was
4:09:16apparent all the way through but today i
4:09:19thought the most significant thing was
4:09:21senator ervins pressing
4:09:23to get the admission from
4:09:25uh erlichman that president nixon was
4:09:28the one who had actually requested that
4:09:31he call the justice department to make
4:09:33these special arrangements for maury
4:09:36stanz to testify
4:09:38at the justice department away from the
4:09:40federal grand jury and to let it pass as
4:09:42if he'd been before the grand jury
4:09:44because as
4:09:46senator urban pointed out
4:09:49the material that stands testified to
4:09:51before the committee if it had been
4:09:53before the grand jury last fall would
4:09:57have made a prima facie case to unwind
4:10:00the uncover the whole cover-up at that
4:10:02stage because stanz was knowledgeable
4:10:06about all of the financial details the
4:10:09questionable activity by magruder the
4:10:11conflicts between magruder and sloan and
4:10:14a wide range of other things and
4:10:17senator irvin pointed this up as the
4:10:20hearing came to a close in the most
4:10:22magnificent dramatic fashion and don't
4:10:24you think clark that it's well to point
4:10:26out that the reason that the that is
4:10:29important to question about these
4:10:31various events like the the stan's
4:10:32request uh like the cia meetings is that
4:10:36all of this adds up to what has commonly
4:10:38been referred to as the cover-up now now
4:10:41now we have our erlichman's version and
4:10:43we've had other people's version but
4:10:44it's these types of specific events that
4:10:47either either add up to a cover-up or
4:10:49don't add up to a cover-up but that's
4:10:51all the things that went left it's the
4:10:53answers the question of what the
4:10:55president knew when he knew it and what
4:10:58acts he took that amounted to a
4:11:00favoritism and today you see one of
4:11:03those acts of favoritism his friend his
4:11:07former commerce secretary maurice stanz
4:11:09was financial secretary to the committee
4:11:12to reelect the president and did not
4:11:14have to go before the grand jury and put
4:11:16up with what any other citizen would
4:11:18have had to put up with under those
4:11:20circumstances and i think senator irvin
4:11:23made a very valid point that this was a
4:11:25favoritism and senator howard baker
4:11:28agreed that it was an unusual a unique
4:11:32proceedings he stopped short of
4:11:35being critical of it but
4:11:37all right gentlemen thank you very much
4:11:40peter k talked a few minutes ago about
4:11:42the desire of several senators to work
4:11:45right on through august to get this
4:11:46watergate phase of the hearings over
4:11:48with
4:11:49senator gurney said in one of those mob
4:11:51scene television interviews during the
4:11:53lunch break that for the good of the
4:11:54nation these hearings must be quickly
4:11:56concluded so the orderly affairs of
4:11:58government can resume
4:12:00this is the same sentiment that has been
4:12:01offered by others president nixon said
4:12:04it in an indirect way the day got out of
4:12:06the hospital chastising in effect all of
4:12:09the senators and the ordinary people
4:12:10like you and me i guess who are
4:12:12wallowing in watergate there seems to be
4:12:14a growing feeling that if these hearings
4:12:16will just finish with all the pertinent
4:12:18witnesses ehrlichman and then haldeman
4:12:20and coulson and then gray and kleindings
4:12:23and krogue and helms and others then
4:12:25suddenly it will all be over wallowing
4:12:27in watergate as well as the crisis in
4:12:30government that goes with it like magic
4:12:32we'll know whether or not president
4:12:33nixon knew about or participated in
4:12:36watergate and its cover-up whether or
4:12:38not john dean or john mitchell or john
4:12:40ehrlichman or jeb magruder or any of the
4:12:43other witnesses are lied and so on
4:12:46well this is nonsense in my opinion
4:12:48hearing 15 versions of the same meeting
4:12:51means only that we've heard 15 versions
4:12:53of the same meeting it does not mean
4:12:55that the minute the bright lights in the
4:12:57hearing room dim all truth and knowledge
4:12:59will crystallize like a neon light
4:13:02across the sky forget it it just isn't
4:13:05going to happen there are too many
4:13:07indictments and trials coming and that
4:13:09crucial tapes issue must be resolved
4:13:11among other non-hearing things
4:13:14and besides
4:13:16peter k
4:13:17robert mcneil and i are due to go on
4:13:19vacation on august the third
4:13:22and for those three gentlemen and myself
4:13:24jim lara have a nice weekend we'll see
4:13:26you again on monday
4:13:28from washington you've been watching
4:13:30gavel to gamble videotape coverage of
4:13:32hearings by the senate select committee
4:13:33on presidential campaign activities
4:13:36this coverage is made possible by grants
4:13:38for special events coverage from the
4:13:40corporation for public broadcasting and
4:13:42the ford foundation and has been a
4:13:44production of mpact a division of the
4:13:47greater washington educational
4:13:48telecommunications association
4:13:53[Music]
4:14:00you

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of John Ehrlichman (Part 4) Watergate Hearings Testimony by Patrick O'Dare, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 37,231 words across 6,660 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.