7 4

. P 9 2 / 4

P 9S-1 '

B K . I

I GOV ERNMEN T

I Storage

PRESIDEN TIAL CAMPA IGN ACTIV ITIES OF 1 9 7 2 - ^

SEN ATE RESO LUTION 60

H E A R I N G S

BEFORE THE

S SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

P = ° ENT IAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

OF THE

= UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY -TH IRD CONG RESS 

FIRST SESSION

Rook

WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Phase I: Watergate Investigation

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 17, 18, .22, r

23, AND 24, 1973

s t r i i i a / s 

THE LI LA W

KANSAS ST AI E UNIVERSITY

Printed for the use of the

Select Committee on Pres ide ntial Campaign Activities

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIV ITIES OF 1972

SENATE RESOLUTION 60

H E A R IN G S

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

PRESIDE NTIA L CAMPAIGN ACTIVIT IES

OF THE

UNITED STATES SENA TE

NINE TY -TH IRD CONG RESS

F IR S T SE SS IO N

WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

Phase I: Watergate Investigation

W ASH IN GT ON, D.C ., MAY 17, 18, 22, 23, AN D 24, 1973

Book 1

Printed fo r the use of the

Select Committee on Pr esid ential Campaign Activities

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 

96-296 O WA SH INGT ON : 1973

For sale by th e Super intend ent of Documents, U.S. Governm ent Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.00 

Stock Numb er 6270-01843
SEN AT E SELECT C O M M IT TEE O N PR ESI DENTIAL 

C A M P A IG N AC TIVITIE S 

(Establishe d by S. Res. 60 , 93 d Congress, 1st Session)

★

SA M J . E R V I N , J r ., No rth Ca rolin a, Chairma n

H O W A R D H . B A K E R , J r ., Tennessee, Vice Chair man

H E R M A N E . T A L M A D O E , Geo rgia E D W A R D J . G U R N E Y , Flo rida

D A N I E L K . I N O U Y E , Ha wa ii L O W E L L P . W E IC K E R , J r ., Co nn ectic ut

JO S E P H M. M O N T O Y A , New Mexico

Sa m u e l D a s h , Ch ief C ou nsel and Sta ff Director

F r ed D . T h o m p so n, Min ority Cou nsel

R u f u s L . E d m is t en , De pu ty Ch ief C oun sel

D a v id M . D o r se n, As sis ta nt Ch ief C ounsel

T e r r y F . L e n z n e r, As sis ta nt Ch ief Counsel

J a m e s H a m il t o n, As sis ta nt Ch ief Co unsel

C a r m in e S. B e l l in o, Ch ief Investigator

Wa y n e H . Bis h o p, Ch ie f Fiel d Investigator

E u g e n e B o y c e, Hea ring s Record Cou nsel

R . P h il li p H a ir e , As sis ta nt Cou nsel

Ma rc L a ck rit z, As sis ta nt Cou nsel

Wil li am T . Ma y t o n , As sis tan t Coun sel

R on al d D . R o t u n d a, As sis ta nt Cou nsel

D o n ald G . Sa n d e r s, De pu ty Min ority Cou nsel

H ow ar d S. L ie b e n g o o d, As sis ta nt Min orit y Cou nsel

H . Wil li am Sh u r e , As sis tant Min orit y Cou nsel

R o b er t Sil v e r st e in , As sis ta nt Min orit y Cou nsel

L a u r a Mat z, Administ rative A ssi sta nt

C a r o l y n A n d r a d e, Office Manager

J o a n C . C o l e, Secretary to the Minority
C O N T E N T S

*

HEARING DAYS Pl^

f

’

Thursday, May 17, 1973________________________________________ Friday, May 18, 197 3..----------- 117 Tuesday, May 22, 1973__________________________________________ 191 Wednesday, May 23, 1973_________________________________ _____ 263 Thursday, May 24, 1973______________________________ 31

OPENING STATEMENTS

Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina, chairman, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities-------- 1 Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee, vice chairman, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities __ 4 Talmadge, Hon. Herman E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, member, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities------- 6 Gurney, Hon. Edward J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, mem­ ber, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities------------- 7 Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii, member, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities--------------- - — 8 Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut, member, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities--------- 8 Montoya, Hon. Joseph M., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico, member, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities------- 9

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

Thursday, May 17, 1973

Odle, Robert C., Jr., former director of administration, Committee for the Re-Election of the President___________________________________ 9 Kehrli, Bruce A., special assistant to the President-------------------- -------- 75 Leeper, Paul W., sergeant, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C___ ______ __________________________________________-- - 95 Barrett, John Bruce, officer, Metropolitan Police Department, Washing­ ton, D.C -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 18, 1973

Shoffler, Carl M., officer, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C _______________________________________________________ H7 McCord, James W., Jr., former office security assistant to Robert C. Odle, accompanied by Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., counsel-------------------------- 125

Tuesday, May 22, 1973

McCord, James W., Jr., testimony resumed------------------------------------- 191 Caulfield, John J., Assistant Director for Criminal Enforcement, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Department of the Treasury, accom­ panied by John P. Sears, counsel----------------------------------------------- 248

Wednesday, May 23, 1973

Caulfield, John J., testimony resumed-------------------------------------- - — 265 Ulasewicz, Anthony, retired New York City Police Department detective. 284 Alch, Gerald, former attorney for James W. McCord, Jr---------------------- 294

(in)
IV

Thursday, May 24, 1973

Page Alch, Gerald, testimony resumed ___________________________________ 312

Barker, Bernard L., member of Waterg ate break-in group of Jun e 17, 197 2.. 357

Baldwin, Alfred C., Il l, a suspect in the Waterga te incident of Jun e 17,

1972, accompanied by Robert Mirto, attorney _____________________ 389

IN TE RR OG AT IO N OF WITNESS ES BY ME MB ER S OF TH E 

CO MM ITTE E AND COUNSELS

Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr__________ _ _ _ Odle -

 9 17-21, 28, 34, 35, 41, 56, 59-62, 74, 75’. Kehr’li: 82. Leeper: 109’. 

McCord: 129, 132, 138, 139, 149-154, 175, 237, 247, 248. Caulfield: 

282, 283. Ulasewicz: 290. Alch: 325-333, 353-356. Barker: 363, 

364, 387, 388. Baldw in: 391-400, 410, 411.

Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr ___________ ____ ____________________ Odle: 21,

41-52, 55, 56, 59. Kehrli: 82. Leeper: 105, 109-112. Shoffler’: 

121-124. McCord: 129, 132-134, 154-160, 188, 189, 191-206. 

Caulfield: 280-284. Ulasewicz: 292. Alch: 333-340, 354, 355. 

Barker: 364-369. Baldw in: 390, 391, 411-413.

Talmadge, Hon. Herman E _______________________ _ _ Odle: 22 23.

Kehrli: 83, 84. Leeper: 111. McCord: 160-165, 206-210. Caulfield: 

278-280. Ulasewicz: 290. Alch: 341, 342. Barker: 369-374.

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K------------------------------------------ ------- ------ Odle: 26-28,

69, 70. Kehrli: 88-90. Leeper: 112-114. McCord: 171-176, 

217-221. Caulfield: 275-277. Ulasewicz: 291, Alch: 347-349. 

Barker: 378-382.

Montoya, Hon. Joseph M __________________________________ Odle: 36-41

72-74. Kehrli: 93-95. Leeper: 115, 116. McCord: 182-188’ 

227-232. Caulfield: 269-273. Alch: 349-353. Barker: 383-387.

Gurney, Hon . Edward J ____________________ _____ ________ Odle: 23-26,

62-69. Kehrli: 84-88. Leeper: 112. McCord: 135-137, 165-171, 

210-217. Caulfield: 277, 278. Alch: 342-347. Barker: 374-378.

Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., J r_________________ ____ _________ Odle: 28-35,

70-72. Kehrli: 90-93. Leeper: 114, 115. Ba rre tt: 115. Shoffler: 

124. McCord: 176-181, 221-227. Caulfield: 273-275. Barker: 

382, 383. Baldwin: 391-410.

Dash, Samuel, Chief Counsel and Staff Director_______________ Odle: 10-14,

35, 41, 52-56, 58, 59. Kehrli: 75-80. Leeper: 95-109. Shoffler: 

118, 123. McCord: 125-133, 135, 137, 141, 232-237. Caulfield: 

248, 249, 264-267. Ulasewicz: 284-288. Alch: 312-320. Baldwin: 

389, 390.

Thompson, Fred D., Minority Co unsel ._________ ____________ Odle: 14-17,

59. Kehrli: 80-82. Shoffler: 118-121. McCord: 142-149, 238-247. 

Caulfield: 267-269. Ulasewicz: 288-290. Alch: 320-325. Barker: 

360-363.

Ham ilton, James, Assistant Chief Co un sel........... ................. .. Barker: 357-359

*

EX HIB IT S

No. 1 Mem orandum for the Attorney General from Jeb S. Magruder,

dated July 3, 1971_______________________________________ 449

No. 2 Stationer y showing Gemstone lette rhead, date, source, Exdis/No

Dissem, and warning_____________________________________ 450

No. 3—Memorandum for Jeb Magruder from Fred Malek, dated

Febru ary 9, 1972________________________________________ 451

No. 4 —M emorandum for H. R. Haldem an from John N. Smith, dated

Janu ary 17, 1972________________________________________ 454

No. 5—Organizatio n Cha rt of Com mittee for the Re-E lection of the

President, from Marc h to July 1972__________ ____ ________ 11

No. 6—Organization Chart of Fina nce Committee To Re-Elect the

President, from April-N ovember 1972_____________________ 15

No. 7—Organization Cha rt of Com mittee for the Re-E lection of the

President, from July to November_________________________ 19

No. 8—Ch art s ubm itted by Senator Weicker________________________ 33

No. 9—White House Organization Chart, 1971-1972 with subsequent

personnel changes noted _________________________________ 77
V

No. 10—Photograp h—W atergate complex aerial view---------------------— No. 11—Ph otograph—W atergate complex aerial view (close-up)----------- No. 12—Drawing—Watergate office building in rela tion to Howard John son’s Motor Lodge----------------- - ------------------------------- No. 13—Drawing— Democratic National Committe e Headq uar ters floor

No. 14—Check from Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President to Alfred C. Baldwin II I, date d Aug. 7, 1972-------------------------- No. 15—Page 14 of voucher of the Finance Committe e To Re-E lect the President showing travel expenses paid to Alfred C. Baldwin IIIMATERIA L SU BM ITTE D FOR TH E RE CO RD

* By Bruce A. Kehrli: Persons separated or tran sferred from the White House to the Committee To Re-Elect the Pres ide nt----- ---------------------- By Paul W. Leeper: List of serial numbers on $100 bills found on the Waterga te break-in gro up------------------------------------------------------------ By James W. McCord, Jr.: Recollection of E. Howard Hun t’s comments By Gerald Alch: Mem orandum from James McCord to Gerald Alch. Subject: Shift of the Focus of Publicity. Dated October 17, 1972------------ By Senator Baker: Letter, styled “Dear Gerald,” signed “Jim” -------- ------- By Alfred C. Baldwin II I: Memorandum prep ared by Rober t Mirto to the file of Alfred C. Baldw in II I, July 6, 1972---------------------------------

By Senator Ervin: Rules of Procedure for th e Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities_________________________________________________ S. Res. 60 (93d Cong.)________________________________________ S. Res. 278 (91st Cong.)___________________________________ _ By Robert C. Odle, J r.: List of employees of Committee for th e R,e-Election of the President and Fina nce Committee for the Re-E lection of the President, dates of service and former emp loyment-------------------------- By James W. McCord, J r.: Accounting of How $76,000 Was S pe nt-----------

Pa ge

99

100

101

102

455

456

94

108

144

297

339

389

415

427

435

437

448

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972

PHASE I: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION

TH UR SD AY , MAY 17, 197 3

* U.S. S e n a t e,

Select C o m m it tee on

P r e sid e n t ia l C am pa ig n A c t iv it ie s,

• Washing ton, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman) , presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 

Gurney, and Weicker. Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; Fred D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief counsel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; Barry Schochet, Ron Rotunda, and Marc Lackritz, assistant majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, depu ty minority counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, office of Senator M ontoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John 

Walz, publications clerk.

Senator E rvin. The committee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR ERVIN OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator E rvin. Today the Select Committee on Presidential Cam­ paign Activities begins hearings into the extent to which illegal and improper or unethical activities were involved in the 1972 Presidential 

election campaign. Senate Resolution 60 which established the Select Committee was adopted unanimously by the Senate on February 7, 1973. Under its provisions every Member of the Senate joined in giving the com­ mittee a broad mandate to investigate, as fully as possible, all the ramifications of the Watergate break-in which occurred on Saturday, June 17, 1972. Under the terms of the authorizing resolution, the committee must complete its study and render its report on or before February 28, 1974. Of necessity, that report will reflect the considered judgm ent of the committee on whatever new legislation is needed to help safeguard the electoral process through which the President of 

the United States is chosen. We are beginning these hearings today in an atmosphere of the utmost gravity. The questions tha t have been raised in the wake of the June 17 break-in strike at the very undergirding of our democracy. If the many allegations made to this date are true, then the burglars

(1)
who broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate were in effect breaking into the home of 

every citizen of the United States. And if these allegations prove to 

be true, what they were seeking to steal was not the jewels, money, or 

other property of American citizens, but something much more 

valuable—-their most precious heritage: the right to vote in a free 

election. Since th at day, a mood of incredulity has prevailed among our 

populace, and it is the constitutional duty of this committee to act 

expeditiously to allay the fears being expressed by the citizenry, 

and to establish the factual bases upon which these fears have been 

founded.

The first phase of the committee’s investigation will probe the 

planning and execution of the wiretapping and break-in of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters at the Watergate complex, 

and the alleged coverup that followed. Subsequent phases will focus 

on allegations of campaign espionage and subversion and allegations 

of extensive violations of campaign financing laws. The clear mandate 

of the unanimous Senate resolution provides for a bipartisan investigation of every phase of political espionage and illegal fundraising. 

Thus it is clear tha t we have the full responsibility to recommend 

any remedial legislation necessary.

In pursuing its task, it is clear that the committee will be dealing 

with the workings of the democratic process under which we operate 

in a nation tha t still is the last, best hope of mankind in his eternal 

struggle to govern himself decently and effectively.

We will be concerned with the integ rity of a governmental system 

designed by men who understood the lessons of the past and who, 

accordingly, established a framework of separated governmental 

powers in order to prevent any one branch of the Government from 

becoming dominant over the others. The Founding Fathers, having 

participated in the struggle against arbitrary power, comprehended 

some eternal truths respecting men and government. They knew tha t 

those who are entrusted with power are susceptible to the disease of 

tyrants, which George Washington rightly described as “love of 

power and the proneness to abuse i t.” For tha t reason, they realized 

tha t the power of public officers should be defined by laws which they, 

as well as the people, are obligated to obey, a truth enunciated by 

Daniel Webster when he said mat “Whatever government is not a 

government of laws is a despotism, let it be called what it m ay.”

To the end of insuring a society governed by laws, these men 

embodied in our Constitution the enduring principles in which they 

so firmly believed, establishing a legislature to make all laws, an 

executive to carry them out, and a judicial system to interpret them. 

Recently, we have been faced with massive challenges to the historical 

framework created in 1787, with the moot recent fears having been 

focused upon assertions by administration of both parties of executive 

power over the Congress—for example, in the im poundment of appropriated funds and the abuse of executive privilege. Those challenges, 

however, can and are being dealt with by the working of the system 

itself—that is, through the enactment of powerful stat utes by the 

Congress, and the rendering of decisions by the courts upholding the 

lawmaking power of the Congress.

In dealing with the challenges posed by the multitudinous allegations arising out of the Watergate affair, however, the Select Commit-
3

tee has a task much more difficult and complex than dealing with intrusions of one branch of the Government upon the powers of the others. It must probe into assertions that the very system itself has been subverted and its foundations shaken. To safeguard the structural scheme of our governmental system, the Founding Fathers provided for an electoral process by which the elected officials of this Nation should be chosen. The Constitution, later-adopted amendments, and more specifically, statutory law, pro­ vide that the electoral processes shall be conducted by the people, outside the confines of the formal branches of the Government, and

• through a political process that must operate under the strictures of law and ethical guidelines, but independent of the overwhelming power of the Government itself. Only then can we be sure that the electoral process cannot be made to serve as the mere handmaiden of a partic-

• ular administration in power. If the allegations that have been made in the wake of the Watergate affair are substantiated, there has been a very serious subversion of the integrity of the electoral process, and the committee will be obliged to consider the manner in which such a subversion affects the continued existence of this Nation as a representative democracy, and how, if we are to survive, such subversions may be prevented in the future. It has been asserted tha t the 1972 campaign was influenced by a wide variety of illegal or unethical activities, including the widespread wiretapping of the telephones, political headquarters, and even the residences of candidates and their campaign staffs and of members of the press; by the publication of forged documents designed to defame certain candidates or enhance others through fraudulent means; the infiltration and disruption of opponents’ political organizations and gathering; the raising and handling of campaign contributions through means designed to circumvent, either in letter or in spirit, the provisions of campaign disclosure acts; and even the acceptance of campaign contributions based upon promises of illegal interference in governmental processes on behalf of the contributors. Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, it has been alleged that, following the Watergate break-in, there has been a massive attempt to cover up all the improper activities, extending even so far as to pay off potential witnesses and, in particular, the seven defendants in the Watergate trial in exchange for their promise to remain silent— activities which, if true, represent interference in the integrity of the prosecutorial and judicial processes of this Nation. Moreover, there has been evidence of the use of governmental instrumentalities in efforts to exercise political surveillance over candidates in the 1972 

campaign. Let me emphasize at the outset that our judicial process thus far has convicted only the seven persons accused of burglarizing and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex on June 17. The hearings which we initiate today are not designed to intensify or reiterate unfounded accusations or to poison further the political climate of our Nation. On the contrary, it is my conviction and that of the other committee members that the accusations that have been leveled and the evidence of wrongdoing that has surfaced has cast a black cloud of distrust over our entire society. Our citizens do not know whom to believe, and many of them
4

have concluded tha t all the processes of government have become so 

compromised tha t honest governance has been rendered impossible.

We believe tha t the health, if not the survival, of our social structure 

and of our form of government requires the most candid and public 

investigation of all the evidence and of all the accusations tha t have 

been levelled at any persons, at whatever level, who were engaged in 

the 1972 campaign. My colleagues on the committee and I are determined to uncover all the rele vant facts surrounding these matters, and 

to spare no one, whatever his station in life may be, in our efforts to 

accomplish tha t goal. At the same time, I want to emphasize tha t the 

purpose of these hearings is not prosecutorial or judicial, but rather -

investigative and informative.

No one is more cognizant than I of the separation of powers issues 

th at hover over these hearings. The committee is fully aware of the 

ongoing grand jury proceedings that are taking place in several areas •

of the country, and of the fact that criminal indictm ents have been 

returned already by one of these grand juries. Like all Americans, the 

members of this committee are vitally interested in seeing tha t the 

judicial processes operate effectively and fairly, and without interference from any other branch of government. The investigation of this 

select committee was born of crisis, unabated as of this very time, the 

crisis of a mounting loss of confidence by American citizens in the 

integrity of our electoral process which is the bedrock of our democracy.

The American people are looking to this committee, as the representative of all the Congress, for enlightenment and guidance regarding the 

details of the allegations regarding the subversion of our electoral and 

political processes. As the elected representatives of the people, we 

would be derelict in our duty to them if we failed to pursue our mission 

expeditiously, fully, and with the utmost fairness. The aim of the 

committee is to provide full and open public testimony in order tha t 

the nation can proceed toward the healing of the wounds tha t now 

afflict the body politic. It is th at aim th at we are here to pursue today, 

within the terms of the mandate imposed upon us by our colleagues 

and in full compliance with all applicable rules of law. The Nation and 

history itself are watching us. We cannot fail our mission.

I would like to put in the record at this time the Rules of Procedure* 

and a copy of the resolutions and guidelines of the committee.

I would like to recognize at this time other Senators so they may 

present their statements and first I recognize the vice chairman of the 

committee, Senator Howard Baker, who has been most alert and most «

cooperative in the work of the committee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BAKER OF TENNESSEE

<Q Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I believe 

there is no need for me to further emphasize the gravity of the m atters 

that we begin to explore publicly here this morning. Suffice it to say 

there are most serious charges and allegations made against individuals, 

and against institutions. The very integrity of our political process 

itself has been called into question.

* See p. 415.
5

Commensurate with the gravity of the subject m atter unde r review and the responsibilities of this committee and the witnesses who come before it, we have a great burden to discharge and carry. This com­ mittee is not a court, nor is it a jury. We do not sit to pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of anyone. The greatest service that this committee can perform for the Senate, the Congress, and for the people of this Nation is to achieve a full discovery of all of the facts that bear on the subject of this inquiry. This committee was created by the Senate to do exactly that. To find as many of the facts, the cir­ cumstances and the relationships as we could, to assemble those facts into a coherent and intelligible presentation and to make recommen­ dations to the Congress for any changes in statute law or the basic charter document of the United States tha t may seem indicated. But this committee can serve another quite imp orta nt function that neither a grand jury investigation nor a jury proceeding is equipped to serve, and that is to develop the facts in full view of all of the people of America. Although juries will eventually determine the guilt or the innocence of persons who have been and may be indicted for specific violations of the law, it is the American people who must be the final judge of Watergate. It is the American people who must decide, based on the evidence spread before them, what Watergate means, about how we all should conduct our public business in the future. When the resolution which created this committee was being de­ bated on the floor of the Senate in February of this year, I and other Republican Senators expressed concern that the inquiry might become a partisan effort by one party to exploit the temporary vulnerability of another. Other congressional inquiries in the past had been con­ ducted by committees made up of equal numbers of members from each party. I offered an amendment to the resolution which would have given the Republican members equal representation on this committee. That amendment did not pass. B ut any doubts that I might have had about the fairness and impartia lity of this investigation have been swept away during the last few weeks. Virtually every action taken by this committee since its inception has been taken with complete unanimity of purpose and procedure. The integ rity and fairness of each member of this committee and of its fine professional staff have been made manifest to me, and I know they will be made manifest to the American people during the course of this proceeding. This is not in any way a partisan undertaking, but, rather it is a bipartisan search 

for the unvarnished truth . I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, with a few thoughts on the political process in this country. There has been a grea t deal of dis­ cussion across the country in recent weeks about the impact tha t Watergate might have on the President, the office of the Presidency, the Congress, or our ability to carry on relations with other countries, and so on. The constitutional institutions of this Republic are so strong and so resilient tha t I have never doubted for a moment their ability to function without interruption. On the contrary, it seems clear to me the very fact that we are now involved in the public process of cleaning our own house, before the eyes of the world, is a mark of the greatest strength. I do not believe that any other political system could endure the thoroughness and the ferocity of the various
6

inquiries now underway within the branches of Government and in 

our courageous, tenacious free press.

No mention is made in our Constitution of political parties. But 

the two-p arty system, in my judgment, is as integral and as important 

to our form of government as the three formal branches of the central 

Government themselves. Millions of Americans participated actively, 

on one level or another, and with great enthusiasm, in the Presidential election of 1972. This involvement in the political process by citizens across the land is essential to participatory democracy. If one of 

the effects of Watergate is public disillusionment with partisan 

politics, if people are turned off and drop out of the political system, •

this will be the greatest Watergate casualty of all. If, on the other 

hand, this national catharsis in which we are now engaged should 

result in a new and bette r way of doing political business, if W atergate produces changes in laws and campaign procedures, then Water- •’

gate may prove to be a great national opportunity to revitalize the 

political process and to involve even more Americans in the day-today work of our two great political parties. I am deeply encouraged 

by the fact tha t I find no evidence at this point in time to indicate 

that either the Democratic National Committee or the Republican 

National Committee played any role in whatever may have gone 

wrong in 1972. The hundreds of seasoned political professionals 

across this country, and the millions of people who devoted their 

time and energies to the campaigns, should not feel implicated or 

let down by what has taken place.

With these thoughts in mind, I intend to pursue, as I know each 

member of this committee intends to pursue, an objective and evenhanded but thorough, complete, and energetic inquiry into the facts.

We will inquire into every fact and follow every lead, unrestrained 

by any fear of where tha t lead might ultimately take us.

Mr. Chairman, my thanks to you for the great leadership you 

have brought to this committee in its preparatory phases, and my 

thanks to Mr. Dash, who has served with distinction as chief counsel 

to the committee and Mr. Thompson, who serves as minority counsel 

to the committee. I believe we are fully prepared to proceed with the 

business of discovering the facts.

Thank you very much.

Senator E rvin. Thank you for tha t statem ent.

Senator Talmadge, do you have a statement?

OPENING STATEM ENT OF SENATOR TALMADGE OF GEORGIA

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, this committee was created 

by the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote for investigating any election •

irregularities during the 1972 campaign. The vote of the Senate was 

nonpartisan, being unanimous. This committee has been organized on 

a nonpartisan basis. Its staff is operating on a nonpartisan basis.

Every vote tha t this committee has cast to date has been nonpartisan.

In my judgment, this committee must get the facts, the full facts, 

and all of the facts on a totally objective, nonpartisan basis and let 

the chips fall where they may. I am confident that this committee 

will do so.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.
7

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GURNEY OF FLORIDA

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This committee begins today history hearings which may well turn out to be the most significant hearings ever conducted by any com­ mittee of the Congress. This fact should weigh heavily upon the work of both the Senators and the staff. The eyes and ears of the citizens of this Nation are watching and listening and so, too, are people around the world. Here at home there is desire that the wrongdoing be thoroughly exposed and the wrongdoers brought to justice. This is being done now. Already in recent weeks 15 key people have left this administration because of Watergate and allied scandals, several have been indicted, two of these are former high Cabinet officers. We can all take heart tha t our system of government is working and working well and rapidly now even though a slow and faltering sta rt was made in the beginning. Between the work of prosecutors, grand jury, excellent investigative reporting and this committee, Watergate is going to be cleaned up. However, there is another great overriding issue which will be present with us in these hearings, an issue which is troubling people not only all over this Nation but also people and leaders of other nations around the world. What will Watergate do and what will these hearings do to the office and institution of the Presidency? Th at is the question th at is uppermost in people’s minds and gnawing away in the pits of their stomachs. What is of great concern is the effect tha t Watergate may have on the American Presidency. I see this concern in daily mail I receive. I hear this concern in my conversations with people. It is evident in the media reaction at home and abroad. The signs are in the stockmarket, in the price of gold and dollars. This concern is part and parcel of foreign policy, in NATO, Southeast Asia, the Middle Ea st and its oil and in the trade and SALT talks. The absence of comment from seats of government and power throughout the world brings to mind the old saying “ Don’t rock the boat lest we capsize,” and I think this is indicative of the 

national concern. Why is this? The world is intertwined today, interdependent, no one nation can go it alone. Indeed, to a more-or-less degree we are in the same boat. Thus, the rocking of the boat by Watergate, its cata­ strophic effect upon the institution of the Presidency, is indeed the object of serious concern of everyone at home and abroad. What then must we do here in this committee room in the ensuing 

weeks? Someone once said, and I quote: “The present is fraught with the futu re,” and so it will be with these hearings. The future cannot be unaffected by what we do and say in this room. It becomes imperative that this committee, the committee staff, and the press and public alike be continually aware tha t the committee’s task is to investigate and present the facts of the investigation failure. This committee was not created to try any individual. It was not created to pass judgm ent on any individual. Our purpose is to seek the truth, and our methods and motives must never be suspect or we will fail in our task. The sense of history certainly rides with these hearings. And this thought should guide our work to the ends tha t it be thorough, yes, completely thorough, but always careful, deliberate, responsible
8

statesmanlike to the end that the system of government and justice 

of a free and a democratic society, these United States will work its 

will in a fair and impartial and objective manner. By doing tha t the 

committee hopefully can make its greatest contribution and tha t is, 

regardless of the consequences to reaffirm, to reassure, to reestablish the 

faith of the people in their Government and its leaders.

Senator E rvin. Senator Inouye.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR INOUYE OF HA WA II

Senator I nouye. Mr. Chairman, the hearings which we begin today _

may be the most important held in this century. At stake is the very 

integrity of the election process. Unless we can safeguard that process 

from fraud, manipulation, deception, and other illegal or unethical 

activities, one of our most precious rights, the right to vote, will be «

without meaning. Democracy will have been subverted.

Mr. Chairman, as I see it, our mission is twofold. First, to thoroughly 

investigate all allegations of improper activities in the 1972 Presidential 

election so tha t the full truth will be known and, second, to take steps 

to pre vent future occurrences of such activities. Our efforts should not 

be directed toward punishing the guilty—there are judicial processes 

with that aim underway in at least four cities—but to initiate a nationwide public debate on our elections and are they working or have they 

failed to work?

Like most Americans I have been truly shocked by the revelations 

and allegations of the scandal which is unparalleled in our country’s 

history. The sins of the spies or the saboteurs, the manipulators or 

moneymen, the burglars or the buggers must be purged from the very 

heart and soul of the election processes.

Mr. Chairman, I must add a word of caution. We have heard many 

sensational charges in the past several months and undoubtedly we 

will hear many more in the weeks and months ahead. It is vital that 

hasty judgments not be made before we have all the facts. This 

country will be ill served by anoth er period of M cCarthyism. These 

hearings should serve to enlighten and to reform. They should lay the 

groundwork for a reaffirmation of faith in our American system.

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WEICKER OF CONNECTICUT

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

the gut question before this committee is not one of individual guilt 

or innocence. The gut question for the committee and country alike 

is and was how much trut h do we want? A few men gambled tha t ,

Americans wanted the quiet of efficiency rather than the turbulence 

of truth . And they were stopped a yard short of the goal by another 

few, who believed in America as advertised.

So the story to come has its significance not in the acts of men 

breaking, entering, and bugging the W atergate, but in the acts of men 

who almost—who almost—stole America.

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
9

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MONTOYA OF NEW MEXICO

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, I want to say that we bear a heavy responsibility to conduct this inquiry fairly, justly, and most judiciously. I am confident that we will pass this test and assume this challenge. While a legislative inquiry is dif­ ferent from a court proceeding, I know that we will be respectful of the rights of individuals, but at the same time, we will be intent on searching out the truth of all evidentiary components which ostensibly have posed a threat to our constitutional processes, in particular,

* our concept of freedom and our electoral process. With these facts, we hope to alert the conscience and the vigilance of our citizens and restore their faith in our electoral process. We hope that this concern of all Americans will hover over all of us as a mandate for legislation

* and other remedies to insure against any future sinister invasions of the sanctity of our democratic institutions.

Senator Ervin. Counsel will call the first witness.

Mr. Dash. Will Mr. Robert Odle please come to the witness

table?

Senator E rvin. Mr. Odle, stand up and raise your right hand. Do you swear th at the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth , the whole truth , and nothing bu t the truth , so help you God?

Mr. Odle. I do; so help me God.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Odle, I understand you have a brief statement 

tha t you wish to read to the committee.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. ODLE, JR., FORMER DIRECTOR OF 

ADMINISTRATION, COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE 

PRESIDE NT

Mr. Odle. Thank you. I would like to use this opportunity to make just one brief point. I joined the staff of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President more than 2 years ago because I believed in President Nixon and in his hopes and dreams for America. I still 

do.During my association with the committee, I came into contact with more than 400 members of its national staff, salaried and vol- , unteer. It now appears tragically tha t some of those people have acted unethically. Indeed, two former members of the staff have been convicted of crimes and if others are guilty, I hope t ha t they will be exposed and prosecuted. These hearings will help in that purpose. The point I want to make is this, tha t when we discuss the com­ mittee, we should remember that in addition to those who did wrong and who did act unethically, there were a million volunteers across the Nation and 400 people at national headquarters who did nothing unethical or illegal. They joined in the campaign because they be­ lieved in the President, a President who opened a door to China, all too long closed, a President who traveled to Russia and signed substantive agreements while there; a President who brought an end to the longest war in our history. I found those hundreds of
10

people with whom I worked for 2 years, most of them, to be among 

the finest, most decent, hard working Americans I have ever met and 

I was proud to be associated with them in the cause of reelecting a 

man who I feel will ultimately be regarded as one of the greatest 

Presidents this Nation has ever known.

I wan t to associate myself with the spirit and the substance of the 

opening statements of the Senators which I jus t heard. I have been 

and want to continue to be of assistance to the Senate select committee in any way I can and I appreciate the opportunity to make 

this statement.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Odle, for the record, would you please state *

your name and address?

Mr. Odle. Robert C. Odle, Jr., 309 North St. Asaph Street, Alexandria, Va.

Mr. Dash. What is your present occupation? *

Mr. Odle. I am presently a consultant to the Committee To ReElect the President.

Mr. Dash. Prior to tha t time, what position did you hold with the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. I was director of administration for the committee 

from May 1, 1971, until approximately May 1, 1973.

Mr. Dash. Can you tell us when the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was set up?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir; it was set up and announced, I believe, on 

May 11, 1971.

Mr. Dash. Can you state briefly—for what purpose the Committee 

for the Re-Election of the President was set up?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir. In the year 1971, a number of people began to 

look a t the 1972 campaign. There was the thought that people would 

have to be getting to work full time to the President’s campaign. They 

did n ot want those people to remain on a government payroll or on a 

White House payroll. They did n ot want tha t activity at the Republican National Committee, because at tha t point, it appeared the 

President might have competition in the primaries from two Congressmen and it would be particularly inappropriate for the RNC to house 

Presidential campaign activities. Therefore, the Committee for the 

Re-Election of the President was set up in May of 1971.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Odle, who were the initial persons who came 

over and formed the Committee To Re-Elect the President or give 

it its start? ■

Mr. Odle. There was Mr. Jeb Magruder, Mr. Harry S. Flemming,

Mr. Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., myself, Dr. Robert Marik, Mr. Herbert 

Porter, and a number of secretaries who went there to assist us.

Mr. Dash. Now, of those persons, could you identify who had ’

positions at the White House before they came over to the committee?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir; Mr. Porter, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Flemming had 

been at the White House; he left the White House and went into 

private business and then came to the committee, but he had been 

there before, and Mr. Sloan, and myself.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Odle, will you please go to the chart.*

Have you seen tha t chart prior to this hearing?

Mr. Odle, would you first state what tha t chart purports to be?

•See ex hibit No. 5, p . 11.
Exhibit No. 5

c o m in n for the re- el ec tion o r the PRESIDE NT

M arc h c o J u l y 1 9 7 2

(MITCHELL COMMITTEE)

8 CO-CHAIRMEN 1----------------1

F . Bor m an E . N ix o n 1 C a n d id a t e R. N ix o n I

M. F i s h e r T . P a p p a s ------------ 1 I

R. H a u s e r D. S c h o l l a n d e r CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN

E. J o n a s o n R. V o lk r . D e l e

I BUDGET

I COMUTTEE

| M. S ta n a

| J . M i t c h e l l

H . S l o a n .

L . Nun n

r . M a la k

J r . ,

FINANCE COMMITTEE

TO

R E -E L E C T THE P R E SID E N T

! H. E a h a b a c h '

SP EC IA L AS SI ST AN T TO

CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR FINANC E CHAIRMAN U A m 'A iu n u iiu .i .1 u k

F . LaR ue J . M i t c h e l l M. S t a n s

PO LITICA L D IV IS IO N

R . H ard I an

H. F le m m in g

0 . M oa lm an

C . T a u t t e r

A . K a u p ln e n

CH IEF OF STAFF

J . M a g ru d er

(A D . A S S IS T .

R. R e l s n e r )

ADMINIS TRATION

R. O d le

( J . M cC ord , e t c . )

COUNSEL*

PLANNING & RESEARCH

R . M a r ik

POLLING

R . T e e t e r

SCHEDULING

H . P o r t e r

ADVANCE & TOUR

J . F o u a t

AD VE RT ISI NG

P . D a i l e y

COMMUNICATIONS

V . Sh um way

( P . M o o r e , e t c . )

VOLUNTEERS (WOMEN)

P . H u ta r

CITI ZENS DIVI SIO N

C h a r l e s S h e a r e r

DIRECTOR

YOUTH - K. R l a t I

BLACK - P . J o n e s

BUSI NESS - P . K e y s e r

ETH NIC - J . M ir th

JEWI SH - L . C o ld b e r g

LABOR - B . D eL u ry

LAWYERS - D . P l l l e r o

FARM - C . Y e u t t e r

ELDERLY - D . T od d

TR AN SIEN T - D . M cA do o

SP ANIS H - A . A r m e n d a r le a

e t c .

VI CE CHAIRMAN

L . W a sh b u rn s

COUNSEL

C . L ld d y

SECRETARY

S . H ar m on y

CONTROLLER

P . B a r r lc k

‘ F ro m D e c e m b e r 1 , 1 9 7 1 t o A p r i l 1 , 1 9 7 2 , G . L ld d y w a s C o u n s e l

He t h e n m o v e d t o F in a n c e C o m a d t t e e . Fro m A p r i l I , 1 9 7 2 o n ,

G . S e d a n w a s CRP C o u n s e l .
12

Mr. Odle. Yes; this is a chart of the Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President until 1972, the initial part of 1972.

Mr. Dash. Up until what time?

Mr. Odle. Up until July 1972.

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir; it is a pa rt of the records tha t the campaign 

staff had asked for.

Mr. Dash. Did you help prepare tha t chart?

Mr. Odle. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. Does tha t chart accurately reflect the structure of the 

committee?

Mr. Odle. Yes, i t does. 1

Mr. Dash. Could you please point out the particular persons on the 

chart and the roles tha t they played for the committee?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash, the other point I was going to make is this also shows *

the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President in addition to this 

committee and the budget committee between the two committees.

Mr. Dash. What was the difference between the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President and the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the 

President?

Mr. Odle. The essential function of the Finance Committee To 

Re-Elect the President was to raise the necessary funds for the 

campaign, to account for them, to keep records, to allocate the funds.

The job of the Committee To Re-Elect the President was to conduct 

the national campaign activities. The budget committee between 

the two committees was made up of representatives of each and the 

function of the budget committee in effect was to decide how campaign dollars ought to be allocated—in other words, how the pie 

was sliced.

Mr. Dash. Now, would you point out principally the key persons 

on tha t chart and just briefly state what their position was in the 

committee?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Francis Dale, who was president and publisher of 

the Cincinnati Enquirer. He was chairman of the Committee for the 

Re-Election of the President. Mr. Mitchell, formerly Attorney General, 

was campaign director. Mr. La Rue was special assistant to campaign 

director. There were eight cochairmen under Mr. Dale, who served, 

distinguished citizens from around the country. There were three 

divisions. The political division contained five political coordinators.

Their job was to divide the 50 States among them and to organize ’

State reelection committees in each State—the various other national 

programs under Mr. Magruder. Mr. Reisner was his administrative 

assistant.

Do you want me to go through all these?

Mr. Dash. No, just the names.

On that chart, you have Mr. Magruder and Mr. Reisner as the 

appointment secretary. W hat was the role of Mr. McCord who appears 

on t ha t chart?

Does he in fact appear on that chart?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, he does; he appears here under me. Mr. McCord 

was one of about five assistants who worked for me. His job was 

office security.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you have-----

Mr. Odle. Tha t is what he was hired for, office security.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you have Mr. Liddy appearing on tha t chart?
13

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir. Actually, what was done here is an asterisk 

was used. Mr. Liddy was general counsel of the Committee for the 

Re-Election of the President from December 1 to April 11, 1972. 

About the time tha t the new campaign legislation was taking effect, 

Mr. Liddy moved from here to here, the finance committee, where 

he became general counsel of tha t. He was replaced here on April 1.

Mr. Dash. Now, did Mr. Sloan appear on that chart?

Mr. Odle. Yes; Mr. Sloan was treasurer of the finance committee.

Mr. Dash. And do you have Mr. Stans appearing on tha t chart?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Stans was chairman of the finance committee.

{ Mr. Dash. And I see Mr. Kalmbach above, in a little box above

Mr. Stans.

Would you explain what Mr. Kalmbach’s relation was on tha t chart?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Kalmbach was associate chairman on the finance

• committee until April, the predecessor of the finance committee, the 

Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President. I do not 

believe he had an official role in the campaign after April, although I 

believe he assisted Mr. Stans.

Mr. Dash. Now, do we have the chart, the finance committee 

chart?*

Now, could you find Mr. Liddy on tha t chart?

Mr. Odle. Yes; he was counsel.

Mr. Dash. What period did that chart represent—the role of the 

finance committee?

Mr. Odle. I would say basically from April to November.

Now, within tha t time period, various changes were made in individuals, but tha t is the basic structure of the finance committee as I 

understand it from April 7 u ntil November.

Mr. Dash. Now who was Sally Harmony appearing in tha t chart? 

Mr. Odle. Mrs. Harmony was Mr. Liddy’s secretary.

Mr. Dash. Would you just go back now to the first chart for the

moment? Does Mr. La Rue appear on that chart?

Mr. Odle. Yes; Mr. La Rue is right here, special assistant to the

campaign director.

Mr. Dash. Is Mr. Mardian on tha t chart?

Mr. Odle. At tha t time, Mr. Mardian was a political coordinator, 

one of the five in the political division.

Mr. Dash. Does Mr. Malek appear in that chart?

Mr. Odle. No; Mr. Malek was not a full-time member of the staff

* at that time.

Mr. Dash. Would you of your own knowledge or opinion—and 

if opinion, express how you have tha t opinion—those of the original 

shift from the White House to the committee? How Mr. Magruder

’ came over to the committee? Who appointed the various persons

who came over to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President?

Mr. Odle. My understanding at tha t point in time was tha t 

Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell had asked Mr. Magruder to assume 

tha t position.

Mr. Dash. Who appointed Mr. Sloan, to your knowledge?

Mr. Odle. I believe at that point, Mr. Haldeman asked Mr. Sloan 

to come over. I can’t say, sir, tha t I know who appointed him but my 

best knowledge at tha t point was that Mr. Haldeman had asked 

Mr. Sloan to come to the committee.

•See ex hibit No . 6, p . 15.
14

Mr. Dash. Is it your opinion tha t Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman 

were playing principal roles in selecting key people for the committee?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Odle, you may be seated. Referring back to 

your first chart, the chart which depicts your organization when 

Mr. Mitchell was director of the committee, your budget committee, 

I believe you said your budget committee was comprised of members 

of both the finance committee and the Committee To Re-Elect; is 

tha t correct?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. T hompson. What about Mr. Malek? Where was he employed?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Malek came to the committee on a full-time basis 

July 1 as his deputy campaign director. He, in addition to that, before 

exercised some supervisory function over some of the citizens groups 

and also sat in on budget committee meetings.

Mr. T hompson. Was he at the White House prior to this time?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Thompson. Did he sit in on budget committee meetings at 

some time when he was at the White House?

Mr. Odle. I believe so.

Mr. Thompson. Your name is not within this box here, but did 

you in fact come to budget committee meetings?

Mr. Odle. Yes; I did.

Mr. T hompson. Who presided over those meetings?

Mr. Odle. I would say the campaign director and the finance 

chairman jointly. Tha t would have been Mr. Mitchell up until July 1, 

Mr. MacGregor thereafter, and the finance chairman, Mr. Stans.

Mr. Thompson. With regard to Mr. Stans, was his role limited to 

raising money or did Mr. Stans also participate in the decision as to 

how money would be allocated?

Mr. Odle. I think th at Mr. Stans, in the budget meetings, certainly 

kept an eye on where the money was going. He sometimes challenged 

expenditures. He would say, for example, do we really need to spend 

this amount of money on television advertising this next week. 

Yes; he was an active p artic ipant in the budget committee meetings.

Mr. Thompson. He voiced his opinion and took some participation 

in how the money was being spent, as well as raising money?

Mr. Odle. Yes; he generally tried to put a brake on the spending, 

questioning whether expenditures in various categories were needed.

Mr. Thompson. Were all expenditures approved by him, or all 

major expenditures approved by him?

Mr. Odle. I would say tha t in the budget committee sessions, his 

agreement was necessary before we could allocate a great deal of 

money, say, for television advertising the following week; yes, those 

kinds of major decisions.

Mr. Thompson. How large a sum of money would he have to be 

talking about before he would normally concern himself?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I couldn’t put a number on it. It would be difficult 

to do that. It would depend on the kind of thing we are talking about.

Mr. T hompson. Mr. Odle, in looking at your chart, is it fair to 

assume th at from this organization chart, tha t when Mr. Mitchell was 

director, he had more direct control or day-to-day control over the
• »

Exhibit No. 6

C a n d i d a t e R . N ix o n

FINA NC E COMMITTEE TO

RE- EL EC T THE PR ES ID EN T

AP RI L-NO VE MBE R 1 9 7 2

FINA NC E CHAIRMAN

M. S t a n s '

CONF ID EN TI AL A S S T .

A . C h s a b s r s

PER SONAL AID EK. T a lm a g e

SE C . TO MHS 4 AC

A . P i n k e r t o n

SE C . TO TALMAGEF . T h o m p so n

DR IVER

C . H o l t o n

CO-CHA IRMAN

HE RIT AGE CROUPS

T . P a p p a s

A SS IS T A N T

M. S o t l r h o s

SECRETARY

M B l g h l n a t t l

CO-CHAIRMEN

M. F i s h e r

L . F i r e s t o n e

H . H elmC . L e v y

T . S c h r e l b e rJ . R o l l i n s

M s. 0 . P h ip p s

EX EC UT IVE COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN

M. S t a n s

REGIONAL CHAIRMEN

L . W a r in g - I

P . W i l s o n - I I I

J . J o n e s - IV

D . W o l f s b e r g e r - V

W. L l e d t k e

R . W i n c h e s t e r - VIK. D a h lb e r g - V I I

K . B ro w n - V I I I

D . K e a t o n - IX

CONTROLLER

P . B a r r l c k

BOORXEEPER

J . H o b a c k

TR AN SM ITTA LS A CO NTRIBU

TOR RESPON SE

C . L y e t h

CLERK

J . B a r b o u r

COUNSEL

C . L ld d y

SECRETARYS . H arm on y

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

C . W a sh b u r n

AND SEP TEM BER DINN ER S

DIN NE R COORDINATOR 4

EX EC . A S S T . TO C .L .W .

M. M i l l a r

SECRETARY TO C .L .W .

A SSI ST A N T CLERK

P . F o k in a

REGIONAL A STAT E

COORD INATOR

L . N unn

A SSI ST A N T

I . O d e l l

A SSI ST A N T

J . C h a d w e ll

SECRET ARY TO L .N .

Y . D o r a in y

SECRETARY TO R .O .D . W a lt m a n

SECRETARY TO J .C

V IC E CHAIRMEN

SP EC IA L C IP T S

( I n d i v i d u a l )

D . H o f g r e n

w i t h

M. S t a n s

SPECIA L C IP T S

( G r o u p s )

H . S c o t t

SECRETARYN . W e e d , J r .

A SSI ST A N T

B . B y e r sSECRETARY AND

RECORD KEEPER

J . B r o o k s h i r e

AD MIN ISTR AT IO N

DI REC T MA ILH . S l o a n , J r .

R . H a r ty

B . Z ap pC . D e x t e r

R . V l s c e g l l a

G . O ls o n

C . T e r r a r

TREASURER

H . S l o a n , J r .

A SS IS TANT

P . H o1 m s s

SECRETARY TO H .W .S

J . D a n n e n h a u e rSPECIA L PROJECTS

E . H yde

SP ECIA L PROJEC TS

E . H a l l

ST AFF A SS IS TANTT . W a sh b u rn

REC EP TI ONIS T

M. D e v l i n
16

operations of the committee than when Mr. MacGregor was running 

it?

Mr. Odle. From all the outward appearances tha t there were, I 

think Mr. MacGregor shared equally in the role as campaign director 

tha t Mr. Mitchell did.

Mr. T hompson. When Mr. MacGregor took over, it appears that 

the citizens division and the political division were then answerable 

to Mr. Malek, then the campaign director?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. That was not Mr. Mitchell’s situation, was it?

Mr. Odle. No; it was not. What happened there was to take the 

two groups of national programs, the two kinds of field programs, the 

citizens programs could be called horizontal—the field programs and 

the political programs, the State by State select committees—what 

you might call vertical programs and they were merged under a second, 

deputy campaign director.

Mr. T hompson. Would it be accurate to say tha t all department 

heads reported directly to Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. Odle. I would say tha t they reported to Mr. Mitchell through 

one of the two deputy campaign directors generally. In other words, 

the director of the political division reported to the campaign director 

through the deputy. The director of the polling operation reported to 

the campaign director through the deputy.

Mr. Thompson. But the deputies are part of the division themselves, aren’t they? So would not the division heads themselves, in 

effect, re port directly to Mr. Mitchell on substantive matters?

Mr. Odle. Sir, can we clarify who we have got here as division 

heads? If you mean tha t Mr. Magruder and Mr. Malek are division 

heads; yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. All right. What about Mr. Mardian? What about 

the political division? Mr. Flemming?

Mr. Odle. Which chart are we looking at right now?

Mr. Thompson. I am looking a t the first chart.*

Mr. Odle. The first chart, yes, at tha t point in time, those five 

men reported to the campaign director directly. Those five political 

coordinators. That was before there was a second deputy.

Mr. Thompson. All right, that situation was not present when Mr. 

MacGregor was campaign director?

Mr. Odle. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. So, in effect, there was more direct control or 

more direct relationship between the division heads when Mr. 

Mitchell was director, according to the chart.

Mr. Odle. In tha t sense, yes.

Mr. Thompson. Normally, were all decision memorandums ultimately going through Mr. Mitchell when he was campaign director?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Thompson. Of course, this chart does not reflect any formal 

relationships with the committee or the members of the committee.

Mr. Odle. No, it is an organizational chart.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Liddy here is under the finance committee. 

He was with the Committee To Re-Elect previous to what, December 

10?

•Chart, exhibit 5 appears on p. 11.
17

Mr. Odle. From sometime in December until approximately April 1, 

correct.

Mr. Thompson. Do you know the reasons for his transfer from the 

Committee To Re-Elect to the finance committee?

Mr. Odle. I think there were two reasons, principally. First, was 

tha t the finance committee found itself a great deal busier because of 

this new Federal campaign legislation. The recordkeeping and the 

work tha t had to be done of an administrative nature became very 

great and Mr. Stans felt a full-time counsel was needed at tha t point 

in the finance committee. Mr. Liddy found an office on the second

, floor and he was down there working and it was just kind of a natural

thing for him to become this new counsel. In addition to that, I do no t 

think that he and Mr. Magruder were exactly on the best of terms at 

that point.

* Mr. Thompson. Was the finance committee physically separated

from the Committee To Re-Elect?

Mr. Odle. Initially everyone occupied one suite. Later on the 

finance committee remained in tha t suite and everybody else moved 

to different floors, and so at that point in time the finance committee 

did occupy a separate suite.

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Can you tell me, I think it was stated but I did 

not quite get it, how many men came from the White House staff 

to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. Initially, sir?

Senator E rvin. Yes.

Mr. Odle. Initially, in May of 1971 there would have been Mr. 

Magruder, Mr. Flemming, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Porter, myself, and two 

secretaries.

Senator E rvin. Who subsequently came from the White House 

staff to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. Well, sir, a number of the people we see on those charts 

did. I could point them out for you.

Senator Ervin. Suppose you go to the chart and identify the ones 

who subsequently came from the White House staff to the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Odle. I probably should use this chart.

Mr. Magruder-----

Mr. Dash. Identify tha t chart for us.

• Mr. Odle. I am sorry, this is the July 1 chart. Is tha t the chart 

you would like me to review, Senator, the second chart?*

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Mr. Odle. Mr. MacGregor was counsel to the President for

* Congressional Relations, Mr. Flemming, I mentioned before, Mr. 

LaRue had been a consultant, I had been a t the White House, Mr. 

Fau st had been in the scheduling office at the White House, 

Mr. Timmons was still there, he never was a member of the staff 

but jus t exercised sort of supervisory responsibility for the convention. 

Mr. Shumway had come from the White House as I said earlier, 

Mr. Porter had come from the White House. Mr. Malek had come from 

the White House, Mr. Chotiner had come from the White House.

Senator Ervin. Where does his name appear on the chart?

Mr. Odle. Pardon?

•Se e exhib it No. 7, p. 19.
18

Senator Ervin. The last person.

Mr. Odle. Mr. Chotiner, he was director of ballot security. Mr. 

Compitan, one of our regional directors came from the White House. 

I believe that is all.

Senator E rvin. Is it correct to say that most of the people in positions of authority , of the highest auth ority in the Committee To ReElect the President, came originally from the White House staff?

Mr. Odle. Well, the campaign director, his chief deputies certainly 

did. Most of the people from the finance committee did not, and I 

would say that among the most divisions tha t reported to the two 

deputy campaign directors it is ab out evenly split.

Senator Ervin. The head of the committee was former Attorney 

General John Mitchell, who occupied the office of Attorney General 

until about March 1972, did he not?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And then he became the chairman of the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you know when he actually assumed supervision of the committee?

Mr. Odle. He, I believe, resigned as Attorney General in February 

and came to the committee in March, but he took a vacation in 

Florida, I do not believe it was until around April tha t he became 

involved in the campaign.

Senator Ervin. Did he have anything to do with the committee 

prior to the time of his resignation as Attorney General?

Mr. Odle. Major decision memorandums were sent to him for decision.

Senator Ervin. Decision memorandums were subject to his approval?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Ervin. Before he left the Attorney General’s office?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Ervin. Now, what relationship, if any, did Mr. Bob 

Haldeman have with the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. No official relationship, of course, but Mr. Haldeman 

was assistant to the President and he, I know, was interested in what 

the committee was doing, what its programs were and how it was 

helping in the reelection of the President.

Senator Ervin. Did he ever give instructions to anybody on the 

committee that you know of?

Mr. Odle. Well, he did not become involved directly in tha t he 

had an assistant who worked for him who from time to time, was in 

touch with members of the committee.

Senator E rvin. Who was the assistant?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Gordon Strachan.

Senator E rvin. Do you know Joh n Dean III?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Did he have contacts with the committee from 

time to time?

Mr. Odle. I believe tha t he did.

Senator Ervin. Who had auth ority to direct the expenditure of 

money on the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Exhibit No. 7

DEPUTY CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR

J . M ag ru d er

ASST.

R. R e ia n e r

administrati on PLANNING. STRATEGY. DIRECT MAIL

R. O d ll„ A TELEPHONE OPERATIONS

^ —ADVANCE A TOUR R. M ari k

J . F o u e t POLLING

ADVERTISING R. T e e te rP . D a il e y PR / MEDIA

ATTACK C. M i ll e r

E. F a l l o r V. Shum way

CONVENTION

B. Tlm rao na SCHEDULING

B. P o r t e r

COUNSEL

G. S ed an

---- i

DEPUTY CAMPAIGN DI RECTO* 

F. Maleic

CIT IZEN S DIVIS ION 

(C . S h e a r e r )

BALLOT SECURITY - M. C h o ti n e r

BLACK •• P . Jo n e a

BUSINESS - P. K a y e e rELDERLY - D. To dd

ETHNIC - J . W lr thFARM - C. Y e u tte rJEWISH - L . G o ld b e rg

LABOR - B. DeL ur y

LAWYERS - D. P l H e r o

PHYSICIANS A DENT ISTS - B. S to v e r

SPANISH - A. A rm e n d arl a

TRANSIENT - D. McAdoo

VETERANS - F . N a y lo r

VOLUNTEERS - P . H u ta r

YOUTH - K. R le tx

ZZ3

POLITICA L 

DIV ISION 

( J . J o n e a ) 

R. R ic h a rd a 

T . Reed 

R. Brown 

P . Saw er e G. Coo ch 

R. M urr ay 

M. C o llln a , 

D. M osl aa n C. Y e u tte r A. K aupln en
20

Mr. Odle. Basically, of course, the budget committee, and then 

various divisional managers could, within the confines of tha t which 

had been approved by the budget committee, authorize things. I 

authorized for most of the staff members reimbursement for travel 

expenses and tha t sort of thing. Ultimately it would have been the 

depu ty campaign director, campaign director and the finance chairman.

Senator Ervin. As I understand from your testimony, Mr. Kalmbach was on the Committee To Re-Elect the President prior-----

Mr. Odle. Sir, there were two finance committees. When Mr. Stans 

resigned as Secretary of Commerce he came to the committee. There «

was a Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Mr. 

Kalmbach was associate chairman of tha t committee. Then as the 

April 7 deadline approached at the time when the new legislation went 

into effect, Mr. Stans, I believe, was anxious tha t a new committee *

begin with a fresh start and 1 do not believe Mr. Kalmbach served 

as an officer of tha t new committee which was known as the Finance 

Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Senator Ervin. There was no association between the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President and the Republican National Committee 

was there?

Mr. Odle. Well, technically, no. In advance of the convention, but 

most everybody at the Republican National Committee was anxious 

tha t the President be reelected and obviously there was a great deal 

of work back and forth.

Senator Ervin. But they were in effect separate organizations?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, did Mr. Magruder have any authority to 

direct anyone to disburse funds?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Ervin. Can you tell me which members of the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President had such authority?

Mr. Odle. Well, you would have—let me sta rt explaining it this 

way. Any one of the directors and in any one of these various divisions 

had the responsibility to initiate requests for expenditures of funds and 

they would pass up through the deputies and up to the campaign 

director.

Senator Ervin. And the actual authorization for expenditure did 

not come from the heads of divisions, however? They merely made 

the requests though, the recommendations? •

Mr. Odle. I would say, Senator, a little of each quite honestly.

Let us say, for example, th at the director of one of these various divisions wanted to purchase a hundred briefcases for his 50 State chairmen and vice chairmen to put materials in for their programing. He *

would theoretically fill out a check request form and tha t would go 

to his divisional head and then possibly, if I were involved in that, to 

the treasurer’s office and the check would be written.

Senator Ervin. Now, who had authority to direct the outlay of 

substantia l sums of money? I would like to have all of the names if 

you can give it to us.

Mr. Odle. Well, I really cannot answer that. I really do not know,

Senator.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Hugh Sloan was the treasurer of the finance 

committee, was he not?
21

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And he was the man who actually disbursed sums 

when substantial sums were called for, did he not?

Mr. Odle. As I understand, sir.

Senator Ervin. Do you know what control Mr. Stans had over 

the disbursement of funds?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Stans was the finance chairman.

Senator Ervin. In the normal course the finance chairman would 

be concerned with the collection of campaign contributions. Did 

he have authority, any authority in respect to the disbursement of 

them?

Mr. Odle. Ultimately, I think that auth ority would be his. If 

I were to speculate on how much he used the authority tha t would 

jus t be purely speculation on my part.

Senator Ervin. Wh at about Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. Odle. Well, Mr. Mitchell would not have disbursed any 

money, because he had no money, I mean, he had no custody of any 

money.

Senator Ervin. Did he have authority or did he exercise authority 

to direct expenditure of funds?

Mr. Odle. Yes; I think with Mr. Stans he would have had authority to directly disburse funds. Whether or not he exercised or not 

would be pure speculation.

Senator Ervin. Wh at about Mr. Jeb Stu art Magruder?

Mr. Odle. Magruder. I would think in his capacity as deputy 

campaign director he would have.

Senator Ervin. How many employees do you say the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President had on the books at the time?

Mr. Odle. Over 400.

Senator Ervin. Well, I would like to state that so far as I know, 

the committee has no evidence to contradict the assertion tha t the 

overwhelming majority of the men and women who worked on the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President were law abiding, conscientious 

citizens, and also would like to say as far as I know, th at the statement 

of Senator Baker to the effect th at we have no information thus far 

that either the Democratic National Committee or the Republican 

National Committee h ad any personnel who had allegedly committed 

any wrongs or alleged unethical action, in fairness I commend that 

statement of Senator Baker.

Senator Baker.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I think 

counsel has done a very thorough job of inquiring of the witness of the 

details of the CRP organizational chart during relevant times in the 

1972 Presidential campaign. I will not burden these proceedings by 

trying to elaborate on them or to extend into other areas, but there 

are other areas, Mr. Odle, that we would like to ta lk to you about, and 

I understand tha t you are agreeable to returning to this committee 

so tha t we might discuss other aspects of your knowledge of other 

matters.

Mr. Odle. Absolutely.

Senator Baker. With tha t understanding, then, and without implying any sinister purpose, but rather with the full understanding 

th at you will return, there are other questions on other matters tha t
22

I want to discuss with you later but I will forego that so th at we can 

continue with the description of the organization of the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President.

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Odle, you may be seated, I have only two 

or three very brief questions.

Are you aware of any actual political campaign experience in Mr. 

Magruder’s background?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I believe he was involved in the 1968 campaign 

in southern California.

Senator Talmadge. How about Mr. Sloan?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, he was involved in the national finance committee in 1968 in New York.

Senator Talmadge. How about Mr. Mardian?

Mr. Odle. Bob Mardian. Yes, he was, I cannot remember his exact 

title. He was very actively involved, I believe in the 1968 campaign.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Flemming?

Mr. Odle. Yes, Mr. Flemming was, too. He was one of the regional 

directors of the 1968 campaign. He also was active in Virginia politics. 

He was elected in Virginia.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Porter?

Mr. Odle. I do not know. I do not think so.

Senator Talmadge. Was that political activity of the gentleman 

you mentioned similar to the committee organization that you had 

in the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. Did they do similar things?

Senator T almadge. Yes; was the election experience in previous 

campaigns similar to what you had?

Mr. Odle. Some of them were. I n the cases of Mr. Flemming and 

Mr. Mardian, yes, in the case of Mr. Magruder, I do no t think so.

Senator Talmadge. You testified in response to a question, tha t this 

has little relationship, if any, between the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President and the Republican National Committee. In view of tha t 

fact would it be fair to say that the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President was in fact the campaign instrument solely under the control 

of the President and his top White House staff?

Mr. Odle. I would say that the Committee for the Re-Election of 

the President was formed exclusively to reelect the President. It had 

tha t as its one concern and its one goal.

Senator Talmadge. Since there was no cooperation between 

the-----

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes, sir; there was close cooperation between the 

two.

Senator Talmadge. I thought you stated in response to a previous 

question there was very little cooperation.

Mr. Odle. I meant, what I think I said and what I hoped to say 

was there was no technical or legal relationship between the two. It 

eventually would have been improper but I also said I think that 

everybody at the National Committee was doing everything they could 

for the President and that, in fact there were relationships between the 

two committees.

Senator Talmadge. Why was it necessary to have two committees 

then?
23

Mr. Odle. Becau se, the Presiden t was b u t a cand idate for th e 

nomina tio n prior to t he conventio n. Now I do n ot think the re was an y, 

there was very mu ch do ub t th at the Pr esiden t would tri um ph but 

there was, the re was a dist inct pos sibility of a challenge fro m Congres sman M cCloskey and challenge from C ongre ssm an Ash brook and there 

were contr adiction s. I do no t think it wou ld ha ve been proper for a 

bo dy to work for a cand ida te, for Pr esiden t Nixon with two ot he r 

challengers.

Senator T almadge. Wa s there any do ub t as to his nomi natio n?

Mr. Odle. We hoped not. We were wor king so it would n ot be, b u t 

r if y ou recall we were faced with— we were looking b ack at a situ at io n,

we were looking ba ck at Se nator M cC ar th y’s challenge to Pr es id en t 

John son in 1968 in Ne w Ha mp shire and how effective th at challenge 

was.

* Se nator Talmadg e. Ith a s been my ex perience, it is difficu lt enou gh 

to keep one camp aig n comm itte e str aigh t. When you have two i n the 

field, it on ly comp licate s the problem. I re pe at t he q uestion . You h ave 

testified th at a mu ltiplicity of people ca me from th e W hite Hous e d ire ct 

to the Co mm itte e for the Re -Elec tion of the Preside nt. Is it fair to 

say th at th at co mm ittee was set up, organiz ed, and directed from the 

W hit e House?

Mr. Odl e. I would say thi s: T hat I would say th at those people 

who were at the W hit e Hou se ha d influ ence ov er the com mittee , they 

gav e it direction, th ey assiste d it bu t the camp aig n dir ector of cou rse 

was no t at the Whit e Hou se, he came from the Justi ce Dep ar tm en t. 

And so— [laughter]— I do no t me an to tr y to ge t aro und yo ur 

que stio n, Senator, I am ju st say ing th at it was no t exclusively a 

White House vehicle, I do no t believe.

Senator Talmadge. Th ere was no do ub t as to whe re the ul tim at e 

au thor ity lay in th at comm ittee was there?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Tha nk y ou, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Senator E rv in. Se na tor Gurney.

Senator Gurney. Tha nk you, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Mr. Odle, pursu ing the line of question ing th at Se nator Ta lm adge 

was engaged in, do you know wh eth er at any tim e the C om mittee To 

Re -E lec t ever receive d an y instr uc tio n from Rob er t Dole, the ch airman of the Re publi can Na tio na l Comm itte e?

Mr. Odle. Well, Se na tor Dole was activ ely involved, of course, in

* the cam paign and I kno w he wor ked very closely wi th Mr. Mitchell 

an d Mr. Ma cGreg or. 1 do no t know th at Mr. Dole, Se nator Dol e 

wou ld instru ct Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Mitch ell wou ld in stru ct Se na tor 

Dole bu t the y certa inly worked tog eth er.

‘ Senator Gurney. B ut he was no t activ ely inv olv ed in the Co mmittee To Re -Elec t the Pre sid ent?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, he was chair ma n of the Re publican Na tio na l 

Comm itte e.

Senator Gurney. D o you know wh eth er an y Re publi can Na tio na l 

Co mm itte e people were brou gh t ove r to the Co mmittee To Re -E lect 

the Pre sident?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, there were people from th e Na tio na l Com mi tte e 

working at the comm ittee in lat er stag es.

Senator Gur ne y. D o you recall how ma ny?

Mr. Odle. 1 do no t th in k a g reat num ber, I wou ld say less th an 10.
24

Senator Gurney. Do you recall what positions they had?

Mr. Odle. To the best of my knowledge, they were working in the 

political field.

Senator Gurney. Do you recall whether any people who were key 

people on the Committee To Re-Elect the President had ever been 

public officeholders before?

Mr. Odle. Well, Mr. MacGregor, of course, was. He was a Congressman from Minnesota.

Senator Gurney. Aside from him.

Mr. Odle. Mr. Flemming was, I think, the first Republican ever 

elected to the Alexandria Council. Mr. Mardian has been active in t

Arizona and California politics. I don’t know th at he has been elected.

I don’t see any other names I recognize.

Senator Gurney. Was the Committee To Re-Elect the President 

involved in any other political campaigns in 1972, the reelection of »

Republicans, other than the campaign to reelect the President?

Mr. Odle. It certainly did what it could, I believe, to be of assistance.

Senator Gurney. Well, could you amplify that? Did it directly 

involve itself in any other Republican campaigns?

Mr. Odle. Well, I know that when Mr. Flemming became specia 

assistant to the campaign director after July, he actively worked with 

the Senate and House campaign committees, I believe, in support of 

other Congressmen, Republican candidates for high office.

Senator Gurney. What did he do?

Mr. Odle. I am not familiar, sir, with the specific activities.

Senator Gurney. Well, were there any other—can you describe the 

policy meetings of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, where 

decisions were made what to do about the campaign, or discussions 

were had about the campaign?

Mr. Odle. Sir, there was a strategy board. I did not attend those 

meetings.

Senator Gurney. Who served on the strategy board?

Mr. Odle. Well, there was Mr. Magruder, there was, I believe,

Mr. Clifford Miller from California. I think Mr. Daly, I didn’t go to 

the meetings and I can’t remember all the people who did.

Senator Gurney. Well, wasn’t Mr. Mitchell involved in the policy 

meetings?

Mr. Odle. I don’t believe he went to those sessions. I believe those 

were brought to him in the forms of memorandums.

Senator Gurney. These are the only people that you know tha t •

engaged in any policy meetings?

Mr. Odle. Well, those are the ones I can remember right now off 

the tip of my tongue who went to those. I think there were strategy 

meetings. *

Senator Gurney. How was strategy disseminated from these policy 

meetings?

Mr. Odle. Sir, tha t was not my area. I am sorry, I can’t answer 

that.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever receive any instructions from anybody in the White House during your service on the Committee To 

Re-Elect?

Mr. Odle. I talked from time to time to Mr. Strachan, who was 

the White House liaison. He made some suggestions and ideas. I 

believe he said at one time the switchboard was overloaded and over-
25

burdened and he had trouble getting in, would I please hire another 

telephone operator. Th at was the only instruction I remember. There 

may have been others.

Senator Gurney. What was the nature of your discussions with 

him other than the switchboard?

Mr. Odle. Well, just general things relating to my own activities. 

I was in charge of personnel and I was in charge of volunteers, and 

things like tha t.

Senator Gurney. Were your conversations in the nature of a report 

to him?

t Mr. Odle. No, not really. We provided on several occasions reports

and copies of memorandums to Mr. Strachan so he would know w hat 

was going on.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever see, in the course of your duties,

J White House personnel in the Committee To Re-Elect office?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes.

Senator Gurney. Who were they?

Mr. Odle. Well, various people from the White House would come 

over into the committee from time to time. The committee was there 

for 2 years. The President came over one night and shook hands. There 

were a number of White House officials tha t came to the committee 

from time to time.

Senator Gurney. Who made frequent visits?

Mr. Odle. There was a convention strategy group tha t was looking 

into the convention that met at the-----

Senator Gurney. Who were they?

Mr. Odle. It was made up of representatives of the Republican 

National Committee, the committee, and-----

Senator Gurney. I am talking about White House people.

Mr. Odle. The White House people. That is what I was going to 

get to. Mr. Timmons came over from time to time.

Senator Gurney. Anybody else in connection with the convention?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Carruthers, Mr. Goode.

Senator Gurney. Wha t other people came over from time to time?

Mr. Odle. I just can’t remember right now, Senator, exactly who it 

was who came to the committee from the White House. I t was a very 

busy time.

Senator Gurney. Well, did you ever see Mr. Haldeman in the 

office to Re-elect?

• Mr. Odle. Only once. T hat was when the President came to shake 

hands with staff members.

Senator Gurney. And what about Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Odle. I never—I saw him there once.

* Senator Gurney. Do you know what his mission was at t hat time?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. Or did you just see him come in?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I just saw him.

Senator Gurney. And Mr. Dean? Did you ever see him come there?

Mr. Odle. Yes, I saw Mr. Dean a couple of times.

Senator Gurney. Do you know what his purposes were when he 

visited?

Mr. Odle. No, I do not.
26

Senator Gurney. Do you know anything about the surveillance 

operations that may have been conducted by the Committee To ReElect the President?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely not.

Senator Gurney. Do you know anything about any of the sabotage 

operations that may have been conducted by the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President?

Mr. Odle. Only what I have read in the newspapers.

Senator Gurney. I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye?

Senator I nouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. t Mr. Odle, this morning’s Washington Post suggests th at Mr. Charles 

Colson organized at least 30 groups of supporters of President Nixon 

to “attack” network news correspondents through write-in, telephone, 

and telegram campaigns to their local stations. I know th at one of your \

committee charts lists an E. Failer and shows that his area of responsibility is designated as “atta ck.” Who is Mr. E. Failer and what was 

he?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Edward Failer was basically, as the chart suggests, 

in the attack operation. The idea there was, as I understand it, and I 

was not close to it. The idea was to see what the opposition candidate 

was saying th at day or that week to get an idea what his line was. what 

his pitch was tha t day and then to mobilize some of the other campaign 

activities against that, to criticize them, in effect, to say, no, you are 

wrong, Senator, it ought to be this way.

Th at was the basic idea. For example, he would maybe talk to a 

couple of his surrogates, who were members of the Cabinet and others 

who were speaking up for the President around the country. He would 

say, look, maybe we ought to use this line this week in attacking 

Senator McGovern. Or then he might go to the press office and say, 

maybe we should put out a press release doing thus and so.

Th at generally is my idea of what he was involved in.

Senator Inouye. He was not involved in the attack of news correspondents?

Mr. Odle. Well, not to my knowledge.

Senator Inouye. Mr. Odle, press reports have indicated tha t you 

participated in the destruction of committee records following the 

June 17 break-in at the Democratic national headquarters. What was 

your part, if any, in the destruction of these records?

Mr. Odle. I am glad you brought tha t up, Senator, because I „

appreciate the chance to respond to that. There was a story in the 

newspapers tha t I shredded documents the Sunday after the Watergate. In point of fact, I was not even in the District of Columbia the 

Sunday after the Watergate. How th at story got there, I do n ot know. w

But I did not even enter Washington, D.C., tha t day.

Now, there was another report later on and tha t report said that I 

made a file search and then shredded documents. Again in point of 

fact, as administrative officer of the reelection committee, the agents 

from the FB I would come to me from time to time and they would ask 

me for various documents. Initially, they wanted Mr. McCord’s W-4 

forms and all sorts of documents tha t the committee had. And I did 

search files in response to those legitimate requests from the U.S. 

Attorney and the FBI. 1 then handed over those documents to the
FBI. 1 did not shred one document in relation to this campaign, in 

relation to any of these things.

Senator Inouye. Did you have a shredding machine in your office?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Inouye. Where was the shredding machine?

Mr. Odle. There were shredding machines located on most of the 

floors, in a convenient point.

Senator Inouye. As administrative officer, you were not involved 

in any shredding?

Mr. Odle. I did not shred; no, sir, I was not. I did not go around 

after the Watergate break-in and participate in what was termed a 

housecleaning. I did not do that.

Senator Inouye. Mr. Alfred Baldwin stated that he delivered 

copies of “bugged conversations” to the committee offices. Were you 

ever the recipient of reports of bugged conversations?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely not. If you look back at that, what happened 

was that Mr. Baldwin testified tha t he at one point had sent memoran­ dums from Mr. McCord, the security director, to me about office security, and tha t is quite true. And I have turned all of those over to the grand jury, to the Democratic National Committee, to Common 

Cause, to just about everybody else tha t asked for them. He also testified tha t he turned over convention memos, tha t Mr. Baldwin saw convention memos. But somehow, that got garbled and when it came out, it came out in the press tha t for some reason, Mr. Baldwin took over logs to me and to other individuals. Th at is absolutely untrue and as Mr. McCord’s deposition shows, what really happened was tha t he wrote Mr. Liddy’s name on tha t 

log and brought it to the building.

Senator I nouye. Were you in any other way involved in bugging 

activities?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely not.

Senator I nouye. Is it true tha t you hired Mr. McCord?

Mr. Odle. Yes, it is.

Senator Inouye. Were you aware of his activities on June 17?

Mr. Odle. I was not. I first heard tha t there was a burglary on 

Saturday afternoon, after I finished a meeting about—oh, I donotknow , midafternoon. And somebody came by the door and said, “Have you heard there’s been a burglary at the Democratic National Com­ mittee?” I said, ju st to some people who were in tha t meeting, not at that meeting, they were ju st there, “Th at could never happen here, because I have this guy working for me named Jim McCord, and he has got this place really tigh t and all I can say is I am glad McCord 

works for me.” And then, of course, it became apparent what had happened. 

But no, sir, I did not.

Senator Inouye. Then you were not aware of his associations with 

Mr. Liddy or-----

Mr. Odle. No sir, I was not

Senator I nouye. I notice also listed there is a John Caulfield, 

John J. Caulfield?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. Do you know Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I do. He was the security director of the 1968 

campaign. He recommended Mr. McCord.

96- 29 6 0 —73------ bk. 1— 3
28

Senator Inouye. Press reports indicate that Mr. Caulfield tried 

to pressure Mr. McCord to remain silent on the Watergate break-in.

My question is during what period was Mr. Caulfield employed by 

your committee?

Mr. Odle. Very briefly, perhaps a month, and it was in the summer 

of 1972, I believe, perhaps in May—perhaps in April, it was.

Senator Inouye. Did he, to your knowledge, try to pressure Mr.

McCord in behalf of your committee?

Mr. Odle. Pressure him?

Senator Inouye. Pressure him to remain silent?

Mr. Odle. Well, I just have no knowledge of that. Not to my w

knowledge at all. I haven’t seen Mr. Caulfield since last summer.

Senator Inouye. Would you describe the functions of your political 

division?

Mr. Odle. Yes. sir, the function of the political division was to *

divide the States among the various political coordinators, or, as they 

become known later, the regional directors, and to set up State reelect 

committees in each State and to monitor the success of those committees.

Senator Inouye. WTe hear much about dirty tricks and sabotage.

Where did it come in your chart, or did it come in your chart?

Mr. Odle. Sir, unfortunately, the chartmaker, when he made 

those charts, was not aware of those things.

Senator Inouye. Were you aware of those things?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I was not.

Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I request an order to place in 

evidence a list of all the employees of the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President and the finance committee and the dates of their 

service and their prior employment.

Senator Ervin. Would you furnish the committee that?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I think the staff has already requested it and 

I think it has been turned over, but if not, I will be glad to do tha t.

Senator Inouye. Thank you. -

Senator Ervin. I understand if you have not supplied it to the 

committee, you will.

Mr. Odle. If we haven’t, we will, yes, sir.*

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Odle, you refer to the fact tha t you were not in Washington,

D.C., on June 18, is that correct? •

Mr. Odle. Um-hum. .

Senator Weicker. Did you participate in the emptying of Mr. 

Magruder’s desk with Robert Reisner on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, Mr. Magruder asked Mr. Reisner and myself «

to take certain things home over the weekend, because at the time, 

it appeared tha t he was concerned for the security of them. My best 

recollection is that I took home a file folder and he took home some 

other file folders and brought them back the following Monday or 

sometime.

Senator Weicker. Would you be good enough to describe to the 

committee as to how you were alerted on Ju ne 17, exactly w hat you 

‘See p. 437.
29

did in responding to the alert, and your activities within the offices 

themselves and when you left—on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Yes; my greatest concern, first of all—first of all, when we found out tha t McCord was involved in this thing, I was extremely concerned. I mean, here was our security director in jail because he had gone into somebody’s office in the middle of the night. My first thought was that I was suddenly in charge of the guard force, I was suddenly in charge, directly and personally, in charge of all the office security. I remember one of the things 1 did tha t day was to call the security supervisor to make certain that we would have a guard come 

t

in that night to relieve the day guard. I was very concerned about

that. I remember thinking about what we would do to replace Mr. 

McCord. We needed somebody in tha t capacity. 

w

It was a very serious day. I mean, when you find a man tha t you trust and respect is in jail for doing something and tha t man worked 

for you, it is quite a serious thing. Is there some other area that you are interested in?

Senator Weicker. Well, now, first of all who requested tha t you 

come over to the committee?

Mr. Odle. I had been there, Senator. I was at a meeting tha t morn ing that started about 9 a.m. and ended in midafternoon. I had been 

there.

Senator Weicker. Now, who made the suggestion tha t Mr. 

Magruder’s desk be emptied?

Mr. Odle. Well, I don’t—first of all, I am not exactly sure of the chronology of events. I don’t believe tha t anybody made the sug­ gestion tha t the desk be emptied, although he expressed concern over 

the telephone from California-----

Senator Weicker. Who was “he” ?

Mr. Odle. He was Magruder.

Senator Weicker. What time did he express concern?

Mr. Odle. It would have been sometime late that afternoon.

Senator Weicker. Did you talk personally with Magruder?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Weicker. Will you give the committee your best recollection of that conversation?

Mr. Odle. My best recollection is th at he was extremely concerned tha t we might be subject to similar activities, tha t there might be

• retaliation, that he was concerned for the security of the office building and the files and the papers, and he wanted certain things to be taken 

home over the weekend. As I remember it, Mr. Reisner took home a lot of advertising

* matters, I believe.

Senator Weicker. Well, if we can stop there for a minute. Was 

Mr. Reisner on the phone also?

Mr. Odle. For a time he was, for a time I was, but mv best recollection of it was I went out of the room for a while, I think.

Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Magruder say, “clean out my whole 

desk” ?

Mr. Odle. No; I don’t believe he did, because I don’t believe tha t 

was done.

Senator Weicker. Then he must have specified what was to be 

cleaned out?
30

Mr. Odle. I believe he did. I don’t believe he did tha t to me. I 

believe he may have. I just don’t remember the exact chronology of 

all the things that happened that day.

All I know is the way it ended up is that I had a file and Mr. Reisner 

had some files and we brought them back the next week.

Senator Weicker. But did you know what was in the files?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not.

Senator Weicker. So in other words, it was a general, no t a specific 

order, tha t was given to clean out the whole desk; is tha t correct?

I mean, how would you know tha t you cleaned out the right things?

Mr. Odle. I didn’t take it, sir. I believe Mr. Reisner took that and 

then he gave it to me.

Senator Weicker. And, you did not clean out Magruder’s desk?

Mr. Odle. No; I did not.

Senator Weicker. Your participation in this m atte r was to receive 

files-----

Mr. Odle. A file.

Senator Weicker. A file from Mr. Reisner?

Mr. Odle. I believe, yes.

Senator Weicker. Then what did you do with that file?

Mr. Odle. I put it in m y briefcase, I took some files from my own 

desk, tha t I was concerned about their own safety-----

Senator Weicker. What kind of files did you take?

Mr. Odle. Budget committee files. The various minutes of the 

sessions that I described earlier. I was concerned for their security 

and I took them home with me over the weekend.

Senator Weicker. Now, what did you do when you took this file 

home?

Mr. Odle. Just left it at home.

Senator Weicker. Put it anywhere?

Mr. Odle. I think I may have put it in the closet or something, 

I am no t exactly certain.

Senator Weicker. And-----

Mr. Odle. The briefcase, I think I put in the closet.

Senator Weicker. I beg pardon?

Mr. Odle. I think I put the briefcase in the closet.

Senator Weicker. The briefcase with the film in the closet?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Weicker. Then, what happened to the file?

Mr Odle. Then, on Monday I returned it.

Senator Weicker. You returned the file?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Weicker. To whom?

Mr. Odle. To Mr. Magruder.

Senator Weicker. To Mr. Magruder himself?

Mr. Odle. To the best of mv recollection, yes.

Senator Weicker. Now, Afr. Odle, a few more questions. You 

mentioned the fact tha t you came into contact with Mr. Strachan 

from time to time.

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Could you give me an elaboration of what from 

time to time means.

Mr. Odle. I talked to Mr. Strachan probably two or three times a 

week, maybe two times a week. It is hard to say, sir.
31

Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Strachan participate rather actively in 

matters over at the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Can you tell me why, what his specific mission 

was?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Haldeman obviously was worried a lot with a lot of other things besides the campaign. He was the Chief of Staff at the White House and a very busy man working on Government substan­ tive policies and he was assisting the President. Mr. Strachan was there to devote himself more to what was going on politically so if Mr. Haldeman wanted to be aware of what was going on politically and simply asked Mr. Strachan, Mr. Strachan was simply the eyes 

and ears, you might say.

Senator Weicker. I beg pardon?

Mr. Odle. I suppose you might say he was the eyes and ears of 

the committee.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Strachan was the eyes and ears of who?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Haldeman. He was liaison to the committee.

Senator Weicker. So any matters tha t went on in the Committee To Re-Elect the President, would it be fair to say they were reported 

back to Mr. Haldeman by Mr. Strachan?

Mr. Odle. Well, that was Mr. Strachan’s role which was to try to find out all of the things tha t were going on at the committee and make Mr. Haldeman aware of them, yes.

Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Strachan attend the strategy sessions?

Mr. Odle. I think that he may have, yes. I did not attend those 

meetings. I t is hard for me to say exactly who did.

Senator Weicker. All right. Now, Mr. Odle, did you ever see in the hallways of the Committee To Re-Elect the President electronic equipment which would be electronic equipment for either bugging or debugging?

Mr. Odle. Mr. McCord at least had a machine for a while which was a defensive measure, as I understand it, tha t went around to check for electronic eavesdropping in our building and I believe I have 

seen that, yes.

Senator Weicker. So you did see this equipment which you believed 

to be debugging equipment, is th at correct?

Mr. Odle. I am p retty positive of it, yes.

Senator Weicker. Th at it was debugging?

Mr. Odle. Well, it was not debugging, it was collecting for countermeasures, yes.

Senator Weicker. And this equipment was quite visible out there 

in the hall?

Mr. Odle. I do not believe, sir, it was in the hall. It was a portable 

unit that I believe was in his office at one point, sir.

Senator Weicker. Now, with respect to the citizens division, is it not true tha t Fred Malek became the head of tha t division between March and June?

Mr. Odle. He exercised supervisory control over the citizens 

division. It was by no means a full-time occupation.

Senator Weicker. When you say full-time occupation, do you use as a criteria his appearance on the payroll, is this what causes you to 

indicate he was not full time?

Mr. Odle. No, I would use the criterion, hours spent.
32

Senator Weicker. In hours spent he was p art-time capacity?

Mr. Odle. Very much so.

Senator Weicker. You say he spent part of the time between the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President and part of his time at the 

White House?

Mr. Odle. There was a guest office th at he used from time to time 

when he was at the committee and I would say from September 1, 

when he resigned at the White House and came to the committee he 

spent most of his time at the White House.

Senator Weicker. Most of his time at the White House, b ut also 

some time at the committee. «

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Odle, were Jea n Roberts and Vicki Chern 

secretaries to Jeb Magruder?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir. •

Senator Weicker. Was Sylvia Panarites a secretary for both Bob 

Reisner and yourself?

Mr. Odle. She was the receptionist and she worked for both of us, 

that is correct.

Senator Weicker. She did work for both of you?

Mr. Odle. Yes, tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, under the advertising section is it not 

true tha t the November Group was a New York corporation operating 

out of the Committee To Re-Elect the President with Peter Dailey 

at the head and Paul Muller as treasurer and Glenn Sedam as secretary , is th at correct?

Mr. Odle. I can testify to the first two. I did not realize tha t Mr.

Sedam was secretary.

Senator Weicker. Now, just two more questions. In Ken Reitz’ 

function here which I believe is listed as youth, was Tom Bell one of 

his assistants? Do you know his table of organization of people who 

worked for him?

Mr. Odle. Yes, Mr. Bell was one of Mr. Reitz’ assistants and was 

one of the first to join his staff.

Senator Weicker. Was Bob Podesta one of his assistants?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Were Marilyn Johnson and Connie Cudd his 

secretaries?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Did Ken Smith and Eve Auchincloss work for •

Reitz on the speakers bureau?

Mr. Odle. I am not sure of the speakers bureau. They worked for 

Mr. Jigg.

Senator Weicker. Was George Gorton college coordinator under *

Reitz?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Was Angella Miller in charge of Nixonettes?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Did Angela Harris work on press for Reitz?

Mr. Odle. She was in the press office but she spent most of the 

time working on youth activities.

Senator Weicker. Now, in conclusion, I have prepared a chart,*

Mr. Odle, which fills in some additional slots, and I wonder if you

* See exhib it No. 8, p. 33.
Exhibit No. 8

Horrv Flemminq -s

Ksb«r+ flordion

Allan Haupinen

Donald Mosman

Clayton Yeu tter

J o h n Mitcbel -Campoag n D r

Fre d LaRue. - Special Asst.-------'

“ 1

Tolitical Coordinators — TaVitoceA Div.

L 'Dxvid Allen -StoCT

Mark Bloom-field - Staff

Bob Milligan - Staff

BobTeisrwrSylvia Hinaritos - Secy.

Je b H a q ru d e r- Program Div.

-AdaunAst--------- '

Fred. Hale k - C itizen's ♦ Vote

Ken T i e t i - Y ou th

|

Bloc D i V.

■Tom Bf H - A«t~ ^(ixtvfritooit/

T Gene Ro be rto - Secy.

Vicki Ckern - Secy.

BarUarq ?rp * - Sk / 

• -X*n^ MjWs / (inyws

-h ar. ly n Johnson - Secy

Delores III man -

-N eil Ma llon - Secy.

-Wyn McAulliffe - Secy.

- Tom Reed - C alif

*- Dick Rickards - Ida ho

TT au l Caprio -Youtk Activities m Illinois

L Barbara Fierce - Secy.

ecy. Tat Hutar - W)men Volunteers

Jon Foust —Tour Office » Advance men

Q i -D , e , . ' V ' W Wiesmann - Secy.

Dart tone r - Scheduling

-V i» s i» im » .y - T .u « n l <u » „ i . m . 5 s I 5 ' 3 L . < * a , n M

Ted Gam sh

-Bob Teeter -T o ll in g

-D ia n e C opper m an — Secy.

LrNancy (couch-Sec

T)a n Ewans

Bob Mari k - Tl anmnjtTesearck

T ic k Fo rt - Admin Asst

-Bob Morgan -"Direct Mail

‘ Marybeth Koeze - Secy.

-Frank Naylor-Veterans

- I.c k M<A<ko-Trw6itntV«U -G n /e Cud U-Se cy.-*Bih Sfover - Physicians

-Dan Tilte ro - Lawyers

- La rry Goldberg —Jeuliob- D an T odd - Elderly

-P aul Jo ne s -B la c k Liaison

- Clayton Yeutter -Agriculture.

-Ta ul Kayser (and Urn Kendall)-’Bus mess mm

- Anbkony DeF ol co - Nationalists- Ales Armenolaris - Spanish

I- Frank Almaguer

-K en Smilk-AsstC Speabens)

D > * Ew* Achmcloss - Secy

George 6o r+ cn - College Cooed.

-Ang ela M iller - N iSOnetta

An gela Harris -T re es

D a e id CVieiu -Volunteers Cement

-N an cy Dra taa s-T elephone Operations , . .

| 7 <- r r | r Mary A d am s -A A V J - Tom F o a il e r-D s t,M o d e ls

A th ur Finkels tein -Be se an b | _ _

EV»x. U /a qner - "Research

Bawtol Allen -"Research

B* hy Ulh«H>eck-UJr.k»lAj»if

■ Carmen Hoeppner-FwU"Gail Bek -A4m.« Goral

D io n* L o ia n o - Speech U tn te r

-------Margo Carlyle -"Reimnh

Mr. Florence - Field

bettydean 6 on sale 1 - Secy.

- Glenn Sedaen - Counsel

- Peter D ailey - Advertising

"T ob Odle - Administration + Personnel

rMike Scott - Campaign Mate rial

L i -P h il J o
might not go ahead and take a look at this chart and tell me whether 

it is a ccurate and if it takes time to do that. Mr. Chairman, 1 would 

be perfectly glad to go ahead and have Mr. Odle look a t it and for the 

record, report back to the committee.

Senator Ervin. That is perfectly all right.

Mr. Odle. I will be glad to go over it right now with you if you 

like.

Senator Weicker. I do not want to rush you or have you make 

any mistakes.

Mr. Odle. Sure, shall we sta rt and go through it? Mr. Mitchell was 

campaign director, Mr. LaR ue was special assistant. You have 

the five political coordinators here and tha t is correct.

Senator Ervin. It might be helpful for the record when you refer 

to the person instead of referring then as mister, will you give the 

names?

Mr. Odle. All right.

Senator Weicker. I would be perfectly satisfied, Mr. Chairman, 

to have Mr. Odle do this at his leisure so he makes sure of each person 

on the chart.

Mr. Odle. I have no hesitation.

Senator Ervin. 1 understood him to say he can answer the questions about that chart now.

Mr. Odle. Yes, 1 have no hesitation of going over it with you if 

you would like.

Now, Senator, obviously-----

Senator Ervin. It might be, Senator, it might be helpful if he 

would bring it around over here and put it on the stand and take a 

ruler and point out things as he sees them.

Mr. Odle. OK, we have Mr. Mitchell here as campaign director; 

Mr. L aRue was his assistant, that is correct. We have the five political 

directors coordinators at that time and tha t is correct. I believe 

Diane Copperman did not work for him, the same about Barbara 

Fierce, she did work for Mr. Caprio, Paul Caprio, sir, I do not believe 

related to Mr. Kaupman and I thought tha t he was in the Illinois 

campaign and Mr. Caprio was the regional director, and he did have 

Illinois as one of his State s so possibly Mr. Caprio did but it was 

not at the national headquarters, to the best of my knowledge.

Delores Ullman was Mr. Flemming’s secretary and did work for 

Mr. Mardian, and Tom Reed was from California, Dick Richards, 1 

believe, was from Utah, rather than Idaho, but he did report, I think 

he was one of the political coordinators.

David Allen, Mark Blumfeld were all on tha t staff. Bob Reisner 

was administrative assistant to Mr. Magruder but Vicki Chern was 

really more his secretary than Mr. Magruder’s, although she did 

work for both.

Gene Roberts, Sylvia Panarites, Pat Hutar was in charge of 

women’s volunteers; Jon Foust, this is correct, Peggy Weismann was 

a secretary, Bart Porter was in charge of scheduling, Van Shumway, 

public relations and media, Powell Moore, and Ann Dore, Joan 

Donnelly, yes; they all work for him.

Mr. Herge did work for Mr. Porter. Bob Teeter had these two 

assistants, Ted Garrish, Dan Evans and Nancy Crouch was the name 

of the secretary as was M arybeth Koeze.
35

Bob Marik was in charge of research and planning. Breck Fore was administrative assistant, he later went to the political division. Bob Morgan was in charge of direct mail and answered telephones. David Allen moved from here to here both places so that is correct It may n ot be correct, I do not know t ha t he did work there. I think tha t may be incorrect. These people all did report to Nancy Brataas , 

Mr. Sedam was the counsel.

Senator Ervin. Pardon me, I think when you say “these people” did report, you should give the names to the reporter because he has 

to take them down.

Mr. Odle. Glenn Sedam was counsel, Peter Dailey was in charge of advertising, Mr. Phil Joanou, Mr. Mike Scott, were two people who reported to Mr. Dailey. I was in charge of administration and personnel and these two people did report to me. Sylvia-----

Mr. Dash. Which two people did you mean, Mr. Odle? The 

reporter has to have the names.

Mr. Odle. Sylvia Panarites and James McCord. Over the citizens and voter block group Ken Rietz was in charge of youth, he was assisted by Tom Bell, Barbara Preve, Bob Podesta, Marilyn Johnson, Connie Cudd, Ken Smith, Eve Auchincloss, George Gorton, Angella Miller. As I said before, Angela Harris technically was in the press office but she did spend the majority of her time on youth activities. David Chew, Fran k Naylor, veterans; Dick McAdoo, transients; Bill Stover, physicians, Dan Piltero, lawyers; Larry Goldberg, Jewish; Dan Todd, elderly; Paul Jones, black; Clayton Yeu tter; Paul Kayser, was head of the business operations, Mr. Kendall was the national chairman, Mr. DeFalco was at First Nationalists and he later left the staff, Mr. Armendaris, Spanish; assisted by Frank Almaguer, Margo Carlyse; Florence, I do not remember that name but it is probably correct. Betty Jean Gonzalez, of course, there was, Shearer was over here, too, as well 

as at the top of the citizens operation.

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Odle. Now, the last question on the subject of advertising, the approving of advertisements, was this done by the Committee To Re-Elect the President or was the final say-so given at the White House?

Mr. Odle. I think tha t Mr. Haldeman had an interest in adver­ tising without any question, and I think that in tha t case that both the campaign director, Mr. Mitchell, or Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Halde­ man jointly made decisions on advertising. I would say tha t was the one area in which he had an interest more than others.

Senator Weicker. Would you also say that in the area of polling?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. So this again was a joint matter between 

Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Odle. There, I would think Mr. Mitchell was the campaign director, he had final authority, I would say that was the second area in which Mr. Haldeman was the most interested. That is my guess, 

Senator.

Senator Weicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker omitted one question he wished to ask. It is not your turn but since the examination has gotten wider in the field, without objection, I am going to give Senator Baker an
36

op po rtun ity at this time to ask a question which he exp ecte d to ask 

at a su bs eq ue nt hearing.

Se na tor B ak er. Senator M on toya has no t had an op po rtu nity. 

I will wait un til he has asked que stio ns.

Se na tor E rv in. Excuse me, Se na tor Mo nto ya.

Se na tor M ontoya. Th an k you, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Odle, by way of preli minary fou ndation, will you give us your 

entire job classification and du tie s which you perform as head of the 

ad minist ratio n and pers onnel?

M r. Odle . Yes, sir.

I was basic ally in charge of office ma nageme nt and th at would 

include procurem en t of office space, assignment of office spac e, pro ­

curement and assignment of office supplies, insta lla tio ns of office eq uipment, desks, fur nit ure, teleph one s, switch boa rds, all of the kind of 

things th a t you would exp ect one to do in the capacity of office 

ma nager. In terms of personnel I was parti all y responsible for hiring 

and firing , particular ly at the lower levels, sec retarial rec ruitm en t was 

one of my job s, finding secreta ries .

Se na tor M ontoya. Would th at include hiring of secretaries for 

the directors ?

Mr. Odl e. If they reques ted a sec retary , yes.

Se na tor M ontoya. Did you hir e any sec reta ries for any of the 

directors ?

M r. Odl e. W ha t do you mean?

Se na tor M ontoya. Fo r ins tan ce, Mr. Liddy.

M r. Odl e. Yes; I did not. Somebod y in our opera tio n found, I 

believe, Mr s. Ha rm ony and she was hired as Mr. Li dd y’s sec retary 

after M r. Liddy inte rvie wed her.

Se na tor M ontoya. Did you arrang e for the interview ?

Mr. Odl e. No.

Se na tor M ontoya. W ha t ab ou t Je b M ag rude r’s se cre tar y?

M r. Odl e. No; they came with him from the White House .

Se na tor M ontoya. Did you arr ange for the allo cation of space?

Mr. Odl e. Yes.

Se na tor M ontoya. Now, please explain how mu ch spa ce you had 

at t hat pa rticul ar build ing a nd w as the e ntire opera tion un de r the roof 

of one bui lding?

Mr. Odl e. At wh at po int in tim e, Senator, say, in the he at of the 

cam pai gn?

Se na tor M ontoya. Le t us say from the time t hat Mr. Mitch ell went 

onboard as cam paign director.

Mr. Odl e. We had a su ite on th e second floor, we had a s uite on the 

fourth floor. Th e cam paign director ha d a suite on the fou rth floor. We 

later, after Mr. Mit chell came ab oard, took the entire th ird floor, we 

took the suite on the fifth floor, th e suite on the ei ghth, the suite on the 

ninth an d suite on the 11th.

Se na tor M ontoya. Wh en you spe ak of suites do you mean the 

entire floor?

Mr. Odl e. No, sir, we only ha d one entire floor in th at buildin g 

and ev erything and th at was the third . We had suites from as ma ny 

as five p riva te offices, say, to 25. T hat is wh at I mean whe n I say suite.

Se na tor M ontoya. Where did you have the file ro om?

Mr. Odl e. What?

Se na tor M ontoya. Where did you hav e the file room?
37

«

Mr. Odle. I do not believe we had a file room, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you have files in different offices?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, when you speak of files tha t I made 

available to the FBI, why were you called upon to make these files 

available?

Mr. Odle. The subpenas from the FBI were directed to Clark MacGregor or his authorized representative, and Maurice Stans or his authorized representative. I turned out to be the authorized 

representative. In addition to that, I was the administrative person of the com­ mittee, the administrative officer and it was sort of natural since I knew the building fairly well and knew the people fairly well, that I 

would be asked to assume tha t role.

Senator Montoya. Did you have keys to all these files?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Montoya. 

for the FBI?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Montoya. How did you get those keys?

Mr. Odle. I did no t necessarily open all the files. W hat I would do is they would ask for certain kinds of information and I would go to the people who had custody of that information and with them try to 

find it.

Senator Montoya. All right, who had custody on tha t occasion? 

Mr. Odle. Well, many of the files they wanted were financial ma t­ ters so the custody was maintained by the finance committee and I went to the people in the finance committee to get those files.

Senator Montoya. Let us go the Mr. Magruder’s desk. You stated 

you opened his desk pursuant to a telephone call.

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not. I only had a key to Mr. Magruder’s 

desk, I did not open his desk.

Senator Montoya. Whose files did you take from whose desks and 

that you took home?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Magruder’s files, but the desk drawer had been 

opened by Mr. Reisner, I assume.

Senator Montoya. So, was tha t desk opened most of the time? 

Mr. Odle. No; I do n ot believe it was. I t probably was not when 

I was there.

Senator Montoya. How do you know it was opened by Mr. ReisDid you have keys to the files which you opened

ner?

Mr. Odle. I do not. I said I suppose. I know I did not open it 

because I do not have the key.

Senator Montoya. Did you have keys on some of the file cabinets? 

Mr. Odle. I had keys to my own file cabinets.

Senator Montoya. Did the others?

Mr. Odle. Other people would have keys to their file cabinets, yes. 

Senator Montoya. Where were the secret documents filed and in 

whose office?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I did not know tha t there were secret documents. 

Senator Montoya. Well, you did procure a secret document for 

the FBI, did you not?

Mr. Odle. No. No; they wanted things-----
38

Senator Montoya. There were certain documents, stated documents, and you were told where those documents were. Is tha t right?

Mr. Odle. No; they asked me to produce certain documents as 

the Senate committee has done and I went around and tried to find 

them for him.

Senator Montoya. Well, then you had availability to most of the 

files if you went around-----

Mr. Odle. Well, I went to people who had custody of files and 

asked them if I might have, if they did have this, and-----

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, what kind of arrangement did 

you have with Mr. McCord and what was his job classification?

Mr. Odle. Mr. McCord was hired as security consultant to the 

committee beginning in October 1971. He was part time and he was 

to be a part-time security consultant. He then became-----

Senator M ontoya. What did you perceive to be his du ty as security 

consultant?

Mr. Odle. In the broad range, from the time th at he began until— 

well, he would have, of course, you know, stayed on. A number of 

areas. To go through them, the physical security of the building. We 

were concerned-----

Senator Montoya. Was th at his prime duty?

Mr. Odle. It was his only duty, physical security of the building 

and the people in it.

Senator Montoya. And did you ever pay him any money by way 

of reimbursement for travel out of Washington?

Mr. Odle. Once he went to New York to inspect the offices of the 

November Group and once I believe he went to Chicago to look at 

our direct mail warehouse. When he came back, I believe he submitted expense vouchers, a weekly expense form. I initialed those, 

signed them, to reimburse him for his plane fare, and then he would 

have been paid; yes. Th at was customary.

Senator Montoya. Did you authorize him to go to those places for 

tha t specific purpose?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I authorized him to go to New York to inspect 

the offices of the November Group, to Chicago to inspect our direct 

mail warehouse.

Senator Montoya. Did he go anywhere else from which he received 

reimbursement from the committee?

Mr. Odle. He went to Miami to look at the Hotel Doral, and I 

suspect he would receive reimbursement for that; yes.

Senator Montoya. You had to okay all his reimbursements, did 

you not?

Mr. Odle. Theoretically.

Senator Montoya. Unless he was paid in cash by some other individual who had available cash for tha t purpose. Did anyone have 

such cash available?

Mr. Odle. Not tha t I knew of, never.

Senator Montoya. Are you aware tha t any of them, any employee 

of the CRP, could have disbursed funds for Mr. McCord’s travel to 

other places other than the ones which you have named?

Mr. Odle. No. I was not and when I read in the newspapers that 

he had cash, I was very surprised, because the way the system was 

set up, those things would go through me.
39

Senator Montoya. What kind of work or consultation transpired when Mr. Colson would vis t the committee offices and on how many 

occasions did he visit?

Mr. Odle. I do not remember seeing Mr. Colson at the committee, 

sir.

Senator Montoya. Well, are you aware tha t anyone was in touch 

with him at the White House at any time?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir. People from our committee met with him.

Senator Montoya. Did you ever see Mr. Howard Hun t in tha t 

particular building?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I have never seen Mr. Howard Hunt to this day.

Senator Montoya. Are you aware tha t he was in touch with any individuals in the building or the employees of the committee?

Mr. Odle. I never heard his name, even, until after June 17.

Senator Montoya. How long did you keep Mr. McCord on the 

payroll after the Watergate bugging?

Mr. Odle. About 1 minute.

Senator Montoya. How were you employed to go to the CRP?

Mr. Odle. I was asked by Mr. Magruder.

Senator Montoya. What were you doing at that time?

Mr. Odle. I was a staff assistant at the White House.

Senator Montoya. And where are you now employed?

Mr. Odle. I am consultant to the committee.

Senator Montoya. Were you employed in any other position after 

the election?

Mr. Odle. Yes, from May 1st until May 7th, I was a consultant 

for the Department of Agriculture.

Senator Montoya. Who recommended you for this job?

Mr. Odle. People a t the White House.

Senator Montoya. Who specifically?

Mr. Odle. I am not exactly certain who initiated the call over there. I suspect the White House personnel office, which would have 

done it.

Senator Montoya. Did you receive any communiques or any other memoranda which were taken as a result of the bugging of Watergate 

and the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Odle. Never.

Senator Montoya. Were you aware tha t any of this might have been stored in the building over which you were the administrator?

Mr. Odle. No, sir; I was not.

Senator Montoya. Did you ever discuss with Sally Harmony any of the memos which she typed for Mr. Liddy relating directly to the 

Watergate?

Mr. Odle. No, sir; I did not and have not.

Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned a few moments ago that there was communication between the CR P and the Republican 

National Committee.

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir; there was cooperation and communication.

Senator Montoya. What kind of liaison went on between the two 

committees?

Mr. Odle. Well, sir; I would say, for example, th at the people in our political division would work with the people at RNC ’s field operations division. The people in our press office would work with people with
40

their communications office, that sort of thing. I worked with the 

administrative guy there.

Senator Montoya. Did you have people going back and forth 

between the two?

Mr. Odle. You mean back and forth between payrolls or visiting?

Senator Montoya. No, not on payrolls, but communication between 

people. Did you have people going back and forth between the 

Republican National Committee and the CRP?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes, yes.

Senator M ontoya. How close were you to each other?

Mr. Odle. They are here on Capital Hill and we were a t 17th and 

Pennsylvania.

Senator Montoya. You mentioned also tha t some of the major 

decisions were made by Attorney General Mitchell while he was at 

the Justice Department.

Mr. Odle. I presume they were. Decision memos were sent to Mr 

Mitchell from time to time.

Senator Montoya. What kind of memoranda were sent to Mr. 

Mitchell and what kind of major decisions did you have in mind that 

you made?

Mr. Odle. Well, it was not I who had them in mind, sir, because 

I was n ot at tha t level of the campaign. B ut, for example, we were 

involved a t tha t point in staffing and some of the decisions were whom 

should we bring aboard to do this job or that job and things like that? 

It is hard to think back. That is almost 2 years ago. But I would sav 

the major campaign decisions.

Senator Montoya. I will read you this memorandum and ask 

you if you know anything about it. It is from the citizens for the 

reelection of the President, Washington, July 3 1972, styled “confidential.” Memorandum for the Attorney General. Subject, 

grantsmanship.

Mr. Odle. Subject what?

Senator Montoya Grantsmanship. Do you know what tha t 

means?

Mr. Odle. I am not certain.

Senator Montoya. That means the business of making grants 

in government for a political consideration and for political credit. 

And it reads as follows:

Enclosed is a copy of a proposal to insure th at the President and his Congressional supporters get proper credit for Federal Government programs. This 

proposal was written by Bill Horton in Fred Malek’s office with the assistance 

of Bill Gifford, OMB, and Peter Millspaugh, in Harry Dent’s office.

If implemented, this should be an effective method of insuring tha t political 

considerations are taken into account.

Signed, Jeb S. Magruder, his initials. And the enclosure is the 

memorandum.

Mr. D ash. Could the memorandum be given to the witness, please?

Senator Montoya. You will now be presented with the 

memorandum.

Mr. Odle. I recognize the form, sir, of the memorandum, our 

stationery, of course. I do not recognize this exact memorandum. 

I don’t believe I have seen this one. But this is—I don’t mean the 

subject matter is a similar subject matter, but this is the kind of way 

memorandums might have been transmitted to Mr. Mitchell.
41

Senator Montoya. Did you then or did you see similar memoranda 

going out of the office of which you were in charge of adm inistration?

Mr. Odle. My memorandums, for example, would have asked 

Mr. Mitchell if it would have been proper to take more office space. I remember one time when we found tha t none of our people could 

find cabs very easily in the streets, if it would be all right if we leased 

a car or something like that; yes.

Senator Montoya. How far back was the committee or its administrator sending memoranda or memorandums to Mr. Mitchell 

at the Departm ent of Justice?

4 Mr. Odle. I believe after it was there for a while and had been

staffed up. I would say May 1971.

Senator Montoya. And you still presume tha t he was making 

some major decisions in the Dep artm ent of Justice prior to the time

w

he resigned as Attorney General?

Mr. Odle. Of course, yes.

Senator Montoya. That is all.

Mr. Dash. Can I have tha t exhibit back and can we have it 

entered in the record? [The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 1.*]

Senator Ervin. I will recognize Senator Baker at this time so he 

can ask the questions which he refrained from asking when he originally questioned the witness.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, than k you very much. 1 had first 

understood tha t we were going to cover only the organization chart with this witness and the various interrelationships from tha t stand­ point. I must say I am delighted that we have gone further into the substance of the subject matter and we have covered a great deal of testimony that might have been covered in a later appearance by 

this witness. But in view of tha t, it seems to me that it is appropriate at this 

time to pursue some of the things that I might otherwise have asked 

earlier on. Mr. Odle, I am particularly interested in June 17. If you don’t mind, and without grea t length, tell us where you were on June 17.

Mr. Odle. At the committee offices.

Senator Baker. Did you come there at 9 o’clock in the morning?

Mr. Odle. Approximately, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you stay there all day?

♦ Mr. Odle. 1 stayed there most of the day; yes.

Senator Baker. Was there any irregularity in the procedure of the 

office or anything tha t caused you concern at that time with reference 

to the activities at the office?

• Mr. Odle. Oh, yes, obviously.

Senator Baker/ Would you begin describing in your own way 

what happened on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Let me give you some examples. The security office 

telephoned me.

Senator Baker. Who?

Mr. Odle. One of the guards in the security office.

Senator Baker. Do you know who t ha t was?

•See p . 449.
42

Mr. Odle. I am sorry, 1 don’t.

Senator Baker. Tell me what happened, then.

Mr. Odle. He said, Mrs. McCord is on the telephone. She is looking 

for a lawyer. We don’t know who she is looking for, can you help her?

I said, I didn’t think 1 could, but put her up to me.

She said something to the effect t hat Jim has been involved in a 

project that has failed and he is in jail.

Senator Baker. Jim has been involved in a project which has 

failed and what else?

Mr. Odle. And tha t he has been in the Watergate, and I can’t 

remember the exact words.

Senator Baker. I t is im portant th at you try.

Mr. Odle. I know i t is important, because it was reported in the 

papers as her saying, your project has failed, and Senator, she did not 

say th at.

Senator Baker. “She” being who?

Mr. Odle. Mrs. McCord.

Senator Baker. The statement of Mrs. McCord as you recall was 

that Jim ’s project has failed?

Mr. Odle. Jim has been involved, something along those lines.

Senator Baker. What was your reaction?

Mr. Odle. Well, one of real shock.

Senator Baker. Did you ask her what project?

Mr. Odle. No, I didn’t go into it, because I had been down—I had 

heard earlier from someone in the press office that there was a possibility tha t McCord was involved in it, too.

Senator Baker. Go back a step and tell me what you heard in the 

press office.

Mr. Odle. Well, I had heard from the press officer that day tha t it 

appeared tha t McCord was somehow involved in this thing.

Senator Baker. In what thing?

Mr. Odle. In the W atergate thing.

Senator Baker. The Watergate break-in?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Can you tell me who told you?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Paul Moore, who was the press officer th at day.

Senator Baker. Wh at did he say?

Mr. Odle. He just kind of insinuated, he didn’t say a great deal 

more, that McCord had been involved in tha t activity.

Senator Baker. Did he say he was in jail?

Mr. Odle. He suggested it.

Senator Baker. Wh at do you mean, he suggested it?

Mr. Odle. Senator, I can’t remember it exactly, in all fairness, I 

can’t remember it.

Senator Baker. Did you come away from that interview with the 

impression tha t Mr. McCord was in jail?

Mr. Odle. With the suspicion, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you ask that press officer what had happened or 

why McCord was in jail?

Mr. Odle. L ater on after I had talked with Mrs. McCord, I believe 

I did.

Senator Baker. But you don’t remember-----

Mr. Odle. I have a very hard time reconstructing the chronology 

of that day.
43

Senator Baker. You left the press office and went to your office?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, I received a call from Mrs. McCord in my office.

Senator Baker. Is that the first call you received?

Mr. Odle. I only talked with Mrs. McCord once.

Senator Baker. Was th at the first call you received after you arrived 

at your office on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I can’t answer tha t. I just don’t know.

Senator Baker. You have no recollection of any other call?

Mr. Odle. That is correct.

Senator Baker. And the switchboard operator put you through to 

Mrs. McCord and Mrs. McCord said, Jim’s project has failed and he 

is in jail?

Mr. Odle. That is when it hit, Senator. I guess what I am saying is—that is when I realized tha t the man I felt very strongly about was 

in prison. I guess tha t is when it hit.

Senator Baker. What happened, then?

Mr. Odle. Well, she wanted to know if he was employed by the committee as a paid full-time member of the staff or if he was a consultant, because I think a bail bondsman was asking. So, I checked and found tha t he was a full-time member of the staff. I told her that. Then she wanted to know about a lawyer and I just 

didn’t know who the lawyer was.

Senator Baker. What do you mean, about a lawyer?

Mr. Odle. She wanted to know if she could reach a certain lawyer. She gave me a name. I said I couldn’t help her because I didn’t 

recognize the name.

Senator Baker. Can you tell me the name?

Mr. Odle. It started with an “R.” It could have been Raftern or 

Rafferty.

Senator Baker. Did she tell you why tha t particular name?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, because that was a name tha t appeared in the 

paper a few days later. Th at was the first time I heard tha t name.

Senator Baker. Have you since learned who tha t lawyer was?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did she ask you to recommend a lawyer7

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did she ask you for money?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did she ask you for assistance?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did she ask you for anything?

Mr. Odle. Only the information as to whether or not he was an 

employee or a consultant.

Senator Baker. Th at she was at a bail bondsm an’s office and the 

bail bondsman wanted to know if he were a full-time salaried employee 

of the Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Odle. Something along the latter lines and exactly what she 

should say.

Senator Baker. And you indicated that he was, she mentioned the 

lawyer’s name, and tha t was the end of the conversation?

Mr. Odle. That is right.

Senator Baker. All right, what next happened on June 17?

96 -2 96 0 — 73------ bk. 1— i
44

Mr. Odle. Again, I have a hard time with the chronology.

One of the things that happened—I very honestly don’t know if it 

happened before or after the phone call—was that 1 saw Mr. Liddy as 

I testified at the trial.

Senator Baker. Did he call you or did you call him?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, nobody called anybody. I saw him in the hall.

Senator Baker. I see.

Mr. Odle. He asked me where the paper shredder was.

Senator Baker. The what?

Mr. Odle. The paper shredder. The paper shredder was a very 

famous big paper shredder. * e

Senator Baker. Was there a big paper shredder and a baby paper 

shredder, too?

Mr. Odle. Pardon?

Senator Baker. Was there more than one? w Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. He asked where the big paper shredder was?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you ask him why he wanted to know?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, 1 didn’t. I said, it is in there.

Senator Baker. Did he have anything with him?

Mr. Odle. Not at tha t time. He later came out and said, how do 

you work it? 1 said, you press the button.

Then later on I saw him with a pile of papers, perhaps a foot high.

Senator Baker. What was he doing with them?

Mr. Odle. He was on his way into the shredding room.

Senator Baker. Did you see him shred any papers?

Mr. Odle. No; but I assumed he was going to shred them.

Senator Baker. Do you shred papers of th at sort or that quantity 

regularly?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I don’t.

Senator Baker. Does anyone?

Mr. Odle. Well, I would say this, tha t there was a concern for 

security and people’s—let me put it this way, Senator. It didn’t 

seem that highly unusual at th at point. What seemed—in retrospect,

I recognize the importance of it. I see what was going on.

Senator Baker. But a t tha t time, you didn’t inquire why he wanted 

to know where the big shredder was?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. You didn’t inquire what tha t foot high stack of «

documents was?

Mr. Odle. Pardon?

Senator Baker. You didn’t inquire what tha t foot high stack of 

documents was?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not.

Senator Baker. But he shredded it?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you help him shred them?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. But you did tell him how to operate the machine?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. What happened next on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Well, let me work backwards from the time I left.
45

Senator Baker. Before you do, you made a stateme nt just now th at 

you were not overly concerned at the moment about this destruction 

of documents, but now in retrospect, you see their importance, but you 

were concerned for security. I think tha t is a paraphrase, a fair paraphrase of your testimony.

Mr. Odle. Um-hum.

Senator Baker. Why were you concerned about security? W hat sort 

of security? Against what?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I wasn’t concerned—I didn’t mean to say I was 

concerned about security at tha t time with respect to Mr. Liddy. I

* said I was concerned about security in the context of the campaign. 

Th at is why we had a big paper shredder. We were concerned about 

that. That was my job.

Senator Baker. Was that security concern heightened by the events

• that far on June 17?

Mr. Odle. For a time, it was. I was concerned personally tha t I 

would find myself in a position where I was directly and personally 

responsible for running a guard force and protecting the offices and

P

eople in those offices and I didn’t have a background in security and 

didn’t quite know—I didn’t have the guy to rely on that I had in the 

past.

Senator Baker. What was the general atmosphere in the office a t 

that time? Were lots of people running around shredding papers? 

Mr. Odle. No, sir, that was just the one occurrence.

Senator Baker. Now, what happened next on June 17?

Mr. Odle. Well, later on in the day, there was a man that visited 

the committee. He asked to speak to somebody in authority, and I was 

around there and I talked to him. He identified himself as a plainclothesman from the Police Department and he said tha t he just 

wanted us to know th at Mr. McCord was in jail.

Senator Baker. What did you say?

Mr. Odle. I said, I know Mr. McCord is in jail.

Senator Baker. Was there any further conversation?

Mr. Odle. I don’t believe tha t there was. He felt badly about it. 

It was brought up to me a while ago in an interview.

Senator Baker. You say he felt badly about it?

Mr. Odle. He felt badly about it, yes, he did. I guess th at he perhaps, when demonstrations or potential acts of violence were going to 

occur, he was Mr. McCord’s contact with the Police Departm ent.

• Senator Baker. Go ahead with the sequence of events on the 17th.

Mr. Odle. I think that was about it. I think tha t after that, we 

removed the files, put them in the briefcase.

Senator Baker. Wha t files did you remove?

• Mr. Odle. The ones we described previously. Mr. Reisner took

some files and I took the one file.

Senator Baker. Now, let ’s examine tha t just for a moment. Was 

there a telephone conversation between you, Reisner, and Magruder 

on that date, a three-way phone call?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, there was.

Senator Baker. Can you tell us firsthand of your own knowledge 

of the substance of th at conversation? And first, what time was it? 

Mr Odle. Late afternoon.

Senator Baker. On the 17th of June?
46

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Baker. Tell us as best you can the substance of tha t 

telephone conversation.

Mr. Odle. I really-----

Senator B aker. Did it involve the files?

Mr. Odle. Yes, it did, I am trying to think of something else it 

involved to give you a feel for the conversation. I really cannot do 

that. All I remember is th at at the conclusion of the conversation, it 

was decided tha t I should take a file and Bob Reisner should take 

some other files.

Senator Baker. Mr. Odle, I do n ot mean to impede the examina- *

tion, and I honestly do not mean to try to intimidate you.

Mr. Odle. I understand, Senator.

Senator B aker. But this is an extremely important point.

Mr. Odle Yes, sir. •

Senator Baker. Let me ask you a few questions about the conversation itself.

Did someone refer to the McCord arrest?

Mr. Odle. I think tha t we probably discussed it on the phone, 

yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Do. you know who initiated tha t topic? Was it 

you or was it Reisner or was it Magruder?

Mr. Odle. I am sorry, I do not.

Senator Baker. But there was a conversation about the fact tha t 

McCord had been arrested?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes, sir. By tha t time, I believe, it was being discussed through the committee. It was a very serious thing.

Senator Baker. Did you discuss the fact tha t others were also 

arrested and in jail?

Mr. Odle. Well, we knew tha t there were a group of them.

Senator Baker. Did you discuss what the relationship of these 

people was to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President?

Mr. Odle. Well, we knew tha t Mr. McCord was security director.

Senator Baker. I know you knew it, but I am asking you whether 

or not there was any conversation about it?

Mr. Odle. Others, no, I do not believe there was.

Senator Baker. What I am saying to you, Mr. Odle, to short 

circuit the thing a little, is was there any conversation like, McCord’s 

in jail, he is our security director, what are we going to do about it?

Was there anything like that? *

Mr. Odle. That is w hat I said. I said something to the effect, my 

God, I have got to find a new guy. Mr. Magruder said something 

to the effect, you sure do, something like that.

Senator Baker. Did you say anything about paper shredding? *

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you say any ting like about getting McCord 

out of jail?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you say anything about getting him a lawyer?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you relay the conversation you had with Mrs.

McCord?

Mr. Odle. I may have.
47

Senator Baker. But you are not sure?

Mr. Odle. But I am not sure.

Senator Baker. Were there instructions given or was there an agree­ ment reached on what you were going to do about removing material from any place in the Committee To Re-Elect the President office?

Mr. Odle. Sir, to the best of my knowledge, the only material tha t was removed were the things that Bob Reisner and I took and we 

brought them back on Monday.

Senator Baker. Who told you to?

Mr. Odle. I guess Mr. Magruder did. That is p retty obvious from 

the way I, as I reconstruct the conversation.

Senator Baker. Who initiated the idea?

Mr. Odle. It must have been Mr. Magruder.

Senator Baker. Are you sure?

Mr. Odle. Yes, I would think I would be.

Senator Baker. Can you remember what Mr. Magruder told you 

to do?

Mr. Odle. No, I cannot remember his words.

Senator Baker. Bu t can you remember the substance of his language?

Mr. Odle. The substance of the instruction was tha t that file, which 

I for some reason called the strategy file-----

Senator Baker. Called the strategy file?

Mr. Odle. Which I called the strategy file, I guess. And the advertising files.

Senator Baker. Now, wait a minute. Did Magruder or Reisner mention a file by name, by category or classive indication, a strategy 

file or any other file?

Mr. Odle. I thou ght tha t the word “strateg y” was used, yes.

Senator Baker. Did you know what he was talking about?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Baker. Did you know where it was?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Baker. All right, what further information was referred 

to Magruder or gained during that conversation?

Mr. Odle. Just tha t that file and the advertising files were to be removed and brought back on Monday. There was a concern, I believe, on his part and certainly on my own, for the security of tha t building.

Senator Baker. Removed and brought back on Monday.

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Baker. By whom?

Mr. Odle. By me and by Mr. Reisner.

Senator Baker. Obviously, somebody has to have had described, as Senator Weicker indicated earlier, what was to be removed.

Mr. Odle. Mr. Magruder, I believe, did that, because Mr. Reisner was Mr. Magruder’s administrative assistant and reconstructing it in my mind, he would have done that. I did not know how Mr. Ma­ gruder’s desk was organized, or his files. I did not have a key to it.

Senator Baker. You did not participate in the gathering together 

of the files to be removed over the weekend?

Mr. Odle. Technically, no.

Senator Baker. W hat do you mean by that?
48

Mr. Odle. Technically, I did not participate in the gathering of the 

files, because I did not gather the file, I did not take the file. I t was 

given to me, in effect.

Senator B aker. Did you go pick them out?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Baker. Were they gathered together in one place?

Mr. Odle. I am not totally certain. I am not totally certain where 

the advertising files were kept.

Senator Baker. Well, at some point, I take it tha t you mean these 

files tha t were to be taken out over the weekend were gathered up 

and parceled out and you took one of them?

Mr. Odle. Um hum.

Senator Baker. Did you know in advance which one you were 

going to take?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Who gave it to you?

Mr. Odle. I believe Mr. Reisner did.

Senator Baker. Did he do it with any particular emphasis or was 

it a random choice of files?

Mr. Odle. No, I do not think it was a random choice.

Senator Baker. Do you think he gave it to you as a specific file he 

wanted you to keep?

Mr. Odle. That Mr. Magruder wanted me to keep, yes.

Senator Baker. Would you describe the file?

Mr. Odle. It was a gray file folder, much like the one I have here.

Senator Baker. Would you hold it up so we can see it?

You are describing what I would call a letter size, light gray file 

folder.

Mr. Odle. Legal size.

Senator Baker. Legal size light gray file folder?

Mr. Odle. That is correct.

Senator Baker. Was it sealed or tied in any way?

Mr. Odle. No, much like this.

Senator Baker. What was its thickness?

Mr. Odle. I would say possibly—gosh, I do not know. An inch 

and a half.

Senator Baker. What did you do with it when it was given to you?

Mr. Odle. It was in my briefcase and I am not just sure whether 

I put it in my briefcase or Mr. Reisner p ut it in my briefcase, but it 

was put in my briefcase.

Senator Baker. What time was this?

Mr. Odle. I do not know. Late afternoon now.

Senator Baker. 5 o’clock?

Mr. Odle. Maybe 6 o’clock, around there. It is hard to say. Then 

I took some files from my desk which were im portant to me and files 

I was concerned about. Those were our budget files.

Senator Baker. Why were you concerned about them?

Mr. Odle. Because those are the most im portant files I maintained. 

If there was a problem with our own office or if there was any security 

problem, I certainly did not want, you know, those to be published 

in the newspaper.

Senator Baker. All right, back to the file tha t was placed or tha t 

you put in your briefcase. Did you put anything else in your briefcase?
49

Mr. Odle. Those budget files and the other file. J ust those.

Senator Baker. Was that two or three files?

Mr. Odle. I believe there would have been two budget files—there 

were three ultimately. I think there were just two at that time.

Senator Baker. Were they all gray?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. Not a blue one in the bunch?

Mr. Odle No, sir. Not-----

Senator Baker. Do you know what I am talking about?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

. Senator Baker. What am I talking about?

Mr. Odle. Well, there was a blue file. And it contained the things 

that Liddy, Mr. Liddy, had given Mr. Magruder.

Senator Baker. When did you find th at out?

« Mr. Odle. When I read the newspapers.

Senator Baker. Did you look in that file?

Mr. Odle. No sir, I did not.

Senator Baker. Are you certain?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely certain.

Senator Baker. Did you open the cover?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you count pages?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you sign a receipt for it?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker You took it home. Where did you put it?

Mr. Odle. I believe I put my briefcase in the closet.

Senator Baker. Did you lock it?

Mr. Odle. Did I lock the closet?

Senator B aker. Or the briefcase.

Mr. Odle. I might have locked the briefcase.

Senator Baker. Did you inquire of anyone why you should take 

home that particular one?

Mr. Odle. No, I gathered it was an important file, just like the 

budget files were very important to me; I guessed tha t file was very 

important to Mr. Magruder.

Senator Baker. Did anybody mention to you the word “Gemstone”?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Do you know what the word means?

• Mr. Odle. I do not know what it means. I have seen the word in the 

newspapers recently.

Senator Baker. Have you ever seen a document like this? 

[indicating].

• Mr. Odle. No, sir, I have not.

Senator Baker. I am showing you a letter-sized document that is 

bordered, approximately 8 by 10 inches, it says “Gemstone” on the top, “Source”, “D ate”, “Exdis” , “No Disem” . Other words at the 

bottom. Have you ever seen a document like this?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Let the clerk hand it to him.

[Witness is handed document.]

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, might the record note this as an 

exhibit?
50

Se na tor E rv in. Yes; mark it e xh ibi t No. 2.

[The do cu men t refe rred to was mark ed exh ibit No. 2*]

Se na tor B ak er. Do you kno w wha t th at is?

M r. Odle . Well, it is specu lation , sir.

Se na tor B ak er. I do no t wan t yo ur s peculation . Do you have any 

inform ation , did you have any inf orma tio n at th at time ab ou t the 

co nten t of th at file th at mi gh t relate to th at docum ent , Gem ston e?

Mr. Odl e. N o, sir.

Se na tor B ak er. Did you eve r late r learn wha t was in th at file?

Mr. Odl e. N o, n ot u ntil very rec ently.

Se na tor B ak er. Well, do you kno w now wha t was in it?

Mr. Odl e. Well, I can specula te wha t was in it.

Se na tor B ak er. You sus pec t th at the Gem stone material was in it?

Mr. Odl e. I suspect th at thing s which have no plac e in a political 

cam paign were in it ; yes, sir.

Se na tor Bak er. Now, once again , Mr. Odle, I am no t try ing to 

trap you . I a m trying to est ablish the conte nts of t hat file. You told us 

th at on Ju ne 17, you did no t kno w, th at over the weekend following 

Ju ne 17, you did no t look. M y quest ion is did you late r lea rn of yo ur 

own kno wledge wh at was in th at file t hat you took home wi th you?

Mr. Odl e. Oh, no, never of my own knowledge; no sir.

Se na tor Bak er. Were you ev er told by a resp onsible official on the 

Co mmittee To Re -Elec t the Preside nt?

Mr. Odl e. No.

Se na tor B ak er. Or by any one else?

Mr. Odl e. No.

Se na tor Bak er. Did Re isn er— was Reisner ever req ue ste d to tak e 

th at pa rti cu lar file ho me?

Mr. Odl e. I do no t know. I do no t know how i t happ ened. Ma ybe 

it ------

Se na tor B aker. In the course of th at thr ee-w ay con versation, 

was there a suggestion th at Re isn er tak e it and did he decline?

Mr. Odl e. I am no t certa in. T hat could—well------

Se na tor B aker. W ha t is y ou r best reco llection on it?

Mr. Odle. I do not t hink he declined, no. I do n ot t hi nk he declined. 

I think he said his briefcase was full of the ad ve rtisin g files and th at 

I sho uld tak e this one or some thi ng like th at.

Se na tor B aker. Did you ask how come you were the one th at was 

going to tak e th at one hom e?

Mr. Odl e. No, sir, I wou ld have if I had know n wha t was in it.

Se na tor Baker. I am ab ou t through, Mr. Odle. I ha ve a few oth er 

que stio ns, bu t no t very many.

In a Wa shington Po st stor y on Ja nu ar y 11, 1973, it is alleged th at 

as person nel director for CR P, you spent the weeke nd— I assum e the 

weeke nd following the W aterga te inc ide nt— mo vin g from office to 

office inside the he ad qu ar te r’s inv entor ing files, perha ps removing 

some. According to one source, w hen eve r Odle w ould go int o Mc Cord’s 

office, he would ord er eve ryo ne else ou t of the area.

No records were actu ally destroyed until after Mardian and LaR ue returned 

from a West Coast trip on Monday, June 19.

T hat is from the Washin gto n Pos t, page A -l , da ted Sep tem ber 9, 

1972.

•See p. 450.
51

Do you have any knowledge of that newspaper account? Can you 

confirm it or deny it?

Mr. Odle. I believe I can deny it. I believe the reporters who wrote 

it would deny it today, too, if they were asked. I do not know how that all came to be. I destroyed no piece of paper, not one shred of paper in connection with the Watergate. Now, let me make a couple of things perfectly clear [laughter] I did not enter the District of Columbia on tha t Sunday and I did not shred any papers that Saturday and I did not conduct a file search and shred anything the next week. What I did was o be as helpful as I could to agents of the FBI and the grand jury and since then, Common Cause, the Democratic National Committee, the Senate select committee, and a lot of other committees, to go through 

the committee files and provide documents. Last night, for example, one of the staff members of the committee said, I know you are busy appearing before the select committee tomorrow, but before you do at 10, would you go to the files and get me floor plans for 10 different floors, because we need them for the 

committee’s function. Tha t is an example of what I have been doing since last June.

Senator Baker. We thank you for it.

Mr. Odle. I am glad to be cooperative. I have become a professional witness lately and a bit of a professional file finder and that is fine. But when one goes through offices and finds files, tha t does not necessarily mean tha t he takes those files and shreds them. It could 

mean tha t he turns them over to the grand jury. In going into Mr. McCord’s office—Mr. McCord did not have a private office. It was a security office. There were a lot of guards sitting around, drinking coffee and whatever. There came a time with the FBI agents when they wanted to go into tha t office and they wanted to meet one of the men in there to talk with him and then they wanted to go through the files. And sure, we asked all the people to 

leave the room. But Senator, it is just incredible the number of times those things have been in the newspaper. If I could just mention one example which is kind of typical and this is not the fault of anyone here or anybody else. I do not think it is even the fault of the reporters, 

because I do not think they have been malicious. There was a story in the Post, a column, saying a diary was found belonging to Eugenio Martinez and that in it the initials R.O., H.P., and J.M. This could be coincidence, but those are probably the initials of R obert Odle, Mr. Porter, and Jeb Magruder. What happened was tha t tha t diary was captured by the FBI agents on Jun e 26th after the burglary. Those were the initials of the FBI agents who had initiated it for their own purposes of evidence. Yet the retraction if it ever appeared in Washington, is not one tha t I saw. As we go through this thing, we find time and time again where people who have tried to be helpful have found themselves in news­ papers for totally innocent acts, acts which we undertook to be of 

assistance.

Senator Baker. Mr. Odle, I think you have been extremely cooperative and the reason I am asking you about these acts is precisely what you speak of, because so far, the people of the United States have based their judgment, if they have a judgment, on newspaper
52

accounts, television and radio reports, as they properly should. The 

press has done us a billion dollars worth of staff work investigating. 

But one legitimate function of this committee, it seems to me, is to 

find ou t what witnesses say about particular allegations made in the 

press.

Mr. Odle. That is right.

Senator B aker. I have only one other question I would like to ask 

in th at respect. I refer to an article in the Washington Post on September 23, 1972. The synopsis of i t is tha t Robert C. Odle gave to Jeb 

Magruder an internal confidential/eyes only memo of the President’s 

Re-Election Committee dated 2 days after the June 17 Watergate 

break-in purporting to list all the committee payments to McCord and 

lists no amount resembling the $3,500 allegedly paid for the radio 

receiver. The memo, from Nixon committee personnel director Robert 

C. Odle to deputy campaign director Jeb S. Magruder, lists 18 separate 

payments to McCord, the highest being $1,091.56 for security services.

Mr. Odle. Sir, tha t memorandum was a copy of a memorandum 

tha t I prepared for the FBI, tha t I turned over to the attorney, and 

tha t I testified to for the grand jury. I t is merely a copy for information.

One of the first requests of the Bureau was for a complete listing 

of every check tha t has gone to McCord and McCord associates. I 

went down to the finance committee and went through the files 

and we found all the checks and made a list. We put a list together 

and I sent that to the U.S. atto rney and I sent a copy to Mr. Magruder, 

saying this is a copy of what I have given to the U.S. attorney.

Again, there is an example of where we try to be helpful and we 

find ourselves put in a difficult position.

Senator Baker. Mr. Odle, you have been a cooperative witness, I 

thank you for your help and it has been a long time now. I have 

no further questions.

Mr. Odle. Thank you.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Odle, as counsel, I want to state th at you have been 

very cooperative with this committee, but certain of these questions 

have come out tha t would have to come out at another time and we 

would have had to ask you to come back before this committee. I 

think it is appropriate that we complete this line of questioning.

Following up Senator Baker’s question concerning the telephone 

conversation which you had together with Mr. Reisner and Mr. 

Magruder shortly after the break-in, were you on an extension line 

with Mr. Reisner and Mr. Magruder and did you hear Mr. Magruder’s 

telephone conversation?

Mr. Odle. As I reconstruct it, yes, there were two telephone 

instruments in Mr. Magruder’s office. I believe I was on one and 

Mr. Reisner was on the other.

Mr. Dash. I know you are trying to recall back a considerable 

period of time, now, but you used the term the instruction to get a 

“strategic file.”

Could the conversation have been get the sensitive file? Could t hat 

have been the term used?

Mr. Odle. I don’t believe tha t term was used. And I also, sir, 

believe tha t the “strategy file” was my term, I think I was applying 

it to that.

Mr. Dash. And you were on the line with Mr. Reisner?

Mr. Odle. Yes.
53

Mr. Dash. Listening to Mr. Magruder?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Is it then your testimony tha t you did not hear Mr. 

Magruder say to Mr. Reisner with you on the line, get the Gemstone 

folder?

Mr. Odle. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Robert Houston 

around this time concerning the files tha t Mr. McCord kept in the 

security room?

Mr. Odle. Yes; not at that time, I don’t believe. I believe the 

following week.

Mr. Dash. And can you tell us what tha t conversation was?

Mr. Odle. I was curious as to what was in the files and what was 

down there.

Mr. Dash. Have you asked Mr. Houston or discussed with Mr. 

Houston removal of anything from that file?

Mr. Odle. No; Mr. Houston indicated tha t there were some personal effects belonging to Mr. McCord, pictures and the like, that he was going to return. He mentioned tha t to me. I don’t remember any 

other discussion of removal of anything else. As I say, I did sort of go through there to see wha t was in it. Mr. McCord no longer being with us, it was sort of my responsibility to 

do that. Then I also looked through the files at some length with FBI 

agents, I believe.

Mr. Dash. And when you went through McCord’s file, was this 

a file th at was open or was this a locked file?

Mr. Odle. It would have been kept locked at night, probably. 

It was open when I went, through it, I believe.

Mr. Dash. Could you jus t briefly describe what was in the file 

when you went through it? What kind of files?

Mr. Odle. Oh, security reports, things like that; the ID system 

tha t we maintained. When people left papers out of their desk or forgot to lock their file cabinets, there were security reports, normal 

kinds of things.

Mr. Dash. Did you notice any electronic equipment?

Mr. Odle. Yes; there was electronic equipment, but it was basically 

the kind of stuff th at we used, the committee, for example, the alarm system. The various doors of the committee offices were alarmed. There was a central alarm system there so if one of them was opened in the middle of the night, it would ring and tha t sort of thing, and closed-circuit television. It is possible tha t tha t machine he used to 

check for countermeasures would have been there.

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of any tapes that were in the files?

Mr. Odle. No.

Mr. Dash. Did you see any tapes?

Mr. Odle. You know, tha t is an interesting question.

Mr. Dash. To your best recollection?

Mr. Odle. I don’t think so.

There might have been, but I don’t remember.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you recall Mr. Houston ever discussing with 

you or telling you tha t he removed that material from Mr. McCord’s 

file?
54

Mr. Odle. The things he talked about were Mr. McCord’s pictures 

and his personal diplomas and certificates and memorabilia.

Mr. Dash. And you do not know of your own knowledge whether 

or not he did remove these things, the materials you discussed, the 

electronic equipment or any other materials from the file?

Mr. Odle. No; there may have been some things belonging to 

Mr. McCord personally which he removed, you know.

Mr. Dash. What kind of things are you talking about?

Mr. Odle. Again, I don’t know. He just said he was going to 

return Mr. McCord’s personal things to him. I saw no problen with 

that. I just said we were going to retu rn these things. *

Mr. Dash. As administrator, did he ever give you a report or an 

inventory of what he took out of th at file to return to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Odle. No; there was a 4-page listing of things in the room that 

I saw at one point, but those were not the things----- *

Mr. Dash. Now, do you know the name Gary Bittenbender?

Mr. Odle. That is the policeman th at came by that day.

Mr. Dash. Have you ever known him before?

Mr. Odle. No; I never met him.

Mr. Dash. Did he ever come again?

Mr. Odle. No; I have never seen him since.

Mr. Dash. Now, the chart tha t you described shows Mr. McCord 

actually working under you, is tha t correct?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes.

Mr. Dash. The chart you showed to the committee shows 

Mr. McCord working under your supervision?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. To your knowledge, did there come a time when 

Mr. McCord was assigned to work under Mr. Liddy’s supervision?

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did you have any knowledge th at he was working under 

Mr. Lidd y’s supervision?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely not.

Mr. Dash. Did you ever see Mr. McCord and Mr. Liddy together 

at the committee?

Mr. Odle. Not really. I have seen them in the hall from time to 

time.

Mr. Dash. Now, you have mentioned, and I think you have already 

identified, a memoradum from the committee on committee stationery 

to the Attorney General back in 1971. I think you have already indi- ♦

cated tha t Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Strachan kept a fairly constant liaison 

with the committee.

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Are you aware of memoranda from the White House *

to the committee discussing the political campaign program and 

strategy from time to time?

Mr. Odle. Tha t is fairly broad, Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash. Well, let me show you a particula r memorandum of 

1972 from the White House and see if—would you just read the—not 

the material but what th at memorandum is captioned—who it is from?

Mr. Odle. It is from Mr. Ted Malek to Mr. Magruder, coordinating 

functions for the campaign organization.

Mr. Dash. And on what stationery is that?

Mr. Odle. White House stationery.
55

Mr. Dash. What date is th at?

Mr. Odle. February 9, 1972.

Mr. Dash. And you were at the committee at that time, were you 

not?

Mr. Odle. Oh, yes.

Mr. Dash. Are you familar with tha t kind of memorandum tha t 

would come over from the White House?

Mr. Odle. I have not read this memorandum but I would not think 

it unusual for somebody a t the White House to say to the committee what their thoughts were with respect to the campaign structure organization. People at the White House wanted to see the President reelected, and I do not see, I would not, I do not know tha t there were hundreds of such memoranda but without reading it I could 

not-----

Mr. Dash. Would you w ant to read tha t memorandum to yourself?

Mr. Odle. Yes, it is a memorandum describing—it is entitled 

“Coordinating Functions to the Campaign Organization.” I think 

it is a fair description of wha t it discusses.

Mr. Dash. Does it relate to the role of the Attorney General in 

the strategy?

Mr. Odle. Yes, it does.

Mr. Dash. Would you say th at memorandum is merely a suggestion 

or does it go further than that?

Mr. Odle. I would say it is a strong suggestion. I think Mr. Malek 

and Mr. Magruder at that time were; I do not think either one of 

them was in a position to instruct the other.

Mr. Dash. I think so th at we now know what is in tha t memorandum, would you please read it into the record, please, sir?

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Dash, before he does that, would you mmd 

if I saw a copy and read that myself?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I think, if you do not mind, that 

neither the record nor the committee presumably have seen this rather lengthy memorandum and I wonder if counsel would supply a copy to us so we get the full burden and thrust of what you are talking about and then if we want to break for lunch or some such, 

we could take up this question later.

Mr. Dash. Fine.

Senator Baker. I am sure I cannot follow what the witness is 

talking about at this point and I would like to see a copy of this or any other exhibit tha t is handed by counsel before we proceed to it.

Mr. Dash. Senator Baker, we will make copies and follow that 

procedure. Now, by the way, in going over the chart, wha t was the role Mr. 

Bob Porter played?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Porter was the director of scheduling.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Powell Moore?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Powell Moore was the assistant director of public 

affairs.

Mr. Dash. And now, at the time—have you met or do you know or 

did you ever work with Mr. Krogh in the White House?

Mr. Odle. I know Mr. Krogh at the White House; yes.

Mr. Dash. While you were at the White House did you ever attend 

a Justice Department task force meeting with Mr. Krogh, Mr. 

Mardian, and the FBI?
56

Mr. Odle. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, for the time being those are the only 

questions I have.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. Dash. Could you, Mr. Odle, come back right after the lunch 

recess so that the members of the committee can see this memorandum 

and perhaps inquire into it?

Mr. Odle. W hat time would that be, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Ervin. I might state this gavel was given to me by the 

Chief of the Eastern Band of the Cherokees to preside over this 

meeting. *

The committee will take a recess until 2 o’clock.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 

at 2 p.m., this same day.]

*

Afternoon Session, Thursday, May 17, 1973

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.

Counsel was asking questions of Mr. Odle.

Mr. Dash. Will you please give this memorandum to Mr. Odle?

Now, Mr. Odle, I think all members of the committee have received 

a copy of the memorandum, and if there is no objection, I would 

like for you to read tha t into the record.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I might say I have no objection to 

the memorandum. I did not know what to think before we recessed 

for lunch and indicated my desire to have a copy which counsel 

has now supplied. You understand, Mr. Dash, this material was 

supplied in response to subpena duces tecum on the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Dash. Yes, and Mr. Vice Chairman, it was received last night 

and that particular memorandum was given to me by my staff just 

prior to my asking a question.

Senator Baker. I have no objection and I am sure we will have 

copies in advance hereafter.

Mr. Dash. Yes, we certainly will.

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Odle, will you please read it and in reading it, 

will you please indicate the classification tha t apparently appears 

on that memorandum.

Mr. Odle. It says: “Confidential, eyes only memorandum for Jeb *

Magruder from Fred Malek, subject, ‘Coordinating Functions for 

the Campaign Organization.’ ” It is dated February 9, 1972.*

I have given further thought to our conversatio n of las t night and to your 

Febru ary 7 memorandum to the Attorney General. Since I do not yet have an •

in-dep th knowledge of the campaign operation, it is difficult for my observations 

to be precise. Nevertheless, I do have some reservations about the recommendations contained in th at mem oran dum which can best be expressed in writing.

Planning: My reservations on your recom mendations pertain mainly to the 

suggested planning process, bu t also to the responsibility for implementation.

Do you want me to read the substance of the entire memorandum?

Mr. Dash. Yes, please. Just comment on it.

• Late r entered as exhibit 3, p. 58.
Mr. Odle: [reading]:

Planning process: As you know, the Attorney General has asked me to devise a management audit system by which he can track overall progress and identify major problem areas for corrective action. Naturally, an integral part of such a system is the establishment of benchmarks by which progress is to be judged, or in short, a plan. Based upon my preliminary thinking on this, I have tentatively concluded that the planning system should incorporate the following 

chara cteristics: The principal focal points of the planning should be the State s (with the emphasis given to k ey States) rather than the functional areas such as voter bloc activities, telephone, direct mail, et cetera. Planning by State will help to highlight and direct management attention to progress on building voter support to carry 

individual States— the key to victory. Planning of the functional activities within a State should be based upon a clearly defined strategy for obtaining the needed votes for carrying that State, spelling out, for example, the needed vote margin by distinctive geographical 

areas and the organizing and persuasion tactics which will be utilized. As is implicit in the above two points, the planning should provide a sound 

basis for tracking progress and identifying problem areas for corrective action. The line officials who will be held accountable for results, principally the State chairmen, should feel as though they have the lead in developing the plans affecting their areas of responsibility. Naturally, exercising quality control, the national campaign organization must ensure the plans fit the overall re-election strategy 

and capitalize upon polling information. From our conversation, I would say you generally agree with this. However, from reading your memorandum your position on these principles is not clear. I believe they should be clarified prior to proceeding with development of a planning 

system. Responsibility for implementation: I believe there is a strong argument for having Bob Marik perform this function in view of his sound knowledge of the campaign operations and his access to research information. However, it is also important for the “controller” to be intimately involved since these plans will provide the basis for tracking progress and identifying problems. To do this effectively, the “controllei” must ensure that the plans provide a sound basis for monitoring campaign effectiveness. Also, he must be thoroughly familiar with their content. Perhaps we can meet the needs and capitalize on the strengths of both individuals by also givin g the “controller” a definite part of this responsibility.

Formal decision-making process: I really wonder whether the sort of staff secretariat operation which you suggest is necessary. Such a procedure has undoubtedly been helpful up to now, since the Attorney General has not been present and responsibilities have been shifting with the growth of the organization. However, with the Attorney General coming on board full-time soon, with him taking a more direct supervisory role over field operations, and with the division of responsibilities between the principals being 

clarified, I question the need for a staff secretariat system. In fact, it may be counterproductive. Such systems are inevitably cumbersome and, therefore, not conducive to the need for fast decisions as the campaign heats 

up. Also, due to the sensitivity of the information and the need for speedy action, many of the decisions will undoubtedly be handled verbally, particularly toward the end of the campaign. This would undermine the staff secretariat’s ability to 

coordinate effectively. I recognize the abuse which can be perpetrated without such a system. However, given the nature of campaign management the answer lies in appointing competent division managers and making sure they have a clear understanding of their respective responsibilities rather than creating a cumbersome staff secretariat 

system. Of couise, the Attorney General should, and will decide this matter. I believe it would be a disservice, however, to try to persuade him to lean on a staff secretariat system rather than bringing in the most competent managers 

possible, clearly laying out their responsibilities and then holding them fully 

accountable for results. These are, of course, my initial reactions based on quite limited knowledge. Please note that I am not stating how it should be done, but merely laying out 

possible problems that need to be addressed before we get locked in. Because of the above reservations, I recommend you either pull back the memorandum or ask the Attorney General to delay action on i t pending further
58

coordin ati on with me. An oth er opt ion would be for me to inform th e Atto rney 

General of my reservati on s and ask him to def er th e decision. Howev er, I do not think this is des irable and would prefer th a t you an d I work it ou t in th e sp irit 

of coopera tion th a t m us t become our trad em ark.

Fr an kly, I was ta ke n by surpris e la st ni gh t. After ou r discussion on Frida y ab ou t th e nee d for team work an d my openly dis cussing m y role, I was s ur prised 

th a t y ou u ni la te ra lly sub m itt ed to the A tto rn ey Ge neral re co mm enda tio ns hav ing a profou nd im pa ct o n my a rea of r espo nsibility a nd my w ork ing relationship with 

him . Th is was th e reason fo r m y r at he r vigo rous re ac tio n. In any case, we covered th a t ground fairl y thorou gh ly last nigh t, an d I am con fident th a t in t he fu tu re 

we ca n w ork to ge th er on m at te rs of th is so rt an d resolv e or spe ll o ut any d iffe rences 

prior to su bm itting recom me nd ati on s.

Mr. Dash. I will not ask you any furth er questions on t ha t mem- *

orandum, Mr. Odle. I t was not your memorandum but I just p ut it to 

you on the questioning of the memorandum that had come from the 

White House and the format. Would tha t memorandum be identified 

as an exhibit?

Senator Ervin. It will be marked as an exhibit and will be assigned 

the proper number.

Mr. Dash. Will the reporter assign the appropriate number to it?

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 3.*]

Mr. Dash. I only have one further memorandum and question for 

you. Now, Mr. Odle, you have before you a copy of a memorandum 

tha t has the word "sample” above it.

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Mr. Dash. With the letterhead of Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President. Have you seen this sample memorandum prior to 

today?

Mr. Odle. Yes. This is—we had in the committee staff manual, 

and it talked about everything, about how to make coffee about how 

to make memos, how to use the telephone and watch-lights and so on.

Mr. Dash. All right. This being a sample p art of the staff manual 

tha t is showing how, would it be fair to say, this was a part of the 

staff manual and a sample directing a memorandum from Mr. Haldeman and how one would direct that?

Mr. Odle. This is correct. This was just showing if someone in 

the committee were going to write a memorandum to Mr. Haldeman 

or someone else in the White House, this is the form they would use.

Mr. Dash. Does it show in the bottom a copy would be sent to 

Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Odle. It does but only as a sample, this whole memorandum 

is a sample. No; it would not have been tha t all memoranda to Mr. >

Haldeman would be sent to Mr. Ehrlichman.

Mr. Dash. Will it not indicate tha t the memorandum from the 

Committee for the Re-Election of the President to the White House 

at least went in sufficient number tha t you required a sample of a •

form to use so th at you would have a routine method?

Mr. Odle. Yes. We did want to have a routine method, and because 

of all the new secretaries who were coming on board and all the 

various new people on the campaign staff. We did want to have some 

sort of standard memorandum format which everyone used.

Mr. Dash. All right. Will you pick up the memorandum?

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 4 for identification only.**]

’S ee p . 451.

’ ’S ee p. 454.
59

Mr. Dash. Tha t is all I have, Mr. Odle.

Mr Odle. All right.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Odle, one or two questions. As I understand the significance of the first memorandum, the February 9 memorandum is first of all a memorandum which came from the White House to the committee and secondly, it refers to the fact that the Attorney General asked Mr. Malek to devise a management audit system at the time when he was still Attorney General on February 9. As I unde r­ stand, he resigned March 1st as Attorney General, and i t does reflect 

those two facts, is th at correct?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir. I t would seem to me to be my impression tha t the Senator is interested in the memorandum rather than the substance of the memorandum.

Mr. Thompson. The fact that something was sent.

Mr. Odle. It went back and forth, which is a perfectly natural 

thing.

Mr. T hompson. Th at is all. Those are all the questions I have.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions but I cannot resist the temptation to say Mr. Odle has been a very good witness. He has been very forthcoming, he has testified at great length and it was brought to my attention a few minutes ago tha t when his testimony was interrupted for us to go to lunch one of the networks played “To Tell The Tru th.” [Laughter.]

Mr. Odle. Well, Senator, I appreciate tha t comment very much. I would say this. In fact, if I said I would be happy to be here com­ pletely, I would be committing perjury.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Odle, I have a question or two. You stated this morning tha t G. Gordon Liddy and Jeb Stu art Magruder were n ot 

on the best of terms.

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, tha t was my impression.

Senator Ervin. Do you know what was the cause of their lack of 

goodwill?

Mr. Odle. Well, I think of one reason and it is probably not that important, but I moved Mr. Lidd y’s office at one point from the fourth floor to the eight floor and Mr. Liddy very vigorously ob­ jected to that and tried to get me to change it and I said I was not going to do that, I cannot, I need the space, and he appealed that to Mr. Magruder and Mr. Magruder said “I do not want to get involved in office space. What Odle says about office space is what I am going 

to do about it. ” They had a number of serious battles about the location of Mr. Liddy’s office. That is just one example. I think Mr. Liddy was a little bit older than Mr. Magruder and possibly did not like to receive it from a younger man, but that is probably speculation on my part.

Senator Ervin. You talked this morning about a shredder.

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. A shredder is a machine tha t is used to destroy documentary matters in such a way tha t like H umpty Dum pty they cannot be p ut together again, is that not so?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator Ervin. It is used to destroy useless papers and it is also used to destroy papers which the destroyer wishes to have concealed from identification and reading, is it not?

96- 29 6 O— 73------ bk. 1— 5
60

Mr. Odle. Well, I would suppose so. It was used primarily during 

the campaign so that people would not come into our offices and 

maybe copy the papers. You know tha t happened in the 1968 campaign to the Nixon campaign in tha t very same building, a columnist 

in Washington came in and talked to the team people and said “We 

would like your waste paper”, and so that was one way of seeing th at 

tha t columnist did not get our waste paper.

Senator E rvin. In other words, you did not want the general public, 

the great purpose of a shredder is to make it certain th at the documents 

cannot come to the attention, the contents of the documents cannot 

come to the attention, of anyone who might be interested outside of 

the organization, in reading those documents.

Mr. Odle. I would think that would be a fair statem ent, especially 

with those people who at th at time we were running against.

Senator Ervin. Ordinarily, the purpose of a document is to preserve 

a record of what the document records, isn’t it?

Mr. Odle. I would suppose so.

Senator Ervin. And what is the purpose of making a record and 

then destroying tha t record?

Mr. Odle. Well, sir, I don’t know tha t there was. I would think 

the basic purpose of tha t shredding machine we were talking about 

was to pick up the wastepaper in the evening and not the documents.

Let me say just one thing. We tried from the beginning to save 

documents because we thought tha t this campaign was, despite these 

other situations, was a fairly organized, well run, fairly thrifty campaign. [Laughter.]

Th at seems funny now, I know, bu t we did think that. We wanted 

to save the documents because we thought it might be interesting for 

a scholar to go back in 100 years and [laughter].

I can only tell you about our intention. In the light of recent events, 

th at might appear funny, but I think the point I am making you will 

find interesting. B ut we did save documents. We saved many of them. 

Do you know, right now, there are 1,500 cubic feet of committee 

documents that have been available at various times to the U.S. 

attorney, the FBI, the grand jury, Common Cause, the Democratic 

National Committee, and the Senate select committee. We have been 

working with all those committees and panels making those documents 

available.

But you know, the thing that did not happen after the election 

was tha t we took out those documents and shredded them. We took 

them out, put them together, they are housed in one location pretty 

much right now and they are there. They were not destroyed or 

shredded.

Senator E rvin. In the course of normal events, a man or organization who is proud of his good deeds and wants them recorded in 

history preserves documents, doesn’t he?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And has no use for a shredder.

Mr. Odle. Well, I don’t know tha t I could agree with that. For 

example, let’s say I was preparing a document for the budget committee’s review and analysis and in the course of preparing tha t 

document, I made a lot of notes and those notes went into the thing 

and I threw the notes away.
61

Senator, in the middle of tha t campaign, I would not have wanted 

those notes on the front page of the Washington Post, because that 

would have given away some of our campaign strategy.

Senator E rvin. Well, you could have locked them in a filing 

cabinet, couldn’t you?

Mr. Odle. Wastepaper? You could have. I know a Senate campaign did that, rented a warehouse-----

Senator Ervin. But you could not have put them in the wastepaper 

basket and put them in the shredder while you-----

Mr. Odle. This is a case where I might be writing a memorandum 

up or making up something tha t I would be sending to the budget 

committee and I would be having all these notes and taking things 

from the notes and putting them in, then I would throw the notes 

away. I am talking now about the wastepaper. The basic purpose of the shredder was not to dispose of documents 

or records, it was to dispose of wastepaper.

Senator Ervin. And to destroy wastepaper in such a manner tha t 

its contents could not be resurrected?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, I believe you said on the 17th, G. Gordon 

Liddy came into the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President and asked whether there were shredders?

Mr. Odle. Yes, he asked where the large shredder machine was 

located, yes, he did.

Senator Ervin. Was he the man ordinarily charged with the duty 

of disposing of wastepaper?

Mr. Odle. No, sir. [Laughter.]

Senator Ervin. Well, you told him where the shredder was, you 

said?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And he took the shredder and he shredded some 

documents, did he?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator E rvin. Do you know where the documents came from that 

he shredded?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Ervin. Did he shred any documents tha t were in your 

custody?

Mr. Odle. Absolutely not.

Senator Ervin. Now, he was the man that was supposed to be in 

charge of intelligence operations, wasn’t he?

Mr. Odle. Th at is what it appears to be.

Senator Ervin. Do you think it is reasonable to draw the inference 

tha t the documents he was shredding were documents tha t related 

to the intelligence activities?

Mr. Odle. I do now, sir, today; I did not then.

Senator Ervin. Now, who else was present at tha t time?

Mr. Odle. Who else?

Senator Ervin. Who else heard him ask for the shredder or saw 

him use the shredder?

Mr. Odle. I don’t think anybody was there.

Senator Ervin. Were there any papers after tha t shredded by 

anybody else?
62

Mr. Odle. 1 didn’t see any shredding tha t day besides that.

Senator Ervin. es, but subsequently. Was Robert Mardian 

present at that time?

Mr. Odle. No, sir. I believe he was in California.

Senator E rvin. And how long after this event was it before he 

returned from California?

Mr. Odle. I believe he returned the following week.

Senator Ervin. Do you know anything about any shredding of 

papers after his return?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, 1 do not. 1 have read in the newspapers as you 

have tha t he and one other individual shredded papers. 1 have no 

knowledge of tha t and I did not see them shred papers.

There was something called a—referred to as a housing cleaning. If 

tha t existed, 1 did not see it.

Senator Ervin. And you know nothing about any other papers 

being shredded after the break-in?

Mr. Odle. That is exactly correct.

Senator Ervin. Do you know whether anybody kept any records 

in the division as to the amounts of money tha t was disbursed for 

intelligence work?

Mr. Odle. No, sir; I don’t. I assume the finance committee people 

whose job it was to keep records kept records. I was not involved in 

tha t area.

Senator Ervin. Have you found in your searches in assisting the 

FB I and the various committees you mentioned, have you found any 

papers which disclosed how much money was paid G. Gordon Liddv 

or E. Howard Hunt?

Mr. Odle. No, sir; I have not.

Senator E rvin. Any further questions?

Senator Gurney. I have a few.

Mr. Odle, we worried the meat off the bone of tha t phone call at 

quite some length this morning, but there are one or two other questions I would like to ask you about. I am referring to the phone call 

between Mr. Magruder and you and Mr. Reisner.

Who initiated the phone call?

Mr. Odle. I don’t know. I can’t remember. It could have been me, 

it could have been Mr. Reisner.

Senator Gurney. Was it initiated from Washington?

Mr. Odle. I believe it was.

Senator Gurney. And why was it initiated?

Mr. Odle. I guess ju st to discuss the state of the situation at tha t 

point, sir.

Senator Gurney. You mean to discuss the Watergate break-in?

Mr. Odle. Yes, I guess, and the fact tha t our security officer was 

involved in it.

Senator Gurney. I understand the phone call was made from Mr. 

Magruder’s office, is tha t right?

Mr. Odle. Yes, that is right.

Senator Gurney. How far is tha t from your office?

Mr. Odle. It is about 20 feet from door to door.

Senator Gurney. How is it tha t you and Mr. Reisner happened to 

be together at the time this phone call was made?
63

Mr. Odle. Sir, I can’t reconstruct that. It certainly wasn’t unusual for us. Mr. Reisner’s office, Mr. Magruder’s office, and my office all 

opened onto a common area, a hall.

Senator Gurney. Well, but it was a very unusual phone call, and of course, it is the most important piece of testimony you have given 

today.

Mr. Odle. Yes, I know that, Senator, and I am trying to be helpful. But you know, to reconstruct events tha t didn’t seem at tha t point tha t important is a difficult thing. I mean at that point, the most important concern that I had was, you know, what are we going to do about this guard force and do we have men coming on in the morning, and what are we to do for the replacement of McCord? Th at was my concern. Th at was my problem at tha t point. That is what seemed very significant to me. I suddenly found myself very personally in charge of something I didn’t know a great deal about.

Senator Gurney. Isn’t tha t why you called Mr. Magruder, to 

discuss those matters with him?

Mr. Odle. We probably discussed that with him. I think I probably said, well, I will have to hire somebody, and he said, yes, you will.

Senator Gurney. You said the phone call was made later in the 

afternoon?

Mr. Odle. I believe so.

Senator Gurney. Had Mr. Reisner been with you all of the day?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. When did he join you?

Mr. Odle. I saw him for the first time late in the afternoon on th at 

Saturday.

Senator G urney. Did he come to see you or did you go to see him?

Mr. Odle. Sir, our offices were in an area almost the size of tha t 

conference table. .

Senator Gurney. Well, you didn’t discuss any matters with him 

until late in the afternoon?

Mr. Odle. I don’t believe so.

Senator Gurney. Well, was the matter tha t you saw him about late in the afternoon, let us make a phone call to Mr. Magruder?

Mr. Odle. At some point it seemed appropriate to call Mr. Ma­ gruder. I just can’t reconstruct, Senator, exactly why.

Senator Gurney. But tha t, as I understand it, is the reason why you and Mr. Reisner got together late in the afternoon?

Mr. Odle. Well, tha t suggests tha t we decided in advance of t hat tha t we must get together and call Mr. Magruder, and on the scale of important things tha t day, that was pretty low. I can see in retro­ spect what you are driving at and I do appreciate, Senator, the 

importance of it.

Senator Gurney. How long was the phone call?

Mr. Odle. 1 don’t-----

Senator Gurney. Was it a short phone call, a long phone call?

Mr. Odle. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes.

Senator Gurney. And the discussion initiated was a recount to Mr. Magruder about the Watergate break-in and Mr. McCord and all of the events tha t you knew at tha t time?

Mr. Odle. He probably read it in the wire stories, possibly. I mean 

tha t might have been wh at could have happened.
64

Senator Gurney. How did the discussion about the files come up?

Who brought tha t up in the conversation?

Mr. Odle. I can’t recall, but I assume it was probably tha t Magruder did. I believe I was out of the office for a time and I came back 

in.

Senator Gurney. You mean you were out of the office during the 

time of the phone call?

Mr. Odle. Part of the phone call, as I said before, yes.

Senator G urney. 1 ou were not on the phone call a t the time, then?

Mr. Odle. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. And you feel that it is after you came back into *

the office that the files were mentioned?

Mr. Odle. I don’t know when the files were mentioned. The message 

I got from the phone call was, as I said, tha t tha t one file was to be 

removed and tha t the advertising files were to be removed. •

Senator Gurney. Well, now, then, you received tha t information, 

you and Mr. Reisner. You were in Mr. Magruder’s office. Then what 

happened? Was an immediate search made for the files?

Mr. Odle. No, I don’t think so. I think tha t probably what happened was t hat Mr. Reisner, who was more familiar with the way in 

which Mr. Magruder’s desk was organized, would have taken the 

file. He either gave it to me or p ut it in my briefcase, something like 

that.

Senator Gurney. Well, is it your testimony tha t—well, let’s go 

back a little. How did Mr. Magruder pose this question about the 

file? Did this seem to be a m atte r of urgency or a routine matter, or 

how did it appear?

Mr. Odle. He was concerned about it.

Senator Gurney. Why was he concerned?

Mr. Odle. He was concerned about it because he feared the 

security, he said, of our building.

Senator Gurney. Well, now, of course, the break-in was done by 

one of your people—I say your people; one who was working for the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Gurney. Was there some feeling of apprehension tha t 

more of your people would raid your own files?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I don’t know. I was possibly concerned about 

retribution. I was just concerned about general security. We had 

nobody any longer who could handle it for us. I guess his feeling was «

tha t it would just be best if the file was out of the office until he 

returned.

Senator Gurney. Bu t why? There must have been some reason?

Mr. Odle. Well, we were concerned. I mean, you know, I took, as »

I said, my budget files home with me for the weekend.

Senator Gurney. Was any mention made by Mr. Magruder about 

perhaps the issuance of a search warrant by anybody?

Mr. Odle. Not t ha t I recall.

Senator Gurney. Naming these files?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. Had files ever been taken home before this 

discussion?

Mr. Odle. I always used to take some files home to work on Sunday.
65

Senator Gurney. Were you working on somebody else’s files?

Mr. Odle. No, no sir, no.

Senator Gurney. All right. Now the phone conversation is finished and the important part of that was these files, the security of them, obviously a very importa nt point. What happened after the phone 

conversation was over?

Mr. Odle. Well I assume either Mr. Reisner gave me the file, 

put it on my desk or something like that.

Senator Gurney. Well, I know but there you are you have got a phone and Reisner has got a phone and you put them down and then 

something happens, has happened.

Mr. Odle. Senator, I am trying to be as cooperative as I can but to answer tha t question is to try to invent something.

Senator Gurney. I understand. Well, was a search made for the 

files immediately?

Mr. Odle. I do not think a search of that was necessary, Mr. Reisner was pretty familiar with the way in which Mr. Magruder’s 

desk was organized.

Senator Gurney. Did he go to the desk and open a draw 

or something?

Mr. Odle. Senator, if I knew, if I could remember, th at I would tell you. It is very h ard to reconstruct today, tha t i t is almost a year ago. I have told you, you know everything I can think of th at relates 

to tha t activity.

Senator Gurney. Well, let me ask you this then. You have no recollection about the search for the file, tha t is your testimony?

Mr. Odle. Yes. I have no recollection of that, right. I did not go 

through his desk and search his file cabinet.

Senator Gurney. Well, were you in—how long did you stay in 

the room after the phone call?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I just do not know.

Senator Gurney. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think it was 

5 minutes or an hour?

Mr. Odle. Well, it was probably a lot closer to 5 minutes than it 

was to an hour.

Senator Gurney. Did you come back later and receive the file tha t you were going to take home from Mr. Reisner?

Mr. Odle. It is possible, and another possibility is Mr. Reisner 

brought it into my office.

Senator Gurney. Well, can’t we pin it down better than 

a possibility?

Mr. Odle. Well, I just, you know, can’t quite exactly recollect how it happened. I think tha t he gave it to me standing there, he gave it to me in the office, something like that, he sent it to my office.

Senator Gurney. Is it your testimony then tha t you had left the office, Magruder’s office and returned to your own after the phone call and that the file was brought to you there by Mr. Reisner?

Mr. Odle. I am no t sure. Senator, I am ju st not sure.

Senator Gurney. When did you go home tha t day?

Mr. Odle. I went with my wife to a play tha t night, to dinner

afterwards. .

Senator Gurney. I say when, when did you leave your officer

Mr. Odle. Seven o’clock, I think.
66

Senator Gurney. And the phone call was when?

Mr. Odle. Late afternoon.

Senator Gurney. What about the size—I understand there were 

two files, one that you took and one Mr. Reisner took, is that correct?

Mr. Odle. I believe he took more than one. I think he took a number 

of, advertising files. I believe tha t he kind of filled up his briefcase 

and also-----

Senator Gurney. Why is that recollection, why did you have tha t 

recollection. Did he have these files in his hands at the same time he 

had the file tha t you were going to take in the other hand?

Mr. Odle. No, I think what happened, he had mentioned at one 

point tha t his briefcase was full of these files.

Senator Gurney. Was this when he was in your office?

Mr. Odle. Or when I was in Mr. Magruder’s office with him.

Senator Gurney. When you were in Mr. Magruder’s office?

Mr. Odle. It could have been. Probably it was then.

Senator Gurney. Th at he said what now?

Mr. Odle. I think his indication was tha t I was asked to take 

another file home because his files were filling up his briefcase.

Senator Gurney. Bu t wasn’t there a discussion about these files 

being taken home earlier in the phone conversation with Mr. 

Magruder?

Mr. Odle. Yes; and I think tha t is the reason. Because when he 

had these advertising files they were filling up his briefcase and-----

Senator Gurney. Was it your understanding of the phone call tha t 

you were going to take part of the files too, is not that right?

Mr. Odle. Well, I think they had been discussing tha t and-----

Senator Gurney. You all had been?

Mr. Odle. Yes; tha t is right, and I had gone out of the office and I 

believe come back in.

Senator Gurney. So it really was not a m atter of a lot of files in 

one briefcase, it was a m atte r of both of vou were going to take some 

files home?

Mr. Odle. Yes; but I think tha t perhaps the reason for tha t was 

that he had all the files he could carry or he felt he could carry.

Senator Gurney. What did he say to you when he handed you the 

file tha t you were going to take home, do you recall? Did he say 

anything?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. Well, did he say guard them carefully? What did 

he say?

Mr. Odle. I have no recollection of that.

Senator Gurney. Did you understand you were to guard it 

carefully?

Mr. Odle. I felt it was an important file.

Senator Gurney. And my recollection is that you carried the file 

home and put it in a closet with the briefcase?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Gurney. And it stayed there during the weekend?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Gurney. And then you brought it back Monday morning?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Gurney. Describe tha t now, what happened when you 

brought it back?
67

Mr. Odle. I brought it back, and Mr. Magruder was there, I gave 

it to Mr. Magruder.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Magruder was where?

Mr. Odle. I gave it to Mr. Magruder in his office.

Senator Gurney. This is the first thing Monday morning?

Mr. Odle. I do not know. I t was sometime Monday. I do no t know 

that he was back the first thing Monday morning.

Senator Gurney. It was sometime Monday morning?

Mr. Odle. I believe it was sometime Monday.

Senator Gurney. You do not know whether it was morning <n 

afternoon?

Mr. Odle. No; I do not, whenever he got back and asked for it.

Senator Gurney. Well now, can you describe the circumstances 

surrounding the return of the file? Here is a file tha t you were protecting over the weekend because this is important, you bring it 

back Monday morning and it seems to me that you would be concerned about what to do with it. So tell us about it?

Mr. Odle. Well, I believe he, in the course of being in his office 

with me, he asked me for the file and I went and got the file and gave 

it to him.

Senator Gurney. In other words, you had it in your office and did 

not return it to his office until he asked for it, is th at correct?

Mr. Odle. I believe tha t is what happened.

Senator Gurney. What did he say when he asked you for the file?

Mr. Odle. “The file you took home, you know, may I have it, ” 

and I said “ Yes.”

Senator Gurney. Did he go to your office and ask you?

Mr. Odle. No; I believe I was going to see him tha t day and I 

believe he had seen a couple of other people before he had seen me 

and when I got to see him about some other matters tha t subject 

came up.

Senator Gurney. Then can you tell us anything further about 

what happened when you handed over the file to him? Did he make 

any comment, remark or anything?

Mr. Odle. I do no t believe so.

Senator Gurney. Did he seem relieved, elated or depressed or 

otherwise?

Mr. Odle. I do not recollect that. I think he felt it was, you know, 

I mean I think he felt it was a serious file.

Senator Gurney. Did he look at the file?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. Pu t it on the desk, was that it?

Mr. Odle. I suppose.

Senator Gurney. You do not know, you do not recall?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. You mentioned tha t you were a consultant now 

with the Committee To Re-Elect. What is that job?

Mr. Odle. I am working on winding down the committee offices, 

working on some of the bills th at are to be billed, sell furniture, and 

tha t sort of thing, attem pting to wind it down. I have also been spending a great deal of time, as I say, you know with various committees looking into these matters and providing documents and things.

Senator Gurney. Does your job as consulta nt mean you are no 

longer a paid employee?
68

Mr. Odle. No; I am salaried on a daily basis.

Senator Gurney. Just one other question: Did you handle any 

cash payments at all during your time with the Committee To ReElect the President?

Mr. Odle. le s. At one point in time during the time after the 

President had mined the harbor of Haiphong and the campaign committee was organized in support of th at activity, totally. Incidentally, 

I received $3,000 or $4,000 from Herbert Porter, who, which was 

money tha t I transferred to a couple of people.

Senator Gurney. Who were they?

Mr. Odle. Well, I remember one of them is Paul Jones, the director 

of our black voters division, I think. One of the problems during the 

Haiphong thing was tha t we were spending money for things like 

buses and box lunches and other things like that.

Senator Gurney. What were the buses being used for?

Mr. Odle. The buses were being used to bring people to Washington to support—to rally in support of the President’s mining of Haiphong which as you know at tha t point was a very major issue.

Senator Gurney. What did these people do after they came to 

Washington?

Mr. Odle. Well, I assume they rallied and they went home. 

[Laughter.]

Senator Gurney. Where did they rally?

Mr. Odle. There was a rally on the Capitol steps and some other 

activities in the metropolitan area. There was a vigil, I remember, 

in the Capitol building in support of tha t—th at Haiphong thing.

Senator Gurney. Who was in charge of that?

Mr. Odle. Well, everybody was working on it, sir. The entire 

campaign apparatus that week went to work in support of what had 

happened. It was a very crucial time in the campaign, tha t policy was 

of great importance and future policy and everybody was working 

on it.

Senator Gurney. You mean all 400 people?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, absolutely. We did it publicly, and we did it 

overtly and we did it outwardly. Incidentally, there is one thing, 

there has been some suggestion tha t what was done there in support 

of the President’s mining of Haiphong was a dirty trick or something 

we tried to hide, something like Watergate. It certainly did not seem 

that way to us. We did it openly, publicly, we set up a staff about it. 

We called people on the telephone and if they felt the way we did, 

they sent a telegram, we did not order anybody to do it. I do not 

think there was anything wrong about it, and the campaign committee 

had to keep together tha t week, everybody worked hard, pulled 

hard. We did n ot have tha t opportunity in the Presidential primaries 

and we did not have tha t much of an opportunity to test our 

State organizations out in the field and that event gave us an opportunity to do that.

Senator Gurney. Was not some one person in overall charge of 

this operation?

Mr. Odle. Well, I think the campaign director probably was at that 

point.

Senator Gurney. No other person than that?

Mr. Odle. Than the campaign committee?

Senator Gurney. Than the campaign director.
69

Mr. Odle. I am sorry. I would say that since the entire campaign was involved with this activity tha t the campaign director, Mr. Mitchell would have been in ultimate charge of that. Jeb Magruder of course was working on it, I worked on it full time.

Senator Gurney. What did you do about it?

Mr. Odle. I had meetings, I organized things, I went around to different people to check up and see how they were doing, and I helped to write the reports on what we were doing, that sort of thing.

Senator Gurney. Now back to the cash payments that we s tarted out on, you mentioned one cash payment was made to a Paul Jones, and as I understand that was in connection with this Haiphong 

operation?

Mr. Odle. Yes; it was.

Senator Gurney. Who was the other cash payment to?

Mr. Odle. Well, there could have been other cash payments, in other words, it could have been t ha t Mr. Jones got all of it or p art of it, I can’t remember anybody else tha t I actually gave the cash to. We were only talking about $3,000 to $4,000 and I know tha t—I be­ lieve, and I could be, you know, giving Mr. Jones what he does no t deserve because it could have been somebody else and I gave Mr. Jones the check that I would have obtained from the finance committee b ut my best recollection is I did give him some cash and he used tha t cash 

to charter buses.

Senator Gurney. Did you get a receipt for it?

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. Why, all other disbursements were made by 

you—as I understand it—by check is th at right?

Mr. Odle. I never signed checks. The finance committee was the disbursing office. They signed the checks, they made the cash dis­ bursements. We had the power of authorization.

Senator Gurney. You would authorize payments to be made?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. You actually did not make them?

Mr. Odle. Correct.

Senator Gurney. And you cannot remember to whom else you 

may have made the cash payments?

Mr. Odle. Of th at $4,000?

Senator Gurney. Yes.

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Gurney. I do not have any furth er questions.

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye?

Senator I nouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Odle, as I recall the testimony this morning that prior to the Watergate break-in you had never heard of E. Howard Hunt?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Am I to presume from tha t tha t he was not on 

the payroll of the committee?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, we were asked about tha t and we checked and 

found he was not. . . . . „

Senator Inouye. And you have no official relationship with him?

Mr. Odle. I had never seen him, met him, talked to him or had 

any other kind of conversation with him.

Senator I nouye. You have never met him?
70

Mr. Odle. Never met him.

Senator I nouye. It has been reported tha t the former Secretary of 

the White House Domestic Counsel has indicated tha t you were an 

occasional visitor to Mr. Hunt after the break-in?

Mr. Odle. What? I am not aware of that—that it has ever been 

reported, but it is not true.

Senator Inouye. You have never-----

Mr. Odle. Are you referring to—there was a story in the Post a 

long time ago about a secretary who worked for Mr. Liddy and Mr.

Hunt a t the White House, and that she was trying to describe telephone 

conversations between the White House and between tha t office, and *

I think she may have mentioned my name, tha t was a story. She was 

also the secretary, just before that, to one of my best friends, who worked 

down at the White House and perhaps tha t is what she is thinking of.

I am saying, sir, categorically, I have never talked to Howard Hunt, met *

him, seen him, written a memorandum to him, received a memorandum 

from him.

Senator I nouye. So, to this date you have never seen Mr. Hunt?

Mr. Odle. To this date I have never seen Mr. Hunt, and the 

trut h as to Mr. Liddy, I met him at the same time in December at the 

campaign committee.

Senator E rvin. Senator Weicker?

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few questions, Mr. Odle. I know you have been very patient 

and very good and I am trying to refresh your recollection as to the 

17th.

Let me see whether or not I might not be of some assistance in th at 

regard.

Is it true tha t on tha t particular evening, you and other members 

of the staff were in M agruder’s office watching the news on television?

Mr. Odle. We did watch, yes; we watched the evening news.

Senator Weicker. And, jus t so tha t we can—I am trying to be 

helpful in placing the phone call.

Mr. Odle. I understand.

Senator Weicker. Is it true tha t the phone call took place after 

the television news? Do you recall that?

Mr. Odle. It could have, sir. I thought it took place before. But 

it could have taken place afterwards.

Senator Weicker. Who was present when the call was made?

Mr. Odle. I think just Mr. Reisner and myself. <

Senator Weicker. When you were watching the television show, 

was anybody else in the room with you?

Mr. Odle. I think one of the secretaries was, who was working tha t 

day, yes. <

Senator Weicker. And, so, when the call was made, was Mr.—

Mrs. Odle present in the room while you were watching the television 

show?

Mr. Odle. She may have been. I do not believe she was. She arrived 

a little later.

Senator Weicker. In any event, when the call was made, it was just 

you and Mr. Reisner in Mr. Magruder’s office?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Weicker. Now, did you ask Mr. Reisner what he was 

doing there at tha t time? It was ra ther late in the evening?
71

Mr. Odle. I do not remember tha t I did, no.

Senator Weicker. I know that you do not recall the reference to 

Gemstone, but does, or do, the words “sensitive material,” does th at 

ring a bell?

Mr. Odle. Sensitive—no, sensitive material does not. Sometimes 

we used the word—“sensitive” does. I mean sometimes you might label a memorandum in government or the committee, I suppose, 

confidential sensitive, possibly, but not sensitive material.

Senator Weicker. Now, did Mr. Magruder make the request tha t 

these particular files that he was searching for at the particular time 

th at you were on the phone with him?

Mr. Odle. Again, I-----

Senator Weicker. In other words, at the same moment in time 

that you and Mr. Reisner were to call Mr. Magruder, was that the point in time tha t a request was made for a search of the files, and did 

a search go on while Air. Magruder was on the line?

Mr. Odle. I do not think so, no. But that recollection is pretty hazy.

Senator Weicker. Is there any recollection that you indicated to 

Mr. Magruder during tha t phone conversation, the files which he 

referred to, in fact, were now in hand, they have been found?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I do not think th at they were lost. I mean, I think th at 

Mr. Reisner was fairly familiar with the way in which Mr. Magruder’s 

office was organized. I do not think tha t they had been misplaced or anything. I do not think it would have been difficult for him to locate 

the files he was referring to.

Senator Weicker. So you have no recollection whatsoever, then, of 

searching for a particular file while you were on the phone-----

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Weicker [continuing!. With Mr. Magruder?

Mr. Odle. I do no t have a recollection of that.

Senator Weicker. You have no recollection as to the fact that 

there was a question as to what sensitive material was being referred 

to by Mr. Magruder?

Mr. Odle. No, I do not remember tha t term, sensitive material, 

being used.

Senator Weicker. All right, then. One last question.

In the hiring of a high-level personnel on the Committee To ReElect the President, who was involved in the clearances?

Mr. Odle. Could you name an example? That would—you know, 

there was not any great strategy or set of circumstances by which 

people were hired. I think it would depend on the person as to how it 

went. Let us say, for example, tha t it was in the political division. The 

process would be much different than if it were in some other division.

Senator Weicker. All high-level personnel, would you say th at 

they were interviewed or cleared by either Mr. Malek or Air. Strachan?

Air. Odle. No. No; not necessarily. I think Air. Strachan may have 

interviewed a number of them, yes. But I do not think that that 

would have applied in all situations. For example, in the political division, I do not think that Air. Strachan would have interviewed those people tha t were b rought in 

under the regional director. He could have, but I do not think so.

Senator Weicker. Was an example Air. Reisner?

Air. Odle. Yes; th at is another area tha t tha t is very possible.
72

Senator Weicker. What is possible?

Mr. Odle. It is very possible that Mr. Reisner might have been 

interviewed by Mr. Strachan.

Senator Weicker. Who was in overall charge of the hiring of 

personnel for the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Odle. At what point in time?

Senator Weicker. At the period—let us take March, April, May, 

June?

Mr. Odle. 1972?

Senator Weicker. Right.

Mr. Odle. I would say Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, and I would 

say in many cases, those people would be cleared by Mr. Strachan.

Senator Weicker. And under the chain of command which you 

referred to before would be—could one make the assumption tha t 

clearance by Mr. Strachan did involve Mr. Haldeman, or was this an 

independent function of Mr. Strachan?

Mr. Odle. I would say that Mr. Strachan would be looking out for 

Mr. Haldeman’s interests in the clearance process, yes.

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, thank you.

Senator E rvin. Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. Just one or two questions, Mr. Chairman.

In view of the testimony which you have adduced with respect to 

the meeting tha t you had with Mr. Reisner to try to get the files 

tha t were in Mr. Magruder’s desk, let us reconstruct tha t scene again. 

As I understand it from this morning’s testimony, you and Mr. 

Reisner went to Mr. Magruder’s desk. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Odle. We were in Mr. Magruder’s office and we were each 

on the telephone. I do not have a recollection of going to Mr. 

Magruder’s desk, although I could have been sitting at his desk on 

the telephone.

Senator Montoya. When I questioned you this morning, you did 

not recall who had the key to Mr. Magruder’s desk or whether it 

was locked. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Odle. No, no; Mr. Reisner would have had a key to Mr. 

Magruder’s desk.

Senator Montoya. Well, was it locked or did Mr. Magruder open 

it in that instance?

Mr. Odle. I do not know. I do not know.

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, you had been told during the 

conversation tha t these files were very important and that you should 

get them out of his desk. It that correct?

Mr. Odle. No; not that I should get them out of his desk, tha t they 

should be taken out, and Mr. Reisner, who knew how the desk was 

organized-----

Senator Montoya. Well, who gave the instructions or who vocalized the expression tha t the files were important and they had to 

be taken away from there for security reasons?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Magruder, I suppose, would have.

Senator Montoya. Well, did he do this in the telephone 

conversation?

Mr. Odle. I suppose tha t he did, yes.

Senator Montoya. Well, were you not engaged in that telephone 

conversation on another phone with him?

Mr. Odle. For part of the time, yes.

Senator Montoya. Well, did you hear him say that?
73

Mr. Odle. I do not have a recollection of him using specific words to say that, Senator, but I do remember that-----

Senator Montoya. Well, would tha t be the connotation of what 

he said?

Mr. Odle. I think that is a fair statement.

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, when you and Mr. Reisner decided to divide the files, he decided, or did you both decide, tha t you should take the file which was styled “Strateg y” ?

Mr. Odle. Tha t was my style—I mean, tha t was my word. I -----

Senator Montoya. Why did you call it the strategy file?

• Mr. Odle. I do not know. I assume because it was very important.

Senator Montoya. Well, did you read it?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not read it.

Senator Montoya. You did not read it at tha t moment?

* Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not.

Senator Montoya. Why did you call it the strategy file?

Mr. Odle. Well, because something must have been said in the 

course of the telephone conversation that made it clear to me that it 

was a very important, strategic kind of file.

Senator Montoya. What do you recall was said during the con­ versation that led you to believe tha t it was a strategy file?

Mr. Odle. I do no t know. I do not know, I am sorry. Maybe Mr. Magruder said it was a strategy file. We did have strategy meetings and maybe it was a file that contained minutes of strategy meetings.

Senator Montoya. Did it turn out to be a strategy file?

Mr. Odle. Sir, I do n ot know what it turned out to be, because I 

never looked at it.

Senator Montoya. Give me a description of t ha t file and give me a description of the briefcase in which you transported it to your 

home.

Mr. Odle. Well, I would say it was a file similar to the one I have here. It was a legal size. It was gray in color, light gray. The briefcase was a standard large briefcase.

Senator Montoya. And all you knew about this file was th at there 

was something strategic, of strategic importance in it?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And tha t it was important?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And tha t i t had to be guarded?

Mr. Odle. Well, not guarded in a sense, but Mr. Magruder was 

concerned for the security of it.

Senator Montoya. All right. And you took it home in your 

briefcase?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Montoya. And it was an open file and you did not read it?

Mr. Odle. No, sir, I did not. I did not even read my budget files 

tha t weekend.

Senator Montoya. Are you a very curious man, Mr. Odle?

Mr. Odle. I was n ot very curious about reading it tha t weekend. I was more interested in reading the Washington Post to find out what was going on down at the committee.

Senator Montoya. Were you not interested in the file in view of 

the extreme interest manifested by Mr. Magruder?

Mr. Odle. I do n ot know that the interest was extreme. I did not read the file. I do not know why. Maybe I should have.
74

Senator Montoya. And you never found out what was in it?

Mr. Odle. Well, no, but I can speculate.

Senator Montoya. Well, tell me what was in it from your 

speculation?

Mr. Odle. Well, I do not know tha t tha t would fair to other 

people, Senator. Well, if you ask me to—I have been reading the 

newspapers.

Senator Montoya. All right, I will withdraw the question. I will 

be fair with you.

Mr. Odle' Well, it is just-----

Senator Montoya. I will be fair with you.

Now, you say tha t you disbursed $4,000 in cash?

Mr. Odle. Yes.

Senator Montoya. And that for only part of it can you account 

at the present time?

Mr. Odle. Well, my best recollection is giving cash to Mr. Jones. 

I cannot remember if I gave him $2,000 or $4,000.

Senator Montoya. All right, that is fine. Now-----

Mr. Odle. If I gave him the $4,000, the rally report, tha t accounts 

for it all.

Senator Montoya. Who gave you the cash?

Mr. Odle. Mr. Herbert Porter.

Senator Montoya. Had you requested this cash or were they 

given to you for a specific purpose without your request?

Mr. Odle. I requested it.

Senator Montoya. What did you request it for?

Mr. Odle. To charter buses and bring people to Washington to 

participate in the rally.

Senator Montoya. Were you paying these people to-----

Mr. Odle. No.

Senator Montoya [continuing]. To come to Washington?

Mr. Odle. I did not disburse the funds beyond to the one person 

or the two people. But I do not believe the money went to the people, 

sir, I believe it went to the cost of the buses and things.

Senator Montoya. To your knowledge, they were not paid to come 

to Washington?

Mr. Odle. Yes, sir, to my knowledge, they were not.

Senator Montoya. So, therefore, on the matter of the Haiphong 

supporters, is this all you gave them, a boxlunch and a ride on the bus?

Mr. Odle. To the best of my knowledge, sir, yes. I was not the 

one tha t actually did that.

Senator Montoya. Th at is all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Let the record show tha t the charts which were 

identified by the witness, are made exhibits, and also, if Senator 

Weicker has no objection, we will also make his chart an exhibit. 

The reporter will mark them appropriately.

[The charts referred to were marked for identification as exhibits 

Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, and can be found on pp. 11, 15, 19, and 33, respectively.]

Senator Ervin. Mr. Odle, I want to thank you on behalf of the 

committee for the very, the total cooperation you have given this 

committee in its investigation and I also wish to commend you for 

the forthrightness of your testimony and to say tha t in my judgment, 

I have known nothing or heard nothing tha t has occurred tha t reflects in any way whatever upon you.
75

Mr. Odle. Than k you, Senator. I appreciate that.

Senator Ervin. Thank you very much. I would like to say to the committee tha t we have one witness this afternoon who has an engagement to be in a golf tournament to­ morrow, Sergeant Leeper. And since he is to testify only upon the apprehension of people caught in Watergate, I am going to suggest tha t we be as expeditious as possible in our questions, since tha t 

proposition has been well established. First, we have another witness before Mr. Leeper, but I just wan t to say I want to do all I can to facilitate his getting to the golf tou rnament tomorrow.

Call the next witness.

Mr. Dash. The next witness is Mr. Bruce Kehrli.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Kehrli, hold up your right hand, please. Do you swear the evidence you are to give to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities to be the truth , the whole truth, and nothing but the truth , so help you God?

Mr. Kehrli. I do.

Mr. Dash. Do you have a state ment you want to give to the 

committee?

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE A. KEHRLI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE 

PRESIDE NT

Mr. Kehrli. I have no opening statement, but I do have a sta tement I may want to give.

Mr. Dash. Please give your name and address.

Mr. Kehrli. My name is Bruce Arnold Kehrli. My address is 

738 South Lee Street, in Alexandria.

Mr. Dash. What is your present employment, Mr. Kehrli?

Mr. Kehrli. I am employed at the White House.

Mr. Dash. What is your position?

Mr. Kehrli. My title is Special Assistant to the President.

Mr. Dash. Now, how long have you had such a position?

Mr. Kehrli. I have had the title since January of this year. My position is actually that of staff secretary, which I have had since 

January 1 of 1972.

Mr. Dash. And to whom do you report, Mr. Kehrli?

Mr. Kehrli. Right now to General Commander Haig.

Mr. Dash. And prior to tha t time, to whom did you report?

Mr. Kehrli. H. R. Haldeman.

Mr. Dash. Now, a chart has been placed upon the easel to my left. Have you seen that chart before or something like it?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, I have.

Mr. Dash. And did you assist our staff in the preparation of tha t 

chart?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. Did you want to make some comment?

Mr. Kehrl i. Yes, I would like to make a statement now about the 

chart itself.

Senator Ervin. The reporter will mark this chart with the appropriate exhibit number. [The chart referred to was marked exhibit 9 and appears on p. 77.] 

9 6 -2 9 6 O— 73 ------bk. 1— 6
76

Mr. K ehrli. The organization chart was prepared by the committee 

and checked with me for accuracy. I t is accurate as far as it goes, but it 

could be misleading in two ways. First, it shows only those people 

about whom information was requested. I t does not give an idea of the 

many hundreds of people who worked on or around various White 

House staffs, some of which, like the Domestic Council and the National Security Council, are themselves administratively separate and 

independent entities. There are also the working relationships with 

members of the Cabinet and with other people in the various departm ents and agencies of the executive branch. In other words, the 

chain of command is n ot nearly so small or so closely integrated as *

the few dozen boxes and names on this chart might indicate.

Second, there are often rearrangements within the White House 

staff which is in fact a fairly dynamic organization. This is partly a 

function of the nature of the work which involves not only long-range *

responsibilities but also, literally scores of short-term projects and 

informal ad hoc relationships.

Since many individual staff members have a wide range of responsibilities and each area of responsibility could conceivably have a different reporting relationship, some common denominator had to be 

chosen as the basis for the chart. The criterion chosen was the formal 

administrative chain of command.

This chart describes, then, the fundamental relationships which 

existed in the White House during the months it covers and the dates 

in parentheses upon which the individuals left the White House 

payroll. I shall be glad, to the extent of my knowledge, to answer any 

questions the committee may have about it.

Mr. Dash. Now, will you please go to the chart and take a pointer?

Now, Mr. Kehrli, taking your statement in consideration, if at 

any time in the explanation you make, you feel that it is im portant to 

describe any other function or any other role of the White House 

personnel, please feel free to do so, because the purpose of the chart 

is to relate to the resolution of our committee. But please do not feel 

constrained to the chart if you feel a full explanation requires you to 

do otherwise.

Mr. Kehrli. Fine.

Mr. Dash. Now, on that chart, you will find Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, Mr. Haldeman is right here. He is in charge of 

White House operations. You will notice tha t under Mr. Haldeman, 

you will find a number of other suborganizations and as I said, because ’

this chart was based on administrative relationships, this may be 

deceiving and tha t any number of these people at any point in time 

may have had a different reporting relationship, depending upon what 

project or what subject area they happened to be working in. 1

Mr. Dash. But basically, under the organization you have and to 

the extent tha t th at chart is relevant, the people who are shown under 

Mr. Haldeman worked for Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. Right, but le t me give you an example. For instance, 

we have the speechwriters here. Mr. Ray Price is the head of tha t 

group. Now, at any point in time, the President may have called 

Mr. Price with a specific request, not one which went through Mr. 

Haldeman, and Mr. Price may have responded to that request without 

ever going through Mr. Haldeman.

Mr. Dash. Would you say he may have or would have?
Exhibit No. 9

WHITE HOUSE ORGANIZATION CHART

1 9 7 1 - 1 9 7 2 , w it h s u b s e q u e n t p e r s o n n e l c h a n g e s n o te d

- I

- I
78

Mr. Kehrli. On occasions, he would respond to Mr. Haldeman. On 

other occasions, he would not.

Mr. Dash. Now, under the direct line to Mr. Haldeman, who under 

tha t chart would be reporting, based on that chart, to Mr. Haldeman 

or through Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrl i. Well, any of these people at some point in time would 

report to Mr. Haldeman, but as I said before, on occasion, these 

people may have reported through another staff member—for instance,

Mr. Dean, who is Counsel to the President, on a lot of legal matters 

reported to Mr. Ehrlichman.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Hun t is listed there as a consultant on that •

chart?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, he is.

Mr. Dash. For what period of time, do you know, tha t he served 

in tha t role? <

Mr. Kehrli. I am sorry, I do not have his starting date. I was only 

asked to put the dates on on which they left the payroll.

Mr. Dash. When did he leave the payroll?

Mr. Kehrli. Th at was on April 1, 1972.

Mr. Dash. And Air. Colson—what was Mr. Colson’s position? I 

do not think it is shown on the chart.

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Colson was in charge of liaison with outside 

organizations.

Mr. Dash. And Mr. Malek’s role?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Malek’s role at this time was he had charge of 

the White House personnel office which was recruiting and placing 

people within the administration.

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, Mr. Dean, as you said, would either be 

reporting to Haldeman, but as indicated, he would also perhaps be 

doing quite a bit of his work with Mr. Ehrlichman.

Mr. Kehrli. Th at is right.

Mr. Dash. So Mr. Dean’s primary responsibilities were through 

Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman. Would tha t be true?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, it would.

Mr. Dash. And Mr. Chapin, what was his particular capacity and 

role?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Chapin was in charge of scheduling the President which included any meetings within the White House, any 

trips, any meetings outside of the White House, generally on a longrange planning basis. ' *

Mr. Dash. Now, going to Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Ehrlichman, I 

see is there on a line right next to Mr. Haldeman, is th at true?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, he is.

Mr. Dash. And what was his official role? »

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Ehrlichman was an adviser to the President as 

well as head of the domestic council.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Krogh, what was his relationship to Mr. 

Ehrlichman?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Krogh was a member of the domestic council 

staff. I might add at this point as I said in my opening statement 

I can only speak out of firsthand knowledge on the White House 

organization itself. The domestic council is a separate entity, has
79

its own administrative procedures and its own administrative 

personnel.

Mr. Dash. Were you aware at tha t point in time tha t Mr. Liddy 

had worked in the White House staff under Mr. Krogh?

Mr. Kehrli. I was aware only because I had heard his name 

mentioned. I can’t verify tha t at this time or I couldn’t at t hat point. 

I have since then checked and found he was on the domestic council 

and left on December 10, 1971.

Mr. Dash. Based on your check, Mr. Liddy did in fact work under 

Mr. Krogh?

• Mr. Kehrli. Yes, he did.

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time based on any check that you 

made in assistance in preparing this chart did Mr. Young from Na­ tional Security Council and Kathleen Chenow work with Mr. Krogh

<r and Mr. Liddy?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Do you know when tha t shift of relationship occurred?

Mr. Kehrli. The National Security Council records indicate that 

David Young was detailed to the domestic council in July of 1971. We didn’t have a specific date. Miss Chenow was on the domestic 

council staff at that point.

Mr. Dash. This chart does not show it. Are you aware of any 

time when Mr. Hu nt worked with that group tha t later has become 

known as the “plumbers” by Mr. Krogh?

Mr. Kehrli. Under Mr. Krogh, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Are you aware of th at term?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, I am aware of it because I only read about it 

in the papers.

Mr. Dash. You are only aware of it because you read it in the 

papers? Now, Mr. Strachan, who is Mr. Strachan and where does it appear 

on the chart?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Strachan was on Mr. Haldeman’s personal staff 

and it appears here.

Mr. Dash. What was his particular function with Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. His particular function was liaison with the Republican National Committee and with the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President.

Mr. Dash. Now, are you aware of to your own knowledge as to

* how frequently Mr. Strachan was in touch as liaison with the Committee for Re-Election of the President.

Mr. Kehrli. No, I am not.

Mr. Dash. But that was a main function of his, as you know.

* Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Mr. D ash. And therefore he would be carrying back and forth for 

Mr. Haldeman, between Mr. Haldeman and the committee whatever 

messages Mr. Haldeman had for the committee or the committee for 

Mr. Haldeman.

Mr. Kehrli. Carrying, I think, he may not or may not have 

carried them but they would have come through him at one point 

or another.

Mr. Dash. Mr. MacGregor at one point was a member of the White 

House staff as I see on the chart?
80

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, he was.

Mr. Dash. I think you have him on the chart as leaving July 1,

1972. Do you know where he went from that?

Mr. Kehrli. He went to the Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Magruder is shown on tha t chart on the other, on 

the right-hand side on the communications under Mr. Klein, staying 

until May 1, 1971.

Do you know where he went after that time?

Mr. Kehrli. He went to the Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Mr. Dash. I think you have Mr. Odle and Mr. Porter working for 

Mr. Magruder and they left approximately, Mr. Odle May 1, 1971, *

and Mr. Porter April 29, 1971, according to the chart and do you 

know where they went when they left?

Mr. Kehrli. They went to the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President.

Mr. Dash. Now, down towards the bottom you have Mr. Hugh 

Sloan under scheduling, and I take it under Mr. Dwight Chapin, and 

it appears in the chart th at he left the White House on March 6, 1971.

Do you know where he went when he left the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. He went either to the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President or the finance committee and I would have to check that.

Mr. Dash. And I see on the chart also at the bottom, I guess a line 

down from Mr. Haldeman to a box marked political H. Dent and under 

tha t Mr. LaRue, and a date of leaving February 15, 1972.

Do you know where Mr. LaRue went when he left the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. I assume he went to the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President. I don’t have that.

Mr. Dash. The facts would show that, I take it?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Now, are you of your own knowledge, and I know tha t 

we have asked you to come here to assist us in reconstructing the 

White House staff and the relationship around the time relevant to 

the 1971^72 period, tha t would cover the resolution in which we are 

engaged in dealing with the W atergate matter, and tha t this was the 

purpose of developing this chart.

Beyond being able to describe the various relationships of these 

people and their roles on the chart, do you have any further knowledge 

as to their relationship with the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Kehrl i. No, I don’t.

Mr. Dash. Do you know anything about the duties of Kathleen •

Chenow?

Mr. Kehrli. No, I don’t.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator E rvin. Mr. Thompson? *

Mr. T hompson. Mr. Kehrli, if you would like to be seated I think 

perhaps it would be better. I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kehrli, I would like to ask you a few’ questions about Mr.

John Dean, Counsel to the President.

According to your chart Mr. Dean is immediately responsible to 

Mr. Haldeman, is th at correct?

Mr. Kehrli. That is correct.

Mr. T hompson. And according to the chart he would not have direct 

access to the President as Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Kissinger, and these 

other men you have named would?
81

Mr. Kehrli. Now, I should elaborate on tha t point. As I said, 

depending on the various issues or projects these people were working 

on they would have different channels of command. On some issues 

John Dean may have had direct access to the President.

Mr. Thompson. Could you categorize Mr. Dean’s duties for us? 

What types of problems or situations would normally arise that would 

draw his attention and require his work?

Mr. Kehrli. Basically he was responsible for seeing th at anything 

that the President sent out in terms of an official document or procla ­

mation, Executive order, things of this natu re was correct legally. 

He also was an adviser to the President on legal m atters and things 

like executive privilege. He also dealt with conflict of interest in term s 

of bringing people on board the staff and that was his responsibility.

Mr. Thompson. Would you say tha t his primary responsibility 

would be for providing legal opinions and approving legal documents?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, I would.

Mr. T hompson. I know you have here Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld 

as counselors to the President and I assume we can draw a strict 

distinction between counsel to the President, Mr. Dean, and counsellors to the President, Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, Mr. Finch and Mr. Rumsfeld as counselors to 

the President performed a role tha t included their being spokesmen, 

they included special projects and they didn’t have any set substan ­

tive responsibility but were free to move into any area the President 

may determine.

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned the area of executive privilege a 

moment ago, would Mr. Dean aid the President in formulating his 

legal position on executive privilege?

Mr. Kehrli. He would advise him on it, yes.

Mr. Thompson. The President made a statement on March 2 

pertaining to executive privilege, when he stated tha t the White 

House aides would not come down and testify before a committee 

formally, and another statement on March 15 of this year when he 

stated tha t Mr. Dean specifically had what might be referred to as 

double privilege.

Do you know whether or not Mr. Dean had any input with regard 

to the President’s legal position on those two statements?

Mr. Kehrli. I can’t say that for a fact.

Mr. Thompson. Leaving tha t subject, Mr. Kehrli, I would like to 

ask you this: You mentioned the so-called “plumbers”, Mr. Hunt, 

Mr. Liddy, who were in the White House at one time. As I understand it one time they were working on the so-called Pentagon Papers, 

the leaks pertaining to the Pentagon Papers situation, is that your 

understanding?

Mr. Kehrli. My understanding is they were working on a project 

related to leaks the timing of it was such tha t I assume it had to do 

with the Pentagon Papers. I know David Young also worked on a 

commission on declassification that was set up.

Mr. T hompson. Well, reports have been th at these papers concerned 

matters of national security.

Do you know why H unt and Liddy in this particular project would 

operate out of the domestic council under Mr. Ehrlichman in this 

particular area if they were primarily national security problems?
82

Mr. Kehrli. No, I don’t.

Mr. Thompson. Does it seem like a logical situation to you or 

unusual situation to you, considering the nature of the domestic 

council and considering the nature of the work they were doing?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, knowing the background of Mr. Krogh and Mr. 

Haldeman he was once counsel to the President and there were legal 

responsibilities dealing with the law and I don’t think it was unusual 

to have an organization set up like that.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. John Caulfield is not on your chart, is he?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, he is.

Mr. Thompson. Is Mr. Caulfield on the chart? Is he under Mr. 

Dean?

Mr. Dash. He is under Mr. Dean.

Mr. Thompson. Did you mention in your testimony his relationship 

to Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Thompson. Yes.

Mr. Kehrli. No, I didn’t.

Mr. Thompson. Would it be accurate to state tha t often he dealt 

with Mr. Ehrlichman on matters?

Mr. Kehrli. No, I don’t know.

Mr. Thompson. You don’t know that.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Do you know Mr. Richardson?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. What was his assignment?

Mr. Kehrli. He was a writer.

Senator Ervin. And he came in under Mr. Price or one of the 

writers with Mr. R. Price and Mr. Buchanan?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin Those are the only questions.

Senator B aker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Once again 

I understand that our operating format is to utilize this witness’ 

testimony for the purpose of establishing an organizational chart 

within the White House. I have a number of questions tha t I wished 

to put to the witness that are not related to the organizational chart 

as such but in the interest of trying to conserve time and stick to 

tha t operating format, I would ask instead if the witness will agree 

to return at a later date so that we may ask him other questions th at 

are not related to his testimony today.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I might also ask, Mr. Kehrli, if, as an assistant 

to the President, you are appearing voluntarily or under subpena.

Mr. Kehrli. I am appearing voluntarily.

Senator Baker. Was there any intervention of a claim of executive 

privilege on your behalf?

Mr. Kehrli. No, there was not.

Senator Baker. Was there any instruction from the White House 

or anyone in it as to how you should conduct yourself with this committee, especially with respect to where you should cooperate or not 

cooperate?

Mr. Kehrli. I was asked to, I was encouraged to cooperate.

Senator Baker. Mr. Kehrli, so tha t you have some understanding 

of wh at I intend to ask you later, and once again I do not intend to
83

pursue it today, when you return as a witness to testify at a later 

sequence of hearings I want to know particularly about the drilling and opening of Mr. Hu nt’s safe. I want to know what you found in it, I want to know what happened to it, and I want to know a number of other things related to it. But just so th at you understand tha t I am not asking you those questions now in the interest of time and order­ liness, I hope you will be prepared to respond when you do return.

Mr. Kehrli. I do.

Senator Baker. Than k you very much.

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.

* Senator Talmadge. Mr. Kehrli, who determined which people in 

the White House originally went to the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President?

Mr. Kehrli. I don’t think there was any one person who determined

* that. I think it was a joint decision based on the need of the White House and the committee. If the committee had a need and there was someone at the White House who was not in position or was in a position rather tha t they could leave and they felt tha t they could do a better job at the committee then they were able to go to the 

committee.

I don’t think there was any one being that said you will go.

Senator T almadge. But there was more than one person who made 

the determination; who was it?

Mr. Kehrli. I would say that, and I don’t know for a fact, bu t I 

would imagine tha t it was probably made based on discussions be­ tween the head of the campaign committee and Mr. Haldeman, Mr. 

Ehrlichman, and other people on the staff.

Senator T almadge. Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell, and who else?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Ehrlichman.

Senator T almadge. Mr. Ehrlichman.

Did you see any memoranda from the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President, circulating in the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. The only thing tha t I saw tha t I can remember is 

one that came over with the committee’s list of telephone numbers 

on it. We did circulate it.

Senator Talmadge. Tha t was the only one?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Senator Talmadge. Did you ever see or have knowledge of any 

communication either written or oral between Mr. Mitchell and the 

’ White House staff prior to the time he resigned as Attorney General

concerning the campaign activities?

Mr. Kehrli. No.

Senator Talmadge. Did you see any after July 1, the date Mr.

* Mitchell resigned as campaign chairman?

Mr. Kehrli. Not that I remember.

Senator Talmadge. Did you ever receive funds from the committee or the finance committee for campaign activities?

Mr. Kehrli. No.

Senator Talmadge. None whatever?

Mr. Kehrli. I personally?

Senator Talmadge. Yes.

Mr. Kehrli. At one point I was the contact on the White House 

staff for payment of bills that were incurred by the President during the campaign. We went out of our way to a great degree to make sure
84

tha t any travel, any events, anything whatsoever tha t the President 

did tha t could in the least way be construed as political were paid for 

by committee funds rather than appropriated funds.

Senator Talmadge. The only funds you received then were the 

President’s political activity and solely for tha t purpose?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right.

Senator Talmadge. And they were dispensed for tha t purpose. 

Was there ever any regular meetings held between the White 

House staff and committee officials?

Mr. Kehrli. Not that I know of.

Senator Talmadge. None a t all?

Mr. Kehrli. No; not tha t I know of, but, as I said, I was not in 

the mainstream of communication.

Senator Talmadge. To your knowledge, never at any time under 

no conditions?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right.

Senator Talmadge. That is your answer?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, sir.

No further questions.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kehrli, I just want to talk a little bit about the White House 

organization and especially those people closest around the President 

most of the time more frequently than others.

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Haldeman.

Senator Gurney. Who else?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Ehrlichman.

Senator Gurney. Who else?

Did Mr. Ziegler see him?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, Mr. Ziegler, tha t is right. But beyond that 

there would be a tossup as to who was on the staff.

Senator Gurney. How about Mr. Chapin?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Chapin dealt primarily through Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Gurney. What was Mr. Haldeman’s previous employment?

Mr. Kehrli. Pardon me, sir?

Senator Gurney. What was Mr. Haldeman’s previous employment? 

Mr. Kehrli. He was with the J. Walter Thompson Advertising Co. 

Senator Gurney. Where did Mr. Chapin come from before he 

came to the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. The same company.

Senator Gurney. Was he brought in by Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes; he was.

Senator Gurney. Who was Mr. Ziegler with before he came to the

White House?

Mr. Kehrli. He was also with J. Walter Thompson.

Senator Gurney. Was he also brought in by Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes; he was.

Senator Gurney. What about Mr. Ehrlichman; was he ever with 

J. Walter Thompson?

Mr. Kehrli. No; I don’t think so.

Senator Gurney. Was he a very close friend of Mr. Haldeman’s? 

Mr. Kehrli. Yes; he was.
85

Se na tor Gurney. W ha t was their pa st frie ndship an d association?

Mr. K eh rl i. Well, the only— only thing I can relate is wha t I 

rea d, th ey were evide ntly friends during college day s.

Se na tor Gurney. Who were you previously employed with?

Mr. K eh rl i. I was with J. W alt er Thom pso n. [Laughter.]

Se na tor Gurney. Who were the people who budg ete d the Pre side nt ’s time? I mean by th at who were most resp ons ible for those 

people who saw the Presiden t and those people who did no t see the 

Presi dent?

Mr. K eh rl i. Mr. Ch apin was responsible for the Pr esiden t’s 

• schedu ling and th at was (lone on a weekly and a daily basis, a longrange weekly scheduling followed up by a daily schedule. Mr . Butterfield 

was resp onsible for im ple me nti ng th at schedule .

Se na tor Gur ne y. Who was Mr. Butterfield ? 

r Mr. K eh rl i. Mr. Bu tte rfi eld on the ch ar t on the far rig ht reported

to Mr. Ha lde ma n and he was—he had an office rig ht outsid e the 

Pr es id en t’s door and he was resp onsible for imple me nting the Presi ­

den t’s schedule on a daily basis ma kin g sure th at the appoints were 

there on time, th at whe n p eople came in they were positione d c orrectly.

Se na tor Gur ne y. And he rep orted to Mr. Ha lde ma n?

Mr. Keh rl i. Yes, he did.

Se na tor Gurney. And Mr. Chapin rep orted to Mr. Ha lde ma n?

Mr. Keh rl i. Yes, he did.

Se na tor Gur ne y. Wo uld anybody who had an ything to do with 

budg eti ng the Pr es id en t’s time r ep ort to anyb od y else bu t Mr. Halde ­

ma n?

Mr. Keh rl i. No.

Se nator Gur ne y. Are you fam ilia r at all in yo ur job in the White 

House with t he peop le the Presiden t saw d aily du rin g y ou r tim e the re?

Mr. K eh rl i. You me an was I awa re of his daily schedule?

Senator Gur ne y. Yes, I mean would you be gen erally fam iliar 

with the people th at he saw?

Mr. Keh rl i. I receive d a copy of his daily schedule so I saw the 

nam es of the people th at he saw daily.

Senator Gur ne y. I see.

Mr. Keh rl i. T hat were on the publishe d schedule. Now, he oft en 

would call othe r people ove r and th at wo uld n’t be on the publishe d 

schedule calls obv iou sly he could n’t keep it up on a mi nute to minute 

basis. It was issued du rin g the mo rning and if it was chan ged du rin g

* the da y it wa sn’t wo rth issuing a new one for the staff.

Senator Gurney. Would you gen erally be awa re of the people who 

came to see him even tho ugh the y were no t on the reg ula r schedu le?

Mr. K eh rl i. No, I would not. My office is located in the ba semen t

• of the Wh ite House, ou t of the traffic flow.

Se nator Gur ne y. Of those peop le th at yo u are aware of who saw 

the Presi dent, because you did see the daily schedule , did man y 

Sen ators eve r visit the Pre sident?

Mr. Keh rli. Yes, quite a few. And he also, he used to have, as 

I rem em ber or he still does, breakfasts for Members of Con gress.

Se nator Gur ne y. But I mean on a person al basis, tal kin g to them 

in his own pr ivate office wit h him p ersona lly.

Mr. Keh rli. I do n’t hav e an exact nu mbe r bu t I do rem em be r 

Senators and Congressm en on the schedu le, yes, sir.

Se nator Gur ne y. Were these fre qu en t visits?
86

Mr. Kehrl i. I really can’t comment on the number of visits.

Senator Gurney. How about Republican National Committee 

Chairman. Was he ever on the visitors list also?

Mr. Kehrl i. He was on the visitors list.

Senator Gurney. Very often?

Mr. Kehrli. It is difficult to say how often, he was in there more 

than once.

Senator Gurney. Would you say frequently?

Mr. Kehrli. I don’t know, how would you term frequently?

Senator Gurney. Well, you term it. I mean you saw the schedule, 

I didn’t.

Mr. Kehrli. I would say-----

Senator Gurney. Once a month?

Mr. Kehrli. Once a month is probably correct.

Senator Gurney. That would be about correct?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right.

Senator Gurney. What about other Republican Party people, 

State chairmen or other people whose work was within the party. 

Did you ever see them on the schedule?

Mr. Kehrli. I may have but they weren’t listed as a State chairman and I probably wouldn’t recognize the names.

Senator Gurney. Well, at any rate the people who saw the President were carefully screened by Mr. Haldeman and those people 

tha t we have talked about here who were brought to the White 

House by Mr. Haldeman, is tha t right?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Haldeman was responsible for putting together 

the President’s schedule, and based on, I am sure on, conferring with 

the President and what time was available and how it was to be used.

Senator Gurney. Would you have any idea how many people on 

the White House staff, how many were there, total staff?

Mr. Kehrli. Total on the White House staff approximately 500. 

Now there is a confusing point there and I am speaking only of the 

White House Office and the domestic council, for instance, the National 

Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers, all which are housed 

in the Executive Office Building, White House Office complex, are 

not included in tha t 500.

Senator Gurney. I am talking about the 500 staff.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Senator Gurney. Who recruited most of those people? Did you 

say?

Mr. Kehrli. It was done—I can speak only from the time in 

November of 1970, when I came on the White House rolls, and they 

were recruited by the personnel office primarily.

Senator Gurney. Who was in charge of that?

Mr. Kehrli. Fred Malek.

Senator Gurney. Who brought Fred Malek to the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. I assume Bob Haldeman did, although I can’t answer 

that for a fact, because I arrived almost on the same day tha t Fred 

Malek arrived.

Senator Gurney. Is it fair to say that all people who came on 

board, regardless of who they were recruited by, were OK’d or 

turned down by Mr. Haldeman? Is tha t fair to say?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Haldeman did want to be made aware, as he 

was responsible for them, of all members of the White House staff,
87

all new members, and he was made aware of anyone, by anyone of 

the staff members if they wanted to bring an individual on.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever hire anybody through your staff? 

Mr. Kehrli. No, I did not.

Senator Gurney. Did you have a staff?

Mr. Kehrli. I do now. Yes, my staff is primarily career employees. 

One of my basic responsibilities is the 280 or so career Government 

employees who serve the President, the Office of the President, year 

in and year out.

Senator Gurney. I see.

e Now, tell me, was one of your responsibilities the White House

payroll?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes. I was responsible for monitoring the White 

House payroll.

* Senator Gurney. What do you mean by monitoring?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, whenever—for instance, any raises of professional employees were sent to Mr. Haldeman for approval; I approved 

all raises for people below that level—in other words, clerical types, 

secretaries.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever handle any moneys that were paid 

to White House personnel tha t were not Federal payroll moneys?

Mr. Kehrli. No.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever handle any cash at any time?

Mr. Kehrli. I did. We had, as I said when I was talking about, one 

of my responsibilities being making sure tha t anything that the 

President did or tha t his staff did in supporting him while he was 

participating in a political event was covered by funds from the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President as opposed to appropriated 

funds. We did have a problem at one point with, for instance, when the 

President would fly somewhere and they needed to sta rt the plane, 

provision it with food. The way we had it set up was to have the 

military people go out and purchase the food, put it aboard the plane. 

Rath er than having them, and most of them were low-level military 

people, put out money and have to be repaid, we brought over some 

cash and paid them in advance to buy this food.

Senator Gurney. These were all moneys paid in direct support of 

the President?

Mr. Kehrl i. Absolutely.

Senator Gurney. At any particular time.

» And you testified that you made no cash payments to anybody other

than in this area that you are now describing?

Mr. Kehrli. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Senator Gurney. Well, now, what does that mean?

« Mr. Kehrl i. Well, I can’t remember.

Senator Gurney. Do you think tha t you did?

Mr. Kehrl i. No.

Senator Gurney. Do you know of any people on the White House 

staff who were paid moneys by anybody else tha t were not Federal 

payroll moneys?

Mr. Kehrli. No, I do not; no.

Senator Gurney. Were you responsible for the assigning of office 

space in the White House and also in the Executive Mansion?

Mr. Kehrl i. Yes, sir.
88

Senator Gurney. What was the disposition of the office space 

assigned to Mr. Liddy and Mr. McCord and Mr. Hu nt after they 

were removed from the W hite House payroll, do you recall?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Hu nt’s office was in a block of space tha t had 

been assigned to Mr. Colson, but we do not assign specific offices 

within a staff. We assign a block of space to a staff and let them divide 

it up as they wish.

Senator Gurney. And what about Mr. McCord and Mr. Hunt?

Mr. Kehrli. I never knew Mr. McCord.

Senator Gurney. How about Mr. Hunt?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Hu nt had an office in room 338. e

Senator Gurney. Is that the Executive Office?

Mr. Kehrli. Of the Executive Office Building, that is right.

Senator Gurney. What happened to his office after he was removed 

from the Federal payroll? *

Mr. Kehrli. It was left within the Colson operation. I do not know 

who was sitting in tha t now, Senator.

Senator Gurney. Is that part of the block of offices of Colson’s?

Mr. Kehrli. He had people with various responsibilities within 

the Executive Office Building.

Senator Gurney. After these people were removed from the 

Federal payroll, do you know whether they had access to their offices 

after that time?

Mr. Kehrli. No, I do not.

Senator Gurney. You do not know whether they used the telephones?

Mr. Kehrli. No, I do not.

Senator Gurney. Wh at happened to their file cabinets?

Mr. Kehrli. I know what happened to Mr. Hu nt’s file cabinets.

Senator Gurney. Th at is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye?

Senator Inouye. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Kehrli, according to tha t chart, Mr. Ehrlichman is presently 

the chief of the domestic section?

Mr. Kehrli. Domestic council, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. And Mr. Haldeman is chief of the White House 

operation, Mr. Dean, counsel?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. At this moment?

Mr. Kehrli. No. •

Oh, I see; yes, sir. That is right. They are still on the payroll through 

the 19th, which is this Sunday, and it was based on an agreement 

tha t was made in terms of trying to make sure tha t they had enough 

time to wind down their responsibilities on the White House staff, and e

tha t was determined tha t it was a reasonable amount of time to allow 

men with their responsibilities to phase out, get other people who 

were taking over their responsibilities briefed on what their responsibilities were and up to speed before they left.

Senator Inouye. Following up on the matter of scheduling, you 

have indicated that Mr. Haldeman had final say as to who saw the 

President. Am I correct?

Mr. Kehrli. On occasion, he would not have the final say. He 

would cover it with the President.

Senator Inouye. Would this extend to telephone calls also?
v 89

Mr. Kehrli. No, it did not. Mr. Chapin handled the telephone 

calls, as I remember it.

Senator I nouye. Is it possible for a U.S. Senator to have called 

the President and been put through to him directly?

Mr. Kehrli. I do not know. I am not tha t familiar with tha t setup.

Senator Inouye. Your chart indicates tha t Mr. Colson was a 

liaison with outside groups.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Would you describe outside groups?

Mr. Kehrli. Veterans groups, labor groups, groups of th at nature. 

Senator Inouye. Are you aware of his activities with groups tha t

have been mentioned in the press tha t you have not mentioned?

Mr. Kehrli. For instance.

Senator Inouye. It has been suggested that he has been involved 

in dirty tricks and-----

Mr. Kehrli. I am not aware of any dirty tricks.

Senator Inouye. Do you know who Mr. Colson reported to?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Colson reported to Mr. Haldeman for administrative purposes and on most of the things he did, he also reported 

to the President on occasion. I really can’t give you a percentage 

breakdown, what percent he reported directly to the President or 

what percent he reported to Mr. Haldeman. I imagine on some 

occasions, he may have reported to Mr. Ehrlichman. Again, this is 

only something he knows.

Senator Inouye. What was Mr. Gordon Strachan’s role?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Gordon Strachan was a staff assistant to Mr.

Haldeman, who was in charge of liaison with the Committee To 

Re-Elect and the Republican National Committee.

Senator Inouye. Did Mr. Ehrlichman get copies of all political 

memos as indicated in the exhibit* which was subm itted earlier?

Mr. Kehrli. I do not know.

Senator Inouye. I have no further questions—oh, I do have one 

question.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Do you know a Mr. Roy Shepherd?

Mr. Kehrli. No; I do no t know him.

Senator Inouye. Have you checked the files to see if he is on the 

payroll?

Mr. Kehrli. I know for a fact tha t he is not on the payroll.

Senator Inouye. If he is not on the payroll, how does one get

admitted to the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. I did some checking on Mr. Shepherd and he was 

admitted because he had a pass from another Government agency.

Senator Inouye. Wha t Government agency, sir?

Mr. Kehrli. As I remember, it was the Department of Transportation.

Senator Inouye. Is he on the payroll of the Department 

of Transportation?

Mr. Kehrli. I do not know.

Senator Inouye. But Mr. Shepherd is not on the payroll of the 

White House?

Mr. Kehrli. That is correct.

•Se e exhib it No. 4, p. 454.
90

Senator I nouye. Have you ever met Mr. Shepherd?

Mr. Kehrli. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. Were you aware that he visited one of the offices?

Mr. Kehrli. Not before his name came up.

Senator Inouye. Than k you, sir.

Senator E rvin. Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few brief 

questions. Mr. Kehrli, when was the last time tha t you talked, either directly or on the telephone, with either Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Haldeman?

Let me ask the question first as to Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Kehrli. OK. I think I spoke with Mr. Ehrlichman last Friday 

or Saturday, and I do not remember which day.

Senator Weicker. And what was the nature of this conversation— 

this was after he had left the White House?

Mr. Kehrli. This was after the announcement of his resignation had been made and while he was winding down his activities at the 

White House.

Senator Weicker. So this was directly, face to face?

Mr. Kehrli. No, this was a telephone conversation.

Senator Weicker. I see. Would you indicate the nature of tha t 

conversation?

Mr. Kehrli. We were discussing the disposition of his papers tha t 

had been taken from the office and held in a room.

Senator Weicker. What do you mean by the disposition of his 

papers? I do not follow you.

Mr. Kehrli. This was at a time when they were turning back certain papers to the FBI.

Senator Weicker. What was the purpose in your discussing this 

matter with him?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, I wanted to make sure th at he was aware of the 

fact tha t they were being turned back, since they were coming out of 

his files.

Senator Weicker. In other words, the natu re—was the phone 

conversation from you to Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right. And since one of my-----

Senator Weicker. To alert him tha t his files were being taken by 

an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right. One of my responsibilities is the preservation of Presidential papers and tha t includes filing systems in the White House and any file systems we have of special assistant papers.

Senator Weicker. Can you give us any indication of his response 

when you so alerted him?

Mr. Kehrli. He was aware of it and said he would check with 

Mr. Garment on it.

Senator Weicker. That was the nature of the conversation?

Mr. Kehrli. That was it.

Senator Weicker. That he would check with Mr. Garment?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes.

Senator Weicker. And when was the last time that you talked to 

Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. I think it was sometime last week. I do not have an exact date. We were discussing what he wanted to do with his retire-
91

ment benefits, whether he wanted to continue his health insurance, 

things of this nature, the official papers required when he resigned.

Senator Weicker. Did you make a phone call to Mr. Haldeman to 

alert him tha t his records also were being commandeered by the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. Kehrli. No; because they weren’t.

Senator Weicker In other words, no papers of Mr. Haldeman’s 

were taken by the Bureau?

Mr. Kehrli. Not tha t I know of.

I think we are confusing something here. That is at one point in 

time, all the papers were taken and put in one area and there was 

extra security pu t on them. That was the initial movement. Then after 

tha t is the discussion tha t I had with Mr. Ehrlichman and these were 

the papers tha t were described in a couple of newspaper articles, FBI 

files.

Senator Weicker. I am a little bit confused, too, on this point. Do 

not let me guide you, bu t in other words, was there some special reason 

why you alerted Mr. Ehrlichman as compared to Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, because we are talking about two different points 

in time. Immediately after Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman 

resigned, all of the papers within their offices and actually all of their 

working papers were taken and put in one room, as I understand it— 

I was only told this by Mr. Garment—so there would be no problem 

with any papers disappearing. Tha t happened on the first of May, or 

about that time.

Now, we are talking about last weekend.

Senator Weicker. Friday.

Mr. Kehrli. When the FBI had requested some papers back tha t 

had been part of this group, and since they were included in Mr. 

Ehrlichman’s files, I wanted to make sure tha t he was aware of the 

fact tha t they had been requested.

Senator Weicker. Did you receive a request from the FBI to assist 

in this matter? Is tha t how it came to your attention?

Mr. Kehrli. No; it came to my attention because I happened to 

be walking past the room where we kept the files and I noticed there 

were some people in the room making a manifest, making a log of the 

different papers, an inventory.

Senator Weicker. And it was at tha t point in time you called 

Mr. Ehrlichman and let him know tha t his papers were-----

Mr. Kehrli. Yes; that is right.

Senator Weicker. Now, in conversations tha t you have had with 

staff members of this committee, you have indicated—and you have 

also indicated on the chart—correct me if I am wrong—tha t there 

were basically five assistants to the President who reported directly 

to him. These men were John Ehrlichman, Bob Haldeman, Henry 

Kissinger, Clark MacGregor, and Peter Flanigan.

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Kehrli. That is right.

Senator Weicker. And you also indicated that the Special Counselors Robert Finch and Donald Rumsfeld also reported directly to the 

President but did not have specific operational responsibility to the 

White House?

Mr. Kehrli. That is correct.

90 -2 96 0 — 73-------bk. 1— 7
92

Senator Weicker. Is it not true tha t the only people who had 

direct access to the President were Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, 

and Dr. Kissinger, and th at other people, including Clark MacGregor, 

Peter Flanigan, Finch, Rumsfeld, et at , saw the President but only 

at the sufferance of one of these three men?

Mr. Kehrli. No; I would say tha t if they wanted to see the President, then a time would be set up based on the President’s schedule and 

the President’s priorities. And tha t was something t hat Mr. Haldeman 

was aware of and was able to set up.

On the other hand, the President at any time may have called for 

them or anybody else on the staff.

Senator Weicker. But if the initiation of this contact was made 

by any of these individuals, they would have to go through one of 

the three tha t I have mentioned, Kissinger, Ehrlichman, and 

Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrli. They would go to Mr. Haldeman to see what the 

President’s schedule was in terms of time. Obviously, his time was 

more important than theirs. And in order to make sure tha t there 

was time available to see him, then they would go to Mr. Haldeman.

Senator Weicker. In other words, do you consider as a practical 

matter Haldeman, Dr. Kissinger, Ehrlichman, Clark MacGregor, 

Peter Flanigan, Finch, and Rumsfeld equal as far as access to the 

President?

Mr. Kehrli. I would not call them equals as far as access to the 

President, no, because each of them had different needs to see the 

President. The nature of Bob’s, Mr. Haldem an’s, job was such that 

he saw the President quite often. The nature of Mr. Rumsfeld’s 

and Mr. Finch’s jobs were such tha t they did not need to see the 

President tha t often. They did not request to see the President tha t 

often.

Senator Weicker. Did Dr. Kissinger go through Mr. Haldeman?

Mr. Kehrl i. I do not think so, and I can’t say tha t for a fact.

Senator Weicker. Now, logs are kept, are they not, as to those 

persons tha t see the President and who telephone the President?

Mr. Kehrl i. That is correct.

Senator Weicker. And who keeps those logs?

Mr. Kehrli. Those logs are—actually, it is a compilation. The 

White House operators keep track of the phone calls and any number 

of people put together the log on who sees the President. It may be 

the military aide who is walking along and somebody may walk up 

to the President and shake his hand and sta rt a conversation. So he 

would be the only one present, so he would be able to put tha t 

together.

The scheduling office keeps a log of his formal appointments. 

There is a secretary who sits outside his office who also keeps track 

of other people who are called in periodically. So actually, it is a 

combination of a number of different inputs tha t results in the final 

listing of people who saw the President.

Senator Weicker. Does Mr. Nesbitt have the responsibility of 

keeping logs as to who sees the President?

Mr. Kehrli. Mr. Nesbitt’s responsibility is in terms of the daily 

diary, which is just what it says, a diary of the President’s activities
93

and phone calls for tha t particular day. He gains inputs from various 

sources and combines them so that the log shows not only phone calls, 

but also shows meetings and business.

Senator Weicker. So this is, if there were any place, this is the 

one central place where you would have a fairly accurate description of both the personal meetings and the phone conversations with the 

President?

Mr. Kehrli. It is one place. It is n ot the only place.

Senator W’eicker. Could you tell me what the other place is?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, also within central files, which is the general 

filing organization, we have an organization tha t keeps track of who saw the President, when they saw him, and also what correspondence has gone back and forth between them. So, if a letter comes in to the President, we can pull the background information on him, letting him, or whoever is going to be drafting the response, know when this individual writing the letter saw the President last, when he wrote 

the President last, and w hat the response was, if any.

Senator Weicker. All right, just two questions. First of all, where 

is Fred Fielding on this chart?

Mr. Kehrli. Fred Fielding was the deputy counsel. He was John 

Dean’s deputy.

Senator Weicker. And on the chart here, he would be listed 

where?

Mr. Kehrli. He would be listed below Mr. Dean.

Senator Weicker. And have you ever worked with Mr. Fielding?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, I have.

Senator Weicker. In what capacity?

Mr. Kehrli. Well, in my capacity as staff secretary, one of my 

responsibilities is to make sure that any papers going to the President are thoroughly staffed, and that includes a legal opinion. Mr. fielding 

was often the contact for these matters.

Senator Weicker. And then my last question, Mr. Kehrli. At the 

time of the 1972 campaign, or prior to it, were there any changes of 

your duties, or any additional duties which were given to you, which 

were precipitated by the campaign?

Mr. Kehrli. No. In January 1972, I changed jobs—January 1. 

Th at is when I went from being staff assistant to Mr. Haldeman into 

my present position as staff secretary.

Senator Weicker. B ut at no time did you acquire any duties tha t 

related to the campaign?

Mr. Kehrli. No.

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya?

Senator Montoya. Mr. Kehrli, how many people were separated 

or transferred to the Committee To Re-Elect the President from the 

White House?

Mr. Kehrli. I do not have tha t exact figure with me. I can look 

that up.

Senator Montoya. Would you furnish it for the record?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir, 1 will.
94

[The following information was submitted by Mr. Kehrli in reference 

to the above:]

Persons separated or transferred fr om the R kite House to the Committee To Re-Elect

the President

•'V a 7 n € Separation date

Sloan, Hugh W., J r------------------------------------------------------------- Mar. 6, 1971

Harlowe, Jayne L. (Miss)__________________________________ May 1, 1971

Magruder, Jeb S__________________________________________ Do.

Odle, Ro be rt C., Jr________________________________________ Do.

Rob erts, Gene E. (Miss)________________________________________ Doi

Jablonsky, D. Lea (Miss)__________________________________ May 21, 1971

Duncan, Martha H. (Miss)_________________________________ Jun e 12, 1971

Kaupinen, Allan George____________________________________Oct. 29, 1971

Smith, Kenneth M________________________________________ Nov. 9, 1971

Shumway, DeVan L_______________________________________ Jan. 14,’ 1972

Koon, Karen L. (Miss)____________________________________ Feb. 12, 1972

Foust, Jon A--------------------------------------------------------------------- Apr. 1, 1972

Hum phrey, Kath erine J. (Miss)_____________________________ July 1, 1972

Licata, Ju di th Ann (Mrs.)__________________________________ Do.

MacGregor, Clark_________________________________________ Do.

Malek, Frederic V_________________________________________ Do.

Rausch, Doris (Miss)______________________________________ July 18, 1972

Deane, Joh n Russell, III___________________________________Aug. 4, 1972

Anderson, Stanton D_______________________ _ _ _ Aug. 19, 1972

Ochs, Valerie H. (Mrs.)____________________________________ Do.

Jones, Jerry H -------------------------------------------------------------------Apr. 7, 1972

Senator Montoya. How many people did you have at the White 

House during the course of last year? What was the largest number 

you had on the staff? You mentioned tha t now you have approximately 500 on board.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir; well, at one point, we were at around 510 

and then we have our fiscal year 1974 budget is for 480 and we will 

be down to 480.

Senator Montoya. So you are effectuating a reduction of approximately 30 people?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Do you have any on board from other 

departments?

Mr. Kehrli. At this point in time?

Senator Montoya. Yes.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. How many, approximately?

Mr. Kehrli. I do not have the figure on that. I can give you tha t 

figure.

Senator Montoya. Give me a round figure more or less?

Mr. Kehrli. Oh, maybe 15.

Senator Montoya. What was the cause for the reduction in the 

budget request?

Mr. Kehrli. The President’s request that all parts of the Executive Office cut back and—th at is basically it.

Senator Montoya. Now, during the course of the campaign, you 

were in charge of paying everyone on the White House staff, were 

you not? You were more or less the one who made the payroll?

Mr. Kehrli. No, sir; well, I was indirectly in charge of the payroll. 

We have an accounting operation consisting of career Government 

employees who handle the payroll and details tha t go along with that.
95

Senator Montoya. How were those people from the White House staff who accompanied the President paid per diem when they re­ mained in some places overnight during the political campaign?

Mr. Kehrli. They were paid out of funds from the Committee To 

Re-Elect.

Senator Montoya. You had no—you did not authorize the payment of any funds to these people out of White House funds?

Mr. Kehrli. Not that I know of. And again, as I said, we bent over backwards trying to make sure that anything tha t could come anywhere near being considered political was paid for out of the Committee To Re-Elect. In fact, I am sure that in many cases, there were events that were not political in any way, shape, or form, to avoid any appearance of paying for them out of Committee To ReElect funds.

Senator Montoya. Mr. Chairman, in view of the committee’s policy tha t we no t prolong the testimony of this witness because he was called for a different purpose other than for matters of substance, I will defer any furth er questioning, if he is going to appear again.

Senator Ervin. Well, thank you very much. I understand you are 

willing to come back at some future time.

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And also willing to comply with the record that the information which Senator Montoya asked you about a moment ago about, the number of people and the identity of people transferred from the White House staff to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Kehrli. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Thank you very much.

Mr. Kehrli. Thank you.

Mr. Dash. Would Sergeant Leeper come forward?

Senator E rvin. Hold up your right hand. Do you swear the evidence you should give to the Senate Select Committee on Presiden­ tial Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Sergeant Leep er. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Sergeant Leeper, for the record, would you please state 

your name and address?

TESTIMONY OF PAUL W. LEEPER, SERGEANT, METROPOLITAN 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sergeant Leep er. My name is Paul William Leeper. I am a sergeant assigned to the Metropolitan Police Department. My address is 2301 

L Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Mr. Dash. How long have you been a police officer, Sergeant?

Sergeant L eeper. I am in my 12th year, sir.

Mr. Dash. And a sergeant?

Sergeant Leeper. For the last 2%, 3 years, sir.

Mr. Dash. And what is your assignment in the Police Department?

Sergeant L eep er. My assignment right now, sir, is I am in charge 

of the second district’s casual clothes squad.

Mr. Dash. Where does tha t operate, what is the area, region of the 

city?
96

Sergeant Leeper. In the area of the Watergate complex, the White 

House area.

Mr. Dash. Was th at your position on June 17, 1972?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir. We were working that area.

Mr. Dash. Now, Sergeant, is the dress tha t you are presently 

wearing at this committee hearing the type of dress that you usually 

wear in your vocation?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. What is your usual dress?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, we vary it from anything from old Army 

shirts, golf jackets, golf hats, casual clothes. I had a pair, on the night 

in question, a pair of blue slacks on, a blue jacket with a university 

written across the front of it, and a golf cap.

Mr. Dash. And in the police automobile tha t you use, is this a 

marked automobile or unmarked?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir, it is unmarked.

Mr. Dash. Was tha t the kind of automobile that you were in on 

June 17, 1972?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Thank you.

Now, can we first have chart 5. While they are getting the chart, 

Sergeant, can you tell us did there come a time sometime early in the 

morning of or of June 17 or late in the evening, whatever time it 

occurred of June 16, tha t you received a call to come to the vicinity 

of the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. What was the nature of that call?

Sergeant Leepe r. Well, the call came out about 0152 hours on the 

morning of the 17th, Saturday, and the call originally came out for 

any scout car, which would be a marked car vehicle in the Police 

Dep artm ent and official in it to respond to the Watergate, 2600 

Virginia Avenue, to assist a special officer, the official vehicle would 

be a sergeant, lieutenant, or a captain’s cruiser. These would be 

marked vehicles. No one answered th at, and the dispatcher, the police 

dispatcher came over the air and asked if there was any TAC unit 

in the area.

Senator Baker. Any what?

Sergeant Leeper. They refer to us as casual clothes, tactical squads 

and they have other squads.

Senator Baker. TAC unit.

Mr. Dash. Authority for tactical unit.

Sergeant Leeper. Tactical unit. Yes, sir, and at this time I was 

working in cruiser 727, which is an unmarked police vehicle with 

Officer John Barrett and Officer Carl Shoffler.

Mr. Dash. Where were you located when you received that call?

Sergeant Leeper. We were in the area of about K and 30th, 

Washington, D.C.

Mr. D ash. How close was it to the Watergate complex?

Sergeant Leeper. Approximately a minute and a half, 2 minutes 

away.

Mr. Dash. If you can see the chart which is on the easel, and if 

not, can you go to it, do you recognize the photograph that appears 

on that easel?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir; it is of the Watergate complex.
Mr. Dash. What does it represent?

Sergeant Leeper. The Watergate complex and the Howard Joh n­ son across from it, the Kennedy Center on down from it and just the 

general area of the Watergate complex.

Mr. Dash. Is tha t where you went to with your automobile on 

that early morning of June 17?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Can we have that photograph?

Senator Ervin. Let the record show that photograph-----

Mr. Dash. Will be marked as an exhibit.

Senator Ervin [continuing]. Will be marked by the reporter as 

the appropriate exhibit. [The photograph referred to was marked exhibit No. 10 and appears 

on p. 99.]

Mr. Dash. Sergeant, we are getting a little closer, what do you 

see there on tha t little one?

Sergeant Leeper. Th at would be the Virginia Avenue side of the 

Watergate complex, 2600 block of Virginia Avenue NW.

Mr. Dash. All right. Can we have tha t next photograph now? Can the photograph which has just been exhibited be appropriately num­ bered by the reporter prior to making it an exhibit? [The photograph referred to was marked exhibit No. 11 and appears 

on p. 100.]

Mr. Dash. Now, can we identify this drawing, Sergeant, as to the Watergate and the Howard Johnson, what does it show to you?

Sergeant Leep er. It shows the Watergate, the sixth floor, Demo­ cratic National Committee in relationship to the Howard Johnson, 

which is located across the street from it.

Senator Ervin. It will be marked by the reporter as the appropriate 

exhibit. [The drawing referred to was marked exhibit No. 12 and appears on 

p. 101.]

Mr. Dash. Now, did you have anything to do with the Howard Johnson location, when you arrived in answer to tha t call?

Sergeant Leeper. No, other than the fact when we were on the 

balcony of the Watergate.

Mr. Dash. What balcony was th at, Sergeant?

Sergeant Leeper. Th at was the sixth floor, the balcony of the 

Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Dash. Would that be where the space is on the left?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir. Where he has it marked, sir, directly 

across from the Howard Johnson.

Mr. Dash. Right. Why do we not hold that? Can we have the next exhibit? Sergeant do you recognize these drawings?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. You have seen them before?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. These drawings were used at the trial of the WTatergate 

case in January?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And you did testify at that trial?

Sergeant Leepe r. I did, sir.

Mr. Dash. When you did, you did use these drawings?
98

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And the numbers that appear on the right hand corner 

are the trial exhibits.

Now, of course, the letters show, can you identify that drawing and 

what it portrays?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir; that is the layout of the Democratic 

national headquarters, the sixth floor.

Senator Ervin. Let the reporter mark it with the appropriate 

exhibit number.

[The drawing referred to was marked exhibit No. 13 and appears on 

p. 102.] *

Mr. Dash. Now, can you, Sergeant, go to the exhibit? [Witness goes 

to exhibit.] All right, now, Sergeant, when you received the call 

and came to the Watergate complex—could you now indicate on the 

drawing where you arrived. Indicate your entry and indicate on the «

drawing what you and those officers accompanying you did?

Sergeant Leeper. You want me to start, sir, from the time we 

arrived in front of the Watergate?

Mr. Dash. Yes, from the time you arrived in front of the Watergate.

Sergeant Leeper [indicating on the drawing]. After the call came 

out we responded in the area of 30th and K, in front of the Watergate 

about seven car lengths from the main door going up into the lobby 

of the Watergate complex. At tha t time myself, Officer Barrett, and 

Officer Shoffler got out of the vehicle, went up the steps into the 

lobby where we were met by a special police officer who had put the 

call out.

Mr. Dash. Do you know his name, Sergeant?

Sergeant Leeper. Wills, Burt Wills.

Mr. Dash. You say special police officer, was he an employee of the 

Watergate?

Sergeant Leeper. No.

Mr. Dash. To your knowledge?

Sergeant Leeper. No, he is employed for a guard service that is 

employed by the Watergate complex.

Mr. Dash. But his responsibilities, as you know it, were as a guard 

for the Watergate?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. All right. Continue, Sergeant.

Sergeant Leeper. We conferred with him there in the lobby and at 

tha t time he brought it to our attention he had made his rounds about *

20 or 30 minutes prior to this and found tape on one of the doors 

leading from the garage into the B-l level.

Mr. Dash. When you say tape on one of the doors, could you explain tha t; what do you mean or what did he mean to you or what did *

you understand him to mean as tape on the door?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, at tha t time, sir, we really did not understand what he meant by it. We responded down to the area where the 

tape was found and after looking a t the door, the door had been taped 

with sort of a light colored masking tape. When the door w’ould shut 

from all appearances the door would be locked bu t the lock is held in 

by the tape where the door was shut and it will not lock.

Mr. Dash. So this tape was on the edge of the door?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.
• •

Exhibit No. 10
Exhibit No. 11

> • * •
• • 4

EXHIBIT NO . 12

WATERGATE OFFICE BUILDING and HOW ARD JO HN SO N'S MO TO R LODGE

2 6 0 0 blo ck o f Vir gin ia Ave nu e. N .W .. W ashin gto n. D.C .

elevation pl an lOuk ing no rt hw es t
Exhibit No. 13

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CO MM ITTE E HEADQUARTERS]

W ate rg ate O ffic e Bu ild ing

2 6 0 0 Virgin ia Av en ue . N .W . •

W as hi ng to n. D.C .

m r

■ i_ - “ I s —

K.W---- 1.

«• u 7 /

SIX1 H FLOOR PLAN

oto

X
103

Mr. Dash. Forcing back the lock t hat would ordinarily spring and 

lock the door?

Sergeant L eepe r. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And keeping it from being locked.

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. What did you understand the purpose of th at taping to 

be then?

Sergeant Leepe r. At tha t time i t would give anyone who wanted to go in and out accessibility without having to use a key or a pick or 

something to unlock it.

• Mr. Dash. Did you know whether these doors locked from the 

outside only or from both sides?

Sergeant Leeper. With the lock in, you could not get in from the outside. I believe when we investigated tha t you could not get in also

* from the inside, a double locking type of service.

Mr. Dash. So if anybody who wanted to get inside and he was outside and he did not have a key he would have to tape the edge to 

get in?

Sergeant Leeper. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. All right, proceeding, what did you do thereafter?

Sergeant Leepe r. At this point, after finding the door, it is not on 

this map here, I mean on this chart, but the door leading from the garage level into a small cubicle was taped, also the door leading from the cubicle into the stairwell was also taped, and not only the guard but we had prior knowledge from my crime reports tha t burglars and burglar attemp ts on the eighth and sixth floors of the Watergate com­ plex, and the guard, I think brought it to our attention at tha t time they had some problem up there with attem pted burglaries. So at th at time, we sent the guard back to the area of the, where we had met him in the lobby in case, you know, we figured we had somebody inside at this time. We had a burglar going down on us, we sent him back to the lobby and myself and Officer Barrett and Officer Shoffler re­ sponded to the eighth floor by way of the stairwells. When we arrived at the eighth floor, which is the Federal Reserve Board, the door leading from the stairwell to the offices on the eighth floor was also taped in the same manner, same type of tape. There was a guard with us at that time, a guard by the name of Helms, who is a guard for the Federal Reserve Board, and his two assignments are the eighth floor and the B-l level, which they had some offices on, the Federal Reserve 

Board. We began a check of the eighth floor with tha t guard, he was sup­ posed to have the keys to most of the offices. He could not get any of his keys to work in any of the office doors and all of them were locked. We found no other evidence of any tampering with any of the office doors leading off the main hallway on the eighth floor. At that time we responded back out to the stairwell. I directed tha t guard to respond back to the lobby to assist the other special officer in case anyone who was in the building could double back on us in any way. At that time Officer Barrett responded to the ninth floor and Shoffler and myself 

responded down to the seventh floor.

Mr. Dash. You were going down the stairwell, is th at right?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir. We were in the stairwell right now, in 

the Watergate complex, it would be this stairwell here, these sta irwells here, sir.
104

Mr. Dash. And going down from the eighth?

Sergeant Leeper. Myself and Officer Shoffler are going down 

preparato ry to checking the n inth floor.

The seventh floor door leading from the stairwell was locked. There 

was no evidence of any tampering of t hat door. We responded down 

to the sixth floor, the door leading from the stairwell had been taped 

in the same manner. At tha t time I responded to the corner stairwell 

and yelled for Officer Ba rrett to meet us-----

Mr. Dash. When you use the term “responded” Sergeant, you 

mean you went in?

Sergeant Leepe r. I walked around about halfway up the seventh •

floor and yelled for Barrett. I said we have another door taped and 

responded here and come down here to assist us. At tha t time the 

three of us went into the sixth floor of the Watergate complex, which 

is the National Democratic Committee. We came in through here. *

We began a check of the offices that were open, some were opened, 

some were closed, when we got into this area we responded down to 

this area.

Mr. Dash. Officer, excuse me, when you went in was i t dark, was 

it light, were there any lights on?

Sergeant Leeper. There were some lights on, yes, sir, and we, as 

we checked each room we would flip the light switch on.

Mr. Dash. You were flipping lights on?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, on and off. This door here was locked 

tight, we came back up this hallway and began a search of these 

floors here, myself and Officer Shoffler went into this room because 

this door here was propped open with a chair, which would, you know, 

which led us to believe we might have surprised somebody and ran 

out on the balcony. We went out on the balcony and began a search of 

the terrace.

Mr. Dash. You are now referring to the time you testified a little 

earlier?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Going out on that balcony, tha t is the balcony you 

referred to?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, tha t is the balcony right across from 

the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge.

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did you see when you went out on 

tha t terrace?

Sergeant Leeper. We searched the terrace with negative results *

but as we were coming back in Officer Shoffler said to me, he said,

“Do you think tha t man ,” something to the effect “ tha t man across 

the street who sees us,” because at the time we had an—Officer 

Shoffler----- «

Mr. Dash. When you said across the street, do you mean on the 

pavement?

Sergeant Leeper. No; at the Howard Johnson, on one of the 

balconies of the Howard Johnson.

Mr. Dash. Is tha t a level sort of parallel to the terrace where you 

were on?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir. And Officer Shoffler had his weapon 

out at the time, and he called it to my attention, he says tha t man 

across the street is watching us, I wonder if he called the police.
105

Senator Baker. Jus t one second, just a second, I do not mean to unduly interrupt counsel, but just so I can keep the continuity in my mind, tha t man across the street was in the Howard Johnson?

Sergeant Leeper. That is correct.

Senator Baker. Where?

Sergeant Leeper. He was out on the balcony. I did not see him, 

Senator. It was just called to my attention by Officer Shoffler.

Senator Baker. But you knew he was watching you?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. How long did he watch?

Sergeant Leeper. I do not know, sir. I did not even look over. 

I jus t-----

Senator Baker. You had your guns out?

Sergeant Leeper. I did not have my gun out but Officer Shoffler 

had his weapon out.

Senator Baker. And you were on the floor of the DNC, the Democratic National Committee?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. The balcony outside?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, it is referred to as the terrace.

Senator Baker. Who was that fellow?

Sergeant Leepe r. It was later found to be James Baldwin.

Senator Baker. Do you know how long Baldwin watched?

Sergeant Leeper. 1 think from the time we pulled up in front here, 

sir.

Mr. Dash. All right. Then, what did you do? Did you leave the 

terrace at tha t time?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, we responded back in the area of the hallway and we met up again with Officer Barrett down to this area, checking the offices tha t were open as we came down the hallway, and we came into this room here through a glass door, Officer B arrett was the first man followed by myself and Officer Shoffler. Officer Barrett responded up to this area here and I started into this little secretarial cubicle here, Officer Shoffler was somewhere in this area and at this 

point I heard Officer B arrett yell: “ Hold it, come out.”

Mr. Dash. Where was tha t voice coming from?

Sergeant Leeper. Officer Barrett?

Mr. Dash. Yes; where was tha t voice coming from?

Sergeant Leeper. Right in this area here, Officer B arrett was right 

in this area. At this time I responded back out of the cubicle into this cubicle, jumped up on the desk, drawing my weapon and when I looked over this glass partition there were five men standing in front of a desk with their hands either raised above their heads or at least 

shoulder high wearing blue surgical gloves.

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did you see them doing at the time tha t their hands were up when you had your guns out on them?

Sergeant Leepe r. Some of the gentlemen, sir, had tried to remove 

the gloves by using, you know, taking one hand and trying to throw it 

off with the other.

Mr. Dash. Did you notice any kind of equipment or paraphernalia 

in and around where you found the men?

Sergeant L eepe r. Yes, sir. One of the men had, was carrying an 

a.w.o.l. bag, an overnight bag, semilarge brown bag with his coat
106

draped over it contained various items, cameras, bulbs, clamps for 

clamping the cameras to the desk, walkie-talkies, things of this sort.

Mr. Dash. Now, just going down toward the corner there from 

that room where you apprehended the men, the corner toward the 

bottom right corner, go all the way down to the large office in the 

corner there.

Sergeant Leeper. Right in here, sir.

Mr. Dash. No; the large office in the corner, the verv edge, whose 

office is that?

Sergeant Leepe r. That is the office of the chairman at tha t time 

of the Democratic Party was Lawrence F. O’Brien. •

Mr. Dash. And was there entrance to tha t office from or access to 

it from where you found the men you apprehended?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir. As you can see by the chart, sir, you 

had access to tha t office. *

Mr. D ash. And next to tha t office, to the left, whose office was that?

Sergeant Leepe r. T hat is the deputy chairman, sir, Stanley L. Gray.

Mr. Dash. Now, you at tha t point, what did you do with the men 

he apprehended at tha t point?

Sergeant Leeper. We ordered them out from behind the desk and 

lined them up along the wall, facing the wall, hands on the wall, feet 

spread apart, and at tha t time I informed them who we were, they 

were under arrest for burglary and advised them of their rights and at 

tha t time, I directed Officer Barrett to begin a systematic search of 

each man.

Mr. Dash. Did you notice anything unusual about these men when 

you arrested them, the way they were dressed?

Sergeant L eeper. They were well dressed, sir, in either suits, sport 

coats and ties.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you know the names of those people, did the y 

give their names at tha t time to you?

Sergeant Leeper. At that time, no, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did they give any names to you?

Sergeant Leeper. Later, when they were booked in the precinct, 

taken to headquarters, 2301 L Street, they gave us names which later 

proved to be false names, aliases.

Mr. Dash. Did you later find out who they were?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Could you name the persons who you arrested in tha t 

location by the names that later found o ut who they were to be? •

Sergeant Leepe r. Frank Sturgis, Bernard L. Barker, James 

McCord, Eugenio Martinez, and I think it was Virgilio Gonzales.

Senator Ervin. Virgilio Gonzales?

Sergeant Leepe r. I believe t hat is the way he pronounces his name. 4

Mr. Dash. Did you accompany them down to the station house?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, we sent three of them down in a patrol 

wagon, one was transported, I think Mr. McCord, was transported 

in 83 scout and I transported Mr. Barker in the old clothes TAC 

unit, the unmarked cruiser.

Mr. Dash. At a later time did you come back and make any search 

of any room in the Watergate complex?

Sergeant Leeper. I came back to the Watergate complex but the 

search was made by the Mobile Crime Unit. At the time we could
107

get in touch with them they handled all the searching of the rooms 

and all the fingerprinting and processing.

Mr. Dash. What rooms were searched?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, the Mobile Crime did a search of the whole complex—sixth floor complex. The conference room, all these 

rooms along here.

Mr. Dash. Were there any other rooms in the hotel or any other 

place of the complex tha t was also searched?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir. We obtained search warrants at about 2:30 in the afternoon, tha t would be Saturday afternoon on June 17,

* and went into rooms 214 and 314 of the Watergate Hotel.

Mr. Dash. What led you to get such search warrants?

Sergeant Leepe r. Well, we checked the guests, the register, to see who was registered at the Watergate and I think they also checked

• the Howard Johnsons across the stree t and some of the fictitious names these gentlemen had used were on the register of the Watergate 

Hotel

Mr. Dash. Could you say briefly what, if anything, was found in 

the search of th at hotel?

Sergeant Leepe r. More electrical equipment, more blue surgical gloves, about $4,200 in $100 bills, all in sequence, all brand new $100 bills; some electronic equipment. I guess th at is it.

Mr. Dash. Sergeant, could you shed any light—were you present or do you have any knowledge of any check that was found on any one of these defendants or notebooks tha t had the name, E. Howard 

Hunt?

Sergeant Leepe r. I was on the search team tha t went into room 214 of the Watergate Hotel. It was myself and Detective Robert Dennell of our Department, Carl Shoffler, an agent from the Washington field office of the FBI; and also one of the men from Mobile Crime, Don Cherry, assisted us. At tha t time, it was called to my attention 

tha t they did find a book with the name-----

Mr. Dash. Found what, sir?

Sergeant Leeper. A small notebook, as you described it, with the 

names tha t you had brought out in it.

Mr. Dash. The name E. Howard Hunt? Is that the name?

Sergeant Leeper. I believe it said, “E. Hunt, W.H.” , on it, sir.

Mr. Dash. Are you aware of finding on the person of any defendant or anyone in the room any check that was signed by Mr. Hunt?

* Sergeant L eeper. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Dash. Did you do anything else tha t evening or tha t morning 

or the following day with regard to the defendants?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, I was at the second district headquarters

* when we began processing these men for court. I did not do actually anv of the paperwork. We were assisted by some detectives, and Officer Barrett stayed on the scene out at the Watergate. He was trying to get in touch with somebody from the Democratic National Committee and later, Mr. Stanley Greigg came down. He was brought to the station with Officer Barrett, at which time, he was shown the five defendants to see if they had any right to be in the building, be in that area, the sixth floor, at which time he stated they did not.

Mr. Dash. At the time of the arrest, did you notice whether any of those persons apprehended were employed or had any relationship with the Committee for the Re-Election of the President?

96 -2 96 O— 73- -bk. 1— 8
108

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did you learn at any time th at any of them did?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, after it hit the wire services and the press 

started picking it up, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. You learned it from the press?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. I have no furth er questions.

Did you find any money on any of the indiv’duals tha t were 

apprehended?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, we found quite a bit of money—well, 

not quite a bit. I would say about $3,600, all in $100 bills, all in the •

same sequence.

Mr. Dash. Was it $3,600?

Sergeant Leeper I could give you a close estimate, Hke-----

Mr. Dash. Would you leave the chart now and go back to the table? *

Now, would you refer to your records and give us a more specific 

stateme nt as to the amount of money you found on any of the individuals and also in the hotel room?

Sergeant Leeper. Also, from the defendant, Edward Joseph 

Hamilton, which would be Fran k Sturgis, was approximately $215 in 

bills. From the defendant Fran k Carter, which would be Bernard 

Barker, was approximately $230 in bills, two of which were $100 bills, 

and also Sturgis, two of the $250 he had was in $100 bills.

From the defendant Jean Valdez was $814 in bills, seven of which 

were $100 bills.

Mr. Dash. Who is Valdez?

Sergeant Leepe r. That would be Martinez, Eugenio Martinez.

Mr. Dash. From Earl Godoyn was $230 in bills, He would be, his 

real name would be Virgilio Gonzalez, was $230 in bills, two of which 

were $100 bills.

From Mr. McCord, using the alias of Edward Joseph Warren, 

no money was found on him.

Mr. Dash. Are you acquainted with how much money was found in 

the room, when the room was searched in the hotel, the apartm ent in 

Watergate?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir, there was $3,566.58. There was four 

packs of brandnew $100 bills, eight in a pack, so it would be $3,200 in 

$100 bills, all in the same sequence.

Mr. Dash. Did you or someone make a record of the serial numbers 

of those bills? •

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, the Mobile Crime, which was Don 

Cherry, was on the scene with us.

Mr. Dash. Would you provide the committee with a list if we do 

not already have it of those numbers? I t is not necessary to read them •

at this point in the record.

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

[The list of serial numbers on $100 bills requested of the witness 

follows:]

C 03642257 A through C 03642264 A.

F 02457423 A through F 02457430 A.

F 02457433 A through F 02457440 A.

F 02457503 A through F 02457510 A.
109

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when after the defendants 

were apprehended at the station, did any attorneys appear on their 

behalf?

Sergeant L eepe r. Yes, sir, and I will state to you these gentlemen 

refused to make any phone calls and refused to have us notify anyone 

at all.

Mr. Dash. So they did not make any phone call out that you 

know of?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir, it was around, probably around 9 or 9:30 

Saturday morning, still in the a.m., tha t two attorneys did come to the second precinct headquarters at 2301 L Street and state tha t they 

were there to represent the five defendants.

Mr. Dash. Do you have their names, Sergeant?

Sergeant Leeper. Their names were Douglas Caddy and Mr. 

Rafferty’s name. I do not know his first name. It might be James 

Rafferty, I think.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any further questions.

Mr. Thompson. I will defer to the Chair, Mr. Chairman. I do not 

have any questions.

Senator Ervin. Wha t was the name of the second lawyer?

Sergeant Leeper. Mr. Rafferty, sir.

Senator Ervin. What time did they appear?

Sergeant Leeper. It was around 9 o’clock.

Senator Ervin. They appeared notwithstanding the fact tha t no 

phone calls had been made by the persons arrested?

Sergeant Leeper. Th at is correct, Senator. The defendants made 

no calls. In fact, they would not let us call anyone for them. They 

wanted no calls made.

Senator Ervin. The serial numbers of these $100 bills were new 

bills?

Sergeant L eeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you took the serial numbers of all the bills 

down and you will supply the serial numbers to the committee?

Sergeant L eeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. I have no further questions. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will try 

my best to be brief. Sergeant, what time did you ordinarily work? What was your shift?

Sergeant Leepe r. We were working the 4 to 12 shift, sir.

Senator Baker. 4 in the afternoon to 12 midnight?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I take it you worked late this time?

Sergeant Leeper. Very late, sir.

Senator Baker. Was tha t on account of the workload or some 

other reason?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir; we have quite a few office buildings in 

our area. We have quite a few burglaries in these office buildings.

Senator Baker. Is that part of the TAC squads or casual clothes 

squad’s responsibility to canvass and protect these office buildings?

Sergeant Leeper. Any type of crime, sir, mainly street robberies, 

commercial robberies, burglaries, larcenies of autos—we work over 

quite a bit.

Senator Baker. This was 11:52 in the morning when you received 

the call. Was the call to you or did you volunteer to take the call?
110

Sergeant Leeper. We volunteered to call when the dispatcher 

stated, “Is there any TAC unit in the area?” At tha t time, Officer 

Shoffler picked up the mike. He was riding on my right. I was driving.

He stated, “We are a TAC unit and we have a sergeant on board.”

Tha t is how we got into the affair.

Senator Baker. I am not trying to imply anything, but this was 

almost 2 hours past your regular shift?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Now, you have described for Mr. Dash at some 

length how you entered the building and went to the sixth floor, 

where the Democratic National Committee headquarters was then *

located, and I understand that you and who else were on the balcony?

What was the name of the other officer?

Sergeant Leepe r. Officer Shoffler, Carl Shoffler.

Senator Baker. At tha t time no one had been discovered inside? *

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Senator Baker. And you and Shoffler were on the Virginia 

Avenue side, facing the Howard Johnson Motel?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. And you or Officer Shoffler saw a man on the 

balcony across the street, at Howard Johnsons?

Sergeant Leeper. I did not see the man, sir. It was brought to 

my attention by Carl. He said, “I wonder if th at man over there is 

going to call the police.”

Senator Baker. What did you say to that?

Sergeant Leeper. The way we were dressed, him having his gun 

out.

Senator Baker. Was the gun clearly visible?

Sergeant Leeper. It was described in court by Mr. Baldwin in 

much detail, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. What did Mr. Baldwin do, do you know?

Sergeant Leeper. I believe at that time, he was on a walkie-talkie, 

talking to one of the gentlemen who was down the hall from us.

Senator Baker. Did you see that?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir. This is just what he has testified to in 

court.

Senator Baker. That is what Mr. Baldwin said?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Is Mr. Shoffler here with you, Officer Shoffler?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir. *

Senator Baker. Have you ever discussed with him whether he saw 

what Mr. Baldwin did or not?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir. I do not believe—once Mr. Baldwin had 

went off the balcony of the Howard Johnson, there would have been ••

no way that Carl could have seen what he had done. As a matter of 

fact, we were moving pretty fast. We were coming off the terrace, 

going back in to Officer Barrett inside to search the rest of the building.

Senator Baker. Was there any doubt in your mind that Baldwin 

saw you and Shoffler on the balcony?

Sergeant Leep er. No, sir. In fact, Senator, in court, he described 

my outfit almost to a “T ”, what I was wearing.

Senator Baker. I think, Mr. Chairman, at some point—not today, 

obviously, b ut I would like to have Mr. Shoffler called as a witness.

I would like to hear his firsthand testimony in tha t respect.
Ill

I have no further questions.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge?

Senator Talmadge. Sergeant, let me ask you about the demeanor of the people you arrested. Did they seem alert, competent, sure of 

themselves?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Did they act like they felt sure someone would 

take care of them?

Sergeant Leeper. I will say this, Senator, they were probably five 

of the easiest lockups I have ever had.

Senator Talmadge. Then you knew from the demeanor of the people you arrested, the prisoners, the sophistication of their equipment and their dress, tha t you did not have ordinary burglars on your hands, 

did you not?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. From the time you arrested the suspects on, did you ever have any contact with FBI agents or the U.S. atto rney’s 

office personnel?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir, and the FBI agent that worked closest with us on this case was Special Agent Lano, Angie Lano. At the time of the search warrants, when we went down and got the search war­ rants and served the search warrants, we were assisted by Chuck Work, assistant U.S. attorney. He assisted us in the search warrants and assisted us when we served the search warrants on the two rooms at Howard Johnson and the vehicle located in the basement—I am sorry, the Watergate and the vehicle locked in the basement of the 

Watergate.

Senator Talmadge. Did you have any further contact thereafter?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, when we went to court on the case, sir, the case was handled by U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert, Mr. Donald 

Campbell, and Mr. Seymour Glanzer.

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

No further questions, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, might I impose on my colleague just for 1 minute? There is one question I wanted to ask. I t will not 

take me b ut a second. You testified, Sergeant, as I recall, that no telephone calls were 

made by the prisoners?

Sergeant Leepe r. Th at is affirmative, sir.

Senator Baker. But the next morning at 9 a.m. or something or 

other, two lawyers appeared?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. Did anyone else besides lawyers appear?

Sergeant Leepe r. No/othe r than Mr. Stanley Greigg, who we brought down to the station in order to—was used as a complainant on the 251, which is a police report. And, of course—well, there was a lot of police. You mean, other than police personnel?

Senator Baker. Yes, other than police personnel. Did anybody appear to make bond for them or to talk to them or to represent 

them whether they were lawyers or anyone else?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Senator Baker. Who would know that?
112

Sergeant Leeper. Well, I was there from the time of the arrest 

until 7 o’clock Saturday night and I had no occasion to meet anyone, 

you know, other than the two lawyers who came in. In fact, I did 

not talk to them, they talked to Assistant Chief Wright.

Senator Baker. So you are assuming tha t no one else talked to 

these prisoners from the time you took them to the station house 

until 7 o’clock in the evening of June 17, except the two lawyers 

which you have identified, other than police officials, FBI officials-----

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Anybody else?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Senator B aker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Senator Gurney?

Senator Gurney. Sergeant, did you or any of the other police at 

the station house find out how these lawyers knew these people were 

there under your custody?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir. I believe when they came in—I did not 

talk to them when they came in, but I understand they said to the 

station clerk, the first police officer they had contact with, we are 

here to represent the five men who were locked up.

Senator Gurney. No one asked who advised them?

Sergeant Leeper. No; the officer did not. He should have asked 

them at that time what are their names, but he did not. He just 

referred them to Assistant Chief Wright, who talked to them from 

then on.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever find out who did call them?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. No further questions.

Senator E rvin. Senator Inouye?

Senator I nouye. Sergeant Leeper, you have indicated tha t the 

men you arrested all gave false names?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. In a physical search, did you come across any 

identity papers, papers to identify these men?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, Senator, Mr. Sturgis, Frank Sturgis who 

used the name of Hamilton, he had a visa from Mexico in an alias 

name. Mr. McCord, I am not sure on the driver’s license. Also, Mr. 

Sturgis had a driver’s license, I believe, either from New York State 

or Massachusetts, in a-----

Senator Inouye. Was it made out in their real names?

Sergeant Leeper. No; he also used the name of Fra nk Fiorini. He 

had about three or four different aliases.

Senator Inouye. And all of these identity papers were in their 

false names?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. Did you check and see where they got these 

identity papers?

Sergeant Leeper. No, Senator. After the arrests were made and 

the defendants booked, a lot of the leg work, so to speak, the investigative work was picked up by the Washington field office and our 

burglary squad. It was almost in reality taken out of our hands.

In other words, we did not go over to National Airport and find 

out wha t plane they had flown in on and things like th at.
113

Senator I nouye. Are these identity papers still available?

Sergeant Leepe r. Yes, sir. They are either held by the U.S. 

atto rney’s office, which is still, yon know, involved in this case, or they 

would be down at our property office.

Senator I nouye. Were they very professionally made?

Sergeant Leeper. I couldn’t comment on that, sir. I don’t think 

I have the qualifications to say that, whether they were or they 

weren’t.

Senator I nouye. Mr. Chairman, may we request to have these 

iden tity papers?

Mr. Dash. I think we have some of the exhibits tha t were turned 

over by the police department.

Mr. Thompson, do we have that?

Senator I nouye. Mr. Leeper, you have indicated tha t in the service of your search warrant, you had an assistant U.S. attorney, Mr. 

Charles Work?

Sergeant Leeper. Th at is affirmative, sir.

Senator I nouye. Was it the usual procedure to have an assistant 

U.S. attorney in a burglary case?

Sergeant Leep er. No, sir, but it being where this burglary had 

occurred, the dress and manner of these men, we felt tha t i t was just a little bit bigger than the average burglary. Th at is all I can say.

Senator I nouye. And the District of Columbia Police Department 

requested the arrest-----

Sergeant Leep er. Yes, sir, I think Inspector Charles M. Monroe 

was the night inspector who assisted us on it and I think he requested 

the chief U.S. attorney-----

Senator I nouye. You also testified tha t you had a meeting with 

Mr. Silbert.

Sergeant Leep er. I have had many meetings with him, yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. Wha t is the nature of the conversations?

Sergeant Leeper. Preparing myself, Officer Barrett, Officer 

Shoffler, for the case tha t went to court.

Senator Inouye. It has been reported tha t when Mr. McCord was 

taken to the station, he was recognized by several officers. Is th at true?

Sergeant Leep er. Senator, I didn’t leave that station, just for on 

and off, you know, maybe to go down to the Watergate to serve the search warrant, until 7 o’clock the next night. I didn’t go to court with Mr. McCord. He may have been recognized down there. I can’t 

answer th at, sir.

Senator Inouye. What happened to the property tha t was taken 

as a result of the search warrant?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, like I stated before, Senator, some of the 

property is down at our property office and I understand some of it is being used by the U.S. attorney ’s office in the processing of the case.

Senator Inouye. Well, this list was made on Saturday, wasn’t it, 

after the search?

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Why is it tha t it wasn’t available until the 19th 

at 5 p.m.? I was told that an official of the Democratic National Com­ mittee wanted to have a list of those things tha t are—were taken out and the police department could n ot furnish him with this until 

5 p.m. on the 19th.
114

Sergeant Leeper. I couldn’t answer that, sir. Once the property 

left our hands, it is handled by Mobile Crime. That is their purpose. 

They have officials down there and you would have to go through 

them.

Senator Inouye. Who ha d charge of the investigation by the D.C. 

Police Department?

Sergeant Leeper. Inspector Prete, who was at that time inspector. 

He is deputy commander of the CID.

Senator Inouye. During the handling of this case, did you ever 

receive any special instructions or advice from anyone?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, other than what I have said before. We had 

meetings with the U.S. atto rney’s office, just preparing us to go to 

court on the case, which is just the normal—if you have any type of 

case, you usually meet with the U.S. attorney prior to your going into 

the courtroom.

Senator Inouye. When was the investigation discontinued by the 

Police Department?

Sergeant Leeper. Well, for us, Senator, it was almost discontinued 

other than testifying in court tha t Saturday. In other words, the investigation, the running down of the different leads, was handled by 

our burglary squad and, of course, the field office. As far as Officers 

Barrett, Shoffler and myself, other than testifying in court, tha t 

ended on Saturday.

Senator Inouye. Is this case closed as far as the D.C. Police Department is concerned?

Sergeant Leeper. I couldn’t answer that right now, sir.

Senator Inouye. I understand tha t the chief FBI agent in charge, 

Mr. Lano-----

Sergeant Leeper. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye [continuing]. Called your department on June 22 

complaining of leaks of information to the press. Did he make such a 

call?

Sergeant Leeper. I don’t know, sir. He didn’t make such a call to 

myself.

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker?

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Jus t a few very brief questions, one for Sergeant Leeper and then 

one for Officer Barrett.

Sergeant, do you think tha t the result would have been any different 

if it had been uniformed police in a marked car tha t had arrived to 

take care of this matter?

Sergeant Leeper, le s, sir; I don’t think there would have been an 

apprehension.

Senator Weicker. Why do you say that?

Sergeant Leep er. Well, because of the fact tha t Baldwin 

would have made a marked car. It has “Police” written on it in six 

places. It has a domelight on top of it. The officers would have been 

dressed in full uniform. There would have been no doubt tha t it was 

police. I think that just gave us an edge of, say, 5 minutes and Baldwin 

didn’t make us until he seen Shoffler’s gun on the terrace. Then at 

tha t time, I don’t think he really knew for sure if we were police or 

not, but he felt it was probably some type of security force, you know, 

maybe the security force for the Democratic Party.
115

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question 

of Officer Barrett. I understand he is here; might he be sworn, Mr. 

Chairman?

Senator Ervin. Yes. Maybe we had better get through with this 

witness before we have another one.

Senator Weicker. Was it the intention to call Officer Barrett?

Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Barrett, will you stand up; hold up your 

right hand. Do you swear that the evidence which you shall give to 

the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so

• help you God?

Mr. Barrett. Yes; I do.

Senator Ervin. John Barrett, what is your other name?

• TESTIMONY OF JOHN BRUCE BARRETT, OFFICER, METROPOLITAN

POLICE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Officer Barrett. John Bruce Barrett.

Senator Ervin. John Bruce B arrett, and you might state your residence and occupation for the record.

Officer Barrett. I am a policeman assigned to Second District 

Headquarters, 2301 L Street NW.

Senator Weicker. Officer Barrett, were you the first one to actually 

apprehend or see the group of individuals in that room?

Officer Barrett. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. At tha t moment in time did you hear anything 

tha t might have been a conversation coming over a walkie-talkie?

Officer Barrett. No, sir; I did not hear anything, I just saw 

something.

Senator Weicker. What did you see?

Officer Barrett. I saw an arm ; I stopped in the position before I 

entered the secretary’s office outside of Chairman O’Brien’s and I 

hesitated there for several minutes because it was dark back in the 

partitioned area, and while hesitating at tha t partition I saw a m an 

down in a crouched position as if hiding by stooping—when the 

shadow passed my face, I was startled and t ha t began the whole mess.

Senator Weicker. And, just in conclusion, were these individuals 

in possession of a walkie-talkie?

Officer Barrett. Yes, sir; Mr. Barker had a walkie-talkie in his

• possession.

Senator Weicker. Did any communication come through that 

walkie-talkie at any time?

Officer Barrett. There may have been some communication; I did

• not personally hear anything. I was too concerned.

Senator Weicker. Sergeant Leeper, did you hear any communication come over the walkie-talkie?

Sergeant Leeper. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. I just have one or two questions, in order to 

clear the record. Would you state for the record the names of the 

individuals tha t were apprehended tha t night and also the different 

aliases tha t applied to each one?
116

Sergeant Leeper. All right, Senator. James McCord, Jr., used the 

alias of Edward Martin. Bernard L. Barker used the alias of Frank 

Carter. Fran k Sturgis used the alias of Joseph E. Hamilton and also 

Frank Fiorini. Eugenio Martinez used the alias of Jean Valdez;

Virgilio Gonzalez used the alias Raul Godoyn.

Senator Montoya. And you indicated, I believe, tha t they were 

registered there at the Watergate Hotel under their aliases.

Sergeant Leep er. 1 do not think all four of them had signed the—

I would have to look back at the duplicates we have.

Senator Montoya. How many rooms did they have?

Sergeant Leep er. They had two rooms at the W atergate—214 and «

314.

Senator Montoya. Just one more question. What happened to the 

man across the street—Mr. Baldwin? Did you make any move or 

did the Police Department make any move to investigate what was «•

going on in that particular room or did you communicate any suspicion to the burglary staff at the Police Department to follow through 

on that?

Sergeant Leeper. Not at tha t time; no, sir.

Senator Montoya. When was this done?

Sergeant Leeper. We made no communication with any Washington field office or our burglar squad with reference to this man.

We had seen no significant matter at tha t time, you know, it did 

not mean anything to us at the time.

Senator Montoya. You did not include tha t in your report?

Sergeant Leepe r. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o’clock 

tomorrow morning.

Thank you very much.

Sergeant Leepe r. Thank you, sir.

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to resume at 

10 a.m., Friday, May 18, 1973.]
FR ID A Y , M AY 18, 19 73

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on

Presidential Campaign Activities,

Washington, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 

318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 

Gurney, and Weicker.

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; Fred D. Thompson, 

minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief counsel; Arthur 

S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, 

James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; 

Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, 

H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; 

Joan C. Cole, secretary to the minority; Pauline O. Dement, research 

assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, 

office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 

Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Marc Lackritz, 

Ron Rotunda, assistant counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings counsel; 

John Walz, publications clerk.

Senator Ervin. I address these remarks to the committee members. 

It has been suggested by several members of the committee tha t when 

the Senators question the witnesses in the first go-around they 

limit themselves to 10 minutes and have as many rounds as they 

want to, but tha t is so each Senator gets the opportunity, a reasonable 

time for questioning.

If there is no objection I would ask unanimous consent tha t the 

Chair be allowed to limit each go-around to not more than 10 minutes 

questioning, with the understanding you can come back later as 

many times as you want to.

Will counsel call the first witness?

Mr. Dash. Officer Shoffler.

Senator Ervin. Do you swear tha t the evidence you shall give to 

the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you God?

Mr. Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. For the record, Officer Shoffler, will you give your full 

name, address, and what your present occupation is?

TESTIMONY OF CARL M. SHOFFLER, OFFICER, METROPOLITAN 

POLICE DEPARTMENT

Officer Shoffler. Carl M. Shoffler, police officer.

Senator Gurney. Officer, if you would pull the mike a little closer 

to you I think we would hear better.

Mr. Dash. Will you repeat your name?

(117 )
118

Officer Shoffler. Car l M. Shoffler, sir. Police officer assigned to 

special serv ices bur eau , add ress is 300 Indian a Avenue NW.

Mr. Dash. Were you on du ty in the early morning hours of Ju ne 17, 

1972?

Officer Sho ffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. D ash. And wh at pa rti cu lar outfit or un it were you assigned 

to?

Officer Sho ffler. Second district tac tical squad ron , casual clothes 

unit.

Mr. D ash . W ere you at th at tim e traveling with Serge ant Leeper?

Officer Sho ffler. Sergean t Leepe r and Officer B ar re tt and I were 

pa rtn ers th at pa rticular evening .

Mr. D ash . Did you answer with those other officers a call to come 

to the W aterga te complex?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. D ash. I hav e no fu rth er questions of the witn ess, Mr. Chairman. I think Senator Ba ker ha s some questions.

Mr. T hompson. One or two questions.

Officer Shoffler, do you recall when you received the word from 

he ad qu arters to answer this call at the Wate rga te? We re you in the 

car with Sergeant Leep er?

Officer Shoffl er. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Do you know, do you rem em ber wh eth er or no t 

you respon ded to the effect th at a uniform car should no t be sent?

Officer Shoffl er. On runs on a casual un it response, if a casual 

clothes un it take s the run n orma lly a uniform car s tay s o ut of the area. 

I do no t recall if pa rti cu lar ins tru ction s were given to them on th at 

evening to sta y ou t of the area.

Mr. T hompson. B ut it wou ld no t have been unu sua l for you to make 

such a request?

Officer Shoffl er. No, sir.

Mr. T hompson. W ha t tim e of the mo rnin g was this?

Officer Shoffl er. Ap proximate ly 1:52 a.m.

Mr. T hompson. Were you work ing pa st your regula r du ty hours on 

th at occasion?

Officer Shoffl er. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompso n. W ha t were your regula r du ty hou rs?

Officer Shoffler. 4 p.m . to 12 p.m., sir.

Mr. T hompso n. Wh y were you working overtime th at parti cu lar 

night?

Officer Shoffler. Ou r tac tic al squadro n deals with wh ate ver pa rtic ular crime problem is—a problem at th at time. We were having, we 

were experiencing a problem with office larceny and burglaries in the 

dow nto wn area, and felt th at working over ma y produce results.

Mr. T hompson. When you got there at the W aterga te who did you 

meet at the Wate rgate complex?

Officer Sho ffler. Th e guard , Mr. Fr an k Wills.

Mr. T hompson. W ha t did Mr. Wills say to you at th at time?

Officer S ho ffler. Mr. Wills st ated th at he had discovered the doors 

ha d been tap ed in a man ne r as to allow entrance .

Mr. T hompson. Did he state anyth ing else to you?

Officer Sho ffler. I asked him if th ere had been any prior burglaries. 

We were aware of p rior b urg laries in the bu ilding bu t no t at the pa rti cular floors. Mr. W ills relate d to us there had been bu rglaries, I believe, 

on the sixth and eig hth floors.
119

Mr. T hompson. What prior burglaries were you personally aware of 

besides what Mr. Wills told you?

Officer Shoffler. We were just aware of burglaries from our crime 

sheet at that particular address. I do not believe any of us were aware 

of any details.

Mr. Thompson. Did you observe tape on the locks of the doors at 

the Watergate complex?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Which doors?

Officer Shoffler. We went down to the garage level with Mr. Wills, 

so he could explain to us what he had discovered, and the doors at the 

garage level both had tapes on the locks.

Mr. Thompson. What did you perceive as you entered the Watergate?

Officer Shoffler. When we originally arrived at the scene?

Mr. Thompson. Yes.

Officer Shoffler. Through the front door, the lock.

Mr. Thompson. You went down, through the front door, down 

to the B-2 garage level. Did Mr. Wills go with you to show you tha t 

tape?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. All right. After that, what did you perceive?

Officer Shoffler. At that time myself, Sergeant Leeper, and Officer 

Barrett responded up to stairwell, we ascertained from the guard that 

the stairwell and the elevators were the only ways out of the building 

so we felt tha t it would be best if we went up the stairwell, we might 

possibly surprise someone in the stairwell.

Mr. T hompson. Did Mr. Wills go with you?

Officer Shoffler. I believe Mr. Wills at tha t point responded to 

the elevator and I believe he went to get the guard to the eighth floor 

because he had keys for the doors.

Mr. Thompson. Guard for the eighth floor?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Was there a guard especially designated to guard 

the eighth floor?

Officer Shoffler. It was my understanding there was a guard for 

the eighth floor, yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Did you find tape on the door of the eighth floor 

leading from the stairwell?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. How many other doors did you find tape on?

Officer Shoffler. We made a fast search of the eighth floor and 

were able to determine there were no signs of forceful entry into any 

of the offices on the eighth floor and we immediately, within a few 

minutes responded back down checking the stairwell as we went down 

and found tape on the sixth floor door.

Mr. Thompson. What is located on the eighth floor?

Officer Shoffler. The National Democratic Committee.

Mr. Thompson. On the eighth floor?

Officer Shoffler. On the eighth floor, Federal Reserve.

Mr. Thompson. And it was on June 17th?

Officer Shoffler. That is right.

Mr. Thompson. And on the sixth floor the Democratic National 

Headquarters or was at tha t time?
120

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Is tha t correct? You checked the eighth, went 

down to the sixth, found tape on the door of the sixth and proceeded 

inside, is that correct?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Were you the officer who went on to the balcony 

there?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Did you observe anything across the way at the 

Howard Johnson motel across the street?

Officer Shoffler. I noticed a gentleman about our level tha t 

appeared to be observing us.

Mr. Thompson. What caused you to reach tha t conclusion? Was 

he just looking in your direction?

Officer Shoffler. He was looking in our direction, yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Was he by himself?

Officer Shoffler. Yes; to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Thompson. Was he conspicuous, were there any other persons 

out there?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Could you determine his features?

Officer Shoffler. At tha t particular time because of the fact we 

were moving in more or less a hurried pace, the only thing that I 

really did pay attention to was the fact tha t there was a subject over 

there. I was interested in this, in the fact tha t my dress and the fact 

tha t I had at tha t point my weapon out-----

Mr. Thompson. What I am really getting at is what in your mind 

could he, to make you very well-----

Officer Shoffler. I believe he saw us very well.

Mr. T hompson. The room where you were there on the balcony, 

was it light?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. What was your dress at tha t time?

Officer Shoffler. It was casual clothes, I believe I had a cutoff 

army jacket on, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Could you tell whether or not this m an across the 

way had a walkie-talkie?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Mr. T hompson. You could not tell. Was this because of your haste 

or because of the lack of light where he was?

Officer Shoffler. More so probably because of our haste.

Mr. Thompson. Because of the light?

Officer Shoffler. Because we were in a hurry.

Mr. Thompson. Because you were in a hurry.

Did you observe him closely enough to tell in your mind that he 

was probably observing you?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Did you make some comment to your fellow officers 

about that?

Officer Shoffler. Because of our dress, I felt tha t he may possibly 

call the police and they might with sirens and lights respond.

Mr. T hompson. Do you know the dispatcher who took this call 

this night from Mr. Wills or whoever it was there at the Watergate 

and called in this particular burglary?
121

Officer Shoffler. This will be from my recollection of our inte rview approximately a few weeks after the burglary and at tha t time I believe the dispatcher told me tha t the guard had placed the call.

Mr. Thompson. The guard placed the call. Do you know the name 

of the dispatcher?

Officer Shoffler. I will have the name shortly, sir.

Mr. Thompson. All right. Are those calls recorded in any manner?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir, for a period of 2 months.

Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not there was more th an 

one call made tha t night?

Officer Shoffler. I do n ot know, sir, I believe there was only one 

call made from our conversation.

Mr. Thompson. Are those records of those calls periodically 

destroyed by the police department?

Officer Shoffler. As I said, sir, I believe they keep them for 2 

months and then destroy the tape.

Mr. Thompson. Unless a special request is made tha t they be retained; do you know whether or not they were retained in this 

instance?

Officer Shoffler. I believe tha t the U.S. attorney’s office requested a transcript of the statement.

Mr. Thompson. Have you seen the transcript yourself?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. But I think it may be available in the district 

attorney’s office.

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. All right. Did anyone request you to work overtime tha t night?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. Any further questions?

Senator Baker. Yes, sir, I have a few.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thompson, I believe, has covered the events of that night very carefully and I have only a few questions to ask, a few further questions 

to ask. When you arrived at the sixth floor, how many doors were taped?

Officer Shoffler. To the best of my recollection at this point, only 

the door leading from the stairwell into the floor, the entrance.

Senator Baker. The stairwell to the fire escape or the stairs tha t 

lead from the sixth floor to the lower floor?

Officer Shoffler. Th at would be the stairwell tha t leads from the 

sixth floor to the lower floors.

Senator Baker. Yes, is tha t also the fire escape?

Officer Shoffler. Both stairwells are together. I imagine tha t is 

the fire escape also, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Yes, do you have to have a key to get through 

that door to the fire escape as well as to get into the building, into the 

floor?

Officer Shoffler. It is necessary to have a key to gain entrance to 

the floor from the stairwell, but it is not necessary to have a key to get 

from the floor to the stairwell.

Senator B aker. Was there any other door taped tha t you have any 

recollection of?
122

Officer Shoffler. On that floor?

Senator Baker. Yes, sir, the door to the DNC, the Democratic 

National Committee, was not taped?

Officer Shoffler. The two glass doors around the other side there, 

you mean?

Senator Baker. Yes, sir.

Officer Shoffler. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Senator Baker. Or any doors inside the DNC?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Senator Baker. So with the tape on the door from the stairway to 

the main sixth floor, if you assume for the moment that it was taped for 

a sinister purpose, you would only need to have a tape to get into the 

sixth floor, you would not need a tape to get out from the sixth floor?

Officer Shoffler. I believe tha t is correct, sir, yes.

Senator Baker. Now, you went out on the balcony on the sixth 

floor, is that correct?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you have a flashlight?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Was it lighted?

Officer Shoffler. I believe I used it on the corner of the ledge. 

I had gone out on the ledge.

Senator Baker. Were you clearly visible on tha t balcony?

Officer Shoffler. I believe—I imagine you are referring to from 

the Howard Johnsons.

Senator Baker. That is what I am referring to.

Let me short circuit the inquiry by saying tha t I am trying by this 

line of questioning to establish these things: Tha t you were on the 

balcony; tha t the balcony is across the street from Howard Johnsons; 

tha t a man was over there who we later learned was named Baldwin; 

tha t you were clearly visible, tha t you had a flashlight, that you 

had your pistol; tha t Baldwin was there and in your judgment, he 

saw you. If all those things are so, you may say so.

Officer Shoffler. All those things are so, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. What did Baldwin do?

Officer Shoffler. What did I later find out he did?

Senator Baker. No, what did you see him do?

Officer Shoffler. Oh, he just stood there, Senator.

Senator Baker. When did the additional police arrive? When did 

the uniformed police and the police marked cars arrive? How long 

after you arrived?

Officer Shoffler. I would imagine it would have been approximately a half hour after the arrest.

Senator Baker. Do you know who made the call on that, or did it 

arrive in the ordinary course of events?

Officer Shoffler. Sergeant Leeper requested transports.

Senator Baker. Did he do tha t after you went into the Watergate 

or while you were still in your patrol car?

Officer Shoffler. Oh, after we had made the arrest. That is-----

Senator Baker. Oh, I see, after you had made the arrest?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Now, when you got inside and made the arrest— 

by the way, who made the arrest, who made the first discovery of 

the intruders in the Democratic National Committee offices?
123

Officer Shoffler. Officer Barrett first.

Senator Baker. Were you with him at the time?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir. .

Senator Baker. Was there any communication by walkie-talkie 

or—by walkie-talkie, tha t you heard or know of?

Officer Shoffler. I heard none, no, sir.

Senator Baker. The name of the building guard was-----

Officer Shoffler. Mr. Frank Wills.

Senator Baker. Mr. Wills. And you met Mr. Wills in the lobby 

of the Watergate?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. What was his state of mind or appearance? W as 

he agitated or calm?

Officer Shoffler. Mr. Wills is a type of person tha t is very hard 

to judge his demeanor.

Senator B aker. What did he tell you?

Officer Shoffler. He was saying about he felt there was somebody 

inside possibly, that at one time he had seen tape on a door and he removed the tape and later on, he saw the tape was back, and •

Senator B aker. Did he say what floor that was on?

Officer Shoffler. He kept indicating, I believe he kept indicating 

the garage door at the B—2 level, because when we asked him to show 

us, th at is immediately where he took us.

Senator Baker. Did he ever speak of the tape on the sixth floor 

or the eighth floor?

Officer Shoffler. At this time, I have no recollection of him speaking of tape on those particular doors, sir.

Senator Baker. Did Mr. Wills make any reference to the Democratic National Committee?

Officer Shoffler. I do not believe, as again my recollection, I do 

not believe he at any time indicated what he knew was on the sixth floor except I think he informed us tha t there were burglaries on the 

sixth floor and he was aware of tha t.

Senator Baker. Did he make any indication as to why he did not 

call you when he first found the doors taped, but rather only after 

they were retaped? .

Officer S hoffler. I believe when I interviewed him later, he told 

me tha t his suspicion was aroused only after the second time, be­ cause he had thought tha t possibly employees of the building or some­ one doing work in the building, as a convenience, taped the doors to 

keep them open.

Senator Baker. I believe t hat is all, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator Ervin. Any further questions?

Mr. Dash. Just to clarify the record, Senator Baker asked you a question concerning whether or not the tape was needed if one was inside the room in order to get out and I think you said that one did not. Sergeant Leeper yesterday testified t hat these doors were locked both inside and out, so tha t if you were inside, you would need a key to get out, and therefore, it was his testimony tha t the tape was 

necessarv to get out. Do you have information on that?

Senator Baker. All right, now, Mr. Chairman, just a second.

You know, we are not in a court of law. We don’t proceed by evi­ dentiary rules, but the witness testified yesterday very clearly in one

96-296—73—bk. 1 -9
124

respect and this witness has testified very clearly today. I think we 

ought not to try to lead the witness into a different statement. 1 

think both statements stand on their own merit and we ought to leave 

it there.

Mr. Dash. I am just asking the question. Senator, as to whether 

he knows these doors are locked from inside and out.

Senator Baker. He has already testified tha t you need a tape in 

order to gain entrance but you do not need the tape to get out.

Senator Ervin. 1 see no harm in the question. I think we can 

probably let him answer.

Mr. Shoffler. There was, even at the time of the arrest and the 

small investigation we did after, we weren’t able to determine too •

much about the door. This morning I placed a call to clarify it and 

was informed tha t certain offices in that building, you do need a key 

for both ways. But they have a buzzer system because of the fire 

regulation to get out of the office. That particular office didn’t have a ♦

buzzer system and you could have free access from the floor to the 

stairwell.

Senator B aker. So you did not have to have a key to get out?

Officer Shoffler. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Thank you.

Senator E rvin. Senator Weicker?

Senator Weicker. Officer Shoffler, how long were you on the 

balcony?

Officer S hoffler. I would estimate 3 or 4 minutes.

Senator Weicker. And how long after you believed Baldwin to 

have seen you when you apprehended the defendants?

Officer Shoffler. It would have had to have been within 5 or 6 

minutes, 5 minutes at the absolute most. We went immediately from 

the balcony to the hallway, down the hallway, the three of us, then 

Officer Barrett observed movements behind a screen and the arrests 

were made.

Senator Weicker. So the time was, the time from when you say 

you believed Baldwin to have seen you, to the time tha t you apprehended the defendants was 5 minutes?

Officer Shoffler. At the most, yes.

Senator Weicker. A t the most. And the time that you were actually on the balcony, again about 2 or 3 minutes?

Officer Shoffler. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Could you give me an answer on that?

Officer Shoffler. I would think tha t the whole time, from his •

observation of me on the balcony to the arrest, would have been 5,

6, 7 minutes at the most.

Senator Weicker. And the actual time spent on the balcony.

Officer Shoffler. Two to three minutes.

Senator Weicker. Two to three minutes.

1 have no more questions.

Senator E rvin. Thank you, Mr. Shoffler.

Call the next witness.

Mr. Dash. Mr. James McCord.

Senator Ervin. Mr. McCord, raise your right hand.

Do you swear that the testimony you shall give to the Senate 

Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth , so help you God?
125

Mr. M cCord. I do, sir.

M r. D as h. M r. M cC or d, will yo u br in g th e microph on e clo ser to 

yo u so we will he ar yo u.

No w, for th e reco rd , will you first st ate yo ur na m e an d ad dress?

TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. McCORD, JR .; ACCOMPANIED BY 

BERNARD FENSTERWALD, JR., COUNSEL

Mr. McCord. James W. McCord, M-c-C-o-r-d, Jr ., the addre ss is 

No. 7 Winde r, W-i -n-d -e-r, Win der Co urt, Rockville, Md. 20850.

Mr. Dash. Are you accomp anied with counsel this m orning?

• Mr. McCord. 1 am.

Mr. Dash. Will coun sel please ide ntify himself?

Mr. F enster wald. Yes, my n am e is B ern ard Fensterw ald , Jr . My 

e

business add ress is 810 16th Street NW ., Wa shington , D.C .

Mr. Dash. Mr. Mc Cord, prior to yo ur tes tim ony, do you hav e any 

preliminary st at em en t to mak e, th at you wish to make to the 

com mittee ?

Mr. McCord. Yes, there is. I would like to sta te, as I did when I 

app eared at the exe cutive session of this com mittee, th at I would like 

to be as accurate as I can, th at some of the da tes th at I will refer t o— 

the re are approx im ate ly 75 to 100 d iffe rent d ates—I will try to recall to 

the bes t of my memory. Some ma y be in error.

As I stated when I first appeared, some m atters go back some 12 or 14 

mo nth s and some of the matters th at are of i nterest to this comm itte e 

I hav e therefore se t forth in writin g, atte m pt in g to rec on str uc t my 

memory to the best of m y abi lity . I ma y refer to some of those memorand a during this me eting and to othe r note s th at perta in to dates, and 

I hope you will bear with me and un de rst an d my reas oning in th at 

regard.

I sta te finally th at my pa rticip ati on in the W ate rga te opera tio n on 

my pa rt, for wh atev er reasons J ma y hav e had at the time, wh ate ver 

ration ale I ma y have had at the time , was an error, was a mistake, 

a very grave mi sta ke, which I regiet.

I am rea dy to proceed with the questio ns.

Mr. Dash. All rig ht.

Now, is it a fac t now, Mr. McCor d, th at you prese ntly sta nd con ­

victed on a multic ou nt Fed eral indictmen t chargin g burgl ary , electron ic surv eillance and conspir acy arising ou t of the bre ak- in of the 

Demo cra tic Na tio nal Comm itte e he ad qu arters at the Wate rga te?

Mr. M cCord. That is correct.

Mr. Dash. Are you now awaiting sentenc e on th at c onv iction?

Mr. McC ord. T hat is correct.

Mr D as h. W ha t is y our profe ssional backgro und, Mr. Mc Cord?

• Mr. M cC ord. I was born in 1924 in Waurika, Okla. I wor ked first

for the Federal Bu rea u of Inv estig ati on in 1942, 1943, in Wash ing ton , 

D.C., in New York City. I, subsequentl y from 1943 to 1945, was an 

Arm y Air Corps officer. From 1948 to 1951, I worked as a special 

agent for the Federal Bureau of Inve sti ga tio n in San Diego and San 

Fra ncisco, Calif. I worked from 1951 to 1970 w ith the Cen tra l In telli ­

gence Agency as a sec urity officer. I ret ire d from th at agency in 

Au gust 1970 after 25 yea rs Federal service.

Mr. Dash. Now, officially, durin g yo ur service with the CI A and 

FB I, did you receive any awa rds or com me ndations for yo ur service?
126

Mr. McCord. I received on retirement in August 1970 the Distinguished Service Award for outstanding performance of duty with 

CIA. I received some others.

Mr. Dash. Now, prior to your arrest, indictment, and conviction 

relating to the Watergate incident, were you ever arrested, charged 

with a crime, or the subject of any complaint or disciplinary proceeding in your life?

Mr. McCord. I have had traffic violations in the Washington 

area; yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Is tha t all?

Were you an employee of the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Dash. What position did you hold and what were your duties?

Mr. McCord. I came aboard first as a security consultant part 

time in September of 1971.

Mr. Dash. By the way, how did you get tha t job?

Mr. McCord. I was introduced initially by Mr. John Caulfield 

and Mr. Odle, the Director of Administration who testified yesterday, 

and based on tha t interview was employed part time and then full 

time in January, the first of January 1972.

Mr. Dash. Now, what were your duties in tha t position as security 

chief?

Mr. McCord. The duties were essentially the function of the 

protectio n of the property and the lives of the personnel of the committee in that facility there and subsequently in the facility at Miami, 

Fla., that the committee and some of the White House staff would 

occupy during the Republican Convention in August of 1972. The 

duties were primarily those of physical security protection of personnel security, some document security, and some protective work 

for the family of John Mitchell.

Mr. Dash. Now, were those duties, and tha t assignment tha t you 

have just described under whose direction did you work?

Mr. McCord. Primarily under the direction of Mr. Robert Odle 

who was my immediate supervisor in the committee. The responsibility with Mr. Mitchell and his family, I received directions from 

him, from Mrs. Mitchell, from Robert Odle and Mr. Liddy.

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you worked under the 

direction of Gordon Liddy?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Liddy’s position at that time?

Mr. McCord. He was at first from December until about March 

19—December 1971 to about March 1972—general counsel for the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President. Thereafter he was—occupied 

the same position with the finance committee for the reelection of the 

President.

Mr. Dash. When did this arrangement begin or, in which capacity 

did you work under his direction, Mr. McCord, with Mr. Liddy?

Mr. McCord. The first discussions of the arrangements began sometime in Janua ry 1972. Early January.

Mr. Dash. Could you briefly state for the committee, Mr. McCord, 

what it was th at Mr. Liddy wanted you to do?

Mr. McCord. I can give a bit of a background if you want that. 

When he first came aboard the committee in December 1971 he began 

to—we struck up an acquaintance, we had had a contact on it, and
127

he began to question me regarding the state of the art of certain 

technical devices, for one thing. Listening devices and so on which 

appeared to be at tha t point in time a professional interest, a normal 

professional interest of someone who had worked in the field of law 

enforcement. We discussed as well the common topic of common 

interest to him and to me, and to others who were senior on the staff of 

anticipated demonstrations and possible violence that might be coming 

up in San Diego, Calif., which was originally scheduled to be the convention site for the Republican Convention in 1972 in August. The 

discussions-----

- Mr. Dash. Could you raise your voice a little if vou can, Mr.

McCord.

Senator Baker. It might help—if I can interrupt just for a minute, 

Mr. McCord—1 believe it might help if the panel operator might give

♦ us some advice in tha t respect if you could be a little further away 

from the microphone and talk a little louder because we are having a 

difficult time up here trying to hear you.

Mr. McCord. I think I am a little hoarse; if you can turn up the 

volume it might help.

Mr. Dash. Would you continue?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Gradually the discussion in December, Ja nuary, February of 1972 

with Mr. Liddy, gradually developed into more and more conversation on his part with me in the offices of the Committee for the 

Re-Election of the President regarding technical devices and political 

matters pertaining to the forthcoming convention and tha t became 

apparent tha t he had an interest in several areas of intelligence 

gathering pertaining to the Democratic Party and the Democratic 

Convention, and in which it wTas contemplated or planned by him and 

by others wdiom he referred to in these conversations as John Mitchell, 

John Dean, counsel to the President, Jeb Magruder then in January 

the interim director of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, in 

which it appeared tha t those men, the four of them, were in the, by 

late January, the planning stage in which political intelligence was 

to be discussed at meetings at the Attorney General’s office, Mr. 

Mitchell’s office, and in which Mr. Liddy was seeking from me certain 

information regarding the costs and the types of electronic devices 

that could be used in bugging. That the part of the budget proposal 

which he was working, working on, the second part dealt with photog-

• raphy operations, clandestine photography operations, and a third 

partv dealt with the broad area of political espionage, political 

intelligence.

Mr. Dash. Specifically, Mr. McCord, when you speak of political 

e

activity, political intelligence, bugging activities, what do you mean

in terms of how th at was to be attain ed; try to be as specific as you

can, from your knowledge of what Mr. Liddy told you.

Mr. McCord. The area of political espionage and intelligence—I 

can set t hat one aside very quickly. He did not elaborate on in m any 

details at all to me personally. Apparently others were involved wdth 

him wrhich I can refer to later in the conversation—specifically Mr. 

Hunt, E. Howard Hunt.

The topic of photography, clandestine photography, in which he 

was preparing the budget and preparing to meet with the gentlemen 

I have referred to before, in planning sessions, dealt with photographic
128

equipment and the cost of photographic equipment and specific items 

of equipment tha t would be used against the Democratic Party, the 

Democratic hierarchy in Washington primarily, but also in Miami,

Fla. The electronic devices which he referred to specifically, were of a 

variety of types.

Mr. Dash. I am not asking specifically what the types were, but 

how were they to be used, where were they to be placed from your 

understanding?

Mr. McCord. The initial interests specified by Mr. Liddy in this 

regard were, No. 1, against Mr. Larry O’Brien, then chairman of the 

Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., at his resi- •

dence and subsequently at his office in the Watergate office building; 

perhaps other officers of the Democratic National Committee. The 

McGovern headquarters in Washington, D.C., were mentioned quite 

early in 1972. And there was some general reference to the Democratic ♦

National Convention facility or site wherever it might be located at 

this convention in the summer of 1972.

Mr. Dash. All right now, Mr. McCord; in connection with this 

assignment, in which you were having these discussions with Mr.

Liddy, did you come to associate yourself with Mr. E. Howard H unt,

Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio 

Gonzales?

Mr. McCord. Yes; I did.

Mr. Dash. And as a result of that association and your agreement 

with Mr. Liddy, did you with Mr. Barker, Sturgis, Martinez, and 

Gonzalez illegally enter the Democratic National Committee headquarters on two occasions one on or about May 30, 1972, and the 

other in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972?

Mr. McCord. I did.

Mr. Dash. On the first occasion on or about May 30, 1972, you 

installed two telephone interception devices or wire types on two 

office telephones; one on the telephone of Spencer Oliver and the 

other on the telephone of Lawrence O’Brien?

Mr. McCord. I did.

Mr. Dash. Leaving aside for the time being why you broke into 

the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate 

on the second time on June 17 and what circumstance led to your 

arrest, you were in fact arrested by plainclothesmen of the District 

of Columbia Metropolitan Police shortly after you entered; is tha t 

true? •

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Mr. Dash. Is that the arrest which led to your reconviction?

Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct

Mr. Dash. Will you tell the committee, Mr. McCord, why, after a 4

lifetime of work as a law enforcement officer without, as you have 

testified any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Liddy 

to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretapping and 

specifically the two break-ins on May 30 and June 17 of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?

Mr. McCord. There were a number of reasons associated with the 

ultimate decision of mine to do so. One of the reasons, and a very 

important reason to me was the fact tha t the Attorney General himself, Mr. John Mitchell, at his office had considered and approved the 

operation, according to Mr. Liddy.
129

Secondly, that the counsel for the President, Mr. John Dean, had 

participated in those decisions with him. Tha t one was the top legal 

officer for the United States at the Department of Justice, and the 

second gentleman the top legal officer in the White House and it was 

a matter that had currently been given-----

Senator Baker. Stop there, if you will, just for a second. I know 

you said you had approved according to Liddy, did you have personal knowledge of Mr. Dean’s participation or was this also according 

to Mr. Liddy?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Dea n’s participation came to me through two 

sources, one was Mr. Liddy, one was Mr. Hunt, E. Howard Hunt, in 

discussions which subsequently came to me, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I might say if I may, Mr. Chairman, that we have 

no desire to try to impede the progress of the testimony or to try to 

adhere strictly to the rules of evidence, such as the hearsay rule, which 

would otherwise apply in a court of law, b ut it would be helpful to me 

and I believe to the committee, if in each instance when the information you give us is not of your own personal first-hand knowledge, you 

identify it as such and give us the source.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir: I believe I was responding to the question 

of counsel, what were my reasons which involved in my case, a conclusion and motivation and intent as opposed to what someone had 

told me.

Senator E rvin. We will adhere as much as possible to the rules of 

evidence which have been established and used in all the courts and I 

would say that your testimony is to the effect th at you were assured 

by Mr. Liddy t hat John Mitchell and John Dean and Jeb Magruder 

had approved Mr. Liddy’s proposed operations, and you also received 

assurance not only as to Mr. Dean from Mr. Liddy but also from Mr. 

Hunt. That was based on what you were told bv Mr. Liddy and Mr. 

Hunt.

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct, sir.

Senator Ervin. I would say tha t under the rules of evidence this, 

at the present stage of this hearing, will not be admissible to show any 

connection with this matter by John Mitchell, John Dean, or Jeb 

Magruder but that the testimony which Mr. McCord is giving is 

relevant to show the motives which prompted Mr. McCord to participate in the matter.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir; I am explaining, I am not a lawyer, I am a 

layman, I will try to give the information of my knowledge, whether 

it is first hand or second hand for the benefit of this committee and 

you can stop me a t what point you may feel is proper to do so.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, if I might just elaborate at tha t 

point, I thoroughly agree with the statement made by the chairman, 

I associate myself with him as to its content and form and, once again, 

I am not trying to impede your testimony. But it would be very 

helpful to us when your information is not first-hand information 

you can identify it as such for our record.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Thank you.

Mr. Dash. Did you have any knowledge, directly or indirectly, 

that would lead you to believe or have information tha t the CIA was 

involved in this plan?
130

Mr. McCord. I had just the contrary, that there was no indication, 

no intelligence, no statements to me tha t this was a CIA operation, 

tha t quite the contrary, tha t it was an operation which involved the 

Attorney General of the United States at tha t point in time. Subsequently he became the director of the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President, involved the counsel to the White House, involved Mr. 

Jeb Magruder and Mr. Liddy, who was then general counsel, at tha t 

point in time of the Committee To Re-Elect the President and 

subsequently, was the finance committee general counsel, therefore, 

in my mind there was an absolute certainty tha t the CIA was not 

involved, neither did I ever receive any statement from any of the 

other codefendants a t any point in time up to June 17 or subsequently, 

that this was a CIA operation.

Mr. Dash. For the record, your restatement of your belief th at the 

Attorney General, Mr. Magruder, other than Mr. Liddy, was hearsay 

based on what Mr. Liddy told you and Mr. Hunt?

Mr. M cCord. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. Now, would you have acted any differently with regard 

to this plan if you believed tha t Mr. Liddy was masterminding these 

plans on his own?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I would.

Mr. Dash. And what would you have done?

Mr. McCord. At the proposal for the operation that Mr. Liddy or 

Mr. Hunt or any other individual acting separately and apart from the 

White House and the Department of Justice, I would not have participated, I have a personal opinion that some others would not have 

participated but tha t may not be relevant to your question. My 

question is a categorical answer to that, I would say tha t the decision 

made to participate was not one made immediately but only after I 

saw that the gentlemen involved given careful consideration to this 

operation over a period of time, including a 30-day waiting period 

which to me was highly significant.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. McCord, did you engage in any other break-ins 

or wiretaps on your own or with Mr. Hunt, Mr. Liddy, or others such 

as the break-in in Mr. Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office?

Mr. McCord. I did not.

Mr. Dash. Now, after your arrest which yen testified to, did you 

receive any money?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. From whom did you receive that money?

Mr. McCord. From the wife of E. Howard H unt, Mrs. Hunt.

Mr. Dash. Can you tell us hew much money you did receive?

Mr. McCord. Yes, 1 received legal fees of $25,000 for the payment 

of lawyers. I received a continuation of salary from July through 

January at the rate of $3,000 a month, which the others were receiving 

as well.

Mr. Dash. Did you have knowledge, information, and belief as to 

where this money came from?

Mr. McCord. I was told that it came from the Committee To ReElect the President by Mrs. Hunt.

Senator Ervin. The same thing applies, the same rule, that it would 

be hearsay as to the committee and would not at this stage of the 

hearing be evidence to connect the committee with it.
131

Mr. D ash. Now, a fter your arrest and at the tim e of the in dictmen t, 

af te r the trial or du rin g the trial, did you receive any pressures, sug ­ gestion s from an y perso n concerning wha t you sho uld do ab ou t th at 

trial with reg ard to yo ur plea, beh avior, or con duct?

Mr. McCord. Yes ; I did.

Mr. D ash. Wou ld yo u now please st at e to the comm itte e fro m whom 

you received such direction s or pressure s, an d wha t it was?

Mr. McCord. Yes; it e xten ded over a period of time beg inningMo 

the best of my reco llection, in late Septe mb er or early October 1972, 

and it continued th roug h the n igh t befo re m y conv iction o n Ja nu ar y 29, 

e

1973. The persons who com mu nicated inform ation to me, which I con strued as political pres sure , includ ed Mr. E. Howa rd Hun t, Mrs. Hun t speaking for M r. Hun t, she sta ted, my att orney, Mr. Ge rald

Alch, Mr. Jo hn P. Cau lfield------

> Mr. Dash. Will yo u please repe at again the name of you r at to rn ey

th at yo u ju st said?

Mr. M cC ord. Mr. Ger ald, G-e-r-a- l-d, Alch, A-l-c-h, and Mr. Jo hn 

Caulfield, C-a-u-l-f-i-e-l-d, who ha d orig inally h ired me for the position, or who had intervie we d me for the pos itio n with the Co mm itte e To 

Re -Elec t the President.

Mr. Dash. Now, w ith Mr. Hun t, and wi th Mrs . Hun t, recognizing 

th at you are dea ling wi th hearsay, whe n you heard th at said, wha t anoth er person said, wha t was comm unica ted to you by his presence ?

Mr. McCord. In reg ard to Mrs . H unt or Mr. Hu nt?

Mr. Dash. Well, first, Mr. Hun t.

Mr. McCord. Convers ations with Mr. H unt began, to the be st of 

my recollection, in late Septe mb er or ear ly Octob er 1972, when I was 

seeing him at the cou rthouse on variou s pretria l exercises or events, motions, th at were transp irin g, in which we wou ld talk ab ou t var iou s matters , includ ing the situatio n th at we were in, wh at the trial ap ­ peared to be at t h at po int in tim e— th at is, wha t the fu tur e looked like for us; and in telephone co nve rsation s, with him to me. In oth er words, both in p erson and by telephone, Mr. Hun t s tate d th at th e defen dants were going to be pro vid ed with, given E xecutive clemency after a period of time in pris on, if intere ste d, if they would plead guilty , and were sentenced, in a ple a of no t guilty , th at they were going to be giv en finan cial su pp ort while the y were in prison; th at is, the ir families would be; and th at rehabilitati on , no t specified, but reh abilitat ion , pe rhaps a job, would be pro vid ed for the men after the release from pris on.

Mr. Dash. All rig ht. Le t us leav e ou t for the mo me nt Mrs . Hun t. Wou ld you now proc eed to any con versa tions you had leading up to conta cts w ith Mr. Caulfield and wha t Mr. Caulfield did s ta te to you?

Mr. M cC ord. I have a sta temen t, sir, in this regard.

Mr. D ash. Do yo u hav e copies of t hat st at em en t fo r th e com mittee?

Mr. M cC ord. Yes. Could you please, Mr. Fensterwa ld, pro vide copies for the com ­

mittee ?

Mr. F enster wald. Yes.

Senator M ontoya. Mr. Ch air ma n, I would like for the witne ss to 

sum marize the rec ord ju st briefly, if he will— I mean, sum ma rize the 

sta temen t, unle ss he is going to rea d it i n full.

Mr. Dash. He wa nts to rea d it. Mr. Mc Cord, wha t led you to prepare the statem en t? Wh y have 

you pre pared th at sta teme nt?
132

Mr. McCord. I prepared it, sir, for accuracy’s purpose because of 

the na ture of the information that is contained therein, as I have done 

with some previous statements to this committee, where I felt tha t 

my best recollection, as best I can recall it, set down in writing, would 

be the most accurate way of doing it rather than, in effect, under the 

pressure of lights and cameras and what have you, make statements 

that might either be misconstrued or might be inaccurate on my part, 

and in order to set it forth as briefly as I know how.

Mr. Dash. All right.

Now, will you please read the statem ent, and will you read it clearly 

so we can all hear it now?

Mr. McCord. 1 will state as a preliminary tha t the dates of the 

telephone calls that 1 refer to in this statement are to the best of my 

recollection; they may be inaccurate by a day or two, but they are 

the best recollection 1 have of the dates on which the calls occurred.

The subject is political pressure on the writer to accept Executive 

clemency and remain silent.

Political pressure from the White House was conveyed to me in 

January 1973 by John Caulfield to remain silent, take Executive clemency by going off to prison quietly, and I was told tha t while there, I 

would receive financial aid and later rehabilitation and a job. I was 

told in a January meeting in 1973 with Caulfield that the President of 

the United States was aware of our meeting, tha t the results of the 

meeting would be conveyed to the President, and that at a future 

meeting there would likely be a personal message from the President 

himself.

Senator Ervin. I would like to state at this point that the testimony of Mr. McCord as to what was told to him by John Caulfield 

would not be accepted in a court of law to connect the President with 

what Mr. Caulfield was doing, but it is admissible to show whether or 

not Mr. Caulfield was a party to any agreement to connect the 

President for any information on what is known as the Watergate 

affair, but it is not received in connection to the President at this 

stage.

Senator Gurney. I think it ought to be pointed out at that time 

that at this time, Janu ary 1973, it is my understanding that Mr.

( aulfield was not in the White House at all, but was employed, I 

think, by the Treasury Department.

Mr. Dash. Tha t is right.

Senator Gurney. 1 hope we can correct these things as we go along, 

ou have all kinds of inferences heie tha t are inaccurate and are 

casting aspersions that are going to damage peoples’ reputations.

Mr. McCord. I only say in my statement tha t political pressure 

was conveyed to me by Mr. Caulfield which he attributed to the 

White House without citing-----

Senator Baker. May I ask the counsel if Mr. Caulfield is under 

subpen a?

Mr. Dash. Mr. Caulfield is under subpena and will be brought 

right after this witness.

Senator Baker. Is he under subpena at the present time?

Mr. Dash. His counsel has been informed tha t he wants to testify 

and he will accept a subpena.

Senator B aker. The answer is that he is not under subpena, and my 

request of the chairman is that a subpena be issued in standard form
133

for Mr. Caulfield to testify and tha t he be scheduled to testify immediately next succeeding this witness.

Mr. Dash. This was our understanding.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, will you take care of that request? 

Senator E rvin. Yes, 1 will sign it as soon as I can get somebody to

prepare it.

Mr. Dash. We have contacted his counsel and have been told by 

him tha t he is prepared to accept the subpena. Will you please proceed with your reading of the statement, Mr. 

McCord.

• Senator Ervin. I would like to reiterate tha t what Mr. McCord says Caulfield told him is admissible to show what Caulfield did and said tp you, sir, as a witness taking action or a friend taking action. It is not relevant to prove any connection with the White House or

* the President.

You may proceed now.

Mr. McCord. The sentence which follows the last sentence which I 

read from the memorandum reads, “The dates of the telephone calls set forth below are the current”—and tha t word is mistyped. It should be correct dates—“to the best of my recollection.” The second paragraph is: On the afternoon of January 8, 1973, the first day of the Watergate trial, Gerald Alch, my attorney, told me tha t William (). Bittman, attorney for E. Howard Hunt, wanted to meet with me a t Bittma n’s office tha t afternoon. When I asked why, Alch said tha t Bittm an wanted to talk with me about “whose word I would trust regarding a White House offer of Executive clemency.” Alch added tha t Bittman wanted to talk with both Bernard Barker 

and me tha t afternoon. I had no intension of accepting Executive clemency, hut I did want to find out what was going on, and by whom, and exactly what the White House was doing now. A few days before, the White House had tried to lay the Watergate operation off on the CIA, and now it was clear that I was going to have to find out what was up now. To do so involved some risks. To fail to do so was in my opinion to work in a vacuum regarding White House intentions and plans, which involved 

even greater risks, I felt. Around 4:30 p.m. that afternoon, Janu ary 8, while waiting for a taxi after the court session, Bernard Barker asked my attorneys and me if he could ride in the c.ah with us to Bittman ’s office, which we

► agreed to. There he got out of the cab and went up toward Bittma n’s office. I had been under the impression during the cab ride tha t Bitt­ man was going to talk to both Barker and me jointly, and became angered at what seemed to me—I can finish the statement, sir, if you , want. I am giving opinion. If you want opinion, I will finish the statement. If you want me to delete opinion, I will not finish the statement. I am setting forth the facts and what was going through 

my mind at the time.

Mr. Dash. Continue to read the statement, please.

Senator B aker. I think it is fine, Mr. McCord, for you to go ahead

and read the statement, but once again, to the extent that you can, would you identify as you go along those things attributed to other people tha t you do not know at firsthand? I have no objection, of course, to your stating what went through your mind. Your statem ent is significant in terms of your conduct, not necessarily in terms of the
134

facts themselves. And it is relevant to this committee’s inquiry as it 

relates to your conduct at one point or the other.

The request I made a few moments ago was that while some of your 

testimony will be hearsay in the strict sense, simply identify those 

parts, t hat information which you give us in this statement, which you 

received secondhand.

Mr. M cCord. Most respectfully, sir, I shall try to do so. What I am 

reading now is firsthand.

Senator Baker. Thank you.

Mr. McCord. The sentence tha t I began: Around 4:30 p.m. tha t 

afternoon, January 8, while waiting for a taxi after the court session, •

Bernard Barker asked my attorneys and me if he could ride in the cab 

with us to Bittman’s office, which we agreed to. There he got. out of 

the cab and went up toward Bittman ’s office. I had been under the 

impression during the cab ride t hat Bittman was going to talk to both •

Barker and me jointly, and became angered a t what seemed to me to 

be the arrogance and audacity of another man’s lawyer calling in two 

other lawyer’s clients and pitching them for the White House. Alch 

saw my anger and took me aside for about a half hour after the cab 

arrived in front of Bittman’s office, and let Barker go up alone. About 5 

p.m. we went up to Bittman’s office. There Alch disappeared with 

Bittman , and I sat alone in Bittman ’s office for a period of time, 

became irritated, and went next door where Bernard Shankman and 

Austin Mittler, attorneys for me and H unt respectively, were talking 

about legitimate legal matters. I might add at this point parenthetically no knowledge whatever th at either Bernard Shankman or Austin 

Mittler had any knowledge of whatever of the events which I am 

discussing in this memorandum.

Alch finally came back, took me aside and said tha t Bittman told 

him I would be called tha t same night by a friend I had known from 

the White House.

Senator Baker. Now, at tha t point, I take it that tha t is secondhand information?

Senator Ervin. That is testimony of what he says tha t his lawyer 

told him Mr. B ittman said. Of course, as far as Bittma n is concerned 

and the White House is concerned, it is hearsay, but it is his own 

knowledge.

Senator Baker. I entirely agree, Mr. Chairman. The point I am 

making is I want to separate the wheat from the chaff and what his 

lawyer told him clearly is primary evidence. What his lawyer told him *

that someone else tofd him is clearly hearsay after that. But once 

again, I am not trying to exclude it. I wish simply to identify it as we 

go along.

Mr. McCord. I believe I stated it, sir, as it occurred, which was w

that this was a statement by Mr. Alch.

My statement was that: Mr. Alch finally came back, took me aside, 

and said tha t Mr. Bittman had told him tha t I would be called tha t 

same night by a friend I had known from the Wliite House.

I assumed this would be John Caulfield who had originally recruited 

me for the Committee for the Re-election of the President position.

About 12:30 p.m. tha t same evening, I received a call from an 

unidentified individual who said tha t Caulfield was ou t of town, and 

asked me to go to a pay phone booth near the Blue Fountain Inn on
135

Route 355 near my residence, where he had a message for me from 

Caulfield. There the same individual called and read the following 

message:

“Plead guilty.

“One year is a long time. You will get Executive clemency. Your 

family will be taken care of and when you get out you will be rehabilitated and a job will be found for you.

“Don’t take immunity when called before the grand jury.”

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. McCord, did you recognize t hat voice at all? 

Do you know who was speaking to you on the telephone?

Mr. McCord. I do not know who the man was, the voice I heard 

over the telephone before in previous calls.

Mr. Dash. And, therefore, it is not your testimony from your 

reading tha t statement, it was Mr. Caulfield who was speaking to 

you?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. And, therefore, it is somebody else telling you, you 

believe tha t he was repeating a statement Mr. Caulfield but not a.

direct statement to you from Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. He so stated he was repeating a statement from Mr. 

Caulfield, and he repeated the statement twice, tha t is correct.

Mr. Dash. Right. Can we continue, please?

Senator Gurney. Can we find out more about these other calls 

where he heard this same voice? What were they, wliat did they involve, what were they?

Mr. McCord. Sir, I can give them to you now or at the end of the 

statement, as you prefer and I am willing to do either tha t the committee desires.

Senator Gurney. Well, they are very important, I would like to 

have them now.

Senator Ervin. Senator, if he reads the statem ent, he states in his 

statement, i t is on the 8th of January and first he said that his lawyer, 

Mr. Alch, told him tha t, Bittman said he would receive a call from 

a friend he had known from the White House, and he said at 12:30 

p.m., the same day, that is after midnight on January 8, that he 

received this phone call from an unidentified individual.

Senator Gurney. Yes, Mr. Chairman, what he also said was th at 

he recognized the voice because he had heard it in previous phone 

calls, and my question was when and w hat were these previous phone 

calls about. This is a very important matter.

Mr. McCord. The previous phone calls, the story gets a bit complex, I will be glad to do it either way you prefer, I believe it would 

have more continuity if I finished t ha t first.

Mr. Dash. T o clarify it for Senator Gurney, do you know the voice, 

do you know the identity?

Mr. McCord. I heard the voice before, I do not know the identity 

of the man who called.

Senator Baker. I don’t think it will take long to do what Senator 

Gurney wishes to do, what he is talking about. I think it would be 

bette r to go ahead with the question and I would request t hat Senator 

Gurney proceed at this time.

Senator Gurney. Would you proceed.

Mr. McCord. I would be glad to.
136

Sometime in Ju ly, 1972, shortly after I got ou t of jail, which was 

in June 1972, ab ou t mid-day the re was a no te in my mailbox at my 

residence and when I ope ned the lette r, which had no t been sta mpe d 

nor sent thr ough the mails it was a note from Jack Caulfield signed 

“J ac k” which said , “ Go to the phone boo th on Ro ute 355 ne ar yo ur 

home,” and he gav e three alt erna te times at which I could appear at 

the phone booth for a tele phone call from him.

To the best of my recollection, one of those times was very sh ortly 

the rea fte r, an ho ur or two later, and an othe r time was the ne xt da y 

and th at seems to me th at the third time was the following evening .

1 wen t to the tele pho ne, to th at t elepho ne boo th on Ro ute 355 th at 

afte rnoon, the same afte rnoon, as I best recall, and I heard the voice 

th at I have referred to in this me mo ran dum of tod ay. I do no t know 

the ind ividual’s iden tit y, he had an acc ent th at I would refer to as a 

New York accent. He said th at he had formerly worked for Ja ck 

Caulfield. He said, “I am a friend of Ja ck ’s, I form erly worked with 

him. Jack will wa nt to tal k with you sho rtly . He will be in touch with 

you soon.”

I received a call subsequentl y from Mr. Caulfield. To the bes t of 

my recollection i t cam e to my home firs t and it said, “ Go to the same 

pho ne boo th on Ro ute 355,” which I did, and there Mr. Caulfield 

told me t hat he w as going overseas in a few days . He said, “I f you have 

an y problem s” if you have any prob lems, “call my home and leav e 

word and I will call you back from overseas to yo ur r esid ence.”

He said, “ When you call my home ask for Mr. Wats on.”

Se na tor Gurney. M r. Watson?

Mr. M cCord. Wa tson. He said, also, “A fter my return if you ever 

need to call me at my office,” he gave a nu mber, the office n um be r 

and lie said, “S imp ly leave word th at Mr. Wats on is calling.”

So it was a name th at both of us were to use, my name and his 

nam e. I did no t co ntac t him dur ing t he ne xt 30 d ays and I ne xt heard 

from him, to the be st of my recollection som etim e in Septe mb er 1972, 

•on a Sun day aftern oon.

I can’t recall the exact da te bu t I do recall th at Mr. Clark MacGregor, the n the head of the Co mm itte e for the Re-Election of the 

Pre sid ent, had ju st finished a telev ision appeara nce on one of the talk 

(programs such as M ee t the P'ress, and Mr. Caulfield called me at 

home and again ask ed th at I go to the teleph one booth on Ro ute 355, 

which I did. He stat ed th at he had tro uble ge tting m y home n um be r 

because it was an unlisted num ber, and he stated , “ We are worried 

ab ou t yo u”—this is Mr. Caulfield’s statem en t [laughter] and he 

we nt on th en to rea d brie fly the words of a depos ition which he p lan ned 

to give to the De mo cra tic Na tio nal Comm itte e, I had rea d in the 

papers a few days before th at he had been scheduled as a witnes s 

before the De mo cra tic Na tio nal Comm itte e, and he read the depositio n to me ind ica tin g th at this was, in effect, wh at he planned to say 

in the deposition.

There was some refe rence during the con ver sation to som eth ing 

doing with a double agent in quote s; Mr. Clark MacGregor, as I 

recall, in his television app ear anc e had referred to the possibi lity of 

there bein g a dou ble agent in the Wate rga te ope ration and the 

inferenc e was th at i t was Mr. Baldwi n, and I told Mr. Caulfield th at 

so far as I was con cern ed whoever had dra wn th at conclusion ha d 

draw n absolutely an errone ous conclusion, th at I ha d seen absolute ly
137

nothing tha t would indicate such, and I simply wanted to go on the 

record with Mr. Caulfield to that effect.

Senator Gurney. We do want to get back to the statem ent but, in 

sort, what you are saying is that Mr. Caulfield’s friend Watson by 

name is the man whose voice you heard?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, that, most respectfully—that is not what I 

said, sir.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. I believe Mr. Caulfield used the name Watson. I t was 

not his friend.

Senator Gurney. I see.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. All right. Go on. How many times did you hear 

this unidentified voice?

Mr. McCord. To the best of my recollection I heard the voice prior 

to the January call two or three times. I cannot be absolutely sure but 

at least twice before January.

Senator Gurney. Were these in connection with contacts with 

Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. Always.

Senator Gurney. Yes. I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Thank you.

Mr. Dash. Will you proceed with the state ment from where you 

left off, Mr. McCord, and I guess the prior sentence so we can have 

continuity.

Mr. McCord. I believe my last sentence tha t I read was: The 

same message was once again repeated, obviously read.

I believe tha t appears in the statem ent you have on page 3.

''Die next sentence was that: I told the caller I would not discuss 

such matters over the phone. He said tha t Caulfield was out of town.

On Wednesday evening, January 10, the same party, to the best of 

my recollection, called and told me by phone tha t Jack would w ant 

to talk with me by phone on Thursday night, the following night, 

January 11, when he got back into town and requested tha t I go to 

the same phone booth on Route 355 near the Blue Fountain Inn. He 

also conveyed instructions regarding a personal meeting with Mr. 

Caulfield on Friday night, January 12.

On Thursday evening, January 11, the same party called me at 

home and told me tha t Caulfield’s plane was late and tha t he— 

speaking of Caulfield—wanted to meet with me personally the same 

evening, tha t is Thursday evening, after arrival. I told him that I 

would not do so but would meet with him F riday night if he desired. 

Later tha t evening, Thursday evening, about 9:30 p.m., Caulfield 

called me on my home phone and insisted on talking with me but my 

family refused to let him do so, since I was asleep.

On Friday night, Janu ary 12, from about 7 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. I 

met with Caulfield at the second overlook, tha t is overlooking the 

Potomac at the parking area for looking at the Potomac area on 

George Washington Parkway in Virginia.

Mr. Dash. Mr. McCord, how did you know to go there? How was 

it arranged?
138

Mr. McCord. I believe it was stated in the Thursday evening call 

at which this unidentified party said Caulfield would want to meet 

with me personally and on Friday night said go to the second overlook on George Washington Parkway and he specified the time and 

that is w hat I followed through. I met with Caulfield at the second 

overlook on George Washington Parkway, tha t is the second one 

leaving Washington and going out to Virginia and talked with him 

in his car, in his automobile. Caulfield advised tha t he had been 

attending a law enforcement meeting in San Clemente, Calif., and 

had just returned. I advised him tha t I had no objection to meeting 

with him to tell him my frame of mind b ut tha t I had no intention of 

talking Executive clemency or pleading guilty; that I had come to 

the meeting at his request and not of my own, and was glad to tell 

him my views.

He said that the offer of Executive clemency which he was passing 

along and of support while in prison and rehabilitation and help 

toward a job later “was a sincere offer.” He explained tha t he had 

been asked to convey this message to me and he was only doing what 

he was told to do. He repeated this last statement several times during 

the course of the meeting we had then, and I might add during subsequent meetings which he and I had.

My response was t ha t I would not even discuss Executive clemency 

or pleading guilty and remaining silent, but I was glad to talk with 

him, so that there was no misunderstanding on anyone’s part about 

it.

I might explain tha t the trial was going on during this period, this 

was the first week of the trial which began on Jan uar y 8.

Caulfield stated tha t he was carrying the message of Executive 

clemency to me “from the very highest levels of the White House.” 

He said th at the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, 

Fla., tha t weekend, referring to the weekend following January 8, 

the following meeting that we were in then, and tha t the President 

had been told of the results of the meeting.

Senator Ervin. Now the same rule previously announced tha t 

this evidence is competent to show what, if anything, John Caulfield 

did to induce Mr. McCord to plead guilty and keep silent—it is no t 

any evidence a t the present state of the hearing tha t connects or th at 

makes any indication whatever and has any relevancy as to the 

President.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Mr. McCord. He furth er stated tha t “I may have a message to 

you at our next meeting from the President himself.”

I advised Caulfield that I had seen the list of witnesses for the 

trial and had seen Jeb Magruder’s name, appearing as a Government 

witness. I advised him tha t it was clear then that Magruder was 

going to perjure himself and tha t we were not going to get a fair 

trial. Further I told him tha t it was clear tha t some of those involved 

in the Watergate case were going to trial, and others were going to 

be covered for—I was referring to John Mitchell, John Dean, and 

Magruder—and I so named those individuals incidentally in the 

conversation, and I said tha t this was not my idea of American 

justice. I further-----
139

Senator Ervin. The same ruling applies so far as John Mitchell, 

John Dean, and Magruder are concerned, tha t is tha t it does not 

connect them legally speaking.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. I further advised Caulfield tha t I believed tha t the Government had lied in denying electronic interception of my phone calls from my residence since June 17, 1972, and tha t I believed tha t the ad­ ministration had also tapped the phones of the other defendants during tha t time. I mentioned two specific calls of mine which I had made during September and early October 1972, which I was certain had been intercepted by the Government, and yet the Government had blithely denied any such tapping. These were my words to Mr. 

Caulfield. I compared this denial to the denial tha t the Government had 

made in the Ellsberg case, in which for months the Government had 

denied any such impermissible interception of the calls and yet in the summer of 1972 had finally been forced to admit them when the judge ordered, by court order, a search of about a dozen Government 

agencies, and calls intercepted were then disclosed. I might state separate from the record at this point, tha t as I have previously stated, 1 had no knowledge whatever of any activity, monitorially or w hat have you, of Mr. Ellsberg’s calls as have pre­ viously come out—as have earlier come out in the newspapers in the past few days. It is purely coincidence tha t I happen to mention 

the Ellsberg case at tha t time, I had been following the case in the 

papers and I knew the history of the case. To go on with the statement: I stated tha t if we were going to get a fiction of a fair trial, through perjured testimony to begin with, and then for the Government to lie about illegal telephone intercep­ tions, tha t the trial ought to be kicked out and we star t all over again, this time with all of those involved as defendants. At least in this way, some would n ot be more equal than others before the bar of 

justice and we would get a fair trial. The Executive clemency offer was made two or three times during this meeting, as I recall, and I repeated each time tha t I would not even discuss it, nor discuss pleading guilty, which I had been asked to do in the first telephone call received on the night of January 8, from Caulfield’s friend, whose identity I do not know. I told him, referring to Mr. Caulfield, tha t I was going to renew the motion on disclosure 

of Government wiretapping of our telephones. Caulfield ended the conversation by stating tha t he would call me the next day about a meeting that same afternoon, Saturday, Jan­ uary 13, and tha t if I did not hear from him, he would want to talk with me by telephone on the evening of Monday, January 15, 1973. I did not hear from Caulfield on Saturday but on Sunday afternoon he called and asked to meet me tha t afternoon about an hour later at the same location on George Washington Parkway. He stated tha t there was no objection to renewing the motion on discovery of Goa eminent wiretapping, and that if th at failed, tha t I would receive Execu­ tive clemency after 10 to 11 months. I told him I had not asked anyone’s permission to file the motion. He went on to say tha t, the President’s ability to govern is at stake. Another Teapot Dome scandal is possible, and the Government

96 296—73—bk. 1------10
140

may fall. Everybody else is on track but you. You are not following 

the game plan. Get closer to your attorney. You seem to be 

pursuing your own course of action. Do not talk if called before 

the grand jury, keep silent, and do the same if called before a 

Congressional committee.

I might add that two congressional committees had, prior to Jan ­

uary 8—prior to that date—been conducting investigations into this 

case. I believe it was the Patman committee and Senator Kennedy’s 

committee.

My response was that 1 felt a massive injustice was being done, 

tha t 1 was different from the others, that 1 was going to fight the 

fixed case, and had no intention of either pleading guilty, taking 

Executive clemency or agreeing to remain silent. He repeated the 

statement tha t the Government would have difficulty in continuing 

to be able to stand. 1 responded tha t they do have a problem, but 

tha t I had a problem with the massive injustice of the whole trial 

being a sham, and that 1 would fight it every way 1 know how.

I should make a correction in the sentence I just read in saying 

the whole trial being a sham, because I did not at tha t point in time 

make any reference at any time to Judge Sirica to the contrary of 

his being anything but an honest and dedicated judge, and I do not 

want the sentence to be misread.

He—talking about Caulfield—asked for a commitment tha t I would 

remain silent and I responded that I would make none. I gave him a 

memorandum on the dates of the tw*o calls of mine in September 1972 

and October 1972 that I was sure had been intercepted, and said that 

I believed the Government had lied about them. He said that he 

would check and see if in fact the Government had done so.

On Monday night, January 15, 1973, Caulfield called me again a t 

the phone booth on Route 355 near my residence. I informed him 

tha t I had no desire to talk further, that if the White House had any 

intention of playing the game straight and giving us the semblance of 

a fair trial they would check into the perjury charge of mine against 

Magruder, and into the existence of the tw’o intercepted calls previously referred to, and hung up

On Tuesday morning, the next morning, about 7:30 a.m., Caulfield 

called my residence but I had already left for court.

On Tuesday evening, Caulfield called and asked me again to meet 

him and I responded not until they had something to talk about on 

the perjured testimony and the intercepted calls. lle said words to 

the effect “ Give us a week,” and a meeting was subsequently arranged 

on Janu ary 25, 1973, when he said he would have something to talk 

about.

About 10 a.m., on Thursday, January 25, 1973, in a meeting lasting 

until about 12:30 a.m., correction—12:30 p.m.—we drove in his 

car toward W arrenton, \ a., and returned—that is, we drove there and 

returned—and a conversation ensued which repeated the offers of 

Executive clemency and financial support wrhile in prison, and rehabilitation later. I refused to discuss it. He stated tha t I was “fouling 

up the game plan.” I made a few comments about the “game plan.” 

He said tha t “they” had found no record of the interception of the 

two calls I referred to, and said tha t perhaps it could wait until the 

appeals. He asked what my plans were regarding talking publicly, 

and I said tha t I planned to do so when I was ready; that I had
141

discussed it with my wife and she said that I should do what I felt I must and not to worry about the family. I advised Jack tha t my children were now grown and could understand what I had to do, when the disclosures came out. He responded by saying that: “You know tha t if the administration gets its back to the wall, it will have to take steps to defend itself.” I took tha t as a personal thre at and I told him in response that I had had a good life, that my will was made out, and that I had thought through the risks and would take them when I was ready. He said t hat if I had to go off to jail that the administration would help with the bail premiums. I advised him tha t it was not a bail premium, but $100,000 straight cash and tha t tha t was a problem I would have to worry about, through family and friends. On the night before sentencing, Jack called me and said tha t the administration would provide the $100,000 in cash if I could tell him how to get it funded through an intermediary. I said tha t if we ever needed it I would let him know. I never contacted him 

thereafter; neither have I heard from him.

That completes the statement.

Mr. Dash. Tha t completes it. I have one more question, Mr. 

McCord. Have you ever made that statement before this Select Committee other than when you appeared before minority counsel and myself a couple of days ago? Have you ever made tha t statem ent before this committee, before the grand jury, or before any investigating 

body until this time?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Would you please state to the committee why, when you were making statements at earlier times before this committee, before the grand jury and other inquiring bodies, you failed to disclose 

tha t information?

Mr. McCord. I will be glad to. I will take the grand jury and get tha t one out of the way. When I appeared before the grand jury, I told them tha t—1 raised the question about political pressure, any pressure tha t had been put onto me by the Hunts. I told them also tha t there was a personal friend who was involved also in political pressure against me; that personally, at tha t point in time, it was a very painful thing to go into it, tha t I would be glad to do it at a later time, tha t I hoped they would defer tha t question until subsequent questioning and I would 

be glad to answer it. They said they would do so. I believe when I appeared before the committee on March 28, your Senators asked me the same question and I said, yes, there had been political pressure applied to me, tha t one such pressure had been by a Government—one of your Senators asked me if it were by a Government employee—I think Senator Montoya. I responded, yes. He asked me if it were anyone at the White House. I said, no. He asked if i t were from the Department of Justice, and I said, no. It was clear, I think, to the committee tha t I would like to be able to answer tha t question at a later time. The reason for the delay was tha t I wanted to be as accurate as I could about the information, get it all together, because it involved the President of the United States, in my opinion, and it was a very serious m atter and I wanted to be 

very careful about i t and accurate.

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
142

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCord, I would like to limit my questions to one area. That 

is what you know about the planning of the Watergate break-in.

First of all, I would like to separate what Mr. Hu nt told you someone said about it from what Mr. Liddy told you someone said about 

it.

Did Mr. Hunt indicate to you that he knew anything about these 

meetings tha t Mr. Liddy referred to with Mitchell, Magruder, and 

Dean?

Mr. McCord. The question is, did Mr. Hun t indicate-----

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. *

Mr. McCord. That he knew anything about the meetings?

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCord. Yes, he did.

Mr. Thompson. What did he say about those meetings? Did he *

indicate he was present at any of those meetings?

Mr. McCord. I am trying to recall exactly the context of the discussion. Do you want me to go into tha t as well?

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCord. The meetings, as best I recall, in which these references by Mr. Hunt took place, took place in Mr. Hun t’s office, in 

the Robert F. Mullen Co. offices at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue. They 

took place in April and May of 1972. To the best of my recollection,

Mr. Liddy was present in all of the discussions.

Mr. Liddy, during those discussions, as best I recall, would raise 

the topic tha t the planning and the progress of the operation itself 

was going forward, comments about what Mr. Mitchell was saying 

to him about what could be done in terms of the priorities of the 

operation; tha t is, which ones were to be done first and second.

Mr. Hu nt’s comments, his exact words I cannot recall, but his 

comments made to me—and no t to me, made in three-way discussions 

tha t were taking place during tha t period of time, indicated to me 

tha t he had separate, independent knowledge, perhaps from Mr.

Liddy, perhaps from other sources, of his own that Mr. Mitchell 

and Mr. Dean and Mr. Magruder had planned the operations in the 

Attorney General’s office to begin with and tha t at least Mr. Mitchell 

and Mr. Magruder had had subsequent discussions after the first 

meeting in the Attorney General’s office, and tha t Mr. Magruder and 

Mr. Mitchell had had discussions with Mr. Liddy in Mr. Mitchell’s 

offices at the Committee To Re-Elect the President regarding the *

ongoing plans to carry out the operations.

Does this answer your question somewhat?

Mr. Thompson. Well, I think it naturally raises several other 

questions. What did he say, as best you can recall, to indicate to you •

that he had any independent knowledge other than what Mr. Liddy 

might have told him?

Mr. McCord. I think he would refer to comments regarding 

this as you and I have discussed before.

Mr. Thompson. That would not fall in tha t category, would it?

Mr. McCord. It would fall in tha t category.

Mr. Thompson. The things Hun t had learned separate and apart 

from w hat Liddy had told him?
143

Mr. McCord. It would fall into two separate categories. I said 

one, what Mr. Liddy had told him before and second, what he had 

learned from others. I mentioned to this committee the name of 

another individual, but I will not mention it at this point, tha t Mr. 

Hun t referred to in conversations, in which they were talking about 

the Watergate operations and the planning for the operations and so 

on. The statement-----

Mr. Thompson. I think you should refer to the name.

Mr. McCord. He referred to the name of Mr. Colson. That was 

interjected into the conversation by Mr. Hunt in the meetings with 

9 Mr. Liddy and me in his offices, H unt’s offices, at 1700 Pennsylvania

Avenue, and specifically, when Mr. Hunt had a plan, a typed plan, 

operational plan, for the en try of the Democratic National Committee 

headquarters.

* Mr. Thompson. Do you recall anything tha t Mr. Hun t said to

you about Mr. Colson’s involvement or did you just get the general 

impression tha t Mr. Colson was involved in some way from what 

Mr. Hun t told you?

Mr. McCord. I believe my previous testimony, which I wdll 

restate before this committee, was to the effect th at when I had met 

Mr. Hun t in his offices at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue with Mr. Liddy 

tha t he had referred to his previous work a t the White House for Mr. 

Colson, referring to him as his superior; tha t during the session t hat 

Mr. Hunt, Mr. Liddy, and I had in Mr. Hu nt’s offices, Mr. Hunt had 

a typed plan that he had typed himself, step-by-step, for the entry of 

the Democratic National Committee headquarters; tha t at one point, 

he held this plan in his hands, and his words were, he interjected the 

name of Mr. C olsoi into the conversation at tha t point, words to the 

effect, “I will see Colson.” And he held the paper in his hand in this 

sense.

From that statem ent, I drew the conclusion tha t he was going to 

see Mr. Colson and discuss our giving him the operational plan. That 

is a conclusion, but this is also the words as best I recall, with which 

Mr. Hun t raised the name of Mr. Colson.

Mr. T hompson. I am sure that will need to be pursued. But getting 

back to my original point, is tha t innocent of knowledge Mr. Hu nt 

had of these meetings we referred to? He did not bring Mr. Colson 

into the conversation with regard to these particular meetings tha t 

you previously referred to, did he?

• Mr. McCord. I believe you asked me if he appeared to have 

knowledge. I said he appeared to have knowledge of the previous 

meetings of the Attorney General, in the Attorney General’s office, 

of Mr. Liddy, Mr. Magruder, and Mr. Dean, and my response was

• to the effect tha t he had it from Mr. Liddy from what he told me, 

and I believed also that he had this information from others.

Mr. Thompson. Well, I do not want to belabor the point.

Mr. McCord. I am glad to answer the questions.

Mr. Thompson. You say tha t you think he had independent 

knowledge, and, of course, this is a serious matter. I think we have to 

determine whether or n ot we are relying on Mr. Liddy, or Mr. Hu nt 

and Mr. Liddy for this information, which of course, is extremely 

important information. Anything you can state tha t Mr. Hunt told 

you to indicate th at he had any independent knowledge of these meet-
144

ings, I think would be very relevant. You can do it now or supply—you 

have supplied several memorandums that are very helpful in that 

regard; if you want to do that at a subsequent time, I think tha t 

would be appropriate.

Mr. McCord. I would be glad to submit the committee a memorandum if tha t would be helpful to you, and set it forth in exactly the 

detail as best I recall.

Mr. Thompson. All right. Anything Hunt told you indicating tha t 

he knew of these meetings independent of what Liddy told him.

Mr. McCord. All right.

[The following information was submitted in reference to the above.] •

R ec o ll ec tio n o f E. H ow ar d H u n t’s C o m m en ts

M y b est rec ollec tio n of H u n t’s co mmen ts re ga rd in g m ee tin gs in th e A ttor ne y 

G en er al ’s offices, thos e of Jo hn M itc he ll, were th a t M itc he ll, D ea n an d M ag ru de r, ♦

alon g w ith Lid dy we re pr es en t in a t le as t th e first tw o mee tin gs , an d th a t thes e 

m ee ting s we re in Ja nuary or Febru ary , 1972, at which tim e pl an s an d discussions 

we re h eld b y th os e pr es en t re ga rd in g b ug ging , photo gra ph y a nd p oliti ca l espion age 

op er at io ns to be co nd uc ted ag ai nst Dem oc ra tic in st al la tions duri ng 1972. Th ese 

co m m en ts we re mad e to me by H u n t du ring mee tin gs w ith hi m in A pril- Ju ne 

1972 in wh ich h e st ate d th a t he had received th is in fo rm at io n in dep en de ntly fro m 

Lid dy an d ot her un na m ed pe rson s.

Mr. Thompson. Now, let us get back to the meetings in a little bit 

more detail, Mr. McCord. How many meetings did Mr. Liddy say 

there were when the overall surveillance operations were discussed?

Mr. McCord. At what point in time?

Mr. Thompson. Well, how many meetings overall, up until 

June 17, did Mr. Liddy indicate that he, Mitchell, Magruder, and 

Dean, or any combination of these people, had to discuss generally?

Mr. McCord. He did n ot say the number. It was stated to me in 

various and sundry meetings with Mr. Liddy between January and 

June 17, by Mr. Liddy that he had had several meetings with Mr. 

Mitchell, that there appeared to be ongoing meetings with Mr. Mitchell 

from the planning stage until the completion of the plans for the 

second entry operation on June 17, that there appeared to be continuous discussions between at least Mr. Liddy and Mr. Mitchell, and 

sometimes Mr. Magruder, according to statements which Mr. Liddy 

made to me and they began with the planning and they continued 

through the ongoing operation itself, the monitoring and the planning 

for the second operation and discussions a t various stages according 

to Mr. Liddy of the various priorities of the bugging and photography «

operations, what was to come first, what was to come second.

Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Liddy come to you after each important 

meeting or after each meeting where these plans were discussed and 

give you a summary of the meetings, what was discussed and what «

the conclusions were?

Mr. McCord. Not after each meeting at all, b ut we would see each 

other regularly during the week. I would say not once a day but every 

other day, most weeks between January and June 17. Sometimes he 

would tell me, I am getting ready to go up to see the Attorney General 

to discuss this operation, referring to the Watergate operation, to 

discuss the operations that he had planned.

Sometimes he would tell me, I have just come back from th at operation, concluding what we are going to do now.
145

Mr. Thompson. Were some of these meetings, according to what 

he told you, while Mr. Mitchell was still Attorney General?

Mr. McCord. Y es.

Mr. Thompson. And some after he came to the Committee To 

Re-Elect?

Mr. McCord. Y es.

Mr. Thompson. Were money figures discussed?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes.

Mr. T hompson. According to what he said—according to Mr. Liddy, 

what was the original proposed budget for the overall surveillance 

w

operation? I assume we are talking about the overall operation, not

just the Watergate break-in; is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. We are talking about three categories—political 

espionage, photography operations, and electronic operations, and 

t the original figure in February tha t Mr. Liddy proposed, as I saw it

in writing, in a draft on his desk on one occasion and in a typed memorandum on a second occasion, was approximately $450,000.

Mr. Thompson. All right, according to him, was tha t budget 

approved?

Mr. McCord. The sequence of the 'events were that there were 

planning meetings in January or February or both in the Attorney 

General’s offices, in which Mr. Dean and Mr. Magruder, Mr. Liddy, 

and Mr. Mitchell discussed the original amount, the $450,000 amount, 

and subsequently, approximately 30 days after the first formal 

meetings that 1 heard referred to by Mr. Liddy, there was a figure of 

approximately $250,000, which he said had been approved for the 

operation. Ami he referred also to some additional funds which he 

had in the order of approximately $100,000, but tha t figure is not 

absolutely certain in my mind, with a total of something around 

$300,000 or $350,000.

Mr. Thompson. According to him, was this money problem the 

need for subsequent meetings? Was tha t a concern of the people 

involved? Was there quite a bit of discussion as to exactly how much 

money should be spent on this project?

Mr. McCord. Money was a topic that he said was discussed. He 

said the individual operations were discussed—that is, specifically 

the three parts of his budget which he had prepared on charts, which 

he had taken to at least one of the meetings. That is the three parts 

of political espionage and photography and so on. It was not limited,

• the discussion was not limited to the matter of funding. My understanding was all aspects of the operation were discussed in those 

meetings by the four individuals.

Mr. T hompson. L et me just ask you this. Did he tell you that John

* Mitchell ever told him tha t this budget is just too high and you will 

have to do it for less or something to that extent?

Mr. McCord. No; he did not.

Mr. T hompson. Did he ever tell you tha t they specifically discussed the Watergate operation in any of these meetings?

Mr. M cCord. Which meetings are you referring to?

Mr. Thompson. I am talking about any meetings which he had 

with the Attorney General, when anv of these other people were 

present.

Mr. McCord, Oh, yes, sure.
146

Mr. Thompson. That the Watergate break-in specifically was 

discussed?

Mr. McCord. Very definitely.

Mr. Thompson. What did he say about tha t particular discussion?

Mr. McCord. It was a contiguous discussion. He sat in with Mr. 

Magruder from the earliest planning session in January through the 

first entry operation, Memorial Day weekend and then even to the 

second operation in June and he talked to me at various times and it 

■was clear from what he said that their committee, tha t Mr. Liddy was 

having such meetings, he stated they were having such meetings 

in which the Watergate operation was a part of, Watergate referring «

to the Democratic National Committee headquarters himself. So I 

would say there were many such discussions by Mr. Liddy with me in 

which he stated tha t meetings had occurred with Mr. Mitchell and 

Magruder specifically on this after February. •

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned, I believe, that you had frequent 

contact with Liddy. Did you have frequent contact with Mr. Magruder 

at the Committee To Re-Elect?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Thompson. Would you see him on a daily basis?

Mr. McCord. We would see each other on a daily basis. We would 

speak hello, exchange greetings. My point of contact at the committee 

was his deputy, Mr. Odle. My business was transacted primarily 

with Mr. Odle, their offices were adjoining.

Mr. T hompson. Their offices were close together?

Mr. McCord. So we would see each other frequently in tha t sense.

Mr. Thompson. J ust to speak or did you ever discuss any substantive matters concerning the re-election of the President or the operation of the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. McCord. We had some meetings, one particular meeting with 

the Attorney General and Mr. Magruder lasting over an hour in 

which we discussed overall security of the committee and the security 

of the Mitchell family.

Mr. T hompson. You had a meeting with the Attorney General and 

Mr. Magruder?

Mr. McCord. Y es.

Mr. T hompson. Where was this meeting?

Mr. McCord. In Mr. Mitchell’s office on the fourth floor in the 

law office suite that he occupied.

Mr. Thompson. When did this meeting occur? •

Mr. McCord. Sometime in March 1972.

Mr. Thompson. March. This would have been after your discussions with Mr. Liddy?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct. *

Mr. Thompson. Concerning what was going on with Mr. Liddy,

Mr. Magruder, and Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. Was anybody else present besides yourself and 

Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. Just the three of us.

Mr. Thompson. Just the three men. Did you take that opportunity 

before you decided to engage in this particular operation to inquire 

of them as to whether or not this was, in fact, going on with their 

approval and, in fact, had been done pursuant to their plans?
147

Mr. McCord. No; there are some reasons for tha t and I can tell 

you if you would like to know them.

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCord. One was at tha t point in time the operation itself had not been funded. T hat did not come until roughly a month later. It was not absolutely clear that the operation itself would in effect get off the ground. I think the general assumption on the part of Liddy and certainly me was that until the funding came through tha t there was really nothing that could be absolutely counted on in terms of something going forward. It would appear to me, it appeared to

• me, not only premature for me to discuss it if it were to be discussed but there were other reasons for my not discussing it with them which were essentially this. It was essentially this: That in the talking stages with Mr. Liddy of my participation in the operation, I told him tha t

* I would like to be—that I would like to convey to him a request tha t either Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Magruder be advised tha t I would be or might be a participant in the operation so th at if I disappeared from the committee offices at some particular time and somebody in a senior position of authority would be aware tha t it might be in con­ nection with this operation, and in specific wanted to be assured tha t Mr. Odle, if he came to Mr. Magruder or Mr. Mitchell, inquiring about my whereabouts tha t someone in authority would be in a posi­ tion to say “He is off on some other business, don’t worry about it.” I did not expect, however, tha t at tha t point in time or even later that they would acknowledge to me tha t they were aware of my participation. I think in terms of some other things I have said to this committee about deniability and so on I assume just the opposite, that they would not indicate overtly to me they were aware tha t I 

was participating.

Mr. Thompson. And you would be in a position of having to completely trust Mr. Liddy?

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. In seeing tha t he had informed them.

Mr. McCord. Y es.

Mr. Thompson. Did he tell you in fact he had informed them?

Mr. McCord. No; he did not tell me, he assured me that he did 

and t hat was sufficient for me at tha t point in time.

Mr. Thompson. But he subsequently told you that he told them 

about your involvement?

► Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Thompson. Did he indicate to you tha t they knew of your 

involvement?

Mr. McCord. There never was any problem tha t indicated that they did not know, for example, that I participated. If there had beeh, I would have raised it as an issue at that point in time in order to get the matter sorted out. There never was any serious problem at any time that came up in accounting for my time, for example, which really did bring it to a head. Had it done so, I would have inquired. But there was no reason to doubt what I am saying, there 

is no reason to doubt Mr. Liddy’s word.

Mr. T hompson. At tha t time in March you had pre tty much made up your mind, I assume, tha t if the thing was funded you would participate for the reasons tha t you have given?
148

Mr. McCord. The decision process, I think, on my part took 

place after the 30-day delay that I referred to here in which it appeared that this whole matter was being considered, reconsidered, 

discussed and so on by Mr. Mitchell. It was also very material to 

me that he had considered it while in the Attorney General’s office, 

tha t the discussion had taken place there and he apparently had 

approved it and so on, but I had some reasons for considering that 

30-day delay important, and this was part of my motivation.

Mr. Thompson. One or two more questions. You say you saw Mr.

Liddy often and you saw Mr. Magruder often and you had this one 

meeting with the two of them. Did anything they said to you or did w

anything that you overheard them say to other people, any telephone 

conversations that you might have accidentally heard, indicate to you 

that what Liddy was telling you was in fact true or did any of these 

things in your mind corroborate what Mr. Liddy was telling you? *

Mr. M cCord. About what, the meetings with the Attorney General 

in his office? Certainly the fact there were charts, for example, Mr.

Liddy had some charts which I have described to this committee 

before, which he said cost some $7,000 to prepare in which he set 

forth the plans, as I understood it the cost of the operation, the fact 

that he would go to so much trouble and to so much expense it was 

obvious to me this was officially approved by somebody in the operation within the committee itself and the Attorney General in order 

for that amount of money to be spent for material of this sort to go 

to that much trouble.

Mr. T hompson. Pardon me, did you ever see the charts themselves?

Mr. McCord. Yes; I saw the charts when he brought them in the 

day before he said a meeting was scheduled with the Attorney General, 

he pointed to the chart and said “These are for the briefing with the 

Attorney General tomorrow. These are connected with the papers 

which I have shown to you,” the draft and the type of budget draft 

tha t he had and showed to me on a day or two before. He did not 

unwrap the charts themselves. They were in brown wrapping paper.

He said they had been prepared commercially, locally—not locally, 

he said they had been prepared commercially and he subsequentlv 

told me t hat he had been told by John Dean to destroy the charts, 

and because they cost so much he did not plan to do so.

Mr. Thompson. So again he told you he had charts and you saw 

what appeared to be charts in brown wrapping paper, is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. I saw it, tha t is correct. «

Mr. Thompson. And he told you how much the charts cost?

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. And he told you he was using these charts in discussion with the Attorney General and others? <

Mr. McCord. Correct.

Mr. Thompson. So far as conversations by these gentlemen concerning their participation, were there any conversations or anything 

that they said that you heard which indicated that what Mr. Liddy 

said about the meeting discussing these things was true?

Mr. McCord. By these gentlemen you are referring to?

Mr. Thompson. I am talking about Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder 

or Mr. Dean.

Mr. McCord. That is correct. They did not discuss it with me.

Mr. T hompson. All right.
149

Did you find Mr. Liddy, in his actions—did you consider him to be 

a level-headed individual at all times, a man of good judgment?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy—I will answer the question this way— 

Mr. Liddy was obviously very busy at the committee and most ot his work appeared to me to be occupied with committee legal matters for both the Committee for the Re-Election of the President and for the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. My understanding from the staff members around him was that he was a very competent lawyer, that there never was any question of his legal knowledge and his legal competence. Quite the contrary, 1 heard complimentary re-

♦ marks about the fact that he was a very sharp lawyer, in fact, he had something to do with either the writing or perhaps not the writing of the campaign law, Federal campaign law, but in connection with its interpretation. 1 know he was called on to interpret the law, this I

* heard.

Mr. Thompson. Of course, I am not limiting you, you understand, 

to your opinion of his legal knowledge and legal ability. I am talking about him as a man, how you judge him. Did you ever hear, for 

example, that he had shot a pistol in a restroom?

Mr. McCord. No; I did not.

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever hear, for example, tha t he had made 

a threat against Mr. Magruder, they were having difficulties?

Mr. McCord. Never did.

Mr. T hompson. Were you aware th at he and Mr. Magruder had any 

personality conflict?

Mr. McCord. Oh ves, sure.

Mr. Thompson. You were?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. What is the extent of your knowledge concerning 

that?

Mr. McCord. Essentially there was a personality difference between the two men and tha t something had been worked out for him to take 

the position with the finance committee.

Mr. T hompson. T hat brought about his switch from the Committee 

To Re-Elect to the finance committee?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. McCord.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. Mr. McCord, there is evidence here tha t the five

• men arrested in the Watergate on and after midnight on the 16th and 17th of June had some hundred dollar bills, new $100 bills in their possession or in their rooms. Where did tha t money come from, 

if you know?

* Mr. McCord. I do not know, sir.

Senator Ervin. Did you have any of it?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Ervin. Then, you say tha t from after the return of the 

bills every indictment in September down to the last day of the trial, tha t you were urged to plead guilty and remain silent by a number of people. Did Mr. Hunt ever urge you to plead guilty and remain 

silent? Tha t is, E. Howard Hunt?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And Mr. Howard Hunt-----

Mr. McCord. I am trying to recall, sir, the exact words.
150

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Mr. McCord. The words most frequently used by Mr. Hun t with 

me was that Executive clemency would be available to me.

Senator Ervin. Yes. How many times did he urge you to plead 

guilty? That is, H unt.

Mr. McCord. I mean to correct that statement. I do not recall Mr.

Hunt using those words with me to plead guilty.

Senator Ervin. Did he urge you to or not to remain silent?

Mr. McCord. Not in the exact words; no, sir.

Senator Ervin. What words did he use as far as you remember?

Mr. McCord. He used words to the effect that, he used words *

stating that “Executive clemency is going to be made available to 

us” and he spoke in terms as though it already had been committed,

I say already, already as of the time that he first mentioned it to me.

Senator Ervin. Now, you stated tha t you were paid some money ♦

through the instrumentality of Mrs. H unt, and also that your lawyer 

fees were taken care of, as I understood you?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Do you know who paid your lawyer fees?

Mr. McCord. I was told tha t both moneys came from the Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Senator Ervin. Do you know the amount of your lawyer fees?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. What was it?

Mr. McCord. The amount I received from the committee was 

$25,000.

Senator Ervin. Now, did your lawyer urge you to enter a plea of 

guilty? I am talking about Mr. Gerald Alch.

Mr. McCord. I do not recall that, no, sir.

Senator Ervin. But he did go with you to Mr. Bittman ’s office?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And Mr. Bittman was the lawyer for Mr. Hunt, 

was he not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And then after that, you did not talk to 

Mr. Bittman yourself?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Ervin. But Mr. Alch did?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And after his conversation with Mr. Bittman he «

told you that Mr. Bittm an urged you to plead guilty and remain silent 

and said you would get Executive clemency?

Mr. McCord. I will correct that, sir, if I left tha t impression. I 

believe the words were that in the afternoon of January 8, Mr. Alch 

said tha t Mr. Bittm an wanted to talk with me about “whose word I 

would trust regarding a White House offer of Executive clemency” and 

then at the meeting at his office Mr. Alch came back to me after a meeting with Mr. Bittm an and told me that I would be contacted by “a 

friend I have formerly known in the White House,” and contacted 

that evening. I believe that was the substance of t ha t conversation.

Senator Ervin. How long had you known—when did you first 

know John or Jack Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. I first met him in early 19—early September, 1971.

I had heard of him before.
151

Senator Ervin. Where was he working a t the time you first met 

him?

Mr. McCord. At the White House.

Senator Ervin. Did he have any connection la ter with—rather, I 

believe you stated tha t you were employed by the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President on the recommendation of Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Caulfield later have any association with 

the committee?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

_ Senator E rvin. And after tha t association did he go to one of the

executive departments?

Mr. McCord. I understood from him tha t he did, yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Do you know which Department?

< Mr. McCord. I believe it was the Treasury Department.

Senator Ervin. Do you know what position he held there?

Mr. McCord. It was a senior position with the, I believe it is 

called Alcohol Tax and Fire Arms Division of it.

Senator Ervin. Was he working in the Treasury Department at 

the time tha t he had the meetings with you?

Mr. McCord. He told me that, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Yes.

As I recall, you met with him first on Friday, January 12, somewhere 

on the George Washington Parkway?

Mr. McCord. It was that Friday, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Did he give you any reason why he wanted to meet 

you on the George Washington Parkway instead of seeing you at his 

home or your home?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Ervin. Who was present at that meeting?

Mr. McCord. Just the two of us.

Senator Ervin. And at that time he urged you to plead guilty, the 

case was still pending, was it not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. It was just about the time the trial started was 

it not?

Mr. McCord. This was the first week of the trial.

Senator Ervin. And he urged you to plead guilty, and assured you 

that if you pleaded guilty you would receive Executive clemency and 

> also be given a chance after you served a sentence, to help to be

rehabilitated to a job, did he not?

Mr. McCord. I believe all is correct except the words “plead guilty” 

and I will try to re state that for accuracy. The words “ plead guilty” 

have been used over the telephone to me by this unknown unidentified 

individual whose voice I described and subsequently-----

Senator Ervin. Th at was prior to the meetings?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now then—excuse me, do you have something 

further?

Mr. McCord. Well, in the conversation on the 12th of Janu ary 

and in the two subsequent meetings the words “plead guilty” would 

come up in this general language. “Are you going to plead guilty?” 

Or, “How about pleading guilty?” Or “What is your feeling about 

pleading now?”
152

Senator Ervin. Now, this meeting was arranged at his insistence, 

wasn’t it?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Then you met him again on Sunday, January 14, 

on the George Washington Parkway?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. What was the conversation with him at tha t time 

or rather was that meeting held at his instance?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. What occurred at tha t time?

Mr. McCord. Let me refer to my notes to be correct.

The discussion was that there was no objection to renewing the 

motion on discovery of government wiretapping and that if that failed 

I would receive Executive clemency after 10 or 11 months, and then 

the conversation went on to say tha t the President’s ability to govern 

is at stake. Another Teapot Dome scandal is possible and the government may fall. Everybody else is on track but you, you are not 

following the game plan, get closer to your attorney.

Senator E rvin. Did that conversation occur in the automobile or 

did you get out of the automobile?

Air. McCord. No, sir; it was out of the automobile and it would 

be 50 feet, I would guess, from his car where we walked down toward 

the Potomac River from the overlook, just the two of us were present.

Senator E rvin. The first conversation was on Friday, January 12, 

and that all occurred in the automobile?

Mr. McCord. The other two meetings were in his automobile.

Senator E rvin. Yes.

And then on your second meeting on Sunday, January 14, you got 

out of the car and walked in the woods toward the Potomac River?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Now, after that time you got several phone calls 

from him urging that you meet him again, did you not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And you told him you didn’t know anything 

further, tha t you had already made up your mind you would not 

accept Executive clemency, th at you thought that it would be impossible for you to get a fair trial, and th at you had hopes th at on account 

of that, your belief that you had been wiretapped tha t the trial might 

be set aside, did you not?

Mr. McCord. Words to tha t effect, yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And so he kept insisting on you by phone to meet 

him and you met him on Thursday, Janu ary 25, 1973?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. 1972?

Mr. McCord. 1973.

Senator E rvin. Now tha t is when you say you were in his automobile?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. In a direction down towards Warrenton, Va.?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. What did he say on that occasion?

Mr. McCord. We had about a 2-hour conversation. There were 

repeated offers of at various times during the discussion of Executive
153

clemency anti financial support following prison rehabilitation. There 

were discussions about the game plan that we referred to. There were 

discussions about the two telephone calls, and his comment tha t that 

could possibly affect appeals if they found no records of them.

Senator Ervin. You thought your telephone had been wiretapped 

and he told you he had investigated that and found out it had not? 

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, there was a time when he made a statement 

to you which you interpreted to be something in the nature of a 

threat, what was that?

Mr. McCord. I believe the words were, the words were, it is nor

* my belief, it is my recollection, that the words were “ You know that 

if the administration gets its back to the wall it will have to take steps 

to defend itself.”

Senator Ervin. He told you in tha t conversation, in the previous

* conversations, did he not, tha t all of the other people involved, that 

had been arrested in connection with the break-in were going along 

with the way he wanted them to go but you were the only one who 

was not going along with the game plan?

Mr. McCord. I believe the words were, “that everybody else is 

on track but you.” Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Now, did you ever discuss with Mr. Liddy the 

exercising of electronic surveillance over the office of Senator Muskie?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And-----

Mr. McCord. I will correct that, sir, we discussed the lease of a 

building, I don’t recall electronic surveillance except in some broad 

general terms this might be a future target. There was nothing beyond 

that and this was sta ted in February 1972.

Senator Ervin. Now, Senator Muskie was one of the candidates 

for the Democratic nomination for President at that time?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Did you rent any office near the Muskie headquarters?

Mr. McCord. 1 did.

Senator Ervin. Where were the Muskie headquarters?

Mr. McCord. I believe the address was listed as 1972 K Street 

but it was next to 1978 K Street which was an office location tha t I 

leased at the request of Mr. Liddy.

Senator Ervin. Where was this office located with reference to the

* headquarters of Senator Muskie?

Mr. McCord. It was the next building to Senator Muskie’s office.

Senator Ervin. And I believe the lease was taken in your name 

and that of John B. Hayes?

• Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Who was John B. Hayes?

Mr. McCord. That was another name for Mr. Liddy.

Senator Ervin. And later, Mr. McGovern took over these headquarters from Senator Muskie, didn’t he?

Mr. McCord. I think after June 17th, yes sir.

Senator Ervin. Was there ever any discussion between you and 

Mr. Liddy about exercising any kind of surveillance over Senator 

McGovern’s he adquarters?
154

Mr. McCord. There were, sir. They were in the context of the 

location on First Street primarily.

Senator Ervin. And this room was rented for possible use of th at 

commission, was it not?

Mr. M cCord. 1908 K Street was, yes sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, do you remember how long the lease of the 

room continued?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, it continued until July 1972, when I cancelled it.

Senator Ervin. What was the amount of rent tha t was paid a 

month for the room?

Mr. McCord. $275 a month.

Senator Ervin. The total rent, then, was about $2,220 that you 

paid for, was it not?

Mr. McCord. There was a settlement fee tha t I negotiated with 

the people who owned the lease, which I think included another 

month’s or two payment after July.

Senator Ervin. Did you ever make any effort to bug Senator 

Muskie’s or Senator McGovern’s headquarters?

Mr. McCord. Never Senator Muskie’s. Senator McGovern’s, 

there was a visit to the office by me, I believe on two—on three 

occasions in toto, on one of which I had some electronic equipment 

with me but it was never installed because there were other people 

working there at the time.

Senator Ervin. In other words, you never found any time that the 

office was empty?

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Senator Ervin. You know who paid the rent on this office?

Mr. McCord. Which one, sir?

Senator Ervin. Up there by the Muskie and McGovern headquarters?

Mr. McCord. The one at the Muskie office, Mr. Liddy furnished 

the funds for that and furnished a cashier’s check to pay for it.

Senator Ervin. Thank you very much. I believe I have used my 10 

minutes.

Senator B aker. Mr. Chairman, it is almost 12:15 now and I wonder 

if it might be better if we conferred further examination of the witness 

until this afternoon.

Senator Ervin. What is the will of the committee?

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o’clock.

(Whereupon a t 12:12 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene 

at 2 p.m., the same day.)

Afternoon Session, F riday, May 18, 1973

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.

Senator Baker.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. McCord.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. We have covered your testimony at rather great 

length, and we have had the questions now of counsel and of the
155

chairman. I will try to confine my questions to an elaboration or an 

extension of those subjects tha t you have already covered, for the 

sake of developing either further information or a clearer und erstanding of those things t ha t have already been touched.

Without trying to retrace your steps, I wish you would tell me if 

this is a fair summation and narrative of your testimony. Th at you 

worked for the FBI, that you worked for the CIA for 19 years, th at 

you worked for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, 

in a consultative capacity and then as their security officer, that you 

involved yourself in certain electronics surveillance operations under 

the direction of Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hun t and possibly others, that 

you were one of those found inside the Watergate complex, the 

Democratic National Committee headquarters in the early morning 

hours of June 17, 1972; tha t you were taken to jail; that you were 

subsequently released on bond, there were subsequent conversations 

by telephone from an unidentified person, and from a Mr. Caulfield 

with respect to how you should conduct yourself specifically suggesting tha t you should plead guilty; that you were led to believe, at 

least, tha t there would be a promise of Executive clemency, t ha t your 

family would be taken care of while you were in jail, when you were 

released that you would have a job, tha t you pled innocent at the 

trial instead of guilty, one of the two who pled innocent; that you 

were convicted on a multicount indictment, that you are now awaiting 

sentence; that you have appeared previously with this committee in 

executive session and with the staff of this committee on previous 

occasions; that you now appear to testify before us without any grant 

of immunity from this committee, although you are convicted of 

crimes involving much of the material presumably about which you 

testified.

I do not mean that to be an absolute recapitulation of your testimony 

but is tha t generally a fair statement of your involvement?

Mr. M cCord. I think basically, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Could we start at the beginning, Mr. Hunt—and 

tell us what your job was with the CIA—I mean, Mr. McCord, I am 

sorry. [Laughter.] I do not know who I am sorry to but I am sorry.

Mr. McCord. My duties were generally in the security field as a 

security officer there with the agency and with which I served for 

some 19 years, under which I served in the United States and overseas 

tha t covered a wide variety of duties related to tha t function of that 

Federal agency. I am met, and I am at a loss how to proceed in detail 

on tha t activity because of the numerous secrecy agents which I 

signed and which I understand I am in violation of the National 

Security Act if I disclose in public testimony.

Senator Baker. What I am really driving at, Mr. McCord, is 

whether or not you were a director or the Director of Security for the 

CIA in terms of installation of security, protective measures against 

electronic surveillance and the like.

Mr. McCord. No, sir, I was n ot the Director of Security and I did 

not testify to that, sir. I said I was a security officer with them and I 

cannot go into details of the exact work th at I was involved with there 

because it does involve a violation of the National Security Act, as I 

understand it.

96-29 6— 73—bk. 1 11
156

Senator B ak er. I do no t wa nt to lead you int o th at bu t I guess 

wha t I am rea lly reaching for was wh ethe r or no t as a res ult of you r 

pre vio us experience a t C IA or otherw ise you were a cquaint ed w ith and 

tho rou ghly fa mi liar with electronic surveillance te chn iqu es a nd clandestine op era tio ns such as th at w hich was con duc ted at the Wate rga te.

Mr. M cC ord. I am stil l—b asically still—in the sam e position, sir, 

respec tfully, sir, in face of the split legalit y of thi s problem, one of 

try ing to coopera te with you fully an d the other one try ing to comply 

with wha t I previously sta ted.

Se nator E rv in. It is a little difficult to hear you. I believe if you 

would move the microph one in fro nt of you and ju st talk a little bit 

lou der it wou ld be better.

Mr. McC ord. Yes, sir, I will try to.

Senator B ak er. I am not going to spe nd much tim e on it b ut really 

all I am rea ching for is wh eth er or no t you were fam ilia r wi th electro nic survei llan ce tech niques, and with clande stin e opera tions such 

as was c onducte d at the W ate rgate regardless of how you knew it.

Mr. M cCord. I learned some electro nics from the FB I, sir. I think 

I can ans wer th at que stio n with ou t violating the gen eral prob lem, 

the othe r thing.

Se na tor B ake r. Fine . Did you en ter the W ate rgate complex of 

the De mo cra tic Na tional Co mm itte e on one or more th an one 

occasion?

Mr. M cCord. The Demo cra tic Na tio na l Comm ittee?

Se na tor B ak er. Yes, sir.

Mr. M cC ord. I believe I have testified th at twice an d th at is 

correct, sir.

Se na tor B aker. All righ t, sir. Wh en was the first time?

Mr. M cC ord. Memorial Day w eeke nd.

Senator B aker. Do y ou rem em ber the date?

Mr. M cC ord. 1972.

Se nator B aker. Do y ou rem em ber the day?

Mr. M cC ord. I can check it. Th e even ing of May 27, 1972.

Se nator B aker. Ab out wha t time ?

Mr. M cCord. 1:30 p.m ., th at evening, or it could ha ve been the 

following day.

Se na tor B aker. Who was with you on this first bre ak- in?

Mr. M cCord. The other— the seven Cu ban Americ ans th at I 

have testified to previously, I believe, in this com mittee .

Senator Baker. W ha t did you do?

Mr. M cCord. The e ntire gro up w ent in to t he D em ocrat ic National 

Co mm ittee thr ough an en try into, the door itself. I we nt in and 

join ed the m to perform the work of the elec tron ic assign ment th at 

I had as a member of the team.

Se na tor B aker. W ha t w as th e electronic ass ign me nt th at you h ad?

Mr. M cCord. In sta lla tio n of the tech nical bug ging devices in the 

De mo cra tic National Co mmittee th at were previously autho rized by 

the Atto rney General.

Se na tor Baker. Did y ou h av e ins tru ctions as to where the y should 

be plac ed?

Mr. M cCord. Y es.

Se na tor Bake r. Where?
157

Mr. McCord. In the offices themselves in connection wi th senior 

personnel officers of the Demo cra tic Nationa l Comm itte e, and specifically, Mr. O’Brien ’s telep hone extensio n.

Senator B aker. H ow m any bugs did y ou plant?

Mr. McCord. T wo.

Senat or Bak er. And where were they?

Mr. M cCord. T wo were in offices th at face Virginia Avenu e. I 

thi nk you have a sketc h up on the board .

Senator B ak er. One of the m was on Mr. O’Brien’s teleph one ?

Mr. M cCord. T hat was an exte nsio n of a call dire ctor, th at was

identified as Mr. O’Brien ’s. Th e second was Mr. Oliv er’s------

• Senator B ak er. Th e second one was where?

Mr. M cCord. I n a telephone th at belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver, 

who is an exe cutive director of the demo cra tic St ate cha irm en of the 

org anization .

*■ Senator B ak er. Were you specifically instr uc ted by some one to

plan t those two bugs or j us t the O ’Brien b ug? Would you give us some 

detail on that?

Mr. M cCord. Sure. Mr. Lid dy had passed along instr uc tio ns from Mr. Jo hn Mitch ell. He se t the priorities . Mr. Mitchell had stat ed priorities of the i ns talla ­ tion were first of all, Mr. O’Brien ’s offices and such oth er ins tal lat ions as th at might pro vid e inform ation of interest to Mr. Mitchell and to whoever else the mo nitoring was to go to beyond Mr. Mitchell.

Senator B ak er. So the Oliv er pho ne was bugged more or less by 

you r choice, then, as dist inguish ed from the O’Brien phon e?

Mr. M cCord. No, I think the basic choice was this; the wor ding 

from Mr. Lid dy was th at Mr. Mitch ell wa nte d it placed in a senior official’s office, if no t Mr. O’Bri en ’s office, some other; in othe r words, 

two such ins tallation s.

Senator B ak er. Did you tap e the doo rs on this firs t bre ak?

Mr. M cCord. No, I did not, Mr. Hun t did.

Mr. B ak er. But the y were tap ed?

Mr. M cCord. T hat is correct.

Senator B ak er. Now, you we ren ’t app reh end ed on thi s firs t occasion, Me morial weekend. W ha t was the purpose of the seco nd 

en try into the Demo cra tic natio nal he adquart ers ?

Mr. M cCord. You wa nt hears ay i nfo rm ation again , of course.

Senator B ak er. Yes, as long as it is iden tified as hea rsay.

Mr. M cCord. Mr. Lid dy ha d told me th at Mr. Mitchell, Jo hn

• Mit che ll, liked the “t akes” in quote s; th at is, the docume nts t h at ha d been photo gra phed on the first en try into the Demo cra tic Na tio na l Comm itte e he ad qu arter s and th at he wa nted a second ph oto gra phic opera tion to tak e place and th at in addit ion , as long as th at tea m was

• going in, th at Mr. Mitchell wante d, ha d passed ins tru ction s to Mr. Lid dy to check to see wh at the ma lfu nctionin g of the second device th at was put in, second , besides M r. Oli ver ’s, and see w ha t the problem was, because it was one of the two things— either a m alf unction of the equip me nt or the f ac t th at the insta lla tio n of the device was in a room which was s urr ounded by four walls. In othe r words, it was shielded, 

and he wa nte d this corr ected and an othe r device installed. He also said M r. Mitchell wa nte d a room bug as opposed to a device on a tele phone ins talled in Mr. O’Brien ’s office itself in ord er to tran s-
158

mit not only telephone conversations but conversations out of the 

room itself, beyond whatever might be spoken on the telephone.

Senator Baker. Were the same people involved in the first break-in 

and the second break-in?

Mr. McCord. Those associated with the second break-in were Mr.

Hunt, Mr. Liddy, and me, and four of the seven Cubans tha t were 

on the first operation, Cuban-Americans.

Senator Baker. All right, sir, would you describe for us then the 

responsibilities, if there was an additional responsibility, of those 

involved in the second break-in?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy was in overall charge of the operation.

Mr. Hu nt was his assistant. Mr. Barker was the team captain of the 

group going in. M y job was th at of the electronic installation and the 

others of the group, the other Cuban-Americans, had functions 

divided into two categories; one of photographing certain documents >

within the committee, a couple of men had the function of generally 

being lookouts while we were inside.

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. McCord.

Who placed the tape on the locks on the door on the second occasion?

Mr. McCord. I do not know.

Senator Baker. Who replaced i t after it was first removed?

Mr. McCord. I do not know.

Senator Baker. Did you know while you were inside the complex 

tha t the tape had been removed and replaced?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Senator Baker. Can you recall who told you that?

Mr. McCord. Well, I think i t was apparent—well, the sequence of 

events simply was tha t the four men, four Cubans went upstairs to 

the Democratic National Committee to begin work on the door. I 

received a call from the Howard Johnson Motel in the room directly 

across from the DNC, from Mr. Hunt, stating tha t the door was now 

open, speaking of the basement door, and tha t I should come up and 

join the men, and I did so.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, did you employ Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Senator Baker. Did you contact him and ask him to come to 

Washington to discuss temporary employment which might ripen into 

permanent employment after the election?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, it was not put in tha t vein.

Senator Baker. Is tha t the general text of your conversation? «

Mr. McCord. No, sir, it is not.

Senator Baker. All right. I am quoting from a Washington Post 

story of October 8, 1972, which in synopsis form says, McCord met 

Baldwin in the Roger Smith Hotel, emphasized that while his job 

might be temporary, tha t it might prove to be a stepping stone to a •

permanent job after Nixon’s reelection.

Could you comment on tha t account, please?

Mr. McCord. That pa rt fits what—the question tha t you had 

before was not exactly the case.

I called Mr. Baldwin and asked him if he were interested in a job 

as a security officer for Mrs. John Mitchell, who we’d been asked to 

provide a security officer for. He stated tha t he wouldjbe interested.
159

I asked him to come to Washington the next morning and discuss 

the matters in connection with the discussions which took place that 

day between me and him and Mr. Fred LaRue, who made the subsequent interview of him. Mr. Baldwin raised the question of whether 

or not there might be employment later. My state ment to him 

roughly was that the position here at tha t point in time was only 

through November and th at my assumption was that if he did a good 

job on it, there might be something else for him but there was no 

promise by me or Mr. LaR ue and I am sure Mr. Baldwin took it 

tha t way.

• Senator Baker. Did you supply Mr. Baldwin with a .38 pistol?

Mr. McCord. No, I did not.

Senator Baker. Did anyone supply him with a .38 pistol?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

• Senator Baker. Who did?

Mr. McCord. That was obtained, given to him by Mr. LaRue, 

who had the weapon in his office. I t belonged to Mr. Jack Caulfield.

Senator Baker. Was it done in your presence?

Mr. McCord. I can’t recall specifically. It may well have been. 

It was done subsequent to an interview of Mr. Baldwin with Mr. 

LaRue. One of two things happened. Eith er Mr. LaRue gave it to 

him directly or Mr. LaR ue called me or one of the men up to his 

office and sent the gun down to him or gave it to him, or one of the 

other men did. In any case, I was quite aware that he had it.

Senator B aker. Just one of two more questions.

I see the chairman looking at his watch over here and I don’t 

want to run excessively long. I will have other questions as the second 

round of inquiries starts. But let me try to close out this line of 

questioning this way.

First, did you ever conduct electronic surveillance or clandestine 

activities against anyone other than the DNC, the Democratic 

National Committee, at the Watergate complex, and the McGovern 

headquarters which you have already described?

Mr. McCord. No.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, please tell me whether or not you 

knew tha t this sort of activity was illegal?

Mr. McCord. I knew certain things tha t came to me at the beginning of the operation and early in the operation which indicated 

tha t it might be legal, may well be legal, and I was so advised.

► Senator B aker. By whom?

Mr. McCord. First of all, if I may explain, coming through Mr. 

Liddy and coming through my knowledge of the Attorney General, 

who was then Attorney General, and that was tha t the Attorney 

, General, first of all, had the authority on his own signature to approve

wiretapping within the United State s for either national security 

reasons or for domestic security reasons.

Senator B aker. What was your motivation? Why did you do this?

Mr. McCord. There were several motivations, but one of the basic 

motivations was the fact tha t this man, the Attorney General, had 

approved it in his offices over a series of meetings in which he had 

obviously given careful consideration to it, while he was the top legal 

officer of the U.S. Government, and tha t the counsel to the President 

had sat in with him during such discussions; the fact tha t I was advised
160

tha t it was within the Attorney General’s purview and authority to 

authorize such operations if it were in the national interest to do so. 

Senator B aker. Did you believe that?

Mr. McCord. I believed tha t he had the authority to do it. I believed th at several things—not only was I told certain things pertaining to some matters I previously testified to, to this committee regarding 

Las Vegas and an incident out there, but I was also aware tha t many 

things come over the A ttorney General’s desk that I was not privy to, 

tha t Mr. Liddy was not privy to, bu t which the Attorney General was 

privy to, matters which might come to him through highly sensitive 

sources, wiretap information, which might provide a justification for 

such an operation, a justification beyond what was known to me.

I can pu t it conversely as well. I knew that, I felt that the Attorney 

General in his position as the top legal officer, if this operation were 

clearly illegal, would turn i t down out of hand, tha t he would have no 

trouble making a decision on the matter immediately. I knew from 

previous contact with him that he was a very decisive man, tha t he 

did not agonize over decisions, and yet apparently, he took this one 

under careful consideration and considered it for some 30 days in 

making the decision, and frankly, I had it, my conclusion was th at he 

took it as well to higher auth ority and got a final approval from his 

superior before embarking tipon this task.

Quite candidly and quite frankly, this is exactly my motivation, my 

reason, the basic motivation of mine for being involved.

Senator Baker. This was your assumption or your basis for 

judgment tha t the Attorney General must have done that? Do you 

have any evidence or any information tha t he did do that?

Mr. McCord. The evidence tha t the counsel to the President 

sat in with him, on the meetings of this and, therefore, both the 

White House was represented and the Attorney General of the 

United States were represented in this decision and that this 30-day 

delay to me, I drew the conclusion that the Attorney General himself 

had conveyed the decision to his own superior for final decision.

Senator B aker. You spoke of a 30-day period in your earlier 

testimony. Is that the same 30-day period?

Mr. McCord. Tha t is right. It is a 30-day period.

Senator Baker. In your previous testimony you indicated, I 

thought you had said, you thought about 30 days for it before you 

did it. But I am not sure this is the testimony. Is this the same 30-day 

period you are speaking of when you think the Attorney General 

looked into it 30 days before deciding?

Mr. McCord. That is right, sir.

Senator B aker. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions but I will 

defer to my colleagues for questions.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge.

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCord, you have made some very serious charges implicating 

the President of the United States probably as an accessory after 

the fact, the former Attorney General of the Lmited States as probably 

an accessory before the fact and perhaps guilty of a conspiracy 

involving the Watergate bugging, your testimony was predicated upon 

hearsay tha t would not be admitted in a court of law. If you told 

this committee what is authentic, I think tha t it would require a 

good deal of corroboration.
161

You testified this morning tha t Mr. Caulfield was purported to 

offer Executive clemency to you, is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. Anyone else approach you about Executive 

clemency besides Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. I mentioned Mr. H unt.

Senator Talmadge. Th at is two. Anyone else?

Mr. McCord. Mrs. Hu nt conveyed a message from Mr. Hunt. 

She was obviously not speaking for anyone but himself. She was 

conveying it for him and so stated.

• Senator Talmadge. Anyone besides Mr. Hu nt or Mr. Caulfield 

approach you on the question of Executive clemency?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. Who?

* Mr. McCord. My attorney, Gerald Alch, A-l-c-h.

Senator Talmadge. Gerald Hawkins?

Mr. McCord. Gerald Alch.

Senator Talmadge. A-l-t?

Mr. McCord. A-l-c-h.

Senator Talmadge. A-l-c-h?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Do you know who approached your lawyer 

about Executive clemency?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Your testimony is tha t three different individuals approached you on the idea tha t you would plead guilty, 

and keep quiet and as a result thereof you could expect Executive 

clemency, is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, and I believe I mentioned a message conveyed, which mentioned Executive clemency by Mr. Alch on Janua ry 8 

from another individual.

Senator Talmadge. Who was tha t individual?

Mr. McCord. Mr. William Bittman, B-i-t-t-m-a-n.

Senator Talmadge. William Bittman. Who is he?

Mr. McCord. He was the attorney for Mr. Hunt.

Senator Talmadge. You testified this morning about several 

different meetings and conversations with Mr. Caulfield, ou also testified tha t Mr. Caulfield, I believe, placed in your mailbox a note that was not sent through the U.S. Postal Service nor post office and

* was signed “Jack” , is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. I believe, sir, that is basically correct. I think I 

said tha t the note was placed by another individual who said he was a 

friend of Mr. Caulfield.

• Senator Talmadge. The note was not from Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, the note was from Mr. Caulfield, but the 

individual who subsequently talked to me on the phone first, this 

unidentified stranger said tha t he himself, the stranger, had placed 

the note in my mailbox from Jack.

Senator Talmadge. From Mr. Caulfield, the note was signed 

“Jac k” ?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And did you receive tha t note?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Do you have t ha t note now?
162

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Do you know where it is?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Why did you destroy it?

Mr. McCord. Quite frankly sir, I cannot recall. There have been 

so many events since tha t date, th at I suspect it was simply thrown 

out in the trash.

Senator Talmadge. What was the subject of th at note?

Mr. McCord. The subject said, “Please go to phone booth on 

Route 355 on one of three different times,” tha t one day, the day of 

the note, and two alternate dates, the following date and another one. e

Senator Talmadge. You also implicated the former Attorney 

General, Mr. Mitchell, in your testimony had approved and had at 

least known of the plan and at least an accessory to the Watergate 

bugging. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr, Mitchell *

yourself about that operation?

Mr. McCord. About the Watergate operation itself?

Senator Talmadge. Or any other surveillance or espionage?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Neither about Watergate nor any other espionage activity?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. How many different individuals talked to 

you and purported to speak for Mr. Mitchell about the Watergate 

operation or any other bugging operation?

Mr. McCord. Speaking for Mr. Mitchell purportedly, Mr. Liddy 

only as speaking for Mr. Mitchell.

Senator Talmadge. All right, Liddy is one.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Who else besides him?

Mr. McCord. And Mr. Hunt raised the name of Mr. Mitchell in 

the context that I have testified to this morning, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Both Liddy and Hun t told you-----

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Tha t this operation had been approved by 

Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. Any others besides those two?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. You testified this morning about a meeting in ,

Mr. Mitchell’s office. W’as there more than one meeting with the 

Attorney General or only one?

Mr. McCord. I just said there were more than one meeting.

Senator Talmadge. In which you personally were involved?

Mr. McCord. I did not atten d bu t I was told by Mr. Liddy there *

was more than one meeting that took place. I had heard him mention 

two specifically.

Senator Talmadge. Did you yourself ever attend a meeting in 

Mr. Mitchell’s office?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator T almadge. On any matter.

Mr. McCord. I attended meetings, yes, in his office at the Commettee To Re-Elect the President when he subsequently came over 

and I visited at his offices at the Attorney General’s office at the
163

Depa rtment of Justice in December on another matter but not to 

discuss these particular operations.

Senator Talmadge. How many different visits or conversations 

did you ever have "with Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. Numerous, sir.

Senator Talmadge. A dozen, 15, 20, more?

Mr. McCord. 1 would guess 15.

Senator Talmadge. Does he know you by your name?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. You know him?

• Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. You called him Mr. Attorney General, I 

presume?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

♦ Senator Talmadge. What did he call you? [Laughter.]

Mr. McCord. Before June 17th? [Laughter.]

Senator T almadge. Before and after.

Mr. McCord. I haven’t seen him since June 17th. He called me 

Jim, I believe.

Senator Talmadge. He called you Jim so you were on a first-name 

basis with him. And th at is the only evidence tha t you have tha t would 

involve either the President of the United States or the Attorney 

General?

Mr. McCord. I am sorry, sir, I missed the question.

Senator Talmadge. The evidence that you have just reported 

including the individuals tha t you have named, based on what they 

heard others say which is hearsay, is the only evidence that you had 

involving either the President or the former Attorney General, is that 

correct?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, the charts, for example, tha t I have described here earlier.

Senator Talmadge. I am sorry, I can’t hear you, the what?

Mr. McCord. The charts of Mr. Liddy which Mr. Liddy-----

Senator Talmadge. Targets?

Mr. Mccord. The charts.

Senator Talmadge. The charts?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, the cardboard charts, were one other 

evidence of his meetings with Mr. Mitchell, and subsequently the 

money which Mr. Liddy transmitted to me for use in the operation 

► he stated came through the duties to the organization of Mr. Mitchell.

Senator Talmadge. Those charts you are also relying on is hearsays 

testimony on that.

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct, sir. T hat is correct, sir.

, Senator Talmadge. Now what made you think tha t either Mr.

Caulfield or Mr. Hunt had authority to offer Executive clemency 

to you?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Caulfield because he told me tha t he was conveying a message from the very top level of the White House.

Senator Talmadge. You assumed when he said top level that 

meant the President of the United States?

Mr. McCord. I assumed it meant one of three people, sir.

Senator Talmadge. All right; name them.

Mr. McCord. Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, or the President.
164

Senator Talmadge. And what made you think tha t Mr. Hun t had 

authority to offer Executive clemency?

Mr. McCord. I did not believe th at he had the authority but I 

believe th at the message he was conveying probably—th at the message 

did originate with the White House because of several things: One, 

tha t I knew from conversations with him and with his wife that he 

was in touch with the attorneys for the Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President, for one thing.

Senator Talmadge. Who was Mr. Hu nt’s immediate superior?

Mr. McCord. His immediate superior at the White House, as I 

understood it from him, was Mr. Charles Colson, if tha t is your 

question, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Colson. He was counsel to the President?

Mr. McCord. I believe he was on the White House staff, this is 

prior to June 17. $

Senator Talmadge. You testified this morning about the rental of 

office space near the McGovern-Muskie headquarters, I think it was 

originally Senator Muskie’s headquarters, and thereafter Senator 

McGovern’s. Do you know who approved the rental of the office th at 

you operated out of on 1908 K Street NW., directly adjacent to the 

Muskie-McGovern headquarters?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy s tated tha t in connection with the overall 

Watergate operation—correction—in connection with the overall 

operations tha t he was discussing with Mr. Mitchell that this space 

was desired and would I arrange to have it leased and I did so.

Senator Talmadge. That was the reason you leased the space?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. When was the day you attempted to enter the 

McGovern headquarters here in Washington?

Mr. McCord. I believe the first date would have been about 

May 15 when Mr. H unt introduced me to a young man called by the 

name of Thomas Gregory, introduced me at, I believe, the Howard 

Johnson restaurant, and subsequent to th at introduction at a luncheon 

we went to the McGovern headquarters, it seems to me in the afternoon or late afternoon, and took a brief walk through the building 

itself, going in the front, coming out the back door mainly to see the 

layout of the offices. I t took perhaps 5 to 10 minutes.

Senator Talmadge. Who else was involved?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Thomas Gregory who worked for Mr. Hunt.

Senator Talmadge. Jus t you and Mr. Gregory? «

Mr. McCord. Tha t went in; yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. WTho gave the orders to atte mpt to enter the 

building, the McGovern headquarters?

Mr. McCord. On tha t particular occasion Mr. Hu nt did. It had 

been previously agreed to, directed—correction, had been requested ‘

by Mr. Liddy.

Senator Talmadge. Why were you told tha t it was necessary to 

enter the Watergate complex on the weekend of June 17, 1972?

Mr. McCord. A twofold purpose, the first being to do for the 

time, the photography team, to do photocopy work of documents 

within the Democratic National Committee and, second, to install 

additional listening devices within the Democratic National 

Committee.
Senator Talmadge. I believe my time has expired. I will yield 

at this time for other questions.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gumey.

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCord, in response to a question from Senator Baker you said that you thought tha t what you were doing in this operation was legal. Now, of course you spent some years in the FBI, didn’t you? 

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. And also in the CIA?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Senator Gurney. You ran your own security company?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. You were charged at the trial with several counts, as I understand, conspiracy, intent to steal property, entering the Democratic national headquarters, attem pted interception of telephone conversations and attem pted interception of oral conversa­ tions as well as possession of a telephone listening device, and an oral 

communications device. Now, is i t your testimony tha t you thought tha t all of these acts 

there on June 17 were legal?

Mr. McCord. It is my testimony, sir, if I may repeat a portion of it, tha t the Attorney General had the authority to authorize it. It was my experience tha t he did, in fact, authorize wiretapping and other related activities tha t were within his purview. That he could, and would have turned it down out of hand at the very beginning of the operation itself if, in fact, it were clearly and beyond any question illegal, because I was advised tha t i t was-----

Senator Gurney. But authorizations by the Attorney General for wiretapping made, of course, in connection with national security cases or crime, trying to find out about organized crime, all of this in the purview of the Attorney General’s office, wasn’t this authorization an operation which had to do with the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President; hasn’t that been your testimony?

Mr. McCord. No, sir. My testimony was tha t it appeared to be tha t this operation was really threefold; tha t it was set in motion while the Attorney General 

was Attorney General. Second, tha t the White House was a par ty to the authorization itself, and to the justification for the operation, because the counsel 

to the President had sat in on it. Third, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was represented in those discussions and tha t they may have been the funding mechanism for it and fourth, because of a time delay here and my knowledge of the relationship of Mr. Mitchell with his imme­ diate superior, my conclusion was tha t his immediate superior approved and set in motion tha t operation and, therefore, it had all of those implications to me, t hat it was jus t not simply a Committee for the Re-Election of the President operation because it began with the Attorney General while he was the Attorney General.

Senator Gurney. The activities, though, tha t you were doing, as I understand this course of events, were supervised by Liddy and 

Hunt, is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. They were agents, as I understand it, for the Attorney General and for the White House.
166

Senator Gurney. Well, tha t is not the question I asked. I said 

that they were the ones that were supervising and guiding your 

activities, were they not?

Mr. McCord. They were the immediate supervisors, but not by 

my understanding-----

Senator Gurney. And were they not working for the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Hu nt never did, to my knowledge. I believe 

there has been testimony to tha t effect by Mr. Odle.

Senator Gurney. Who was Mr. Liddy working for during this 

period of time we are talking about? *

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy had two responsibilities. One was general 

counsel originally for the Committee for the Re-Election of the 

President and the second was general counsel for the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. 4

Senator Gurney. The activities tha t you have described—that is, 

bugging the Democratic National Committee and photographing, as 

I understand, documents there, as well as the McGovern and Muskie 

operations—those all had to do with a political campaign, did they 

not?

Mr. McCord. I think what we have not discussed here are some 

of the other things th at went into my motivations and to the explanation by Mr. Liddy to me of the reasons for undertaking this operation 

at Democratic National Committee, which included electronic, 

photography, those two operations specifically, b ut the overall operation was not limited to tha t, either in the original planning or in the 

auth ority by the A ttorney General.

Senator Gurney. Well, did anything you do in this area of bugging 

and electronic surveillance have anything to do with anybody or any 

activity other than a political campaign of somebody?

Mr. McCord. It came into being because of the, one of the basic 

motivations of mine, which I had not been concerned with, the 

violence-oriented demonstrators tha t we have previously discussed 

in testimony before this committee.

Senator Gurney. I do not want to inte rrup t and guide, but it 

would be helpful, Mr. McCord, if you were responsive to the questions.

Did you do any electronic bugging or surveillance that had anything 

to do with anybody or anything that did not involve political activity?

Mr. McCord. No, no, sir.

Senator Gurney. You did not spy on the Russians, the Chinese, or <

anybody like that?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Well, do you not think tha t at some time, it 

might have occurred to you tha t perhaps these were illegal things 

and did not really have anything to do with national security?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, it occurred to me at the time the matters 

were being planned and being discussed. I t has occurred to me since, 

yes.

Senator Gurney. Then, why did you go ahead with it?

Mr. McCord. For basically the reasons I have stated, but those 

were not the only reasons. The fact tha t the Attorney General, the 

White House itself, and in my personal opinion, the President of the 

United States, I felt, had set into motion this operation. Because
167

of the close relationship of Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean and the fact 

tha t Mr. Dean worked with the President.

Senator Gurney. In other words, even though you—if I am expressing your thoughts correctly—you believed it to be illegal or 

were highly suspicious tha t it was, that nonetheless, because the 

Attorney General, in your opinion, was ordering this, then you ought 

to go ahead and do it? Is tha t a fair thing to say?

Mr. McCord. Sure, it is a gray area, no question about it. But 

because the Attorney General in his position, and because the White 

House was involved in it, these matters were matters on which my 

a

decision turned. I realized the illegality under normal circumstances,

but I also realized that the Attorney General can make matters legal 

by his signature on a piece of paper, or his oral authorization of it, 

which he does do in domestic subversion cases and national security 

I cases where electronic surveillance is involved. And it has been done

hundreds of times.

Senator Gurney. I would like to ask a question about this memorandum that you presented to the committee today, entitled “Political Pressure on Writer To Accept Executive Clemency and To Remain Silent.”

Now, as I understand it from your testimony contained in here and 

other things that you have said, you were very troubled by the fact 

that, one, you were presented with this business of Executive clemency and a promise of your family being taken care of, and also a 

job later. I guess you did not think this was the right thing to do, 

and perhaps you were not too convinced tha t it would happen and 

tha t you also were afraid tha t perjury was going to be engaged in 

in the trial.

Am I fairly stating your reactions about this?

Mr. McCord. Somewhat, yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Well, it strikes me as very curious t ha t you appeared before the grand jury, of course, before the trial. You were 

there at the trial. As I understand it, the judge himself expressed 

indignation during the proceedings at one time t hat he was not getting 

the full story.

You appeared, of course, before the Senate select committee some 

weeks ago for a whole afternoon and we were not able to cover all of 

the testimony, of course, you did promise us tha t you would come 

back and advise us fully of everything that you knew, tha t you would 

, give us memorandums, as I recall. And yet this very imp orta nt

testimony here, which involves Executive clemency, including the 

President of the United States we just learned about 2 days ago. 

Why the lateness of this? Why did you not inform us before of this?

( Mr. McCord. I believe I stated the reason, because it involved

directly, in my opinion, the President of the United States. I think I 

can answer some of your other questions that you raised here about 

why I—the reason I did not come forth before.

Senator Gurney. I did miss a p art, I am sorry.

Mr. McCord. I said because it involved directly the President of 

the United States. It also involved an individual tha t I considered a 

personal friend, Mr. Jack Caulfield. I testified to your committee at 

the very beginning tha t this was a rath er painful matter for me to 

come forward with at the particular time that you first interviewed
168

me. I said I had no reluctance in giving the information, tha t I would 

do so subsequently, and I did do so subsequently. I disclosed it to 

your committee 2 days ago.

But I think primarily it is because it involved the highest officer 

in the land, the President of the United States.

Senator Gurney. Let me ask something about the salary and 

money arrangements, Mr. McCord.

What was your salary with the Committee To Re-Elect the President 

for your security work?

Mr. McCord. The salary was a gross salary of $20,000 a year.

Senator Gurney. Twenty? *

Mr. McCord. Twenty.

Senator Gurney. Twenty?

Mr. McCord. Twenty.

Senator Gurney. That is the contract. Tha t was the arrangement ♦

when you were engaged on what you were going to be paid, is tha t 

correct?

Mr. McCord. It was not the original salary. The original salary 

was $625 a month, approximately, when I was first engaged as a 

consultant.

Senator Gurney. But tha t was for part-time work?

Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct.

Senator Gurney. But then when you came onboard full time, it 

was raised to $20,000?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. And when was that?

Mr. McCord. The first of Janu ary 1972.

Senator Gurney. Now, then, as you have testified, you learned 

from Mr. Liddy his curiosity about electronic devices and this led, 

of course, to his asking you if you would participate in what we now 

know as the Watergate affair. And this occurred—what date was tha t 

now, approximately?

Mr. McCord. The conversation began in January and-----

Senator Gurney. I mean when you agreed to go into the Watergate 

affair?

Mr. McCord. Approximately somewhere between 30 days after 

the initial conversation with Mr. Liddy, when he said he was going to 

see the Attorney General in the Attorney General’s office, approximately at that period.

Senator Gurney. And tha t would be, as I recall, probably in March •

sometime?

Mr. McCord. Late February or March, yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Well, was there any raise or increase in salary 

around this time as far as your work is concerned? a Mr. McCord. There was none anticipated and none received.

Senator Gurney. Did it ever occur to you th at if you were going to 

engage in rath er hazardous activity, and they certainly resulted in 

tha t finally, as we know, that perhaps a higher rate of pay would be 

something that would be fair and equitable as far as you are concerned?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes. There was a provision in the budget which 

Mr. Liddy labeled as “overhead,” which provided tha t compensation.

Senator Gurney. Well, would you describe tha t to the committee, 

what t hat “overhead” was?
169

Mr. McCord. Yes, approximately $2,000 a month during the period 

of time tha t the operation was underway.

Senator Gurney. And that began when?

Mr. McCord. April 1972.

Senator Gurney. And how was th at paid?

Mr. McCord. In cash by Mr. Liddy.

Senator Gurney. How many of those payments did you receive? 

Mr. McCord. There were payments through June. I think they 

totaled approximately $16,000. I do not recall specifically, but I 

have the notes here if I may refer to them.

• Senator Gurney. Now, then, would you describe to the committee

the other pay arrangements after the break-in and after you were 

apprehended?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. The payments were made by Mrs. Hunt.

I Senator Gurney. In what amounts and at what time?

Mr. McCord. Calls came to me by Mr. and Mrs. Hun t in July. 

Senator Gurney. How much?

Mr. McCord. We were paid in cash. There was a lump-sum pay ­

ment in August—in July of 1972—for 5 months “salary,” in quotes, 

at $3,000 a month, total of $15,000, and subsequently legal fees.

Senator Gurney. And when was that?

Mr. McCord. In November, as I recall it, of 1972, and subsequently—

Senator Gurney. And how much was that?

Mr. McCord. Total of $25,000 for legal fees.

Senator Gurney. That was November, then?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. And then again in November, 2 months paym ent of 

$3,000 each, a to tal of $6,000.

Senator Gurney. So it was $15,000, $25,000, and $6,000; is that 

correct?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Senator Gurney. And those all came from Mrs. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Senator Gurney. Did anybody else pay you any cash?

Mr. McCord. No.

Senator Gurney. How much did you pay your lawyer?

Mr. McCord. Approximately $30,000.

► Senator Gurney. Thirty?

Mr. McCord. Thirty, yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Were there any other payments?

Mr. McCord. There were other payments io another lawyer which 

I had and Mr. Rothblatt, which I made some payments to.

Senator Gurney. I don’t particularly want to pry into that unless 

you want to give the information?

Mr. McCord. Whichever you prefer.

Senator Gurney. I am interested in some other payments, though. 

Weren’t there payments made as far as either purchase of equipment 

or expenses in connection with the electronic business?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes. I testified to tha t in executive session, sir, 

in which there was a total received of approximately $6,000, I believe, 

a total of $76,000 in all for equipment and other related costs, $61,000
170

as an initial payment and about $4,000 subsequent—$5,000 subsequently for additional equipment purchases.

Senator Gurney. Now, did you say 61 and 5?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. I thought you said-----

Mr. McCord. There is a total of $76,000 in all, which covered all 

payments for ah purposes prior to June 17, 1972.

Senator Gurney. There was another $10,000 payment later?

Mr. McCord. No sir, there was an initial $61,000 plus $5,000 for 

equipment, plus another $11,000 subsequently, but a total of $76,000 

prior to June 17, 1972.

Senator Gurney. Now, I do not want to quibble, but I have 61, 5, 

and 11.

Mr. McCord. Tha t is a to tal of $76,000.

Senator Gurney. Seventy-seven tha t brings to me. A total of 

$77,000?

Mr. McCord. Sixty-one—I am sorry, sir; 61 and 4 are 65 and 11— 

the total amount was $76,000. I will get the figures.

Senator Gurney. Sixty-one, 4, and 11, is tha t it?

Mr. McCord. I can recite them for you. April 12, $61,000 plus 

$4,000, a total of $65,000; May 8, $4,000; Memorial Day weekend, 

two $1,000 amounts; in June, $5,000. A total after May 8th of $11,000. 

The total of tha t is $76,000.

Senator Gurney. Now, then, how was this disbursed?

Mr. McCord. In cash by Mr. Liddy.

Senator Gurney. I mean how did you spend it?

Mr. McCord. Would you like the expenditures? They were expended in cash for the most p art. There were some by check for some 

walkie-talkie equipment.

Senator Gurney. Do you have a detailed account of how you spent 

it?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes.

Senator Gurney. Do you have it with you?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Gurney. Is it a long one? Will it take some time?

Mr. M cCord. Yes sir, it is rath er lengthy. I can read it if you want.

Senator Gurney. I wonder then, Mr. Chairman, if we could receive 

tha t for the record. I do not really see any point in going all through 

that.

Senator Ervin. If you will let the committee have the account, 

we will make a copy and retu rn your original to you.

Mr. McCord. All right, sir, we can do that.*

Senator Gurney. But my understanding is tha t the account which 

you are going to present the committee shows the complete disbursement and spending for $77,000, is t hat correct?

Mr. McCord. $76,000, sir, as I recall it.

Senator Gurney. $76,000?

Mr. McCord. T hat is correct. There were budget receipts and so on 

tha t were prepared on this and were shown to Mr. Liddy, referring for 

all the payments.

♦See p. 448.
171

Senator Gurney. Just one other question. There was some discussion earlier this morning about the Ellsberg case. My recollection is 

tha t your testimony was tha t there is no connection between the 

Ellsberg case and Watergate. Is tha t correct?

Mr. McCorl. No sir, tha t was not my testimony. My testimony was that I had no knowledge of the wiretapping t hat allegedly occurred 

in connection with the Ellsberg case, nor did I have any knowledge of 

the break-in in connection with the doctor’s records of Mr. Ellsberg. That was the inrent of my testimony. I will moke tha t correction now 

if I misled you.

Senator Gurney. Well, do you think there is some connection 

* between your Watergate operation and the Ellsberg case?

Mr. McCord. There apparently is in the personnel tha t were in­ volved, yes sir, as I understand it from the newspapers. You do n ot 

I know for a fact.

Senator Gurney. Not as far as you and the people under you were 

concerned?

Mr. McCord. I had no people under me except Mr. Barker.

Senator Gurney. How ab out those in the Watergate affair?

Mr. McCord. I do not know the role of the others in the Watergate and whether they may or may not have been involved. They have been so reported in the papers, but I do not know for a fact.

Senator Gurney. My reason for asking this, I understand there was electronic equipm ent which was obtained by, I think, Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hun t in the Ellsberg affair. And they, of course, did have super­ visory control and authority over you to some extent. Did you use any of th at electronic equipment? Or did you purchase all your own?

Mr. McCord. I do not know w hat electronic equipment was that 

you are referring to here, sir.

Senator Gurney. Well, all I know is what I read in the newspapers on th at, but did you purchase all of the electronic equipment devices 

tha t you used?

Mr. McCord. Th at I used, yes sir. I do no t know what Mr. Hu nt 

used.

Senator Gurney. Thank you, tha t is all.

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. Mr. McCord, I have been much impressed by your background, you have received two academic degrees from two different universities, 

r

 you are a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, you have had very distin­ guished service of many years with the FBI, very distinguished service with the Central Intelligence Agency. From that I believe I can assume t ha t you are better versed than the man on the street when it comes to what is legal and what is no t legal, is tha t assumption correct?

Mr. McCord. I am not a lawyer, sir, as I testified to you. I have 

a working knowledge of the law, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. You are acquainted with what national security 

is all about?

Mr. McCord. I certainly am.

Senator I nouye. I would assume that being involved in the Government all these years that your concern with our activities would be a bit more acute than the average citizen. For example,

96- 29 6— 73— bk. 1 12
172

were you aware that Mr. Mitchell was the chief campaign manager 

in the 1968 election?

Mr. McCord. I believe I heard that, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Were you aware at the time that you were discussing the possibility of the clandestine activities that Mr. Mitchell 

was considering going over to the committee to become chairman of 

tha t committee?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Were you aware at the time of your discussion 

when he was Attorney General tha t he was actually in control of the 

campaign activities? 

Mr. M e

cCord. I did not know the full extent to which he was in 

control. I knew there were meetings with him by senior people from 

the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.

Senator I nouye. You knew he was actively involved in matters $

political?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. And you were aware tha t the Democratic National Committee was a political organization?

Mr. McCord. Beyond any question.

Senator Inouye. And you are aware tha t Mr. Muskie, Mr. McGovern were also political citizens?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. That they were seeking the presidency of the 

United States?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. You were also aware tha t Mr. O’Brien was a 

politician?

Mr. McCord. Yes; indeed.

Senator Inouye. I gather from your prior testimony tha t you had 

received instructions on taking pictures?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Inouye. Someone in your group had instructions?

Mr. McCord. One of the members a t least; yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. What sort of pictures did you take?

Mr. McCord. I do not know, sir, I did not see them.

Senator Inouye. You did not see any copies?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. You did not hear of any instructions?

Mr. McCord. In a general sense, I do not know the specific targets, ,

but yes, I heard them discussed by Mr. H unt with the team members 

generally and I heard the team members refer to them but I do not 

have specifics as to what they are, w hat was copied.

Senator Inouye. Did you have any reason to suspect Mr. McGov- ,

ern, Mr. Muskie, or Mr. O’Brien were involved in activities which were 

inimicable to the United States and contrary to the national security, 

more specifically to overthrow the Government?

Mr. McCord. When I previously referred to a comment tha t Mr.

Liddv made to me in connection with the Las Vegas trip, two trips 

that he was making for this committee.

Senator Inouye. You had reason to believe tha t these men were 

involved in activities which would be dangerous to the existence of 

the United State s of America?
173

Mr. M cCord. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. Then, why did you carry on these activities? lo u were well aware of what national security was all about. Were they involved in syndicated criminal activity?

Mr. McCord [conferring with counsel], I can go into the reasons behind some of the motivations tha t I had if you want me to do so, sir, which pertain to testimony I previously had given relating to 

the----- -

Senator Inouye. I believe it is very important because I for one 

would like to know why the sudden change of heart.

• Mr. McCord. In what, sir?

Senator Inouye. In being concerned about justice and legality. Because I cannot believe tha t you were not aware of the illegality of all these acts and tha t these were political activities?

♦ Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I have admitted tha t the acts were both wrong on my part, it was a mistake on my part, I stated that at the beginning and I restate it a t this time but the motivation-----

Senator Inouye. Were you aware at the time you were on the 

sixth floor of the Watergate that it was illegal?

Mr. McCord [conferring with counsel]. Yes; of course.

Senator I nouye. Why did you, as one who has served his country so well, as a colonel in the Air Force, distinguished service in the FBI and CIA decide to carry out these illegal acts? The only thing you have done wrong so far is to receive a traffic ticket.

Mr. McCord. Sir, I can repeat my situation tha t held me into the decision to join in this operation which involved a series of discussions, which involved the White House itself, the counsel to the President, tha t top lawyer, involved the top lawyer of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President and involved the Attorney General himself in his capacity as Attorney General of the United States who had the authority. I realize tha t acts are illegal, tha t these acts are illegal, under normal circumstances but that he has the power and authority to make them legal by his oral approval of it, and particu­ larly, in particular, about what I was convinced was his approval.

Senator I nouye. You knew the Attorney General was soon to become chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. McCord. I was aware of it bu t I was also aware that the matter had been approved while he had been Attorney General, had been considered while he was Attorney General, had been considered

• jointly with the counsel to the President and while he was A ttorney 

General.

Senator I nouye. On all the front pages of the U.S. press you had comments about Mr. Mitchell to become soon the chairman of this

• party?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. So you knew that his activities may be political 

in nature?

Mr. McCord. They very well may be and part of the reason attributed to the operation was political, no question about it, but I had previously stated as well that I was convinced that over his, I knew over his, desk came many matters which I had no knowledge of and, in particular, I was concerned about violence and demonstra­ tions, particularly violence which already were being reported to be
174

occurring, tha t planned to occur, to take place, at the Republican 

National Convention in Miami. We had many reports of it, first of 

all, at the convention of San Diego upward of a quarter of a million 

people. I was also aware that the Attorney General in his capacity 

had very broad access to information which I felt I might not be 

privy to and Mr. Liddy might not be privy to, but which would, 

could, and would have a bearing, possibly would have a, bearing upon 

the relationship of, association with, some of these demonstrators to 

certain members of either the Democratic National Committee or to 

the McGovern headquarters and in fact one of the groups now under 

indictment in Tallahassee, Fla., did in fact have an office within the 

Democratic National Committee.

Senator I nouye. Was it your belief th at people like Mr. O’Brien, 

Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Muskie were involved in a conspiracy to 

plan violence?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. Where was the national security involved as far 

as these three men were concerned?

Mr. McCord [conferring with counsel]. Sir, I can restate what I 

previously stated before this committee in terms of violence tha t 

had already occurred, which involve bombings in a couple of States, 

which involved violence and demonstrations against our committee, 

which involved bomb threats against the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President, which involved violence in the building, which involved 

threats to Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell, and I recited those in 

considerable detail, concerning the violence tha t was planned for the 

Republican National Committee and some of which were reported 

as early as 1971 and targeted against the Committee for Re-Election 

of the President. There had been reports they were in both groups 

in McGovern headquarters and the Democratic national headquarters 

some of the staff members working closely with the violence groups 

and, as I believe I testified to, tha t part of these informations we 

expected to obtain are the wiretap itself would have to do with calls 

and conversations and coordination between such groups and staff 

members in the Democratic National Committee. Th at was not the 

only purpose of the wiretap; I understood that part of the purpose 

was political intelligence, political intelligence for the Committee 

for Re-Election of the President and the White House out at the 

Democratic National Committee and out at the McGovern headquarters, tha t was one factor.

Senator I nouye. Do you want the committee to believe at the 

time you made the decision to be involved in these illegal acts you 

felt that men like McGovern, Muskie, and O’Brien were involved 

in this national conspiracy of bombing and inciting violence?

Mr. McCord. No, sir; I did not testify to tha t and I do not want 

the committee to believe tha t. I was just telling what my reason 

and motivations were at the time and what they surrounded which 

was the participating by the Attorney General.

Senator Inouye. And yet you indicated tha t one of your projected 

plans called for the bugging of Mr. O’Brien’s private residence; is 

tha t not so?

Mr. McCord. No, tha t it was initially proposed th at tha t be done. 

That is what was never done, that his office was bugged, yes, sir, in 

the Democratic National Committee.
175

Senator Ervin. Would the Senator pardon me.

Senator I nouye. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. It was the official position of the Department of 

Justice tha t they could bug to discover domestic subversion without 

a warrant, without applying for a warrant, and, by a strange coincidence, it was June 19, 1972, when the Supreme Court first handed 

down a unanimous decision rejecting th at position of the Department 

of Justice.

Mr. McCord. I think there is also, sir, if I may add at this 

point-----

e

Senator Inouye. I am aware of that, Mr. Chairman; I just want

to have Mr. McCord to tell us that these men were involved in 

domestic subversion and Mr. McCord is not jus t another citizen. 

He is a colonel in the Air Force, holds two degrees from two universifies, a very learned man of distinguished service with the FBI 

and CIA.

Changing the subject, sir, now, did you have a contingency plan 

in the event of arrest?

Mr. McCord. Did I have—or did the group have?

Senator I nouye. Did the group have.

Mr. McCord. There were very general contingency plans, the 

main contingency planning was mainly access from the building 

itself in case the men were caught.

Senator I nouye. What about attorneys?

Mr. McCord. None that I knew of, no, sir.

Senator I nouye. I gather from prior evidence tha t all of you 

had aliases.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. One man had a Mexican passport made out under 

an alias, another one had a driver’s license in New York made out 

in a phony name and another one from Massachusetts and likewise; 

where were these identity cards made?

Mr. McCord. I do not know, sir.

Senator I nouye. Where was yours made?

Mr. McCord. I do no t know, sir. It was given to me by Mr. Hunt 

and I have no idea.

Senator I nouye. You did not ask?

Mr. McCord. N o, sir; I can explain how I received it, if that is any 

help to you.

» Senator Inouye. Was it a professionally made identity card?

Mr. McCord. It appeared to be.

Senator I nouye. Can you tell us how you got it?

Mr. McCord. Yes; the evening of June 17 Mr. Hunt handed some 

identification to me and said, “Pu t this in your pocket in case you 

need it when you go by the guard, if you go by the guard, and he asks 

any questions concerning who you are.”

I took it and glanced at it briefly and put it in my pocket. The 

identification was under the name of Edward J. Martin.

Senator I nouye. You have indicated that your activities were 

limited to just two Watergate break-ins and an attempted one planned 

for the Muskie and McGovern headquarters, is that correct?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Senator I nouye. You were not involved in any other activity?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.
176

Senator I nouye. Was Mr. Odle aware of your activities?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. Did you a t any time discuss the possibility of other 

activities?

Mr. McCord. To the best of my knowledge he was in no way involved in any of the Watergate planning or the operations himself.

Senator I nouye. The highest officials that you have met, according 

to your statement, is Mr. Liddy and Mr. Magruder?

Mr. McCord. Met in what connection, sir?

Senator I nouye. Directly involved in this activity.

Mr. McCord. Met with Mr. Liddy only. I had many meetings with 

Mr. Mitchell and Magruder. *

Senator I nouye. Did you have any contact with M r. Dean directly?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Did you discuss this matter directly with Mr. Dean? 4

Did you have any direct contact with the Attorney General?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. Did you discuss this matter?

Mr. McCord. No, sir. I previously testified to that. I did not. I 

testified to the reason.

Senator Inouye. Were you meeting the Attorney General at the 

time you were planning this Watergate activity?

Mr. McCord. I did not meet with him in planning sessions. I saw 

him regularly during tha t period; yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. You were not curious enough to bring it up with 

him.

Mr. McCord. I trusted Mr. Liddy who said he would discuss it 

with him. I felt if the A ttorney General cared to discuss it with me he 

would raise it.

Senator Inouye. You had no desire to bring it up on your own?

Mr. McCord. I had no reason to question tha t Mr. Liddy would 

not mention to him I was not participating. I had no desire to proceed 

beyond that. He said tha t he would and I accepted his word for it.

Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I believe my time has expired; 

than k you very much, sir.

Than k you, Mr. McCord.

Senator E rvin. Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCord, who hired A1 Baldwin?

Mr. McCord. I did, sir.

Senator Weicker. Did you hire him or was it a decision involving 

you and another person?

Mr. McCord. His initial employment was in a sequence of an 

interview by me and a subsequent interview with Mr. Fred LaRue 

of the committee in which the final commitment was made by Mr. •

LaRue, tha t is the sequence.

Senator Weicker. So ac tually the final decision as to Mr. Baldwin’s 

employment was made by Mr. LaRue, is that correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. McCord, do you know Robert 

Mardian?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. In what connection do you know him?
177

Mr. McCord. I first met him when he came to the Committee for 

the Re-Election of the President.

Senator Weicker. When you say you first met him, would you care 

to describe that meeting?

Mr. McCord. I believe the first meeting with him was in May, late 

May as best I recall, when he came to, shortly after he came to, the 

committee and as I recall his driver was being employed by the committee as a driver and we had some discussion in that context at tha t 

time.

Senator Weicker. You had discussions with Mr. Mardian or with 

his driver?

Mr. McCord. With Mr. Mardian.

Senator Weicker. Can you give me the substance of those 

conversations?

Mr. McCord. Th at conversation was something to the effect th at 

the driver was being considered as a driver for Mr. Mitchell, and I 

inquired about the m an’s background and he stated tha t he had been 

a very satisfactory driver for him and he felt he would do a good job 

for Mr. Mitchell.

Senator Weicker. Did you know what position Mr. Mardian held 

at the time that you talked to him?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes.

Senator Weicker. Could you please state to the committee what 

that position was?

Mr. McCord. He was, as I recall, a special assistant to Mr. 

Mitchell and one of functions tha t Mr. Mitchell had for him for the 

committee.

Senator Weicker. I beg your pardon?

Mr. McCord. He was a special assistant to Mr. Mitchell.

Senator Weicker. Will you describe what you understood his 

duties to be as a special assistant to Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. I understood general assignments for Mr. Mitchell. 

I did not know the specific details of everything that he was involved 

with at all. We talked a bit about Miami and the Miami convention 

and our concern over security there and I knew tha t he had some 

functions in connection with that.

Senator Weicker. At the time of our first executive session, Mr. 

McCord, I asked you a question in what connection did you know 

Robert Mardian, and you took the fifth during tha t sworn interview.

Is there any reason why you w’ould not like to or go ahead and 

describe now why you thought it was necessary at tha t moment in 

time?

Mr. McCord. I believe it was taken on the advice of counsel at 

that point in time. I can’t recall the specific questions, question tha t 

was asked at that period. If it can be recited I can give you the reason.

Senator Weicker. The specific question was, “Have you had any 

contact with Robert Mardian at any time?

“Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

“Senator Weicker. Could you describe to the committee what 

that contact consisted of?

“Mr. McCord. I will take the fifth on that. ”

Mr. McCord. There had been—I can give you now’ my reasons 

as best I recall for th at.
178

There had been an article in Time magazine, it seems to me in 

August or so, 1972, in which there was an allegation against Mr.

Mardian, as I recall it, tha t he was not only in charge of the Watergate 

operation but tha t he had some other political intelligence activities 

tha t he was carrying on tha t he was involved with in the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President. I knew that I had no knowledge of his 

involvement in the Watergate operations themselves. I knew tha t he 

had some function in connection with the—some function in connection with the convention at Miami. And I believe tha t was the 

reason that I took the fifth at tha t time, as I recall.

Senator Weicker. Did you or the Committee To Re-Elect the •

President receive reports from the Internal Security Division of the 

Justice Department?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I did.

Senator Weicker. Was Mr. Mardian head of that division? *

Mr. McCord. He had been, sir.

Senator Weicker. Did you receive copies of FBI reports?

Mr. McCord. I can explain a partial answer to that, sir, if you want 

me to, an answer tha t involves FBI reports.

I have raised with, I believe, Mr. Odle the problem of receiving 

adequate information concerning violence in demonstrations tha t 

might affect the committee headquarters in Washington and subsequently, the committee headquarters in Miami, and I asked if there 

were any way in which there could be some type of liaison to receive 

information from the FBI specifically, because I knew that they would 

have information tha t was n ot available to us and we knew tha t such 

information was being made available to other parties for the convention itself if it directly affected those parties.

As I recall, he sent a memorandum to Mr. Mitchell asking for 

approval of my contact with tha t organization.

The next tha t I heard was a call from Mr. Mardian in which he 

referred to that memorandum and he stated tha t Mr. Mitchell had 

given approval to my contact to acquire that type of information and 

tha t I should go to the Inte rnal Security Division of the Department 

of Justice where such information as did affect, might affect, the security of the committee would be made available to me some of which 

was as I have described in those reports, yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. So you received data from the Internal Security 

Division of the Justice Department?

Mr. McCord. I did. ■

Senator Weicker. And you received data from the FBI?

Mr. McCord. Not from the FBI directly, no, sir.

Senator Weicker. From whom did you receive such data?

Mr. McCord. From the In tern al Security Division. I do not believe 

the FB I was ever aware of that.

Senator Weicker. And from what individual did you receive such 

information?

Mr. McCord. I believe it was through the Chief of the Evaluation 

Section. I believe his name was Mr. John Martin.

Senator Weicker. I am sorry. I did not hear the name.

Mr. McCord. John Martin.

Senator Weicker. John Martin was your contact?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.
179

Senator Weicker. At the Internal Security Division of the Justice 

Department, is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. Would it be correct to say that Mr. Martin is 

chief of the analysis and evaluation section?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. And where did you meet Mr. Martin?

Mr. McCord. A t his office in the Departm ent of Justice.

Senator Weicker. Who knew, aside from Mr. Martin, that you were 

receiving this material?

e Mr. McCord. His deputy at the evaluation section. I believe the

name is Lisker, I am not absolutely certain.

Senator Weicker. I am not anxious to have any names here unless 

there is to be some identification.

» I have before me a position report on this Internal Security Division. Could you tell me whether or not the name listed as deputy 

there is a name tha t you recognize, where I stopped reading?

Mr. McCord. That is correct, sir.

Senator Weicker. Would you please give the name, then, for the 

committee?

Air. McCord. J-o-e-1, Joel, Lisker, L-i-s-k-e-r.

Senator Weicker. All right, then, to repeat again the question we 

were working on, who knew you received the material, who else 

besides Mr. Martin and Mr. Lisker?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Martin, of course. Mr. Mitchell had initialed 

the memorandum tha t I subsequently saw on this, Mr. Robert Odle; 

at least those persons.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Odle?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Odle, yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. You say there was a subsequent memorandum?

Mr. McCord. The memorandum which Mr. Odle wrote on this 

subject I subsequently received, which had Mr. Mitchell’s initials on it.

Senator Weicker. Do you feel or do you know whether or not 

similar information, similar access to this information was given to 

the Democratic Party?

Mr. McCord. I understood that they did have through some 

channels some access to information of this type; whether it came 

from tha t office, I do not know.

Senator Weicker. Was the information which you received the basis 

, for the apprehension which you described in answering the questions

of Senator Inouye relative to your activities?

Mr. McCord. It added to my apprehension, sir. It was not the 

basis. It came some weeks after my decision, but it added to that 

apprehension, because i t dealt specifically with violence at the Republican National Committee.

Senator Weicker. Now, I would like you to describe for me as best 

you can the types of information, in further detail, that you received 

from the Internal Security Division. Did you receive from the Internal 

Security Division, for example, or from the FBI any information as it 

related to the candidates or their staffs?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, there was one such repo rt tha t I do recall 

specifically.

Senator Weicker. Can you give me details on t ha t report?
180

Mr. McCord. One such report dealt with, as I recall, a funding 

operation tha t was reported in which the McGovern committee 

purportedly funded a so-called barn storming tour of several members 

of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War on the west coast, as I 

recall, starting from Los Angeles, Calif., and going up the coast. It 

came concurrently with some other information tha t that same group 

was planning violence at the Republican National Convention involving danger to, threats to life of individuals. I think tha t was succeeded 

very shortly, in a matter of days, by the indictment of members of 

the Vietnam A eterans Against the War at Tallahassee because of the 

violence that they did plan, including a number of things tha t would •

endanger the lives of the people at the Republican National Convention.

Senator Weicker. I want to be most careful on the grounds tha t 

we are covering.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this, tha t I would like to proceed for a 

few more minutes if I might, with the idea that the committee should 

pay very close a ttention to what obviously is a very serious matter.

It is certainly the first time that I think I have ever known tha t the 

Internal Security Division of the Justice Department and the FBI 

were participating rather actively in a campaign, and I think that the 

facts should be laid out most carefully.

Now, can you tell me precisely what the dates were on which this 

type of activity took place? In other words, when you first made 

your contact with Mr. Mar tin and started to receive this type of 

material?

Mr. McCord. My best recollection would have been within the 

last 2 weeks of May 1972.

Senator Weicker. In the last 2 weeks of May, 1972, and you received this material between May of 1972 and when you were caught 

at the Watergate, is t hat correct?

Mr. McCord. June 17, yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Of 1972?

Mr. McCord. 1972.

Senator Weicker. Have you ever been on the fourth floor of the 

Triangle Building?

Mr. McCord. I believe tha t is the offices of the evaluation section, 

sir, if my memory is correct.

Senator Weicker. Well, the Triangle Building is at 9th and D 

Streets. Have you ever been on the fourth floor of that building? «

Mr. McCord. If tha t is the offices of the analysis and evaluation 

section, I have been there, yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. And this, as you understood this, you were with 

the intelligence evaluation committee at that time, or with the officers 

of it? *

Mr. McCord. With the Internal Security Division, Mr. Mar tin’s 

particular office there, yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. And on how many different occasions did you 

get this material from Mr. Martin and was he the only one that 

passed this information on to you?

Mr. McCord. It would have been either Mr. Martin or Mr. Lisker.

It was normally done in their offices when I would visit their offices.

I recall a few occasions on which there were phone calls from these
181

gentlemen, one of the two of the gentlemen; when we had CO to 75,000 

demonstrators in Washington and there appeared to be some in­ formation of relevance affecting the possible fiscal security cf our installations by demonstrators tha t were then in the city, and I would get a call in tha t connection from one of the two men, saying, in effect, we think you ought to be aware of thus and so information. I recall specifically one such call dealing with the bombing of the 

Pentagon at tha t time.

Senator Weicker. Again, I just want to repeat my first questions. 

On how many different occasions did you receive this material?

• Mr. McCord. Almost daily, sir.

Senator Weicker. Almost daily?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. And the nature of the material given to you 

> related to groups, is tha t correct, individuals?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Individuals?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Both political and nonpolitical?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Now, when you received this material, what did 

you do with it?

Mr. McCord. If it were of sufficient consequence, I would pass it 

along to Mr. Mitchell’s office, usually through Mr. Odle. Quite often, I would put it in a memorandum for him for distribution to those other staff members of the committee who would normally want to know of forthcoming demonstrations in the Washington area, some of 

which might affect the committee.

Senator Weicker. Why did you feel this was—now. you would 

pass this on to Mr. Mitchell at the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President, is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, and other staff members.

Senator Weicker. Well, and other staff members. Who is “and other 

staff members” ?

Mr. McCord. 2\bout six cf the senior staff members, which included 

Mr. Sloan, who passed it to Mr. Stans, included Mr. Liddy, included Mr. Odle, included the prospective officers for Mr. Mitchell’s wife, Mrs. Mitchell, and two or three other division chiefs there under 

Mr. Mitchell.

• Senator Weicker. And this almost on a daily basis?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. And this is material which you yourself received 

and you yourself distributed?

• Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of other questions, but I am afraid I am going to have to digest tha t one for a few minutes and I would like to defer to you to have other questioning take place. I would hope t ha t there will be an opportunity to proceed 

to further questioning on this.

Senator Ervin. I might state tha t Senator Inouve has to go at 4 

o’clock and it might be advisable for us to recess at 4 and let the 

witness come back on Tuesday.

Senator Weicker. I beg Senator Montoya’s pardon and thank you, 

Senator.
182

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCord, going back to the time that you were hired, I would 

like to ask you if you had a personal acquaintance with the President?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. Had you worked with him in any capacity?

Either while he was Vice President or before?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. Had you done any work in his behalf while 

you were working for the CIA?

Mr. McCord. I was a staff member of the CIA while he was Vice 

President. He may have had access to material or reports which I *

wrote.

Senator Montoya. Did you ever speak to him during those same 

times?

Mr. McCord. I don’t recall it; no, sir. £

Senator Montoya. Who was the person who recommended you 

for this particular job assignment?

Mr. McCord. Mr. John Caulfield.

Senator Montoya. And where did you meet him?

Mr. M cCord. At the Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C.

Senator Montoya. And where is that Executive Office Building 

with respect to the White House?

Mr. McCord. It adjoins it. It is on the White House grounds.

Senator Montoya. How many visits did you have with Mr. Caulfield 

before you were hired?

Mr. McCord. I believe it was three or four, sir.

Senator Montoya. And why did you have three or four visits?

Were they extensive interviews and did you go into the details of 

your assignment?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. They were twofold, for twofold purposes.

They were an opportunity for Mr. Caulfield to interview me personally and learn more about me and my background, and secondly, 

an opportunity for him to discuss the nature of the job tha t would 

be coming up in the campaign.

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Caulfield at tha t time discuss with 

you the clandestine nature of your assignment?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. When did you and Mr. Caulfield, if you did, 

engage in such a conversation?

Mr. McCord. I believe it followed the June 17 break-in. «

Senator Montoya. Th at is when he was discussing with you the 

possibility of clemency?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Or shortly after the June 17 break-in and before 

the trial? Which was it? 41

Mr. McCord. My first conversation with him was shortly after 

June 17, sometime in July or August.

Senator Montoya. And was he an employee of the White House 

at that time?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. Where was he employed?

Mr. McCord. He was either employed or due to be employed at 

the Treasury Department in the position I mentioned earlier.

Senator Montoya. And what was tha t conversation about?
183

Mr. McCord. This was a conversation about which I referred 

this morning, a telephone call in which he stated tha t he was making 

a trip overseas and that if I needed to reach him, to call his home and 

leave word and he would call me back.

Senator Montoya. Now, after you had your three interviews with 

him, who else did you see prior to being hired on a part-time basis 

in October of 1971?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Robert Odle at the Committee for the ReElection of the President, to make an initial interview with me, 

with Mr. Caulfield present.

Senator Montoya. And were you hired pursuant to this interview?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And you became a part-time employee of the 

operation there?

Mr. McCord. I did.

Senator Montoya. Did you at any time discuss with Mr. Odle 

the triple assignment which you related this morning was your 

assignment, or was the nature of the operation with respect to 

Mr. Liddy’s involvement?

Mr. McCord. No, sir; I did not discuss that with Mr. Odle.

Senator Montoya. Now, when you stated this morning that one 

of the assignments, or that the total assignment would involve getting 

photographic information, political espionage, and electronic surveillance, when did you first find out about the composition of your 

entire operation?

Mr. McCord. I believe it would have been in April 1972, when I 

met Mr. Hun t for the first time.

Senator Montoya. And I believe you have previously stated that 

during the course of February, you were in touch with Mr. Liddy 

and other individuals with respect to planning for the clandestine 

operation which later turned out to be Watergate?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And where did this take place?

Mr. McCord. The first part of your question, sir, was when?

Senator Montoya. Where did the initial conversations with respect 

to the W atergate planning take place?

Mr. McCord. In Mr. Liddy’s office at the Committee To ReElect the President.

Senator Montoya. Was this in February?

Mr. McCord. January and February initially; yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And who else was in on this?

Mr. McCord. No one else, sir.

Senator Montoya. And were you aware that a plan was being 

formulated?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And were you also aware tha t the plan was 

being formulated for submission to the Attorney General?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And did you provide any input into this plan?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. What kind of inpu t did you provide?

Mr. McCord. In the nature of information Mr. Liddy sought 

about different costs of equipment, electronic equipment and the
184

different components that* he was interested in, the transmission 

devices and the receiving devices in particular.

Senator Montoya. And did you discuss with Mr. Liddy at tha t 

time as to manpower requirements and other necessary details to 

carry out the plans?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Give us the substance of those conversations.

Mr. McCord. He was interested in the overall cost, first of all, 

of these types of operations, specifically referring to electronic operations, what the pieces of equipment would cost, what it took to receive 

them, what types of receivers were best. He was interested in the 

best type of equipment in this sense for this operation. He wanted 

to know how many pieces of equipment it would take for the Democratic National Committee, for example, to transmit and receive 

transmissions from the Democratic National Committee headquarters; 

secondly, in connection with the McGovern committee headquarters; 

and thirdly, in connection with the Democratic National Convention 

site in Xliami, Fla.

Senator Montoya. What was the value of the equipment tha t 

you used at the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. McCord. I would guess about $15,000 in total but I am not 

sure.

Senator M ontoya. $15,000?

Mr. McCord. Fifteen, yes, sir.

Senator M ontoya. Wha t was the value of the equipment tha t 

you used in Miami?

Mr. McCord. I did not use any there, sir.

Senator M ontoya. Were you contemplating using the same equipment from the National Committee at the National Convention in 

Miami?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, tha t was separate equipment.

Senator Montoya. Where else were you going to use equipment?

Mr. McCord. Those three places tha t 1 have stated—the McGovern committee headquarters, Democratic National Committee, 

and the convention site for the Democratic Party in Miami, Fla.

Senator Montoya. Doesn’t it stand to reason tha t for the expenditure of $65,000, you were going to launch quite a few operations?

Mr. McCord. There were three separate locations and it would 

take-----

Senator M ontoya. Well, at the rate of $15,000 apiece, you would 

have some equipment left for other operations.

Now, why was the budget so high?

Mr. McCord. Well, I think to answer your question, sir, there was 

planned, for example, for the Democratic National Committee two 

separate operations there, n ot just the one tha t was initially planned. 

Mr. Liddy budgeted for what he felt was adequate equipment for all 

three locations and it would not simply take just—you asked the 

question of how much was the value of the equipment tha t was installed and I gave the figure of about $15,000.

The additional equipment tha t was taken in was an additional cost 

factor there.

Does that answer your question, or have I not?

Senator Montoya. Let me ask you this: Did you assume when you 

purchased this equipment for an approximate sum of $65,000 tha t it
185

would be used solely for the three operations about which you had 

testified, or did you assume that this equipment would be used for other 

operations, to which you would not be related in involvement?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, sir. This was a part of it.

Senator Montoy . Sir?

Mr. McCord. Yes, the walkie-talkie equipment, for example, was 

scheduled, as 1 understood it, for use in certain surveillance operations 

by the Cuban individuals referred to against demonstrators and violence-oriented groups in Miami, Fla. So tha t was an example of my 

reasons for answering yes to your question.

Senator Montoya. So then am I to assume that other than your 

own involvement, there could have been other involvements in other 

parts of the country, or even in Washington?

Mr. McCord. The communications, the walkie-talkie equipment 

specifically, I knew of no other immediate planned use of the electronic 

equipment; such could have been possible.

Senator Montoya. How much telephone tapping equipment did 

you buy and was this ju st barely sufficient, or was this in surplus after 

you had serviced the needs for the three places which you had in 

mind at the time, namely, the Watergate, the Democratic convention 

in Miami, and the McGovern headquarters?

Mr. McCord. In the neighborhood of $45,000 worth of equipment 

planned for those three locations and possible other use against 

demonstrators in Miami.

Senator Montoya. You had $20,000 left in equipment, would you 

say?

Mr. McCord. Perhaps more than that, sir.

Senator Montoya. I1ow much more?

Mr. McCord. You are referring to the—I mentioned the, $15,000.

Senator Montoya. And then it stands to reason tha t you could 

reuse some of this equipment you were using at Watergate and tha t 

you intended to use at Miami and also at McGovern headquarters, 

is tha t not correct?

Mr. McCord. No sir, I believe they were planned to be used 

concurrently.

Senator Montoya. Sir?

Mr. McCord. I think it was planned to be used in three separate 

operations concurrently.

Senator Montoya. Did you have any other employees under you 

or under your direction who were performing any of the activities 

within the master plan that you worked on initially?

Mr. McCord. Just Mr. Baldwin.

Senator Montoya. And you stated tha t one of the purposes or 

objectives was to gather photographic information. Now who was in 

charge of this division?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Hun t.

Senator Montoya. And who was in charge of political espionage?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy, as I understand it, and Mr. Hunt were 

jointly involved in the two. I understood Mi-. Liddy was in charge.

Senator Montoya. All right. Who was involved in electronic 

surveillance?

Mr. McCord. I was.

Senator Montoya. All right.
186

Did you employ anyone to help you in this endeavor?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Baldwin only at tha t point in time.

Senator Montoya. Who employed the Cubans?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Hunt, to my understanding.

Senator Montoya. Now, do you know whether Mr. H unt recruited 

them in Florida?

Mr. McCord. I do not know, sir.

Senator M ontoya. How were the Cubans procured?

Mr. McCord. That I do no t know, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you also have something to do with working out the arrangements for the security of the Attorney General 

and Mrs. Mitchell at their home?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator M ontoya. What specifically did you do in tha t respect?

Mr. McCord. Myself was to secure at Mr. Mitchell’s requests a 

security officer for Mrs. Mitchell beginning in March, May, April, 

1972, and to generally oversee the security of their apartmen t at the 

Watergate Hotel, Watergate Apartments, and to insure tha t there 

was security protection for their daughter who was attending school, 

a young daughter, teenager in Washington, and specifically, in 

particular to see there was a security officer accompanying her when 

she traveled.

Senator Montoya. How many times did you visit the apartment?

Mr. McCord. Numerous times.

Senator Montoya. Did you converse with Mrs. Mitchell or the 

Attorney General during those visits?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. What did you converse about?

Mr. McCord. Mainly matters relating to those functions, the 

security functions and in particular a security officer to travel with 

her and security of their apartment.

Senator Montoya. So you were very well acquainted with Mr. 

Mitchell?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, will you state, are you aware of what 

happened to Mrs. Mitchell in California?

Mr. McCord. No sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you manifest any concern in view of the 

fact that you had hired these people to guard her?

Mr. McCord. In connection with the California matter, you are 

referring to?

Senator M ontoya. Yes.

Mr. McCord. I was in jail at the time.

Senator Montoya. You were concerned about yourself only at 

that time?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator M ontoya. Now you wrote a letter, Mr. McCord, to Judge 

Sirica in which you indicated a belief th at retaliatory measures would 

be taken against you, your family, and your friends if you should 

disclose facts relating to the affair, and you stated in your letter such 

retaliation could destroy careers, income, reputations of persons who 

are innocent of any guilt whatsoever, whatever.

Now can you give us the basis or the foundation for this particular 

belief which you communicated to Judge Sirica?
187

Mr. McCord. I believe I have testified previously that it was 

primarily family concerns th at were expressed by my wife tha t such 

could happen physically if I decided to talk, they were not concerns 

trying to deter me but simply a natu ral family concern for myself 

and my family which in turn were relayed to me.

Senator Montoya. Were any of these communications by known 

individuals or were they jus t relayed to your wife more or less secondhand?

Mr. McCord. They were relayed to me secondhanded. I think 

the other half of the answer is, has to do with, the statement I read 

this morning. I do not think i t concerned me greatly but I know tha t 

it had some effect upon my wife.

Senator Montoya. Now when Mr. Liddy unfolded this plan to 

you did he indicate to you how you would be taken care of in case 

anything happened?

Mr. McCord. No sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you have any concern tha t som eth in g 

could happen and then what would they do in tha t case?

Mr. McCord. Perhaps I do n ot understand the question, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you at tha t time when the plan unfolded 

before your very eyes, was unfolded before your very eyes by Mr. 

Liddy, did you feel any concern for what might happen and who 

would take care of the situation if it did happen?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Senator Montoya. What kind of concern did you have?

Mr. McCord. I think the concerns tha t what did happen might 

happen.

Senator Montoya. Well, now, when you were arrested at the Watergate and taken to jail, two attorneys apparently appeared there the 

next morning. Who were those attorneys?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Rafferty and Mr. bo uglas Caddy, C-a-d-d-y.

Senator Montoya. Who sent them there?

Mr. McCord. I did not know at the time. I have since understood 

tha t Mr. Hunt had a p art in arranging for their appearance.

Senator Montoya. Was anyone—was anything said to you by 

these attorneys to keep quiet or n ot divulging anything or even the 

source of your employment?

Mr. McCord. There was a brief discussion with all of the defendants 

at that first meeting, if tha t is what you are referring to, at the place 

where we were arrested.

Senator Montoya. Where was this discussion?

Mr. McCord. In the Second District Precinct in Washington, 

police precinct.

Senator Montoya. N ow, you also indicated tha t you visited other 

places. Now, during your employment with the committee, what 

places did you visit throughout the country other than New York 

about which Mr. Odle testified yesterday?

Mr. McCord. Chicago.

Senator Montoya. I believe he testified about Chicago. What other 

places did you visit?

Mr. McCord. Miami, Fla; Miami, Fla.

Senator Montoya. How long did you stay there?

Mr. McCord. Two or 3 days.

96-296— 73—bk. 1------13
188

Senator M ontoya. What was your mission there?

Mr. M cCord. I t was along, th at was along, with about a half dozen 

White House personnel to review the overall planning for the use of the 

Doral Hotel which was to be used in August 1972 as, for both offices 

and residences for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President 

staff and for the White House staff, both. My task there was to look 

over the security needs and to recommend measures to appropriate 

to those needs.

Senator Montoya. Who went to Miami to plan the security for the 

Democratic National Committee?

Mr. McCord. The Democratic National Committee?

Senator Montoya. And the convention, you indicated you had an 

interest in that.

Mr. McCord. I did not. I do not know, sir, I did not.

Senator Montoya. Did you not state tha t there would be some 

effort made to carry on a surveillance program at the Democratic 

National Convention?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And who was assigned to tha t task, if you 

know?

Mr. McCord. I knew Mr. Hunt had some activity in tha t regard.

Senator Montoya. Did he hire other people, to your knowledge?

Mr. McCord. I believe he utilized some of the other men that were 

in the Watergate operation. I had understood tha t from him, I was 

not certain as to the exact nature.

Senator Montoya. You were on two payrolls, apparently, when 

Mr. Liddy hired you for this clandestine operation. You were on 

Mr. Odle’s payroll as well as Mr. Liddy’s, is t hat correct?

Mr. McCord. That is correct, sir.

Senator Montoya. And you were receiving how much from Mr. 

Odle and how much from Mr. Liddy on a monthly basis?

Mr. McCord. Approximately one-twelfth of the $20,000 a year 

salary from Mr. Odle; $2,000 from Mr. Liddy.

Senator Montoya. Did your attorney at any time communicate to 

you that there had been some offers of clemency, that is, your attorney, 

Mr. Alch?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Will you state what you received by way of 

information, in that respect?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Please do so.

Mr. McCord. It is my recollection that the date was in late September or early October 1972 when Mr. Alch was in town, came to a 

meeting, he said, with Mr. Bittm an and stated tha t Executive clemency and financial support and rehabilitation would be made available 

to the defendants in the case, including me.

Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Senator E rvin. Senator Baker will ask you one question and then 

we will adjourn.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, it is 4 o’clock and we are going to 

adjourn shortly, and my question does not require an answer today. 

We can take it up when you retu rn on Tuesday. What I am about
189

to say in no way disparages your testimony because you have been 

meticulously careful, I believe, in your testimony; you have been very 

exact in the answers you have given to counsel and to members of the 

committee. I must say I am impressed with the thoroughness with 

which you prepared memoranda today, and previously in your testimony before this committee in executive session. All of those things, 

are commendable and we thank you for them.

I practiced law for almost 19 years before 1 came to the U.S". 

Senate, and I had a lot of witnesses at one time or the other, and I 

came to recognize a syndrome tha t I think may be present today,

• and tha t is, sometimes I had a witness on the stand who would tell 

me the answer to the question I asked exactly, and sometimes if I 

did not know what question to ask I would not get an answ’er.

, Now the judicial system of the United States is a marvelous thing.

** It is made up, really, of an adversary conflict between a defendant 

and a plaintiff or between the State and the defendant.

But this committee is n ot engaged in an adversary conflict. We are 

engaged in a fact-finding mission to get all of the information we can. 

I think you and Mr. Fensterwald, who is a very fine attorney, know 

the principal matters that we are trying to establish, and you have 

covered with very exact answers many of the items tha t deal with the 

subject of this inquiry.

My question to you is this: Based on your references to other 

motivations, based on your reference twice, I believe, to a trip to Las 

Vegas, based on your reference to other people from time to time, 

based on the fact that pa rt of the information that you might seek to 

obtain was national security and part was political, based on a sketchy 

description of some of the things, some of the threats tha t wTero passed 

on to you by the Internal Security Division and the like, I am led to 

wonder if we do n ot have tha t situation where the committee does 

not know what to ask you, and really we do w*ant to know.

So, would it be possible, Mr. McCord, for you and your attorney 

to return on Tuesday, and supply us any information you think 

relevant to the scope of this inquiry, whether we have got enough 

sense to ask for it or not. Would you be willing to try to do that by 

Tuesday?

Mr. McCord. I will.

Senator Baker. Thank you very much.

Senator Ervin. We will stand in recess until 10 o’clock Tuesday.

• [Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene 

at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 22, 1973.]

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1973

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on

Presidential Campaign Activities,

Washington, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in 

room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. 

(chairman), presiding.

«► Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,

Gurney, and Weicker. Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; Fred D. Thompson, 

minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief counsel; Arthur 

S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; 

Barry Schocliet, assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; 

Joan C. Cole, secretary to the minority; Pauline O. Dement, research 

assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 

Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Marc Lackritz, 

Ron Rotunda, assistant counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings counsel; 

John Walz, publications clerk.

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Dash. Senator Baker will be opening the questioning of Mr. 

McCord. But before tha t, Mr. McCord, i t has come to our attention 

that there is concern among a number of Cuban-Americans and others 

of Latin nationalities that in your reference during your testimony, 

and I am not suggesting th at i t is your intention to cast any aspersions 

bu t tha t you have referred to others who participated with you by 

their proper names but in your reference to those who are CubanAmericans you have referred to them as Cubans. Would you in your 

testimony in the future when referring to the participants who worked 

with you, use their proper names and when n ot necessary not use a 

• natio nality or ethnic reference.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. McCORD—Resumed

e Mr. McCord. I would be very glad to.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. McCord and Mr. Fenstenvald, I appreciate your agreeing 

on Friday to respond to rather general and even possibly ambiguous 

questions. But to reiterate the question, so it is in perspective for 

today’s hearing, my purpose is this: I remarked that I felt your 

testimony had been very thorough and very exact. We are grateful 

for the several memorandums tha t you provided the committee and 

(191)

«
192

from which you have testified which I believe adds to the element of 

concern and the element of sensitivity to exactitude which is exhibited. I also express the concern t ha t notwithstanding very thorough 

interviews and one executive session with the committee, I continue 

to have the feeling th at there is still a substantial amount of information which you may not think is relevant to this inquiry but which, 

in fact, may be relevant in terms of other witnesses or in terms of the 

general pattern which emerges. I indicated, therefore, tha t I would 

be grateful if you would search your mind and recollect within the 

boundaries and framework of the jurisdictional qualifications of this 

committee and within the scope of the general areas of inquiry which 

we have probed so far.

As you probably know, the resolution, Senate Resolution 60, which 

was passed by the U.S. Senate, provides for an investigation into 

Presidential campaign activities in 1972, to ascertain whether or not 

there were illegal, improper, or unethical activities. Beyond that, Mr. 

McCord as you and Mr. Fensterwald can surmise this committee is 

interested in broad categories. We want to know, of course, of illegal 

activity or activity which is now known to be illegal, such as the breakin at the Watergate, the Democratic National Committee. The socalled coverup, the allegations th at efforts were made by some to conceal the involvement or connections involved. The money tha t was 

involved in the campaign activities, the source, the accounting procedures involved, if any, and the disposition of those funds and for 

what purpose. We want to know who is involved and what their relationships are. Those are the general areas tha t we have probed so far. 

My reason for reiterating it is to put, I hope, your further reasons in 

perspective and to add one additional caveat. N ot only do I not know 

what I might ask you in these respects beyond what you have testified, but I do not want to limit you by a description that I have made 

of the contribution tha t you can make to this committee. I believe 

you to be a very, very important witness, and I reiterate this is not 

an adversary proceeding.

You are not a defendant in this forum and I am n ot a prosecutor 

of a defendant.

So with that, Mr. McCord, if you have a further statem ent to make 

I would be grateful for it. That may or may not generate further 

questions tha t I will have as we proceed with the testimony.

Mr. McCord. All right, sir. I will try to give as much information 

as I can. I realize the very large scope of the committee’s activities. 

I realize tha t it is also possible tha t the committee may have an 

impression from me which I apologize for tha t I may have more 

information to offer than I really do. I think I will do my best to set 

forth in this memorandum today, this statement, things tha t have 

come to mind that it would appear you would be very interested in 

and to respond to questions therefrom and to do anything further 

that the committee may want to amplify what I have said or develop 

any further information tha t m ay be helpful to you.

Senator Baker. Thank you.

Mr. McCord. One of the statements tha t we did not get into on 

the last meeting, I think primarily because of the factor of time, was 

a memorandum which I had written to the committee dated May 4, 

1973, the subject of pressure on the defendants to blame the Water-
193

gate operation on CIA, and other matters. I am prepared to go into 

tha t statement at this time if it has your approval.

Senator B aker. Thank you very much. Is tha t letter a pa rt of 

the record?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Do you have a copy of it?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Might it be introduced, Mr. Chairman, as an 

exhibit?

Senator E rvin. Yes.

Senator B aker. I understand copies have not been supplied to the 

committee bu t if there is no objection, 1 would like to ask it be made 

an exhibit in the record at this point.

Senator E rvin. I think it might be well to have it printed in full a t 

V this point in the record.

Senator B aker. Thank you.

Mr. McCord. I will read the statement.

I have previously referred to political pressure which was applied 

to the seven Watergate defendants. One area of pressure which was applied was tha t of December 1972, 

in which intense pressure w’as applied on some of the defendants to 

falsely claim for purposes of a defense during the trial in January 1973, 

tha t the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. This would have 

had the effect of clearing the Committee for the Re-Election of the 

President and the White House of responsibility for the operation.

In two separate meetings in December 1972, it was suggested that I 

use as my defense during the trial the false story tha t the operation 

was a CIA operation. I refused to do so. I w’as subsequently informed by Bernard Barker just before the 

trial began in January 1973, tha t E. Howard Hunt and other unnamed persons in Miami had brought intense pressure to bear against 

the Cuban-Americans and by those—I will digress from the record to 

read to whom I was referring—and the identities of these persons 

came to me in conversations with Mr. Bernard Barker and some of 

the other individuals involved, specifically I was referring to Mr. 

Bernard L. Barker, to Mr. Eugenio R. Martinez, to Mr. Frank A. 

Sturgis, to Mr. Virgilio R. Gonzales—I will restate the sentence.

I w’as subsequently informed by Bernard Barker just before the 

trial began in Jan uary 1973, tha t he, Howard Hunt, and other un- 

, named persons in Miami had brought intense pressure to bear against

the Cuban-Americans who were defendants to use the same story 

tha t it was a CIA operation, as their defense, tha t my stand taken 

against it had been the decisive factor causing this ploy to be dropped, 

and tha t Hunt w*as very bitter about it. Mr. Hu nt’s bitterness was 

later revealed early in the trial w’hen the Cubans advised that Hunt 

had said tha t I “was responsible for our being in the plight we w’ere in 

for not going along w ith the CIA thing.”

At a later time, I heard from Barker tha t he had been told that 

Cuban money was suspected of being funnelled into the McGovern 

campaign. I have no knowledge tha t this suspicion was ever verified.

The tw’O December 1972 meetings with me wrere on December 21, 

1972, and on December 26, 1972. Present at the first meeting with me 

at the Monocle restaur ant in Washington, D.C., were Gerald Alch
194

and Bernard Shankman, my attorneys. Present at the second meeting 

was Gerald Alch, and the meeting was a t his office in Boston, Mass. 

Alch stated tha t he had just come from a meeting with William O. 

Bittm an.

In the first meeting, Alch stated tha t he had just come from a meeting with William O. Bittm an, attorney for E. Howard Hunt, and I 

received the impression in the discussion t hat followed th at Alch was 

conveying an idea or request from Bittman. There followed a suggestion from Alch that I use as my defense during the trial the story 

that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I heard him out 

on the suggestion which included questions as to whether I could 

ostensibly have been recalled from retirement from CIA to participate in the operation. He said tha t if so, my personnel records 

at CIA could be doctored to reflect such a recall. He stated tha t 

Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose appointment had just 

been announced, “could be subpenaed and would go along with it. ” 

I had noted in the newspapers of that day, December 21 , 1972, tha t 

it had been announced by the Wliite House tha t Mr. Schlesinger had 

taken over as Director of CIA, and tha t it had been decided tha t 

Pa t Gray would be supported by the White House to be permanent 

Director of the FBI.

Alch went on to mention testimony, or a statem ent, made to 

Federal authorities by Gary Bittenbender, a Metropolitan Police 

Department undercover police officer, whom I had seen at the courthouse, on June 17, 1972, when the five of us who were arrested were 

arraigned, in which Bittenbender purportedly claimed tha t I had 

told him tha t day tha t the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. 

I advised Alch that if Bittenbender had made such a statement under 

oath that he had perjured himself, and tha t I had not made such a 

claim. Bittenbender can be interviewed to determine the circumstances 

under which he had made such a statement, and whether his statement 

was, in fact, an honest error of impressions based on events which 

occurred in court on tha t day, which could have misled him. Those 

were tha t some of us were identified in the hearing in court as formerly 

connected with CIA.

Alch went on to mention the name of Victor Marchetti whom he was 

considering calling to describe CIA training in which its employees 

were trained to deny CIA sponsorship of an operation if anything 

went wrong and its participants were arrested. He also requested tha t 

I meet with him in Boston on December 26, 1972, which I did.

There he opened the discussion by showing me a written statement 

of an interview with Bittenbender in which Bittenbender claimed that 

on June 17, 1972, I had told him tha t the Watergate operation was a 

CIA operation. I repeated to Alch my earlier statement, tha t Bittenbender had either perjured himself, or had made a false statement to 

Federal authorities. I told Alch t ha t I could not use as my defense the 

story that the operation was a CIA operation because it was not true. 

In addition, I told him tha t even if it meant my freedom, I would not 

turn on the organization tha t had employed me for 19 years, and 

wrongly deal such a damaging blow that it would take years for it to 

recover from it, and finally that I believed the organization to be one 

of the finest organizations of its kind in the world and would not let 

anyone wrongly lay the operation at the feet of CIA.
195

By now, I was com ple tely convinced th at the White House was 

behin d the idea and plo y which ha d been pre sen ted , and th at the 

W rite H ouse was turning ruth less, in my opinion, and w ould do w ha tev er was politically exp edi ent at an y one pa rti cu lar po int in tim e to 

accomplish its own ends.

In add ition, I ear lier had determined to tell the tru e sto ry of the 

Wate rgate ope ration, and it was now only a m at te r of a propitious 

tim e to do so.

On Frida y, De cem ber 29, 1972, I vis ited Be rnard Sh an km an ’s 

office in Washin gton, D.C., and let him rea d a stat em en t which I ha d 

prepar ed, which I p rop osed to r ead to the p ress on Decem ber 30, 1972, 

releasing Alch as my att orney. I believed th at although Sh an km an 

ha d been pre sen t at the firs t meetin g he was not a pa rty to the events 

previo usly desc ribed. Shankm an suggested th at I give Alch an 

op po rtu nity to meet wi th me and explain w hy h e had un de rta ke n the 

course which he had, and such a me eting was set up for Tu esday, 

Ja nu ar y 2, 1973, in Wa shington.

Alch failed to appear , and I delivered a lette r to Judge Sirica, re leasing 

Alch as m y attorney . Alch imm ediately called, asked to meet with me 

on Ja nu ar y 3, 1973, and a sked to con tinue as m y att orney. We m et an d 

Alch st ated th at he, in conveying the re qu est m ade of me on D ece mb er 

21 and Decem ber 26, 1972, was acting ou t of wha t he felt to be my 

own best i nte res ts. By thi s time, I was convinc ed th at the p loy to lay 

the ope ration at CI A’s doo rste p ha d been headed off, a nd agre ed to 

give him a second chance.

By this time , I was also conv inced th at the Whit e House ha d fired 

Helms in ord er to put its own man in con trol at CIA , bu t as well to 

lay the foundatio n for claim ing th at the W aterga te opera tion was a 

CI A ope ration, and now to be able to claim th at “Helm s ha d bee n 

fired for it .” There ha d been ind ica tions as early as Ju ly th at the 

Co mm itte e for the Re -Elec tion of th e Presiden t w as claiming th at the 

W ate rgate opera tion was a CIA opera tion. Mrs. H unt ha d told me in 

lat e Ju ly 1972 t hat Pa ul O’Brien ha d told Ho wa rd H unt in Ju ly th at 

the Comm itte e To Re -E lec t the Presiden t had originally in formed him 

th at the W ate rgate opera tio n was a CIA opera tion. Mrs. H unt said 

th at her hu sband ha d denied to O’Brien th at it was a CIA opera tion. 

Bv early Decem ber 1972, it appeare d th at the White House was 

beginning to m ake its mo ve. Th e events of De cem ber 21 and Dece mb er 

26, 1972, only confirm ed this in my min d.

Fu rth er, bas ed on an earlier discussion wi th Rob ert M ardian in 

M ay 1972, it a ppear ed to me th at the W hit e Ho use ha d for som e time 

been try ing to get political con trol over the CIA asse ssm ents an d 

estimate s, in ord er to ma ke them conform to “W hit e House policy.” 

One of the things this meant to me was th at this could me an th at 

CI A est imate s and asse ssm ents could then be forced to accord with 

DO D estimate s of fu tu re U.S. wea pon s and hardw are needs. Th is 

could be done b y either shifting an intelligence f unction to DO D from 

CIA, or by gain ing com plete con trol over it at CIA .

. Among other things, this also smack ed of the sit ua tio n whi ch 

H itle r’s intelligence chiefs found themselves in, in the 1930’s and 

1940’s, when they were put in the position of ha vin g to tell him wha t 

th ey thou gh t he wan ted to hear ab ou t foreign military cap abi lities 

an d intentions, inste ad of w hat they real ly believed, which ultim ately
196

was one of the things which led to Nazi Germany’s downfall. When 

linked with what I saw happening to the FBI under Pat Gray— 

political control by the White House—it appeared then tha t the two 

Government agencies which should be able to prepare their reports, 

and to conduct their business, with complete integrity and honesty, 

in the national interest, were no longer going to be able to do so. 

That the Nation was in serious trouble has since been confirmed in 

my opinion by what happened in the case of Gray’s leadership of 

the FBI.

E. Howard Hunt has additional information relevant to the above. 

Hunt stated to me on more than one occasion in the latter part of 

1972, tha t he, Hunt, had information in his possession which “would 

be sufficient to impeach the President.” In addition, Mrs. E. Howard 

Hunt, on or about November 30, 1972, in a personal conversation 

with me, stated th at E. Howard H unt’s attorney, William O. Bittman, 

had read to Kenneth Parkinson, the attorney for the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President, in which letter, Hunt purportedly threatened 

“to blow the White House out of the water.” Mrs. H unt at this point 

in her conversation with me, also repeated the statement which she, 

too, had made before, which was tha t E. Howard Hunt had information which could impeach the President.

I regret tha t this memorandum has taken this length to set forth. 

In view of the nature of the information which I had to furnish, 

however, i t appeared tha t there was no other way to adequately set 

this material forth, and to do so in the proper context, without deleting material highly relevant to the events being reported. I shall be 

glad to appear and answer questions under oath on the material 

which appears in this memorandum. It has my signature.

I have a further addition relevant to that in the statement which I 

could read at this time.

The topic of it is the December 1972 letter to John Caulfield. This 

letter is relevant to the May 4, 1973, memo submitted to Senate 

WTatergate committee and the Federal grand jury, on the subject of 

pressure to place the blame on CIA for the Watergate operation.

A letter was written to John Caulfield during the week of December 25, 1972; reference to this letter appeared in the press the last 

weekend. And geared—speaking of my own feelings and at the time 

the letter was written—and geared because of what appeared to me 

to be a ruthless attempt by the White House to put the blame for 

the Watergate operation on CIA where it did not belong, I sought 

to head it off by sending a letter to Caulfield. This le tter was couched 

in strong language because it seemed to me at the time tha t this was 

the only language tha t the White House understood. The letter read 

in substance as follows, to the best of my memory:

“Dear Jack: I am sorry to have to write you this letter. If Helms 

goes and the Watergate operation is laid at CIA’s feet where it does 

not belong, every tree in the forest will fall. It will be a scorched 

desert. The whole matte r is at the precipice right now. Pass the message t ha t if they want it to blow, they are on exactly the right course. 

I am sorry tha t you will get h urt in the fallout.”

The letter was unsigned and did not contain any message requesting any contact with Caulfield, nor any request for the White 

House to get me off in the case. I, in fact, sought no such contact at
197

any time. If I had wanted to talk with Caulfield, it would not have 

been necessary to go through any complicated arrangements and atrip to William Bittm an’s office as occurred on Janu ary 8, 1973. I 

need only have made a phone call to Caulfield’s office or home. At 

no time did I ever initiate any such call to Caulfield.

Now, the above letter to Caulfield brings to mind another set of 

communications of mine on December 6, 1972. On December 4, 1972, 

Judge Sirica had stated in open court tha t the jury in Janu ary 1973, 

would want to know who had hired the men for the Watergate operation and why.

w On December 6, 1972, the Washington S tar carried an article which

appeared to me to be an administration-planted story answering 

Judge Sirica’s query stating tha t “Reliable sources state that McCord 

recruited the four Cubans and that they believed tha t they were 

w working for the President on an extremely sensitive mission.” This

was untrue.

This appeared to me to be laying the groundwork for a false claim 

at the trial tha t I was the “ringleader” of the Watergate plot. This 

would draw attentio n away from Hunt and Liddy, and I believe 

possibly away from the White House, since both of them had formerly 

worked at the White House and I had not.

Tha t same evening December 6, 1972, I sent telegrams to William 

O. Bittman, attorney for Hunt, and Bernard Barker’s residence in 

Miami, Fla., stating tha t the story was untrue as they both knew, 

and I asked for comments by return mail from Barker. I also wrote 

Hun t a letter on the m atter stating tha t as he also knew, the story was 

untrue and he could either correct it or I would do so. Copies of the 

telegrams can probably be obtained from the Western Union Co.

With the le tter to Caulfield in late December 1972, I was trying to 

head off an effort to falsely lay the Watergate operation off on CIA. 

In the telegrams and letter to Hunt and the others in December 1972,. 

tha t I have just referred to, I was trying to head off an effort to 

falsely lay the recruitment of the Cubans off on the writer which 

would, in turn shift the focus of the trial off of those formerly connected with the White House, namely, Liddy and Hun t than from 

those who in effect had actually recruited them, namely Mr. Hunt.

I have some other memorandums in the statements that I have here 

to read, and I can answer your questions at this point or proceed to 

the reading of the statement, as you would prefer.

i Senator Baker. If i t is agreeable with the chairman, Mr. McCord,

I would prefer that you go ahead and read the material tha t you have.

Mr. McCord. Newspapers over the weekend have also referred 

to some calls to some local embassies. I will try to explain those in the 

statement tha t I will read at this time.

In July 1972, Mrs. Hunt had told me tha t Paul O’Brien, attorney 

for CRP, had told her husband tha t when the Watergate case broke in 

June, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President told O’Brien 

tha t the Watergate operation was a CIA operation, I believe I referred 

to this in the earlier statement. She said tha t Howard Hun t had exploded at this and told O’Brien that this was not true; th at it was not a 

CIA operation. A few days later Mrs. Hunt told me tha t the CR P 

lawyers were now reporting that the administration was going to 

allege a t the trial that Liddy had stolen $16,000 and had bribed Hu nt
198

and McCord to perform the operation. I told her tha t it looked like 

they were now changing their cover stories, referring to the administration and I would not sit still for either false story, and I shortly 

wrote my attorney, Gerald Alch, repeating this information and 

setting forth these same views of mine.

In September 1972, the indictments came out and no one was being 

indicted among the higher ups, so there looked like a further coverup 

to me.

Also in September and October 1972, there began to be a series of 

telephone anomalies on my phone tha t indicated to me tha t the 

phone had been tapped. Further I had read in August 1972 in News- *

week magazine, I believe tha t Ellsberg had tried for 5 months to get 

the Government to admit wiretapping of his phone calls, and those of 

bis attorney and the Government denied such calls until a court 

order forced a search of 12 separate law enforcement agencies and 

turned up telephone interception of Leonard Boudin’s calls to the 

Chilean Embassy.

I knew tha t the Government had also lied about wiretapping in 

the Coplon case and in the H o f a case for several weeks until disclosure was forced from them. In an effort to test the truthfulness of 

the Government on a forthcoming motion for disclosure of wiretapping 

of the defendants’ phones in the Watergate case, including my own, I 

made two calls in September and October 1972 to two local embassies.

On October 10, 1972,1 asked for the filing of a motion for Government 

disclosure of any interceptions and 2 weeks later the Government 

came back with a denial of any, saying a search of Government 

records had been made. I knew tha t 2 weeks was too short a time to 

search 12 different Government agencies for such records, and believed 

the Government was not telling the truth.

In January 1973, after Caulfield had initiated contact with me, I 

advised him of the perjury of Jeb Magruder and of the two telephone 

calls I have ju st referred to, plus the other indications to me of illegal 

interception of my phone calls, and asked Jack to check into both. He 

came back a few days later and said that the Government had found 

nothing on the phone calls. He did not say what he had done about the 

information of perjury by Magruder.

In January I also asked my attorney to renew the motion for 

discovery of interception of my calls so there could be such a motion 

on the record and I believe he did so on Janu ary 17, 1973. I knew 

that the two embassy calls would be insufficient to overturn the case, •

because all th at would happen would be for the Government to take 

the information to the bench and for the judge to declare the information not relevant.

Furthermore the Government would state tha t the information e

would not be used against me in evidence anyway. I did believe tha t 

such disclosure would be a way of testing the truthfulness of the 

Government regarding such illegal interceptions and I was greatly 

concerned tha t there had been other illegal interceptions of my 

telephone conversations and those of the other defendants beginning 

June 17, 1972.

Further, I did believe that if sufficient illegal interceptions of my 

phone calls had occurred such would have a bearing on my case. I still
199

believe there was such an interception just as Dr. Ellsberg believed 

tha t his own phone calls had been intercepted. There is an attachm ent to this, the New York Times of today 's date. The title of the article “Warning Against Blaming of CIA Laid 

to McCord.” Continuing on a separate subject in a statement, if tha t is your 

desire.

Senator Baker. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCord. The topic of this memorandum is “Sanction of the 

Watergate Operation.” John Mitchell, by virtue of his position as Attorney General of the United States, and John Dean, by virtue of his position as counsel to the President, by their consideration and approval of the Watergate operation, in my opinion, gave sanction to the Watergate operation by both the White House and the Attorney General’s offices. I had been accustomed to working in an atmosphere where such sanction by the White House and the Attorney General was more than enough. As with White House staffers, it was not my habit to question when two such high offices sanctioned an activity—it carried the full force and effect of Presidential sanction. For the preceding 30 years I had been working in an environment where if there were ever any question of the legality of a matter or an activity it would always be sent to high legal officials for a legal decision on the matter, where if they sanctioned it, tha t was sufficient. I can elaborate on this another way. Left alone, I would not have undertaken the operation. I had plenty of other tilings to do in con­ nection with my security work at the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Liddy wanted help. He came to me seeking tha t help with the word tha t it had the approval of the Attorney General and the counsel to the President. He said th at i t was part of the C RP mission, in order to obtain information regarding not only political intelligence but also regarding violence-oriented groups who would be planning violence against the committee in Washington, and later at the August convention site, thereby endangering the lives and property of the committee and its personnel. My mission was protection of such lives and property. Uppermost in everyone’s minds, at tha t point in time and certainly in mine, was the bloodshed which had occurred at the 

1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and I constantly sought intelligence from any source which might help forewarn us and 

help us avoid in 1972 that danger to the lives of our people. The right to demonstrate, or the right of peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I took absolutely no issue with 

that. It was the 2 percent to 3 percent of the demonstrators who focused on violence, damage to life and property, tha t concerned me. 

In 1969 we had seen the bombing of the Capitol Building itself. In 

May 1972 we had seen the bombing of the Pentagon with the equivalent of 18 sticks of dynamite. In February 1972 there were four pipe 

bombs emplaced at a police station in Manchester, N.H., one of which went off prematurely, and mangled the arm of the young man who had reportedly emplaced them. Caught with him was a young lady who had in her possession four letters which said, “we have jus t bombed the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President in New* Hampshire.” Found in her apartmen t were the makings of other
200

pipe bombs. It was clear to me and to others tha t the intentions of 

the two were to go on from the police station and drop off other 

bombs at the CRP offices in Manchester, where there had been demonstration and trouble a few days before.

Only their arrest preempted tha t action. A few days later in Oakland, Calif., another pipe bomb was emplaced on the "first floor of the 

Republican county headquarters and blew out all of the windows and 

damaged a pillar to the building. Luckily no one was injured or killed.

Already in February there was a patte rn then of bombings beginning 

to develop against the committee and against Republican offices.

Subsequently, in Austin, Tex., the offices of Senator Tower were •

destroyed by a. firebomb which, I believe, as I recall did a million 

dollars worth of damage and destroyed irreplaceable files. So the concern was not of a theoretical threat, b ut of a realistic thre at of violence, 

and I wanted advance notice from anywhere I could receive it, of action 

planned against us of this sort—advance notice, advance warning, so 

we could take measures to protect against i t and protect our people’s 

lives. Property could be replaced. Lives could not.

Questions were on my mind like: Who are these people who bombed 

in New Hampshire, in Oakland, the Pentagon Building, the Capitol 

Building? How are they funded? Who are they working with? Is anyone 

in collusion with them, encouraging them, or funding them? The 

Vietnam Veterans Against the War was one violence-oriented group 

that was already saying in the spring of 1972, tha t they were going to 

cause destruction to life and property at the August Republican 

Convention, using in their own words, their own bodies and weapons 

as the spearhead of the attack there—these are their exact words, and 

some of them have since been indicted in Tallahassee, Fla., with 

additional plans to damage the life and property in the convention.

Later in the summer of 1972 the W AW did in fact have offices in 

the DNC in Washington, as I understand. I had also received information from the Internal Security Division in May 1972, that some 

individuals in Florida planned to forge college press credentials to get 

into both the Democratic and Republican Convention sites, and 

blow up the communication centers of both parties there and cause 

havoc on the convention floor. Th at information was part of the 

basis for my going to Miami in June 1972, with members of the 

White House staff to survey and strengthen the security of the Doral 

Hotel where both the White House staff and the CR P staff were to 

have both offices and quarters for July and August 1972. Some 30 •

recommendations were made as a result of tha t survey, to help 

protect against such violence, and I believe tha t most were p ut into 

effect before the convention.

Now, we also had word from CR P sources alleging that the # McGovern committee had “a pipeline” directly into the offices of the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President in Washington; allegedly, they 

were feeding out, on a regular basis, policy position papers, tha t is, 

plans and strategy, which were ra ther important to the success of a 

candidate’s campaign. If the other side is reading your poker hand, he 

can negate your plans.

We had word that one of the volunteers at the Committee To ReElect the President had in fact prior to coming aboard the committee, 

threatened the life of John Mitchell and of other persons. This was at
201

ab ou t tlie same time Go ver nor Wallace was alm ost killed in an assas­ sin ati on attempt. Th ere were num erous threats in writin g and by phone aga inst Jo hn Mitch ell and his wife. One suc h call came to the unlisted telephone of Mrs. Mitchell at their ap ar tm en t and go t her grea tly upset, as it would any woman, because it appeare d th at even the unlisted telephone nu mbe r app eared then no longer safe. We certain ly had sufficient indications th at vio lence-orie nted groups were ou t to end ang er bo th life and pro perty . With some 250,000 demo nstra tor s plan nin g to go to the conven tion in ea rly 1972 a nd ther e were sta tem ents th at some would be ou t to com mit violence. Th e que stio ns were: Who are such people? Who is fundin g them— enc ourag­ ing them ? Who is in collusion with them ? What are they pla nning next and where? Are any of the m being support ed and encouraged by any staff members of the McG overn com mittee or D NC? I had no ind ica ­ tion wh ate ver th at Lar ry O’Brien or Senator McG overn had either an y knowledge of or par t in such—ju st the contr ary , I was com pletely convinced th at they did no t. But I was no t so sure th at, wi thou t their knowledge, other staff mem bers might no t be working beh ind 

their backs to quietly encourage groups such as VVAW. McG ov ern ’s early political base was with some of the rad ica l groups. My questio ns were, W hat was the ex ten t of such encourage­ me nt, if any, and how fa r did it go? Did they le t such grou ps use their telepho nes and work in their offices? Th ere were ind ication s in the summ er of 1972 th at suc h grou ps actua lly did ju st th at in California and in DN C headqu art ers , in Washin gton. These then were some of my concerns, in my role as sec urity chief of the C R P; I felt th at the Wate rgate opera tion might produce some lead s answering some of these questions, and I ha d been advised th at the opera tion ha d the san ction of the Wh ite House and of the At torney General, while he 

was At torney General. In hindsight, I do no t believe th at the opera tion should have been sanctioned or executed, no r should I have pa rticip ate d. How ever, you asked me ab ou t some of my previous mo tiv ati ons and wh at some of the atm osp here was in Miami. Those are some of the thin gs th at 

ma ke up my atm osp her e and some of my mo tivations. M y next sta temen t ha s to do with the Intelli gen ce Adv isory Com­ mittee I previously referred to in the CIA memo ran dum, which I 

referred to Mr. Ro be rt Mard ian . In May 1972, Ro bert Mardian h ad told me th at he, Jo hn Mit che ll, Ro be rt Ha lde ma n and Jo hn Eh rlichma n were key members of an “Intelligence Adv isory Co mm ittee.” I now assume th at this was the Intelli gen ce Ev alua tio n Comm ittee, referred to, I believe, in the New 

Yo rk Times of Ma y 21, 1973. I hav e previously su bm itted a tap e to the Senat e Wate rga te com­ mittee which I believe con tains mate ria l which was the prod uc t of th at com mittee, and whi ch I obtained from the evalu ation section of the Intern al Sec urity Div isio n of th e Dep artm en t of Ju stice, a co nta ct 

establ ished thr ough Mr. Ro be rt Mard ian , in M ay 1972. I have no knowledge of the sources of th at com mittee . Ro be rt Ma rdian, durin g a brief con versation in Ju ne 1972, sta ted th at he was going to be “in charge of intelligence opera tions at Mia mi 

du rin g the convention.” He did no t elaborate furth er.
202

The next item is headed "Las Vegas Matter,” which was referred 

to in the previous testimony on Friday.

In Janu ary or February 1972, Gordon Liddy told me tha t he was 

going out to Las Vegas, Nev., in connection with casing the office of 

Hank Greenspun, editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Liddy said tha t Attorney General John Mitchell had told him that 

Greenspun had in his possession blackmail type information involving 

a Democratic candidate for President, tha t Mitchell wanted that 

material, and Liddy said tha t this information was in some way 

racketeer-related, indicating tha t if this candidate became President, 

the racketeers or national crime syndicate could have a control or 

influence over him as President. My inclination a t this point in time, 

speaking of today is to disbelieve the allegation against the Democratic candidate referred to above and to believe tha t there was in 

reality some other motive for wanting to get into Greenspun’s safe.

Liddy told me one day in February 1972 tha t he was going out to 

Las Vegas, and might need my help if there was an alarm system in 

the offices, when an entry operation was mounted to enter a safe in 

Greenspun’s offices to get the information. A few days later Liddy 

told me tha t he had been to Las Vegas and looked over the offices 

and that there was no such alarm system, and my services were not 

needed.

Subsequently in about April or May 1972, Liddy told me tha t he 

had again been to Las Vegas for another casing of Greenspun’s offices.

Liddy said tha t there were then plans for an entry operation to get 

into Greenspun’s safe. He went on to say tha t after the entry team 

finishes its work, they would go directly to an airport near Las Vegas 

where a Howard Hughes plane would be standing by to fly the team 

directly into a Central American country so that the team would be 

out of the country before the break-in was discovered.

Around the same time Liddy made this last statement to me about 

the Howard Hughes plane, Hunt told me in his office one day that he was 

in touch with the Howard Hughes company and that they might be 

needing my security services after the election. He said tha t they had 

quite a wide investigative and security operation and asked me for mv 

business card and asked if I would be interested. I said I would like 

to know more about what was involved, gave him a card, but never 

heard from him again on this subject. However, I did read in the 

newspapers after July 1, 1972 tha t Hun t had apparently handled a 

Howard Hughes campaign donation to the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President sometime in 1972. Gordon Liddy told me in February 

1972 tha t he, too, had handled a Howard Hughes campaign check, a 

donation to the 1972 campaign. This is the extent of my knowledge 

on this matter.

That completes my prepared statement and I will be glad to answer *

any questions.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. McCord, I am very grateful, I think you supplied a great 

deal of additional information and it raises a great number of new 

questions and I am sure my colleagues on the committee will want to 

pursue tha t or other questions, so I will not detain you long in this 

first series of questions.
203

I think tha t your further elaboration and extension of your stateof mind or motives in the several operations and especially the 

Watergate operation now appears more clear, at least to me. Let me try to paraphrase the essence of your motivation, if I may, and if I am wrong for goodness sakes tell me so, but I want to know 

if this is the general message tha t you are giving us. One, you had a long background of experience with Government 

agencies, the FBI and the CIA. You had become accustomed to activities related to sensitive matters, security matters, and to taking 

direction and accepting at face value the representations of the orders or the purported orders of very high officials in the Govern­ ment, particularly the Justice Department and the White House. That for a variety of reasons, when you were called on to enter the 

Democratic National headquarters in Washington at the Watergate complex, for a variety of reasons, including your general knowledge of threats against Attorney General Mitchell and his family, threats against others, pipe bombings, fire bombings, threats of violence and the like, coupled with your concern for national security matters, if 

that is the proper way to characterize it, tha t you decided on the assumption that your authority was complete, tha t you no longer need to concern yourself with the legality of it, tha t based on this information that you had, and based on the assurances which were 

forthcoming, that it seemed appropriate that you would undertake that entry. Is that a fair statem ent of your general motivation at the 

time?

Mr. McCord. I would think so, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, did you have any motivation to ente r 

the Democratic National Committee for political purposes as distin­ guished from security purposes? It is not importa nt in terms of the 

facts and the proof but it is imp ortant in terms of your sta te of mind.

Mr. McCord. Let me answer i t in a couple of sentences, if I may. 

I was fully aware that others had such motivations. My own motiva­ tions I have stated here. I had a role to play in the sense of an electronic 

component of the team and I played tha t role.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, speaking of electronic surveillance, 

do you know of or did you ever investigate the bugging of Republican 

headquarters of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President 

headquarters here, New York, or elsewhere?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Would you describe that for the committee?

Mr. McCord. It was a regular ongoing activity at the offices in 

Washington and at the New York arm of the Committee for the ReElection of the President, which wyas referred to as the November 

Group; they had offices, I believe, on Park Avenue in New York. 

It was done on a regular basis. It was done frequently at the end of the day or the beginning of the day or during sensitive conferences 

tha t were going on, in order to determine if in fact there was any activ­ ity of this sort happening against the Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President.

Senator Baker. Did you discover any incident of that sort?

Mr. McCord. There was one incident on June 16 of some concern 

at the New York office of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. There had been earlier signs of possibly some illegal activity

96 -2 96 — 73— bk. 1------14
204

at those offices prior to June 16, which I would describe, if you would 

like.

Senator Baker. I would like.

Mr. McCord. On the afternoon of June 16, 1972, about midafternoon, I received a call from the head of the office of the November 

Group in New York City, who stated tha t he and his entire office 

staff were quite concerned about an incident tha t had just occurred.

He went ahead to relate tha t one of the secretaries at the office had 

received a call from a male individual in Los Angeles, Calif., and 

tha t she had immediately told tha t party that she would call him back 

on the WATS line, which is a leased line, call him back on tha t line *

and immediately did so. She called him, as I recall, at the Beverley 

Wilshire Hotel, although I cannot be absolutely certain, at the phone 

booth there. And during the conversation tha t the two of them had, 

about a few minutes into the conversation there was a click over the 

phone which was heard by her and by the male on the other end of 

the line, and what appeared to be a tape recording was played over 

the telephone line which was, as she described it when I talked with 

her, an anti-Nixon and antiwar harangue.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, could I interrupt you for a moment?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I understand this to be a call that was initiated 

from New York on a WATS line; th at is, a flat rate monthly telephone 

line all over the country?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. To a number in California?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Can you say whether or not the situation you 

described does in fact constitute a tapping or an intrusion into tha t 

circuit by someone unauthorized?

Mr. McCord. It clearly appeared to be. I had not the slightest 

doub t about it, and neither did the telephone company in New York 

when I called them tha t afternoon.

Senator Baker. Did you ever locate the source of that tap?

Mr. McCord. I can relate what we did, what incidents occurred.

Senator Baker. Would you do that for me?

Mr. McCord. I immediately called, after we heard of this, to the 

chief security officer in the New York Telephone Co. He had previously 

been contacted by the November Group offices, stated that they were 

working on the m atte r trying to trace the point of interception of the .

call, along the numerous points of access to the telephone line within 

or beyond the November Group offices themselves. That tha t investigation was to continue throughout the weekend and tha t reports 

would be forthcoming as to what they had learned about it. There 

appeared to be no doubt from what he was saying tha t they also *

considered it an illegal interception of telephone conversation.

Senator Baker. Were there other incidents of telephone tapping 

against the Republican National Committee or the CR P or any other 

Republican-affiliated group brought to your attention or which you 

investigated?

Mr. McCord. There were two earlier occasions at the November 

Group offices when I was called to the November Group offices 

from Washington in which they had highly suspicious telephone
205

anomalies, as it is known. Telephone conversations within the office 

itself of when another person picking up a telephone extension on a 

•different line, for example, not connected with the one in which the 

•call was being made, could overhear the conversation tha t was going 

on. Other strange anomalies, clicks and so on of a wide variety th at 

indicated some problems in the telephone area. They had, in turn, 

contacted the telephone company. The telephone company had made 

a search, made a search of the offices itself, of the phone system, so 

they stated, and I did further checking of my own at tha t point in 

lime of both of the two previous events, and we found nothing within 

w

the telephone system within the offices itself. That did n ot eliminate

the possibility that beyond the office anywhere within the system at 

which there were points of access to the telephone lines t hat someone

might not have been monitoring the conversation.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord, I am not trying to create the impression tha t because there were apparently taps on the Republican 

phones, that tha t justifies taps on the Democratic phones. I do n ot 

believe that, but I am anxious to know your state of mind and the 

reason and rationale for your security operations, including the 

break-in into the Watergate. Now, my final question in that respect is, did you ever discover 

the source or responsibility for any of these efforts at electronic 

interception on the Republican operations?

Mr. McCord. No, sir. Specifically, the November Group, we did 

not know that it was continuing after June 16, and I did not, never 

received the results of th at inquiry.

Senator Baker. Did you once work for the Republican National 

Committee, Mr. McCord?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did during the same period I was with the 

Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which I previously 

mentioned to your committee.

Senator Baker. Yes, sir. Can you give us the dates and circumstances and the nature of your employment?

Mr. McCord. Yes. I was employed by them as a part-time consulta nt during the period of roughly October 1, 1971, concurrent 

with tha t of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, 

and extending through June 17.

Senator Baker. June 17, 1972?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct, June 17. 

i Senator Baker. Can you tell us who employed you?

Mr. McCord. Yes. The director of administration at the Republican National Committee.

Senator Baker. Do you know who that was?

Mr. McCord. Barry Mountain, M-o-u-n-t-a-i-n.

Senator Baker. Was he the only one you talked about employment?

Mr. McCord. I talked to others there but he was my principal 

point of contact.

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to the chairman of the RNC 

about your employment?

Mr. McCord. I talked to the cochairman, Mr. Tom Bevens. I do 

not believe I had any contact—I talked to both cochairmen, I do no t 

believe I had any contact beyond that.

Senator Baker. Who was chairman at that time?
206

Mr. McCord. I believe Senator Robert Dole.

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to him?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Was there ever any clandestine, covert, illegal, 

improper, or unethical conduct involved in your security operations 

for the Republican National Committee?

Mr. McCord. Absolutely none whatever.

Senator B aker. I have a num ber of other questions, Mr. Chairman, 

but I have taken more than my time. I would ask if I may, a single 

last question and then I will yield to my colleagues.

You recognize the term Gemstone?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Can you describe for us w hat it means?

Mr. McCord. Tha t term I first heard, first read about in the newspaper itself referring to, according to the newspaper accounts, referring to it as a code name for the monitoring, the typing of final 

monitoring logs of report or logs coming out of the National Democratic Committee. I did not as such know i t during the operation but 

I know something about the nature of the paper that it was on. I 

think that code name had some reference to that.

Senator Baker. I s it fair to say the term Gemstone is a code name 

that covers work product in the accumulation of information of yourself and your teams’ efforts in the intrusion of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?

Mr. McCord. So I have been led to understand.

Senator Baker. Do you have tape recordings of your interceptions 

of the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. McCord, No, sir.

Senator Baker. Or do you have photographs or any other information tha t was gained by this entry?

Mr. McCord. There is no tape recordings, there are no photographs, 

I can think of nothing else at the moment.

Senator B aker. Are there any tape recordings of the telephone 

conversations?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, none were ever made.

Senator Baker. WTiere is the information tha t you gained? Is it in 

the Gemstone file? Does the U.S. Attorney’s office have it? Where is it?

Mr. McCord. The material which I had received from—Mr. Baldwin was doing the monitoring, Alfred Baldwin—was turned over, all 

of it, to Mr. Liddy, Gordon Liddy.

Senator Baker. Thank you very much, Mr. McCord. I am very 

grateful. I think you responded in a very thorough and very eloquent 

way to the question I pu t on Friday and I am very grateful to you.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge?

Senator Talmadge. Mr. McCord, among other things in your testimony this morning, you stated tha t many efforts were made to 

persuade you or to coerce you to state tha t the bugging operation on 

the Democratic National Committee was a CIA operation.

Will you state the individuals who urged you to do that? One you 

stated was Mr. Hunt. Am I correct?

Mr. McCord. Sir, I believe I will correct tha t impression if I left 

it. I had heard from M r. Bernard Barker specifically tha t Mr. Hunt 

had brought pressure to bear upon Mr. Barker and the Cubans to
207

use as their defense th at this was a CIA operation. Mr. Hunt did no t 

directly put tha t pressure upon me. Others did.

Senator Talmadge. Barker reported to you tha t Hunt had urged 

you to do so, is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. Th at is right.

Senator Talmadge. Barker, as I understand it was one of the 

people involved in the Watergate operation, was he not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Barker, I believe, has been granted immunity 

and has not been convicted. Is tha t correct?

He pled guilty and was convicted?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Now, who else besides Barker was involved in 

urging you to blame this on the CIA? You stated two other names. I think one of them was Bittm an and the other one was named Alch?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I referred to conversations with Mr. Gerald 

Alch and Mrs. Hunt.

Senator Talmadge. Tell me who Mr. Alch is. Give me his full name.

Mr. McCord. Gerald, G-e-r-a-l-d, Alch, A-l-c-h.

Senator Talmadge. Now, who is Mr. Alch?

Mr. McCord. He was my defense attorney through the trial in 

January 1973, whose services I had engaged at tha t time.

Senator Talmadge. And he had no connection with the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President, did he? He was your own lawyer?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And he urged you to blame it on the CIA, 

did he?

Mr. McCord. He urged me to use tha t as my defense.

Senator Talmadge. All right, now. Mr. Alch and who else urged 

you to do that?

Mr. McCord. I believe I have stated in my testimony that 

stories were circulating earlier stemming out of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President that the committee lawyers themselves had been told tha t early in July-----

Senator Talmadge. Let’s get specific now. I don’t want stories 

circulating. I want you to name the days, names, and places. T hat is 

evidence. Rumors are not.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

The details as I have related them in the memorandum which I have read this morning on the topic of the CIA, pressure to lay it at the feet of the CIA, covers the full extent of my knowledge, sir, of any pressure upon me and it came principally through the attorney himself. So insofar as I personally was involved, tha t was the source.

Senator Talmadge. All right, now. You have named Mr. Barker.

Mr. McCord. Th at is right, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And you have named Mr. Alch?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Who was your own lawyer?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And I believe in your own testimony in chief, 

the memorandum you read, you also referred to a man by the name 

of Bittman, did you not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.
208

Senator Talmadge. Now, who is Mr. Bittman?

Mr. McCord. Bittman is the attorney, William O. Bittm an, the 

attorney for E. Howard Hunt, one of the other defendants.

Senator Talmadge. All right, did he have any connection with 

the Government in any way or any connection with the Republican 

National Committee or the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. McCord. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Senator Talmadge. What I am trying to get at is the source of 

this pressure t hat you have contended was brought upon you to blame 

this on the CIA. Thus far, you have not connected tha t either with 

the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the White House or 

any other individuals, to my knowledge. One was your own lawyer, 

one was engaged in the crime with you, and the third one was the lawyer 

for Mr. Liddy, was it—Bittman?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Hunt.

Senator T almadge. Mr. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. He was Mr. Hu nt’s lawyer. And those three 

individuals are the only ones tha t urged you to blame this on the CIA. 

Is tha t a fair statement?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir; tha t is essentially correct.

Senator Talmadge. So no one else anywhere whatever urged you 

to blame it on the CIA except these three individuals, is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. None that I can recall at this time, no, sir.

Senator T almadge. Now, did Mr. Barker or the other of the socalled Cuban-Americans ever come to you during the trial and tell 

you that they had been offered Executive clemency by Mr. Hunt?'

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. Will you describe the attitude and the 

demeanor at tha t time?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. Mr. Barker specifically—I can recall 

specifically during the first week of the trial and beginning on the 

first day, on January 8, Mr. Barker came to me in the corridor outside, 

I believe, the courtroom of the U.S. District Court Building in Washington during breaks in the court proceedings and proceeded to relate 

to me the pressure which he said was being imposed upon him and 

upon the other men who were defendants—Mr. Sturgis, Mr. Gonzales,. 

Mr. Martinez, pressure tha t he stated was stemming from Mr. Hunt 

and other unnamed individuals, to plead guilty and to go off to jail 

or prison and ultimately to receive Executive clemency and to receivefinancial support for their families while they were in prison and 

promises—and he stated promises were made tha t they would be given 

help in obtaining a job or rehabilitation at the prison. Mr. Barker 

spoke to me several times during tha t week regarding tha t particular 

pressure upon him which he described as intense.

He stated first tha t he was planning not to plead guilty and then 

subsequently, as the days progressed during the week itself, he began 

to tell me tha t he was thinking more and more seriously about it, 

and as I recall, about Wednesday of tha t week, roughly, in tha t week 

sometime, he seemed to have his mind made up that he would go ahead 

and accede to the pressure and plead guilty, and he put it in, in 

just about those words, and to accept the Executive clemency.
209

He was in a pretty highly emotional state at one point in time, the first day or two, stating tha t he was fighting the pressure as best he was able and it was clear from his demeanor tha t he was very worked up and very emotionally overwrought, split between what he was being forced to do and what he felt perhaps he ought to do in going ahead to proceed with the case and to see if he could get a fair trial. He was not the only one. His family, his wife, and his daughter, related the same pressure to me, sometimes in his presence.

Senator T almadge. Did any of the other so-called Cuban-Americans besides Mr. Barker relate similar pressure?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, all of them.

Senator T almadge. Every one of them?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Now, did Mr. Hunt or Mrs. Hunt ever give you any information tha t they were sent to you by the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the White House or anybody to do this?

Mr. McCord. Executive clemency?

Senator T almadge. Yes.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Will you relate that?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir; during the meetings, personal meetings and 

telephone meetings beginning in July 1972 concerning money beginning in about October 1972, concerning Executive clemency—the 

term “Executive clemency” I first heard, I believe, from Mr. H unt in early October—late September or early October—when I would see him at the courtroom or when he would call me by telephone. There­ after, he subsequently mentioned it in almost every call. His wife referred to it. In substance, what they were saying was that the defend­ ants were being promised Executive clemency if they went off to prison and had to serve time. Sometimes the words “Executive clemency” would be followed or accompanied by other statements about financial 

support and rehabilitation.

Senator Talmadge. Did Mrs. Hu nt state who gave her auth ority 

to make such a promise?

Mr. McCord. My recollection of her conversations were tha t she was saying tha t she was transmitting this word to me from her husband. She did not specifically mention that I can recall now who gave it to him. I can draw only one conclusion as to where it came 

from, because-----

, Senator Talmadge. She did not state the source of her auth ority

to make tha t promise, though?

Mr. M cCord. I can’t recall such statements on her part.

Senator Talmadge. Who did she say she was in communication 

with?

’ Mr. McCord. With the attorneys for the Committee To ReElect the President, the attorneys for the committee.

Senator Talmadge. Who specifically? More than one individual is involved with the committee. I want you to name specific names if you 

know.

Mr. McCord. I can tell you what she stated, sir, if this is what you 

want.

Senator T almadge. Tell me what she stated. This is the question 

I asked you.
210

Mr. McCord. Yes sir. She stated tha t she herself was in communication with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson, one of the attorneys for the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President. She stated tha t her husband,

Mr. Hunt, had been in touch in J uly with Mr. Paul O’Brien, also an 

attorney with Mr. Parkinson for the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President.

Senator Talmadge. Mrs. Hun t, 1 believe, was the intermediary 

that transmitted money to you?

Mr. McCord. She was, sir.

Senator Talmadge. How much did she transmit, all told?

Mr. McCord. $46,000, as I recall, of which about half was w

attorneys’ fees.

Senator Talmadge. $46,000?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Talmadge. Of which about half was to be used to pay ■*

your attorney ’s fees?

Mr. McCord. $25,000, yes sir.

Senator Talmadge. And the other was to be used to pay your 

salary?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Talmadge. And your salary was $3,000 a month, I 

remember?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir.

Senator Talmadge. All paid in brand-new $100 bills, is tha t true?

Mr. McCord. Most of it, sir.

Senator Talmagde. Any of it in checks?

Mr. McCord. No sir.

Senator Talmadge. All in cash?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Can you state why they paid in cash and not 

by checks?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator T almadge. Did you not think th at was an unusual method 

of payment?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Did i t cause you to wonder about the circumstances of t hat involvement?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And how long did your salary continue to be 

paid? When was the last time you received the $100 bills in payment «

of your salary of $3,000 a month?

Mr. McCord. The last paym ent was December 2 and it was a 

payment for December through January.

Senator Talmadge. In other words, you have been paid through 

January and not since that time? *

Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct, sir.

Senator Talmadge. My time has expired, has it, Mr. Chairman?

I do not want to usurp the time of others.

Senator E rvin. You used 13 minutes.

Senator T almadge. Then I yield at this point to my colleague.

Senator E rvin. Senator Gurney?

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCord, one or two other questions about Mr. Barker. What 

was your relationship with Mr. Barker in the Watergate affair?
211

Mr. McCord. My relationship, again, about a week, 4 or 5 days, 

perhaps, before Memorial Day weekend, in which I first met him and 

he was described to me as the team captain for the group going into 

the Democratic National Committee. My relationslup with him was 

as a member of the team that went in.

Senator Gurney. Was he in charge or were you in charge?

Mr. McCord. He was in charge, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you see him much after that?

Mr. McCord. I saw him during tha t Memorial Day weekend. 

I saw him on the first meeting at the Manger-Hamilton Hotel about

# May 24, when I first met him. I saw him the June 17 weekend. I 

saw him occasionally at the courthouse in the fall of 1972, when 

we would be there for hearings. I saw him, of course, during the trial 

period tha t I have referred to in my testimony today.

L* Senator Gurney. Did you see him at all between the time of the

break-in incident and when you went to court?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I was in, during the first week, first 4 or 5 

days after we were arrested, we were in the same accommodations 

in the D.C. jail.

Senator Gurney. What kind of man would you say he was—was 

he dependable?

Mr. McCord. I liked Mr. Barker.

Senator Gurney. So you would say he was a man of reliability 

and dependability?

Mr. McCord. In the things I did with him and worked with him, 

he was a reliable person.

Senator Gurney. When you had these discussions with him on the 

pressure on him to plead guilty and take advantage of this Executive 

clemency—and how many occasions did you and he discuss that?

Mr. McCord. It began on or about Janu ary 8 and continued for 

that first week, during the first week of the trial, most of the days in 

the trial—most of the first week. So it was roughly a week tha t these 

conversations would occur.

Senator Gurney. And they occurred every day, would you say?

Mr. McCord. I know t ha t they occurred—my recollection is tha t 

they occurred each of the first 3 days of the trial and tha t something 

was said about them the following 2 days, Thursday or Friday. I 

can’t recall specifically what, because I believe his mind was p retty 

well made up at tha t time. I do not think there was too much discus-

* sion after the first days.

Senator Gurney. What were his reasons for discussing this with 

you, to seek your advice or to ask you if you were receiving pressure 

too, or how did the conversation come up?

Mr. McCord. It was generally in the sense, “We were receiving this 

pressure, I am torn up in trying to decide what to do. W hat are you 

planning to do,” and some advice was sought and what I thought 

about acceding to the pressure.

Senator Gurney. In other words, they were rather extensive and 

serious discussions; is th at correct?

Mr. McCord. They would run, I would say, 5 to 10 minutes, 

maybe 15 during court breaks primarily.

Senator Gurney. Well, who did Mr. Barker say to you was applying the pressure to him?
212

Mr. McCord. My recollection is tha t he stated Mr. Hun t. He also 

referred to other unnamed persons and I do not know who they were.

Senator Gurney. Well, you mean he said, “There are other unnamed persons whom I do not know who are applying pressure to 

me,” and he said there were some other people and tha t is all I heard. 

What were these other people doing?

Mr. McCord. Applying pressure, so he stated.

Senator Gurney. Well, were they talking to him?

Mr. McCord. So he said.

Senator Gurney. Where were they talking to him?

Mr. McCord. I do not know. He did not say.

Senator Gurney. Were they calling him on the phone?

Mr. McCord. He did not state, sir.

Senator Gurney. Now, during this time, I guess you were out of 

jail on bail, both you and Barker; is tha t true?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Do you know where he was living a t this time?

Mr. McCord. I believe in Miami, most of the time. He was in 

Washington sometimes for court appearances.

Senator Gurney. But no other name was mentioned in these 

conversations except the name of Mr. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, tha t is correct.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever ask him who was applying this 

pressure besides Mr. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Weren’t you curious?

Mr. McCord. I was curious but I assume quite frankly tha t it was 

someone closely connected with Hunt, somebody that Hunt was 

obviously very closely associated with, perhaps somebody tha t 

Barker and Hunt had known together, I do not—I did not pursue it 

beyond tha t point. My primary concern was with the fact tha t Mr. 

Hunt was doing it, and I expressed some views on that.

Senator Gurney. Now then, you mentioned also that pressure was 

being applied to the others who were apprehended in the Watergate, 

the four people Sturgis, Martinez, Gonzales; is tha t their names?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. And then one other whose name has slipped me 

for the moment. Did they ever tell you who was applying pressure to 

them?

Mr. McCord. My recollection is tha t they stated Mr. Hunt. 

There was some, I have a vague recollection that the names of, it was 

put in the same context that Mr. Barker did tha t others were doing 

so. That is a very vague recollection. I can be sure only about the 

name of Mr. Hunt.

Senator Gurney. Well now, let’s take them one by one. When and 

where did Martinez say to you tha t pressure was being applied to him?

Mr. McCord. In the corridors of the, I believe it is called the, outside the, Ceremonial C ourt Room of the District Court Building in 

Washington, D.C., to the best of my recollection on at least each of 

the first 4 days of the trial beginning on Janu ary 8, during breaks in 

the court session.

Senator Gurney. And in these conversations what names did 

Martinez mention?
213

Mr. McCord. Mr. Hunt.

Senator Gurney. Did he mention any others?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him about any others?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. What about Sturgis?

Mr. McCord. If I may explain usually Mr. Martinez and 

Mr. Gonzales were together during these conversations and the conversations were in the form of something like a three-way discussion 

between me, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Sturgis, I would 

say, mentioned i t to me perhaps at the most once or twice t ha t week. 

The others mentioned it, I would say, the first 4 days of the first week 

of the trial.

Senator Gurney. But none of these men ever mentioned any other 

4,5 name other tha n Mr. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. And none of them ever either mentioned or 

speculated who was giving Hunt the auth ority to apply this political 

pressure or offer of Executive clemency to all of you?

Mr. McCord. No, sir. There, the focus of their concern was, it 

was in terms of what should they be really doing about it and what 

concern they had if they did no t do it or if they turned it down what 

would be their future, what was going to happen during the trial, 

so there wasn’t much at all in the way of who was doing it and where 

it came from. Our general context of our discussion was that everybody understood th at there was only one place tha t Executive clemency 

•can stem from so nobody had any reason for discussing it.

Senator Gurney. Yes, 1 would understand that, too, but of course 

this would be a very important matter.

Mr. McCord. 1 understand.

Senator Gurney. Pleading guilty and then serving a prison term 

and then of course being able to get out of the prison term by a pardon 

and I am curious that no one thought to inquire where this was coming 

from other than from Mr. Hunt.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. But no one ever did?

Mr. McCord. Well, they may well have done so.

Senator Gurney. But they did no t mention it to you?

Mr. McCord. They did not mention it to me.

Senator Gurney. You mentioned in the statem ent about the CIA, 

at least the statements were certainly very shocking. They involve a 

new man coming on board the CIA, a change from Mr. Helms to 

another man and the fact tha t the new man could be, could work 

with and dealt with and your records might have been able to have 

k been doctored all in this so-called CIA coverup. Would you go into

that at more length? Where did you get this information?

Mr. McCord. What I transmitted to you, sir, and this is the source 

of it, were the words as I best recall i t transm itted to me, communicated to me, by Mr. Alch in the two meetings that I referred to, one 

at the Monocle Restaurant here in Washington, near a couple of 

blocks from here about, on December 21, and the second-----

Senator Gurney. Now could you describe how that came up 

because this is extremely important.
214

Mr. McCord. All right, sir.

Senator Gurney. Why did you happen to go there with him in the 

first place?

Mr. McCord. My recollection is th at I had been called the day 

before by Mr. Alch when he had come into Washington to, prepared 

to, appear for a court hearing, something to do with a court hearing 

regarding some, I believe, admission or entry of tape recordings of 

Mr. Baldwin’s statements to the press into the acquisition of those 

tapes by the court, and he had first stated t hat he was planning to see 

me the day before and then he subsequently called that day before 

and said, “No, we will meet tomorrow afternoon” or “We will meet 

tomorrow, and I will call you,” and he did call me early in the afternoon of December 21 and said “Why don’t you meet us for lunch at 

the Monocle Restaurant, I have got some things I want to talk with 

you about.” So I came to the Monocle Restaurant.

Senator Gurney. Who is us, did he have someone else with him?

Mr. McCord. Well, he had Mr. Bernard Shankman, my local 

attorney. He did meet with us.

Senator Gurney. But he did not mention to you the subject of the 

visit?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him?

Mr. McCord. I think he mentioned, to my best recollection, he 

said something we should be talking about our defense at this point 

at this time or in this meeting, something along this line.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. I do not remember exactly. So we met, I responded 

to his call and came down to the Monocle Restaurant. The three of 

us sat and he related questions in the statements I have read to you 

here. I do not recall Mr. Shankman participating in this substantive 

conversaton, he may have but I do no t recall it.

Senator Gurney. Now, would you recall again what he said 

specifically about the CIA?

Mr. McCord. All right, sir. I have set it down in writing and I 

would frankly like to refer to it because I have spent a lot of time in 

putting it down.

Senator Gurney. I wish you would because it is sometimes very 

hard to follow every word.

Mr. McCord. I stated as I best recall, tha t he had just come from 

a meeting with William O. Bittm an, attorney for Mr. Howard Hunt. g

He stated that he had a suggestion concerning what I use as my defense 

during the trial which was th at I use as my defense t ha t the Watergate 

operation was a CIA operation, I do not recall exactly what I said in 

response except to say something to the effect tha t you are my 

attorney, what is your counsel on this, do you think I should? •

Senator Gurney. Go ahead.

Mr. McCord. And his response was, “Yes, I think so,” and he 

proceeded to discuss, to ask some questions of me. He said, he asked 

whether I could be ostensibly recalled from my retirement. That is, 

a person once retired, can he be recalled, and I said, yes, he can, and 

he said, “Well, you can ostensibly, we could use as our defense you 

could ostensibly have been recalled to the CIA to undertake the 

Watergate operation, could you not?” and I said it is technically pos-
215

sible or words to tha t effect. Tha t he said if so, then, my personnel 

records at CIA could be doctored to reflect such a recall, and this is 

my best recollection of the exact words.

Senator Gurney. Well now, who was going to do that?

Mr. McCord. He did not say.

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him?

Mr. McCord. No. I was listening to the rest of the story.

Senator Gurney. Did you make any comment on the record being 

doctored at the CIA? After all, how long were you there, 19 years?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you make any comment on that?

Mr. McCord. I think * I have stated in my state ment here the 

situation I was in which was essentially one of wanting to hear out the 

story, what it was all about and I was really trying to figure out sort 

of what is going on at this point in time.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. I wanted to hear the rest of the statement out. 

This statement, during the conversation, and it might not be in this exact sequence of the things I have stated here but these are the things that were said during the conversation, one statement may have been reversed with another but these statements were made. He said tha t Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose appointment had just 

been announced, could be subpenaed and would go along with it, 

that was his quote.

Senator Gurney. Schlesinger could be what?

Mr. McCord. Could be subpenaed.

Senator Gurney. Yes.

Mr. McCord. And would go along with it.

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him how he knew this would occur?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did he offer any evidence as to how he knew 

that Mr. Schlesinger would "go along with it?”

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. He went on to mention some testimony. He did n ot 

have any paper with him but he went on to mention some testimony by Mr. Gary Bittenbender, and he recited testimony tha t he said Bittenbender had given in which Bittenbender purportedly claimed 

tha t I told him the day of the arrest tha t the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. My response was th at if such a statement had 

been made it was perjured testimony or a false statement.

Senator Gurney. Why did he bring that up, do you know?

Mr. McCord. 1 can give you an impression if you want an 

impression.

Senator Gurney. Yes.

Mr. McCord. Which was that, and tha t impression stems from what 

I la ter saw in his office which was a written statement, my impression was tha t he had received access to seme type of interview with Mr. Bittenbender in which such a statement was obtained, perhaps by 

the Federal authorities in some case.

Senator Gurney. Go on.

Mr. McCord. He said he could be interviewed—correction. He 

went on to mention the name of Mr. Victor Marchetti, who he re-
216

ferred to as writing a book about CIA and be said we could subpena 

Marchetti and have him testify about customs and traditions of CIA 

agents in case they are arrested, or caught wherein they are trained to 

deny any connection with CIA.

Senator Gurney. Well now, how would this help you?

Mr. McCord. My understanding of the reason he was saying it, 

and I recall so much of the pa rt of the statement to the effect tha t this 

wculd lay the background if Mr. Marchetti were called to the stand 

and asked to testify he would furnish statements to this effect that it 

would lay a background during the trial itself for any denials that 

might come up either by CIA or by the defendants, that this was, in *

fact, a CIA operation, which, of course, it was not.

Senator Gurney. Of course, if they were going to back you up 

through the Director itself they would hardly deny the story at the 

same time, would thev? ' *

Mr. McCord. Weil, not much went into—there -was not much 

discussion of what in effect the CIA Director would or would not say 

either in responding to a subpena to testify hard in terms of testimony 

itself concerning the men.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I wonder if I may 

ask one or two questions on another matter, I do n ot think it will 

take long.

The Chairman. If there is no objection, you may.

Senator Gurney. Thank you.

Mr. McCord, how much were you being paid by the Republican 

National Committee for its work?

Mr. McCord. $625 a month, as best I recall, $625 to $650, in thebeginning of the period of October, of roughly October 1 through the 

same period of my employment with the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President. The subject of this employment at both locations was 

discussed with both men who I worked with, which included both 

Mr. Liddy and Odle.

Senator Gurney. This was in addition to $20,000 a year by the 

Committee To Re-Elect plus the $2,000 a month hazardous pay 

when you entered into the Watergate operation, is t ha t correct?

Mr. McCord. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. Did you receive any pay from anybody else for 

any activ ity during this period of time?

Mr. McCord. I do not recall any, sir.

Senator Gurney. You did not receive any? 

Mr. M a

cCord. I do not recall any.

Senator Gurney. Tell me, did you ever participate in any other 

electronic surveillance activ ity like this political surveillance of any 

kind?

Mr. McCord. No, sir. *

Senator Gurney. IIow about in previous years, previous campaigns?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever discuss with anybody at the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the White House, for th at m atter 

aside from Mr. Liddy, this business of bugging the Watergate? My 

understanding was tha t your conversations were with him at first,, 

tha t is correct, is it not?
217

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. The only two people they were discussed 

with were Mr. Hun t and Mr. Liddy and I have stated my reasons 

for so doing.

Senator Gurney. But you did not discuss it at any time with 

anybody else?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever suggest to anybody a t any time in 

1971 or 1972, that this would be a desirable operation?

Mr. McCord. Did I suggest it?

Senator Gurney. Yes.

Mr. McCord. Absolutely not.

Senator Gurney. The idea came from Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt?

Mr. McCord. T hat is the first time I heard it.

Senator Gurney. Thank you very much.

Senator E rvin. Senator Inouye?

Senator I nouye. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCord, you testified last week and this morning tha t you 

were receiving almost on a daily basis information from the Internal 

Security Division of the Justice Department and from the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation. Would I be correct in designating the type 

of information you received as classified?

Mr. McCord. Sir, I can tell you how the information was described, to me, which is, I think, relevant to your question and I will 

do that if you would like.

Senator I nouye. Would you please?

Mr. McCord. The information, as I recall at this point in time, was 

described to me by the two men who made it available.

Senator I nouye. Who are the two men?

Mr. McCord. Mr. John Martin and Mr. Joel Lisker.

Senator Inouye. Wha t were their positions?

Mr. McCord. Chief and Deputy Chief of the Evaluation Section 

of the Internal Security Division.

Senator Inouye. Of the Justice Department?

Mr. McCord. Of the Justice Department, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Did they ever advise you as to whether they were 

authorized by higher authorities to provide you with this information?

Mr. McCord. My best recollection, sir, of the answer to t hat question is tha t when Mr. Martin first talked with me, when I first went 

to see him after Mr. Mardian had told me, Robert Mardian had told 

me that arrangements, that he had made arrangements for me to have 

access to such information from the Internal Security Division, and 

1 went to Mr. John Martin ’s office for the first time, my recollection 

is tha t he told me two things in that regard. One is that he had received 

some word from Mr. Mardian asking tha t I be given access and tha t

* he had checked it out with his people, referring to his superiors.

Senator Inouye. Was the type of information received the type 

generally made available to the public?

Mr. McCord. To the public?

Senator Inouye. Yes, sir. Was it public information?

Mr. McCord. I don’t think so, sir. I don’t believe so.

Senator I nouye. Then it was classified information of some nature?

Mr. McCord. I was told tha t it was unclassified information. I 

do not recall seeing classification stamps on any of the information.
218

T might add—I believe your first question was that I contacted the 

FBI on this type of information. I apologize if I left that impression.

I never contacted the FB I. My only contact was through the Internal 

Security Division.

I do not recall classification stamps on the information. There may 

very well have been such. I do no t recall it.

Senator I nouye. At tha t time, were you legally and appropriately 

authorized to receive such information? Were you cleared to receive 

such information?

Mr. McCord. I had a clearance, sir, top secret clearance in connection with position, reserve positions in the military.

Senator Inouye. At the time of the receipt?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. I have been advised tha t at the time of the breakin, you had in your employment a man named Louis Russell, is t hat 4»* 

correct?

Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct, sir.

Senator Inouye. Was he near the Watergate during the time of the 

break-in?

Mr. McCord. I would like to respond to that, because Mr. Russell 

has been very unfairly treated in terms of his name being raised in 

this case, and I will explain the circumstances as he has told them to 

me and which I believe, which are these.

He stated tha t he was not there the night of the break-in at the 

Howard Johnson Motel or anywhere in the vicinity. He told me that 

the night before, which would have been the night of June 16, I believe—June 15—the Thursday night—tha t he had gone to the Howard 

Johnson Motel restaurant to have dinner and tha t he had gone there 

with a woman companion, who—they on a regular basis ate at the 

Howard Johnson restaurant as a custom over some years; tha t she 

normally went to the Watergate hairdresser, one of them, for her 

hairdo, and they would go over to the Howard Johnson restaurant 

and have dinner.

Senator Inouye. Was he in any way connected with the bugging?

Mr. McCord. Absolutely none, in no form whatever.

Senator I nouye. I t has been reported that Mr. John Dean, formerly 

of the White House staff, wanted the bugging operation carried out 

in such a way as to provide the Attorney General, Mr. Mitchell, 

deniability.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. ,

Senator Inouye. Have you heard of this phrase?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. What is your understanding of the meaning of 

this term, “deniability” ?

Mr. McCord. Tha t if something goes wrong, a person can claim •

that he had no connection with the operation.

Senator I nouye. Was this explained to you?

Mr. McCord. The word was mentioned to me and I can describe 

how it was mentioned and the context, if you would like.

Senator Inouye. Please do so.

Mr. McCord. Which was to the best of my recollection, the day 

after Mr. Liddy met in January, I believe the first or second—either 

the first or the second meeting with the Attorney General, in the
219

Attorney General’s office, which he came back from tha t meeting stating that, relating what had transpired during the meeting, and then saying that Mr. John Dean had contacted him after the meeting and told him tha t he thought the operation was going to be approved and tha t there would have to be some way of giving deniability to Mr. John Mitchell in connection with the operation. My recollection is tha t Mr. Liddy amplified tha t by some state ment to the effect at tha t meeting th at if anything ever blew the operation, Mr. Mitchell 

could claim tha t he had no part of it.

Senator Inouye. How did you propose to accomplish this 

deniability?

* Mr. McCord. He didn’t state, but it appeared to me tha t tha t statement really had no validity at a later time, because from other statements of Mr. Liddy, there were continuous meetings of him and 

j Mr. Mitchell, extending up through, say, the week of June 17, and that therefore, the statement was essentially meaningless, because had it been planned that Mr. Mitchell had deniability, the events tha t transpired after February, after the statement was made, essenti­ ally negated the opportunity for in any way t ha t Mr. Mitchell could disclaim connection. If, in fact, for example, after tha t first one or two meetings he had no further connection with the operation with Mr. Liddy, then perhaps there would have been deniability. But by continuing to meet with Mr. Liddy as Mr. Liddy related to me on numerous meetings between February and June, there was essentially

no valid claim that could be made to deniability.

Senator Inouye. I recall some account of your relationship with

embassies. I am a bit confused about that. Did you call embassies in relation to Watergate or did you mention

embassies to any other contacts?

I am curious, were embassies bugged, too?

Mr. McCord. I have no knowledge, sir, of any contact with 

embassies, bugging of embassies, or any clandestine operations di­ rected against embassies by any members of the team, the seven members of the team or anyone else connected with them.

Senator Inouye. You did not discuss the matter of surveillance 

of embassies with the committee staff?

Mr. McCord. In the statement this morning, two phone calls 

that I referred to after June 17. But I have no knowledge prior to 

June 17.

Senator I nouye. What were these phone calls about?

Mr. McCord. I can answer it again, if I may, sir. I have stated that, the fact that in September and in October 1972, I made two phone calls to two local embassies, made some very brief statements over the phone—I don’t recall the nature of 

the inquiry of the first phone call. The second one was a phone call lasting 2 or 3 minutes. The calls were made from my residence. The purpose of both calls of mine, these two calls, was possibly to test the truthfulness of Government 

response. When the motion was filed 2 or 3 days later—that is, October 10, 1972—requesting Government disclosure of intercepted telephone calls of mine from any time during 1972, I was convinced tha t our calls were being intercepted from our phones in our home. I am still so con96-2 96—73— bk. 1------15
220

vinced tha t tha t transpired, particularly in September and October 

1972, when there were numerous indications of it.

Senator Inouye. During the period April, May, and June of this 

year, according to your memo, you received the gross sum of $76,000 

for expenses?

Mr. McCord. In connection with the Watergate operation, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. This was over and above your pay, am I correct?

Mr. McCord. This was money given to me by Mr. Liddy for the 

purposes of purchasing equipment and paying related expenses connected with the Watergate operation, yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. Did this include your personal pay?

Mr. McCord. This included a category of money tha t I said was 

referred to euphemistically as “overhead” which was supposed to cover 

my personal travel expenses and compensation for whatever time was 

involved in this and compensation for related expenses.

Senator Inouye. Then your salary for the months of April, May, 

and June for the Watergate intrusion was $12,000?

Mr. McCord. I believe tha t is correct. I have heard tha t figure 

before.

Senator I nouye. Then you had legal fees of $18,800. Who received 

the $18,800?

Mr. McCord. One of my attorneys.

Senator Inouye. All $18,800?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. I notice here under equipment, “miscellaneous 

purchases, $12,750”.

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. Were they small purchases?

Mr. McCord. That is a fairly large amount of money.

Senator Inouye. Because I have noticed you have listed items 

costing $400 specifically.

Mr. McCord. These were purchases from several different locations in New York City, in Chicago, and some in Washington. The 

exact names of the ones that I purchased equipment from, names of 

the stores and what have you, I listed where I could earlier in this 

thing. I could not recall all of them because there were about, I would 

say, 20 or 21 different firms tha t equipment was purchased from. 

And there was purchased out of this $12,000 tha t you have referred 

to here quite a number of accessories of different types, in equipment 

that we were using, in particular, some purchases in New York City 

from firms tha t I can’t recall the names of a t this point in time. I 

have tried to reconstruct the exact cost where I can and I put into 

this other category exact costs that I can’t remember.

Senator Inouye. They were not for personal expenses?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Inouye. And in filing your income taxes, did you include 

$12,000 of your income?

Mr. McCord. My income—I have asked for an extension of filing 

of income tax in order to be sure specifically tha t everything is included that should be included and just how I am to report the source 

of the money tha t I received; exactly who do I state gave me the 

money tha t we reported in tha t income tax.
Is it the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Is it somebody 

else?

Senator Inouye. Do you have any knowledge of who prepared 

Mr. Liddy’s $7,000 charts?

Mr. McCord. No.

Senator Inouye. Do you happen to know why they were so 

expensive?

Mr. McCord. My understanding was tha t he wanted some pro­ fessionally prepared charts and tha t to get them in a hurry, he had to pay some sort of a premium to get them as quickly as he wanted 

them.

Senator I nouye. Do you know what happened to these charts?

Mr. McCord. He stated tha t he had been told to destroy the charts by Mr. John Dean b ut that he did not plan to do so. He planned to stash them away because they cost so much money. W hat he did 

with them, I don’t know.

Senator I nouye. Tha t is all I have.

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker?

Senator Weicker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCord, I would like to clear up one technical point. You placed the actions of your former attorney, Mr. Alch, in what might be charitably called an unfavorable light and I assume that if this committee chooses to hear Mr. Alch’s side of the story, you are not going to raise the point of attorney-client privilege, right?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. McCord, 1 would like to go back to the questioning tha t I started last week, and start at the beginning with your first visit to the Triangle Building. Would you tell the committee who attended the meeting, the first 

meeting a t the Triangle Building?

Mr. McCord. 1 will state my recollection. I believe I was the only one from the Committee To Re-Elect the President who attended, along with M r. Joel Lisker, Mr. John Martin, the two men I referred to as the chief and the deputy chief of tha t activity. We met in Mr. John Ma rtin ’s office. We talked, I would guess, for probably 45 minutes. We talked on the general subject of access of mine to the reports. He repeated—stated the two matters tha t 1 repeated, that he had received a call from Mr. Mardian and tha t he had checked i t 

with his superiors.

Senator Weicker. Was Mr. Houston present at the first meeting?

Mr. McCord. I don’t recall tha t Mr. Robert Houston, who is one of my assistants, was present at the first meeting. He may have been. My recollection is t hat he was not. 1 think he appeared later when I had other duties to perform, I think particularly when I wen t to 

Miami to do the survey I referred to here.

Senator Weicker. In other words, there were subsequent times 

when Mr. Houston might have been with you-----

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker [continuing]. At the Triangle Building? Is th at 

right?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

1 can recall a couple of times.
222

Senator W eic ke r. N ow, at this first meetin g, wou ld it be fair to 

say th at the pro cedures were discussed by whi ch you would hav e 

access to this inf orm ation?

Mr. M cCord. I believe so; yes, sir.

Senator W eick er. And were the pro ced ure s inc lud ed—was access 

to this inf orm ation in yo ur going to the Trian gle Building, is th at 

corr ect?

Mr. McCord. Prima rily .

Se na tor Weick er. Prima rily .

Was i t also discussed th at this pa rti cu lar section, on its own in iti ativ e, could go ahead and co nta ct you at the Comm itte e To Re -E lec t «

the Pre sident?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Senator W eick er. Now, you have ha d fairly exte nsive experienc e 

with bo th the FB I and the CIA . Is it possible for you to iden tif y 

material th at has been ob tained fro m w iretap s, or is th at an impossible 

sit uatio n?

Mr. McCord. No, sir; I could n ot, and in answer to your ques tion, 

if it refers to thi s group, th at I saw no thing------

Senator Weick er. No, no, please, my question is in a mu ch more 

general sense . Is it possible—specifically is it possible for you with 

your backgrou nd to identify which ma ter ial s were obtained from wiretap ?

Mr. M cC ord. I would say it would be exceedingly rare th at I 

would be able to do so.

Senator Weic ker. So it is also true, the n, th at in tho se circ umstance s, mate ria l set before you could or could no t have been obtai ned from wiretaps, is th at t rue?

Mr. M cCord. Possibly, yes, sir.

Senator W eic ker. Now, I know th at you made an effort a t the last 

hearing to sta te you r recolle ctio n of wh at ma terials you received.

Ha ve you given any addit ion al thou gh t to that? Is i t possible for you 

to be a little more complete th an you were the last tim e as to wh at 

docume nts and typ es of in for ma tio n you receiv ed from th is p artic ular 

div isio n of the Jus tice De pa rtm ent?

Mr. M cCord. I can recall one or two thi ngs specifically.

I believe I made reference i n m y e arlie r tes tim ony to da y to inform atio n ab ou t the forg ery of college press creden tials in connection with 

pla ns of more th an one ind ivi dual to gain access to both the Dem ocratic N ational Co mm itte e Convent ion s ite at Miam i an d the Re pub- «

lican Na tio nal Co nventio n site, and specifically to use such forged 

cre dentials for the pur pose of gettin g access to the com municatio ns 

ce nter and blowing up those c enters. T his repo rt 1 distinctly rem ember 

seeing and passed some inf orm ation on it along to my own supe riors.

Senator Weic ke r. Well, I don’t intend to tak e up the time of the 

com mittee here, bu t I wish th at you would, as best you can, th in k 

about this m atter. If the re are an y o ther m atters which came into yo ur 

possession which you have no t told the com mittee about, would you 

be good enou gh to supply the com mittee with me mo ran da on that?

Mr. M cC ord. Yes, sir, I will do so.

Senat or Weick er. Le t me ask you, do you still have in yo ur possession any of the doc ument s which you received from this division 

of the Jus tice De pa rtm ent?
223

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. What happened to this material, then? Was it 

destroyed?

Mr. McCord. I don’t recall our taking any material at all from the’ 

Internal Security Division offices. I dictated a memorandum at their 

offices onto a tape of one report t ha t I had read and turned tha t tape 

over to your committee sometime back.

Senator Weicker. Now, on what particular occasion did the 

Internal Security Division take the initiative and call you?

Mr. McCord. Particularly during the last 2 weeks of May 1971 

9 when there were sizable numbers of demonstrators in Washington,

and their plans were being formulated by some violence-oriented 

elements within whose demonstrators for confrontation with the 

police, confrontation with them. I recall one specific report where I 

received a call from one of those two gentlemen stating tha t there 

had been evidence come to light t hat the bombing of the, one of the, 

rooms in the Pentagon which had appeared, the evening in which it 

had appeared, in the paper the day before that this had been determined to be caused by what is known as a plastic C-4 explosive, the 

equivalent of about 18 sticks of dynamite, and he was alerting me 

tha t to the effect that there was this plastic explosive being used, 

and, as a matter of essentially some forewarning tha t someone had 

in their possession this type of plastic explosive.

Senator Weicker. Mr. McCord, did you actually receive any FBI 

reports while at the Internal Security Division?

Mr. McCord. I saw some material tha t was attributed to the 

FBI. I did not take any with me. 1 made extracts of some of the 

material that was shown to me.

Senator Weicker. Now, is it possible for you to go ahead and 

segregate the FBI material from the other matters tha t you have 

been discussing here this morning? Is there anything tha t stands out 

in your mind tha t specifically could be attributed to the FBI?

Mr. McCord. I cannot recall in terms of what I testified to today 

tha t tha t material came directly from FBI sources. My memory on 

where it came from at this point in time is not tha t clear.

Senator Weicker. Now, those were the major calls from the 

Internal Security Division, were they again Mr. Martin and Mr, 

Lisker?

Mr. McCord. Primarily Mr. Lisker.

, Senator Weicker. Primarily Mr. Lisker?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Were they always made to you?

Mr. McCord. To Mr. Houston and me, primarily.

Senator Weicker. But either you or Mr. Houston received these 

’ calls?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Now, in your journeys to the Internal Security 

Division, did you ever have occasion to meet Mr. Guy Goodwin, 

the Chief of the Special Litigation Division?

Mr. McCord. I do not believe so, sir. I do not recall tha t name.

Senator Weicker. You have indicated recently tha t the Vietnam 

Veterans Against the War had an office in the Democratic National
224

Committee or McGovern headquarters. Where did you receive tha t 

information?

Mr. McCord. I do not recall the source of it now, except tha t it 

came to me some time during the summer of 1972.

Senator Weicker. When you say in the summer of 1972, was i t 

before June 17?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. After June 17?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. How many times were you personally in contact 

with Robert Mardian? 9 Mr. McCord. I can recall two or three times.

Senator Weicker. Was this when he was still at the Internal 

Security Division or at the time he had left tha t division and was 

working for the Committee To Re-Elect the President? '■*

Mr. McCord. Only after he had come to the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President.

Senator Weicker. You say tha t you had two or three personal 

meetings with him?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. Were there additional contacts with him by 

phone?

Mr. McCord. I think there was a call or two separate from the 

meeting, as I can recall one or two calls in connection with the driver 

tha t Mr. Mardian had tha t we were considering for use at the 

committee.

Senator Weicker. Now, can you give me an indication as to the 

matters which you and Mr. Mardian discussed?

Mr. McCord. I can recall the subject of the driver that I have 

just referred to.

Senator Weicker. You referred to tha t at the last hearing also?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weicker. So I think it is well placed on the record.

Mr. McCord. The subject of the access to the materials tha t we 

have been discussing at the Internal Security Division with one 

meeting in connection with tha t tha t I can recall. There may have 

have been one other meeting, I cannot be sure whether two or three 

meetings, but if it was it is the second or the third meeting, but 

the other two topics tha t have been raised in my memorandum, 

they were discussed. .

Senator Weicker. At any time while you were at the Internal 

Security Division, did you see Gordon l.iddv there?

Mr. McCord. I am sorry, I was not iistening, what was the 

question?

Senator Weicker. At any time tha t you were at the Internal *

Security Division, did you see Gordon Liddy there?

Mr. McCord. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. Do you have any knowledge tha t Mr. Liddy 

ever was at the Internal Security Division?

Mr. McCord. I had no knowledge before June 17. After tha t I 

read in the papers that he had some access.

Senator Weicker. Now, just a few more questions. To move for 

a minute away from the Internal Security Division matter, in your
225

le tt er to Jud ge Sirica da ted Marc h 19, 1973, you said th at you could 

no t feel confid ent in te stifying before a g ran d ju ry whose U.S. attorney s 

work for the Dep ar tm en t of Jus tice. Why did you make th at 

sta temen t?

Mr. M cCord. Because I belie ved th at because of the fact th at 

the U.S. attorneys work for the Atto rney Gen eral and the At torney 

General works fo r the Whit e House th at wh ate ver inf orm ation I gave 

to the grand ju ry would be immedia tely passed to the White Hou se, 

who it seems to me, at th at po int in tim e ha d an adverse interest 

in wh at I had to say.

• Senator Weick er. Was the re an ything i n their con duc t, was the re 

an ything in their co nd uc t tow ard you, th at gave you a basis for th at 

sta temen t?

Mr. M cCord. N o, sir.

* Senator Weic ke r. N ow, lastly, did you have any conversation 

after Ju ne 17 with Alfred Baldwin?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Weick er. H ow m any con versation s did you have?

Mr. M cC ord. I believe I had two tele pho ne con versation s with 

him, maybe three, im me dia tel y after, alm ost after our arr est , after 

I ret urne d home from the Dist ric t of Colum bia acc ommodations at 

the jail, and then I saw him twice, I b elieve, at the U.S. Atto rn ey ’s 

Office in Ju ly when he was pla nning to ap pe ar f or testim ony.

Senator Weick er. Ca n you give me the na tu re of yo ur tele phone 

con serv ations with Mr. Bald win?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I can, and I can tell you th at it is m y un de rsta nding those calls were tap ed or recorded otherwise. M y best recollection is th at when I ret urned home aro und the— somewhere aro und 

the 23d of Ju ne —th at there was a note from Mr. Baldwi n asking me 

to call him at his hom e in Connect icut, which I did, and durin g th at 

call m y recollection is th at he told me th at he h ad called the Com mittee 

To Re-Elect the Pre sid ent, and I believe he said he talked to Fr ed 

La Ru e and told him th at he had been involved in the W aterga te 

ope ration, th at Mr. La Ru e had expressed surprise th at he ha d bee n 

so involved and Mr. Baldwin said th at he asked him some quest ion s 

ab ou t wh at help he was going to ge t from the com mittee itself of an y 

kin d and I think pa rti cu larly in terms of legal fees and so on. He a ske d 

me, I believe he said , I cannot separat e the phone calls ou t at thi s 

point in time, I can give you the sub stance of them if y ou wa nt m e to 

• state them .

Senator Weick er. All right. Ju st go on.

Mr. McCord. In those calls he said th at , I believe one of the 

att orneys for the Co mm itte e To Re -Elec t the Preside nt ha d sub se- 

> qu ently come up to Co nnecticut to see h is attorn ey there. He did no t

say wh at was discussed. He asked a question of wh at the comm itte e 

was doing, wh at knowledge I migh t h ave of the subm ission of expense 

accounts which Mr. Baldwi n had previously su bm itted for his travels, 

while a security officer with Mrs . Mitchell, and I told him th at I really 

did no t know wha t the com mittee ha d don e ab ou t it and I could no t 

recall at th at po int in tim e wh eth er there were really copies of an y of 

those expense vouchers in my safe at the office bu t th at t hat he sho uld 

rec om pute wha t he figured was going to be due him and to sen d it to
226

the Comm itte e To Re -E lec t the Presi dent, which I felt would reimbur se him, and I un de rst an d the y subsequentl y did.

The re was some discussion, I am sure, ab ou t wh at he planne d to 

do in terms of pleadi ng guilty or not. Som e discussion abou t his requ est for app ear anc e before the grand ju ry in July. I am sure there 

are oth er matters but I cannot recall the m righ t now.

Senator Weick er. Who initia ted th ese phone calls, did M r. Baldwin 

initia te the m or did you initia te them ?

Mr. M cCord. No, he left a n ote for me first of all, to call him, and 

then he gave me subsequent ins tru ctions as to some other numb ers I 

was to call him a t in Connec ticut, two or t hree different numbers, and I 

called those nu mb ers and sometim es I called him at home and he 

would say, “Call me at a couple of othe r nu mbers, ” and I would call 

him at those numb ers . My belief was th at they were either—a t th at 

tim e they were probably his attorn ey s’ offices; I believe others the re 

may hav e be en some F BI offices involved in it who were m onitoring the 

conversation.

Senator Weick er. You believe th at you were calling Mr. Baldw in 

at FB I offices?

Mr. M cCord. Well, I have so underst oo d th at the con versations 

were bein g tap ed at th at time.

Se nator Weick er. Le t us separat e this; the re are two statem en ts 

ma de here and I wa nt to be very careful and you wa nt to be careful 

ab ou t w hat is be ing said. No. 1, y ou ha d made the statemen t th at you 

believe thes e con versations had been tap ed , correct?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Se nator Weick er. Now, No. 2, are you saying th at you believed 

these con ver sation s to have b een tape d at FB I offices?

Mr. M cC ord. I would guess at th is po int in time th at one or two 

things happened. T hat perha ps the calls were made at his at to rn ey ’s 

offices with FB I age nts prese nt listen ing to the calls or perha ps th at 

the calls were to an u nlisted FB I pho ne.

Senator Weic ke r. So, in other wor ds, you believe the re was FB I 

inv olv em ent eit he r in the offices of his attorn ey or actua lly at FB I 

offices insofar as your p hone calls to Baldwin are concerned?

Mr. M cCord. FB I or Go vernme nt------

Senator W eick er. Or Go vernm ent ?

Mr. M cCord. Yes.

Se na tor Weic ke r. Go vernme nt pers onnel were involved in these 

tele pho ne calls?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Se nator W eic ke r. You m entio ned the o ther day in y ou r testim ony 

th at you ha d rea d of the possibility of Mr. Baldw in bein g a double 

agent an d th at you ha d no eviden ce to th at effect. Is th at correct?

Mr. M cC ord. T hat is correct.

Se na tor Weic ke r. Where did thi s firs t come to your att en tio n?

Mr. M cCord. I believe I testified th at I firs t he ard the allegation 

over the TV intervie w on a Su nd ay by Mr. Cl ark MacG reg or of the 

comm itte e. I think I also rea d some reference s to it in the newspapers 

at a bo ut t h at time th at the comm itte e was handing o ut t he stor y th at 

Mr. Baldw in was a doub le agent, and I believe I also testified Frida y 

th at I told Mr. Caulfield I felt this was abs olutely un tru e.

Se na tor W eic ke r. You told who it was untru e?
227

Mr. McCord. Mr. Caulfield.

Senator Weicker. Why would you have told Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. Because he called me tha t same day th at Mr. MacGregor made his statement over the TV and it appeared an hour or two earlier and I was a little bit concerned tha t this sort of story would be floating and I told Caulfield I had no knowledge of it and I 

did not believe it.

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Baker. Thank you, Senator Weicker. It is 12:20 now. The chairman found it necessary to leave for other important business. I would like to continue with Mr. McCord to

• finish the questioning with Senator Montoya, which I hope we can conclude around 12:30. And then to ask Mr. McCord to retu rn at 2, when the committee will reconvene when I understand that both the , majority and minority counsels may have some additional questions, but I hope we are coming close to the end of your rath er extended 

testimony.

Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCord, with respect to your suspicion th at your phone had been tapped at your home did you conduct any investigation around your premises to determine whether there was actually a phone tap?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And what did you find?

Mr. McCord. I had some equipment in September 1972 tha t normally when you go through a particular procedure with it if there is an extension, a telephone extension off of the phone you are testing or if certain types of devices are being used on the line there is an alarm tha t is sounded somewhat like a buzzer and I would make these tests periodically through the fall of the year and it would go into the alarm during some of the tests. There were also many phone calls tha t had some very unusual things would occur when a call would come in in which we would hear an extension be picked up shortly 

after the call and other things.

Senator Montoya. Permit me to ask you this question. Then, on the basis of your investigation, are you concluding definitely tha t 

your phone had been tapped?

Mr. McCord. I had no doubt then, sir, and I have no doub t now.

Senator Montoya. Were you also under the impression tha t as you spoke to other parties tha t your conversations may have been

* recorded during the time you communicated with anybody?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator M ontoya. About this case?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, about this case.

1 Senator Montoya. On how many occasions did you suspect this

or were you certain that this occurred?

Mr. McCord. I would say a t least a half dozen times, perhaps more during September and October, particularly, of 1972.

Senator Montoya. And when you mentioned the occurrence of these things to Mr. Caulfield, I believe you indicated th at you cited 

only two instances?

Mr. McCord. I referred to the two specific calls I was concerned about bu t I told him also about all these other things th at had been happening tha t led me to believe that the phone was tapped.
228

Senator Montoya. Did you complain to anyone else?

Mr. McCord. I made a lot of complaints to my lawyer in terms of 

filing motions, to Mr. Bittman when I discussed it with hi m . These motions went in the record.

Senator Montoya. Did you allege these occurrences in your 

motions?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, with respect to your statements in your 

previous testimony tha t you were under the impression tha t the 

President knew of the clemency offer, would you please refresh my 

memory as to the actual conversations tha t led you into this belief?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. The information that, and knowledge th at •

led me to believe stemmed with conversations, ste mm ed from con­ versations with Mr. Liddy—Gordon Liddy—in January and February 

of 1972, in which he told me about the meetings with the Attorney ,

General in the Attorney General’s offices with Mr. Dean present in 

which the operation was deliberately stated at length t hat the process 

and consequence of the operation were discussed by those present, 

presumably meaning the advantages and disadvantages of them in 

what appeared to be the deliberate consideration, careful consideration, given to the operation by the Attorney General. I believe I 

stated that there was a 30-day delay which to me seemed quite 

significant. I believe I stated that the Attorney General was in my 

opinion, a very decisive man.

Senator Montoya. Mr. McCord, I do not know whether you understood my question.

Mr. McCord. All right, sir.

Senator Montoya. But we are going back to January of 1972, in 

relating what transpired there. My question was: What led you to 

believe t ha t the offer of clemency had the endorsement or approval of 

the President?

Mr. McCord. I am sorry, sir. I misunderstood the question. The 

state ment from Mr. Caulfield to me.

Senator Montoya. Will you relate those statements again?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Caulfield stated tha t he was carrying the message of Executive 

clemency to me.

Senator Montoya. Did he state so specifically?

Mr. McCord, le s, sir. “From the very highest levels of the White 

House,” these were his exact words.

He stated tha t the President of the United States was in Key *

Biscayne, Fla., tha t he already had been told of the forthcoming 

meeting with me. This was, I believe, on Friday, January 12, tha t 

the President had been told about the forthcoming meeting with me 

and would be immediately told of the results of the meeting. <

Senator Montoya. Did you check with Mr. Liddy after your 

meetings to ascertain whether or not the offer and your response had 

been communicated to the President?

Was there any followup on your part?

Mr. McCord. With Mr. Liddy, sir?

Senator Montoya. With Mr. Caulfield.

Mr. McCord. Mr. Caulfield? I would like to answer the question 

this way, if I may.
229

He told me that the results of the meetings would be communicated 

with the President, tha t meeting of January 12, t ha t Friday, tha t the 

results of the meeting he and I were then having, was then having 

would be communicated to the President, and he said, “I may have a 

message to you at our next meeting from the President himself.” This 

is an exact quote.

Senator Montoya. Did you ever receive a message through Mr. 

Caulfield purporting to be a communication from the President?

Mr. McCord. He came back to me a t subsequent meetings discussing Executive clemency and a large number of other m atters. He did 

not specifically state tha t the President said them.

Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned that you received a note 

in your box from Mr. Caulfield which was signed “Jac k” . You also 

mentioned a letter that you wrote to Mr. Caulfield which you addressed 

“Dear Jack ”.

Now, were you on a first-name basis with Jack Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. How long have you known him?

Mr. McCord. I first m et him when he contacted me about the job 

at the Committee To Re-Elect the President in September. T hat was 

my first meeting with him, the first time I met him.

Senator Montoya. Was he the only one connected either with the 

White House or the committee to ask you to come to work?

Mr. McCord. No, sir, the first person tha t contacted me conveyed 

a message to me tha t—the first person was an individual in the 

Secret Service tha t I had known and he said tha t there was a possibility of a position open in campaign security work during the 1972 

campaign and did I have any interest. My answer was—this gentleman 

called me by phone in September 1972, in about a 1-, 2-minute 

conversation. My answer was tha t I would have liked to have heard 

more about it.

He said, well, you may be getting a call. I shortly did receive a call 

from Mr. Caulfield.

Senator Montoya. Who was th at person in the Secret Service?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Alfred Wong.

Senator Montoya. Now, going to the matter of receiving reports 

from the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, I 

do not want to belabor this point, but how many reports did you 

receive from this Division?

Mr. McCord. I have a little b it of trouble answering this question, 

because, Senator, the number of meetings I had with him I could 

probably guess at. The number of reports I saw there, separate 

individual reports, would be a sizable number and I could not estimate.

Senator M ontoya. How many meetings did you have with him?

Mr. McCord. It seems to me the meetings began in late May 1972, 

and continued until close to June 17. I was gone a portion of tha t 

period to Miami, Fla.

Senator Montoya. So how many meetings would you say that is?

Mr. McCord. I would estimate a half dozen.

Senator Montoya. And how many reports did you see; more or 

less?

Mr. McCord. Probably 25 or so.

Senator Montoya. How many copies of reports did you take back 

with you?
230

Mr. McCord. I took none back with me, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you make any notes?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. And what were these reports about generally?

I do not want to go into the specifics.

Mr. McCord. About planned violence in Washington and in Miami,

Fla., specifically in connection with the Republican National Convention, some in connection with the Democratic National Convention, in which there were plans to forge the college press credentials 

that I have referred to.

Senator Montoya. Who did you deal with at the Internal Security 

Division? *" •

Mr. McCord. Mainly, Mr. Lisker, Joel Lisker.

Senator Montoya. Did you deal with others?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Martin.

Senator Montoya. Now, did you have any access to any FBI 

reports?

Mr. McCord. Some of the material which I saw was referred to or 

identified as FBI material.

Senator M ontoya. By whom?

Mr. McCord. I believe Mr. Lisker.

Senator Montoya. Did you check these particular reports and did 

you see any attribution to the FBI on the face of the reports?

Mr. McCord. Yes sir, some of them.

Senator Montoya. Another question tha t I want to clear up. You 

mentioned the Las Vegas trip. You mentioned tha t there were two 

trips made, either by Mr. Liddy or Mr. Hunt—which was it?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Liddy.

Senator Montoya. One was to case the Greenspun office to determine whether or not a break-in could take place. Is that correct?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir. I understood both trips were for tha t 

purpose.

Senator Montoya. All right. Was there any actual break-in?

Mr. McCord. I do no t know of any, sir.

Senator Montoya. And you went to work for the Republican 

National Committee in October and you worked with them and for 

them until January, is th at correct, January 1972?

Mr. McCord. No sir, the relationship continued until June 1972.

Senator M ontoya. Then you were on their payroll at $600 a month?

Mr. McCord. Approximately.

Senator Montoya. A ou had n’t mentioned this before, because I *

interrogated you about the payroll at the CRP. You were on their 

payroll, too, were you not?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I mentioned these matters in the executive 

session to the investigators and I apologize if I appeared to mislead you. *

Senator Montoya. What was your salary with the CR P from 

Jan uar y until June 17?

Mr. McCord. Gross salary was-----

Senator Montoya. On a monthly basis.

Mr. McCord. Monthly basis, the net pay was about $1,250 a 

month.

Senator Montoya. Who employed you at the Republican National 

Committee?
231

Mr. M cCord. Mr. Barry Mountain.

Senator Montoya. What is his capacity there or what was his 

capacity at that time?

Mr. McCord. Director of administration.

Senator Montoya. And how Jong did you work for the Republican 

National Committee again?

Mr. McCord. 1 was on their payroll through some part of J une, 

approximately the middle.

Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned also tha t in December, 

some of you or all the defendants got together somewhere for a s trategy 

meeting with respect to the trial. Is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. I can’t recall tha t testimony, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you get together at any time in Decem ber 

or before the trial with respect to a trial strategy?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir, I did.

Senator Montoya. With the other defendants?

Mr. McCord. No sir, only a general discussion with Mr. Barker 

a day or two before the trial.

Senator Montoya. And did you discuss anything there with respect 

to the offer of clemency or any help from the individuals at the White 

House or in Government or at the CRP?

Mr. McCord. I can recall some conversations tha t took place at 

this meeting, at which Mr. Barker was talking about pleading guilty 

or not plead guilty. I can’t be sure whether Executive clemency was 

mentioned at tha t point in time. I think now it was.

Senator Montoya. By whom?

Mr. McCord. By Mr. Barker, stating tha t Executive clemency 

had—he understood it had been mentioned by Hunt or promised to 

Hunt.

Senator Montoya. And were you in constant touch with Mr. Hu nt 

during the course of the trial?

Mr. McCord. Not contact as such. I saw him during the first week 

of the trial, before he pled guilty. I did not see him thereafter.

Senator Montoya. Now, there was an article, a statement by Mr. 

Caulfield on Saturday, and I will read this statement quoting him. It 

was a press statement:

I have briefly reviewed Mr. McCord’s statem ent before the Senate Select 

Committee, and while i t does not fully reflect my best recollection of the even ts 

which took place between he and I during Jan uar y of this year, it is true that I

met w ith Mr. McCord on three occasions in J anuar y and conveyed to him cer tain 

messages from a high White House official.

Now, do you have any dispute with tha t statement?

Mr. McCord. Do I have any what, sir?

Senator Montoya. Dispute with tha t statement?

Do you question the accuracy of th at statement?

Mr. McCord. He apparently has a separate recollection than I do, 

sir, from his statement, so there must be some differences of opinion 

as to what was said. I do not know what he might mean at this point in 

time.

Senator Montoya. But in view of his statement, you still sta te 

that what you said to this committee was correct as far as you knew 

and as far as you recall?
232

Mr. McCord. It is accurate and correct to the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Why did you turn down the overtures toward 

Executive clemency?

Mr. McCord. Well, there are a number of reasons. In the first 

place, I intended to plead not guilty. I intended to fight the case 

through the courts of appeal, and I never had any intention of taking 

Executive clemency or pleading guilty, either; both of which were 

usually connected together when the terms were used. In other words, 

if you plead guilty, there will be Executive clemency offered to you.

My basic position was essentially tha t I would not even dispute it, •

either one.

Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Baker. Thank you, Senator Montoya.

[Whereupon at 12:40 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at *

2 p.m., the same day.]

Afternoon Session, Tuesday, May 22, 1973

Senator E rvin. The committee will come to order.

Counsel will proceed.

Mr. Dash. Mr. McCord, I jus t have a few questions. There were 

many questions put to you for the period of your testimony, and I 

just have a few, and I do understand Minority Counsel Thompson 

has some questions.

I think tha t one of the areas that has not been covered is the role 

of the person who was on the other side of the wiretap which you 

installed the end of May 1972. Now, did you employ Mr. Alfred 

Baldwin for that purpose?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. What was his particular assignment with regard to 

monitoring the "wiretap?

Mr. McCord. His assignment was to listen on a radio receiver 

tha t received the transmissions from the Democratic National Committee telephones, in which the electronic devices had been installed 

in connection with the two dates of Memorial Day weekend and 

June 17, 1972.

Mr. Dash. Where was he located when he was doing this monitoring?

Mr. McCord. On the seventh floor of the Howard Johnson Motel 

across the street from the Democratic National Committee a

headquarters.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. McCord, can you see the chart on the easel 

there? [Exhibit No. 12, p. 101.]

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. The drawing purports to show the Howard Johnson ’

on your right and the Watergate Office Building on your left. Now, 

does it represent the room 723 which was used by Mr. Baldwin for 

monitoring of those telephones?

Mr. McCord. Yes, it was.
233

Mr. Dash. And he was just right across the street in doing that?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. In his monitoring how was he recording what he was 

hearing?

Mr. McCord. He was listening with headphones to the conversations tha t were being transmitted and would take down the substance 

of the conversations, the time, the date on the yellow legal-sized 

scratch pad, and then ultimately would type them up a summary of 

them by time, chronological summary, and turn tha t typed log in 

to me and I would deliver them to Mr. Liddy.

• Mr. Dash. Did you deliver them to Mr. Liddy directly?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you were delivering 

those logs th at they were retyped?

Mr. M cCord. I know of at least one instance in which th at occurred 

because I saw them being retyped.

Mr. Dash. Was it your understanding that tha t occurred on more 

than one occasion, even though you yourself may not know?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Dash. What was the purpose of retyping the log, did Mr. Liddy 

explain th at to you?

Mr. McCord. I believe some general explanation, in substance that 

he wanted them in a more final complete form for discussion with Mr. 

Mitchell and whoever else received them.

Mr. Dash. Now, who did this retyping?

Mr. McCord. Sally Harmony, H-a-r-m-o-n-y, who was the secretary to Mr. Liddy at the Committee for the Re-Election of the 

President.

Mr. D ash. Did you have occasion to observe her typing the logs?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. Did you have occasion to talk to her while she was 

doing it?

Mr. McCord. Yes, I did.

Mr. Dash. In tha t conversation you had with Sally Harmony, 

did she give you any indication tha t she understood what she was 

doing when she was retyping that log?

Mr. McCord. Yes, she did.

Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, could you briefly describe, without 

going into any of the contents what a log would be, what actually 

• would be entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type and

then be retyped by Miss Harmony?

Mr. McCord. It would be similar to any other telephone conversation tha t one person might make to another beginning with a stateA ment on his log of the time of the call, who was calling who; a summary

of what was said during the conversation itself, including names of 

persons who were mentioned tha t Mr. Baldwin apparently believed 

were of sufficient significance to set forth in the log.

Mr. D ash. Then it would be true that anybody reading that would 

have no difficulty knowing it came from a telephone conversation?

Mr. McCord. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Dash. I think you testified earlier, and I just wanted to get i t 

clear for the record, tha t your discussions with Mr. Liddy concerning 

meetings he had with the Attorney General, indicated th at Mr.
234

Liddy was actually meeting with the Attorney General with regard 

to this operation?

Mr. McCord. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. All the way up to what time, what was the last date 

that Mr. Liddy indicated tha t he had a meeting with the Attorney 

General regarding this particular bugging operation?

Mr. McCord. My best recollection is immediately before June 17 

during—I would estimate, during tha t week, immediately preceding 

June 17.

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Liddy indicate what the nature of tha t meeting 

was? •

Mr. McCord. All I can recall at this point is some conversation, 

as a general conversation to the effect that “We discussed getting 

ready for the operation th at is coming up” and I think just the overall 

planning for the operation.

Mr. Dash. Going back very briefly to the information that you 

were getting from the Internal Security Division, was your trip to 

Miami related in any way to the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Veterans Against the War in Vietnam?

Mr. McCord. No.

Mr. Dash. Was any of the investigation tha t you engaged in with 

regard to that group related to the Department of Justice investigation?

Mr. McCord. In Miami, you mean?

Mr. Dash. Or any other place.

Mr. McCord. I am sorry, would you mind restating that question?

I am not sure I quite followed.

Mr. Dash. I think in your testimony you indicated tha t information you were receiving from the Inte rnal Security Division and 

other information related in some respects to activities of the Veterans 

Against the War in Vietnam?

Mr. M cCord. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Was your activity in getting tha t information for any 

investigation you were conducting on behalf of the committee 

related in any way to any investigation the Department of Justice 

was making of the same group?

Mr. McCord. If by that it is meant tha t whatever information 

I was acquiring separate and apart from the Internal Security Division was being transmitted to them the answer would be “No.” I t was 

a one-way street, it was at tha t time. •

Mr. Dash. Now, you have named in the second break-in in the 

Watergate four persons—in addition to the involvement of Mr.

Liddy and Hunt and you—named Mr. Barker, Mr. Martinez, Mr.

Sturgis, and Mr. Gonzales. I think you also mentioned that in the 4

first break-in there were three additional persons.

Could you name them for the record, please?

Mr. McCord. I don’t know that I know the names for certain.

I have been shown some photographs by the FBI, if you want me to 

relate that.

Mr. Dash. Have you identified photographs of persons wrho did 

accompany you in the first time?

Mr. McCord. I have seen two photographs of men that I believe 

were in tha t first operation.
235

Mr. Dash. As a result of tha t identification did you then learn 

what their names were?

Mr. McCord. I heard the names, the names tha t I originally— what I am trying to say, the names I originally heard were apparently not the true names so I can’t associate the two together tha t way bu t the photographs, one individual was, I believe, t hat I made a probable identification was a Mr. Felipe Diego, and the other name associated with the photograph that I identified was a Mr. Reinaldo Pico.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. McCord, I have placed at your table a tele­ phone which is not connected to anything. What I would like you to

• do, because you testified to the particular bugging operation of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, if you would demon­ strate to the committee the manner in which you placed the so-called 

bug in the telephone.

* I would like to ask the party who has the custody of the receiver to 

please take the receiver over to the table.

Mr. McCord. My counsel asked for assurance tha t I will not be 

prosecuted on this installation.

Mr. Dash. As I said, the telephone is not connected and no conversation is involved. Now, I also will show you an item which was entered as an exhibit, [Government exhibit 16(b)] at the trial, and I understand was taken from either your possession or in the vicinity of where you were when you were arrested. I think it is a miniature transmitter in a telephone 

and I ask you to identify that.

Mr. McCord. Yes; I believe this is the one entered into evidence.

Mr. Dash. Now, will you identify exactly what tha t is?

Mr. McCord. This is a radio, essentially a radio transmitter which is powered by the power within the telephone system, the telephone line itself, and that transmitter is, was connected or was for the purpose of being connected into the telephone itself for the purpose of transm itting those conversations over the phone.

Mr. Dash. When that transmitter is connected in the telephone, is 

it capable of picking up both sides of the conversation?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Dash. And broadcasting it to another place?

Mr. McCord. Yes; it is.

Mr. Dash. Will you just demonstrate, not actually attaching it, how you would place tha t in the telephone that is before you?

» Mr. McCord. The cover would be taken off the telephone-----

Mr. Dash. Could you lift the base a little so tha t the Senate committee can see what you are doing?

Mr. McCord. The cover would be taken off the telephone and two 

, of the wires connected with this would be interconnected in series

with the wiring within the phone itself. This is the antenna which would be concealed underneath the telephone mechanism. The device itself would be likewise concealed under some portion of the telephone mechanism—there are three or four places tha t it could be put—and essentially, th at is the technique 

of the installation.

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, since you are talking about a tran s­ mitter in a broadcasting unit, would there be any wires going from tha t telephone to the receiving unit which Mr. Baldwin was monitor­ ing so th at he could hear what was going on in tha t telephone?

96 -2 96— 73— bk. 1------16
236

Mr. M cC ord. No; it would be in effect, a small rad io tra nsmitting 

sta tio n, comparable, perha ps, to a very sma ll scale of a radio sta tio n 

tran sm itting to a receiver in you r home.

Mr. D ash. I will ask y ou to look a t the kind of large re ceiver which 

was placed on the table which was entered int o the tri al as an exhibit 

[Govern me nt exh ibit 105] and is th at the receive r th at was used by 

Mr. Baldwin over a t the H ow ard Jo hnson Hot el?

Mr. M cCord. Yes.

Mr. D ash. I tak e it th at y ou iden tified it as his?

Mr. M cCord. Yes.

Mr. D ash. Now, could you tell us the value of the re ceiver and w ha t 

its p oten tia l is?

Mr. M cC ord. It is a very sophistica ted and complex receive r with 

wh at is called a v ery high degre e of sensitivi ty; th at is, it is capable of 

picking up very w eak transm issions. Normally , it sells fo r abo ut $6,500. 

This one, I believe, is a used version of tha t. I t is capa ble of cov ering a 

wide span of megacycles—kilocycle-megacy cle range, alm ost to the 

very lo west or the ve ry high est rad io transm ission can nor ma lly opera te 

on.

Mr. D ash. W hat was the ran ge of the little tran sm itte r th at you 

would i nstall in the tele phone? H ow fa r w ould i t tra ns mit?

Mr. M cCord. It is a v ery hard thing to state specifically because i t 

dep end s on so many variables. But the distan ce from the W ate rgate 

from the Demo cra tic Na tio nal Co mm itte e he ad qu arters to the mo tel 

room a t the H oward Johnson Mote l, th at transm ission for this pa rti cu ­

lar type instr um en t is rece ived very well by thi s type of receive r and 

comes throu gh very well. In line of sigh t, th at range, th at distance, is a 

nor mal transm ission for a rad io tran smi ssio n.

Mr. D ash. You have testifi ed th at the receiver is a ve ry sensitiv e 

receiver. Why was it neces sar y in this case to use a very sensitive 

receiver?

Mr. M cC ord. Because the ob jec t was to, the technical objective 

was to ge t the very minim um transm ission possible ou t of th at pa rticula r loc ation so th at othe r persons cannot pick up those tra ns ­

missions in other loca tions. W ith in the Wash ing ton are a, it is a very 

high de ns ity are a of transm ission s and it would be ve ry easy under 

normal circ umstance s for someone else to also he ar the con versation 

being intercepted unless it was an e xtre mely low-po wered transmi ssio n.

Mr. D ash. Was th at to avo id detection?

Mr. M cCord. Yes.

Mr. D ash. And was the micro phone to be used —tran sm itt er —a 

low-pow ered tra ns mitter?

Mr. M cCord. Very low.

Mr. D ash. And ye t you were able throu gh th at rec eiv er to ge t a 

very cle ar sound when it was mon ito red b y M r. Baldwin?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, it t ook us ab ou t 2 d ays to find it. I t was so low 

in o ut pu t, so weak a sig nal, th at i t too k a g reat deal of w ork, yes.

Mr. D ash. Now, once you p u t such a tra ns mitt er in the telephone 

as you i nd ica ted , you could conceal it so th at i t is no t rea dily visible, 

even tho ug h the telephone was ope ned. Once you pu t it in the re with 

no wires attach ed , using the current of th e phone itself, how long could 

th at tra ns m itte r actua lly tra ns m it to th at receiver? Over wh at p eriod 

of time?
237

Mr. McCord. Under normal circumstances, a lot of variables again, such as the quality of the components, it would transm it for some 

months. Perhaps a year or so.

Mr. Dash. Perhaps a year?

Mr. McCord. Um hm.

Mr. Dash. And this therefore could have gone on way beyond 

Jun e 17, could it not?

Mr. McCord. That is right.

Mr. Dash. Now, when Mr. Spencer Oliver, who we understand, whose phone was one of the phones on which such a device was used, or Mr. O’Brien’s phone or one of the extensions was used, if he lifted his telephone to make a conversation with that kind of device which you have just described installed in it, would he hear a deadening on the line or would he know or have any indication tha t his phone was 

bugged or tapped?

Mr. McCord. He would receive no indication.

Mr. Dash. Therefore, is it your testimony that a professionally tapped telephone does n ot give any indication to the person who is 

using the telephone t ha t his phone is tapped?

Mr. McCord. There is a yes and no answer, depending on the type of devices installed and the professionalism of them, and some other 

things; yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And actua lly using a transmitter in a telephone isn’t 

the typical way of tapping a telephone, is tha t correct?

Mr. McCord. This is correct.

Mr. Dash. This was a very special procedure tha t you used for this 

particular occasion?

Mr. McCord. Yes, it was 1

.

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. I have about two, which will be the first for this 

day. Who made arrangements for you to receive what you received on a daily basis, the documents from the Internal Security Division of the 

Department of Justice?

Mr. McCord. Mr. Robert Mardian made the contact with, as I understood it, with the Internal Security Division, where he had 

formerly worked.

Senator E rvin. At tha t time you made the contact, he was working with the Committee To Re-Elect the President, having retired from 

his Justice Department job?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. He had been the head of t ha t particular Division in the Department of Justice before he was transferred to the 

committee?

Mr. McCord. So I understood, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, when Mr. Caulfield came to see you, or rather, when he met you on three occasions and took you out twice on the George Washington Parkway and one time toward Virginia, was he driving his own automobile or a Government-owned automobile?

Mr. McCord. I believe he was driving his own automobile, I am 

sure, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Th at is all.
238

Mr. Thompso n?

Mr. T hompson. Yes, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. Mc Cord, I know you h ave been here a long time and I apprecia te th at fac t, but I do have a couple of ra th er point ed que stio ns I 

would lik e to ask you. I don’t f an cy myself in a role as a pro sec uto r or 

a defense law yer, bu t I feel there are a couple of thin gs th at I need to 

ask you ab ou t, in que st of clarity and I plan to do so in th at spirit.

I am sure you understand.

Mr. Mc Cord, there was some testim ony, some previo us testim ony 

con cerning the use of tape on th e locks of the doors of the Demo cratic 

Nationa l Com mittee, and you testified , I believe last Fr iday , in re- •

sponse to a que stio n by S en ato r Ba ker:

“W ho placed the tap e on the locks of the door on the second 

occasion?”

You res ponded: “I do no t kn ow .” *

The second occasion being the June 17 break- in as oppo sed to the 

firs t occasion, which I believe you said was May 27.

According to the civil dep osition th at you gave on April 30, 1973, 

in a su it brought by the De mo cra tic Na tional Co mm itte e against 

you and others, on page 167 of th at deposition, yo ur tes tim ony is 

rel ate d as follows:

The reason for checking it—first of all—on the way over, I checked the backdoor of the DNC of the Watergate Hotel office building base ment level. The 

reason for checking it is th at at the earlier meeting, earlier th at evening, it had 

been decided th at I would be elected to go into the DNC and tap e the doors, so 

there could be read y access for the m to get in and the man at the locksmith 

wouldn’t have to pick a series of doors to get in. I did that. It took perhaps ten 

minutes.

Could you explain th at des cription for us?

Mr. M cCord. Sure, because I believe yo ur question was who 

tap ed the lock on the second occasion. Th ey were tape d— at least I 

understood the questio n th at wa y— the June 17, they were tap ed on 

two different occasions and my response, if it was no t clear, was 

intended to conv ey this idea, th at I tap ed it on the firs t occasion th at 

they were tap ed on the eve ning of June 17 and th at someone else 

did th e second tap ing that evenin g, perhap s an hour or so la ter . A mong 

the othe r four men, the othe r fou r defend ants, just which one did so,

I do n’t know . Tha t is w hat I was try ing to convey.

Mr. T hompson. I see.

How man y doors were tap ed on the second time?

Mr. M cCord. I think there were several, because the re are several *

doors th at normally would be tap ed, perhap s a half dozen or more.

There is ab ou t thre e down on the lower level and the n the re are some 

doors up entering the corridors from perhap s the fou rth , fifth, sixth, 

sev enth floors th at I believe were tap ed th at evening. *

Mr. T hompson. Had the tape been removed from those doors?

Mr. M cCord. I do no t know ab ou t the corr idor doors. Th ey were 

no t rem oved when I saw the m on the lower level doors, the three or 

four dow n there.

Mr. T hompson. Of course, there would be no need to retape them 

had not the tap e been rem oved, would there?

Mr. M cCord. Le t us see if I un derst and the que stio n. There would 

be no rea son to ret ape them ?
239

Mr. T hompson. T o retape the doors the second time if the firs t 

tape h ad no t been r emove d.

Mr. M cCord. No, th at is corr ect, th at is correct.

Mr. T hompson. You heard Officer Shoffler, I believe, Mr. McCor d, 

tes tify last week th at wh en the doors were locked at the DN C one 

could ge t ou t of the office buildin g wi thou t a key or witho ut havin g 

the doo r tap ed. Could yo u explain, first of all, wha t was the need to 

tape the doors once you were inside and, secondly , why did no one 

seemingly have the presence of min d to remove the tap e on the B- 2 

level, leaving it the re for the officers to find?

M r. M cCord. Well, I think you alm ost have to see the differen t 

* doors involved to be able to un derst and th at s itu ati on and i t involves

this: There are, there are some stairwells coming do wn off the differen t 

floors and even stairwells off of the differen t floors, six or seven th at

4 coiled down like a rope. T hat is, you may go on do wn into the stairw ell

off of the corridor from one exit and it will go dow n one stairwell 

an d you go around the cor rid or and it will go dow n anoth er one and 

you go down a sep ara te stairwell, the two of the m wind down. Some 

of those doors are a t n ight lock ed from b oth sides, as I recall, so t hat — 

some are not, let me correct th at . Some are locked from the inside. 

Those th at were locked so th at if you were try ing to get ou t of the 

corridor down into a stairwell late at nig ht you could no t get int o 

the stairwell. But you migh t be able to go up a coup le of floors, say, 

to the eighth floor and I think there was a door ope n there, and you 

would have to come down and then go into, say you wa nte d to get 

dow n back to the sixth floor and ge t int o the corridor, go into th at 

door from the stairwell side y ou could get in. So that d oor, for e xample, 

wou ld have to be tap ed if y ou h ad in mind getting ou t in a h ur ry and 

ge tting down, it would ha ve to be tap ed from, you had to pla n it 

from , the stairwell side firs t. Some of thes e other doors locked from 

bo th sides. I t is a pr etty ------

M r. T hompson. I believe you a lmo st ha ve to be there to unders tan d. 

M r. M cCord. T hat is correct.

Mr. T hompson. Is this the reason the eighth floor door was tap ed 

on the 17th?

Mr. M cCord. Yes, sir.

M r. T hompson. Did you pers onally check ou t the doors, check 

the situatio n to det erm ine wheth er or no t the tap e would be needed 

in parti cu lar doors whe n you went in to tap e those doors or did

b

 ' anyone c heck that?

Mr. M cCord. Well, we knew from the previous ope ration on 

Me mo rial Day th at they would hav e to be tap ed if you were going 

to plan to leave in a hu rry if you got caugh t the re, for example, if 

the police came in on you before you got in, you would hav e to tap e

■ the doors, otherwise, you could no t be sure th at you could get out.

M r. T hompson. W ha t ab ou t the answer to the second pa rt of my 

qu estio n: You are an experienced man, CI A and FB I, and evide ntly 

the se othe r men were experienced in their own way, and ye t the tap e 

of th e B-2 level, rea dily accessible to any one coming by there to 

check as the officer did, was lef t on the door. You did no t remove the 

tape . Why was th at done and, secondly, why was the risk tak en to 

go back up int o the DNC wi th no means of escape? Ev ide ntly, once 

you were cau ght, after you ha d seen th at someone ha d removed the
240

tape, and for all practical purposes you had to assume t ha t someone 

was aware tha t somebody was trying to get in or had already gotten 

in, why was that decision made to start with? Why was the decision 

made to go back in there after you knew someone had been tampering 

with tha t door?

Mr. McCord. It is a good question, because we had a lot of discussions on it later.

Mr. Thompson. Where?

Mr. McCord. In jail. [Laughter.]

We came by the lower level door tha t originally had been taped, 

assuming th at the tape was still there when you could get right on in 9

without any delay, this is all of the five men together, getting ready to 

go up into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and we 

found tha t tha t tape had been taken off and the door was now locked, 

speaking of the basement level, so we regrouped, so to speak, right »

below the restaurant in the Watergate Hotel and talked over what to 

do and it was agreed that the locksmith and, I believe one or two of the 

men, would go back over and make an effort to pick the lock to get in, 

and tha t—;—

Mr. Thompson. Why? Why was tha t decision reached after you 

knew that someone had detected your being there previously?

Mr. McCord. All right, let me add, the decision was there to send 

the locksmith back over and let him start to work in order tha t there 

not be any more delay in time, and for the other men, Barker and I 

believe one other, go back up to Mr. Hu nt’s room and discuss the 

situation with Mr. Hu nt and Mr. Liddy in terms of whether they feel 

what we should do next, should they go ahead and pick them, try to 

pick the lock and get on in or should we call it off, and for me to go back 

over to the motel and wait for a word on what was to be done; understood, well understood, this was a calculated risk in sending them back 

over to begin picking the lock but, on the other hand, the more time 

tha t went by, the fewer people there would be around the Watergate 

Hotel and the more conspicuous the men would be and, therefore, tha t 

had some risk in terms of delaying the matter any further. So we sort 

of decided to go in both directions—to go ahead and start to go in, to 

go back up and talk it over with Hun t and Liddy and see what they 

wanted to do.

Mr. Thompson. Who made the ultimate decision as to whether or 

not you were going back in tha t night? You say that there was a risk in 

waiting, you mean waiting any later tha t night or waiting for another +

day or another week or what?

Mr. McCord. Well, there were risks in waiting any longer that 

night, for example.

Mr. Thompson. Why not call the whole thing off and come back in 

2 or 3 nights?

Mr. McCord. Well-----

Mr. Thompson. It looks like a pretty good idea now, doesn’t it?

Mr. McCord. It does, very good. [Laughter.]

It was made on the basis that, first of all, as I say any further delay 

in time made five men stand out that much more that night, any delay 

of time that night, made five men stand out tha t much more around 

the hotel and around the Watergate Office Building and therefore 

rather than to lose that time the decision was to go both ways, to send 

the locksmith over and start to work with it and send the other men
241

over to talk with Liddy and Hunt to see whether or not they wanted to 

proceed or not.

Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you another question in regard to another subject. As I understand your testimony, it has been that I 

believe on July 27 of 1972, you received the first payment from Mrs. 

Hu nt of $15,000?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Thompson. And tha t was to do you through November, I 

believe?

Mr. McCord. Right.

Mr. Thompson. That you received some additional money in 

* December which was to be payment in advance for the rest of December and January?

Mr. McCord. Yes; tha t is correct.

w Mr. T hompson. Do you recall the date of the payment in December?

Mr. McCord. I believe it was the 2d of December.

Mr. Thompson. December 2d?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned the letter tha t you wrote to Mr. 

Caulfield, the anonymous letter in December. Do you recall the date 

in December of th at letter?

Mr. McCord. No; I do not. I remember the week which was the 

week following Christmas, December 25.

Mr. T hompson. The latter part of December?

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Thompson. So the letter to Mr. Caulfield was after you received the No. 2 payment?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. W hat was that payment, how much money was it?

Mr. McCord. It was one of the 2 m onths’ payments for the salary, 

for December and for, I think, additional money, $13,000 for lawyers’ 

fees.

Mr. Thompson. Was there some question in the latter part of 

November or during December as to whether or not additional money 

would be forthcoming?

Mr. M cCord. Yes; there was. I t was a question on H un t’s pa rt and 

Mrs. Hunt communicated that question to me, and I think tha t 

probably had something to do with the letter tha t he wrote and that 

I have described, a three-page letter that was read to one of the law-

« " ye r s

-

Mr. Thompson. Did it have anything to do with your letter tha t you 

wrote to Caulfield?

Mr. McCord. None whatsoever. My letter had to do with my 

anger about this plan to lay this operation on CIA, and I think the 

• letter sort of indicates that.

Mr. Thompson. Mr. McCord, you have stated tha t you were concerned from sometime shortly before the trial I believe up until recently, tha t the trial was a sham, that the trial was fixed, th at there 

was a miscarrying of justice, and I assume you are talking essentially 

about the fact th at some of the right people were not being prosecuted, 

and you were not being free to arrive at full disclosure by the Government; is that correct?

Mr. McCord. If I can state it more precisely it was the fact there 

was perjured testimony at the trial itself by a key witness, and tha t
242

key witness was Mr. Jeb Magruder, his testimony was perhaps the 

most important testimony in the whole trial.

Mr. Thompson. Pardon me jus t a moment, the basis on which you 

say his testimony was perjured, I assume, has to do with what Mr.

Liddy has told you about Mr. Magruder; is th at not correct?

Mr. McCord. Told me before June 17 and the comments we exchanged at the time Mr. Liddy—excuse me—Mr. Magruder was up on 

the stand stating that he knew nothing about the Watergate operation 

prior to June 17.

Mr. Thompson. So the answer to my question is “ Yes.”

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. Thompson. All right. Go ahead; tha t was the basis of your *

statement.

Mr. McCord. No, not quite, not completely. There is also a factor 

tha t Mr. Magruder in addition to testifying tha t he knew nothing w

about the W atergate operation and his testimony being probably tha t 

of the most important witness in the trial, also could have named others 

who were principal in the case, specifically Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean, 

according to the information I had from Mr. Liddy in which I had no 

doubt about.

Mr. T hompson. You could have, too, could you not?

Mr. McCord. I could have too; right.

Mr. Thompson. Why didn’t you?

Mr. McCord. I will be glad to talk tha t one over, too. Why did 

I not get on the stand?

Mr. Thompson. Yes.

I think tha t is a fair question. It seems to me again according to the 

statement of your attorney there at the time, Mr. Alch, your defense 

was essentially as you stated to Senator Baker here today, tha t you 

felt that because of violence in the country and so forth, tha t actually 

it posed a threat, possibly to your life and the lives of other people, 

that is in the record according to Mr. Alch.

Mr. McCord. Sure.

Mr. Thompson. I take it your defense was not that at tha t time 

part of your motivation was, as you have stated here before this 

committee tha t you thought you had the right possibly to go ahead 

without being in any legal difficulty because of Mr. Mitchell’s involvement, part of Mr. Dean’s involvement, which is part of what you told 

us. Evidently you didn’t tell Mr. Alch that; Mr. Alch didn’t use tha t 

as pa rt of your defense. I am wondering in answer to those questions, 

why didn’t you come forward at tha t time and why didn’t you tell *

Mr. Alch what could have been an even more significant p art of your 

defense at th at time.

Mr. McCord. Well, I h ad many conversations with Mr. Alch about 

the facts in the case, and the other principals involved and the decision 4

of mine as to when to come forward with the information which I did 

as basically my decision and it was a day at a time decision on my part 

as to when was the proper issuance time to tell the facts on this case.

Mr. Thompson. You waited until-----

Mr. McCord. I waited until I had an opportunity to tell, No. 1, 

a man I believed to be an honest judge, Judge Siric a; No. 2, to tell this 

committee so there would be a proper forum for all of the facts to come

out and to be discovered.
I felt, for example, during the trial itself that if I came forward and 

told the story at this point in time, in light of the nature of the information I had which some people have described as hearsay or secondhand, the rules of evidence as I understand it may have excluded some of t hat information being provided in testimony, or at least I felt tha t all of the facts would not be developed during the trial if I got up on the stand and related them. To me it was a ma tter of when was the right time to tell it and this was a most difficult decision. It was not influenced by money or anything else. It was influenced by basically my own reasoning as to when was the right time to tell the story so that there would be an adequate forum for development of all of the facts in this case. I think my decision has been the right one. I think I told Judge Sirica first and I told this committee second and I am fully convinced t hat was a right decision.

Mr. T hompson. Was there any doubt in your mind tha t you would come forward at that time to Judge Sirica, tha t he would not have taken the appropriate action tha t the ma tter would not have been handled? According to the trial transcript Judge Sirica practically pleaded with anyone to come forward and tell the truth . He states 

here on page 1499 of the trial transcript: “If they know anything about this case, if they want to talk to the grand jury it is n ot too late. That is up to them. I mean I always operate under the theory tha t the truth never hurts anybody. If they wait until they are convicted and then they decide to talk well, I can’t say anything about tha t b ut I think if they are going to talk, if there is anything in their mind along those lines, the time for them to 

do it is during the trial.”

He was stating that.

Mr. McCord. Yes.

Mr. T hompson. Was there any doubt in your mind tha t you would be compromised in any way if you went forward and told Judge 

Sirica back in January?

Mr. McCord. Not Judge Sirica in the least. He is the lone man I 

felt like I could depend on in this case.

Mr. Thompson. He is also the man who would be sentencing you 

shortly.

Mr. McCord. That is true, too. That is true, too, b ut what I am saying about my belief is the man is honest and genuine but you asked my reasons, and my reasons were the ones I have stated, and I think tha t the decision as to the timing of saying what I did was right and I don’t regret that decision; I believe I was upset, as I told you earlier, tha t quite frankly the facts would not have come out and been devel­ oped by this committee in the way tha t they have.

Mr. Thompson. But you were, of course, receiving money during 

this period of time also, were you not?

Mr. McCord. I was receiving money until December 2, but quite frankly, as I told the people who were sending me it, it had no bearing on what I was saying or was going to say.

Mr. Thompson. You told Mr. Caulfield t ha t there was a possibility tha t you could get your case thrown out of court because of a wire­ tap. Did tha t enter into your decision to hold out?

Mr. McCord. No.

Mr. Thompson. And not come forward?
244

Mr. McCord. No, it did not.

Mr. T hompson. Were you not trying at tha t time with Mr.

Caulfield to get him to get the Government to admit an illegal wiretap 

so your case would be thrown out?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes. Let me repeat what I said before so things 

will be as clear as I know how to make them.

I said I thought the case was a sham, tha t the trial was a sham, 

because of the perjured testimony and because of withholding a pile 

of material, No. 1 by gentlemen who would be hurt, which would 

involve a number of higher-ups in the case, and No. 2, we were not 

getting a fair trial. I have said this in many ways, in fact. I thought w

the fact tha t we ought to have—justice, as far as I was concerned, 

demanded tha t the case be kicked out and started all over again on 

this thing and start all over in a circumstance that, No. 1, we get a 

fair trial. We were not getting a fair trial. Perjury was being committed *

by key witnesses.

Mr. Thompson. You were interested in your fair trial, of course, 

as your constitutional right.

Mr. McCord. For all fair trials.

Mr. Thompson. In your eyes, did Mr. Magruder’s failure to tell 

the truth about it prejudice your case?

Mr. McCord. Of course. If he was a key witness and all other 

testimony seems to fall into place around his testimony and he was 

withholding the names of principals in the case itself, I would say 

that prejudices the case and it puts a completely, totally different 

light on the case.

In other words, the trial itself was appearing to indicate tha t Mr.

Liddy was the sum total of this operation, tha t he was the leader, the 

director, the funder, the whole package, and tha t the case cut off at 

this level. I t did not. Obviously, the case extended much higher.

Mr. T hompson. In other words, Mr. Magruder should have come in 

and implicated higher-ups so th at you would not have to. Is that the 

way his testimony prejudices your case?

Mr. McCord. And he could prove it.

Mr. Thompson. Tha t is the way you looked at that, because—I 

assume there was no controversy over the fact tha t you were caught 

with four other men, huddled behind a desk, with burglary tools on 

you and eavesdropping equipment on you?

Mr. McCord. No argument about that at all but I thought under » any circumstances, at least a man deserves a fair trial. •

Mr. Thompson. Absolutely.

Mr. McCord. And tha t we were not getting it.

Mr. Thompson. Absolutely.

You mentioned your calls in September and October to the Chilian 

Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. Let me ask you this: What was 

the purpose of those phone calls?

Mr. McCord. I think I previously stated—If not I will restate it— 

to try to test-----

Mr. Thompson. Try to test?

Mr. Cord. Try to test the accuracy of the Government’s response 

regarding intercepted conversations of mine. I was concerned tha t 

there had been wiretapping since June 17 of my telephone conversations, and this would provide a test to see if in fact, all the Govern-
245

men t records of the Go vernm ent, some 12 agencies, ha d in fac t been 

sea rch ed; the inferences by the response of the Go vernme nt 12 day s, 

14 days after a mo tion was filed was the re is no thing on the record 

in the Gover nment of any interc eption of Mr. McC ord’s calls an ywhere, and I knew th at as I have stated , it tak es more than 14 day s 

norm ally to search 12 different Go vernm ent agencies for reco rds of 

such telephone calls.

Mr. T hompson. How was this a test, Mr. McCord? Did you thi nk 

•or did you know th at thes e embassies had been bugged?

Mr. McCord. I ha d assu med th at they were.

* Mr. T hompson. You assumed th at they were?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

M r. T hompson. An d you based this assum ption on your motion 

alleging th at you were the sub ject of illegal surv eilla nce?

Mr. McCord. No, th at is n ot quite right. If I left th at impression, 

I did n ot m ean to.

Mr. T hompson. L et me ask you this: If you assumed th at the y M ere 

bug ged, would it be inc orrect to say th at possibly you called those 

emb assies in ord er to more or less pull yourself up by y our own bootstr ap s anti have yo ur con versations interc epted and perhap s get the 

Go vernm ent in a position where it M ould have to den y or admit th at 

tho se embassies were in fac t bugged and, therefo re, might dismiss 

yo ur case on th at basis?

Mr. McCord. Oh, yes, if I ma y answ er yo ur question, oh, yes, I 

stat ed that this mo rnin g. I read it in the sta temen t.

Bu t to finish the rest of the sto ry. Let us suppose th at any calls 

wepe interc epted at an y point in time. The normal procedure Mould 

be for disclosure by the Gover nm ent of those calls in cam era before 

the judge himself and the judg e to determine the relevancy of those 

calls. It Mas clear th at those calls Mere no t relevant to the tria l itself 

and Mere no t going to be ent ere d in evidence . The refo re, the case 

could no t be adjou rne d.

Mr. T hompson. I wan t to in terru pt you at th at point. Pa rdon me 

for inter rup tin g.

Of course, this was a long time aft er the fac t. Did you realize thi s 

point of law at the tim e you called these embassies?

Mr. McCord. Oh, I hav e had a pr et ty clear knowledge of the law 

since J un e 17, th roug h wh at is called jailh ous e lawyers who do as m uch 

» as any body can.

k Mr. T hompson. Did Mr. Liddy advise you ?

Mr. McCord. I think I talk ed with him, yes, quite a few of the m, 

abou t the predica ment we were in. Bu t he did no t discuss this pa rtic ­

ula r point.

Mr. T hompson. W ha t you are say ing is th at at the time you ma de 

these calls, you realize d th at the y Mrould be possibly interc epted . You 

realized even at th at time th at they possibly m ight be irrelevant.

Mr. McCord. I knew they were irrele vant. There was no possibility in it.

But I ha d r ead , to finish the rest of it, I h ad read , for e xample, in the 

mon th before the Dr. Ells berg situatio n, where the Go vernme nt ha d 

for 5 months den ied t h at there Mere any in ter cepti ons of Mr. Ellsb erg’s 

calls o r calls of h is a tto rn ey . Yet, it was not until the defense a ttor ne ys 

req uir ed, req ueste d a court o rder be issued searching the records of 12
246

different agencies and some 30 to 45 days la ter, calls, inter cepted calls 

of Mr. Bou din were then disclosed by th e Go vernm ent showing th at 

calls actua lly ha d been interc epted whe n previously th ey ha d been 

denied.

Mr. T hompson. Calls to these two embassies?

Mr. M cCord. No.

Mr. T hompson. Why did you me ntion these two embassies? W ha t 

ma de you assume t hat these embassies wer e bugged?

Mr. McCord. At rand om .

Mr. T hompson. I beg your p ard on?

Mr. McCord. At random.

Mr. T hompson. You pick ed the m at random ?

Mr. M cCord. Un i hm.

Mr. T hompson. Beca use you rea d in the paper s th at some people 

have alleged in times pa st th at governm ents do thes e sort of things " i

again st one anoth er. Is th at w ha t y ou are saying?

Mr. McCord. Som ethi ng like th at .

Mr. T hompson. Let me ask you anoth er question on an othe r 

sub ject.

I beg yo ur pardon?

Mr. McCord. I believe my at to rn ey says s omething like th at .

Mr. T hompson. These FB I repo rts and In tern al Se curity documents th at we have been talkin g ab ou t now, could you tell me— are 

you talkin g ab ou t classified mate ria l th at is impro per to be diss emina ted to political parties , or are you talkin g ab ou t ma ter ial s th at you 

dissem ina ted to both parties, local police chiefs and thi ngs of this 

natur e? I un de rst an d the FB I does dissem inate a certain am ou nt of 

ma terial. I do no t know ab ou t the Justice Dep artm en t, but perha ps 

you do. Could you give us some ide a as to the na tu re of these doc ume nts th at were talk ed abo ut?

Mr. M cC ord. Of course, Mr. Mard ian , who hea ded th at division, 

could give you an acc ura te stat em en t of the facts. I am dra win g a 

conclusion, and my conclusion now, this is no t only an ap prop ria te 

thing to do, I think it is a very necessary thing to do to bo th parties, 

for exam ple, whe n a con ven tion is forthcoming and the re is violence 

antic ipa ted .

Le t me pu t it a nothe r way. I think to fail to disclose to eit he r pa rty 

prior to such a conven tion where violence is an tic ipa ted and lives 

may be lost is almost crim inal dere liction where it could have b een *

prevented by disclosure of an ything of this typ e, th at ha d the y re- j

ceived it, they perhap s could ha ve taken ste ps to prevent the loss of life 

or destru cti on of property. I thou gh t it was e ntirely a pp ropriat e at th at 

time.

Now , yo ur questio n as to classification. I under stood the ma ter ial 

was, ha d been declassified or was n ot classified. My me mo ry is n ot as "

clear as it should be. Some of it may well have been classified. I do 

no t know. Bu t I felt the prop rie ty of i t was entire ly pro per .

Mr. T hompson. At the time, you did no t feel th at yo u w ere dealing 

with classified doc uments or you were ge tting an ything th at was 

impro per fo r you to get?

Mr. M cCord. I did no t feel the re was anyth ing impro per. Quite 

to the contr ary , as you said, I felt to fail to get it is to fail to get inform ation th at prote cts the lives of people you are charged with 

pro tec ting.
Mr. Thompson. Did you know, or did you have an understanding during this period of time as to whether or not the Democratic Party 

also had this material available to them?

Mr. McCord. I had an understanding tha t the Democratic Party was getting some comparable type of information. From whom they 

got it, through what channels, I do not know.

Mr. Thompson. All right; one more question, Mr. McCord. You mentioned you discussed the logs in connection with jus t what I asked you about a moment ago. To whom were these logs sent? The record is not clear about this and I think in fairness, you should 

set the record straight. Specifically, I refer to a story printed in the Washington Post on one occasion, stating tha t supposedly Mr. William Timmons, Gene Sedam, and Mr. Robert Odle received these logs. Do you know whether or not on any occasion any of these men ever received the results of the wiretaps or the bugging that you were carrying out?

Mr. McCord. I have—am perfectly certain in mv own mind tha t none of them received it. I think something of Mr. Baldwin’s memory was in error if and when he made such a statement. I can understand how he made it at the time. I have no knowledge tha t they did receive it, I do not know whether they did receive it. They certainly did not 

receive it from me.

Mr. Thompson. Do you know if they were involved in any manner 

in this?

Mr. McCord. Absolutely not.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. McCord.

Mr. Chairman, I am finished.

Senator Ervin. Mr. McCord, Mr. Thompson asked you why you 

did not speak earlier. At the time the trial was in progress and until after the trial, you had knowledge or at least information tha t all of the people involved with you, including Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt, were receiving compensation from the Committee To Re-Elect the 

President?

Mr. McCord. I believe that is accurate; yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you had witnesses at the trial and you had seen and heard the deputy director or deputy chairman, or whatever they called him, of the committee, Mr. Magruder, give testimony 

which you believed to constitute perjury?

Mr. McCord. I did, sir.

Senator E rvin. You had been urged by your lawyer to keep silent?

Mr. McCord. Well, my lawyer had communicated to me the 

matter of Executive clemency. I cannot recall that he tried to get me 

to keep silent.

Senator Ervin. Now, Mr. Caulfield had come on the scene three 

times and urged you to keep silent?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you felt at tha t time there was nobody else 

tha t you knew tha t knew anything about this tha t you thought was 

willing to speak a t that time?

Mr. McCord. No other defendants; no, sir.

Senator Ervin. So if you had come out and said anything, you 

would have been the lone voice, would you not, as far as you could see?

Mr. McCord. A two-part answer.
248

I communicated my concern to Mr. Caulfield, a law enforcement 

officer, an assistant director of the Alcohol and Tax Unit.

Senator Ervin. Well, were you influenced by the criticisms of 

certain people who had asked you to postpone making any statements 

until later?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir; I was.

Senator Ervin. I would like to make a statement on behalf of 

myself as an individual and member of the committee, not as the 

chairman. I would like to thank you for your cooperation with the 

committee in its effort to ascertain the facts about this m atter.

Mr. McCord. Thank you, sir. Can I respond?

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Mr. McCord. I think, sir, th at this country at this point in time, 

in having the very distinguished Senators and the staff t ha t we have, 

is extremely fortunate in having such great men here to probe into 

this without fear of where it is going to end and develop all the facts.

I am grateful.

Senator Ervin. You will be available for further testimony if this 

committee decides to call you?

Mr. McCord. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Thank you.

Counsel will call the next witness.

Mr. Dash. Call Mr. John J. Caulfield, please.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Caulfield, stand up, please.

Hold up your right hand.

Do you swear tha t the evidence tha t you give the Senate Select 

Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities to be the truth, the 

whole truth , and nothing b ut the truth , so help you God?

Mr. Caulfield. I do.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Caulfield, as I understand it, you will be 

available to the committee late r if it wants to get you or to get any 

information from you other than tha t which you may give on this 

occasion?

Mr. Caulfield. I understand, sir.

Senator Ervin. Thank you.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman-----

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, there is a vote going on.

Senator B aker. Before we proceed, I note tha t signal lights indicate 

tha t there is a rollcall vote in progress in the Senate. •

Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if the members of the committee ** <

agree, in the interest of time and expediency, that we might consider 

part of the committee going to vote now and part of it going at the 

5-minute warning buzzer and permit this witness to begin, at least, 

with the reading of his statement? I

Senator E rvin. I think that would be very wise. ’

Mr. Dash. Mr. Caulfield, would you for the record, please state 

your full name and address?

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. CAU LFIELD, ACCOMPANIED BY 

JOHN P. SEARS, COUNSEL

Mr. Caulfield. My name is John J. Caulfield, I reside at 5205 

Concordia Street, Fairfax, Va.

Mr. Dash. Are you accompanied at this hearing by an attorney?
249

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, I am.

Mr. Dash. Will the attorney please identify himself for the record?

Mr. Sears. My name is John P. Sears. I am an attorney in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Sears, there is another microphone.

Mr. Caulfield, you have a statement which you wish to either submit 

to the committee or read to the committee?

Mr. Caulfield. I would prefer to read it, Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash. Every member of the committee, I understand, has 

received a copy of that. Would you now commence to read your 

statement?

Mr. Caufield. Yes, sir; I will.

My name is John J. Caulfield. I was born on March 12, 1929, in the 

Bronx, N.Y. I was educated at the local parochial elementary school 

and Rice High School in Manhattan. Upon completion of my high 

school education I received a partial scholarship for basketball at 

Wake Forest University.

After 2 years I was forced to leave college owing to the fact tha t 

my family could not supply enough additional funds for me to continue my education. For a short time thereafter I worked as a bank 

teller before joining the New York Telephone Co. in 1949 as a 

draftsman.

In November of 1950 I was drafted into the U.S. Army where I 

served in the Signal Corps until I was honorably discharged in 

November of 1952. Prior to being drafted, I had taken the civil 

service examination for appointment to the New York City Police 

Department.

While still in the Army, I received notification tha t I had passed 

the examination and on June 1, 1953, I joined the police departm ent 

as a patrolman. In August of tha t year, having graduated from the 

Police Academy, I was assigned to a Bronx precinct where I walked 

a beat and was assigned to a sector car which covered one area of the 

precinct.

Owing to an award which I received for the arrest and conviction 

of a ring of seven people involved in a series of robberies, I was promoted to the position of detective on September 25, 1955. Between 

tha t time and June of 1966, I was assigned to the Bureau of Special 

Services where my duties consisted of monitoring the activities of 

terrorist organizations and frequent assignment to VIP protective 

duties.

My activities in regard to militant terrorist groups consisted of 

monitoring and compiling intelligence on their overt activities, newspaper research, interviewing informants, investigating what relationships existed between these groups, and generally familiarizing myself 

with the progress of their activities. Examples of the groups which I 

investigated included the Communist Party, Cuban militant organizations, as well as a variety of Latin domestic revolutionary groups 

who planned or were suspected of planning various kinds of unlawful 

activities. During this time I received a number of awards in connection 

with my work, some of which were:

1. In 1958, I received a Meritorious Police Award owing to the 

seizure of a store of contraband weapons destined for Ireland. I 

might add parenthetically th at my father has not yet gotten over that.
250

2. In 1959, I received an Excellent Police Award for arrest and 

conviction, in cooperation with the FBI, of the prime Castro agent 

operating in the United States in 1958.

3. In December 1964, I received a Meritorious Police Award for 

the arrest of the perpetrators of the bazooka shelling of the United 

Nations. 4. I n 1965, I received an award for participating in the arrest and 

conviction of a group of French-Canadians and domestic militants who 

had plotted to destroy the Washington Monument, the Statue of 

Liberty, and the Liberty Bell.

My protective duties in regard to VIP assignments consisted, among 

other things, of coordinating the activities of Secret Service agents *

with the New York City Police Department in the political campaign 

of 1960. During the 1960 campaign I was assigned to both candidates 

when they visited New York and I got to know Mr. John Sherwood 9

who was in charge at tha t time of Vice President Nixon’s Secret 

Service detail.

Senator B aker. Mr. Witness, would you suspend for just a moment?

The signal system indicates there is now 5 minutes before the end of 

the rollcall. Might I ask the committee if there is any objection to the witness 

continuing to read this statement in the presence of counsel, even 

though Senator Weicker and I as the only two committee members 

remaining have to go out now and vote. If there is any objection on 

behalf of the committee or on behalf of the witness or his attorney, 

we will have to suspend. B ut inasmuch as your statement is 26 pages 

long and each member has a copy of it, if you have no objection, I 

suggest tha t we proceed.

Mr. Sears. We have no objection.

Mr. Caulfield. May I proceed?

Mr. Dash. Yes sir, proceed on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Caulfield. In May of 1968, I received a letter from Mr. 

Sherwood indicating that there was a possible position in the upcoming 

Nixon campaign for the Presidency for a person to serve in the security 

area. I telephoned Mr. Sherwood and substantiated what he had said 

in the letter and he told me that Mr. H. R. Haldeman would interview 

me if I were interested. Mr. Sherwood arranged an appointment for 

me with Mr. Haldeman at 450 P ark Avenue in New York, which was 

the campaign headquarters, and I was hired. With the assassination of Robert Kennedy in early June, my duties 

changed and ultimately, starting with the end of the 1968 convention,

I became responsible to Mr. John Ehrlichman for being sure tha t the 

staff quarters and working areas of the Nixon campaign traveling 

staff were secure as we moved from city to city during the campaign.

Mr. Ehrlichman was pleased with my work during this time, and on 

election night in 1968 he told me that in view of my wrnrk he would be 

happy to recommend me if I had any interest in obtaining a position 

with the Federal Government hi Washington.

A few days after the election I called Mr. Ehrlichman in Key 

Biscayne, Fla., and told him I wished to be considered for the position 

of Chief U.S. Marshal. He told me th at he would speak to Mr. Haldeman about this and get back to me. Subsequently a meeting was 

arranged with Mr. John Mitchell at the Pierre Hotel in New lo rk
251

at which Mr. Mitchell told me th at while my work was highly thought 

of, there had been a decision made to “semimilitarize” the U.S. 

Marshal’s Office and therefore they were considering a retiring, high, 

military official for this post. Between December 1968 and April of 

1969, I was interviewed for and pursued a variety of possible appointive jobs in Washington.

In late March 1969, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ehrlichman who asked me if I would visit him in his office a day or two later. 

I did so and at tha t meeting he asked if I would be willing to set up a 

private security entity in Washington, D.C., for purposes of providing 

investigative support for the White House. I told him tha t I would 

w

think this over but by the time I had returned home th at evening, I had

decided t hat I did not wish to do this. I called him the next day with 

a counterproposal, namely, tha t I join the White House staff under 

Mr. Ehrlichman and, besides providing liaison functions with various 

* law enforcement agencies, thereby be available to process any investigative requests from the White House. I mentioned to him tha t if he 

agreed with my proposal I would intend to use the services of one Mr. 

Anthony Ulasewicz who was a detective with the New York City 

Police Department nearing retirement. He said he would think 

about it and get back to me.

A few days la ter I received a call from his office asking if I would 

come to Washington to discuss the m atte r and that meeting resulted 

in my appointment to the White House staff on April 8, 1969.

My duties at tha t time consisted of being a White House liaison 

with a variety of law enforcement agencies in the Federal Government, through arrangements worked out with Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. 

Herbert Kalmbach, and Anthony Ulasewicz. Mr. Ulasewicz retired 

from the New York City Police Department and was paid on a 

monthly basis by the Kalmbach law firm, that employment commencing on July 9, 1969. During the next 3 years, first on orders 

from Mr. Ehrlichman and later in some instances, on orders from 

Mr. John Dean, Mr. Ulasewicz, under my supervision, performed a 

variety of investigative functions, reporting the results of his findings 

to the White House through me. I do not fully recall all of the investigations performed in this fashion but have available a list of those 

which I do recall if the committee wishes to examine it.

In July of 1970 Mr. John Dean became counsel to the President 

and Mr. Ehrlichman was named to the position of Presidential Assistant for Domestic Affairs. Thereafter I worked directly for Mr. Dean, 

w but on occasion, Mr. Ehrlichman continued to call upon me directly

for investigative work involving the services of Mr. Ulasewicz.

In the spring of 1971, I began to notice that, for some reason, the 

amount of investigation work handled by Mr. Ulasewicz through me 

had diminished. Much of the talk around the White House was beginning to center more and more on the 1972 Presidential election and 

I began to examine ways in my mind in which I might become involved. Since I had performed security duties in the 1968 election 

campaign, and realizing some of the security demands of a Presidential 

campaign, I wished to become involved in the security area of the 

campaign.

Toward that end, I composed a memorandum suggesting tha t an 

outside security capability be formed to handle the demand of the

96 -2 96 — 73— bk. 1------17
252

1972 campaign. Such an organization would have a capability to perform various security functions to insure the security of the traveling 

staff, the Committee To Re-Elect the President headquarters, the 

convention site and would employ various guards and security people.

In short, I was suggesting the formation of a capability to cover all 

the security needs of a Presidential campaign. The name I gave to 

this suggested operation was “Sandwedge.”

I further suggested that I leave the White House staff and set up 

this security entity, if it were approved, and suggested a budget of 

approximately $300,000 to $400,000. I gave the memorandum to 

Mr. Dean and got the strong impression from him tha t it went to 

higher levels, but I have no knowledge of who saw it. During the *

summer of 1971, I had high hopes that my proposal would be accepted and had one other direct conversation at lunch about its contents with Mr. Dean and with Mr. Jeb Magruder. Between the end 

v

of June and October of 1971, I inquired of Mr. Dean as to the status 

of my proposal on numerous occasions but ultimately was told by 

Mr. Dean that he didn’t think my suggestion was “going anywhere.”

1 was disappointed that my memorandum had been refused. I next 

spoke with Mr. Dean concerning obtaining a position as a personal 

aide to John Mitchell, when be became campaign director. Mr. Dean 

agreed to ask Mr. Mitchell if such a position was available; he did so, 

and on November 24, 1971, he accompanied me to an interview at 

Mr. Mitchell’s office.

I explained to Mr. Mitchell tha t what I wanted was a position 

similar to that occupied by Dwight Chapin in relation to the President 

and tha t in addition to handling the kinds of activities tha t Chapin 

handled for the President, I could be of value to Mr. Mitchell as a 

bodyguard. Mr. Mitchell listened to what I had to say but was noncommittal as to what s tatus I would occupy with him. He said, however, that we would “get tha t all straightened out when I arrived at 

the reelection committee.” He was unsure as to when he would join 

the reelection committee bu t thought that it would be sometime in 

January or February of 1972. I left his office and walked back to the 

White House by myself. Mr. Dean remained and as I was walking 

through Mr. Mitchell’s outer office I noted Mr. Gordon Liddy sitting 

with NIr. Dean evidently waiting to see Mr. Mitchell.

At tha t time, I was sure I had a position with Mr. Mitchell but the 

nature of my duties was quite unsettled. Ultimately, on the 1st of 

March 1972, 1 went to the reelection committee to commence my 

duties there. It soon became clear to me tha t Mr. Mitchell regarded 

me only as a bodyguard which was not what I had had in mind at all.

During March I took two trips with Mr. Mitchell outside of Washington, one brief trip to New York City and the other to Key Biscayne,

Fla. Since Mr. Mitchell regarded me as his personal bodyguard I 

carried a revolver in my briefcase.

By the time the trip to Florida occurred in late March, I was already 

in touch with a friend of mine at the Treasury Department about 

possible employment there. After being in Florida for approximately 

2 to 3 days, I received word that my house in Fairfax, Va., had been 

burglarized and so I flew home to attend to my wife and family. Mr.

Fred LaRue had joined us in Florida after our arrival and upon my 

departure, he asked that I leave my revolver in his possession since
253

Mrs. Mitchell would “feel bet ter” if there were a revolver on the 

premises. I gave my revolver to him and ultimately received it back 

in May of 1972, after LaRue had given it to Mr. James McCord for 

safekeeping upon Mr. LaR ue’s return from Florida.

Once I returned from Florida I performed no more duties of any 

kind for Mr. Mitchell and had formally decided to seek employment 

at the Treasury Department which I ultimately obtained. On April 

28, I started working for the Treasury Department and then became 

Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Enforcement and on July 1, 1972, I became Acting Assistant Director for 

Enforcement, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

In September of 1971, I received a call from Mr. Barry Mountain 

of the Republican National Committee who informed me that John 

Ragan was leaving his duties as security officer for the national 

committee, the Republican National Committee.

He asked me if I knew of anyone who would be interested in the 

position and I said no, but tha t I would check around. I subsequently asked Mr. A1 Wong, a Dep uty Assistant Director of the 

Secret Service, if he knew of anyone to recommend for such a position. 

He told me that he could recommend highly a former colleague and 

retired CIA agent, Mr. James McCord, and gave me his telephone 

number. I then called Mr. McCord and invited him to my office for an 

interview. Mr. McCord provided me with a resume and, as a result of 

my interview with him, I called Mr. Mountain and arranged for Mr. 

McCord to see Mr. Mountain. He did so, and was th ereafter hired by 

the Republican National Committee.

Since before leaving his employment, Mr. Ragan had intended to 

handle security for the Committee To Re-Elect the President offices 

as well as the national committee, it was natural that Mr. McCord 

upon being hired by the national committee was soon interviewed by 

Mr. Robert Odle, the office manager of the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President and in late December or early January Mr. McCord was 

hired by the Committee To Re-Elect the President also. I had been 

consulted about him by the reelection committee and recommended 

him for this position also.

Between our original meeting in September of 1971, and Ju ne 1972, 

Mr. McCord and I grew to be personal friends even though we did 

not physically see each other frequently with the exception of the 

month of March 1972, when I saw him on a daily basis at the Committee To Re-Elect the President. During this period we casually 

discussed on some occasions the possibility of going into business together after the election campaign was over and Mr. McCord felt 

quite beholden to me since he felt tha t I had been responsible for 

placing him at the national committee and the Committee To ReElect the President.

In May of 1972, we had lunch together at the H ay Adams Hotel in 

Washington. I had just begun my assignments at the Treasury Department and we discussed my plans and hopes for expanding my 

duties and he stated at tha t time t ha t I should “keep him in m ind” if 

I were looking for consultant help in carrying on investigations.

In July of 1972, and tha t date may well be wrong and I don’t know 

but my recollection of the date was July of 1972, in Jul y of 1972, 

after his arrest, I had Mr. Ulasewicz call his home and tell him to go
254

to a d esi gnate d public tele phone b oo th near his house whe re I would be 

calling him . I called him at th at public telephone an d sim ply asked 

him if there was an yth ing I cou ld do for him or his fa mi ly at this time 

of perso nal difficulty. No one ha d asked me to make this call and I 

was m otivated e ntirely by m y own person al concern for his conditio n 

an d th at of his family.

To devia te a bit here I noticed Mr. Mc Cord ind ica ted here his 

convers ati on with me on th at occasion coming of a stor y relative to a 

dou ble agent Alfred Baldw in. I do recall him me ntioning th at, I did 

no t whe n I made this statem en t, th at is in fac t corr ect.

I did no t see or hear from Mr. Mc Cord again un til I received an 

anonym ous le tte r a t m y home in D ece mber of 1972. It was ty pewr itten, *

a n ote app rox imately two p arag raph s in len gth and, to the bes t of my 

knowledge said :

Dear Jack—I am sorry to have to tell you this but the White House is bent on *

having the CIA take the blame for the Watergate. If they continue to pursue this 

course, every tree in the forest will fall and it will be a scorched earth. Jack, even 

you will be hurt in the fallout.

I examin ed the letter an d f oun d th at it was postm arke d in Rockville,

Md., and the reb y believed th at the letter was from Jame s Mc Cord 

bec ause he lived in Roc kville. I called Mr. De an ’s office and spoke 

with Mr. Fielding, an as sis tant to Mr. Dean, and read the letter over 

the tele pho ne to him. Th ereafte r I went to Air. Dea n’s office and gave 

him the let ter .

In ear ly Ja nu ar y of 1973, I was att en ding a dru g conference in San 

Clem ent e, Calif, whe n I receive d a telephone call in my hotel room 

fro m Mr. Jo hn Dean. He asked th at I go outsid e the hotel and call 

him ba ck from a pub lic teleph one , which I did. He told me th at he 

ha d a very im po rta nt message which he wante d me to deliver to 

James McCord, th at Mr. McC ord was expecting to he ar from me and 

McC ord would un de rst an d wh at the message referred to. He said the 

message consisted of three things:

1. “A year is a long tim e;”

2. "y ou r wife and fam ily will be tak en care of; ”

3. "you will be reh ab ilitated with e mploy ment when this is all over.”

I im me dia tely realized th at I was being asked to do a very dangerous

thing and I said to Mr. De an th at I did no t think it was wise to send 

me on such a mission sinc e Mr. Mc Cord knew , as man y others did, 

th at I ha d worked closely with Mr. De an and Mr. Eh rlichma n at the 

Whit e Hou se and the refore it might be quickly guessed th at any 

messages I was con veying were pro bably from one of the two. Th e 

rea son I raised this quest ion w ith him was because, ve ry frank ly, I did 

not wish to convey the message . Mr. De an asked if I could think of 

Any othe r way to do it an d I suggested th at perha ps I could get Mr.

Ulasewicz to con vey the message ove r the teleph one anonym ous ly, a

stat in g th at the message ha d come from me.

Mr. De an felt this would be all right so I hun g up the telephone and 

called Mr. Ulasewicz in New York. He did no t wish to convey the 

message at firs t bu t I convinc ed him to do it merely as a m at te r of 

frie ndship to me. Mr. Ulasewicz called Mr. McC ord’s home, and 

pre suma bly , delivere d the same message which Mr. Dean had given 

to me. He then called m e back in California, and reporte d th at he had 

delivere d the message an d th at M r. McC ord’s at titu de had been one of
255

satisfaction. I was glad to hear this since I had felt this probably 

mean t tha t Mr. McCord had been in some stage of negotiation about 

his status and tha t this message had probably relieved his mind.

At this point in time, my impression was tha t obviously there had 

been some negotiations going on between Mr. Dean’s office and Mr. 

McCord in regard to Executive clemency, such negotiations probably' 

being carried on through third parties and that Mr. McCord had 

wanted to hear the message which was transmitted to him through a 

reliable source, such as myself.

I called Mr. Dean and told him that the message had been delivered

* by Mr. Ulasewicz and tha t Mr. McCord had seemed satisfied.

The next day I received another telephone call from Mr. Dean at 

my hotel in which he said tha t Mr. McCord wanted to see me as soon 

as I got back. I objected to seeing Mr. McCord, but finally Mr. Dean 

got my concurrence to do so. My impression was tha t Mr. McCord 

wanted to say something to me and I was not instructed to say 

anything more than w hat had been in the message to him.

I called Mr. Ulasewicz and asked him to arrange a meeting with 

Mr. McCord the following evening when I was to arrive back in 

Washington. Mr. Ulasewicz called me back and said Mr. McCord had 

agreed to meet with me at the second overlook on the George Washington Parkway but that, different from Mr. Ulasewicz’s last conversation with Mr. McCord, Mr. McCord sounded quite irritated and 

annoyed.

Owing to a delay in my airplane flight from California I was unable 

to meet with Mr. McCord on the night of Janu ary 11 as I had intended. When I arrived in Washington on the evening of January 11, 

I did attempt to call Mr. McCord but was told by a member of his 

family that he had retired for the evening. Mr. Ulasewicz had already 

conveyed instructions to Mr. McCord for holding our meeting on 

Friday night, January 12. At approximately 7 tha t evening I met 

with Mr. McCord at the second overlook on the George Washington 

Parkway. He joined me in my car and as I recall the conversation, 

I first apologized to him for my delay in getting to see him due to my 

presence in California and the late arrival of my airplane. I also said 

I was sorry if he had been irritated by receiving the anonymous calls 

from my friend.

He said something like, "OK, that’s OK, Jack.” I said, “I guess 

you received the message then?”

w Mr. McCord then said words to the effect: Jack, I am different from

all the others. Anybody who knew me at the CIA knows th at I always 

follow my own independent course. I have always followed the rule 

tha t if one goes [I took this to mean going to jail] all who are involved 

a must go. People who I am sure are involved are sitting outside with

their families. I saw a picture in the newspaper of some guy who I am 

sure was involved sitting with his family. I can take care of my family.

I don’t need any jobs, I want my freedom.

I stated th at I was only delivering a message and had nothing to do

with its formulation or had no control over what was being done. I 

sympathized with Mr. McCord’s situation and made remarks such as,

I can’t understand how this all has happened, I ’d give anvthing if I 

had not recommended you for your two jobs with the Republican 

Party.
256

I did try to impress upon Mr. McCord that I was simply a messenger 

and was n ot too pleased to even be doing that. I did say tha t the 

people who had asked me to convey the message had always been 

honorable toward me and that I thought it was a sincere offer.

He asked me who I was speaking with at the White House and I 

said I could not reveal any names but that they were from the “highest 

level of the White House.”

He continually said that all he was interested in was his freedom 

and tha t he was not pleased tha t others who he felt had been involved 

were not suffering the consequences that he was. In the context of 

demanding his immediate freedom, he said that he knew of a way in r

which his freedom could be obtained and asked me if I could convey 

his plan to the people at the White House with whom I was talking.

His plan, simply, was as follows: On two occasions, one in September 1972 and the other in October 1972, Mr. McCord told me •

tha t he had called telephone numbers a t foreign embassies in Washington and he stated he was sure these embassies were subjects of national 

security wiretaps. On both occasions he had stated t hat he was a man 

involved in the Watergate scandal and, without giving his name, had 

inquired as to the possibility of acquiring visas and other traveling 

papers necessary to travel to these foreign countries.

It was Mr. McCord’s theory that if the Government searched its 

wiretap records, it would find records of these two calls. Meanwhile,

Mr. McCord and his attorneys would make a motion in court, aimed 

at dismissing the case against Mr. McCord because of the use of 

wiretap evidence by the prosecution. Mr. McCord’s idea was that 

when the U.S. attorney was told that at least two of Mr. McCord’s 

conversations had been intercepted over a national security wiretap, 

he would be forced to dismiss the case rather than reveal th at the two 

embassies in question were the subject of national security wiretaps.

Mr. McCord was quite adaman t in saying tha t he was sure the 

Government could secure his immediate release if they wanted to 

help him and, other than the publicity incumbent on the Government 

for being forced to dismiss the case against him, such an approach 

would save the administration any real embarrassment. He gave me 

a note with the dates of the two conversations tha t he referred to and 

told me that he knew this kind of thing had been done before, most 

recently in the Ellsberg case and tha t he saw no reason why the Government could not at least accomplish this for him. I told Mr. McCord 

tha t I would get back to him on the wiretap situation and would „

probably be calling him in a day or two to set this up. I agreed to 

carry this message concerning wiretaps back to the White House and 

the meeting ended.

At no time in our first meeting do I recall saying anything about 

the President but I specifically renewed the offer of Executive clemency, 4

as indicated above and referred to it as coming from “the highest 

levels of the White House.” At some point in the conversation Mr.

McCord said to me, “Jack, I didn’t ask to see you.” This puzzled 

me since my clear understanding from Mr. Dean was that McCord 

had specifically asked to see me.

In any event, I called Mr. Dean on Friday night, January 12, and 

reported that Mr. McCord did not seem interested in accepting the 

offer made in Mr. Dean’s original message to him, that Mr. McCord
257

wanted his immediate freedom and tha t he, Mr. McCord, felt that he 

had a way to obtain that freedom. I then mentioned over the telephone, McCord’s idea for securing his freedom because of the use of 

national security wiretaps and said that I wished to discuss this matter 

directly with Dean.

The following day I saw Mr. Dean in his office in the White House 

and explained to him Mr. McCord’s suggestion for obtaining his freedom, as Mr. McCord had described it to me. Mr. Dean said, “Well, 

I ’ll check on tha t.” He then turned the conversation back to the offer 

of Executive clemency. To the best of my knowledge he said, “Jack, I 

want you to go back to him—McCord—and tell him tha t we are 

checking on these wiretaps but this time impress upon him as fully as 

you can tha t this offer of Executive clemency is a sincere offer which 

comes from the very highest levels of the White House.”

I said, “I have not used anybody’s name with him, do you want me 

to?”

He said, “No, I don’t want you to do that but tell him that this 

message comes from the very highest levels.”

I said, “Do you want me to tell him it comes from the President?”

He said words to the effect, “No, don’t do that; say tha t it comes 

from way up at the top.”

I told Mr. Dean I would get back to Mr. McCord and th at indeed, I 

had told Mr. McCord tha t I would.

At the meeting with Mr. Dean he also impressed upon me th at this 

was a very grave situation which might someday threaten the President, tha t it had the potential of becoming a national scandal and 

tha t many people in the White House were quite concerned over it. 

Mr. Dean said that none of the other then-defendants in the Watergate burglary “were any problem,” and tha t Mr. McCord “was not 

cooperating with his attorney.”

I have been asked at the U.S. attorney’s office and by Senate investigators, and have tried as best I can to recall what impressions I 

had at this particular point in time. As best as these impressions can 

be stated, I believed th at I was going back to see Mr. McCord to again 

extend an offer of Executive clemency and that by my doing so I was 

doing a great service for the President of the United States in a very 

sensitive matter. At no time, either before or after this meeting with 

Mr. Dean did I ever speak to any other White House officials about 

this offer of Executive clemency. I specifically never spoke to the 

President of the United States and have no knowledge of my own as 

to whether he personally had endorsed this offer or indeed whether 

anyone had ever discussed it with him. Since I had worked extensively 

for Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman and had formed an impression th at 

Mr. Dean rarely made decisions on matters of consequence without 

speaking to Mr. Ehrlichman, my guess was tha t when Mr. Dean deferred to “high White House officials” he a t least meant Mr. Ehrlichman. 1 know tha t he was in conversation with someone about my 

contacts with Mr. McCord since, when I was in his office on Ja nua ry 

13, he received a telephone call and I heard him say, “I ’m receiving a 

report on tha t right now” to the party on the other end.

At any rate, I then called Mr McCord and arranged a meeting with 

him, again a t the second overlook of the George Washington Parkwa y 

early in the afternoon on Sunday, January 14. On this occasion we
258

both got out of our cars and walked down a path from the overlook 

toward the Potomac River.

This meeting lasted only 10 to 15 minutes. I did most of the talking.

I told Mr. McCord tha t the White House was checking into the 

wiretapping situation and tha t I had been asked to impress upon 

him once again that the offer of Executive clemency was a sincere and 

believable offer coming from the very highest levels of the White 

House. I explained to him that among the reasons why I believed tha t 

such a commitment would be kept were that the White House officials 

with whom I was in contact were extremely concerned about the 

Watergate burglary developing into a niajor scandal affecting the *

President and therefore such a promise would not be given lightly.

I told him th at the White House officials with whom I was talking were 

complaining because they felt that Mr. McCord was the only one of 

the Watergate burglary defendants who was refusing to cooperate.

At no time on this occasion or on any other occasion do I recall telling 

Mr. McCord to keep silent if called before the grand jury or any 

congressional committees.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Caulfield, we have another vote. I think maybe 

you had bette r pause until we get back.

[Recess.]

Senator Ervin. The committee will resume.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Caulfield, you were in the midst of your statement.

I suggest you go back a sentence or two so we will have continuity.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Actually, perhaps you should go back a little further.

Mr. Caulfield. I will pick up a couple of sentences, Mr. Dash.

I told him that the White House officials with whom I was talking 

were complaining because they felt th at Mr. McCord was the only one 

of the Watergate burglary defendants who was refusing to cooperate.

At no time on this occasion or on any other occasion do I recall telling 

Mr. McCord to keep silent if called before the grand jury or any 

congressional committees.

His response to my conversation was tha t he still wanted his immediate freedom and he felt strongly t hat if the White House had any 

interest in helping him secure t hat freedom tha t they could do something about the two telephone calls which he was sure had been intercepted. I told him I would check on this matter again and get back to 

him.

I was not attempting to exert pressure on Mr. McCord by telling 

him of comments I was hearing from the White House; merely, I was 

attempting to let him know the kinds of things I was hearing from Mr.

Dean concerning the White House’s attitude toward him if tha t would 

be of any assistance to him.

Later on Sunday I telephoned Mr. Dean to repo rt on my meeting 

with Mr. McCord. I told him tha t in my opinion Mr. McCord has 

absolutely no interest in the offer of Executive clemency. I told Mr.

Dean that Mr. McCord was still adamant in his belief th at the White 

House had the power to have the charges against him dismissed if it 

would merely pursue the wiretaps which he had mentioned. Mr. Dean 

said tha t I should tell him tha t there wasn’t much likelihood tha t 

anything would be done about the wiretap situation and, in response 

to my comments about McCord’s refusal to consider Executive clem-
259

ency he said something like, “Well, what the hell does he know, 

anyway?” Mr. Dean told me to go back to Mr. McCord again and “commiserate” with him but he did not ask me to renew the offer of Executive clemency. I guessed that the reason why he wanted me to see Mr. McCord again was simply to maintain a friendly relationship with him 

in case there was a need for any further conversation with him through 

me. I probably would have met again with Mr. McCord anyway, since 

I felt badly about his predicament and I considered him a good friend.

In any event, on Monday, January 15, I called McCord to report 

M that nothing seemed to be happening in regard to the wiretap situation. He became quite angry over the telephone and reaffirmed his 

belief tha t if the White House really wanted to help him they could 

do so by using the method he had suggested and th at he knew that Mr. 

» Magruder (who was then going to be a Government witness) was

going to perjure himself. I also mentioned getting together with him 

but he said he had no interest in seeing me unless I had something 

more to talk to him about. He was quite upset so I did not pursue the 

matter further. On Tuesday, Jan uary 16, I again called him in an attempt to meet 

with him and he again was highly irritated about the White House’s 

failure to do something about the wiretap situation and again men­ tioned Mr. Magruder. I said I would inquire further about the wiretaps and I might have something for him “in a week or so.” Subsequently I called him and arranged to meet with him again, 

the exact date of this meeting being unsure in my mind. We again met 

at the overlook on the George Washington Parkway, he got into my 

car and we drove out the parkway, pursuing a course in the general 

direction of Warrenton, Va. I have no specific recollection as to how 

long we drove b ut I would say tha t it was an hour or two. I would characterize this conversation as a very friendly one in 

which a large portion of the time was spent discussing our respective 

families, how my job at the Treasury Department was going, and 

various other purely personal matters. I gave him my private telephone 

number at the Treasury Department and told him that if he or his 

wife ever wanted me to do anything for them, they should feel free to 

call me. I told McCord tha t if he or his wife should decide to call me, 

to simply use the name “Watson” and I would know who it was. 

Frankly, this was merely a device to save me from any possible 

r

embarrassment. I do not have a specific recollection as to how it arose, b ut I believe 

he asked me if he was still the only one of the Watergate defendants 

tha t the White House was concerned about. I said tha t I thought he 

was, but tha t I h ad no knowledge of what relationship existed between 

the White House and the other Watergate defendants. He said tha t the 

Cuban defendants were quite nervous and in his opinion, might make 

a statement at any time and that I “could pass tha t along for whatever 

it was worth.” I told him there was absolutely no hope, in my opinion, of the White 

House ever doing anything about the wiretap situation and asked him 

when he thought he might make a statement. He said t hat he had n ot 

decided th at yet, but tha t he had spoken to his wife and family and 

tha t he felt free to make a statement whenever he thought the time 

was right.
260

I again asked if there was anything I could do for him. He said one 

thing tha t I could do was to see whether bail money could be raised 

for him pending an appeal in his case. I said I would check into this.

Toward the end of our conversation, realizing th at he definitely was 

going to make a statement on the Watergate burglary at a time of his 

choosing and tha t such a statement would in all probability involve 

allegations against people in the White House and other high administration officials, I gave him what I considered to be a small piece of 

friendly advice.

I said words to the effect that, “Jim, I have worked with these 

people and I know them to be as tough-minded as you and I. When you 

make your statement don’t underestimate them. If I were in your 

shoes, I would probably do the same th ing.”

I later called Mr. Dean and advised him of Mr. McCord’s request 

for bail funding and he said words to the effect that, “Maybe we can 

handle tha t through Alch.” Some time later, Mr. Dean called me and 

asked me to tell McCord that the bail money presented too many 

problems and tha t maybe consideration could be given to paying 

premiums. I later called McCord and reported this. His reaction was, 

“I am negotiating with a new attorney and maybe he can get it 

handled.” This is the last conversation I had to date with James 

McCord.

Although this is a lengthy statem ent, I wish to make two further 

points: At no time in any conversations with Mr. McCord did I advise, 

pressure, or threaten him in an attempt to make him accept the offer 

of Executive clemency. I viewed my role simply as one of a messenger 

and while I tried to give both Mr. Dean and Mr. McCord the lull 

flavor of what was going on at both ends of this message-transacting 

process, I actively refrained from injecting myself into the process at 

either end. I realized at the time of my first conversation in January 

tha t I was involved in questionable activity but I felt tha t it was 

important to me to carry this message for the good of the President.

I have previously testified before the grand jury and have spoken on 

two other occasions with the U.S. attorney’s office and have spoken on 

two occasions as well with Senate investigators. Although I have discussed the matter of whether any of my actions could be viewed as 

violations of the criminal law with my attorney and have been advised 

of the availability of privileges and possible attempts of securing 

immunity from prosecution, at no time have I refused to answer any 

questions in regard to my conduct and I have felt tha t it is more 

important that I be able to speak freely about my involvement in 

actions herein, than to have whatever protection might be rightfully 

mine under my constitutional and executive privileges. I hope tha t 

what I have to say here today will assist the committee in its investigations and if, upon a hearing of all the facts, it is thought tha t I am 

guilty of some wrongdoing 1 will still feel that the trut h is my best 

defense.

Senator Baker. Mr. Caulfield, we thank you very much for your 

lengthy but very useful statement. I t is now 4:10 in the afternoon. The 

chairman has been called to the floor of the Senate to participate in the 

debate on a matter now pending on which we will shortly vote. Before 

he left the committee he suggested tha t we conclude your prepared 

statement today on the condition tha t you and your attorney are
261

agreeable to returning in the morning at 10 o’clock so that the committee and staff can proceed with interrogation. Is that satisfactory to 

you?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely, Senator.

Senator Baker. Then, the committee will stand in recess until 10 

o’clock tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene a t 

10 a.m., Wednesday, Slay 23, 1973.]

W ED N ESD A Y , M A Y 23 , 19 73

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on

Presidential Campaign Activities,

Washington, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 

318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 

Gurney, and Weicker. ,

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; Fred D. Thompson, 

minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief counsel; Arthur 

S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, 

James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; 

Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, 

H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; 

Joan C. Cole, secretary to the minority; Pauline O. Dement, research 

assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, 

office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 

Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Marc Lackritz, 

Ron Rotunda, assistant counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings counsel; 

John Walz, publications clerk.

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. I would like to 

reiterate what I stated yesterday tha t Mr. Caulfield is to return late r 

and that the questions at this appearance will be restricted to matters 

dealing with the communications between him and Mr. McCord. In 

respect to the questions of counsel-----

Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what the plan of 

the committee is on the witness following Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Dash. Yes, the witness following Mr. Caulfield will be Tony 

Ulasewicz who will be the individual who has been identified as the 

person who made the telephone call to Mr. McCord and tha t he will 

be called specifically to testify as to that role. He too will be available, 

Senator Gurney, to come back and to testify on other matters which 

he has to testify before this committee.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, as I understand that last evening 

counsel interviewed the attorney, the former attorney, for Mr. McCord 

and that his statements were in startling conflict and contrast with 

what Mr. McCord had told us here the other day and I would think 

it would be extremely important that we get this witness on just as 

soon as possible and I, as one committee member, would like to see 

him on this afternoon and I think his testimony is in total conflict with 

what Mr. McCord said and I think he should be called ju st as soon as 

we can get him just before the recess before we call Tony.

(263)
264

Mr. Dash. We can do tha t, Mr. Chairman. It is true Mr. Alch 

did come in and did request he be called and we thought we would 

call him immediately after Tony Ulasewicz but there is no reason 

why he could not be called immediately after Mr. Caulfield.

Senator Gurney. I wish he might.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, let me make a suggestion, if I may,

I think Senator Gurney’s point is well taken. However, in the interest 

of continuity and in keeping with the preparation of the committee 

let me make an alternative suggestion, if I may. Let us finish with Mr.

Caulfield today, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, which I think we

can do in a reasonably short period of time since Mr. Caulfield, I ,

understand, is agreeable to return and to explore other matters not

related directly with the subject matter of his testimony thus far,

th at we go forward then with the next witness who is-----

Mr. Dash. Tony Ulasewicz, which I think will only take about *

10 minutes.

Senator Baker. After we finish that we will call Mr. Alch and tha t 

will result in some continuity and then also be in accord with Mr.

^Gurney’s request. I am sure Mr. Alch will be on the stand today.

Senator Gurney. Th at is what 1 want to be sure, he does get on 

the stand. We have taken a ^ood deal of time in the questioning, 

in fact, I have used my own fair share but I do think it is awfully 

important tha t we get Mr. Alch on today because his testimony is 

going to be in such sharp contrast and contradiction to wThat we 

learned from Mr. McCord earlier and I think we ought to get it to 

clear up some of these things tha t are hanging around the room here.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding then 

tha t only so we might present a logical picture we will restrict our 

questions to the matters that Mr. Caulfield raised yesterday in his 

testimony but certainly tha t there are no restrictions and no bars 

as to future testimony and tha t he will be recalled for any questions 

we want to ask, is tha t correct?

Senate Ervin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Caulfield, because your state ment was a lengthy 

one, and there was a recess over the evening, let me seek to briefly 

summarize the essential highlights of your statement that you gave 

to the committee, and please correct me if anything I say is not consistent with your understanding of your statement.

In December of 1972 you received an unsigned note which you ,

understood came from Mr. McCord which complained of a White 

House effort to blame CIA for the Watergate and threatened th at 

“all the trees in the forest will fall,” if this effort continued.

In early January 1972, while you were in California, you received a 

telephone call from John Dean from Washington asking you to de- *

liver the following message to Mr. Dean.

“1. One year is a long time. 2. Your wife and family will be 

taken care of. 3. You will be rehabilitated with employment when 

this is over.”

You did not want to deliver the message but you thought that it 

could be delivered through Mr. Tony Ulasewicz and Mr. Dean agreed 

to do it th at way.
265

TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. CAULFIELD—Resumed

Mr. Caulfiel d. Mr. Da sh, can I in terrup t a second, the correct 

pronuncia tion is Ulasewicz.

Mr. Dash . Ulasewicz.

Mr. Cau lfiel d. Righ t.

Mr. D ash. You did call M r. Ulasewicz and you asked him to deliver this message, and alt hough he himself at first was relu ctan t he 

did agree to deliver the message and he did call Mr. Mc Cord and 

rep orted back to you th at M r. Mc Cord app ear ed satisfied and you 

repo rte d this to Mr. Dean.

« Th e following da y you rece ived anoth er call fro m Mr. De an inform ing y ou th at Mr. Mc Cord wa nte d to see you whe n you returned 

to Wa shington . You had Ulasewicz arrang e the me eting which was 

set for Frida y, Ja nu ar y 12, at the second overlook on the George

* Wash ing ton Parkw ay. In substan ce you emphasize d th at you were

only a messenger, th at the offer you were convey ing of Execu tive 

clem ency was from the h igh est levels of the White House, and th at it 

was a sincere offer. Mr. M cC ord’s response in substan ce was th at he 

wa nted his com plete free dom and even suggested a plan which involv ed proffering th at the Go vernme nt ha d wi ret apped h is tele phone 

calls, th at he h ad m ade tw o calls to foreign embassies whose ph ones he 

believed were wiretapped. You do no t recall say ing anyth ing ab ou t 

the Presi dent to Mr. Mc Cord bu t you did tra ns mit an offer of E xec utiv e clem ency to Mr. McC ord which you told him came from the 

hig hest levels of the Whit e House. You rep orted this meetin g to Mr. 

De an on the telephone. Th e following da y you met with Mr. De an 

and he told you to go back to Mr. McCord and imp ress upon him as 

fully as you could th at the offer of Execu tive clem ency was a sincere 

offer and when yo u asked if you should m ention an y names, such as th e 

Presiden t, he said no, but told you th at yo u sho uld say th at the offer 

cam e “from way up to p. ” Mr. Dean also expressed his concern ove r 

this m at te r as a gra ve sit ua tio n th at could th re aten the Presiden t 

and could becom e a na tio na l scandal. T hat non e of the oth er defen da nts in the W ate rgate case were an y problem and Mr. McCord 

was n ot co ope rating wi th his att orney.

You again met wi th Mr. Mc Cord at the second overlook on the 

George Wa shington Pa rk way on Ja nu ar y 14 for a short while, and 

convey ed the message of concern over a n ationa l scandal which could 

th reaten the Presiden t and th at Mc Cord was the only one of the 

< defen dants no t coo peratin g. Again, McCord expressed his interest to

you in securing his free dom and wa nte d you to do som ething ab ou t 

the wiretaps he had me ntioned to you earlier.

You telephoned Mr. Dean th at same day and told him th at Mr. 

McCord was no t inter ested in Execu tive clem ency, and th at Mr. 

Mc Cord believed th at the W hite House could help him get the cha rges 

dismissed by s upply ing proof of the wiretaps for h im.

You had a final me eting with Mr. Mc Cord on a da te you ca nn ot 

recall bu t ab ou t the third week in Ja nu ar y where you picked him up 

in yo ur a utomobile o n the second overlook on the George Wash ing ton 

Pa rk way and drove for ab ou t an h our or 2. At this time you told him 

th at the W hite House could no t do a ny thi ng for him a bout the w ire tap
266

problem and there was a lengthy conversation which for the most 

part involved other subjects than Watergate. You concluded during 

tha t conversation tha t Mr. McCord definitely was going to make a 

statement on the Watergate burglary and it would probably involve 

allegations against people in the White House and other high administration officials. You gave him what you indicated to the committee 

as friendly advice to the effect, “Jim, I have worked with these people 

and I know them to be as tough-minded as you and I. When you make 

your statement don’t underestimate them. If I were in your shoes I 

would probably be doing the same thing.”

You also had received from Mr. McCord some reference or request 

to do something about bail and you were not able to accomplish 

anything on the bail issue during further contacts with him. That at 

no time did you talk with the President about this m atte r or mention 

the President to Mr. McCord concerning the offer of Executive clem- «

ency b ut tha t you carried this message to Mr. McCord because you 

felt it was for the good of the President.

Is t ha t basically a fair summary of the gist of the contacts with Mr.

McCord and Mr. Dean tha t were contained in your statement?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Now, although you state tha t you made no mention of 

the President to Mr. McCord during the meeting, you do know, do 

you not, tha t the President is the only person in this country who can 

grant Executive clemency in a Federal criminal matter?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. Dash. Did you understand when you were speaking with Mr.

Dean tha t Mr. Dean wanted you to transmit the message to Mr.

McCord tha t the offer of Executive clemency was made with the proper 

authority?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Was it your intention during the meetings with Mr.

McCord to leave him with the clear understanding tha t the persons 

with authority to make such a representation of Executive clemency 

were in fact extending this offer to him?

Mr. Caulfield. Jus t repeat tha t for me, Mr. Dash?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Was it your intention during your meetings with Mr. McCord to 

leave him with the clear understanding tha t persons with authority 

to make such a representation as to Executive clemency were in fact 

extending this offer to him?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir. *

But, of course, I have not and did not at tha t time have any direct 

knowledge tha t the President had made such an offer, endorsed such 

an offer, or in any way was involved in that offer.

Mr. Dash. I understand that. *

Mr. Caulfield. Right.

Mr. Dash. Looking back, Mr. Caulfield, what do you see your 

role to have been in this relationship and what did you think about it?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, as I have indicated in my statement, Mr.

Dash, I viewed myself as a messenger between Mr. Dean and Mr.

McCord, exchanging information back and forth on the ongoing 

negotiations, which obviously had been taking place prior to the time 

that I had received the telephone call in California.
267

Mr. Dash. And was it your understanding at tha t time, especially 

with the discussions you had with Mr. Dean, that there was serious 

concern at the White House, at least Mr. Dean was conveying to you, 

involving a possible scandal, tha t there was a real effort to get Mr. 

McCord to accept this offer because of the concern or trouble tha t 

probably he might be able to raise in the Watergate case?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at was my clear impression, Mr. Dash, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And you were being asked to do this because of your 

friendly relationship with Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson?

Mr. Thompson. Than k you.

Mr. Caulfield, as I understand it, you have been a personal friend 

of Mr. McCord’s, is that correct?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is correct, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Would you still say tha t relationship exists as 

far as you are concerned?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir, I still consider Jim McCord my friend.

Mr. Thompson. As you were talking to him about the possibility 

of Executive clemency and he was responding to you, what would 

you say, according to what he told you, his primary interest was?

Mr. Caulfield. Very frankly, sir, as I reflect back upon the conversation, it is very clear in my mind t hat Jim McCord was concerned 

about his freedom and was taking the steps that he believed to gain 

that freedom totally. He was uninterested in any deals of a year is a 

long time or other statements like that. He, in that first conversation 

at the car, made it crystal clear to me that he was different from the 

others, that I could check it if I wanted to, tha t he wanted his freedom, 

period.

Mr. T hompson. In other words, he was not necessarily disinterested 

in any deals, but he was not interested in any deals th at would not 

produce his freedom. Is tha t a correct statement?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is correct. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Thompson. As you state here in your statement, he continually 

said tha t all he was interested in was his freedom and he was not 

pleased that some of the others th at had been involved were not suffering as he was suffering, is th at correct?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is correct.

Mr. Thompson. You referred also in your statem ent to his plan, a 

plan which he had which he thought would produce his freedom. I 

believe you referred to his two telephone calls in September and 

October of 1972 to two embassies.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes sir.

Mr. Thompson. According to what he told you, was it your impression tha t he believed tha t these two calls were made in order to 

ultimately produce his freedom, put the Government in an embarrassing position, and therefore produce his freedom?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes sir.

Mr. T hompson. All right, now. Let me ask you about your relationship with Mr. Ehrlichman for just a few moments.

How long did you work for Mr. Ehrlichman when he was counsel 

for the President?

96 -2 96 — 73— bk. 1------18
268

Mr. Caulfield. From the day that I arrived at the White House 

on April 8, 1969, formally, through July 1970, when Mr. Ehrlichman 

moved over to the Domestic Council, and then on an informal basis 

from th at time until the time I worked at the White House.

Mr. T hompson. Then after Mr. Ehrlichman left the Office of Counsel 

for the President, Mr. Dean was his successor; is tha t correct?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes sir.

Mr. Thompson. You remained, then, under Mr. Dean; is that 

correct?

Mr. Caulfield. That is right.

Mr. Thompson. Did you have any contact or any continuing relationship with Mr. Ehrlichman after Mr. Ehrlichman left to go to 

the Office of Domestic Affairs?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, only on rare peripheral matters relative to 

the investigations tha t 1 indicated in my statement.

Mr. Thompson. And while you were working for Mr. Ehrlichman 

directly, as I understand it, you had possibly more than one function 

with one of those to carry out certain investigations?

Mr. C aulfield. Yes, I had many other functions, sir, but that was 

one small part of my duties at the White House.

Mr. T hompson. And you continued to do some of these matters for 

him pursuant to his direction after you left tha t office?

Mr. Caulfield. On very rare occasions, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Would you on some occasions act as an intermediary 

between Mr. Ehrlichman and Tony Ulasewicz, for jobs which Mr. 

Ulasewicz would do?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes sir.

Mr. Thompson. Would you say tha t would be on frequent occasions?

Mr. Caulfield. That would be infrequent after J uly of 1970.

Mr. Thompson. But occasionally.

Mr. Caulfield. Oh, yes; yes sir.

Mr. T hompson. Now, Mr. Caulfield, in your statement here, you 

state tha t you were guessing tha t Mr. Dean probably was referring to 

Mr. Ehrlichman when he referred to high White House sources?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, tha t was my guess.

Mr. Thompson. That was your guess at tha t time?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes sir.

Mr. T hompson. You also state, “I know he was in conversation 

with someone about my contact with Mr. McCord, because when I 

was in his office on January 13, he received a telephone call and I heard 

him say ‘I am receiving a report on th at right now’.”

Were you referring to Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. C aulfield. No; what I am saying is that the call came in, tha t 

there were no names mentioned. Mr. Dean said, I am receiving—there 

was, apparently the party calling made some comments. Mr. Dean 

said “I am getting a report on tha t right now.”

Mr. T hompson. Oh, I see, this conversation th at you overheard was 

Mr. Dean with someone?

Mr. Caulfield. I mean in Mr. Dean’s presence, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. Thompson. I see. And you assumed tha t tha t conversation 

perhaps was with Mr. Ehrlichman or possibly with Mr. Ehrlichman?
269

Mr. Caulfield. Possibly with Mr. Ehrlichman, but I have no way 

of knowing, sir.

Mr. T hompson. You feel very definitely in your mind tha t he was 

talking with someone else about it, is that correct?

Mr. Caulfield. I want to be careful there, sir, because I just do 

not know where the call came from. If it was coming from outside, it 

could have been someone else. If it was coming from within the 

White House, then it was someone in the White House. So—by tha t 

I mean, sir, there is an interoffice telephone system. Now, I do not 

know and have no way of knowing whether tha t was an interoffice 

call or whether or not it was a call coming from outside. So tha t is 

’ why I mentioned it that way.

Mr. Thompson. What would you say was the relationship between 

Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman during this period of time? Did 

« Mr. Dean in many matters in effect report to Air. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Or answer to Air. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir; on many matters having to do with 

Mr. Dean’s work as well.

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever ta lk with Mr. Ehrlichman about this 

matter, this business of possible Executive clemency for Mr. McCord 

with anyone?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. You never did?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever talk to anyone there at the White 

House besides Mr. Dean?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely no one but Mr. John Dean.

Mr. Thompson. I have no furth er questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. If there is no objection, I would like to exchange 

places for questioning witnesses with Senator Montoya and let him 

take my place and 1 will take his place.

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. There are no objections. You may proceed.

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Caulfield, 1 think we had better get your background and 

employment duties at the White House in better perspective. What 

exactly were you doing when you went to work at the White House 

in April of 1969?

Mr. Caulfield. My prime duties at the White House was to act 

as liaison primarily with the U.S. Secret Service and other Federal 

law enforcement agencies. As I indicated, I worked under Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Krogh was under Air. Ehrlichman as well. From time to 

time, I woidd be assigned major projects tha t came up in the law 

♦ enforcement area.

For example, shortly after coming to the White House, I was 

assigned to the then-emerging drug abuse task force th at subsequently 

emerged as Operation Intercept.

Senator Montoya. Well, were you working directly under Air. 

Ehrlichman? Or were you working under Air. Dean?

Air. Caulfield. No, Air. Dean, sir, was not at the White House 

at tha t time. This is—you asked—I think the question was what were
270

my duties when I went into the White House? When I went into the 

White House, Mr. John Dean was not yet there. He was at the 

Justice Department.

Senator Montoya. As I understand, you went to work at the White 

House in April 1969 and you worked there until March 1972.

Is that correct?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. All right.

Were you on the payroll of the White House or were you being paid 

by someone else?

Mr. Caulfield. No; T was on the White House payroll, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you ever get paid from the President’s 

attorney?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. And were you assigned to the White House 

payroll or were you on the Treasury payroll?

Mr. Caulfield. I don’t quite understand.

Senator Montoya. Were you working or being paid from the payroll 

attributa ble to the Department of the Treasury or to the White House?

Mr. Caulfield. The White House payroll, sir.

Senator Montoya. All right.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, did you come in contact quite frequently 

with Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Caulfield. In the course of my duties, yes, sir, not on a 

daily basis certainly but I would be working with his staff people, 

Mr. Egil Krogh when I first went in there, as I have indicated I 

would be assigned major projects. I was the White House representative for the Marihuana and Dangerous Drugs Task Force tha t began 

in the spring of 1969.

Senator Montoya. All right.

Now, in the course of your employment at the White House what 

relationship did you have with Mr. Dean when he came onboard?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, Mr. John Ehrlichman, when I was working 

for him coming aboard the White House was counsel to the President. 

When Mr. Ehrlichman became the Presidential assistant and headed 

up the Domestic Affairs Council, Mr. John Dean came in and became 

the counsel to the President, and I remained in the office of the Counsel 

to the President under Mr. Dean, my direct supervisor.

Senator Montoya. Did he assign many things to you?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Ehrlichman continue to assign things 

to you to do?

Mr. Caulfield. As I have indicated, Senator, only on rare occasions 

after Mr. Ehrlichman became Assistant to the President for Domestic 

Affairs.

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Haldeman assign things to you?

Mr. Caulfield. On only one or two occasions that I could recall, 

Senator. Very rarely, in fact almost never.

Senator Montoya. All right.

You mentioned tha t you had interviewed Mr. McCord for his 

employment at the executive offices and recommended him to go to 

work for the Committee To Re-Elect the President. That is correct, 

isn’t it?
271

Mr. Caulfield. Well, tha t is essentially correct, sir. The recommendation was for employment at the Republican National Committee initially and flowing from tha t Mr. McCord was hired by the 

Committee To Re-Elect.

Senator Montoya. How many interviews did you say you had 

with Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. I recall two. I recall a luncheon when it was 

already established that he was on board.

Senator Montoya. Who did you clear with at the White House 

before he recommended Mr. McCord for tha t appointment? 

w Mr. Caulfield. I didn’t clear anybody, sir.

Senator Montoya. Who did you call at the Republican National 

Committee?

Mr. Caulfield. I called Mr. Barry Mountain who was the then

• deputy chairman for administration.

Senator Montoya. Had he asked you to recommend someone?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Was there a job classification for the individual 

that he wanted?

Mr. Caulfield. No. As I recall, the way Mr. Mountain explained 

it to me they wanted someone to come up and do a security survey 

and possibly following the survey the party who did the survey would 

be hired as a supervisor of security at the Republican National Committee.

Senator Montoya. Was there any discussion with respect to tha t 

classification that the man who would be chosen and the man tha t 

you might interview should be qualified in espionage activities for 

the party?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator Montoya. Were you aware that tha t was one of the competencies that this man should have anyway?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

In reviewing Mr. McCord’s qualifications they appeared to me from 

a career experience in security work to be absolutely outstanding, and 

his credentials appeared to be impeccable.

Senator Montoya. Wha t did you conceive with respect to the 

game plan tha t was going on at the time?

Mr. Caulfield. I beg your pardon?

Senator Montoya. Mr. McCord mentioned that you had told 

him tha t he was ruining the game plan. What did you conceive th at 

to be?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, sir, I do not recall Mr. McCord saying 

“game plan” but it was obvious to me tha t there were negotiations 

going on with respect to this Executive clemency for Mr. McCord.

* Senator Montoya. Then let me read to you from Mr. McCord’s 

statement on page 9. I read as follows: “I refused to discuss it. He 

stated that I was fouling up the game plan. I made a few comments 

about the game plan.” That was Mr. McCord’s statement on page 9. 

Do you recall that conversation?

Mr. Caulfield. I do not recall those words, Senator.

Senator Montoya. Well, what words akin to that were uttered 

by you in the presence of Mr. McCord?
272

Mr. Caulfield [conferring with counsel]. Senator, I am a little' 

confused on your asking me—I have no recollection of Mr. McCord— 

of me saying to Mr. McCord he was fouling up the game plan. My 

state ment does no t indicate that.

Senator Montoya. Well, let me read an extended text of that 

statement. On page 9 “About 10 o’clock a.m., on Thursday, January 

25, 1973, in a meeting lasting until about 12:30 a.m. we drove in his 

car toward Warrenton, Va., and returned, and a conversation 

ensued which repeated the offers of Executive clemency and financial 

support while in prison and rehabilitation later. I refused to discuss 

it. He stated tha t I was fouling up the game plan. I made a few »

comments about the game plan.”

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Mr. Montoya. You recall that?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir, I do not. As I indicated in my statement *

this trip here was one of friendly conversation between two friends.

I have no recollection of offering him Executive clemency on that 

occasion. I have no recollection about stating tha t I was fouling up 

the game plan.

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Dean tell you why he was calling you 

to get in touch with McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. When was th at?

Senator M ontoya. When he called you at San Clemente.

Mr. Caulfield. He indicated to me tha t he had a very important 

message tha t he wanted to be delivered to James McCord.

Senator Montoya. I understand that. But did he tell you why he 

had chosen you for that mission?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir, he did not.

Senator Montoya. Did you ask him?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir. He knew, of course, tha t I had known 

Jim McCord.

Senator Montoya. How did he know? Had you discussed Jim 

McCord with him?

Mr. Caulfield. I had been over to the committee. Eventually 

after he was hired I am sure I mentioned to Mr. Dean that this 

fellow’ McCord is hired, he appears to be outstanding. He was w7ell 

aware that I knew Jim McCord; there was no question in anybody’s 

mind.

Senator Montoya. Did you get in touch after Watergate with Mr.

Dean to indicate to him about your friendship with Jim McCord? -r

Mr. Caulfield. Would you repeat that, Senator, please?

Senator Montoya. Did you get in touch with Mr. Dean and 

communicate your friendship with Jim McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. When, sir?

Senator Montoya. After the Watergate break-in. *

Mr. Caulfield. We had conversations. I expressed shock on many 

occasions that James McCord was arrested at the W atergate.

Senator Montoya. No, but the point I am trying to make, Mr. 

Caulfield, is that you had two or three interviews with Mr. McCord; 

they w ere short in duration.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Preliminary to his being hired?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.
273

Sena tor M ontoya. There were oth er people at the Republican 

Na tio nal Co mmittee and at the Co mm itte e To Re -Elec t the 

Presi dent------

Mr. Cau lf ield . Yes, sir.

Se na tor M ontoya [continuing]. Who kne w Mr. Mc Cord be tte r 

th an you did, pre sum abl y bec ause he worked with the m for a longer 

tim e and I am wondering why M r. De an selected you to ca rry on this 

mission of offering Executive clem ency to Mr. Mc Cord when there 

were othe r people within the org aniza tion of the na tio na l com mittee 

and the C R P who ha d develop ed a b ette r a nd more intim ate acquain tance w ith Mr. McCord.

Mr. Cau lfiel d. Well, of course, I am sure th at Mr. De an tru ste d 

me, and in rea din g some of the things th at migh t hav e gone on before 

the re was ap pa rently a need for someone from the White House to 

* bring a m essage to him, and c ertai nly Mr. De an kn ew th at I knew J im

McCord, and the n I would like to reite rate th at I receive d a lette r in 

Decem ber which I had b roug ht to M r. Dea n’s atte ntio n w herein it was 

alleged th at the Wh ite Hou se was involve d in attempt ing to place the 

blam e on CI A. So all of thes e things Mr. De an knew . M r. McCord 

sent me the lette r; Mr. De an knew t ha t.

Se nator M ontoya. Did you ever inquire of Mr. De an w hen he was 

telling yo u ju st w hat to s ay to Mr. Mc Cord, did you ev er inq uire from 

him as to the high sources and who they were?

Mr. Cau lfiel d. Well, sir, in the firs t telephone call thi s was all 

ju st him asking me to go a nd de live r this message to Jim M cCord . Subsequently , as 1 hav e ind icated in my sta temen t, we did have a conversa tio n after the first meetin g.

Se na tor M ontoya. Now, you mentio ned th at Mr. De an had instr uc ted yo u to say th at i t comes from way up at the top .

Mr. Cau lfiel d. Yes, sir.

Se na tor M ontoya. W ha t did you conceive th at to be at the time?

Mr. Cau lfiel d. Well, sir, in my min d I belie ved th at he was 

tal kin g ab ou t the Pre sident. Alt hough, again------

Se na tor Montoya. How wou ld you have inter prete d th at witho ut 

any fu rthe r explanatio n? Th e sam e way?

Air. Caulfiel d. I do no t un derst and, Senator.

Se nator M ontoya. You m ent ion ed th at it was y our impression th at 

it m ust have come from th e Pres ide nt. Now, d id you, whe n y ou reached 

th at impression, question Mr. De an any fu rth er ab ou t it?

»• Mr. Caulfiel d. No, sir.

Se na tor M ontoya. My tim e has run ou t so I will no t pursue th at 

any furth er.

Tha nk you, Mr. Chairma n.

Senator E rvin. Senator Gu rne y.

Se nator Bak er?

Se nator B aker. M r. C hairm an, I would like to follow you r example. 

I would offer to yield to Se na tor Weicker at this point. I believe th at 

he m ay or may n ot wish to yie ld to Se na tor Gurney.

Se na tor Weic ke r. Mr. Ch air man, I ju st have two or three brief 

questio ns; the n I will yield.

M r. Caulfield, turn to page 19 of yo ur testim ony. You state there, 

“ I ha ve been asked by the U.S . Atto rn ey ’s Office and by Sen ate investi ga tors and am try ing as be st I can to recall wha t impressions I
274

had a t this particular point in time. As best as these impressions can be 

stated, I believed th at I was going back to see Mr. McCord to again 

extend an offer of Executive clemency and tha t by my doing so I was 

doing a great service for the President of the United States in a very 

sensitive ma tter.”

My first question to you, very simply, is this: Using your own words,

I would like you to comment and explain to me why it is—why it 

is—that you thought you were doing a great service for the President 

of the United States?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, sir, to go back a little bit, it was a great 

honor for me to serve as a member of the President’s staff. I had 

come from a rather humble background, a police officer. I did receive 

this great opportunity to serve on the President’s staff. I felt very 

strongly about the President, extremely strongly about the President.

I was very loyal to his people that I worked for. I place a high value *

upon loyalty. Now, out of the blue, I am injected into this scandal.

I am being asked by one of my former superiors to deliver a message 

tha t I know to be Executive clemency. I tried to avoid it, as my statement indicates. I imposed upon my friend to do it, hoping tha t all 

parties would be satisfied. I was not successful.

I was brought back in again to it, now being asked to see Mr.

McCord directly. I did go to see him.

Now I am becoming further implicated into this matter. I had 

this conversation with John Dean, who was the counsel to the President. I had been there 3 years. I know what the relations are and how 

they exist. I make certain judgments based upon those relationships.

In my mind, I felt tha t the President probably did know about it.

Now, I am going out the door, to become more specific, and it 

crossed my mind tha t this conceivably was for the President. I 

believed it. I had to think about that. And based upon all of tha t 

background, I believed I was doing something for the President of 

the United States, and I did it, sir.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Caulfield, you have lived a life dedicated 

to the law. In the very beginning of your statement, you cite a career, 

a very fine career, one tha t was recognized time and time again. Let 

me ask you this question.

I read on page 24 of your testimony, where you are talking to 

McCord and where you have given a friendly piece of advice, and you 

say, “Jim, I have worked with these people and I know them to be 

as tough-minded as you and I. When you make your statement, *

don’t underestimate them. If I were in your shoes, I would probably 

do the same thing.”

I read that, and you tell me if I am wrong, as the testimony of a 

man who is in conflict. On the one hand delivering a message to a 

friend; on the other hand, a man whose whole career has been dedicated to honesty and seeing the trut h come out. Would tha t be a fair 

description of a conflict that was occurring within you at tha t time?

Mr. Caulfield. There was a definite conflict, Senator. You are 

absolutely right. I know when wrongdoing is occurring. 1 have indicated here tha t I knew that the offer of Executive clemency in this 

ma tter was wrong, yes sir, I knew7 that. B ut what I am saying to you, 

sir, is tha t my loyalties, and especially to the President of the United 

States, overrided those considerations.
275

Senator Weicker. So actually, there was a conflict between your 

loyalties, and it is interesting tha t you used the very word that I had 

in a written question before you made your statem ent. Did you feel, 

at this moment in time, a conflict between your loyalties to the President and a life dedicated to law and the p ursuit of truth?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir. Tha t is correct. And also tha t I was 

hopefully being able to help a friend.

Senator Weicker. Then lastly, Mr. Caulfield, on page 25, you 

state: “That 1 realize tha t at the time of my first conversation in 

January tha t 1 was involved in questionable activity but 1 felt tha t 

< it was important for me to carry this message for the good of the President.” Was there a conflict in your mind between doing an act 

for the good of the President and an act that would be for the good of 

the country?

* Mr. Caulfield. Th at is a tough question, Senator. All I can say is 

that I did what I did for the reasons tha t I have stated.

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. Senator TaJmadge?

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the 

distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.

Senator I nouye. Thank you very much.

Mr. Caulfield, am I to conclude from your responses to Senator 

Weicker, tha t you were aware tha t you were involved in a criminal 

act of obstructing criminal investigations?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. On your first call to Mr. McCord soon after the 

Watergate break-in, 1 notice from your testimony tha t you contacted 

Mr. Ulasewicz?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. For a man on the Kalmbach payroll doing espionage work, to go through some very secretive process to get in touch 

■with him makes me ask: Why all this secrecy when, as you have 

stated, it was just to convey your sympathies to Mr. McCord? Why 

did you go through all this secret movement? Were you afraid that 

the phones were tapped?

Mr. Caulfield. Are you speaking about my call to, asking Mr. 

Ulasewicz to call James McCord, sir?

Senator Inouye. Yes, why did you go through all that secret stuff 

to get in touch with Mr. McCord. According to your statem ent, all

* you wanted to say is I feel sorry for you, can I do anything for you. 

Is tha t right?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir. To have spent a career in security work 

as I have, and as Mr. McCord had, and to watch the daily accounts 

k

of the Watergate developments from June 17 on, it certainly occurred to me, sir, that any conversations taking place over Mr. 

McCord’s home telephone conceivably could have been the subject 

of some type of wiretapping by either governmental parties or other 

people who were concerned about Mr. McCord. Plus the fact, sir— 

well, I should go back a little bit. That impression, and Mr. McCord, I undertstand, has indicated 

tha t he had the same concerns, indicated to me th at a circuitous route, 

if I wanted to speak to him, would be the appropriate way to do it, sir.
276

Senator I nouye. I would like to call your attention to page 16 of 

your prepared remarks, in which you describe Mr. McCord’s plan.

This plan called for Mr. McCord’s calling two foreign embassies and 

telling the official in such embassies tha t he was a defendant in the 

Watergate case and requesting a visa. From this, did you gather that 

Mr. McCord was trying to blackmail the U.S. Government?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. Or were you aware that if he carried out this plan, 

it would place in jeopardy the national security of the United States 

of America?

Mr. Caulfield. Tha t is a two-part question, now. »

Are you asking did I think that this was a blackmail?

Senator I nouye. Yes.

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir; I didn’t think tha t this was a blackmail.

I viewed this as an attempt on the part of a man who was distraught, *

who wanted his freedom and had come across a means of obtaining 

tha t freedom. I did not consider it to be blackmail, sir. I considered 

it, based upon my conversation with Mr. McCord, tha t he was 

distraught.

Senator I nouye. Didn’t you think tha t there was a risk of compromising the security apparatus of the United States? As he pointed 

out, the Government would have to dismiss the case or admit tha t 

there were taps on these two embassies.

Mr. Caulfield. Well, sir, again in passing these messages back 

and forth, and I passed this one back to Mr. Dean, certainly a ma tter 

of this type would, in my judgment, work its way up to any questions 

of policy and national security.

Senator I nouye. Did you think tha t this was a reasonable plan?

Mr. Caulfield. I thought it was an interesting one, sir.

Senator Inouye. You didn’t think it was illegal or dangerous?

Mr. Caulfield. Sir, again, it is possible th at these thoughts crossed 

my mind, but I have no recollection of it. And again, 1 am being put 

in a position of being a messenger and I was focusing on that. I wasn’t 

giving consideration to all of the nuances, serious nuances, th at would 

be included.

Senator Inouye. Now as you sit here as a witness, do you consider 

that tha t plan was dangerous or illegal?

Mr. Caulfield. I can’t judge that, Senator. It is certainly a serious 

matter.

Senator Inouye. Do you think it is proper to set up a government *

in a trial like this?

Mr. Caulfield. No, I don’t think it is proper to set up the government, sir.

Senator Inouye. On page 24, this is one sentence tha t puzzles me.

It says, “When you make your statement, don’t underestimate them.”

What did you mean by that?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, as I indicated in the statement, this was an 

extremely friendly conversation, Senator, I don’t know if this has 

come through in my statement. We were talking now for an hour, an 

hour and a half about families, my boys, his children, his wife, my 

job. He gave me the suggestion that he might be able to help me in 

liaison with the Post Office, as I recall. This was all a very cordial 

conversation under very difficult conditions amongst friends.
Now, as I indicated, I was convinced in my mind that he was going 

to go ahead at some point in time and make a statement. And looking 

at the broad picture, I could envision an ordeal for him, significant ordeal. He could be effectively on the other side of the people that I was 

talking to. I was a friend. I don’t know if he fully appreciated that, but that 

was the intent of my remarks, to let him know.

Senator Inouye. You were giving him friendly advice?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is right, sir.

Senator I nouye. You were giving him friendly advice?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir. Tha t is right, sir.

Senator I nouye. Not to underestimate it, what did you mean?

Mr. Caulfield. Not to underestimate the tough-mindedness of all 

the players in this game.

Senator Inouye. What did you think tha t the other side would do 

to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. I had no idea. It is apparent that Mr. McCord 

apparently has misinterpreted that, looking at his statement but tha t was not the intention. 1 would say tha t to a friend tha t was about to 

make a major decision tha t would be tough and I did.

Senator Inouye. I than k you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Caulfield, your testimony certainly has been very full and very 

•clear. I ju st want to press home one or two points. Referring to the previous testimony by Mr. McCord, at page 320 of the record, he had this to say about his conversations and meeting 

with you. “Caulfield stated that he was carrying the message of Executive clemency to me from the very highest levels of the White House. He stated that the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, Fla., that weekend,” referring to the weekend following Janu ary 8, “following meetings tha t we were in then, and tha t the President had 

been told of the results of the meeting.” Did you ever learn tha t the President had learned of the results of 

any of your meetings with Mr. McCord?

Air. Caulfield. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator Gurney. He also stated this further on in the testimony on 

the next page. “Mr. McCord. He,” meaning you, “further stated ‘I may have a message to you at our next meeting from the President.’ ”

Did you ever tell him that?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever have any communication with the 

President of the United States with regard to this so-called Executive 

•clemency offer to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. None whatsoever, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever hear Mr. Dean in any of your 

conversations with Mr. Dean ever refer to the fact tha t he had 

informed the President of any of these meetings?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Dean ever say to you, “The President 

has instructed me to make this offer of Executive clemency to McCord
278

through you ,” or through anybody else as far as th at is concerned?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever apply any pressure to Mr. McCord 

in any of these meetings for him to do anything in regard to this 

upcoming trial?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did you ever urge him or advise him to plead 

guilty?

Mr. Caulfield. Never.

Senator Gurney. This point has been covered but it is important 

because of Mr. McCord’s testimony. My understanding is tha t your 

understanding about these calls to the Embassy and the wiretaps on 

the Embassies tha t this was his theory of defense, a way that he 

could get out of it by having the case dismissed if these wiretaps had 

occurred, is th at correct?

Mr. Caulfield. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. Did Mr. McCord ever discuss with you what other 

plans he might have if he were found guilty at the trial?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. One final question. You served for some time 

under Mr. Ehrlichman in the White House. For how long a period?

Mr. Caulfield. From April 8, 1969, through July of 1970.

Senator Gurney. Did you see quite a bit of him during this time?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir; I would not characterize my time under 

Mr. Ehrlichman as frequent visits. I would be working very closely 

with his staff people, primarily Bud Krogh, who had a variety of 

duties in the Federal law enforcement area, and I would work primarily 

through Mr. Krogh into Mr. Ehrlichman.

Senator Gurney. B ut you were generally familiar with some of the 

missions or the work tha t Mr. Ehrlichman was carrying on in the 

White House, is tha t fair to say?

Mr. Caulfield. Generally familiar, yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Would you say tha t it was also a fair thing to 

say that Mr. Ehrlichman undertook a great many missions, a good 

deal of work in the White House, in his duties on his own, on his own 

independent carrying out, is tha t a fair thing to say?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, of course, I have no way of knowing that, 

Senator.

Senator Gurney. Would tha t be your impression?

Mr. Caulfield. It is possible, Senator.

Senator Gurney. I do not have any furth er questions, Mr. 

Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Caulfield, are you still on the Federal 

payroll?

Mr. Caulfield. I am in what they call administrative leave status 

because of these developments with the Treasury; yes, sir, as of this 

moment, yes, sir, I am still on the Federal payroll.

Senator Talmadge. Getting a check?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. But you are on leave?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.
279

Senator Talmadge. Did yon call Mr. John Ehrlichman immediately 

after the break-in at the Watergate on June 17?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. What did he say?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, I received a telephone call on the afternoon 

of June 17, which is the date of the break-in, the date of the break-in, 

about 3 or 4 p.m., as I recall, from a gentleman I worked with in the 

U.S. Secret Service, Mr. Patrick Boggs, and he called me and he said, 

"Do you know Jim McCord?” and I said “Yes, I know Jim McCord.” 

And he indicated, he said: “Well, we have received a report th at there 

is a break-in at the Democratic National Committee. We are concerned 

w because of our protective capabilities or responsibilities, rather, in tha t

area. We have some agents checking into it. Some of the people appear 

not to have given their correct names and we are getting a report tha t

one of those not giving the correct name is Jim McCord.”

* He said “ Now, do you want to call John Ehrlichman or should I call

him?”

After I had recovered from the shock, I indicated: “Well, you go 

ahead and try and reach him and I will try to reach him as well.”

And I called the White House board and I was told that he was en 

route to his residence. By the time tha t I did reach him Mr. Boggs had 

already contacted him. And I said to Mr. Ehrlichman, I said, “John, 

it sounds like there is a disaster of some type. Did you speak to Mr. 

Boggs?” He said, “Yes, what is this all about?” I said, “I haven’t got 

the foggiest notion what it is all about but they are saying they believed 

Jim McCord, who works for the committee, has been arrested in a 

burglary at the Democratic National Committee.”

He said, I forget what he said exactly, I think it was a long silence, 

as I recall, and I said, “My God, you know, I cannot believe it.” He 

said, “Well, I guess I had better place a call to John Mitchell.” I said, 

“I think tha t would be very appropriate.” [Laughter.]

Senator Talmadge. Who said it sounds like a disaster, you or 

Mr. Ehrlichman?

Mr. Caulfield. John J. Caulfield.

Senator Talmadge. Why did you have Mr. Ulasewicz call Mr. 

McCord rather than calling McCord yourself?

Mr. Caulfield. In this July call?

Senator T almadge. Yes. This anonymous, mysterious call with the 

New York accent. [Laughter.l

Mr. Caulfield. Are we talking about the Janu ary call or the July 

► call?

Senator Talmadge. We are talking about the call with no name tha t 

Mr. Ulasewicz is alleged to have made at you r request and the request 

of John Dean.

Mr. Caulfield. Oh, well again I did not want to make the call 

Senator. I knew how serious it was, how dangerous it was, I explained 

to John Dean tha t I did not want to do it. I had to focus completely 

on the seriousness of the misconduct but intuitively I knew tha t I was 

wrong, and I just did not want to do it, and as I have indicated in my 

testimony I tried to get out of it and I felt that because I had asked 

Mr. Ulasewicz previously to set up this telephone arrangement with 

Mr. McCord outside of his residence tha t he could, when Mr. McCord 

received a call he would, understand tha t it was coming from me.
2S0

This was my way of getting the message delivered without getting 

involved.

Senator Talmadge. Whom were you working for at the time you 

relayed Mr. Dean’s message to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. In January?

Senator T almadge. Yes, sir.

Mr. Caulfield. I was the Assistant Director of the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Senator Talmadge. Now, on behalf of whom did you assume Mr. 

Dean to be speaking, talking of when he spoke of Executive clemency 

to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, as I have indicated coming from Mr. Dean, 

having worked with him, I assumed that there were others at the White 

House who were involved in this matter in terms of the offer.

Senator Talmadge. Who did you think was the real author of the 

message, Mr. Dean or someone else?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, sir, again I believe tha t conceivably, very 

conceivably, tha t if we are going to talk about others that quite 

possibly Mr. Ehrlichman. I had no way of knowing that, Senator.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, I have no furth er questions, 

thank you, sir.

Senator E rvin. Senator Baker?

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Caulfield I won’t take very long b ut necessarily I expect the

f

joints I want further elaboration on in the questions I have may be at 

east in p art repetitious. Do you have any idea why Mr. McCord chose 

you to send that letter to?

Mr. Caulfield. Well, I do not—of course, I do not know but Jim

McCord knew I worked at the White House. He knew tha t I had 

worked for Mr. Dean.

Senator Baker. The answer is you don’t know. Did Mr. McCord 

ever tell you why?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir. He did not.

Senator Baker. Did he confirm that he wrote the unsigned letter to 

you?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes. I think there was just a brief conversation 

about it in our first conversation in the car.

Senator Baker. Did he indicate to you why he wrote the le tter at 

all? You have told me now that he did not indicate why he chose you 

to write the letter—did he indicate to you why he wrote the letter?

Mr. Caulfield. I think in substance what he said was what was 

in the note, you know, the CIA, the White House will do this thing to 

the CIA, I am not going to stand for that.

Senator B aker. Did he tell you why the White House was going to 

blame this on the CIA?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir, I have no recollection of that as to why.

Senator B aker. He didn’t elaborate on tha t point at all?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator B aker. Did you have any indication or evidence or suspicion tha t the White House was trying to “blame it on the CIA” 

independent of your conversation with Air. McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. Senator, the whole letter was—upset me quite a 

bit. You know it was unsigned and I assumed it was Air. AIcCord, and 

the last sentence bothered me.
2S1

Senator Baker. Did you ask him why he felt they were going to 

blame it on the CIA?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. Caulfield, it seems to me tha t a defendant in 

those circumstances or a suspect who had been arrested on charges 

such as Mr. McCord had been arrested, have three possible alternative 

courses of action. I am speaking now in the hypothetical sense: He 

can plead guilty; he can plead not guilty and defend himself on the 

facts; or third, he can try to contrive a way to create circumstances 

which would result in his exoneration separate and apart from the 

fact.

Would tha t be the range of possibilities th at presented themselves 

to Mr. McCord at the time?

Mr. Caulfield. In my judgment?

Senator Baker. Yes, sir.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Now let’s focus on the third. Obviously he pled 

not guilty. This record has reference, extensive reference, to efforts 

allegedly to induce him to plead guilty and receive Executive clemency 

which he declined to do. He pled not guilty. He was convicted. But 

before his trial and conviction or a t least during the time of his trial 

and before his conviction this conversation with you, as I understand 

it, and please excuse me for being repetitious but I want to fix it 

clearly in my mind in relation to the alternatives tha t were available 

to Mr. McCord, a t the time of this conversation the trial was going on 

or at least he had not been convicted yet, is t ha t correct?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is my recollection, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. The trial was actually in progress, was it not?

Mr. Caulfield. I am not absolutely certain, I believe i t was but 

dates are-----

Senator Baker. And Mr. McCord told you he was not going to 

plead guilty. He was not interested in Executive clemency, he was 

not interested in the year, tha t tha t was a long time, t hat he wanted 

out free and clear, is tha t the essence of it?

Mr. Caulfield. That is the essence of it, Senator.

Senator Baker. And tha t he wouldn’t settle for anything less?

Mr. Caulfield. That is right.

Senator B aker. And tha t to achieve th at end he had arranged and 

contrived to phone two foreign embassies whose telephones he knew 

or suspected to be tapped, presumably illegally or at least embarrassingly to the U.S. Government so that those calls could be subpenaed 

by his attorneys and produced in court as evidence of illegal surveillance so tha t the prosecution against him would have to be thrown 

out or a t least so tha t the Government would be so embarrassed by 

these alleged taps on foreign embassies tha t they would dare not 

prosecute him further, is that the fair intendment of what Mr. McCord 

told you?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord was holding hostage either the embarrassment of the U.S. Government with respect to wiretaps on 

foreign embassies or he was holding hostage the illegality of those taps 

on foreign embassies. Was tha t the thrust of his design for a defense 

at the time of t hat conversation?
282

Mr. Caulfield. That is my interpretation, sir, of his comments at 

tha t time.

Senator Baker. Thank you very much.

Senator Ervin. Now, the trial had begun at the time you had these 

meetings with McCord in January?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes.

Senator Ervin. And presumably, McCord knew something about 

the conversations which are occurring between the defendants and 

their lawyers, did he not?

Mr. Caulfield. Presumably, Senator, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And had you not heard alleged statements in the 

press or heard statements over the TV to the effect that since certain 

men, Barker and McCord, had previously worked for the CIA, that 

there was some suspicion t ha t the CIA was involved?

Mr. Caulfield. I think probably in the minds of many people at 

tha t time, th at was the suspicion. I do not know whether or not I suspected that. But, yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, McCord knew you were a lawyer for the 

President and also knew you were his friend, did he not?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. So he wrote you a letter which was susceptible of 

the interpretation tha t he was giving you a warning that there was 

no validity to the claim t ha t the CIA was responsible for Watergate?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And did you not entertain the opinion after receiving that letter tha t McCord probably wrote it believing tha t you 

would communicate its contents to Mr. Dean, at whose instance 

you had interviewed McCord?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir; and I did just that.

Senator Ervin. And you did that?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, you testified under the questioning of Senator 

Weicker to the effect th at your training in law enforcement had given 

you a conviction tha t it was wrong to atte mpt to suppress testimony 

by an offer of Executive clemency.

Mr. Caulfield. No question about that, Senator.

Senator Ervin. And also tha t you had a sense of loyalty to the 

President?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is correct, Senator.

Senator Ervin. And also tha t you considered Jim McCord your 

friend and appreciated the fact tha t he was in a very unfortunate 

situation and you were m otivated not only by your loyalty to what 

you thought, the loyalty to the President and by wh at assurance you 

had received from Mr. Dean tha t if McCord did not go along with 

the other defendants and cooperate with his lawyer, tha t there might 

be a scandal against the President?

Mr. Caulfield. Th at is exactly right, Senator.

Senator Ervin. So you were compelled to choose between your 

loyalties, and tha t was the reason you were willing to carry the 

message from Dean to McCord, notwithstanding the fact tha t you 

did not approve of offering Executive clemency in retu rn for suppressing the testimony?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.
283

Senator E rvin. Well, it is proof of what my old philosophy professor told me, tha t the greatest trials we have in this world is when 

you are compelled to choose between different loyalties, some of which 

are conflicting. And you were trying to protect the President, you 

were trying to aid a friend, and you were trying to carry out a mission 

which you accepted somewhat reluctantly from the man tha t you 

knew—that is, John Dean—whom you knew to be the President’s 

counsel and whom you knew would be actuated by the desire to 

protect the President against any scandal?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely correct, Senator, 

w Senator Ervin. Now, when you performed this mission for John

Dean on these three occasions, what did you expect or, rather, what 

did you understand was expected of McCord in retu rn for Executive 

clemency?

* Mr. Caulfield. I believed tha t in terms of the context of the 

message, a year is a long time, tha t it would be some time less than 

a year.

Senator Ervin. Did you infer from your conversation with Dean 

that under Dean’s statements, McCord was expected to plead guilty, 

keep silent, receive a short sentence, and then receive clemency?

Mr. Caulfield. If he accepted the offer, tha t would be the way I 

would interpret it, yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Now, you were asked a question if Mr. Ehrlichman 

did n ot do some things on his own accord, on his own authority.

For whom was Mr. Ehrlichman working?

Mr. Caulfield. Sir, he was working for the President of the United 

States.

Senator E rvin. Did you know of your own knowledge of any time 

tha t Mr. Ehrlichman did things on his own accord, out of his own 

head and imagination?

Mr. Caulfield. I am sure he has many times, Senator.

Senator E rvin. And you are unable to tell me whether he was acting on instructions or acting out of his own head and imagination?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir. If I were given an assignment, I would go 

ahead and do it.

Senator Ervin. And when you called Mr. Ehrlichman shortly after 

the break-in, in June, or sometime about in July, you think Mr. 

Ehrlichman told you he thought he had b etter call John Mitchell and 

you said you thought it would be a good idea?

* Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And John Mitchell had been Attorney General at 

that time, and had just resigned as director of the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President, a short time before?

e Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. That is all I have.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, might I ask one more question?

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Senator Baker. Mr. Caulfield, you have testified at length and 

extensively about matters of great importance in which you had a 

direct involvement.

Mr. Caulfield. I beg your pardon, Senator.

Senator Baker. Mr. Caulfield, you have testified at length and 

extensively about important matters in which you had a direct 

involvement?

96-2 96—74— bk. 1- •19
284

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. You are aware of the nature of those transactions?’

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. And the possible consequences from them?

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. Mr. Caulfield, have you ever been requested to or 

have you ever suggested that there be any claim of Executive privilege 

on your behalf?

Mr. Caulfield. No, sir.

Senator B aker. Have you ever requested immunity from prosecution from this committee, a grand jury, or anyone else with respect 

to the information that you have given?

Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir.

Senator E rvin. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee and for your testimony, and with the understanding tha t you 

will return later at the request of the committee, you are excused at 

this time.

Mr. Caulfield. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dash. Will Mr. Anthony Ulasewicz come to the witness table, 

please.

Senator E rvin. Will you raise your right hand?

Do you swear tha t the evidence tha t you will give to the Senate 

Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth , so help you God?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I do.

Mr. Dash. Be seated, Mr. Ulasewicz.

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ulasewicz, for the record, would you please state 

your full name and your address.

«

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY T. ULASEWICZ

Mr. Ulasewicz. My name is Anthony, middle initial T. last name 

U-l-a-s-e-w-i-c-z. I reside in the town of Day, D-a-y, Saratoga County, 

in the State of New York.

Mr. Dash. And you are appearing alone, without an attorney?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ulasewicz, I understand tha t you have had a police 

career. Will you please give us tha t professional background?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. I was appointed to the New York City Police 

Department February 17, 1943, and left the department on or 

about July 9, 1969. I was a detective first-rate in a command 

known as the Bureau of Special Services and Investigations of the 

New York City Police Department. I spent 21 years in th at command, 

6 years without a uniform.

Mr. Dash. Could you briefly describe what your duties were in that 

assignment?

Mr. Ulasewicz. The Bureau of Special Services conducted investigations regarding organizations or groups in the city who might 

be a problem at any time. These were groups, perhaps dissident 

groups with governments in their own background nations. We

*
285

provided security for visiting personages and any causes or demonstrations tha t might have resulted in difficulty to the city.

Mr. Dash. How long have you known Mr. John Caulfield?

Mr. Ulasewicz. For about 10 years.

Mr. Dash. Did you meet him during your service in the police 

department?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, while I was in the Bureau of Special Services, 

Mr. Caulfield became part of the command for some time and then 

left for another command and tha t is how we started our friendship.

Mr. Dash. Now, in July of 1972, did you receive a call from Mr. 

Caulfield?

* Mr. Ulasewicz. In June of 1972.

Mr. Dash. In June of 1972. Can you just briefly tell us what the 

nature of that call was?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes.

Mr. Caulfield called me somewhere about the 25th or 26th of June 

and asked me to come to see him in Washington, D.C., the next day 

on a personal matter. I met with him around noontime. He mentioned 

that he was thinking of contacting Mr. McCord, a friend of his, that 

he did not have his telephone number. It was unlisted, it had been 

changed. And he said would I assist him in arranging for an appointment so tha t he may speak—not me, but speak with Mr. McCord.

Mr. Dash. Then what did you do?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I said, all right, if you do not know any other, if 

you want my help, I will do it. I did not question him in any way.

He asked me could I do it as soon as possible? I said, I will do i t 

right now. I said, No. 1, you mil have to give me some kind of identifying information, how will Mr. McCord know tha t it is you tha t 

is contacting him?

What I did was I wrote a note on a plain piece of paper and told 

Jack I would deliver that to Mr. McCord, setting up a telephone and 

he can then have his conversation. The purpose of this call, he said 

he wanted to help Mr. McCord, express his sympathy, et cetera, they 

had been such good friends in the past.

I wrote a note, arranged—I told Jack that I must have some 

identifying information so tha t this thing, that Mr. McCord would 

believe it is he. He said, well, there was an incident recently in which 

Mr. Caulfield left his raincoat somewhere, and I put that—th at was 

the identifying information, tha t I am a mutual friend for whom you 

recovered a raincoat.

Mr. Dash. Did you, in fact, take tha t note?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes.

Mr. Dash. Where did you deliver it?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I proceeded immediately to the area where Mr. 

< McCord resides. Mr. Caulfield had given me the address. I looked

around through the area, located a place, a Blue Inn or something, 

which has a large parking lot, two telephone booths isolated by

themselves.

I took the two telephone numbers of the booths, put them on the 

note, put two different times, like 2:30 and 4:30, and then wrote on 

the note about a mutual friend wishes to speak to you, or words to 

tha t effect; you recently recovered a raincoat of his. I t was not signed.
286

I then proceeded—th is tele phone booth is within the vicinity, of 

course, of Mr. Mc Cord’s residence. I then took the no te. I we nt to 

Mr. McC ord’s resid ence, placed it in the letter box, and walked 

away.

I then called from some are a no t too far, I called Mr. Caulfield and 

inform ed him th at i t was done.

Mr. Dash. Now, lat er, in Ja nuar y 1973, did you again receive a 

tele phone call from Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did.

Mr. D ash. Where— did you know o r did h e ind ica te he was calling 

from? ♦

Mr. Ulasewicz. He indica ted he was calling from Califor nia. I 

think it w as the San Cle mente In n in California.

Mr. D ash. And what, if anyth ing, did he tell you in th at telephone 

convers ation? *

Mr. Ulase wicz. Well, he indica ted to me th at he wish ed ano the r 

favor con cerning Mr. McC ord . He would like me to co ntact Mr.

McCord and deliver a message . And as Mr. Caulfield say s, the re was 

a loud silence.

I said , “Ja ck , you rea lize t h at wha t you are asking is a v ery u nusua l 

requ est for ma ny reasons—the tim ing ; it is a different situation than 

it was in Ju ne , prior to it, e t ceter a.”

He said , “T on y,” or som eth ing like this in resp onse, “you know I 

am here on meetings, I am con ducting mee ting s, I am very busy, 

there is inter ruption s. I can’t do a thi ng like thi s from here. I t w ould 

be ve ry inco nve nient. I kno w th at wh at I am asking is, I wo uld n’t do 

it ex cep t I kn ow th at you are a frien d and 1 can ask you to do i t. ”

He said, “I would n’t ask anyone else, I do n’t kno w who else I 

can as k.”

He said, “Things a re bein g p ush ed on me. I do n’t w an t to get into it 

or I wo uld n’t ask you to do it .”

I said som ething th at , well, Mr. McCor d, of course, being a good 

wireman, Jack, anyth ing th at is said to him , it can be expecte d it is 

probably recorded.

He said , “if this ever comes ou t, I will defi nite ly ad mit th at I asked 

you to do this , and under the se circ umstance s and on a friendship 

basis.”

Mr. Dash. W ha t was the message th at Mr. Caulfield asked you to 

give Mr. McC ord?

Mr. Ulasewicz. To the b es t of m y recollection, the message was in •

five or six phrases. It was—let ’s see now. I do n’t ha ve the original 

notes. I wrote the phr ases lig htly aft er I agreed. I t was, “A year is a 

long tim e. No one knows how a jud ge will go. Yo ur fam ily will be 

provide d for. Re ha bilitation and job opportu nit ies will be provide d 

for.” *

Du rin g this con versation , which inc ide nta lly, occurred at a telephone booth i n the town of Day , and the teleph one sys tem is n ot the 

be st, it wa sn’t too clear an d I thou gh t Mr. Mc Cord asked me to 

re pe at s ome thin g.

M r. Dash. Ri gh t now , I am a sking y ou to recall th e message or the 

telephone call yo u h ad from M r. Caulfield.

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, to Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Dash. WTiat Mr. Cau lfield asked you to tell M r. McC ord.
287

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, well, I finished with Mr. Caulfield and he gave 

me the number and I then went in and made this call to Mr. McCord.

Mr. D ash. The message you gave to Mr. McCord was not your 

own message, was it?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, no, Mr. Caulfield’s message.

Mr. D ash. I take it the message you gave to Mr. McCord was the 

same message you have given?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Same message, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. All right, then you can go ahead and say what you 

told Mr. McCord, but before that how did you contact Mr. McCord? 

t Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Caulfield gave me a telephone number to

Mr. McCord’s residence. I did not have that number, so ho provided me with the number, but I did have, I told him I did have, the number to the telephone booth and I had those and I contacted Mr. 

« McCord a t his residence. Mr. McCord was not surprised at the phone call apparently and 

I said, “Go to the phone,” and he did have the telephone where it 

was, identical with the June message.

Mr. Dash. Now Mr. McCord did call to the telephone booth. 

Did he call you or did you call him?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; I called Mr. McCord.

Mr. Dash. And you did reach him at the other end of the line?

Air. Ulasewicz. I did reach him, right.

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, then now did you tell him that 

Mr. Caulfield asked you to tell him?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Right.

I told him I had a message from Mr. Caulfield and tha t I went 

into this message as I just said, “A year is a long time. No one knows how a judge will go. Your family needs will be provided for, rehabilitation and job opportunity will be provided for.” In the course of the conversation Mr. McCord said something I 

didn’t quite understand, I repeated a phrase or two of this. And 

there was something about “Do n’t know whether he asked me to 

plead guilty or is tha t part of my message,” and tha t is all I recall 

of the message.

Mr. Dash. Do you recall saying anything about immunity, did 

immunity come up in the discussion?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don’t recall, it may very well have happened.

I have heard Mr. McCord’s testimony here, of course, as everyone 

e

has, and I searched my mind very strongly on the matter because I

still believe Mr. McCord could have been taped and might have 

it on tape; I don’t know, but knowing tha t possibility, I certainly 

searched my memory and this is the best I can remember.

Mr. Dash. And it is possible in your searching your memory tha t 

♦ the idea of pleading guilty came up during the conversation.

Mr. Ulasewicz. It is quite possible it might have been in it.

Mr. Dash. All right.

Now, what did Mr. McCord say after you gave him that message? 

By the way, when you gave him that message did he know who 

you were?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; I never m et Mr. McCord in person prior—at 

any time.

Mr. Dash. Did you identify yourself by name?
288

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; I went rig ht into it, “I have a message from 

Jack Caulfield,” and his response indicated to me that he was expecting a message apparently. I went right into it and he thanked me and 

seemed satisfied.

Mr. Dash. What did you do after that?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. Caulfield back in California and told 

him I relayed the message th at he had given me, and that Mr. McCord 

did n ot seem surprised, and tha t he seemed satisfied.

Mr. Dash. Did you have any other contact with Mr. McCord on 

the telephone?

Mr. Ulasewicz. The next day Mr. Caulfield called me again and 

asked me to once more deliver a message to Mr. McCord.

Mr. Dash. What was th at message?

Mr. Ulasewicz. That message was, Mr. Caulfield said to me that, 

to explain, to make sure that Mr. McCord realizes that he is in California, tha t he, Mr. Caulfield, is in California, tha t he will meet with 

him as soon as he returned, first order of business, from California, to 

set up a tentative, a meet on the second overlook on Washington 

highway or parkway, and to get tha t message to him and then call 

back and verify it.

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Caulfield pick tha t particular location?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, he did, and he said he knew I was not 

familiar with tha t area but he said, McCord would know the area.

Mr. Dash. All right.

Then were there any other contacts you had on the telephone?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Caulfield called me once more after tha t and 

he said that he had planned to leave a day earlier. His plane, however, 

was delayed, would I tell Mr. McCord tha t as soon as he landed tha t 

same evening he will contact Mr. McCord and try to meet him immediately rather than the following day as I originally conveyed my 

message.

Mr. Dash. What did Mr. McCord respond to that?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. McCord was very annoyed. He told me, he 

kind of brushed me off, said, “I have people here. I have my own 

family problems, I know you are doing what you think is right,” 

something to that effect. He spoke kind of rapidly and he said: “ You 

can tell Jack tha t I will meet only as originally scheduled,” meaning 

the, originally the second call, the overlook on the Washington 

Parkway.

Mr. Dash. Did you report that back to Mr. Caulfield?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, I couldn’t rep ort tha t back to Mr. Caulfield.

Mr. Dash. That was the last contact?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Th at was the last contact I had in this matter 

with either of the two gentlemen.

Mr. Dash. All right, I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. T hompson. Mr. Ulasewicz, was not Mr. Ehrlichman responsible 

for your being hired originally at the White House?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Did he direct your work while you were at the White 

House?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Caulfield directed my work.

Mr. Thompson. He did.
289

'Was th at at the direction of Mr. Eh rlichma n? Did he dir ect Mr. 

'Caulfield?

Mr. Ulasewicz. T hat was my impression.

Mr. T hompson. Between the firs t tele pho ne call th at you made to 

Mr. McCord until after the tria l, did you discuss the calls th at you were making with Mr. Eh rlichma n or any one else at th e Wh ite House?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir.

Mr. Thompson. You only discu ssed these matters with Mr. 

Caulfield?

Mr. Ulasewicz. And no one at any time.

4 Mr. T hompson. All rig ht.

Did you see you r role as someone who was delivering cer tain words 

which you took do wn, say, in writing a nd re pe ate d or did you see yo ur role as someone who was supp osed to engage in c onversation w ith Mr. 

* Mc Cord and pa int a pictu re for him, so to speak?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Absol ute ly not, str ictly as a messenger to give 

the se phrases over to him , and I did no t—I originally did no t repe at the m in the ir full co nte xt from Mr. Caulfield. M y recollection is I 

gav e phrases------

Mr. T hompson. All rig ht. Wh en Mr. Mc Cord resp ond ed to those 

words did you engage in con versation with him the n?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Accordin g to your best recollection, was the re ever 

any discussion between Mr. McCord and yourself ab ou t the fact th at 

he should no t tes tify at the trial?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I do no t recall it.

Mr. T hompson. Was the re ever any discu ssion , to the best of yo ur 

recollection, between Mr. Mc Cord and yourself th at he shou ld plead 

guilty?

Mr. Ulasew icz. I t may h ave been . I do no t recall.

Mr. Thompson. Well, if it m ay h ave been, would this have been in 

yo ur original message or would thi s have been pu rsua nt to a 

con vers atio n?

Mr. Ulasewicz. N o, it would have been in the original message 

which was th at o nly tim e, only th at first call.

Mr. T hompson. All rig ht. Th is was no t in yo ur dir ect testim ony. 

Th is was n ot a par t of y ou r dir ect t est imony. Is i t your opinion th at it 

was n ot in your o riginal message or th at it p ossibly could h ave been?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I t could have been in the orig inal message.

, Mr. Thompson. So you do no t rem em ber wha t you told him?

Mr. Ulasewicz. From the be st of my recollection these three 

phras es are p ositive ab ou t the message w ould be a bo ut “ a ye ar is a long rim e, no one know s how a jud ge will go. Yo ur fam ily needs will be pro vided for, re habilitati on , and job op po rtu nitie s” . W hen the re was a pau se there ma y have bee n som ething o n ple ad gu ilty or so bu t I was 

giving the message as rap idl y as I could as I wa nte d to finish the 

m atter.

Mr. Thompson. Pa rd on m e, you say th at m ay h ave come ab ou t or 

discusse d when the re was a pause?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. Mr. Mc Cord said some thing th at I did no t 

qu ite un derst and so I rep eated my message.

Mr. Thompson. Th is pause, would this still be par t of you r original 

message?
290

No, sir.

To Mr. McCord?

No, sir.

Did Mr. Caulfield ever tell you who was directing

Mr. Ulasewicz. Original message. These only came in the original—any discussion of the, regarding the, judge and all t hat business 

came only in the first conversation. The second conversation was to 

make the appointment, and the third conversation was to inform him 

tha t Mr. Caulfield would try to get to him a day sooner.

Mr. Thompson. You did no t seek to interpret in any way what the 

message meant?

Mr. Ulasewicz.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Ulasewicz.

Mr. Thompson. 

him in this matter?

Mr. Ulasewicz. He did not.

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Did you not infer, in other words, you made the 

state ment to Mr. McCord which Mr. Caulfield had asked you to make?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Was it not implicit in tha t statement tha t he would 

get these advantages if he entered a plea of guilty?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would assume so, yes, definitely.

Senator Ervin. You certainly did not construe this statement he is 

going to be rehabilitated and given, serve-----

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir.

Senator Ervin [continuing]. Serve only a year in jail and get this 

fine treatment if he fought the case?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Absolutely. I did not mean to infer any such thing, 

definitely.

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker. If not, I will pass directly to Senator 

Gurney, and then Senator Talmadge.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions of 

the witness.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge?

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Ulasewicz, had you been aware of the 

Watergate affair at the time you were asked to make the call?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes sir.

Senator Talmadge. Why did you agree to serve as a contact in this 

situation?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Because of my friendship with Mr. Caulfield 

and in his original call to me with my arguments as to why I did not 

want to—from his demeanor, his conduct, I could see it was very 

important to him. He was in seme kind of a position that caused him 

great concern and as a friend I said I would do it.

Senator Talmadge. Did you assume t hat Mr. Caulfield’s authority 

was coming from higher authority in the White House?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I assumed it was coming from at least Mr. Dean, 

somebody above Mr. Caulfield.

Senator Talmadge. Did you believe that these White House sources 

would approve what you did?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I suppose so.

Senator Talmadge. Were you paid for your services in your contact 

with Mr. McCord?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No sir. I was on no one’s payroll at the time of 

these conversations in Janu ary. I was not in anyone’s employ, I 

might say.

►
291

Senator Talmadge. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. 

Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Senator Weicker?

Senator Weicker. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Senator Inouye?

Senator I nouye. Thank you very much.

According to Mr. Caulfield’s testimony you were a member of a 

“private security entity in Washington, D.C., providing investigative 

support for the White House” is th at correct?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Th at is correct.

* Senator Inouye. You worked under Mr. Caulfield bu t were on the 

payroll of Mr. Kalmbach?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Th at is correct.

Senator Inouye. What were you receiving as salary from Mr.

* Kalmbach?

Mr. Ulasewicz. $22,000 a year plus expenses.

Senator I nouye. Are you still on Mr. Kalmbach’s payroll?

Mr. Ulasewicz. No sir.

Senator I nouye. When were you taken off the payroll?

Mr. Ulasewicz. In 1971—well, to the end of the year of 1972.

Senator I nouye. What was the nature of your work?

Mr. Ulasewicz. It was supporting, as an outside supporting 

investigative to Mr. Caulfield.

Senator I nouye. Will you describe some of your duties. One of the 

newspapers described you as the super spy. Is th at a correct statement?

Mr. Ulasewicz. The newspapers have painted quite a few pictures 

of me recently, but I was no spy, of course, of any kind. I did investigative work in support of whatever Mr. Caulfield related to me. I 

did no slanderous spying as the newspapers’ allegations, et cetera. I 

could best put in its category is probably supporting anybody who is 

conducting legitimate investigations. I used no wiretaps, I never used 

any surveillance, et cetera.

Senator I nouye. You considered your work to be legal?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Absolutely legal, yes, sir. I took—when I left the 

police department, I left a fine ongoing career not to get involved in 

anything illegal and I made a stipulation at the time with Mr. 

Ehrlichman at the time the job was taken. Mr. Caulfield knew I would 

not go for it.

Senator I nouye. In this special assignment you undertook from 

► Mr. Caulfield to serve as contact with Mr. McCord, were you aware

you were being an accessory to the crime of obstructing a criminal investigation?

Yes, sir. I knew th at it was wrong.

You knew you were an accessory to a crime?

Yes, sir.

But as a matter of friendship you proceeded?

Yes, sir.

Did you have other assignments of similar 

No.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Baker. Thank you, Senator Inouye.

Mr. Ulasewicz. 

Senator Inouye. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 

Senator I nouye. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 

Senator Inouye. 

nature?

Mr. Ulasewicz. 

Senator Inouye.
292

I might say the question has not been asked you but I will put it 

now, while we are limiting our inquiry to a single set of events and 

circumstances, do I understand tha t you are willing to return and to 

testify further at the pleasure of the committee on other matters tha t 

you may have knowledge of?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Very good.

Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. I have no questions.

Senator Baker. Senator Montoya has no questions.

Let me ask one question or one line of questions, it really does not 

bear much on the m atter at hand though; did I understand you to say *

McCord was a pretty good wireman?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, from what I have read in the case and from 

the fact tha t Mr. Caulfield hired him, I would say he was one of the >

best wiremen in the business. [Laughter.]

Senator Baker. I am not familiar with the term, what do you 

mean a pretty good wireman?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, a wireman in police parlance would be 

anyone who is familiar with applying wiretaps, any type of surveillances by electrical means, and so forth in a room, on a person, in an 

automobile, in a tire, or any place and I would say he was a good man.

Senator Baker. Is that a term of general usage in your trade?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. However, I was never a wireman. 

[Laughter.]

While I was in the police department many of the functions that we 

did, of course, they were all legal with proper papers, et cetera, and 

judicial permission, we have some of the finest wiremen in the department. [Laughter.]

So it would be a thing of common knowledge to myself or anyone 

else.

Senator Baker. You think your wiremen were better than McCord’s 

wiremen?

Mr. Ulasewicz. I will tell you, any old retired man in the New York 

City Police Department who would become involved in a thing like 

that, he thought he had to for whatever reason it was, he would not 

have walked in with an army, that is for sure. [Laughter.]

Senator Baker. He would not have walked in with an army.

Would he have walked in with identification papers and serial 

numbered $100 bills and address book?

Mr. Ulasewicz. He probably would have walked in like any decent 

common looking citizens, laid something in the right place and walked 

right out and tha t would have been the end of it for a long time. 

[Laughter.]

You see, I must be honest here, Senator. [Laughter.] *

Senator Baker. How could you have gained the information, how 

could you have gained the information that Mr. McCord obviously or 

apparently was seeking, that is, a telecommunication link with what 

was going on in the Democratic National Committee without going 

in there with an army and taping the doors and all the rest.

Describe to us how else that might have been done by a good man.

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, a wireman would only do wires. He might not 

necessarily be a good man for a different type of investigation. If it is a
293

question of obtaining information from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, or anybody else the easiest way is to write a postal card asking them to mail you all their leaflets, they will pu t you on their 

m a ilin g list and you will have everything. If it is all written they will 

do it.

Senator Baker. Politicians are pre tty anxious to add to their mailing 

list.

Mr. Ulasewicz. Politicians are the most vulnerable people in the 

world, in my last 3 years of experience, to any kind of scandal, et cetera. 1 do not say they are guilty of it because I still have to come back here. 

[Laughter.]

But because of the type-----

Senator Baker. The last thing on earth I would want to do is to convert your testimony into self-serving purposes for this committee bu t you do not have any good wiremen on us, do you? [Laughter.]

Mr. Ulasewicz. It looks like there are plenty of them here. 

[Laughter.]

Senator Baker. You know that is not a very good answer. You are 

heightening my concern. [Laughter.]

Mr. Ulasewicz. I have none on anybody. Thank you.

Senator Baker. Thank you.

Senator Ervin. I understand tha t you will come back when the committee requests you for further evidence?

Mr. Ulasewicz. Definitely, Senator.

Senator E rvin. Thank you, thank you very much. I think it is almost recess time and it is better to recess until 2 o’clock 

and then start with the next witness. [Whereupon, a t 11:45 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene a t

2 p.m., this same day.]

Afternoon Session, Wednesday, May 23, 1973

Senator Baker [presiding]. The committee will come to order.

The chairman has asked me to announce tha t he is on his way from a meeting of the Judiciary Committee which, as you know, is con­ sidering the nomination of Mr. Elliot Richardson to be Atto rney General of the Unite d States. T hat he and Senator Gurney, a member of the Judiciary Committee, will be here momentarily. He asked me, however, in the interest of time to convene the committee, and to proceed with the opening state ment which we understand 

Mr. Alch is now prepared to give.

Mr. Dash. I see Mr. Gerald Alch is at the witness table. Will you, 

Mr. Chairman, swear the witness?

Senator Baker. Mr. Alch, would you hold up your right hand?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Will you please s tate your name?

Mr. Alch. Gerald Alch.

Senator Baker. Mr. Gerald Alch, do you solemnly swear th at the 

testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing bu t the truth , so help you God?

Mr. Alch. I do.

Senator Baker. You may be seated.

Mr. Dash. Now, the committee has been supplied 13 pages of a 

statement that Mr. Alch will be reading. Our committee staff has
294

done the typing and reproducing of this for Mr. Alch, having supplied 

a copy of his statement, and the rest of i t will be available to the 

committee during the course of the reading of the statem ent.

Mr. Alch, for the record, will you give your full name and address?

TESTIMONY OF GERALD ALCH, ATTORNEY

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

My name is Gerald Alch, A-l-c-h. My address is 954 West Roxbury 

Parkway, Chestnut Hill, Mass.

Mr. Dash. And you did prepare a statem ent which you wish to a

read to this committee?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Will you proceed reading tha t statement?

Mr. Alch. Thank you, and I will. *

May it please the honorable committee, in all candor, I am about 

to give testimony with a certain degree of regret. This is because those 

areas to which I shall address myself are areas which I, as a criminal 

defense attorney, believe to be somewhat sacred. They reflect conversation between a lawyer and his client, uttered in the course of a 

relationship wherein I was exerting my best efforts to protect the 

interest and welfare of James W. McCord. I take most seriously the 

well-established attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, in my judgment, Mr. McCord, in his testimony before this honorable committee 

on Friday, May 18, 1973, and in other prior disclosures,-both written 

and oral, has waived such privilege which I have been informed he has 

acknowledged. Mr. McCord has made allegations concerning my conduct in the defense of his liberty. These allegations are, in some 

instances, completely false and in other instances, have been twisted 

out of context into untruths, presumably to serve his present purpose, 

whatever tha t may be, but that impugn my personal standards of 

ethical and legal behavior. I accordingly believe it now to be my duty 

and responsibility to respond and I have accepted the invitation of this 

honorable committee so to do for which I am most grateful. Here, then, 

is a true narrative of my representation of Mr. McCord.

In Ju ly of 1972, my office received a telephone call from Mr. McCord 

requesting an appointment. On a Saturday morning during tha t month,

I met with him for the very first time. He identified himself as one

of those arrested in the Watergate building on June 17, 1972. He told

me that he had taken a calculated risk in doing what he did and was #

prepared to face the consequences. Within tha t framework, however,

he indicated he wanted the most effective legal representation possible

and asked whether or n ot my partner, Attorney F. Lee Bailey, would

be interested in representing him. I told him that I had advised Mr.

Bailey of my appointment with him and tha t he, Mr. Bailey, was not *

interested in representing any defendants in this particular case.

Mr. McCord told me as a result of his impression of me, he desired 

my counsel. A fee of $25,000 plus expenses was quoted and agreed 

upon by Mr. McCord. Arrangements were made for the payment of 

this fee over a period of time, which arrangements were ultimately 

met by Mr. McCord, although over a longer period of time than 

originally agreed upon. I asked Mr. McCord to give me specific details 

attending the Watergate break-in, but he specifically declined to do so
295

except to state his personal motivation for so acting, that is, as he 

told me at tha t first meeting, the protection of others. I explained to 

him tha t since he had been physically apprehended in the Watergate 

complex, he could obviously not deny t hat fact and inquired as to his 

motivation in so acting. He told me tha t as chief of security for the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President, he had received information 

to the effect tha t various antiwar demonstrations bv groups which he 

described as “radical” were being planned for the upcoming Presidential election and that these demonstrations had, in the past and 

would invariably in the future, lead to violence or the threat thereof 

to various prominent Republican officials, including, but not limited to,

* members of the Committee To Re-Elect the President and including, 

but not limited to, the President of the United States. I told him that 

I would explore whether or no t this motivation could, in any way, be

w

embraced by a recognized legal defense. He told me th at he wished me

to come to Washington, D.C., and meet with an attorney by the name 

of Paul O’Brien, whom he described as one of the counsel to his 

employer, the Committee To Re-Elect the President. He desired that 

I contact Mr. O’Brien and advise him of his—Mr. McCord’s—position.

Shortly thereafter, I traveled to the Capital and telephoned Mr. 

O’Brien for an appointment. Mr. McCord drove me to Mr. O’Brien’s 

office, whereupon I met with Mr. O’Brien and a gentleman introduced 

to me as Mr. Kenneth Parkinson. I introduced myself, told Mr. 

O’Brien I had been retained to represent Mr. McCord and was here 

at Mr. McCord’s direction to inform him as a representative of Mr. 

McCord’s employer, the Committee To Re-Elect the President, tha t 

Mr. McCord was, as he had told me, prepared to face the consequences 

of his acts. Mr. O’Brien and I exchanged office telephone numbers 

and the meeting, which had lasted for approximately 15 minutes, 

terminated.

My first official act on behalf of Mr. McCord was to represent him 

at a pretrial indictment probable cause hearing before a superior 

court judge in the District of Columbia. All other defendants had 

waived such a hearing, but 1 decided to utilize it, as best I could, for 

discovery purposes. Mr. Mc( ’ord was most impressed with my in-court 

presentation and he told me so. I subsequently accompanied him, his 

wife, and daughter before the Federal grand jury. At one point, prior 

to indictment, I was advised by the prosecutors, Mr. Earl Silbert 

and Mr. Seymour Glanzer, tha t they possessed independent evidence 

tha t equipment utilized in the monitoring of telephone conversations 

from the office of the National Democratic Committee had been 

delivered to Mr. McCord’s home in the presence of Mr. McCord’s 

wife on the night of June 17, 1972. They advised me of the possibility 

of Mr. McCord’s wife being indicted as an accessory after the fact,

• but indicated this would not be done if the equipment was produced.

I discussed this with Mr. McCord and he requested me to work out 

the best arrangement possible, but to do anything and everything to 

protect his wife whom he said had no involvement in his activities. 

Accordingly, an arrangement was agreed upon with the prosecutors, 

whereby the equipment was surrendered to them with the agreement 

tha t they would n ot divulge, during trial, the fact tha t this particular 

equipment was obtained from Mr. McCord. Mrs. McCord was not
296

indicted and the Government kept its word with regard to the manner 

in which said equipment was introduced during trial. In the ensuing weeks and months, during my many contacts with Mr. McCord, he continuously insisted tha t his only purpose in participating in the Watergate break-in was to protect his employers and other Republican officials from threats of violence. He would, almost daily, send to me clippings from various newspapers published throughout the country, reflecting reports of antiwar group activities which in some instances involved violence. In fact, at one point, he sent to me a typed memorandum reflecting this alleged motivation for his conduct, which memorandum included various legal citations of law, which he believed to be in support of the defense he wished me to present. I have made available to this honorable committee copies of three such memorandums, which was accompanied by a hand­ written note from Mr. McCord which reads as follows: Dated July 13, 1972. “Gerald, I well understand tha t it is your job and not mine to work up a defense. Nevertheless, I have been putting together some ideas and collecting every newspaper clipping I can find which may be of help later. I am strongly oriented toward the grounds of self- defense and defense of others and of property as my defense. I believe we can make the strongest defense on these grounds. We both of course have to talk this out at length and you have the final say in this 

matter. With best regards, Jim .” I read this, may it please this honorable committee, to emphasize this fact: That Mr. McCord was from the beginning, in complete agreement with the defe se ultimately presented in his behalf. At ’’O time, did he ever state to me that he believed the Watergate opera­ tion to be legal as a result of the alleged involvement of the then Attorney General, the counsel to the President, or anyone else. As a matter of fact, during one of my many conversations with Mr. McCord on this subject, I told him that my legal research revealed tha t the defense of the protection of others required tha t the perpetrator not 

know he was breaking the law. I said to Mr. McCord, “No jury will ever believe tha t a man with your background with the FB I and the CIA would not realize he was breaking the law in breaking into an office a t night, wearing surgical 

gloves and armed with eavesdropping equipment.” He laughed and agreed tha t such a contention was, in fact, legally untenable. I further explained that the reason for his actions, as he had explained them to me, would be more properly embraced by the legal defense of “duress,” wherein the perpetrator felt compelled to break a law in order to prevent a greater evil. Mr. McCord had explained to me his belief of a direct relationship between these po­ tentially violent antiwar groups and the Democratic Party and tha t his participation in the Watergate burglary was accomplished in the hope of obtaining advance evidence of planned potentially violent 

demonstrations. I advised tha t the law of “duress” allowed for the perpetrator to possess criminal in tent, tha t is, to know that he was breaking the law and tha t therefore, based upon what he had told me with regard to his own motivation, this defense was not only compatible therewith, but in my opinion, constituted the only defense available. Mr. McCord wholeheartedly agreed. And I commenced to prepare the case on this 

basis.
297

I also received from Mr. McCord ar outline of a proposed book he 

was in the process of writing entitled “Counter Espionage Agent for the Republicans—The True Story of the W atergate Case.” It was an outline, listing such chapters titled “The Beginnings” ; “The Com­ mittee To Re-elect the President” ; “Background to Violence and Political Espionage” ; “Jack Anderson, the Man Who Brought you the Eagleton Case” ; “The Political Opposition” ; “The Watergate Incident, The True Story” ; “The Defendants” ; “The Grand Jury” ; “The Lawyers” ; “The Investigators” ; “The Congressional Com­ mittees” ; “The October Phase” ; “The News Media” ; “The Final Story” ; with a prolog, as the book goes to print, “If the Democrats 

Had Had Alarms and Guards.” Copies of this outline have also been provided to this honorable committee. All of these memorandums, I may add, gentlemen, were 

provided to me by mail directly from Mr. McCord.

In this regard, on September 19, 1972, one of my associates from 

my office, Mr. John Albert Johnson, appeared with Mr. McCord for arraignment with Chief Judge Sirica, since I had a court commitment in another State. Mr. McCord told Mr. Johnson tha t he was in the process of writing a book and desired our opinion as to whether he could have this book published prior to election day. He told Mr. Johnson that he felt tha t any publication after Presidential election day would not be worthwhile monetarily. Mr. Johnson reduced this conversation to a file memorandum, copies of which also have been presented to this honorable committee. When Mr. Johnson advised me of this, I told Mr. McCord tha t in my opinion, no such publica­ tion should be contemplated prior to trial. Mr. McCord, reluctantly 

it appeared to me, agreed to follow my advice. There were other memorandums that I received from time to time from Mr. McCord which suggested for consideration other potential defense material which I rejected. One such memorandum, copies of which have been provided to this honorable committee, listed and discussed such topics as “the Mafia and Democratic National Com­ mittee Funds and Personnel” ; “Flying Tigers and Anna Chenault” ; “Israel and the Mafia.” Said memorandum as you honorable Senators will note in the copies provided to you, also mentioned the names of other individuals and law firms, which names I choose no t to bandy 

about in this public hearing. On several occasions, Mr. McCord told me tha t he was convinced there existed a concerted effort on the part of his codefendants and 

their counsel to make him the “fall guy” of the Watergate operation. On one particular occasion, he mailed to me a memorandum, copies of which you also have. For the record, said memorandum reads as 

follows: October 17, 1972.

Subject: Shift of the Focus of Publicity. Jerry, about a week ago, Newsweek Reporters told my men th at the FB I had been leaking information to them relative to my case and some of the material would appear in th e next two issues. Last week, one item appeared regarding an office of mine rented on K Street, D.C. This week’s issue, October 23 date, carries for the first time an allegation th at I was the “ring leader” of the Watergate opera­ tion. Instead of being fourth down the ladder from Liddy, Hunt, and Barker, I am now the “ring leader”, according to the FBI. This had been predicted, that I would try to be made the focus in order to draw the attention away from the W.H. men, Liddy and Hunt. I could see it coming as early as August and more particularly, 2 weeks ago, when you and I talked. The FBI leaks to Newsweek 

are no accident. It is as predicted. Jim.
298

I advised Mr. McCord that I had kept abreast of newspaper coverage of the Watergate incident and tha t in all honesty, could discern 

no effort on anyone’s part to foist upon him prime responsibility for 

the offenses charged. He disagreed -with me and I told him tha t I 

would subsequently discuss the matter with other defense counsel.

At another time prior to Janu ary 1973, Mr. McCord advised that 

he had made telephone calls to the Israeli Embassy on September 19, 

1972, and to the Chilean Embassy on October 10, 1972. He did not 

divulge the contents of these telephone conversations. He explained 

his purpose as follows:

He told me he was convinced tha t the Government had telephone 

taps on the phones of these Embassies, b ut would not admit to such 

activity. He was certain that his calls had been intercepted. He 

instructed tha t I make a motion in court requiring the Government 

to disclose any and all intercepted communications in which he was 

involved. His theory was tha t the Government, rather than reveal 

such activity, would dismiss the case against him.

I asked him what these calls were about. He told me that they were 

phone calls relative to the case. I now understand that these phone 

calls were not of any relative substance which fact Mr. McCord had 

not told me originally.

I received a letter from him dated August 23 reflecting these 

thoughts, copies of which I have made available to this honorable 

committee. It is a two-page letter and in the interest of expediency, 

I shall not read the letter in its entirety. It deals with the subject 

of the consequences the Government intercepting telephone calls. 

However, I would respectfully call to the attention of this honorable 

committee the last paragraph of the letter, which reads as follows:

“Enjoyed the visit with you and appreciated your visit. I have got 

a great lawyer and am well aware of tha t fact. With best regards, 

Jim .”

In addition, I have provided this honorable committee with copies 

of undated memorandum from Mr. McCord, reflecting four telephone 

calls: one from Chile to McCord’s office; another from Mr. McCord’s 

office to the Chilean military attach e; a call to the Israeli Embassy 

from Mr. McCord’s home, and a similar call to the Chilean Embassy.

I would respectfully invite the committee’s attention to the fact 

that the first two of these calls occurred prior to my ever meeting 

Mr. McCord, before I ever represented the man. As a result thereof, 

I made an appropriate motion for disclosure of any Government 

electronic surveillance in any way pertaining to Mr. McCord. Mr. 

Silbert’s response was that he had no knowledge of any such surveillance. Again, at my client’s insistence, I made a second similar motion 

at the bench during trial, explaining to Chief Judge Sirica tha t I was 

doing so at my client’s insistence tha t such calls had, in fact, been 

made and had been electronically intercepted.

The Government again stated its total lack of knowledge of any 

such activity and accordingly, no action was taken on my motion. 

My actions in this regard were consistent with and occasioned by my 

determination to defend my client to the best of my ability by utilizing 

any and all legal and proper means. In retrospect, I must conclude 

that my efforts were not, to say the least, appreciated.
299

With regard to opportunities presented to Mr. McCord to tell all 

tha t he knew with regard to the Watergate operation, I stat e the 

following:

On or about October 25, 1972, the Government conveyed to local 

counsel, my local counsel, Bernard Shankman of Washington, and my 

associate, Kir. Johnson, an offer to accept from Mr. McCord a plea 

of guilty to one substantive count of the indictm ent and in retu rn for 

his testimony as a Government witness, a recommendation of leniency 

would be made to the court. The Government indicated, however, 

tha t it could not and would not recommend any type of sentence 

which would allow Mr. McCord to remain at liberty. This offer was 

transmitted to Mr. McCord and was unequivocally rejected.

In November of 1972, a second plea offer was received from the 

prosecutors. At this time, the offer was essentially similar to the first 

w offer, except th at Mr. McCord would have to plead to three counts of

the indictment instead of one. The explanation for this change of 

position was that the Government’s case had grown considerably 

stronger. This offer, which also involved M r. McCord’s testifying as a 

Government witness, was related to and again rejected by Mr. 

McCord.

I advised Mr. McCord after an in camera session with Chief Judge 

Sirica, during trial, tha t there still existed an opportunity for him to 

appear before the grand jury, even at that stage of the trial, to make 

full disclosure. I have been informed that the committee has been 

provided with a transcript of that in camera proceeding and I, 

therefore, will not attempt to paraphrase the words of Chief Judge 

Sirica, nevertheless, 1 relayed this information to Mr. McCord and 

this third op portunity was turned down. I take the liberty of bringing 

these three instances to the attention of this honorable committee 

since, in my opinion, Mr. McCord, in portions of his testimony before 

you on May 18, 1973, implied tha t I had pressured him to plead 

guilty and remain silent. Senators, I state to you that this is not so and 

respectfully refer you to the question asked of Mr. McCord by Senator 

Ervin on May 18, 1973 and I quote, Question. “ Now, did your lawyer 

urge you to enter a plea of guilty? I am talking about Mr. Gerald 

Alch.” Answer. “I do not recall that, no, sir.” Tha t portion, at least, 

of Mr. McCord’s testimony, is accurate.

With regard to the allegations of Mr. McCord to the effect tha t I 

suggested th at the CIA be brought into the case in a defense posture, 

„ I state the following:

As heretofore explained, I had decided to base Mr. McC ord’s 

defense on the theory of “duress” for two basic reasons. First, it was 

the only legally recognized defense that I felt was supportable; second, 

more importantly, it appeared to be the factual truth, based upon 

• Mr. McCord’s explanation of his own motive. In December of 1972,

I attended one of several meetings of defense counsel, the purpose of 

which was to discuss various aspects of trial strategy. I proceeded to 

explain the defense tha t I was contemplating, duress. A discussion 

ensued wherein some of the other defense attorneys reasoned th at this 

“security motive” and by that they were referring to my contemplated 

defense of duress based on what Mr. McCord had told me, would be 

applicable only to Mr. McCord in view of his position as chief of

96-296— 73—bk. 1- -20
300

security for the Committee To Re-Elect the President. In the general 

discussion that followed, the question arose as to whether or not the 

CIA could have been involved. It was pointed out by others, and I 

emphasize by others because a t this point my defense of Mr. McCord 

had been formulated based upon what he had told me, and with his 

concurrence, it was pointed out by others tha t all of the individuals 

apprehended in the Watergate complex had some prior connection 

with the CIA and tha t one of the Cuban-Americans had been in 

possession of what appeared to be CIA-forged documents.

Before the meeting went on to other topics, it was agreed th at each 

lawyer would ask his respective client whether or not he had any 

knowledge of any CIA involvement. When the meeting terminated, 

I telephoned Mr. McCord at his office by prearrangement and asked 

him to meet with me and local counsel, Mr. Shankman, a t the Monocle 

Restaurant for lunch*. During lunch, which lasted for approximately 

45 minutes, I asked Mr. McCord whether, to his knowledge, the CIA 

was in any way involved with the Watergate venture. He did not 

directly respond to this specific question, but did become quite upset 

at what he believed to be the antagonism of the White House against 

the CIA. He cited the dismissal of Helms—of Mr. Helms, as CIA 

Director and the appointment of Schlesinger in his place, as an attempted “hatchet job” by the administration against the CIA. He did 

venture his observation tha t if any CIA officials were subpenaed tha t 

they would not and could not comply with said subpena. Because of 

the brevity of the luncheon and because of the obvious need for more 

detailed pretrial preparation meetings, I asked Mr. McCord to come 

to Boston in a few days, which he agreed to do.

On or about December 26, 1972, Mr. McCord came to Boston and 

initiated our conversation b y stating tha t the CIA was not involved 

and th at he would have no part of any attempt to involve that agency. 

He asked that I relay this position to other defense counsel at our next 

meeting, which I agreed to do, and in fact did.

I did not, after advising other defense counsel of Mr. McCord’s 

denial of CIA involvement, engage with other counsel in any further 

conversation of any potential defense involving the CIA. At no time 

did I suggest to Mr. McCord t hat the so-called CIA defense be utilized, 

for the defense of “duress” had already been agreed upon, but I merely 

asked him whether or not there was a factual basis for this contention. 

Mr. M cCord’s allegation that I announced my ability to forge his CIA 

personal records with the cooperation of then acting CIA director, Mr. 

Schlesinger, is absurd and completely untrue. I have never had the 

privilege of meeting Mr. Schlesinger nor the privilege of talking with 

the man. No such statem ent was ever made. I had no contact with the 

Director of the CIA, let alone an agreement involving the forging 

of documents.

My local counsel, Mr. Bernard Shankman, who was present at the 

Monocle, can corroborate tha t I did not say that. The remainder of 

my discussion with Mr. McCord in Boston was devoted to further 

analysis of the “duress” defense and when the meeting ended, I told 

him that I would keep in daily telephone contact with him until our 

next meeting which I tentatively scheduled for the first week of 

January 1973.
301

Between December 26, 1972, and the first week of Janu ary 1973, I attem pted to contact Mr. McCord on several occasions by telephone, bu t each time tha t I called, I was told tha t he was not in and my requests for a return call were not answered. This puzzled me, for up to that point it was Mr. McCord’s habit to return my calls immedi­ ately upon his receiving any message from me so to do. On or about January 2, 1973, I received a call from local counsel, Bernard Shank- man, who advised me th at Mr. McCord had or was about to deliver a letter to Chief Judge Sirica, dismissing me as his counsel. This was a shock to me, for at our last meeting in ray office on December 26, 1972, we parted on a most cordial note, and in complete agreement upon the theory of his defense. I asked Mr. Shankman to advise Mr. McCord tha t I would fly into Washington on Janu ary 3, 1973, to speak with him on this matter. I did meet with Mr. McCord after I had learned that a letter of dismissal had, in fact, been given to Chief Judge Sirica and tha t Chief Judge Sirica’s position was t ha t I was still counsel of record and tha t this development would not afford a basis for a con­ tinuance. When I met Mr. McCord, he picked me up at the airport in Washington. I expressed astonishment at his action and asked him why he had acted in tha t way. Mr. Shankman had told me tha t one reason cited to him by Mr. McCord was the question regarding the CIA defense. I brought this up to Mr. McCord and said to him in substance, “I thought tha t issue was laid to rest during our last meeting in Boston when you denied any factual involvement on the part of the CIA.” He agreed tha t it was, bu t said that was not the reason for his letter. He claimed tha t I had not been maintaining sufficient con­ tact with him, and tha t he was unsure of my being adequately pre­ pared for trial. I told him tha t in my opinion, this was not so; tha t he had the right to any lawyer of his choice and tha t if he "wished to dismiss me, that was his prerogative; I pointed out what I had viewed as a most satisfactory attorney-client relationship based upon mutual trus t and confidence, and suggested th at if he had any grievance with me th at he should advise me of the same, face to face, rather th an re­ fusing to answer my phone calls and unilaterally, without m y knowl­ edge, delivering to the judge a le tter of dismissal. When I said this, he became defensive, apologized for what he described as a “lack of communication and misunderstanding,” and expressed his desire to maintain me as counsel. Again, he voiced his confidence in me and extended his hand in affirmation of that confidence. On January 8, 1973, the first day of trial, I learned th at Mr. William O. Bittman ’s client, Mr. Hunt, had offered to plead to any and all counts of the indictment immediately prior to trial, but that Chief Judge Sirica had said that he would not entertain any change of plea 

until after jury selection and opening statements. This appeared to me to be highly prejudicial to my client, for it would tend to give the jury the impression tha t after the Govern­ men t’s opening statement, one of the defendants had thrown in the towel, so to speak, overwhelmed with the weight of the evidence against him. I felt this could and should have been avoided by a change of plea being resolved prior to the commencement of trial, since this had been the request of defendant Hunt. I had told Mr. McCord that our routine, once trial began, would be for him to spend some time each day immediately after court with Mr. Shankman and
302

myself to review what had gone on t hat day and to discuss what was 

to happen the following day. I wanted to discuss with Mr. Bittman 

the details of his client’s proposed change of plea in order to ascertain 

whether or not there would be a basis for a mistrial. It was agreed that 

we would meet at his office immediately after court was concluded for 

tha t day. Mr. Shankman, Mr. McCord, and I hailed a cab and at the 

last minute, codefendant Barker asked if he could ride in the cab with 

us. Where at that time Mr. Barker was going, or why he was going to 

Mr. Bittman’s office, as I eventually ascertained, 1 do not know.

There was no significant conversation with Mr. Barker in the cab.

Mr. McCord has alleged th at I told him tha t the purpose of going to 

Mr. Bittman’s office was tha t Mr. Bittman wanted to talk with him,

Mr. McCord, about “whose word he would trust regarding a White 

House offer of Executive clemency/’ and th at Mr. Bittman wanted to 

talk to Mr. Barker as well. This is not true. I merely said to Mr. »

McCord tha t prior to the scheduled daily post-court meeting between 

he, Mr. Shankman and myself, tha t we would stop at Mr. Bittman ’s 

office, for I wanted to discuss with him the ramifications and details of 

Mr. Hunt’s proposed change of plea. When we arrived at Mr. Bittm an’s 

office, Mr. McCord has alleged that T sensed his anger at Mr. Barker’s 

presence, and therefore, delayed going up to Mr. Bittma n’s office for 

approximately 30 minutes. The simple truth is that I suggested when 

we got out of the cab tha t we three have a cocktail and Mr. McCord,

Mr. Shankman, and I went into a restaurant directly across the street 

from Mr. Bittman’s office for just that purpose.

When we arrived at Mr. B ittm an’s office, T went with Mr. McCord 

and Mr. Shankman to the firm’s library and went back to Mr. Bit tman ’s office to see if he was there. I had a discussion with him, Mr.

Bittm an, in which he confirmed the judge’s refusal to entertain any 

change of plea by Mr. Hunt until after opening statements. At this 

point, I recall mentioning to Mr. Bittman tha t I felt my client was 

becoming a bit paranoid, that he felt he was being made the “patsy” 

or “fall guy.” I mentioned it at that time since in my mind, that 

allegation made to me bv Mr. McCord seemed inconsistent with 

Mr. Hu nt’s desire to plead guilty. After I mentioned Mr. McCord’s 

apprehension, my recollection is tha t Mr. Bittman said in words or 

substance, “Tell Mr. McCord he will receive a call from a friend 

of his.” Mr. Bittman did not mention the “White House” as alleged 

by Mr. McCord. The identity of this friend was not made known 

to me, nor did I make inquiry in this matter. I considered the pos- _

sibility, without actually knowing, that the purpose of this call 

was to allay Mr. McCord’s fears that his codefendants were turning 

against him, and tha t the caller could very well be Mr. Bittman ’s 

client, Mr. Hunt. This was surmised on my part. I considered this 

possibility in view of the context of the conversation immediately »

preceding Mr. Bittman ’s remark, tha t is, my statement in accordance with Mr. McCord’s request, of his apprehension with regard 

to his codefendants. I subsequently told Mr. McCord just what 

Mr. Bittm an had told me, tha t he would receive a call from a friend.

I did not mention the words “the White House” because Mr. Bittm an 

did not mention those words to me. Mr. McCord nodded, said,

“OK” and had no further response to my statement.

Some time later, as the trial was in progress, Mr. McCord told me 

that he had been in contact with a man by the name of Caldwell.
303

That is how I remember it as he told me. lie specifically stated 

that he did not wish to tell me who this man was or the subject matter of his conversation with him. In response, I told Mr. McCord 

that tha t was his prerogative. In this regard, I respectfully invite the attention of this honorable committee to Mr. McCord’s letter to Chief Judge Sirica of March 19, 1973, of which I had no prior knowledge. I respectfully refer to the next to the last paragraph on page 2 of this letter and I have provided copies of this letter to this honorable 

committee, where, after alleging complaints of various topics, in­ cluding, but not limited to, allegations of political pressure applied

* to the defendants to plead guilty and remain silent, Mr. McCord in the second to last paragraph on page 2 stated—and this letter was 

written without my knowledge, and I quote: “I have not discussed the above with my attorneys as a matter of

* protection for them.” Mr. McCord has alleged that the subject of Executive clemency was 

discussed on this day, Janu ary 8, 1973. This is n ot true. In late 1972, during one of the pretrial meetings of defense lawyers in Washington, 

I had an occasion to say to Mr. Bittman, “Bill, what do you think our clients will receive as a sentence should they be convicted?” 

Mr. Bittman responded in substance, as if he were theorizing, “You 

can never tell, Christmastime rolls around and there could be Executive clemency.” I scoffed at this notion and told Mr. Bittman tha t in my opinion, the President would not touch this case with a 10-foot pole, let alone exercise Executive clemency. This subject had not been on any agenda, but arose in what I characterize as “lawyers’ talk.” 

Subsequently, but not on the same day, I mentioned this to Mr. McCord in a most skeptic manner, and said to him, “Jim, it can be 

Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving all rolled into one, but in my 

opinion, the President would not touch this with a 10-foot pole, so do 

not rely on any prospect of Executive clemency.” Mr. McCord laughed and agreed with me. That was the only 

occasion tha t the words “Executive clemency” were ever mentioned 

by me to my client. I have neither met John Dean nor spoken to him in my life. I have neither met John Caulfield nor spoken to him in my 

life.

During the trial, I presented to Chief Judge Sirica my contemplated 

defense theory of “duress” supported by a memorandum of law. 

Several days later, after receiving a written response from the Govern-

* ment, the court ruled as a matter of law that this defense did not apply to this case, thereby precluding me from presenting evidence in support thereof and from relying upon it in closing argument.

After opening statements, Mr. Hunt and the four others—the four 

Cuban-Americans—pleaded guilty at which time I filed a motion for

* mistrial, which was denied. When this happened, I explained to Mr. McCord that the only 

possible remaining defense was the general defense of “lack of criminal 

intent” but advised him tha t in my opinion, it had little or no legal 

merit for it was asking the jury to believe that he did not know he was breaking the law when he broke into the Watergate complex and that 

this, to say the least, was not very “salable”. Mr. McCord indicated 

his understanding of our position, told me tha t he was, nevertheless, most pleased with my exerting my best efforts with regard to the 

proposed theory of “duress” and asked whether or not the judge’s
304

ruling could be a point of appeal in the event of conviction. I told him 

tha t it could and would be, tha t the record had been made in that regard, and he indicated his complete satisfaction with the then existing 

situation.

As the trial approached the completion of the Government’s case, 

I conferred with Mr. McCord at one of our daily post-trial meetings 

and told him that a decision would have to be made regarding whether 

or not he would take the stand. I explained to him that if he elected 

to testify, it would be his obligation to answer any and all relevant 

questions. It was at this time tha t Mr. McCord told me tha t he had 

evidence to the effect that the Watergate operation had been approved 

by John Mitchell. I asked him the nature of the evidence and he told 

me he had been so advised by Mr. Liddy. I asked him if he had any 

other corroborative evidence and he told me he did not. I told him 

that although this was technically hearsay, it would be admissible 

as a declaration by one coconspirator to another and told him to 

understand beyond any doubt, tha t should he take the stand, tha t 

question would in my opinion be asked and an answer required. I 

told him tha t if he elected to take the stand, full disclosure would be 

necessary; tha t I was with him all the way, but that this crucial 

decision of whether or not to testify could only be his, I did advise 

him, however, to resolve this question as soon as possible and not 

advise me of his decision at the last minute, thereby precluding 

adequate time for preparation of direct and cross-examination.

As the trial progressed and the time for decision was at hand, Mr. 

McCord asked me what I thought the grounds of appeal would be in 

the event of conviction. I reviewed them with him mentioning such 

things as the court’s denial of my motions for mistrial, based upon the 

timing of the change of plea by his five codefendants, as well as the 

ruling by Chief Judge Sirica precluding the defense of “duress” . He 

told me that he had decided not to testify. I asked him if he had any 

reservations regarding that decision and he said he did not.

As the jury announced its verdict, I immediately asked the chief 

judge to be heard on the m atte r of bail, which request was denied. The 

court advised tha t the motion be put in writing so as to allow the 

Government to respond. I immediately set to work upon this, urged 

the prosecution to respond as quickly as possible and, several days 

later, a hearing was held, at which time bail was set at $100,000.

What I am now about to relate is not for the purpose of self-commendation, but is stated to show and emphasize the relationship tha t 

existed between Mr. McCord and I from the beginning to the end of 

the trial. There was not a day of trial that passed without Mr. McCord 

shaking my hand a t the end of each day and telling me what a superlative job I had done. He used adjectives such as “ terrific,” “outstanding,” and expressed his total and unequivocal satisfaction and appreciation for my efforts. I remember the day of final argument when 

present in the courtroom were Mr. McCord’s wife, his son, his 

daughter, and his parents. After my final argument, they all came up 

to me and profusely thanked me for the words 1 had uttered or Mr. 

McCord’s behalf. They said they were proud of my description of 

Mr. McCord and that they were “ thrilled to sit there and hear it. ” 

Mrs. McCord had previously told me of her anxiety over what the 

effects of the trial might have on her son who was a student at the
305

Air Force Academy. On the day of the final argument, she asked if I 

could obtain for her a copy of the argument so t ha t she could give it to her son. When the jury announced its verdict of guilty, Mr. Mc­ Cord turned to me, he extended his hand and said, “There is no one that could have done a better job than you did. You are a terrific lawyer and I shall always be grateful to you.” It was, to me, an emotional moment. My local counsel, Mr. Shankman, can be a 

witness to this. To further demonstrate the status of my relationship with my client, I have provided this honorable committee with a copy of my 

letter to Mr. McCord dated February 6, 1973, while he was incarcer- 

* ated at the District of Columbia jail. I specifically refer the attentio n of this honorable committee to the third paragraph of tha t letter which reads as follows, this is my letter to Mr. McCord: “I again 

« reiterate to you that I shall continue to do everything possible on your behalf and shall stay with you in all th at may lie ahead. Having a client convicted can never be a source of gratification to an attorney. I will, however, always remember your vote of confidence in me before, 

during, and after trial.” I immediately commenced my efforts to effectuate Mr. McCord’s release on bail. The record will reflect tha t a petition to reduce the bail set by Chief Judge Sirica was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia at the earliest possible time. I made several visits to Mr. McCord in the District of Columbia jail. I remember his expressing dissatisfaction at being placed in a maximum security area. 1 immediately spoke to the prison superintend ant and asked if any­ thing could be done. No commitment was made, but 1 was told tha t my request would be given every consideration. 1 remember that approximately a week after the trial ended, my wife and I went on a 4-day vacation to Jamaica and even then, I made at least one, if not two, daily phone calls to Mrs. McCord on the question of bail. My concern was to effectuate the release of my client as soon as possible. I recall my first visit to Mr. McCord at the jail. When he first saw me, he was approximately 20 feet away. He broke out into a wide smile, extended his hand and accelerated his pace. He told me how glad he was to see me so tha t he might again express his gratitude for my efforts in his behalf. I told him of my immediate appellate action regarding bail and of my daily telephonic contact with his wife, and he thanked me profusely. I remember him telling me how fortunate he felt to have me working so hard as his attorney and he again re­ emphasized his belief that my job for him was beyond reproach. He told me that his wife was contacting friends with regard to bail,, bu t he specifically asked tha t I call a man by the name of Bernard Fensterwald, whom he said might be very helpful in raising bail. This 

« was the first time I had heard the name. I did not ask who this man was, or what his relationship to Mr. McCord was, merely made note of his name and telephone number and called him from the pay phone 

at the jail, immediately after leaving Mr. McCord. I introduced myself as Mr. McCord’s a ttorney and told Mr. Fen­ sterwald the purpose of my call. He told me that he thought he could arrange to meet the bail requirements within a matter of days; tha t he had friends with whom he was in co ntact; t ha t these friends stated
306

that things “looked good” and tha t I should stay in daily contact 

with him.

I immediately related this hopeful news to Mrs. McCord and she 

was understandably overjoyed at the prospect of her husband’s 

imminent release. Daily phone calls were made to Mr. Fensterwald. 

I was not always able to reach him directly, but when I did, he would 

tell me tha t his friends were still working on it and to keep in daily 

contact. Several days passed. The word from Mr. Fensterwald was 

still inconclusive, that is, he was still waiting word from other people.

Then, during one of my telephone calls, he told me th at these other 

contacts had fallen through, but that he was ready, willing, and able 

to personally borrow the full amount of $100,000 and that he could do 

so by “just going down to the bank and signing the note.” He told me 

that his motive for so acting was th at he was “outraged” at the high 

bond set by Chief Judge Sirica and felt this to be a gross injustice, 

which he was taking upon himself to rectify.

This was, I believe, in February of 1973. I told him I would call 

him the following day. When I did so, he told me that he had been 

refused by the bank, but that he was looking to another source for 

funds. He did not specify, nor did I ask the identity of the source. He 

did tell me, however, to ascertain from Mrs. McCord, how much she 

could raise through friends and relatives so that he could attem pt to 

come up with the balance.

I again visited Mr. McCord and advised him of the progress. He 

had been in jail some 2 weeks now, and I sensed his anxiety was 

increasing. He told me tha t when I spoke to Mr. Fensterwald again, I 

was to be sure to relate to him his—Mr. McCord’s—gratitude. I left 

Mr. McCord, went to the phone booth in the jail, called Mr. Fensterwald, and related McCord’s thanks. Mr. Fensterwald’s reply was, and 

I quote, “I don’t see how he can send his thanks to me because I never 

even met the man.” This seemed unusual to me, to say the least, th at a 

man would be doing w hat Mr. Fensterwald said he was trying to do 

for someone he had never met, but I was not a bout to look a gift horse 

in the mouth. My sole concern was for my client, and my immediate 

objective was to effectuate his release on bail. Mrs. McCord subsequently advised that she was able to raise $60,0 00.1 related this to Mr. 

Fensterwald who said he wmuld be able to produce the remaining 

$40,000. This was shortly thereafter accomplished, and Mr. McCord 

was out on bail awaiting sentencing.

In the following days, I was involved with legal commitments which 

took me out of Boston, bu t kept in telephonic touch with Mr. McCord. 

Our relationship remained most cordial. When the date of sentencing 

arrived, I was engaged in trial in Federal court in Chicago, Ill., before 

the Honorable Judge Hoffman. I asked for and received permission to 

adjourn the trial for the day of sentencing, so t hat I might be present 

with Mr. McCord in court.

This was the day when Chief Judge Sirica read in open court Mr. 

McCord’s letter of March 19, 1973, of which I had no prior knowledge.

When Chief Judge Sirica called a 20-minute recess immediately 

following his reading of the letter, I sat with Mr. McCord at the counsel table and asked him why he had not informed me of his intentions. 

He apologized for so doing and again repeated that he had not advised 

me of his allegations in the letter as a matter of my own protection. I 

asked him what he wanted me to do. He told me he wished to speak
307

privately, with me being present, to Chief Judge Sirica regarding the 

allegations of his letter, and asked that I advise the court of this 

request.

During this conversation, a man approached Mr. McCord and said 

in what I can best describe as a whispered or hushed manner, “If 

you need an office, you can use mine right after court.” Mr. McCord 

nodded, and I asked Mr. McCord who this man was. Mr. McCord 

identified the individual and introduced him to me as Bernard Fensterwald. This was the first time I had met the man with whom I had had 

so much telephone contact pertaining to bail. Mr. McCord said to 

Mr. Fensterwald, in my presence, “The one thing I feel sorry about 

is keeping Gerry in the dark and pulling this on him.” Mr. Fensterwald replied, “ Sorry hell, let it all hang out.”

When court reconvened, I related to the chief judge Mr. McCord’s 

request, which at tha t time was granted, and an in camera meeting 

was tentatively set up for the following week. I naturally was embarrassed at not having been advised by my client as to so crucial 

and dramatic a move—I’m talking about the letter to Chief Judge 

Sirica—but reasoned to myself that, after all, I had been away, en-

?

aged in trial, and Mr. McCord’s apology seemed most sincere, and 

, therefore, chose not to make an issue out of this failure of 

communication.

This, I recall, was on a Friday. I t was on that day tha t Mr. Samuel

Dash, of the Senate Select Committee, came to me, introduced himself, 

and asked if he could converse with Mr. McCord or said that he was 

interested in doing so. I told him that it was Mr. McCord’s immediate 

request to speak with Judge Sirica, and tha t I would be happy to 

relay to Mr. McCord Mr. Dash’s request. I then resumed my Chicago 

trial and in the newspapers read that Mr. McCord had begun to confer with Senate investigators. I found out about it tha t way, reading 

it in the newspapers.

Subsequently, Mr. McCord called me and said tha t since I was 

away on trial and that since things were “breaking so quickly,” didn’t 

I think it was a good idea for him to retain local WTashington counsel. 

I said, yes, I thought it was a good idea. He asked me if I had any 

objection to Mr. Fensterwald, I said I had none, and Mr. McCord 

advised me this would be done.

My next contact with Mr. McCord was when he and I and Mr. 

Fensterwald met the night before our last court appearance before 

Chief Judge Sirica at which time in court tha t day, the sentencing 

was continued until June 16, 1973. Mr. McCord was extremely upset 

over what he believed to be unfair newspaper coverage of his disclosures. He kept smashing his fist on my suitcase. At this point, Mr. 

Fensterwald said to Mr. McCord, “The reporters have been asking 

me whether or not you or I had ever had any past relationship. I 

told them tha t we had.” This was Mr. Fensterwald speaking. At this 

point, Mr. McCord looked up with a surprised expression. Mr. Fensterwald said, “Well, after all, you have in the past submitted to me checks 

which were donations to the Committee for the Investigation of the 

Assassination of the President.” Mr. McCord smiled and said, “Oh, 

yes, th at’s right.”

Prior to the court appearance of the following morning, a t a meeting 

at Mr. Fensterwald’s office, it was agreed tha t since my immediate
308

trial schedule called for me to remain, in Chicago for an anticipated 

period of 6 to 8 weeks, tha t Mr. Fensterwald would continue to 

represent Mr. McCord in my absence, both in the criminal matter 

and in all hearings before the grand jury and this honorable committee 

but th at upon the completion of mv trial duties, I would again assume 

my role as counsel in all matters. Th at morning, in court, I asked for 

and received a continuance of sentencing to June 15, 1973. I advised 

the court of Mr. McCord’s desire to cooperate fully with both the 

grand jury and Senate committee, and further advised of Mr. McCord’s 

preference to first testifying before the Senate committee. When court 

was over, 1 said to both Mr. McCord and Mr. Fensterwald tha t I «.

would be happy to continue my representation of Mr. McCord, but 

asked th at in the future, as long as I continued in tha t capacity, I at 

least be given the courtesy of being kept abreast of Mr. McCord’s 

activities, so th at I would no t again be embarrassed. *

Both Mr. McCord and Mr. Fensterwald agreed tha t this was proper,

Mr. McCord again apologized to me and Mr. Fensterwald told me 

tha t he would call me “wherever I was every day,” even if he had 

nothing to tell me. The meeting ended with all of us shaking hands, 

and 1 flew out of town. I have not seen either Mr. McCord or Mr. 

Fensterwald since that time.

Subsequently, while I was still on trial in Chicago, I did receive 

several phone calls from Mr. Fensterwald, although not daily as he 

had promised, and I might add, although not reflected in the memorandum, for the sake of accuracy, some of these calls I received when I 

was staying at the Holiday Inn on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago.

Another of these calls I received when I was staying at the Sheraton 

Hotel in Chicago.

In one of these conversations, he said to me—this is Mr. Fensterwald talking—“what do you think of all tha t is going on?” referring 

to the disclosures being made by Mr. McCord to this honorable 

committee. I replied, “ Whatever is right for Jim McCord is all right 

with me,” Mr. Fensterwald replied, and I quote, “We’re going after 

the President of the United States.” I replied th at 1 was not interested 

in any vendettas against the President but only in the best interest 

of my client, to which Mr. Fensterwald replied, “Well, you’ll see, 

th at’s who we’re going after, the President.”

I might add at this point, Senators, although it is not contained 

in the memorandum, an investigator from my office was in my hotel 

room when this conversation took place. And I recall putting the phone <

down and turning to my investigator, whose name is John McNally 

and said to him, “You will never believe what I jus t heard on the 

telephone,” and I told him.

His response to me was “Too bad you d idn’t have that recorded.”

During another telephone conversation with Mr. Fensterwald, *

he stated tha t he was most displeased with the reaction of the Republican members of this honorable committee, to Mr. McCord’s submitted 

memorandum and further stated tha t “I ’ll submit memorandums but 

I don’t want the Republicans to see them.”

During a third telephone conversation, he advised of Mr. McCord’s 

intention to hold a national press conference. I replied tha t in my 

opinion, this would demean Mr. McCord’s position and tha t he should 

stay within the framework of both the grand jury and the Select 

Committee. I further stated tha t to hold such a press conference
309

could conceivably antagonize Chief Judge Sirica. Mr. Fensterwald replied tha t he would atte mpt to obtain approval of such a press conference from Senator Ervin, and that if such approval was ob­ tained, this would be presented as a mitigating factor in the event of 

Chief Judge Sirica’s displeasure. Subsequently, my contact with Mr. McCord and Mr. Fensterwald 

diminished and I immediately, after the completion of my Chicago Federal case, commenced a 5-week murder trial in Cook County, Chicago. On May 8, 1973, my secretary gave me a message reflecting a call from the Los Angeles Times from a reporter whose name I

* recall to be Jackson, in regard to a four-page memorandum of Mr. McCord, involving the CIA tha t was about to be published the following morning. I called Mr. McCord that night, was told by his wife tha t he was not in, and I left a message for him to call me. He

* never did. The following day, the New York Times published a memorandum by Mr. McCord, alleging that I had stated that I could obtain forged CIA documents with the cooperation of the Director of the CIA. I again called Mr. McCord and his wife told me that he was at a meeting and tha t she would once again relay my 

message to him, but he never called. At approximately 5:30 p.m. on May 8, 1973, I contacted Mr. Fen­ sterwald by telephone and asked him to explain these false allegations made by Mr. McCord. Mr. Fensterwald stated, “I can only hazard the guess tha t it is the result of Mr. McCord’s faulty recollection.” He added, “I can tell you one thing, it ’s a terrible cliche, but I think you will agree with it, that there is no zealot like a convert.” I have 

had no further contact from Mr. McCord. Mr. McCord has accused me of exerting pressure upon him, but I respectfully request this honorable committee to take note of the 

following facts:

1. Mr. McCord did n ot plead guilty. 2. He admitted, under oath, in response to a question put to him by Senator Ervin, that I never urged him to enter a plea of guilty. 3. In his lette r of March 19, 1973, to Chief Judge Sirica, in referring to his allegations of improprieties, including but not limited to political pressure, stated, and I quote: “I have not discussed the above with 

my attorneys as a ma tter of protection for them .” 4. Mr. McCord proceeded to trial with a defense based upon what 

he told me to be the truth.

» I have done nothing wrong and am, therefore, n ot afraid, but I am upset as a practicing criminal trial lawyer. I must confess th at I am the type of criminal defense attorney who, rightly or wrongly, gets emotionally involved with his client’s cause. I remain fully cognizant of the fact that a man’s liberty is at stake, rath er than a determination of dollars and cents. I ask my client to take me into his confidence and I reciprocate. I keep him constantly advised of my thoughts and theories. To me, this attitude of complete disclosure is based upon my interpretation of the duty I owe to the man tha t I am defending. How can a lawyer effectively represent his client when faced with the pos­ sibility that the man for whom he is working night and day is con­ stantly making a record of privileged conversations with the intent of subsequently violating this privilege b y making false accusations and by selectively extracting statements out of context and twisting 

them into untruths?
Can a defense attorney function properly under such circumstances? I have always made a practice not to comment on matters 

of which I have no knowledge. Mr. McCord has made accusations 

directed toward many men. I am in no position to judge his credibility 

in th at regard. I do, however, have firsthand knowledge of his relationship with me, and in regard to his accusations against me, he is not 

telling the truth.

As I watched Mr. McCord on national television on May 18, 1973, 

and listened to him falsely accuse me of professional misconduct, 

which accusations are false in every respect, I immediately and vividly 

recalled his praise for me throughout the trial, his confidence expressed 

to me at the time of the guilty verdict, and his further expression of 

gratitude during the period of his incarceration, and I asked myself 

“What kind of a man is this?”

I stand ready to answer all questions.

Senator E rvin. We have to vote in jus t a few minutes on the nomination of Mr. Richardson to be Attorney General, and this is a long 

statement and I think the committee, as I understand it, thinks it 

would be better to adjourn now and come back in the morning to 

begin the questions, so we will stand in recess until 10 o’clock in the 

morning.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 

at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 24, 1973.]
THU RSD A Y , M A Y 24 , 19 73

U.S. Sen a t e,

S elec t C om m it te e on

P r e sid e n t ia l C am pa ig n A c t iv it ie s,

Washington, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, a t 10 a.m., in room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 

Gurney, and Weicker. Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel; Fred D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief counsel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Joan C. Cole, secretary to the minority; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Rob ert Baca, office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to ‘Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Marc Lackritz, Ron Rotunda, assistant counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings counsel; 

John Walz, publications clerk.

Senator E r v in . The committee will come to order.

The committee has had a meeting this morning and decided to hold hearings in addition to those previously scheduled for the 12th, 13th, and 14th of June, to hold hearings on the 5th, tha t is Tuesday, the 5th day of June, Wednesday, the 6th day of June, and Thursday, the 7th 

of June. The committee has received requests from Mr. McCord and Mr. Fensterwald for an opportunity to be heard before the committee. The committee is going to pursue the list of its scheduled witnesses. The committee will extend to Mr. McCord and Mr. Fensterwald an opportunity to furnish statements in writing of what they wish to testify to, under oath, under sworn statements, affidavits, and also give them an opportunity to meet with the staff and see what it is they want to testify. But the committee does not intend to get bogged down with the controversy between lawyers neither of whom, accord­ ing to the evidence before the full committee, have any personal knowl­ edge of the matters tha t the committee is investigating, except insofar as they gained it through the trial. So we will proceed at this time on the assumption tha t if Mr. Fensterwald and Mr. McCord wish to tes­ tify further before the committee they will first give us a sworn state­ ment of what they propose to testify to and consult with the staff. We see no reason to put Mr. McCord on the stand to re peat anything he has already said before, and we see no reason to try to decide a contro­ versy between the two lawyers with respect to their personal conversa­ tions a t this time, and we will proceed with any further questioning. 

(311)
312

Senator Bakek. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I might say 

I entirely concur with the statement tha t the chairman has made. 

I think it would not serve the purpose of moving these hearings with 

expedition to get into rebuttal, surrebuttal and rerebu ttal. I do think 

that it is important tha t the rights and the re putation of every witness 

be protected. Therefore, I am delighted tha t the staff will conduct 

a further interview with Mr. McCord and will now interview Mr. 

Fensterwald in order to advise this committee on the desirability of 

having them as witnesses under oath at a later time but I think we 

ought to proceed and I am happy to concur in the statement of the 

chairman tha t we should proceed with the ordinary witness list and 

I am especially pleased that in the interest of reaching the facts as 

soon as possible th at we are going to have this extra session so that we 

can proceed quickly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, just one further comment. Mr. Fensterwald did inform me just before the committee convened he would 

immediately after Mr. Alch’s testimony file a sworn statement with 

the committee.

Now, Mr. Alch-----

TESTIMONY OF GERALD ALCH, ATTORNEY— Resumed

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Could you again tell us, you indicated what fee you 

received from Mr. McCord. What was t hat fee?

Mr. Alch. $25,000 plus expenses which expenses have not been 

received yet.

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Could you tell us in what form you received that money?

Mr. Alch. Periodic payments in cash with the exception of the last 

two installments which were in the form of cashier’s checks in relatively smaller amounts of $1,700. The bulk of the money received was 

in cash in $100 bills.

Mr. Dash. $100 bills.

Did you have any knowledge or information or belief as to where 

the money was coming from?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, and I believe tha t in one of Mr. McCord’s 

depositions he stated that at the time he paid me my fee he did not 

tell me where it came from except that it came from him.

Mr. Dash. Did you in October 1972 ever meet with Mr. McCord 

and urge him to urge the Committee To Re-Elect the President to 

give him more money so th at you may have more additional fee?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. There was a conversation where, as I explained 

yesterday, the original payment of fees, the schedule of the original 

payment of fees was not being adhered to by Mr. McCord, and I 

asked him whether or not, when I might expect more money in accordance with the schedule that he had told me. He told me that, to bear 

with him, tha t it would be forthcoming, and I told him tha t I would.

Mr. Dash. Now, it was obvious, Mr. Alch, from the length of your 

statement, and the manner in which you delivered it, that you were 

quite upset with your former client’s statement.
313

Wha t I would first like to do, and I think it would be helpful to 

isolate the specific statements made by Mr. McCord which you find 

and did find objectionable, and correct me if there are additional ones 

but I think there are two main areas th at I have isolated in his statement and your statement.

One, his statement in his memorandum of May 4, 1973, tha t on two 

occasions, one in the Monocle Restaurant, and another time in Boston 

that you suggested that he base his defense on CIA involvement, and 

in that the reference to wha t you might be able to do with Mr. Schlesinger in terms of forged documents and things of tha t nature.

The second area of complaint is his statement tha t you participated 

in having him exposed to an offer of Executive clemency. These appear 

to me to be the two main areas of his statem ent which I think you find 

objectionable and tha t was covered by your statement.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Right.

Now, as to Mr. McCord’s first complaint tha t you suggested he use 

CIA involvement as a defense, it is true, is it not, that the question, at 

least of CIA involvement, was the subject of discussion between you 

and Mr. McCord on two occasions in December, one a t the Monocle 

Restaurant and another time in your office in Boston?

Mr. Alch. Why, this way, Mr. Dash. I specifically asked him whether 

or not there was any factual basis to the contention t ha t the CIA was 

involved.

Mr. Dash. Yes. But there was tha t discussion. You did raise that?

Mr. Alch. I said it just tha t way.

Mr. Dash. Right.

Did you on either occasion show Mr. McCord a statemen t from a 

D.C. police officer, Gary Bittenbender, indicating that Mr. McCord 

told Bittenbender that Watergate was a CIA operation?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. T hat statement had been provided to me pursuant to my discovery motions filed in the case by the Government.lt

was a report in which it quoted a D.C. policeman, Mr. Bittenbender, 

by name, as saying tha t at the time of Mr. McCord’s arrest, I believe 

at the District of Columbia jail, Mr. McCord said, referring to the 

other four men who had been arrested with him, “These are all good 

men, ex-CIA men.” I natu rally called tha t to my client’s attention 

because there loomed a distinct possibility th at tha t statement might 

be introduced against him at trial. In fact, i t was not.

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, Mr. Alch, in the state ment that you 

submitted to the committee, as you read it, tha t was not included in 

that statement; is th at true?

Mr. Alch. It was not, sir.

Mr. D ash. There is no reference to your mentioning to Mr. McCord 

that you did have tha t stateme nt from officer Bittenbender?

Mr. Alch. It was not, sir. I believe I mentioned it when I met with 

you the night before my testimony.

Mr. Dash. Tha t is true; b ut is there any reason why tha t was left 

out of your statement?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did you ever mention during either of the two meetings 

at the Monocle Restauran t and in your office in Boston when you asked 

Mr. McCord about the CIA involvement, the name Victor Marchetti, 

who might be a witness on CIA training?
314

Mr. Alch. I did mention the name Victor Marchetti, not in the context of his being a witness. It came up this way: In the course of discussing Mr. McCord’s background with the CIA, I mentioned to him 

that I had recently heard th at a man by that name had come out with a 

book about the CIA. I mentioned that to Mr. McCord. He said to me 

words to the effect that Mr. Marchetti was not in good grace with the 

CIA or any ex-members of the CIA. He said he did not think highly of 

the man and that was the extent of the conversation.

Mr. Dash. Did you know Mr. Marchetti at all?

Mr. Alch. Never met the man in my life.

Mr. Dash. Was there any discussion as to whether Mr. Marchetti <

would be a good witness on CIA training to indicate tha t CIA men 

are trained to disavow any relationship with the CIA?

Mr. Alch. There was a discussion with Mr. McCord with regard 

to his background with the CIA. In tha t context, I mentioned to *

him whether or not Mr. Marchetti’s book might be a good reference 

point. He said it would no t be.

Mr. Dash. Now, after your meeting of December 1972 at the 

Monocle Restaurant with Mr. McCord, did you call your partner,

Mr. Bailey, and raise the question of the CIA defense?

Mr. Alch. I did.

Mr. Dash. What was the nature of tha t call and what did Mr.

Bailey have to say?

Mr. Alch. I would constantly keep Mr. Bailey advised of the 

development of all cases tha t I was working on. In the course of my 

conversation, and this conversation took place after the meeting 

at the Monocle but prior to my meeting with Mr. McCord in Boston,

I told him of the conversation tha t had taken place in the lawyer’s 

office and told him that I had asked Mr. McCord whether or not 

there was any factual basis to the CIA involvement. As I told you 

yesterday, Mr. McCord did no t specifically respond to that question.

It was my impression that tha t topic was going to be raised at our 

next meeting in Boston.

Mr. Bailey told me that unless Mr. McCord or anyone else could 

come up with any factual evidence of any CIA involvement, tha t if 

Mr. McCord wished to pursue tha t defense without any such factual 

evidence, tha t I was to withdraw from the case and that I was to 

tell tha t to Mr. McCord.

When Mr. McCord met with me in Boston at our next meeting, 

he initiated the conversation by saying to me, there is no CIA in- *

volvement and I will have no part of anything tha t is going to put 

the blame on the CIA. That rendered my withdrawal direction from 

Mr. Bailey moot.

Mr. Dash. Right, bu t tha t was a significant discussion with Mr.

Bailey, was it not, concerning the CIA involvement, or the defense V

of the CIA involvement?

Mr. Alch. I would not say it was significant in the sense tha t I 

keep Mr. Bailey advised of all cases which I am involved in and which 

he is not involved in. He is the head of the office and his policy is 

that I let him know what I am doing all the time.

Mr. Dash. But it did raise the possibility of Mr. Bailey’s suggestions to you tha t you might withdraw from the case if it was put?

Mr. Alch. Tha t was his suggestion to me. If there was no such 

defense rendered, fine.
Mr. Dash. But tha t was not put forth in your discussion with the 

committee?

Mr. Alch. It was not.

Mr. Dash. In your state ment on page 10, you say during the meeting with defendants in December, and prior to your Monocle meeting with Mr. McCord, “The question arose as to whether the 

CIA was involved.” Would you tell us how the question arose, who raised it?

Mr. Alch. This was at the meeting in Mr. Bittm an’s office attended 

by the lawyers?

Mr. Dash. Y es.

Mr. Alch. I t was a t tha t point that I wanted to announce to my— to the other defense counsel, what my contemplated defense would be. I did so. I told them that I was contemplating the defense of duress based upon what my client had told me. The reaction seemed to be tha t this would only be applicable to Mr. McCord in view of his being chief of security and tha t this particular defense could not inure to the benefit or could no t be utilized by any other defendant. My response was, well, that is my contemplated defense; tha t is what I am going 

forward on. It was at that point tha t the question was raised of whether or not 

there was any CIA involvement.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you know how th at question was raised? Who 

raised it?

Mr. Alch. I am not sure. It may have been Mr. Bittman. I cannot be positive. Tha t is a possibility. But may I stress tha t when it was raised, it was raised in this type of way: Is there any CIA involvement in this thing? And at that point, it was pointed out, the fact tha t all defendants had some prior connection with the CIA and at least one of them had been found with documents which purported to be or 

were alleged to be forged CIA credentials.

Mr. Dash. Then, as I understand from your statement, each of you were going to contact your clients and ask t hat question of them?

Mr. Alch. Y"es, sir.

Mr. Dash. Now, were you aware, Mr. Alch, of every contact tha t may have been made with your client by others who may have sug­ gested the defense of CIA involvement to them?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I only knew what he told me.

Mr. Dash. Therefore, any pressure tha t could have been visited upon Mr. McCord, you might not have been aware of, is t hat correct?

Mr. Alch. Entirely. As I pointed out yesterday, Mr. Dash, I do not come before this honorable committee to offer any judgment or opinion on allegations of Mr. McCord which pertain to activity not involving me. I do not know about those things. I came here to refute 

what he said about me.

Mr. Dash. Now, for example, are you aware tha t in December, which is the very m onth you raised the question of CIA involvement with McCord, that Mr.* McCord sent Mr. John Caulfield a note complaining of a White House effort to blame the CIA for W atergate and threatening “That all the trees in the forest would fall if this 

effort continued.”

Were you aware of this?

Mr. Alch. I was not.

96-296— 73—bk. 1 -21
316

Mr. Dash. So it is no fiction, really, tha t Mr. McCord was deeply 

concerned over what he believed was a conspiracy to have him 

implicate the CIA in the Watergate case?

Mr. Alch. I have no knowledge to contradict tha t statement by 

Mr. McCord.

Mr. Dash. Actually, according to your own statement, when you 

first raised the CIA involvement with Mr. McCord in the Monocle 

Restaurant, you said he did not really respond to it, but launched 

into a complaint about how the White House was treating the CIA. 

I think that was your statement.

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Dash. Therefore, Mr. Alch, when you raised the question of 

CIA involvement with him for the very first time after the meeting 

with Mr. Bittman and the other lawyers, it is likely, is it not, taking 

into consideration the entire circumstances of Mr. McCord’s concern, 

that Mr. McCord could have concluded tha t you had joined in the 

conspiracy he honestly believed existed to biame the CIA in the 

Watergate case?

Mr. Alch. In my judgement, tha t would be giving him the benefit 

of a doubt to which I do not believe he is entitled, for this reason: 

I suppose, hypothetically speaking, tha t it is possible for a man to 

misinterpret a question put to him as to whether or not the CIA was 

involved on the one hand, and a suggestion tha t it was on the other. 

That is a point of discrepancy, in answer to a hypothetical question, 

could possibly be the subject of a misinterpretation.

However, on his allegation tha t I said to him words to the effect 

that I could cause his personnel records to be doctored and tha t the 

Director of the CIA would go along with it, it escapes me how tha t 

type of allegation can be a misunderstanding. I did not say it. You 

can’t infer words of that nature unless they were said and I did not 

say it. And most fortunately, there was a third person present at this 

meeting.

Mr. Dash. All right.

Let us move now to the next area of complaint. Tha t is Mr. 

McCord’s indication or implication of you tha t you participated in 

having him exposed to the pressures to accept an offer of Executive 

clemency.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Now, it is true, is it not, tha t you might have also been 

not aware of pressures from other sources or from Mr. Hunt or of any 

contacts from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President or 

the White House, concerning Executive clemency, and therefore, might 

not have been aware of all that might have been going on concerning 

the CIA?

Mr. Alch. That is true. I may not have been aware of it because 

I had no knowledge of th at if it, in fact, happened.

Mr. Dash. Now, were you, for example, aware tha t Mr. Hunt may 

have been in frequent contact with the Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President officials or W’hite House officials?

Mr. Alch. I was not. I rarely saw Mr. Hunt and, as you know, 

when the trial started and his plea of guilty was accepted by Chief 

Judge Sirica, he was ou t of it.

Mr. Dash. It is true, though, is it not, tha t you did go to the office 

of Mr. Bittman, Mr. Hu nt’s lawyer, with Mr. McCord on Janua ry 8, 

the first day of the trial?
Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Then you had a private meeting with Mr. Bittma n 

while Mr. McCord was in another part of the office?

Mr. Alch. I had a meeting with Mr. Bittman, a discussion with Mr. Bittm an. I hesitate to call it a private meeting because, as I explained yesterday, we walked into the office, came into the library of the office where other lawyers were seated. Mr. Bittm an was not there. I walked back to his office to see if he was there. He was.

Mr. Dash. Was anybody else in the office?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. So you were alone with Mr. Bittm an?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. In your statem ent you acknowledge that Mr. McCord 

was incensed, and I think in your words ‘‘paranoid,” because he be­ lieved other defendants, including Bittma n’s client H unt, were trying 

to make him the fall guy. Did you think or did you n ot think that you were only adding to his concern by meeting with Mr. B ittman alone, not in Mr. McCord’s 

presence?

Mr. Alch. No, because I had told Mr. McCord why I was going to 

Mr. Bittman ’s office instead of immediately going back to my hotel where it was arranged tha t each day after trial he, I and local counsel would meet to discuss what had happened that day and was going to happen the next day. I told him why I wanted to speak with Mr. Bittman. I wanted to find out the ramifications of the proposed change of plea by Mr. Bittm an’s client, Mr. Hunt, which I felt could possibly be the predicate for a motion for a mistrial which I eventually filed.

Mr. Dash. How long did tha t meeting with Bittman last?

Mr. Alch. Approximately 15 minutes at the most, maybe less.

Mr. Dash. And after tha t meeting or at the conclusion of it I understand from your statement tha t Mr. Bittman told you to tell Mr. McCord tha t he would receive a telephone call from a friend tha t 

night?

Mr. Alch. Th at is correct.

Mr. Dash. Did you ask Mr. Bittm an who would call your client or 

what the message would be?

Mr. Alcii. I did not.

Mr. Dash. Why not?

Mr. Alch. I felt it was of no importance to me. I surmised in my mind that this call was in connection with Mr. McCord’s fears tha t his codefendants were plotting against him. If 1 had to guess that who I thought was going to call I thought it may have come from Mr. 

Bittman’s client, Mr. Hunt. In any event, the remark was made as I was walking out of the office and I had said OK, went back to the library and relayed tha t message 

to Mr. McCord.

Mr. Dash. You did relay tha t message to Mr. McCord that he 

would get a call that night?

Mr. Alch. No, not tha t night. I just said “Mr. Bittman said you 

would be getting a call from a friend,” and I also told Mr. McCord, I said, “I went in there and told him a t your request you are feeling th at you were being ganged up on, so to speak, by your codefendants and Mr. Bittman said you will be getting a call from a friend.”
318

Mr. D ash. Now, this comm itte e has alre ady received evidence, 

actuall y ju st prior to your tes tim ony, th at a call, in fact w as mad e and 

was rece ived by Mr. McCor d, an d th at it originated from Mr. Dea n 

in the White House to Mr. Jo hn Caulfield, to Tony Ulasewicz and 

se t th e stage for a meeting on the George W ashington Pa rkwa y betw een 

Caulfield and McCord in which Caulfield extend ed an offer of Exe cutive 

clem ency to McCord “from the hig hes t levels of the White House.” 

T hat tes tim on y has come before the com mittee.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. D ash. Did you know of th at call or th at meeting?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Mr. D ash . The n, ther efore, since it was you, M r. M cC or d’s lawyer, 

who tra ns mitt ed to Mr. McC ord his first notice of a tele pho ne call, 

he was to receive on the nigh t of Ja nu ar y 8, and th at Mr. McCor d 

kne w yo u were conv eying a message from Mr. Bitt m an , and it was 

th at call which ult im ate ly res ulted in a me etin g where an offer of 

Ex ecutive clemency was m ade to yo ur client, presen ted as coming from 

the hig hest levels of the Whit e House. Rea lly, was it so unreasonable 

for M r. Mc Cord to conc lude th at you were involved in setting him up 

for such an offer of Ex ecutive clemency?

Mr. Alch. If he made th at conclusion it was fac tually false. But 

let us suppose he did make th at conclusion. Th is was in a period of 

time, as the trial was ju st ab ou t to comm ence, where I enjo yed with 

him wha t I considered to be a very fine relationship. Why would he 

no t ha ve come up to me an d asked me ab ou t it or tol d me som ething 

to the effect th at pu rsua nt to yo ur message to me I got a call last 

nigh t? That ne ver happened .

Mr. D ash. Well, at th at time perha ps he ha d begun to distru st 

you, Mr. Alch—t hat he needed you as counsel for his trial bu t after 

th at call perhap s he had lo st confidence in you.

Mr. Alch. In res ponse to th at , Mr. Da sh, from w ha t I know of Mr. 

McC ord , it would seem to me ra th er or h ighly unlikely th at he wou ld 

go t o trial with a lawyer who m he did not tr us t.

Mr. D ash. He actua lly mentio ned to you th at he received a call 

from a m an, you will recall, nam ed Caldwell?

M r. Alch. No t the n ex t day.

M r. Dash. No t the n ex t day?

M r. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And then he refused to discuss th at with you any 

fu rth er?

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Dash. Now, also Mr. Caulfield in his tes tim on y before thi s 

comm ittee s tated th at at one of his meetings------

Mr. Alch. Mr. Da sh, ma y I add one thing to the last question , if I 

ma y?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Alch. Wh en M r. McCord told me th at he ha d received a call 

from a man name d Caldwell, and specifically refused to tell m e who he 

was or wh at the n at ur e of the con versation w as, wha t I did was to see 

wh eth er or no t the re wou ld develop any tam perin g or modification or 

interference with my adv ice to M r. Mc Cord as his counsel o r w hether 

or no t I was suddenly going to be met w ith suggestion to change the 

tri al s tra teg y th at M r. Mc Cord and I had alr eady agreed upon .
319

Mr. McCord was free to see whomever he pleased but at no time 

did indications ever come to me tha t either Mr. McCord of his own 

doing or potentially as a result of being talked to by others was either 

disregarding my advice, modifying my advice, or introducing a new 

approach to the trial. That never happened.

Mr. Dash. In your relationship with Mr. McCord, did you find Mr. 

McCord a suspicious individual?

Mr. Alch. 1 hesitate to use the word suspicious. There were times 

when I would communicate with him and ask him for positions or information on particular topics, and he would not give me immediate 

responses. His attitude would be or his response would be “Let me 

think about it ” or words to th at effect, and days would pass and then I 

would get a definitive response. Whether or not that can properly 

serve as a predicate for a conclusion of one being suspicious 1 hesitate

• or I can’t say.

Mr. Dash. I think in your testimony and in your statement you 

have indicated tha t he really did not give you all the information th at 

has now come forward. Tha t he did not confide in you concerning 

everything about the case.

Mr. Alch. That attitude commenced from my very first meeting 

with him but I might say in my experience as a criminal defense a ttorney complete disclosure by a client is not something tha t happens 

in every case.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Caulfield, in his testimony before this committee, stated tha t at one of the meetings that he had with Mr. Dean 

during the time he was making offers of Executive clemency to Mr. 

McCord, tha t Mr. Dean told him, Mr. Caulfield, tha t Mr. McCord 

was “Not cooperating with his attorney .” Could Mr. Dean have referred to or been referring to anyone other than you?

Mr. Alch. Well, the fact is tha t I was Mr. McCord’s attorney 

at that time, to my knowledge, and the only reason I add tha t caveat 

is this: I was informed that, when—I was n ot informed, when I read 

a transcript of, I believe, Mr. Caulfield’s testimony, I believe he said 

tha t in one of his meetings with Mr. McCord prior to the completion 

of trial, tha t the subject of bail came up, and Mr. Caulfield stated, 

“Maybe your lawyer Alch can handle it, ” or words to that effect, to 

which, according to Mr. Caulfield, Mr. McCord replied, “Well, I am 

negotiating with another lawyer. Maybe he can handle it.”

Now, this was before the trial ended. His present lawyer is Mr. 

w

Fensterwald. I had no contact or even knowledge tha t such a man

existed until after Mr. McCord’s incarceration. So I now think and ask 

myself, was Mr. McCord in any contact with any other attorney during

the trial?

If that statement about “I am not cooperating with your atto rney” 

* or “Get close to your attorney” was directed toward me, I can’t

explain it because, as I have explained to the committee yesterday,

Mr. McCord was cooperating with me every day.

Mr. Dash. Could it be explained, and again having already testified, I think twice tha t morning you were not aware of all contacts 

that might have been made by others concerning your client or others 

in the White House? That it could be or could it be likely t hat some 

contact by other defendants or their counsel were being made with the 

White House during which your representation of your client could 

have been discussed?
320

Mr. Alch. Mr. Dash, it is possible only because I do n’t know.

M r. D ash. You don’t know and therefore------

M r. Alch. I am in no position to refu te or confirm.

M r. Dash. And you have no other expla nat ion of why Mr. Dean 

mi gh t ha ve made th at s tatemen t?

M r. Alch. I do no t. As I told the com mittee yeste rday, I had 

never m et the ma n no r spoken to him in my life.

M r. Dash. I hav e no fu rthe r questions, Mr. Ch air ma n.

Se na tor E rvin. Mr. Thom pso n?

Mr. T hompson. Th an k you, sir.

M r. Alch, let me ask you a few questions. Going back to you r 4

origin al testim ony concern ing the sequence of e vents as you described 

the m, wha t evide ntly was going on in Mr. McC ord’s mind as he 

rel ayed these thin gs to you— his tho ughts ab ou t his own defense and 

tho se matters? •

F ir st of all, as I un de rstand yo ur tes tim ony concerning matters 

whi ch M r. McCord conside red to be im po rta nt to h is own defense, he 

raised the matters of the tap ping of his line and the bugging of the 

lines of the Chilean or the Isr aeli Emb assies.

Now , how did he explain this to you? How’ did you in dic ate that th at 

could o r would be a defense f or him?

M r. Alch. He analogized th at to a s itu ati on wh ich h e said arose in 

the Ellsb erg case. T hat if I ma de a mo tion for disclosure of such 

intercep ted telephone calls which he thou gh t were interc epted , th at 

the Go vernm ent, because of em barra ssm ent or na tio na l sec urity 

rea son s would refuse to div ulge it and would, therefore, in lieu of 

div ulg ing it dismiss the cha rge aga inst him.

Mr. T hompson. Acc ording to wha t he told you did h e consider thi s 

a comp lete defense for him , th at this would extricate him from the 

situ atio n and cause h is case to be dismissed?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir, he di dn ’t say it was a com plete defense. He 

des cribed it as a means of effectuating the dismissal of the cha rges 

ag ain st him.

M r. T hompson. Did he ind ica te wh eth er or no t he plac ed the calls 

to tho se two em bassies specifically for th at p urpose?

M r. Alch. He did.

M r. T hompso n. I belie ve you sta ted he also furnished you materia ls concerning the Ma fia and the DN C, Israel and the Mafia, Ja ck 

An derso n and Go vernme nt contr act s, these matters. Di d he indicate 

in an y wa y th at thes e could possibly be used as a defense for him o r 

could help his defense in an y way ?

M r. Alch. Wh en he gave me th at ma ter ial , he said, let us get on 

the offensive, let us ma ke the De mo cra ts—p ut the De mo cra ts on the 

defense. He said, let us stir up something.

Whe n he told me th at an d when he sent me the memo ran dum, I *

sim ply too k no action on it.

M r. T hompson. Conce rnin g his book, Co unter Es pio nag e Age nt for 

the Re publican s, I belie ve you said was his proposed title, wh at w as 

his rea son, acco rding to him, for wa nti ng th at boo k to be published 

before the election? Was it because he wa nted the dissemination of 

inform ati on?

M r. Alch. No, sir.

M r. T hompson. W ha t w as his rea son, according to wha t he said?
321

Mr. Alch. I had been advised by my associate, Mr. Johnson, who 

attended the arraignment of Mr. McCord in Washington, tha t Mr. 

McCord said to him, would i t n ot be better monetarily for me if this 

book were published before the Presidential election?

Mr. T hompson. As time went on, you indicated tha t he had suspicion of the codefendants, he thought tha t he was going to be a fall 

guy, that he wanted to shift the focus of publicity?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. I believe in December, you had your conversation 

when the business of the CIA was first broached, and in January, I 

believe you said you heard of a dismissal letter tha t he had filed.

Mr. Alch. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. And you were his attorney at tha t time; is that 

correct?

Mr. Alch. I was and technically still am.

Mr. Thompson. You were attorney of record at that time?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Mr. T hompson. Did he give you any notice of the fact tha t he 

was filing a letter of dismissal against you?

Mr. Alch. None whatsoever.

Mr. Thompson. During the trial, you said things worked out between you, you said during the trial he praised you.

Mr. Alch. Constantly.

Mr. T hompson. You said you never urged him to plead guilty?

Mr. Alch. I never did.

Mr. Thompson. Now, after the trial, your first contact with Mr. 

Fensterwald, I believe you said, was when the bond situation arose.

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Thompson. And he indicated tha t he could take care of the 

entire $100,000?

Mr. Alch. That is correct.

Mr. T hompson. And he finally came up with $40,000 of the 

$100,000?

Mr. Alch. That is correct.

Mr. T hompson. Mrs. McCord taking care of the remaining part 

of it?

Mr. Alch. Yes.

Mr. T hompson. Did Mr. Fensterwald indicate to you whether or 

not it was his own personal money or whether or not he was raising 

the money from other sources?

Mr. Alch. He indicated he was raising the money from other 

sources which he did n ot designate.

Mr. T hompson. Do you know to this day where he got those funds?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Mr. T hompson. The first day you met him was March 23 or 24?

Mr. Alch. Tha t was the day, whatever the day was tha t Chief 

Judge Sirica read Mr. McCord’s letter.

Mr. Thompson. And again, the letter to Judge Sirica, you had no 

notice concerning that?

Mr. Alch. None whatsoever.

Mr. T hompson. And in your conversation with Mr. Fensterwald, as 

1 understand it, as he explained it to you, the reason for his releasing 

the statement concerning your trying to get him to blame it on the CIA,
322

which again yon had no notice of, as I understand, until it was brought

to your attention-----

Mr. Alch. That is correct.

Mr. Thompson. Tha t an L.A. Times reporter had been given the 

story back in December?

Mr. Alch. Let me explain jus t exactly how that happened.

The day before the memorandum was published, on one of my 

office secretarial note pads, my secretary advised that a call had come 

in from a Mr. Jackson of the Los Angeles Times to the effect that a 

story was about to break, a memorandum alleging or talking about the 

CIA, Mr. McCord, and me. 4

Mr. T hompson. T hat is the first you heard of it?

Mr. Alch. The very first.

I called up Mr. McCord, could not reach him. The next day, the 

memorandum appeared in the newspapers. I got a copy of the New *

York Times, read it, p ut another call in to Mr. McCord. I was told he 

was at a meeting and tha t the message for him to return my call would 

be given to him, and tha t is when I called up Mr. Fensterwald.

When I asked him about this, Mr. Fensterwald said, I had told 

Mr. McCord to tell yo u; I am surprised tha t he did not.

I asked him to explain the reason for this memorandum, which contained false allegations. Mr. Fensterwald told me something to the 

effect that Mr. McCord had given this story back in December.

Mr. Thompson. Before the trial?

Mr. Alch. This was before the trial. He had given this information 

back in December and when he heard—when Mr. McCord heard that 

the story was about to be published, Mr. Fensterwald said that Mr.

McCord wanted to beat the newspapers to the punch and submit his 

own memorandum in advance of publication.

Mr. Thompson. When Fensterwald told you that they were going 

after the President of the United States and repeated tha t statement, 

did you ask him if he had any information that McCord did not have 

that would implicate the President?

Mr. Alch. I did not. My only response to him on the telephone was 

as I stated yesterday, I am not interested in any personal vendettas.

At that point, after I ended the conversation, taking Mr. Fensterwald’s 

statement at face value, he obviously was, to say the least, antagonistic 

toward the President. It appeared to me, and this was a surmise, that 

Mr. Fensterwald might be using Mr. McCord as a means for this 

particular goal or objective which he stated to me.

What I proceeded to do as best I could, being on a trial in Chicago, 

was to keep abreast of the newspapers to see the nature of the memorandum and the testimony tha t Mr. McCord was giving.

The first mention, to my recollection, of Mr. McCord referring to 

the President was when he referred to an alleged executive offer of *

clemency coming from the President last Friday.

Mr. Thompson. Th at is the first time in all of your dealings with 

Mr. McCord, throughout the trial and otherwise, of his mention of 

the President?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir, and I was in contact with one of Mr. Dash’s 

assistants tha t night.

Mr. Thompson. Do you know how long Mr. McCord had known 

Mr. Fensterwald?

Mr. Alch. I do not.
323

Mr. Thompson. Was there ever any discussion in your presence between the two of them as to what amount of time or any previous 

contact they might have had?

Mr. Alch. The only discussion which might have been embraced by that question was one I referred to yesterday, in my hotel room the night before our last in-court appearance, where Mr. Fensterwald said that reporters had been asking him if he had any prior relationship with Mr. McCord. And he said, I told him I had. Mr. McCord looked 

up with a surprised look on his face. And Mr. Fensterwald said, sure, don’t you remember, there were 

« checks tha t you donated to the committee to investigate the assassination of the President, words to tha t effect. Mr. McCord countered by saying, oh, yeah, yeah, tha t is right.

Mr. Thompson. Do you know what relationship Mr. Fensterwald 

• has to the committee to investigate assassinations?

Mr. Alch. No sir.

Mr. Thompson. Did it not appear strange to you, did it not cause you then to inquire about any previous relationship or just exactly what Mr. Fensterwald’s role was to be? You were attorney of record; you were supposed to be handling the case. Here is a man who comes to you indicating that he is a stranger to Mr. McCord, but he is trying to raise a hundred thousand dollars for him. He evidently has some connection with a committee to investigate assassinations. Did you 

not inquire into this situation?

Mr. Alch. My first inquiry was when the name was mentioned to me and Mr. McCord told me that he was a friend who could help with bail. Mr. Fensterwald himself later told me the reason for his motiva­ tion or for his actions were to justify what he termed “an outrage.” 

He was referring to the $100,000 bail. At the point where this conversation came about to which I have just referred, the very next morning—it did bother me. Consequently, the very next morning, I called them both together outside the corridor of the courtroom, and I said, “Look, if you want me to remain as attorney of record, you have got to keep me abreast of everything th at you are going to do. I do not want to be embarrassed again.” I had been when the letter to Judge Sirica was delivered. That was when Mr. Fensterwald said to me, “I will call you every single day even if I have nothing to tell you.” Keeping in mind tha t prior to this, Mr. McCord had called me and said, “ You are away on

* trial, I need someone local, do you have any objection if I retain

someone in Washington?”

I said “I have none.”

Mr. T hompson. Let me ask you one series of questions in a specific 

and isolated area as to your visit to Mr. Bittman’s office.

Mr. Alch. Yes sir.

Mr. Thompson. I am not going to second-guess your trial tech­ niques or whatever. From the record, I think it appears that you did a very fine job when a client was caught redhanded. But some things 

just do not seem to fit together. For example, would you tell the committee, when you came out of Mr. Bittman’s office and spoke to Mr. McCord, told him he would receive a call, what other conversation did you have? What did you say, where did you go? Did you leave together?
324

Mr. Alch. We went back to my hotel room, as we did, perhaps, 

with maybe one or two exceptions every day after the trial. That was 

the type of relationship we had. I insisted tha t each day after court, 

he would come back with me to discuss wh at went on. I would have 

the discovery material for the next day as far as witnesses were concerned, other matters th at ma y come up. I would discuss this with him.

It was that type of thing. At tha t point, we were talking about jury 

selection and I recall the discussion tha t particular afternoon, after 

we left Mr. Bittm an’s office, over my displeasure—respectfully, as 

far as Chief Judge Sirica is concerned—at the proposed manner of 

jury selection. I didn’t think there was enough time being given to----- 4 Mr. Thompson. You didn’t need your client to sit down with you 

and Bittman and the other lawyers to discuss this, did you? Couldn’t 

you discuss it privately? Couldn’t he wait in the motel room or whatever while the lawyers talked? Why didn’t you send him on? Why did •

you have to bring him to Bittm an’s office with you?

Mr. Alch. He had no car with him. He had gone to the courthouse 

in a cab. As the custom turned out to be, we would go back to my 

hotel room in a cab.

I said to him, "Jim, I want to go back and talk to Bittman about this 

ma tter of his client’s change of plea; come on with me and as soon as 

I am through, I will tell you about it and we will go back to my hotel 

for further discussion.”

Th at is the way it happened.

Mr. Thompson. And B arker ju st happened to get into the cab; he 

didn’t indicate the reason he was getting into the cab?

Mr. Alch. That was exactly the way it happened.

Mr. Thompson. What happened to him? Did he go to the office with 

you, did he leave with you?

Mr. Alch. He walked into the building in which Mr. Bittman ’s 

office is. I did not. Mr. McCord, Shankman, and I went across the 

street to get a drink. When I came up to Mr. Bittm an’s office, I 

didn’t see Mr. Barker. As to why he was going there, as to how long 

he stayed there, as to whom he saw there, I simply have no knowledge.

Mr. Thompson. Who was Barker’s lawyer?

Mr. Alch. At that time, it was Mr. Henry Rothbla tt.

Mr. Thompson. Is Mr. Ro thb latt’s office in tha t building?

Mr. Alch. I am not sure. I know Mr. Rothblatt had an office very 

close to Mr. Bittman’s office. I know that because when it was decided, 

since there were out-of-town lawyers involved, where we would meet 

whenever we would meet, Mr. Roth blatt agreed to meet in Mr. B ittman’s office because he had an office either in the same building or 

close to it. It may have been in the same building. I don’t know.

Mr. Thompson. You were going in to discuss this situation which 

concerned you, Judge Sirica’s ruling, with Bittman, which is essentially 

a conversation probably addressing itself to lawyers.

Why didn’t you take Mr. Shankman, your associate, in to talk 

with you?

Mr. Alch. No particular reasons. Mr. Shankman was privy to all 

of my trial strategy. What happend was we walked into the library, 

put our briefcases down, other lawyers were there. I just got up and 

said, "I want to go back and see if Bill’s in his office.” And I did.

Mr. Thompson. You found him there and left your cocounsel in 

the library with Mr. McCord?
325

Mr. Alch. That is right.

Mr. Thompson. Did he ever see Bittman as far as you know that 

day?

Mr. Alch. Who?

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Shankman.

Mr. Alch. Mr. Shankman?

Mr. Thompson. Yes.

Mr. Alch. I believe he may have said hello and goodby to him. 

It was not a long stay at Bittman’s office.

Mr. Thompson. There was no particular reason why you wanted

* to talk to Mr. B ittman out of the hearing of anyone else?

Mr. Alch. Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I told Mr. McCord 

what the discussion was with Mr. Bittman.

Mr. Thompson. When Bittman said tha t he would receive a call 

» from a friend, didn’t you ask who tha t friend was?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Mr. Thompson. Didn ’t it concern you as a criminal defense lawyer? 

When anybody else is making a contact with your lawyer, whether 

it is another lawyer, a third party, another defendant, isn’t tha t 

something tha t concerns a defense lawyer in the trial of a case?

Mr. Alch. Mr. Thompson, as I say, in the context of that remark, 

my assumption was tha t it could very well have been a call from Mr. 

Hunt or some of the other codefendants. I don’t know.

Mr. Thompson. Wouldn’t tha t have concerned you? Codefendants 

sometimes have different interests, don’t they?

Mr. Alch. At tha t point hi the trial, I was not aware of any 

conflict.

Mr. Thompson. But there is always the possibility, isn’t there?

Mr. Alch. When you are beginning a trial and your client and you 

are in complete agreement on a presentation of a defense, that was 

my m ain concern.

Mr. Thompson. And then coincidently, he did receive a call?

Mr. Alch. So I am informed.

Mr. Thompson. So other testimony has proven.

Mr. Alch. So other testimony has told me.

Mr. T hompson. Do you know how we can make this jump from 

Bittman’s statement to you about a call from a friend to other testimony tha t he did receive a call shortly after that?

Do you know whether Bittman called Dean, or what is the answer 

v to it? Did you make any inquiry?

Mr. Alch. No, and I can’t answer the question, because I have no 

knowledge of it.

Mr. T hompson. Thank you.

No further questions.

* Senator E rvin. I believe Sir Edward Coke said tha t one scratch of 

a pen is better than the slippery memory of a multitude of witnesses. 

Hasn’t tha t been proven true in your practice as trial lawyer?

Mr. Alch. I am not sure I understand the significance of the 

remark.

Senator E rvin. Well, where two men communicate with each other 

by word of mouth, isn’t there a two-fold hazard in tha t communication, 

in, first, tha t the man who speaks may not express himself clearly, may 

not saj- exactly what is in his mind? And if he does, the man who hears 

it may put a different interpretation on the words tha n the man who 

spoke them?
326

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Yes. And th at is very well illustrated by something 

that came out here this week. Mr. McCord testified tha t Mr. Caulfield 

told him tha t the President was interested in this offer of Executive 

clemency and Mr. Caulfield said he never mentioned the President’s 

name, he merely said the highest levels of the White House. So, Mr.

Caulfield meant one thing and Mr. McCord understood another from 

the words.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And I believe you made a little mistake yourself in 

your statement. You were talking about, you said th at you understood M Mr. McCord to say “Caldwell” when he was obviously talking about 

“Caulfield,” which is quite a natural mistake.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir, that is my recollection.

Senator Ervin. I think you are a little irritated with your client, «

I do not blame you, I got irritated with my clients when they did not 

take my advice and went around talking to other people.

Mr. Alch. Senator, if I may, you as a lawyer can well appreciate 

the fact that you do your best for your client. If he is pleased, that is 

the ultimate goal. You cannot guarantee whether he is going to get 

convicted or acquitted. What upset me is how the man turned on me 

with what I have alleged and believe with all my heart to be false 

accusations in the manner, in the framework of which he did. Of 

course, I am upset.

Senator Ervin. Well, the first thing, as you stated to Mr. Dash, 

you were offended by his apparent charge th at you had suggested to 

him tha t they blame this on the CIA.

Mr. Alch. That is correct.

Senator Ervin. Let us see if there was not a little justification for 

him in making a mistake on that.

You testified you attended a meeting of all of the lawyers involved 

in the case.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. As I understand, Mr. Bittman was appearing for 

Mr. Hunt. Mr. Henry Rothblatt was appearing for Sturgis and 

Martinez and Gonzales and Barker, and you were appearing for 

McCord and who was appearing for Liddy?

Mr. Alch. Mr. Peter Margoulis.

Senator Ervin. Yes. Now, there was a meeting of most of these 

lawyers and it had been pointed out in the press t ha t Mr. Sturgis had 4

apparently CIA credentials issued in the name of Mr. Martin, I 

believe.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. It was also apparent, in that it came out in the press, 

tha t other members of those of the group who broke into the Water- *

gate had false credentials?

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct, sir.

Senator Ervin. And the press had suggested since McCord had 

been involved in the CIA, and Hunt had worked for the CIA, and 

Barker had been in the Bay of Pigs operations, CIA and possibly 

others, that perhaps there was a CIA involvement. Was tha t not 

speculated in the press?

Mr. Alch. In the press; yes, sir.
327

Senator Ervin. And at this meeting, of course, the first thing a 

lawyer tries to find out from his client is what kind of defense, if any, 

he has got, is tha t not true?

Mr. Alch. Of course.

Senator Ervin. So the lawyers would be discussing at tha t time 

what possible defense they had, and it was suggested by one of the 

other counsel tha t perhaps they could get evidence that would sustain 

a defense tha t would lay this break-in on the CIA, was it not, a t the 

meeting with lawyers?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. But, Senator, I do not mean to split hairs b ut

• I do wish again to point out tha t it did not come out in the sense 

that “let us make this a CIA defense.” I t did no t come out that way. 

It was not presented that way. The way i t was presented was, could 

this be a CIA defense because of all of these things? Let us go back

* and ask our client. T hat is the way it happened.

Senator Ervin. Well, the only way the lawyers can find out whether 

their clients have a defense is to discuss matters like this.

Mr. Alch. Ask them.

Senator Ervin. And try to investigate it.

Mr. Alch. Of course.

Senator E rvin. And it was suggested in this meeting of lawyers by 

some attorney other than yourself?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Th at the lawyers involved should try to ascertain 

from their clients whether the CIA was involved, whether they had 

any knowledge enough to implicate CIA, was it not?

Mr. Alch. That is right.

Senator E rvin. And immediately after tha t you went in and talked 

to Mr. McCord about it, did you not?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Asked him?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Now, do you not think that it is possible tha t a 

man who had read in the newspapers about the alleged involvement 

of the CIA or the suggestion involving the CIA, who is asked by his 

attorney about the matter might think that his attorney was indicating to him tha t tha t was a possible defense?

Mr. Alch. No, for this reason: If it was that type of potential— 

if it was that type of potential misunderstanding, assuming arguendo

♦ this might be so. But in Mr. M cCord’s statemen t he brought this o ut 

under the general heading of pressure, my bringing pressure upon him, 

which to me negated or diminished the chances of it being a misunderstanding. To me, it implied more, it sounded more of intentional 

misrepresentation.

* Senator Ervin. Well, the word “pressure” is used by different 

people. There are all kinds of pressures, are there not? There are 

heavy pressures and light pressures.

Mr. Alch. True.

Senator Ervin. Now, it is in evidence here tha t Mr. McCord in 

December, previous to the time of the trial, had become so much 

concerned about the possibility of involvement of CIA tha t he had 

written a letter to Mr. Caulfield saying in effect, it would be a mistake 

to involve the CIA because if they did, all the trees in the forest
328

would fall and there would be a scorched earth. Do you not know 

th at Mr. McCord showed extreme loyalty to the CIA?

Mr. Alch. Don’t I know it now?

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Mr. Alch. I know that is what he says, yes.

Senator Ervin. Did you tell Mr. McCord when you met with 

other lawyers that you all were discussing the possible defenses?

Mr. Alch. I did.

Senator Ervin. Now, in all fairness to Mr. McCord, do you not 

think it is possible that Mr. McCord thought tha t you thou ght they 

ought to see if they could involve the CIA? Just in fairness to him? *

Mr. Alch. I will answer it as fairly as I can in this manner, sir.

I do no t enjoy coming down asking to appear before this honorable 

committee for which I am most grateful, and in effect calling a man a 

liar. My nature is such that I do no t enjoy doing it. *

What you are suggesting is that there may have been, if I may 

take the liberty of interpreting your remark, tha t there may have 

been a misunderstanding on Mr. McCord’s part about that particular aspect of it. With the exception of my objecting to him categorizing that as pressure, tha t may be. I am not looking to bury 

Mr. McCord. My presence here is a reaction, not an action. But I 

keep going back to this: You cannot interpret a lawyer saying “I 

am going to forge CIA documents with the assistance of the CIA 

Director,” out of my saying “WTiat do you want for lunch,” or “ see 

you in Boston,” or “we are discussing a CIA defense.” Either those 

words were said or they were not.

Now, when I watched television last night, Senator, I heard and 

saw Mr. McCord again reiterate tha t I said those words. I have 

already advised the committee that at this meeting there was another 

lawyer present, I invite you to contact him. However, I also saw 

Mr. Fensterwald deny that he said to me on the telephone, “We are 

out to get the President.”

Senator Ervin. Well now, wait a minute on that. Did Mr. McCord 

ever mention the President to you at any time in any conversation 

he ever had with you?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator E rvin. And Mr. McCord was not present so far as you 

know, and did not overhear any of the phone conversations between 

you and Mr. Fensterwald on tha t point?

Mr. Alch. Not to my knowledge, but my record----- <

Senator Ervin. So far as it appears down to this day, there is no 

evidence tha t Mr. McCord ever mentioned the President of the 

United States except he said tha t Mr. Caulfield mentioned the 

President of the United States in a conversation with him.

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct. Except that when the rem ark was made 

to me by Mr. Fensterwald, he was Mr. McCord’s counsel and he said 

we—he used the word “we”.

Senator Ervin. The minds of human beings are very fallible I 

found through a long practice of law—and also legislative bodies, 

and I have heard a lot about this, and read a lot in trying to prepare.

I have got much information and misinformation about this matter 

and I do n ot know the precise source of all of these things.

Now, Mr. McCord says, someone, I believe he said you, suggested 

that if they changed the record at the CIA to show he had been called
329

back to duty, there might be a chance to have a defense of that kind. 

You say you never said that?

Mr. Alch. Mr. McCord said much stronger words than th at, Senator. He said I told him that I could effectuate the forgery of his CIA 

records with the cooperation of the CIA Director. Th at is pretty strong 

talk.

Senator E rvin. I do not believe tha t is the testimony Mr. McCord 

gave this committee.

Mr. Alch. The record, of course, will clear it up.

Senator Ervin. The record will speak for itself. My recollection,

* and I do not guarantee, but my recollection is that he said you, or 

somebody, said tha t by letting the record of the CIA show—wait a 

minute now, here is McCord’s statement. He said “Alch said,” tha t is 

you, “my personnel records a t CIA could be doctored to reflect such a

* recall. lie stated Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose new 

appointment had just been announced, could be subpoenaed and would 

go along with i t.”

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. He did not accuse you of anything except saying 

tha t the records could be doctored, tha t you advocated that. You were 

just expressing a surmise?

Mr. Alch. Well, Senator, perhaps through a lawyer’s—and an experienced lawyer’s—eyes, looking at it really close, "dissecting it, tha t 

conclusion might be proper. But not to the average person who reads 

it on the street.

Senator Ervin. Now let ’s see, you also, if I infer from your statement, you also took offense of the fact tha t Mr. McCord had stated 

that you had recommended he enter a plea of guilty. Am I correct in 

that?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I specifically pointed out that in response to 

your question, he said I did not.

Senator E rvin. Let’s talk about this plea of guilty a minute. You 

stated in your statement tha t you learned from Bittm an tha t Hunt 

was contemplating pleading guilty?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you also learned tha t later, a short time later, 

that Henry Rot hblatt’s clients were contemplating pleading guilty?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And you discussed with McCord the fact tha t this 

v would be a very bad thing to happen to his defense?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I told him tha t I was of the opinion that it would 

prejudice him because of the reaction to the jury.

Senator Ervin. Yes. Well, tha t would be prejudicial to his case, 

would it not?

* Mr. Alch. His case but not his defense.

Senator Ervin. Now, as a matter of fact, the assistant district 

attorney in charge of the case three times approached you with a view 

to negotiating a plea of guilty?

Mr. Alch. Two times.

Senator Ervin. On the part of McCord?

Mr. Alch. Two times to my recollection.

Senator Ervin. And I would not criticize you a bit if you recommended a plea of guilty because you had a client who was caught 

redhanded at the burglary and the defense was on very precarious
330

grounds at best, and so if lie did say that you urged him to plead 

guilty, I think it would be a compliment to your intelligence as a 

lawyer rather than a reflection on it.

Mr. Alch. With all due respect, I reject the compliment, for this 

reason, Senator: First of all, because he specifically said to you I 

never suggested tha t he enter a plea of guilty. The reason, when this 

proposition was put to me, or this offer was put to me by the Government, I practice this way, I do n ot—that is too important a decision 

for me to make. I simply take it back to the client and say: “Here it is; 

what do you say?” He said, “No.”

Senator Ervin. Well, yon never recommend to a client? .

Mr. Alch. When I get an offer?

Senator E rvin. I will have to confess tha t I have recommended to 

many clients tha t they plead guilty and I felt like I was serving their 

cause the best. *

Mr. Alch. I am not saying anything like tha t was improper. All I 

am saying, in this particular instance, Senator, I just brought it back 

to him and said, “Here is what is available to you.”

Senator E rvin. You are not taking any offense a t any possibility 

tha t McCord may have said that you recommended to him tha t he 

should plead guilty?

Mr. Alch. No, because he said just the opposite.

Senator E rvin. Yes, good; so we will have no controversy over that.

So you are n ot falling out with him on that?

Mr. Alch. No.

Senator E rvin. Let us go to Executive clemency. You did attend a 

meeting with Mr. Bittman?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Now, Mr. Bittma n was representing Hunt?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. You knew that Hunt had been a consultant in 

the White House or the Executive Office?

Mr. Alch. I honestly was not ju st sure of what Mr. H un t’s position 

was.

Senator Ervin. You knew he had been working for the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President, didn’t you?

Mr. Alch. Tha t I did.

Senator Ervin. And you do not know what contacts were had 

between Mr. Hunt and any of his former associates in the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President or between his counsel and any of those +

people?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Ervin. But you did have a discussion with Mr. Bittman 

in which Mr. Bittman mentioned Executive clemency, did you not?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir, in the context tha t I described. *

Senator E rvin. In other words, when Mr. Bittm an was discussing 

with you the fact th at his client, Mr. Hunt, might plead guilty or had 

determined to plead guilty, I do not remember which, you discussed 

with him, not Executive clemency, but what?

Mr. Alch. No, sir; I tried to make clear yesterday with Mr. Bittman where the words “Executive clemency” came up did not happen 

on January 8. It happened some time in late 1972 and when it happened, 

when I said to him just in a casual conversation, “What do you think 

our clients are liable to receive for a sentence if they are convicted?”
331

just like tha t, and th at is when he said to me—and in not a very author­ itative tone I might add—“ You never can tell. Christmastime rolls around, Executive clemency might come into the picture. Forget it. 

The President won’t go near it.”

Senator E rvin. You participated in the trial and heard the 

evidence.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you know th at it was proved on trial as shown on the trial or a t least evidence tended to show th at the notebook of Mr. Hunt which was introduced into evidence had the White House

« phone number on it, didn’t you?

Mr. Alch. If i t was, I certainly don’t recall.

Senator E rvin. You don’t recall it?

Mr. Alch. Because Mr. Hu nt’s local counsel—I don’t recall.

* Senator E rvin. Anyway when you asked Mr. Bittman what kind of sentences the clients might get if they were convicted he said, “Well, i t might be Executive clemency,” didn’t he?

Mr. Alch. He didn’t say it that way.

Senator E rvin. Well, he said Christmas was coming.

Mr. Alch. Tha t is right. [Laughter.]

Senator E rvin. And he at least indicated tha t he thought parts of executive’s hearts became kinder around Christmastime than any 

other season of the year.

Mr. Alch. Senator, let me say this. He did not respond in this type of way, he did not say, “Now, look, Christmas is coming, they are going to get Executive clemency.” I t wasn’t that type of conversa­ tion. What he said to me was in sort of a theorizing way, “Well, just as Christmastime comes around there may be Executive clemency,” I immediately responded as I told you yesterday tha t “There is no chance of that happening, in my opinion.”

Senator E rvin. You said, on page 16 of your statement:

I h ad occasion in late 1972 during one of the pretria l meetings of defense lawyers in Washington, I had occasion to say to Mr. Bittman, “Bill, what do you think our clients will receive as a sentence should the y be convicte d?” Mr. Bittma n responded in substance as if theoriz ing, “ You can never tell. Christmastim e rolls aro und and there could be Exe cutive clemency.”

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. Those are his words, to the best of my 

recollection.

Senator E rvin. So I think tha t was sort of right to have an idea 

+ that Christmas had some relation to Mr. Bittman’s remarks.

Mr. Alch. In the context of the way he uttered it.

Senator E rvin. Well, now, you agree you left tha t meeting and then you saw Mr. McCord. Later you discussed the cpiestion of executive privilege with Mr. McCord, didn’t you?

* Mr. Alch. I didn’t discuss the question, I relayed to him the

conversation I had with Mr. Bittman.

Senator E rvin. Yes, and you relayed the conversation in which Bittma n had said in effect tha t you can never tell, Christmastime rolls around and there could be Executive clemency.

Mr. Alch. I did with a singular addition of my own.

Senator Ervin. Yes, and you said it was absurd to expect Executive clemency, the President wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole or 

something like that.

Mr. Alch. That is what I said.

96 -296—73—bk. 1 -22
332

Senator Ervin. And McCord agreed with you?

Mr. Alch. He did.

Senator Ervin. Now, you, on one occasion, told Mr. McCord tha t 

Mr. Bittman, rath er Mr. Bittm an told you in one of these meetings 

of the lawyers, that Mr. McCord was going to receive a message, a 

telephone call.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And didn’t you ask Mr. Bittman what business 

other people had—you had been talking about the case, had n’t you?

Mr. Alch. At tha t particular point we had been talking about my 

client’s apprehension tha t his codefendants were conspiring against *

him.

Senator Ervin. Anyway he told you—your client—somebody else 

was going to communicate by telephone with your client?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. *

Senator E rvin. And it was a short time after that, according to 

the evidence, your client did receive a telephone call and had three 

conferences with Mr. Caulfield.

Mr. Alch. N ot to my knowledge.

Senator Ervin. Well, the evidence shows it although you don’t 

know it.

Mr. Alch. Yes.

Senator E rvin. But you conveyed the message which Mr. Bittman 

gave you about Mr. McCord going to receive a telephone call, didn’t 

you?

Mr. Alch. I tried to tell my client everything.

Senator Ervin. Yes.

Don’t you think it is reasonable now, he got a call, and you told him 

in advance that he is going to get the call, and then he receives a call 

and had some negotiations, or conversations at least about executive 

privilege, you don’t think Mr. McCord is liable because in his mind he 

associated those conversations he had pursuant to this telephone call 

with you? Can’t you see where he would reasonably draw a deduction 

tha t the telephone call which resulted in this indicated that you knew 

something about Executive clemency?

Mr. Alch. N o, for this reason. I again reiterate how close we were in 

our contact and in what we would tell each other. If he thought, and 

he has now labeled this as improper conduct on my part, the question I 

keep asking myself is tha t if he did make the surmise and conclude 

tha t I was engaged in improper conduct, this was before the trial be- 4

gan, or was it before the trial began or whenever it happened, why 

wouldn’t the man come up to me and confront me with it? Th at is what 

I don’t understand.

Senator Ervin. Well, you go and tell him tha t he is going to receive 

a phone call. " *

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And he does receive a phone call.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And as a result of receiving a phone call, he has an 

offer of Executive clemency made to him.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And you say t ha t it wasn’t reasonable for him to infer from those facts tha t you knew about the offer of Executive 

clemency?

\
333

Mr. Alch. I say it was not reasonable for him to infer or assume and later allege that tha t was in any way the basis of improper conduct on 

my part.

Senator Ervin. Well, I don’t infer it was, Mr. Alch.

Mr. Alch. What, sir?

Senator Ervin. I used to be a trial lawyer. I was always interested when I had a client, especially one who had no defense. I was always glad of the prospect of getting any kind of clemency. I do not see that it reflects on you. It might be a glory to your competence as a lawyer or to your judgment as a counsel to try to do so. It is no reflection

« on you. It is to your credit.

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I did no t know about it. If any type of legitimate, legal offer came from the Government that would benefit my client, I would put it to him. I certainly would not keep it from him.

* Senator Ervin. Just one question about the book. The Scriptures say, “Much study is a weariness to the flesh and of making books there is no end.” It seems that everybody who gets into jail today 

wants to write a book about it. When Mr. McCord talked to Mr. Johnson at the time about writing 

a book, he was o ut of a job, was he not?

Mr. Alch. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Ervin. You do n ot know tha t your client was out of a job? 

Mr. Alch. No, sir, he had electronic—not electronic—surveillance—

McCord Associates.

Senator Ervin. Do you know t ha t he had been fired by the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir, bu t he also told me that he had income from McCord Associates. I would call him sometimes a t the office.

Senator Ervin. But notwithstanding the fact that he was paying your fee, you did no t suspect he might be in penurious circumstances?

Mr. Alch. Tha t was a possibility.

Senator E rvin. I m ight say if Mr. McCord wanted to write a book about Watergate, he could make A. Conan Doyle turn green with 

envy.

Mr. Baker.

Senator Baker. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to proceed now to inquire of this witness about matters that concern 

me very greatly. The chairman has alluded a number of times to his distinguished

* career in North Carolina as a trial attorney and as a judge. I must say, Mr. Alch, that you are now in a position of having been interro­ gated by one of the best. I am not sure which interrogation it was, that of a lawyer or of a judge, but you know that you have been 

interrogated.

* Mr. Alch. I deem it an honor.

Senator Baker. Now, not to try to emulate the sterling example of 

the chairman, but I also recall tha t when I tried cases in Tennessee, when proof was concluded, when the judge charmed the jury, he said something to this effect: He said, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will now take the evidence as adduced in the hearing room from all of the witnesses. If you find any testimony of witnesses in conflict, you will reconcile it if you can. If you cannot, then you Mil look to the testimony of other witnesses, the circum stantial evidence if avail­ able, the documentary evidence or demonstrative evidence if appro-
334

priate, and then you will weigh and balance tha t evidence and make 

your judgment as to where the tru th actually lies.

Now, while that is a charge used in essence by the courts in my 

native State of Tennessee, I think it fairly summarizes the dilemma 

tha t we are faced with here as committee members. We are not judges 

and we are not a jury, but we most assuredly are after the facts, the 

truth, and it is now apparent tha t we are going to have to try to 

reconcile differences in testimony if we can; and if we cannot, look to 

the testimony of other people, demonstrative evidence to circumstantial evidence, to try to find where the truth lies.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Now, in the time I have before me, still remaining 

to me, Mr. Alch, I want to suggest two or three things tha t appear to 

be in conflict, and I want you to suggest to us how we might go about 

reconciling those apparent discrepancies or how we might go about <

shedding additional light on the subject matter.

Begin with the allegation as I understand it of Mr. McCord as 

stated on page 2 of his testimony as follows: “There followed a suggestion from Mr. Alch th at I use as my defense during the trial the 

story tha t the Watergate operation was a CIA operation.” This is Mr.

McCord speaking.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator B aker. “I heard him o ut on the suggestion, which included 

questions as to whether I could ostensibly have been recalled from 

retirement from the CIA to participate in the operation. He said that 

if so, my personnel records at CIA could be doctored to reflect such a 

recall. I stated that Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose 

appointment had just been announced, could be subpeaned and would 

go along with it. ”

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. You previously testified tha t you did no t say tha t 

to Mr. McCord. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct.

Senator Baker. Did anyone say tha t to Mr. McCord in your 

presence?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Do you have any knowledge of anybody saying 

that to Mr. McCord? " ~

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Then there is a conflict between your testimony .

and tha t of Mr. McCord. Do you have any suggestions as to how this 

committee can reconcile tha t apparently irreconcilable difference in 

proof and give us some indication of where the truth lies?

Mr. Alch. Two.

Senator Baker. Tell us.

Mr. Alch. One, speak to the third party who was there.

Senator Baker. Who was there?

Mr. Alch. Mr. Bernard Shankman.

Senator Baker. I s he under subpena, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. Dash. We have been interviewing Mr. Shankman.

Senator Baker. Would you make a notation tha t 1 would like to 

speak to Mr. Shankman.

Would you go ahead, sir?
335

Mr. Alch. If tha t should prove inconclusive with regard to this 

discrepancy and with regard to the discrepancy that Mr. Fensterwald 

denies th at he told me th at he was not going after the President-----

Senator Baker. No, no, we will get to tha t in a minute.

Mr. Alch. Very well.

Senator Baker. Confine yourself if you will to the allegation made 

by Mr. McCord, contained on page 2 of his statement, with respect 

to the defense of the recall of the CIA and the doctoring of his records to reflect that. Is there anything else except Mr. Shankman’s possible 

testimony tha t you can suggest to us tha t might shed some light on

< tha t apparent conflict and the testimony of you and Mr. McCord?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

1 suggest that both Mr. McCord and I, if he is willing, submit to a polygraph test conducted by a competent examiner, accredited by

* the American Polygraph Association. I state my willingness to do so.

Senator Baker. Do you have any other suggestion?

Mr. Alch. No, not at this time.

Senator Baker. It is further suggested by Mr. McCord tha t on a 

number of occasions, intense pressure was brought to bear on him to involve the CIA. I do not have tha t page reference before me, but I hope tha t is a fair summation of the thru st and burden of Mr. McCord’s testimony. You have denied the suggestion tha t you consider fabricating a defense of recall to the CIA. Can you shed any further 

light on whether there were other or give occasions on which you 

suggested that we “pack it off” on the CIA?

Mr. Alch. I never did.

Senator Baker. Did you ever bring intense or any pressure to bear 

on Mr. McCord on this or any other subject?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Senator B aker. Do you have any suggestion on how this committee 

might reconcile tha t apparent conflict, how w’e might find the testi­ mony of other witnesses, circumstantial evidence or demonstrative evidence, or other information tha t might tell us where the trut h lies?

Mr. Alch. As to pressure that 1 put upon him?

Senator Baker. No, tell us if you know of any other information, 

save and except the testimony given to this committee by Mr. McCord and bv you, tha t might shed some information on who is telling the 

truth, you or Mr. McCord?

Mr. Alch. As to w hat particular point?

Senator Baker. As to the point that intense pressure was brought 

to bear upon him repeatedly to try to make it appear to be a CIA 

operation.

Mr. Alch. To my knowledge, my activity to which he points was 

tha t meeting at the Monocle Restaurant. You can correct me if I 

k am wrong, but in my reading of Mr. McCord’s testimony, tha t is the

only instance in which he says that I pressured him with regard to CIA 

activity. I have already given you my two suggestions as to how to find out who is telling the truth. To my knowledge, he has not cited any 

other examples of my allegedly pressuring him to adopt a CIA defense

falsely.

Senator Baker. Moving then to another subject, it would appear to 

me a material conflict between your testimony and the statements of 

Mr. Fensterwald given publicly after our hearings on yesterday may
336

produce for this committee a similar dilemma if, in fact, Mr. Fensterwald makes a statement or testifies. That relates your allegation 

tha t Mr. Fensterwald said, “We are out to get the President.”

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I understand this question is premature. Therefore,

I saved it till last. But in anticipation of the fact th at Mr. Fensterwald 

may deny that, and I rather suspect tha t he may-----

Mr. Alch. I believe he already has.

Senator Baker. I believe he has not here, but I believe he has 

publicly outside this hearing room-----

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. #

Senator B aker. Would you now tell us what method you could 

suggest to bring the testimony of other witnesses to bear or other 

circumstantial evidence or any evidence, to try to find who is telling 

the tru th in tha t respect? *

Mr. Alch. Polygraph.

Senator Baker. Can you suggest anything else?

Mr. Alch. It was a head-on conversation. To my knowledge, 

nobody was—I know nobody was listening in on my end. To my 

knowledge, nobody was listening in on his end. I do not know.

Senator Baker. Did you tell the committee tha t you turned 

immediately and spoke to an associate?

Mr. Alch. Yes; Mr. John McNally.

Senator Baker. How soon did you do that? Was it immediately 

after the conversation?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. You are familiar with the term, res gestae?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. With reference to the hearsay rule?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. I do not know if it could serve your own purposes, 

but does it fall within the scope of that?

Mr. Alch. It could very well.

Senator Baker. Mr. Alch, there are other conflicts, b ut I will not 

go further with them at this point. We cannot try a case with one 

witness and certainly no t with the testimony of a lawyer. I have never 

in my life been in a situation where two lawyers were potentially in a 

swearing contest, but th at looks like where we are headed.

Now, I want to move on to anoth er subject matter. The chairman 

has suggested tha t it might be a glory to your competency as a lawyer *

and your judgment as a counsel had you advised Mr. McCord to plead 

guilty, that after all he was caught, as the chairman put it, I believe, 

redhanded in Watergate. He was indicted on what—seven counts, or 

eight?

Mr. Alch. Seven, I believe. *

Senator Baker. Did you ever consider advising him to plead 

guilty?

Mr. Alch. I did not, for this reason. He told me from the beginning 

he did no t want to. He told me he wanted to go to trial and he told me 

the defense he wanted to use based upon what he claimed to be the 

true motivation of his actions.

Senator Baker. What did he tell you to be the true motivation 

of his actions?
337

Mr. Alch. His attem pt to obtain advance warning of planned 

violent demonstrations by radical antiwar groups, as he pu t it, which 

would, in his opinion, lead to violence to prominent Republican 

officials.

Senator Baker. And he said tha t in relation to the entry into 

the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Alch. He did.

Senator Baker. No t into the headquarters of the Weathermen or 

any other group, but the DNC, the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Alch. That is what he told me was his reason for doing what 

he did.

Senator Baker. Did you advise him that that was or was n ot an 

available defense?

Mr. Alch. I told him I would look into it. I did. He was talking and 

• submitted memorandums to me under the topic of defense of others.

My research told me or showed me that this particular defense did 

not permit the one claiming not to know that he was breaking the

law.

I told him so.

Senator Baker. Did you then tell him th at the defense was not 

available?

Mr. Alch. Tha t particular one, bu t I also told him tha t there was a 

similar related defense which particularly allowed the perpetrator to 

know tha t he was breaking the law. That was the defense of duress. 

That defense was presented in his behalf and when Chief Judge 

Sirica ruled as a ma tter of law th at it was not applicable to the facts, 

I made my offer of proof.

Senator Baker. Did the U.S. Attorney’s Office, did the Justice 

Department, or anyone else contact you to try to induce or even to 

discuss the matter of your client pleading guilty?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. When?

Mr. Alch. As reflected in my statement, there were two times. 

The dates appear in my statement.

Senator Baker. One to plead guilty on one charge of the indictment?

Mr. Alch. And become a Government witness.

Senator Baker. And the second time to plead guilty to three or 

four counts-----

Mr. Alch. Three, and become a Government witness.

Senator Baker. Were there any other offers?

Mr. Alch. From the Government, no, sir.

Senator B aker. Were there any suggestions of Executive clemency?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. The only other, and I do not want to charac- 

* terize it as an offer. It was not an offer. B ut as a result of a meeting

in chambers with Chief Judge Sirica during the trial, I came out 

and advised my client that it was not too late to go before the grand

jury.

Senator Baker. Mr. Alch, you have previously stated tha t the way 

you practice law, the decision on whether to plead innocent or guilty 

is too important for you to decide; it must be left to your client. I 

admire your rectitude in that respect, bu t I doubt your judgment. And 

I really wonder, and I put this to you in a very blunt and in a very,
338

very cruel way, I really wonder if there is not a balancing judgment 

to be made in the minds of the expert retained as counsel to advice 

him on the trial of his rights, on the one hand the likelihood of prosecution and conviction, and on the other hand, advantages of pleading 

guilty on one or four counts of the indictment.

Mr. Alch. Senator, I was not moot on that point at all. My 

discussion—in my discussions with Mr. McCord, as we were talking 

about the defense which we ultimately used, I pointed out to him that, 

No. 1, it was the only possible legally recognizable defense I could 

think of; and also told him that in my opinion, the chances of success 

were less than 50-50.

Senator Baker. All right. At that point, what was Mr. McCord’s 

reply?

Mr. Alch. “I want to go to trial on tha t defense.”

Senator B vker. On that defense?

Mr. Alch. On that defense.

Senator Baker. When did he then bring up the matter of his 

contrived wiretap, I mean conversations with embassies tha t he 

suspected or knew of wiretaps? Was it before or after your conversations with him about the possibility of pleading guilty either to one or 

four counts of the multiple count indictment?

Mr. Alch. I am not sure.

Senator Baker. All right, skip tha t. Tell me what your reaction 

was when Mr. McCord told you of the two embassy phone calls.

Mr. Alch. I asked him what the phone calls were about. He told 

me they were phone calls relative to the case, no more.

Senator Baker. Did he tell you th at he suspected they were tapped?

Mr. Alch. He did.

Senator Baker. Did you ask him how he knew that?

Mr. Alch. I did.

Senator Baker. What did he say?

Mr. Alch. “I know they are.”

Senator Baker. I know they are?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you ask him anything else?

Mr. Alch. I asked him, how do you know? He said there was a 

similar situation in the Ellsberg case.

Senator Baker. When was the Ellsberg case tried and dismissed? 

That was a long time after this?

Mr. Alch. No; he gave me a memorandum. I think it is one of 

the papers I submitted to the committee in which he cited the Ellsberg 

case.

Senator Baker. When was that? Do you have-----

Mr. Alch. I do no t have a copy with me, but it is one of the documents I submitted.

Senator Baker. Mr. Counsel, do you have that?

Now, you are a lawyer. You are a member of the bar of the District 

of Columbia?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Of the State of Massachusetts?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Do you understand your obligations as an officer 

of the court?

Mr. Alch. Of course.
339

Senator Baker. Did you have the impression tha t your client was 

trying to manufacture and contrive a method by which the Govern­ ment would be required to dismiss this case, notwithstanding his 

guilt or innocence?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I did not take this to be a frivolous attem pt or 

action on his part. When he told me tha t these calls were relative to the case, at my client’s instruction, 1 presented the motion.

Senator Baker. Had he not told you the calls were relative to the 

case, what would you have done? Would you then have had an 

ethical dilemma as an attorney?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. If I had thought in my own mind that, No. 1, the calls were not made or that, No. 2, they were made for frivolous purposes anti of no consequence nor relation to the case, I certainly 

would have.

Senator Baker. I have here a letter styled “Dear Gerald,” dated 

August 23 of what year?

Mr. Alch. It would have to be 1972.

Senator Baker. I am going to read it into the record, Mr. Chairman. It won’t take but a few minutes. The letter is signed “Jim ” in 

pen. [Reading]:

Dea r Gerald:

This case of Russo and Ellsberg v. Byrne was filed a bout an hour before I picked 

it up at the Suprem e Co urt today. It appeare d dire ctly on target for us so m ade 

a copy. Petitioners are making a pitc h of course for gov ernmen t dismissal of t he case, rather tha n disclose the Chilean Embassy foreign wiretap, in which Boudin’s 

conversations were recorded. Petitioner’s reasons for granting the writ are dire ctly releva nt to our situ atio n 

in th at they are argu ing th at : 1. On cons titution al grounds, the determination of the relevance of wiretapped conversations be made in adversary proceedings, rather than in camera. 2. The refusal of the lower court to compel discovery and to conduct an ad ­ versary hearing is in conflict with the provisions of the two w iretapping statutes— the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Organized 

Crime Control Act of 1970. 3. Wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes—and their con stitutio nality with­ out a court order—are at issue and the ir legality needs to be determined by the Suprem e Court in its October session, in order to set this case to rest one way 

or another. Though Justice Douglas is in the minority, his comments set forth in the appendix are a pr etty fair sum mary of the thinking of the court as expressed in its two recent decisions (June 19 and Jun e 26th of this year) on the wire tapp ing 

issue. In any case, I would be t my last dollar th at the Supreme Court will ru le th at (a) the determination of the relevance of wiretap ped conversations be made in adversary proceedings, rather than in camera, and the identity of the person or organization on whose phone the tap was made be made known to the defense 

and (b) the refusal of the lower court in the EUsbtrg case to compel discovery 

and to conduct an adversa ry hearing is in conflict with the two wiretap ping 

sta tutes cited above; In my own case there are thre e possibilities releva nt to the above: 1. In the Spring of this year, telephone calls were made from my office phone from a young Chilean employee of mine, to the Chilean military attach e’s resi­ dence in D.C.; and calls were received from Chile (from members of his family), to him at my office phone at night. As an employee of mine, he would appeal-

 to 

stand in somewhat the same situation as the pet itioner’s c onsultants in the Ells ­

berg case (page 3 Jurisdicti on), if those calls were tap ped on national security 

grounds by the governm ent. 2. If taps were place d on my home and/o r office phones b y the g overnm ent on the autho rity of the Attorn ey General, with out court order, during the first week
340

after my arrest on June 17th, they would be illegal, according to the Supreme 

Court decision of June 26th in the case of U.S. v. U.S. District Court of Eastern

Michigan. There is a fair chance tha t there were such taps during that period on 

my phone because at tha t time, the stories in the press, and the bond hearings, 

were full of innuendo tha t the Watergate operation may have been a LatinAmerican or anti-Castro operation out of some type. A tap on domestic security 

grounds on the Attorney General’s authorization only (now illegal) would be a 

fair likelihood.

3. Any calls by me, subsequent to June 17th, to any organization on whom 

there was a national security wiretap, would, on motion, have to be disclosed to 

the defense if any of the 3 arguments set forth in the Ellsberg writ, under reasons 

for granting the writ, prove successful before the Supreme Court. If not disclosed 

then prosecution would have to be dropped.

The two slip opinions in the Celbard Case (June 19th) and the U.S. v. U.S. District Court of Eastern Michigan (June 26th) were mailed to you about 3 weeks 

ago. I’ll be copying the rest of the appendix to the Ellsberg writ of certiorari 

tomorrow and mail it to you. Hope you find some encouragement in this.

There are two things about that, Mr. Alch, if I may. It is an extraordinarily thorough legal document.

Would you admit that?

Mr. Alch. If it came from a layman, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. And second, tha t it would appear to you tha t 

you r client was conveying to you the possibility tha t those telephone 

calls he made to the Chilean Embassy could form the basis for dismissal because of nondisclosure of wiretaps on those embassies of the 

U.S. Government.

Mr. Alch. That is what he was conveying to me.

Senator Baker. Did you then or do you now think of tha t as an 

effort to contrive defense?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. Because I asked him if these calls were relative 

to the case. He told me that they were. When a client comes up to 

you and says, “I have been making calls which I believe were tapped, 

I think if the Government refuses to disclose them, it may result in 

the dismissal of the charges.” After having been told by him th at they 

were relative to the case, I felt it my duty to present a motion.

Senator Baker. I won’t proceed further except to say, Mr. Alch, 

are you telling this committee that the only thing that saves tha t 

situation from being a contrived defense which you should have 

objected to as counsel and as an officer of the court was the single 

representation by your client that the material was relevant?

Mr. Alch. Not at all. Le t’s suppose those calls were intercepted. 

Let’s suppose the divulging of those interceptions would have led 

to very, very material evidence or evidence which led to other evidence 

th at the Government was going to introduce. Th at can only be 

ascertained by, No. 1, having the Government come forward and 

saying, yes, we did intercept some calls.

Then, according to my understanding, the judge looks at it, sees its 

relevancy, sees if it taints any other evidence.

Senator Baker. I understand.

Mr. Alch. It is quite important.

Senator Baker. The distinction you make then, is that on the 

basis of filing a motion for discovery the representation of your 

client th at the cause is relevant to his defense is sufficient, but to 

go forward beyond that you needed the substance of the messages 

as intercepted, if in fact they were intercepted.

Mr. Alch. I had to know wha t they were in order to see what, if 

anything, can be done with them.
341

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Alch.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly obvious, of, 

■course, to all members of the committee th at the testimony of Mr. Alch 

varies significantly from th at of Mr. McCord in any number of 

instances. I want all witnesses to be p ut on notice that at an appropriate time wherever there is any evidence of perjury, I expect to ask 

the staff of this committee to submit a transcript of that possible 

perjury to the appropriate prosecuting attorney for action as the 

situation may arise.

Now, Mr. Alch, how did it happen Mr. McCord selected you as his 

attorney?

Mr. Alch. He called my office and requested an appointment. That 

is all I know about it.

Senator Talmadge. You h ad never met him before?

Mr. Alch. Never in my life, sir.

Senator Talmadge. You do not know who suggested tha t he call 

your office?

Mr. Alch. I do not, sir.

Senator Talmadge. And when he called your office, you gave him 

an appointment?

Mr. Alch. I did not, but whoever he spoke to set up one, and I 

kept it.

Senator Talmadge. And then, he came to see you in Boston?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator T almadge. And he employed you at that point?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Now, did Mr. McCord ever tell you at any time 

that he thought he was acting legally in this ma tter because of the 

involvement of Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Dean?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Talmadge. In a statement that you gave to the members 

of the staff of our committee on May 22, 1973, in the presence of Mr. 

Sam Dash, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Shure, Mr. Hamilton, 

Mr. Edmisten, I read the following: “As the trial progressed, a decision began to loom as to whether McCord would take the stand. I 

asked him what he could testify to. At tha t point he said that the 

Watergate operation had been approved by John Mitchell. I asked 

him how he knew this, and he said Liddy told him.”

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Talmadge. How do you explain tha t discrepancy in your 

evidence?

Mr. Alch. I respectfully submit it is not a discrepancy. When he 

told me that, he did not tell me tha t in any way implying tha t tha t 

justified the operation and made it legal. He never told me tha t because Liddy told him t ha t Mr. Mitchell was involved t ha t it was legal. 

He merely told me tha t that is what Liddy told him. At no time when 

he told me tha t was it in the context of him saying to me, “And, 

therefore, I think it is legal.”

Senator T almadge. As a good lawyer, did you not pursue that question at tha t time, as to whether or not Mr. Mitchell was involved, 

and if it had been approved by him, it would have been legal, would 

it not?
342

Mr. Alch. Because—I do not know—because from the very beginning I had specifically asked Mr. McCord in discussing the defense we 

ultimately arrived upon, whether or not he had acknowledged the fact 

that he knew he was breaking the law when he did what he did; he 

said he did not understand he was breaking the law.

Senator T almadge. Now, does the Attorney General have authority 

to authorize wiretaps?

Mr. Alch. I believe he does through appropriate court order.

Senator Talmadge. Does he have to have a court order?

Mr. Alch. I believe he does.

Senator T almadge. I do not believe it required one at that time. >

I think if the Attorney General had authorized the wiretap and had 

directed Mr. McCord to carry it out, I think it actually would have 

been legal. I think the authority for authorizing the wiretap also 

carries with it the authority of breaking and entering. You did not *

further investigate tha t point tha t Mr. McCord suggested to you 

at that time, did you?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, because, as I say, when he did give me tha t 

information, it was not in the context of him saying what I did was 

legal.

Senator Talmadge. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Alch, we have plowed and replowed about 

every point of contradiction between you and Mr. McCord many 

times, so I will not go into those. B ut there is one thing we have not 

discussed yet, though, and tha t is Mr. McCord’s letter to Judge 

Sirica. That actually touched off the Watergate affair.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. So I think we ought to discuss tha t perhaps 

just a moment or two here.

I have the lette r before me, I will not read it all, but I will take up 

the various points tha t he brought out as to why he wanted to talk to 

the judge.

The first point he mentions there was political pressure applied to 

the defendants to plead guilty and to remain silent. Now, of course, we 

have touched upon tha t to a certain extent here in the questioning of 

you, but can you give us any further light on that?

Mr. Alch. I cannot, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did he ever discuss with you at any time, either 

from the time he first engaged you as his lawyer until the time he ♦

dismissed you as his lawyer, anything about any political pressure 

brought against any defendant in the Watergate affair?

Mr. Alch. He did not, as I believe he stated in tha t letter.

Senator Gurney. One thing tha t Mr. McCord did testify to earlier 

was that he had some conversations during the trial with M r. Barker *

and also with Martinez, Gonzales, and Sturgis. As I understood the 

testimony, it was during recess periods or after the trial, he would 

see them in the corridor, he would talk to them, and tha t is when this 

business of political pressure came up; that is, the other defendants 

saying tha t political pressure was being brought on them, they did 

not know exactly what to do about it. His testimony seemed to 

indicate they were trying to find out what he was going to do. Were 

you with your client most of the time during this trial; what I am
343

trying to find out was, of course, were you present at any of these 

talks, and were you with your client most of the time?

Mr. Alch. I thought I was; as I review his testimony, there apparently was a great deal of ac tivity on his p art to which 1 was not privy 

either by being present or having knowledge.

Senator Gurney. Well, on that score, Mr. Alch, would you describe 

to the committee how you and your client were together during the trial from the first time that you met in the morning or whenever the 

trial began until the end of the day? Would you describe that?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir. On most occasions he would pick me up at my 

hotel. We would drive to court. I cannot say tha t during every 5- or 10-minute recess I stayed by his side. I am sure there were many occa­ sions when I conversed with others. At lunchtime, we would walk over to, I believe it is the museum near the courthouse; we would have lunch there. I did n ot always have lunch with Mr. McCord. On some occasions I did and on some occasions I did not. When the court would adjourn for the day, he and I and Mr. Shankman would take a taxicab to my hotel. Sometimes Mr. Shankm an would come right up with us, other times he would go up to his office, which was directly across the street, to check on phone calls, and we would have a discussion on what happened tha t day, and what was about to 

happen the next day, and Mr. McCord would go home. My next contact with him would be to repeat that procedure the 

following day.

Senator Gurney. Were you with him at any time tha t he had 

discussions with Mr. Barker or these other men?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. At no time did he mention to you anything about 

political pressure either before, during, or after the trial?

Mr. Alch. The first time he mentioned it to me—well, he did not 

mention it to me when I turned to him about that letter and asked him specifically not about political pressure but why he had done 

this without telling me.

Senator Gurney. Wh at did he say to that?

Mr. Alch. He orally repeated what he said in the letter. He had 

not told me because—for my protection.

Senator Gurney. Why did he think you needed protection?

Mr. Alch. 1 do not know.

Senator Gurney. And not confiding in you as his attorney.

Mr. Alch. I do not know.

Senator Gurney. Then, the next point he makes here, No. 2—

Pe rjur y o ccu rred d uring th e tr ia l in m at te rs highly m aterial to th e v ery str uc tu re or ient atio n and im pa ct of th e Go ve rnmen t’s case an d to th e motivation and 

in te nt of th e defendants.

Did he ever discuss any perjury th at he thought had been committed 

at the trial?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. The closest he ever came to that was when Mr. 

Magruder was testifying and he leaned over to me and called, he swore at Mr. Magruder, period. When I cross-examined Mr. Ma­ gruder—this is why it sticks out in my mind—in trying to support my defense, I asked Mr. Magruder if he knew Mr. McCord, if he could observe his duties. He said he could, and he said—I asked him to give
344

me his opinion or to describe the manner in which he carried out his 

duties and he had nothing but superlatives for him. That is it.

Senator Gurney. In his testimony before the committee, as I recall,

Mr. McCord had mentioned either before or during the trial he was 

afraid perjury was going to be committed but he never discussed this 

with you at any time?

Mr. Alch. No, and again I referred to tha t admission of his in his 

letter.

Senator Gurney. What about the motivation and inte nt of the 

defendants—did he ever discuss th at with you?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. Keeping in m ind-----

Senator Gurney. Except his own, of course.

Mr. Alch. Of course. But keeping in mind tha t after the first 2 or 3 

days of trial, there were only two defendants.

Senator Gurney. Yes. But he never discussed the motivation and *

intent of any of the people who were arrested in the Watergate affair?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Then, he goes on to say No. 3, “ Others involved 

in the Watergate operation were not identified during the trail when 

they could have been those testified.”

Did he ever say to you anything about that?

Mr. Alch. He did, in this sense: During the trial, as I said yesterday, when we were talking about whether or n ot he would take the 

stand to testify, I asked him what the nature of his testimony would 

be, and that is when be told me that Mr. Liddy had informed him 

tha t Mr. Mitchell had known and/or approved of this operation.

Senator Gurney. Now, on tha t score, why do you think he brought 

tha t up? I remember tha t you had discussions with him about it as to, 

whether he would testify or not b ut why do you think he brough t this 

up? What was his motivation?

Mr. Alch. I can only guess. I t happened when I asked him, when 

we were trying to decide whether or n ot he would take the stand. I 

said to him, “Now, tell me, when you get up there, you are going to 

have to tell all tha t you know, jus t what do you know about this 

thing?”

Our defense of duress had been turned down by the court. Tha t is. 

when he told it to me. Why he chose tha t time to tell it to, me, I 

honestly do not know.

Senator Gurney. Well, did you ask him, “Now, if Mr. Mitchell is 

involved in this, how is this going to help you in the defense th at we «

are presenting to the court here?”

Was t ha t discussed?

Mr. Alch. I did tell him, first of all, I asked him, “Who told you?”

He said Mr. Liddy. I said, “Do you have any other corroboration of this?”

He said, “No.” Well, you know that this is not a pa rt of our defense, *

the defense of duress. It was not a part of, and the only actual defense 

we had, was just to argue a general lack of criminaf intent, which I 

told him was not going to amount to much. It was in that respect tha t 

I told him that, but I did tell him that despite the relevancy or lack of 

relevancy to his preferred defense, that was going to come out in 

response to questions put to him if he elected to take the stand. He. 

elected not to do so.

Senator Gurney. No. 5, he says:
345

Such statements, some statements, were unfortunately made by a witness which 

left the court with the impression tha t he was stating untruth s or withholding facts in his knowledge when, in fact, only honest errors of memory were involved.

Who was he talking about there? W hat was involved in that?

Mr. Alch. I am n ot sure. But I believe he was talking about Mr. 

Baldwin, I am not sure. I believe he was talking about Mr. Baldwin 

when Mr. Baldwin said that he could not or thought tha t the le tter or the man to whom he was to deliver the logs at the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President had a German-sounding name and at one point, whether i t was before or after trial Mr. McCord mentioned to 

me that the log had, in fact been addressed to Mr. Liddy, and that

* this was an honest mistake in recollection on Mr. Baldwin’s part. 

That may be what he was referring to.

Senator Gurney. T ha t was not discussed during the trial with you?

Mr. Alch. Not to m y knowledge.

* Senator Gurney. This was afterward?

Mr. Alch. It may have been, I am not sure. It could be when 

Baldwin was testifying to tha t effect, Mr. McCord may have turned to me and advised me of that, tha t I think he is mixed up because I 

remember tha t the name on the envelope was Liddy and tha t there was a guard there with a German-sounding name and he is confusing it, he may have told me tha t at the time of Mr. Baldwin’s testimony.

Senator Gurney. Apparently i t is no t a very important point but 

something tha t he remembered about the course of the trial.

Mr. Alch. Apparently.

Senator Gurney. No. 6 in his letter to the judge says this:

My motivations were different from those of the others involved b ut were not limited to or simply those offered in my defense during the trial.’ This is no fault of my attorneys but of the circumstances under which we had to prepare our 

defense.

What can you tell us about his motivations being different from 

those of the others?

Mr. Alch. I can only tell you two things: No. 1, he told me that his 

motivation, tha t is the protection of others, was peculiar to him. As 

to his reference to other areas which we did not pursue through no 

fault of any attorneys I don’t know but I can only surmise he was making references to areas of which he had made no disclosure to me.

Senator Gurney. Do you know if he wrote the letter or if anybody 

else wrote the letter?

Mr. Alch. The letter to Chief Judge Sirica?

*■ Senator Gurney. Yes, what I am reading from.

Mr. Alch. The only information tha t I have tha t could in any way 

be interpreted as an answer to that question is this: When I called up 

Mr. Fensterwald the night of the day tha t the memorandum came out alleging that I had told him about the forging of CIA documents, 

and I asked him why this had been done he made a reference—Mr. 

Fensterwald made a reference—in the telephone conversation, tha t “This was a bomb just like the one we dropped on you back before 

Judge Sirica.”

It stuck out in my mind because of the use of the word “we.” WLether it was in tentional or nonintentional, I don’t know. That is 

what was said.
346

Senator Gurney. I take it what you are saying is th at in your own 

mind you surmised that together they had drafted this letter which 

went to the judge.

Mr. Alch. At tha t point, I did.

Senator Gurney. Of course, at that point Mr. Fensterwald was 

not Mr. McCord’s attorney, was he?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. I mean to your knowledge.

Mr. Alch. Well, I know this much, I don’t know whether or not 

he was in contact but I had not yet entered his appearance as attorney 

of record.

Senator Gurney. Yes. »

Speaking of t hat you mentioned, I think at one time, and I can’t 

remember now, but it was in the courtroom, you were coming out 

of the courtroom, tha t this unknown man rushed up and said to 

McCord, “You can use my office.” When did tha t occur? *

Mr. Alch. In the 20-minute recess tha t Judge Sirica allowed us 

to more or less react to his reading of the letter. I stayed in the courtroom with Mr. McCord. It was at that time tha t Mr. Fensterwald 

came up and whispered to Mr. McCord, “If you need an office after 

this is over use mine.”

Senator Gurney. This was immediately after the letter affair?

Mr. Alch. Immediately after tha t was read in court.

Senator Gurney. Why did he do that?

Mr. Alch. I don’t know.

Senator Gurney. Do you think he might offer an office to you?

Mr. Alch. That would be more appropriate but as to why he made 

the offer to Mr. McCord I don’t know.

Senator Gurney. Did he, McCord, identify Fensterwald as Fensterwald at tha t time?

Mr. Alch. When I asked who this gentleman was Mr. McCord 

said this is Mr. Fensterwald. I turned around and said, “Oh, I talked 

to you a great deal on the telephone, how do you do.”

And tha t is when Mr. McCord said to him, “The only thing I am 

sorry about is pulling this surprise on Gery.”

Mr. Fensterwald said, “Surprise, hell. Let it all hang out.”

Senator Gurney. The testimony before us shows, as you know, 

tha t McCord and Caulfield met on some occasions and talked about 

Executive clemency.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Did McCord ever discuss this with you at any »

meetings or conversations—or conversations he ever had with Caulfield?

Mr. Alch. Other than to say that he had received a call from a 

man whose name I recall to be Caldwell, tha t he would not tell me 

who it was or what he was talking about. I told him that was his 

prerogative and as I explained this morning my concern was to see 

whether or not there would be any indication tha t my counsel to him 

was being disregarded, tampered with or modified.

Senator Gurney. But he never mentioned Caldwell as you called 

him ever discussing Executive clemency with you?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. One final question, Mr. Alch.
347

Back to the Bittman meeting, and Barker’s going with you in the 

taxicab to the meeting. Did you ever have any discussion at any time 

with Mr. Barker about what came out of this meeting with Mr. Bi ttman?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I never saw Mr. Barker that day after he got 

out of the cab, and the reason in my statement I put down there was 

no significant conversation is because my recollection is th at there was 

no conversation, and then it dawned on me I must have said “hello” 

and “goodbye” to him so I put down no significant conversation.

Senator Gurney. But you never had any discussion with him either 

at any other time?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. Th at is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.

« Senator Inouye. Tha nk you very much.

Mr. Alch-----

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. You have described Mr. F. Lee Bailey as the head 

of your law firm; isn’t that correct?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. You have also testified that as a matter of prac ­

tice and procedure you consulted with Mr. Bailey on every step, 

every development in any case under your jurisdiction?

Mr. Alch. Well, I would not say every step of every case but we do 

confer and I do give him more or less progress reports on the case.

Senator Inouye. Does he also advise you as to what you should 

be doing?

Mr. Alch. On occasion he tells me what in his opinion would be the 

right thing or the -wrong thing to do.

Senator Inouye. And is this a partnership?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Inouye. Are you an employee of Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Inouye. The fee that was received from Mr. McCord, 

the $25,000 going to the law firm or going to you?

Mr. Alch. Unfortunately i t goes to the law firm.

Senator I nouye. It goes to the law firm.

You have testified, if I recall, that Mr. McCord really w anted Mr. 

Bailey to represent him; isn’t that correct?

Mr. Alch. Th at is what he told me.

Senator Inouye. And tha t Mr. Bailey had indicated that he did 

not want the case?

Mr. Alch. Th at is correct.

Senator Inouye. Bu t you decided to take the case.

« Mr. Alch. When I told Mr. McCord that Mr. Bailey did not

want it, he said, “Well, you look all right to me, you impress me 

enough. Will you represent me?” and I said, “Yes.”

Senator Inouye. Do you know why Mr. Bailey did n ot want this 

case?

Mr. Alch. No sir, it might have been his commitments, his lack 

of time, I do not know.

96- 29 6— 73— bk. 1------ 23
348

Senator I nouye. Under ordinary circumstances, or shall I say in 

normal times, I would not be asking you the following questions. 

However, because of the bizarre nature and circumstance of the 

ma tter before this committee, I feel compelled to ask you these 

questions.

Mr. Alch. I understand, Senator.

Senator Inouye. No. 1, was Mr. Bailey indicted by a Federal 

grand jury?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. When did this happen?

Mr. Alch. To my knowledge, the indictment came down May 1-8,

1973.

Senator Inouye. Did you discuss your appearance before this 

committee w ith Mr. Bailey?

Mr. Alch. Only to the extent th at I advised him th at I had received *

a telegram from Mr. Dash marked “urgent” asking tha t I contact 

him, and I did so.

Senator I nouye. Has this indictm ent in any way influenced your 

appearance before this committee?

Mr. Alch. I do not see how it could.

Senator I nouye. Have you been in contact with any person 

officially or otherwise connected with the Committee To Re-Elect 

the President or the administration?

Mr. Alch. I have been in contact, as I explained yesterday, with 

Mr. Paul O’Brien who was introduced to me or who—to whom I 

was directed by Mr. McCord, and who was described by Mr. McCord 

as counsel to the Committee To Re-Elect the President.

Senator I nouye. My question is have you been in contact since 

Mr. Bailey’s indictment?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator I nouye. So the indic tmen t has not in any way affected 

your testimony?

Mr. Alch. Absolutely not, Senator.

Senator I nouye. I thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I may, bring up another m atter.

I concur with your statement, Mr. Chairman, tha t we should let 

the chips fall where they may, and the committee’s investigation 

should go wherever the path leads. I n the last few days, Mr. McCord 

has raised many serious charges, especially against several political 

organizations and members of the Democratic party. I believe these 

charges should be investigated, and that any Democrat involved in 

any illegal activity should be prosecuted or on the other hand if these 

charges have no substance the air should be cleared. As we all recall,

Mr. McCord, in his testimony Friday, and Mr. Alch today, maintained tha t one of the major motivations for taking part in the bugging *

of the W atergate offices was his knowledge of “ calls and conversation 

and coordination” between staff members of these political organizations and violence groups.

Mr. McCord has implied that his daily review of materials from 

the Internal Security Division may have fed his belief or at least did 

not refute his fear.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, very respectfully I wish to recommend 

that the committee submit a formal request to the Justice Departme nt,
349

more specifically the Internal Security Division, that it provide this committee whatever evidence and information it has collected which indicates the existence of a criminal conspiracy or the involvement of the Democratic National Committee or any of the Democratic Presi­ dential candidates named in Mr. McCord’s testimony, to wit, Mr. Muskie or Mr. Me Govern with any violence groups to carry out 

unlawful acts.

Senator Ervin. As I understand it, the staff of the committee has 

been trying to investigate this field. Apart from this, I would make an observation. Ever since 1 have been in Washington, I found there are a lot of people in auth ority in Washington who see subversives and dissenters and ghosts hiding under the beds and every rosebush and, unfortunately, some of them get into a security position b ut I certainly agree with you this should 

4 be looked into.

Senator Inouye. Because I consider-----

Senator Ervin. I will ask the staff to prepare a letter to make th at 

request to the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice.

Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. I have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alch, what were the exact words or the mental attitude of Mr. McCord when you confronted him with the offer to plead to one charge in exchange for him being a Government witness, assuming 

tha t you did no t recommend it?

Mr. Alch. He said words to the effect “no deal.”

Senator Montoya. What else did he say?

Mr. Alch. Just “Tell them I am not interested in that type of 

arrangement.”

Senator Montoya. Now this was communicated to Mr. McCord as 

a result of your meeting in the office of Mr. Bittinan, is th at correct?

Mr. Alch. Are we talking about—I may have misunderstood you, 

Senator, are you talking-----

Senator Montoya. As I understood your testimony you went to 

Mr. Bittma n’s office on January 8?

Mr. Alch. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. You went into a private conference wr

ith him?

Mr. Alch. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. And you discussed w’ith him the possibility that 

Mr. Hunt was going to offer a plea of guilty?

Mr. Alch. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, did you at that conference ascertain or 

J did you at that conference receive the suggestion or analyze the suggestion from the prosecutors as to what they might do if Mr. 

McCord would plead guilty?

Mr. Alch. No sir.

Senator Montoya. Did you discuss it with Mr. Bittinan?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Senator Montoya. I understand from your testimony, of course, 

tha t these conferences or offers by the prosecutors took place in the 

courtroom; is tha t correct?
350

Mr. Alch. Eith er in the courtroom or a t their office.

Senator M ontoya. Yes.

Now, did you attend any other conferences in Mr. B ittm an’s office?

Mr. Alch. Yes sir.

Senator Montoya. When was this?

Mr. Alch. The exact dates I do not recall. I recall the purposes. 

One such purpose was to prepare motions, memorandums, affidavits 

in support of motions; one such occasion Mr. McCord accompanied 

me up there. The reason-----

Senator Montoya. But you remained outside?

Mr. Alch. No, no, he came in with me on this particular occasion 

to which I am referring because we were using Mr. Bittman’s office 

and secretarial help because of logistics problems, whenever immediate 

typing had to be done.

Senator Montoya. Now, on w hat date did you and the lawyers for 

the other defendants meet to work out the strategy for the trial?

Mr. Alch. There were several meetings. I cannot specifically recall 

the dates. I could tell you th at there were, to my recollection, perhaps 

three or four in the late fall and winter—in the late months of 1972.

Senator Montoya. During what particular conferences did the 

matter of the CIA involvement being used as a defense occur?

Mr. Alch. Mr. McCord claimed i t was December 21, 1972. I t could 

very well be. He may very well be right about that.

Senator Montoya. Well, with respect to that conference what 

transpired specifically?

Mr. Alch. As I told the other Senators, I announced wha t my defense was going to be. The response was “Well, this applies to your 

man b ut it does not do us any good.” At that point, the question was 

asked “Is this a CIA operation?” In the conversation tha t followed, it 

was pointed out tha t some of the defendants, if no t all of them, had 

prior CIA connections, tha t one of them had been caught with documents which purported to be CIA-forged credentials, and each lawyer 

agreed to ask the client whether or not there was in fact a factual basis 

for CIA involvement and then we went on with the conference.

Senator Montoya. Who brought up the matter of using the CIA 

involvement as a defense?

Mr. Alch. I have told the Senators, I am n ot sure. It may have 

been Mr. Bittman, it may have been one of the other defense attorneys. 

I just do not have specific recall.

Senator Montoya. Were any of the defendants present a t this conference?

Mr. Alch. I believe that—I believe Mr. Liddy was present.

Senator Montoya. Did you communicate specifically to the conference and those attending th at M r. McCord would have none of that?

Mr. Alch. Not at th at time because I hadn’t discussed it wfith him. 

After I discussed it with him and he told me tha t—at a subsequent 

meeting, I did say to them, “Mr. McCord says there is no CIA involvement and he will have no part of any allegations to tha t effect.”

Senator Montoya. When did you discuss it with him? More or less?

Mr. Alch. It was late in the year.

Senator M ontoya. Was that in December?

Mr. Alch. December 21, I believe. And then a few days later in 

Boston.
351

Senator Montoya. Then Mr. McCord advised Mr. Shankman, your 

local participator in the defense, that he did not want to communicate 

with you for the reason th at you were trying to get the CIA involvemen t in as a defense. T ha t is correct, isn’t it?

Mr. Alch. That is wh at Mr. Shankman told me Mr. McCord told 

him.

Senator M ontoya. And tha t is what you testified here.

Mr. Alch. What I said, sir, was when I confronted Mr. McCord 

after the le tter of dismissal had been given to Judge Sirica, I told him 

that Mr. Shankman had told me the reason for his being dissatisfied 

„ was this CIA-contemplated defense and I said to him in words or

substance, 1 thought tha t was laid to rest at our last meeting, to which 

he replied, “Th at is no t my reason. My reason is I don’t think you are 

communicating with me enough, I don’t think you are adequately 

* preparing the case,” et cetera.

Senator Montoya. Did you feel any time that Mr. McCord was 

not giving you all the material facts to present an adequate defense?

Mr. Alch. Well, I knew from the very beginning by what he told 

me. When I asked him what is involved, he said, “I ain just going to 

tell you w hat my motivation was.”

Senator Montoya. Well, you indicated in testimony tha t he would 

not give you in many instances immediate responses.

Mr. Alch. That is righ t.

Senator M ontoya. And there would be days of lapse and then he 

would come back with defense answers.

Mr. Alch. Yes, and m ostly in written memorandums.

Senator Montoya. Well, did this not disturb you in trying to 

present an adequate defense?

Mr. Alch. It puzzled me a bit, because when I-----

Senator Montoya. Did it ever occur to you that in view of that 

attitude by Mr. McCord and his failure to respond to your questions 

and divulge all the necessary information, that you might consider 

withdrawing from the case?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, for this reason. Wha t I would ask him to give 

to me was corroboration of a lo t of things. From the very beginning, he 

said, this is why I broke into the Watergate. And I would say to him, 

well, can you give me reasons documenting or corroborating your 

intention? And he would say, let me think about it.

Then I would get in the mail memorandums, some of which I have 

» made available to this committee, outlining, here is my reason, here

is the information I was receiving.

Senator Montoya. All right. Then during your meeting of January 8, 

you indicated tha t Mr. Bittma n had told you when you expressed 

Mr. McCord’s concern about what was going on, that he was being 

a made the fall guy, you indicated that Mr. Bittma n had told you, tell

McCord tha t he will receive a call from a friend.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator M ontoya. Now, did you at tha t time ask Mr. Bittman 

what th at call would be about?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Senator Montoya. Did it arouse your curiosity?

Mr. Alch. To the extent I surmised that it had something to do 

with his fears or his suspicions tha t his codefendants were ganging
352

up on him, because Mr. Bittman said it right after I made tha t 

remark to Mr. McCord.

Senator Montoya. You are an inquisitive lawyer. You didn’t ask 

any questions as to who m ight be calling your client on tha t night?

Mr. Alch. I did not. I assumed tha t it was going to be or could 

have been Mr. Hunt.

Senator Montoya. And did you ask Mr. McCord when you told 

him this who might be calling him tha t night?

Mr. Alch. I did not.

Senator Montoya. Did you speculate as to what the call might be?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. What did you speculate to him about?

Mr. Alch. The purpose—I didn’t speculate to him. I speculated 

in my own mind that the purpose might be to allay his fears.

Senator Montoya. Now, after Mr. McCord spoke to this alleged 

friend, did you ask him the next day what the call was about?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, it didn’t come up the next day. It was some 

days later, and I don’t exactly recall how many days it was.

Senator M ontoya. And you had no curiosity in your mind about 

this thing at all?

Mr. Alch. No, sir. I was preparing a case; we were selecting a jury. 

I had my hands full.

Senator Montoya. All right, now, when you discussed—or did you 

discuss with Mr. Bittman the offer of clemency?

Mr. Alch. In the context tha t I have described, yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Do you believe or did you have reason to believe 

Mr. Bittm an was serious about this offer of clemency?

Mr. Alch. In my opinion, he was not.

Senator Montoya. Did you discuss with Mr. McCord the possibilities of clemency in the event tha t he should plead guilty?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, the only time I discussed clemency with him 

was when I relayed to him my discussion with Mr. Bittman, and I 

told him in words or substance, don’t rely on it because it won’t 

happen.

Senator Montoya. Now, at the time tha t you were advised tha t 

Mr. Hunt would plead guilty, did you ever entertain the notion, or 

was there ever any discussion to the effect that the plea would be in 

exchange for a later g rant of Executive clemency?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, because the reason given to me by Mr. Bittm an 

was th at Mr. Hunt was so emotionally upset over the death of his wife 

that he simply could not stand the rigors of the trial. That is what 

was told to me.

Senator Montoya. Were you aware or did you have any suspicions tha t Mr. McCord or any of the defendants were being offered 

clemency in exchange for a plea of guilty?

Mr. Alch. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. Were you aware of any interest on the part 

of any people at the White House tha t in the event Mr. McCord 

would plead guilty, there would be some favoritism with respect or 

in the direction of clemency from the White House?

Mr. Alch. No, sir, I don’t know anybody at the White House.

Senator Montoya. Now, I recognize the two positions taken here 

from the testimony of Mr. McCord and you.
353

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Now, Mr. McCord lias already pleaded guilty 

or has been found guilty by the court and jury, and he is up for sentencing. He has nothing at stake now except waiting for the 

mercy of the judge in the sentencing procedure. Now, there is this obvious contradiction in the testimony. And I see tha t Mr. McCord’s testimony will serve him no further except 

to say the truth. Now, you have denied his testimony in your statem ent. My ques­ tion to you is wha t would be the consequences to you as an attorney 

should the McCord allegations be found to be true?

Mr. Alch. Are you talking about the allegations tha t I-----

Senator Montoy'a. With respect to you.

Mr. Alch. Well, w hat specific allegations? All allegations which I 

4 have denied, 1 say are n ot true.

Senator Montoya. Now, you have an interest in trying to dispel 

the veracity of Mr. McCord’s allegations in that if they would be found to be true or credible, you would be subject to some ethical— some reprisals—from some grievance committee or from a court; 

would tha t not be true?

Mr. Alch. Perhaps, as I look upon it now. My immediate reaction 

when I heard them, Senator, was that the man is telling things about me th at are not true, tha t accuse me of improper, illegal conduct, and 

I want an opportunity to refute those allegations.

Senator M ontoya. So you have a very specific interest—with which 

I do not quarrel—in appearing before this committee to dispel what has been said about you by way of casting aspersions on your integrity?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Montoya. Tha t is all.

Senator Ervin. I wan t to ask two or three questions.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Mr. McCord told you tha t he had been furnished 

information from the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice and from other sources, which led him to believe tha t there might be some violence practiced against the President or his surrogates in the campaign, did he not?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And tha t was the kind of defense he wanted to 

interpose, was it not?

w Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And you studied tha t defense and briefed it and 

Judge Sirica held, during the progress of the trial, tha t he would charge 

tha t tha t defense was unavailable, legally speaking?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

> Senator Ervin. Then the only defense you were left with was the

defense of lack of criminal inten t on the part of Mr. McCord?

Mr. Alch. If it can be called a defense; yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. Well, as you told him, tha t was a very weak defense, 

and I think tha t is because it is a rule of law, is it not, tha t every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his own acts, and the natural consequences of McCord’s own acts was that he was 

caught in the Watergate?

Mr. Alch. Tha t is correct.
354

Senator Ervin. Now, you suggested tha t you might solve some 

conflict in testimony by a polygraph test?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. D o you no t know, as a lawyer, that polygraph tests 

are not admitted in evidence in any court in the United States?

Mr. Alch. I know—I believe th at in some jurisdictions, Senator, 

if there is a stipulation by the adversary parties to the effect tha t 

whatever the results are, if the judge in the case determines that it is 

given by a competent examiner under proper circumstances, it is 

admissible.

I also know of recent Federal decisions. The reason I say this is 

because, as a defense attorney, we sometimes utilize tha t, both for 

investigation and to try to get i t into evidence.

I am also cognizant of recent Federal decisions which have held 

tha t under certain circumstances, it is admissible.

Senator Ervin. Do you not know, as a lawyer, that the overwhelming majority of all judicial decisions are to the effect th at polygraph tests will not be received as evidence?

Mr. Alch. Senator, I was asked by Senator Baker as to any suggestions I could offer as to how to resolve the question of credibility, which 

understandably, to me is most important. I gave the Senator that 

answer.

Senator Ervin. My question had no relation to that. My question 

was do you n ot know, as a lawyer, that results of polygraph tests are 

not received as evidence by any court in the United States?

Mr. Alch. I do not. I believe that there are certain jurisdictions 

now, today, there are opinions which state they are admissible. I 

believe, and this is just my opinion, that, as time goes on, they will 

eventually be admissible. But I think they are admissible in some 

jurisdictions today.

Senator Ervin. My question is this: Do you not know, as a lawyer, 

tha t the overwhelming majo rity of all courts in the United States 

hold tha t polygraph tests are not admissible in evidence?

Mr. Alch. Yes, but the trend, in my opinion, is beginning to go 

the other way. And I think it should. I have faith in them.

Senator E rvin. There are 86 different Federal judges hi the United 

States—district judges. No, more than that. There are 86 separate 

Federal districts in the United States and an old lawyer in St. Louis 

made a speech some time ago in which he said:

Do no t waste your time looking up the law in advance, because you can find 

some Federal distric t court decision th at will sustain any prop osition you make.

Mr. Alch. Senator, I know from my own experience that a great 

many, if not all, prosecutors heavily rely on them.

Senator E rvin. Yes. I happen to have made a study of polygraph 

tests, and I call them 20th century witchcraft. I think a guilty person 

who is calm can pass one without any difficulty, and a truthful person 

who is nervous could pass one with great difficulty.

Senator Baker. I would like to say something, and I will say it 

either now or when you finish.

Senator E rvin. Say it now.

Senator Baker. To begin with, I did not bring up the question of 

the lie detector test—the polygraph test. I asked the witness very
355

properly for any suggestions he had as to how we could arrive at the 

tru th in a contradictory situation.

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. This is not a court of law. We are not bound by 

the rules of evidence. If we were, we would no t have gotten two-thirds 

of the testimony we have. We would have been out on the hearsay 

rule. B ut this is a factfinding group and I am n ot suggesting th at we 

compel these witnesses to take a polygraph test. But 1 must say, Mr. 

Chairman, that if these people who are in conflict wan t to do that , I 

think we would do a disservice if we did not permit them to and receive 

M tha t for whatever it is worth.

If I were a sitting judge and had to decide whether the results of 

tha t test were hearsay or not, I would be hard put to conclude th at 

it was not hearsay or was not in violation of a constitutional guarantee 

* against self-incrimination. But I am not a judge. I hope I never am a

judge.

Senator Ervin. Well, I have followed the rules of evidence so far as 

I can, because I thin k the experience of the rest and the administration 

of justice shows it is about the best way to ascertain truth.

Senator Baker. Let me make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, if you 

will listen to me for just a second. I would like Mr. Dash to hear it, 

too. And I do not have any idea w hat Mr. Fensterwald will say about 

that, about whether he wants to take a polygraph test or not. If he 

does not, there is nothing anybody is going to do about it. Nor is 

anybody, as far as I am concerned, going to make any comment on it. 

Th at is yet to be determined.

But if we are suddenly going to be bound by the rules of evidence, 

we have given them only the most glancing pass so far in this hearing. 

Then I would suggest as an alternative possibility, Mr. Chairman, 

that if it is indeed the embodiment of 20th century witchcraft—which 

I do not believe, because I think virtually every police d epartment in 

the United States now uses it in its investigative work—I would 

suggest instead the possibility that the staff—th at the staff as a pa rt 

of its investigative technique, undertake those results and then this 

committee will decide whether it has any value or not.

Senator Ervin. Did not Judge Sirica sta te several times during the 

course of the trial on criminal charges, that the lawyers on neither side 

of the case were asking the right questions in respect to who or whether 

the accused were hired to break into Watergate, and if so, by whom 

they were hired?

Mr. Alch. My recollection, Senator, is that if those questions were 

asked by Chief Judge Sirica, they related to the prosecution.

Senator E rvin. Yes. Now, as a matter of fact, did it not come out in 

the evidence that Sturgis, Barker, Martinez, and Gonzales had 

* approximately $4,200 in bills whose serial numbers showed that they

came from the campaign funds contributed to reelect the President?

Mr. Alch. I have no specific recall. That may be correct.

Senator E rvin. You do not recall that?

Mr. Alch. Not specifically.

Senator E rvin. Do you recall it otherwise than specifically? Do you 

not recall evidence to tha t effect?

Mr. Alch. I do no t recall the exact amount. I remember that there 

was money introduced.
356

Senator E rvin. And do you not know that they were traced in the 

evidence, the serial numbers, to a bank in Miami taken out of the 

$114,000 deposited, $89,000 of which came out of the Mexican bank 

and $25,000 through a cheek of Mr. Dahlberg?*

Mr. Alch. I believe tha t was the evidence.

Senator Ervin. You were told by your client tha t John Mitchell was 

involved and he told you that he had been told th at by Liddy, did he 

not?

Mr. Alch. He did.

Senator E rvin. And he knew tha t Liddy and McCord and H unt had 

all worked for the Committee to Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Alch. He did.

Senator Ervin. Yes; and Mr. M agruder. Were any questions asked 

by anybody to indicate whether or not anybody other than those 

three were involved in the Watergate?

Mr. Alch. By me?

Senator Ervin. By anybody.

Mr. Alch. I do not recall. I did not. Disclosure from Mr. McCord 

regarding what Mr. Liddy told him came after Mr. Magruder had 

testified.

Senator Ervin. Now, as a ma tter of fact, did not the Department of 

Justice maintain, clear up to the Supreme Court of the United States, 

tha t the Attorney General had the right and power to exercise electronic surveillance over persons suspected of domestic subversion 

without getting an order of the court, or the President, acting through 

the Attorney General?

Mr. Alch. I do not recall that. If you are referring, and I am asking 

this respectfully, are you referring, Senator, to when there was an 

appeal regarding whether or n ot the contents of the monitored calls 

should be divulged?

Senator E rvin. Yes, but do you not know as a lawyer, talking about 

several district court cases on tha t point, some of which held tha t the 

President had the inherent power to wiretap without an order of the 

court in cases of domestic subversion, and others held to the contrary?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. And finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, 

2 days after the Watergate break-in, handed down the unanimous 

decision t ha t tha t power did not exist?

Mr. Alch. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o’clock.

Mr. Alch. Am I excused, Mr. Chairman or shall I return?

Senator E rvin. We will excuse you, subject to recall.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 

at 2 p.m., this same day.]

Afternoon Session, Thursday, May 24, 1973

Senator E rvin. The committee will come to order.

Counsel, Mr. Hamilton, will call the first witness.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Bernard L. Barker, please.

•Che cks will appe ar as exhibits Nos. 21-25 in "Ph as e I , Watergate Investigation, Book 2.”
357

Senator Ervin. Mr. Barker, do you solemnly swear tha t the evidence you shall give to the Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the -whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Barker. I do.

Senator Ervin. Le t the record show that the witness is testifying 

under an order of imm unity entered by Judge Silica pursuant to the resolution and req uest of the committee under sections 6002 and 6005 

of title 18 of the United States Code.

You may take your seat, Mr. Barker.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, would you state your full name,

please?

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD L. BARKER

Mr. Barker. My name is Bernard L. Barker.

Mr. Hamilton. And where do you reside, Mr. Barker?

Mr. Barker. At present 1 am in Cell Block 4, D istrict of Columbia 

Jail.

Mr. Hamilton. And where is your home residence?

Mr. Barker. 5229 Northwest Fourth Street, Miami, Fla.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, would you please give us the date and 

the place of your birth?

Mr. Barker. March 17, 1917, H avana, Cuba.

Mr. Hamilton. And were your parents American nationals?

Mr. Barker. Both my parents were American nationals. My 

mother was an American national of Cuban descent.

Mr. Hamilton. Now, Mr. Barker, did you serve in World War II?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. And were you a prisoner of war?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, do you now stand convicted in regard 

to your role in the break-in of the Democratic National Committee 

headquarters at the Watergate on June 17, 1972?

Mr. Barker. I do.

Mr. Hamilton. Did you also participate in a break-in of those 

headquarters on the Memorial Day weekend of 1972?

Mr. B arker. I did.

Mr. H amilton. Mr. Barker, who recruited you for these activities?

Mr. Barker. E. Howard Hunt.

Mr. Hamilton. And was Mr. Hunt your supervisor in the Watergate 

operations?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. And had Mr. Hunt also been your commanding 

officer in the Bay of Pigs operation?

Mr. Barker. The words “commanding officer,” I was Mr. Hun t’s 

principal assistant in the Bay of Pigs operation.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, was the first Watergate-type affair that 

you participated in the break-in of the office of Dr. Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in September of 1971?

Mr. B arker. Th at is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. Now, for these activities, the Watergate operations 

and the Ellsberg affair, were you paid by Mr. Hu nt for your participation in these matters?

Mr. Barker. No.
358

Mr. Hamilton. Well, if you received no pay, Mr. Barker, what 

was your motivation for participating in these operations?

Mr. Barker. The original operation was the Ellsberg operation.

It was explained to me tha t this was a matter of national security.

After this operation, the second operation was on Mr. Hoover’s 

death and this was an operation to give assistance and to infiltrate a 

group of persons who were a t the Capitol steps.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, would you put the microphone a bit 

closer to your mouth, please.

Mr. Barker. The third operation was the first entry into the W atergate. There was a second entry at the Watergate when we were #

captured. At no time was I told any different from the original mo tivation for which I had been recruited.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, is it correct that part of your motivation for participating in these operations was to gain later assistance 

from Mr. H unt and others in high places for a Cuban liberation operation, is tha t correct?

Mr. Barker. Our team, which was composed of myself and Mr.

Martinez, Mr. Sturgis, and Mr. Gonzales, to us this was our prime 

motivation.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, in the two Watergate operations was 

it your job to search for documents to be photographed?

Mr. Barker. That is correct; that was my only job.

Mr. Hamilton. And was it Mr. Martinez’ assignment to handle the 

photography?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Martinez’ assignment, he worked as a team 

member with me. His assignment was to photograph the documents I 

gave him.

Mr. Hamilton. What sort of documents were you primarily looking 

for in the Democratic headquarters?

Mr. Barker. I was looking for documents tha t would involve 

contributions by a national and foreign agent to the Democratic 

campaign, especially to Senator McGovern, and possibly also to 

Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Hamilton. Were you looking for documents reflecting contributions from any particular foreign government?

Mr. Barker. The foreign government tha t existed on the island 

of Cuba.

Mr. Hamilton. Were any documents of this particular type found 

during the first entry into the Watergate?

Mr. Barker. No, sir.

Mr. Hamilton. Now, after your arrest and transporta tion to jail 

did lawyers eventually arrive at the jail to assist you?

Mr. Barker. Yes, a lawyer arrived at the District Jail.

Mr. Hamilton. Would you tell the committee, please, the names *

of these attorneys?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Caddy and Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Hamilton. Now, are those attorneys Douglas Caddy and 

Joseph Rafferty, is th at correct?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. Had you called these lawyers to come to the jail?

Mr. Barker. No, sir.

Mr. Hamilton. To your knowledge, had any of those arrested 

called his lawyers on the telephone?
359

Mr. Barker. I believe not, no, sir.

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know who supplied these lawyers to you?

Mr. Barker. No; I do not know.

Mr. Hamilton. Now did there come a time when you, for yourself 

and the others arrested, received certain moneys from Mrs. Hunt?

Mr. Barker. That is true.

Mr. Hamilton. Would you tell the committee the total amount of 

the moneys that you so received?

Mr. Barker. The total amount of the moneys tha t I received to 

the best of my recollection included approximately $17,000 for bail 

« bond money, of between $10,000 and $12,000 for expenses during the

period to cover from tha t time until trial, and I received the amount 

of, to the best of my recollection of $18,000 of which $5,000 was for— 

I think it was, Mr. McCord’s civil suit fee to Mr. Rot hblatt and the

* other $13,000 was to cover Mr. Ro thb latt’s fees of the four CubanAmericans involved.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, when was the last paym ent th at you 

received from Mrs. Hunt?

Mr. Barker. From Mrs. who?

Mr. Hamilton. From Mrs. Hun t, the last paym ent that you 

received?

Mr. Barker. I think the last paym ent I received was money—to 

the best of my recollection, is the money for the attorney ’s fees.

Mr. Hamilton. And when was that, Mr. Barker?

Mr. Barker. I would put it in the month of October, approximately.

Mr. Hamilton. 1972.

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, were there any conditions attached to 

this money received from Mrs. Hu nt that required you to either plead 

guilty or to remain silent?

Mr. Barker. There were absolutely no conditions and the answer 

to either a plea of guilty or to remain silent is negative.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, were any offers of Executive clemency 

transmitted to you or threats communicated to you in order to induce 

you to remain silent?

Mr. Barker. No.

Mr. Hamilton. Would you tell this committee why you chose to 

plead guilty?

Mr. Barker. I was guilty. I was caught inside the national Demo-

* cratic headquarters a t 2:30 in the morning.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, my final question: Do you have any 

knowledge that anyone higher up than Mr. Hu nt or Mr. Lidd y was 

involved in the Watergate operation?

Mr. Barker. I knew Mr. Hu nt by name, although I do no t know

* Mr. Hunt under the code name of Edwardo in this operation as the 

same way we used that code in the Bay of Pigs operation.

I knew Mr. Liddy, the person I know now as Gordon Liddy, I knew 

him as George Leonard. I did not find out Mr. Liddy’s name until 

after I was in jail and he was, to the best of my understanding, Mr. 

Hunt’s superior. This can be indicative to this board that I knew of 

no one, absolutely, connected with this above Mr. Hu nt by person 

and Mr. Liddy by the name of George Leonard.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, no fu rthe r questions.

Senator Ervin. Any questions, Mr. Thompson?
360

Mr. Thompson. Yes sir.

Mr. Barker, was it your opinion at the time of the break-in of the 

Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate tha t 

your operation was a CIA operation?

Mr. Barker. I do not know the answer to tha t question.

Mr. Thompson. Was it your opinion at tha t time th at i t was a CIA 

operation?

Mr. B arker. The only opinion th at I can intelligently make is th at 

it was a result of the operation in which I was involved. In the first 

operation in which I was involved, I was told, I’m speaking of the 

Ellsberg operation, tha t it was a matter of national security, of high »

sensitivity, that it involved a traitor to this country who had given 

information to a foreign embassy, he or his associates, and I proceeded 

on th at assumption at that time. Since then, I have been told nothing 

different of any other organization. *

It was explained at that particular time and place tha t national 

security was above FBI and CIA.

Mr. Thompson. Haven’t you stated tha t the matter in which the 

operation was carried out, the person to whom you were responsible, 

your former superior, Mr. Hunt, the manner in which you were taken 

care of financially, all pointed toward the fact tha t it was a CIA 

operation?

Mr. Barker. The methods utilized in the operation were the same 

methods utilized when I worked for Mr. Hun t in the Bay of Pigs 

invasion. This training I received with the rest of the Cubans from a 

Government agency. This does n ot mean tha t this was a CIA operation.

Mr. Thompson. But was it not your opinion at tha t time tha t it 

was, and was it not your opinion even after tha t time, when you were 

receiving this money, tha t it was a natural thing, it was an ordinary 

thing?

Mr. Barker. The moneys tha t were received for the attorneys, for 

the expenses and for the family support was received in the same 

spirit and under the same conditions that would have been similar 

in a CIA operation. Comparatively, it is based on the following 

philosophy: If you are caught by the enemy, every effort will be made 

to retrieve you, all expenses will be taken care of, and your family 

will be provided for. This was true of the Bay of Pigs invasion; to 

my knowledge, some of those families of that time, are still being taken 

care of that I know of. And we expected this—we were not surprised, >

let us say, that this situation would come to pass.

However, there was a doubt in my mind at tha t time to the effect 

of what did it mean, what did national security mean as above FBI 

or CIA? And that question has still not been solved in my mind.

If it was a CIA operation, only the CIA would admit this, not I. *

I did not need to be told what it was. I knew the persons involved. Mr.

Hunt had been my superior in the Bay of Pigs invasion and I would 

assume that Mr. Hunt, who was counselor at the White House, had 

the auth ority to order me at th at time or to request for me to become 

involved in a matter of national security for which my training and 

my disposition was available a t that time.

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any discussion with anybody 

about the possibility tha t if you went to trial and entered a plea of 

not guilty, tha t the Ellsberg break-in would be exposed?
Mr. Barker. This has never been discussed. The Ellsberg break-in 

would never have been exposed by me.

Mr. Thompson. Not by you, but in the course of the trial, either by the prosecution in their case in chief, or the cross-examination of any of the other defendants, or in any manner? Was tha t a consideration that you had in entering the plea of guilty?

Mr. Barker. A while ago, I explained tha t the methods of opera­ tion we used were the same as those we had learned. As a matter of discipline, of compartmentalization, and of habit, we do not discuss these operations with anyone or even among ourselves. This was a rule between our team and it is the type of training we have received. We have never discussed this, even among ourselves.

Mr. Thompson. Even with Mr. Hunt?

Mr. Barker. Even w ith Mr. Hunt.

Mr. Thompson. So you never discussed it with—excluding your 

attorney. I am not speaking now of your attorney, of course. Attorney- client privileges might be present. But with anyone else, you have 

never discussed that with anyone else?

Mr. Barker. Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you this: Do you recall a trip you took in a taxi to Mr. B ittm an’s office after a day of trial with Mr. McCord, 

Mr. Alch and Mr. Shankman?

Mr. Barker. Yes, I recall.

Mr. Thompson. Wha t is your recollection of that?

Mr. Barker. I can only say to my best recollection, tha t I was in Washington at tha t time. To the best of my recollection, I had come up for a meeting of attorneys on some new motions tha t were going to be put in, and I had been asked by Mr. Rothb latt to meet him at Mr. Bittman ’s office. I saw Mr. Alch and Mr. McCord get in a cab and I asked them if thev would drop me off at Mr. Bittman’s office. I said Mr. Bitm ann’s office because this is how I thought of the office. Mr. Roth blatt, my attorney, had an office in a lower level of the same building where Mr. Bittman ’s office was and to the best of my recollection, I went there to meet Mr. Rothblatt. And to the best of my recollection, nothing was discussed, nothing was told to me about the meetings that the attorneys had that I can remember at 

this time.

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever go to Mr. Bittma n’s office tha t 

particular day?

Mr. Barker. Did I ever what?

Mr. Thompson. Did you go to Mr. Bittm an’s office that day?

Mr. Barker. I do not remember going to Mr. Bittma n’s office.

Mr. Thompson. Did you part company with Mr. McCord, and and Mr. Alch, and Mr. Shankm an when you entered the building, or 

when?

Mr. Barker. No, no. As soon as I arrived—there had been no conversation in the cab and as soon as I arrived, I thanked them for giving me the lift and I just went up to the office by myself.

Mr. T hompson. Where did they go?

Mr. Barker. The last I saw them, they w’ere in the cab. I do not 

know. When I reached the elevator, they were n ot there.

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Barker, would you identify your lawyer, 

please?
362

Mr. Barker. My recollection of that meeting was that it was a 

pretrial-----

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Barker, pardon me. Would you identify your 

attorney?

Mr. Schultz. Daniel Schultz.

Mr. Barker. That this motion was to be a pretrail motion tha t I 

am referring to. At tha t time, as far as the time element is concerned, 

tha t I recollect being in the cab. I do recollect being in the cab. I am 

a bit confused as to the time. I t was to the best of my recollection that 

the time th at I got in the cab with them was to meet Mr. — I remember it was to meet Mr. — my attorney . It was when I came up for some 

pretrial motions.

Mr. Thompson. To the best of your recollection, it was before 

the trial and not during the trial?

Mr. B arker. That is the best of my recollection.

Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you two or three more specific questions, Mr. Barker and I will be finished. Let me ask you this, I do not 

know whether or not you have been listening to Mr. McCord’s testimony. He testified Tuesday morning to this effect in response to the 

following questions from Senator Talmadge: “How did Mr. Barker 

or the other Cuban-Americans ever come to you during the trial—now 

did Mr. Barker or other Cuban-Americans come to you during the trial 

and tell you they had been offered Executive clemency by Mr. Hunt?” 

Mr. McCord says, “ Yes, sir.” Is tha t true?

Mr. Barker. I do not know whether he was saying the tru th or not, 

but I was never offered clemency by anyone.

Mr. Thompson. The question is whether or not you-----

Mr. Barker. That is not my recollection.

Mr. Thompson. The question is whether or not you came during 

the trial to Mr. McCord and told him tha t you had been offered 

Executive clemency.

Mr. Barker. I deny that.

Mr. Thompson. That is not true?

Mr. B arker. Our recollections differ, I never discussed this matter 

with Mr. McCord, to my recollection. I would have no reason to 

discuss this matte r with Mr. McCord.

Mr. Thompson. You would remember that, would you not?

Mr. Barker. I certainly would remember if I had discussed, but I 

could not remember something I was not offered. I was never offered 

any kind of clemency whatsoever.

Mr. Thompson. It also states that you told him about the pressure 

stemming from Mr. Hun t and other unnamed individuals to plead 

guilty and go to prison, and offered, ultimately, executive clemency 

and financial support for the families while in prison, and that promises were stated concerning help in obtaining a job and rehabilitation.

He says “Mr. Barker spoke to me several times during that week 

regarding that particular pressure upon him which he described as 

intense.” Is that a true statement?

Mr. Barker. The only pressure that I had at tha t time was a disagreement with my attorney, Mr. Rothbla tt, as to the plea of guilty. 

Mr. Rothb latt did not want me to plead guilty a t the time.

Mr. Thompson. First of all, will you answer my question, is this 

a true statement?
363

Mr. Barker. Not to my recollection. Mr. McCord and I have 

different recollections.

Mr. Thompson. All right. Any further explanation you want to 

give will be fine.

Mr. Barker. Mr. Rothb latt refused to represent me if we pleaded 

guilty. At that time I thought tha t the decision was up to me. I had to weigh whether pleading guilty and throwing myself a t the mercy of the court, and at a time when I had been caught at the Democratic headquarters, when Mr. Hunt said to me th at the evidence against us 

was overwhelming.

e Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hu nt told you that?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Hu nt told me that he had been advised by his 

attorney tha t the evidence against us was overwhelming. Mr. Hu nt had not been caught inside of the Watergate, I had. I considered 

4 him a very intelligent—and still do—capable man, and if Mr. Hu nt at the time was going to plead guilty and I was caught inside, I think it would be ridiculous and it has been proven for me to plead any­ thing bu t guilty, but there was a decision th at I had to make, with all due respect to Mr. Rothblatt , and I hope this does no t reflect any negation tha t he conducted himself excellently at the trial, that he was, in my opinion, an excellent attorney, this was my decision, and no one else influenced me in this decision, and I think that it was proven—time has proven tha t my decision to plead guilty was the 

correct one.

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions, than k you.

Senator E rvin. Mr. Barker, you got involved in this a t the request 

of E. Howard Hunt?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct sir.

Senator Ervin. You had served with E. Howard Hu nt a t the Bay of 

Pigs?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct, Senator.

Senator Ervin. He had been your superior?

Mr. Barker. Th at is true.

Senator Ervin. And all you did in this was at the direction and 

request of E. Howard Hun t?

Mr. Barker. Yes, except tha t I personally was convinced at the 

time—and I am today too—that what I did a t that time was correct.

Senator Ervin. And Mr. E. Howard Hunt told you this was national security you were working on and was above FBI and CIA?

* Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Ervin. And you have a code of ethics in work of this kind 

that you do not tell anything on anybody?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Ervin. And so if Mr. E. Howard Hu nt had pressured you

* into pleading guilty, you could not tell us that under your code of 

ethics. [Laughter.]

Mr. Barker. I do no t think tha t this applies to anything like that 

of this nature. It was my decision. I think that Mr. Howard Hunt respects me too much to ask me to make tha t kind of a plea. This is 

my decision, not Mr. Hun t’s.

Senator Ervin. Well, did you talk to Mr. E. Howard Hu nt about 

this at all?

96-296—73—bk. 1----- 24
364

Mr. Barker. Yes, at the time—when I spoke to Mr. Hunt, Mr.

Hun t told me tha t in his position, in his condition, he had gone 

through a terrible ordeal—that with Mrs. Hun t—tha t he was not 

physically through tha t situation and tha t besides, the evidence in 

the district attorney ’s office against us was overwhelming.

Senator E rvin. Now, Mr. Hu nt told you that?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct.

Senator E rvin. And he told you he was going to plead guilty?

Mr. B arker. No, he told me what he was pleading. I decided what 

I would plead. I did not decide at that time.

Senator E rvin. I know, b ut Mr. E. Howard Hunt told you that he,

Mr. E. Howard Hunt, was going to plead guilty, did he not?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct; yes, sir.

Senator E rvin. And if Mr. E. Howard Hunt told you the evidence 

against you was overwhelming----- <-

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct.

Senator E rvin. Yes.

Mr. B arker. The fact that we were caught, Senator, in the premises 

itself is indicative that this was overwhelming evidence, to my* way of 

thinking.

Senator E rvin. So you did consult with Mr. E. Howard Hunt 

before you pleaded guilty?

Mr. Barker. It was not a consultation.

Senator E rvin. Well, it was a discussion.

Mr. Barker. It was a discussion, certainly.

Senator E rvin. And he told you tha t he was going to plead guilty 

and the evidence against you was overwhelming?

Mr. Barker. That is true.

Senator E rvin. And then you decided to plead guilty?

Mr. Barker. Yes, but this is not pressure. This is m y decision— 

not his decision.

Mr. E rvin. I know but you were not influenced at all by Mr. E.

Howard Hunt?

Mr. Barker. Influenced?

Senator E rvin. Yes.

Mr. Barker. Well, perhaps it could be interpreted so. I consider 

Mr. Hu nt a most intelligent person. He was pleading guilty because 

this was overwhelming. He had not been caught—I had. It did appear 

to me th at this would be the advisable thing for me to do.

Senator Ervin. And your lawyer advised you to plead not guilty, -

did he not?

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Ervin. And you took Mr. Hu nt’s advice instead of your 

lawyer’s?

Mr. Barker. No, sir. I made up my own mind without Mr. Hun t or •*

Mr. Rothblatt. This was my decision and I thought th at I should do it.

Senator Ervin. Did you make up your mind before Mr. Hunt told 

you he was going to plead guilty and that the evidence against you was 

overwhelming?

Mr. B arker. I did not make up my mind at tha t time; no, sir.

Senator Ervin. No, I thought not.

Senator Baker.

Senator Baker. Mr. Barker, you are 55 years old.

Mr. Barker. Fifty-six.
365

Senator Baker. You have a real estate business in Miami; you were previously involved in the Bay of Pigs operations for the CIA. lo u are a veteran of the U.S. Army in World War II where you were a captain in the Army Air Corps, and you were a German prisoner of war 

for 17 months.

Mr. Barker. Sixteen months.

Senator Baker. Mr. Barker, what on earth would motivate you at your station in life, at your age, and with tha t background, to do 

something tha t surely you knew to be illegal?

Mr. Barker. Senator, E. Howard Hunt, unde r the name of Ed- 

« wardo, represents to the Cuban people their liberation. I cannot deny my services in the way tha t it was proposed to me on a matter of national security, knowing that, with my training, I had personnel available for this type of operation. I could not deny this request at

the time.

Senator Baker. Why?

Mr. Barker. Because I felt it was my duty to comply with Mr. 

Hun t’s request.

Senator Baker. Why?

Mr. B arker. Because it involved a m atter of national security.

Senator Baker. Why?

Mr. Barker. Because this was a service to my country, sir.

Senator Baker. W hat national security?

Mr. Barker. Discovering information about a person who I had been told by Mr. Hunt was a traitor, who was passing—he or his associates—to a foreign embassy.

Senator Baker. Who?

Mr. Barker. Pardon me. [Conferring with counsel.] The Soviet 

Embassy.

Senator Baker. Who?

Mr. Barker. Who? I do not understand. Who what, sir?

Senator Baker. Who was passing the information to the Soviet 

Embassy?

Mr. Barker. At that time Mr. Ellsberg’s name was not mentioned. Mr. Ellsberg’s name was mentioned to me a half hour before the surreptitious entry; then when I found out the name of the person 

involved-----

Senator Baker. What was the connection between the allegations of the Ellsberg situa tion and the imminent and impending break-in

* into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex?

Mr. Barker. At that time, none. After that Ellsberg, we came up on a matter involving security. At the death of Mr. Hoover, the 

third time-----

* Senator Baker. At the request of Mr. Hoover?

Mr. Barker. At the death of Mr. Hoover.

Senator Baker. At the what?

Mr. Barker. At the death of Mr. Hoover.

Senator Baker. At the death of M r. Hoover. Why did you come 

up then?

Mr. Barker. I came up with about 10 Cubans to infiltrate this 

group for security reasons.

Senator Baker. Wha t group?
366

Mr. Barker. A group of persons who were demonstrating in front 

of the Capitol against the war in Vietnam. The group included Mr.

Ellsberg, Mr. Kuntsler, and other persons tha t were not of the same 

age level as the persons tha t were there, which were the long-haired 

hippie type.

Senator Baker. Why? Why did you do that? Wha t did that have 

to do with your business in Florida or your loyalty to the United 

States or freedom of Cuba?

Why were you concerned with infiltration of a group which was 

demonstrating either against the war or in presence of the last rites 

for J. Edga r Hoover; why did you do that? _

Mr. Barker. I was following M r. Hu nt’s instructions.

Senator Baker. Did Mr. H unt say why he wanted you to do that?

Mr. Barker. As a m atter of security. He said that there was, the 

best that I can recall there was, information that these people would 

probably desecrate the tomb of M r. Hoover. It was also told to me 

that these people would wave a Vietcong flag, and if possible to get 

that flag away from them. But it was not my decision. At tha t time 

I was assisting Mr. Hunt.

Senator B aker. Mr. Barker, when Mr. Hunt spoke of Ellsberg and 

the leak to the Soviet Embassy 30 minutes prior to your e ntry into the 

Watergate complex and the Democratic headquarters, are you speaking of the first break-in or the second?

Mr. Barker. No, 30 minutes, the name of Ellsberg was given to 

me about a half hour before the break-in into the psyc hiatrist’s office.

Senator Baker. I am sorry, I misunderstood you. May I go back 

then and ask you why, what was your motivation, what persuaded 

you to enter the Watergate complex?

Mr. B arker. Senator, like I said, it started out with Ellsberg, then 

it came to Hoover, then we came up for these operations which involved not only the break-in at the Democratic national headquarters, 

but I supposed, the same type of a mission into the McGovern headquarters, and our mission a t those times were only to obtain and to 

try to locate documents that would prove tha t the Democratic P arty 

and Senator McGovern were receiving contributions nationally, and 

national and foreign contributions, from organizations that were 

leftist organizations and inclined to violence in the United States, 

and also from the Castro government.

Senator Baker. Did you ever find any such documentation?

Mr. Barker. No, we did n ot find these documents; no, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you have any reason to believe that such 

documentation existed?

Mr. Barker. The fact that the Castro government was aiding the 

Democratic Party had been rumored and had been spoken of freely 

in Miami from different organizations of personalities that I had '

confidence in. However, I have no hard evidence at all that this was 

true.

Senator Baker. This played some part in your motivation for 

making the entry into Watergate?

Mr. Barker. Part, yes. N ot the whole motivation.

Senator Baker. What other part?

Mr. Barker. As I explained before, we were assisting Mr. Hunt, 

who was a known factor in the time of the liberation of Cuba. W’e had
367

hopes tha t Mr. Hun t’s position in the White House would be a 

decisive factor at a late r date for obtaining help in the liberation of 

Cuba.

Senator Baker. Mr. Barker, are these reasons tha t you have just 

stated the basis for your previous statement a moment ago that you 

believed what you did was correct?

Mr. Barker. Th at is true, sir.

Senator Baker. Are there other reasons?

Mr. Barker. No, there are no other reasons that I can think of.

Senator Baker. When did you first decide to plead guilty?

« Mr. Barker. During the—I hope this is not funny, but at the

place and the time when I personally became convinced, I would say, was around—it was after the Dolphins-Redskins game, as far as I 

can remember.

* Senator Baker. I am sorry, I did not understand you.

Mr. B arker. I said I hope it did not sound humorous, b ut I would 

place the exact time—I do not keep records of time. I would place it 

just about right after the Dolphins-Redskins game. [Laughter.]

Senator Baker. The Dolphins and the Redskins game. Do you 

remember the score, M r. Barker? [Laughter.]

Mr. Barker. Thirteen to seven.

Senator Baker. Mr. Barker, what pa rt did you play in the break-in 

of the Watergate complex, the Democratic national headquarters, on June 17? What was your assignment and your responsibility?

Mr. Barker. My assignment and responsibility were, my principal 

assignment was the location of documents. I entered as a unit with Mr. Martinez, who was the photographer. The first unit was Mr. 

Sturgis and Mr. Gonzales. They were the entry and the guard, late r on became the guard unit. I followed with Mr. Martinez, and I 

understand tha t Mr. McCord followed later. In our entry, I dedicated my time to searching for these documents, 

passing them to Mr. Martinez. By the time Mr. McCord had finished, 

the time was over, we left.

Senator Baker. Did you participate in the taping of the doors?

Mr. Barker. Never, in either one of the two trips.

Senator Baker. Do you know who did tape the doors?

Mr. Barker. On the first one or the second?

Senator Baker. Both.

Mr. Barker. Well, they were different in both.

* Senator Baker. Well, tell us if you will, who taped the doors on

which occasion?

Mr. Barker. On the first occasion, the entry team were supposed 

to tape the doors. Mr. Sturgis would be the person to tape the doors. I would enter with Mr. Martinez and leave the doors taped. Mr. 

■* McCord would be the last person in and he would remove the tapes.

Senator Baker. Did he remove the tapes?

Mr. Barker. In the first one I assumed; I do not know.

On the second operation, it was handled differently. First, Mr. 

McCord went in and put—entered by, I do not know what means, 

and then he taped the doors.

Senator Baker. After everyone was inside, did someone then 

remove the tape?

Mr. Barker. No, no, no.
36S

Senator B aker. As they did on the first occasion?

Mr. Barker. No, no, no. First, he went in and taped the doors.

Then when he went in, this would facilitate the entry. Then when 

we went to enter, the tapes had been removed. Then we went into a 

conference to analyze this at the time. Mr. McCord was of the opinion 

that this was just the mailman-----

Senator Baker. It was a mailman who had removed the tape?

Mr. Barker. Who had taken it off. This was his opinion at the 

time.

Senator B aker. How many doors were taped?

Mr. Barker. We are talking about the basement entry door. M

Senator Baker. At what time in the morning?

Mr. Barker. At night.

Senator Baker. But it was in the early morning hours, 1:57 in the 

morning on Jun e 17. *

Mr. Barker. That is right.

Senator Baker. And Mr. McCord said he thought it was a mailman that had untaped it?

Mr. Barker. According to Mr. McCord, there was a stack of mail 

that had been brought down.

Senator Baker. Was it Mr. McCord who urged you to go ahead 

despite the fact of discovering tha t obviously someone had untaped 

the doors?

Mr. Barker. Mr. McCord was of this opinion. I am just stating 

what his opinion w’as at this time.

Then we proceeded to go back to where Mr. Hu nt and Mr. Liddy 

were and they were the—the information was given to them and tha t 

after a while, I was told to proceed.

So I went down and I ordered the entry team to go ahead and enter.

Senator Baker. Were you apprehensive, knowing that the doors 

had been taped and some unknown person not of your group had 

removed the tape? Were you apprehensive about continuing with the 

burglary?

Mr. Barker. I was against entry at that time, and to the best of 

my recollection, so was Mr. Hunt, my superior.

Senator Baker. Well, who prevailed?

Mr. Barker. I have no—apparently, somebody prevailed. I have 

no knowledge. This was not my decision.

Senator Baker. But somebody decided to go forward with the 

operation despite the fact that the tape had been removed and you -f

did no t think t ha t was a wise decision?

Mr. Barker. Th at is generally correct.

Senator Baker. Do you take any comfort in the fact that your 

judgment has now been exonerated?

Mr. Barker. Sir, I followed orders in tha t sense. I am disciplined. *

Senator Baker. All right, proceed.

Mr. Barker. Then the team proceeded. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sturgis, afrer entering, taped the doors. I went in. There was 

some problem in the entry upstairs so that, different from the last 

operation, we joined the entry team tha t had not been able to open the 

last door.

After a while, Mr. McCord came. To the best of my recollection,

Mr. Martinez asked him if he had taken off the tapes and Mr. Mc( 'ord 

replied, “Yes.” And after a while from there------
369

Senator Baker. You mean Mr. McCord—this is the second entry?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Baker. And Mr. McCord said he had removed the tape?

Mr. Barker. To the best of my recollection, this was his answer 

to Mr. Martinez; yes, sir.

Senator Baker. And this was after the doors had been taped-----

Mr. Barker. The second time.

Senator Baker. Oh, I see, the second time, I am sorry.

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Baker. Mr. McCord indicated on the second time tha t he 

« had removed the tape.

Did you learn la ter tha t tha t was not true?

Mr. Barker. I don’t know.

Senator Baker. Isn ’t it true that the police discovered the door 

still taped?

Mr. Barker. All I can say is as I remember it. I can’t make no 

assumption on anything else.

Senator Baker. All right. That is all I have.

Senator E rvin. Senator Talmadge.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Barker, you are an American citizen are 

you not?

Mr. B arker. I beg your pardon?

Senator T almadge. You are an American citizen, are you not?

Mr. Barker. I was an American citizen originally by birth, yes.

Senator T almadge. And you have never had any other citizenship 

except American citizenship?

Mr. Barker. No, at one time, I was citizenless.

Senator T almadge. You were what?

Mr. B arker. I was citizenless.

Senator T almadge. How did tha t happen?

Mr. Barker. At the time, I joined the Cuban police department 

in cooperation with Mr. Spears of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

who at tha t time was legal attache at the Embassy in Havana. This 

was before CIA.

Then some problem came up of a group of Cubans, of which I was 

in charge, in the Cuban police department, in cooperation with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, I remember at tha t time Agents 

Anderson and Garcia, with whom I worked in cooperation with, at 

tha t time.

< Then this was denounced to the Embassy and one day I found out

that my American citizenship had been taken away from me. At th at 

time, an attorney, a Cuban attorney tha t represented the Dep artm ent 

of Justice in Cuba, Dr. Mario Lazo, took the case up as a m atte r of 

personal hardship through Mr. Lazo, I came to the United States and

•* saw the firm of Ben nett Williams and they put a bill in Congress for

my relief. I never followed it up at tha t time because I couldn’t afford 

to pay tax to the United States. At that time, I was younger, I didn’t 

have the money for this.

Then I found myself in the position of being citizenless, which I was 

for some time. Then I became an American citizen, but I have never 

been anything but an American citizen.

Senator T almadge. How long did you live in Cuba before you came 

to this country?
370

Mr. Barker. I was born in Cuba and registered in the American 

Embassy as a citizen by birth of American parents. Half of my lifetime 

was spent in Cuba and half of my lifetime was spent in the United 

States.

Senator Talmadge. When did you leave Cuba?

Mr. Barker. I remember going to grammar school in New 

Rochelle, N.Y., then going back to Cuba, then coming back here. I 

graduated from Farmingdale High School. I worked for Bethlehem 

Steel after graduation. I went back to Cuba to the University of 

Havana. Then I joined the Army Air Force. Half of my lifetime has 

been spent in Cuba and half of it in the United States. Cuba to me r

is my second country.

Senator Talmadge. How long h ad you been in this country before 

you joined the Air Force?

Mr. B arker. I joined—I was the first volunteer in the Second t

World War from Cuba—the first American volunteer in the Second 

World W ar from Cuba.

Senator T almadge. You signed up in Cuba for this country?

Mr. B arker. At the Embassy in Cuba on the Monday after 

Pearl Harbor.

Senator Talmadge. Then after you were discharged from the Air 

Force, where did you locate?

Mr. B arker. I went back to live in Cuba.

Senator Talmadge. And remained back there until the Castro 

assumption of power?

Mr. B arker. I lived there, stayed there until Mr. Castro overtook 

the country. Then I had to leave Cuba.

Senator Talmadge. And you went into the real estate business in 

Florida after you left Cuba?

Mr. B arker. After I came to the United States I eventually— 

after the Bay of Pigs invasion—I went to Chicago, where I worked 

for Zenith, a subsidiary-----

Senator Talmadge. Worked for who?

Mr. Barker. A Zenith subsidiary.

Then I went back to Miami. Then I got a job as an assistant 

manager in G. C. Murphy stores. There I took my—I studied at 

night until I got my real estate license. Then I became a salesman for 

E. Valedor Realtor. Then I became a broker and a realtor and I opened 

my own office.

At the time tha t Mr. Hunt returned, 10 years to the day of the Bay 

of Pigs invasion, I returned home and found a note that says, “If 

you are the same Barker I once knew, contact me.” And it was Mr.

Hunt.

By that time I had my own office, a new business starting with 10 

salesmen, and I was building—had part of three condominium build- *

ings which amounted to—total sales of those three buildings amounted 

to total sales of close to $3 million.

Senator T almadge. And Mr. Hunt recruited you for the Bay of 

Pigs?

Mr. B arker. Tha t is correct—no, for the Bay of Pigs?

No, no. I worked inside of Cuba.

Senator T almadge. Inside of Cuba?

Mr. Barker. First.
Senator Talmadge. How did you get involved in the Bay of Pigs 

operation?

Mr. Barker. The same way I got involved in the Ellsberg one. I 

considered it my duty to help my country.

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Hunt recruited you?

Mr. Barker. Th at is in Cuba. No. I n Cuba.

Senator Talmadge. Who?

Mr. Barker. At the American Embassy.

Senator Talmadge. Now, did you ever work for the CIA at any 

other time except when you were with Mr. Hunt in the Bay of Pigs 

operation?

Mr. Barker. Not to my knowledge.

Senator Talmadge. Not to your knowledge. Now, I believe you made—you were involved in the Ellsberg break-in 

in California.

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct, sir.

Senator Talmadge. Have you pled guilty to tha t and have you 

been sentenced?

Mr. Barker. No, that trial is in the future. Th at trial-----

Senator Talmadge. The trial has not been held?

Mr. Barker. Th at I know, no sir, no.

Senator Talmadge. How many times did you attempt to break into 

the Democratic National Committee before you succeeded?

Mr. Barker. To the best of my recollection, there were four tries, 

two of which were successful.

Senator Talmadge. Two were successful—the last one when you 

were arrested. The first one, I believe, was over the Memorial Day weekend last year. Two previous attempts were unsuccessful?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Talmadge. How did they happen to prove unsuccessful?

Mr. Barker. One was—we had a banquet and to the best of m y knowledge, someone was staying late in the Democratic headquarters 

and the mission was aborted.

Senator T almadge. In other words, it was occupied and aborted the 

first time. W hat about the second time?

Mr. Barker. The second time, an entry was tried on just walking into the building on the excuse we were going to another floor. I t did 

not work. We left.

Senator Talmadge. Were there any other instances except the 

four times you attempted to break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, two of which were successful, and the Ells­ berg psychiatrist’s, that you were involved in the break-in?

Mr. Barker. We had plans to enter McGovern’s headquarters, 

but they were never actually attempted.

Senator Talmadge. Tha t was aborted also?

Mr. Barker. Yes.

Senator Talmadge. Now, isn’t it true that some lawyers showed up 

immediately after you went to jail following the break-in at Democratic national headquarters?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Talmadge. And you did no t send for them?

Mr. Barker. No.

Senator Talmadge. Or any other members of your break-in group?
372

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator T almadge. Do you have any idea how those lawyers were 

alerted and came down to atte mpt to aid you?

Mr. Barker. I have no idea.

Senator T almadge. Were you surprised tha t they showed up?

Mr. Barker. No.

Senator T almadge. You anticipated tha t they would?

Mr. Barker. Yes.

Senator T almadge. How did you anticipate tha t if you had no 

previous knowledge th at they would?

Mr. Barker. On the philosophy tha t if you are caught by the _

enemy, every effort will be made to rescue you.

Senator T almadge. Who did you think would attem pt to rescue 

you?

Mr. Barker. Whoever my backers were. I

Senator Talmadge. Did you know who your backers were?

Mr. Barker. No, I had no knowledge of anyone by first name, 

other than Mr. Hunt, who I had known in a previous operation that 

I dealt with, in this operation, Edwardo, and Mr. Gordon Liddv, who 

I knew only as George Leonard.

Senator Talmadge. Who did you think your backers were?

Mr. Barker. Sir, 1 was not there to think. I was there to follow 

orders, not to think.

Senator T almadge. You didn’t wonder who was giving you the 

orders?

Mr. Barker. I beg your pardon.

Senator T almadge. Didn’t you wonder who was giving you the 

orders?

Mr. Barker. No, I had absolute confidence in—as I do now—the 

people I was dealing with, sir.

Senator T almadge. Well, you knew you weren’t working for 

Castro, didn’t you?

Mr. Barker. That I did know.

Senator T almadge. Who did you think you were working for?

Mr. Barker. 1 was working for Mr. Hunt and those things that 

Mr. Hu nt represents.

Senator Talmadge. Wha t did he represent?

Mr. Barker. Edwardo represents the liberation of Cuba, the antiCommunist symbol. It represents the Government of the United 

States in one form, in its covert form. *

Senator T almadge. How did you think you could liberate Cuba by 

participating in a burglary in Washington, D.C.?

Mr. Barker. If we helped Mr. Hunt and this Government in 

matters, which I will further add 1 believe in, it would establish a 

situa tion in which, besides the right that the Cuban people have to be *

free and independent, it would establish us as having aided this 

Government in this mission. I view tha t in the same way where 

hundreds of Cubans have been helping in Africa, in Vietnam, and in 

other areas of the world, where the people in my particular association 

are extremely greatful to those sectors of this country w*ho favor our 

liberation. Mr. Hunt represented this to the greatest degree.

Senator Talmadge. Now, Mr. Sturgis was with you as a guard in 

this break-in operation, was he not?
373

Mr. Barker. Mr. Sturgis at that time had a mission of lookout and 

guard, internal guard, that is correct.

Senator T almadge. Do you know where he got his CIA identification papers tha t he had on him?

Mr. Barker. The CIA identification tha t Mr. Sturgis had was of Edward J. Hamilton. This identification I was completely familiar with. It is the same identification tha t E. Howard Hun t, my superior 

in the Bay of Pigs, used at tha t time.

Senator T almadge. In other words, he got them from Hunt? That 

was the identification papers he had in the Bay of Pigs, is that correct? 

« Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Talmadge. Now, do you know what the source of the funds 

was that Mrs. H unt gave you?

Mr. Barker. I do not.

’ Senator Talmadge. D id she give you $100 bills like she gave everyone else?

Mr. Barker. I do not exactly remember the denomination of the money tha t Mrs. Hu nt gave me, but I assume th at it did include $100 

bills, yes.

Senator Talmadge. Did you ever wonder what the source of tha t 

money was?

Mr. Barker. No, I never did wonder what the source of that money 

was.

Senator Talmadge. You made no inquiry as to where it was coming 

from?

Mr. Barker. No, I did not.

Senator Talmadge. And you had no thoughts about the wisdom 

of passing around $100 bills without knowing what the source was?

Mr. Barker. This money was given to me to pay attorney fees for expenses and for bondsman. As I have explained before, this seemed 

natu ral to me at that time.

Senator Talmadge. Now, is it true that both your daughter and 

your attorney urged you to plead not guilty?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Ro thb latt was completely opposed to my plea of 

guilty. I respect him because this was his conviction. I do not see why my daughter has to be brought into this ma tter but my daughter coincided with Mr. Ro thb latt tha t I should not plead guilty. My daug hter has her own mind. This was one of the things tha t weighed on my personal decision to a certain extent. But neither Rothblatt nor

* my daughter nor my wife or anyone or Mr. Hu nt or any offer of any kind made any dent on my decision. This was my decision and no one 

else’s.

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. H unt ever talk to you about whether 

you ought to plead guilty or not?

* ~ Mr. Barker. Mr. Hu nt never told me what his opionion—or even 

his opinion was th at I should plead.

Senator Talmadge. He never suggested one way or another, is 

that correct?

Mr. Barker. He never suggested one way or another. Mr. Hu nt 

only told me w hat his position was and he never even hinted at what 

my decision should be.

Senator Talmadge. He told you tha t he would plead guilty, did 

he not?
374

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Talmadge. Your daughter and your lawyer both urged 

you no t to plead guilty?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator T almadge. My time has expired and I yield, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.

Senator Gurney. Mr. Barker, I wonder if we can begin at the 

very beginning of this Watergate affair or the beginning of your 

contact with Mr. Hunt. When and how did he contact you?

Mr. Barker. On April 17, 1971, exactly 10 years after the Bay of 

Pigs—this is the day they commemorate the Bay of Pigs in Miami— »

there was—I think it was the day before, when I arrived home—there 

was a note on my door. The note said “If you are the same Barker 

I once knew----- ”

Senator Gurney. The note pinned to your door, is that correct? *

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. Door where?

Mr. Barker. In my home.

Senator Gurney. And it said again, what?

Mr. Barker. “If you are the same Barker I once knew contact 

me at such and such hotel.”

Senator Gurney. And signed by anybody?

Mr. B arker. Howard.

Senator Gurney. What did you do?

Mr. Barker. I immediately contacted him.

Senator Gurney. Where?

Mr. Barker. I do not remember the name of the hotel, it could 

have been the Tradewinds. I know it was in Miami Beach, and I am 

not too familiar with Miami Beach, close to, could be, 135 feet in tha t 

area.

Senator Gurney. How did you know the name of the hotel?

Mr. Barker. I t stated i t in the note where I could contact me, or 

contact him.

Senator Gurney. So it gave the name of the hotel in the note?

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. You contacted him by phone?

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir, originally by phone and then I immediately 

drove over there in person.

Senator Gurney. Can you give us an account of the first phone 

conversation? *

Mr. Barker. “Greetings and how are you,” and so forth. “It 

would be nice to see you again,” and how—“Well, I am a lot older, a 

lot fat ter ,” and stuff like th at.

Senator Gurney. Did he invite you to come over to the hotel?

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. *

Senator Gurney. And did he give any reason why?

Mr. Barker. No, sir.

Senator Gurney. And then you went to the hotel and met him?

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. In his room?

Mr. B arker. I do not recollect. I think Mr. and Mrs. Hu nt met me 

downstairs.
375

Senator Gurney. And what transpired —what conversations did 

you have.

Mr. Barker. Old times.

Senator Gurney. Well, I am talking now specifically about w hat he 

wanted you to do, of course.

Mr. Barker. At tha t time, nothing. It was just he was there to go 

back to the 10 years after the Bay of Pigs, he would be present incognito at the Bay of Pigs meeting, and asked would I go with him, 

and I said I would like to.

Senator Gurney. Why did he not want to be known?

Mr. Barker. I do not know the nature of the operation at tha t 

time. Mr. Hu nt was only known to very few persons in Miami, and we 

did go to this meeting, we did speak in Spanish to two or three persons 

that were in the old Cuban Revolutionary Council.

Senator Gurney. Go on; excuse me.

Mr. Barker. Mr. Martinez joined us. I presented him as Edwardo, 

and he immediately recognized who Edwardo was, although I think 

Mr. M artinez had met him previously. Then Mrs. Barker and myself, 

Mr. and Mrs. Hunt, and Mr. Martinez went to lunch in a Cuban 

restaurant. Nothing was spoken a t that time itself.

Senator Gurney. This was still jus t a visit about old times.

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir.

Senator Gurney. Well, now, when did he contact you next?

Mr. Barker. We kept in contact after that without anything special 

being brought up. I quite frankly waited until Mr. H unt would tell me 

if there was any other reason other than social reasons—in the hierarchy, remember that he was my boss—and I expected him in his good 

time to tell me if there was anything else—and eventually he did.

Senator Gurney. And when did that take place?

Mr. Barker. I would say it was approximately—to the best of my 

recollection—2 weeks before the Ellsberg surreptitious entry.

Senator Gurney. And what did he tell you?

Mr. Barker. As I have said before, I think, would I be willing to 

help him on a m atter of national security?

Senator Gurney. Was this by a phone call?

Mr. Barker. No, no; personally. He went down to Miami personally, and then after, I would rep eat what I said before.

Senator Gurney. I do not know that we need to go thro ugh that.

Mr. B arker. Then he said that I should recruit two persons for this 

operation. And then I said I would, and he left. Then I proceeded to 

sound out two persons, and both of them accepted. The two persons 

that I had sounded out were Mr. Martinez and Mr. DeDiego. I 

selected them for their qualifications, not that they were salesmen in 

my organization. Mr. Martinez had in his record over 300 infiltrations 

* into Castro Communist Cuba, including the obtaining of hard evidence during the missile crisis. I thought it was perfectly justified for a 

mission of this nature. I consider him one of the greatest heroes of tha t 

effort at that time.

Mr. DeDiego had been a member of Operation 40, which had been 

specially trained to capture documents of the Castro government and 

the operation was successful. He had received further training as an 

intelligence officer in the Army of the United States. He also, in my
376

concept, was perfectly qualified for a mission of this nature. I submitted their names and records to Mr. Hunt over the phone—longdistance phone—and some time after that, I do not remember, he 

called me and said tha t the two men had been cleared for the mission.

Senator Gurney. Did he say who and how th ey were cleared?

Mr. Barker. No, he did not.

Senator Gurney. And then go on about the mission and be as brief 

as possible, because I wan t to get to the Watergate.

Mr. B arker. Mr. H unt then called me one day and said to proceed 

with my men to Los Angeles and to stay at—I think it was—the 

Beverly Wilshire Hotel where he would contact me. I bought the 

tickets, alerted the men, and w7e took off and went to Los Angeles. I *

registered in the hotel and Mr. Hunt contacted me. He gave me a 

brief—he gave me the address of the place where w7e were to make the 

entry. I found the place and I went with my men to familiarize myself t

with the area. I had the exact address at that time. Then the general 

plan wTas given to us. We proceeded to the area, and eventually made 

the entry. I personally searched for those documents.

Senator Gurney. What documents?

Mr. Barker. A file of Daniel Ellsberg at his psychiatrist’s office.

This file was not there. I w7ould search—file from file cabinet. 1 

searched his desk and the file cabinet. The men also helped me in the 

search. The only thing that I found in connection with him w7as an 

address book which had his name. This we photographed, and we also 

photographed the file cabinet to prove that wTe had forced them open, 

and then we left.

Senator Gurney. Now7

 then let us get to the Watergate: When and 

where did Mr. Hunt contact you about Watergate?

Mr. Barker. I do not remember whether—I believe it was in one 

of the trips dowm to Miami tha t he told me of an impending operation—double operation—which would take in length about a w7eek.

Senator Gurney. Did you say double operation?

Mr. Barker. I beg your pardon?

Senator Gurney. Did you say double operation?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Gurney. Wh at does th at mean?

Mr. Barker. At that time, I did no t know bu t I knew at the time 

it wrould involve, after that i t was quite evident it w7as an entry into 

the McGovern’s head quarters as well as an entry into the Watergate 

headquarters. . . . »

Senator Gurney. Tell us now7

 very carefully w7hat his instructions 

were.

Mr. Barker. I would like to explain that Mr. Hu nt was our immediate superior in this operation—tha t we were involved only in the 

documents tha t we were to obtain. We had no connection w7

ith the «

electronic part. It is—to the best of my recollection—that the electronic part was not even under the direction of Mr. Hunt, much less 

of myself. Mr. McCord appeared to be quite capable of tha t, he 

handled that. I had no knowdedge of that bugging he was going to 

do. All th at my mission—tha t our team mission w7as—was the documents to which I have referred, and this was explained to me by Mr.

Hu nt at tha t time.
377

Se na tor Gurney. T hat is wha t I wa nt to kno w. I me an h e went to 

Miam i, as I un de rstand it, and he got in tou ch wi th you and he m us t 

ha ve said “B ern ard , I ha ve an othe r mission for y ou .”

M r. Barker. T hat is correct.

Se na tor Gurney. W ha t did he say, wha t was the mission?

M r. Barker. All he said was a double mission an d he would explain 

to me when we got the re, he gave me the gen eral infor ma tion, as saying, 

“ Get your men in tra ining going up and dow n sta irs. Th ey mus t be 

in good phy sical cond ition .”

Th is I passed on to my men . I think he mentio ne d it inv olv ed 

« surre ptitiou s en try sim ila r to the one we ha d done in Califo rnia, but

he did no t say an ything else specifically to me a t th at time nor did

he have to give me an y fu rthe r expla nation.

Se na tor Gur ne y. Did he say to you it was going to be the 

* De moc ratic n ati on al he ad qu arters?

M r. Bar ke r. N o, he did no t, sir.

Se na tor Gurne y. Di d he say to you it was going to be in Se na tor 

M cG ov er n’s c am paign he ad qu arter s?

M r. Bar ke r. No, h e did no t.

Se na tor Gurne y. No w then at some po int in time you we nt to 

Wash ing ton ?

Mr. Bar ke r. T hat is correc t.

Se na tor Gurney. Will yo u tell us ab ou t th at?

Mr. B arker. I arriv ed with my team in Wash ing ton , they w ent to 

th e Ha mi lto n Hotel. I m et with Mr. Hun t an d there is where Mr. 

H unt gave me the general description of our double mission and I 

asked the n, ha d the mis sion then—this I did not com mu nicate with 

the men un til ju st ab ou t en try time.

Se na tor Gur ne y. Di d he tell you at th at time i t was th e De mo cra tic 

na tio na l he ad qu arters an d Senator M cG ov ern’s he ad qu arter s?

Mr. Barker. T o the be st of my rec ollection this was the time w hen 

he said this to me. Prev iou s to this, the only i nforma tio n I ha d is th at 

we were going to have som e kind of a ba nq ue t at the Wate rga te.

Se na tor Gur ne y. A ba nq ue t?

M r. Barker. Yes.

And we did hav e th at ba nq ue t at the Wate rgate. Th en at th at tim e 

is was explained to me th at the banq ue t in itself was a cover for the 

en try.

Se na tor Gur ne y. Well, did he tell you at th at tim e wha t d ocum ents 

yo u were going to look for?

Mr. Barker. T hat is correct.

Se na tor Gurney. A nd wha t did he say ?

Mr. B arker. He said to look for any docume nts involving con ­

tri bu tors, both foreign an d na tio na l. If I ha d an y doub ts as to the 

do cume nts I could co nt ac t him over our com mu nicatio ns.

Se nator Gurney. N ow the firs t and seco nd entrie s, of course, were 

unsuccessful, the th ird e nt ry was, an d wha t docume nts d id y ou ph otograp h there?

Mr. Barker. I t was qu ite eviden t when I sea rch ed the docume nts 

th at this was no t the righ t place to look for th e type of docume nts 

th at we were searching for.

Se nator Gur ne y. Wh ere did you think was the righ t place?
378

Mr. Barker. I didn’t think which was the right place. I just analyzed from the type of documents tha t I found in the files of the 

offices that were available to me that it would be very doubtful that 

these would be the documents we were searching for. So what I did was 

I took only documents where names of persons were involved, where 

there might be notations of numbers, and I also came across one document th at involved the security of the national—of the Miami convention, and I considered that this document would also be most welcome so I also photographed that document.

Senator Gurney. Jus t one or two other questions because my time 

has expired here but I do want to complete this reason why you went >

in there.

Now, on the last and fourth atte mpt why did you go there again if 

you realized tha t the documents you were looking for were not there?

Didn ’t i t occur to you a t this time that perhaps you were doing some- *

thing that was political rather than national security wise?

Mr. Barker. It was then evident tha t we were not in the office of 

the chairman. In our second entry we finally came to the office of the 

chairman of the Democratic National Convention. I believe honestly 

tha t there we might find the type of information tha t we were searching 

for.

Senator Gurney. That is when you were discovered?

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Gurney. All right.

I have further questions, Mr. Chairman, but I have used my time 

up.

Senator E rvin. Senator Inouye.

Senator I nouye. Mr. Barker, you have testified that you were 

recruited by F BI agents who worked for the police de partment in the 

government of Fulgencio Batista, is th at correct?

Mr. Barker. No, sir, it was during the government of Dr. Carlos 

Frio Soccaras who was the last constitutional President of Cuba.

Senator I nouye. What was your function in the police department?

Mr. Barker. I entered the police department with a group of 

veterans in training from the Second World War.

My mission was mostly of a liaison mission in nature. I worked with 

the treasury department, in cooperation with the treasury department, on drugs and on kidnaping cases and a postal case.

Senator I nouye. Was it covert-type operations?

Mr. Barker. No, I was a regular member of the Cuban police (

force. Some of them were overt. I also escorted VIP’s and included a 

visit of Mrs. Trum an and Margaret Truman. Then I did regular 

police work inside of the Cuban police department.

Senator I nouye. Mr. Barker, you have testified t ha t you are, well, 

you are very familiar with CIA discipline and procedure and tha t you 

applied all of this discipline and procedure in all of you r covert activities, is that correct?

Mr. Barker. This experience was much later after the—this had 

nothing to do with my time with the Cuban police department.

Senator I nouye. I am talking about the Bay of Pigs and later, sir.

Mr. Barker. That is correct, sir.

Senator Inouye. You were aware of the CIA discipline in this 

effort?
379

Mr. Barker. Yes, those were the methods we utilized in this 

matter.

Senator I nouye. So you realized there was a CIA operation and 

was carried out in behalf of the Government of the United States.

Mr. Barker. I don’t know the real answer to that question.

Senator I nouye. Do you think this was a private job of Mr. 

Hunt?

Mr. Barker. No, sir. Mr. Hunt-----

Senator Inouye. You have testified, it is on record, tha t you felt 

that this was a CIA operation and tha t you were working for the

* Government.

Mr. Barker. I have not testified tha t I felt it was, tha t it could 

or could not be a CIA operation; tha t the CIA was under national 

security.

* Senator I nouye. Did you not testify tha t you were n ot surprised 

when expenses for your family were provided, when lawyers appeared?

Mr. Barker. I testified I believed then and I believe now th at----- -

Senator I nouye. Because this was pa rt of the CIA procedure.

Mr. Barker. That this is part of the same procedure, not necessarily tha t this was a CIA. I surmised that if it was national security or any other organization of the covert type, that the same rules 

would apply.

Senator I nouye. And under the CIA procedure, you were assured 

that everthing would be done to rescue you.

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator Inouye. So when the lawyers appeared, you weren’t a 

bit surprised?

Mr. Barker. No, frankly, I was not surprised, no.

Senator Inouye. Was clemency part of the recipe?

Mr. Barker. No, sir. Clemency? The word “clemency” was 

unnecessary. I t had no application in our case whatsoever.

Senator Inouye. You mean you were told as a CIA undercover 

operative tha t once you were captured, you were forgotten?

Mr. Barker. No, if your families are taken care of, you are not 

forgotten. If your attorneys are supplied and bail bond money, this 

is not being forgotten.

Senator Inouye. And every effort would be made to get you out 

of it?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct, yes.

Senator Inouye. Did that include Executive clemency?

Mr. Barker. I do not see why tha t should include Executive 

clemency, no.

Senator I nouye. As pa rt of your discipline, you have indicated 

that you never asked questions, you just followed orders. I am quoting 

you.

Mr. Barker. Yes, in the spirit of how we organized.

Compartmentation means tha t you do not speak of these matters with each other. You work on a need-to-know basis. If I do not need to know certain information as to who is above Mr. Hunt, I do not, 

not only do not need to know, I do not want to know.

Senator Inouye. So if your leader-----

Mr. Barker. If something goes wrong, I can’t be suspected of this. 

If they would have told me who was above them, I would not have had

96-2 96— 73— bk. 1----- 25
380

the confidence I am supposed to have in these people. This would be 

unnecessary information in the compliance of the mission.

This is the way, also, tha t the underground worked and this was 

common to us. This is the way it should be.

Senator Inouye. So tha t under this discipline, if a leader told you 

something, you would never question him?

Mr. Barker. What leader?

Senator I nouye. He didn’t have to tell you directly. If he suggested 

something, you took tha t as an order.

Mr. B arker. In an operation?

Senator Inouye. Yes.

Mr. B arker. Th at would be correct.

Senator I nouye. So if Mr. Hun t suggested tha t you plead guilty, 

this was an order?

Mr. Barker. This was not an operation. Pleading guilty was not an 

operation. Pleading guilty was something tha t I decided and not 

Mr. Hunt.

Senator I nouye. I thought you said that Mr. H unt had come to you 

and said that he was going to plead guilty because they caught us with 

the goods.

Mr. Barker. That is right. No; because of the overwhelming evidence tha t there was against all of us.

And may I further observe, in my modest way of thinking, if this was 

Mr. Hu nt’s plea and he had not been caught inside the Watergate, it 

seemed to me intelligent, it seemed to me at tha t time tha t this was an 

intelligent decision for me to make. But does not necessarily indicate 

tha t he told me what to do or what not to do in tha t matter. This was 

my own decision, sir.

Senator Inouye. And an important part of the discipline and procedure of covert operators would be silence. Isn’t tha t what you told 

us?

Mr. B arker. Would be what, sir?

Senator Inouye. Silence.

Mr. Barker. That is correct, yes sir.

Senator Inouye. Much more important than any other discipline?

Mr. Barker. T o a certain extent, yes, I would say so. Silence is part 

of the very nature of a covert operation. When you are captured by the 

enemy, you don’t talk.

Perhaps, sir, if I explained the na ture of the men that worked with 

me, I could bette r explain that.

Senator I nouye. May we come to that later?

Mr. B arker. Yes, sir.

Senator I nouye. The second most important discipline would be not 

to squeal on your fellow operatives. Would tha t be correct?

Mr. B arker. I do not think tha t the word “squeal” is applicable to a 

paramilitary operation. 1 consider th at more as a criminal-----

Senator Inouye. Let’s use a better word. No to implicate.

Mr. Barker. Yes, but this is not the case, because implicating— 

to implicate someone, sir, you have to know who is behind it. The 

very discipline under which I worked, this was not necessary. I did 

not know.

Senator I nouye. Would you, under the code of ethics or code of 

conduct or code of discipline, implicate members of your team?
381

Mr. Barker. Xo.

Senator Inouye. And yon looked upon Mr. Hunt as a great man. 

You respected him highly?

Mr. Barker. Yes.

Senator Inouye. As one of the key leaders of the Cuban liberation 

movement.

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator I nouye. Would 1 be correct to assume tha t under those 

circumstances, you would never implicate Mr. Hunt and you would 

forever keep silent

Mr. Barker. This is a hypothetical question.

Senator I nouye. Xo, it is no t a hypothetical question, I am asking 

y°uMr. Barker. In this particular case, the answer respectfully, sir, 

is negative, because there was no need to implicate him. Mr. Hunt was 

pleading guilty by his own thinking. I was pleading guilty because, 

and it was proven correct, events tha t took place after tha t proved 

tha t I was correct in my decision, sir.

Senator I nouye. But you are a wise man. You know tha t if Mr. 

Hunt did in fact tell you to keep silent, he would be guilty of the crime 

of obstructing justice?

Mr. Barker. Pardon me if I smile, Senator; if I was a wise man, 

I would not probably be sitting right here. [Applause.]

I hope this carries no disrespect, sir. sincerely, I mean that.

Senator I nouye. Well, I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, 

sir.

But you have also testified, and I quote you directly, sir, tha t you 

had “personnel available for this type of operation.”

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. I had personnel available for this operation.

Senator Inouye. In other words, you are in this covert business?

Mr. Barker. No t for the past 10 years.

Senator Inouye. Then how do you have this personnel available all 

this time, 10 years?

Mr. Barker. Sir, I was Edwardo’s practically executive arm in the 

Bay of Pigs invasion. I was his principal assistant. Whether I want to 

or not, I am a bilingual American-Cuban who is dedicated to the 

cause of the liberation of Cuba. I have not changed my mentality 

since that time. I had no need to give any explanation to any of the 

old teams in Cuba as to what my position was when 1 called them on 

these matters—not because I am a leader, which I am not, but 

because I was pa rt of Mr. Hu nt’s image.

Senator I nouye. Would you under the discipline that you have 

followed, say anything tha t would injure the Government of the 

United States?

Mr. Barker. Although in this case, tha t is not applicable, because 

I had no information, I would state that I would never commit an 

act of that nature.

Senator Inouye. And you have also said that you would not help 

the enemy, whoever the enemy is?

Mr. Barker. Yes; in a general statement, yes, I would say tha t, 

sir.

Senator Inouye. I ask this hopefully in good grace, sir. Do you 

consider us your enemy, this committee, the enemy?
382

Mr. Barker. Sir, of the team tha t entered the Watergate, Mr. 

Gonzales and I are Republicans. Mr. Sturgis and Mr. Martinez are 

Democrats. I do not consider anyone here an enemy of this country, 

no more than I consider Mr. Martinez or Mr. Sturgis my enemies 

because they are Democrats.

Senator I nouye. Did you consider Mr. McGovern and Mr. Muskie 

your enemies?

Mr. Barker. I have the greatest respect for Mr. McGovern as a 

Senator and as a Presidential candidate. I disagree personally with 

the kind of philosophy tha t I saw in a similar circumstance turn Cuba 

into a Communist state.

Senator Inouye. However, you were willing to place Mr. McGovern 

in jeopardy, did you n ot to injure him?

Mr. Barker. If we were successful in obtaining documents tha t 

implicated a foreign government of Cuba in the operation, if this 

hu rt Mr. McGovern, it would be the nature of the evidence, not I. 

Mr. McGovern, to me, is as impersonal in tha t aspect as it would be 

when I was a bombardier in the Second World War in Germany and 

bombed a town. I have nothing, I do not know Mr. McGovern personally or any of these people. There is no personal grudge in anything, as I interpreted it.

Senator Inouye. He is n ot your enemy?

Mr. Barker. No, no; the man is not.

Senator I nouye. My final question, sir. In the testimony you have 

presented to us this afternoon, have you attem pted to protect Mr. 

Hun t?

Mr. Barker. I have attempted to protect no one in tha t respect. 

I would not have to protect Mr. Hunt, sir. I do not understand the 

question.

If by this you mean—I would like to be clear—that if I am saying 

that Mr. Hunt asked me to plead guilty and I say that he did not, 

if this is w hat I am being asked, I am saymg that Mr. Hunt never 

asked me this. I would not have to protect him in this. I am merely 

stating the truth.

Senator I nouye. Did Mr. Hunt ever tell you to remain silent?

Mr. Barker. No, sir; not in relation to anything concerning the 

Watergate, or-----

Senator Inouye. Is this not part of the discipline of your 

organization?

Mr. Barker. To remain silent on matters regarding an operation, 

and so forth, yes; this is part of the discipline.

Senator Inouye. In other words, you are supposed to give name, 

rank, and serial number—false name, tha t is?

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir; th at would cover it. False names in a sense 

that when you do a covert operation it is part of the system not to 

do it under your own name.

Senator I nouye. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Barker, just a very few questions.

In the course of the Watergate operation, did you have in your 

possession a walkie-talkie?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct.
Senator Weicker. Were you in communication with anybody over 

that walkie-talkie?

Mr. Barker. Yes; I was.

Senator Weicker. Can you identify who i t was you were in communication with?

Mr. Barker. One station was ours, one was Mr. Hu nt’s, and the 

other one was some headquarters.

Senator Weicker. So, actually, there was you, there was Mr. Hu nt with another walkie-talkie, and a third station. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Barker. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Can you identify the third station?

Mr. Barker. I cannot.

Senator Weicker. Ju st two more questions. Do you look upon 

your jailing as an honor?

Mr. Barker. I would like to state that I do not consider my being in jail for that matter or anything else that I have done a dishonor.

Senator Weicker. And the last question, Mr. Barker. You say that in 1972, you were doing these things in the name of n ational 

security. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Barker. This is the way it was originally given to me.

Senator Weicker. And vou say that in 1972, you justified these 

acts in the name of national security?

Mr. Barker. I do not understand what you mean by justifying these acts. This original situation was never changed. I had no reason to think one way or another on tha t matter. It was never discussed.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Barker, it is 1973. Do you still feel 

that national security is a proper justification for Watergate?

Mr. Barker. I feel it was a proper justification for Ellsberg and, although not in the same degree, I feel it was a justification for Water­ gate. But quite frankly, I am just a human being. I get confused about all these things. Sometimes I do not know the answers to these questions. I do not pretend to have all the answers, sir.

Senator Weicker. Than k you, Mr. Barker.

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barker, how long had it been since you had been in touch with Mr. Hunt prior to the time that he went down to Florida and left you 

a note?

Mr. Barker. I beg your pardon, sir. I cannot see your face.

Senator Montoya. II ow long had it been since you had seen Mr. 

Hunt or communicated with him prior to the time tha t he went to 

Florida and left you a note?

Mr. Barker. In the 10 years tha t passed between the Bay of Pigs invasion and the time tha t I had this note, I had occasional com­ munications by mail from Mr. Hunt from—mostly from Spain. These 

were all of a personal nature.

Senator Montoya. And since that first visit to Miami, how many 

times did he go back to Florida to visit with you?

Mr. Barker. It could have been anywhere between—I would say a dozen—a dozen times at least, in Miami, perhaps—maybe between 

10 and 20, 12 or 24.

Senator Montoya. Now, did you, during any of those visits, 

discuss the probability of going into the Democratic National Com-
384

mittee headquarters or the McGovern headquarters or anywhere else 

other than the Ellsberg psychiatrist’s office?

Mr. Barker. I do not recall that a t any visit in Miami, Mr. Hunt 

discussed with me either the McGovern or the Democratic headquarters. To the best of my recollection, Senator, this took place in 

Washington.

Senator Montoya. Then, why, when he invited you to lunch did 

you take Martinez with you and DeDiego? You mentioned a luncheon 

that you had.

Mr. Barker. In April of 1971, when I went with Mr. Hu nt to the 

area where they were commemorating the Bay of Pigs invasion. #

They had a statue down there th at they were unveiling. Mr. Martinez 

at the time was with me, a salesman in my organization. He had been 

in the Bay of Pigs invasion, played a very prominent pa rt in the naval 

activity. I presented him to Mr. Hu nt at tha t time, to Edwardo at *

tha t time.

Senator Montoya. What about Mr. DeDiego?

Mr. Barker. No, Mr. DeDiego was in it at tha t—-I do not remember presenting Mr. DeDiego to Mr. Hunt.

Senator Montoya. I believe you mentioned him as one of the 

people who was at lunch?

Mr. Barker. No, Mr. Martinez was at lunch.

Senator Montoya. All right, who was the other one?

Mr. Barker. Mr. and Mrs. Hun t, my wife, and Mr. Martinez.

Senator Montoya. Now, when did you go to Mr. Martinez and 

Mr. DeDiego and recruit them for the Washington operation?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Martinez and Mr. DeDiego were originally 

recruited for the Ellsberg operation. Subsequently, they participated 

inTthe Hoover security operation, and they were brought up with me 

for the double operation over the weekend of the Labor—the Memorial Day weekend.

Senator Montoya. Now, I believe you mentioned that up to tha t 

time, M r. Hu nt had not paid you any money?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Hunt never paid me any money, nor was I 

ever hired, nor any of my C ubans were ever hired, or paid money in 

tha t sense of the word.

Senator Montoya. How did you pay for your expenses and how did 

the other individuals who came in from Florida pay their expenses, 

and how were the expenses paid when they went to California?

Mr. Barker. In some cases, I received money before an operation ,

to pay for these expenses. In other cases, I arranged for the tickets 

for the trip out of my American Express card.

Senator Montoya. Well, I am speaking of this: Did you receive any 

expenses for the two people who went to California or any expenses 

for them and for yourself to come to Washington? i

Mr. Barker. Well, like I said, in the California operation, to the 

best of m y recollection, these expenses were covered after w’e got to 

California and a p art of th at was sent by mail to me in Miami. This 

differs from other operations.

I believe that, to the best of my recollection, in the Washington 

operation, I had been given an amount of money previously by Mr.

Hunt and I went with Mr. Martinez to some agency and took out the 

tickets before. Bu t-----
385

Senator Montoya. H ow much were you given by Mr. Hunt?

Mr. Barker. I don’t remember what I was given for it at that time. 

I imagine it covered a certain amount of expenses. I have no-----

Senator Montoya. Was th at before the California trip?

Mr. Barker. No, the California trip, I was not advanced any 

money. To the best of my recollection, all I did was take—buy the 

tickets out of my American Express. Then I was refunded.

Senator Montoya. Did you buy the tickets for Mr. Martinez and 

DeDiego and the other people who came in from Miami to Washington with your American Express card?

Mr. Barker. No, I don’t believe so.

Senator Montoya. Who paid their expenses?

Mr. Barker. These expenses came out of the operational money, 

the accounting of which 1 would do with Mr. Hunt at the time.

Senator, I would like to explain to you and to the people who may 

believe that this seems strange. When you are doing a covert operation, 

a budget or expenses are cleared up at one particular time. They are 

taken care of and then they are forgotten about. You don’t speak 

about that again. You don’t remember them, you don’t specify them 

except th at at tha t time, you give an accounting. To try to remember 

the exact detail after 2 years, which was the operation where the money 

was given before tha t or later, I cannot recall that, sir.

Senator M ontoya. The question I am asking you is: Did Mr. Hunt 

give you any money for yourself or for these other people prior to 

going to California or prior to coming to Washington, D.C.?

Mr. Barker. In the case of California, to the best of my recollection, 

I was given no money prior. In the case of the trip to Washington, I 

believe t ha t a certain amount of money, but I do not remember what 

amount, was given to me, because in those particular cases when we 

came to Washington, there was a larger number of people involved. 

And I d on’t remember-----

Senator Montoya. All right.

Now, did Mr. Hunt tell you who he was working for at the time?

Mr. Barker. Yes.

At the time, Mr. Hunt w’as a counselor at the White House. On 

one occasion, I remember tha t I had met Mr. Hunt at the executive 

building and went home for lunch with him.

Senator Montoya. And he mentioned the internal security aspects 

of the Ellsberg case with you, and it was with that motivation tha t 

you got into that.

Now, w hat did he mention to you about the Democratic National 

Committee headquarters and the McGovern headquarters other than 

the simple objective of going in there to find out what foreign governments had made contributions to either the Democratic National 

Committee or to Mr. McGovern?

Mr. Barker. T o the best of my recollection, Senator, the operation 

aspect was never discussed after that.

Senator Montoya. Well, didn’t he mention to you that the reason 

that he wanted to go into the Democratic National Committee was 

to find out whether or no t some foreign government had contributed 

to the Democratic Party?

Mr. Barker. That is correct, yes, sir.
386

Senator Montoya. And it was your assignment to look at the 

documents as you went in and for Eugenio Martinez to follow as you 

gave him the documents with a little photography?

Mr. Barker. That is correct.

Senator M ontoya. Now, you state d in response to Senator Baker’s 

question that you found no evidence in those documents that you 

saw of any contributions to the McGovern campaign or to the Democratic National Committee from any foreign government, and still 

you pursued the photography of the documents, did you not?

Mr. Barker. Tha t is correct.

Senator M ontoya. Why did you?

Mr. Barker. Because the documents tha t I uncovered, tha t I 

read, included names of persons and in one particular case, there was 

a series of n otations of, they appeared to be money notations and, 

another document involved security. *

Senator Montoya. Did it have the name of any foreign country?

Mr. Barker. No, sir.

Senator Montoya. How did you connect it as being something 

very instrumental with respect to internal security?

Mr. B arker. I don’t understand the question. The documents that 

I photographed or had photographed were only photographed for 

the reasons that I believed at that time was the judgment which I 

had explained. I had stated tha t it was evident tha t the type of 

information tha t we were searching was not available at that particular office. So I just did the best I could under the circumstances.

Senator Montoya. Well, as a ma tter of fact, Mr. Barker, you went 

in there for the general purpose of political espionage and not internal 

security.

Mr. Barker. Sir?

Senator Montoya. Isn’t th at right?

Mr. Barker. That is not my honest interpretation.

Senator Montoya. Well, in view of the subsequent events and the 

subsequent disclosures would you agree with me now that it was, in 

fact, political espionage?

Mr. Barker. I would respectfully disagree with the Senator.

Senator M ontoya. Why do you? Now give me your response.

Mr. Barker. Because, if my motivation was tha t which I have 

stated, and it was, there was no—there is no reason now to change that 

motivation, sir

Senator M ontoya. All right. 1

Now, let us go into Mr. Hu nt’s employment at the White House.

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir.

Senator M ontoya. What led you to believe tha t because Mr. Hun t 

was working at the White House tha t this was a covert operation under 

CIA?

Mr. Barker. This is stating tha t I thought this was a covert 

operation for CIA. I have never stated tha t this was a covert CIA 

operation. I have stated, sir, that it could or could not be a CIA 

operation since it was a national security matter, and the reason that 

I believe that Mr. Hun t had authority was, first by association, my 

previous association, with him as the highest Government representative in the Bay of Pigs, and the fact tha t he was at this time a 

member of the staff at the White House. I had no reason to think 

anything else in this matter.
387

Senator Montoya. Well, were you ever told b y Mr. Hunt tha t the 

CIA would provide technical equipment for the operation?

Mr. Barker. Mr. Hu nt during this operation used equipment that 

was quite evident the same type used by the CIA. The documents that 

he had, the certain type of the equipment he informed me at the time 

that was obtained from CIA sources. But this did not mean tha t he 

was a CIA man. This was explained in the fact tha t the national 

security organization was above CIA and FBI. To the best of my 

knowledge, I am not saying that this is true or not, I am just saying as 

to what my thinking was in regard to the things tha t were said to me. 

« Senator Montoya. When you had a meeting with Mr. Hunt at the

Hamilton Manger Hotel in Washington, D.C., preliminary to going 

over to the Watergate operation, did you at any time mention the 

McGovern headquarters and Democratic National Committee or ask 

* him any specific questions as to what the entry into these two places

would have—what relevancy it would have, with internal security?

Mr. Barker. No, I never asked those questions.

Senator Montoya. Did you think about it? Did you speculate in 

your own mind about it?

Mr. Barker. At that time and place I had no reason to speculate 

on these matters and I see no reason to change this at this time. I 

have tried to explain to the best of my ability, Senator, how we 

conducted these operations. In my concept they were as paramilitary 

operations as any previous operations I had been involved in, and t ha t 

is not customary in a hierarchy to question your superiors. You either 

do i t or you don’t.

Senator Montoya. How can going into a political party office 

be construed as a param ilitary operation? By what stretch of the 

imagination do you reach tha t conclusion?

Mr. Barker. The paramilitary operations is the procedure that was 

used.

Senator Ervin. Senator, we have another witness we have to put 

on today because we had to get him excused from testifying in a 

court in Connecticut so he can get here and we want to try to finish.

Senator Montoya. I have just one final question, Mr. Chairman. 

Is it still your opinion tha t what you did was in the interests of national 

security?

Mr. Barker. Today I am confused by all the information but I 

see no reason to condemn the nature of the assignment as was given 

, to me a t tha t time.

Senator Montoya. T hank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator E rvin. Your phone area code in Miami is 202?

Mr. Barker. I think it is 302 or 305. I think it is 305, sir.

Senator Ervin. Did you make five calls to the phone 202 area code, 

> 333-0362, to the Committee To Re-Elect the President’s offices in

April and May and June 1972?

Mr. Barker. To the best of my recollection I think, I could say 

definitively, but I think yes—those are, to the best of my recollection—those are phones th at were included in that.

Senator Ervin. Now every time tha t you arranged anything with 

your commanding officer, Mr. Hun t stayed at a distance, so if anybody was caught in the break-in he would not be one of them?

Mr. Barker. I didn’t understand tha t question.
388

Senator E rvin. Mr. Hunt arranged for the break-ins and then when 

the time came for breaking in he decided tha t discretion was the 

bette r pa rt of valor and he sent somebody else into danger and stayed 

away himself.

Mr. Barker. Senator Ervin, I have the highest concept, personal 

concept of Mr. Hun t and Mr. Liddy, sir. I say this with all respect to 

you and the respect I owe my superior.

Senator Ervin. But he stayed at a distance, didn’t he, every time?

When you broke into the Watergate every time and when you broke

into the psychiatrist’s office Mr. Hu nt arranged for the breaking in

but he never endangered himself, he never placed himself in a position 0

where he would be arrested at the break-in, isn’t that so?

Mr. Barker. Yes, I guess in a way tha t is correct.

Senator E rvin. Discretion is the better p art of valor.

Any other questions? *

You say that Mr. Hunt had not told you to keep silent. Had Mr.

Hunt told you to keep silent would you have kept silent and not told 

us about it?

Mr. Barker. Had Mr. Hun t told me to keep silent?

Senator E rvin. Yes, sir.

Mr. Barker. In what, sir?

Senator Ervin. If he had told you to keep silent would you have 

kept silent and not told us that he had told you to keep silent? 

[Laughter.]

Mr. Barker. That is a very confusing statement., sir. [Laughter.]

Senator Ervin. Any further questions, if not, the witness is excused.

Thank you, Mr. Barker, for your testimony. He is excused.

Did you have something furth er you want to say?

Mr. Barker. Yes, sir. I think it is only fair before I leave here to 

say t ha t in a certain way the things tha t I have said do n ot represent 

me as a person. I am part of a team of men of whom I am very proud 

to have been associated with. Mainly I am speaking of my three 

associates from Miami. I think I have given a general description of 

Mr. Martinez. It is only fair now to state tha t Mr. Fran k Sturgis, 

who by birth was Frank Fiorini, is a devoted anti-communist fighter, 

who was—who has voted against dictatorship, not only of the left 

but of the right, tha t he was the first person to turn against Castro 

after helping him with his revolution, tha t he has made innumerable 

raids over Cuba. That he h ad been captured in a Honduras Government—by the Honduras Government trying to infiltrate Cuba. That ,

Mr. Gonzales was a member of the OA, Organizacion Authentica 

which—with an extensive background in the underground of Cuba; 

that all of these men are devoted family men who feel very deeply in 

a cause, and tha t I am not here as a person bu t as a part of a team, 

and that it would be unfair, in my concept, th at these men were con- ■*

sidered in anything but in the true light of the things tha t they 

believe in, tha t we all outside of reprimands by in some cases of Mr.

Fiorini for having acted in these matters, your greatest previous crime 

before the Watergate were just simple photographic violations. That 

we are no t criminal elements. That the word as a newspaper recently 

said, we are the world’s best known burglars, the world’s burglars we 

will have to live with. Th at we recently, very emotionally is the word, 

that we were hired. Th at there was no need to buy our silence. We are
389

not for sale, and tha t this must be said because this represents our 

feelings. By this I don’t mean tha t we are perfect, tha t we are no t full 

of all sorts of defects as persons, tha t we consider ourselves superior 

beings to anyone. We are just plain people t hat very deeply believed 

tha t Cuba has a right to be free.

Thank you.

Senator Ervin. The witness is excused, subject to being recalled 

later by the committee if it desires.

Thank you very much, Mr. Barker.

Will counsel call the next witness?

«, Mr. Dash. Will Mr. Baldwin please take the stand?

Senator Ervin. Do you swear t hat the evidence tha t you shall give 

to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

shall be the truth, the whole truth , and nothing but the truth, so 

■* help you God?

Mr. Baldwin. I do.

Senator E rvin. You are accompanied by an attorney. The attorney 

will please identify himself for the record, giving your name and your 

place, your office.

Mr. Mirto. I am Robert Mirto, I practice law at 377 Main Stre et 

in Westhaven, Conn.

Mr. Dash. Ju st for the record, Mr. Baldwin, will you give your 

full name and address?

TESTIMONY OF ALFRED C. BALDWIN III; ACCOMPANIED BY 

ROBERT MIRTO, ATTORNEY

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir. It is Alfred C. Baldwin III , 90 Mou ntain - 

view Terrace, North Haven, Conn. We use a mail address of Hampton, 

Conn. 06517.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions but I understand 

tha t the witness has a short statement to read and then I would like 

to waive questions and move on.

Will you read your statement, Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. Baldwin. Thank you. To make a part of the record my 

understanding of my status in this total affair, I wish to read the 

following memorandum into the record a t this time.

This memorandum was a memorandum prepared by my attorney, 

Robert Mirto; it is entitled “Memo to the File of Alfred C. Baldwin 

, H I.”

It is written on July 6, 1972, at 4:40 a.m.

“On July 5, 1972, Robert C. Mirto, Esq., J. Terrance O’Grady, 

Esq., attorneys known to the Government to be representing Alfred 

C. Baldwin III , a suspect in the Watergate incident, met with Earl 

» Silkert, Donald Campbell, and Seymour Glanzer, all assistant U.S.

attorneys and represented to us to be the assistant U.S. attorneys 

handling the Watergate incident. A meeting was held at the U.S. 

district courthouse on the morning of Jul y 5, 1972, at which time 

it was represented to us by the Government tha t Baldwin would not 

be a defendant in the Watergate matter if lie cooperated. The Government attorneys stated tha t if they were satisfied with Baldwin’s 

information he would not be indicted. Negotiations ceased at 12:30 

p.m., so that O’Grady and I could talk to Baldwin. At 5:45 p.m., we
390

notified the Government tha t Baldwin would cooperate. He identified 

two photographs from photographic spreads and generally told of his 

Watergate knowledge. He was again told, as we were, he would be a 

witness, not a defendant. He and O’Grady and I relied on this representation by the Government and plans were made for formal s tate ­

ments in the future. The conference terminated at 7:40 p.m. At the 

last showup conference were Campbell, Glanzer, Silkert, FBI agents 

Lanno and McKenna, O’Grady, Baldwin, I and two or three other 

persons not known to me by name but who I assumed to be either 

agents or members of the staff of assistant U.S. attorneys handling 

the matter. Signed, Robert C. Mirto, dated in the lower left-hand 

corner, July 6, 1972, 4:36 a.m.”

Right below on this is an accurate account of the happenings of 

July 5, 1972, at the U.S. district courthouse room 3600-K and again 

signed Robert Mirto.

Mr. Dash. I have no furth er questions.

Mr. Baldwin. I have one other thing. I am still relying on tha t 

promise today as I testify here and from the beginning of my decision 

to cooperate on June 25 to now, I have attempted to tell the whole 

tru th of this incident to the Government. I believe that as I do now 

there is only one Government tha t I have talked truthful to the U.S. 

attorney, as I will do to this committee. I do not regret this decision, 

although my life was at t ha t time shattered. I cannot now find employmen t and I have been withou t funds. My family has been disgraced.

I believe th at since I was working for the former Attorney General and 

White House officials I would not question to do w hat I was asked to 

do. Now, I regret only that decision. Regardless of this, I shall now 

follow through with my commitment to tell the Government and the 

American people the truth.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, would the witness read the first 

sentence of tha t statem ent again?

Mr. Baldwin. To make it part of the record, my understanding of 

my status in this total affair, I wash to read the following memo into 

the record.

Senator Baker. Would you continue?

Mr. Baldwin. And then I read the memo, sir.

Senator Baker. Yes, I know you did but you made a statement 

about the same agreement still obtains. Will you refer to that part of it, 

read tha t again for us?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir, I am still relying on that promise today. t

Senator Baker. What promise?

Mr. Baldwin. On the promise of the U.S. attorneys tha t if I cooperated I would be a witness and not a defendant.

Senator Baker. Do you concede then tha t you are here as a witness 

before a committee of the U.S. Senate? • ♦

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. And any testimony you give us you will in effect, 

have immunity from prosecution by reason of the “agreement” made 

by the U.S. attorney.

Mr. Mirto. If I may answer that, Senator, we were not given 

formal immunity. It w’as our feeling at the time of the conference with 

the U.S. attorneys tha t a promise not to prosecute on which we acted, 

would be sufficient for our purposes. We do not feel that there is any
391

exposure since Mr. Baldwin has already spoken and testified on the 

fact which he will testify to today.

Senator Baker. Well, I just want it clearly understood that no 

promise by the U.S. attorney is binding on this member of the committee.

Mr. Baldwin. We realize that. We just, our statement, we feel, 

there is only one Government, and a promise from the U.S. attorney 

would bar any prosecution by the Government of the United States, 

tha t is our position and tha t is why we read the statement into the 

record.

* Senator Baker. Do you understand my position?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, I do, Senator.

Senator E rvin. Your position is t ha t since the Government prom- 

. ised th at if you would cooperate tha t they would make you a witness

and n ot a defendant, and tha t was the reason why you cooperated on

the trial and the reason you are still cooperating.

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct, Senator. And I also cooperated 

with other Senate committee members.

Mr. Thompson. I would like to defer questioning at the present 

time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin. I will waive questions.

Senator Baker. Senator Weicker has had an opportunity, Mr. 

Chairman, to interview this witness on one or more occasion; he is 

from Connecticut, and I would recommend, if I may, we defer to 

him from the outset.

Senator Ervin. I certainly agree with you tha t would be an advisable 

course.

Senator Weicker. Thank you, Senator Baker, Mr. Chairman, and 

members of the committee.

Mr. Baldwin, on May 1, 1972, you were contacted by James 

McCord with regard to employment, is that correct?

Mr. B aldwin. That is correct, Senator.

Senator Weicker. When Mr. McCord called you did he say how 

he had obtained your name?

Mr. Baldwin. I do not recall if it was during the first conversation 

or a subsequent conversation the following day b ut he told me he had 

obtained my resume from the Society of Ex-FBI Agents in New York 

City.

Senator Weicker. Did he describe the work he wanted you to do? 

♦ Mr. Baldwin. In the initial phone call he did n ot go into explicit

details, said it was a matter of urgency and if it was possible to come 

to Washington where he would like to interview me but he did basically 

inform me tha t it would involve security work for the Committee To 

Re-Elect the President, and tha t particular time—in specific some

* ' services with Mrs. Martha Mitchell, the wife of the Attorney General.

Senator Weicker. And did you go to Washington then on the 

next day, May 2?

Mr. B aldwin. No, I went to Washington tha t night.

Senator Weicker. That evening?

Mr. B aldwin. Th at evening, yes sir.

Senator Weicker. And you met with Mr. McCord on M ay 2?

Mr. Baldwin. I met with him the following morning on May 2, 

that is correct.
392

Senator Weicker. Now, on May 2, did you visit the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, I did.

Senator Weicker. And as a result of th at visit were you employed 

by the committee?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, I was.

Senator Weicker. Would you describe to this committee your visit 

of May 2 to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. Weil the early morning hours, I did not know at 

that time Mr. Hoover had passed away tha t morning and there was 

some confusion at the Committee To Re-Elect headquarters. What I 

had been told by Mr. McCord was the fact tha t Mrs. Mitchell would 

be departing tha t day for a trip to the Midwest. For approximately 2 

hours or so it was undetermined whether or not she would make the 

trip. After it was determined tha t she would, Mr. McCord then took 

me to the office of Mr. LaRue. He-----

Senator Weicker. I beg your pardon, can you speak into the 

microphone more directly, Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. Baldwin. After it was determined that Mrs. Mitchell would 

make the trip, I was taken to the office of Fred LaRu e who, I was 

told, would have the final say whether or not I was hired.

Senator Weicker. Did you meet Mr. LaRue?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct. I had a very brief interview with 

Mr. LaRue tha t lasted approximately 2 or 3 minutes.

Senator Weicker. And was the decision to hire you made in your 

presence, or was it the moment you had met Mr. LaRue, or did you 

leave the room and become informed of the decision later?

Mr. Baldwin. It was not in my presence, Mr. LaRue asked if I 

would mind waiting outside the office where Mr. McCord joined me 

in the outer office and he said, “It is all set, you are all set to go.” I 

believe be might even have mentioned “ You are on board,” something 

like that.

Senator Weicker. Would it be fair to describe your hiring as ha ving 

been accomplished by a combination of initially Jim McCord with the 

final say-so by Mr. LaRue?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, 1 was interviewed by Mr. McCord but Mr. 

McCord in the presence of Mr. LaRue it was obvious Mr. LaRue was 

making the decision.

Senator Weicker. Now, at the time that or after you were hired, 

on that particular day, were you given a weapon?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, I was issued a .38 snub-nosed 

revolver, Smith and Wesson.

Senator Weicker. Would you describe to the committee that 

particular event, was th at on the same day of May 2?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, after we left Mr. LaR ue’s office. 

This occurred in the security office adjacent to the main reception 

room on the third floor of the Republican headquarters there on 

Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr. McCord went over to a file cabinet and removed the weapon 

either from the first or second drawer of the file cabinet and stated 

“You will need this while you are with Mrs. Mitchell. You know 

how to use one of these.”

Senator Weicker. So, in other words, it is your testimony to this 

committee that Mr. McCord gave you the .38.
393

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, he did.

Senator Weicker. Now, can you tell me what actually happened 

to tha t weapon?

Mr. Baldwin. I retained possession of tha t weapon through the 

trip. When I returned to Washington, I had possession of tha t weapon. 

There was another scheduled on the Thursday of the week we returned, I believe we returned on May 8 and I think, I believe 

Mrs. Mitchell was scheduled to go out on another trip tha t Thursday. 

I was told tha t the decision w’hether or not I would go with her had 

not been reached yet but in all likelihood would be going with her 

< to keep the weapon in my possession. I had to leave to go back to

Connecticut to get more clothing so the weapon stayed with me back 

to Connecticut. When I returned from Connecticut, Mr. McCord 

advised me that Mr. LaRue would be going with Mrs. Mitchell and 

he had other work for me to do, and at tha t time he said, I believe, 

it was “Have you still got the weapon?” I said, “Yes.” We went 

downstairs to the Roger Smith Hotel. Outside the barber shop he 

took it.

Senator Weicker. So the weapon was returned then to Mr. 

McCord?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct.

Senator Weicker. On May 2, were there any others tha t you were 

introduced to, any individuals tha t you were introduced to at the 

Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, Mr. La Rue’s office is in a cubicle where I 

believe Mr. Magruder’s office is and I also met Mr. Odle. As Mr. 

Magruder passed through from his office, I was introduced to Mr. 

Magruder. I do not believe I was introduced to Mr. Odle, but I 

believe Mr. McCord pointed him out to me and he pointed out 

several other individuals. I was being introduced mainly to the 

security force that was at the headquarters. I met some people in 

Mr. Mitchell’s law offices. I was taken around to Mrs. Mitchell’s 

office, introduced to different people at each one of these offices, 

as I would be going with Mrs. Mitchell as her bodyguard, I was 

coming aboard. Several individuals were pointed out to me.

Senator Weicker. Was it indicated to you at tha t time, as to the 

terms of your appointment, specifically how you would be paid?

Mr. Baldwin. That question came up originally, Senator, on the 

night. Mr. McCord telephoned me, because on the resume that was 

* submitted with the Ex-Agents Society, I had listed the general salary

for the year. Mr. McCord—I asked him about the salary. He told me 

because of the fact that I mentioned to him tha t there would be no 

sense in wasting your time and my time if the employment was not in 

the salary range tha t I was seeking, he did say there would be a dis- 

*’ crepancy, tha t it would involve a m atte r of approximately $70 a day

while I was with Mrs. Mitchell and there would be a different rate when 

I was not working with Mrs. Mitchell. However, I was paid the same 

rate at all times.

Senator Weicker. Did you believe at tha t time that your employer 

was the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. Absolutely.

Senator Weicker. Do you have any documents in your possession 

which you believe to be supportive of tha t opinion?
394

Mr. Baldwin. No, I have documents in my possession tha t are 

contradictory of that position. It was my understanding prior to the 

criminal trials tha t efforts were being made to disown me from the 

committee and as a m atter of fact, I have a-----

Senator Weicker. I intend to get into tha t—I am jus t trying to 

keep this in the logical sequence.

Mr. Baldwin. No, all the application forms-----

Senator Weicker. Do you have in your possession a check from 

the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, or rather, a Xerox 

copy of a check issued by the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the 

President? . *

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct. I received the check and cashed it 

and I did make a photostat of the check.

Senator Weicker. Would you go ahead and present tha t to the 

committee?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes.

Senator Weicker. Is there any other document that you have in 

your possession which again would indicate your employment by the 

Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. I have what is entitled schedule D, itemized expenditures, personal service, loans, and transfers, and under events, it says,

“The Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President”, itemized listing, 

for a period of, I believe it is August 1 through August 8, 1972, and on 

that, my name appears.

Senator Weicker. All right, and what is the amount listed beside 

your name?

Mr. Baldwin. It is listed $429.84.

Senator Weicker. For travel expense?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is what the purpose of the expenditure under 

the column “Purpose of expenditure,” tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. What travel expense do you believe th at to refer 

to?

Mr. B aldwin. I was told this was reimbursement for traveling 

expense incurred while with Mrs. Mitchell. This figure coincides with 

a figure tha t I submitted regarding her expenditures, spent on the 

trip.

Senator Weicker. So in other words, you believe this figure 

listed on schedule D and also set forth on the check from the Finance 

Committee To Re-Elect the President as coinciding with a voucher 

which you submitted for travel expenses attendant to your trip with *

Mrs. Mitchell, is that correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct, a combination of her expenses 

and my expenses.

Senator Weicker. Have you presented a copy of schedule D to 

the committee? . ’*

I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if both of these items could 

be in the record.

Senator Ervin. Let the record show th at Xerox copies of the check 

and voucher are made exhibits with appropriate numbers.

[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 14 and 15*]

Senator Weicker. As your first assignment, did you make a trip 

to Detroit and Westchester County as a bodyguard for Mrs. Mitchell?

* See pp. 455, 456.
395

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. And returned from that trip on May 8?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct, we did.

Senator Weicker. On that trip on May 8, or at any other time, 

were you informed by anyone tha t you had been fired by the C ommittee To Re-Elect? ‘ ~

Mr. Baldwin. I have never received any official notification from 

anyone up to this date.

Senator Weicker. Did you at any time return to the office of Mr. 

LaRue and receive from him notification of termination of 

appointment?

Mr. Baldwin. No, I did not.

Senator Weicker. Now, then, to move to May 12, Mr. Baldwin, 

did you retu rn to Connecticut at tha t time?

Or rather, did you return from C onnecticut after the 8th?

Mr. Baldwin. I returned approximately on the 9th to Connecticut, 

yes sir.

Senator Weicker. And back to Washington on May 12?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Would you briefly describe your assignments 

between May 12 and May 23, when you again returned to 

Connecticut?

Mr. Baldwin. On my return to Washington, I was advised th at 

Mr. LaRue would be going with Mrs. Mitchell on the trip to Nebraska 

and tha t Mr. McCord wanted me to perform other functions in the 

Washington, D.C., area which would cover surveillance activity. At 

tha t time, I do not believe there was any specific organization, but 

on a day-to-day basis, he would give me instructions where to go 

and what type of activities to perform.

Senator Weicker. Where were you housed at this time?

Mr. Baldwin. On my return back, I stayed a t the—I believe it is the 

Roger Smith, a block up from the committee headquarters. Mr. 

McCord advised me tha t he would like me then to move to the 

Howard Johnson, where he had obtained a room, and that to cut down 

expenses, I should stay in the Howard Johnson.

Senator Weicker. I do not want to have us get ahead of ourselves 

here.

On May 12, you were still a t the Roger Smith Hotel, is tha t correct?

Mr. Baldwin. On my return from Connecticut, I stayed at the 

Roger Smith, tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. And Mr. McCord would come to the Roger 

Smith and give you instructions?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct. We had breakfast meetings.

Senator Weicker. What did those instructions consist of?

Mr. Baldwin. The first instructions were to move to the Howard 

Johnson and he would brief me. There was a planned news conference 

□n that Friday when Rennie Davis was due in town and he wanted me 

to go to the news conference and obtain any information I could.

Senator Weicker. In order tha t we not take overly much time, 

would it be fair to state tha t during the period between May 12 and 

May 23. you were principally engaged in surveillance of various 

activities, organizations, and occurrences in the Washington, D.C., 

area?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct, sir.

96 -2 96 O—73----- bk. 1— 26
396

Senator Weicker. Now, a t any time, were you sent to the Capitol 

area to conduct these surveillances?

Mr. Baldwin. I believe it was the day after Governor Wallace was 

shot tha t I was instructed to go to the Capitol rotun da, where there 

were planned sit-ins.

Senator Weicker. During this period of time, were you sent to areas 

outside the offices of various Senators and Congressmen to observe 

persons in those areas?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, would you try to the best of 

your ability to recall these areas or the specific offices to which you ►

went in order to observe persons?

Mr. Baldwin. I am going to do some great injustice to some of the 

Representatives, I am sure, with their names. Bu t I know I went to 

Senator Kennedy’s office. *

Senator Weicker. Why did you go to Senator Kennedy’s office?

Mr. Baldwin. On one particular day at the Capitol, a large number 

of demonstrators had been receiving Senate passes to the gallery area.

This was also the day that the three astronauts appeared and the 

information circulating amongst the different security officers up there 

was tha t the passes were being issued by, I believe it was Senator 

Kennedy’s office, and I am not sure he—it might have been Senator 

Gravel’s office at th at time. On one of my phone calls to Mr. McCord,

I advised him of this and he then advised me to go to the Senator’s 

office to determine what groups were in the area, how the passes were 

being handed out and distributed, who was doing it, obtain any 

litera ture tha t was being handed out, basically try to determine what 

groups were in the area of the Senator’s office. Th at is on tha t particular day.

Senator Weicker. Now, you mentioned Senator Kennedy’s office 

and possibly also Senator Gravel’s office. Were there any other Representatives or Senators whose offices you recall going to in order to 

observe persons moving about on that day?

Mr. Baldwin. Representatives from New York. I believe it was 

Bella Abzug—I do not know if my pronunciation is correct on tha t— 

and Representative Chisholm. I believe-----

Senator Weicker. At any time, did you visit the office of Senator 

Muskie?

Mr. Baldwin. To the best of my recollection, I do not recall being 

in the area of Senator Muskie’s office. *

Senator Weicker. Senator McGovern?

Mr. Baldwin. No; those names I do not recall.

Senator Weicker. Senator Javits?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct, because it is Mr. Javits of New 

York. *

Senator Weicker. Senator Proxmire?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Congressman Koch?

Mr. Baldwin. If he is the gentleman from New York, I believe th at 

possibly is one of the other gentlemen from New York.

Senator Weicker. All right. Aside from tha t type of surveillance, 

did you also engage in the surveillance of demonstrations in the Capitol 

area?
397

Mr. Baldwin. I participated in the demonstrations in the Capitol; 

tha t is correct. I am sorry. My attorney reminded me there was also Representative 

McCloskey.

Senator Weicker. Representative McCloskey’s office was another 

one?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is right.

Senator Weicker. You have already mentioned Rennie Davis’ news 

conference, the surveillance on the Hill. At any time, did you leave 

Capitol Hill to engage in surveillance activities?

Mr. Baldwin. There was a planned demonstration at Andrews 

Air Force Base the day tha t the President was leaving for Moscow, on 

a Saturday morning.

Senator Weicker. Who instructed you to go to Andrews Air Force

Base?

Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord.

Senator Weicker. Did you receive, in other words, your instructions from Mr. McCord as to your surveillance activities and where 

they should take place?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, at the time of your return on May 12, 

you have already state d you moved to room 419 at the Howard Johnson’s on Virginia Avenue, across from the Watergate. In whose name 

was the room registered?

Mr. Baldwin. I did not know that—McCord had just advised me 

that he had a room there, but subsequently, when I went downstairs to ask for mail, I was told it was under the name of McCord Associates, and I gave the desk clerk my name and asked if any mail was received, 

to put it into McCord Associates’ room.

Senator Weicker. Now, there have been reports tha t in fact, you 

are not employed by the Committee To Re-Elect the President, and you have stated here already that you believe you were employed by the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Did any event during this 

period of time serve to confirm th at belief in your mind?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, I was instructed that if at any time I was 

stopped by any Government agency or law enforcement body regard­ ing the weapon or regarding my presence in a particular area, that I was to do two things: No. 1, advise them that I worked for the Committee To Re-Elect the President; tha t I was in the security office of th at department; and if that did n ot work, to go on and say that I was working for former Attorney General Mitchell. Then, as a last resort, I had Mr. McCord’s business card tha t said, “James McCord, Director of Security, Committee To Re-Elect the President,” and a telephone number. I was to give the person that card and they would 

call and verify it. So, on at least three or four occasions, that process had to be 

followed, where I had to identify myself.

Senator Weicker. When you say three or four occasions, can you 

state to the committee several of those occasions when you had to use Mr. McCord’s card and telephone number as a means of identifying 

yourself?

Mr. Baldwin. I had no authority to carry the weapons, so when I 

flew home to Connecticut, I would declare the weapon and I was
398

flying Allegheny Airlines. So every time I would fly, I would have to 

declare the weapon. They would verify the fact, they would call right 

in front of me the ticket agent, and the manager would come out, 

usually from the office, and they would make a call. They would say, 

no problem and hand the gun back to me.

Another time I was questioned by the FBI liaison officer on Capitol 

Hill. He verified it.

Then the day at Andrews Air Force Base, I was stopped by the air 

security police and they had to call down to committee headquarters 

and verify. On all occasions, I was told I was OK, all my items of 

iden tity were returned to me and I was on my way. >

Senator Weicker. Were you given any sort of identification pin as 

belonging to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, I was. I was issued a lapel pin. It was 

red and white in appearance, had an eagle on it. This pin allowed *

me-----

Senator Weicker. Where is t ha t pin now?

Mr. Baldwin. That was turned over to the U.S. attorney prior to 

the criminal trial.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, to keep on giving the 

continuity here, you interrupt me or state if I am incorrect, you 

returned to Connecticut on May 23 and came back to Washington 

on May 26, is th at correct?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, Friday.

Senator Weicker. And you returned to room 419 of the Howard 

Johnsons on May 26. Now, when you entered room 419 on May 26, 

what did you see?

Mr. Baldwin. When I entered the room, there were numerous 

items of electronic equipment in the room. When I entered the 

room, it was approximately 2 in the afternoon, I believe, about 

tha t hour. Mr. McCord was in the room and operating one of the 

receiver units. At that time, I did not know what it was. He explained 

it.

Senator Weicker. In other words, this was the first time tha t you 

had seen electronic equipment in room 419 of the Howard Johnsons?

Mr. Baldwin. This particular piece of equipment tha t he was 

working on, tha t was the first time I had seen tha t. On the couch 

there was a piece of electronic equipment which was containing the 

briefcase tha t had been described to me, tha t I had previously seen 

at the Committee To Re-Elect the President headquarters. This #

was called the debugger, had a monitoring unit.

Senator Weicker. In other words, you had seen a portion of the 

equipment?

Mr. Baldwin. A portion I had seen previous.

Senator Weicker. At the Committee To Re- Elect the President? *

Mr. B aldwin. Th at is correct. But the equipment he was working on 

when I entered the room, I had never seen that before.

Senator Weicker. And as you entered the room, Mr. McCord 

was in the process of what—experimenting with this equipment?

What did he indicate to you at the time you entered the room?

Mr. Baldwin. He was tuning this equipment. The unit was operating and he was working the tuning dials. There are several tuning 

dials on the piece of equipment.
399

Senator Weicker. Did you have any questions of him as to exactly 

what was going on at tha t time?

Mr. Baldwin. No, I had just driven approximately 6 hours and he 

said, “As soon as you get unpacked and relaxed, I will explain this.” 

I said, “All right, I will take a shower and shave and join you .”

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, was there a sequence of 

events leading up to a visit by other persons to the room that afternoon?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, I was told that some other individuals would 

be coming into the room. They were pa rt of the security force and in 

view of their position, they would be introduced under aliases to me

* and that I would also be introduced in this way. He said, there is

no reflection on you, but because of the natu re of the work you are 

involved in, I am going to use an alias for you and an alias for them. 

I will be introducing them-----

* Senator Weicker. What was the alias he gave to you?

Mr. Baldwin. He asked me to use the alias of Bill Johnson, the 

alias I used when I was calling in reports on my surveillance operation.

Senator Weick er. Would you like to continue your narrativ e to 

the committee as to what happened that afternoon?

Mr. Baldwin. Are you asking me regarding the introductions of 

the individuals that came to the room, Senator?

Senator Weicker. I gather from what you told the committee, 

tha t you were already told there would be a visit by individuals from 

the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct. Two individuals came into the room 

and when they entered the room, Mr. McCord turned to me and he 

said at this point—he introduced me. “Al,” he said, and I believe he 

said “Ed,” and then he got all confused because he had not used the 

aliases.

Senator Weicker. He had not used the aliases which you were 

supposed to use?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct. He said—I do not know if he said 

at tha t point, “Ed, go in—” he had to retra ct. Then he had to intr oduce me under my alias and he could not remember, then he jus t 

introduced us under our personal names.

Senator Weicker. Now, subsequently, have you identified who 

those two men were who came in the room?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct, and at the FBI photographic display, they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt.

’ Senator Weicker. Tha t same evening, May 26, was there a trip

to McGovern headquarters?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct; there was.

Senator Weicker. Would you describe to the committee that trip 

and the evening’s activity at McGovern headquarters? 

r Mr. Baldwin. Well, the purpose of my returning from Connecticut

was to work that weekend. Mr. McCord advised me tha t we would 

have to work that weekend. I did not know we were going into McGovern headquarters until we arrived at the scene. Prior to arriving 

there, we stopped to buy some batteries. He sent me in to buy them, 

then we proceeded to McGovern headquarters.

As we went by the McGovern headquarters, he pointed to a 

building, said, this is w hat we are interested in, we have got to meet 

some people here. Then he proceeded to explain tha t we have to find
400

our individual; one of our men is here. He will be in a yellow Volkswagen, keep your eyes open for the Volkswagen, for the man sitting 

in it—I believe he even mentioned “boy.” I do not think he said 

“man ” ; he said there is a boy sitting in a Volkswagen.

He said, “We have one of our people inside the headquarters.” The 

problem was there was a man stan ding outside the headquarters, which 

was a second-story headquarters above—I believe there were stores— 

there was a chain across them.

This individual was there. This was late in the evening, approximately 1 or 2 o’clock in the early morning hours, and Mr. McCord 

was quite upset by the fact that this individual was standing in front +

of the door. He had no business being there, according to Mr. McCord.

He should not have been there.

Senator Weicker. Did you meet any other individuals at tha t 

particular address? *

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct. Mr. McCord had been in communication over a walkie-talkie unit w ith some other individuals and at one 

point, as we proceeded down the same street that McGovern’s headquarters is located on, we stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An 

individual alighted from the car, came into the front seat of Mr. 

McCord’s car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and this 

individual.

Senator Weicker. Can you tell me who that individual was?

Mr. Baldwin. That was Mr. Liddy.

Senator Weicker. And did you succeed in getting into the McGovern headquarters on that evening?

Mr. Baldwin. No, they drove around. Mr. McCord and Mr. Liddy 

did all the talking and they drove around, I do not know the exact 

length of time. But it was over a half hour. As a ma tter of fact, we 

drove up the alleyway adjacent to the building. There was a problem 

of lights. They discussed whether or not their man was inside. There 

were several problems. Mr. McCord said, we will abort the mission.

Senator Weicker. What was your primary job during the first 2 

weeks of June? We have moved now from the end of May to the first 

week of June.

Mr. Baldwin. I was instructed to monitor all telephone conversations th at were being received over these units that were in the Howard 

Johnson room and to make a log of all units.

Senator Weicker. With reference to overheard telephone conversation and excluding anything to do with personal lives of those who *

were overheard, can you tell the committee the content of any conversations of a political nature?

Senator Ervin. Senator? I am afraid we made a mistake when we 

passed the Omnibus Crime Act. It may be illegal for him to say anything about the conversation. I think maybe we were very foolish *

when Congress passed that law, b ut I believe it is the law.

Mr. Baldwin. I will decline to answer that respectfully, Senator, 

based on 18 section 2515, prohibition of the use of evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications, which specifically states under 

this Federal statute tha t if I divulge those contents, I am subject to 

possible prosecution.

Senator E rvin. On tha t basis I would suggest you not ask him.

Senator Weicker. About how many calls did you monitor?
Mr. Baldwin. Approximately 200.

Senator Weicker. Will you describe how you recorded them?

Mr. Baldwin, Initially, the first day, it was on a yellow legal pad. Mr. McCord took the actual log and copy that I had made. Subse­ quently, he returned to the room, I believe it was on Labor Day Monday, with an electric typewriter. He asked me to transcribe my notes into typewritten form, making up duplicate copies, an original 

and an onionskin. Th at is what I proceeded to do.

Senator Weicker. Then, who would you transmit those logs to, 

Mr. McCord?

Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord received both the original and onionskin, tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. At any time, did you hand those logs to individuals other than Mr. McCord?

Mr. Baldwin. The one incident where I was telephoned from Miami and told to deliver the logs to the Republican headquarters, the Com­ mittee To Re-Elect the President, on Pennsylvania Avenue, which I 

did.

Senator Weicker. Now, during these first 2 weeks in June, did you 

engage in any other activities? Physically, did you go over to the 

Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct, I did.

Senator Weicker. Would you describe tha t p articu lar incident?

Mr. Baldwin. Mr. McCord appeared in the room on Monday, I

believe it was the 12th of June, and advised me tha t—well, he fur­ nished me a $100 bill and said, you are going to have a ball this week, here. I am going to go over to the restaurant. I want you to hang around in the cocktail lounge, the restaurant, do visual surveillance of anybody from the Democratic headquarters. He gave me a pretext to 

take a tour of the Democratic headquarters. I did not agree with his approach and I asked him if I could do it a different way. I followed tha t way and I was given a tour of the 

Democratic headquarters tha t day.

Senator Weicker. Prior to the weekend of June 16 did Mr. McCord discuss the plans for the rest of tha t weekend and any subsequent 

plans? In other words, wha t was the schedule of events for the weekend of 

June 16?

Mr. B aldwin. Well, after the tour, Senator, of the McGovern head­ quarters it was obvious tha t Mr. Lawrence O’Brien was not in the Washington area, that he had been to Miami and was working in 

Miami.

Senator Weicker. May I ask you this question, Mr. Baldwin, are 

you talking about McGovern headquarters or the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Baldwin. I am talking about the Democratic National Commit­ tee headquarters. After my tour there part of the information I re­ ceived there Mr. O’Brien had not been in Washington for the past month or so or longer. He had been in Miami and Mr. McCord was quite pleased to hear this. And it appeared to me tha t it called for a rescheduling of the timetable because he got quite upset with the fact tha t I would have to, he would try to make some arrangement for me to go to Miami. He had already discussed with me the fact
402

that I would be going to both the Democratic and the Republican 

Conventions but in view of this information tha t Mr. O’Brien was 

in Miami, this seemed to change his timetable for the rest of the 

week. Th at week at several different points he told me he would 

like to get my identification sewed up and get me down to Miami.

He had to confer with some other individuals regarding this, so if I 

was approved I would be going to Miami.

Senator Weicker. Now, on J une 16, at around 4:30 p.m., did Mr.

McCord appear in the room at the Howard Johnson?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, he appeared at Howard Johnson.

Senator Weicker. What were your activities and his activities 

between 4:30 in the afternoon and 10 o’clock in the evening?

Mr. Baldwin. Do you want every detail, Senator?

Senator Weicker. I would like you to tell in a broad na rrative sense 

the committee as to what he did . *-

Mr. Baldwin. He gave me several instructions to buy some items 

for him, which I did, try to obtain some batteries, regular flashlight 

batteries, and what he called speaker wire which is regular wire.

I couldn’t get the wire, so subsequently he left the room and went out.

Pa rt of the activity, he tested some type of a device on the phone. He 

tested a freestanding device next to the television, the—it has on it, 

fire alarm unit on it, I believe. So based—and I did some soldering of 

some batteries together during the course of that time.

He made phone calls, I believe, received one or two phone calls in 

the room. It was tha t general activity up to the point where he 

decided—the difficulty was there was a gentleman working in the 

Democratic committee.

Senator Weicker. Did you know at tha t time he had planned to go 

into the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Baldwin. No, not until he was on the phone at one point that he 

said, “We still can’t go over there because there is somebody working,” 

and then I looked across and there was somebody working in the 

Democratic headquarters. He then told me, “We don’t know whether 

we are going to abort.” Approximately a half hour or so later this 

individual left and the decision was made to go across the street.

Senator Weicker. At 10 p.m., then, was it your contention tha t 

Mr. McCord left the room?

Mr. Baldwin. I don’t know the exact time—no, no, he left later 

than 10 p.m.; you mean to go to the Democratic headquarters?

Senator Weicker. Yes. *

Mr. Baldwin. He left at one point to go buy some equipment at a 

radio discount store or some place and then returned and then subsequent to tha t he again went across, then he left to go to the—across 

the stre et to the Democratic National Committee.

Senator Weicker. Did he give you any instructions as to what your 

role would be on tha t particular evening?

Mr. Baldwin. The only instructions tha t I received was just prior 

to him leaving, he removed a walkie-talkie unit, I believe hooked onto 

his belt or he had it inside a belt loop, put it on the table next to the 

television set and he sai d:

I am going across the stre et, we have got some people over there, I want you to 

watch. If you see anything, anyth ing a t all, any activity get on this unit and let 

us know.
403

That was it. He didn’t tell me any type of a radio call to use. He 

didn’t tell me any type of a code name. That was the sum exten t of 

his instructions.

Senator Weicker. In other words, would i t be safe to say tha t he 

asked you to report over the walkie-talkie any unusual activity but 

without specifying wha t it was tha t he was going to do or w hat the 

operation in the Watergate was going to be?

Mr. Baldwin. He said: “Anything you see, any activity you see, 

across the street you jus t get on this unit and let us know,” and with 

that he walked out of the room.

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, in your own narrative, 

describe to the committee your role and what you observed in the 

early morning hours of June 17.

Mr. Baldwin. The first thing I observed was, while I was on the 

balcony, just standing on the balcony, it was a beautiful night, I 

was out there-----

Senator Weicker. Is this balcony, Mr. Baldwin, as we take a look 

at the picture, on the seventh floor?

Mr. Baldwin. Room 723, tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. Of the Howard Johnson Motel?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Please continue.

Mr. Baldwin. And I observed the guard, there was a guard standing in front of the building at 2600 directly across the Watergate 

complex. I was watching this individual when a car stopped and 

three men alighted and proceeded inside the headquarters. I didn’t 

really pay any attention. The gentlemen-----

Senator Weicker. Mr. Baldwin, again I don’t want you to get 

ahead of yourself, you were out on the balcony?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Following the general instruction-----

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker [continuing]. Of Mr. McCord to observe anything unusual, is tha t correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. The walkie-talkie was inside the room?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, did you hear any conversations, prior to 

the arrival-----

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir.

Senator Weicker [continuing]. Of any car or any individual?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir, I did not.

Senator Weicker. You did not.

Did you observe an ything across the way that was unusual?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. In the way of lights going on or off?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir.

Senator Weicker. Did you see any individuals?

Mr. Baldwin. I saw lights go on, I believe it was just at about, 

subsequent to or jus t around, the time of the arrival of the three 

gentlemen. I do remember observing the three gentlemen leaving the 

car and going into the building.
404

Senator Weicker. All right. Pick it up from there. There were no 

observations up until the time the car arrived and these three gentlemen got out, right?

Mr. B aldwin. The first thing that really stuck in my mind was the 

eighth floor of the building the lights went on on the entire eighth 

floor and when the lights went on on the eighth floor I went inside and 

I picked up the walkie-talkie, and not knowing whether to say, “Unit 

1 to base 1” or how to call I jus t picked up the walkie-talkie and I 

believe I used both designations, you know, unit 1, I might have even 

said, “Base headquarters, base 1, to any unit, do you read me?” And 

the voice came on, back, “I read you, go on. W hat have you got.”

I said, “The lights just went on on the entire eighth floor.”

They said, “We know about th at th at is the 2 o’clock guard check.” 

They said, “OK, let us know if anything else happens.”

I put the walkie-talkie down and I proceeded out on the balcony 

again. I noticed the light flicker on the sixth floor of the Democratic 

headquarters to the extreme right. They just went on briefly and went 

off. I went back inside and picked up the walkie-talkie and was standing in the doorway when I observed these individuals coming out on 

the balcony of the Democratic National Committee.

Senator Weicker. Which individuals are you referring to?

Mr. Baldwin. There were two individuals. Do you want me to 

describe them?

Senator Weicker. I want you to describe to the committee what you 

saw th at night.

Mr. Baldwin. One individual had on what I would call a windbreaker, appeared to have a university emblem and a university 

written across one of the pockets, the chest area. The other individual 

had a weapon out and, both of them were casually dressed. One individual had sort of long blond hair, a stocky built individual.

As I observed them I called over the walkie-talkie again “Base 1, 

unit 1, are our people in suits or are they dressed casually?” And the 

call came back, “Our people are dressed in suits. Why?”

I said, “You have some trouble because there are some individuals 

out here who are dressed casually and have got their gun out,” and 

the guy on the other end went a little bit frantic. [Laughter.]

I put the walkie-talkie down and I continued to hear “Are you reading us? Are you telling us? Hello, hello.”

I knew they were not calling me, I stood out on the balcony and 

watched as they continued to search the building, a third individual 

had turned the lights on and there were three now searching.

Senator Weicker. Were you able to observe anyone else on the 

stree t below?

Mr. Baldwin. I don’t directly recall at tha t specific point, Senator, 

in time right now.

Senator Weicker. Why don’t you continue your narrative then?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, the individuals then went into the office and 

proceeded to the left of the building and as they passed through, the 

corridor light was on and as they passed by various office doors 

eventually they went out of sight and I didn’t see them.

I believe it was about this time that a voice came over the unit tha t 

said, “They have got us,” a whisper something like, “They have got 

us,” and then what I believe was Mr. McCord’s voice in the distance
405

saying, “Are you gentlemen metropolitan police?” or something to 

tha t effect. Then another voice came on, he said, “Are you still across the 

street?” and I thou ght if somebody is listening, you know, I didn’t 

know what was going on, I said, “ Yes, I am,” and they said, “Well, 

we will be right over.” Subsequently to that I saw two individuals walking out between 

the Watergate building directly across and the one closest to the 

Capitol Building, they came out an alleyway.

Senator Weicker. Can you identify those two individuals?

Mr. Baldwin. One of the gentlemen looked up at me, I was still on 

the balcony, he was Mr. Sturgis. The other individual was dressed in 

a windbreaker and I believe casual shirt. The other gentleman was dressed in a suit and from my observation he didn’t look up but I had 

the belief it was Mr. Liddy.

Senator Weicker. Did you see Mr. Hunt go over to the Howard 

Johnson Motel?

Mr. Baldwin. They walked up in front of this far complex, almost 

directly in front of t ha t lobby, got into a car and proceeded up the stre et and as soon as they went in the car another voice came over the walkie-talkie and said, “I am on my way,” and approximately 2 

or 3 minutes later Mr. Hu nt came into the room.

Senator Weicker. All right, Mr. Hunt came into the room.

Will you describe Mr. Hun t’s entry into the room?

Mr. Baldwin. Everything?

Senator Weicker. Everything.

Mr. Baldwin. Well, he proceeded over and I was standing there in 

the balcony area and he crouched down behind a table and said, “What is going on, what is going on?” And ju st about this time they were leading Mr. McCord and the other gentleman out of the lobby 

and there were all kinds of police cars there and I was standing on the 

balcony, “C’mon, see.”

He says, “I have got to use the bathroom.” He went into the bathroom and he came o ut and he said, “I have 

got to call a lawyer, where is your phone?” I said, “It is right there.” And he went over, he dialed a direct dial number because in the motel 

room if you want to place a long distance call you have to go through the desk, so he dialed 8 as I would do when I would dial a local 

number and he dialed a direct number. I paid no attention to the 

conversation. I proceeded to the balcony, continued to watch and, I did hear him say, “I have $5,000 cash on me now, Al, for bail or 

bonds if you need it,” and something to the effect, “will you go right 

down or should I go down,” and I believe that was it. He then proceeded to give me instructions w hat to do with the equipment.

Senator Weicker. Wha t were those instructions?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, he removed a walkie-talkie, put it on the bed, 

and told me to pack up everything, I believe his expresstion was 

“Get it the hell out of here, get yourself the hell out of here, go somewheres. Where are you going to go?”

I said, “Well, I am going to Connecticut.”

He said, “Well, go.” He said, “We will be in touch, you will get 

furth er instructions.” He said, “I want you to take all of this equipment to Mr. McCord’s house.”
406

I had a little debate with him about tha t, I said, “Well, there are 

two of you and there is only one of me. Why can’t somebody drive 

you back if you go out there? I have no way to get back.”

He said, “Mrs. McCord or somebody will drive you back. You 

work that out,” and he proceeded to go out the door and he went 

down to the elevator.

Senator Weicker. You say now he w ent out the door, and was he 

running down the hall or walking?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, he was. He was departing-----

Senator Weicker. Did you say anything to him as he went running 

down the hall?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, I did.

Senator Weicker. What did you say to him?

Mr. Baldwin. I asked him if this mea nt I wasn’t going to Miami? 

[Laughter.]

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Baldwin, did you accidentally in the 

course of cleaning up the room, did you accidentally pick up certain 

memos from Mr. McCord’s bag and, if so, could you describe the 

nature of those memos?

Mr. B aldwin. Th at is correct. After I was given the instructions to 

pack up everything and get out, which meant putting all the electronic 

equipment away, Mr. McCord’s briefcase was open, he had left his 

wallet, I didn’t see him leave his wallet. He had put his wallet, all his 

change, his car keys, all his personal effects were on the bed. I proceeded to put those inside his briefcase, inside his briefcase, and attache 

case, and then I proceeded to collect all of the logs, not the logs of, I 

believe there was one, might have been one, call tha t day that was still 

in the room on the logsheet and I p ut that with all the yellow pad into 

his briefcase and at the time I did I took everything off the table that 

was the work area, and along with that went an insurance book that 

had the dates in it, tha t I had been keeping for myself, and I threw all 

tha t material into Mr. McCord’s briefcase, and when I realized I 

had put my own personal notebook in there, and the yellow pad, I 

proceeded to remove those and I didn’t stop to separate the papers, I 

just threw them into my attach^ case and when I arrived back in Connecticut I had some memorandums tha t belonged to Mr. McCord. T 

immediately wrote him a letter telling him that.

Senator Weicker. You still have these memorandums?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct. I have those memorandums.

Senator Weicker. Would you care to turn those over to the committee at this time?

Mr. Chairman, these are memorandums, in most instances, of a 

rath er routine nature.

By way of identification, I would identify them as follows, and the 

originals are now being given to the committee.

Senator Ervin. Would you like to have them marked for identification?

Senator Weicker. I would very much like to have them marked for 

identification and ultimately as exhibits. There are two memorandums 

which are personnel reports on individuals who had made application to 

work a t the Committee To Re-Elect the President. There is further a 

memorandum which is on a Committee for the Re-Election of the 

President heading. It is to Mr. Robert Odle from James McCord, and 

it describes or relates to security at the Republican Convention.
Then also, there is a group of papers, a group of papers which I 

would best describe as relating to Jack Anderson. The memorandum at the top is “Confidential, subject: Jack Anderson” , and it is signed James McCord. This group of papers relates to Mr. Anderson.

Senator E rvin. Let the record show that each paper writing identi­ fied by the witness will be appropriately numbered and received as an exhibit, the reporter assigning the appropriate number. [The documents referred to were marked for identification, com­ mittee exhibits Nos. 15A, 15B, 15C, and 15D (in camera) and are no t for publication. They will be retained in the files of the committee.]

Mr. Baldwin. The committee can retain them, I have no use for 

them at all.

Senator Weicker. Am I correct, Mr. Baldwin, that these are all of 

the memorandums which you accidentally took from Mr. McCord’s effects and have held in your possession? Are there any others aside 

from the ones I have mentioned here?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir. There are no others.

Senator Weicker. Now, recently there have been suggestions, 

Mr. Baldwin, you were a double agent working for the Democrats.

Senator E rvin. I believe tha t counsel doubts whether the memorandum relating to Jack Anderson should be made public.

Senator Weicker. I have not tried to reveal the contents of any of these memorandums but just for identification purposes, I have turned 

them over to the committee.

Senator Ervin. Mark them for identification rather than exhibits.

Senator Weicker. Recently there have been-----

Senator Ervin. They will not be printed in the record unless the 

committee orders it at a subsequent time.

Senator Weicker. I think what I have tried to do here, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that names are protected but whatever memor- randums this man had in his possession that came to him tha t night will come to the committee and not be embarrassing.

Senator Ervin. They will not be publicly released or printed in the record but they will be marked for appropriate identification purposes 

rather than as exhibits.

Senator Weicker. Now, again to repeat, Mr. Baldwin, recently 

there have been suggestions tha t you were a double agent working for the Democrats. I want you to describe to this committee, first of all, any incidents that may have led to such comments being made.

Mr. Baldwin. Well, I believe the No. 1 incident may be the fact tha t I was not a defendant in the criminal action tha t preceeded this incident. There have also been incidents in the paper tha t Mrs. Mitchell has at tributed to the fact tha t I had stated to her on several occasions tha t I was a Democrat. I do have Democratic friends, I 

would not deny that. [Laughter.] But I have been a registered Republican since I have been old enough to vote, so I do not know if tha t makes any difference, and, at the time of the trial, the criminal trial I am speaking of, of the defendants, during the course of the days tha t we were roomed at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the conversation was initiated on several oc­ casions by one or two of the detectives tha t the only way I could have gotten away was the fact I was a double agent. There was some kidding back and forth amongst police officers, and tha t, to the best of my
408

knowledge, is the only indication that I have of other than the fact 

that I heard statem ents made by different individuals that I was a 

double agent.

Senator Weicker. Was there not one additional incident which 

actually came to the attention of Mr. McCord?

Mr. Baldwin [conferring with his attorney]. I believe, Senator— 

are you referring to during the course of my employment in Washington 

where I had a date with an individual young lady tha t happened to 

work for the Democratic—for an official of the Democratic Party?

Senator Weicker. Yes.

Mr. Baldwin. I do n ot believe that would have led Mr. McCord *

to believe I was a double agent. As a ma tter of fact, he wanted me to 

exploit that and obtain all the information I could obtain from her. 

[Laughter.]

And I kind of refused to go along with that. *

Senator Weicker. But just so your entire story is complete, Mr.

Baldwin, it is true tha t you were with a young lady who was in the 

employ of an official of the Democratic Party, is that correct?

Mr. B aldwin. Well, she was in the employment of an attorney who 

had an affiliation with the Democratic Party organization in the 

Washington, D.C., area. I do not mean to imply tha t he was an official 

working at the Democratic National Committee offices. He had a law 

office in the Washington, D.C., area and she worked for him. She was 

going to the convention for the Democratic Party. I mean, she told 

me that, thought we might see each other down there.

Senator Weicker. Right. But, in other words, these are the only 

three incidents tha t you can bring to mind that might have given rise 

to any speculation as to your being a double agent in this matter, is 

tha t correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Tha t is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, would you state to the committee your own 

feelings on this matter?

Have you received, at any time, any promise of payment, any 

income, from anyone associated with the Democratic Par ty?

Mr. Baldwin. Absolutely none. As a matter of fact, I have 3 weeks 

of pay from the Republican committee tha t I have not been paid for 

either. [Laughter.]

Senator Weicker. And lastly, Mr. Baldwin, would you just give 

the committee a very brief description of your professional background 

prior to being employed by the Committee To Re-Elect the President? ♦

Specifically, did you work for the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. Baldwin. Correct. I graduated from the Fairfield University 

in 1957. I entered the U.S. Marine Corps. I was a member of the 

Marine Corps Reserve with the rank of captain. I am no longer a 

member of the Reserve. I then entered law school in 1960. Upon grad- *

uation from law school I entered the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

as a special agent. I resigned from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I worked for the circuit court system in the State of Connecticut and, 

at the same time, I was also an instructor in police science at a local 

university.

Senator Weicker. You testified here today th at you took an active 

role in what you must have known were illegal phone taps or breaking 

in and, as you have just stated, you are a former FBI agent, graduate
of a law school, associated with various law enforcement agencies, and 

my final question is: Why did you, with this type of background, take 

part in such activities?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, with this background, Senator, I have been in organizations where I have always taken orders. I did not question the legality of the operation because of several factors. I had come down from Connecticut to work for the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi­ dent, and tha t was the President’s organization, as far as I was concerned. Mr. Mitchell was head of the organization. Every indi­ vidual tha t I was introduced to or that was pointed out to me I was advised “This is a White House consultant, this is a White House aide, they are on loan. As soon as the election is over in November they go back to the White House, Al, if we do a good job here.” My sole goal was to obtain permanent employment, and Mr. McCord had been, I knew that he was, an ex-FBI agent, that he had been in the CIA and, based on the credentials of all these people I did not question—possibly that was a wrong assumption on my part, not to have questioned, but I did not—the legality of it. I have been asked if it entered my mind whether I thought it was illegal. I realize tha t there are wiretaps that are illegal but I also realize t ha t under certain conditions such a wiretap can be ordered or authorized by specific individuals, and I felt that I was in no position to question John Mitchell or anyone else under his command, including Mr. McCord.

Senator Weicker. But it is also true, Mr. Baldwin, you never 

received any direct order from Mr. John Mitchell relative to that 

phone tap?

Mr. Baldwin. Othe r th an reference to Mr. Mitchell if I obtained—- if I was involved in any difficulty establishing my authority for being in a certain place or the fact of the weapon I was to mention John 

Mitchell.

Senator Weicker. With the exception, with the exception of the 

time when you took a trip to Chicago, Detroit, and Westchester County with Mrs. Mitchell, you received all your orders from Mr. 

McCord, isn’t that correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. Now, ju st to finish up on the time sequence, you 

left the Howard Johnson on the morning, early morning of the 17 th 

of June, is t ha t correct?

Mr. Baldwin. Th at is correct.

Senator Weicker. And where did you go to from the Howard 

Johnson?

Mr. Baldwin. I proceeded to Connecticut.

Senator Weicker. Did you first go to the McCord home?

Mr. Baldwin. Oh, I assumed, Senator, you had covered the fact tha t I had delivered the items of equipment to Mr. McCord’s home. Mrs. McCord drove me back to Washington. I then took my own 

personal car and returned to Connecticut.

Senator Weicker. All right. Mr. Chairman, this is all the questioning I have for Mr. Baldwin. There are events of which counsel knows tha t transpired after Mr. Baldwin’s arrival in Connecticut which is something that the committee should go into further.

I have no furth er questions.
410

Senator E rvin. Did you ask Mr. Baldwin about what he did with 

the information he got from the wiretap?

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I could have possibly missed 

such a question, I will ask him again in any event. To whom did you 

gave this information, the information on the wiretaps?

Mr. Baldwin. Other than the time I delivered it to the Committee 

To Re-Elect the President, I gave it to James McCord at all times. 

The onionskins were still in his briefcase the night I locked his briefcase. 

Some of them, I can’t specify that every single copy of the logs were in 

his briefcase, but the n ight I delivered the logs to his home copies of 

quite a few of the conversations were in his briefcase.

Senator Weicker. It is your testimony then tha t you gave these 

items to Mr. McCord with the exception of one time when you 

delivered them to the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct.

Senator Weicker. Whom did you give them to on that occasion?

Mr. Baldwin. I left them with a guard tha t was in the lobby. I 

arrived after 6 o’clock and the guard was stationed in the lobby, the 

offices had been closed.

Senator E rvin. I don’t know whether it was brought out in what 

form he put them in.

How did you take the information which you gave to Mr. McCord 

with the exception of tha t one occasion—what form was it in?

Mr. Baldwin. I am sorry, Senator, do you mean the actual way 

of transcribing?

Senator E rvin. The information you got while you were at the 

Howard Johnson from the Democratic headquarters, wha t form was it 

in when you gave it to Mr. McCord?

Mr. Baldwin. The initial day, the first day that I recorded the 

conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day, I believe it 

is Memorial Day, on the holiday of May, I believe it was, 28th when 

he returned to the room he brought an electric typewriter, he instructed 

me in the upper left-hand corner to print, or by typewriter, the unit, 

the date, the page and then proceed down into the body and in 

chronological order put the time and then the contents of the conversation.

I used, as unit I used, the exact frequency tha t we were monitoring 

and after about 2 days Mr. McCord came back and said change th at, 

anybody reading these things is going to know the frequency.

Senator E rvin. And you typed a summary of the conversations 

you overheard?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, they weren’t exactly a summary, I would say 

almost verbatim, Senator.

Senator Ervin. Almost verbatim.

And the names of the people who, as far as you could identify 

them, were using the phones?

Mr. Baldwin. Well tha t is correct. Initially, it was very hard to 

establish names for maybe the first day or two. But subsequent to 

tha t you see the problem was I had never worked one of the units 

before and after Mr. McCord instructed me on how to operate it, I 

could tune it so tha t the minute the call was either going out or 

coming in I would then be in on the beginning but prior to tha t I 

would receive a little indication on the scope and I would be into the
411

conversation so I would not know who they asked for or who was 

calling. Professional, that was correct.

Senator E rvin. Then you gave all the typew ritten transcriptions 

of w hat you heard to Mr. McCord except on one occasion you mentioned?

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct, Senator.

Senator E rvin. You did n ot keep any carbon copies?

Mr. Baldwin. No. Mr. McCord had the onionskins and they were 

still in his briefcase the night I locked it.

Senator Baker. Mr. Baldwin, it is 10 minutes after 5 in the afternoon. Rather than proceed much furth er with the questioning, I am going to ask you a question or so, or ra ther, a few questions about a topic or so. Counsel and other members of the committee necessarily will defer their questions until later. May I assume you are agreeable 

to returning at the committee’s pleasure to answer questions?

Mr. Baldwin. Yes.

Senator Baker. The first witness we have had in a long time who has 

been able to smile. On the night in question, or, rather, the morning of June 17, 1972, 

when you were standing on the balcony of Howard Johnson’s, you testified tha t you saw the lights come on on the eighth floor, you saw two men on the balcony of the sixth floor, you called on your walkie- talkie on the second occasion and said, are your men dressed casually? Someone replied, no, they are dressed in business suits. Did you know 

whom you were talking to?

Mr. Baldwin. No, I did not, Senator.

Senator Baker. Who had you been talking to previously inside the 

Democratic National Convention?

Mr. Baldwin. With the walkie-talkie? Well, I hadn’t used the 

walkie-talkie with anybody. Mr. McCord had used the walkie-talkie 

at all times. As I say, he had gone across the street.

Senator Baker. Could you distinguish from the quality of the 

reception whom you were talking to? Could you recognize the voice?

Mr. Baldwin. McCord’s voice I could recognize. My assumption 

that I had to make was t ha t there were two other units besides mine in operation, one u nit that was turned on and the other unit tha t was turned off, because it was very obvious that one of the units was not on 

at a particular point.

Senator Baker. All I am striving for is to know if you could identify 

the person you were communicating with when you asked, are your 

men dressed casually?

Mr. Baldwin. I would be taking a—I am not positive of it, but at 

this point, I would not want to implicate somebody without being positive of it. I would recognize the voice subsequently as being 

Mr. Hu nt’s, since I have heard it on several occasions.

Senator Baker. Hu nt was inside the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. B aldwin. Senator, I did not know where any of the individuals 

were other than Mr. McCord, when he walked across the street. I had 

no knowledge how many or who were across the street.

Senator Baker. The voice who replied, “No, our men are in business suits,” was not Mr. McCord’s?

Mr. Baldwin. Absolutely. I would know Mr. McCord’s.

96-29 6 0 -7 3 - bk. 1—27
412

Senator Baker. And it is your best judgment tha t it was Mr. Hu nt’s 

voice?

Mr. B aldwin. Having heard it subsequently, yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Have you subsequently learned tha t Mr. Hu nt was 

not inside the Democratic National Committee but rather was in the 

Howard Johnson Hotel?

Mr. B aldwin. No, I learned Mr. Hunt was in the W atergate Hotel 

directly behind the Watergate Office Building.

Senator Baker. That is what I mean to say. He was inside the 

Watergate Hotel, but not in the Democratic National Committee?

Mr. Baldwin. T hat is right, he was in that part of the hotel tha t #

was to the rear of the Democratic National Committee.

Senator Baker. So as far as you can tell, your inquiry about clothing 

never reached anyone within the Democratic National Committee 

headquarters? *

Mr. Baldwin. That is correct. The only indication I had of any 

communication was when the gentleman got on and said, “They have 

got us,” in a whisper. Then, what I would definitely describe as Mr.

McCord’s voice saying, “Are you gentlemen metropolitan police?”

Senator B aker. Did you know the officers who arrested-----

Mr. Baldwin. I did not at the time. I do now.

Senator B aker. Had you ever known any of them before?

Mr. Baldwin. No, sir. I had —during the course of the trial, we 

communicated. Mr. Shoffler and I had observed each other in several 

of the demonstrations, I believe. I remember observing him and I think 

he remembers observing me. We were both using the same phone to 

call in.

Senator Baker. What do you mean you were using the same phone 

to call in?

Mr. Baldwin. Well, you have to make reports every 2 or 3 hours.

Mr. McCord wanted activ ity reports, whether or not any groups were 

moving or what groups were there, who was there. And several times,

I was the only one there.

Senator Baker. Are you speaking about Mr. Shoffler using the same 

phone?

Mr. Baldwin. No, the day of the Capitol demonstrations, and I 

believe before the march to the Capitol, there were several days of 

preparation for the march and there was gatherings around the Washington Monument, several campsites set out. I think we crossed paths 

on several occasions, because both of us were dressed in fatigue jackets. *

We sort of remembered each other.

And he finally said, oh, now I know who you were.

Senator Baker. Did you recognize him on the balcony-----

Mr. Baldwin. I did not, no. He was the gentleman on—you see, on 

this subsequent date, it was Sergeant Leeper, I believe. The sergeant, <

when he came out, stood there and observed Detective Shoffler. He was 

the gentleman who was proceeding along the balcony in a rath er 

dangerous situation, so he was more or less looking around the side

of the building. He had a flashlight, but I could no t say for a fact, at 

that time, at tha t time it was the same man. We did not realize this 

until we were at the trial that we had been at demonstrations, after 

we got talking together.
413

Senator Baker. Mr. Baldwin, the hour is late and I have other 

questions as Senator Weicker probably does, and the chairman, but 

I am going to stop now with your assurance already given tha t you 

will return when we meet.

Mr. Baldwin. Yes, sir.

Senator Ervin. It is satisfactory to excuse the witness, with the 

understanding that he will return when we meet again.

We will adjourn until Tuesday morning, June 5, at 10 a.m., in this 

room.

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene a t 

♦ 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 5, 1973.]

415

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

By SENATOR ERVIN

Rules of Procedure

FOR THE

SELECT CO MMITTE E ON

PRESIDE NTIAL CA MP AIGN AC TIVITIES

WITH

GUIDELINES, and 

S. RES. 60 (93 d Cong.)

S. RES. 278 (91 sf Cong.)

United States Senate

PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
SE NA TE SELECT COM M IT TEE O N

PR ESIDEN TIAL C A M P A IG N

AC TIVITIES CO NTE NTS

Established by S. Res. 60

93d Congress, 1st Session

Pa ge

Rule s of Procedure------------------------ 1

★ Guid eline s of the Select Com mittee on

Presidentia l Campaign Ac tivitie s.— 15

S. Res. 60 (93d Co ng .)_____________ 21

S. Res. 278 (91 st Co ng .)........................ 39

Sam J . Ervin, J r .. N .C ., C h a ir m a n

Howard H. Baker, J r ., T en n ., V ic e C h a ir m a n

Herm an E . Talmadge, Ga. Edward J . Gurney, F la .

Dan iel K. I nouye, H a w a ii Lowell P . Weicker, J r ., C on n.

J osep h M. Mon to ya, N . M ex .

Sam uel Da sh , C h ie f C ou nee l a n d S ta ff D ir e cto r

Fred D. T homp son , M in o rit y Cou ne cl

Ruf us L . Edm ist en, D e p u ty Cou nee l

II

416

III

* 9 ♦
RULES OF PROCEDURE 

FOR THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON

PRESIDENTIAL CA MP AIGN 

ACTIVITIES

1. Pr elim inary inv est iga tions may be initi ated by the com mittee staff wi th the appro val o f th e Ch air ma n or at his dire ctio n.

2. Com mittee he arings or meetin gs shall 

be conducted by the Ch airma n or mem ber 

designated by t he C hairman.

3. The Ch air ma n shall give each member 

written notice of the subje ct of and scope of 

any he arings 24 hours pr io r to the tim e such 

he aring is to beg in wi thin th e Distri ct of 

Columbia; oth erw ise 48 hours pr io r the ret o. 

No hearings sh all then be held if any m ember 

objects unless upon th e sub sequen t app rov al 

of the major ity of the comm ittee.

4. The Ch airma n shall hav e au thor ity to 

call meetin gs of the com mittee which au thor ­

ity he may delegate to any othe r mem ber. 

Mem bers shall hav e a t le ast 24 hou rs notice of 

any me eting of th e com mittee wi thin the Distr ic t of Columbia; oth erw ise 48 hours pr ior 

there to.

l

Should a major ity of the members reque st the Ch air ma n in writin g to call a 

me eting of the comm ittee and should the 

Ch air ma n fail to call such meet ing with ­

in 10 days th er ea fter , such m ajority ma y 

call a meeting by filing a writ ten notice 

wi th the Clerk who shall p rom ptly noti fy 

each member of the committee in w ri ting. If the Ch airma n is no t presen t at an y such meeting, and has no t des ignated an othe r member to conduct the 

meetin g, the rank ing major ity member 

presen t sh all preside.

5. A quo rum fo r the tra ns ac tio n of committee business shall con sist o f a m ajor ity of 

the com mittee mem bers . Unle ss oth erw ise 

specified in these rule s, decisions of the committee shall be by a major ity of votes cast. 

Fo r the purpo se of he aring witnesses, taking 

testim ony , and receiving evidence, a quo rum 

will con sist of one Senator.

6. No person shall be allowed to be presen t 

du rin g a hea rin g or me eting held in executive 

session except members a nd employees of the 

committee, the witnes s and his counsel, 

ste nographers, or in terp re ters of the committee. Other pers ons whose presence is re ­

quested or consented to by the m ajor ity of the 

mem bers of the com mittee presen t may be

2

417
admitted to such sessions.

7. It shall be the duty of the Clerk and staff 

director to keep or cause to be kept a record of 

all committee proceedings, including the record of votes on any m atter on which a record 

vote is taken and of all quorum calls together 

with all motions, points of order, parliamentary inquiries, rulings of the chair and appeals therefrom. The record shall show 

those members present a t each meeting. Such record shall be available to any member of the 

committee upon request.

8. A vote by any member of the committee 

with respect to any measure or matter being 

considered by the committee may be cast by 

proxy providing the proxy authorization is in 

writing to the Chairman, designating the 

person who is to execute the proxy authorization, and is limited to a specific measure or 

matter and any amendments pertaining thereto. Proxies shall not be considered for the establishment of a quorum.

9. Subpenas for attendance of witnesses 

and the production of memoranda, documents, and records may be issued by the Chairman or any other member designated by 

him, and may be served by any person designated by such Chairman or member. Authorization for the issuance of a subpena shall be

given by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of 

the committee, or both, or by the majority of 

the members of the committee present at a meeting, if either the Chairman or Vice Chairman or both requests tha t the authorization for the issuance of any particular subpena or subpenas be decided by the committee.

10. Each subpena shall be accompanied by 

a copy of the Senate resolution authorizing 

the investigation with respect to which the 

witness is summoned to testify or to produce 

papers.

11. Witnesses shall be subpenaed at a reasonably sufficient time in advance of any 

hearing in order to give the witness an opportunity to prepare for the hearing, employ oo 

counsel should he so desire, and /or produce 

documents, books, records, memoranda, and 

papers called for by a subpena duces tecum.

The committee shall determine, in each pa rticular instance, what period of time constitutes reasonable notice; however in no case 

shall it be less than 24 hours.

12. Except when publication is authorized 

by the Chairman, no member of the committee 

or staff shall make public the name of any 

witness subpenaed before the committee or 

release any information to the public relating to a witness under subpena or the issuance of

3

r

4
4

ot *

a sub pen a pr io r to the tim e and date set fo r 

his a ppear anc e.

13. All witnesses ap pe aring before the 

committee, pu rsua nt to subpena, shall be 

furnish ed a printed copy of the rules of pro ­

cedure of the com mittee.

14. All witnesses at public or executive 

inv est iga tive h earin gs shall give all testimony 

under oath or affirmation whi ch shall be admi nis tered by the Chairma n or a member of 

the comm ittee.

15. The tim e and orde r of interro ga tio n of 

witnesses ap pe aring before the committee 

shall be controlled by the Chairma n. In te rrogation of witnesses at com mittee heari ngs 

shall be cond ucted by com mittee m embers and 

autho rized committee staff person nel only.

16. Any objection raised by a witnes s or 

his counsel to p rocedu res or to th e adm issibility of testim ony and evidence shall be rule d 

upon by the Ch airma n or presiding member 

and such rulings shall be the rulin gs of the 

comm ittee, unless a dis agree me nt there on is 

expressed by a m ajor ity of the com mittee 

pre sen t. In the case of a tie, the rule of the 

Ch air will prevail.

17. Any witnes s desir ing to make a pr epar ed or w rit ten sta temen t f or th e record s of 

the p roce edin gs shall file a copy o f such stat e6

me nt wi th the counsel of the com mittee 24 

hours in advance of the h earin gs a t w hich the 

sta temen t is to be pre sen ted , un less th e C hairma n waives the req uir em ent. All such stat ements or portio ns thereo f so received which 

are relevant and ger ma ne to the subje ct of 

inv est iga tion may, at the conclusion of the 

testim ony of the witnes s and wi th the appro val of a major ity of the committee mem ­

bers be ins ert ed in the official tran sc ript of 

the proceed ings.

18. A witness may mak e a sta tem ent, 

which shall be brief and rel evant to the subjec t m at ter of his exa mination, at the beg inning and conclusion of his testim ony . Each 

such s tat em en t shall not exceed three m inu tes 

unless an extension of tim e is autho rized by 

the Chairma n. However, sta teme nts which 

tak e the for m of person al att acks by th e witness upon the motives of the committee, the 

person al ch aracter of any members of the 

Congress or of the com mittee staff, and 

intem perat e sta tem ents, are no t deemed to 

be rel evant or germane, shall no t be made, 

and may be strick en fro m the record of the 

proceedings.

19. All witnesses at public or executive 

heari ngs shall have the righ t to be accom ­

pan ied by counsel. Any witnes s who desires

&

419
counsel bu t who is unable to secure counsel 

may in for m the committee at le ast 24 ho urs in 

adv ance of his appeara nce of his ina bil ity to 

re tain counsel and the com mittee will endea vor to secure vo luntary counsel fo r the 

witness. How ever, failu re to secure counsel 

will no t excuse t he witnes s f rom appearing.

20. Counsel retai ned by any witnes s and 

accompanying such witne ss shall be pe rmitted to be present du rin g the testim ony of 

such witnes s at a ny public or executive h ea ring. The sole and exclusive prero gativ e of t he counsel shall be to advise such witne ss while he is testify ing of his leg al righ ts a nd c ons titution al rig hts. Provided, however, th at any Governme nt officer or employee being in te rrog ate d by the staff or testify ing before the 

committee and elec ting to hav e his person al 

counsel presen t shall not be pe rm itted to select such counsel fro m the employees or 

officers of any Gove rnm ent agency.

21. A witness shall not be excused fro m 

testi fying in the ev ent his counsel is not pr esent or is ejected fo r con tum acy o r disord erly 

con duct; nor shall counsel fo r th e witnes s 

coach the w itness, answ er f or the witness, or pu t words in the witne ss’ mou th. The failu re 

of any witne ss to secure counsel shall not 

excuse such witnes s fro m att endance in re7

sponse to subpena.

22. At the conclusion of the interro ga tio n of 

his client, counsel shall be pe rm itted to make 

such reason able and pe rti ne nt req uests upon 

the committee, includ ing the testim ony of 

oth er witnesses or presen tat ion of other evidence, as he shall deem neces sar y to prote ct his client’s rig hts. These req uests shall be 

ruled upon by the committee members 

pre sen t.

23. Counsel fo r witnesses shall conduct 

him self in a professional, ethical, and prop er 

ma nner. His failu re to do so shall, upon a finding to th at effect by a m ajor ity of the committee mem bers p res ent, subje ct such counsel to dis cip linary action which may include 

wa rning , censure , rem oval of counsel fro m 

the he aring room, or a recommenda tion of 

con tem pt proceedings.

24. There sha ll be no d ire ct or cross-examination by counsel ap pe aring fo r a witness. 

However, the counsel may sub mit in writin g 

any questions he wishes propou nde d to his client or to any other witnes s. With the consent of the m ajor ity o f t he m embers pre sen t, such q uestion or question s sha ll be pu t to the 

witnes s by th e Chairma n, by a no ther member 

or by counsel of the com mittee either in the 

origin al for m or in modified langua ge. The

8

420

W »
*

¥ •

decision of the com mittee as to the adm issib ilit y of que stio ns sub mitted by counsel fo r 

a witness, as well as th ei r form , shall be final.

25. Any perso n who is the subje ct of an 

inv estig ati on in public heari ng s may sub mit 

to the Ch air man q ues tions in writin g fo r the 

cro ss-exa mination of the witnesses. Th eir 

for mu lat ion and admissibility sha ll be decided by the com mittee in acco rdance with 

rule 25.

26. Any per son whose nam e is mentioned 

or who is specifically identified, and who believes th at testim ony or other evidence presented at a public he ari ng, or co mment made 

by the co mm ittee member or counsel, ten ds to 

defame him or oth erw ise adv ersely a ffect his 

rep utati on , may (a) req uest to ap pe ar pe rsonally before the com mittee to testify on h is 

own beh alf, or, in the altern ative; (b) file a 

sworn statemen t of fa cts rel evant to the tes timony, or othe r evidence or commen t complai ned of. Such req uest and such sta teme nt 

shall be subm itte d to the com mittee fo r its 

consider ation and action.

27. No tes tim ony tak en or material presen ted in an executive session, or any sum ­

mary or excerpt thereo f sha ll be made available to othe r th an the com mittee members 

and com mittee staff and no such material or

9

testim ony sha ll be mad e pub lic or pre sen ted 

at a public h earin g, either in whole o r in par t, 

unless autho rized by a major ity of the commi tte e members or as oth erw ise provided fo r 

in the se rules.

28. No evidence or testimony, or any s ummary or excer pt thereo f given in executive 

session which the committee determ ine s may 

ten d to defa me, degrade, or inc rim ina te any 

person shall be released, or pre sen ted at a 

public he aring unless such person shall have 

been affo rded the op portu nit y to testify or 

file a sta temen t in rebuttal , and any pertin en t 

evidence or testim ony given by such person, 

or on his behalf, is mad e a par t of the tr an ­

scrip t, sum ma ry, or excerpt p rior to the p ublic rele ase of such portion of the testim ony .

29. A complete and accurat e stenogra phic 

record shall be made of all testim ony at all 

public and executive com mittee hearings.

30. A witnes s shall, upon request, be given 

a reason able opportu nit y before any tr an ­

sc rip t is made public to inspec t in the office of 

the committee the tran sc ript of his t estimony 

to det erm ine wh ethe r it was correctly tr an ­

scribed and m ay be accom panied by his counsel du rin g such inspection. If the witne ss so 

desires, the com mittee will f ur ni sh him a copy 

of h is testimony , a t no expense to the w itness.

10

421
31. Any corrections in the tra ns crip tio n of 

the tes tim ony of the witnes s which the witness desires to make shall be subm itte d in 

writ in g to the committee wi thin 5 days of the 

taking of his testimony . How ever, chan ges 

shall only be m ade fo r the p urp ose of making 

minor gram ma tical cor rection s and editing, 

and not fo r the pur pose of cha nging the s ubstance of the testimo ny. Any questions ar ising with res pect to such editin g shall be 

decided b y t he C hai rman. 32. A copy of th e t estimony g iven in public 

session or th at p ar t of the testimo ny given by 

the witne ss in executive session and subsequently quoted or m ade part of the record in 

a public session shall be m ade availab le to any 

witness at h is expense, if he so requests. Any 

witness shall be given a reas ona ble opportu ­

nit y to inspec t any such public testim ony in 

the comm ittee office.

33. Whenever the Ch airma n so perm its, 

any com mittee he aring th at is open to the 

public m ay be covered, in whole or in p art, by 

telev ision bro adc ast, rad io bro adc ast, and 

still pho tog rap hy, or by any other media coverage, provide d th at such cove rage is ord erly 

and uno btru sive.

34. The coverage of any he aring of the 

committee by television, radio, or still

11

photo gra phy shall be un de r the dir ect su pe rvisio n of the Chairma n, who ma y fo r good 

cause terminate su ch m edia co verage in whole 

or in pa rt, or tak e such othe r action as the 

circ umstance s ma y w ar ra nt .

35. A witnes s may reques t, on gro unds of 

distr actio n, haras sm ent, or physical discomfort, th at du rin g his testimony , television, 

motion p icture , and othe r cam era s and lights 

shall not be directed at him, such r equests to 

be ruled on by the com mittee members pr esen t at the he aring.

36. No recommendation th at a witnes s be 

cited fo r con tem pt of Congres s shall be fo rwarde d to the Senat e unless and until the 

com mittee has, upon notice to all its mem bers, 

met and conside red the alleged con tem pt and 

by a major ity of the com mittee voted th at 

such recommendation be made.

37. All staff members sha ll be confirmed 

by a major ity of the committee. A fter confirm atio n, the Ch air ma n shall ce rti fy staff 

app oin tments to the financial clerk of the 

Sen ate, in wr iting.

38. The C hairm an sh all hav e the a utho rit y 

to utilize the services, inf orma tio n, fac ilities, 

and personnel of the departm ents and est ablish ments of the Governm ent, and to p roc ure 

the tem po rary or interm itt en t services of

12 .

422

* F 

<
♦ * • «

ex pe rts or consultants o r organiza tio ns th ereof to m ake studie s o r assist o r advise the committee with res pect to any m at te r under 

inv est iga tion.

39. In pr ep ar in g fo r or con ducting the 

inv estig ati on and stu dy autho riz ed an d direc ted by the res olu tion crea tin g th is commi ttee the com mittee is emp owe red to exercise the p owers confer red up on com mittees of 

the Senate by section s 6002 and 6005 of tit le 

18 of the Un ited States Code o r a ny other ac t 

of Congress regu latin g the gr an ting of immun ity to w itnesses.

40. All inform ation developed by or made 

kno wn to any me mb er of th e com mittee staff 

sha ll be deemed t o be confiden tial. No member 

of the com mittee sta ff shall com municate to 

any person , othe r th an a m em ber of the commi tte e or an othe r me mb er of th e com mittee 

staff, any substan tiv e inform ation with respe ct to any su bs tan tiv e m at te r related to the 

activitie s of the com mittee. All commun ications w ith the p res s and othe r per son s no t on 

the com mittee or com mittee sta ff i n r espect to 

confiden tial su bs tantive m at te rs sha ll be by 

mem bers of the com mittee only. Official releases of inform ation to th e press on behalf 

of th e com mittee s hall be ma de on ly with th e 

expre ss conse nt of th e Ch airm an and Vice

13

Chairm an.

41. These rules ma y be modified, amended, 

or repealed by a decision of th e committee, 

provided th at a notice in w ritin g of the pr oposed change h as been g iven to each m ember 

at lea st 48 hours pr io r to the resp ective 

action.

14

423
GUIDELINES

OF TH

E

SELECT COMMITTE E ON

PRESIDENTIAL CA MP AIGN

ACTIVITIES

Stat ement of

Sam J. Ervin, Jr ., Chairm an

Howard H. Bake r, Jr ., Vice Chairman

On Monday, A pril 16,1973, the Sele ct Commi tte e on Pr esiden tia l Camp aign Activitie s 

me t and una nim ously ado pted guidelines rega rding tes tim ony and appeara nces of prospectiv e witne sse s before th e Select Com mittee. The te xt follows.

In inve sti ga tin g the m atters mentio ned in 

S. Res. 60, the Senate Select Com mittee on 

Presiden tia l C am paign Activitie s will ob serve 

its sta nd ing rules, its previo usly established 

pro ced ure s f o r staff in ter vie ws of pro spe ctiv e 

witnesses, and these gu idelines:

15

1. The com mittee will receive ora l and 

docume nta ry evidence r ele va nt to t he matters 

S. Res. 60 autho riz es it to investigate and 

matters be aring on th e cre dib ility of the 

witnes ses wh o t es tif y before it.

2. All witnes ses sha ll testify before the 

com mittee on oath or a ffirmation i n heari ng s 

whi ch s hall be open t o th e public an d the news 

media. This guideline shall no t abr idg e, however, the pow er of th e com mittee to take the 

tes tim ony of a pa rtic ul ar w itness on oath or 

affirma tion in an executive me eting if the 

com mittee would oth erw ise be unable to asce rta in wh ethe r the witne ss knows anything 

relev ant to the m atters the com mittee is autho rized to inv est iga te.

3. All still and motion pict ure p hotog rap hy 

will be completed before a witne ss act ual ly 

testifies, and no such photog rap hy sh all occu r 

while the wi tne ss is testifying . Television 

cove rage o f a w itness a nd his test imony shall 

be perm itted, however , un de r the pro visions 

of the Stan din g Rules of the Com mittee.

4. In taki ng th e tes tim ony of a witnesses, 

the com mittee w ill endeav or to do tw o thin gs: 

First, to minimize inconvenience to the witness an d di sru ption of his af fa ir s; and , second, 

to affo rd th e witne ss a fa ir op po rtu nity to 

give his testim ony wi thou t und ue in terru p16

♦ < w <
1

to «

tion. To achieve the first of these objectives, the committee will honor the request of the witness to the extent feasible for advance 

notice of the time and place appointed for taking his testimony, complete the taking of of his testimony with as much dispatch as 

circumstances permit, and release the witness from fu rth er attendance on the committee as soon as circumstances allow, subject, however, to the power of the committee to recall him for further testimony in the event the committee deems such action advisable. 

To afford the witness a fai r opportunity to present his testimony, the committee will per­ mit the witness to make an opening statement not exceeding 20 minutes, which shall not be interrupted by questioning, and a closing 

statement summarizing his testimony, not 

exceeding 5 minutes, which will not be in­ terru pted by questioning: Provided, however, 

questions suggested by the closing statement may be propounded after such statement is 

made.

5. The committee respects and recognizes 

the right of a prospective witness who is in­ terviewed by the staff of the committee in advance of a public hearing as well as the righ t 

of a witness who appears before the committee to be accompanied by a lawyer of his own

17

choosing to advise him concerning his constitutional and legal rights as a witness. 6. If the lawyer who accompanies a witness before the committee advises the witness 

to claim a privilege against giving any testi­ mony sought by the committee, the committee 

shall have the discretionary power to permit 

the lawyer to present his views on the m atter 

for the information of the committee, and the 

committee shall thereupon rule on the validity of the claim or its application to the particular circumstances involved and require the witness to give the testimony sought in the event its ruling on the claim is adverse to the wit­ ness. Neither the witness nor any other officer or person shall be permitted to claim a privilege against the witness testifying prio r to 

the appearance of the witness before the committee, and the committee shall not rule in 

respect to the claim until the question by which the testimony is sought is put to the 

witness.

7. The committee believes tha t it may be 

necessary for it to obtain the testimony of 

some White House aides if the committee is 

to be able to ascertain the complete truth in 

respect to the matters it is authorized to investigate by S. Res. 60. To this end, the com­ mittee will invite such White House aides as

18
it has reason to believe have knowledge or 

information relevant to the matters it is authorized to investigate to appear before the 

committee and give testimony on oath or 

affirmation in open hearings respecting such matters. In this connection, the committee 

will extend to such aides the considerations set forth in detail in guideline No. 4 and the 

right to counsel set forth in detail in guidelines Nos. 5 and 6. In addition to these considerations and rights, the committee will permit the White House to have its own counsel present when any White House aide appeal’s before the committee as a witness, and 

permit such counsel to invoke any claim that 

a privilege available to the President forbids 

a White House aide to give the testimony sought by the committee, and the committee shall thereupon rule on validity of such claim or its application to the particular testimony 

sought in the m anner and with the effect set forth in guideline No. 6 in respect to a claim 

of privilege invoked by a witness or his counsel. The committee will not subpena a White 

House aide to appear before it or its staff unless such aide fails to make timely response 

to an invitation to appear.

8. The committee may require the Sergeant 

at Arms of the Senate, or any of his assist19

ants or deputies, or any available law enforcement officer to eject from a meeting of the committee any person who willfully disrupts the meeting or willfully impedes the committee in the performance of its functions 

under S. Res. 60.

9. Whenever the committee takes testimony through the agency of less than the 

majority of the members of the committee, 

as authorized by its standing rules, the member or members of the committee taking the 

testimony shall be vested with the powers set forth in these guidelines and shall be deemed 

to act as the committee in exercising such powers.

426

20

* >
* • 4

9 6-2 96 O - 73 - bk. S. RES. 60 93

d Congress, 1st Sessio n

IN THE SENATE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

February 5, 1973

Mr. Ervin (for himself and Mr. Mansfield) submitted the following re solution; which was ordered 

to be placed on the calendar.

February 7, 1973 

Considered, amended, and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To establish a select committee of the 

Senate to conduct an investigation and study 

of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper, or unethical activities were engaged 

in by any persons, acting individually or in 

combination with others, in the presidential 

election of 1972, or any campaign, canvass, or 

other activity related to it.

Re solve d, 

Section 1. (a) That there is 

hereby established a select committee of the Senate, which may be called, for convenience 

of expression, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, to conduct an investigation and study of the extent, if any, 

to which illegal, improper, or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting 

either individually or in combination with 

others, in the presidential election of 1972, or 

in any related campaign or canvass conducted 

by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political p arty for the office of President of the United States in such election, and to determine whether in its judgment any occurrences which may be revealed by the investigation 

and study indicate the necessity or desirability 

of the enactment of new congressional legislation to safeguard the electoral process by 

which the President of the United States is 

chosen.

(b) The select committee created by this 

resolution shall consist of seven Members of 

the Senate, four of whom shall be appointed 

by the President of the Senate from the majori ty Members of the Senate upon the recommendation of the majority leader of the 

Senate, and three of whom shall be appointed

427

21 22
by the Pr esiden t of the Sen ate fro m the mino rit y Mem bers of the Senate upon the recommen dati on of the minority leader of the 

Sen ate. Fo r the pur poses of pa ra gr ap h 6 of 

rule XXV of the Sta nding Rules of the Senate , service of a Senator as a mem ber, ch airman, or vice c hairm an of the select committee 

sha ll no t be taken into account.

(c) The select com mittee shall select a 

ch air ma n and vice chair ma n fro m among its 

mem bers , and adopt rules of pro ced ure to 

gover n its proceedings. The vice chairma n 

shall pre sid e over m eetings of the select commi ttee du rin g the abse nce of the chairma n, 

and discharg e such other responsibilitie s as 

ma y be assigned to him by the select comm ittee or the chairma n. Vacancies in the membersh ip of the select com mittee shall not 

affe ct the au thor ity of the rem ain ing memb ers 

to execute the fun ctions of the select commi tte e and shall be filled in the sam e m anner 

as ori gin al appointme nts to it ar e m ade.

(d) A major ity of the members of the 

select committee shall co nstitute a quoru m fo r 

the tran saction of busin ess, bu t the select committee may fix a lesser numb er as a quo rum 

fo r th e pu rpo se of ta ki ng testimony or deposition s.

Sec. 2. T ha t th e select com mittee is a uth or23

ized and directed to do every thing n ece ssary 

or app ropr iate to make the inv est iga tion and 

stu dy specified in section 1(a ). Without 

ab rid ging o r lim iting in any way t he autho rity confe rred upon the selec t committee by the 

pre ced ing sentenc e, the Senate fu rt her expre ssl y autho rizes and dir ects the select commi ttee to make a complete inv est iga tion and 

stu dy o f the activ ities of any and all p ersons 

or g rou ps of person s or organiza tio ns of any 

kind whi ch hav e any tenden cy to reveal the 

full facts in res pect to the following m atters 

or que sti on s:

(1) The b rea kin g, en ter ing , and b uggin g o f th e he ad qu arters o r offices of t he 4^ 

Dem ocra tic Na tional Com mittee in the 00 

W aterga te Bu ilding in Wash ing ton , Distr ic t of Colum bia ;

(2) The mo nit oring by bugging, 

eav esdropping, wi retapp ing , or oth er 

su rre ptitiou s means of con ver sation s or 

communica tions o ccurr ing in whole o r in 

part in the h ea dq ua rte rs o r offices of t he 

Democratic National Com mittee in the 

W aterga te Building in Wa shington, 

Distri ct o f C olumbia;

(3) Whethe r or no t an y pr inted or 

typ ed or writte n docume nt or pa pe r or 

othe r material was su rre ptitiou sly re24

a
t 4

moved from the headquarters or offices 

of the Democratic National Committee 

in the Watergate Building in Washington, District of Columbia, and thereafter 

copied or reproduced by photography or 

any other means for the information of any person or political committee or 

organ ization;

(4) The preparing, transmitting, or 

receiving by any person for himself or 

any political committee or any organization of any report or information concerning the activities mentioned in sub­ division (1), (2), or (3) of this section, 

and the information contained in any 

such report;

(5) Whether any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, 

planned the activities mentioned in subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this 

section, or employed any of the participants in such activities to participate in 

them, or made any payments or promises 

of payments of money or other things of value to the participants in such activities or their families for their activities, 

or for concealing the truth in respect to 

them or any of the persons having any 

connection with them or their activities,

and, if so, the source of the moneys used 

in such payments, and the identities and 

motives of the persons planning such 

activities or employing the participants 

in th em ;

(6) Whether any persons participat­ ing in any of the activities mentioned in 

subdivision (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of 

this section have been induced by brib­ ery, coercion, threats, or any other 

means whatsoever to plead guilty to the 

charges preferred against them in the 

District Court of the District of Columbia or to conceal or fail to reveal any knowledge of any of the activities mentioned in subdivision (1), (2), (3), (4), 

or (5) of this section, and, if so, the 

identities of the persons inducing them 

to do such things, and the identities of 

any other persons or any committees or 

organizations for whom they a cted;

(7) Any efforts to disrupt, hinder, 

impede, or sabotage in any way any 

campaign, canvass, or activity conducted 

by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate 

of any political party for the office of 

President of the United States in 1972 by 

infiltrating any political committee or

429

25 26
organization or headquarters or offices 

or home or whereabouts of the person 

seeking such nomination or election or of any person aiding him in so doing, or by 

bugging or eavesdropping or wiretapping the conversations, communications, plans, headquarters, offices, home, or whereabouts of the person seeking such nomination or election or of any other person assisting him in so doing, or 

by exercising surveillance over the person seeking such nomination or election 

or of any person assisting him in so doing, or by reporting to any other person or to any political committee or organization any information obtained 

by such infiltration, eavesdropping, bugging, wiretapping, or surveillance;

(8) Whether any person, acting individually or in combination with others, 

or political committee or organization 

induced any of the activities mentioned in subdivision (7) of this section or paid 

any of the participants in any such 

activities for their services, and, if so, 

the identities of such persons, or committee, or organization, and the source of the funds used by them to procure or 

finance such activ ities;

27

(9) Any fabrication, dissemination, 

or publication of any false charges or other false information having the purpose of discrediting any person seeking 

nomination or election as the candidate of any political party to the office of President of the United States in 1972;

(10) The planning of any of the 

activities mentioned in subdivision (7), 

(8), or (9) of this section, the employing 

of the participants in such activities, and 

the source of any moneys or things of value which may have been given or 

promised to the participants in such 

activities for their services, and the 

identities of any persons or committees 

or organizations which may have been 

involved in any way in the planning, procuring, and financing of such activities.

(11) Any transactions or circumstances relating to the source, the control, the transmission, the transfer, the 

deposit, the storage, the concealment, 

the expenditure, or use in the United 

States or in any other country, of any 

moneys or other things of value collected 

or received for actual or pretended use in 

the presidential election of 1972 or in any 

related campaign or canvass or activities

28

430

I

f
t • * 4

preceding or accompanying such election by any person, group of persons, committee, or organization of any kind acting or professing to act in behalf of any 

national political party or in support of 

or in opposition to any person seeking 

nomination or election to the office of 

President of the United States in 1972;

(12) Compliance or noncompliance 

with any act of Congress requiring the 

reporting of the receipt or disbursement 

or use of any moneys or other things of 

value mentioned in subdivision (11) of this sectio n;

(13) Whether any of the moneys or 

things of value mentioned in subdivision 

(11) of this section were placed in any 

secret fund or place of storage for use in 

financing any activity which was sought 

to be concealed from the public, and, if 

so, what disbursement or expenditure 

was made of such secret fund, and the 

identities of any person or group of 

persons or committee or organization having any control over such secret fund 

or the disbursement or expenditure of 

the same;

(14) Whether any books, checks, canceled checks, communications, correspondence, documents, papers, physical evidence, records, recordings, tapes, or materials relating to any of the matters or questions the select committee is authorized and directed to investigate and study have been concealed, sup­ pressed, or destroyed by any persons acting individually or in combination with others, and, if so, the identities and motives of any such persons or groups of persons; (15) Any other activities, circum­ stances, materials, or transactions hav­ ing a tendency to prove or disprove tha t persons acting either individually or in combination with others, engaged in any illegal, improper, or unethical activities in connection with the presidential elec­ tion of 1972 or any campaign, canvass, or activity related to such election; (16) Whether any of the existing laws of the United States are inadequate, either in their provisions or manner of enforcement to safeguard the integrity or purity of the process by which Presi­ dents are chosen.

Sec. 3. (a) To enable the select committee 

to make the investigation and study authorized and directed by this resolution, the Sen29 30
ate hereb y empowers the select com mittee as 

an agency of the Sena te

(1) to employ and fix the compensation of such c lerical, inv est iga tor y, legal, 

tech nica l, and othe r assis tants as it 

deems neces sar y or a ppr op ri at e;

(2) to sit and a ct at any tim e or place 

du rin g sessions, recesses, and ad jour nme nt periods of th e S en ate;

(3) to hold heari ng s fo r taking testimony on oath or to receive docum entary 

or physical evidence relatin g to th e matte rs and questions it is autho rized to 

inv estig ate or s tu dy;

(4) to req uir e by sub pen a or othe rwise the attendance as witnesses of any 

person s who the select committee believes have knowledge or inf orma tio n 

con cer ning any of the m atters or questions it is authorized to inv est iga te and 

stud y;

(5) to req uir e by sub pen a or orde r 

any departm ent, agency, officer, or employee of the executive branch of the 

United State s Gov ernm ent, or any 

pr ivate person, firm, or corporation , or 

any officer o r form er officer or employee 

of any political committee or organiz ation to produce fo r its con sideration or

31

fo r use as evidence in its inv estiga tion 

and stu dy any books, checks, canceled 

checks, correspondence , communications, document, papers, physical evidence, records, recordings, tap es, or 

materials relatin g to any of the matters 

or questio ns it is authorized to inv est igate and stu dy which they or an y of them 

may have in th ei r custody or under t he ir 

co ntro l;

(6 ) to make to the Sen ate any recomme nda tion s it deems ap prop ria te in re ­

spe ct to the willful failu re or ref usal of 

any per son to ap pe ar before it in obedience to a su bpena or order , or in re spect 

to the willful failu re or ref usal of any 

person to answ er questions or give testimony in his ch aracter as a witness du ring his app ear ance before it, or in re ­

spe ct to the willful fai lure or ref usal of 

any officer or employee of the executive 

branch of the U nited State s Government 

or any person, firm, or corpo ration , or 

any officer o r form er officer or employee 

of any political com mittee or organiz ation , to produce before the com mittee 

any books, checks, canceled checks, correspondence , com mun ications, document, finan cial records, papers, physical 

32

432

< ■9
* ♦ 4

evidence, records, record ings, tap es, or 

mate ria ls in obedience to any subp ena o r 

o rd er;

(7) to tak e depositions and othe r 

testim ony on oath anyw here wi thin the 

United S tat es o r in any o ther co un try ;

(8) to pro cur e the tempo rary or inte rm itte nt serv ices of individ ual consulta nts , or o rga niz ations the reo f, in the 

sam e manner and under the sam e conditions as a sta nd ing committee of the 

Senate may pro cure such serv ices under 

section 202 (i) of the Legislative Reorgan iza tion Act of 1946;

(9) to use on a rei mb urs able basis, 

with the pr ior consent of the Governme nt de pa rtm en t or agency concerned 

and the Comm ittee on Rules a nd A dminist ratio n, the services of person nel of 

any such depa rtm en t or age ncy ;

(10) to use on a rei mb urs able basis 

or oth erw ise with the pr io r con sent of 

th e chair ma n of any othe r of the Senate 

com mittees or the chair ma n of any subcommittee of any com mittee of the Senate the f aci lities or se rvices of any members of the staffs of such other Senate 

com mittees or any sub com mittees of 

such other Senat e com mittees whene ver

the select com mittee or its chair ma n 

deems th at such action is nec essary or 

ap prop ria te to enable the select com mittee to make th e inv estiga tion and study 

autho rized and directed by this 

reso lutio n;

(11) to hav e access throug h the 

agen cy of an j members of th e se lect committee, chief m ajor ity counsel, mino rity counsel, or any of its investiga tory 

as sis tants jointly designated by the 

chair ma n and the rank ing minority member to any data, evidence, inform ation , rep ort, ana lysis, or docume nt or 

papers relatin g to any of the m atters or 

question s which it is autho rized and 

directed to inv est iga te and stu dy in the 

cus tody or under the control of any depa rtm en t, agency, officer, o r employee of 

the executive branch of th e United 

State s Governme nt havin g the pow er 

un de r the laws of the Un ited State s to 

inv est iga te any alleg ed criminal activ ities o r to pr osecute persons charge d w ith crim es ag ains t the Un ited State s which 

will aid the select com mittee to pr ep are 

fo r or conduct the inv estig ati on and 

stu dy autho rized and directed by this 

reso lu tio n; and

433

33 34
(12) to expend to the extent it determines necessary or appropriate any 

moneys made available to i t by the Senate to perform the duties and exercise 

the powers conferred upon it by this 

resolution and to make the investigation 

and study it is authorized by this resolution to make.

(b) Subpenas may be issued by the select 

committee acting through the chairman or 

any other member designated by him, and 

may be served by any person designated by 

such chairman or other member anywhere 

within the borders of the United States. The 

chairman of the select committee, or any 

other member thereof is hereby authorized to 

administer oaths to any witnesses appearing 

before the committee.

(c) In preparing for or conducting the 

investigation and study authorized and directed by this resolution, the select committee 

shall be empowered to exercise the powers 

conferred upon committees of the Senate by 

section 6002 of title 18 of the United States 

Code or any other Act of Congress regulating 

the granting of immunity to witnesses.

Sec. 4. The select committee shall have 

authority to recommend the enactment of any 

new congressional legislation which its investigation considers it is necessary or desirable to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen.

Sec. 5. The select committee shall make a 

final report of the results of the investigation 

and study conducted by it pursuant to this 

resolution, together with its findings and its 

recommendations as to new congressional 

legislation it deems necessary or desirable, to 

the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but 

no later than February 28, 1974. The select 

committee may also submit to the Senate such 

interim reports as it considers appropriate. 

Afte r submission of its final report, the select 

committee shall have three calendar months 

to close its affairs, and on the expiration of 

such three calendar months shall cease to 

exist.

Sec. 6. The expenses of the select committee through February 28, 1974, under this 

resolution shall not exceed $500,000, of which 

amount not to exceed $25,000 shall be available for the procurement of the services of 

individual consultants or organizations thereof. Such expenses shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers 

approved by the chairman of the select committee. The minority members of the select 

committee shall have one-third of the profes35 36

t *
♦ « 9 *

sional staff of the select committee (including 

a minority counsel) and such part of the clerical staff as may be adequate.

S. RES. 278

91st Congress, 1st Session

(Report No. 91-515)

IN THE SENATE OF THE 

UNITED STATES

November 5, 1969

Mr. Cannon, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the following resolution; 

which was ordered to be placed on the calendar

November 11,1969 

Considered and agreed to

435

RESOLUTION

Relating to fees of witnesses appearing before Senate committees.

Resolved, That witnesses summoned to 

appear before the Senate or any of its com37 39
436

mittees shall be entitled to a witness fee rated 

at not to exceed $25 for each full day spent in 

traveling to and from the place of examination and for each full day in attendance. A 

witness shall also be entitled to reimbursement of the actual and necessary trans portation expenses incurred by him in traveling to 

and from the place of examination, in no case

to exceed 20 cents a mile for the distance *

actually traveled by him for the purpose of 

appearing as a witness if such distance is not

more than six hundred miles or 12 cents a <

mile if such distance is more than six hundred

miles.

40
By RO BE RT C. ODLE, J r .

C om m it tee fo r t h e R e- E lec tio n o f th e P r e s id e n t and F in a n c e C o m m it t ee

for t h e R e-E lectio n o f t h e P r e s id e n t

Nam e Dates of service Former employment*

Abbott, Karla__________

Abrahams, Alb ert_______

Abrams, Michael_______

Adams, Joseph _________

Adams, Ma ry__________

July- No v. 1972____

July-N ov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Agnich, Victoria________

Allen, David___________

Allen, Yvonne__________

Almaguer, Frank _______

Amborse, Elaine________

Amolsch, Arthu r________

Anderson, Stan ton______

Anderson, Stephe n______

Armao, Robert_________

Armendaris, Alex_______

Arsht, Leslie___________

Asbell, Fre d____________

Atwood, Doroth y_______

Au, Sus an_____________

Auchincloss, Ev e_______

Austin, Tim oth y________

Barbieri, Janice________

Barbour, Jo yc e..................

Barnard, Bailey............... ..

Barne tt, Louis_________

Feb .-N ov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-Ja n. 1973.

June-N ov. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972.........

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Feb. 1973. 

June-N ov. 1972.........

June-Nov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Mar. 1973.

June-N ov. 1972____

Apr.-N ov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Apr. 1973. 

June-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Barrick, P au l. ............... ..

Battles, Roy___________

Beitzel, Irma___________

Bell, Tho mas ___________

Belt, Gail______________

Ben nett, Jam es_________

Beverly, Ba rbara.............

Bigninatti, Mildred_____

Black, Ka the rine_______

Blackman, Ann_________

Blackman, Robert______

Apr. 1972-Prese nt__

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972. 

Ma r.-No v. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972____

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

San Diego Federal Savings & 

Loan, San Diego, Calif.

Cost of Living Council.

Jus tice Dep artm ent.

Civil Aeronautics Board. 

Min nesota Republican Sta te 

Committee, Minneapolis, 

Minn.

Wagner & Baroody.

U.S. Army.

Arista T rading Co.

OEO.

Potomac Tem porary Girl. 

State Dep artm ent.

White House.

Dart Drug Co.

St ua rt Porter Agency, New 

York City.

OEO.

White House.

Stu dent.

St. Louis Post Dispatch, St. 

Louis, Mo.

Cush man, Darby & Cushman, 

Attorneys.

George Wash ington University .

RN C.

Sta te Dep artm ent.

De partm ent of Labor.

Borel Re sta urant Corp., San 

Mateo, Calif.

Los Angeles County Republican Committee, Los Angeles, 

Calif.

Susque han na Corp., Alexandria, Va.

Unknown.

None.

Stu dent.

Steiger & Associates, Vienna, 

Va.

Stu dent.

Action.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Grainger County, San Jose , 

Calif.

'Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise Indicated.
438

C o m m it t ee fo r t h e R e - E le c tio n o f t h e P r e s id e n t an d F in a n c e C o m m it t ee

fo r t h e R e - E le c tio n of t h e P r e s id e n t—Continued

Nam e Dates of service Form er employment*

Blair, Nancy ___________

Bourbonnais, Suzanne ___

Bourne, Beebe_________

Bowen, Mau ra_________

Boyd, Richard _________

Braaflad t, Ann_________

Brataas, Na ncy________

Bray don, Walter_______

Broadus, Constance_____

Broccoletti, Pe ter _______

Bronson, Michael_______

Bryan, Alice___________

Brookshire, Jo an _______

Brown, Ra ym ond_______

Bruner, Ga ry__ ________

Buchanan, Angela______

Buchanan, Carol_______

Buchanan, Ronald______

Bullard, Sus an_________

Bungato, Monico_______

Burhop, Gary__________

Butler, Ba rbara ________

Byers, Buckley_________

Cal die ro, Raym ond_____

Callaway, Eli zabeth____

Calloway, Maxw ell_____

Capone, Jerom e________

Carlisle, Margo_________

Carpenter, Fr an k_______

Carroccio, A. Thom as___

Carroccio, Cha rles______

Caulfield, Jo hn _________

Chern, Victoria_________

Chew, David___________

Chadwell, Jo hn _________

Chambers, Arden_______

Chase, Warren_________

Christian, Pa ul_________

Clifton, Geraldine______

Cochran, Pa tricia _______

Cohen, Beryl___________

Coleman, Lois__________

Collins, Marvin ________

Cooper, James_________

Corbet, Dallas_________

Corby, Connie_________

Feb.- July 1972_____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-S ept. 1972____

Nov. 1972_________

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Ap r.-Ma y 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-May 1972____

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov.. 1972____

July-N ov. 1972____

Sept.-N ov. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-Ju ne 

1973.

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

Apr.-No v. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

May-O ct. 1972_____

July-N ov. 1972____

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

June-Nov. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972____

Mar.-A pr. 1972____

Oct. 1971-Nov. 1972.

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

May-Ju ne 1972-------

Apr. 1972-Present__

May-N ov. 1972____

June-Nov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972-------

Apr.-June 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Oct.-Oct. 1972_____

Jul v-No v. 1972____

RNC.

Exotech Systems.

Unknown.

Studen t.

Studen t.

White House.

J. Irwin Miller, Columbus, 

Ind.

CIA.

Federal Aviation Adm inistration.

Unknown.

E. N. Hay & Associates, Philadelphia, Pa.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Atto rney , Pascagovla, Miss. 

Rea gan for Governor Committee, Texas.

Francisco ’s, Bethesda, Md. 

Unknown.

G uar dia n Sec ur ity, Si lv er 

Spring, Md.

Emberton for Governor Committee, Kentucky.

U.S. Navy.

U.S. Army.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Ma rriott Corp.

Stud ent.

Fulton County Board of Ed ucation, Atlanta, Ga.

Student.

None.

Penn Valley Com munity College.

Federal Comm unications Commission.

Student.

White House.

Senator Robert Griffin. 

Studen t.

Treasury Departme nt. 

Commerce Department. 

Unknown.

Lien for Senate Comm., South 

Dakota.

Appalachian Regional Comm. 

Golightly & Co., New York 

City.

Unknown.

International Systems & Controls Corp., Houston, Tex.

River City Inn, Austin, Tex. 

Da rt Drug Co.

Unknown.

Student.

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise indicate d.

»
439

C om m it t ee for t h e R e - E l e c tio n o f t h e P r e s id e n t and F in a n c e C o m m it t ee

fo r t h e R e- E l e c t io n o f t h e P r e s id e n t— C o n ti n u e d

Nam e Dates of service Former employment*

Cowling, Edward_______

Cox, Ma rian ne_________

Cram, San dra__________

Creighton, Josephine____

Croft, Je an ____________

Crouch, Nancy_________

Crouch, Tom___________

Cudd, Connie__________

Daley, Ra y____________

Dan kwo rth, June_______

Dannenhauer, Ja ne _____ Daoust, Eliza beth______

Davis, Susan___________

Davis, Tho mas _________

Deane, John R _________

DeFalco, Antho ny______

DeLury, Bernard_______

Devlin, Maureen_______

Dexter, Charles________

Dey, Thomas__________

Dickey, Gordon________

Dietrick, Bruce_________

Donnelly, Joan _________

Dooley, Jam es_________

Dore, Ann_____________

Dorminy, Yolande______

Dunaway, Margo_______

Duncan, M artha_______

Ebner, Stanley_________

Eden, Charles__________

Edwards, Mary _________

Ehman, Richard ________

Ehrlichman, Ja m _______

Ehrlichman, Pe ter______

Elliott, Morgan________

Emge, Da vid___________

Engebretson, Marg are t__

Ernst, John ____________

Evan s, Daniel__________ Failor, Edward_________

Fangboner, Ha rol d______

Farnham, Timoth y_____

Feigner, Ka ren _________

Finkelstein, Arth ur _____

Flana gan, Ju dy _________

Flemming, Harry_______

Florence, Da vid ________

Flynn, Timo thy ________

fMar.-Nov. 1972____

[Apr. 1973-Present__

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Mar.-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-Ma r. 1972____

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Fe b.- May 1972____

Apr.-D ec. 1972_____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Feb .-N ov. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Ap r.-J une 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Jan. 1973.

Apr.-N ov. 1972____

Mar.-S ept. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

Apr .-Jun e 1972____

Feb .-N ov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Feb. 1973_ 

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

June 1971-Jan. 1973_

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Sept.- Nov. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Aug .-Sept. 1972____

Feb .-Oct. 1972_____

June-A ug. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972____

Mar. 1972-Feb. 1973_

Feb .-N ov. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972____

Feb .-N ov. 1972____

Sept.-Nov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Sept. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

•Place: Washington, D. C., unless otherwise indicated.

(

Federal C omm unications Commission and Inaugu ral Committee.

Congressman William Harsha. 

American Air Lines.

Carl Davis, Attorney.

Veterans’ A dministration.

Van, Arkel & Kaiser.

Attorney, Dallas, Tex. 

Unknown.

Autom obile Association.

None. Sen ator George Murphy. 

Stu den t.

Cost of Living Council.

U.S. Army.

White House. De partm ent of Tra nsp ortation. 

New York S tate Depa rtm ent of

Labor, New York City.

E. F. Hu tto n Co., New York 

City.

RN C.

Stu den t.

Stu den t. Clark County Republican 

Committee, Las Vegas, Nev. 

Sen ator Lowell Weicker. 

Unknown. Myers Infoplan, New York

City.

Senator Murphy. University of Arkansas, Little 

Rock, Ark.

White House.

U.S. Senate.

U.S. Navy.

RN C.

Unknown.

Studen t.

Studen t.

U.S. Army.

Studen t.

Unknown.

Dart Drug Co.

City of Indianapolis, Ind. 

Departm ent of Inte rior.

C & P Telephone Co. Fairfax Cou nty Republican

Committee, Fairfax, Va. 

Tucker, Anthony & Day, New

York City.

Unknown.

Studen t.

White House. Sta te of California, San Fr an ­

cisco, Calif.

Studen t.
440

Committee for the Re-Election of the Presid ent and Finance Committee

for th e Re-Election of the Presid ent—Continued

Name Dates of service Former employment*

Fokine, Peter ____ __ May 1972-P res ent__ Pepsi Cola Corp., New York

Foltz, John ____ __ Feb .-Nov. 1972____

City.

Depar tment of Agriculture. Ford, John __ May-N ov. 1972 ___ Studen t.

Fore, Rich ard Feb .-Nov. 1972____ Hal Short & Assoc.

Forsberg, Kristin _ _ Feb.-Nov. 1972 . 1 D epartme nt of Interio r and

Foster, Carl_________

Mar. 1973-Presen t__

Mar.-N ov. 1972____

1 Inaugu ral Committee.

U.S. Air Force.

Foust, J o h n ___ Apr.-Nov. 1972__ White House. Fowler, Ju dv ___ __ Jun e-N ov. 1972. Studen t.

Frankfort, Pa ul. _ _ . May-N ov. 1972 _ __ FB I (retired).

Frederick, Laura Feb. 1972-Presen t__ White House. c

Fuller, John_ Feb-Nov. 1972___ Self-employed writer.

Funke, Baiba _ Sept.-Nov. 1972 RNC.

Gallagher, Robert Oct.-Nov. 1972 ___ Continenta l Advisors, Coral

Gaillard, Jean ne _ _ Jun e-S ept. 1972

Gables, Fla.

Unknown.

Garcia, Sylv ia. _ Aug.-Nov. 1972____ De partm ent of Labor.

Garner, Ronald Sept.-N ov. 1972 Connor for Congress CommitGarrish, Theodore Feb.-Nov. 1972. _

tee, Wausau, Wis.

Assistan t U.S. Attorney, DeGavigan, Thomas _ July 1972__________

troit, Mich.

Unknown.

Genader, Robert Sept.-N ov. 1972 . _ Security Pacific National

Gibson, R o y ___ Feb.-Ma y 1972__

Bank, Los Angeles, Calif.

U.S. Army.

Gillespie, Bernard _ Aug.-Nov. 1972 California Delegation ComGillis, Sharon . _ Feb.-Nov. 1972____

mittee, San Rafael, Calif. 

Congressman James Fulton.

Girard, Thomas __ Feb.-Ma y 1972____ Metromedia Corp.

Gleason, Millicent Apr.-Nov. 1972. Dart Drug Co.

Goldberg, Lawrence____ Feb.-Nov. 1972____ American Leisure Prod ucts,

Goldstein, T o n y .._____ Mar.-N ov. 1972____

Providence, R.I.

Stud ent.

Gonzalez, Betty J ea n___ May-N ov. 1972 Edoc Me Grant Worker ProjGooch, Gordon Aug.-Nov. 1972._

ect, San Antonio, Tex.

Federal Power Commission.

Goodspeed, Rebecca Mar.-N ov. 1972 __ Office of Lieutenan t Governor,

Gorton, George _ _ Feb.-Nov. 1972 . _ _

Sacramento, Calif.

Wilson for Mavor Committe e,

Graham, Ann M ar ga re t.. Feb.-Apr. 1972_____

San Diego, Calif.

RNC. Graham, Diane . __ Apr.-Sept. 1972 __ Auto Club of Southern CaliGreen, Jerom e Aug.-Oct. 1972_____

fornia, Los Angeles, Calif.

Austin Youth Fou ndation,

A

Greenwald, Ronald Apr.-Nov. 1972

Chicago, Ill.

YM -Y WJA . Willia msbur g,

Groom, Ru th Ma y-June 1972__

N.Y.

RNC .

Haggart, Veronica. Feb .-Nov. 1972 RNC. *

Haldeman, Ha rry . Jun e-N ov. 1972. _ Stud ent.

Hall, D a n .. . . . May -Sep t. 1972 Fuller Brush Corp., Sunnvoak,

Hall, Elaine _ ____ __ Apr.-Dec. 1 9 7 2 .__

Calif.

Unknown.

Harbaugh, Judit h June 1972-Jan. 1973. RNC.

Harlowe, J a y n e _______ Apr.-Nov. 1972____ White House.

Harm ony, Sally _______ Apr.-Sept. 1972____ Congressman Clarence Miller.

Harper, William _______ Feb.-Nov. 1972. __ Amphenol Sams, Calif.

Harris, Marv Angela Feb.-Nov. 1 9 7 2 .__ Congressman Roger Zion.

Harris, Sharo n. _ . . . Apr.-Nov. 1972____ Student.

•Place: Washington, D.C., unless otherwise indicated.
441

Com m it tee for t h e R e-E le cti on of t h e P res id en t and F in a n c e Co m m it tee

for t h e R e-E le cti on of t h e P resid en t— C o n ti n u ed

Nam e Dates of service Form er employment*

Hau ser, Rita _________

Hea ly, H e le n __ _ ____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____

Herge, J. Cu rtis ________ Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Herndon, Michael

Herrell, Gregory___ ____

Herron, Orley _____ __

Jun e-N ov. 1 9 7 2 .__

Jul y-Sept. 1972 ___

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

Higgins, B a rb a ra ___ __

Hill, Kathy ____________

Hirschel, Anne_____

Hoback, Ju di th ________

Aug.-Nov. 1972__ __

Apr.-Nov. 1972 __

Oct.-N ov. 1972____

Apr. 1972-Jan . 1973.

Hoeppner, Carmen_____

Holmes, Con stance. __ _

Holmes, Peter __ _____

Holton, Carol______ __

Hooker, Joyc e.. . ______

Horacek, Joseph __ _____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972 ___

July- No v. 1972____

Apr.-N ov. 1972__ _

Apr.-N ov. 1 9 7 2 .__

June-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Hou ston , George ______

Hou ston , Rob ert ._ __

How ard, Ro nald. _____

Hristakos, Christine 

Hud son, Geo ffrey.. _

Hughes, William. ___

Humphrey, Katherine___

Hun ger, Merlyn________

Ma y-N ov. 1972.. . . 

Feb. 1972-Feb. 1973. 

Apr.-N ov. 1972 . _ 

Jun e 1972-Feb. 1973. 

Ma r.-No v. 1972.. _.

July- No v. 1972____

July- No v. 1972 __

Mar. -N ov. 1972___

Hun t, Gary__ _____ __ July-N ov . 1972____

Hurley, Elizabeth _ _ _

Hu tar, Patricia__ ._ ._

July-N ov . 1972 . _. 

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Hyde, Eveline ________

Jablonsky, Lea. __ ____

Jaco bini, L o is __ ______

Joanou, Ph illip.. ______

Apr. 1972-P resent__

Mar.-Nov. 1972 .. __

Aug .-Nov. 1972__

Feb.-No v. 1972.

Johansen, Elizabeth _. 

Johnson, Bre nda __

Feb.-No v. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972____

Johnson, M ar ilyn____

Jones, Billie________ _

Jones, Jerry____

Jones, Paul

Kalin, Di ane..

Kan tzer, Noelle . _

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972. _ 

Apr.-N ov. 1972 

Feb.-No v. 1972 . . 

Apr. 1972-Jan. 1973. 

Feb. 1972-Apr. 1973.

Kaupinen, Allen _ 

Karalekas, Christine . . 

Karem, Fre d...

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972. 

Aug.-Nov. 1972__ __

Kayser, Pau l___ Feb .-N ov. 1972.

Keesling, Karen July- No v. 1972____

Kekker, Michael.

Kerwan, Margaret . .

Apr.-N ov. 1972 

Ju ne -July 1972_____

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise indicated.

Unknown.

Quaker Hill Deve lopment

Corp., San Rafael, Calif. 

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander, New York City. 

Stu den t.

Stu den t.

President, Greenville College,

Greenville, Ill.

Murray Chotiner, Attorney. 

Sen ator Carl Mundt. 

Unknown.

Councilor, Buchanan & Mitchell.

Gelco Leasing.

Studen t. De partm ent of Commerce. 

Unknown.

Congressman Jack Kemp. 

Mitchell & Silberberg, Los

Angeles, Calif.

Studen t.

U.S. Army.

Unknown.

Stu den t.

Studen t.

Unknown.

White House. National Alcoholic Beverage

Con t. Assoc.

Assem blyman John Stull, Sacram ento, Calif.

Unknown.

Self-employed P.R . consulta nt,

Chicago, Ill.

Justice Departme nt.

U.S. Pos tal Service.

Doyle, Dane, Bernbach, Los

Angeles, Calif.

U.S. Savings & Loan League. 

Burkhalte r & Hickerson, Architects, Nashville, Tenn.

RNC.

Georgetown University.

White House.

Peace Corps.

American Airlines.

American Interna tional School,

Nigeria.

White House.

Kennedy Center.

Emberton for Governor Committee, Kentucky.

Golightly & Co., New York

City.

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.

Studen t.

Unknown.
442

Committee for th e Re-Election of th e President and Finance Committee

for the Re-Election of th e President—C ontinued

Name Dates of service Former employment*

Kihl, Er ik______ _____ _

King, Eugen ia_________

King, Steph en_________

Kinnear, Edwa rd_______

Knox, Thom as .......... .......

Knudsen, Ro be rt_______

Koeze, Marybeth .... ..........

Kolstad, James_________

Koob, Mary Cathe rine__

Koon, Ka ren___________

Kopperman, Diane _____

Kos, Michael__________

Krattli, Rob ert_________

Kreitler, Jo an __________

Krueger, Herbe rt_______

Krueger, Ju dith________

Kuhn, Loughrey________

Lallmang, Sue__________

Lamke, Ju dith_________

Lamo nt, William_______

Lampe, Virginia________

Lang, Michael_________

Lasky, Pa tricia _________

Laughlin, Alex ande r____

Lawrence, G. Andrew___

Le Donne, Sus an________

Lehman, H ar ry ________

Leonard, Fr an k________

Letendre, Andre________

Lewis, Mary___________

Licata, Ju dy ___________

Liddy, G. Gordon______

Lommason, Lu cin da____

Lozano, Diana _________

Lyeth, Cha rlo tte _______

Lynch, Ja ne ___________

Madison, Dolly________

Madson, Gar y_________

Magruder, Je b_________

Mallon, Neille__________

Manning, Ke nn eth_____

Mardian, R obert .............

Marik, Rob er t_________

Marshall, Ca rol________

Mason, Jean ne _________

Masse, Mic hae l________

Malek, Fre deric________

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Oct.-N ov. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972____

July-A ug. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972___

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

June-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972___

Feb.- May 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

June-N ov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

May -Aug. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972__*__. 

Dec. 1971-June 1972. 

Jul y 1972-Present___ 

July- No v. 1972____

Apr. 1972-M ar. 1973.

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Apr.-N ov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-M ar. 1973.

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Ma r.-S ept. 1972____

Apr.-N ov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-Feb. 1973.

Jun e-D ec. 1972____

Feb.-Sept. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Jul v-No v. 1972____

Self-employed management 

consulta nt.

Repu blica n Central Committee, Texas.

FBI, U.S. Senate.

Canteen Vending Corp.,

Logansport, Ind .

Household Finance Corp.,

New York City.

Studen t.

Ma rke t Opinion Research,

Detroit, Mich.

Unknown.

Republican National Finance

Committee.

White House.

Sta te Department.

Attorney in private practice,

Chicago, Ill.

Unknown.

Gourmet Magazine, New

York City.

Student.

Sta te of Illinois, Chicago. 

Commonwealth Services, Inc. 

Public Hea lth Services, Rockville, Md.

Unknown.

Lone Sta r Cement, Dallas,

Tex.

None.

Price Commission.

None.

Student.

Office of the Vice President. 

State Department.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Commerce Depar tment. 

Student.

White House.

White House.

Studen t.

Cabinet Com mittee for Spanish

Speaking.

U.S. Pos tal Service.

White House.

Wash ington Hilton Hotel. 

Congressman Pau l Findley. 

White House.

Justice Depar tment.

Manning Con struction Co.,

Hacienda Heights, Calif. 

Justice Department. 

Depar tment of He alth, Educa ­

tion, and Welfare.

WRC-T V.

Mellon Collection Agency. 

Woodward & Lothrop.

White House.

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise indicated.

r

k
443

Comm it tee fob t h e R e-E le ct io n of t h e P r esid en t an d F in a n c e C o m m it tee

fob t h e R e-E le ct io n of t h e P res id en t— C o n tin u e d

Name Dates of service Former em ployment*

s

u

Sept.-Nov. 1972____IB M Corp., San Francisco

Calif.

July- No v. 1972____ White House.

Sept.-Nov. 1972____ U.S. Army.

Sept.-Nov. 1972____ Unknown.

July- No v. 1972____ Stu dent.

Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Price Commission.

Jul y-No v. 1972____ Unknown.

Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Stu den t.

Sept.-Nov. 1972____Standard Oil Corp., New York

City.

Jul y-N ov. 1972____ Job s for Progress, Inc .

July- No v. 1972____ None.

Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Unknown.

July- No v. 1972____ University Hospital, Birmingham, Ala.

Sept.- Nov. 1972___ Federal City College.

Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Sta te Farm Insurance, Birmingham, Ala.

July- No v. 1972____ Patric k Gorman, Consulta nt.

Apr.-Nov. 1972____ Security Pacific N ational Bank,

Los Angeles, Calif.

Apr.-Nov. 1972____ Jus tice Dep artm ent.

Feb.- June 1972____ Self-employed secu rity consulta nt.

Feb.-Ju ne 1972____ Charles Dana , Jr., New York

Feb.-Aug. 1972____ Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.

June-N ov. 1972____ Unknown.

Ju ne -July 1972____ Wash ington Hospital Center.

Apr.-N ov. 1972____ Cogressman Paul Findley.

June-Nov. 1972____ Studen t.

Jun e-N ov. 1972____ Studen t.

June-N ov. 1972____ Stu den t.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Stu den t.

June-Sept. 1972____ Unknown.

June-N ov. 1972____ Unknown.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Studen t.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Aging & Older Americans, Inc.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Studen t.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ University of Maryland, College Park, Md.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Unknown.

Ap r.-June 1972____ Justice Departme nt.

June-N ov. 1972____ First National City Bank, New

York.

Ma y-N ov. 1972____ Justice Departme nt.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.,

Houston, Tex.

Apr.-N ov. 1972____ Environm ental Protection

Agency.

Jun e-N ov. 1972____ FB I (retired).

Apr.-N ov. 1972____ District of Columbia Public

Schools.

Ma y-S ept. 1972____Stu dent.

Jul y-No v. 1972____ Unknown.

Ma y-N ov. 1972____ White House.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ He rbe rt Fierst, Attorney.

Sept.-Nov. 1972____ OEO.

Jun e-N ov. 1972____ Stu dent.

Mallicoat, Marlene_____

MacG regor, Cla rk______

Mandato, Joseph _______

Maxwell, Fr an k________

McCann, Rob ert_______

McDonald, Dian_______

McKenzie, Sally________

McPhee, He nry________

Mehocic, George_______

Mena, Armando________

Miller, Arlene__________

Miller, Bruce___________

Millican, Ma nyo n______

Minor, Ka ren __________

Minton, La rry _________

Moore, Kimberly_______

McAdoo, Richard ______

McAuliffe, Wyn________

McCord, Jame s________

McCormack, Georgina__

McClung, Ma rga ret_____

McDonald, Anthony____

McDonald, Do rothy____

McGlone, Ann_________

Meade, Forest_________

Metcalf, Martha_______

Meyers, Ed ____________

Miller, Angela__________

Miller, Michael_________

Milligan, Ro bert_______

Milliken, Justi ne_______

Mills, Jam es___________

Minshall, William, I II___

Mint z, Daniel__________

Mitchell, Jea nne________

Mitchell, John _________

Moeller, William_______

Moore, Powell_________

Morgan, Ro bert________

Mosiman, Donald______

Mumford, Jo hn ________

Murdock, Du stin _______

Mu rphy, Pat ___________

Mu rray, Ric har d_______

Muse, Carolyn_________

Myers, Ju dith__________

Mye rs, Marcia_________

Nad eau , Christine______

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise indicated. 

96 -2 96 O— 73------ bk. 1— 29
Committee for the Re-Election of the President and Finance Committee

for th e Re-Election of the President—C on tinu ed

Nam e Dates of service Former employment*

N ay lo r, F ra n k ___________

Neubauer, Richard _____

Newman, Jacqueline____

Niedzwiecki, Rosalie____

Nixon, Deborah________

Nixon, Edw ard C_______

Nolan, Betty ___________

Nostrand, Ste phe n______

Novelli, William________

Nunn, Lee_____________

Ochs, Valerie___________

Odle, Rob ert___________

O’Donnell, Michael_____

O’Gara, Molly_________

O’Gorman, Ela ine______

Olson, Glenn___________

O’Melia, Kathle en______

O’Neal, Lacey__________

Orr, Lorraine__________

Palmer, Elizab eth______

Panarites, Sylvia_______

Parish, William_________

Park er, Anthony_______

Park er, John ___________

Pashayan, Charles______

Passell, Joy ce__________

Peters, Scott___________

Peters, Virg inia_________

Peterson, Ju ne _________

Pettross, Brenda ________

Piliero, Daniel_________

Pinkerton, Ann_________

Plesner, Ju di th _________

Pode sta, Ro bert________

Porter, Herbe rt_________

Powell, Gregory________

Pr att, Gliere___________

Presock, Pa tri cia_______

Price, Pa tri cia__________

Prokop, Ju di th _________

Pu tts, Marg are t________

Randall, James_________

Ra tajski, Ma gda-----------

Rausch, Doris__________

Reiley, Susan __________

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

July-N ov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-Present__

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Jun e-S ept. 1972____

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Apr.-Dec. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.1 972-June 1973. 

Feb.-Jun e 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

June 1972-Mar. 1973.

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Oct.-Nov. 1972____

Julv-N ov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

June -De c. 1972____

Jun e-Sept. 1972____

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

Apr.-Nov. 1972____

Mar.-N ov. 1972____

Nov. 1972_________

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Julv-N ov. 1972____

Apr. 1972_________

Feb .-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

Jul y-No v. 1972____

Jul y-N ov. 1972____

De partm ent of Agriculture. 

Colorado Farm Bureau, Denver, Colo.

Governor Maurice H. Thatcher. 

Connecticut Mu tual Life In ­

surance Co., Hartford, Conn. 

Stu dent.

Oceanographic Engineer, Lynwood, Wash.

Wagner & Baroody.

Greater Miami Chamber of 

Commerce, Miami, Fla. 

Action.

Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.

White House.

White House.

Republican State Central Committee, California.

Student.

Russell Reynolds Assoc., N.Y. 

Studen t.

White House.

Distric t of Columbia Public 

Schools.

Unknown.

White Collar Girls of America, 

Inc., Mount Prosp ect, Ill.

National Journal.

World Publishing Co., N.Y. 

U.S. Navy.

Cargill, Inc., Chesapeake, Va. 

GSA.

Katz & Salmon, Attorneys, 

Miami Beach, Fla.

United Press Intern ational. 

De partm ent of Interior.

Carey Corp.

Federal City College. 

Unknown.

First Nation al C ity Bank, N. Y. 

Filmakers Group, Universal 

City , Calif.

Studen t.

White House.

Richman Bros. Records, Philadelp hia, Pa.

Bridal Shop, Tysons Corner, 

Va.

Unknown.

University of No rth Carolina, 

ChapelH ill, N.C.

Congressman E. B. Forsyth e. 

Toms River Board of Ed ucation, Toms River, N.J . 

Lie utenan t Governor of Massachusetts, Boston, Mass. 

USIA.

White House.

Student.

•Place: Washington, D. C., unless otherwise indicated.
445

Comm it tee for t h e R e-E le ct io n of t h e P r esid en t an d F in a n c e C o m m it t ee

for t h e R e-E le ct io n of t h e P resid en t— C o n ti n u ed

Name Dates of service Form er employment*

Reilly, Sa ndra__________

Reisler, Charle s________

Reisner, Rob ert________

Rezabek, Lois__________

Richards, Richard ______

Rich ter, Je an __________

Richm ond, Lee_________

Rietz, Ke nneth _________

Roberts, Gen e_________

Rocchio, Pe ter_________

Rogers, Bruce__________

Rogers, Ro na ld_________

Rosenker, Ma rk________

Rossi, Lora____________

Rushing, Alber t________

Ryales, Ba rry __________

Santarelli, Ann_________

Sawers, Pe ter__________

Sawicki, Jo hn __________

Schjeldrup, Sus an_______

Schrager, Patricia _______

Scott, Thomas_________

Scully, Michael_________

Sedam, Glenn__________

Sedlak, Pauline_________

Shanks, George_________

Shearer, Charles________

Sheedy, Laurelle________

Shem, Ca rl____________

Shem, Story___________

Shepherd, Ka the rin e____

Sheridan, Rich ard______

Sholer, Michael_________

Shriver, Richard ________

Shuemake, Joy ce_______

Shull, Edward__________

Shumway, DeVan_______

Skladany, Barne y_______

Slivinski, Thom as_______

Sloan, Hu gh___________

Smith, James C_________

Smith, Jos eph __________

Smith, Ke nne th________

Snyder, Anne__________

Sorg, Leslie____________

Aug.-Nov. 1972____

July- No v. 1972____

Feb.-Nov. 1972____

June 1972-Present__

May-N ov. 1972____

Jun e-N ov. 1972____

Mar. -M ay 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

May-N ov. 1972____

Feb.-No v. 1972____

Feb.-Ma r. 1972____

July- Sept. 1972____

June-Nov. 1972____

Aug .-Nov. 1972____

Ma y-N ov. 1972____

Sept.- Nov. 1972____

Feb. 1972-Mar. 1973.

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherwise indicated.

Virginia Squires, Norfolk, Va. 

White House.

Enviro nmental Pro tection

Agency.

Unknown.

Unknown.

Teledyne Rya n Aeronautical, 

San Diego, Calif.

Unknown.

White House.

Nation al Alliance of Businessmen.

De par tment of Housing and 

Urban Development.

Air Nation al Guard.

U.S. Air Force.

Auto motive Trade Association. 

FB I (retired).

Unknown.

Careers Unlimited, Alexandria,

Va.

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____ Unknown. Jun e-N ov. 1972____ Sta te of California, Sacra ­

mento, Calif.

Feb .-Nov. 1972____ Young & Rubicam, New York.

Feb .-Nov. 1972____ None. May-N ov. 1972___ Massach usetts Mu tual Life Insu ranc e Co., New York.

Feb.-No v. 1972____ Sen ator Lowell Weicker.

Feb .-Nov. 1972_____RNC. Feb .-Nov. 1972___ White House Conference on

Aging.

May 1972__________ Advance Industrial Security,

Falls, Church, Va.

Ma y-N ov. 1972_____E xport-Im port Bank.

Sep t.-N ov. 1972____ Senator James Buckley.

Jun e-N ov. 1972____ Unknown.

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____ RNC. Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Congressman Thomas Foley.

Ma r.-N ov. 1972____Unknow n. Ju ne -July 1972____ Great Western E quities, Engl ewood, Calif.

Apr.-Nov. 1972_____ R. Shriver Assoc., Denville,

N.J.

July- No v. 1972_____ Unknown. Aug.-Sept. 1972____ Guiffe Distributing Co., Virginia.

Feb. 197 2-Present__ White House.

Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Unknown. May-N ov. 1972____ McCormack for Congress C ommittee Penn sylv ania

Ap r.-J ulv 1972_____ White House. May-N ov. 1972____ Veterans’ Administration, Lin ­

coln, Nebr.

Feb. -N ov . 1972___ U.S. Air Force.

Feb. -N ov 1972____ White House.

Sep t.-O ct. 1972____ None. Aug.-Nov. 1972____ No rth Shore Hospital Manhasset, N.Y .
446

Committee for th e Re-Election of the President and Fina nce Committee

for th e Re-Election of th e President—Continued

Nam e Dates of service Form er employment*

Sotirhos, Michael May-N ov. 1972 _ _ Aristol Interior Designers, Inc.,

Stans, Maurice _ _ __ Apr. 1972-Prese nt__

May 1972 __ __

New York City.

De par tment of Commerce.

Stein, Nancy _ ____ Unknown.

Steorts, N a n c y .. ____ Feb .-Nov. 1972 ___ De partm ent of Agriculture.

Stickle, Fr an k__ Unknown Unknown.

Stone, Roger _ Ma y-N ov. 1972. Congressman Rober t Steele.

Stover, William Ma r.-N ov. 19 72 ... Senator George Murphy. r

Straker, Shirley ____ Jun e-N ov. 1972. Kaiser Engineers.

Strunk, Pa tricia . Feb.-No v. 1972 . __ Studen t.

Suiter, William . . July-N ov. 1972___ Collins, Knaggs & Assoc., AusSullivan, Susan. . _ Apr.-Sept. 1972___

tin, Tex.

Republican State Central ComSvkes, Ro bert. _ Jun e-N ov. 1972____

mittee of California.

Unknown.

Szmagala, Taras _ Aug.-Nov. 1972__ Senator Rober t Taft, Jr.

Talmage, Kenneth Apr. 1972-Feb. 1973. Ambassador Joh n Humes, ViTarone, Michael July-N ov. 1972 __

enna, Austria.

Unknown.

Teeter, Ro bert. _. Feb .-Nov. 1972____ Market Opinion Research, DeTaylor, George. . _ _ . Sept.-N ov. 1972____

troit, Mich.

U.S. Postal Service.

Terrar, Celine_______ Apr.-Nov. 1972._ _ St. Leo Golf Course, St. Leo,

Terrar, David Aug.-Nov. 1972

College, Fla.

Self-employed antique dealer.

Thaver, Teri . . Feb.-Nov. 1972____ Student.

Thompson, Florence Apr.-J uly 1972. Thompson Fun eral Home, Paw

Thompson, James _ . Aug.-Nov. 1972.

Paw, Mich.

Office of the Vice President.

Tim, Terrv . . . July-N ov. 1972____ Student.

Tochilin, Sharon Sept.-Nov. 1972____ Systems Indu strie s, Inc., SunTodd, Christine Mar.-N ov. 1972 ._

nyvale, Calif.

State of New York.

Todd, Webster Feb .-Nov. 1972 ___ Civil Aeronautics Board.

Tooze, Fra nk . __ Aug.-Nov. 1972____ Inte rna tional Brotherhood of

Townsend, Carol _ Jun e-N ov. 1972 _ _

Electrical Workers.

Prince Georges’ County School

Triplett, Larry . Aug.-Nov. 1972__ __

System, Maryland.

Department of Labor.

Ulman, Delores __ _ Feb.-Nov. 1972____ Paul Mellon.

Underwood, Laura _ Feb. 1972-Jan. 1973. Zoecon Corp., Palo Alto, Calif.

Van Buren, Valerie _ . Aug.-Sept. 1972 Federal City College.

Vandersommen, Nor a___ Feb.-Nov. 1972____ White House.

Venuto, Michael July-N ov. 1972____ Action. V

Visceglia, Richard Feb.-M ar. 1972____ Stud ent.

Wagner, Carrie . . . Feb.-Nov. 1972. . RNC.

Wagner, Ellen Jun e-N ov. 1972 Ex port-I mp ort Bank.

Wagoner, Lucille Feb.- May 1972____ Student.

Walker, Laura . . . Jun e-N ov. 1972 _ Skitch Henderson, N.Y . City.

Wallace, Anne _______ Jun e-N ov. 1972 __ Senator Rober t Dole.

Wallach, Elizabeth Aug.-Nov. 1972. Studen t.

Wangenheim, Walt er___ Jun e-N ov. 1972 _ _ FB I (retired).

Warner, Harry_______ Ma y-N ov. 1972__ __ Jer rv Reed Enterprises, NashWashbu rn, John Apr.-Nov. 1972 ___

ville, Tenn.

Student.

Washburn, C. Lan ghorn e. Ma y-N ov. 1 9 7 2 .__ Depar tment of Commerce.

Watona, Pau line ._ __ Sept.-N ov. 1972____ Enviro nmental Prote ctio n

Watson, Ben jam in____ Sep t.-N ov. 1972____

Agency.

U.S. Army

‘Place: Washington, D.C., unless otherwise ind icated.
■<

i

447

Com m it t ee fob t h e R e-E le cti on of t h e P res id en t an d F in a n c e Com m it te e

for t h e R e-E le cti on of t h e P res id en t—C o n ti n u ed

Na me Dates of service Form er employment*

Weber, George_________

West, Ed wa rd__________

Whitbeck, Eliza beth____

White, James__________

Whittie r, Susan ________

Wiesmann, Peg gy______

Wigger, Theodo re______

Wilks, J oh n____________

Williams, Jo hn _________

Williams, Syl vester_____

Willis, Carol___________

Wilson, Michael________

Wince, To m___________

Windon, Be rna rd_______

Wirth, Jo hn___________

Wise, Thom as__________

Woodruff, Patricia______

Woodley, Clarice_______

Yeutter, Clayton _______

Youngs, Rub y_________

Zapp, Barba ra_________

Zier, Linde____________

Zingale, Salva tor e______

Se pt.-N ov. 1972___ Federal Powe r Commission.

Apr. 1972____ Unknown.

Ju ly-N ov . 1972 Fir st National Bank, Minneapolis, Minn.

Aug.-N ov. 1972____ Unknown.

Feb.- No v. 1972____ S. G. Whittier, Wum etta, Ill.

Ap r.-No v. 1972 __ Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.

Julv-N ov . 1972 _ __ Student.

Aug.-N ov. 1972 Depar tment of Labor.

M ar.-M ay 1972 Unknown.

Aug.-N ov. 1972 _ _ Unknown.

Mar.-Nov. 1972 __ Republican Pa rty of Alabama, 

Birmingham, Ala.

June -N ov . 1972. Justice De partm ent.

Feb.- No v. 1972___ U.S. Armv.

Aug.-Nov. 1972 __ G.D. Searle & Co., Chicago,

Ill.

Ju ne -N ov . 1972. __ Avon Pro duc ts, N.Y. City.

Ma y-No v. 1972. Sears, Roebuck Co., Silver 

Spring, Md.

Ju ly-N ov . 1972. _ Unknown.

July-N ov . 1972 Unknown.

Feb.-N ov . 1972 _ Depar tment of Agriculture.

May-N ov. 1972 White House.

Jan.-N ov . 1972 RNC .

Mar. -N ov. 1972 American Campus Management Corp.

Aug.-N ov. 1972. City of Lakewood, Lakewood, 

Ohio.

•Place: Washington, D.C ., unless otherw ise indicated.

J

4
By JAM ES W. McCORD, Jr.

Accounting of How $76,000 was Spent

Reconstructio n of Technical E quipm ent and Related Receipts and Expenditures, 

App roximations

Receipts: Amount

April 12, 1972____ $65,000

May 8, 19 72 .____ 4,00 0 1

May 26, 27, 1972_________________________ ________ _ 2, 000

June 1972_____________________ 5,000

Total receip ts............ ......... ............................... ..................... 76, 000

Expenditures:

Equip ment:

Bell and Howell Co., Conn................................................. 3, 800

Watkins Johnson Co., Roc kv ill e...................................... 3, 500

Stevens Laboratory, Chicago_______________________ 5, 400

Miles Wireless Guitar Co., New York Ci ty__________ 3, 000

Unidentified company, New York City—purchase of 1

tra ns mitt er_________________________________ . . . 1, 000

Unidentified company, Chicago— purchase of 1 briefcase reco rder____ ______________________________ 700

Olden Optical Co., New York City ($700 plus $400)— 1, 100

Business Equ ipment Center, Wash ington, D.C----------- 2, 000

Hechingers, Washington area sto res _________________ 500

Lafay ette Radio, Was hington and Maryland area

sto res_________________________________________ 1, 000

Miscellaneous purchases, tools and equipment, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York City________ 12, 750

Unidentified store, New York City—recorders________ 700

Unid entified store, New York City—recorders and

accessories_____________________________________ 2, 600

T o t a l . ______ ____________ ____ ___ _____ 38,050

Truck.............................. ............. ..................... ............... ........... 4,500

Ren tals:

Howard Johnson Motel___________________________ 900 C

Ga tti Mortgage Co______________________ ____ ____ 1, 750

Tot al _________________________________________ 2, 650

Overhead____________________________________________ 12, 000

Subto tal___________________________________________ 57, 200

Balance remaining, used for legal fees....... ......... ............. ....... 18, 800

Total e xpenditures__________________________________ 76, 000

(448)
449

EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. l

C IT IZ E N S F O R T H E R E - E L E C T IO N O F T H E P R E S ID E N T

• W A S H I N G T O N

1

SUITE 272

1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W.

WASHINGTON. O.C . 20 006

12021 333-0 920

Jul y 3, 1971

_ CON FID ENTIAL

-------------

ME MO RA ND UM F OR THE A TTO RNEY GEN ERA L

SU BJ EC T: Grants man shi p

Enc losed is a copy of a pr oposal to insure t hat the Pre sid ent 

and h is Con gre ssional supp orte rs get pr ope r credit for -Federal 

Gov ern ment pr ograms. This pro posal was w rit ten by Bill Hor ton 

in F red Male k's office w ith the assista nce of Bill Gifford, 

OMB, and Pet er M ill spa ugh in H arr y Dent's office.

If impleme nte d this should be an effect ive me thod of insuring tha t politi cal considerat ions are taken into account.

CON FIDENTIAL
Exhibit No. 2

GEMSTON E

date______

source__________

Exdis

No Disem

WARNING: This information is for intelligence purposes only.-Exploitation may compromise source and term inate flow of information.
Exhibit No. 3

MEM ORANDUM

THE W HI TE HO US E

C opy #1 o f 2

J S ® . W A S H I N G T O N

F e b r u a r y 9, 1972

E Y E S ONLY

M EM O RA N D U M FO R : J E B M A G R U D E R

FR O M : F R E D M A L E K y / / / /

S U B JE C T : C o o rd in a ti n g F u n c ti o n s fo r th e

C a m p a ig n O rg a n iz a ti o n

I h a v e g iv e n f u r th e r th o u g h t to o u r c o n v e r s a tio n of l a s t n ig h t and to 

y o u r F e b r u a r y 7 m e m o ra n d u m to th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l. S in ce I do n o t 

y e t h a v e an in -d e p th k n o w le d g e of th e c a m p a ig n o p e r a tio n , it is d if fic u lt 

f o r m y o b s e r v a tio n s to b e p r e c is e . N e v e r th e le s s , I do h a v e so m e 

r e s e r v a tio n s a b o u t th e re c o m m e n d a ti o n s c o n ta in e d in th a t m e m o ra n d u m 

w h ic h can b e s t be e x p r e s s e d in w ritin g .

PLA N N IN G

M y r e s e r v a tio n s on y o u r re c o m m e n d a ti o n s p e r ta in m a in ly to th e s u g g e s te d 

p la n n in g p r o c e s s , b u t a ls o to th e r e s p o n s ib ility f o r im p le m e n ta ti o n .

P la n n in g P r o c e s s . A s you know , th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l h a s a s k e d m e 

to d e v is e a m a n a g e m e n t a u d it s y s te m by w h ic h he c an tr a c k o v e r a ll 

p r o g r e s s an d id e n ti fy m a j o r p ro b le m a r e a s fo r c o r r e c tiv e a c ti o n . 

N a tu ra lly , a n in te g r a l p a r t of su c h a s y s te m is th e e s ta b lis h m e n t of 

b e n c h m a rk s by w h ic h p r o g r e s s is to b e ju d g e d , o r in s h o r t, a p la n .

B a se d upo n m y p r e li m in a r y th in k in g on th is , I h a v e te n ta ti v e ly c o n c lu d e d 

th a t th e p la n n in g s y s te m sh o u ld in c o r p o r a te th e fo ll o w in g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

T he p r in c ip a l fo c a l p o in ts of th e p la n n in g sh o u ld b e th e 

S ta te s (w it h th e e m p h a s is g iv e n to k e y S ta te s ) r a th e r th a n th e 

fu n c ti o n a l a r e a s su c h a s v o te r b lo c a c t i v it i e s , te le p h o n e , d i r e c t 

m a il, e tc . P la n n in g by S ta te w il l h e lp to h ig h li g h t and d i r e c t 

m a n a g e m e n t a tte n tio n to p r o g r e s s on b u il d in g v o te r s u p p o rt to 

c a r r y in d iv id u a l S ta te s - - th e k e y to v ic to r y .

P la n n in g o f th e fu n c ti o n a l a c tiv itie s w ith in a S ta te sh o u ld b e 

b a s e d upo n a c le a r ly d e fin e d s tr a te g y fo r o b ta in in g th e n e e d e d 

v o te s fo r c a r r y in g th a t S ta te , sp e ll in g o u t, fo r e x a m p le , th e 

n e e d e d v o te m a r g in by d is tin c tiv e g e o g r a p h ic a l a r e a s and th e 

o rg a n iz in g a n d p e r s u a s io n ta c tic s w h ic h w ill be u til iz e d .
A s is im p lic it in th e ab o v e tw o p o in ts , th e p la n n in g sh o u ld 

p ro v id e a so und b a s is fo r tr a c k in g p r o g r e s s and id e n ti fy in g 

p r o b le m a r e a s fo r c o r r e c ti v e a c ti o n .

T h e li n e o ffic ia ls w ho w il l b e h e ld a c c o u n ta b le fo r r e s u l ts , 

p r in c ip a lly th e S ta te C h a ir m e n , sh o u ld fe e l a s th o u g h th e y 

h a v e th e le a d in d e v elo p in g th e p la n s a ffe c ti n g t h e i r a r e a s of 

r e s p o n s ib ility . N a tu ra lly , e x e r c is in g q u a li ty c o n tr o l, 

th e n a ti o n a l c a m p a ig n o r g a n iz a tio n m u s t e n s u r e th e p la n s 

fit th e o v e r a ll r e - e l e c t io n s t r a te g y and c a p ita liz e u p o n p o ll in g 

in fo rm a tio n .

F r o m o u r c o n v e r s a tio n , 1 w ould sa y yo u g e n e r a ll y a g r e e w it h th is . H o w ev er, 

f r o m re a d in g y o u r m e m o ra n d u m y o u r p o s itio n on th e s e p r in c ip le s is not 

c le a r . I b e lie v e th ey sh o u ld be c la r if ie d p r i o r to p ro c e e d in g w it h d e v e lo p m e n t 

o f a p la n n in g s y s te m .

R e s p o n s ib ili ty fo r Im p le m e n ta ti o n . I b e li e v e th e r e is a s tr o n g a r g u m e n t 

fo r h a v in g B ob M a rik p e r fo r m th is fu n c ti o n in v ie w o f h is so u n d k n o w le d g e 

o f th e c a m p a ig n o p e ra tio n s and h is a c c e s s to r e s e a r c h in fo rm a tio n . H o w ev er, 

it is a ls o im p o r ta n t fo r th e " c o n tr o l l e r " to be in ti m a te ly in v o lv e d s in c e th e s e 

p la n s w il l p r o v id e th e b a s is fo r tr a c k in g p r o g r e s s an d id e n ti fy in g p r o b le m s .

T o do th is e ffe c ti v e ly , th e " c o n tr o l l e r " m u s t e n s u re th a t th e p la n s p ro v id e 

a so u n d b a s is fo r m o n it o rin g c a m p a ig n e ffe c ti v e n e s s . A ls o , he m u s t be 

th o ro u g h ly f a m i l ia r w it h th e ir c o n te n t. P e r h a p s w e c a n m e e t th e n e e d s 

a n d c a p ita liz e on th e s tr e n g th s o f b o th in d iv id u a ls by a ls o g iv in g th e 

" c o n tr o l l e r " a d e fin it e p a r t of th is r e s p o n s ib ility .

FO R M A L D E C IS IO N -M A K IN G P R O C E S S

I r e a lly w o n d e r w h e th e r th e s o r t of s ta f f s e c r e t a r i a t o p e r a tio n w h ic h 

yo u su g g e s t is n e c e s s a r y . Su ch a p r o c e d u r e h as u n d o u b te d ly b e e n h e lp fu l 

up to now , s in c e th e A tt o rn e y G e n e r a l h a s not b e e n p r e s e n t an d r e s p o n s ib ilitie 

h a v e b e e n s h iftin g w it h th e g ro w th o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n . H o w e v e r, w it h th e 

A tt o rn e y G e n e r a l c o m in g on b o a rd f u ll- tim e so o n , w it h h im ta k in g a m o r e 

d i r e c t s u p e r v is o r y ro le o v e r fie ld o p e r a tio n s , an d w it h th e d iv is io n of 

r e s p o n s ib ilitie s b e tw e e n th e p r in c ip a ls b e in g c la r if ie d , I q u e s tio n th e n e ed 

f o r a s ta ff s e c r e t a r i a t s y s te m .

In f a c t, it m a y b e c o u n te rp ro d u c tiv e . Such s y s te m s a r e in e v ita b ly 

c u m b e r s o m e a n d th e r e f o r e n o t c o n d u c iv e to th e n e e d fo r f a s t d e c is io n s 

a s th e c a m p a ig n h e a ts up. A ls o , d u e to th e s e n s itiv ity o f th e in fo rm a tio n 

an d th e n e e d f o r sp e e d y a c ti o n , m a n y o f th e d e c is io n s w il l u n d o u b te d ly 

be h a n d le d v e r b a lly , p a r tic u la r ly to w a rd th e en d o f th e c a m p a ig n . T h is 

w o u ld u n d e r m in e th e s ta ff s e c r e t a r i a t 's a b il ity to c o o rd in a te e ffe c ti v e ly .
I r e c o g n iz e th e a b u s e w h ic h c a n be p e r p e t r a t e d w it h o u t su c h a s y s te m . 

H o w e v e r, g iv e n th e n a tu r e of c a m p a ig n m a n a g e m e n t th e a n s w e r lie s in 

a p p o in ti n g c o m p e te n t d iv is io n m a n a g e r s an d m a k in g s u r e th e y h a v e a 

c l e a r u n d e r s ta n d in g o f t h e ir r e s p e c tiv e r e s p o n s ib ilitie s r a th e r th a n 

c r e a tin g a c u m b e r s o m e s ta ff s e c r e t a r i a t s y s te m . O f c o u r s e , th e A tto rn e y 

G e n e r a l s h o u ld , an d w il l d e c id e th is m a t t e r . I b e li e v e it w o u ld be a 

d i s s e r v i c e , h o w e v e r, to tr y to p e r s u a d e h im to le a n on a s ta f f s e c r e t a r i a t 

s y s te m r a t h e r th a n b rin g in g in th e m o s t c o m p e te n t m a n a g e r s p o s s ib le , 

c le a r ly la y in g o u t t h e i r r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a n d th e n h o ld in g th e m fu ll y 

a c c o u n ta b le f o r r e s u l ts .

T h e se a r e , o f c o u r s e , m y in itia l r e a c tio n s b a s e d on q u it e lim ite d k n o w le d g e. 

P le a s e n o te I a m n o t s ta ti n g how it sh o u ld b e d o n e , b u t m e r e ly la y in g o u t 

p o s s ib le p r o b le m s th a t n e e d to be a d d r e s s e d b e f o re w e get lo c k e d in .

B e c a u se o f th e a b o v e r e s e r v a t io n s , I r e c o m m e n d you e ith e r p u ll b a c k th e 

m e m o ra n d u m o r a s k th e A tt o rn e y G e n e r a l to d e la y a c ti n g on it p e n d in g 

f u r th e r c o o r d in a ti o n w it h m e . A n o th e r o p ti o n w o u ld b e f o r m e to in fo rm 

th e A tto rn e y G e n e r a l of m y r e s e r v a t io n s an d a s k h im to d e f e r th e d e c is io n . 

H o w e v e r, I do n o t th in k th is is d e s i r a b l e an d w o u ld p r e f e r th a t y o u an d I 

w o rk it o u t in th e s p i r i t of c o o p e r a tio n th a t m u s t b e c o m e o u r t r a d e m a r k .

F r a n k ly , I w a s ta k e n by s u r p r i s e l a s t n ig h t. A fte r o u r d is c u s s io n o n F r id a y 

a b o u t th e n e e d f o r te a m w o rk an d m y o p e n ly d is c u s s in g m y r o le , I w as 

s u r p r i s e d th a t you u n ila te r a lly s u b m itte d to th e A tt o rn e y G e n e r a l r e c o m ­

m e n d a tio n s h a v in g a p ro fo u n d im p a c t o n m y a r e a o f r e s p o n s ib ility and m y 

w o rk in g r e la tio n s h ip w it h h im . T h is w a s th e r e a s o n fo r m y r a t h e r v ig o ro u s 

r e a c tio n . In a n y c a s e , w e c o v e re d th a t g ro u n d f a ir ly th o ro u g h ly l a s t n ig h t, 

an d I a m c o n fid e n t th a t in th e fu tu r e w e c an w o rk to g e th e r on m a t t e r s of 

th is s o r t a n d r e s o lv e o r s p e ll o u t an y d if f e r e n c e s p r i o r to s u b m it ti n g 

r e c o m m e n d a tio n s .
454

Exhibit No. 4

S A M P L E

CO MMITTE E FO R THE RE- EL ECTION O F T HE PRESI DENT

M EM O R A N D U M Jan u ary 17, 197 2

CONFIDENTIAL

MEMORANDUM FOR:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

MR. H. R. HALDEMAN

JOHN N. SMITH

Memoranda

r

T h is is th e fo rm f o r a l l mem oranda a d d re ssed to mem bers o f ou r 

s t a f f , p eo p le a t th e W hite Hou se, and th e RNC. Memorandum 

p a p er, r a th e r th an s ta tio n e r y , sh ould be u se d . I f th e memo is 

c o n f id e n tia l, i t sh o u ld be so marke d a t th e to p and bottom .

The word "M r. ", " M rs." , or "M iss" sh ould p re ced e th e a d d re s s e e 's 

name, b u t n o t th e w r i t e r 's . Mr. Ha lde ma n i s al w ay s "Mr. H. R. 

Halde man ," never "B ob" or "R ober t Ha lde ma n" — whi ch is n o t h is 

nam e. M id dl e i n i t i a l s sh ould al w ay s be use d in b o th l in e s .

The names o f b o th th e w r ite r and th e a d d re sse e a re alway s a l l 

in c a p ita l l e t t e r s . The su b je c t l in e i s in b o th upper and lo wer 

case and th e s u b je c t i s al w ay s u n d e rli n e d . Ho we ver, you ne ed 

n o t n e c e s s a r ily u se a s u b je c t l in e .

P ara g ra p h s sh o u ld n o t be in d e n te d . The l e f t m ar gin sh ould b eg in 

under th e l a s t l e t t e r ("m ") of th e word "Memorandum" on th e 

p ap er. The t y p i s t 's i n i t i a l s sh ould never ap p ea r on th e memo. 

Ca rbon co p ie s sh o u ld be ad d re ss ed to a p e rs o n u sin g h is f u l l 

nam e, e . g . , "Mr. Jo hn D. E h rl ic h m an ," n ever "J ohn E h rl ic hm an," or 

"Mr. E h rl ic hm an."

Check w it h Gene R o b e rts f o r th e num ber and k in d of f i l e c o p ie s 

yo u sh ould make i f th e memo i s fo r Mr. M ag ru d er' s s ig n a tu r e . 

Alw ays mark th e c o p ie s .

Thank yo u.

cc: Mr. Jo hn D. E hrlic hm an

CONFIDENTIAL
455

Exhibit No. 14

FIN AN CE COMM ITT EE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT

1701 Pe nn sylvo nio Ave. N. W., Suite 272 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

«

*

P A Y j f © ^ < A .

? ' ? . 2

v * ' FIN AF---------------- ------------------ - ----- ---

QV> • C J L < b \ A g A O 2 - Q

FIN AN CE COMMITTEE TO RE -E LE CT 

THE PRESIDENT

— — 2 2 - I ^ X L n ^ ---------------- ' / / - T T Z ? . . . f

T H E FIR ST N A TIO N A L BA NK OF WAS HI Nb TON - W AS KI N G ! O N, O. C . --------~ Z >

c o s » , o » ' o o o u : H ‘ O E E i 1 . 0 ? 5 ' | *

*

4
Ex h ib it N o. 15

PE RIOD 0 8 - 0 1 - 7 2 THRU 0 8 - 0 9 - 7 2 S C H E D U L E D . PAGE 14

" ' " IT E M IZ E D EX PE ND ITUR ES - PERSONAL SERVIC ES* LOANS* AND TRANSFERS

FI NA NCE COMMITTEE TO R E -E LE C T.T H E PR ESID ENT__________________ _______________ __________ .. . ; _P AR T NO. „ 7 . . . .

DATE

payee name

payee mailin g address

PAYEE OCCUPATIO N •

PAYEE PLACE OF BUS . PURPOSE OF EX PE ND ITUR E

EX PE ND ITUR E

AMT THS PER

1 8 -0 4 -7 2 W IL LIA M S SYLVESTER E F IE L D RE PR ES ENT ATIVE TRAVEL EXPENSE 2 0 0 .0 0

1 12 0 9 SCHUYLK ILL R D ' COMM TO REELECT THE PRES

ROCKV ILLE MD 2 0 8 5 3 WASHINGTON DC

> 8 -0 5 -7 2 CRAWFORD JACK OWNER TRA VEL EXPENSE 1 9 2 .2 2

1407 L ST NW JACK CRAWFORD CONSTRUCTIO N CO

WASHINGTON DC WASHINGTON DC

> 3 -0 5 -7 2 CRONK C ROBERT EXECUTIV E OIR ECTOR RE IM S TRA VEL EXPENSE 3 1 0 .0 0

53 z. 9 WHEATON ST PRO JEC T CONCERN •

LA MESA C A LIF 920 4 1 LA MESA C ALIF

> 8 -0 5 -7 2 GPOVES MA RILY N CHAIRMAN AREA 1 TRAVEL EXPENSE 1 6 4 .5 4

140 9 9 VALLEY V IS TA 8LV0 YOUTH FOR NIXO N . ______...

SHERMAN OAKS C A L IF 9 1 4 0 3 "SHERMAN OAKS C ALIF

> 8 -0 5 -7 2 STURM CLARENCE L PAST PR ES ID ENT . RE IMB TRAVEL EXPENSE 1 8 6 .0 0 LIO NS IN TE RNAT IO NAL •

MANAWA WISC 5 4 9 4 9 MANAWA WISC

> 8 -0 5 -7 2 WIPTH JOHN C JR ETHNIC DIRE CT OR TRAVEL EXPENSE ■ 2 0 9 .6 7

3b S FERRIS ST COMM TO REELE CT THE PRES

IR VIN GTON N Y 105 3 3 WASHINGTON DC 2 0 0 0 6 . * . - ...

> 8 -0 7 -7 2 BAIL EY ROBERT H ATTORNEY TRAVEL EXPENSE 1 0 0 .9 9

4 3 3 E CENTER ST ROBERT H BAIL EY LAW O FFIC E .. ...... „ .. . e,

KING SPOR T TENN 376 6 0 CHU RC HILL TENN

0 8 - 0 7 - 7 2 BALDWIN I I I ALFRED C SE CUR ITY GUARD TRAVEL EXPENSE ... . 4 2 9 .8 4

90 MT VIEW TERRACE SE LF -EMPL OY ED

f /- ■ HAMDEN CONN HAMDEN CONN <•

08—04—72 ROBINSON JOHN \

2121 8th AVE SOUTH EAST ATTRACTIONS, INC. -left Aft .. . . ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSE \ ...

o
■