(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Presidential campaign activities of 1972, Senate resolution 60; Watergate and related activities"

'' PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 

'^L SENATE RESOLUTION 60 




HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Phase I: Watergate Investigation 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 18, 19, 20, 23, 2*, AND 25, 1973 

Book 6 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 




U. S GoverDm«^nt- DomTi^ r^-^.::^os;tory 
Franklin Pier library 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 

SENATE RESOLUTION 60 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Phase I: Watergate Investigation 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, AND 25, 1973 

Book 6 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
96-296 O WASHINGTON : 1973 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3 

Stock Number 6270-01966 



SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

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



SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman 
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee, Vice Chairman 

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel 

RUFUS L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Arthur J. Miller, Chief Consultant 

David M. Dorsen, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel 

James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Carmine S. Belling, Chief Investigator 

Wayne H. Bishop, Chief Field Investigator 

Eugene Boyce, Hearings Record Counsel 

R. Phillip Haire, Assistant Counsel 

Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel 

William T. Mayton, Assistant Counsel 

Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel 

Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel 

Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel 

H.William Shure, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Laura Matz, Administrative Assistant 

Carolyn Andrade, Office Manager 

Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority 

(H) 



CONTENTS 



HEARING DAYS 

Page 

Wednesday, July 18, 1973 2219 

Thursday, July 19, 1973 2323 

Friday, July 20, 1973 2387 

Monday, July 23, 1973 2445 

Tuesday, July 24, 1973 2509 

Wednesday, July 25, 1973 2589 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

Wednesday, July 18, 1973 

Ulasewicz, Anthony, retired New York City Police Department detective, 

accompanied bj^ John Joseph Sutter, counsel 2219 

LaRue, Fred C, former special counsel to the President, accompanied by 

Fred Vinson, counsel 2277 

Thursday, July 19, 1973 

LaRue, Fred C, testimony resumed 2223 

Mardian, Robert C, former counsel to the Committee for the Re-Election 

of the President, accompanied by David Bress, counsel 2345 

Friday, July 20, 1973 

Mardian, Robert C, testimony resumed 2388 

Strachan, Gordon, former staflf assistant to H. R. Haldeman, accompanied 

by John Bray, counsel 2436 

Monday, July 23, 1973 

Strachan, Gordon, testimony resumed 2445 

Tuesday, July 24, 1973 

Ehrlichman, John, former chief domestic adviser to the President, accom- 
panied by John J. Wilson and Frank H. Strickler, counsels 2509 

Wednesday, July 25, 1973 
Ehrlichman, John, testimony resumed 2599 

INTERROGATION OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE AND COUNSELS 

Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr Ulasewicz: 2267, 

2276. LaRue: 2338-2345. Mardian: 2360, 2382-2384, 2418, 2419. 

Strachan: 2489-2491. Ehrlichman: 2570-2579, 2632. 
Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr Ulasewicz: 2263-2267. 

LaRue: 2328-2333. Mardian: 2346, 2387-2391. Strachan: 2495- 

2500. Ehrlichman: 2579-2587. 
Talmadge, Hon. Herman E Ulasewicz: 2261-2263. 

LaRue: 2306-2311. Mardian: 2391-2394. Strachan: 2501-2504. 

Ehrlichman : 2599-2606. 
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K Ulasewicz: 224.5-2249. 

LaRue: 2323-2328. Mardian: 2398-2403. Strachan: 2486-2489, 

2491, 2506, 2507. Ehrlichman: 2616-2625. 
Montoya, Hon. Joseph M Ulasewicz: 2267-2270. 

LaRue: 2315-2322. Mardian: 2410-2418. Strachan: 2473-2478. 
Gurney, Hon. Edward J Ulasewicz: 2249-2261. 

LaRue: 2311-2315. Mardian: 2394-2398. Strachan: 2491-2495. 

Ehriichman: 2606-2616. 

(ni) 



IV 

Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr Ulasewicz : 2266, 

2270-2276. Lallue: 2333-2338. Mardian: 2403-2410, 2419-2429, 
2434, 2435. Strachan: 2481-2485, 2504-2506. Ehrlichman: 2625- 
2630. 

Dash, Samuel, chief counsel and staff director LaRue: 2277-2301. 

Strachan: 2445-2466. Ehrlichman: 2522-2554. 

Thompson, Fred D., minority counsel-- Lallue: 2301-2306. 

Mardian: 2378-2382. Strachan: 2466-2473. Ehrlichman. 2554- 
2570. 

Lenzner, Terry F., assistant chief counsel Ulasewicz: 2219-2238. 

Hamilton, James, assistant chief counsel Mardian: 2345-2377, 2429-2433. 

Shure, 11. William, assistant minority counsel Ulasewicz: 2238-2245. 

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Nos. 78 through 86 — (2276) Photographs used during the interrogation of 

Mr. Ulasewicz 2228-2230 

No. 87— (2328) Letter to Fred M. Vinson, Jr., Esq., from Archibald Cox, 

Special Prosecutor, dated June 12, 1973 2634 

No. 88 — (2344) Various letters between Robert W. Barker, Esq., Fred M. 
Vinson, Esq., Maurice H. Stans, and Fred C. LaRue re: Finance 
Committee To Re-Elect the President funds in possession of 
LaRue 2635 

No. 89 — (2367) Contents of a handwritten note furnished by Mr. Mardian 

after a telephone conversation with Mr. Stans on May 1, 1973. _ 2642 

No. 90 — (2554) White House note for Young/Krogh from John Ehrlichman 
with attached memorandum from Bud Krogh and David 
Young. Subject: Pentagon Papers Project— Status Report as 
of August 11, 1971 2643 

No. 91 — (2554) Memorandum for John Ehrlichman from David R. Young. 
Subject: Status of Information Which Can Be Fed Into Con- 
gressional Investigation on Pentagon Papers Affair. Also memo- 
randum for Charles Colson from John Ehrlichman. Subject: 
Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1 2646 

No. 92 — (2554) For identification only and not for publication. 

No. 93— (2607) Affidavit of Henry E. Petersen 2652 

No. 94 — (2626) Letter to Egil Krogh from J. Edgar Hoover re: President 
Nixon's letter of July 29, 1971, regarding disclosures of top- 
secret material to the public 2655 

Note; Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was officially made part of the record. 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 
PHASE I: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1973 



U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Was king ton, D.G. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m,, in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 
Gurney, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred D. 
Thompson, minority counsel ; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun- 
sel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; 
David INI. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant 
chief counsels ; R. Phillip Plaire, Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, 
Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels; 
Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy 
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 IMontoya ; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 
Baker ; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker ; Ray St. Armand. 
assistant publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Counsel will call 
the first witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Tony Ulasewicz. 

Senator Ervin. You were sworn in and you took the oath of a witness 
when you were here before the committee earlier, and this same oath 
still covers your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY T. ULASEWICZ, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN 

JOSEPH SUTTER, COUNSEL 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Terry Lenzner, assistant chief coun- 
sel, will question the witness. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Ulasewicz, I see you have counsel today. Would 
he identify himself. 

Mr. Sutter. John Joseph Sutter, Mineola, N.Y. 

Mr. Lenzner. I understand you have a prestatement you would like 
to make, Mr. Sutter. 

(2219) 



2220 

Mr. Sutter. I do. Mr. Chairman, I am sure much to the relief of the 
committee Mr. Ulasewicz does not have a prepared statement he de- 
sires to read. He is here merely for the purposes of answering questions 
from the committee and I should like the record to indicate that he 
appears pursuant to a subpena issued by the committee dated April 30, 
1973, and served upon him on or about May 8, 1973. Thank you, sir 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Sutter. 

Mr. Ulasewicz, you testified here about your relationships with Mr. 
Caulfield in making contact with Mr. McCord. I just want to go back 
and ask you, were you contacted originally by I^Ir. Caulfield m Feb- 
ruary of 1969 with reference to doing some investigative work? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Lenzner. I understand the committee is not going to inquire 
into that area in any detail at all today but I do want to ask just two 
other background questions : First, were you also interviewed by Mr. 
John Ehrlichman in May of 1969 at the VIP lounge at LaGuardia 
Airport ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And in June of 1969 did you meet Mr. Herbert Kalm- 
bach here in the District of Columbia ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, on or about June 28, 1972, did you receive a call 
from that same Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I believe it was on the 29th of June. 

Mr. Lenzner. And could you tell us what he said to you and what 
you said to him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Kalmbach asked me to come down to Washing- 
ton the next afternoon, that he wanted to speak to me regarding an 
assignment. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you agree to do that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you see him the next day ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was that, sir ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It was in the Statler-Hilton Hotel in his room. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell us what he said to you at that time and 
what you said to him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Kalmbach advised me that he had a very im- 
portant iassignment, and he went at least three times over the state- 
ment, saying that it was a situation that developed that he was asked 
to do something and needed my help in doing it. He said that it was 
legal, that it was to provide funds for persons in difficulty for payment 
of their counsels, and for payment to assist their families during some 
troublesome period. He repeated the statement several times. He was 
very ill at ease, very nervous and we got to the point where I said, 
"Well, Mr. Kalmbach just what is this now" and he says, "I have 
guessed it, it's the Watergate situation." 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. ITlasewicz, let me just interi-upt — would you put 
the microphone more directly in front of vou please, thank you. 

Mr. ITlasewicz. And he said, "It's the Watergate situation, I guess 
vou have guessed that," and I said "Yes, sir." and he said "Well, again, 
let me assure you I would not in any way or fashion ask anyone to do 
anything that I would not engage my own services in. It is an assign- 
ment for me and I am asking you to do this. It will necessitate confi- 



2221 

dential methods possibly." He could not go into at that time as to what 
it might completely take in. 

At a certain point in the conversation, he mentioned that there may 
be a necessity of communicating by telephone with me from time to 
time, and what might be the best procedures. I said if you mean as 
far as best procedures of eavesdropping or any of that type that the 
telephone booth method is the only one, and I started to explain how- 
ever, "Wherever you want me to call you, you should give me the num- 
ber in advance, you should check it out, know where I am calling and 
then I know it in return." And I went right over his head actually be- 
cause it didn't quite work out that way but we went into the phone 
booth deal and we agreed to it. After that 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you explain what the phone booth deal was, Mr. 
Ulasewicz ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, if we wanted to be absolutely certain of receiv- 
ing a call at a cleared phone booth or so he should have, the way it 
would be he would go into an area where he wanted me to call from a 
phone booth, establish that it was actually a phone booth but we did 
make an arrangement later where we did furnish with numbers. 

Mr. Lenzner. A phone booth ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. A phone booth. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you also talk about names that you and he could 
contact each other ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. Mr. Kalmbach agreed to use — suggested when- 
ever lie might call me in relation to this matter — ^lie would use the 
name Novak and that would be just strictly for myself. In the course 
of that, he said that if another name would probably be. necessary it 
would be Rivers, 

Mr. Lenzner. Who was supposed to use that name ? 

Mv. Ulasewicz. He anticipated that I might use that name in con- 
tact with distributing this money to the people that it would be nec- 
essary. At a point in the conversation he said that he had the money 
with him, and it was $75,100 which he gave me. It was in $100 bills. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did you put it in ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I went to the closet of the room and took a laundry 
bag and put the money in a laundry bag. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now going back to the code names, do I understand it 
correctly, ]\Ir. Ulasewicz, when he called you he would call your home 
and say, "This is Mr. Novak calling." 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And would he leave a number for you to call back? 

Mr. Ulasewicz, It developed to that, yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. What would you do after that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. What happened when he called Mr. Novak, where 
he would say it is Novak after our initial call, which I supplied him 
with telephone, public telephone numbers, I would go to the telephone 
booth, and we had — and he would give me a time usually about a half 
hour, allowing me time to get to the phone booth and then he would 
call me at the booth, 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you go back to New York with the $75,100 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did, 

Mr, Lenzner, Did you thereafter receive money again from Mr. 
Kalmbach ? 



2222 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. I would like to get your receipts all at once here if I 
can. Where was the next place that you received money from Mr. 
Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. At the Regency Hotel in New York City. 

Mr. Lenzner. Approximately how much ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $40,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. And approximately when was that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That would have been in July. 

Mr. Lenzner. Of 1972? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 1972. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was the next delivery ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. At the Hilton here in Washington, $28,900. 

Mr. Lenzner. Again approximately when was that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In July. 

Mr. Lenzner. And 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And then my recollection is the final amount was 
$75,000 at the Airporter Inn in Los Angeles opposite the Orange 
County Airport. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right. 

Now, going back to the original $75,100 what denominations was that 
in did you say ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Hundred dollar bills. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where did you keep that cash ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I kept it at home. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you received these other 
amounts that you left them somewhere else ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In a safe deposit box. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, after you got back to New York, did you hear 
from Mr. Kalmbach again ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzni:r, And what instructions, if any, did he give you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He mentioned — he told me to call a Mr. Caddy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Caddy ^ 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Right, Mr. Caddy, to come back to Washington, 
D.C., and call Mr. Caddy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Approximately 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He supplied me with a telephone number. 

Mr. Lenzner. How soon after you left Washington did he tell you 
that? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It probably was the same evening or the next 
morning. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did you do? Did you go down to Washington 
and call Mr. Caddy ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Will you tell us the conversation you had with him. 

INIr. Ulasewicz. I contacted Mr. Caddy and he suggested that he 
would — prior to this is when Mr. Kalmbach said, "Tell him that." And 
it was of the code names we had gotten into other names, Tom Kane, 
and John Ferguson and Tommy tSmith so there was a little confusion 
once in av/hile on that. However, at this 



2223 

Mr. Lenzner. Who gave you those names ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Kahiibach and myself in conversation, as kind 
of backup. 

However, with — in this case he instructed me to use, I believe it was 
John Rivers when 1 called Mr. Caddy and on this occasion I was to 
say the purpose of my call to Mr. Caddy was that I was asking the 
cost of a script, of a play plus the salaries of the players, which I did. 
I contacted Mr. Caddy, and he was — and he responded and said he 
would meet me in a restaurant sometime in the afternoon here in 
Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Lenzner. Just to clarify it, you identified yourself to Mr. Caddy 
as Mv. Rivers, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believe Mr. Rivers, yes. In most of these trans- 
actions it was Rivers. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there any reason for the code name Rivers for you 
to use ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you go to that restaurant in Georgetown? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. What happened there ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I waited for Mr. Caddy's arrival. However, a phone 
call came in, I was paged by the bartender, Mr. Caddy got on the phone 
and said that he couldn't meet me, after speaking to somebody in his 
office in the attorney's office that he could not meet me, would I be able 
to come and see him. I told him I would get in touch with him. My 
instructions originally with Mr. Kalmbach was that I enter no negoti- 
ations at any time that he would not enter negotiations. This is re- 
freshing my memory again and the other thing he said was that I am 
to do, if I received amounts or so, I am not to deliver anything until 
I get in touch with Mr. Kalmbach, and throughout these — continually 
throughout these negotiations and drops and whatever may come up, 
this was the pattern, that I would make the contact as directed, but I 
would take no action until I reported whatever was said or done to 
Mr. Kalmbach and even I would await a return call from Mr. Kalm- 
bach, as to whether to proceed or not. In this case I reported 
Mr. Caddy's message and Mr. Kalmbach said, "Well," probably, 
"give me the number you are at — that is at a phone booth here in 
Washington. I will get back to you." 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he call you back ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. My recollection is he did. He called me back and I 
think in this instance it was, "Call Mr. Caddy again." And this might 
have been an hour or so later. I called Mr. Caddy again and we got 
nowhere as far as any costs, I am now picturing that I am going to de- 
liver the $75,100 which I have under my arm and he is not going along 
with it, and so 

Mr. Lenzner. You had the money with you on that date ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. How did you carry it on that date ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I carried it in a brown bag with, you know, the 
ordinary type of — with a little string around it. You know, sometimes 
carrying what is most obvious doesn't raise any suspicion, carrying 
an armed box would ask for trouble. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were just carrying your lunch ? 



2224 

Mr. Ui^\SE\vicz. Carrying my lunch. 

Mr. Lexzner. All rij^ht. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Nevertheless, 1 got to, back to Mr. Kalmbach. This 
was a series of calls. Then soniewhei-e in there, Mr. Caddy suggested 
that I should come up to the office, that they would have, where there 
was a corridor, a separate office, and we would not be observed, et 
cetera. So then, that I had to report back to Mr, Kalmbach. 

I think these calls might have been going Californiawide by now, 
I am not too certain. Then he would attempt to get back to me. How- 
ever, there was a delay. Apparently, he could not reach whomever he 
was attempting to reach, the communications were not there for 
some reason or other. 

Then I probably went back to the city — the final result being that 
that was it with Mr. Caddy. We never did meet. 

Mr. Lenzner. At some point, did Mr. Kalmbach tell you to drop 
the whole Cadd}^ business? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it you were having these conversations phone 
booth to phone booth between yourself and JMr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Were you loaded down with change, Mr. T^lasewicz ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes, indeed. 

Mr. Lenzner. How did you carry that change ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. When I started out, I started with a kind of little 
box deal. When I finished up, I had a bus guy's, one of these things 
that the bus drivers have. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Lenzner. After you got back to New York, did you again receive 
instructions from Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. Just about the time it ended with Caddy, 
which we got nowhere, and I still had the $75,100, I was asked to call 
Mr. O'Brien, using the name of John Rivers. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. O'Brien, received a very tart kind of 
biTishoff response, and that was the end of that conversation. It was 
one phone call. He showed no interest in any script, players, or any 
type of message that I would give. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were given the same instructions by Mr. Kalm- 
bach to talk about a script, a scenario, the players ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call Mr. Kalmbach again, telephone booth to 
telephone booth ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. And tell him 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I told him exactly as I ha^•e related here. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he come back again with other instructions ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He came back, gave me another person to call — 
it was not a person — he gave me a telephone number this time, no 
name involved. To the best of my recollection, when I called and it 
was answered, the fellow would be expecting a call, give the name of 
Mr. John Rivers or whatever name — it would have to be Rivers, I 
imagine. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where was the number? 



2225 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Washington, D.C., area. And I may have called 
from the city of New York at that time, because running around 
with $75,100, trying to get rid of it was becoming a problem. 

So I called the number and he said to me, you can talk to the 
writer's wife. And I said to him, well, as far as the writer's wife, I 
do not have a phone number. He said, why don't you do what I have 
to do, look in the phone book ? So that was the end of that conversa- 
tion, because that was apparently another one we were not going to 
get anywhere with. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you report that back to Mr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. Kalmbach again. All of these were 
precluded. I had to call and wait for a comeback. I began to call them 
Kalmbach comeback calls. [Laughter.] 

So that was that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you get further instructions from Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. I then was instructed to call Mr. Bittman in 
Washington, who I understood was an attorney. 

Mr. Lenzner. ^Yliat instructions did you have to talk to him? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The same thing, the cost of the script, the writer, 
get what the attorney fees — not the attorney fees at this point. The 
cost of the script, the players, et cetera. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were using the same name, Mr. Rivers ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call Mr. Bittman? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you speak to him? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I spoke to Mr. Bittman and I recall that in the 
first conversation, Mr. Bittman said, "Well, I understand." He was 
expecting a call. He said, "Well, this is very unusual." He said some- 
thing like, I do not know if you are an attorney, but an attorney 
does not anticipate fees and costs in this manner. 

I said, "Well, I am instructed not to negotiate in any manner. I un- 
derstood that you would have a figure" and I told him that I am 
prepared at this time if we can get down to this, because at this 
point, I still wanted to get rid of all those cookies, $75,100. 

And he brought in the situation that — he was not prej^ared at that 
time, something was not according to the way he liked. I so reported 
to Mr. Kalmbach, received my call back from Mr. Kalmbach. He told 
me again to call and contact Mr. Bittman. 

Now, this is some period of time passes by. Mr. Bittman said, all 
right, his initial fee would be $25,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. What period of time, Mr. I"^lasewicz, are we talking 
about ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. This would be around July 8 to the 10th, in that 
period of time. 

Mr. Lenzner. You are talking now about your discussions with Mr. 
Bittman? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. With Mr. Bittman, correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you call Mr. Kalmbach and tell him Mr. 
Bittman liad indicated he wanted an initial fee of $25,000? 

Mr. ITi^asewicz, I did. 



2226 

Mr. Lexzner. What was Mr. Kalmbacirs response? 

Mr. Ulasewk^z. He said to deliver it to Mr. Bittinan in any manner 
I saw fit. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he give you any instructions about not being seen 
by Mr. Bittinan ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes; those oame in after the Caddy call, that 
somehow conversations were arranged that I would not now be seen 
by anybody, to do the money without being observed, in a contidential 
manner. 

Mr. Lexznek. That was Mr. Kalmbach's instructions to you? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Right. 

Mr. Lenzxek. Now, you expressed some concern about cairving this 
amount of money around with you. How were you traveling during 
this period of time? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. By airplane. Eastern Airlines shuttle, usually. 

Mr. Lenzxek. Did you ever change your mode of travel? Did you 
have a problem on the plane ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, there was a period of time, of course, with 
the hijacks and all — they started a searching system on the airlines 
and that was a little problem. I got in line one time to come back — 
when I had the problem, it would be only $50,000 at this time. A fel- 
low in front of me, two or three persons in front of me stopped and 
had to produce — I think four packs of cigarettes or something, set off 
the alarm. So I wxnt into a coughing fit and I went down to the 
Pennsylvania Railroad and took the train home. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, now, you arranged, as I understand it, Mr. 
Ulasewicz, to furnish Mr. Bittman with $25,000 for the script. Was 
that the end of the conversation ? 

Mr. Ui^SEWicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And how did you arrange to deliver that money ? 

INIr. Ulasewicz. I contacted Mr. Bittman right from the lobby of 
his office there. I spoke with him and I told him that I had the cash. 
Prior to that, I went out to a drugstore in the area, bought a couple 
of envelopes and some scotch tape, and I had to count out $25 from 
that $75,100— $25,000 from the $75,100 original, which I did, and I put 
it into a plain kraft brown envelope. 

I called Mr. Bittman from the lobby of his building. There are two 
or three phone booths. On one side of the phone booth was a ledge 
with the phone books and I called Mr. Bittman. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Ulasewicz, if I may interrupt you, could you now 
approach the easel and tell me if you can identify this first photo- 
graph ? 

Now, you started to describe, Mr. Ulasewicz, where you left us, is 
that the lobby of the building ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes [78]*, this is the lobby, these are the phone 
booths, these are elevators going to either side, and that is Ulasewicz 
right there. 

Air. Lenzner. Very good. Would you now indicate on the photo- 
graph where you called from and what happened after that? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called from this telephone booth [indicating] to 
Mr. Bittman and told him that I had the delivery and that would he 



to 



•FiRures in brackets indicate exhibit numbers beinR referred to. Exliibits appear on 
pp. 222S-2230. 



2227 

come right down and that it would be on the ledge at (the telephone 
booth. 

Now, this gentleman is standing where the ledge is. There are two or 
three or four telephone books and there is a ledge above, a kind of space. 
I told him it would be a brown sack and that the money would be lying 
right there, would he come right down, if he walk right through and 
pick it up and go back to the elevator, I would be satisfied. 

]Mr. Lenzner. Now, thereafter, did an individual come down on the 
elevator ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. We had a description of clothing as I phoned, as I 
recall, that he would be wearing a brown suit or something at that time. 

Mr, Lenzner. Did somebody come down wearing those clothes ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Where were you at that time ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I was in a telephone booth. I had it half shut. There 
was another person in a booth. These booths on weekdays are very 
heavily used. There is a newsstand section in front. There is quite a 
bit of traffic on a weekday. This was taken on a Saturday afternoon. 

He came right out of this elevator, the first elevator, and walked 
right over, picked it up, walked right back in, and Avent up. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Ulasewicz, rather than having you go back 
and forth several times between the table and the easel, 1 would like 
to go ahead and continue, if it is OK, and have you describe other 
contacts that you made with individuals you furnished Avith money. 

Did there come a time later when Mr. Kalmbach instructed you to 
furnish funds to Mrs. Hunt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have a conversation with Mrs. Hunt where 
you arranged to furnish her with some funds ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you just describe what you told her, as to how 
she could pick up her money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I told Mrs. Hunt that at a certain time in a day, and 
I picked an hour, to come into the lounge of the American Airlines, 
which is a long lounge area, leading right through the building. There 
are ticket desks on one side, seats in the center and it is a very busy area. 
And at the center of that, she should check with the time on a large 
clock, so it would be almost exactly at that time. It would be 12 noon 
and if she saw 5 to 12, to go back out and come back at that time. 

She followed instructions explicitly. 

In the meantime, whatever drop I would have at the time, I would 
put in this particular locker and take the key. [79]* And just before, 
when I pulled up with the instructions, now, 5 minutes before I knew 
she was coming, there was opposite, and about 25 feet away, across 
from Northwest Orient Airlines, there is a series of telephone booths, 
five or six booths [81]*, and there is a newsstand across and there is a 
bit of traffic. 

Before making the arrangements, I spent some time observing the 
telephone booths and of all the booths, watching people going in and 
out, the most I saw in one for some reason, people didn't use the very 
end one. So that is the reason I used that and left the key. 

So 5 minutes prior to the time I would tell her to come, I would go 
into this telephone booth and underneath where the coin drop is, I 

♦Figures in brackets indicate exhibit numbers being referred to. Exhibits appear on 
pp. 2228-2230. 



2228 



Exhibit 78 




Exhibit 79 




Exhibit 80 




2229 



Exhibit 81 




Exhibit 82 




Exhibit 83 




2230 



Exhibit 84 




Exhibit 85 



o 

r i 




-4zi£ 


Hb. 


H w ^^^^H 





Exhibit 86 




2231 

would scotch tape the key to the locker where I made my drop. [80]* 

Then I would leave that area and cither go by the newsstand oppo- 
site or — this would be where the phone booth would be. This is a lounge, 
where she would be coming through in this direction, [81]* This is a 
window for airplane observation by the public, et cetera, and I would 
probably be in this area, walk there, would be a little further behind, 
where I could watch the booth. Her directions were the same thing, 
don't hesitate, go right into the booth, remove the key, go to the locker. 
The locker would be 25 feet, I guess, or so across the corridor. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, before she arrived on the first occasion, did you 
also have a description of her, the clothes she was going to wear? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; she mentioned that day she would be wearing a 
blue outfit and I think she said her hair in a clip back off the 
shoulders. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, I believe on May 19 of this year, when we went 
out to that phone booth mth you, there was some scotch tape under- 
neath that telephone box ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you observe her on the first occasion come 
by. pick up the key, and go over to the box, which I think is N-301, 
and remove funds that you had left there ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you see her do that on otlier occasions ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. On two other occasions. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, the first occasion, how much money did you 
leave in that box ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $40,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. The second occasion ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I will just refer to the notes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Sure. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I mentioned there was one occasion that Mr. Hunt 
came. I mentioned actually there were four drops to the Hunts. 

Mr. Lenzner. Four drops to the Hunts — three to Mrs. Hunt and one 
to Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. There were $43,000 the second time, 
$18,000 the third, and $53,500 on the last occasion, which was Septem- 
ber 19. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right, sir. Now, I take it you had the telephone 
booth under observation from the lounge after you left the key until 
at some point when Mrs. Hunt picked up the key ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. What if someone had come in and found that, Mr. 
Ulasewicz, w^hile you were watching? 

Mr. I^lasewicz. Well, he would be very quickly relieved of that key. 
I think that is the best I can answer. Why put myself in that position ? 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it that was the purpose of keeping the booth 
under observation ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you were instructed by 
Mr. Kalmbach to deliver funds to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember approximately when that was? 

♦Figures in brackets indicate exhibit numbers being referred to. Exhibits appear on 
pp. 222S-2230. 



9S-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 2 



2232 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That was in July of 1972. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you contact Mr. Lidcly and give him instructions 
as to how that money would be delivered ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much was that, by the way ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $8,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right, sir. Now, will you explain what you told 
Mr. Liddy? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 1 contacted Mr. Liddy. I had taken the phone num- 
ber from Mrs. Hunt. She had made those arrangements, saying they 
needed money, and Kalmbach came back to me, delivered the money, 
$78,000. In that conversation, he started, and it was the only one I had 
with him, he started on that occasion, started saying something 
about — again he thought I was in policymaking or some contact — and 
he said, "You can check with anyone and the stand-up gTiy," et cetera. 
I said, "Mr. Liddy, I am only delivering something in the package." 
Pie said "OK". 

We made arrangements and in this instance, I placed the money in 
the locker at this end of the lobby and at the end of the lobby, the 
main area, where Eastern Airlines comes in here. [85]* I placed the 
money in the bottom locker. [82]* I placed the key in an envelope and 
placed it on a ledge here by the window [83]* and myself in a position 
back to observe, much in this fashion. 

Mr. Lenzner. What is next to the travel 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Next to the Mutual '? 

Mr. Lenzner. Insurance. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Insurance situation here. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right. 

Mr, Ulasewicz. Then he came in and did as instructed, told him he 
would be wearing a shirt of some description. He came in, walked by 
me and he proceeded up — there is a flight of stairs which lead to an 
upper deck, and I watched him from up here [84]*, and I lost sight of 
him, he had gone into a corridor leading in here and he probably 
thought that there were lockers in this area, and he went, however, he 
came back in maybe 30 seconds or so, and looking at his key opened the 
thing and took the money. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now did there come a time when you were asked to 
deliver money to Mr. Fred LaRue by Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was that in September of 1972 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And approximately how much was that ? , 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $29,900. 

Ml-. Lenzner. What arrangements did you make with Mr. LaRue 
to deliver those funds? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The instructions at that time from Mr. Kalmbach 
were there were two deliveries that day, one earlier t-o Mrs. Hunt in 
a manner as I described, and the second one to Mr. LaRue — shall I go 
into the entire conversation at this point? 

Mr. Lenzner. Sure, go ahead. 



♦Figures In brackets indicate exliibit numbers being referred to. Exhibits appear on 
pp. 222S-2230. 



2233 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. LaRue, Mr. Kalmbach said, gave me a tele- 
phone number and said, "Contact Mr. LaRue at 6 p.m. and Mr. LaRue 
lives in the Watergate apartments," which, of course, was a little sur- 
prise to me, and now we are back into the Watergate deal [laughter] 
and he said to leave, Mr. LaRue suggested that I leave the package 
at the desk and I said to Mr. Kalmbach that at no point have I been 
observed and I have been obeying the instructions as best as I know 
how and I certainly am not going to walk in and leave it at the desk 
because that is a third party. He said, "All right, handle it any way 
you want, as usual," et cetera. 

What I did is there is a garage opposite where Mr. LaRue lived in 
the Watergate, his entrance had one telephone booth and it was very — 
it was being used quite a bit — so I didn't go there but I hated to go to 
where I did go, which Avas the How^ard Johnson Hotel across from 
Watergate which was used in the original situation and that is where 
I wound up. 

I placed the key, I called Mr. LaRue, and asked him to come down, 
I had a package, he was w^aiting the call — 6 p.m. exactly, he was 
awaiting the call and he says fine, he would be right down. I had never 
met Mr. LaRue. I asked him to put two magazines under his arm, 
come across the street, come into the motel entrance and the money 
would be on the ledge in the motel. 

"Wlien he came out, it is a wide street, I w^atched him through the 
motel window here [86]* and he had two magazines. He stopped 
at the island because of heavy traffic, when he stepped off the island 
he was now api^roaching, I laid the money on the ledge in the envelope 
and I proceeded through a door back to the cigarette machines and I 
could see him come in, pick up the money, hesitate a moment, go right 
out and go back, back to his apartment. 

Mr. Lenzner. So you had the money and him under observation 
until such time as he picked it up ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you very much, Mr. Ulasewicz. 

Can you return now to the table and we will go back and pick up 
some more of your conversations with Mrs. Hunt. 

Now, after you delivered your $25,000 to Mr. Bittman, did you so 
advise Mr. Kalmbach that you had made that delivery ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, after that, did you receive another phone call 
from Mr. Kalmbach instructing you to contact the writer or the writer's 
wife? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, and he gave me the telephone number to the 
writer's residence. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who were you to call on that first occasion ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The writer, w^ho would be Mr. Hunt. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you have any instructions? What were you 
supposed to say to him ? 

Mr. Ui^SEwacz. That a listing of the cost of the script and the same 
routine, the actors and who may be concerned in that show. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call the number that Mr. Kalmbach had given 
you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. The telephone number ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I did call. 

*Figures in brackets indicate exhibit numbers being referred to. Exhibits appear on 
pp. 2228-2230. 



2234 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have a conversation — did you ask for the 
writer and talk to somebody out there ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I spoke to a male whom I assumed was the 
writer. He was evasive and wouldn't recognize my call in any way, 
and that was the end of that call, and I got back to Mr. Kalmbach who 
then — I had to await a return call, and the return call was to call 
again — and that if the writer's wife, ask for the writer's wife which, 
of cx)urse, was Mrs. Himt. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you call and ask for the writer's wife and talk 
to somebody ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did, and she answered the phone. 

Mr. Lenzner, And you identified yourself as Mr. Rivers ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Eight. 

Mr. Lenzner. And what 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She was expecting the call so that the contact was 
first made at this point with Mrs. Hunt. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could you describe the conversations that you had 
with Mrs. Hunt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. I told her that I was calling regarding the 
figures and Mrs. Hunt stated that she started with a list of necessities 
of attorneys, attorney fees, and she went into the persons down, refer- 
ring to people down South, with the necessity for aid. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it, Mr. Ulasewicz, you had a series of phone 
conversations during July of 1972 with Mrs, Hunt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz, That is correct. 

Mr, Lenzner. Well, can you tell the committee the substance of 
what those conversations concerned ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Initially, Mrs. Hunt was — ^when she Avent into fig- 
ures — I would inform her that I am not to negotiate, I Avas simply in a 
position to deliver whatever was necessary. However, she injected her- 
self continually and early feeling that I would pass a message on or 
something of that type. She started out initally in the early conversa- 
tion requesting rather than demanding or building up, but she would 
mention — she started with herself, the fact that she had lost her own 
job due to this and that should be taken into consideration, and that 
with that there are certain things with the job that, for instance, 
hospitalization, and whatever benefits might be there, that had been 
lost, and that she thought that perhaps $10,000 or $15,000 might— 
and this is no matter how many times I would try to stop her she would 
continue in with that. She said she was sure the same situation was 
occurring, and there was apparently — the calls I cannot separate com- 
pletely but where it started from the four instances of dropping the 
money, she started with this suggestive way and then got into it 
heavier each time. Subsequently, she would mention the necessitj^ of, 
that Mrs. Liddy was undergoing some psychiatric treatment or might 
be uridergoing, and that she was a school teacher and that she probably 
would not be able to work as a result of this and that should be another 
amount of money. 

When she spoke of costs to Mr. Hunt, her husband, Mr. McCord, 
Mr. Liddy, she gave figures of approximately $3,000 a month would 
be satisfactory, and she had hoped that that might be done in some 
multiples so we would not go thi-ough this thing monthly, and then 
she mentioned the name of Barker and he was particularly — this is in 
the four conversations, not all in this one. 



2235 

Mr. Lexzner. I understand. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And it built up in that and no matter how many 
times I would say I am not negotiating;, she got her bit in, and, of 
covirse, it continued in that manner. 

AMien she got into Barker, she explained Mr. Barker had some 
peculiar problem in this matter, he was dealing with the people down 
South, that others may have become involved other than they started 
originally — there were some bail problems down South. She men- 
tioned that she, in the course of these conversations over this period 
of time, that she was the one that was delivering the money to the 
various people after she had obtained it from me. Then she mentioned 
Sturgis, Gonzales, Martinez, and when she had mentioned Barker, she 
mentioned a sum of $10,000 for under-the-table, and she mentioned 
Barker with his problems and with other people suggesting that there 
were others possibly involved, and this is toward the final calls, so 
excuse me. 

Mr. Lenzxer. With reference to Mr. Barker let us just stick with 
him for a second. When she made reference to him she was asking or 
seeking a specific sum of money, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. with Mr. Barker. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She was asking a sum of money which wound up to 
$23,000. 

Mr. Lexzxer. How did she break that down ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She broke it down $10,000 bail, $10,000 under-the- 
table, and $3,000 for other expenses he was incurring with either com- 
ing up in this area and going back down or suggesting something of 
that type. 

jNIr. Lexzxer. Then, when she spoke about her own expenses for — 
I take it, travel for delivering these funds ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Right. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. How much was she seeking for that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $5,000 for her personal expenses. 

Mr. Lexzxer. When she talked about her travels, did she also dis- 
cuss with you her concern about the people down South and what as- 
surances they might be given ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She wanted to, she was concerned that they receive 
money likewise for the support of their families and for attorneys. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was there any discussion concerning the impending 
trial and its effect on the people down South ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; that some of them were getting uneasy, were 
getting nervous, and she intimated that unless the money was forth- 
coming that that certainly would help alleviate the situation. 

Mr. Lexzxer. You spoke about multiple sums, and I take it — by 
the way you were transmitting these requests, these concerns of Mrs. 
Hunt to Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Continually; and no action taken until he would 
oome back with an answer. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And was there an answer to the multiple sums that 
Mrs. Hunt was seeking for the defendants ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes; it was to be $15,000 to McCord, Liddy, and 
Hunt, $6,000 to Barker, $4,000 to Sturgis, $2,000 to Gonzales, $2,000 
to Martinez. 



2236 

Mr. Lenzner. And for how long a period was that to cover ? 

Mr. Ulu\se\vicz. Five months. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, in a later phone conversation with Mrs. Hunt, 
did that become a matter of concern ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes; she said it was causing a problem down South 
because it so happened that they were concerned because the 5 months 
ended up in a period just after the election, and from that I gathered 
they feared that that was deliberate, and I reminded Mi's. Hunt she 
is the one that brought this matter up and I was cutting it off and as I 
did with the negotiations and I said, "I certainly do not think that is 
any situation here that I am concerned with, you will have to stick 
with the amount, the cost of the script," and so forth. 

Mr. Lenzner. "\'Vlien you say down South, by the way, Mr. Ulase- 
wicz, what are you referring to, do you know what Mrs. Hunt was 
referring to ? 

Mr. Ui^iSEWicz. The Florida area, Florida. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, was there also a discussion with Mrs. Hunt 
about the attorneys in the case ? 

Mr. UluVSewicz. Yes; there was. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you tell us what she said to you about the 
attorneys ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She said the attorneys, and she mentioned names 
of the defendants and their attorneys — she mentioned $25,000 for 
Bittman for Hunt. Now, this was in addition, and I do not know if 
she knew I delivered the $25,000, but she did present to me again in 
this text that Hunt and Bittman $25,000; that McCord with Lee 
Bailey, $25,000 ; Liddy with Maroulis, $25,000 ; Barker with Kothblatt, 
$25,000. The three others, each $10,000, a total of $30,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. All right. 

You were transmitting again those figures to Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, when you delivered your first delivery of 
$40,000 to Mrs. Hunt at National Airport, how was that figure ar- 
rived at ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Kalmbach gave me that figure, and at that 
time, it was the only time in these that he — in that message was to say 
a certain amount for people — and it was like a downpayment, because 
it was obvious that the $75,000 was not going to cover into what we 
were getting. 

Mr. Lenzner. And as a result you later picked up the various loca- 
tions initial fund. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Additional sums. 

Mr. Lenzner. By he way, did there come a time when you totaled 
up the amounts of money that Mrs. Hunt was seeking ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, it was, yes, it was in the vicinity of $400,000 
to $450,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you have a conversation with Mr. Kalmbach 
concerning that figure ancl Mrs. Hunt's demands on you in California 
when you went to pick up the $75,000 out there ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; that was in August, and it was the last pickup 
from Mr. Kalmbach, and shall I go through it? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes, why don't you tell us what you said to liim and 
he said to you. 



2237 

Mr. Ulasewicz. When he. picked me up in his car in the airport car 
in Orange County Airport and we sat in the car, and just prior to this, 
I had ah-eady suggested to Mr. Kahnbach that this thing has definitely 
gone a different direction than originally anticipated. Originally antici- 
pated being that $75,100 was going to be the amount involved, and 
that the person to get it would probably be one person, in that case 
we started with Mr. Caddy and it was a direct confrontation. 

In all these conversations, Mr. Kalmbach was as upset about it as I 
was as I related it to him. He certainly didn't like it in any fashion as 
no more than I did, so we got along very w^ell on that score. When we 
met in the automobile, I got in the car and Mr. Kalmbach said "Tony, 
Avhat's your opinion of all this?" and I said, "Well,'" I am going to try 
to recall some exact words because the first statement I made to him, I 
said, "Well, Mr. Kalmbach, I will tell you something here is not 
kosher.'" He kind of looked at me, and I said "Well, it's definitely not 
your ball game, Mr. Kalmbach." I said "Whatever has happened we 
started with no negotiations, we are into negotiations, we started Avith 
$75,000 and now we are into a sum which we have raised, we have now 
got something like $220,000 coming in or $219,000 was the exact figure 
and we are only approaching half and I know that the next conversa- 
tion I have that figure has got to go up from all inferences and all.'" 

I said "Certainly, Mr. Kalmbach, I know your feelings in the mat- 
ter, I know how we started, what you said. It was legal but it was now 
leading up to a point and I feel I must tell you,"' and he understood 
that was my last to be mine and I recommended very strongly to Mr. 
Kahnbach that lie likewise desist from it regardless of how it started 
out and of all good intentions and he said that he would, he assured me 
of that, not that he had to assure me, we were from different stages of 
life. However, he did agree with me that this was time to quit it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Xow, after that meeting in California, did you receive 
a call from him in September of 1972 asking you to to deliver the 
money that you already described to Mrs. Hunt and Mr. La Rue ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you just tell us what he said to you about that 
delivery and what you said to him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In that call, it was a little unusual, because the 
inflection in his voice indicated irritation or something unusual as 
compared to any other time that I spoke with him. I could not fathom 
of course, and I didn"t ask him why, but he was very anxious that T be 
able to pick up that, make the deliveries on the same day, one around 
noontime to Mi-s. Hunt, and one at 6 p.m. and it seemed very urgent. 
Now at this time I was residing in the town of Dade in Saratoga 
County in New York and he wanted me for the next mor-ning and I 
explained to him there is an aii'plane problem, and likewise I men- 
tioned to him, my wire has about 10 lines on it and I mentioned to 
him, that the laundry was in the icebox. 

Mr. Lenzner. What was his response to that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, kind of a long pause and I said, "Well, you 
Ivnow the money is in the vault in New York." [Laughter.] 

So he said "Oh," something to that effect, now he knew I did have a 
problem. However I did resolve the problem, the way Ave left that was 
OK if I could not, would I please take care of Mr. LaRue's request of 
29. It was obvious I would miss the first one, however, I did get an 



2238 

early flight out and I did get into New York City just prior to bank 
opening or just about when it opened, did remove the money which 
was the last of what we have had, and I got into Washington and I 
managed to make the ai-rangemonts as previously described of delivery 
to Mrs. Hunt in the same manner, and then to Mr. LaRue. 

Mr. Lenzner. And you delivered $53,500 to JNIrs. Hunt on that date? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, and $29,900 to Mr. LaRue. 

The next day or the second day, Mr. Kalmbach called me back and 
seemed irritated again and said as nnich as, what happened ? 

I said, "Well, what is wrong?" 

And he said, "Did you deliver the money ?" 

I said, "Yes, I delivered both amounts.'' 

He said, "Did you deliver both on the same day ?" 

I said, "I sure did." 

He said, "No kidding," words to that effect. 

I said, "Yes, both amounts were delivered." I do not know what the 
significance of it was, and I said, "I delivered them on the same day." 

He said, "Oh, fine," and that was our last conversation regarding 
the situation. 

Mr. Lenzner. That Mas approximately when you delivered those 
funds ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. September 19. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, during this period of time, Mr. Ulasewicz, 
you were on Mr. Kalmbach"'s payroll; is that correct? He was still 
paying you for your investigative duties? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you receive any expense money for your travel 
and whatever expenses you incurred ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. How much was that? Do you know if Mr. Kalmbach 
received any expense funds ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; but, at one point in the delivery, the four 
deliveries to me, he had mentioned that one of the amounts of $1,000, 
he had taken $1,000. He did not indicate it was for expenses. He just 
said he took $1,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, the figures that you gave us for the attorneys 
and the defendants, those are the figures that you understood were 
going to be paid to the attorneys and the defendants ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. You do not have firsthand knowledge whether Mrs. 
Hunt did or did not transmit those funds ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. None whatsoever. However, the funds were trans- 
mitted, because, if they were not, why, of course, Mr. Kalmbach would 
not have known it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this 

time ; thank you. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, Mr William Shure will ask ques- 
tions of the witness 

Mr. Shure. Mr. Ulasewicz, you testified earlier to this committee 
that you were initially hired to do some discreet investigations and 
that this hiring was done throug'h your connection with Mr. Caul- 
field ; is that connect ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 



2239 

Mr. Shure. And that you were in fact interviewed by Mr. John 
Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. What role did Mr Kahnbach play in your prior em- 
ployment with regard to these discreet investigations ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I met with him to discuss the arrangements to 
pay me. I was on Mr. Kalmbach's payroll. 

Mr. Shure. So, in other words, Mr Kalmbach's role prior to the 
events which you have just described really was just as a conduit for 
payment to you for the services that you were rendering to Mr. 
Caulfield and Mr. Ehrlichman ; is that not so ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is a fair statement. 

Mr. Shure, And did Mr. Kalmbach ever order you to conduct any 
investigations ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. So that, when he called you on the 29th, this was the 
first time that he really asked you to get involved in anything by way 
of activity ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Now, did you check with Mr. Caulfield and find out 
whether or not Mr. Kalmbach was operating with any authority ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; Mr. Kalmbach had received my telephone 
number from Mr. Caulfield, but I did not discuss it with Mr. Caulfield 
in any way. 

Mr. Shure. Did Mr. Caulfield inform you that he had given Mr. 
Kalmbach your number? 

Mr. ULiVSEWicz. At a subsequent time. I do not know if it even came 
up, but nothing was relative to me about that. 

Mr. Shure. But at the period of time in terms of the 28th or 29th 
of June 1972, you merely relied on Mr. Kalmbach's statement? 

Mr. ULASE^VICZ. Only Mr. Kalmbach, correct. 

Incidentally, I may say another conversation that occurred, recall- 
ing as you are asking me — in that room with Mr. Kalmbach, also, 
one of his instructions was that I discuss it absolutely with no one. And 
when we got into it later on the telephone, to make sure of that, I said 
to Mr. Kalmbach — at one point he asked me how I would be delivering 
the money or how the undertaking would go on — I said to Mr. Kalm- 
bach, it would be better if you did not know what manner or method 
I am going to use to distribute it. I understand what you want and 
I am going to deliver it to the best of my ability, but I do not think you 
should know. I told him something like Washington would be a 
sieve. If it leaks out what I am doing, you would certainly always 
feel that I failed in your trust. I said as far as your situation, what- 
ever your contact is, I will not know it and you will never accuse me 
of leaking out something I do not know. 

Mr. Shure. Then can I assume by your statement that you did not 
discuss this activity with Mr. Ehrlichman either, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulaseavicz. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Shure. Obviously, this was an unusual activity, was it not? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, depending on who was doing it. To me it was 
not unusual. It was just another assignment. 



2240 

Mr. Shure. Had anyone ever given you $75,000 or $100,000 before 
to discreetly or surreptitiously distribute to people known to be in- 
volved in a criminal matter? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. I take it you have 27 years experience in the New York 
City police force? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. So was not this in fact an unusual procedure for you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, no, I did not consider it that. Many assign- 
ments I had were unusual. But as far as money — as far as the money — 
while I was in the police department, I did have occasion to be present 
with two heads of governments in which there were sums of money 
involved, I would say two suitcases full, which sat next to me in a car, 
obtained in a bank in Boston, all strictly legal, of course. But that 
would be about $2 million. 

Mr. Shure. But, Mr. Ulasewicz, you did not deliver that money to 
defendants in criminal cases and lawyers, did you? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, but neither, in this case, Mr. Kalmbach and I 
were both in a frame of mind that we were not delivering it to de- 
fendants at that time or whatever they might be. It was strictly for 
legal fees as he explained and for their families, and 1 certainly Avent 
along with that. 

Mr. Shure. Did you ever check with your friend, Mr. Caulfield, 
and find out whether or not this activity was authorized? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Mr. Shure. Now, going back to the amount of money that you had, 
from what I understand in your response to Mr. Lenzner, there were 
occasions, and I think at least four, that you were carrying at least 
$75,000 in a paper bag and traveling back and foi-th between Wash- 
ington and New York City, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. What was the arrangement that you had with Mr. Kalm- 
bach if the money was lost ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The thought never occurred to me. I was sure I 
would not lose it. [Laughter,] 

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I carried it in such a manner, 
in an envelope rather than a bag — the only time the bag came in was 
the laundry bag, but after that, it was a little more substantial thing. 
If you carry a briefcase, if you carry any type of thing that attorneys 
carry and so forth, you are more apt to lose that. You may check it, 
you may lay it down by a table, you may make a phone call in a rail- 
road station or airline terminal. If you are carrying a sack of papei-s 
or so, you are instinctively going to be having it under your ai-m or in 
your lap. The best method in my opinion, is to keep it exactly as I Avas 
doing. 

Mr. Shure. So you never discussed with Mr. Kalmbach what risk 
there was in losing the money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. We never discussed it and I think Mr. Kalmbach 
trusted me to do as he directed. 

Mr. Shure. How would you have prevented somebody f i-om picking 
up the envelope you left on the counter at Howard Johnson's with 
$29,100 in cash? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would certainly gi'ab it out of the fellow's hands 
and that would be the end of that. 



2241 

Mr. Shure, What about if one of the keys fell off the phone box 
before Mrs. Hunt got there ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The way I secured it, it was not about to fall off. 
As Mr. Lenzner mentioned, there still is some scotch tape now, 6 or 8 
months later. I had no problem with it falling. 

There were some others. One instance happened when a fellow 
came around wiping the phone booths and dusting. 

Mr. Shure. What did you do when this fellow came along? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I sweated a little bit. But he was not — I am not 
picking on the fellow, but actually, his cleaning process was not that 
thorough. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Shure. Were all these sums of money that were delivered to 
you, the four occasions that Mr. Kalm'bach gave you the cash, were 
they all in $100 bills? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, at one point, there were 50's, 20's, and even a 
bundle of singles, maybe 50 or 100 singles. It was only on one occasion. 
On every other occasion, they were $100 bills. 

Mr. Shure. Were those $100 bills in sequence? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, they were mixed from old money to new 
money. They were mostly old, used $100 bills. 

Mr. Shure. So you never worried about the money being traceable 
back to you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No concern whatsoever. 

Mr. Shure. Now, Mr. Ulasewicz, you discussed with Mr. Lenzner 
some convei"sations that you had on the phone with Mrs, Hunt. I am 
curious to know what Mi-s. Hunt's attitude was as she was making 
these increased demands to you for more money. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, her attitude was, I would say, to milk a good 
thing would be a way to put it. She kept increasing the amounts, of 
coui-se, as I have stated. She began, with, and I know I speak of a lady 
that is gone and I don't want to sound — she was very evident. When 
I first got to the situation where I was talking with a woman on a 
situation like this, I was a little bit concerned. However, it worked 
out very well, as far as we understood each other. 

However, where this was a request, it became into a demand fashion 
almost. And if there was some concern or arguments between these 
conversations that were going back with me, she I'eflected that. 

Mr. Shure. Was her attitude one of she was entitled to what she 
was demanding ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, I think all the people felt they were entitled 
to it. 

Mr. Shure. Did she ever reflect to you, for example, what would 
happen if her particular needs were not met ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. Let's refer to the conversation concerning Mr. Liddy. 
She indicated to you that Mr. Liddy was desperate for cash, didn't 
she? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Did she indicate to you what the result would be or 
what the consequence might be if Mr. Liddy weren't given the cash ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. Well, why do you suppose she kept asking you for more 
money ? 



2242 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, obviously, to keep everybody happy, what- 
ever the situation might be. All legal fees and as we took it, as we 
discussed it, I assume it was for helping the family. Now, if Liddy's 
family were in desperate need of money, with a cutoff salary or what- 
ever it might be, this is the way I took it. 

Mr. Shure. I take it Mr. Martinez and Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Stur- 
gis were not entitled to quite the legal representation the others were, 
if they were only getting $10,000 and the others $25,000. 

Mr. TTlasewicz. Apparently. It is the caste system, I guess. 

Mr. Shure. What did she say concerning Mr. Barker? Did she 
make any reference to the time Mr. Barker might have to spend in 
jail? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don't think she ever referred to time in jail for 
Mr. Barker at all. There was one point in the conversation, and they 
were toward the end, where she indicated that — you see, the drops 
were lower and whatever money I was giving, and she became con- 
cerned with, and I think she might have wanted to use it as a kind 
of weapon, going back to me, thinking I was in policy or something 
of that type. There was an insinuation that in addition, that the dis- 
tribution of money to help the families, et cetera, might work in with 
the possibility of keeping them, stop worrying about jail sentences, 
as she mentioned. 

She knew it as a barter weapon to me, saying, you know, I am try- 
ing to tell her everything is going to be all right, then I would tell her 
off, say, I am sorry, there is no negotiation, here are the facts, and so on. 

Mr. Shtire. But you told her you had no authority to negotiate with 
her? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Absolutely. 

Mr. Shtjre. And you had no authority to make decisions as to what 
she would get? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Absolutely. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Did you have the impression that Mrs, Hunt was talk- 
ing to someone other than you concerning the amounts of money she 
was to get ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Shure. What gave you that impression ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The fact that the way Mr. Kalmbach would come 
back to me and say how much to leave. Plus the fact that she would 
indicate that of the amount she received, they weren't enough to pay 
all these other fees, the high fees for attorneys, et cetera, and when 
would that money be forthcoming. 

Mr. Shure. So in other words, she would make those demands to 
you and you would convey those demands to Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Mr. Kalmbach would subsequently call you back and 
say, she is to get this amount of money, and if you delivered that 
amount of money, there was no problem ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Shure. So you assume she was in contact with somebody else ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Did she say who she was in contact with ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. Did Mr. Kalmbach say anything? 



2243 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, there was nothing of whom we were speaking. 
But this — at one time he said to me whom she was meeting. There was 
some conversation, I recall, where she condncted some type — there was 
a sit-down deal with defendants from time to time. Like when she 
mentioned McCord's financial difficulties, that he was contemplating 
mortgaging his residence and she mentioned the fellows down South, 
which is indicative of the fact that there were some meetings going on. 

Mr. Shure. Then she was meeting with the defendants ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. With the defendants. 

Mr. Shure. But did she give you any indication that she was meet- 
ing with anyone from your side concerning how much money she was 
to be paid by }- our sources ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Actually, I had no side. I was kind of a loner. 
However, I would take it up with Mr. Kalmbach and the answer would 
be no. 

Mr. Shure. Well, you were, then, the only person that was convey- 
ing her initial demands or her subsequent demands? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only person 
that went through this with her. 

Mr. Shure. But it was clear to you that after the demands were 
made, it was established and agreed by her, the amounts that you were 
instructed to deliver ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Shure. Let's refer to that conversation you had with Mr. 
Kalmbach in the airport at Orange County, Calif. What date is that, 
if you recall ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Thas was August 8 to 5, in California. 

Mr. Shure. And that entire conversation took place in the car? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In the car. 

Mr. Shure. And that was the occasion that you received the last 
payment of $75,000 from Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. L'lasewicz. That is correct. 

Mr. Shure. Mr. Kalmbach indicated yesterday in his testimony 
that he came to a conclusion somewhere along the way that he had 
to get out of this business of paying off the money. Was it your sug- 
gestion to him that you both get out of this business ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It sure was. 

Mr. Shure. In other words, you brought it up to him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, and in phone calls prior to this meeting, like- 
wise. 

Mr. Shure. What was Mr. Kalmbach 's response to these phone calls ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He was getting more and more concerned about 
what was going on, and his reaction was much the same as my own 
thoughts, that we were engulfed or caught in some soit of flow of 
events and moneys that we did not contemplate or anticipate in any 
way. We started out doing what we considered were legal and for pur- 
poses to assist, and Mr. Kalmbach, in all my conversations, if the word 
is exuded, that is what he did to me. We didn't have to go into it in 
any way. 

When we were in the automobile, this was the final thing that we 
were going to go through, and as I told you, I started right out with 
him saying as I did. 



2244 

Mr. Shure. In other words, the amounts that Mrs. Hunt was de- 
manding and the amounts Mr. Kalmbach was giving to you were 
getting to be so vast that it was apparent they were going beyond 
just paying legal fees and meeting the needs of the families of the de- 
fendants ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is a fair statement. 

Mr. Shure. And that was the reason that both you and Mr. Kalm- 
bach came to the conclusion that you should get out of the thing? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; the money plus the way we had to continue 
to handle it and so f oi'th. All of that. 

Mr. Shure. Did you begin to feel you were becoming enmeshed in 
something that might be illegal ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Let's say that I had a little shaky feeling the way 
things were going. 

Mr. Shure. And were you beginning to get concerned for your- 
self, as to your involvement ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For myself and Mr. Kalmbach, because as I said 
before, the two of us were in this deep in this thing. 

Mr. Shure. Mr. Caulfield was your friend ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Shure. Did you contact him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No. 

Mr. Shure. Did you ever discuss with him about what you were 
getting involved in ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir, Mr. Caufield is a Washington resident and 
any Washington resident is one of those holes in a sieve, no matter 
who he is. 

Mr. Shure. So I would assume, then, you felt the same way about 
Mr. Ehrlichman, who was living in Washington ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, but you see, Mr. Ehrlichman, the only con- 
versation I ever had was that one at the airport when he hired me. 
Outside of that, I never had a phone call or personal conversation 
with Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Mr. Shure. But up until that time, had you ever done anything 
that you considered to be illegal ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Mr. Shure. Now you were caught in a measure that might be in 
some way involving you ? 

Mr. ULASE^VICZ. That may become at some point or looked at. For 
the entire period of time that I was doing this for Mr. Kalmbach, 
it never occurred to me, that I did not consider that I did anything 
illegal for Mr. Kalmbach, neither did he; neither did I, as far as the 
facts presented to me. 

Mr. Shure. But you did state that from the amounts of money 
involved and the demands being made, that you were obviously making 
payments to Mrs. Hunt and others that exceeded the basic needs of 
attorney fees and family survival ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct. 

Mr. Shure. After you made your last two dropoffs, which was 
what— September 19, 1972? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. September 19. 

Mr. Shure. Did anyone ever contact you again about becoming in- 
volved in this type of operation ? 



2245 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Mr. Shure. You were never asked again to make any further drop- 
offs? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Mr. Shure. Did you ever hear from Mr. Kahnbach with requests 
that you make further dropoffs ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Mr. Shure. No one else ? 

Mr, ULiVSEWicz. No one anywhere. 

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

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Ulasewicz, you have testified that you, over a period of three 
drops, distributed $135,000 to Mrs. Hunt, is that correct, sir? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $154,000 in four drops. 

Senator Inouye. $154,000, is there any way we can corroborate 
that statement, sir? Is there any way someone can support you? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, I think the best way would be that if the 
money was not dropped and picked up, that somebody would have 
done a lot of hollering about it, because they were looking forward 
to getting the money. That is the only way which I think would be 
substantial. 

Senator Inouye. You have indicated that you were on Mr. Kalm- 
bach's payroll during the year 1972 and your pay was $22,000? 

Mr. Ulasewicz, From July of 1969, Avhen I started, I was on Mr. 
Kalmbach's payroll, yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. What sort of discreet investigations were you re- 
quired to carry out ? 

Mr. Ulaseavicz. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Senator Inouye. Wliat sort of discreet investigations were you re- 
quired to conduct? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. They were of a various nature and ranged from in- 
vestigations of backgrounds of persons to organizations and types of 
that. 

Senator Inouye. In carrying out the assignments, did you find it 
necessary to commit illegal acts such as breaking and entering? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. During the time you were working for the White 
House or for the committee, did you have contact with members of the 
intelligence-gathering units of the Justice Department? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Wliat about the FBI ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. The Treasury Department? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. The CIA ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. The Washington police? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. This is your testimony, then ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. We have received information suggesting that you 
had contacts with the New York Police Department. Is that correct, 
sir? 



2246 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, I was retired, of course, from the New York 
Police Department, yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. And you had access to their files ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. Once I left the department, I did not have 
access. I would have to conduct, if I wanted any information or in- 
quiries, I would have to do it then as a private investigator, in any 
fashion. I had no access to the records. 

Senator Inouye. Then the allegation suggestion that you did have 
access to the files is false ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. And it is your testimony that you had no contacts 
in the D.C. Police Department ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. In your conversations with Mrs. Hunt, did she di- 
rectly discuss the matter of immunity or pardon ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. How did she indicate to you that what she was 
asking for went beyond family expenses ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz, Well, the figures that she kept giving me — I still 
took as expenses for the four families and for the counsel fees. If she 
went overboard on the figures, it would be because it was another pur- 
pose, whether she mentioned loss of jobs or whatever it might be, and 
she would present a figure. 

Senator Inouye. Then you are changing your testimony, because 
the first time you appeared, you testified that Mrs. Hunt did discuss 
with you the matter of pardons and immunities. Isn't that correct, 
sir? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; I didn't testify to that, Senator, no. 

Senator Inouye. I believe the record will so show. 

Mr. Sutter. May we have the testimony, Senator ? 

Senator Inouye. We will get it for you, sir. 

Mr. Sutter. Thank you. 

Senator Inouye. You have testified that you distributed $219,000 
for Mr. Kalmbach and the last payment was on the 19th of September. 
The trial of the Watergate defendants did not start until January. Is 
it your testimony that after the 19th of September, you did not per- 
form any similar mission for anyone else in distributing funds to 
these defendants ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Are you aware of anyone who did ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Do you have any knowledge that the funds con- 
tinued to go to the defendants from some other source ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator Inouye. Did you maintain your contacts with people like 
Mr. Liddy and Mr. Bittnian ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. You severed all contacts once you finished this 
assignment ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, sir. 

Senator Inouye. You are still insisting that you had no access to 
the New York police files or the D.C. police files ? 



2247 

Mr. Ulase\vicz. You have my thinking, Senator, because apparently, 
you have a point there and I want to clear it up. By access, could 
I walk into an office or look at a record or something like that? No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Did you have friends there who would open the 
files to you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. They would not open them, but I am sure if I made 
calls and if I wanted — they would not have to be on any particular 
instance. As a private investigator, I might call the squad or detective 
office or a precinct and say, I am a retired detective and if this is 
within the vein of conversation, I don't want any official record, et 
cetera, I would get information that might be about almost anything 
that was available. But I would not have access to records. I would 
not receive records as such. 

Senator Inouye. And this information was available to the public ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Not always, no. 

Senator Inouye, Once again, your testimony is that you never com- 
mitted an illegal act in carrying out your responsibilities and your 
assignments ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. I have a note here saying that the matter of par- 
dons and immunity came up in your staff interview. 

Mr. Ulasewicz, Yes, sir, that is probably where that originates, 
yes, sir. Not in testimony, as my counsel reminds me. With the staff 
interview, yes, sir. 

It came in the latter part of the negotiations over, when Mrs. Hunt 
was describing the money, down South, and things were very hard to 
control down South. And she said, it would make it easier if the money 
came through, and it was at this point is when she was, as I tried to 
describe it, using a demand or some form of pressure by saying that 
if the money comes down here, that would certainly help her in some 
statement of lesser jail sentence or whatever it might be. 

Senator Inouye. Then, it is your testimony that you did discuss 
pardons and immunity? 

Mr, Ulasewicz. I did not discuss any pardon and immunity that I 
recall, in that fashion as you are putting it, Senator. [Conferring with 
counsel.] I discussed light sentences, the inference of light sentences, 
and that did come up in that latter part in connection that it would be 
easier for Mrs. Hunt to control these people. 

Senator Inouye, Did you discuss the matter of light sentences with 
Mr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Did you not think it was important enough ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I may have mentioned it to him with all the other 
material that came in but at that time it did not — I would not have sat 
on that very heavy because at that time, in the context of time, I did 
not accept it as such, I thought it was a wedge from Mrs, Hunt in order 
to get a commitment for more money, and if I told it to Mr, Kalmbach 
and I do not say that I did, but if I mentioned it, it would have been in 
a passing manner. 

Senator Inouye. You have been a member of the police department 
now for 27 years, and I gather from your record, a very distinguished 
service, and I presume that you know whether an act is legal or 



96-296 O - 73 - pl.6 - 3 



2248 

illegal; certainly, you are quite versed with the criminal laws not 
only of New York City, but of Washington, D.C, if a fellow detective 
came to you and he says he has observed a man dealing in large sums 
of cash, placing keys in phone booths, dropping envelopes at Howard 
Johnson Motels, placing envelopes next to phone booths, lurking 
around the corners, using several drops, what would your conclusion 
be as to that person ? Would your conclusion be that that person was 
conducting an illegal act ? 

Mr. TxASEwicz. No, I would be suspicious of his actions. 
[Laughter.] I did not consider myself at this time — did not con- 
sider that I committed an illegal act. 

Senator Inouye. Were your actions the actions of a man who 
had nothing to worry about so far as the law was concerned? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In distributing the money, yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. In the manner of distribution. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. When the proposition or the assignment 
was given to me by Mr. Kalmbach that was a stipulation I do that 
in a discreet and confidential manner and that would preclude any 
other way in my opinion, if I could do it, that is the way I would do 
it. What I had in mind was the purpose of this situation that the money 
was to go for legal fees, et cetera, and a man of Mr. Kalmbach's stat- 
ure, who I know, of course, was the attorney to the President and has 
stated to me that it was legal in his consideration, that there was 
nothing illegal about it, and that is what was in my mind. Then, 
the second thing that came to me was to do the job as well as I could. 

Senator Inouye. Were the recipients of these sums made aware 
that the distribution of these sums was to be secret? 

Mr. T'''lasewicz. I do not think I understand the question. Senator. 

Senator Inouye. Did Mr. Bittman know that your delivery of the 
$25,000 to him was a secret delivery ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, he knew that he was to come down and 
pick it up, that I did not want to confront him, yes. 

Senator Inouye. Do you think Mr. Bittman declared the $25,000 
in his income tax return ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. I have no knowledge. I do recall in one conver- 
sation we mentioned where it went into a flight depository. "NAHiether 
or not that is a record or not I do not know. 

Senator Inouye. Did you at any time tell any of your recipients to 
keep this sum secret ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. What do you mean by "under the table" money? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. This was a phrase that was used by Mrs. Hunt, 
explaining why that money was necessary in Florida, and it was not — 
I had asked her at one time at Mr. Kalmbach's direction and she al- 
luded to the fact that it might have been for other people, other persons 
whom have not been mentioned to me by name. 

Senator Inouye. In your 27 years as a police oflficer I am certain you 
have heard the phrase "under the table," which usually means a pay- 
off, a cumshaw, whatever it is, it is illegal, is it not ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I think the circumstances would determine that, 
Senator. I am not a lawyer, I am not backing off the — on the fact I was 
a police officer. 



2249 

Senator Inotjye. Do you mean to tell me that if one of your col- 
leagues told you that Mr. so-and-so is receiving money under the 
table, all you would do is get a little suspicious ? Would not the bells 
start ringing here ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, not yet. I would make an investigation of that 
allegation and in this case I still have in mind that it is legal fees and 
what she is suggesting and apparently did not want to give me names 
of other individuals is something that is the conclusion that we came 
to. But what she is doing is actually passing the money on to someone 
other than the name she had given me. 

Senator Inouye. Now that you look back to all of the activities, as 
we have asked most of our witnesses to look back in retrospect, do you 
still consider that the activities in which you were involved were com- 
pletely legal ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Even if the payment was for hush money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, the term "hush money" was developed by 
others. At the time as I described, it was strictly for the legal defenses, 
Senator, plus assistance to the families, reiterated to me several times 
in a room 

Senator Inouye. Do you still believe this to be true ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Do I believe it ? At that time, yes. 

Senator Inouye. No, today, right now. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believe when Mr. Kalmbach and I set out for this 
thing that is all was in our minds and in mine, he had me fully con- 
vinced of that. 

Senator Inouye. I do not question you on that but today, do you 
believe that to be true ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Not likely. 

Senator Inouye. I thank you very much, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Going back to the beginning, Mr. Ulasewicz, of your testimony, did 
you ever determine who this Mr. Caddy was ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I had read in the papers that he was an attorney, and 
that I believe that he was the attorney who was to be notified when, if 
some of the — if somebody that he had been assigned as an attorney in 
case somebody got in trouble. 

Senator Gurney. Was that his real name ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believe so. 

Senator Gurney. But he never identified himself to you, what his 
profession was, or who he was ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He said, when I spoke to him he did say he was an 
attorney, I assume or at least in some capacity because he — that in our 
final conversation that he — was sitting with somebody from the law 
firm and he was telling me now that he does not want to go any further 
with this and I so reported. 

Senator Gurney. He did not indicate in his conversations with you 
that he knew anything about what you were talking about, is that right 
or did he ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would say that is fairly correct. Senator, yes. 

Senator Gurney. Let us go back again to the very beginning of this 
scenario. Your first conversation with Mr. Kalmbach. As you un- 



2250 

doubtedly knoAV, this is extremely important to determine whether his 
activities and your activities were lawful or unlawful. Now, what did 
he say when he contacted you about what he wanted you to do ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In the hotel room he told me that he had received 
an assignment. 

Senator Gurney. Well, before that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. A telephone call requesting that I come the next day 
to Washington, D.C., to meet with him. 

Senator Gurney. And why did he say he wanted you to come ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He spoke of an assignment, an important assignment 
for me. 

Senator Gurney. Did he mention anything about what the assign- 
ment was ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Just important. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. All right. Continue now, you came to Washington. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. When the conversation started, Mr. Kalmbach 
impressed upon me that the assignment is legal, that it was to raise 
finances, to provide money, to provide money for attorney fees, and for 
members of families of persons who had gotten into trouble. He was 
very nervous, he was kind of unsteady, and it was apparent he did not 
know how to present the thing any further and he repeated it about 
three times at the point that I said 

Senator Gurney. Why would he be nervous? I do not understand. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I think it was new to Mr. Kalmbach or he was not 
sure in what direction it might take or perhaps it might even be that 
speaking to me about it for the first time. Perhaps there were different 
ends of the Earth or something like that, I do not know. 

Senator Gurney. You mentioned he said it was legal. How did that 
come up in the conversation ? Did you ask him if it was legal ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I may have asked him, but I think he wanted to 
reassure me, and he said that, and he came out with that statement. 

Senator Gurney. Did he say how he knew it was legal ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; but I did receive the distinct impression that 
he had searched this thing thoroughly out in his mind or whatever 
manner that he would use. He was confident and very sure. 

Senator Gurney. No question, though, that he did mention to you 
what this money was to be delivered for, is that right ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And that was what ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Watergate people in connection with the people in 
the Watergate incident. 

Senator Gurney. And for what purpose ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For legal fees and assistance to their families. 

Senator Gurney. Now, let us go again to your first conversation 
with Mrs. Hunt. Would you go into that again, I did not see this wit- 
ness sheet until this morning and I have just heard your testimony here 
first hand and I am not exactly sure that I understand what transpired. 
There were conversations about what she needed, is that right? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Gurney. Describe again what she said to you. 



2251 

Mr, Ulasewicz. Well, in the initial conversation she went into what 
sums of money might be needed. 

Senator Gurney. And describe those carefully now to the committee. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And what they might be needed for, and she went — 
in the early conversation she mentioned herself as the fact that she 
would — she was going to — she had been fired, she had lost her job and 
that should be taken into consideration. 

Senator Gurnet. Did she say what she had been doing? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She was, I think it was. as I recall she was, a sec- 
retary or for some foreign embassy, something of that type. I did 
not go into that because this, being our first contact I immediately 
tried to inform her of my position in the matter, that I was simply 
to have gotten from her a figure for the script, et cetera, and definitely 
per instructions from Mr. Kalmbach in no way was I to conduct any 
negotiations. 

Senator Gurney. All right. What was that figure ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The first figure ? 

Senator Gurney. Yes. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The figure that I delivered to her was $40,000. 

Senator Gurney. No ; that she mentioned in this first conversation. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She w^ent into — by the time she finished the conver- 
sation it was probably around $100,000. 

Senator Gurney. How was that broken down ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It was broken down with law fees, and I cannot, 
with all the conversations — I kind of have to lump them in because of 
the sequence. The original I remember but it always was with attor- 
ney fees as I testified, and slie had mentioned an attorney and a 
defendant and she mentioned the difficulties of — I was going to say 
trials and tribulations, I ^vas not referring to a trial, of how much 
money would be needed, and bail money for the people down South 
and salaries for their living expenses that she would arrive at $8,000 
a month for the principals and then she went down the scale. 

Senator Gurney. I understand that is what you testified to at first, 
but I would like to understand is wliat tliis breakdown of this figure 
of $100,000, that is the first figure ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I am sorry, sir, she did not mention a figure of 
$100,000, she never gave me a flat figure. 

Senator Gurney. What figures did she mention besides the $3,000 
per month for the leaders ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She would mention, and this is over all the conver- 
sations, I can't nail it down to the first one, but she would mention 
money for, in connection with Liddy's wife, her medical problems, the 
fact of being a teacher. 

Senator Gurney. How much ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $10,000, $15,000 per vear. 

Senator Gurney. $10,000 or $15,000 for Mr. Liddy's wife, is that 
right? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Right. The same for him — rather for lier, some- 
where her annual salary. 

Senator Gurney. $15,000 for Mrs. Hunt? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And then the legal fees came into it. 

Senator Gurney. How much were they ? 



2252 

Mr. Ulasewicz. They ainounted to about $130,000 over a i)eriod of 
time, it is not in the one conversation. 

Senator Gurney. Well, this, in this first conversation thoii<rh what — 
you must have had a pretty vivid impression of that. After all this 
was a unique assignment when you talk to Mrs. Hunt and I am trying 
to pin down now what you first gained from her as to what she 
wanted. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, then I would guess that she brought up Mr. 
Barker, Mr. Sturgis. 

Senator Gurney. Did she, you are guessing now, did she or didn't 
she? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, it is very hard for me to separate the amounts 
for each conversation. But I know in the initial one in addition to 
mentioning here on she started with and then it wasn't a demand, it 
was a request to consider herself in addition for attorney fees, the cost 
of the script, the attorney fees and all she went through the figures 
and she didn't come up constantly with a solid figure. 

Senator Gurney. Well, so far now we have got $3,000 per month for 
living expenses for the leaders, $10,000 or $15,000 for Mrs. Liddy be- 
cause she had psychiatric problems, $10,000 or $15,000 for Mrs. Hunt 
because she needed that, that is the only figures we have yet. Now, 
what are the others ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Barker. 

Senator Gurney. How much ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Would be $6,000. 

Senator Gurney. For what, legal fees ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, that would be for living expenses. 

Senator Gurney. For a year or how long ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For — 1 minute, let me see, it would be, the $3,000, 
all these started as a per-monthly basis in which later on or probably 
the subsequent conversation, a multiple of 5 was used or suggested. 

Senator Gurney. Well, are you saying that Barker was $500 a 
month then? 

Mr, Ulasewicz. No, it totaled $15,000, it was a request for Barker 
was $2,000, Sturgis, Gonzales, $2,000. 

Senator Gurney. Wait a minute, you said $6,000 for Barker a 
moment ago. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For Barker, yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Now, it is $2,000. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, it is $6,000 for Barker. 

Senator Gurney. Yes. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It is $4,000 for Sturgis. 

Senator Gurney. All right. Go on. 

Mr, Ulasewicz. $2,000 each for Gonzales and Martinez. 

Senator Gurney. Now, these were living expenses over what period 
of time? 

Mr, Ulasewicz. Over a 5-month period. 

Senator Gurney. All right. 

Why 5 months? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In the conversation she spoke of a rounded out 
figure and she brought up the multiple of 5. 

Senator Gurney. In other words, she 



2253 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She asked for a 5-month — ^would it be considered 
living expenses over a 5-month period ? 

Senator Gurnet. I see. Was this in the first conversation? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don't think all of it might have been in the first 
conversation but it would be relative to the following conversation, 
because the way the money was delivered we couldn't meet these re- 
quests. There just wasn't that much money. 

Senator Gurnet. May I inquire what you are looking: at there at 
the table? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I am looking at la sheet I wrote after I had testified 
as a reminder. When I fii-st testified I had the principal figures in mind. 
What I started with, when I memorized this thing and I mentioned 
that I started with the top figures of $219,000. Then I started with 
the four that were delivered to me which came to $419 and then — $219, 
then I got into the delivery amounts, the four delivery amounts so that 
I would retain that in my memory. 

Senator Gurnet. This was a sheet you made for your first witness 
interview ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, it was made after my appearances, even after 
the last appearance here. 

Senator Gurnet. I see. 

Did you ever keep any notes when you had your conversations with 
any of these people ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. No notes at all ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. Never. 

Well now, let's go on ; we have so far the living expenses for these 
people, what about Hunt's and Liddy now, did he have any living 
expenses, or McCord ? 

Mr. Ulasew^icz. Yes, Mrs. — they were, that is the $15,000 arrange- 
ment was McCord, Liddy, and Hunt. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, I understood that you said that that was for 
Mrs. Liddy and Mrs. Hunt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, Mrs. Liddy was for the loss of her job, that she 
associated a loss and that was about $15,000 a year. 

Senator Gurnet. For her ? 

Mr. LTlasewicz. For her. 

Senator Gurnet. All right. That is the figure I have here. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For the schoolteacher was 'about, Mrs. Liddy was 
about, 10, plus Hunt 15 that was her request. 

Senator Gurnet. Well now, wait a minute, you just said Mrs. Liddy 
$15,000, now you say 10. 

Mr. ITlasewicz. No. Mrs. Hunt requested a $15,000 figure. 

Senator Gurnet. All right. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mrs. Liddy a $10,000 figure. 

Senator Gurnet. All right. 

Now, how about Mr. Hunt ? How much for him ? 

Mr. LFlasewicz. Mr. Hunt was $15,000. 

Senator Gurnet. These are for living expenses. 

Mr. Ulaseavicz. Living expenses. 

Senator Gurnet. How about Liddv ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $15,000. 



2254 

Senator Gurney. How about McCord ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. $15,000. 

Senator Gurney. Now, how about the attorneys' fees? 

Mr. Ui^SEWicz. For Hunt $25,000. 

Senator Gurney. All right. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. For McCord $25,000, for Liddy $25,000, Barker's 
attorney $25,000, and the three others $30,000. 

Senator Gurney. Together ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Together, $10,000 each. 

Senator Gurney. When did she mention these figures ? Did she men- 
tion all of this the first time she talked to you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. When did she mention this, over what period of 
time, and in how many conversations ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In about four or five conversations from June — 
from July to August, in about a 6-week period when these drops were 
made off. 

Senator Gurney. Can you give us any idea of the escalation of these 
demands, what she asked the first time, second time, third time, and 
so on? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, they increased each time I called, she would 
increase the amount or request that more money would be needed for 
one reason or another. 

Senator Gurney. Can you give us — — 

Mr. Ulasewicz. When she started in initially — when she gave — and 
I cut her off because of saying I am not in position to negotiate, and 
so forth, she would repeat the demands each time. Some of them were 
repeated, and our problem was that we couldn't break it when we 
delivered the money so the best that Mr. Kalmbach and whomever 
he was speaking with said deliver 40 and I guess it was to raise more 
and deliver the other and when the second delivery was made there 
were no directions as to how she was to use the money, it was simply 
given to her to use, to satisfy because she could not pay all these 
amounts with the little — with the amounts she was getting. 

Senator Gurney. Did she ever mention any flat figure at any time 
for the overall affair ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Only bits and pieces from time to time? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurney. All right. 

Now then, I would like to go to the instructions as to what you told 
her what to do with each amount of money you gave her. Will you 
please describe that in detail to the committee, let's go to the first one ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The $40,000 ? 

Senator Gurney. Yes; is that the first amount you gave her? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. Yes; and when she received the money. 

Senator Gurney. The first drop to her was $40,000 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. All right. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. With the drops there were no discussions from me 
to her as to how to spend it, how to dole it out because my instructions 
from Mr. Kalmbach had reached a point that what she was asking 
for was not in my possession. 



2255 

Senator Gurney. What about on the very first drop did you tell her 
what to do with the money, the $40,000 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The first drop I believe was said to spread it out 
for the needs of the families, to use the money first for the needs of 
the families. And the other request for attorneys, et cetera 

Senator Gtltrney. Did you tell her how to break it down at all or just 
say this is for the families ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. I relayed whatever instructions I 
had received. 

Senator Gurney. Did she say anything to that in reply ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, she was not satisfied. She said that there will 
be problems and she will do her best and I said "Well, I underetand. 
I will be getting back to you." 

Senator Gurney. Did she mention the fact "The sum is too small 
and we need more," and give you any figure? 

Mr. Ulasewicz, No; she would continue or reiterate what she had 
been giving me, you know the lawyers' fees, and so forth. 

Senator Gurney. All right. How about the second drop of $43,000, 
what did you tell her to do with that money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believe that one she had already been told probably 
she will get the money and she will distribute it in whatever manner 
it comes to her. 

Senator Gurney. You gave her no instructions ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No instructions. 

Senator Gurney. What about the next drop of $18,000 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don't believe any instructions with that. 

Senator Gurney. And the last drop of $53,500 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. There were none in that one. 

Senator Gurney. In other words, the only thing you can recall then 
is a discussion or an instruction on the first drop to use this money for 
the families? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir, to the best of my recollection. 

Senator Gurney. Again, I would like to get back to this under-the- 
table business, $10,000 to Barker. You discussed it with Senator Inouye. 
What did she say to you when she described this and what it was to be 
used for ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She said that in addition to the other demands there 
were $10,000 necessary to give to Barker for use under the table. That 
was in the early conversation. I recall that when it came back from 
Mr. Kalmbach to 

Senator Gurney. Now when this occurred did you say "Now, hold 
on here, Mrs. Hunt, what's this under the table business" ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I had asked "Can you be more specific?" or some- 
thing to that effect and she says, "Well, I think if you relay it that 
way, it will be understood," and it was not understood because I re- 
member in a subsequent conversation asking her, and I had been asked 
by Mr. Kalmbach what the under the table and she either — the second 
or third somewhere along the line, she insinuated it was for some other 
persons who were involved in the situation or may have been involving 
somebody back in Florida. 

Senator Gurney. There was no further discussion as to what under 
the table was for? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; I was told not to discuss it any further. 



2256 
Senator Gurney. You never asked her what she was <roinir to do with 

It? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. This $25,000 to Mr. Bittman, as I recall, that was 
the only payment you made to any of the attorneys directly, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Well now, this is a rather unique way of paying 
attorneys' fee, is it not ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. Yes, sir; it is a way. 

Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Bittman express any surprise at this 
method of getting his fee ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes, in the initial conversation he probably said 
something that it was unusual, and I said "Well, however, those are 
my instructions" and then I made a call and relayed his message and 
I was told "No, it will be accepted." When I called back, Mr. Bittman 
agreed to take it. 

Senator Gurney. Woidd you go into that a little further, the dis- 
cussion about how his figure came up and how this attorney fees Avas 
going to be paid ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, when I spoke to Mr. Bittman he told me that 
it was the first conversation, that it was an unusual manner to discuss 
lawyers' fees, that you don't know about how much expenses will be 
entailed, and he started to go into appeals could come in, and I said 
"Well, I have no knowledge of this, I am told that you would have a 
figure and I am prepared to deliver that figure." I was thinking in 
terms of the $75,100 which I brought with me. 

Senator Gurney. What did he say to that when you asked him or said 
to him, "I was told you were going to name a figure." 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He said "Well," he said, "No, let me," something to 
the effect, "Let me get back or get back to me," and I relayed the mes- 
same to Mr. Kalmbach, and after a period of time 

Senator Gurney. He said "Get back to him later." 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; he said to discuss it or he indicated something 
that he was not taking it at that time. He was not going to accept the 
money in that manner at that time. 

Senator Gurney. He did name a figure of $25,000 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Finally he named a $25,000 figure in the next to the 
last conversation. 

Senator Gurney. Why didn't he want to get into the business of tak- 
ing it or arranging for the taking it at that time. He was perfectly will- 
ing to negotiate the fee with you, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He did not negotiate with me and I think that is the 
answer to the first question, he had to go back and negotiate a fee with 
either his client or somebody else, and then he seemed, then he gave me 
the figur-e. I think he negotiated with his client or 

Senator Gurney. Well, you say he negotiated with his client and 
gave you the figure you mean in another phone conversation? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In whatever manner they were dealing with his 
client, I don't know. 

Senator Gurney. Let's go back here, you called him on the phone ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And the purjiose of youi- calling him on the phone 
was to find out what he wanted for a fee, isn't that right ? 



2257 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. But it wasn't — yes, it was the cost 
of a script, of course, which was a subterfuge and he didn't come up 
with a number at all. He didn't come up with a figure, I so reported to 
Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. Kalmbach says all right I will get back to you, he 
got back and he says call him again. This might be a day or it might be 
an hour, I don't recall which. I call Mr. Bittman back, and he would 
start in that conversation with, "Well, you know, a flat fee is very 
unusual thing and all" and I said "Well, I have no control over that, I 
am prepared for a figure, for a figure, for the cost of a script." And I 
would repeat the whole thing and he says "Well," he says "Can you get 
back to me?" I says "All right" and I reported that to Mr. Kalmbach. 
Senator Gurney. That is the second conversation ? 
Mr. IjLiVSEwicz. Second conversation. I think I had four conversa- 
tions or five with Mr. Bittman, and then finally he mentioned that he 
would accept the money and he gave me the figure of $25,000, 

Senator Gurney. Finally on the fourth conversation he mentioned 
a figure? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And he hadn't mentioned any figure before that ? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. All this other business is horsing around ? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 
Senator GuRNEY.WTiy ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I think he had to straighten it out with his client 
or with somebody is the only thing I can assume. 

Senator Gurney. All right, now we arrive at a figure of $25,000. 
Then what happened ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I placed the $25,000 in an envelope. 
Senator Gurney. Well, hold off now. 

Mr. UluVSBWIcz. I reported to Kalmbach, I reported the figure to 
Kalmbach. My instructions were I never was to give anything until 
finally I reported and got the OK from Mr. Kalmbach. I reported 
to Mr. Kalmbach and he got back to me and said "OK, deliver the 
money." 

Senator Gurney. Incidentally, in these phone calls with Mr. Kalm- 
bach, while you were — I will not use the word — negotiating — talking 
to Mr. Bittman on the phone, what was his reaction about all this 
time spent in phone conversations with Bittman ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No particular reaction. I think it was agreeable 
to him, or he was trying to make his mind up as to what kind of a fee. 
Senator Gurney. Was he calling anybody about this, do you know? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, I assume he was, yes, sir. 
Senator Gurney. Did he tell you ? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Now we get to how it is going to be paid. Would 
you describe that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes; the manner of payment was I would place 
^25,000 in a brown clasp envelope. 

Senator Gurney. I know that. Now let us go back to catching that. 

You arrive at a figure and that big hurdle is over. You must have told 

AT T*™^^ something about how you were going to make this contact. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I told him I would get back to him, because I had 



2258 

to call Mr. Kalmbach and tell him the fi<rure was $25,000. And Mr. 
Kalmbacli said, "I will ^et back to yon." And when he got back to 
me, he said "Go ahead and deliver the money." 

Senator Gurney. Now go on. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. Bittman. He was in his office. And 
I said that I am all set now to have this, I have the money ready for 
him and 1 outlined the procedure and I told him it would be on the 
shelf. And he came down on the elevator or a person came down 

Senator Gurney. I heard that. We do not want to waste the time 
to go into that again. What I am interested in is how you described 
to him how you were going to pay this fee. What did he say? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He did not say an^'thing. 

Senator Gurney. He did not say anything ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. He said, OK. 

Senator Gurney. Do you think he expected this in a brown envelope 
in a phone booth ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I do not know. He probably knew that it would be 
delivered in cash to him in some manner, with whatever negotiations 
they were having. 

Senator Gurney. He did not say, come to my office and pay me the 
fee, or anything like that ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. When you suggested it would be paid this way, 
there was no evidence of any surprise at all ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir, it was on the telephone. I did not get any — 
oh, I am reminded. He did call me the next day. I received a call from 
Mr. Kalmbach the next day to call Mr. Bittman and I called Mr. 
Bittman and he said he would like to return the money. 

Senator Gurney. Oh ? Well, tell us about that. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. Kalmbach and mentioned that to 
him. He said, "I will get back to you." 

He called me back and said, "Call Mr. Bittman again." 

I called Mr. Bittman back and he said that is of no consequence 
now, because it went into a night depository. 

Senator Gurney. So it was no longer retrievable ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No longer retrievable. 

Senator Gurney. Let us go into that again. Who told you he wanted 
to return the money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Bittman, after he had taken the $25,000 and 
Mr. Kalmbach asked me to call Mr. Bittman back the next day. 

Senator Gurney. The next day ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Describe this conversation again. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I called Mr. Bittman back and he said he was con- 
sidering, he would like to return the money. 

Senator Gurney. Why ? Did he mention any money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He did not. 

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; I was a little surprised at it and I said, "Let 
me check into it." And I did not make any indication that I was 
going to take the money back, either. And I called Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Gtjrney. You mean the substance of this conversation was 
you called him and he said, "I want to return this money"? 



2259 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He said I would like to return the money or words to 
that effect, after speaking to his other attorney, or something, I do 
not recall, but he would like to return the money. 

Senator Gurney. Did he talk to his law partners about it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He may have. I am not certain. 

Senator Gukney. You said, "Hold on, I have got to get instruc- 
tions," is that it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And that was the end of the conversation ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That was it. 

Senator Gurney. How long did this conversation take? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Very short period of time. 

Senator Gurney. And neither one of you expressed surprise? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, I did. I was quite surprised. 

Senator Gurney. What did you say ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I said, "Well, I do not undei-stand,"' or something 
of that type. I said, "I will have to get further instructions." 

Senator Gltrney. Well, go on, now. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And I called Mr. Kalmbach and reported the con- 
versation to him. When he got back to me, it was to call jSIr. Bittman 
again and I did. At this point, Mr. Bittman said, "Well, it is OK," 
he said. He said, "There is no question here now, there is no problem, 
the money was deposited in a night box." 

Senator Gurney. Well, now, this phone conversation when you got 
back to him, after you talked to Mr. Kalmbach, how long was that 
after your previous phone conversation ? 

;Mr, Ulasewicz. I would say a few hours. 

Senator Gurney. Just a few houi-s ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would say so. 

Senator Gltiney. Well, now, I must say that does not make much 
sense. He calls you, tells you he wants to return the $25,000. A few 
hours later, you call him back, and he says, there is no problem, it is 
in a night box. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; he said that the money had been deposited 
into a night depository so that returning the money was no — and that 
he was going to — inferring that he was going to handle this with his 
client. 

Senator Gurney. What time of day did these calls occur? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In the afternoon. 

Senator Gurney. Both calls? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No; the day that the — yes; both calls would have 
been in the afternoon. The second call might have been in the morning. 

Senator Gurney. The second call ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The one in which he wants to return the money. 

Senator Gurney. Might have been in the morning ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And then the call that he said, "No, don't bother, 
it is in the night box," occurred in the afternoon ? 

Mr. I^LASEWicz. Yes. 

Senator Gurney. Did you ask him anything further, what changed 
his mind ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. No, sir. 



2260 

Senator Gurney. Did you express surprise to him at this change of 
courses ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I think so. I think I showed some surprise. I said, 
"I will have to get instructions." 

Senator Gurney. A couple of quick questions here. 

You mentioned Mr. Hunt made one pickup. That was the only 
one, was it not? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. How did you know who he was? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I didn't. 

Senator Gurney. Go on. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I did not 

Senator Gurney. How did you know Mr. Hunt was picking up the 
money ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, his wife told me that because of some per- 
sonal problem that day — this was the second or third pickup — that 
she wouldn't make it, that her husband would make the pickup. 

I said, "You will explain all the details to him?" She said, "Oh, he 
will do exactly like all the instructions as I have been doing." 

He came in, looked at the clock and proceeded perfectly. 

Senator Gurney. Did you have any other question in your mind 
other than knowing where he would go? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; that satisfied me. 

Senator Gurney. What about Mr. Liddy ? You made one payment 
to him. Did you know who he was? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, I knew he was one of the defendants. His 
name came up 

Senator Gurney. How did you recognize him as the man- 



Mr. Ulasewicz. He said he was going to come in in a shirt, with 
rolled up sleeves, and he was going to obey instructions. 

Senator Gurney. I am curious about one thing here. You men- 
tioned that Caulfield was one of those Washington holes in the sieve, 
I guess. What does that mean? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, the thing in this was that everything be kept 
strictly confidential. Oif course, I had agreed with Mr. Kalmbach 
that it would be so and I would tell no one. Wlien put to the ques- 
tion here, I didn't give it to Mr. Caulfield or anyone else. 

Senator Gurney. I mean what is the hole in the sieve? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. There are many le^ks and very few secrets in 
Washington. 

Senator Gurney. Wasn't he a pretty good friend of yours? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He sure was. 

Senator Gurney. Did you think he was like all the other Wash- 
ingtonians ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. It is sort of a disease once you get here, is that it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I think once you are caught here, you are caught, 
and there ain't no way out. 

Senator Gurney. How about you? Did you get contaminated in 
Washington ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Including you. 

Oh, no, sir, I think I am not contaminated in any way, because any- 
thing I did, I went into it seeking to do it, I went into it with my 
eyes wide open, and I think I did a good job. 



2261 

Senator Gurney. Well, just one final question. When did you begin 
getting suspicious about this train of events that you were caught 
up in ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would say on the second call to Mrs. Hunt. 

Senator Gurney. Why ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Because of demands, the continuing raising of 
money. Where the first conversation was one of, not of a demand w^hen 
she first started, a request, then it began to change in shape, when are 
we going to do this ? And now, where we started with $75,100 to go 
to a person, face to face, now the whole system changes, we are in 
this way of distribution of the money, plus newspaper publicity, et 
cetera. But basically, in this particular matter, the manner in which 
she was increasing everything and it became obvious that it was a much 
larger thing than the original request. 

I had agreed to a $75,100 distribution with Mr. Kalmbach and he 
had probably — and I am sure, was of the same mind. Now, we are 
something, with two calls, somewhere into $400,000 and we still can't 
figure it out. 

Senator Gurney. Did you ever discuss that with her, why these 
demands were always increasing, to you at least, always excessive? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. That is all. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Ulasewicz, are you still on the payroll? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Wlien did your association with Mr. Kalmbach 
cease ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The end of 1972. 

Senator Talmadcje. The end of 1972 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. What are you doing now, retired ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Semiretired. 

Senator Talmadge. Living in the city of New York '. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Living in the town of Day in Saratoga County, 
New York State. 

Senator Talmadge. Are you working at present ? 

Mr. Ul.\sewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, when you got suspicious that this distribu- 
tion of money ceased to be a humanitarian elTort and became a black- 
mail program, why didn't you withdraw from it at that time? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. At the earliest opportunity, I withdrew. I told Mr. 
Kalmbach. 

Senator Talmadge. I thought you made some three drops thereafter, 
did you not ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; one drop. 

Senator Talmadge. When did they start haggling about money and 
saying that was not enough ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would say the second or third predrop to Mrs. 
Hunt is w^hen she started raising it and began more of a demanding 
fashion. And I so reported my opinion to Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Talmadge. You made either one or tw^o more drops 
thereafter ? 



2262 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator TAofAOGE. And then you retired from the field ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You thought perhaps at that point that you had 
been used by friends, I take it, didn't you ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, I don't think friends would want to use me, 
but the situation was such that I was picking up a lot of friends after 
this Watergate thing happened and it was worse. 

Senator Talmadge. You felt you had been used, I take it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. All right, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Is that an affirmative answer ? 

Mr. Ui^sewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You never made any determination as to the 
amount of money that would be paid to these individuals personally ; 
you were courier and deliverer, and that is all ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Who made the determination as to the specific 
amount that would be paid ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Wlio did ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, who did ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don' know, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You were never informed about that fact ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you have any dealings with anyone else ex- 
cept Mr. Kalmbach in delivering this money ? 

Mr. Ulaseavicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. No conversations of any kind with anybody ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You don't know where Mr. Kalmbach got his 
authority to make the delivery ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you have any assumptions as to where it was 
coming from ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Senator Talmadge. Who did you think ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I believed that they were from somebody in a posi- 
tion that would be equal or higher to Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Talmadge. Who did you think that individual was ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I guess I assumed it would be someone like Ehr- 
lichman or Haldeman. 

Senator Talmadge. You thought they were higher ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes. 

Senator Talmadge. And made the arrangements and saw that Mr. 
Kalmbach carried out tlieir orders and instructions; is that correct? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. All right, sir. 

Senator Taliviaix^.e. Now, T believe when the plane crashed and 
unfortunately killed Mrs. Hunt, there was a consider-able sum of 
money on her person at that time, was there not? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I read in the papers, $10,000. 

Senator Talmadge. You don't have any idea what that particular 
sum was for ? 



2263 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Whether or not she was delivering it or 
whether it was her own personal funds that you had previously deliv- 
ered to her ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I have no knowledge of that $10,000. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you. 

Mr. Chaimian, I have no further questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker. 

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

Mr. Ulasewicz, I can't resist saying that you provided us all with 
at least a half dozen titles for books and novels. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That was not my intent. 

Senator Baker. The Ulasewicz caper 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I will pay for it, that is for sure. The newspapers 
will have a ball with this one. 

Senator Baker. Who thought you up? [Laughter.] I mean 
who [Laughter.] 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don't know, but maybe my parents. 

Senator Baker. I am not sure I will impute the element of intent 
to them. 

"Wliat I mean is who first employed you? Where did the first con- 
tact come from ? Was it from Kalmbach or was it from Dean, or was 
it from someone else in the CRP or the White House group ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It would be Mr. Caulfield. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever do any work for Caulfield? . 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Before taking the assignment ? 

Senator Baker. At any time ? 

Mr. Ui^\sewicz. No — oh, yes, after I — I received my assignments 
from Mr. Caulfield. 

Senator Baker. Not this one, though ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Had you ever worked for Mr. Kalmbach before? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I had no other assignments with Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever work with Mr. Ehrlichman? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I had no assignments with Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Anybody else at the White House or the CRP ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The only one in the White House who relayed or 
gave me an assignment was Mr. Caulfield. 

Senator Baker. I am not talking now just about the Watergate. I 
am talking about anything else. 

Mr. TTi^SEWicz. Anything. 

Senator Baker. No other duties, no other intelligence activities or 
investigative work of any type ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The only one that assigned the A\oi-k to me, if I 
understand your question, Senator, was Mr. Caulfield. 

Senator Baker. I hope I am not unnecessai-ily redundant. You are 
telling me that you never received anv instructions on Watergate or 
anything else from Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mi-. Dean, Mr. 
Kalmbach, except what you have described ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. Correct, sir. 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 4 



2264 

Senator Baker. Did you ever conduct any investigative work for 
the Wliite House or for the CRP at some time other than this Water- 
gate situation ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

There were a series of investigations, Senator, that I was assigned, 
given the assignment by Mr. Caulfield. From whom he received the 
assignments back of him, I have no knowledge, or to whom he reported 
the i^esults to, I have no knowledge. 

Senator Baker. What I am trying to determine now is whether 
anyone else, other than Mr. Caulfield, ga\o you instructions or gave 
you advice or suggested scope of other inquiries other than the Water- 
gate affair? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The best of my recollection is. no, sir. 

Senator Baker. But there were other inquiries or investigations? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Caulfield gave you instructions in that respect? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever know McCord before this liappened ? 

Mr. Ulaseavicz. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever know Liddy before it happened ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir, before the Watergate — oh, I met him once 
under a different name for a few minutes, yes sir, [laughter] I did. 

Senator Baker. McCord ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Not McCord. 

Senator Baker. Liddy ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Liddy. 

Senator Baker. What other name ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. George. He was introduced to me as Mr. 
George and he took an accounting as a finance — I recall he was finance 
in the committee, the Committee To Re-Elect, I gaiess it would he. 
Then he checked my list of expenses. 

Senator Baker. Where was this done? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. This was done in New York City in an apartment 
which I had lentcd to establish an agency of my own, a pi'ivate de- 
tective agency. 

Senator Baker. And lie identified himself as Mr. George ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. George. 

Senator Baker. Did he then hold the position of general counsel 
with the Committee To Re-Elect the President, do you know or have 
you since learned ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I do not know. I was told he was a counsel in the 
finance division of that agency. 

Senator Baker. Do you have any idea why he introduced himself 
as Mr. George instead of Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. T have no idea. 

Senator Baker. Do you know who was responsible for your being 
hired ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Who was responsible? 

Senator ]V\ker. Yes ; I am really referring you back, Mr. Ulasewicz, 
to your previous testimony. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Caulfield, right. And then I had a conversa- 
tion with Mi\ Ehrlichman and a conversation with Mr. Kalmbach. 



2265 

Senator Baker. According to my — I have a copy of the transcript 
of your previous testimony, page 702, which we will supply you. It 
indicates that it was your thought that it was Mr. Ehrlichman who 
was originally responsible for your being hired ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; he interviewed me for the position ; right. But 
the original contact for me to take this assignment came from Mr. 
Caulfield. Mr. Caulfield was not in a position to hire me or pay my 
salary. 

Subsequently, a meeting was arranged where I would be interviewed 
about the job by Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Baker. And that in fact happened 'i 

Mr. ULviSEWicz. That happened. And following that, the acceptance 
of me, I Avas interviewed by Mr. Kalmbach in order to set up my pay, 
and so forth. 

Senator Baker. Did Ehrlichman describe to you the type of your 
probable assignments if you were in fact hired ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. There was only, the conversation included, regard- 
ing my work, confidential investigations that might come from time 
to time of any type and that it was on a trial basis to see how it would 
work out. 

Senator Baker. Surely he described to you what he meant by confi- 
dential investigations ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. He mentioned that there would be some, 
some would be political figures of Republican or any other party. 
Democratic Party. There would be backgrounds on persons who may 
be, or want to become visitors to, persons who may be sought for ap- 
pointment to jobs, positions within the Government, types of investi- 
gations that they might not want a public, say an agent or a bureau 
or the Secret Service or somebody of that type, because a record would 
be made and they may have a background on such a person. And I 
would say that is about the general theme of that conversation. 

Senator Baker. That is a great deal. You have told us everything 
except 

Mr. Ulasewicz. We, he did not actually go into all that, but that is 
what it meant to me. 

Senator Baker. Did he name names of people he wanted to look into 
or investigate or 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you later undertake such investigations ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Can you tell us of whom and about what ? 

Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that Mr. 
Ulasewicz will once again return for further testimony in another 
category of testimony, 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. So we will abbreviate this inquiry at this point, with 
the full understanding that we can pursue that aspect of it later. 

But back on the matter of who hired you and for what purpose. 
It is your clear understanding that Mr. Ehrlichman was the one who 
finally passed on your appointment ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, sir. 



2266 

Senator Baker. Was it also your impression that Mr. Ehrlichman 
was the one who set and directed your assignment responsibilities and 
that Mr. Caulfield simply carried out those instructions, or that Mr. 
Caulfield chose your assignments and responsibility ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I woidd say both, that Mr. Ehrlichman would give 
some assignments, and possibly other people in the White House, to 
Mr. Caulheld and probably to me. 

Senator Baker. Do you know where Mr. Caulfield worked ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. He worked at — I think they call it the Executive 
Office Building and the White House. 

Senator Baker. I mean, who he worked for in the chain of com- 
mand. Did he work for Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I became familiar over a period of time that one 
of his superiors was Mr. Dean. 

Senator Baker. But Ehrlichman was the final authority on your 
appointment ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. He described to you in a general way your 
responsibilities ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Both Ehrlichman and Caulfield gave you assign- 
ments from time to time. You are under the impression that Ehrlich- 
man was the final authority in that respect and you went forward with 
those projects? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir, except that Mr. Ehrlichman never gave 
me an assignment personally. 

Senator Baker. Did you gain knowledge of certain assignments that 
were initiated by Mr. Ehrlichman ? Did Mr. Caulfield tell you about 
it, for instance ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; he never related to me from whom the assign- 
ments came in the White House. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have at this time. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I might, to address 
a comment to the Senator from Temiessee in order that we under- 
stand each other on a matter which he raised with the witness. 

I wish, if he intends or if he intended, that he would pursue his line 
of questioning, because if he does not pursue his line of questioning, 
I intend to pursue his line of questioning. I think I ought to make that 
known to the Senator. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I Imow exactly what Senator 
Weicker is talking about, and I certainly have no objection to any 
member of the committee pursuing that line of questioning at this time. 
We have tried, and this is what I had in mind when I made the remark 
that I did, in these hearings, with only moderate success, to compart- 
mentalize the areas of inquiry, into the so-called Watergate, the so- 
called coverup, the money, et cetera. We are getting into another area 
of inquiry and I planned to postpone that until a later time. I have a 
rather extensive outline here. I planned to defer that until we call 
Mr. Ulasewicz back. 

I have no objection if you wish to pursue it at this time. I will be 
glad to give you my memo. 

Senator Weicker. I only say this to the Senator from Tennessee in 
that I think it is very much within this category to show that the 



2267 

actions taken by Mr. Ulasewicz in the case of the payoff was not a 
particularly unusual activity at all in relations to other assignments 
which he was given. 

I am aware that the Senator from Tennessee has done considerable 
background work, as has the committee, on this, and I didn't want in 
any way to have you stop, if you will, and then go ahead when it 
came my turn to pick up the ball and run with it, because that is 
exactly Avhat I intend to do and I wish you would pursue the line of 
questioning that you started. 

Senator Baker. My distinguished chairman whispered in my ear, 
if we don't get on with this hearing, we'll still be here when the last 
trembling tones of Gabriel's trumpet fades into ultimate silence. 

Senator Ervin. The Chair will not undertake to control any Senator. 
The Chair will express the sincere hope that w^e will confine our inter- 
rogation of Mr. Ulasewicz at this time to the phase of involvement in 
the break-in and the alleged coverup of the Watergate burglary. 

The witness is a most intriguing witness and the temptation to inter- 
rogate him is very strong, I am going to resist succumbing to the 
temptation however, because I think he has been fully interrogated as 
to the matters relating to the distribution of this money and I know 
that the committee has some other witnesses it needs to interrogate and 
who are aw^aiting interrogation. 

Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Chairman, I only have two or three questions 
and I wnll not pursue the line of questioning which has been the sub- 
ject of the dialog here. 

I do want to say, or ask, Mr. Ulasewicz, again, I want to ask you at 
what point did you feel seriously that your activity might be subject 
to question as to its legality or propriety ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I would say about the time of the second dropoff, 
second or third dropoff to Mrs. Hunt. 

Senator Montoya. Well, you indicated in your testimony that in 
your initial contacts, you had gone to Mr. Caddy and then to Mr. 
O'Brien for the purpose of delivering attorney fees to them and that 
they had turned you down. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Very curtly, very abruptly. You sought instruc- 
tions from Mr. K, or Mr. Kalmbach. Didn't this trigger some kind of 
curiosity or concern in your mind that what you were actually launch- 
ing by way of an operation might be something that might be illegal 
when these attorneys didn't want to have anything to do with it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Not at that time, sir. I attributed it to a snafu 
amongst their communications or contacts. 

Senator Montoya. Did you discuss any concern that you might have 
had with ]Mr. Kalmbach when these two attorneys turned you down? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. What did you discuss with Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That the thing w^as not going as he had outlined it. 
Right from the start, now, we have a problem. But I am to make a 
delivery of $75,100, apparently, to attorney or to someone. And after 
three or four contacts, w^e have no one who is willing to go along with 
it, and that is when the indications started. 



2268 

Senator Montoya. Didn't the further fact that you were delivering 
money in cash to these attorneys, and tlie fact that they had turned 
you down, compound the triggering of possible concern on your part 
with respect to the nature of your activity ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It did later on when the amount grew. 

Senator Montoya. Then subsequent to this, when you delivered the 
rnoney to Mr. Bittman and then he in turn wanted to return the money, 
didn't that fact also add to possible concern on your part as to the 
legality of your clandestine activity ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Not the legality. I still was of a mind that what I 
was doing was legal, but it did indic^ate to me that they were in some 
kind of a problem in their communications of 

Senator Montoya. You have been a detective for a long time. Why 
did you not question the technique outlined to you for the delivery of 
this money? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Tlie leaving of the money in boxes ? 

Senator Montoya. Secretly and so forth. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The method of delivery was entirely my own. That 
was my own choice. 

Senator Montoya. Why did you choose this method ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Because Mr. Kalmbach had requested that I do this 
with utmost confidence, without involving anyone, and this was after 
the Caddy thing. 

Senator Montoya. Would it have been outside of the sphere of good 
discretion to just walk into an attorney's office and just deliver $25,000, 
rather than to leave it in a telephone booth ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes sir; Mr. Kalmbach was paying me and it was 
by his request that I was following his instructions. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you performed other assignments for the 
White House? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya, Under the direction of Mr. Caulfield ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. How many assignments would you say you per- 
formed during the course of 1971 for Mr. Caulfield ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 1971 ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. Ulasewicz, I would guess 35, 30 — I am not certain at this time. 
I didn't break it down in that fashion. 

Senator Montoya. And how many assignments did you perform in 
the year 1972? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Probably the same amount. 

Senator Montoya. And who were you paid by ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Montoya. Why, if you were working for the White' House, 
were you not paid by the Federal Government ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Initially, when I took the assignment, it was my re- 
quest that I work for a law firm. It was my dex^ision to go to an at- 
torney's firm because at the most, the job could have lasted until 1972, 
which it did, but there was a possibility it could have lasted a much 
lesser time than that. 

Senator Montoya. And who agreed with you as to that method of 
payment ? 



2269 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Kalmbach. 

Senator Montoya. And what discussions did you have with him as 
to the arrangement whereby you would be paid by a law firm rather 
than by the Govenmient ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I discussed with Mr. Kalmbach the method of pay- 
ment, the mailing of checks, et cetera. 

Senator Montoya. Why did you discuss it with Mr. Kalmbach when 
you had previously discussed your employment with Mr. Ehrlichman 
and he had approved it ? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did he send you to Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. When you went to Mr. Kalmbach, the choice was 
no longer there for you to suggest that Mr. Kalmbach pay you, was it ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, when we initially entered the negotiations with 
Mr. Ehrlichman, it was stated as my desire that I belong to a law 
firm, that I go with an attorney's firm. 

Senator Montoya. Didn't it sound strange to you that you were per- 
forming official functions for the Government for the White House 
and being paid by a private individual ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I didn't consider myself working for the Go\ern- 
ment. As a matter of fact, it was the one thing I had wanted to avoid. 
I had just come from a police department, a government agency, and 
I wanted to go into the private sector. 

Senator Montoya. Weren't you performing functions for Mr. Caul- 
field that were official in nature and governmental in nature? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, I conducted confidential investigations of vari- 
ous types. 

Senator Montoya. Are you now saying to me that what you perform- 
ed for Mr. Gaulfield was outside of the scope of Government and not 
connected with any of the governmental functions of the White House ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Would you explain the question, please. Senator? I 
don't imderstand the question. 

Senator Montoya. Then are you, in effect, telling me that the as- 
signments which you conducted were not governmental in nature and 
not dealing with the "Wliite House ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I don't think I understand what governmental in 
nature would be at this point. 

Senator Montoya. Well, don't you understand what the functions of 
government are? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I conducted investigations relating to whatever 
might have been assigned to me. I don't recall in my determination of 
governmental functions that they had to do with official Government 



agencies or- 



Senator Montoya. Well, tell me the nature of those functions. We 
are not going to go into individuals, but tell me the nature of those 
functions. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Background investigations of persons possibly 
coming into Government or being contemplated for appointment ; alle- 
gation of various types of that nature that could be construed, that 
if someone, all persons that would write in to the White House or 
would write, as I understood, might communicate in some way and 
they wanted that person's background checked and did not want^ — I 
would get the assignment. 



2270 

Senator Moxtoya. Thou, would not all those functions be official in 
nature, dealing with White House trovernniental operations? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. White House operations, yes, I believe so. 

Senator Moxtoya. Then, did this not tri<2:<ijer some concern or doubt 
in your mind as to why you were being assigned to a private payroll 
to perform these particular functions? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It did not make any difference to me. 

Senator Montoya. Did you ever ask anyone to not put you on a 
Federal payroll, but to put you on a private payix)ll ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Moxtoya. Who did you suggest this to ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. To Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Moxtoya. It is very strange, very strange. Thank you, Mr. 
Chainnan. 

Senator Ervix\ The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

[Whereupon, at 12 :22 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., this same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Wednesday, July 1'8, 19Y3 

Senator Ervix'. The committee will come to order. 

Senator Weicker is interrogating the witness. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Ulasewicz, you testified this morning that 
as far as you are concerned you never did anything illegal, you were 
not a party to any illegal activities, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, I would like your comments on testimony 
which you gave on May 23. On May 23 Senator Inouye asked you the 
following questions and you responded in the following manner: 

Senator Ixouye. In this special assignment you undertook for 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? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir ; I knew that it was wrong. 

Senator Inouye. You knew you were an accessory to a crime? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Now, would you like to comment or equate your testimony of May 
23 to what you stated before this committee today ? 

Mr. Sutter. Senator, excuse me, may we be furnished with a copy 
of that testimony, please? 

Senator Weicker. Yes, indeed. I would ask committee staff to sup- 
ply Mr. Ulasewicz and his counsel with the transcript. 

Mr. Sutter. I received one page. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. At the time I took the action I did, I took the tele- 
phone call, I did not believe I was committing any crime. A friend had 
asked me to make a phone call, assured me, and so forth, as I testified. It 
is later on and subsequently when I was interrogated and so forth that 
the allegation was brought to me or the fact was brought to me that it 
might be construed as a crime. 

Senator Weicker. But that was not your testimony, Mr. Ulasewicz. 
Your testimony is very specific, I will repeat Senator Inouye's ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. I understand. 



2271 



Senator Weicker [reading] 



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 a crime of 
obstructing a criminal investigation. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir ; I knew — 

that is past tense — 

that it was wrong. 

Senator Inouye. You knew you were an accessory to a crime? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes ; at the time I used the past tense I was speaking 
of finding it out or coming to believe that it might have been a wrong- 
doing and yet in my mind today as I sit here, I do not really consider 
myself of committing a crime in that sense, so I had no purpose. I was 
on no payroll. I had no intent of any kind. 

Senator Weicker. Would you like to use this as an occasion to change 
your testimony of May 23 ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Just to explain it, yes. 

Senator Weicker. Now, in addition, Mr. Ulasewicz, you have testi- 
fied this morning that you wanted no further part in the activities re- 
garding Watergate defendants once you and Sir. Kalmbach had got- 
ten outof the payoff activity. Now, if this is so why did you proceed 
to contact Mr, McCord at Mr, Caulfield's request in January of 1973 
and, in fact, relate to Mr, McCord the following message : "A year is a 
long time, no one knows how a judge will go. Your family will be pro- 
vided for, rehabilitation and job opportunities will be provided for," 

Mr, Sutter, May I have the page, please? 

Senator Weicker. Again, here I would ask the committee to go 
ahead and supply it. 

Mr. Sutter. I have it. Senator, 

Senator Weicker. I do not have a page. 

Mr. Sutter. You do not have a page? 

Senator Weicker. Wait a minute, I beg your pardon. It would be 
page 697. 

Mr. Sutter. Thank you, sir, 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In connection with my answer we were speaking 
of Watergate and the money drops, and this entire thing that I went 
through in prior testimony, and I was not- — at that time when I 
answered the question it was not in my mind connected with this 
telephone call. 

Senator Weicker. Would you then state before the committee then 
that even once you doubted the nature of your work you still con- 
tinued in that work, is that correct? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Only to the phone call, that is correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Ulasewicz, as I indicated this morning, 
I intend to ask you several questions relative to the other matters that 
were handled by you. It is not my intention to go into specifics of each 
investigation but rather to tvy to characterize your job. First off I 
would like to set. if I could, your status insofar as payroll, insofar 
as the A^Hiite House is concerned. If I am not mistaken you were paid 
by Mr. Kalmbach's law firm, is that correct? 



2272 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. You were paid a salary from May of 1969 to 
December of 1972? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. July of 1969. 

Senator Weicker. July of 1969 to December 1972, correct ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. 1972 December would be correct; yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. You were paid $22,000 per year, is that correct ? 

Mr. UioAsewicz. That is correct. Last year was $2,000 per month, 
was $24,000 in the final year. 

Senator Weicker. And expenses, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. And expenses, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Could you indicate to me the amount of the 
expenses per year? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Roughly about $1,000 a month. 

Senator Weicker. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $12,000 per 
year in addition to tlie $22,000 salary ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And this payroll was the payroll of Mr. Kalm- 
bach's law firm ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And your instructions with the exception of the 
moneys that you discussed this morning relative to the defendants, the 
Watergate defendants, your instructions came from Mr. Caulfield ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And you knew that Mr. Caulfield was in the White 
House ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So that in effect you were paid by Mr. Kalmbach, 
your instructions came from the White House ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, I would like to, if I could, try to get into 
the general nature of the investigations, the other iuA'Cstigations, which 
you conducted. Is it a fact that these investigations or some of these 
investigations, were background checks on individuals intended to 
develo]) questionable facets of the personal lives of these individuals? 

Mr. TTlasew^icz. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, when we are talking about questionable 
facets, would this include sexual habits ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. These were allegations and that might be included 
in the category, I guess. 

Senator Weicker. That would be included in the category. Drinking 
habits? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Domestic problems ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Personal social activities? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. These background checks, is there any other, let 
me ask you the question, is there any other, general category which you 
would assign to these background chocks? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. Yes ; there would have been backgrounds on various 
other individuals, corporations, organizations, and any allegations, 
and allegations concerning political figures. 



2273 

Senator Weicker. All right, I haven't gotten into asking you the 
question as to who you perform these checks on. I am just trying to 
get at the nature of the investigation and I think we have checked out 
domestic problems, their drinking habits, personal social activities, 
sexual habits. 

Is there any other type of activity which was investigated relative 
to any corporation or individual ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No ; it would depend on the allegation — would de- 
pend on the degree of investigation. There wasn't a complete investiga- 
tion on any one person with all those titles involved. Sometimes it was 
an allegation of drinking or what it might be and I might just keep 
my investigation to that particular category. 

Senator Weicker. Now, can we categorize in a general way those 
individuals or corporations that were investigated by you? Were 
potential political opponents of the President so investigated ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Were other political figures, aside from potential 
political opponents of the President investigated ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Probably, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And were the individuals in this category — were 
they entirely background checks prior to employment or was it for 
some other reason ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Some would be prior to employment and -some would 
be as a result of an allegation in a newspaper or something of that 

Senator Weicker. Did you ever file your investigations in a written 
form? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator AVeicker. Why not ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. When I took the assignment it was set up that I 
would report directly and verbally. I was to keep no files. 

Senator Weicker. Did you at any time conduct any electronic 
surveillance on any individual, either in the form of the bug or the 
tap? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Were your investigations, or were these investiga- 
tions intended to develop lists of contributors to political candidates ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, how would you go about this problem ? You 
are trying to develop a list of potential political contributors. What 
do you investigate to develop a list ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, in fact, the assignment would be given to me 
in a manner that, to limit the lists, for instance, to those on file here 
in the Senate and to get the papers that were filed concerning their 
contributors. I was never asked to go out and get a list right from 
the start, for instance, I was not asked to get a list of contributors. I 
miffht be. told, go up to the Senate, go to the Senate office. I might get 
a list of 10 or 12 contributors, if they had such a thing. I would get the 
list of people who contributed. 

In other instances, I might go to the State Capitol and go into 
the public office and ask, are these records public, are they available 
and they would give them to me. Sometimes they were filed by the 
candidate. 



2274 

At times, I would go into the candidate's office and get the list, how 
much was contributed and peruse the matter. 

Senator Weicker. So actually, this compiling of the list was done 
entirely through public records? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Now, let us get back to the individuals you in- 
vestigated. How was it possible to get into the matters of domestic 
l^roblems, drinking habits, social activity and sexual activity, just 
from a matter of public record ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, the allegation would first cause — the incident 
would first have had to occur when I received the investigation. If it 
was an allegation of, a drinking allegation, we might take, I would 
then develop that lead by reading what the allegation was, going into 
the area in the most discreet manner that I would know how, and I 
did so for several years. And I would develop whether it happened or 
not and a very high percentage of these allegations were false. But I 
would develop my leads by interviewing bartenders, patrons, what- 
ever time it might take, how long — if it were a hotel, hotel employees, 
waiters. Those kind of people are the most talkative. 

Senator Weicker. So in these situations, the information sought 
was not necessarily a matter of public record ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. That is right. 

Senator Weicker. It could have been a matter of personal inter- 
view. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Correct, sir. 

Senator Weicker. We have now got potential political contributors, 
we have potential political opponents of the President, we have other 
political types. What other types of individuals did you investigate? 
Again, in the categories ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. They might be members, might be members of a 
political family. It might be a son or a nephew or something of that 
type, perhaps an allegation of some possible misconduct, and I would 
go out on it to see whether or not it was true and develop it and re- 
turn and give my report. That would likewise be done by going into 
the area, possibly making my own observations, interviewing people 
that might be familiar with the circumstances, the surroundings. I 
would determine habits, et cetera. 

Also, in many instances, another category were persons seeking, who 
would be probably seeking visits to the White House or something of 
that type. They might want to know if it was a large group, they 
might want to know the political affiliations. That would be the regis- 
tration records that would be concerned and I would go out and look 
at the public records for their registration, what party records there 
are prior to them coming in. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Any other categories such as groups 
oriented toward a particular philosophy or politics ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In the outset of my investigations, early in the out- 
set, when we were going over the problems with dissident groups 
within, picketing here at the White House and relatively, I had left 
from my experience in the police department, I might follow up on 
that. But that gradually phased out. 

Senator Weicker. So in fact, Mr. Ulasewicz — let me ask you this. 
Is there anything else — I do not want to cut you off in any way here ; 



2275 

let me just ask the general question— either as to the type of individual 
or group being investigated by you or the nature of your investigation. 
Is there anything else that you feel you would like to tell to this 
committee at this time relative to this subject matter without, and I 
repeat, without getting into the specifics or the name? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. I understand. 

I think at this time, without going into further recollection, I 
think that you have pretty well covered it, Senator, generally, the 
groups and persons. 

Senator Weicker. So that in fact, Mr. UlaseAvicz, the Watergate 
project which you discussed with this committee this morning was just 
another in, really, a series of activities that could be determined sur- 
reptitious ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. It was another in a series of investigations, yes, sir. 
Senator Weicker. There was not anything that was particularly 
unusual iabout this activity compared to other ones that you had con- 
ducted ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In a sense that when I received an assignment from 
a superior, from somebody, a directive, I did it, yes. 

Senator Weicker. Well, as an ex-law enforcement official, didn't you 
feel that the noniial agencies of law enforcement in this country were 
totally capable of handling any matters that affected the safety or the 
well-being of the President of the United States? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, yes sir, undoubtedly, and I did it myself for 
the — yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, the normal agencies could have 
accomplished that job without the activities that you conducted? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So your activities were not, could not be termed 
"protective" of the President of the United States, could they ? 
Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Would it be fair to say that you dealt in dirt at 
the direction of the White House ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Allegations of it, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. But the information, Mr. Ulasewicz, and the 
activities conducted over this 3-year period were not open, were 
they? I am talking now about your activities. 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Oh, no, I conducted my investigations in the most 
discreet, confidential manner that I knew how. 

Senator Weicker. But the information which you solicited was 
not the type of information that you cared to write down, is that 
correct? Or that should appear in public print? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Well, I don't know if it did appear in public print, 
if that is a — I didn't write it for the purposes of public print. 

Senator Weicker. I see. Are you indicating to me that possibly 
matters did come to the public attention that were based on your 
investigations ? 

Mr. T'l^ASEwicz. It is possible. 

Senator Weicker. I repeat my question : How would you categorize 
the information which you turned over to Mr. Caulfield? 

Mr. ITlasewicz. I would say it 

Senator Weicker. Was it of a national security nature ? 



2276 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Domestic security nature ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Dirt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. No, it would be of a political nature. 

Senator Weicker. Political dirt? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. All right, sir. And there were other assignments 
which were of a different nature which were not of that type. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I 
just thought it important that the entire job that Mr. Ulasewicz 
had be characterized. 

I suppose that I, like many others, can't fault in any way what's a 
wonderful sense of humor, Mr. Ulasewicz. But I must confess that 
a long time ago, I lost my sense of humor on the activities that you 
have described here today. I tell my friends, as a matter of fact, that 
it seems that today's Watergate joke becomes tomorrow's testimony. 

I would only ask you this question to try to appropriately frame 
the description which you gave to me. Do you know where Mr. Liddv 
isriffhtnow? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Where ? 

Mr. TTlasewicz. He is in prison. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Hunt ? 

Mr. TTlasewicz. He is in prison. 

Senator Weicker. Mrs. Hunt ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. She is dead. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Barker ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. In prison, I believe. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Gronzales ? 

Mv. Ulasewicz. In prison — I am not certain of that. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Sturgis ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The same. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Martinez ? 

Mr. Ulasewicz. The same. 

Senator Weicker. I think what we see here is not a joke, but a very 
great tragedy. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, may we have the photographs that 
were used earlier introduced as exhibits in today's testimony ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

[The photographs referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 78 through 
86.*1 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya, do you have any further 
questions ? 

Senator Montoya. I have no further questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadt.e. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Then on behalf of the committee, I want to thank 
you for your cooperation with the committee. It may be necessary to 
recall you later in another phase of this matter and therefore, you 



►See pp. 222i8-2230. 



2277 

M-ill remain under the same subpena. As I understand it, you are 
willing to reappear on adequate notice being given to you as to the 
time and place. 

Mr. Sutter. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SuTi'ER. Mr. Chairman, may we thank the committee for the 
courtesies that have been extended to us, particularly in these augTist 
chambers. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Mr. Sutter. And that we have agreed with both counsel for the 
minority and the majority that we wdll render ourselves available pur- 
suant to that subpena at any future date. 

Senator Ervin. My information is that your client has cooperated 
fully with the committee. 

Mr. Sutter. That is correct, sir, he has. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Will counsel please call the next witness ? 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Fred LaRue. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. LaRue, will you stand up and raise your right 
hand ? 

Do you swear that the evidence that 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. LaRue. I do. 

Senator Ervin. Will you state your name and address for the record ? 

TESTIMONY OF FEED C. LaRUE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED VINSON, 

COUNSEL 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, Fred C. LaRue, 1026 Hallmark Drive, Jackson, 
Miss. 

Senator Ervin. I note that you are accompanied by counsel. Will 
counsel state his name and address for the purpose of the record ? 

Mr, Vinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Fred Vinson, member 
of the District of Columbia Bar, 800 l7th St., NW. I am here on behalf 
of Mr. LaRue. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. LaRue, I understand that you do have a brief state- 
ment to make. 

Would you like to read that to the committee ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Would you please read it, sir ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my home is 
in Jackson, Miss. Since 1,969, however, I have spent a substantial part 
of my time in Washington, D.C., first working on the transition of 
administrations, then as a special consultant to the President, and since 
January 1972 I have served as a special assistant on the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President. 

I learned that the Democratic National Committee headquarters had 
been broken into on June 17, 1972, shortly after the occurrence. 

Prior to that time, I did know of the existence of a proposal to con- 
duct political espionage by electronic surveillance. I learned of this 
plan at a meeting I attended in late March 1972 ; and this is the only 



2278 

timo I heard it discussed. At that meeting I recommended against the 
plan. It was not approved in my presence, and I have no personal 
knowledge of its approval by anyone. 

After the AVatergate arrests and subsequent to June 17, 1972, my 
knowledge and involvement increased. I learned from ISIr. Gordon 
Liddy on June 20 that he, an official of the committee, had in fact been 
involved in this fiasco. 

I later sat in on meetings with Mr. Magmder and others at which the 
protective story he had evolved was discussed, and I joined in that 
coverup, at least by acquiescence. 

Then I was the recipient of several deliveries of cash which, at 
various times, I was called upon to distribute to a number of persons 
in satisfaction of commitments made by others to the defendants in 
the AVatergate trial. 

I am fully aware now that what I did then was wrong, both ethi- 
cally and legally, and I have faced up to that fact and I am prepared 
to accept the consequences. It is difficult to recreate a mood and even 
one's own attitudes in a time of stress ; but when this was transpiring, 
I had no intent to violate the law. I was motivated solely by my con- 
cern for the Presidential campaign in which we were engaging. 

I have given my full cooperation, to the best of my ability and 
recollection, to the staff of this committee in preparation for these 
hearings. Furthermore, I have, and will continue, to fully cooperate 
with the Watergate prosecutors and the Federal grand jury inquiring 
into these matters. I am prepared to try to answer any questions you 
may have for me. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. LaRue, when you state on page 2 of your statement 
that you are fully aware now that what you did was wrong both ethi- 
cally and legally and that you have faced up to that fact, are you 
referring, Mr. LaRue, to the fact that you have pled guilty to a one- 
count information for conspiracy to obstruct justice? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. That count has to do with the relationship that you had 
with the parties that were involved in the coverup of the Watergate 
matter ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Dash. We will get more into those details and when we do, 
would you please let us know what portions of your answers refer to 
that plea of guilty ? 

Mr. LaRue. Very well. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. LaRue, how long have you been associated with John 
Mitchell on political affairs? 

Mr. LaRue. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Dash, since the lat- 
ter part of 1966 or early 1967. 

Mr. Dash. What was your role in the 1968 election ? 

Mr. LaRue. I was special assistant to the campaign director, John 
Mitchell. 

Mr. Dash. Did you work in the White House after the 1968 election? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What position did you have and how long did you 
have it? 

Mr. LaRue. As I have stated in my opening statement, initially I 
worked on the transition of the administrations. Later I became special 
consultant to the President. 



2279 

Mr. Dash. Now, when did you first begin working at the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. LaRue. January of 1972. 

Mr. Dash. What was your role there, Mr. LaRue? 

Mr. LaRue. I was a special — well, later on I became special assist- 
ant to the campaign director. Initially, there was no campaign direc- 
tor, and actually no title that I know of in the initial period. 

Mr. Dash. To whom did you report ? 

Mr. LaRue. To the campaign director or to Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Dash. Now, are you still associated with the committee, Mr. 
LaRue? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I am not. 

Mr. Dash. During the time you were with the Committee To Re- 
Elect the President, were you compensated in any way ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. I volunteered my services. I did receive, at the 
rate of where I received $1,500 a month as reimbursement on expenses. 

Mr. Dash. During this time were you privately employed? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I am self-employed. 

Mr. Dash. Could you state the nature of that business? 

Mr. LaRue. Investment businesses, primarily real estate invest- 
ments. 

Mr. Dash. So you had your own company during the time you were 
donating your services to the committee? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. LaRue, prior to the meeting you referred to in later 
March 1972, in Key Biscayne, did Mr. Magruder inform you at any 
time of any meetings that he had with Mr. Mitchell concerning an 
intelligence plan that Mr. Liddy was preparing? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall an incident sometime prior to the March 
meeting in Key Biscayne where Mr. Liddy and Mr. Magruder had 
an altercation and you may have served as a peacemaker? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Dash. Would you please tell us what that was all about and 
what role you played? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, I was asked by Mr. Magruder 
to sit in on a meeting that he was going to have with Mr. Liddy, which 
I did. I think the subject of this meeting was an altercation that Mr. 
Magruder and Mr. Liddy had had. My understanding was that Mr. 
Magruder had, in effect, reprimanded Mr. Liddy for failure to carry 
out some project on a timely basis, and this reprimand was I think, 
in the presence of some other people. Mr. Liddy was very incensed 
about this, a very heated argument ensued between Mr. Magruder and 
Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did you hear Mr. Liddy say in this 
heated argument to Mr. Magruder? 

Mr. LaRue. At one point in the argument, Mr. Liddy told Mr. 
Magruder that if he did not like the way he was doing his job that 
he could get someone else to do his dirty work for him. I think he 
suggested— Mr. Magruder asked him if he had anyone in mind, I 
think he suggested the name Howard Hunt. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any idea what he meant, "To get his 
dirty work done for him?" 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 5 



2280 

Mr. LaRue. No ; I did not. It was my iinderstandino; that Mr. Liddy 
was working on some intelligence activities, my understanding was, 
in connection with tlie Republican Convention that was to be held in 
San Diego. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware that Mr. Liddy was receiving sums of 
money from the Republican campaign? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

[Disturbance in audience.] 

Mr. Dash. Neither my question nor your answer accomplished that, 
I am sure. 

Now, you were not aware then from your testimon}' that ]\Ir. Liddy 
Avas involved in any intelligence plan or planning than the one you 
have just testified to with relationship to the convention? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

INIr. Dash. What brought you to Key Biscayne at the end of J\Iarch, 
I take it, it was around March 29. When did you go to Key Biscayne? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, March 22 or March 23. 

Mr. Dash. What was the reason for your going? 

Mr. LaRue. Accompanied the Mitchells on a vacation. 

Mr. Dash. You said you arrived around the 22nd ? 

Mr. LaRue. March 22 or JMarch 23, as I recall. 

Mr. Dash. All right ; who else was there ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. and jMrs. Mitchell, their daughter, ]\Iiss Forzberg, 
]Mrs. Mitchell's secretary, Mr. Caulfield, who was JNIr. Mitchell's se- 
curity man. Later on we were joined by Mr. Tom Wentz, who was 
another security man and myself. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Jeb Magruder come down to Key Biscayne 
around that time? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, it was later, several days later, as I recall, 
March 29. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know what the purpose of Mr. Magruder's visit 
to Key Biscayne was about ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I do. Mr. Magruder and Mr. Flemming came 
down to Key Biscayne to discuss several political problems, and to 
discuss with Mr. Mitchell several activities that needed decisions made 
relating to the campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Were you present Avhen the so-called agenda items were 
being discussed between Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell took place? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. How many were there? 

Mr. LaRue. I can't recall any specific number, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Was it a large number? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, i)rior to the actual meeting in which the agenda 
items were discussed, were you given a copy of any of these agenda 
items? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I was given — I requested a copy of all of them. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Was any particular one of interest to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. In reviewing the items — priorityizing them for 
the meeting the next day, I ran across a paper which discussed or out- 
lined a plan of electronic surveillance. There was a budget attached 
to this. 

Mr. Dash. Who gave you that, those agenda items ? 



2281 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Magruder. 

Mr. Dash. Now could you describe in as much detail as you can 
the discussions concerning the political intelligence plan? Did you 
know it was Mr. Liddy's plan? Did you know that that plan was 
being proposed by Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall there was no reference to Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. When did actually Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell ar- 
rive at the discussion of that plan? Was it at the beginning or the 
end? 

Mr. LaRue. This was at the end of the meeting because I had 
placed this paper at the bottom of the list of proposals that would 
be discussed. 

Mr. Dash. Why did you do that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, there were actually two reasons, Mr. Dash. We 
did not know if we were going to finish, if we had enough time to 
finish a discussion on all of these proposals during this meeting. I 
had, as I indicated, had put them in what I considered priority order 
and I placed this on the bottom. I discussed this with Mr. Magruder 
that morning and also indicated to him that I would prefer that the 
discussion of that paper, if we got to it, would be only in the presence 
of he, Mr, Mitchell, and myself and that we find some way to excuse 
Harry Flemming from the meeting. 

Mr. Dash. Did 3^ou find any way to excuse Harry Flemming from 
the meeting? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. So he left? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And there did come a time when you did begin to discuss 
the so-called intelligence plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall the budget on that plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall the budget on that plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. There was a budget attached to that plan; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall the amount of that budget ? 

Mr. LaRue. No specific amount — to the best of my recollection, it 
was several hundred thousand. 

Mr. Dash. Would a quarter million, $250,000 be the figure ? 

Mr. LaRue. I have no specific recollection of that. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Could you tell us once that plan was being 
presented what took place? What did Mr. Mitchell say, what did 
you say, what did Mr. Magruder say ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, Mr. Magruder, as in the previous 
proposals, handed this paper to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell read it, 
he asked me if I had read it and I told him I had. He asked me what 
I thought of it and I told him I did not think it was worth the risk. 

Mr. Dash. What did Mr. Mitchell say to that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mitchell, to the best of my recollection, said some- 
thing to the effect that, "Well, this is not something that will have 
to be decided at this meeting." 

Mr. Dash. All right. To your recollection then, Mr. Mitchell did 
not reject that plan out of hand at that time, did he ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection ; no sir. 



2282 

Mr. Dash. Now, do you know when Mr. Magruder left Key 
Biscayne ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall this meeting was on March 30, and to the best 
of my recollection, he left the following day. 

Mr. Dash. And therefore there was ample opportunity for Mr. 
Magruder and IMr. Mitchell to meet together, was there not, between 
the time that this plan was being discussed in your presence and the 
time Mr. Magruder left? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, I can't state that there was ample opportunity, 
no sir. That would not be a correct statement, Mr. Dash, because Mr. 
Magruder left the house in which we were staying, as I recall, you 
know, sometime shortly after that meeting, and I don't recall Mr. 
Magruder returning to the house during the time he was in Key Bis- 
cayne, and I was at the house all during this time. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Mitchell leaving the house ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not ; no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be possible that he did ? 

Mr. LaRue. It would certainly be possible, I guess, Mr. Dash, but 
I have no recollection. 

Mr. Dash. Now, during the time that they were in the house to- 
gether and with you during the meeting, were you in the room at all 
times? 

Mr. LaRue. I could not state definitely that I was in the room at 
all times, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. You could not state it. As a matter of fact it is quite 
possible that you were out of the room at certain times. 

Mr. LaRue. That is a possibility. I have no recollection of that. 

Mr. Dash. It is also ])ossible, is it not, that you were on the tele- 
phone a number of times ? 

Mr, LaRue. Pardon me. 

Mr. Dash. It is also possible, is it not, that you were on the telephone 
a number of times? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. However, I would like to state now that there 
were telephones in the room in which we were holding the meeting. 

Mr. Dash. And, therefore, Mr. LaRue, would it be fair to say that 
you could not state to this committee that at no time while Mr. Ma- 
gruder Avas meeting witli Mr. Mitchell in Key Biscayne he did not get 
some indication of approval from INIr. Mitchell concerning this plan? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I am sorry, I didn't hear your question. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be fair, Mr. LaRue to state that you cannot, 
from your own recollection, tell this committee that at no time while 
Mr. Magruder was meeting with Mr. Mitchell, in Key Biscayne, that 
Mv. Mitchell did not approve the so-called Liddy plan or this intelli- 
gence plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I am very sorry, I still don't know if I un- 
dei-stand your question. 

Mr, Dash. Let me tiy to simplify that question. I am just trying 
to have you state to the committee whether you, of your own knowl- 
edge, can state to the committee that at no time during the time when 
Mr. Magruder was down at Key Biscayne that Mr. Mitchell approved 
or disapproved that intelligence plan. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 



2283 

Mr. Dash. After you left Key Biscayne, did you discuss the Key 
Biscayne meeting with any of the participants, Mr. Mitchell or Mr. 
Magruder and at any later time. 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection, no, sir. 

Mr. Dasii. Before, not even after June 17 during: the break-in. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir; I have had discussions after June 17. I am 
sorry, I was thinking in the time frame of Key Biscayne to the break- 
in, 

Mr. Dash. Well, with whom did you discuss it after, say, June 17? 

Mr. LaRue. I have discussed this with Mr. Magruder, I think I 
have discussed this with Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Dash. "Wliat, if anything, did you say to Mr. Magruder, or 
did Mr. Magruder say to you about it ? 

Mr. LaRue. We discussed it, and we had a very obvious difference 
of opinion as to what happened at the meeting. 

Mr. Dash, What did Mr. Magruder tell you and when did he tell 
you? Can you recall when that discussion took place? 

Mr. LaRxte. There would have been, I think, in the time period of 
March or April — April, probably. 

Mr. Dash. Of what year ? 

Mr. LaRue. This year. 

Mr. Dash. This year ? 

Mr, LaRue, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Is that the first time since the Key Biscayne meeting 
of March 30, 1972, that you discussed this with Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I think that is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, between that March 30 meeting and March or April 
of this year, the break-in took place at the Democratic National Com- 
mittee headquarters in Watergate ? 

Mr. LaRue, That is correct, 

Mr, Dash. When that break-in took place, did it occur in your 
mind that this had some relationship to the plan that had been pre- 
sented down at Key Biscayne ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you then go to Mr. Magruder and say, "How did this 
come about?" 

Mr. LaRue. I don't recall discussing with Mr. Magruder regarding 
the conversation or the meeting at Key Biscayne, and I have had sev- 
eral conversations with Mr. Magruder subsequent to the break-in, sev- 
eral aspects of the Watergate — Watergate break-in. 

Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, is this not true, Mr. LaRue, that dur- 
ing June, after the break-in, July, and August, you almost had daily 
meetings with Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mardian, and in 
fact you saw Mr. Magruder quite frequently in the months just after 
the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Virtually every day, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Yes. And you mean it never occurred to you to ask Mr. 
Magruder that after that meeting at Key Biscayne, at which you 
were present, and actually read over the plan the day before, and was 
present when it was being discussed on March 30, and then the break- 
in did occur that you didn't raise the question with Mr. Magruder, 
"How did this come about ?" 



2284 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I raised the question and speculated with Mr. 
Magruder on several occasions as to how this came about. 

Mr. Dash. Well, then, it is not ti-ue that yon did not talk to him 
until March or April but that you discussed this actually during the 
months of June, July, or August 1972 ? 

Mr. LaRue. After the break-in, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And what did Mr. Magruder say to you when you dis- 
cussed this with him about his role or his participation in the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Magruder's conversations with me were reflected 
in his testimony up here. He told me virtually — told me the same thing 
that he testified to before this committee as to his role in the break-in. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, he made a complete confession to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know when was the first time he did that ? Ap- 
proximately ? I do not want to push you to a date. 

Mr. LaRue. I have no specific recollection of dates, Mr. Dash, but I 
would say in the period of a week or 10 days after the break-in. 

Mr. Dash. And did he not, Mr. LaRue, tell you about a phone call 
that he received from Mr. Colson concerning the so-called Liddy plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what he told you about that phone call ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, this conversation occurred as a 
result of speculation that Magruder and I were having on who may be 
involved or who may have had knowledge of the Watergate break-in. 
He told me that he had had a call from Mr. Oolson, I think sometime 
in the period of March or April, in which Mr. Colson had asked Mr. 
Magruder why they could not get an approval on the Liddy budget. 

Mr. Dash. Did he tell you then or remind you that he understood 
that you were present at his side, in the room, when he received the 
phone call from Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not recall any such discussion, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. You know of his testimony before this committee, in 
which he has testified that you were in the room ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I am aware of that. My recollection is as I have 
just stated. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when you state that Mr. Magruder told you every- 
thing, it was about a week or so after the break-in.. Was anybody else 
present when he said that to you or told you about this ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I recall. As I "recall, it had been a discussion 
between just Mr. Magruder and I. 

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. LaRue, when and where did you actually first 
hear about the June 17 break-in matter ? 

Mr. LaRue. At the Beverly Hills Hotel in Los Angeles, Calif. 

Mr. Dash. Were you with anybody else at that time ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, we were on a trip. Present were Mr. Mitchell, 
Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Porter, I think Mr. Caldera from 
the committee. I mean these were the people who were present from the 
reelection committee. 

Mr. Dash. Now, can you tell the committee as clearly as you can 
recall, how that news came to you, who first learned about it and how 
you learned about it, and what was done ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, we were having breakfast on — I 
think Saturday morning — I guess that would be June 17. Mr. Ma- 
gruder was paged, went to the telephone. He came back to the table 



3285 

and said that he had had a rather unusual, strange call from Gordon 
Liddy, who wanted him to go to some, as I recall, some NASA instal- 
lation or NASA base in Los Angeles, where there was a secure phone, 
and to use this phone to call back to Mr. Liddy in Washington. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Magruder say anything about what the prob- 
lem was ? Do you recall the words as nearly as possible ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, he indicated that Mr. Liddy — ^he said Mr. Liddy 
indicated that there was a problem he wanted to discuss and Mr. 
Magruder, in an aside to me, said that, you know, I think maybe last 
night was the night they were going into the Democratic National 
Committee. 

Mr. Dash. Did that mean anything to you when he said that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, specifically, no, but it, in view of the fact that 
I was aware of this plan that had been discussed in Key Biscayne, it 
certainly aroused a great curiosity or interest on my part, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, what followed? Mr. Magruder then went ahead 
and spoke to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. I think I told Mr. Magruder that, why didn't he just 
go and use a pay phone, that that would probably be secure enough for 
the purposes. 

Mr. Dash. "What did he do? 

Mr. LaRue. He called Mr. Liddy back and then came back and told 
me that Liddy had told him that there had been a break-in at the 
Democratic National Committee ; I think five people had been caught 
inside, and that one of the people was Mr. McCord, who was our 
security man at the reelection committee. 

Mr. Dash. Now, was that information relayed to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes; I personally relayed that to Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Mitchell's reaction ? 

Mr. LaRue. I had gotten Mr. Mitchell out of another meeting. We 
went into an adjoining room. I relayed this information to Mr. 
Mitchell. He was very surprised. I think as I recall, he made the state- 
ment, "That is incredible." 

Mr. Dash. Now, did Mr. Mitchell give any instructions to anybody 
after getting that information ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not at that time. As I recall, Mr. Mitchell went back 
into his meeting. Then later on, I think Mr. Magruder and I and Mr. 
Mitchell met and, yes, Mr. Mitchell asked that someone call Mr. Liddy 
and have him contact Mr. Kleindienst, the Attorney General, and 
have Mr. Kleindienst get in touch with Chief Wilson and see what 
details we could find out about this situation. 

Mr. Dash. Now, was anything else done to your knowledge, while 
you were out in California, concerning the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, yes, there was a — Mr. Mitchell issued a press 
statement on the instant — I think that was Saturday afternoon. 

Mr. Dash. Anvthing else ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, there were several telephone calls made back and 
forth from Washington to— I mean, from Los Angeles to Washington, 
to our press office here. 

Mr. Dash. I take it there was quite a commotion. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you returned. When did you return to Washington 
from California ? 



2286 

Mr. LaRue. It would be the following Monday. It would be, I think, 
the 19th of June. 

Mr. Dash. All right. On that Monday in the evening, did you attend 
a meeting in Mr. Mitchell's Washington apartment at the Watergate? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mitchell's apartment ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Wlio was at this meeting ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mitchell was at the meeting, I was at the meeting, 
Mr. Mardian came to the meeting, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Magruder. 

Mr. Dash. Now, could you tell us generally what the meeting was 
about and what discussion took place ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I have no specific recollection of any of the 
discussions other than I would assume, and I am sure from the par- 
ticipants, that the discussion centered on the Watergate incident. The 
only specific incident that I recall was a discussion by Magruder of 
some sensitive files which he had, about my understanding relating 
to this incident, and that he was seeking advice about what to do about 
those files. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did the term or the name "Gemstone" used at that 
time ? Did he refer to it ? 

Mr. LaRue. If it was used, I do not recall it, no sir. It would not have 
meant anything to me, anyway. 

Mr. Dash. Had you ever heard of that term "Gemstone" ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not at that time, no sir. 

Mr. Dash. Is there a possibility it was used at that time ? 

Mr. LaRue. There is a possibility, but as I say, it would not have 
meant anything to me. 

Mr. Dash. You say Mr. Magruder asked what he should do about 
these sensitive files? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did he get a response to that ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I remember, there was a response from Mr. Mitchell 
that it might be good if Mr. Magruder had a fire. 

Mr. Dash. Who said that? 

Mr. LaRue. As near as I can recall, Mr. Mitchell said that. 

Mr. Dash. That it might be a good idea if he had a good fire in his 
house ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall in any discussion of the politically sensitive 
files that the information they involved was electronic surveillance? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, there was a reference to files pertaining to 
electronic surveillance, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Is it true that at this meeting on June 19, 1972, where a 
discussion was had about these files and the recommendations that it 
would be good if Mr. Magruder had a good fire in his house, was one 
of the overt acts which is included in the information, the conspiracy 
of information to which you pleaded guilty, the June 19 meeting? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir ; that is true. 

Mr. Dash. Now, was there a meeting in your apartment on June 20, 
1972? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us who was there ? 



2287 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mardian, Mr. Liddy and myself. 

Mr. Dash. And what was discussed at that time ? This is Mr. Gordon 
Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, that is correct. 

This discussion centered around Mr. Liddy's knowledge and involve- 
ment in the break-in. 

Mr. Dash. You say centered around his involvement. Could you be 
a little more specific ? What did Mr. Liddy say ? Was he there to tell 
you what had occurred ? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't know that he was there for that purpose, but 
this is what evolved. 

Mr. Dash. Who set up the meeting? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mardian set up the meeting. 

Mr. Dash. What did you understand, since it was in your apart- 
ment, that the meeting was to be about? 

Mr. LaRue. My presence in the meeting occurred in this manner : 
Mr. Mardian came to me on that day and wanted to know if he could 
borrow my, use my apartment, that he had a meeting set up with 
Gordon Liddy. I told him that would be fine. I gave him the keys 
to my apartment, and I think at that time, he said, you might as 
well join me. 

Mr. Dash. Where, by the way, is your apartment located ? 

Mr. LaRue. At that time, I was in Watergate West. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you knew that, especially from what Mr. Magruder 
had told you on his telephone call with Mr. Liddy, that Mr. Liddy 
had been one of those who was involved in the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, Mr. Dash, I do not think that was discussed at 
that time. 

Mr. Dash. Well, you said that Mr. Magruder went back and said 
there was trouble, there was a break-in, that that was the day they 
were going to go into Democratic national headquarters when Mr. 
Liddy was on the phone. When Mr. Magruder came back, didn't you 
say that Mr. Liddy had told Mr. Magruder about the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes; but I don't think that at that time, Mr. Liddy 
had indicated any involvement of himself at that operation. 

Mr. Dash. Did he mention Mr. McCord ? 

Mr. LaRue. He did mention Mr. McCord, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. At that time, did he mention himself at your apart- 
ment on June 20? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what he did say about his involvement? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Liddy told us that he had recruited the five people 
that had been caught in the Democratic National Committee, that he 
had, he and Mr. Hunt had set up this operation, that he and Mr. Hunt 
were at a hotel room at the Watergate Hotel during the actual break- 
in. He described the listening post that they had across the street 
at tlie Howard Johnson's. 

Mr. Dash. By the way, did he tell you about any other activity he 
had been engaged in for intelligence purposes or covert activities be- 
sides the break-in at the Watergate ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, he did. 
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what they did ? 



2288 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Liddy mentioned that he had on other occasions 
been involved in incidents or operations for the White House, and he 
specifically mentioned the attempted burglary of the office of the psy- 
chiatrist of Mr. Ellsberg. He specifically mentioned another incident 
in which Mr. Hunt used a disguise, I think — this was in Denver, Colo., 
when Mrs. Dita Beard was in the hospital. Mr. Hunt used a disguise 
to surreptitiously enter the room and have a conversation with Mi-s. 
Beard. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall any other incidents that he talked about ? 

Mr. LaRtje. I don't recall any, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Liddy telling you or Mr. Mardian 
about his shooting out the lights around the McGovern headquarters? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I do recall that. 

Mr. Dash. That was during an unsuccessful attempt to break into 
McGovern headquarters ? 

Mr. LaRue. An unsuccessful attempt. He had shot out some lights, 
I think in an alley or someplace around McGovern headquarters. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Liddy discussing at that time whether 
or not there was any possibility he might get caught or might get found 
out? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Liddy assured us that he had conducted this opera- 
tion in such a manner that it could not be traced to him, that we should 
not have any fears that any subsequent investigation would lead to 
him. 

Mr. Dash. Nevertheless, did Mr. Liddy offer any type of punish- 
ment that he would be willing to accept for his failure in this case? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes; Mr. Liddy assured us that in any event, he would 
never reveal any information about this in the course of any investiga- 
tion, even if it led to him, but if we were not satisfied with that assur- 
ance, that though he was, I think, personally or morally opposed to 
suicide, that if we would instruct liim to be on any street corner at any 
time, he would be there and we could have him assassinated. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, he was willing to be rubbed out ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. T take it nobody took him up on his offer? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I know of, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, the meeting was between you, Mardian, and Mr. 
Liddy in your apai-tment ? 

Mr. LaJRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, it was this meeting that you had with Mr. Liddy 
in which these revelations came from Mr. Lidd3^ Was this informa- 
tion reported to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall when it was, by whom ? 

Mr. LaRue. The best of my recollection would be the same day, 
the afternoon oi- late evening of June 20. 

Mr. Dash. A^Hiat was Mr. Mitchell's reaction when he heard what 
you had to say ? 

Mr. LARn:. Well, he was — Mr. Mitchell is not a ]ierson that demon- 
strates a great deal of emotion about anything, Mr. Dash. I don't 
recall any specific reaction. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did Mr. Liddy tell you who had approved the 
operation when he was telling you about the break-in at the Democratic 
National Committee headquarters, or any of the other activities ? 



2289 

Mr. LaRue. No ; not to my recollection, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did he not tell you that he was acting on the approval 
of the AVliite House or Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue.. Mr. Dash, I don't recall a discussion of that nature, 

no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when was the subject of fundraismg tor the Water- 
gate defendants first brought up in your presence or mentioned to 

you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I am sorry, but I don't have any specific 
recollection or dates regarding the initial discussions on fundraismg. 

Mr. Dash. I am not trying to pin you down to any particular date. 
Was it around this time? Was it around the time that you had the 
meeting with Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes ; I would say that it was in this time period. To 
the best of my recollection, at the Liddy meeting, he indicated that 
certain commitments had been made to him and subsequently passed 
by him to the other people involved, that certain commitments had 
been made regarding the maintenance or expenses for the maintenance 
of their families, legal expenses. 

jVIr. Dash. Did he tell you who had made these commitments? 

Mr. LaRue. No sir, he did not. 

Mr. Dash. But that he expected that there would be payments 
made for the boys in jail, is that right ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, what was your role to be in this respect at this 
time ? 

Mr. LaRue. My role in what, I am sorry ? 

Mr. Dash. What was your role in providing funds or the payment 
for the defendants ? 

Mr. LaRue. At this time? 

Mr. Dash. At this time. 

Mr. LaRue. I didn't have any role, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you had a role with Mr. 
Kalmbach ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Will you tell us about that. When did you first learn 
that Mr. Kalmbach was going to be involved and what role you were 
going to have with regard to his activities ? 

Mr. LaRue. My best recollection of that, Mr. Dash, was that I re- 
ceived a phone call from Mr. Kalmbach to meet him at the Statler- 
Hilton Hotel, that date was the latter part of June, June 28, June 29. 

Mr. Dash. And you did meet with him ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, "sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what happened at that meeting? 

Mr. LaRue. I met with Mr. Kalmbach, the nature of that discus- 
sion, as I recall, Mr. Kalmbach stated that he had undertaken an as- 
signment to raise money to meet the commitments that had been made 
to the Watergate defendants. Our discussion centered on a method or 
a way that contact could be made with the defendants and in which 
the amount of money could be discussed or be determined. 

Mr. Kalmbach indicated that he had a person who was very dis- 
creet, very reliable that could be used for this purpose. We dis- 
cussed 



2290 

Mr. Dash. Did he mention his name ? 

Mr. LaRue. No; he did not mention his name but, as I recall, dur- 
ing this meeting- detennined that we would use a code name, Mr. 
Rivei-s, for this person. 

Mr. Dash. I think you have since learned that Mr. Tony Ulasewicz 
was Mr. Rivers ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my understanding, yes, sir. "We also discussed 
how we would or how Mr. Rivers could establish contact with the 
defendants, and it was decided that probably the best way would be 
for him to try to contact some of the attorneys who were working for 
the defendants at this time. 

Mr. Dash. Did you arrange any kind of a relationship that you and 
Mr. Kalmbach would have if you wanted to call each other about 
this? 

Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Any kind of a code arrangement ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. AYill you tell us about that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Kalmbach indicated that this was, this would be 
necessary, that this would be a very secret operation, and that we 
should conduct our business by pay telephones, and that we would use 
the code name Bradford. 

Mr. Dash. Were you Mr. Bradford ? 

Mr. LaRue. That really wasn't, I think, determined, at least not to 
my knowledge and consequently we both ended up with the code name 
Bradford. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, when you called Mr. Kalmbach you asked 
for Mr. Bradford and if he asked for you, he would call for Mr. Brad- 
ford and you both would know what you were talking about? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Did you learn of what problems INIr. Rivers was having 
with the lawyers ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes ; that subsequent, a subsequent telephone conversa- 
tion I had with ISIr. Bradford — Kalmbach 

Mr. Dash. How often did you really use that name so as to fall into 
the habit of calling Mr. Kalmbach, Bradford ? 

Mr. LaRui:. He indicated that Mr. Rivers was having considerable 
difficulty establishing a contact through the lawyers, and as I recall 
at that time we had a discussion of this problem and decided that 
Mr. Rivers had tried to effect a contact with ]\frs. Hunt. 

Mr. Dash. Now, after your first meeting with Mr. Kalmbach and 
the arrangements were made, did you again meet with Mr. Kalmbach 
in Mr. Dean's office sometime in the middle of July 1972? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Dean was present at that time ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what was said at that meeting, what 
the purpose of the meeting was ? 

Mr. LaRue. My recollection of that meeting, Mr. Dash, is Mr. Kalm- 
bach had secured from Mr. Rivers a — some specific amount of money 
that would be necessary or would be i-equired to meet the commitments, 
there were specific amounts for attorney foes at tliis time and, as I re- 
call specific amounts of money that would be required for maintenance 
of their families. 



2291 

Mr. Dash. Did you provide any special instructions concerning how 
much money was to be given to which person ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, Mr. Dash. I would have had no way to have 
any knowledge of this, and I think Mr. Kalmbach has testified that I, 
you know, that I furnished this information, I think Mr. Kalmbach 
is just mist^aken in this. I had no way to have this information. I have 
never discussed, never talked to any of the defendants and don't know 
any of them other than Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. Did you give Mr. Kalmbach any money at that meeting ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir; as I recall, I think at that meeting, I gave — 
as I recall I gave Mr. Kalmbach approximately $20,000. 

Mr. Dash. Approximately $20,000. And what was the source of that 
money, Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. LaRue. Around the first of July, the period of July 1 through 
July 4, 5, or 6, I received $81,000 in tAvo different, from two different 
sources. I received approximately $41,000 from Mr. Sloan, who was 
the treasurer for the finance committee. I received approximately 
$40,000 from Mr. Mardian who gave me this money, was passing this 
money to me from Mr. Stans. 

Mr. Dash. Was this all in cash, Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall the denominations of the bills? 

Mr. LaRue. I can't say they were all $100 bills but predominantly 
$100 bills; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What role did you have after this particular meeting 
with Mr. Dean and Mr. Kalmbach. Did you assume any particular role 
while Mr. Kalmbach was carrying on this particular mission ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, yes, sir, I had numerous telephone conversations 
with Mr. Kalmbach. I would say my role would be a concurrence with 
Mr. Dean and with Mr. Kalmbach on the deliveries of money. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be fair to say you were sort of a conduit at this 
point ? 

Mr. LaRue. During this period of time, Mr. Dash, I had sort of, you 
know, numerous conversations on this subject with Mr. Dean, with Mr. 
Kalmbach, reporting conversations from Kalmbach to Dean, reporting 
conversations I had with Dean to Kalmbach. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you report to Mr. Mitchell on your meeting 
with Mr. Kalmbach and Dean ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection ; no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. To anyone else ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection ; no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you meet with Mr. O'Brien during the summer of 
1972? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir; I met with Mr. O'Brien many times. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us about how often and what was dis- 
cussed at this time at these meetings ? 

Mr. LaRue. I met with you know, Mr. O'Brien. I wouldn't 
say on a daily basis, but Mr. O'Brien had been retained by the com- 
mittee as a counsel representing us in civil litigation, and we had 
just numerous conversations, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Did any of those conversations have to do with the 
needs of the defendants in the criminal cases ? 



2292 

Mr. LaRue, Certainly not in this time period, Mr. Dash. There 
would have, I think, been — I did have conversations later on with 
Mr. O'Brien, but there would have been, I think 

Mr. Dash. What about Mr. Parkinson, did you meet with him 
during this period of time in the summer of 1972 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Parkinson 
concerning the defendants' needs? 

Mr. LaRue. Here again, Mr. Dash, I think not in this time period. 
I think the first discussions I had with Mr. Parkinson regarding the 
money for the defendants would have been, oh, in the later part of 
September or October. 

Mr. Dash. All right now, did you attend meetings during the 
summer and early fall, actually the summer, June, July, and August, 
at which Mr. Magruder discussed the story of his testimony which 
he was going to give to the grand jury ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Who was present at the meeting ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I would like to clarify that. The first meet- 
ings that were held or that I attended discussing Mr. Magruder's 
story, discussing cover stories as it has been called, I think was in 
relationship to his FBI interview, not grand jury testimony. 

Mr. Dash. What time was that — in June or July ? 

Mr. LaRue. That would be July, I think a period of around the 
middle of July. 

Mr. Dash. Actually the first time he really testified before the 
grand jury on the so-called cover story was August 16, 1972. Do you 
recall, prior to August 16, meetings with Mr. Magruder in which 
Mr. Magruder indicated w^hat he was going to tell the grand jury? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Mr. Dash. Who was present ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mardian, as I recall, Mr. Mitchell, I 
think Mr. Mardian, Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder and myself. I recall a 
later meeting, which Mr. — some of the PR people. 

Mr. Dash. You knew then exactly what Mr. Magruder planned to 
tell the grand jury, did you not ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And since you have already testified that Mr. Magruder, 
about a week after the break-in had told you everything he had done, 
and everything that he has already told this committee, you knew that 
story was a false story ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. And I take it to your knowledge most of those attending 
knew that? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I can only speak from my own knowledge. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you and Mr. Kalmbach meet again in Mr. 
Dean's office on September 19, 1972 ? 

Mr, LaRue. As I recall, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Will you tell us what happened at that meeting ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Kalmbach indicated that he wished to get out of 
it — his role concerning the payments to defendants — that he did not 
wish to continue tliis any longer, and he gave an accounting of his 
activities and payments, not his activities, but he gave us an accounting 
of the payments to the defendants at that time. 



2293 

Mr, Dash. And then he was sort of excused or discharged from his 
responsibilities ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Will you tell us what happened to the records of his 
accounting ? 

Mr. LaRue. Those records were burned. 

Mr. Dash. Were they burned right there in the office ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, he had records, as I recall, a very small sheet 
of paper and they were put in an ash tray and burned, 

Mr. Dash. Now, did Mr. Kalmbach have any money left over that 
he had not expended ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did he turn that money over to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash, Do you know about how much that was ? 

Mr, LaRue, My recollection is approximately $30,000. 

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. LaRue, did you then take on the responsibility 
of carrying out the transfer of funds for legal defense of the defend- 
ants and support of families ? 

Mr. LaRue. As the events occurred, I did. I did not realize at the 
time I had assumed the role, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. How did it come about after Mr. Kalmbach bowed out for 
reasons I think he has testified before this committee that you then 
were the one to undertake this assignment or responsibility? 

Mr. LaRue. I was the one who had the cash. 

Mr. Dash. You had the money ? 

Mr, LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you, about late September or early October, 
transfer some money to Mr. Bittman who is 

Mr. Vinson. Excuse me, Mr. Dash, I think the record should show 
at this time that all of Mr, LaRue's testimony with respect to — I think 
the record should show at this time that Mr, LaRue's testimony with 
respect to receipt of moneys and with respect to disbursement of 
moneys is the result of a reconstruction and in no way can he be 
precise. He has sat down in hindsight and reconstructed it as best he 
can, 

Mr, Dash. I think we understand that, Mr. Vinson. Thank you for 
that comment, 

Mr, LaRue, with regard, however, to the period late September — 
early October 1972, did there come a time when you made a transfer 
of money to Mr, Bittman, the attorney for Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us how much you gave Mr. Bittman? 

Mr, LaRue, As I recall, $25,000, 

Mr, Dash, Now, could you state how this was carried out? What 
was the manner in which you contacted Mr. Bittman and made the 
payment? 

Mr. LaRue, I contacted Mr, Bittman, I used the name of Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Baker ? 

Mr. LaRue. Baker. I told 

Mr. Dash. How did you call him? Did you call him at his office? 

Mr. LaRue. I called him at his office, yes, sir. Told him I was a 



2294 

friend of Mr. Rivers and that there would be a package delivered to 
his office shortly. 

Mr, Dash. ^Vlio asked you to make that call ? Who requested that 
money, do you know ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, this resulted out of a conversa- 
tion that Mr. Parkinson had with Mr. Bittman which he relayed to 
Mr. Dean and I, citing the need for some attorney's fees for Mr. 
Bittman. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know from that discussion that Mr. Parkinson 
had been with Mr. Bittman and then relayed to you and Mr. Dean how 
nmch money was to be paid ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. How much was that, did you say ? 

Mr. LaRue. $25,000. 

Mr. Dash. Then you told Mr. Bittman on the telephone that this 
package would be delivered ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. How was it delivered ? 

Mr. LaRue. It was delivered by messenger to his office. It was in a 
package directed to Mr. Bittman marked personal, confidential. 

Mr. Dash. And this was in cash ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did the messenger who delivered that package to 
Mr. Bittman know what his assigmnent was, what was in the pack- 
age and what he was doing ? 

Mr. LaRue. Oh, absolutely not. 

Mr. Dash, I think to make the record clear, Mr. LaRue, when you 
made that payment to Mr. Bittman, did you have any understanding 
as to the reason that payment was being made ? 

Mr. LaRue. My understanding was that this was legal fees for Mr. 
Bittman. 

Mr. Dash. And did you think that this was being paid for humani- 
tarian reasons? 

Mr, LaRue. Mr. Dash, my understanding of the payments of money 
to the defendants were or is that this money was paid to satisfy com- 
mitments that had been made to them by someone I do not know, but 
had been made, commitments had been made to them at some point 
in time, and 

Mr. Dash. Commitments made by people who had something to 
do with authorizing the original activity ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And that you were really carrying out the responsibil- 
ity based on those commitments? 

Mr, LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash, Did it occur to you that if those puyments were not made, 
there may be some embarrassment in the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. LaRue. This certainly occurred to me, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when and where was your next payment to Mr. 
Bittman ? 

Mr.. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, this was made in December, the 
amount approximatelv $50,000. 

Mr. Dash. Now, who gave the instructions about that payment? 

Mr. LaRue. "\^nio gave the instructions? 



2205 

Mr. Dash. Yes, how did you know to make that payment in 
December ? 

Mr. LaEue. There had been a meeting in Mr. Dean's office in which 
Mr. Parkinson relayed conversations he had had with Mr. Bittman 
regarding cash needs or money needs for the defendants. As I recall, 
it was cash needs that Avoiild be required for the trial and this $50,000 
was not, it was not a total amount, it was a partial payment on that 
amount of money. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, on both occasions, now, Mr. Parkinson 
acted as the person conveying the message of the need for the money 
from Mr. Bittman to Mr. Dean and to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And again, how did j^ou arrange this payment, the same 
way ? 

Mr. LaRue. This was arranged in the same way. 

Mr. Dash. Did vou call and did vou again identify yourself as 
Mr. Baker? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And again used a messenger ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And again this messenger knew nothing about what he 
was doing? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you make another payment to Mr. Bittman in 
December ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, not that I recall. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when did vou first learn that there was a sum of 
about $350,000 in cash at the White House ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I cannot tell you specifically. 

Mr. Dash. Well, again, when I ask you the date, I am not asking 
for a specific date. 

Mr. LaRue. I understand. It would be in the summer or, say, the 
early fall of 1972. 

Mr. Dash. Who told vou about this fmid ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, my best recollection of how T got that knowl- 
edge would have been through information on a cash summary sheet 
which I had come into possession of that reflected a summary of the 
cash receipts and disbursements to the men. 

Mr. Dash. Yes, but is it not true that the specific occasion on which 
this sum was called to your attention again came about through a dis- 
cussion with Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I think I asked Mr. Mitchell if indeed this money 
had been over at the White House that was indicated on the sheet. 

Mr. Dash. And did you seek and receive approval to use some of 
that money for these activities to pay legal fees? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know who had control OAer the money at the 
Wliite House? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I do not. 

Mr. Dash. Did you kno'w if Mr. Haldeman had ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I did not know that. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you received a sum of money 
from Mr. Strachan and Mr. Dean in December 1972 ? 



96-296 O - 73 - pt, 6 - 6 



2296 

Mr. LaRxje. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know how much that sum was ? 

Mr. LaEue. Approximately $50,000. 

Mr. Dash. And did you know that this was part of the $350,000 at 
the White House? 

Mr. LaRue. That was my understanding. 

Mr. Dash. Now, in January 1973, did you receive an additional sum 
from Mr. Strachan in the amount of $280,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What prompted, to your knowledge, such a large trans- 
fer of money ? 

Mr. LaRue. I cannot state specifically, Mr. Dash. I had had a con- 
versation with Mr. Dean regarding the need, at this time, I think, 
for $20,000 for one of the attorneys, Mr. Maroulis. I had passed this 
information on to Mr. Dean. Later, he called me back and told me that 
they were going to deliver the remaining balance they had over at the 
White House, which was approximately $280,000. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be fair to say that as you were ongoing in this 
relationship of paying these fees, that this was going to be a con- 
tinuing operation, certainly through the trial, and that this fund of 
money was necessary if you were going to be able to carry out these 
responsibilities ? 

Mr. LaRue. That certainly would be my assumption; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And is it true that in January 1973, you did pay Mr. 
Maroulis, counsel for Mr. Liddy, $20,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you receive $14,000 from a Mr. Tim Babcock 
in January 1973 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What was that all about ? 

Mr. LaRue. I received this money from Mr. Babcock at— I think 
in Mr. Stans' office. Mr. Stans was present. My understanding, Mr. 
Dash, was that Mr. Babcock had pledged this money during the cam- 
paign, had not gotten around to delivering it, and that he was, you 
know, fulfilling his pledge. 

Mr. Dash. Did this have anything to do with the money or the cash 
fund you were developing for the legal defense fund ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you make two cash payments, one of $25,000 
and one of $35,000, to Mr. Bittman, counsel to Mr. Hunt, in January 
1973? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And did that occur in the same way you have already 
described ? 

Mr. LaRue, No, sir; those payments were delivered to Mr. Bittman 
at his home. 

Mr. Dash. At his home? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Who delivered them ? 

Mr. LaRue. This was another messenger that delivered them. 

Mr. Dash. Another messenger? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you arrange that the same way, by phone call ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 



2297 

Mr. Dash. Did you again identify yourself as Mr. Baker? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Bittman always know you as Mr. Baker? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. As far as I know, he never knew who I 
was. 

Mr. Dash. And this was in cash, this $25,000 and $35,000 — it was 
all in cash ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And this came from the $250,000 or $350,000— the 
amount of money that was at the White House? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you attend a meeting in Washington with Mr. 
Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Kalmbach on January 19, 1973? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I have no recollection of attending that 
meeting. 

Mr. Dash. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. LaRut:. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And also the testimony of Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And do you recall any of their testimony that a meet- 
ing did occur, and both testified to your presence there, and Mr. 
Mitchell, at which an effort was made to get Mr. Kalmbach to raise 
funds again? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I repeat, I have no recollection of that meet- 
ing and it would serve no purpose to 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall any discussion at any time with anybody 
asking Mr. Kalmbach to come back to the business of raising funds? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you take any expenses for the work that you 
were doing, during this period of time, any amount of money ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, there was approximately $12,000 in expenses 
taken out of this money during the period of, I would say August 
through March. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when was your last payment to Mr. Bittman, 
counsel for Mr. Hunt ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, it would be in March. 

Mr. Dash. March of 1973 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Can vou tell us how much was involved in that payment? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, $75,000. 

Mr. Dash. $75,000? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. I take it that was the largest sum of money that you ever 
transferred to any of the lawyers ? 

Mr. LaRue. The largest sum I transferred, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What led up to that unusual payment ? 

Mr. LaRue. I got a phone call from Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean stated that 
he had — I think he had had a conversation with Mr. O'Brien, in which 
Mr. O'Brien had told him that there was a need for $75,000 asserted 
that by Mr. Bittman for attorneys' fees. I asked Mr. Dean if I should 
indeed make a delivery of this money. He said that he was out of the 
money business, that he was no longer going to be involved in it and 
that he would not, you know, I would have to use my own judgment 
as to whether to make the payment or not. 



2298 

Mr. Dash. Did you use your own judgment ? 

Mr. LaRue. I told Mr. Dean I would not do this, would not make 
the delivery without somebody else's OK. 
Mr. Dash. What did you do, Mr. LaRue ? 
Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dean suggested I call Mr. Mitchell. 
Mr. Dash. Did you ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat discussion did you have with Mr. Mitchell ? 
Mr. LaRue. I discussed my telephone conversation with Mr, Dean, 
told Mr. Mitchell that Mr. Dean no longer was willing or was no longer 
in the money business. I asked Mr. Mitchell whether I should make this 
delivery or not. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat did he say ? 

Mr. LaRue. He asked me the purpose of it. I told him my understand- 
ing \yas that it was for attorney's fees. He told me he felt I ought to 
pay it. 

Mr. Dash. When you told him you understood it was attorneys' fees, 
you also let him know it was attorneys for the particular defendants 
in the Watergate case? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I can't recall that. I was just assuming, I 
think, it was attorneys' fees for the Watergate defendants. 

Mr. Dash. In your discussion, you made an assumption, certainly, 
that he knew what you were talking about and whose attorneys' fees 
were involved? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And he said you ought to go ahead and pay it ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Dash. And did you ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And you followed the same method ? 
Mr. LaRue. Same method. 

Mr. Dash. That was a bigger packet, though, was it not ? 
Mr. LaRue. You would be surprised, Mr. Dash, how many $100 bills 
you can get in a small package. 

Mr. Dash. Good things come in small packages. 
Now, when did you go to the U.S. attorney, Mr. LaRue ? 
By the way, prior to that $75,000 payment to Mr.Bittman, was not 
this just shortly before Mr. Hunt was sentenced on March 23 ? 
Mr. LaRue. I think that is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, there came a time when you did go to the U.S. attor- 
ney, is that not true ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Would you tell us about when that was ? 
Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Dash, that would be approximately the 
middle of April — April 16 or lY. 
Mr. Dash. Did you go voluntarily ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Dean before you 
went? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us something about the discussion ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I went to see — called Mr. Dean — told him I 
would like to talk to him. I asked him— told him that because of the 



2299 

press reports concerning the amounts of cash that I had received, I felt 
sure that I was going to be called before the grand jury, and that obvi- 
ously, you are going to have to answer a lot of questions, and indi- 
cated to him that I felt I had no alternative but to tell the truth, reveal 
what I had done with this money. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat did he say to you, Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. LaRue. He indicated that he would probably be in the same 
shape very shortly and he was going to do the same thing. 

Mr. Dash. Did he suggest that you might get counsel ? 

Mr. LaRue. I think, Mr. Dash, that I asked him some questions, as 
I recall, whether he thought I had a legal problem, and he suggested 
that I get counsel ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. I think it should be made clear that you are not a lawyer, 
Mr. LaRue, yourself? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. We have had a number of lawyers in that chair. 

Now, at the time you went to the U.S. attorney, did you have in your 
i:)ossession any cash left over from these earlier transactions ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And could you tell us aproximately how much ? 

Mr. LaRue. Approximately $113,000. 

Mr. Dash. Wliere was that cash ? 

Mr. LaRue. At that time, it was in my filing cabinet. 

Mr. Dash. Is that where you kept the cash all that time, in your 
filing cabinet? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Wiat did you do with that cash ? 

Mr. LaRue. After I retained counsel, he advised me to put it in the 
bank, and I did. 

Mr. Dash. This is your present counsel Mr. Fred Vinson ? 

Mr, LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Now, what happened to that money ? Do you still have 
it in the bank ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I returned that money to the Finance Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President. I think this involved two transac- 
tions, as I recall. 

Mr. Dash. Were these transactions prompted by correspondence 
from Mr. Stans to you and to your counsel ? 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Dash, most of that correspondence was between 
me and between Mr. Stans' attorney. As I told the committee staff 
prior to our appearance, I will make duplicates of that correspondence 
available for the committee so that you can put into the record later 
if you wish. 

Mr. Dash. Thank you, Mr. Vinson. We would appreciate receiving 
it and, Mr. Chairman, when we do, we would like to have that entered 
into the record to show the final disposition of these funds.* 

Senator Ervin. Without objection it will be so entered when the 
committee receives it. 

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. LaRue, did you ever destroy any records or 
direct destruction of any reports at the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President ? 

Mr. LaRue. I have personally destroyed records, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What kind of records ? 



♦The correspondence was subsequently furnished to the committee and marked exhibit 
No. 88. See p. 2635. 



2300 

Mr. LaRue. I destroyed the cash summary, the original or the origi- 
nal copy or whatever it was, the summary sheet of cash which I have 
referred to — referred to in this testimony. And I was present and par- 
ticipated in the destruction of Mr. Kalmbach's accounting sheet. 

Mr. Dash. That was in Mr. Dean's office ? 

Mr. La Rue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever talk with Mr. Bart Porter about his grand 
jury testimony? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I can recall, no, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall the meetings you had with Mr. Sloan in 
June of 1972? 

Mr. LaRue. I have some recollection of those meetings, yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you ever recall suggesting to Mr. Sloan that he may 
have some problems concerning the election laws, or the disbursement 
of money ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Or that perhaps he might have to plead the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is not the context of that discussion as I recall it, 
Mr. Dash. I think you are referring to the meetings or luncheon I had 
with Mr. Sloan ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LaRue. In which I think he stated that I discussed the possibili- 
ties of election law problems and advised him to take the fifth amend- 
ment. My recollection of that meeting is that I was discussing with Mr. 
Sloan the options that were available to him, I pointed out that there 
were problems with the election laws and my distinct recollection at 
that time is that he volunteered the fact that he had thought about 
this himself and that he wanted me to know that he had decided he was 
going to take the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall also Mr. Sloan's testimony that he indi- 
cated that you played some role in his leaving Washington to go to 
California? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. At a time when information was first coming out con- 
cerning his disbursement ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall what role you did play ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. I called Mr. — I received a phone call, as I 
recall I received a phone call from Mr. Mardian indicating a prob- 
lem in California of some magnitude, discussion of a problem con- 
cerning the California budget and the fact that they did not want 
to send the money to Washington, they want to keep it out there, which 
was contrary to our policy because of the reporting ]:)ix)cedures, and 
that he would like perhaps to have Mr. Sloan, if lie had a meeting set 
up and he would perhaps like to have Mr. Sloan attend that meeting 
and would I call him and urge him to attend it, which I did. 

Mr. Dash. And you called him late that night and asked him to get 
out on the first plane that morning ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not recall that conversation being in that context, 
no, sir. 

Mr. Dasif. Was it just a coincidence that this problem occurred 
in California at the time the issues were now coming out ? 



2301 

Mr. LaRue. Was it a coincidence that it occurred ? 

Mr. Dash. Coincidence. It occurred, as Mr. Sloan testified, on the 
very day that his secretary^ had revealed to ]Mr. Parkinson and Mr. 
O'Brien the fact that substantial sums of money, which we now know 
were in fact spent, were paid by ISIr. Sloan to Mr. Liddy, after the 
debriefing of Mr. Sloan's secretary, it was that evening that your call 
came that he should go to California. 

Is it your testimony there was no relationship between the revela- 
tion of that information and the need for Mr. Sloan to go to Cali- 
fornia ? 

Mr. LaRue. My testimony is that it was my understanding this was 
a real request and that there was a real problem in California and I 
understand there was a real meeting held out there. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. 

Senator Ervin. My. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. LaRue, at the meeting on ]\Iarch 30, 1972, I 
believe your testimony is that you really have no firsthand knowledge 
as to whether or not the plan was approved subsequent to the conversa- 
tion which you related to us wherein you advised against it; Mr. 
IVIitchell indicated that a decision didn't have to be made at that 
time, is that correct? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. When did you go down there, would vou say, the 
22dor23d? 

Mr. LaRue. 22d or 23d of March. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you go down with the Mitchells ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I did not. 

Mr. Thompson. Did the Mitchells arrive ? 

Mr. LaRue. They arrived the day before I did and so it would be in 
this time period. 

Mr. Thompson. Wlien did Magruder arrive ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Thompson, I understand that meeting was March 
30, so he would have arrived on March 29, the day before. 

Mr. Thompson. 29th. Do you know when he returned ? 

Mr. LaRue. My understanding he returned the day after the meet- 
ing. 

Mr. Thompson. The day after? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. So that would be March 31 or, I guess, April 1. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he leave the premises on the 31st or on the 30th. 
Did he spend the night there at the Mitchells ? 

Mr. LaRue. At the house where the Mitchells and I were staying? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. He was at the Key Biscayne Hotel as I under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What time of day was the discussion that 
you related to us conducted, in the afternoon, the morning? 

Mr. LaRue. This would be in the afternoon because I recall that was 
the last topic discussed at the meeting. 

Mr. Thompson, About what time in the afternoon? I realize this 
is difficult and I know you can only do the best you can. 

Mr. LaRue. All right, to the best of my recollection 4 o'clock. 

Mr. Thompson. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon of March 30 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 



2302 

Mr. Thompson. Did he leave that afternoon? Did he leave the 
Mitchells' place there that afternoon ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tnoirpsoisr. About what time did he leave? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall shortly after the meeting broke up. 

Mr. Thompson. Shortly after the meeting. Was that an hour would 
you say ? 

Mr. LaRue. Certainly, yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Was there any time within that hour that 
you were not in the presence of Mr. Mitchell or that you know Mr. 
Mitchell and Mr. Magruder spoke alone ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Thompson, there is no time that I know or recall 
that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder spoke alone but I certainly could 
not testify that, you know, that I have knowledge that they did not 
speak alone. I just — I don't have that kind of recollection of what 
was going on at that time. 

Mr. Thompson. Then if there was a subsequent discussion or con- 
versation about this plan between the two of them out of your 
presence it would be your assumption that it would have had to take 
place within that 1-hour period. Four o'clock to 5 o'clock in the after- 
noon, assuming that the discussion 

Mr. LaRtje. Assuming the discussion took place, I would assume 
it had to have taken place probably in that time frame, yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

You mentioned the fact that Magruder told you sometime later that 
he had received this telephone call from Colson urging the plan be 
approved. Mr. Magruder testified about that telephone call. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. He testified that you were present. Now, your testi- 
mony under questioning of Mr. Dash had to do with the reconstruc- 
tion of this discussion after the break-in about this conversation? 

Mr. LaRue. This is my recollection. 

Mr. Thompson, Do you not have any independent recollection of 
having been in the room when Magruder had this telephone 
conversation ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Did not Magruder turn to you and make a statement 
to you about that conversation he had with Colson ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I can recall, Mr. Thompson. As I have stated 
earlier, quite frankly, I had no knowledge of the Liddy budget, I 
would not have known what he was talking about if he had. 

Mr. Thompson. In trying to reconstruct when this must have taken 
place, if you were, in fact, in the room when this telephone call was 
made, can you reconstruct in your own mind when it must have taken 
place? To start with, when did you return from Key Biscayne? 

Mr. LaRue. It would be in the first week of April, I cannot give you 
the exact time. 

Mr, Thoimpson. First week in April ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. If you can look at it from this basis, after the con- 
versation on the 30th about how many days was it before you returned 
to Washington ? 



2303 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, Mr. Thompson, it would be, that would be, 
on Tuesday or Wednesday. 

Mr. Thompson. All right, the 30th was on a Thursday. The follow- 
ing Tuesday or Wednesday. All right. What did you do when you 
returned ? Did you resume your duties at the Committee To Re-Elect, 
did you go into the office the first day you returned, did you take a 
little more time off ? "What did you do ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I resumed my duties. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Do you recall when the first time you saw 
Magruder was after you returned ? 

Mr. LaRue. I would assume certainly that day. 

Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you this. In discussing the matter with 
Magruder, is it your understanding either from what he told you or 
from your own independent recollection that this telephone call came 
before or after March 30 ? 

Mr. LaRue. I cannot relate it to that timeframe but any particular 
timeframe, but since the call allegedly involved the approval of the 
Liddy budget I would assume that it came after or 

Mr. Thompson. If we are following logic and it did have to do with 
the Liddy budget it would be before ? 

Mr. LaRue. It would be prior ; yes, prior to the Key Biscayne meet- 
ing, yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Did Magruder tell you whether or not he 
remembered that it had come before ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not recall that kind of discussion, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. It is not exactly a completely unrelated sequence of 
events. It looks like in reconstructing this matter if there was outside 
pressure that perhaps caused him to go down to Key Biscayne, that 
would be significant. If, on the other hand, this was a conversation 
which took place 5 or 6 days after the plan had already been put into 
effect, it would have completely different significance, I would think. 

Mr. LaRue [conferring with counsel]. Mr. Thompson, I think my 
testimony before, to Mr. Dash, was that my recollection of this conver- 
sation occurred after — that this conversation occurred after the June 17 
break-in. It was related 

Mr. Thompson. The conversation with Magruder when you were 
talking about the phone call ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. In relating to speculation as to who may have 
been involved and who may have had knowledge of the break-in, 
and Magruder related this phone call indicating that Mr. Colson had 
been concerned about Mr. Liddy's budget being approved, and I do 
not recall any discussion on the time period when the call was made. 

Mr. Thompson. You do not know whether it came before or after 
March 30? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. This meeting of June 19, there is a conflict of testi- 
mony on this point. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean have both testified that 
there was no discussion, as far as they can remember, of the destruc- 
tion of any records or burning anvthing. Magruder has testified and 
vou have testified that such a discussion did take place. Now, the 
four of you were there, plus Mr. Mardian. Let us talk about that in 
a little more detail. Did you arrive there together ? 



2304 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, we did not. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall who arrived first, when you arrived? 

Mr. LaRue. I went to the apartment with Mr. Mitchell from the 
plane. My best recollection is that Mr. Mardian and his wife got off at 
their apartment, which w^as a couple of blocks before you get to the 
Watergate, and so to reconstruct the sequence of events, I would say 
I arrived with Mr. Mitchell and then later in the evening the other 
participants arrived, and I could not specifically say in what order 
and what time period. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know who arrived last ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. Was there any substantive discussion about what 
you were to do and the problem that you had before all the partic- 
ipants arrived ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Thompson, I have a very hazy recollection of 
that meeting. In fact, were it not for the thing that sticks in my mind, 
the statement about "you might have a good fire," if it were 
not for that, I do not think I could recall any details of that meeting 
at all. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall who was present when that state- 
ment was made ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. I realize this is a difficult thing for you to have 
to go back to do, Mr. LaRue, but these are matters, of course, we have 
to clear up if we can. 

Let me ask you this, I believe you said after the break-in, you dis- 
cussed this matter with Magruder. I take it that the first time you 
discussed it with him was after you discussed it with Liddy on the 
20th, some time after that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I am sure that is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. And Liddy had told you what with regard 
to who had gotten him involved and who was pushing him? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't recall any specific statements or conversations 
by Liddy of who got him involved. As I recall Liddy's reasoning for 
the second entry of the break-in, in which they got caught, was that 
he had been getting pressure from Magruder to improve the sur- 
veillance, they weren't getting proper coverage under electronic 
surveillance. 

Mr. Thompson. All right, then, the only person he mentioned as 
having applied any pressure to go back in the second time was 
Magruder. 

Mr. LaRue. That is to the best of my recollection, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he mention Mr. Mitchell to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, not that I recall. 

Mr. Thompson. We have had testimony from Mr. McCord that 
Liddy was telling him that Mr. Mitchell 'had approved it — I mean 
that Mitchell was telling Liddy; Liddy was telling McCord that 
Mitchell was involved and had approved the project, but Liddy did 
not tell you that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I can recall, no, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 



2305 

When you talked to Magruder you had this information that Liddy 
had said Magruder had pushed him. So now you have your conversa- 
tion with Mr. Magruder, what did he say about it ? 

]\Ir. LaRue. I don't think I discussed that with Mr. Magruder, that 
aspect of it. I don't recall in what time period I had discussions with 
Mr. Magruder. I think I have testified here that it was, you know 
within a few days after the break-in, that we had many discussions 
on the Watergate and what had actually happened. Magruder had 
related to me that, the same facts that he testified here before this 
committee. 

Mr. Thompson. So in effect he said that it was his understanding 
that Mitchell had approved the plan. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

And you discussed this as early as June 1972, with Magruder, some- 
time during the latter part of June ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. And you discussed the matter with Liddy on the 
20th of June? 

Mr. LaRue. The 20th of June, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. So by the latter part of June you had in effect two 
stories, you had Liddy saying that Magruder had pushed him into 
it, and not saying anything about IMitchell, and you have Mr. Ma- 
gruder saying that Mitchell approved the plan. 

Did you go to Mr. Mitchell with this apparent conflict? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I never discussed that with Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Thompson. Could you tell us why ? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't know of any particular reason why. I just never 
discussed with Mr. Mitchell the question of whether or not he approved 
this plan, never discussed it with him. 

Mr. Thompson. What was your relationship with Mr. Mitchell, was 
it strictly professional or did you also have a personal relationship? 

Mr. LaRue. Had a personal relationship with him. 

Mr. Thompson. How far back do you and he go in terms of your 
friendship ? 

Mr. LaRue. I first met Mr. Mitchell in the latter part of 1966, the 
early part of 1967. 

Mr. Thompson. And was it more or less continual from that time 
on? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, it started out as a political relationship and 
evolved into also a personal relationship over this period of time. 

Mr. Thompson. Were you a guest in his home from time to time ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course, you have testified that he excluded others 
or you excluded others from the meeting of March 30 so that the so- 
called plan could be discussed without the presence of Flemming, any- 
wav I believe you mentioned him. 

Mr. LaRue. I don't believe I testified that he excluded others, no, 
sir, this was my suggestion, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. That you excluded others? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 



2306 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

So that you could be present and Mitchell and Magruder could be 
present when this discussion was taking place. So obviously he placed, 
I am sure a good deal of confidence in you. 

Would that be a correct assumption? 

Mr. LaRue. I think you would have to ask Mr. Mitchell that. 

Mr. Thompson. But you never discussed this matter with him from 
the latter part of June; never discussed it with him at any time as 
to whether or not he personally had approved the plan, whether 
anything had happened after the meeting on March 30. 

Mr. LaEue. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. And you didn't have any particular reason for 
doing that. Were you afraid of the answer that you might get? 

Mr. LaRue. I just never discussed it with him, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions. 

Thank you, Mr. LaRue. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. LaRue, you look and talk like a responsible 
citizen. How did you get involved in the crime of obstructing justice? 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I think I covered that in my opening state- 
ment. It was out of a concern for the campaign. 

Senator Talmadge. You walked into it one step at a time? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Was it unsuspecting or conscious ? 

Mr. LaRue. At the time this w^as evolving. Senator Talmadge, quite 
frankly, I didn't consider that aspect of it. I was concerned with the 
campaign. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, Mr. Kalmbach testified that he received 
instructions on the distribution of the funds involved in the coverup, 
bail, lawyers' fees, support, and one thing and another of these de- 
fendants from you and Mr. Dean. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I would — my understanding of this or my rec- 
ollection of my conversations w^ith Mr. Kalmbach would frankly be a 
sort of mutual understanding w^e would reach, either with me or 
Mr. Dean and I. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you help plan the payments ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Senator Talmadge. Did you help plan the payments? 

Mr. LaRue. I am sorry, I still didn't hear you. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you help plan the payments to these 
defendants ? 

Mr. LaRue. Did I help plan the payments ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Certainly, I attended the meetings where these payments 
were discussed and w^here the payments were agreed upon ; yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. What you arc saying, then, is it was a mutual 
agreement from you and Mr. Dean to Mr. Kalmbach, is that a fact? 

Mr. LaRue. That would be my understanding of these meetings and 
my telephone conversations with Mr. Kalmbach. He would report that 
there was a, you know, a need for money and do you think we ought 
to pay these, and I would say, it certainly seems appropriate to me and 
the payments would be made. 



2307 

Senator Talmadge. And your testimony is Mr. Kalmbacli himself 
helped determine the amounts, is that correct ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Senator, I think primarily, the amounts were de- 
termined by the requirements, as I recall. In other words, there would 
be a request for an amount of money for maintenance and legal ex- 
penses and the question would be whether this payment should be 
made and certainly, I participated in those decisions; yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, Mr. Ulasewicz testified this morning that 
the demands became greater and greater and finally took the form of 
demands and probably blackmail. Did you so construe it? 

Mr. LaEue. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Talmadge. You didn't think blackmail was involved ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, were these payments made in the form of 
what you consider a moral obligation or to maintain the silence of 
tlie defendants? 

Mr. LaRue. As I stated. Senator, my understanding of these pay- 
ments is that they were paid to fulfill commitments that had been 
made. 

Senatoi' Talmadge. AVlio made the commitments ? 

Mr. LaRue. I have no idea. 

Senator Talmadge, Could a commitment be made and you executing 
and planning and determining the amount without you knowing who 
made it or why or for what reason ? 

Mr. LaRxt:. My understanding was that the commitments included 
a maintenance filing, a filing for maintenance of these peoples' fam- 
ilies. It included payments of bail and attorneys' fees. 

Senator Talmadge. Where did you get the knowledge of the com- 
mitments ? 

INIr. LaRlte. To the best of my recollection, Senator, the first knowl- 
edge I got of this would be the conversations with Gordon Liddy on 
June 20. 

Senator Talmadge. Grordon Liddy told you someone had made such 
commitments ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 

Senator Talmadge. Did he tell you who ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, he did not. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you take his word for it ? 

Mr, LaRue. Yes, sir, I guess I did. 

Senator Talmadge. Had he not been discharged from the committee 
at that time ? 

Mr. LaRlte. No, sir, he had not. 

Senator Talmadge. When was he discharged ? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't know the specific date. Senator. I think around 
July 1. 

Senator Talmadge. It was immediately after the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Senator Talmadge. Immediately after the break-in? 

Mr, LaRue. Well, several days after the break-in. 

Senator Talmadge. He was the first man discharged, was he not? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And these payments were made long after that 
date, were they not? 



2308 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And he didn't t^ll you the source of the com- 
mitments? 
Mr. LaRite. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And he was a discharged man and he didn't 
tell you who made the commitments or the sum and you were pay- 
ino- them on the validity of some unknown commitment that you knew 
nothinfj about. Is that an accurate statement ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't think I was determining the aniounts. 
The amounts, for instance, the attorneys' fees were determined by 
an arrangement, I guess, between the defendants and their attorneys. 
This is an amount that I will say, you know, that I had no control 
over. 

In my original conversation with Kalmbach, it was my under- 
standing that the purpose of the — the original purpose of the contact 
with the defendants was to determine what the requirements were 
for the maintenance of their families and what the attorneys' fees 
were and what amounts were going to be necessary for their bail. 

Senator Talmadge. How did you know where the commitments 
began and ended ? 
Mr. LaRlte. How did I know where they began and ended? 
Senator Talmadge. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't know where they began or ended. 
Senator Talmadge. You didn't assume that anyone who made a 
demand on you for attorney fees and bond and bail and living expenses 
was valid, did you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I assumed that someone had authorized or had 

engaged these people to undertake this operation, and I assume 

Senator Talmadge. What operation ? 

Mr. LaRub. The break-in of the 

Senator Talmadge. Wlio did you think did that ? 
Mr. LaRue. Senator, that calls for certainly a rather broad assump- 
tion on my part. 

Senator Talmadge. You made assumptions and paid out hundreds 
of thousands of dollars on some vague commitment. I am trying to find 
out the source of that commitment. 

Mr. LaRue. I can understand that, Senator, but I do not know the 
source of that commitment. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you are a responsible businessman. I be- 
lieve you stated you made your living from real estate. You know it 
takes two people to make a contract, don't you ? 
Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I understand that. 

Senator Talmadge. You don't think you could do it unilaterally, 
do you ? 
Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Weren't you acting unilaterally in that matter, 
without Imowing the source, the sums, the amount, who made the 
commitment or anything about it, iust some vague, hazy idea that 
someone, somew^here, made a commitment unknown to vbu and you 
were busy executing it. That is not the way you do business, is"it« 
Mr. LaRue. This is what happened. Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. And you stand on that as a responsible busi- 
nessman ? ^ 



2309 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I stand on the fact that I do not know who 
made these commitments, no, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. But you tliought they ought to be carried out re- 
gardless of who made them and under what conditions? 

Mr. LaRue. I thought that what ? 

Senator Talmadge. You thought they ought to be carried out re- 
gardless of who made them and totally unknown to you? 

Mr. LaRue. I thought they ought to be carried out because of the 
consequences if they were not. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you know anything about the break-in prior 
thereto ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me, I am sorry. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you know the break-in was planned prior 
to that time? Did you know that Liddy and his associates were going 
to break into the Watergate and commit burglary ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You did not ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Mitchell know ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my knowledge, no, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. I believe you met with Mr. Liddy on June 20. 

Mr. LaRue, Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And you discussed various things. ' Did Mr. 
Liddy tell you at that time that he had shredded a number of 
documents ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Did he tell you the nature of those documents ? 

Mr. LaRue. He indicated that they were documents relating to the 
break-in, yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And they were in the files of the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. LaRut:. They were in — my understanding is they were in his 
files, yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, I believe Mr. Mardian was present at that 
same conversation, was he not ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. What was his reaction to this Liddy story 
that 

Mr. LaRue. What was Mr. Mardian 's reaction ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. I think Mr. Mardian was — shared the same opinion I 
did. He was rather shocked by the revelations of what had been known, 
became known as the White House horrors, and I do not think he 
shared any enthusiasm that the investigation would eventually lead 
to Mr. Liddv. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Liddy tell you at that time about the 
Ellsberg psychiatrist break-in? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, had not Mr. Mardian been in charge of the 
Internal Security Division of the Justice Department that was in 
charge of prosecuting the Ellsberg case ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not know who was in charge of prosecuting it. 
Senator. Mr. Mardian, prior to his coming to the committee, was assist- 
ant attorney general in charge of Internal Security, yes, sir. 



2310 

Senator Talmadge. You were not surprised, then, by Mr. Mardian's 
reaction under the circumstances ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Had not Mr. Mardian been in charge of guiding 
the, Kleindienst nomination through the Judiciary Committee ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, not to my knowledge. I do not think Mr. 
Mardian was in charge of that, no, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. You were not familiar with that ? 

Did you have a meeting with Mr, Mitchell on June 28, 1972, which 
involved a general discussion regarding the commitments that were to 
be made or had been made to the defendants ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, during this time period, I can see from that 
chart up there, I had meetings with Mr. Mitchell virtually every day, 
sometimes two or three times a day. Various people were present at 
different meetings. I, in all candor, cannot specifically or sit here and 
sort out those meetings and specify what happened on any particular 
meeting. I am sorry, but I just cannot do that. 

Senator Talmadge. You do not know whether he was the source of 
those elusive commitments that you commented on a moment ago or 
not, then, do vou ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; I do not know. 

Senator Talmadge. And you do not know Who might have been 
the source, then ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Sloan testified when he was before the 
committee, that it was his understanding that you were in charge of 
the Watergate matter at the Committee for the Re-Election of the 
President. Is that a fact ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my knowledge, no, sir. 
. Senator Talmadge. You deny that? 

Mr. LaRue, Yes, sir. As I recall, Mr, Mitchell's testimony is con- 
trary to that. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you investigate it in any way ? 

Mr. LaRue. I participated in — I do not know if you can call it 
an investigation, Senator, but I participated in activities that were 
aimed at determining several facts, some of these relating to the civil 
litigation before the committee at that time, yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. What conclusions did you reach as a result of 
the investigation ? 

Mr. LaRue. My conclusions, Senator, are that certainly, the 
break-in or the electronic surveillance that was conducted at the 
Democratic National Committee was approved at some high level, 
either of the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the White 
House, that this was financed by moneys from the reelection com- 
mittee, and that 

Senator Talmadge. Did you report that conclusion to higher 
authority ? 

Mr. LaRue, No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Talmadge, As an aide and confidante and friend to the 
President of the United States, did you not think that was an appro- 
priate time to do so ? 

Mr. LaRue. That never occurred to me. Senator, no, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Why not? Did you not think it would be 

Mr, LaRue, I think quite frankly. Senator, this would be — such 



2311 

a decision and such an action would be best carried out by someone 
closer in contact, a closer relationship with the President than I ever 
had. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you not think it was a source of threat 
and peril to the President and as a friend and associate and con- 
fidante, you should have informed him ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I considered the Water.i^ate incident a threat 
to the election and I have stated that I participated in the coverup 
of that. I did that knowingly, I did it to try, in my opinion, to pro- 
tect the election of the President. 

Senator Talmadge. Was it your purpose, then, to conceal that fact 
from the President ? 

Mr. LaRue. I never thought of it in the terms of concealing it 
from the President, Senator^Talmadge. I thought of it in terms of 
concealing it, I guess, from the public. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Mitchell, the former Attorney General, 
testified that it was the policy to deliberately conceal it from the 
President. Were you involved in that policy also? 

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

Senator Talmadge. Did you contact Mr. Patrick Gray on or about 
June 17 or 18, who was then Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Talmadge. What did you talk with him about? 

Mr. LaRue. This was a meeting on June 18, as I recall, at New- 
port Beach, Calif. Mr. Gray happened to be at the same hotel we were 
staying in and I was informed of this fact by one of the agents. 

I met Mr. Gray and his wife at the swimming pool and we visited 
for approximately 30^5 minutes. I am sure Watergate was discussed. 
This was not the purpose of my meeting Mr. Gray. Both Mr. and 
Mrs. Gray are friends of mine and it was more of a social meeting 
than anything else. 

Senator Talmadge. You did not report it to Mr. Gray nor request 
the facts from Mr. Gray ? The contact with him was purely social ; 
is that what you are saying? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. LaRue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. Just a few questions, Mr. LaRue. Again, back to 
California and Mr. Mitchell's reaction when he received the news 
about the Watergate break-in. Were you present when this news was 
received ? 

Mr. LaRue. By Mr. Mitchell? 

Senator Gurnet. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Did you give it to him? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. "What was his reaction? 

Mr. LaRue. As I stated, I think Mr. Mitchell expressed some sur- 
prise and as I recall his remark, "that is incredible." 

Senator Gurney. What was your reaction to his reaction ? In view 
of the fact 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 7 



2312 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me, Senator, I do not recall any specific re- 
action. I have been with Mr. Mitchell on many occasions when events 
were reported to him and he is just not a man who, quite frankly, 
tends to express much reaction one way or another. 

Senator Gurney, Your testimony, as I understand it, was that this 
Liddy plan was brought up again at Key Biscayne, That is right, 
is it not? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Did you ever discuss it with Mr, Mitchell at any 
time between Key Biscayne and the day after the break-in? Between 
those periods of time. Did the conversation ever come up about your 
surveillance 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I can recall, sir. 

Senator Gurney [continuing]. Of the Democratic National Com- 
mittee headquarters ? 

Mr, LaRue, No, sir. 

Senator Gurney, Again, I go back to when you first heard the news. 
Did it flash back to you that this plan had been brought up before at 
Key Biscayne ? 

Mr. LaRue. That it had been brought up before in Key Biscayne ? 
Yes, sir, it did. 

Senator Gurney. Did you mention that to Mr. Mitchell at the time 
or report it to him ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Nothing was said in the nature of, John, do you 
suppose that nut has gone on with those plans ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. No discussion at all ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Let us go to these moneys that were paid to Mr. 
Bittman, Hunt's attorney. How much did you pay to him altogether? 

Mr. LaRue. Excuse me just one second, Senator. Let me add some 
figures. 

Senator Gurney. Was it $210,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. $205,000— $210,000, correct. 

Senator Gurney. That was my calculation, too. I added them rather 
hurriedly here. 

Now, upon whose instructions was that money paid to Mr. Bittman ? 

Mr. LaRue. The $210,000 ? 

Senator Gurney. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Except for the last payment. Senator, of $75,000, this 
money, the payments of this money were discussed with Mr. Dean. 

Senator Gurney. In other words, Mr. Dean gave you instructions 
to pay the — and I am running down throuerh these in consecutive 
order— the $25,000, the $50,000, the $25,000, the $35,000 ?' 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Those are the amounts prior to the last one? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. And what about the last $75,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. This came from Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Gurney. Now, then, what was your understanding Mr. 
Bittman was doing with all this? Was he Mr. Hunt's attorney, was 
that it? 



2313 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, he was Mr. Hunts attorney. That is my under- 
standing. 

Senator Gurnet. Is that not a rather large sum of money to pay a 
lawyer who represents a client who finally pleaded guilty — did he 
not? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, my understanding is that not all of this mon- 
ey was for his attorneys fees but represented some money that was also 
going to Mr. Hunt. 

Senator Gurney. Do you know how much was going to Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, because I do not know specifically what Mr. 
Bittman's attorney fees were. So I cannot reconcile that. 

Senator Gurney. How did you know that moneys were going to 
Mr. Hunt? 

Mr. LaRue. In the conversations that Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Parkin- 
son had with Mr. Bittman, I think there were indications that part of 
this was for attorney fees and part of it was necessarily necessary 
for maintenance of families. Part of this — at one point part of this 
money, it was my understanding, was going to the Cubans, the defend- 
ants, Cuban defendants, in Watergate. 

Senator Gurney. And this information that part of it was for at- 
torney fees, part of it for Hunt's personal expenses, and part of it to 
the Cubans, this information came from, you say, O'Brien and Parkin- 
son. 

Mr. LaRue. It came to me through them, yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Would you describe more fully how it came to 
you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, my understanding. Senator, is that they had 
conversations with Mr. Bittman who was Mr. Hunt's attorney and 
that he would, you know, relay these requirements or needs and, in 
turn, Mr. Parkinson or Mr. O'Brien would relay this to me or to Mr. 
Dean and I jointly or maybe on an occasion or two to Mr. Dean him- 
self who would relay it to me. 

Senator Gurney. Was any accounting ever made at any time by 
anvone ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. There was an accounting made in September 
1972 by Mr. Kalmbach when he removed himself from this operation. 

Senator Gurney. But I mean a breakdown of where the money was 
going that you were furnishing Mr. Bittman ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; no accounting was ever furnished me. 

Senator Gurney. Were you aware of the large amounts of cash 
that were being transferred from Kalmbach, Ulasewicz, to these 
defendants ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. At the same time ? 

Mr. LaRue. At the same time I was 

Senator Gurnet. Yes, during the same timeframe. 

Mr. LaRue. My understandin.qf, Senator, is that my transfers in 
cash came after the Kalmbach-IJlasewicz transfers. In other words, 
when Mr. Kalmbach was in this operation up until September and 
after he got out then I, in effect, became involved in it. 

Senator Gurney. Had you known how much money had been trans- 
ferred in the Kalmbach transactions ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me, Senator ? 



2314 

Senator Gurnet. Did you know how much money had been trans- 
ferred to the Watergate defendants in the Kalmbach transactions? 

Mr. LaRue. My understanding, Senator, approximately $200,000. 

Senator Gurney. Were you aware of that when you started to make 
your transfers? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir; because Mr, Kalmbach had given us an ac- 
counting in September. 

Senator Gurney. Didn't anybody ever raise a question that this 
seemed like a lot of money at some point along the way ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I recall discussions that, yes, it seemed to be 
quite a bit of money, and we were also experiencing a shortage of 
money. 

Senator Gurney. These are inflationary times but my, my goodness 
sakes, that amount is so large that it seems astronomical. 

Didn't anybody really question at any time where all this money 
was going? 

Mr. LaRue, Not to my knowledge. Senator, no. 

Senator Gurney, Did you ever have any doubts about it at any 
time? 

Mr, LaRue, That the money was going to the proper places? 

Senator Gurney, In that perhaps it was too much ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I didn't question the amounts. These amounts 
were, you know they were, there were seven defendants, I think all 
of them had, at least most of them had, their own counsel. I know 
from my experience with my counsel that this is not, this runs up 
pretty quickly, [Laughter,] 

Senator Gurney, Well, I am not trying to beat a dead horse but I 
must say, looking over all these sums, it does strike me that somebody 
at some time ought to have said, "Maybe we are being taken for a ride 
of some sort here with all this money," 

Mr, LaRue. Well, Senator, I don't recall anyone discussing that 
with me. 

Senator Gurney. Going to California again, did you have a conver- 
sation with Mr. Pat Gray who was then acting head of the FBI ? 

Mr, LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney, Would you recount that for the committee? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, Senator, I couldn't recount the conversation be- 
cause as I have stated previously I think I spent 30 minutes or 45 
minutes with Mr. and Mrs. Gray at the swimming pool at the Newport 
Beach Hotel, we discussed a wide range of subjects and the Watergate 
was discussed. 

Senator Gurney. Perhaps you have covered this before because I 
didn't come in in the early part of your testimony. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I have. 

Senator Gurney. I don't want to go over it again then. 

Just one final thing then, was there any instruction by Mr. Mitchell 
to you to contact the Attorney General, Mr. Kleindienst, again in 
California? 

Mr. LaRue, Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. What were those instructions? Wliy did he give 
those to you ? Wliat did he ask you to do ? 

Mr. LaRue. My recollection of those instructions, Senator, was that 
someone should call back to Mr. Liddy to have him contact Mr. Klein- 



2315 

dienst, have Mr. Kleindienst contact Chief Wilson and see what details 
or facts could be ascertained about the break-in. 

Senator Gurney. There was an instruction to get information. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

■Senator Gukney, About the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurnet. And that is all it was? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my recollection ; yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LaRue, during this time you were working at the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President, were you not ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. What was your position there, what was your 
job assignment? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, it was special assistant to the campaign 
director. 

Senator Montoya. What were your duties? 

Mr. LaRue. My duties were of an advisory nature, consulting na- 
ture, literally. I would say, on all aspects of the campaign. 

Senator Montoya. Did you have occasion to see all those people who 
were coming in to see Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Senator Montoya. Did you have occasion to see most of the people 
who would come in to see Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. No; I would not say I had occasion to see most of the 
people. I certainly saw some of the people that came to see Mr. 
Mitchell, sometimes I sat in on meetings. 

Senator Montoya. Well, Mr. Strachan would come into the CRP 
quite often, would he not? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Strachan, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Yes. Did you have occasion to speak to him 
frequently ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not frequently. In fact very infrequently. Occasionally 
Mr. Strachan would come by my office and visit basically to get my 
ideas and views on how the campaign was progressing. 

Senator Montoya. Did he check with you on information that 
should go to the White House? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Wasn't he sort of liaison between the CRP and 
the White House? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my understanding, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you have an understanding that the man in 
the White House with whom he dealt could be Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. My understanding was he dealt with Mr. Halde- 
man. 

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, how often would you say Mr. 
Strachan was at the CRP? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, this would be hard for me to say. I saw Mr. 
Strachan maybe once a week over at the CRP, and I think Mr. Stra- 
chan attended our budget meetings and that I had certainly no daily 
contact with Mr. Strachan, an occasional contact with him. 



2316 

Senator Montoya. Did he attend any of the policy meetings at the 
OIvP? 

Mr. LaEue. Senator, quite frankly, I can't recall any policy meet- 
ings. We had— I tliink the closest thing to policy meetings would be 
budget meetings which Mr. Strachan attended, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Would you say that Mr. Mitchell did attend most 
of the budget meetings ? 

Mr. LaRue. Wliile he was campaign director, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And who formulated the budget presentation in 
those meetings? 

Mr. LaRue. I think the presentation was formulated by Mr. Odle 
or the data, the raw data, the agenda was formulated by Mr. Odle is 
my understanding. 

Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Mitchell participate in those budget 
meetings ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Do you recall any discussion at the budget meet- 
ings or any other place of the CRP with respect to any disbursements 
to Mr. Liddy? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you know of any disbursements to Mr. 
Liddy? 

Mr. LaRue. Not before January 17, no, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Not before January 17 of what year ? 

Mr. LaRue. 1972. 

Senator Montoya. 1972. 

Then subsequent to January 17, 1972, did you know of any 
disbursements ? 

Mr. LaRue. I learned there had been cash disbursements to Mr. 
Liddy, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you know the amounts ? 

Mr. LaRue. My understanding it was approximately $199,000. 

Senator Montoya. When did you first know of the size of these 
amounts ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, as I recall, I got this figure from Mr. Sloan, I 
can't pin down a time period but I would say in the latter part of June. 

Senator Montoya. Did he, did Mr. Sloan, mention to you any con- 
cern about the size of these amounts before June and after January 17? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I am not sure — did Mr. Sloan indicate concern 
before June? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. I never discussed it with him. Senator, before the 
June 17 break-in. My discussions were after that. 

Senator Montoya. Did you discuss any of these disbursements with 
Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I am sure I did. We were having a constant 
discussion trying to determine the amount of money that had ac- 
tually been given to Mr. Sloan — I mean that Mr. Sloan had given 
to Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Montoya. All right. In what context did you have these 
discussions with Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. LaRue. This would be after the break-in, Senator, in which 
there was a conversation or where I had conversation with Mr. Sloan 



2317 

attempting to determine the amount of money that had been given to 
Mr. Liddy, and when I determined this amount of money I think I 
reported that to Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Montoya. But you are speaking of the period after June 
17? 

Mr. LaRtte, After the break-in, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Mitchell 
between January 17 or let us put it a little further, between April 1 
and June 17 with respect to any disbursements to Mr. Liddy by Mr. 
Sloan? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You did not. 

Did you — ^but you did know that these disbursements were being 
made by Mr. Sloan to Mr. Liddy? 

Mr. LaRtje. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Montoya. Did you during this particular period converse 
with Mr. Magruder with respect to any disbursements to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, not that I can recall. 

Mr. Vinson. Senator, may I interrupt. What period are you talking 
about ? 

Senator IMontoya. Between the time that Mr. Mitchell took over, 
April 1 and June 17. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, not that I can recall. 

Senator Montoya. Now let us go to the meeting immediately after 
the break-in which occurred, I understand, in Mr. Mitchell's apart- 
ment on June 19, was that correct? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, present at that meeting were you, Mr. Mar- 
dian, and who else? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Magruder and Mr. Dean. 

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, what was the main thrust of 
the discussion this particular evening? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I can only assume that we had probably a 
wide discussion or a discussion of the numerous problems that were — 
we had encountered because of the Watergate break-in. I think I 
stated previously that I had a very hazy recollection of that meeting 
and specifically can only recall the discussion of the documents which 
Mr. ]\Iagruder had and the reference to the fact that he ought to have 
the fire. 

Senator Montoya. Well, would you say that this meeting was a meet- 
ing of self-confession on the part of those present ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. As to what part they had played in this and 
what they knew ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Well, what was it then ? I understand that at this 
nieeting you presented the information which Mr. Liddy had already 
ijnparted to someone ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. That happened, that meeting with Mr. Liddy 
happened on June 20, the day after this meeting. 

Senator Montoya. And then it was subsequent to the meeting with 
]\Ir. Liddy that — and, that another meeting was arranged at your 
apartment, is that correct ? This was on June 20 ? 



2318 

Mr. LaRue. The only meeting, Senator, that occurred that I had, 
that I can recall with Mr. Liddy would be on June 20 in my apartment. 
This was not, to my knowledge — this meeting was not set up — dis- 
cussed at the June 19 meeting. 

Senator Montoya. All right. 

Now, on June 20, after you people met, what was discussed and what 
plan evolved from this particular meeting? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, could you be more specific about which meet- 
ing you are talking about? Are you talking about the meeting with 
Liddy or the meeting that Mardian and I had with Mr. Mitchell ? 

Senator Montota. The meeting with — between you or among you — 
Mardian and Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. On June 20. Well, the topic discussion was Mr. Liddy 's 
involvement in the Watergate break-in. I don't know of any — we dis- 
cussed no plan of action. 

Senator Montoya. Well, did you report any of the results of this 
meeting to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. How soon after? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, that same day. 

Senator Montoya. Immediately. Do you recall that Mr. Mitchell on 
that same evening at the hour of 6 :08, I believe, called the President? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I do not recall Mr. Mitchell calling the Presi- 
dent. That is a possibility. I do not recall it, no, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Well, I refer you now to the chart here, on the 
evening of June 20, at the hour of 6 :08, it shows a telephone call to 
the President. Now, were you aware of this call ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, Senator, I cannot recall the call. Is that a call 
to the President or from the President ? 

Senator Montoya. It was a call to the President from Mr. ISIitchell. 

Mr. LaRue. I cannot recall the call, no, sir. 

Senator INIontoya. How late were you with Mr. ISIitchell this 
particular evening ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, to the best of my recollection, probably until 
10 o'clock. 

Senator Montoya. Now, Mr. LaRue, during the course of these 
meetings there was no manifestation, or at least you have not related 
it, no manifestation of surprise on the part of any of you, you were 
merely trying to plan for the future because vou knew by then that 
people in the CRP were involved. How did you arrive at this 
conclusion ? 

Mr. LaRue. That people in the CRP were involved ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Well, obviouslv the first fact. Senator, that Mr. McCord 
had been arrested in the DNC ; Mr. Liddv's account of his involvement 
to Mr. Mardian and I; my conversations with Mr. Magruder. 

Senator Montoya. Now, did Mr. Magruder relate to you subsequent 
to the — immediately subsequent to the first call in California, as to 
Mr. Liddv's involvement in this particular thine ? 

Ml-. TxvRuE. No. sir, not at that time, as I recall. There was no 
discussion of Mr. Liddv's involvement. 

Senator Montoya. Did vou, before you left California, know of 
this particular involvement? 



2319 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Montoya. Then, what was the basis for Mr. Mitchell's state- 
ment in California before he left that — when he said that "McCord 
and the other four men were not operating either in our behalf or 
with our consent." He issued a press statement in California before 
he left to that effect. 

Mr. LaRue. I could only assume, Senator, that this was 
Mr. Mitchell's understanding of the facts. 

Senator Montoya. Well, he must have had some information, be- 
cause I understand that there were some conferences in the hotel with 
respect to the possibility that there might be involvement on the part 
of the CRP in the Watergate affair. You agree with that? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not recall any conferences in the hotel to that 
effect, no, sir. 

Senator Montoya. I understand Mr. Porter testified to that effect 
in previous testimony before this committee. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, that may be. I can recall attending no sudh 
conferences. There was, I am sure, all sorts of speculation, but I can 
recall no conferences in the hotel where I attended, regarding in- 
volvement of the CRP other than Mr. McCord's involvement was dis- 
cussed. 

Senator Montoya. But you did tell Mr. Mitchell about the Water- 
gate break-in, did you not? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You pulled him outside of a conference at the 
hotel and told him ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And there was no subsequent conference with 
respect to this ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, there was not, other than a brief conference at 
which Mr. Mitchell requested that a call be made to Mr. Kleindienst. 

Senator Montoya. Then, why would Mr. Mitchell make a call to or 
arrange for a call to be made to Mr. Kleindienst if at that time none 
of you knew that the CRP was involved ? 

Mr. LaRue. Obviously, Senator, we had an involvement to the ex- 
tent that Mr. McCord had been oaug'ht on the premises in the DNC. 

Senator Montoya. Yes, but Mr. Mitchell issued a statement that 
McCord was connected with his own private company and that he did 
contract work for different people in Washington. And in that same 
breath, he stated that McCord and the other four men were not oper- 
ating either in our behalf or with our consent. So why would he do 
that? 

Mr. LaRue. "VVhy would he make that statement ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. I assume Mr. Mitchell assumed that those were the 
facts. 

Senator Montoya. Well, would you say Mr. Mitchell was right? 

Mr. LaRue. I would say at that time he was right in assuming 
those facts, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And after that time, would you say he was 
wrong ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 



2320 

Senator Montoya. Now, you received $40,000 to $41,000 in early 
July from Mr. Stans through Mr. Mardian, did you not? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did anybody explain to you why this money was 
being entrusted to you ? 

Mr. LaRtje. My understanding, Senator, was that the $41,000 for 
Mr. Sloan and roughly $40,000 for Mr. Stans, the cash balance on 
hand at the committee and that it was the desire to get this money 
out of the campaign and that it was being turned over to me to keep. 

Senator Montoya. Then you received subsequent to this, $29,900. 
Now, I understand that you made this request of Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. I did not make this request of Mr. Kalmbach. 
This was at the time Mr. Kalmbach decided he wanted to relieve him- 
self of the operation. My understanding is that this was the balance of 
the money which he had on hand and he told me that he wanted to 
turn this money over to me. 

Senator Montoya. Then you received some money from Mr. Stra- 
chan, is that correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. $50,000 ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And who was Tim Babcock ? 

Mr. LaRue. Tim Babcock was the former Governor of Montana. 

Senator Montoya. You received $14,000 from him? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And then subsequently, $280,000 additional from 
Mr. Strachan? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, when you were using the code name of 
Baker and communicating with Mr. Bittman and he was giving you 
all these figures, $75,000 and the other figures which were delivered, 
didn't it oc<;ur to you to ask him specifically what these amounts would 
be used for? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I never had any communication of that type 
with Mr. Bittman. Communications to me regarding the require- 
ments and regarding the moneys that I subsequently delivered to 
Mr. Bittman were either with Mr. Parkinson or Mr. O'Brien or with 
Mr. Dean. 

Senator Montoya. Who set the specific figures and gave you the spe- 
cific authority to deliver the specific amounts? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, the specific amounts were — these figures were 
related to me by, as I have stated, by Mr. Parkinson or Mr. O'Brien or 
Mr. Dean. I discussed these figures with Mr. Dean and received an OK 
to make these deliveries from Mr. Dean except in the last instance, 
which I have testified to, in which I talked to Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Montoya. What kind of discussion did you have with Mr. 
Mitchell with respect to the $75,000 disbursement? 

Mr. LaRue. I called Mr. Mitchell, related my conversation with Mr. 
Dean, in whicli he said he did not want to participate in this opera- 
tion any more and would not be willing to authorize the delivery of 
that $75,000. I told him I was not willing to deliver it without clear- 
ance from someone else and he suggested that I call Mr. Mitchell. 



2321 

I related this to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell asked what the purpose 
of the $75,000 was. I told him that it was my understanding that it 
was for attorneys' fees, and he told me that he thought I ought to 
pay it. 

Senator Montoya. Didn't he tell you that the $75,000 might be too 
exorbitant ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Mr. Mitchell? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; we did not discuss that. 

Senator Montoya. Did you tell him that there had been previous dis- 
bursements to this man for attorneys' fees ? 

Mr. LaRue. No ; we did not discuss that, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You didn't discuss the background of this with 
him? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. He just told us 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me, Senator, would you repeat that question ? 

Senator Montoya. You did not inform Mr. Mitchell as to the back- 
ground of the disbursements that had been previously made to Mr. 
Bittman prior to the time that you called him for authority to disburse 
the $75,000? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You did not? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. One final question. 

When Mr. Mitchell called the President, as is shown on this chart, 
at 6 :08 on June 20, he had already been told by you and Mr. Mardian 
all that Mr. Liddy knew about the case and all that he had told you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't think I could state that as a fact, be- 
cause I don't know if this telephone call was made before or after Mr. 
Mardian and I briefed him. 

Senator Montoya. You stated that you had talked to Mr. Mitchell 
in the afternoon ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I think I stated that we talked to Mr. Liddy 
in the afternoon. I think our meeting with Mr. Mitchell was very late 
afternoon. 

Senator Montoya. How late ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't have a specific recollection. I assume 
it is probably on that chart up there. I am sorry again, I can't see that 
far. 

Senator Montoya. Your meeting with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Mar- 
dian was at 6 o'clock. 

Mr. Vinson. Is that the meeting that also shows Mr. Sedam and 
Mr. Magruder present ? 

Senator Montoya. That is correct. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, we would not have been briefing Mr. Mitchell 
on the Liddy meeting with Mr. Sedam present or Mr. Magruder, 
quite frankly. 

Senator Montoya. Well, there is a meeting at 10 :32 in the morning, 
and there is no meeting shown after 6. 

Mr. LaRue. At 10 :32, Senator, 'we had not talked with Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Montoya. There is no meeting subsequent to the call to 



2322 

the President between you, Mr, Mitchell, and Mr. Mardian, so would 
that indicate that you had talked to Mr. Mitchell before he made the 
call to the President ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Senator, a^ain, looking at your chart there, the best 
I can read it, the telephone call to the President was at 6 :08, is that 
correct ? 

Senator Montoya. That is correct. 

Mr. LaRue. And it indicates a meeting with Mr. Mardian, Mr. 
Magruder and I and Mr. Sedam that begins at 6 o'clock. Is that 
correct ? 

There is no way we could have briefed Mr. Mitchell on our conversa- 
tion with Mr. Liddy between 6 and 6 :08. 

Senator Montoya. Well, you briefed him on the $75,000 in 1 minute. 

Mr. LaRub. Well, I think the meeting with Mr. Liddy, obviously, 
there were more points covered and I do not think it would have been 
possible for us to give him a briefing or a recounting of that meeting 
in 8 minutes. 

Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. LaRue. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :05 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 19, 1973.] 



THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1973 

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. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 
Gurney, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred D. 
Thompson, minority counsel ; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun- 
sel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; 
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant 
chief counsels ; R. Phillip Haire, Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, 
Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels; 
Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy 
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 Montoya ; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 
Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John Walz, 
publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair recognizes Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inotiye. Thank you very much, ISIr. Chairman. 

Mr. LaRue, I gather from your title and from your background your 
prime function as special consultant to the President was to advise 
the President and others close to him on matters political. Would that 
be correct, sir ? 

TESTIMONY OF FREDEEICK C. LaRUE— Resumed 

Mr. LaRue. No, Senator, I do not think that would be a correct 
statement. 

Senator Inoute, What was your function ? 

Mr. LaRue. The primary function initially that I served in my 
capacity as a special consultant would be in a liaison capacity between 
the State of Mississippi and the Federal agencies involved in disaster 
relief resulting from Hurricane Camille. 

Senator Inouye. How did you get involved in this coverup scheme ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Senator Inouye. How did you get involved in this coverup mess? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, Senator, there was — ^this involvement occurred 
much later during the Presidential campaign in 1972. I am speaking 
now in the time frame of the latter part of 1969, 1970, that I served 
in this capacity. 

Senator Inouye. At the time of, say, early 1972, what was your 
function, sir? 

(2323) 



2324 

Mr. LaRue, Early 1972 I joined the reelection committee with the 
title eventually of special assistant to the campai^ director. 

Senator Inouye. You have testified on several occasions that you 
discussed the matter of $75,000 with Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Inouye. Why did you call upon Mr. Mitchell? I ask this 
because at that time, according; to testimony, ISIr. Mitchell was no 
longer Attorney General of the T'nited States nor was he chairman of 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I think I stated in my testimony yesterday 
that I had a phone call from Mr. Dean regarding this $75,000. He 
would not authorize or instruct me to make this payment, and he sug- 
gested that I call Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Inouye. Why did you call Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr, LaRue. Why did I call him ? 

Senator Inouye. Because of ]Mr. Dean's function ? 

Mr. LaRue. Because Mr. Dean susrgested that I call him ; yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Why did Mr. Dean tell you to call Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dean was not — indicated to me that he was not 
going to become involved any further in the distribution of funds, 
and that if I were to get any authorization on this it would have to 
come from someone else and he suggested that I call Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Inouye. Am I correct to assume that Mr. Dean was aware 
that the $75,000 was part of the grand scheme, the grand coverup 
scheme ? 

Mr. LaRue. I think that would be a safe assumption ; yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Am I correct to assume that you were aware that 
this was part of the grand coverup scheme ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Am I correct to assume that Mr. Mitchell was 
aware that this was part of the grand coverup scheme? 

Mr. LaRue. I would say, Senator, that that is a correct assumption. 

Senator Inouye. Then, when Mr. Mitchell suggested to the commit- 
tee that he was not aware of these coverup activities he was not ab- 
solutely correct, was he ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I did not gather from Mr. Mitchell's testi- 
mony that he stated he was not aware of the coverup activities. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. LaRue, there is one word used quite frequently 
in your testimonv and that of Mr. Kalmbach also and that of Mr. 
Ulasewicz, and that word is "expense." Apparently several people 
had expense accounts, including yourself. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Inouye. We have been told that Mr. Stans had expenses, 
Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Ulasewicz, and others. For ex- 
ample, in your summary of transactions you indicate that $4,500 was 
distributed to Mr. Magruder for expenses. 

Did Mr. Magruder submit to you or to anyone a list of the it«ms of 
expenses ? 

Mr. LaRue, No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Did you not feel that this was a bit irregular? 

Mr. LaRue. No, Senator, I did not. I had the utmost trust in Mr. 
Magruder, and I felt that this was proper. As I stated to the staff of 
this committee, I made this decision and take full responsibility for it. 



2325 

Senator Inouye. You indicated that you worked without a salary 
but you received an expense of $1,500 a month; is that correct? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Inouye. You also testified that during the period of about 
7 months you received $12,000 in expenses. Is this the same amount 
or is this over and above the $1,500 ? 

Mr. LaRtje. No, sir; this would be the same amoimt. I would like 
to clarify, Senator, that the $12,000 that was the total amount of ex- 
penses that I handled, this was not the total for me. This included 
Mr. Magruder's $4,500. 

Senator Inouye. I notice the expense accounts are all in round fig- 
ures. Did you really incur $12,000 worth of expenses? 

Mr. LaRue. Did I during this time period? Considerably more, 
Senator. 

Senator Inouye. Did you submit your claims to the committee ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me? 

Senator Inouye. Did you submit claims to the committee in addi- 
tion to the $12,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. And what did the committee do? 

Mr. LaRue. I have received expense payments from the committee 
during this period of time. 

Senator Inouye. I presiune you have read the testimony of Mr. 
Dean. 

Mr. LaRue. No, Senator, I have not read the complete testimony. I 
have seen part of it and I have read part of it. 

Senator Inouye. I would like to get your views on a matter that 
seems like a coincidence to some of us. Throughout the hearing we have 
heard of meetings. 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

Senator Inouye. Gatherings in San Clemente, at Key Biscayne, and 
oftentimes the participants have to fly to these meeting places from 
Washington. Why did they not meet in Washington ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I am not — I do not think I am aware of what 
meetings you are speaking of. 

Senator Inouye. Now, for example, the meeting in Key Biscayne, the 
one you participated in. If I count the participants properly, most of 
the participants were in Washington and were called over to Key Bis- 
cayne. By coincidence at each meeting the President was nearby. Was 
there any relevance between the President being present at that loca- 
tion? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I was not aware that the President was in Key 
Biscayne during this time. In fact, I am fairly certain he was not. 

Senator Inouye. T\niat makes j^ou say so, sir ? 

Mr. LaRue. The house we were staying in was very close to the 
Presidential compound, and I think we would have been aware of the 
fact that the President was there at that time. I think I would have 
been aware of it. And I have a specific recollection that the President 
was not there. 

Senator Inouye. On this meeting in Key Biscayne, did you at any 
time see the famous Liddy charts? 

Mr, LaRue. Are you referring. Senator, to the charts that have been 
described in one of the previous meetings ? 

Senator Inouye. Yes, sir. 



2326 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Inouyi:. Did you at any time see the Liddy memo ? 

Mr. LaRue. The only memo I saw, Senator, was the one I have de- 
scribed to this committee outlining the electronic surveillance plan. 

Senator Inouye. Did you participate in a discussion of any other 
plan besides the so-called Liddy plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, that day I participated in a discussion of a wide 
range of activities that would be conducted or were proposed to be con- 
ducted by the reelection committee. 

Senator Inouye. I am talking about illegal activities. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. The only illegal plan discussed was the Liddy plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. And it is your testimony that no other plans were 
discussed ? 

Mr. LaRue. No other plans of that nature ; yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. In your discussions in the plans were the involve- 
ment of the CIA or the FBI discussed ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. How did you propose to get all of the information 
set forth in the plan ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I am not sure if I understand your question. 

Senator Inouye. Did the plan call for assistance from the FBI or 
the CIA? 

Mr. LaRue. You are talking about the plan that was discussed in 
Key Biscayne ? No, sir, not to my recollection ; it was not. 

Senator Inouye. It was to be done without the assistance of these 
Federal agencies? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my understanding, yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Was any discussion held as to how the accounts 
were to be paid for this special project ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I can recall, no, sir. 

Senator Inouye. You advised the committee on how to carry out 
their activities, and you were involved in some of the most extraordi- 
nary meetings, and now you are sitting before us, and we have asked 
this question, I believe, of all or most of the witnesses : In retrospect 
now that you know it was illegal, and if you were asked to recommend 
any legislation to prevent the further occurrence or reoccurrence of 
those activities in which you were involved, what would you recom- 
mend, sir? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I haven't given that a great deal of thought. 
I do think that there are certain things I would recommend. I think 
basically one of the recommendations would be legislation to curtail 
or prohibit to the extent possible the use of cash in political cam- 
paigns — cash money. 

Senator Inouye. Any other recommendations? 

Mr. LaRue. None that I can think of immediately, Senator; as I 
say I quite frankly have not focused on that. 

Senator Inouye. My final question, sir, a question that we asked of 
Mr. Mitchell. If you recall, Mr. Mitchell said that the reelection of 
President Nixon was paramount, and that all other considerations 
were insignificant. Do you concur with that, sir, or at that time did 
you concur with that ? 



2327 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't know if I can make that broad a state- 
ment. Certainly at that time I considered the election of paramount 
importance ; yes, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Sufficiently important that the commission of 
crimes would not be considered significant ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, as I have stated in my opening statement, at 
that time, I did not consider myself involved in the commission of a 
crime. In retrospect that has turned out to be the case. At that par- 
ticular point I was not thinking in those terms. 

Senator Inouye. What would your response be to a question that 
was posed with Mr. Mitchell: Would you have lied to protect the 
President ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, fortunately I never had to cope with that 
problem. 

Senator Inouye. Is that an answer? 

Mr. LaRue. It is something that I didn't consider at the time. 

Senator Inouye. It is not possible for you to give a yes or no response 
to that? 

Mr. LaRue. I can't. It's too hard to go back to that time period 
and assess my state of mind what I would have done at that time. 

Senator Inouye. Then what conclusion are we supposed to reach 
today as to whether you would lie today ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I have no reason to tell anything other than 
the truth to this committee. As I have stated in my opening statement 
I have faced up to what I have done and it would serve no purpose to 
me to tell you anything but the truth. 

Senator Inouye. Just for the record, you were charged with several 
crimes and I believe you pleaded guilty to one. Would you relate to the 
committee the circumstances, the crimes involved, and the circum- 
stances involved in the pleading of guilty ? 

Mr. Vinson. Senator, may I straighten the record out? 

Senator Inouye. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. LaRue was not charged with several crimes. He 
pled guilty, however, to a one-count information charging a con- 
spiracy to obstruct justice. 

Senator Inouye. I am just trying to give Mr. LaRue an opportunity 
to clear the air of any doubts because I believe the press reported that 
a deal had been made. I am certain you recall that, counsel, don't you, 
sir? 

Mr. Vinson. May I respond to that. Senator ? 

Senator Inouye. Yes. 

Mr. Vinson. That is one way to put it. What actually happened is 
that Mr. LaRue and I told the prosecuting authorities that he wanted 
to make a full and complete truthful disclosure to them of all facts 
within his knowledge. In exchange for that, the Government merely — 
and I say merely — agreed to make the extent of his cooperation with 
the Government known at an appropriate time. 

I have here, Senator, a letter dated June 12, 1973, addressed to me 
as Mr. LaRue's attorney signed by Archibald Cox which constitutes 
the entire agreement in connection with this matter. It is a matter of 
public record. It was read into the court record at the time that Mr. 
LaRue entered his plea and I would ask that the committee accept it 
at this time as an exhibit. 

Senator Inouye. Would you care to read the letter, sir ? 

96-296 O - 73 - pt, 6 - 8 



2328 

Mr. Vinson. I would be glad to if you would like me to, Senator. 
Letterhead, "Watergate Special Prosecution Force," dated June 12, 
1973, and addressed to me : 

The Government will accept a guilty plea from Mr. Fred LaRue to a one count 
indictment or information charging a conspiracy to obstruct justice. This will dis- 
pose of all other potential charges against your client which might otherwise 
arise out of the investigation of the so-called Watergate incident and the al- 
leged cover-up relating thereto, including without limitation possible violations 
of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Corrupt Practices Act. The Gov- 
ernment will join with you in urging that Mr. LaRue's sentencing be deferred un- 
til after the trial of those implicated by testimony already given by Mr. I^aRue 
and that Mr. LaRue be permitted to remain on bond or on recognizance i)ending 
sentence in order to facilitate his cooperation with the Government. 

Finally, this understanding is predicated upon Mr. LaRue's complete coopera- 
tion with the Government, including the immediate, full and truthful disclosure 
of all information in his possession. Ultimately, of course, he will be required 
to testify as a vpitness for the Government in any and all cases with respect to 
which he may have relevant information. The extent of his cooperation will be 
brought to the Court's attention by the Government before sentencing. 
Sincerely, Archibald Cox, Special Prosecutor. 

Senator ER\^N. Let the reporter mark the letter with the appropriate 
number. 

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 87.*] 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. There are three words in 
that letter: "otherwise potential crimes." What were the "otherwise 
potential crimes," sir ? 

Mr. Vinson. It says this will dispose of all other potential charges. 

Senator Inotjye. Other potential charges : I am sorry, sir ; what are 
the other potential charges ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, sir, they are all related, the conspiracy to obstruct 
iustice information to which Mr. LaRue pleaded states in essence that 
he was a part of a conspiracy to impede, impair, and obstruct the 
investigation by concealing relevant evidence, and it further states 
that he participated in meetings to develop misleading testimony to be 
given to the FBI, for instance, and it states that he acquired and 
covertly paid cash to certain individuals, all matters about which he 
has testified to this committee. 

As a technical matter, Senator, the Government, the prosecutors, 
could take each of those allegations and make a separate count, a 
separate charge out of it if they wished to do so. Thev sometimes do, 
they sometimes don't. There is nothing unusual about this matter. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Counsel. 

Thank you very much, Mr. LaRue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervtn. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LaRue, you have testified at rather great length and extensively 
and thoroughly in response to the interrogation put to you by counsel 
and bv the members of this committee and I won't prolone the inter- 
rogation greatly. But there are a few points that remain unclear in 
my mind, or at least I believe could stand a little further elaboration. 
I may have misunderstood you. 

Yesterday, you said that Mr. Magruder indicated after the tele- 
]>hone call" from Washington to California: "Last nicrht was the 
nierht he was going into the Democratic National Committee head- 
quarters." 

*See p. 2634. 



2329 

Now, that was my understanding of that and I havent checked the 
record today. 

Am I mistaken about that, or appropriately, would you tell me again 
what Mr. Magruder told you after his initial telephone call — after the 
initial telephone call to California which he received ? 

Mr. LaRtje. I think, Senator, that that is substantially correct. I 
think I said that he told me he thought last night may be the night 
that they were going into the Democratic National Committee head- 
quarters ; yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Now, he didn't attribute that statement in that con- 
text, as I understand you — ^lie didn't attribute that statement to any- 
body, but rather it sounds like Mr. Magruder was stating a fact that he 
already knew ; that last night was the night that they may have been 
going into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. 

Is that your impression, Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. So you are under the impression from that testi- 
mony, I mean that statement by Mr. Magruder, that he did in fact know 
that there was a planned entry into the Democratic National Commit- 
tee headquarters in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972? 

Mr. LaRue. That would be my assumption, yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you have any other information that you could 
give us on Mr. Magruder's knowledge or previous information of the 
impending entry into the Democratic National Committee? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I don't think so. 

Senator Baker, Did he ever discuss it with you ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, he did not. 

Senator Baker. Did anyone ever discuss it with you ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, they did not. 

Senator Baker. Did you, Mr. LaRue, know that they were going 
to break into the Watergate ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Baker. You had no indication or intimation of that ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I did not. 

Senator Baker. What was your reaction to Mr. Magruder's state- 
ment, then, when he said, well, last night was the night they were 
going to break into the DNC ? 

Now, this was a very urgent, hurry-up call to California from 
Washington, to Mr. Magruder and here is a very high campaign offi- 
cial saying, well, last night was the night they were going to break in. 

What was your reaction to that, Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. LaRue. My reaction to that. Senator, was one of concern. We 
were having a phone call that indicates a problem, Mr. Magruder has 
told me that there is a possibility that that could have concerned a 
break-in of the Democratic National Committee and I was very con- 
cerned and I asked Mr. Magruder to go to a pay phone and call Mr. 
Liddy and find out what the details were, what actually had happened. 

Senator Baker. Did you ask Magruder to do that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I asked him to go to a pay phone rather than 
go to the NASA base or installation which Mr. Liddy had requested 
that he do. 

Senator Baker. Who else was present when Magruder made that 
statement ? 



2330 

Mr. LaRue. Well, Senator, we were at breakfast. I am sure several 
people were present at breakfast, but he made the statement to me in 
an aside, where no one else heard it. 

Senator Baker. Did you convey that information to anyone else? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; I didn't. 

Senator Baker. Did Mr. Magruder make the same or a similar state- 
ment to anyone else at that time ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I know of. Senator. 

Senator Baker. Did you gain the impression, Mr. LaRue, that others 
present in California on that occasion also knew that that was the night 
that they were going to break into the DNC ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Baker. Were you present when Mr. Mitchell received that 
information, that in fact there had been an entry into the DNC ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir ; I gave him the information. 

Senator Baker. Wliat was his reaction ? 

Mr. LaRue. His reaction was one of surprise. 

Senator Baker. Can you characterize that a little further ? 

Mr. LaRue. I testified, I think, to that point yesterday, Senator. 
Mr. Mitchell did indicate surprise, I think made the statement : "That 
is incredible." 

Senator Baker. Mr. LaRue, on another point, you indicated that 
someone said to contact Kleindienst, meaning former Attorney Gen- 
eral Kleindienst, I understand, and to ask him to contact Chief Wilson, 
the Chief of Police for the District of Columbia, about the release of 
certain people arrested on the morning of June 17. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir; I did not testify to that, Senator. I said that in 
my recollection of that incident, that Mr. Mitchell asked that a phone 
call be made to Gordon Liddy and that Mr. Liddy contact Mr. Klein- 
dienst and Mr. Kleindienst contact Chief Wilson to see what details he 
could get on the break-in. 

Senator Baker. OK. 

So, the suggestion was from Mitchell to call Liddy, or someone to 
call Liddy. 

Wlio was to call Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I don't recall who made the telephone call. 
I did not. 

Senator Baker. All right. 

For someone to call Liddy or Liddy to call Kleindienst or Klein- 
dienst to call Wilson to find out what went on. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. Why Liddy? 

Mr. LaRue. I can't answer that question. Senator. Mr. Liddy was at 
that time a person in Washington with whom the conversations were 
being had. 

Senator Baker. Was the call in fact made or do you know, Mr. 
LaRue? 

Mr. LaRue. Yas, the call was made. 

Senator Baker. But you don't recall who made it? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I do not recall who made it. 

Senator Baker. Was this a report back on the results of that tele- 
phone call to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I recall. 



2331 

Senator Baker. Did you later learn of any response or development 
as a result of that call to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I did. 

Senator Baker. Could you 

Mr. LaEtje. I think Mr. Liddy contacted Mr. Kleindienst and 
Mr. Kleindienst refused to do this. He said that if Mr. Mitchell — as I 
understand it, he told Mr. Liddy if Mr. Mitchell wanted him to contact 
Chief Wilson, then Mr. Mitchell should contact Mr. Kleindienst 
directly. 

Senator Baker. But Mr. Kleindienst, in effect, refused to contact 
Chief Wilson? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my understanding ; yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Was that information conveyed to Mr. Mitchell in 
California ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not think so ; no. I found this out at a later date, 
Senator. 

Senator Baker. Who else knew of the suggestion, if anyone, that 
Liddy be contacted to contact Kleindienst to contact Wilson ? 

Did anyone other than you and Mitchell ? 

Mr. LaRue. I think Mr. Magruder was aware of this and I think 
Mr. Mardian was aware of this. 

Senator Baker. All right, sir. 

Mr. LaRue, it is obvious that one of the most important parts of your 
testimony as it relates to other parts of this record as it has been devel- 
oped so far is the essence of the meeting in California, where Mr. Liddy 
made his third presentation or Mr. Magruder, I believe, made the third 
presentation of the Liddy plan for Mr. Mitchell's attention. I am sorry 
to belabor the point, but I can't do that very long. 

Again, if you will, and tell me how it was presented, what Mr. Mitch- 
ell's reaction to it was, and what other information you can give me, if 
any, about the question of whether or not John Mitchell approved the 
plan, did not approve the plan, or postponed deciding on the plan. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, this discussion took place at the end of a day- 
long meeting in which other campaign matters were discussed. Present 
were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, and I. Mr. Magruder handed 
Mr. Mitchell the papers outlining this plan. Mr. Mitchell read it. 
He turned to me, asked me if I had read it. I told him yes. He asked 
me what I thought. I told him I did not think it was worth the risk, 
and Mr. Mitchell indicated at that time that he did not think this was 
something that had to be decided at that meeting. 

Senator Baker. Mr. LaRue, that is the vote signal indicating we 
have only 5 minutes for this rollcall. I am going to suspend now, 
Mr. Chairman, if I may, and continue briefly after the rollcall. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess to give the mem- 
bers time to vote. 

[Recess.] 

Senator Baker [presiding]. The hearings will come to order. 

Senator Ervin was called temporarily away on business and asked 
me to proceed with the questioning. 

Mr. LaRue, did you talk to Mr. Gray while you were in California ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, I did. 

Senator Baker. Would you tell me the nature and circumstances of 
that conversation ? 

Mr. LaRue. Excuse me. Senator. Is this mike alive ? 



2332 

Senator Baker. I think the panel board is indicating the switch 
may be turned on or off. 

Obviously, we do not have a wiretapper here. 

Mr. Vinson. I think it is on now, Senator. 

Senator Baker. Can you tell me something about the conversation 
you had with Mr. Gray and when you had it ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, this conversation occurred, I think Sunday 
afternoon, at the Newporter Inn, as I recall. 

Senator Baker. Do you know why Mr. Gray was in California at 
that time ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not specifically, Senator, no. I think it was in line with 
some function he was performing for the Federal Bureau at that time. 

Senator Baker. What was the nature of the conversation, if you 
do not mind telling me, and who arranged the meeting ? 

Mr. LaRue. The meeting was not arranged. Senator. When we 
arrived at the Newporter Inn, one of the agents told us — told me — 
that Mr. Gray was there. He and his wife, I think, were at the swim- 
ming pool. I went out and visited with them for oh, 30, 45 minutes. 
Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray are friends of mine and we had a — I would 
classify it as a social visit. However, the Watergate was discussed, but 
only in the very broadest generalities. 

Senator Baker. Were there any plans made or any instructions 
carried out in that instruction with Gray about the Watergate? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Wliatever conversation about Watergate occurred 
at that time at the Newporter Inn was casual and social and not 
substantive ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you know whether Mr. Gray met with anyone 
else in California during that time period about the Watergate affair, 
to your knowledge ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I do not. 

Senator Baker. Mr. LaRue, going back previously to the meeting 
in Florida, where your recollection indicates that Mr. Mitchell, refer- 
ring to the Magruder presentation of the Liddy plan, said : "Well, we 
do not have to talk about — ^have to decide on that now," you knew 
John Mitchell pretty well at this point and I am dealing now in rather 
subjective considerations. But I would appreciate your impressions 
of whether or not his query to you of what you thought of that plan 
and your indication you thought the risk was greater than the worth, 
or words to that effect, and his saying, "Well, we do not have to decide 
on that now," together with any other information you can give us 
about this, created the impression in your mind at that time that 
Mitchell, then or later, approved or did not approve the Liddy plan? 
Now, if you cannot answer that, simply say so. But if you have an 
impression or if you have other information, I would be grateful for 
it. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, the only impression that I got that this was 
something that Mr. Mitchell was certainly not enthusiastic about and 
was trying to really terminate a discussion about it. 

Senator Baker. Trying to terminate ? 

Mr. LaRue. To terminate any discussion of it, yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. And you have no other recollection of any other 
aspect of that situation at that time ? 



2333 

Mr. LaRue. No, I do not. 

Senator Baker. You were Mr. Bradford — known as Mr. Bradford 
in the code language of your subsequent transactions? 

Mr. LaRtje. With Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. Kalmbach and I both used 
the code name Bradford, yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. You would call Mr. Kalmbach Mr. Bradford and 
he would call you Mr. Bradford on the initiation of a telephone 
conversation ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Baker. Well, if you will pardon the self-serving expres- 
sion, where did you get that "Baker" code name ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Senator, when I placed the initial call to Mr. Bittman 
in October to arrange for delivery of money to his office, without 
thinking, I placed a call to his office and the secretary answered and 
wanted to know — I asked for Mr. Bittman and she said, "May I say 
who is calling?" I did not want to use my name, and I just picked 
the name "Baker" out of the air. 

Senator Baker. I wonder why. I wonder what would have hap- 
pened if I had in fact called about it. Would you have sent me some 
money, too? [Laughter] 

No, seriously, Mr. LaRue, I think that my colleagues on the com- 
mittee and counsel have covered your testimony rather thoroughly. 
I think your testimony is very important to this committee because of 
your unique situation. You, in effect, have received immunity, al- 
though the law does not call it that, from the special prosecutor's 
office 

Mr. LaRue. That is not my understanding. Senator. 

Senator Baker. They do not intend to prosecute you on other 
matters, other than the one information that you have pled guilty to. 

I am not trying to be your lawyer, I am not trying to give you legal 
advice, but it seems to me that when you take into account that letter 
from Mr. Cox indicating they do not intend to prosecute you for 
election law violations or other matters, saving and excepting only the 
single count contained in the information on conspiracy to obstruct 
justice, about the only remaining peril you have in this connection 
would be the peril of perjury. 

Mr. LaRue. I agree with that. Senator. 

Senator Baker. Are you aware of that peril ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Have you attempted to give us the facts as you 
know them and comply with the agreement outlined in Mr. Cox's 
letter? 

Mr. LaRue. Absolutely. 

Senator Baker. I thank you very mu(;h, Mr. LaRue. 

Senator Erven [presiding]. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Just a few very brief questions, Mr. LaRue. 

You have indicated that — well let me ask you a question first : Do 
you know from whom or from what office the payoff money that you 
distributed came from ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, this money came from several sources. 

Senator Weicker. From several sources ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

Would you list those sources? 

Mr. LaRue. $81,000 that I received in early July from Mr. Stans 
and Mr. Sloan. 



2334 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

Mr. LaRue. $30,000 in September from Mr. Rivers, Mr. Ulasewicz, 
$50,000 in December from Mr. Strachan, $14,000 in January from Mr. 
Babcock. 

Senator Weicker. From Mr. Who ? 

Mr. LaRue. Babcock. 

Senator Weicker. Who is Mr. Babcock ? 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Tim Babcock, he is a former Governor of Montana. 

Senator Weicker. In what capacity was he delivering the money ? 

Mr. LaRue. My understanding, Senator, is that this was a pledge 
made during the campaign and there was a delivery just happened to 
be made after the campaign. 

Senator Weicker. I see. 

Pledge from whom ? 

Mr. LaRue. From Mr. Babcock. And then in January or — yes, in 
January, $280,000 from Mr. Strachan. 

Senator Weicker. Do you associate, aside from the individuals 
named, $81,000 from Mr. Stans and Mr. Sloan and $30,000 from Mr. 
Ulasewicz, alias Rivers, $50,000 from Mr. Strachan, $14,000 from Mr. 
Babcock, and $280,000 from Mr. Strachan. Do you associate any in- 
stitution or corporation or organization with these moneys aside from 
the individuals who gave it to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. The $81,000, Senator, was — my understanding of that 
was the cash balance at the Committee for the Re-Election at that 
time. The $50,000 and the $280,000 from Mr. Strachan— it was my 
understanding that this was a fund that had been at the White House. 

SenatorWEiCKER. All right. 

As I understand it, up until recently you had $113,000 left over; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Where was that money ? 

Mr. LaRue. Where was it ? 

Senator Weicker. Where did you keep that money ? 

Mr. LaRue. It has been in the bank and up until the time I dis- 
bursed it, as was explained yesterday, to — ^back to the finance com- 
mittee. 

Senator Weicker. Finance committee of what ? 

Mr. LaRue. Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Senator Weicker. Why did you return the money to the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President? Why didn't you return it to the White 
House ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, we — this was covered yesterday in testimony 
and several letters have been placed in the record. I thing maybe it 
might be best if Mr. Vinson addressed himself to that question because 
he did yesterday, if that is permissible. 

Senator Weicker. Fine ; yes, indeed. 

Mr. Vinson. Senator Weicker, yesterday I agreed to have dupli- 
cated an exchange of correspondence principally between me, acting 
as Mr. LaRue's counsel, and Mr. Stans' counsel, which relates to the 
return of this money to the finance committee, and I agreed to dupli- 
cate that correspondence so that it would be inserted in the record, and 
I have it here, and can tender it to the committee at this time.* 

•See exhibit 88, p. 2635. 



2335 

Senator Weicker. I appreciate that. Still the only question in my 
mind is with the knowledge that you have as to where these moneys 
came from. As I understand it, only $81,000 came from the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Vinson. Well, sir, Mr. LaRue testified that he had knowledge 
that the source of this $328,000 and $330,000, $350,000 amount that 
was at the White House, this had come from cash at the committee; 
but basically, to summarize this correspondence, I had written or 
called Mr. Stans' attorney and told him we had this money and would 
like to return it. I think we got one letter requesting the return of, I be- 
lieve, $48,000. We sent that check back, and said we would like to re- 
turn the balance and ultimately they requested the balance, and we 
have sent that to them. 

Senator Weicker. In any event, none of this money, as I under- 
stand it, then came from the Republican National Committee; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my knowledge, Senator ; no. 

Senator Weicker. This was money that you felt belonged either 
to the Committee To Re-Elect the President or Mr. Babcock, I guess, 
would be basically the two parties. Would that be correct? 

Mr. LaRtte. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Senator Weicker. You seemed hesitant, is there anything 

Mr. LaRue. I think the Babcock contribution has been reported, as 
I understand it's been reported 

Senator Weicker. I don't mean to intimate at all it was not reported. 
I just want to lay the groundwork as to why this money was returned 
to the Committee To Re-Elect and I gather that has been explained 
in the letters your attorney has sent forward and, very frankly, I want 
to establish the point that these were moneys that did not come to the 
Republican National Committee. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, to my mind none of this money originated or 
came from the Republican National Committee. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Now you were present with Mr. Mitch- 
ell in California on the weekend of the break-in. Now, did Mr. Ma- 
gruder brief you and Mr. Mardian on June 17 as to the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, no ; he did not brief me as to the break-in. He 
only informed me of the telephone call from Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Weicker. So it is your testimony that at no time while in 
California were you briefed — Mr. Mardian has to speak for himself — 
were you briefed by Mr. Magruder as to the details of the break-in ? 

Mr. LaRue. No; other than the details of Mr. Liddy 's telephone 
call. 

Senator Weicker. How many meetings did you have — do you re- 
member how many meetings you had on June 17? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me. Senator. I didn't hear the question. 

Senator Weicker. Can you tell me how many meetings you had 
on June 17 with Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mardian? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I could not recall any specific number of meet- 
ings or really meetings in a formal sense. I think I have stated that 
I met with Mr. Mitchell initially and gave him the information about 
the Liddy phone call. I later met with — as I recall, with Mr. Mitch- 
ell and Mr. Mardian and Mr. Magruder in which the instructions were 
given or request made to get in touch with Mr. Kleindienst. Shortly 
after that we left, went to another hotel for a whole series of political 



2336 

meetings and didn't return back to our hotel until rather late that 
afternoon. There was a meeting or, I guess, a couple of meetings in 
which a press response was drafted and, you know, to the best of my 
recollection that is pretty well the meetings that I recall. 

Senator Weicker. When you say the details of the Liddy call, and 
I excuse myself if I don't recall testimony that vou s:ave yesterday, 
did that fully describe what had happened at the Watergate? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, to the extent that there had been a break-in at the 
Democratic National Committee, five men were involved, had been ap- 
prehended, and one of the men was James McCord. 

Senator Weicker. But aside from that you were not briefed at all 
on June 17 by Mr. Magruder? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir; not to my recollection, no. 

Senator Weicker. Were you briefed by Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my recollection ; no. 

Senator Weicker. How about on the 18th of June? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. Mr. Magruder — as I recall, Senator, Mr. Ma- 
gruder left California the morning of the 18th. 

Senator Weicker. Now, just one last group of questions. Am I cor- 
rect when I understand that during the months of July and August, 
you did meet with Mr. Magruder and he did give you the details of 
the break-in ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Both before and during, he gave you a full briefing 
during that period of time? 

Mr. LaRue. During that period of time, yes, sir: Mr. Mafrruder 
recounted to me the same thing that he has testified to before this 
committee concerninp- his knowledore of the break-in — his involvement. 

Senator Weicker. Did you tell Mr. Mitchell everything that Mr. Ma- 
gruder told you? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I do not. know ; I cannot sav that I told Mr. 
Mitchell everythin.<r thnt Mr. Ma(?ruder told me. I have had many 
conversations with Mr. Mitchell concerning the Watergate, concerning 
my conversations with Mr. Magruder. As to whether I specifically 
outlined evervthing Mr. Magruder told me, I cannot say. 

Senator Weicker. I think it is verv important to trv to refresh 
your recollection on that point. May I point out to you that when 
you returned on June 19, you met with Mr. Mitchell every day that 
following week, that you had as many as four meetings per dav. You 
met with Mitchell everv dav the next week, except when Mr. Mitchell 
was in New York, including a lentrthv meetinc: before Mitchell saw 
the President and re=:igned on June 30, and that vou met with Mr. 
Mitchell everv day for the next week up until Julv 14, with two 
exceptions. This makes a total of 36 meetings over the course of 18 
days. 

Now, T can understand how you could not go ahead and reconstruct 
the details of each individual meotinq-. There are just too many meet- 
inp-s. But I certainly think vou are able to tell us or should be able to 
tell us jery clearly as to what the thrust of these meetinofs were and 
what information was criven to IVTr. ISfitchell. So T would prefer to ask 
mv nuestion of you, not the details of anv specific dav or any specific 
meeting, but exactlv the details of 38 meetings in 18 days. 

Was it during this period of time — let me trv to be precipe — was it 
during this period of time that vou informed Mr. Mitchell of Mr. 
]\Tagruder's knowledge as imparted to you ? 



2337 

Mr. LaRue. I am sure that part of this was imparted during this 
time frame. These meetings, as I recall, Senator, covered a very wide 
range of subjects, some related to the Watergate, some not. There was 
still an ongoing campaign at this time and there were many discussions 
relating to campaign matters. There were also many discussions relat- 
ing to the Watergate. We had discussions regarding our response to 
the civil litigation, discussions regarding the ongoing investigation of 
the Watergate incident itself. I am sorry, I just cannot specifically 
recall any meeting that any specific information may have been 
discussed. I just cannot remember. 

Senator Weicker. Well, as I said, I am not asking you to perform 
miraculous feats insofar as any particular meeting, not when they 
occur with the consistency that they do in your case with Mr. Mitchell. 
But as I have indicated to you, insofar as the general time period in a 
number of meetings, I think you should be able to recall with a little 
more specificity as to what was discussed. 

Let me ask you. You say that the civil suit was of concern to you. 
I keep on hearing this, that we were involved in the civil litigation. 
Were not lawyers hired for this particular duty ? 

Mr. LaEue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I would imagine that probably was their 
principal concern. "Wliy would it be your principal concern? 

Mr. LaRue. Primarily, Senator, because, as a part of this, of the 
legal processes of civil litigation, we were confronted with the possi- 
bility of depositions and discovery proceedings which could have led 
to very embarrassing revelations at this time. 

Senator Weicker. All right; two very brief points: On June 20, 
1972, were you and Mr. ]Mardian instructed the night before to inter- 
view Liddy? Were you instructed on the night of the 19th by Mr. 
JNIitchell to interview Liddy ? 

Mr, LaRue. I was never instructed to interview Liddy. Senator. 
As I testified yesterday, Mr. Mardian came to me, asked if he could 
borrow the key — use my apartment. He wanted to interview Mr. 
Liddy — have a meeting with Mr. Liddy. I told him yes. He asked me 
for my keys, which I gave him. Then, at that point, he said, "You 
might as well come with me." 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

And when did you interview Liddy ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall, it was the afternoon of January 20 — I mean 
June 20. 

Senator Weicker. June 20 in the afternoon, this is when the briefing 
took place, is that correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And did you then return and brief Mr. Mitchell 
in the later afternoon of the 20th ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my recollection, yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And at that briefing of Mr. Mitchell, was the 
information which you imparted to him a rather complete accounting 
as to Watergate and the events that led up to Watergate ? 

Mr. LaRue. I would say it was a rather complete accounting of 
Mr. Liddy's — of the discussions we had had with Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Weicker. Now, on Mr. Mitchell's logs, it has you meeting 
at around 8 in the evening with Mr. Mitchell on the 20th. Would that 
be the time when you returned to give him your report ? 



2338 



Mr. LaRue. That would- 



Senator Weicker, Roughly. 

Mr. LaRue. That would roughly fit into the proper time period, yes, 
sir. 

Senator Weicker. The same logs indicate a phone call to the Presi- 
dent at around 6 o'clock. Were you in the room when Mr. Mitchell 
called the President ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do not recall being there when he called the President. 

Senator Weicker. And then the only other date would be that of 
June 30, the day that John Mitchell resigned as campaign chairman. 
I gather he had a meeting with you at 9 :35 in the morning that he 
resigned. Is that correct ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, that would be — as I recall, it would be the 
approximate time of a meeting I had. 

Senator Weicker. And you were joined by Mr. Mardian? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. Mr. Mardian and Mr. Magruder, as 
I recall. 

Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Mitchell indicate to you that he was 
going to meet with the President and resign ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I may be confused on the time frame. The 
meeting I am referring to with Mr. Mitchell occurred on the day that 
Mr. Mitchell's resignation was announced. Is this what we are talking 
about? 

Senator Weicker. Yes ; I am talking about June 30, which was the 
day that Mr. Mitchell resigned. I am referring to his logs, which in 
effect have meetings with you at 8 :35 and with Mr. Mardian joining 
you at 9 :45, and then have Mr. Mitchell meeting with the President 
at 12 :30 in the afternoon. 

Mr. LaRue. I am straightened out to the time now. Wliat was your 
question. Senator? 

Senator Weicker. My question was whether or not Mr. Mitchell 
discussed with you and Mardian his resignation ? 

Mr. LaRue. Not at that time. Mr. Mitchell discussed his resignation 
with me late that afternoon. 

Senator Weicker. After he had talked with the President? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Well, what did he talk with you about before 
he went in to see the President? And this is a rather significant day, 
I would imagine, the day of his resignation. 

Mr. LaRue. His resignation — he did not discuss his resignation 
with me or at that meeting. 

Senator Weicker. You had no idea he was going to resign? 

JNfr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. LaRue, I have been impressed by the testimonial 
trustworthiness of your testimony. I cannot refrain from saying I 
think that you have pursued the right course, and you have the benefit 
of what anyone in trouble needs the most, and that is the services of 
a lawyer whose legal learning, wisdom, and intellectual integrity en- 
able him to serve the best interests of his clients in the finest way. 

Now, I want to ask you a few questions: As I understand it, you 
know that prior to the break-in of the Democratic national head- 
quarters in the Watergate that the proposal of G. Gordon Liddy to 
commit burglary and bugging on the Democratic national head- 



2339 

quarters was discussed by and between John Mitchell, the director of 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President, and his deputy director, 
Jeb Magruder, don't you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You also know that at the meeting, that this dis- 
cussion occurred in your presence at the meeting in Key Biscayne, 
between Mitchell, Magruder, and you? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. You also state that you know you disapproved of 
the project not on moral grounds but on the grounds that the risk of 
carrying out the project was too great. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I would like to clarify that, if I may. 

My statement was that I considered that — did not consider the plan 
worth the risk. However, I think inherent in that statement are the 
moral considerations and the legal considerations. If it was not mor- 
ally wrong or if it was not legally wrong there would be no risk 
involved. 

(Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Now, you also know that John Mitchell did not disapprove of the 
project at that meeting, in your presence? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my recollection. Senator ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. He said that that was a matter that did not have to 
be determined or decided at that meeting. 

Mr. LaRue. That is to the best of my recollection, yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you are not able to either affirm or disaffirm 
tliat John Mitchell subsequently by word or wink or nod conducted 
himself in such a way as to give Magruder the impression that Mitchell 
had approved it ? 

Mr. LaRue. I can only state that he did not conduct himself in such 
a way in my presence. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Now, if I understand your evidence correctly, before 
tlie 17th of June, 1972, Jeb Magruder did assert in your presence some- 
thing that you contraverted and that was that John Mitchell had 
approved of the Liddy proposal at the meeting in Key Biscayne ? 

Mr. LaRue. Did you say prior to June 17 ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I thought you said you and he had some discussion. 

Mv. LaRue. This would be subsequent to June 17, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Subsequent to June 17 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I am sorry I was mistaken as to the date on it. 

Well, anyway, at some time you were present in Magruder's office 
Avhen he received a phone call from Charles Colson of the Wliite House 
staff in which Colson wanted him to expedite the Liddy budget. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, as I testified yesterday, to the best of my recol- 
lection, this was a conversation which Mr. Magruder and I had subse- 
quent to June 17. We were speculating on who may have had knowledge 
of the Watergate incident, and during this conversation Mr. Magruder 
related to me the phone call he had had from Mr. Colson requesting 
action on the Liddy budget. But I have no recollection of being in the 
office when that phone call was made. 

Senator Er\t[N. Well, just to clarify the thing, you had no knowl- 
edge of any burglary proposal or bugging proposal prior to the l7th 



2340 

day of June except that which you got in the meeting with Magruder 
and Mitchell at Key Biscayne? 

Mr. LaRtje. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Now, you, Mardian, and Mitchell were in Los 
Angeles, Calif., when the news broke that the five men, including the 
security chief for the Committee To Re-Elect the President, had been 
caught redhanded in the act of burglary in the Watergate, Democratic 
national headquarters, didn't you ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. On that day and shortly after that news came — 
Magruder said something to the effect that that was the night that 
Liddy was supposed to or the Liddy plan was supposed to be imple- 
mented in respect to the burglary of the Watergate ? 

Mr. LaRue. He indicated that to me ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Now, shortly thereafter the news came in the press 
by the media of communications that not only had five burglai-s been 
caught in the Watergate, but that four of them had money in their 
pockets at the time which had come from the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President, directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I can't recall exactly when the revelations of 
the — or the tracing of the money back to the committee appeared in 
the press. I don't know if it appeared in the press that day or not; I 
just don't recall. 

Senator Ervin. Well, it didn't appear on that day but within a 
period of some days or a few weeks ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And naturally you became concerned with the pos- 
sibility that the persons charged Avith enforcing the criminal law might 
undertake to trace this money, and trace criminality from the Water- 
gate into the Committee To Re-Elect the President ? 

]\f r. LaRue. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And after you and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. JNIardian 
and Mr. Magruder had returned to Washington, you all had, together 
with Mr. Dean, almost daily conversations among yourselves with 
i-espect to the dilemma which had been posed by this tragic event? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. And you all were concerned with the reelection of 
the President, President Nixon, and you felt, and so agreed among 
yourselves, that it might have tragic repercussions of the responsibility 
for this burglary was traced by the public or by the press or prosecut- 
ing attorneys into the Committee To Re-Elect the President ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, T can't recall any meetings or discussions with 
these individuals in which that was discussed. I can only say that cer- 
tainlv I had this concern, and this is what motivated my actions. 

Senator Ervin. Well, don't you know from your conversations with 
Mr. INIitcliell, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Magmder that they also 
shared that concern? 

Mr. LaRue. T would assume they did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes; and so it was either expressly or impliedly 
ogreed among you all, that is ]\Ir. Mitchell, INIr. Mardian, Mr. 
Magruder, Mr. Dean, and yourself, that you would do ever^^thing in 
your power to keep any infomiation about any connection between the 
burglary and the Committee To Re-Elect the President a secret. 



2341 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, that, as I say, is what motivated my actions 
and that certainly ^Yas my impression of what I was doing. As far as 
the other individuals, I just can't speak for them. 

Senator Ervix. "Well, you had conversations with them, you say, 
about this matter almost daily. 

]Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Ervin. For weeks ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, but I do not recall any conversation in which 
I said 

Senator Ervix. I am not asking what you said in the conversation. 
I am just asking you if you do not know, and if you do not infer in 
your own mind and know in youi" own mind from conversations with 
the others whom I have mentioned that they shared your desire to keep 
from the public and keep from the press and keep from prosecuting 
attorneys knowledge of the events that had happened in connection 
with this matter in the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. LaRue. That would be my inference, Senator; yes, sir. 

Senator ER\^x. Yes, sir. 

Now, was it not also in an effort to — or did you not apprehend that 
there was danger that some of the five burglars and that there was 
danger that Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt, after they were arrested, might 
in the common parlance, "spill the beans" about this matter? 

Mr. LaRue. Did I have an apprehension about that ? 

Senator Ervix. Yes. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervix. And so, thereupon, you joined other persons con- 
nected with the Committee To Re-Elect the President in an effort 
to finance these people pending their trials and finance their legal 
defense? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, yes, I engaged in such activity, as I have 
testified here previously. 

Senator Ervix. And you know that some $400,000 was furnished 
directly or indirectly at the instance of members of the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President, if not at the instance of aides in the "VVliite 
House, to the families and counsel for these seven Watergate de- 
fendants ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. Senator; yes. 

Senator Ervix. And how much of this money did you yourself pay 
or deliver to any of these defendants or their counsel? 

Mr. LaRue [conferring with counsel]. As I add up these figures, 
Senator, I come up with a figure of $242,000. 

Senator Ervix. Now, was that additional to money that was 
delivered to them through the arrangements with Kalmbach and 
Ulasewicz ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervix. And as a result of this we had a situation which 
arose which is calculated as to pollute justice, that is, the prosecution 
of these seven men was in the hands of men who held offices at the 
pleasure of the President, and the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi- 
dent was furnishing the money to pay the lawyers who were sup- 
posed to defend these men ; is that not true ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir, that is true. 

Senator Ervix. And that kind of a situation is enough to make 
justice weep, is it not ? 



2342 

Mr. LaRue. I agree with that, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Now, INIr. Liddy had assured yon and Mr. INIardian in the meeting 
that yon had in your apartment in which Mv. Liddy told about his 
actions, and that he, Liddy, had conducted himself so that no traces 
connecting anybody would lead to any persons other than the seven 
people indicted ? 

Mr. LaEue. No; he assured us, Senator, that it would not lead 
beyond the five people w^ho had gotten caught. 

Senator Ervin. Would not lead beyond the five? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Now, in addition to pursuing a policy of secrecy in respect to the 
knowledge possessed by you and in addition to paying money to the 
lawyers and the defendants and their families, a movement also arose 
in the Committee To Re-Elect the President to manufacture a story to 
explain how it was that Magruder had paid $199,000 to Liddy, was it 
not? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, Senator. There was a story evolved, a so-called 
protective story. This story was the product of Mr. Magruder's efforts. 
I do not recall anyone else at the committee urging Mr. Ma.<rruder to 
come up with this story or, in fact, helping him come up with it. My 
understanding, my recollection of the facts is that Mr. Magruder 
evolved this story himself. 

Senator Ervin. So Mr. Magruder came up with the story that he 
told you that he was prepared to go before the grand iury and testify 
that he had ^ven Liddy far less than the $199,000, did he not? 

Mr. LaRue. No, Senator, I do not think he ever told me that he was 
prepared to do that. There was a discussion, an initial discussion, 
early after the break-in, as to how much money was given Mr. Liddy, 
and I think there was an honest difference of opinion as to how much 
money this was and ultimately, INIr. Sloan furnished us with what I 
consider, or I assume, is the correct fisrure, the $199,000. 

Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Magruder did in substance inform you 
that he, Magruder, was prepared to commit perjury if necessary to 
prevent the complicity- — from leading him to disclose that there was 
complicity in this matt^er in the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. And nobody, so far as you know, attempted to dis- 
suade him from that course of action ? 

Mr. LaRue. I did not. Senator, and I know of no one else attempting 
to dissuade him. 

Senator Ervin. Now, after Liddy made a revelation to you and 
Mardian in your apartment, in this meeting in your apartment, Mar- 
dian informed John Mitchell about what Liddy had said, did he not? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And where did you ^et the money that you paid to 
these Iftwyers, for the benefit of tliese lawyers and their clients? 

Mr. LaRue. $81,000 came from the Committee To Re-Ele«t the 
President. 

Senator Ervin. And where did the remainder come from ? 

Mr. LaRue. $80,000 came from Mr. ITlasewicz; $330,000 came from 
Mr. Strachan, and there was a $14,000 contribution from Mr. 
Babcock. 



2343 

Senator Ervin. Well, do you know whether or not that $300,000 
that came from ISIr. Strachan was a part of the $350,000 which Mr. 
Strachan had carried in a briefcase from the offices of the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President to Mr. Bob Haldeman in the White House ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my understandino;, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. How did you find out that this $300,000 was 
available ? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I was aware of the $350,000 fund in the White 
House and when there was a need for funds for my activities, I in- 
quired of Mr. Mitchell whether it would be possible to use this money 
for these purposes, and he suggested that I take this up with Mr. Dean, 
which I did. Subsequently, these moneys were made available. 

Senator Ervin. And this $300,000 was all handled in a cash trans- 
action ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And it was common knowledge — that is, knowledge 
on your part and Mr. Dean's and apparently, Mr. Mitchell's — that 
Mr. Bob Haldeman, the chief of staff for the Pr^ident, had in the 
White House somewhere in excess of $300,000 in cash, which he had 
received through Mr. Strachan from the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President. 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I was aware of the money in the White House. 
As to who controlled it or who actually had possession of it, I did not 
know. I had no knowledge of that. 

Senator Ervin. You didn't have any knowledge of what? 

Mr. LaRue. As to who actually had possession of the money or who 
controlled it, I did not have that knowledge. 

Senator Ervin. Didn't Mr. Strachan tell you, or Mr. Dean? 

Mr. LaRue. Senator, I can't recall any conversation with Mr. Dean 
in which he outlined who controlled this fund or who had possession 
of it. It was just always referred to as White House money. 

Senator Ervin. Well, don't you agree with me that it would have 
been far more appropriate to have kept this money in the bank rather 
than in the White House ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, Senator, I guess it would be more appropriate. My 
understanding is that the money was originally transferred to the 
White House for their own private polling purposes. As to the appro- 
priate — how appropriate this is, I really didn't give it much consid- 
eration at that time. 

Senator Ervin. Well, don't you agree, in light of hindsight, that it 
was not very appropriate to use money contributed to elect the Presi- 
dent to keep burglars silent ? 

Mr. LaRue. I will agree with that. Senator ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. T can't resist the temptation to philosophize just a 
little bit about the Watergate. 

The evidence thus far introduced or presented before this commit- 
tee tends to show that men upon whom fortune had smiled benevolently 
and who possessed great financial power, great political power, and 
great governmental power, undertook to nullify the laws of man and 
the laws of God for the purpose of gaining what history will call a very 
temporary political advantage. 

The evidence also indicates that the efforts to nullify the laws of man 
might have succeeded if it had not been for a courageous Federal judge, 
Judge Sirica, and a very untiring set of investigative reporters. But 

96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 9 



2344 

you come from a State like the State of Mississippi, where they have 
great faith in the fact that the laws of God are embodied in the King 
James version of the Bible, and I think that those who participated in 
this effort to nullify the laws of man and the laws of God overlooked 
one of the laws of God which is set forth in the seventh verse of the 
sixth chapter of Galatians : 

Be not deceived. God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall 
he also reap. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, whatever few mundane questions I might 
have to follow up I don't believe I really need to ask, and I think the 
record is complete. I have no further questions. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I can't resist the temptation. 
[Laughter.] 

I have already been cautioned that my analogy to the revised stand- 
ard version instead of the King James version may be controversial, so 
I will refrain from that. 

But I might just say, Mr. Chairman, that, as we have with other wit- 
nesses, I want to thank Mr. LaRue for his testimony. I think it is 
unique. I think it is useful. I think it is important. I think that it is 
in conflict and in corroboration with other testimony that we have 
received. At some point, the committee will have to turn its attention, 
presumably, to the matter of weighing the evidence, if we can't rec- 
oncile those conflicts, in deciding where the truth lies. We will turn 
to whatever sources of information we can receive or gain access to in 
that respect. 

But I think we ought to conclude with this witness as we have with 
others, by saying, you have made a valuable contribution to the rec- 
ord, and for my part, we are grateful for it. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LaRtje. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to order at this time, if there is no ob- 
jection on the part of any member of the committee, that xeroxed 
copies of the correspondence which Mr. Vinson has furnished the 
committee be printed at the appropriate point in the record. 

[The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 88.*] 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Vinson, do you have a statement? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, if the committee will indulge me for about 2 
minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have the transcript of yesterday's hearing 
and there is one matter I should straighten out before Mr. LaRue 
departs. 

On page 4579, Mr. Dash asked a question : 

As a matter of fact, it is quite possible that you were out of the room at cer- 
tain times? 

This refers to the March 30 Key Biscayne meeting, which we have 
heard so much about. 

Mr. LaRue. That is a possibility. I have no recollection of that. 

Mr. LaRue told me this morning that he was replying in the time 
frama of the discussion of the memorandum about the Liddy plan. In 
fact, as Mr. LaRue had told the staff previously, he has a specific recol- 
lection of being in and out of the room several other times, may have 
been out of the room, has no specific recollection at this time. 

♦See p. 2635. 



2345 

Senator Ervin. Well, thank you very much. 

Mr. LaRue, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for 
the complete cooperation which you have given the committee at this 
time. 

Mr. LaRue. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Vinson. Tliank you. Senator, for your courtesies, and the staff. 

Senator Ervin. You are excused now. 

Mr. LaRue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Counsel will call the next witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Robert C. Mardian will please come to the witness 
table. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Mardian, will you stand up and raise your right 
hand ? Do you swear that the evidence that 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 Grod? 

Mr. INIardian. I do. 

Senator Ervin. Will you please state your full name and your resi- 
dence for the record ? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. MARDIAN, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID 

BRESS, COUNSEL 

Mr. Mardian. My name is Robert C. Mardian. My address is 2323 
North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Ariz. 

Senator Ervin. I observe that you are accompanied by counsel. Will 
counsel please identify himself for the purposes of the record ? 

Mr. Bress. My name is David Bress. I am a lawyer in Washington, 
D.C. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. James Hamilton, assistant chief coun- 
sel, will ask the questions of this witness. 

JNIr. Hamilton. Mr. Bress, I understand that you have a brief state- 
ment that you want to make before you begin. 

Mr. Bress. Yes, Mr. Hamilton. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mardian has conferred on two occasions with 
the U.S. attorney's office in May 1973 before his appearance before 
the grand iury on May 7. In those conferences and grand jury ap- 
pearance, Mr. Mardian at no time asserted any constitutional priv- 
ilege he might have, and he asserts none today. 

He did, however, on my advice, assert the attorney-client privilege 
insofar as questions related to conversations he had with Mr. Liddy 
on June 21, 1972. But as to all other attorney -client communications 
with other persons no privilege was asserted because we were satis- 
fied that such other persons had waived the privilege. Accordingly, 
by prearrangement with the U.S. attorney's office, when questions were 
propounded before the grand jury relating to his communications 
with Mr. Liddy, all counsel proceeded to Judge Sirica's court on the 
same day and argued the matter. After taking it under advisement 
the court ordered the questions to be answered and this was done. 

Later, Mr. Mardian spent 2 days conferring with the staff of this 
committee on June 1 and July 14, 1973. All questions were fully an- 
swered, and he now stands ready to answer any further questions after 
he makes a short introductory statement, a copy of which has been 
furnished to the staff. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you, Mr. Bress. 



2346 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chainnan, could I ask a question to make sure I 
fully understand the burden of counsel's statement? Is it insisted that 
there is an existing extant attorney -client privilege between the wit- 
ness and Mr. Liddy that is ascribed today ? 

Mr. Bress. No, sir; I have made the point that the attorney-client 
privilege was asserted but that we feel bound by the determination on 
that question by Judge Sirica on May 7, the day when he appeared 
before the grand jury and we will comply with that ruling so that no 
privilege on the attorney-client basis is being asserted today in any 
form. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. You may read your statement. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you. I was born in Pasadena, Calif., October 
23, 1923. I graduated from law school in 1949, and from that time in 
to 1969, except for my involvement in my family business in Phoenix, 
Ariz., I was engaged either in private practice or as general counsel, 
from 1962 to 1969, for a financial institution. 

In 1969 I was appointed general coimsel for the U.S. Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare, which title I held imtil September 
1970. During the period commencing January 1970 and until No- 
vember 1970, I was also the Executive Director of the Cabinet Com- 
mittee on Education, which was charged with the responsibility of 
of implementing the administration's school desegregation policies, 
principally in the Southern States. 

From November 1970 until May of 1972, I was Assistant Attorney 
General, Internal Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Commencing May 1, 1972, until the election, I was employed at the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President. On November 10, 1972, we 
moved from Washington, D.C., and we have, since that time, resided 
in Phoenix, Ariz., where I have been engaged in business with my 
three brothers. 

Almost from the beginning of my tenure at the Justice Department 
there were rumors in the press and other public media that the At- 
torney General, John Mitchell, would leave the Department of Justice 
sometime in 1971 to head the 1972 Presidential campaign. There 
were also rumors starting in the fall of 1971 that I would be leaving 
the Justice Department to assist Mr. Mitchell in the campaign effort. 

I do not recall discussing with Mr. Mitchell his intentions regarding 
the campaign until the fall of 1971. As best as I can recall, he told me 
that it had not been finally decided whether or not he would be 
heading up the campaign eiffort. I cannot recall discussing my pos- 
sible involvement in the campaign with him until sometime in Janu- 
ary of 1972. 1 had agreed with my wife, prior to that time, to leave the 
administration at the end of the President's first term. In anticipation 
of this, we took advantage of an opportunity to sell our home in 
McLean, Va., in January 1972, and moved into an apartment in 
Washington. 

Although I had never discussed with Mr. INIitchell mv specific role 
in the campaign, I agreed in February of 1972 to accept Mr. Mitchell's 
invitation to join the campaign organization, which I did on May 1, 
1972. 

I was, as has been testified to, appointed originally as a campaign 
coordinator, but with respect to the events which are subject of this 
committee's inquiry, I should point out that I had not in my capacity 



2347 

as one of the political coordinators or otherwise been consulted, ad- 
vised, or favored with any information relating to the "dirty tricks" 
campaign which has now come to light, much less given even a hint 
of any proposed burglary or electronic surveillance. I was not included 
until my help was needed as a lawyer and, if I make no other point in 
this brief prefatory statement, I would like it in the record that as of 
the morning of June 17, 1972, 1 was relieved of my political responsi- 
bilities to the extent possible and charged with the responsibility of 
acting as counsel to the committee, at least as far as Watergate was 
concerned. I accepted this responsibility with the understanding that 
I would obtain the assistance of independent legal counsel and that 
I would be relieved of this legal responsibility when they were suffi- 
ciently acquainted with the facts to handle the matter. 

I should also like to make it clear that I was, and probably still 
am, one of the attorneys of record in the litigation pending between 
the Democratic National Committee and the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President, and others. Thus, it was as a lawyer, not as a political 
associate, that those persons confided in me and that this was made 
clear to me, not by implication, but by express statement. And that it 
was as a lawyer and not as a political protege that I agreed to maintain 
the fiduciary obligation not to disclose that which was confided in me. 
If this be the basis of the broadbrush charge of "coverup," then it is 
a charge that every lawyer must, under our adversary system of 
criminal justice — a system that requires a lawyer to respect the con- 
fidence of his client until waived by the client, no matter how helpful 
it might be to the lawyer to disclose. I adhered to this principle in 
seeking a court ruling on the attorney-client privilege before testifying 
in May before the grand jury. In the light of the court's ruling and the 
waivers resulting from t:he testimony of others, I feel no constraints 
now and can fully discuss the facts with which I am familiar without 
causing the public or the bar to feel that I have not fully adhered to 
the duty of a lawyer to respect his client's confidence. 

I would also like to say at this point that the information that I 
received on the morning of June 17 and June 21 was the most shock- 
ing experience in my entire legal career. 

The facts thus learned thrust me into a situation which I can only 
compare, in terms of personal anxiety, to being caught in quicksand. 
Commencing the morning of June 17, 1972, information was imparted 
to me bit by bit, much of it contradictory, which drew me inexorably 
into an intolerable and, at times, unbearable situation of personal con- 
science — a situation in which I was precluded from acting according 
to the dictates of my personal desires or interests. A situation in which 
ultimately my only hope was the selfish one of not becoming impli- 
cated in the conduct of others who I felt it my duty to serve, 

I am not at all sure of the exact sequence of events, or all the times, 
places, and parties present, but I shall attempt to relate, as fairly 
and as candidly as I can, the history of Watergate as I learned it. 

That concludes my statement, and I am prepared to answer your 
questions. 

Mr. Hamiltoist. Thank you, Mr. Mardian. 

Now, you stated in your statement that you are now engaged in a 
family business? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. And I wish you would identify what business this 
is for the record and state your position with this business. 



2348 

Mr. Mardian. The business is Mardian Construction Co., and I am 
a vice president of Mardian Construction Co. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is that in Phoenix? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, by way of background, Mr. Mardian, did you 
participate in the Presidential campaign of 1968 in Mr. Nixon's behalf ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what duties did you have in this campaign ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was the western regional director for the campaign 
and had the responsibility for liaison in the Western States, 

Mr. Hamilton. And how many States did that entail, Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. Mardian. It varied; originally, it was 6 and I believe later it 
was 12. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, after the election, as you have testified, you 
joined the new administration. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. You have already given us your Government posi- 
tions and your tenure in each, so I do not want to dwell on that, but I 
do want to ask you several questions about your Government 
experience. 

Now, while you were heading the Internal Security Division, did 
you have responsibility for the prosecution of the criminal case against 
br.Ellsberg? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Hamilton. And were you also given in the spring of 1972 the 
task of guiding the Kleindienst nomination through the Senate ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. During your Government experience did you work 
closely with John Mitchell? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. And do you still maintain a close relationship with 
John Mitchell? 

Mr. Mardian. My relationship was a close professional-personal 
relationship. I have not maintained, I still consider him my friend 
but I have not talked to Mr. Mitchell or seen Mr. Mitchell since the 
inaugural. I believe I talked to him on the telephone at or about that 
time in connection with an appointment. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, I believe in your statement you testified that 
on the first of INIav you joined the reelection committee, is that correct? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton, And did you come to the reelection committee at 
John Mitchell's behest ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, excepting any functions that you later re- 
ceived in regard to the Waterfi:ate matters, could you tell us what 
your major duties were at the Committee To Re-Elect the President, 
and would you also tell us what the official titles of your positions 
were ? 

Mr. INIardian. When I first got there the situation was in a — I can 
only describe it as a state of confusion, and I had no title. I had 
assumed, and I think in fairness I should say that this assumption 
was purely subjective on my part, that I was going to the committee 
to be Mr. Mitchell's deputy. When I got there there wasn't even an 



2349 

office for me, and it wasn't until — I don't know when it was in the 
point of time, that a memorandum was sent to me indicating that I, 
along with four other people, would be appointed as political 
coordinators. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you maintain the position of political coordina- 
tor during your entire stay at the committee or did you subsequently 
have a change in title ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe after — it may have been after the conven- 
tion I am not sure ; it may have been after Mr. MacGregor, I believe 
I was named special assistant or assistant to the campaign director, 
I am not quite sure on the timing of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Could you give us in a nutshell your duties in re- 
gard to the campaign, excluding, as I said before, those that you 
took on in regard to Watergate ? 

Mr. Mardian. As I have tried to indicate, there were organizational 
problems at the committee when I got there, and the title campaign 
coordinator was never really defined for me. I devoted. most of my 
time in the 5 or 6 weeks before Watergate to primarily the political 
organizations in the Western States, much the same as I had done 
in 1968. 

]SIr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, you said in your statement that you 
had no knowledge of the plans and activities that led to the break-in 
at the Democratic National Committee headquarters on the 17th of 
June. Did you, prior to June 17, 1972, have knowledge of any covert 
intelligence plans or operations that had as their purpose the gather- 
ing of information for political purposes ? 

Mr. Mardian. None whatsoever, and I have been involved in nu- 
merous campaigns and it's the first time I have ever heard of this 
type of activity in a campaign. It may have gone on, but I never 
was aware of it. 

Mr. Hamilton. ^AHien did you first learn of the break-in at the 
Democratic headquarters ? 

Mr. Mardian. On the morning of June 17. 

Mv. Hamilton. And where were you at the time ? 

Mr. IVIardian. I was at the Airporter Hotel in Englewood, Calif. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you please relate to the committee in some de- 
tail how you were first informed of the break-in and what details you 
were told at that time ? 

Mr. Mardian. I had made arrangements to have Mr. Mitchell meet 
with the party people and the CRP people in California. It was a large 
meeting, scheduled, the initial meeting, at 11 o'clock that morning witli 
a joint meeting of the various county chairmen from the two organiza- 
tions, the regular party organization and the CRP. 

We were on our way to the hotel, from one hotel to the other; we 
were following a limousine in which Mr. Mitchell and Governor 
Reagan were riding and present with me were the national committee- 
man from California, Mr. INIagruder, and Mr. LaRue; and Mr. Magru- 
der told me in the car on the way to the Airporter that he had a slight 
PR problem he wished to discuss with me. [Laughter.] 

I suggested to Mr. Magruder if it was a PR problem that he was 
better able to handle it than I was. I had arranged the meeting, and I 
knew most of the people there, and Mr. Mitchell didn't. He told me 



2350 

that it was a PR problem that required a lawyer. I attempted to 
elicit from him in the car what it was, and he indicated, I believe 
more by gesture, that he could not speak in the presence of the national 
committeeman from California. When we arrived at the Airporter 
Hotel, and I believe it was aromid 11 o'clock, or sometime, a few 
minutes before, Mr. Magruder detained me and said that it was essen- 
tial that he brief me on his PR problem, and that ]\Ir. Mitchell had 
told him to tell me to forget the meeting until I got the information 
he was to impart to me. 

I don't know for sure where this briefing took place. I have heard 
the testimony of witnesses and it is hard to remember what I have 
heard here and what occurred, but, to the best of my recollection, we 
went to a banquet room immediately adjoining the large meeting room 
where the political meeting was to take place. I thought that Mr. LaRue 
was with us; I heard his testimony this morning, which would indi- 
cate that possibly he wasn't. My recollection is that Mr. LaRue was 
present when Mr. Magruder briefed me. 

He told me that he had had a call — again my recollection originally 
was that it was from Mr. Odle, it is now that it was from Mr. Liddy, 
Mr. Odle did call me about the Watergate subsequently — that he had 
had this call from Mr. Liddy and he had been informed that Mr. 
McCord, who was the security officer for the committee, along with 
five Cuban- Americans, maybe four, I am not sure, had been arrested in 
a break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters. 

He told me that the people arrested all had fake ID cards, which Mr. 
Hunt had procured for them from the CIA, and that although they 
were incarcerated the identities of the accused were not known. 

He told me that, I guess in response to mv question of how and why, 
he told me that Mr. Liddy was some kind of a nut; he should have 
suspected that something like this would happen; he regretted that 
he had not insisted on firing him when he attempted to some weeks or 
months before. I believe there was more that he told me and that it ig 
difficult to recall extemporaneously now. 

Oh. I believe that came later. I have ffiven testimony to the staff on 
two occasions and I may have left somethina: out. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, Mr. Mardian, did there come a time later that 
afternoon when you had a further discussion with INIr. Mitchell and 
Mr. Magruder and Mr. LaRue as to the details of the events surround- 
ing the break- in ? 

Mr. Mardimst. Counsel has just reminded me there was one other 
thing that I was informed of at that time. That was that this was — 
I am sorry. May I 

Mr. Hamilton. If you would like to answer mv previous question, 
go ahead. In other words, about your first information of the break-in. 

Mr. Mardian. He also told me, I believe, that this was not the firet 
break-in of the Democratic national headquarters. 

Mr. Hainitlton. Did Mr. Magnider tell you the source of his infor- 
mation that this was not the first break-in ? 

Mr. :M.\rdian. IMr. Liddy. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, did there como a time latei' that afternoon 
when you had a fuT-ther discussion on the events surrounding the 
break-in with Mv. INIitchell and Magnider and LaRue ? 



2351 

Mr. Mardian. Yes; and here again, when we say Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
Magnider, and Mr. LaRue, I can't say for sure that all parties were 
present at all times. I do recall a discussion with these gentlemen or 
some of them. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Wliat further facts did you learn in this discussion ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know Avhen I learned it, but I learned it soon 
after we left the Airporter. As I recall, there were a series of meetings 
starting at 11 o'clock and ending — my memory in this regard is based 
solely on the schedule, a copy of which you and your staff furnished 
me or the U.S. attorneys fuinished me. Mr. Mitchell — the last event on 
the schedule was a press conference at 1 :30. 1 believe that press confer- 
ence must have lasted a half hour or so, and assuming we got back to 
the Beverly Hills Hotel at 2 :30 or thereabouts, I would guess, maybe 
2 :45 ; I am not quite sure. 

I learned soon after we got back — it could have been in the car, but 
I would doubt it, since there was a driver who was a stranger ; it was 
a hired car, a hired limousine — that the purpose, one of the purposes 
of the break-in was to fix a bug that had been previously placed in the 
Democratic national headquarters that was not working. I don't recall 
any more input on the break-in as of that time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, was there a discussion that afternoon about a 
budget that had been approved for dirty tricks and black advance ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; I believe that that was told to me by Mr. Magru- 
der at the Airporter Hotel and, in other words, during that briefing, 
one of the items I think he told me there. Again, I am not certain of 
the sequence of events, but I believe that was the time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I think after 2 months, we know what 
dirty tricks refers to, but could you explain the term "black advance?" 

Mr. Mardian. I will attempt to the best I can. I never heard the 
expression before. I assumed when they told me about it that it was 
for black advance men. I learned, however, that a black advance was 
a counter-advance that was carried on against the opposition candi- 
dates or persons acting on their behalf. In other words, an attempt to 
disrupt the advance schedule of the opposition. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Magruder inform you who had approved 
the budget for dirty tricks and black advance ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. "V\niom did he say ? 

Mr. Mardian. He told me that the budget had been approved by 
Mr. ISIitchell. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Mitchell later that afternoon confirm that 
he had approved such a budget ? 

Mr. Mardian. I would like to put it this way : It is my best recollec- 
tion that I think the subject was discussed and he didn't deny it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Magruder or Mr. Mitchell 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me, but trying to be eminently fair, I am not 
positive that it was discussed, but I feel that it was because I was try- 
ing to get at the fact. I didn't know the facts. I hadn't heard of black 
advance or dirty tricks and it certainly must have come up in the 
discussion. 

And again, it may have come up when Mr. Mitchell wasn't in the 
room. I want to be fair on that point. 



2352 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, what is your best recollection as to whether 
Mr. Mitchell was in the room when that was discussed ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is my best recollection. I am trying to be fair, 
however, "\\nien you ask about meetings and I have heard all types of 
meetings took place in Mr. Mitchell's office and other places. With re- 
spect to Mr. Mitchell's office, any time anybody walked in the room, as 
I understand it, his secretary would log it and that was a meeting. 
Sometimes, you would walk in to see that somebody else was there and 
you would walk out and you attended a meeting. I hate to characterize 
a formal meeting where he sat down and admitted that he had approved 
a black advance budget. That is my best recollection that he was pres- 
ent and that I discussed it. 

Senator Ervin. If counsel would excuse me for interjecting this 
remark at this time, I don't know any way that any human being can 
testify as to a past event except by giving his best recollection. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, while in California, did you receive 
an assignment from Mr. Mitchell regarding the Watergate matter ? 

Mr. Mardian. Could you be more specific ? 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. 

Did Mr. Mitchell assign you to deal with the legal matters that 
might arise in connection with the break-in ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, while in California, did you make 
several telephone calls to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe that my records show that — which I have 
turned over to the committee and these are rex^ords of calls that I turned 
in to the Committee To Re-Elect the President— that I talked to Mr. 
Liddy on three occasions — two occasions — three occasions. The records 
show three and there were three, but one of the ones that the record 
shows was not a call to Mr. Liddy, as I recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember when these calls took place — on 
Saturday or Sunday ? 

Mr. Mardian. The first time I talked to Mr. Liddy, I believe, was 
on Saturday and that was not a call from me to him, but a call from 
him to me, as I recall. It is possible I may have returned the call, but — 
that is my best recollection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you also talk to Mr. Liddy on Sunday ? 

Mr. Mardian. I talked to Mr. Liddy on Sunday twice, as I recall. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, can you give us the best recollection you ha.ve 
of the substance of these three telephone calls? 

INIr. Mardian. The first telephone call was a — ^as I recall — was an 
urgent demand on the part of Mr. Liddy that I return to Washington. 
I had indicated in that call, as I understand it, that Mv. Magruder 
was going to return, that he did not want Mr. Magruder to return, he 
wanted me to return. He was very reluctant to — not only reluctant, he 
refused to use the telephone to discuss anything about Watergate. He 
did, however, make some derogatory remarks about Mr. Magruder. 
That is all I recall about the first teh'phone call. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you go on to the second and the third, please? 

Mr. Mardian. I had told Mr. Liddy about the plans that I heard, 
that Mr. Magruder was going to return. I would communicate with 
Mr. Mitchell, and I will let him know. 



2353 

Mr. Hamilton. And the final telephone call ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, that was the first telephone call. 

The second telephone call, as I recall was when I called to tell him 
that I was not going to return and that Mr. Magruder had left — had 
returned. 

Mr. Hamilton. And what was the final telephone call ? 

Mr. Mardian. The final telephone call was with respect to a call 
I got from Powell Moore. Powell Moore called me on Simday. T pre- 
viously testified that these conversations, I testified originally that 
they were Sunday. I was told that they were on Saturday. I wasn't 
sure. I have now, checking the records of the calls, that these calls 
took place on Sunday. 

Powell Moore called me to tell me of an occurrence the previous 
day. He said that he wanted me to know, for Mr. Mitchell to know, 
that Mr. Liddy had told him in his presence that he had received a 
call from jNIr. 'Mitchell, that Mr. Mitchell had instructed him to go 
see Mr. Kleindienst and to have Mr. Kleindienst get the Watergate 
burglars released from jail. He told me that he did not believe that 
these instructions came from Mr. ]\Iitchell. 

He told Mr. Liddy that he should not contact Mr. Kleindienst; that 
when he realized that he was, in fact, going to contact Mr. Kleindienst, 
he went with him ; that Mr. Liddy made contact with Mr. Kleindienst 
at the Burning Tree Country Club and that in order to advise Mr. 
Kleindienst that he was not to pay any attention to Mr. Liddy, he 
said he stood behind Mr. Liddy so that Mr. Liddy could not see him, 
but that Mr. Kleindienst could, and shook his head as violently as 
he could so that Mr. Kleindienst would know that what he was telling 
him was an untruth. 

He told me that Mr. Kleindienst, in effect, had told Mr. Liddy to go 
to hell, and as I understood it, went on playing golf. 

I then called Mr. Kleindienst. I think I told Mv. INIitchell about it. 
Mr. Mitchell was amazed. I believe I told — I then called Mr. Klein- 
dienst to tell him that Mr. Mitchell had given no such instructions 
and Mr. Kleindienst told me, I believe, that he was satisfied that he 
had not given any instructions and in effect, said, keep that — he used 
an adjective — away from me. 

I then called Mr. Liddy and reprimanded him : told him that Mr. 
Mitchell had given no instructions and that he had done a very, com- 
mitted a very embarrassing error on the part of the Attorney General. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I want to read to you a portion of Mr. 
Magruder's testimony that is found at page 1910 of the record : 

We knew that Mr. Mardian. who was there, was a closer friend of Mr. Lidd.v's 
than any one of us, and Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Mardian to call Mr. Liddy and 
ask him to see the Attorney General, the current Attorney General. Mr. klein- 
dienst, and see if there was any possibility that Mr. McCord could be released 
from jail. 

Mr. Mardian. That statement is not true. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, can you suggest any reason why Mr. 
Magruder would falsely testify as to such a phone call on your part? 

ISIr. Mardian. I honestly — I don't think Mr. Magruder would inten- 
tionally falsely testify. The subject of the Liddy trip to see Mr, Klein- 
dienst was much discussed. Mr. Liddy's position, or the story that 
Powell Moore told, was that, as I recall, that John Mitchell had called 



2354 

Liddy. Here a<rain, T can't fathom tlie reason that that is the way it 
came out in his memory. I think Mr. Liddy would be the one to answer 
that question. 

And I can't imajjine why Mr. MaffT'nder would say that I was a 
friend of Liddy's, or a close friend of Liddy's, whatever he used to 
describe it. I had not seen Mr. Liddy. to my knowledge, except possibly 
in the hallway or once or twice from the time I was at the committee, 
and I certainly would not be classified as a friend of his by anybody 
that knows me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, if Mr. Liddy did not act pursuant to a request 
from you by telephone, can you srive us any help as to what prompted 
Mr. Liddy to make his visit to Mr. Kleindienst ? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't help you on that, and if vou examine what was 
asked, it was I was asked to call Liddy to see Kleindienst. Mr. Mitchell 
would have instructed me to call Kleindienst myself. I didn't need an 
intermediary for him. Mr. Kleindienst is a close friend of mine. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, when did you leave California to re- 
turn to Washington ? 

Mr. Mardian. We left on the mornina; of the 19th, T believe. 

Mr. Hamilton. And when you arrived in Washington, where did 
you go ? 

Mr. Mardian. I went home. 

Mr. Hamilton. About what time did you arrive ? 

Mr. Mardian. I have been unable to fix that. All I can recall, m^' 
recollection, my wife's recollection, is that it was dusk, which would 
place it in the neighborhood of 8 o'clock, or a little after. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, after arriving home, did you go directly to 
Mr. Mitchell's apartment? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. Wlien I say directly, I helped with the bags and I 
was on the plane for 5 hours, so it may have 

Mr. Hamilton. And do you know what time you arrived in Mr. 
Mitchell's apartment? 

Mr. Mardian. I have no recollection. 

Senator Baker [presiding]. Mr. Hamilton, could you suspend for 
just a moment? 

There is a vote signal on the clock. It is 12 :20 now. The chairman 
is temporarily away from the table. I think this might be a good time 
to recess. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

fA^Hiereupon, at 12 :21, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., 
the same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Thursday, July 19, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will como to order. 

I am pleased to announce that Secretary Shultz has called me and 
advised me that the President has decided to make available to the 
committee tapes of conversations which may haA-e been with witnesses 
before the committee and which are relevant to the matters which the 
committee is authorized to investigate. 

Secretary Shultz has further advised me that the President will 
meet with me in my capacity as the chairman of the committee at a 
convenient time next week, and arranafe procedures by which these 
tapes can be made available to the committee. 



I 



2355 

I am very much gratified by this information. I think the informa- 
tion will enable the committee to expedite its investigation, and I think 
it was a veiy wise decision on the part of the President. 

Senator Baker. j\Ir. Chairman, may I join in expressing my great 
delight at the decision of the President communicated to you by Sec- 
retary Shultz. I want to commend you as well as the members of the 
committee for handling this matter in a way that permitted this accord 
and this agreement to take place. The committee, I believe, forebore 
from trying to create a legal confrontation that might have jeopard- 
ized the possibility of negotiating a settlement to this controversy. It 
would appear that the "VVliite House has showm its spirit of coopera- 
tion and response. 

I have nothing but commendation for the committee, especially for 
the chairman and for the President, in negotiating a rather delicate 
situation involving the most fundamental concept, that is, the doctrine 
of separation of powers, in a way that avoided a confrontation and 
will apparently give this committee access to relevant parts of ex- 
tremely important information bearing on critical features of this 
inquiry. 

Thank you. 

Senator Er\t:x. I would like to take this occasion to add these words. 
I do not believe that any investigating committee in the history of the 
Congress has been able, as we have been thus far, to investigate such 
highly controversial matter as we have been investigating with such 
unanimity of agreement among the committee members as to the steps 
to be taken, and with more wonderful cooperation on the part of all 
the members of the committee. 

Counsel maj^ resume the interrogation of the witness. 

Mr. Hamilton. INIr. INIardian. when we broke for lunch we were dis- 
cussing the meeting in Mr. Mitchell's apartment on the evening of 
June 19, and I would like to return to that in my questioning. 

"VYho was present at that meeting ? 

Mr. Mardian. Based upon my reconstructed recollection, I would 
say Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder. Mr. Dean and, I believe, there was 
one PR person present from the office of public information ; I am not 
sure of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Was Mr. LaRue at that meeting ? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. LaRue. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, is there a possibility that the PR person, the 
press spokesman, actually met the party at the airport and did not 
return to Mr. Mitchell's apartment? 

Mr. Mardian. It is possible because I do not have a very clear recol- 
lection of that meeting. 

Mr. Hamilton. Would you give us, to the best of your recollection, 
the topics that were discussed at this meeting ? 

Mr. Mardian. The only two things I recall of that meeting is that 
there was a need for a statement from the office of public information 
for Mr. Mitchell. I do not recall discussing it or participating in it. I 
do not recall what the event was. I recall discussing the need for obtain- 
ing the resources of a law firm, because I believe it was announced that 
day, or we were informed that night, that a lawsuit was going to be 
filed the next morning by the Democratic National Committee against 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President. And my best recollection 
is that there was a discussion as to who we should retain. 



2356 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you have the responsibility for securing 
lawyers for this purpose? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. AVhich lawyers did you eventually retain for this? 

Mr. Mardian. I retained Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is that Ken Parkinson and Paul O'Brien ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. And they are both local attorneys, is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, at this meeting was there any discussion as 
to burning or otherwise destroying a Gemstone file or any other sensi- 
tive file? 

Mr. Mardian. Not in my presence. I never heard the word "Gem- 
stone" until this investigation this year came out. I will say that I left 
that meeting rather early, I wasn't there very long. I made numerous 
telephone calls that night from my apartment calling local counsel, 
people that I knew, getting recommendations for lawyers, and I know 
that I would not have been calling late in the evening and bothering 
people but I called a number of lawyers and talked to them about 
relative merits of different law firms and different lawyers. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you remember any discussion at all of a sensitive 
file as opposed to the destruction of a sensitive file ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I would like to read to you portions 
of Mr. Magruder's testimony and portions of Mr. LaRue's testimony 
of yesterday, and receive your comments. First from Mr. Magruder's 
testimony at pages 1913 and 1914 : 

Mr. Dash. Did you have a meeting on that evening, the evening of June 19, 
when you came back to Washington in Mr. Mitchell's apartment? 

Mr. Magruder. Yes. Mr. Mitchell flew back that Monday with Mr. LaRue and 
Mr. Mardian. We met in his apartment with Mr. Dean. Mr. Mardian and myself 
and the general discussion again was what were we going to do about the prob- 
lem. It was again we had very little information. We did not. of course, know 
what type of investigation would then be had and we talked about times of al- 
ternative solutions. One solution was recommended in which I was to, of course, 
destroy the Gemstone file so I called my oflSce and 

Mr. Dash. That solution came up as a result of that meeting? 

Mr. Magruder. Well, I think, yes. It was generally concluded that that file 
should be immediately destroyed. 

Now reading from Mr. LaEue's testimony of yesterday at page." 
4589 and 4590 : 

Mr. Dash. You said Mr. Magruder asked what he should do about these sensi- 
tive files? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did he get a response to that? 

Mr. LaRue. As I remember, there was a response from Mr. Mitchell that it 
might be a good idea if Mr. Magruder had a fire. 

Now, previous to that testimony Mr. LaRue had testified that you 
were at that meeting. 

Do these portions that I have read of the testimony refresh your 
recollection as to what was discussed ? 

Mr. Mardian. I heard the testimony and I just read Mr. Dean's 
testimony — or Mr. Magruder's testimony, I am sorry. No such dis- 
cussion took place in my presence. 

Mr. Hamilton. Can you 



2357 

Mr. Mardian. I think I would have recalled such a discussion had 
it taken place in my presence. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, are you aware of any testimony by Mr. LaRue 
and Mr. Magruder that you left the meeting before destruction of the 
Gemstone file ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't think anybody asked that question and I don't 
think anybody asked Mr. LaRue when I arrived. Maybe they did. I 
don't know. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you know of no statement by Magruder or 
LaRue here or otherwise that you were not present at this meeting 
when the destruction of the Gemstone file took place ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I haven't talked to them. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, did you, in the several days following 
June 19, have an occasion to interview Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And who else was present in this interview? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Fred LaRue. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. LaRue testified at page 4595 that this meeting 
was on June 20. Do you concur in that testimony ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. And I might state that there is doubt in my mind 
as to the date of that meeting. I originally, in response to questions 
put to me by the U.S. attorneys fixed the date of that meeting as the 
21st or 22d. They told me that the meeting took place on the 20th. We 
finally settled on the 20th or 21st, and I believe I told your committee 
that it was the 20th or 21st. In checking my records I would have to 
say that the meeting took place on the morning of — and again I could 
be mistaken, the morning of June 21. 

Mr. Hamilton. "What is there in your records, Mr. Mardian, that 
indicates to you that the meeting took place on this day ? 

Mr, Mardian. On the worksheet that has been turned over to your 
committee, I note that I got a call from Gordon Liddy and it coincides 
with my earliest recollection that I did not meet with Mr. Liddy at 
least on the first day of my return. I am not saying that that is abso- 
lute, I am just — my earliest recollection was the 21st or 22d, and I think 
I have testified that it could be the 20th or 21st but I would have to say 
that it was the 21st. 

Mr. Hamilton. Is it your recollection that this meeting with Mr. 
Liddy took place on the morning of the 21st? 

Mr. Mardian. This is purely a surmise based upon that call. It 
looks to be the first call that I noted, and my recollection is he said he 
was leaving that day for Los Angeles. 

Mr. Hamilton. I notice in your diary that there are numerous meet- 
ings scheduled on June 21st, one at 8; one at 8:30; one at 9:30; one 
at 10; one at 11; and one at 12, that appears to have been canceled. 
Would this heavy load on the morning of the 21st suggest to you that 
perhaps the meeting took place on the 20th ? 

Mr. Mardian. That crossmark does not indicate a cancellation. I 
think you will find that crossmark on every Monday, Wednesday, 
and Friday, which was the time I was supposed to exercise, which I 
did not. 

I note that the meeting — there is one, for instance, with a gentle- 
man at 8 :30 and then another one at 10 o'clock. I do not think I met 
with that gentleman twice on that day. One appears to be a reschedul- 



2358 

ing, and the fact that I have it noted in my book does not mean that 
I kept the appointment, 

I am trying to give yon the best, my best recollection. 
' Mr. Hamilton. How did this meeting come about, Mr. Mardian? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, my recollection diffei'S with that of Mr. LaRue. 
Again, Mr. LaRue could be right. My recollection was that Mr. La- 
Rue told me Mr. Liddy wanted to talk to me. I do not recall whether 
it was Mr. LaRue that told me this or Mr. Liddy to come to my office. 
Mr. Liddy was reluctant to come to my office. He wanted to meet 
some place else, and we met in Mr. LaRue's apartment. I believe that, 
more than anything else, was the basis for my belief that it was Mr. 
LaRue that arranged for the meeting and indicated we could meet in 
his apartment. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I wondered in your own words if you 
would, in some detail, tell us what occurred at this meeting and tell 
us what information Mr. Liddy imparted to you ? 

Mr. Mardian. My recollection is pretty vivid. I may forget some of 
the items that he disclosed to me, but I will try not to. 

We arrived, Mr. LaRue and I arrived at his apartment and soon 
thereafter, Mr. Liddv came into the room. The first thina; he asked 
Mr. LaRue was whether or not he had a radio. Mr. LaRue indicated a 
radio which was in the corner of the living room. Mr. Liddy went over 
and turned the radio on and asked me to sit by the radio in a chair, and 
he sat in a couch, as I recall, that was next to an end table that the 
radio was on. 

He apologized to me by saying something to the effect that it is 
not that I do not trust you, but this conversation cannot be recorded. 
My inference from that was he thought I had some kind of a device 
on me, possibly something in the room, I do not know. 

And again, I am going to have to say that I do not recall the se- 
quence of events in which he related these things to me. But I do recall 
that he said that he wanted to hire me as his lawyer, as his personal 
attorney. I told him that I was acting as attorney for the committee 
and that I could not relieve myself of that responsibility to represent 
him. He then said it was imperative that he be able to talk to me in 
confidence and that under no circumstances could I disclose what 
he told me. 

I told him that since he was an employee of the committee and I 
was acting as attorney for the committee, he could talk to me as a 
client to a lawyer and that I would maintain his confidence, but that 
I would have to bo at liberty to disclose what he told me to Mr. 
Mitchell. At first, I believe he demurred, and I told him that was 
the only basis on which I could talk to him. 

One of the things that he told me was that he had a message from 
Mr. Hunt, that Mr. Hunt felt that it was the committee's obligation 
to provide bail money to get his men out of jail. At that time, these 
people were incarcerated in the District of Columbia Jail. 

I was interested in finding out what had occurred and I interro- 
gated him as to the events of the evening of January 16 — June 16, 
the morning of the l7t]i. And he related to me what had occurred 
about the break-in, told me that thev had planned, as I recall, to 
break into the McGovem headquartei's that same night. 



2359 

About the arrest of the five people, Mr. McCord and the others, 
their flight, he indicated to me that there was nothing to fear, because 
the only person that could identify Mr. Liddy was Mr. McCord and 
Mr. McCord would not divulge his identity, that the Cuban- Americans 
were old soldiers who had worked in the CIA with Mr. Hunt since 
the Bay of Pigs, and that they would never under any circumstances 
disclose Mr. Hunt's identity, and that the committee had nothing to 
fear in that regard. 

I told him that, based upon what he had related to me, the events 
of that evening, one of which included, as I recall, his sitting on the 
shoulders of one of the men at a distance — I don't recall, some 300 feet 
or 300 yards — shooting out a light behind the Democratic Committee 
headquarters. I pointed out to him that a person that he was that 
intimate with would certainly be able to identify him, pointed out that 
he had spent, that he had told us he had spent some time in the room 
with these people in their hotel room, they had eaten, that his finger- 
prints would \je all over the place. He kept insisting that there was no 
chance that he would be identified. 

I tried to convince him he would be identified, that his best bet 
was to give himself up rather than try to wait for them to arrest him. 

He discounted this possibility. He did, after some discussion, indi- 
cate that it was possible that he could be arrested, but I inquired of 
him as to the — because of the news accounts of the arrest and the 
apparent bungled effort, the possibility that someone in the group 
had had it in mind that they would be arrested, to embarrass the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President. He discounted this completely 
by saying that this group had been operating together for some con- 
siderable period of time, that they were all real pros, that they had 
engaged in numerous jobs. And when I asked him what kind of jobs, 
he said, we pulled two right under your nose. 

I inquired as to what he meant by that, and he said that they had 
invaded the office of the psychiatrist of Dr. Ellsberg and that they were 
the ones who got Dita Beard out of town. 

I expressed my strong displeasure with respect to — I pointed out 
that the worst thing that had happened in the hearings was that Dita 
Beard disappeared. 

I asked him because of the Ellsberg break-in what, if anything, they 
had obtained? He told me that they had obtained nothing, that they 
had searched all the files and couldn't find his record. 

I asked him on whose authoritv he was operating, and I wish to be 
very careful here, because I don't know that he used the name of the 
President, but the words he did use were clearly meant too imply that 
he was acting on the express authority of the President of the United 
States, with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency. 

I made some notes of — oh, I asked him what information they had 
obtained. He told me that the purpose of making this entry, that this 
entry was not of his doing, that neither he nor Mr. Hunt thought it 
was a good idea, that they had obtained nothinfif from the bug that 
they had previously implanted in the place. He told me that the only 
thine they had ascertained from that bug was the fact that somebody 
at the Democratic National Committee was talking to somebody at 
the — was talking to the people or a person at the Committee To Re- 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 10 



2360 

Elect the President, that although he and Mr. Hunt were against 
the entry, that Mr. Magruder 

Senator Baker [presiding]. Would you suspend for just a minute, 
Mr. Witness? 

Anybody who wants to leave the room should do so now so we don't 
have disruption of the witness' testimony. And would the officer close 
the door, please, for quiet in the witness room. 

Would you please proceed ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think I was explaining that neither he nor Mr. 
Hunt felt that any additional entries would be fruitful, but that he 
had, they had made the entry at the insistence of Mr. Magruder. 

I recall again inquiring as to why the stupid adventure. It seems 
to me to be the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard of. As a politi- 
cian, or as a person that had had political experience, I couldn't un- 
derstand what they would hope to get out of the Democratic national 
headquarters before thev even had a candidate, much less afterward. 
Party headquarters, at least Republican Party headquarters, are very 
sterile during this period of time. 

He could not answer the question for me other than to say that he 
was carrying out his orders. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, did Mr. Liddy mention what type of 
budget he was operating under ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was asked a question about the budget this morning, 
and I responded both to you and to the chairman, and I stated 

Senator Ervin. Excuse me, I have to interrupt this. It appears that a 
hoax has been perpetrated upon the committee, at least upon the chair- 
man of the committee. 

I was called to the telephone just before the lunch period and I was 
told before I went to the telephone that Secretary of the Treasury 
Shultz was calling and wanted to speak to me. I went to the telephone 
and a voice at the other end of the line informed me that it was Secre- 
tary of the Treasury Shultz. I am not familiar enough with the voice 
of the Secretary to be able to identify it and so I just assumed that the 
person at the other end of the line was Secretary Shultz, and he made 
the statement which I reported to the committee and the news media on 
this microphone. 

In the meantime, there has been communications between "White 
House counsel, Mr. Garment, and the staflP, and Mr. Garment professed 
ignorance of any matters of that kind and, as I understand, an investi- 
gation was made, and Secretary Shultz was contacted and Secretary 
Shultz stated that he had no such conversation. So I had his office 
called and asked that he be placed on the phone, and so I was informed 
a few minutes ago — the reason I put it this way is because I hate to 
have my faith shattered in humanitv — but I was called to the phone 
and I was informed that Secretary Shultz was indeed on the phone. 
I went to the phone and had a conversation with the man who really 
assured me he was the real Secretary Shultz flaughter] and he in- 
formed me that he had had no conversation with me today ; that who- 
ever did it was somebody else ; that the only conversation he had with 
me recently by telephone was when he called me yesterday to tell me 
something" about the White House and the witnesses from the Secret 
Service. 



2361 

So it is just an awful thing for a very trusting soul like me to find 
that there are human beings, if you can call them such, who would 
perpetrate a hoax like this. 

Additional information which I received from counsel, and which 
counsel assures me that they have received by telephone, and not in 
person, and which they believe was received from "White House coun- 
sel is to the effect that the President has the request of the commit- 
tee under advisement and will reach some decision about it early next 
week. So notwithstanding the fact that my trust in humanity has been 
grossly abused by someone I am going to — and notwithstanding the 
fact that some people think the telephone is an instrument of the devil 
anyway [laughter] I am going to assume that the information 
which counsel received at one end of a telephone line from somebodv at 
the other end was indeed information conveyed to them by White 
House counsel and that the recent information is correct. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful if we could 
have found a secure telephone [laughter] but in any event, too, 
I would view with great distaste the apparent hoax that has been per- 
petrated on the committee. The fact that it was received here on a con- 
fidential phone number in the committee room would seem to lend 
credence at the first blush, and I can fully understand the transaction 
as it has transpired. 

I would say for the record, however, that the thanks I expressed 
and the admiration I expressed for the accommodation of both parties 
still stands as an advance payment on what I hope will still happen. 

Senator Ervin. I would add that the commendation I visited upon 
the committee members would still stand and I would like to expand it 
to include both the majority and the minority staff members. And I 
trust that nobody in the future will attempt to deceive and mislead 
a trusting and unsuspicious individual like the chairman of this com- 
mittee in any such fashion [laughter]. In other words, the counsel 
suggests that we have had some talk about dirty tricks. I think it is 
a unanimous opinion of this committee that this was a right dirtjJ 
trick. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I believe a minute ago we were talking 
about what Mr. Liddy told you about the budget that he was operating 
under. 

Mr. Mardian. I think I responded to that earlier this morning. I 
mentioned the budget matter in a conversation with Mr. Mitchell pres- 
ent in California. It is possible that that subject came up after my dis- 
cussion with Mr. Liddy because Mr. Liddy told me and it may have 
been for the first time, that he was operating under a budget approved 
by Mr. Mitchell and the White House during that June 21 meeting, if it 
is the 21st. 

Mr. Hamilton. Just to make the record clear, Mr. Mardian, did 
Mr. Liddy also say to you that the operations that he had been in- 
volved in such as the Ellsberg burglary and the Dita Beard incident 
had the approval of the President and the CIA. Is that a correct para- 
phrase, and if not, please correct me. 

Mr. Mardian. As I told vou before, the staff, I don't recall, I can't 
say that he said the President of the ITnited States, but the words 
he used or the word he used were meant to imply that, and that is the 
impression he left with me. 



2362 

Mr. Hamilton. That they had been approved by the President, that 
was your impression? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, did Mr. Liddy mention to you that he had 
shredded any documents ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, in trying to demonstrate to me that there was 
no way of tracing him he told me he had shredded every bit of evidence 
that would have linked him to tliis operation as well as all of the other 
operations. He told me he had even gone home — he has a habit, he 
told me, or a hobby, I should say, of collecting soap from the various 
hotels. [Laughter.] 

He had taken the soap wrappers off and shredded all the soap 
wrappers. 

He also told me that during this process he had shredded all of the 
$100 bills that he had in his possession that were new and serialized. 

Mr. Hamilton. Before I move on, have we exhausted the contents 
of this meeting to the best of your recollection ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, Mr. LaKue reminded me of another, he told 
us quite a bit that morning, and it may seem comical now. It cer- 
tainly didn't seem comical to us at the time. He did make the state- 
ment that the committee could be assured that he would never talk 
and if they doubted that, as Mr. LaRue testified, if we would just 
tell him what corner to stand on he was ready to be assassinated. 

Mr. Hamilton. Wliat did you do with this information, Mr. Mar- 
dian? 

Mr. Mardian. I went immediately — as soon as I could get access to 
Mr. Mitchell I disclosed to him — I may not have disclosed all of this 
to him but 

Mr. Hamilton. And you think it was the same day that you re- 
ported to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, my counsel advises me that despite my notes I 
neglected to tell you a very important part of another aspect of what 
he told me. 

In explaining to me that they were a purely professional outfit, he 
told me that Mr. Hunt was the planner of the Bay of Pigs, the chief 
planner, as I recall, that he was extremely popular, I think he said, 
like a God in the Cuban community of Miami, that this was an ex- 
planation of why these Cuban- Americans would follow him to death, 
find that no one would disclose anything as far as they were concerned, 
they were absolutely loyal, worked with him for a number of years, had 
been working with them in these operations, that. — and I don't wish to 
bring anybody else into it by implication, but he said that the — one 
of his friends in the Cuban community and one of the leaders was a 
particular person, I am not sure, and if I use the identification I may 
be identifying the wrong person, because at staff meetings I heard some 
of the staff members start mentioning some names and I am not even 
sure that the person was of the character that I described but he was 
extremely wealthy, and I told Mr. Liddy that I did not think Mr. 
IMitchell would approve the use of committee funds to bail out the de- 
fendants and he should so advise Mr. Hunt, and that it seemed to me 
that if Mr, Hunt had such good connections in the Miami community 
that they should look to that community for the bail money. 



2363 

Mr. Hamilton. When you spoke to Mr. Mitchell did you transmit 
this request for bail money to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. Included among all of the other matters that I related. 

Mr. Hamilton. More specifically, in regard to the bail money, what 
was Mr. INIitchell's reaction? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Mitchell told me that under no circumstances 
would bail money be forthcoming, and for me to call Mr. Liddy and 
tell him. And I did so. 

Mr. Hamilton. Will you tell us the rest of your conversation with 
Mr. Mitchell? I don't want you to repeat everything that you told 
yir. Liddy, but I would like to know what Mr. Mitchell said to you. 

Mr. Mardian. I can't recall — oh, he asked me if Mr. Liddy — I might 
say that Mr. Mitchell appeared to be as sincerely shocked as I was 
when I got this information. He asked me if Mr. Liddy had disclosed 
any other of the activities of this group that had been arrested, Mr. 
Hunt and himself, and I told him that he had not, he had not disclosed 
any others to me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Mitchell confirm or deny that he had ap- 
proved the budget for Mr. Liddy's operation ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't think he did. 

Mr. Hamilton. He made no comment in any way as to whether or 
not he had approved the budget ? 

Mr. Mardian. Not at that time. That discussion took place later. 

Mr. Hamilton. A discussion on whether he had approved the budget 
took place later ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, the discussion didn't start out in that vein. It 
took place when I confronted Mr. Magruder. I asked Mr. Magruder in 
the presence of Mr. Mitchell, I believe the next day, or as soon there- 
after as I could, how much money he had given Mr. Liddy in addition, 
I forget the general nature of the entire conversation, I asked him 
whether he directed Mr. Liddy to go in there. He denied it. I asked 
him how much money he had given Mr. Liddy. He said he had author- 
ized Mr. Sloan to give Mr. Liddy $40,000. 1 asked him what he thought 
the $40,000 was for. It seemed to me a sizable sum of money. Mr. 
Mitchell expressed the same concern and wanted to know, you know, 
how he could have spent $40,000 already because the campaign had just 
started. 

Mr. Magruder lied to Mr. Mitchell that he had authorized $250,000, 
and this seemed but a very small part of that sum. That is how the 
$250,000 budget matter came up. 

Mr. Hamilton. At some occasion during that week wasn't there a 
discussion between Mr. Magruder and Mr. Sloan as to the actual 
amount that had been approved ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was not — I don't recall being present at that dis- 
cussion other than the — it has been testified that I confronted the two 
of them in Mr. Mitchell's presence, that may very well have occurred. 
I don't have a present recollection. But after talking with Mr. Magru- 
der I then interrogated Mr. Sloan. Mr. Sloan told me that he had 
been authorized by Mr. Magruder to disburse in the neighborhood of 
$200,000 which shocked me even further. I asked him if he was sure 
of the amount. He said he had not calculated the exact amount but 
that it was his opinion that it was in the neighborhood of $200,000 
that he had already disbursed. 



2364 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, did Mr. Magiiider immediately agree with Mr. 
Sloan that this was the amount? 

Mr. Maiidiax. No; I then wont to Mr. Magruder and I asked him if 
he was sure that he had only authoi-izcd the disbursement of $40,000. 
He said, well, are you talking about total disbursements or disburse- 
ments to Mr. Liddy, and said that I had only asked him about how 
much money he had authorized for Liddy. He said the figure was 
$75,000, because he authorized $35,000 to Mr. Porter. 

Subsequent to that, and again, I do not know the sequence of events. 
I can only guess as to the days it must have been in the period 
June 23-24. Sir. Sloan came to me quite upset and said that I had, he 
had talked to me in confidence and that I had disclosed to Mr. Ma- 
gruder what he told me about the $200,000. He said in effect, I thought 
you were the only one I could trust and I cannot even trust you. 

And I told him, well, with the discrepancy we had, I had to somehow 
find out where the truth lay. 

I talked, as T recall, to Mr. Sloan on that day, and I believe this was 
the Saturday before he left. Now, I may have had a discussion with 
him priA^ateiy, as he has testified, in my office and another one in the 
presence of Mr. Mitchell, as others have testified, in Mr. Mitchell's 
office, where a confrontation took j^lace. But I had a rather lengthy 
discussion with Mr. Sloan on that occasion with respect to his possible 
liability for violation of the election campaign law. And my recollec- 
tion of that con\ersation is a little different than Mr. Sloan's. 

Mr. Hamilton, Did Mr. Sloan feel like he was being pressured into 
telling a false story by Mr. Magruder or anyone else ? 

Mr. Mardian. I am not sure— yes, he did, but I am not sure whether 
it was on that occasion or when he came back from his trip. I just am 
not sure when we had that discussion. 

Mr. Hamilton. But he did at some time communicate to you his fear 
that he was being pressured ? 

Mr. ^Iardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And did you subsequently confirm that the budget 
that had been allocated to Mr. Liddy was actually $250,000 ? 

Mr. Mardian. To this day, that matter has never been confirmed to 
me. I was never apprised of the fact that there had been any agree- 
ment on the amount of disbursement. T think Mr, Sloan's testimony 
that it was $199,000 — if you want my opinion, that is a figure I ac- 
cepted. But he did not give me that figure on that day or — he gave me 
that figure, I believe, after his return from his trip. 

Mr. Hamilton. He told you that he had disbursed $199,000? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe after he returned from his trip, he told me 
that he had reconciled his books and it was $199,000. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. Magruder never admitted to you that that 
was the correct amount ? 

Mr. MAiiDiAN. No. 

Mr. PL\MiLTON. Now, Mr. Mardian, while we are talking about 
money, let me ask you if you are aware that around $80,000 was passed 
in late June of 1972, from Mr. Stans and Mr. Sloan to Mr. LaRue? 

Mr. Mardian. I was not aware of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. You were not aware of that transfer ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 



2365 

Mr. Hamilton. You played no part in the transfer of that money ? 

Mr. Mardian. Based upon the testimony that I have heard here, I 
apparently did. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, let me read ]Mr. Stans' testimony to you and 
ask you for your comment. After speaking about the fact of the trans- 
fer, Mr. Stans had this to say : 

At that time, it was understood witliin the committee that Robert Mardian 
had been brought to Washington to work on legal matters that were current 
at the time and I went to him for advice. His advice, after he found a descrip- 
tion of the money, was to get the money out of the oflBice and out of the campaign, 
and he suggested that I give it to Fred LaRue. 

Now, does that refresh your recollection ? 

Mr. Mardian. I recall the testimony. 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you agree or disagree with the testimony ? 

Mr. Mardian. I disagree with the testimony. 

Mr. H.\MiLTON. Can you suggest why Mr. Stans would so testify ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. I started to say I had this long discussion with 
jSIr. Sloan about his possible involvement in violation of campaign con- 
tributions and Mr. Sloan considered me, I believe, a friend. He came 
to me for that advice. And amongst the things we discussed with re- 
spect to his possible liability was the fact that he had failed to report 
cash on hand in the prior reporting period and that he had disbursed 
funds without reporting it. I might say that when he came to see me on 
that occasion, he was almost paralyzed with fear. He professed to not 
have intended to do anything wrong. 

I told him that he should reconstruct all of the disbursements that 
he had made, and that if he did this and reported those disbui-sements, 
and deposited the funds on hand before the next reporting date and 
make that report, that all he would be guilty of, in my opinion, was a 
technical violation of the law, because a full disclosure would have 
been made, but simply one reporting date later, if he had no knowledge 
of the uses for which the money was used. 

I gathered that he agreed "with me that that money should be put 
in the bank and reported. He had a sense of relief as a result of that 
conversation. It was the same conversation where we were discussing 
the discrepancy in the funds. 

I told him that I wanted to get together with him on the following 
Monday — I believe this was late Saturday afternoon. It was at that 
time that he told me that he and his wife had planned for some time a 
10-day trip to either Bermuda or the Bahamas, or some place similar, 
that his wife was, I believe, pretty well along in her pregnancy, that 
she was very overwrought over the Watergate affair. He was con- 
cerned for her health, and hoped that he would not have to stay. It 
was I that told Mr. Sloan that if he did go. it would look very bad, 
especially in \'iew of the fact that we were having GAO inquiries, 
that there was this large discrepancy, that he was the only one that 
could solve it. 

He reiterated that his wife's health was in the balance. I told him I 
would talk to Mr. Mitchell and let him know. 

I talked to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell thouo^ht it would be very 
bad if he left the next day, for me to try to talk him out of it, but that 
if he felt he had to go for his wife's health, to let him go. 



2366 

I called Mr. Sloan that Saturday evening and I said, "Take your 
wife on her vacation, but be sure your number is with your secretary 
and that you can return on 24 hours' notice," and he thanked me. 

Now, subsequently, when he returned, and I presume it was shortly 
after his return from his trip — as I recall, he had resigned prior to 
this time, but he hadn't in fact left. He had handed in his resignation, 
but he was still working with Mr. Stans. And I don't — I cannot fix the 
date. It could have been early July. He came to my office and as T re- 
call, there was somebody else in there, and I don't recall who it was. 
He came in unannounced. He said he had cleared out his safe or was 
clearing out, that he had funds, cash funds, for INIr. Stans, that Mr, 
Stans was not there; that Mr. Stans told him to leave it with Mr. 
LaEue, that Mr. LaRue was not there ; that he had called Mr. LaRue 
and Mr. LaRue said to leave it with Mr. Mardian. I told him that I did 
not want to be responsible for cash, I did not have a safe, the only 
thing I had was my desk drawer, and that if he felt that that was a 
safe place, it was OK with me if I had no responsibility. He said Mr. 
LaRue would be by to pick it up soon. 

I left my office — I had to go someplace. I was not there and Mr. 
LaRue called me from my office soon thereafter and asked if Mr. 
Sloan had left some money for him. I told him it was in my second 
left-hand — right-hand drawer. He apparently was at my desk, he said, 
I have got it, thanks. 

Now, that is all I know about that transaction. 

Mr. HAMiLTOisr. And it's your testimony that this money was not 
transferred upon vour legal advice ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. The funds were not to go to Mr. LaRue but 
to Mr. Stans, and I think Mr. LaRue so testified this morning. 

I subsequently had a conversation about this matter with Mr. Stans 
and there is a definite disagreement. Mr. Stans asked me if I recalled 
giving him this advice. I told him I did not recall frivincr him this 
advice, this would be entirely contrarv to what I did tell Mr. Sloan 
for sure and what I thought I told him, that the money should be 
deposited in the bank and reported on the next reportinjr date. 

Mr. Stans' reply to me was, "Somebody gave me that advice." 
And I said, "Well , Maury, it was not me." 

He said, "Well, Duke and I have discussed it." He said, "Unless 
you can come up with something better, Duke and I have agreed that 
that is the wav it is going to come out." 

And that is my only recollection and as counsel savs, the date of 
that call — called me on Mav 1 of this year, a couple of days before I 
was to testify before the TT.S. attorney's office. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I see that you are reading from a 
piece of paper. Is that a note that you made at the time of that 
phone call ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamh.ton. I wonder if we might, Mr. Chairman, put a copy 
of that in the record ? 

Mr. Mardian. The date on this is wrong. It says May 1 of 1972, 
It should be May 1 of 1973. 

Mr. Hamilton. I was going to ask vou about that, Mr. Mnrdian. 
Are vou sure that is a transcription of a call that came in on May 1 
of this year? 



2367 

Mr. Mardian. It is not a transcription of a call, and I don't want 
to — you can read this two ways. You can read it — well, I don't want 
to put any bad connotation on it as far as Mr. Stans is concerned 
because ^tr. Stans. as long as I have known him, is an honorable 
man. I took this the Avav I took it and I wrote it down as it came over. 

Senator Ervix. Well, if counsel will pardon me for interjecting 
myself at this point. I have practiced law a long, long time and I 
have found out that the recollections of honest men as to a conver- 
sation often disagree, because none of us have perfect memories — 
or at least very few people do, if any. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word ? 

Senator ER\r[N. Yes. 

Mr. Bress. I furnished a copy of this handwritten memorandum 
made by Mr. Mardian at the time of the conclusion of that telephone 
conversation with Mr. Stans on May 1, 1973, and I furnished a photo- 
static copy of this to the staff of the committee yesterday. But we note 
now that the date written on it is May 1, 1972. We would like that 
changed on the basis of the witness' testimony to 1973. 

Senator Ervix. That will be all right and we will admit the copy 
rather than the original in evidence and let Mr. Mardian retain the 
original. 

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 89.*] 

Mr. Hamiltox. Mr. Mardian, I would like to move on as quickly as 
we can. Besides those conversations you have already mentioned 

Mr. Mardiax. Pardon me, may I say something? It wasn't $80,000 
that Mr. Sloan left with me. I didn't count it, didn't look at it, but it 
wasn't any $80,000. 

INIr. Hamiltox. I might ask you how you know it wasn't $80,000 if 
you didn't count it ? 

Mr. Mardiax. He told me. He told me what sum it was when I asked 
him, Mr. Sloan, and the figure that sticks — I don't have any present 
recollection, but somebodv asked me originally on vour staff if it was 
$40,000 and I didn't think it was that high. But had it been an $80,000 
figure, I certainly would have remembered it being something in excess 
of $40,000. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Well, let me turn to another subject, Mr. Mardian. 
Besides those conversations you have already mentioned regarding 
bail money, did you ever have any discussions with anyone concern- 
ing payment of moneys to the defendants in the Watergate case ? 

Mr, Mardiax. As to the payment of moneys ? 

Mr. Hamiltox. To the payment of money. 

Mr. ISIardiax. There were three instances where I recall discussions 
concerning payment of money. The first was the one I have related. 
It was the conversation witli Mr. Liddy. The second, on the second 
occasion. I was told by Mr. O'Brien, who was one of the counsel that I 
liad hired, that Mrs. Hunt had come to him to talk to him. And I don't 
recall that there was much of a conversation. She apparently had come 
thinking she was going to net money from him. And as I recall what 
Mr. O'Brien told me, and he would be the best one to discuss it, when 
she asked Mr. O'Brien who he worked with or for, he said, INIr. INIar- 



*See p. 2642. 



2368 

dian. And she said, apparently, as I recall, she had to terminate the 
conversation. She said she couldn't talk to them. He asked why, and 
she said, my husband says he is a straight arrow and not to have 
anything to do with him. 

The third instance was an occasion in my office — and my office was 
used by the attorneys because it did have an office and an anteroom. 
That is generally where they were. I was getting increasingly involved 
back into the campaign. Mr. Bittman and an associate from his office 
came there while Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien were there, and 
after exchanging pleasantries with Mr. Bittman — I had not met him 
before — I had to leave. But before I left, Mr. Bittman said something 
about his client was very upset about his attorney fees or something 
to that effect. 

Later, we were having a meeting in the conference room with all of 
the attorneys from the two offices, and I happened to arrive at the same 
time that Mr. Parkinson arrived. 

I said, I asked him, what was all that about? And he said, oh, 
nothing — he was saying it facetiously — Bittman wants $25,000 at- 
torney fees. He thinks, his client thinks, that the committee ought to 
pay it. 

i told him I thought it was blackmail. And Mr. Parkinson, I think, 
concurred. 

We could not talk any further about it. T thought that was the end 
of the discussion, and we went into the meeting with the firm of 
attorneys. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, are these the only three discussions 
that you recall regarding money ? 

Mr. Mardian. The only three and I never heard of any money or 
money demands other than those three occasions. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I would like to read you a portion of 
Mr. Dean's testimony and ask you to comment on this, please. INIr. 
Dean was responding to a statement found in what is now known as 
the Buzliardt memo which reads like this : 

It was Dean who suggested to General Walters on January 6th that CIA 
pay the Watergate defendants while in jail. 

and Mr. Dean in commenting on this particular passage said this : 

I believe I have explained that, Senator, in that I reporte<l also at one point 
in time to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Mardian about the Gray theory. That theory 
prompted Mr. Mardian, as I recall, to suggest that the CIA miglit be of some 
assistance in providing us suppor't, and he also raised the question that the 
CIA might have a very proper reason to do so because of the fact that these 
were former CIA oper'atives. 

Mr. Mardian, do you remember a conversation of this sort? 

Mr. Makotan. T do not recall thnt conversation. I do recall a dis- 
cussion and there may have been discussions concerning CIA involve- 
ment, and T can tell you that whatever point in time that was that it 
was my opinion that the CIA was involved for a number of reasons, 
and I do not recall any monev demand as such, but the onlv ones I 
recall are bail, bail the defendants out, and I may have said, "CIA 
ought to take care of its own people," or it is "a CIA problem and not 
a committee problem." That is, would be, my best recollection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you become aware in the summer of 1072 that 
Mr. Herb Kalmbach was going to be asked to raise money for the 
Watergate defendants ? 



2369 

Mr. Mardiax. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you learn some time before the election that 
the moneys raised by Mr. Kalmbach were insufficient and that there 
was pressure from the defendants for additional funds ? 

Mr. Mardiax. I never heard that ISIr. Kalmbach was involved in 
that type of activity and I laiow Mr. Kalmbach and I am as surprised, 
the most surprised person in the world that Mr. Kalmbach would be 
asked to do it and would get involved in it. 

Mr. Hamiltox. Mr. Mardian, if you will bear with me for half a 
minute. I would like to read you two passages from Mr. Dean's testi- 
mony. The first is found at page 2211 : 

Of my meeting with General Walters and subsequent meeting with Haldeman 
and Ehrlichman, I informed Mr. Mitchell that there could be no CIA assistance. 
To the best of my recollection, this occurred on the afternoon of June 28 in a 
meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office and I believe that Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mardian 
were also present. There was a discussion of the need for support money in ex- 
change for the silence for the men in jail, and if the CIA could not do it they 
would have to find money somewhere else. Mr. LaRue indicated that Mr. Stans 
had only a small amount of cash. I believe he said $70,000 or $80,000, but more 
would be needed. After some discussion, which I cannot recall with any specificity 
at this time, Mr. Mitchell asked me to get the approval of Haldeman and Ehrlich- 
man to use Mr. Herbert Kalmbach to raise the necessary money. 

Now, I would like to read from page 2259 of Mr. Dean's testimony : 

Having explained the status of the cash at the White House I must now return 
to the pressure that was being placed on the White House for the use of these 
funds which I have just described were payments to the seven indicted individ- 
uals. This pressure began long before election day in that Paul O'Brien was re- 
ceiving messages from William Bittman, Hunt's lawyer, that Hunt and others 
expected to have more money and attorney fees in exchange for continued si- 
lence. The initial payments by Kalmbach had not been sufficient. O'Brien reported 
this frequently to Mitchell, Mardian, LaRue, and myself. 

Mr. Mardian, can you explain the discrepancy between your recol- 
lection and Mr. Dean's recollection ? 

Mr. Mardiax. Well, let me say this. I never recall any approach 
or demand or discussion with Mr. Paul O'Brien other than the one 
that I have related. The discussion that Mr. Dean refers to, I think he 
says "I believe Mr. Mardian was there." In going through the testimony 
of some of these witnesses, counsel and I have found instances where 
people say "I believe he was there," when I was not even in town. I 
might point out that I do not know what the date of this convereation 
was, but commencing on or about July 15 I started phasing out of the 
Watergate, so-called, other than conferences at Mr. Mitchell's request 
with respect to advice he wanted in connection with the civil litiga- 
tion. I think everybody involved knew how distressed I was, how I 
wanted out of Watergate, and I believe as of July 13 I had, in effect, I 
know I introduced, I took Mr. Mitchell and Mr. O'Brien — I mean Mr. 
Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien to Mr. Mitchell's office and said they are 
taking over and I do not think anyone would have communicated that 
type of demand to me, either out of compassion or friendship or what. 
They knew Bob INIardian wanted out. And I did not want to be involved 
in Watergate or its ramifications. 

Mr. Hamiltox'. Is it not true that you had a number of meetings 
with INIr. Parkinson and O'Brien from July 13 up until October? Is 
that not correct ? 



2370 

Mr. Mardian. I would say, yes. I do not know, when you say numer- 
ous, whenever the occasion demanded I would meet with them. We had 
several lawsuits that were then pending- and others that were about 
,to be filed, some by the Democratic National Committee and some by 
individuals within the Committee To Re-Elect the President. I was, 
of course, an attorney of record in the case, and I think out of courtesy 
they would call me. I sat in on meetings conceniino; the civil litigation 
but I never sat in on any meeting with Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Parkinson 
where there was any discussion about payments. 

Mr. Hamilton. So Mr. Dean is just dead wrong in his testimony, 
is that what you are saying? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I do not think you can characterize it as dead 
wrong when you say he says "I believe." 

Mr. Hamilton. He also says "Mr. O'Brien reported this frequently 
to Mitchell, Mardian, LaRue, and myself, that is, the need for more 
money." 

Mr. Mardian. I think Mr. O'Brien would be the best one to testify 
as to what he reported to me and not Mr. Dean. 

Mr. Hamilton. We "will ask him. 

Mr. Mardian, did vou ever state to John Dean that you wished to 
read the FBI 302 reports ^ 

Mr. Mardian. I am sorry, sir, my counsel was talking to me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever state to Mr. Dean that you wished to 
read FBI 302 reports regarding the Watergate investigation ? 

Mr. Mardian. It is the last thing I wanted to read. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you read those reports ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever suggest to JSIr. Dean that the FBI was 
being too aggressive? 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. Gray should slow doAvn his investigations? 

Mr. Mardian. No: absolutely not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, let me read to you from Mr. Dean's 
testimony at pages 2199 and 2200: 

It was after I showed a copy of the July 21 report to Mr. Mitchell that Mr. 
Mardian insisted that he he permitted to see the FBI reports. Mitchell agreed 
and thought that Paul O'Brien and Ken Parkinson should also see them. I recall 
that when Mardian, O'Brien and Parkinson finally came to my office to look at 
the report, they realized that they were not very meaningful. It was Mr. Mardian, 
however, who became very excited because of the scope of the investigation 
that Gray was conducting, and the tone of the cables he was sending out of 
headquarters. Mai^ian clearly thought that Grny was being too vigorous in his 
investigation of the ease and was quite critical of Gray's handling of the entire 
matter. He demanded that I tell Gray to slow down but I never did so. 

Again, may I ask you to explain the differing views between Mr. 
Dean and yourself as to your activities regarding the FBI reports? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't explain Mr. Dean's testimonv in this instance 
and in some others. My attitude at that time, as I tried to demonstrate 
in my opening statement, at the date especially that he istalkin.q- about, 
I was — ^I wanted nothing more to do with the Watergate. The last 
thing I would want to do would be to see an FBI rej^ort. He indicates 
that for some reason that I was an active participant as late as the lat- 
ter part of July, and I wasn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. So Mr. Dean is dead wrong then in his statement ? 



2371 

Mr. Mardian. On that score he is dead wrong. 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. 

Mr. Mardian, did there ever come a time when Mr. Magruder re- 
vealed to you his actual role in the Watergate affair? 

Mr. Mardiax. Mr. Magruder never revealed to me even the amount 
of money involved, much less his role in the affair, and I would say this 
as far as Mr. Magruder is concerned, I think Mr. Magruder recognized 
how I felt about the matter, and there was no discussion, open dis- 
cussion, at any time in my presence and in the presence of Mr. Mitchell 
or anyone else about his active involvement. I think that after my 
talking to Mr. Liddy there was no need for him to tell me. I knew what 
I believe and I just don't think Jeb wanted to get me involved any 
more than I was. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did Mr. Magruder indicate to you that he was 
going to commit perjury before the grand jury? 

Mr. Mardian. No, he did not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he tell you he was going to perjure himself 
at the trial ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, he did not. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he tell you what facts he was going to testify 
to before the grand jury ? 

Mr. Mardian. I never knew what he was going to testify to even at 
the time he testified. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know what he was going to testify to at 
the trial ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, I didn't because 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you know now ? 

Mr. Mardian. Do T know what he testified to now ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know contemporaneously, let me say that, 
what he was testifying to at the trial ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. I didn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I want to read you some more testi- 
mony and I would like to read you testimony from Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
Magruder, and Mr. LaEue. First from Mr. Mitchell at pages 3578, 
3579 : 

Senator Eevin. You were also informed by Magruder that he, Magruder, was 
prepared to commit perjury when it went before the grand jury in August rather 
than to reveal what he knew about these matters. 

Mr. Mitchell. That was correct, sir. 

Senator Ebvin. Yes. Well, did Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue ever talk to you 
about the Magruder proposal to commit perjury? 

Mr. Mitchell. They were present on an occasion or more in which Mr. Ma- 
gruder stated what he was going to testify to. 

Now from Mr. Magruder's testimony, reading from pages 2063 and 
2064, again Senator Ervin is questioning : 

Then for fear that the trail might be pursued by the prosecuting attorney and 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President they devised a coverup story to the 
effect all of this money had been given to Liddy for him to engage in legitimate 
intelligence operations. 

Mr. Magruder. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. That matter was discussed by you with Mitchell, Dean, LaRue, 
Strachan, Mardian, and all of tho.se, was it not? 

Mr. Magruder. Yes. sir. 

Senator Ervin. And they all acquiesced in it and encouraged it? 

Mr. Magruder. Yes, sir. 



2372 

And finally from the testimony yesterday of Mr. LaRiie at page 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me, could I take these one at a time? 

What you are reading sounds like an indictment and if I could 
answer, I can't answer all three of them at the same time. 

Mr. Hamilton. I am quite happy for you to answer them one at a 
time. 

Mr. Mardian. It sounds to me like you are just reading all these 
statements people are making. 

Mr, Hamilton. I am reading statements that hav^e been made to get 
your comment on them because they seem to indicate that you laiew 
what ]\Ir. ISIagruder was going to testify to. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Hamilton, do you propose to ask him to comment at 
one time on all three statements? 

Mr. Hamilton. That was my plan, I am happy for him to comment 
on each particular one. 

Mr, Mardian. Let's proceed and I will answer as generally as I can. 

Mr. Bress. I think it would be more appropriate to let him comment 
on each one, he may overlook something if you bunch them all 
together. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would be happy to do that. Would you like to 
comment on Mr. Mitchell's statement ? Would you like to have it 
reread ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton [reading] : 

Senator Ervin. You also were informed by Magruder that he, Magruder, was 
prepared to commit perjury when it went before the grand jury in August rather 
than to reveal what he knew about these matters. 

Mr. Mitchell. That was correct, sir. 

Senator Ekvin. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. I want to interrupt the examination just a minute 
so Senator Baker can make a statement on behalf of the committee. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to counsel 
and witness for interrupting again but I continue to be surprised 
almost daily at new developments. What I am about to say is not a 
new development but a further comment on the previous development, 
the so-called hoax, the telephone call. 

Following that telephone call the committee made a formal request 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an investigation of that 
event. We have been informed that a similar request was made just 
prior to our request by the President, and by the Attorney General. The 
investigation is now on-going, and Avill be pursued to whatever lengths 
it can be followed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

I would suggest to counsel, and I understand counsel is perfectly 
willing to accede to Mr. Mardian's request, that Mr. Mardiaii be per- 
mitted to comment on each of these questions, these matters one at a 
time. I think that he is entitled to do so. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamilton. I will continue reading from Mr, Mitchell's testi- 
mony. The next question was : 

Yes. Well, did Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue ever talk to you about the Magruder 
proposal to commit perjury? 

Mr. Mitchell. They were present on an occasion or more in which Mr. Magruder 
stated what he was going to testify to. 



2373 

Mr. Mardian. Well, as I understand the statement Mr. Mitchell is 
simply saying that I was present when he stated what he was going to 
testify to. 

Now, I was present at numerous meetings where Mr. Magruder was 
discussing the money amount. Now, to suggest that I knew he would be 
perjuring himself if he testified to amounts that he was telling us 
about, the answer would be, yes, because I felt that what Mr. Sloan was 
telling me was the truth. But I don't think that what Mr. Mitchell is 
saying there is that he told me he was going to perjure himself. 

Mr. Hamilton. I believe that you testified earlier that you didn't 
know what Mr. Magruder was going to say to the grand jury and if I 
read this quote by Mr. Mitchell correctly he says that you were present 
on an occasion or more in which Mr. Magruder stated what he was 
going to testify to. 

Now, is Mr. Mitchell wrong ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, Mr. Mitchell may be referring to the numerous 
discussions with respect to how much money Mr. Magruder said he 
gave or authorized Mr. Sloan to give Mr. Liddv and others. And I 
heard a number of those stories. The figure finally got up to $95,000. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, perhaps mv question isn't totallv clear. Were 
you present on an occasion when Mr. Magruder stated "I am going to 
go down to the grand jury and testify to the following facts." 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. All right. Let me read, then, from 

Mr. Mardian. Counsel reminds me that you were asking that ques- 
tion, or I will inquire : Was that with respect to his testimony at the 
trial or before the grand jury? The one before the last question? 

Mr. Hamilton. This is in respect to the grand jury testimony. 

Mr. Mardian. No ; the next to the last question or the question re- 
lating to Mr. Mitchell's testimony. 

Mr. Hamilton. The question that I just asked was relating to testi- 
mony before the grand jury. 

Mr. Mardian. The prior, with respect to what Mr. Mitchell's testi- 
mony was. 

Mr. Hamilton. That related to the grand jury. 

Mr. Mardian. I might say I do not think I talked to a single witness 
who was about to testify who came to me that I did not advise that 
they would have to tell the truth. Now, if people made statements in 
front of me contrary to the truth, I think they would be honest enough 
if asked to state that that is the only advice any of them ever got from 
me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, in that regard let me read you Mr. Magruder's 
testimony. The question was : 

They, for fear the trial might be pursued by the prosecuting attorney in the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President, they devised a coverup story to the effect 
all of this money had been given to Liddy for him to engage in legitimate intel- 
ligence operations. 

Mr. Magruder. Yes. sir ; that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. That matter was discussed by you with Mitchell, Dean, LaRue. 
Strachan, Mardian, and all of those, was it not? 

Mr. Magrtjder. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And they all acquiesced in it and encouraged it? 

Mr. Magruder. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mardian. I recall that testimony and I recall those answers to the 
questions asked by the chairman. But I think if you go back and take 



2374 

the testimony of Mr. Magruder, his direct testimony, where he was 
asked as to who was involved, he enumerated a number of people 
and then added "and Mr. Mardian to some extent." 

Subsequently, when that question was asked, Mr. Mardian was no 
longer to some extent, but involved with all of them. And I think I 
would have liked to have asked Mr. Magruder what he meant by "to 
some extent." 

Mr. Hamilton. Can you suggest what Mr. Magruder meant by "to 
some extent" ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think he probably was aware of the fact that I after 
talking to Mr. Liddy, knew of his involvement and I would be less 
than honest if I did not say that if Mr. Magruder went up there and 
testified that he was not involved, he would be perjuring himself. 

If you want my personal opinion, I thought he was going to go up 
there and take the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, did you know after he testified what he testi- 
fied to? 

Mr. Mardian. No, I did not. I knew he was not indicted, so he must 
not have taken the fifth and he must not have testified as to the truth. 

Mr. Hamilton. So then you had some indication that Mr. Ma- 
gruder had committed perjury ? 

Mr. Mardian. Are you talking about the grand jury ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, I think I knew an awful lot and I suspected an 
awful lot. I, to this day, do not know what the answer is, but as a 
lawyer, I felt, and it is the only solace I have, that all persons are en- 
titled to presumption of innocence. They have a right for a lawyer 
not to make that judgment but for a court to make that judgment. 

I may have had very strong feelings about the guilt or innocence 
of a lot of people, and I have them now, but as a lawyer, I could not 
substitute my judgment for theirs and I did what I felt I had to do 
in the premises. 

Mr. Hamilton. In the interest of time, I am going to skip a portion 
of Mr. LaRue's testimony and move on to another area, if that is 
satisfactory with you. My next question is, did you ever suggest to 
Mr. Magruder that he erase certain entries in his diary relating to a 
meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office on February 4, where bugging plans 
were discussed, as we now know from testimony before this 
committee ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Hamilton. In that regard, let me read you a seetion from Mr. 
Magruder's executive session before this committee. Mr. Dash was 
doing the questioning and this was the question : 

Was it that time Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Mardian suggested you could erase 
the references in the diary? 

Mr. Magruder. That is right. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Mitchell — — 

Mr. Magruder. I said you cannot erase the diary, because it would show. 
Somebody said the FBI could look at the diary. 

Now, could I have your comment on Mjigruder's testimony in this 
regard ? 

Mr. Mardian. I just answered that I was not, that that discussion 
never took place in my presence. 



2375 

Mr. Hamilton. I take it that it is fair to say that after your con- 
versation with Mr. Liddy, you had a good indication that at least 
Mr. Magruder had been involved in some regard in the Watergate 
break-in. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. Are you asking for my opinion as to what I believe? 

Mr. Hamilton. I am asking for your opinion. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, I had the opinion that he was deeply involved. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you were aware, were you not, in the summer 
of 1972, that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. MacGregor were making state- 
ments concerning the complete noninvolvement of anybody connected 
with the committee, making public statements, public press releases? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; I was aware of that. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you make any attempt to alter or prevent these 
statements? 

Mr. Mardian. The very first statement Mr. Mitchell put out, I 
altered. That was in California. It was presented to me. I felt it should 
not go out in that fashion, that Mr. Mitchell could not make those flat 
statements. I changed it by interlineation. 

It was brought to me by Cliff Miller. He said Mr. Mitchell wanted me 
to approve it before it went out. I made those changes, I took it to Mr. 
Mitchell, he agreed with all of them. I then saw the statement as it 
came out and the changes had not been made. 

With respect to Mr. MacGregor, I tried to see Mr. MacGregor on 
numerous occasions concerning statements that were going out by the 
committee. And I recall one instance — and I was unsuccessful in that 
regard until the convention. He had made some very flat statements at 
the convention. I insisted on seeing him on that occasion. He saw me 
in his suite and when I walked in, he appeared as if he were ready to 
walk out. He said, "I am in an awful hurry, Bob, and I do not have 
much time." 

I said, "You had better take time for this." I said, "You are making 
statements concerning the possible involvement of people in the cam- 
paign that I believe to be untrue. There are people involved in the 
campaign that have a tremendous exposure, Clark, and you had better 
watch what statements you make and you had better let me brief you 
on it." 

He got very upset. He said, "When I took the job, I was assured that 
nobody involved, there was nobody involved in the Watergate still in 
the campaign, I am relying on that, and I do not want to hear about it." 

'I advised Mr. Mitchell that he should terminate Mr. Magruder. If 
you want to know the advice I gave, I advised him that he should 
terminate Mr. Porter. I thought he agreed with me. He then told me 
that he could not do it. 

Subsequently, I advised Mr. Mitchell that there ought to be a memo- 
randum written of all the facts as we knew it, at least put in the file to 
protect him. He instructed me to do so. Mr. O'Brien was to prepare the 
memorandum. Subsequently, I was told to forget the memorandum, 
that he did not want one. 

Now, I cannot recall all of the exculpatory things I tried to do to 
protect myself' and some of the people involved, but there were nu- 
merous of them. 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 11 



2376 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, did you make a report to anyone else besides 
Mr. Mitchell and this abbreviated report to Mr. MacGregor about 
what you knew ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; you mean the Liddy conversation? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, and the other facts— specifically, Mr. Mardian, 
did you ever talk with the President? 

Mr. Mardian. No. sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you ever talk with Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Ehrlichman? 

Mr. Mardian. No. sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Colson, about this subject? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Hamilton, I was precluded, I felt, by the oath 
I took as a lawyer never to disclose communication made to me by 
Mr. Liddy. He disclosed to me when I was trying to investigate one 
crime the commission of other felonies. I think I would have been 
remiss in my profession, after giving him my promise, to disclose to 
others the commission of other crimes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I wonder if you would explain that 
a little further. You have testified that you did not undertake an 
attorney-client relationship with Mr. Liddy ; rather, you represented 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Mr. Mardian. No; I assured him that the attorney-client relation- 
ship would pertain as to that conversation, since he was an employee 
of the committee and I was the attorney for the committee. The com- 
mittee could only exist in its employees — people. I told him I could 
not act as his personal attorney. 

Mr. H.\milton. This is the same privilege that Judge Sirica has 
now ruled was not applicable because Liddy already had contacted 
certain lawyers when he talked to you, is that correct? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe the argument before Judge Sirica was not 
that the attorney -client relationship did not prevail by reason of any 
lack of bona fides on my part. The argument made before Judge 
Sirica was that I had been acting in good faith. They argued that 
Mr. Liddy had not been acting in good faith when he approached me 
and that he was merely trying to use the client privilege and to use me. 
I think the transcript of that proceeding will show that there was 
never any suggestion that I was acting in bad faith, and I think on 
more than one occasion, he pointed out that my activities were in 
good faith, it was the activities of Mr. Liddy that were in question. 

And I still have doubts. I have taken the advice of my counsel that 
Liddy was not a party to that proceeding, yet a man who, regardless 
of \yhat you think of him, has been held in contempt for refusing to 
testify. Yet here I am, under court order, required to testify as to 
what he told me when he was willing to go to jail not to talk. It is 
an anomaly and it is not one that I feel comfortable with. 

Mr. HAMn.TON. You are aware as a lawyer that as a general matter, 
the attorney-client privilege does not cover communications relating 
to the continuing commission of a crime such as a conspiracy to 
obstruct justice, are you not? 

Mr. M;ardian. No; I don't think I ]i resume the vacuum. That is a 
correct question, but I don't think that is relevant to my discussion 
with Mr. Liddy. 



2377 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me ask you just two more questions. First of 
all, were you an adherent to what we might call the Mitchell principle, 
that the reelection of the President was more important than almost 
anything; else, and certainly outweighed the revealing of the true facts 
on the Watergate matter and the White House horrors? Would you 
adhere to that principle ? 

Mr. Mardian. Do you want my personal opinion ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes, that is what I am asking. 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know whether it is hindsight. As I say, I 
did not feel that I could continue becavise of my own feelings. I have 
never practiced criminal law and I don't know what criminal lawyers 
go through in carrying the burdens of their clients, but I could not 
practice criminal law. I think maybe a good criminal lawyer could 
have represented the committee with aplomb. I could not. I wanted 
out and I expressed on at least three occasions, I quit. I was induced 
to stay on the committee and I was told that July 11, a new role 
would be found for me. A new role was found for me and I was 
divorced from the Watergate activity from and after that date, except 
when people wanted to consult with me about specific aspects of the 
civil litigation. 

I would point out that I saw Mr. Mitchell on numerous occasions, 
as the chart will disclose. But I would point out again, they were 
not all meetings. The ones that show up there as of 5 :30 or 6 o'clock, 
that was my ride home. It was not a meeting. 

Mr. Mitchell had a driver and a car and he went right past my apart- 
ment and his secretary would call at the time he was about to leave 
and say, "Mr. Mitchell is ready to leave." More often than not, he 
was not ready to leave and I would wait for him. From the chart, 
I see those are meetings. I was present either in his office or imme- 
diately outside his office — ^he didn't have an anteroom — but was near 
his office. But from the middle of July on, I had taken on other 
duties. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you through, Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think my question was whether you considered 
that the reelection of the President outweighed all other considera- 
tions, what your personal opinion was ? 

Mr. Mardian. It certainly didn't outweigh all other considerations. 

Mr. Hamilton. My final question, Mr. Mardian. A number of people 
have testified in ways that appear to implicate you in certain aspects of 
the coverup. I have read Mr. Mitchell's testimony, Mr. Stans, Mr. 
Magruder, Mr. Dean, and Mr. LaRue. And to believe you fully we 
must at least partially, I believe, disbelieve these men, including Mr. 
Mitchell, whom I understand was once, and perhaps still is, your 
close friend. My question is. Why should we believe you and not believe 
them ? 

Mr. Mardian. The only answer I can give is that I have tried to 
testify as to the best of my recollection and ability and belief. 

Mr. Hamilton. I want to thank you for your attention during my 
lengthy questioning. 

Senator Baker [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. 

Mr. Thompson. 



2378 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Mardian, we have heard testimony now from 
all five participants in the meeting in Mr. Mitchell's apartment on 
June 19. It seems to me Mr. Magruder and Mr. LaRiie recall the con- 
versation about the destruction of documents and you and Mr. Mitchell 
and Mr. Dean recall no such conversations. Do you recall whether or 
not you all arrived at approximately the same time on that occasion ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, we keep referring to meetings. I don't mean to 
say that Mr. Mitchell is an unstructured person, but people come and 
go in his office and in his apartment when he is working. My recollec- 
tion is that — ^^most of the people were there, I guess, when I got there. 
I know that they were all there when I left. So, I couldn't really say 
whether it occurred or didn't. 

Mr. Thompson. Was this at his apartment or his office ? 

Mr. Mardian. It was in his apartment. 

Mr. Thompson. On this occasion, did you go there directly from the 
airport ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Thompson. When you arrived, do you recall who was present? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't recall anybody coming after me. In fact, I 
was sure that Mr. LaRue wasn't even there. That was my best recol- 
lection, but here listening to the testimony, listening to Mr. LaRue, 
I have to assume he was there, and I have so testified. 

Mr. Thompson. Wliat was the subject matter? Wliat was your un- 
derstanding of what was going to be discussed and what in fact was 
discussed ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't know. My best recollection is, and that is why 
I thought there was a person from the office of public information 
present, that there was something that had occurred that day that re- 
quired a reply from Mr. Mitchell. 

The other thing that had occurred was an announcement that the 
Democratic National Committee had filed or was filing suit the next 
morning for $11/2 million, I believe. I received the next morning serv- 
ice of that complaint. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Mardian, on June 21, as I understand it, you re- 
ceived a briefing from Liddy in the presence of Mr. LaRue in his 
apartment as to what happened ? 

Mr. INIardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. You talked about this attorney-client privilege 
situation that you have with Mr. Liddy. 

Did you also envision yourself in that same kind of relationship 
with the committee as a whole or other members of the committee ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, I was representing the committee. 

Mr. Thompson. Wliat period of time did that cover in your mind? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, as I say, I am probably still attorney of record 
in that proceeding. I attempted and did to the maximum extent pos- 
sible shift all the burden to the other two law firms as of around 
July 15. 

Mr. Thompson. As a matter of fact, you requested that you not be 
interviewed by the FBI, I believe, for that very reason, did you not? 

Mr. Mardian. That is not true. The FBI interviewed me and I 
offered to answer any questions that they would put to me regarding 
my conduct, my activities. I merely said that I could not answer ques- 
tions which were related to communications made to me, and they asked 
me numerous questions about my conduct. 



I 



2379 

Mr. Thompson. The point I was making is that you did assert that 
privilege at that early date ? 

Mr. Mardian. With respect to communications made to me. 

Mr. Thompson. And approximately when was this, if you will 
recall ? 

Mr. Mardian. Soon after the Watergate break-in. I don't know. 
Tliey came to talk to me. I asserted the privilege as to communications, 
but offered to answer all other questions, and I did. 

Mr. Thompson. We have heard testimony, as counsel preceding me 
pointed out, from some of the other witnesses talking about activities 
going on that have been characterized by various people, various wit- 
nesses, as coverup activities, comings and goings, meetings, and you 
have mentioned the fact that what might appear as a meeting might 
not in fact be a meeting. 

Could you elaborate on that a little bit ? How were the logs kept in 
Mr. Mitchell's office or his office there? 

Mr. Mardian. You have to understand Mr. Mitchell's office. When 
you enter the Mudge Rose firm, you enter going south, you proceed 
south, then you proceed east, then you proceed north as far as you 
can go in the building. And Mr. Mitchell's office is the last one. So the 
reception room is not conductive to Mr. Mitchell's office, although he 
has a very nice office. 

He had a secretary, a young lady who — he had two secretaries. They 
changed while he was there. 

During this Watergate business and before that, he had a new 
young lady who was very competent, as competent as she could be, 
who tried to keep records as they were kept at the Justice Department. 
And many times, she would have to leave her desk and if I came out 
of the room, she would say, what time did you go in, or, who else was 
in there with you ? What time did they go in ? 

One time I can recall calling her and she said, aren't you with Mr. 
Mitchell ? On more than one occasion, because Mr. LaRue and I look 
somewhat alike to some people, because of our build and lack of hair 
and the glasses we wear. 

And she would ask me sometimes to identify people and I wouldn't 
know, and she would ask somebody else. 

What I am really trying to say is they weren't really meetings. If 
you walked down to Mr. Mitchell's office and you stood there, there 
was no place to sit, he would wave you in and you would sit in the 
chair while he finished his business with somebody. 

I can remember one occasion, I must have been up there for some- 
where around an hour and a half or 2 hours. I had 5 minutes Avith him 
because I had to wait through one discussion he had and when I 
started to talk to him, another gentleman came in, said it was urgent, 
and he took about 30 minutes of his time. And I still sat there. I 
presume, according to the record, it was a meeting of us, we three 
people. There were three people who came in and three different sub- 
ject matt-ers were discussed. 

Mr, Thompson. Another thing that occurs to me is that your name 
is used almost interchangeably with Mr. LaRue. LaRue is seldom 
mentioned without mentioning Mardian, Mardian is seldom mentioned 
without mentioning LaRue. Can you explain this; did you travel as 
a pair all the time or were you engaged in the same roles at the time 
or what? 



2380 

Mr. Mardian. No. Starting, I would guess in early Augiist, I had an 
entirely different role, different duties. I didn't see him that much. He 
was a good friend, he is a good friend of mine. People would call me 
Fred and I stoi:)ped even — ]3eople who didn't even know us, there were 
people of the committee, about 400 there, people would call me Fred 
and quite a few would call him Bob. 

Mr. Thompson. What was your assignment when you came back 
from California and became involved in what was going on around 
you. Was it an investigatory type assignment or was it merely to hire 
other attoiTieys, to get other attorneys on board, or a combination of 
the two ? 

Mr. Mardian. To do whatever was necessary to make an appropriate 
response to the complaint that was filed. We had a complaint, we had 
a motion for expedited recovery, we had — to answer that complaint — 
we had cross-actions on file, motions to dismiss. We filed an action for 
abuse of process, based upon a statement by one of the principals of 
the Democratic Party, that the purpose of the suit was not to recover 
damages but to get at the facts of Watergate. In other words, he was 
using — a statement was to the effect they were using, the process of 
the court not for a legal purpose but for a political purpose, at least 
that is what we urged. 

There was a liable action filed on behalf of Mr. Stans because of the 
assertion that he was responsible for laundering committee funds in 
Mexico. 

Mr. Thompson. Was it more civilly oriented than criminally, as 
opposed to handling a criminal case that might arise ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever have any previous experience yourself 
as a criminal lawyer ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Thompson. With regard to the situation as you found it, you 
were talking about Mr. Liddy and dealing with him and, of course, he 
was evidently telling various stories to various people. I think we 
know that now from the testimony. Mr. McCord says he told him that 
Mitchell, when he was trying to get McCord involved, did in fact get 
him involved, that Mitchell had approved the operation. According to 
Dean he told him that Magruder had pushed him and didn't mention 
Mitchell, and from your testimony he didn't mention Mitchell to you. 

Had you ever had any previous experience with Mr. Liddy ? Didn't 
you almost hire him yourself one time ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes; until I interviewed him. 

Mr. Thompson. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Mardian. He applied for an attorney position in the Depart- 
ment of Justice. He came very highly recommended. His background, 
his resume was splendid from the point of view of experience, and 
our personnel officer had done everything but put him on the payroll. 
I interviewed him, his resume, his background Avas good. I didn't feel 
that he would fit into the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Thompson. So what did you do ? 

Mr. Mardian. I — we undid the paperwork. 

Mr. Thompson. And you unhired him ? 

Mr. Mardian. What is that? 

Mr. Thompson. You unhired him, in effect ? 



2381 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. I think that was why Mr. Mitchell made the 
reference he made, he asked me why I hadn't hired Mr. Liddy and I 
told him. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course, you had a conversation with him back 
when you were still in California concerning his conversation with 
Kleindienst. Didn't he tell Powell Moore that Mitchell, in effect, had 
issued instruction that he tell Kleindienst to get McCord out of jail, 
something like that? 

Mr. Mardian. He didn't talk much on the telephone, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Didn't you, in one of your conversations with Liddy, 
tell him in fact that Mitchell had not instructed this ? I thought you 
testified as to that earlier. 

Mr. Mardian. I told him to stay away from Mr. Kleindienst. 

Mr. Thompson. But you didn't tell him that Mitchell had not, in fact, 
issued those 

Mr. Mardian. I am sure I told him that too. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall any response he had at that time ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you talk to Mitchell about whether or not he had 
issued instructions to get McCord out of jail? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; immediately after Powell Moore called me and 
told me what had occurred. 

Mr. Thompson. What was Mitchell's reaction? You don't have to 
quote his exact words if you don't want to. 

Mr. Mardian. I think you can well imagine his reaction. 

Mr. Thompson. You were dealing with Liddy; you testified you 
were also trying to get information concerning the money. 

What situation did you find yourself in there? After talking to 
Magruder and talking to Sloan and going back and forth as to how 
much money had been given to Liddy, how long was it before you 
could resolve in your own mind what actually happened ? 

Mr. Mardian. That never was resolved. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ever make a statement about whether or 
not various parties had lied to Mr. Mitchell about 

Mr. Mardian. I told Hugh Sloan when he told me $190,000 or around 
$200,000 that Mr, Magruder had lied to Mr. Mitchell in my presence. 
He said it was only $40,000. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you make inquiry of other people, did you make 
inquiry of anyone in the "Wliite House, did you talk to Mr. Dean, for 
example ? 

Mr. Mardian. No. 

Mr. Thompson. About involvement? Mention has been made, for 
example, of suspicions with regard to Mr. Colson. Did you ever ask 
him concerning what he knew about Colson's involvement, if any ? 

Mr. Mardian. What Mr. Dean told me about Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. He told me he thought he was clean. 

Mr. Thompson. He thought Colson was clean. When did he tell 
you this ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I don't recall. After talking to Mr. Liddy I sur- 
mised certain things, purely speculation on my part, and I started ask- 
inof some questions based upon that speculation. 

Mr. Thompson. Was this in June ? 



2382 

Mr. Mardian. I doubt that. I don't know. It would have been soon 
after my discussion with Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Mardian, I assume the primary relevance of 
your claim of attorney-client privilege has to do with whether or not 
,you should have divulged certain information to certain people earlier 
than you have, and I think in fairness to you I might relate something 
which has just been brought to my attention, the ethics opinions of the 
ABA, Opinion No. 216, which advises that "It is not unethical for at- 
torneys to resolve doubts about the possibly privileged matter in favor 
of nondisclosure." 

Was that in effect your position, when you have a problem that it 
is not unethical to resolve those doubts in favor of nondisclosure? 

Mr. Mardian. I think that is the rule. 

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

Thank you, Mr. Mardian. 

Mr. Mardian. You are welcome. 

Senator Ervin. Did you have something to add ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I am glad that you decided to abide by Judge Sirica's 
ruling about the question of the attorney-client relationship insofar 
as Liddy is concerned, and that you have accepted the fact that other 
parties that talked to you had waived the attorney-client privilege by 
testifying in your own behalf because that saves us a good deal of 
trouble because I have a high respect for the attorney-client relation- 
ship. I think that the maintenance of the confidentiality of communi- 
cations between attorney and a client is absolutely essential if persons 
charged with criminal offenses in our courts are to receive due process 
of law. 

I was a trial lawyer for many years, and I have gotten a little rusty 
on some of my knowledge of the rules of evidence, but I was under the 
impression that the attorney-client relationship only applies to con- 
fidential communications between the client and the attorney, whereby 
the attorney receives from the client information which is necessary 
or appropriate to enable the attorney to protect the legal rights of the 
client, and that therefore the original relates to confidential communi- 
cations relating to past transactions. 

Is that your understanding of it ? 

Mr. Mardian. I wouldn't disagree with that statement. 

Senator Ervin. I also have the vague recollection, from my practice 
as a lawyer, in criminal as well as in other cases, that the attorney- 
client privilege only applies to confidential communications which are 
made to the attorney in the absence of other people, and for that reason 
since Mr. LaEue was a third party, that the conversation which Mr. 
Liddy had with you in Mr. LaRue's apartment did not fall within 
the scope of the privilege of attorney-client relationship. 

Mr. Mardian. I think in this jurisdiction the rule is opposite to that, 
INIi". Chairman. That where the communication is in the presence of a 
coemployee that as far as the attorney is concerned the privilege ob- 
tains on behalf of both persons. However, either one or the other may 
disclose but that does no abrogate the privilege insofar as the attorney 
is concerned. 

Senator Ervin. I am glad it is not necessary for me to engage in a 
debate with you on that because I do realize that we have 50 State 



2383 

jurisdictions and we have one Federal jurisdiction and there is a great 
deal of slight divergences among the different jurisdictions in respect 
to this matter and fortunately we do not have to pass on it because you 
are abiding by Judge Sirica's idling and also by the fact that other 
witnesses have waived the attorney-client privilege. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Chairman, that proposition of evidence law is not 
without some doubt. We maintain the position 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Bress [continuing]. That Mr. Mardian has suggested here, 
and argued it before Judge Sirica. He never got to that point, so we 
do not have a ruling on that particular phase. 

Senator Er\t:n. Well, fortunately it is an academic question that we 
can be interested in as lawyers and the solution to which is not neces- 
sary to this present matter. 

Now, you stated that you suspected that the CIA was involved in 
this break-in. Why would you suspect that an organization of the 
Grovernment, which is expressly forbidden to exercise police powers 
and which is barred from any function in internal security matters 
would break into the Democratic headquarters? 

Mr. Mardian. There were a number of indications of that involve- 
ment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. I would like for you to enumerate just a few of 
them. 

Mr. Mardian. Well, the first involved the activities of that evening. 
I believe that all of the persons arrested, as well as Mr. Hunt, were 
either employees or former employees of the CIA. 

Senator Ervin. I have received a letter from the Acting Attorney 
General, Joseph T. Sneed, addressed to me, stating that : 

The Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into the telephone 
hoax, in which Secretary of the Treasury Shultz was impersonated. The tele- 
phone message you received appears to have constituted a violation of Federal 
law. 

At the direction of the President the resources of the Department of Justice 
are being employed to help apprehend the individual or individuals respon- 
sible for this cruel and irresponsible misrepresentation. Sincerely, Joseph T. 
Sneed. 

I read that notwithstanding the fact that Senator Baker has made a 
statement to the same effect previously, because I am informed, not by 
telephone this time. [Laughter.] But I am informed that the Acting 
Attorney General is hopeful that I would read this on TV, and I am de- 
lighted to do so, and I regret very much the fact that I was so un- 
suspicious and trusting that I accepted the telephone call at face 
value. 

I might add that I was prompted to do so in part because I thought 
that the information which the spurious phone call conveyed to me 
was a rational thing that should be done in this connection. [Laughter.] 
And it is what I had been praying that the White House would do be- 
cause it is so rational. 

Returning just a moment to what were the circumstances that caused 
you to believe that the CIA was involved ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, there were a number of them. The first was prac- 
tically, well, everybody involved in the break-in and the director, one 
of the directors of the break-in, were all CIA or ex-CIA people. The 
presence of the lawyer who appeared on the scene before there was any 



2384 

chance to make any telephone calls and the agency for which he works 
pointed in that direction. 

Mr. Hunt officed in that same agency. Mr. Liddy told nie that they 
had been operating with CIA assistance. A person who is presently 
in the employ of the CIA, when I asked his opinion, indicated to me 
that he would stake his life on the fact that the CIA was involved, 
and there were some other matters that appeared which I had a knowl- 
edge of in my capacity as an assistant attorney general 

Senator Ervin. I would say 

Mr. Mardian [continuing]. That indicated that goes back a long 
way. They had CIA identification on them. 

Senator Ervin. I believe that shortly after the Watergate- break-in 
occurred there was some speculation in the press to the effect that 
the CIA may have been involved. 

Mr. Mardian. There was quite a bit of it. 

Senator Ervin. Now, you have been interrogated, I think, rather 
thoroughly by Mr. Hamilton for the committee and I don't care to ask 
questions but I do want to say something which puzzles me. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And that is this: I have always felt that the Presi- 
dent of the United States not only had very responsible constitutional 
and legal duties to perform for the country but that he also had some 
responsibility to afford the countrv moral leadership, and it appear 
here from all this testimony, and I think that you and I both know, 
that shortly after this tragedy happened, it was stated in the news 
media that five burglars had been caught in the Watergate, in the 
Democratic national headquarters, and that four of them had cam- 
paign funds which had come from the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President in their pockets at the time they were apprehended in the 
burglary. 

And the thing that puzzles me, and I think puzzles manv of the 
American people, is why didn't somebody who was interested in the 
President and in his reelection, tell the President that he owed a 
duty of moral leadership and that he ought to find out immediately, 
not after 9 months, but immediatelv, how it happened that five bur- 
glars were caught in the headquarters of the opposition political party 
with four of them having his campaign funds donated to help his re- 
election in their pockets. 

Can you explain to me why there wasn't somebodv connected with 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President or somebody who had a 
responsible position in the '\^niite House who didn't sav something to 
the President why he should exercise that moral leadership, and expose 
this shocking event ? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't explain that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. I believe T had better go and vote now. 

I might state the only reason I know that the vote is on is because I 
received by wire advice to that effect. 

rUecess.] 

Senator Bakkr. If there is no obiecfion on the part of committee 
members, it is 5 minutes to 5 now and there is another vote on the signal 
on the clock and I think it would be counterproductive to try to come 
back after this vote. I understand there is still another A^ote immedi- 



2385 

ately after that, so, Mr. Mardian, if you are agreeable we will defer the 
rest of your testimony until tomorrow morning at 10. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you. 

Senator Baker. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a.m., Friday, July 20, 1973.] 



FRIDAY, JULY 20, 1973 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Ck)MMiTTEE 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., (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present : Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gur- 
ney, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; 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 ; R. Phillip Haire, Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, 
Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels ; 
Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy 
minority counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and 
Robert Silverstein, assistant minority coimsels; Pauline O. Dement, 
research assistant; Filer Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert 
Baca, office of Senator Montoya ; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 
Baker ; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker ; Michael Flani- 
gan, assistant publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will not mind, and I am sure the wit- 
ness will not mind, if I inject a brief note of levity this morning. After 
our sad experience with the hoax, the phone call yesterday, I over- 
heard the press corps remark that the real Alex Butterfield is in Tia- 
juana — bound in tape. 

Senator Ervin. I would just like to say, to quote the scriptures 
again, it is stated in the Book of Proverbs that a merry heart, such as 
that Senator Baker possesses, doeth good like a medicine. 

Senator Baker. It is bad medicine. 

Mr. Mardian, you have gone over your testimony, as other witnesses 
have, at great length, and there has been an exhaustive examination 
by counsel for the committee and members of the committee, and I 
am today going to limit my questions fairly severely and try to impose 
on myself about a 10-minute rule without suggesting to committee 
members that we invoke any such rule. I intend to do that just for the 
sake of trying to move through the testimony. 

It is clear, Mr, Mardian, that there are certain essential conflicts 
in your testimony and that of Mr. Dean. There are other apparent 
conflicts between your testimony and that of Mr, Stans. Let us talk 
about the Dean testimony for a moment. Do you have any idea when 
you last talked to Mr. Dean and about what and, more particularly, 

(2387) 



2388 

do you have any recollection of having discussed your testimony or 
his testimony that Avould be given before this committee ? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. MARDIAN— Resumed 

Mr. Mardian. I do not know that I have talked to John Dean since 
I left Washington on November 10. It is possible I saw him during 
the inaugural ceremonies but I have not discussed with him my testi- 
mony nor he his testimony with me. 

Senator Baker. Have you read the opening statement that Mr. 
Dean filed with and read to the committee ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe that I read — I do not think I read the entire 
transcript but I may have. It has been some time. 

Senator Baker. Are there any other points in the Dean testimony 
or the Magruder testimony or the Stans testimony tliat you feel do 
not portray an event in the same way that you rec ^1 it? You have 
identified some but, based on your information about those witnesses' 
testimony, are there any other important, significant events in which 
you have a different or contrary view ? 

Mr. Mardian. I would have to go over his testimony and his opening 
statement. 

Senator Baker. There are none that come to mind at the moment as 
being particularly significant or outstanding ? 

Mr. Mardian. Not that I can think of. There may be some significant 
ones. 

Senator Baker. Eather than ask you to go over that testimony now, 
for the opening statement of Mr. Dean, of course, was over 240 pages, 
and the INTagruder testimony was rather extensive, as was the Stans tes- 
timony, would you be agreeable, Mr. Mardian, to reviewing those three 
pieces of testimony and the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, that would 
make four, and note for this record in a letter later anv other important 
and significant discrepancies in that thev do not accord with your 
recollection of events about which you have knowledge ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, if I am furnished with transcripts. I do not have 
them, I do not believe. 

Senator Baker. Would you be agreeable to returning if necessary, 
to expound further on any such points of conflict ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Cliairman, I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of the testimony of Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Stans and 
Mr. Mitchell be sup]3lied to the witness, and that he may be permitted 
to supply to the committee as a late filed exhibit anv such notations as 
he pleases with the understanding that the committee may ask him 
to return — and Mr. I/aRue, the five. 

Senator Ervin. Without objection on the part of any member of 
the committee, the staff will comply with the request of the vice 
chairman. 

Senator Baker. I am not placing any time limitation on that. Mr. 
Mardian. but obvious! v, we want to move as fast as we reasonablv 
can, so if you can supply that information as pi'omntlv as you can 
we would be grateful and you need not comnlete it before you send 
any particular portions of it. You can send it as you do complete it, 
and the staff will work out with you the details on how that should 
be done. 



2389 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. While you were at the Justice Department, Mr. 

Mardian, did you have any dealings with Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Senator Baker. Are you aware of the so-called Plumbers operation 
at the White House in which Mr. Liddy was apparently involved ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was not aware of the Plumbers operation until 
after the Watergate break-in and I recall a reporter from Time 
magazine, I believe, who asked me if I was aware of the Plumbers 
and I said I did not — I was not aware of them, had not heard the 
word and he said, "You must have, they had a sign on the door called 
the Plumbers," and I said, "Well, I did not go by that door." 

Senator Baker. But you were not aware of the term, "the Plumbers," 
or of the function of that group within the White House while you 
were at Justice or prior to the events in which they were engaged ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to Mr. Liddy about anything that 
you now identifv as being part of the Plumbers operation? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

My first meeting with Mr. Liddy, and T don't think I was aware 
that he was Mr. Liddy at the time, was when I arbitrated a treaty 
between the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Alcholol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms Division and the staffs of the two agencies, the bureau of 
the agency came to mv office, and because of the conflict in jurisdiction 
over the bombins: statute that had been enacted where Congress gave 
ioint investijrative jurisdiction to the Bureau and the Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms Division that it resulted in sort of a jurisdic- 
tional dispute. Mr. Sullivan was a friend of mine. Mr. Rossides was a 
friend of mine and they made me aware of the conflict, I suggested they 
come to mv office or they suggested it, I don't know, but we sat down 
over a period of a day or two and worked out a 6-month agreement 
which we had called a treaty, whereby thev would try to operate under, 
to divide up the types of cases each would investigate. Mr. Liddy was 
a part of that group, as I recall. 

Senator Baker. Did you have dealings with Mr. Liddy in that con- 
nection ? 

Mr. Mardian. T don't think so. My dealings were mainly with Mr. 
Rossides — Secretarv Rossides and Mr. Sullivan, who was then the As- 
sociate Director of the FBI. 

Senator Baker. Were you at that time Assistant Attorney General 
for Internal Security Affairs ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Gray 
or with his predecessor, Mr. Hoover, about any matter relevant to this 
inquiry ? 

Mr. Mardian. To this inquiry ? 

Senator Baker. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mardian, I note that Mr. Dean states that. I believe in an execu- 
tive session, I am not sure it was discussed fully in the public record, 
but on June 16, 1973, 1 believe Mr. Dean said that you, Mr. Parkinson, 
O'Brien, and Chapin and Strachan went over certain FBI re- 
ports and that you were critical of the FBI or the so-called Gray 
investigation ? 



2390 

Mr. Mardian. I have no recollection of ever meeting with Mr. 
Strachan. I told the committee staff that I was aware that Mr. Dean 
did have FBI report. The only document that I am aware of, it was 
either shown to me or read to me and I believe it was read to me by 
Mr. Dean and it was an FBI teletype from Mr. Gray to, I believe, all 
of the FBI offices in connection with the investigation of Watergate. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to Mr. Hoover while you were 
Assistant Attorney General for Internal Security ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to him about the Plumbers group 
or internal security functions being carried on by the White House ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever talk to him about the White House staff 
and their relationship to the FBI or the Department of Justice ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir ; not to my knowledge. 

Senator Baker. Did he ever talk to you ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. If Mr. Hoover had been aware of the Plumbers 
group I think we Avould have heard about it. 

Senator Baker. Were you aware that at one time there was a good 
bit of talk about Mr. Hoover retiring or resigning as director ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Senator Baker. Did you have any personal knowledge or conver- 
sation with Mr. Hoover about that situation ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. Did you have any idea why the White House did 
take over some of what I would consider internal security operations 
instead of leaving it in your department or with the FBI ? 

Mr. Mardian. It would be pure speculation. 

Senator Baker. You have no basis for knowledge or basis of knowl- 
edge. 

Mr. Mardian. It would be pure speculation on my part. Senator. 

Senator Baker. Would you care to speculate ? If you prefer not to 
it is all right, but if you would care to I would be happy to have it as 
long as that speculation is based on your perception of the attitude, 
relationships, or any facts known to you. If you think that would be 
helpful to the record we would be happy to have it. 

Mr. Mardian. I can only say that lie apparently lacked confidence 
in our ability to do the job. 

Senator Baker. Our ability, meaning the Justice Department 
ability ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. sir. 

Senator Baker. Moaning the Internal Security Division, the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, if it fell within the gamut of the Internal 
Security Division, yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you have any reason to think there was a lack 
of confidence that led the A^Hiite House to take independent action ? 

Mr. Mardian. AYell, that is the basis of my speculation. I can't think 
of any other reason for ci-eating such a group. 

Senator Baker. Did anybodv ever tell you that or intimate that or 
did you infer that from any other facts or circumstances at the time? 

INIr. Mardian. I am only inferrinsr that from the revelations that 
have com© out now. We had an FBI, a good FBI; we had a good 



2391 

Justice Department. It seems to me that — well, I just drew the conclu- 
sion if they felt they had to do what they were doing they had a lack 
of confidence in us. 

Senator Baker. Did you sense any resentment in your department or 
did you resent the transfer, or apparent transfer of these functions in 
part to the White House staff or do you resent it now ? 

Mr. Mardian. I had no knowledge of anv transfer of any functions 
from the Justice Department to the Wliite House. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Mardian, my 10 minutes have expired. I have 
other questions and I will return to that later on. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge. 

Senator Talmadge. Mr. Mardian, I also will attempt to be brief in 
order to expedite the hearings as rapidly as possible. There are a few 
questions that I have for clarification. 

Did you ask Mr. LaRue if he had known about the break-in ahead 
of time? 

Mr. Mardian. I cannot recall any specific time I said, "Fred, did you 
know about it ahead of time?" until after these hearings started. 

Senator Talmadge. Did he tell you he did ? 

Mr. Mardian. I asked him ; I believe he called me and told me that 
he was going to the U.S. attorney's office and I asked him on that 
occasion, I said, "Fred, did you know about it ahead of time?" And 
he said, "Yes." 

Senator Talmadge. Did you ask him if John knew ? 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me. I do not think — the question that I asked 
him was not specifically about the break-in itself. Did he know about 
the activities ? And he said, "Yes." 

Senator Talmadge. Did you ask him if John knew ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. "WTiat was his response ? 

Mr. Mardian. I may be mistaken as to what he said at the time. I 
said my next question, as I recall it at that time, was : "Did John know 
about it ahead of time" ? 

He said, "Yes." 

Senator Talmadge. And you were referring to John Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

I then said what does John say ? 

He says, "John says no." 

Now, subsequently, after my appearance before, I believe, the grand 
jury, I talked to Fred. He called me and asked me about what had 
transpired with reference to him, and I said, they asked me if I had 
talked to you, they asked me about everybody I had talked to and as 
I believe the only person I had talked to was Fred LaRue, I related 
what I just told you; and Fred said, "My God, you did not say that, 
did you?" 

I said, "Yes." 

And he said, "Bob, I do not thmk I said that." 

Now, I could be mistaken, but I am giving you my best recollection. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you were all close confidantes, high White 
House officials, and the President himself. You previously held a high 
position in the Department of Justice, with the responsibility of up- 
holding the laws of the country. "Wliy did you involve yourself in a 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 12 



2392 

covenip of the Watergate? Mr. Mitcliell testified the reason he did it 
was because he was afraid the President would lower the boom, others 
because they assumed that the White House staff had approved this op- 
eration. What was your reason, Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, I do not know what you mean by "coverup." 
If you mean by coverup my not being forthcoming and disclosing 
everything I knew, I felt that my oath as an attorney prevented me 
from doing that. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, let me ask you another question. I believe 
you and Mr. Magruder and Mr. Mitchell were all together on June 19, 
as I recall, and there was something said about $40,000. Magruder, I 
believe, made the statement and asked Mr. Mitchell if he did not ap- 
prove the $250,000 budget for the espionage activities. Did Mr. 
Mitchell answer in the affirmative ? 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me, did you say June 19 ? 

Senator Talmadge. Or some time thereabouts. Or any date you can 
recall. I am not so much interested in the date as I am the subject mat- 
ter of the conversation and the response. 

Mr. Mardian. The date, I believe, was subsequent to that ; was prob- 
ably the latter part of that week. I think it was the 23d or 24th. I 
asked Mr. Magruder in the presence of Mr. Mitchell how much money 
he had given to Mr. Liddy. He said he had given ]Mr. Liddy or au- 
thorized Mr. Sloan to give Mr. Liddy $40,000. I must have registered 
surprise and said, "$40,000?" And Mr. Mitchell did much the same. 
And he turned to Mr. Mitchell and he said, "Well, that is not much 
out of the total budget of $250,000." 

Mr. Mitchell's answer was. "But the campaign has not even started 
yet." 

Now, that is the best of my recollection of that conversation. 

Senator Talmadge. You understood that declaration on the part of 
Mr. Mitchell to mean that he had approved the $250,000 operation, 
did you not — these espionage activities ? 

Mr. Mardian. If you want my — I do not know that the thought 
crossed my mind, did Mr. Mitchell authorize the $250,000. Based on 
the conversation I heard, I would assume that Mr. Mitchell, not hav- 
ing denied that statement, acquiesced in it. His response was, "I did 
not authorize $250,000 ; the campaign has not started yet." 

Senator Talmadge. Let me ask you something Senator Baker 
touched on briefly, but I do not think he covered it in detail. Did you 
make a trip in July 1972 by courier plane to see the President of'the 
United States in San Clemente, Calif. ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. At the President's request? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmaxkse. What was the reason for that trip ? 

Mr. Mardian. Prior to my making that trip, Mr. William Sullivan, 
Associate Director of the FBI, came to see me, told me he wanted to 
talk to me about a very sensitive matter. He told me that, and he, I 
guess, had expressed this to me for some period of time. He and Mr. 
Hoover were not getting along very well. He anticipated his removal 
as Associate Director and at that time, he was, in effect, the operating 
head of the FBI, other than Mr. Hoover. He told me that there were 
some very sensitive national security surveillance logs that were not, 



2393 

I believe he used the word "in-channel"— I don't know that he did, 
but they were not kept in the ordinary course of business. They were 
kept in his safe in his office. He felt that the highly sensitive nature 
of those tapes was such that they should not be kept there, especially 
if he were to be removed from office. 

He was concerned about what might be done with these tapes, and 
I am not positive of this. I don't know what Mr. Sullivan's recollec- 
tion is. My recollection is that Mr. Hoover might use these tapes for 
the purpose of preserving his position as Director of the FBI. And 
he felt that the White House should be aware of this. I told him that 
I would convey this information to the Attorney General. 

Senator Talmadge. And what was the President's direction ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't talk to the President that time. I merely told 
the Attorney General of my conversation. 

Senator Talmadge. Didn't you go out to see the President himself ? 

Mr. Mardian. It was subsequent to that. I had not heard from the 
Attorney General. I had several inquiries from Mr. Sullivan. I said 
I had done what I had said I would do. Subsequent to that time — I 
don't know the date — I got a call, I believe it was on a Sunday. The 
call was from the western White House. I think it was Mr. Ehrlich- 
man. It may have been Mr. Haldeman. He told me that the President 
would like to talk to me and whether it would be convenient for me 
to take the courier plane — ^^a mail plane goes back and forth from 
Andrews to El Toro Marine Base, I believe on a regular daily basis — 
it goes one day and comes the next. I would be able to take the courier 
plane that day so that I would be available to see the President the 
following morning. I said I would. 

I went to Andrews and I took that courier plane. 

Senator Talmadge. And what did the President tell you to do with 
these? 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me. Do you want the conversation with the 
President ? 

Senator Talmadge. I want to find out what the President directed 
you to do with these reports that Sullivan had. 

Mr. Mardian. He directed me to obtain the reports from Sullivan 
and deliver them to Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Talmadge. And did you do so ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. And what did those tapes concern ? 

Mr. Mardian. The tapes concerned electronic surveillance authorized 
by the President, I was told, at the request of the Director of the Na- 
tional Security Council. 

Senator Talmadge. And what has happened to them ? Are they still 
in the White House ? 

Mr. Mardian. I understand from news reports that they are in the 
possession of the Bureau. 

Senator Talmadge. The reason at that time was to keep Mr. Hoover 
from having access to these repoi-ts ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think I have related what I was told and you will 
have to draw your own conclusion from that, Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. That was what Sullivan told you and what you 
reported to the President? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 



2394 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you have testified that you tried to quit 
your committee assignment — that is, the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President — ^at least three times but was induced to stay on. How were 
you induced to stay on ? 

Mr. Mardian. By persuasion. 

Senator Talmadge. By whom ? 

Mr. Mardian. By Mr. Mitchell and others. 

Senator Talmadge. Why did you want to leave ? 

Mr. Mardian. After the disclosures that were made to me by Mr. 
Liddy, I just felt I did not, could not adequately represent the com- 
mittee. As I said, I have never practiced criminal law and I have never 
had disclosures of that type ever made to me. 

Senator Talmadge. You felt like you had had enough, is that the 
reason ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was placed in a very difficult position. 

Senator Talmadge. I can understand that. 

Now, you also testified that you felt that it was blackmail of Mr. 
Bittman to ask for $25,000 more. Why did you feel that it was black- 
mail? 

Mr. JMa^rdian. I only meant that, Senator — there are two connota- 
tions you put on it. That happened to be my immediate reaction. It 
seemed like an excessive fee to represent a person who was charged with 
a burglary. 

Senator Talmadge. How many of these people did Mr. Bittman 
represent ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe one person. 

Senator Talmadge. And what was the total amount paid to him? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know. I didn't know the $25,000 had been paid 
to him until these 

Senator Talmadge. I think it was several different sums, close to 
$100,000 — or $157,000, I am informed. I agree with you that that was 
a grossly excessive fee for representing one burglar. 

Mr. Mardian. Counsel suggests that I answer my question that I 
didn't even know he had obtained the $25,000 until these proceed- 
ings commenced — these hearings. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you very much, Mr. Mardian. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. Mr. Mardian, I suppose there were three issues 
involved in this sad affair. One, the planning of the break-in or 
bugging, the coverup, and whether or not the President of the United 
States was involved in any of this. 

As I understand from your testimony, you were, in your own words, 
the attorney for the committee here for a few weeks following the 
break-in until you disengaged from those duties and went to political 
duties. 

Mr. Mardian. To the extent that I could disengage. 

Senator Gitrney. Yes. And during that time, of course, you had a 
number of conferences with a great many people who have become, 
shall we say, leading characters in Waterfrate, and also, of course, have 
been witnesses before the committee and are still to come before us. 

My question is this: Do you know of your own knowledge who 
authorized the Watergate break-in and bugging? 



2395 

Mr, Mardian. No, I do not. 

Senator Gurney. Other than Mr. Liddy, did anybody during this 
time, or any other time, for that matter, give you any piece of 
information at all about who authorized the planning of the bugging 
and break-in of Watergate ? 

Mr. Mardian. Other than Mr. Liddy ? 

Senator Gurnet. Other than Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Mardian. No ; I heard a lot of speculation. Senator, but nothing 
that anyone could put their finger on. 

Senator Gurney. Mr. Mitchell never revealed anything about this ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Or Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Or Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Or Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Mardian. No — I didn't talk to Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Gurney. Or Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't talk to Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Gurney. Or Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't talk to Mr. Colson. 

Senator Gurney, Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. Mardian. I talked to Mr. Dean. 

Senator Gurney. Did he reveal anything about who might have 
authorized the plamiing and break-in of Watergate? 

Mr. Mardian. No; Mr. Dean used to conjecture with me as to where 
it was and where it led. 

Senator Gurney. Let us go back to the meeting with Liddy, because 
that obviously is a very key and important meeting. You really are 
the only witness so far who has given us any information on what Mr. 
Liddy said, who was a key figure in Watergate, of course; he has 
refused to testify either before the committee, or to anyone else, for 
that matter, and I would like to go back to that Liddy meeting and ask 
you about two of the pieces of testimony that you gave the committee. 
One, as I recall it yesterday, is Mr. Liddy told you that Watergate was 
an ongoing project that had the full authority of the President. Was 
that your testimony? 

Mr. Mardian. No ; I do not believe I said the Watergate, sir. I said 
that the operations of the group in which he was working had been 
an ongoing operation of which Watergate was one. 

Senator Gurney. What did he mean by the group with which he was 
working ? Did he tell you who that group was ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, it came about with reference to a question 
that I asked concerning the. as I recall, the bungling effort. You may 
recall some of the newspaper accounts, and it was then that he said 
that he was working with pros, men of considerable experience that 
this was just one of their jobs. They had done many, and they had all 
been successful. 

I presumed from that that they were the same group, in other words, 
the ones that were cauffht, along with Mr. Hunt. 

Senator Gurney. Did he mention any names? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Not even the name of Mr. Hunt ? 



2396 



Mr. Mardian. Well, yes, I thoug*ht you meant other than the 

Senator Gurney. AVhat did he say about Hunt ? 

Mr, Mardian. That he had hi^jh regard for Mr. Hunt, as I think I 
have testified ; that Mr. Hunt was in the type of business that he had 
been eno^aged in all his life. He was the chief planner, as I recall, for the 
Bay of Pigs invasion. 

Senator Gitrney. These are things he told you at that meeting? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. What about McCord ; did he say anything about 
him? 

Mr. Mardian. No, I do not — other than the fact that he had violated 
his instructions in hiring Mr. McCord. That his instructions were not 
to hire anyone connected with the committee. 

Senator Gurney. "Who gave him those instructions ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe he said Mr. Magruder. It seemed rather 
incongruous for me to have said that because he was an employee of 
the committee and Mr. Hunt was an employee — was apparently an em- 
ployee of the White House. That is w^hat he said. 

Senator Gurney. And your recollection is that he said that Mr. 
Magruder told him not to hire Mr. McCord ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is my best recollection — well, not Mr. McCord, 
not to hire anyone that had any connection with the committee or 
the White House ; and I recall that because it seemed a little incongru- 
ous with him and Mr. Hunt involved. 

Senator Gurney. Could you amplify any further about these in- 
structions by Magruder ? What instructions was he talking about from 
Mr. Magruder? 

Mr. Mardian. I do not recall any other instructions, other than his 
statement that he and Mr. Hunt had not wanted to go into the Water- 
gate, and that he had done so only at the insistence of Mr. Magruder. 
That was his statement. 

Senator Gurney. Why did he say he did not want to do — ^to go into 
the Watergate ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think that was in response to my question that it 
seemed like a very foolish adventure that did not make any sense to 
break into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. 

Senator Gurney. Now, did you discuss both break-ins ? There were 
two, of course : One that went undetected and the second one that was 
detected. 

Mr. Mardian. Only to the extent that, as I recall what he told me 
was that they had placed the bug in the wrong office, that is my best 
recollection. 

Senator Gurney. And from that then, the instructions of Magruder 
were to correct that error ; is that your testimony ? 

Mr. Mardian. I do not recall his having said that, but that is what 
he stated the purpose of the entry was. 

Senator Gurney. Now, back again to the instructions from 
Magruder. In all this discussion with Mr. Liddy, you were talking 
about the Watergate; is that not correct? And you would assume that 
is what instructions meant ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Gurney. You were not discussing any other venture ? 

Mr. Mardian. Not at that point. 



2397 

Senator Gueney. Not at this time that we are talking about ? 

Mr. Mardian. This discussion of the other adventures came up 
later. 

Senator Gurney. Let us go back to this authority of the President. 
Will you discuss that a little more, because that is extremely impor- 
tant. Here is Liddy's testimony, the only testimony we have. 

Mr. Mardian. I might say I have not been asked to speculate. I did 
not put any credence in that when he told me any more than I did 
when he told me he had shredded $100 bills. I tried to relate as 
factually as I can what he told me. 

Senator Gurney. Did you inquire of him, Mr. Mardian, now, "Liddy, 
what do you mean about authority from the President?" Did you go 
into that at all with him and interrogate him on that ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, Senator ; I told the staff, I guess I could have been 
a better interrogator had I not been in shock, and I think I said, and 
as counsel points out, I cannot recall his using the word "President." 
I did testify that it was — ^the words he used were clearly meant to imply 
that ; and that is the way I understood it. 

Senator Gurney. But you do not actually recall whether he men- 
tioned the name or not, or the title ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. There is another part of that testimony that I think 
is extremely important, too, that you testified to yesterday, and that 
was that the budget that Mr. Liddy had was approved by John 
Mitchell, director of the campaign to re-elect the President, and the 
Wliite House. Would you go into that further because that is a very 
important piece of testimony, too ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is all I can tell you, Senator. Again 

Senator Gurney. Did he say he had discussed the budget with John 
Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. I used the term "budget." He may have said financing 
of the operation ; the use of the word "budget" may have been wrong. 
The general — I have tried to recall as best I can the conversation. 
I remember tliat one better than most because 

Senator Gurney. It was so shocking ? 

Mr. Mardian. Because of the disclosures that were made. 

Senator Gurney. I know it is hard to remember a year back but 
those were two very important pieces of information. 

Mr. Mardian. He may not have said budget. He may have said it 
was financed with the approval of Mr. Mitchell and the Wliite House. 
He may not have said budget, I just 

Senator Gurney. But again on that score did you ask him at all 
about, "Well, when did John Mitchell approve this?" 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. "Did he approve personally?" 

Mr. Mardian. I am sorry ? 

Senator Gurney. I am asking questions that you might have asked 
him. and I am just asking if you asked those. 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, at the time he was telling me these things 
I wasn't believing much of it. I was taking it as defensive statements 
justifying his conduct. 

Senator Gurney. I see. So vou didn't probe that at all ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't think I did. 



2398 

Senator Gurney. What about the business about the White House 
approving either the budget or the money or the operation ; did you 
ask who in the White House approved it ? 

Mr. INfARDTAisr. No, sir. After he implied to me, if he didn't say the 
President — I didn't think there was any further up, any higher to go 
than that. 

Senator Gurney. Was it also during this meeting that he said that if 
it is necessary, assassinate me ; is that right ? 

Mr. Mardian. I had forgotten this until Mr. LaRue testified to it. 
But he did say, as I recall now, that he would never talk; he would 
take the fifth amendment, and that if we didn't have confidence in that 
that he would make himself — he did say that he was morally opposed 
to suicide, but that if we would designate a particular street corner 
for him to stand on he would make himself available to be shot, killed, 
assassinated. Mr. LaRue used the term "assassinated," and I used it 
mavbe because of that, but that is what he said. 

Senator Gurney. WTiat was your reaction to that ? 

Mr. Mardian. Much the same reaction to everything else he told me 
that day. 

Senator Gurney. That his credibility would be in question with 
you? 

Mr. Mardian. It was a very bizarre story. I had never heard one 
like it before in my life. That is the only way I can characterize it. 

Senator Gurney. Just one final series of questions which I have 
been asking many of the witnesses. Have you ever had any meeting 
or conversation with President Nixon on this Watergate affair this 
year or last year? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Never a single one ? 

Mr. Mardian. Never. 

Senator Gurney. Have you ever heard anybody say, anybody in 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President or outside the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President, in the White House or elsewhere, that 
they knew anything about any bit or piece of information about 
whether the President knew about Watergate or knew about the 
coverup ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Never in any of your conversations with Mitchell 
or any of these other people ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Mardian, in the earlv days of our proceedings Mr. McCord 
testified that he had received special information from your Internal 
Security Division ; is that correct, sir ? 

Mr. Mardian. I would not describe it as special. Senator. He, as I 
understand it, did receive information from the Intcrdivisional Infor- 
mation Unit of the Justice Department. 

Senator Inouye. What was the nature of the information ? 

Mr. Mardian. I wasn't at the briefings ; I feel confident it was con- 
fined to information relating to the potential for civil disorder at the 
Republican National Convention. 



1 



2399 

Senator Inouye. "Was this information available to the public ? 

Mr. Mardian. It was available under the guidelines to any entity 
that might be the subject of violent civil disorder and the appropriate 
people that should know of the potential so that they might assess it. 

Senator Inotjye. Did your Internal Security Division ever conduct 
investigations of congressional or senatorial candidates ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. We were not an operational division. 

Senator Inouye. Did you ever conduct investigations of Members of 
Congress ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. We — as I say, there has been some misunder- 
standing in some of the testimony. 

Senator Inoute. I am giving you the opportunity. 

Mr. Mardian. The division did not have an operational function, 
sir. 

Senator Inottte. Where did you get the information that you im- 
parted to Mr. McCord if vou were not the operational arm ? 

Mr. Mardian. IDIU obtained, I would get — and I have so testified — 
over 80 percent of its information from newspapers, young people — 
it started out as a summer group in 1967 ; there were young people, col- 
lege students, and it was under the auspices or it was initiated by 
Ramsey Clark in response to the Kerner Commission report, and I 
would say and I have testified that 85 percent of it was public infor- 
mation that they put together. 

Other information came from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
and our operator agencies, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, if thev were 
aware of something, if local police would supply information, in that 
it related to anything which the Federal Government might become 
involved in, in other words jurisdictional matters. 

Senator Txqttte. As a member, and an importa7it member, of the 
Justice Department, were you ever aware that any division within the 
Department had ever conducted investigations of Members of Con- 
gress ? 

Mr. Mardian. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Inouye. Are you certain that in your conversations with Mr. 
Mitchell, Mr. INIitchell never discussed his knowledgeof the pre- Water- 
gate meetings with you ? 

Mr. Mardian. Never, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Did Mr. Mitchell ever suggest to you that he had 
discussed the Watergate problems with the President of the United 
States? 

Mr. Mardian. Never. 

Senator Inouye. Did he ever suggest to you that he had lied to the 
President of the ITnited States ? 

Mr. Mardian. Never. 

Senator Inouye. You are considered very close to Mr. Mitchell. I 
believe your profile maintains that he is your sponsor, and you have 
never discussed anything this important ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't realize I had a profile that said he was my 
sponsor. 

Senator Inouye. Maybe that is the wrong word to use here. But is 
it your testimony that at no time you discussed Watergate together? 

Mr. Mardian." Mr. Mitchell and I ? 

Senator Inouye. Yes. 



2400 

Mr. Mardtan. Oh, yes; I talked about Wate-rgate with him quite 
often. I thought you were referring to discussing, whether he dis- 
cussed. 

Senator Inouye. In your discussions did he ever tell you that he dis- 
cussed this matter with the President of the United States ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, he never disclosed to me any discussion that I can 
recall with the President of the United States on any subject. There 
may have been but none comes to mind. 

Senator Inouye. In the early days of our proceedings it was sug- 
gested that the major reason for the Watergate break-in was security, 
and Mr. McCord and others suggested that information was possibly 
available in the headquarters which would indicate that members of 
the Democratic Party, in concert with foreign powers, were out to 
destroy the country or to do damage. 

In all of your service in the U.S. Department of Justice, do you know 
of any incidents where members of the Democratic Party constituted 
a national security problem to the United States of America ? 

Mr. Mardian. May I answer your question and then respond to it, 
sir? 

Senator Inouye. Please do, sir. 

Mr. Mardian. I know of no information that was ever brought to my 
attention that anybody in the Democratic Party was sponsored by any 
foreign power or that they posed any threat at all in the form of 
violence or otherwise to the Republican Party or the security of the 
United States. 

Now, if I may respond to your prefatory statement, you indicated, 
and I am surprised this question hasn't been asked yet, you indicated 
that Mr. McCord came to these conclusions based upon information he 
obtained from the Justice Department. His testimony was he didnt 
obtain any information until the latter part of May, and yet he also 
testified that he was involved with these people in a break-in sometime 
in the early part of May — I believe it was on May 3. And yet his own 
testimony is he didn't obtain any information — well, there was a 
break-in May 30. 

Senator Inouye. So he had it before then ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, he was involved, as I understand it, with these 
people before that time, and there certainly could not have been any 
information conveyed to him 

Senator Inouye. The information apparentlv conveyed to the peo- 
ple from that was that information was available in the Democratic 
National Committee to indicate that members of the party constituted 
a national security problem. 

Mr. Mardian. I did not hear that testimony, and I am sure he never 
got any such information from the Department of Justice. 

Senator Inouye. Well, we have been waiting for some response 
from the Department. We ha^'e submitted a request as to this national 
security problem. I do not suppose we have ever received it. But is 
your testimony, as former head of the Internal Security Division, that 
members of the party did not constitute a national security problem? 

Mr. Mardian. Absolutelv not. I have never heard any responsible 
official in the Department of Justice suggest that. 

Senator Inouye. You have heard much about the White House 
horror stories from Mr. Mitchell and I believe you have related some. 



2401 

Are there any other horror stories other than the Watergate, Dita 
Beard, Ellsberg break-in ? 

Mr. Mardian. No ; as I said, if I had interrogated Mr. Liddy fur- 
ther, I might have found out some more. 

Senator Inotjye. I ask you this because Mr. Mitchell suggested that 
this was just the tip of an iceberg? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Mitchell may be privy to more knowledge than 
T have, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Miss Vicki Chern, secretary to Jeb Magruder, sug- 
gested that INIr. Liddy, Mr. Magruder, ISIr. Mardian, and Mr. LaRue 
had a series of meetings in May of 1972. Do yon recall a series of meet- 
ings with Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, and Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir, and whoever made that statement has got me 
mixed up with somebodv else. If I had a series of meetings with Mr. 
Liddy, I would have recalled them. 

Senator Inouye. "V'^Hiat about Mr. Magruder or Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. Mardian. I saw them quite often. I did not have a series of 
meetings with Mr. Magruder and Mr. LaRue in May, to my knowl- 
edge, but — I just came to the committee in May. 

Senator Inouye. Did you discuss electronic surveillance or intelli- 
gence gathering at these meetings? 

Mr. Mardian. Never. You say at these meetings ; I do not admit to 
being present at any such meetings. 

Senator Inouye. One final question, sir. Many of us are impressed 
by your legal background. Your biographical sketch indicates that you 
had the highest grades ever for a first-year student in law school, you 
did very well as a corporate lawyer, and apparently, your experience in 
the Justice Department singled you out as almost Mr. Law and Order. 
And now I quote from your statement : 

If I make no other point in this brief prefatory statement, I would like it in 
the record that as of the morning of .Tune 17, 1972, I was relieved of my political 
responsibilities to the extent possible and charged with the responsibility of act- 
ing as counsel to the committee, at least as far as Watergate was concerned. 

Then, you have a very interesting statement on the following page : 

Commencing the morning of June 17, 1972, — 

When you became lawyer — 

information was imparted to me bit by bit, much of it contradictory, which drew 
me inexorably into an intolerable and, at times, unbearable situation of personal 
conscience — ^a situation in which I was precluded from acting according to the 
dictates of my personal desires or interests. A situation in which ultimately my 
only hope was the selfish one of not becoming implicated in the conduct of others 
who I felt it my duty to serve. 

Are you trying to suggest that, as a lawyer, the advice and counsel 
that you provided your clients was not according to the dictates of 
your personal desires or interests ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir, and I do not think — I do not want to be con- 
tumacious. I do not think that is a fair reading. It may be. To me 

Senator Inouye. It says you were precluded from acting according 
to the dictates of your personal conscience. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. My conscience is one thing and the ethics of 
my profession demanded at that time something else. 

Senator Inouye. Does the ethics of your profession require you to 
tell vour clients to lie ? 



2402 

Mr. Mardian. I do not think that that statement indicates that, sir. 
What I was trying to indicate was that Mr. Liddy imparted informa- 
tion to me on June 21 which, had it been imparted to me less than 2 
months before, I would have had him arrested. I was a former Assist- 
ant Attorney General of the United States; my boss was the former 
Attorney General of the United States ; my best friend was the At- 
torney General of the United States. And he was imparting infomia- 
tion to me that indicated not only that crime, but a series of other 
crimes perpetrated by people in the White House that I had worked 
for. Now that is all I was trying to say by being drawn inexorably into 
a situation of personal conscience. 

Senator Inouye. Even if you felt that these activities had the poten- 
tial of hurting the President of the United States you decided that the 
ethics of your profession required you to keep the lid on ? 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, I made — I gave a man my word under my 
oath that he could confide in me. I thought I was just investigating one 
crime. He imparted to me knowledge of other felonies, and as I read 
my oath, I was duty-bound not to disclose that confidence. And had 
I gone to the authorities that day and told them what Mr. Liddy had 
told me, I think I would have been subject to disciplinary action, 
severe disciplinary action. So I say, I have never practiced criminal 
law. I do not know how people react to these situations. They carry 
these things in their mind, they cannot disclose it. This was unbearable 
to me. 

Senator Inouye. If the ethics of your profession prevented you 
from disclosing the infoiTnation imparted to you by Mr. Liddy, why 
did you discuss this with Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. I made that a precondition to my taking his informa- 
tion in confidence. 

Senator Inouye. Did you discuss this with Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Inouye. Or anyone else ? 

Mr. Mardian. I never discussed it with anyone else but Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Inouye. And was Mr. Mitchell precluded by some ethics to 
keep that to himself? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Mitchell will have to speak for himself on that. 
I do not wish to pass iudgment. 

Senator Inouye. Were you given the formal title of counsel to the 
committee on June 17 ? 

Mr. Mardian. I do not believe it is formal. I appear, I believe, on 
the pleadings as counsel to the committee. 

Senator Inouye. At that time, it was your belief that you were per- 
sonal counsel to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir; and I so explained it to him. I was counsel 
for the committee and he was an employee of the committee. I told him 
that as an employee of the committee, he could speak to me in con- 
fidence, although he could not retain me as his personal attorney and 
that I would hold his confidence inviolate. 

Senator Inouye. And even if this information had a potential of 
injuring your major client, the committee, you kept it to yourself? 

Mr. Mardian. I did not keep it to myself; I told it to the head of 
the committee. That is the reason I insisted on that condition. 

Senator Inouye. But it is your testimony that if this had been re- 
ceived 2 months ago, you would have arrested him ? 



2403 

Mr. Mardian. I would not have been in the position of being his 
attorney 2 months ago. I would have been Assistant Attorney General 
2 months ago. 

Senator Inouye. And you would have arrested him ? 

Mr. Mardian. I would have. I would have taken whatever proce- 
dures were necessarv to see that he was brought to justice. 

Senator Inouye. I thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Mardian, yesterday in your testimony, you 
indicated that when you went to the Miami convention, you suggested 
to, I think, and you correct me if I am wrong, Mr. MacGregor and 
maybe others that you wanted to have a memorandum, or that you 
would be glad to write a memorandum setting forth your knowledge 
of this matter, and that you were subsequently ordered not to write 
such a memorandum. Now, if there is a different paraphrase of this, 
you tell me what it is. 

Mr. Mardian. I think you are referring to a conversation I had with 
Mr. Mitchell prior to that time. 

Senator Weicker. Prior to the Miami convention ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; I suggested that memorandum to Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Weicker. And then subsequently, am I correct, you were 
ordered not to prepare such a memorandum ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. "\Yho ordered you ? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Weicker. Well, does that not seem a little bit strange, to go 
ahead and indicate that you would like to set down in writing your 
findings and then have the individual you suggest it to turn you down ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't think it — I didn't think the decision was a 
wise one on his part, and in retrospect, I think he would agree with 
me on that. 

Senator Weicker. Well, never mind what he thinks. I am talk- 
ing about what you think. You obviously thought the situation seri- 
ous enough so that you wanted to put everything in written form, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. I thought that the memorandum should be prepared 
for his signature for the files to explain the situation as it then existed. 

Senator Weicker. Now, as I recall, you also talked to Mr. Mac- 
Gregor at the Miami convention ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And you indicated to Mr. MacGregor that mat- 
ters of a serious nature had come to your attention and you felt he 
oufifht to hear about them ? 

Mr. Mardian. It came in the context, Senator, of his having made a 
series of statements regarding the lack of involvement of any member 
presently employed, as I recall, by the Committee To Re-Elect. I sug- 
gested to him that there were some serious — there was a serious ex- 
posure with respect to certain employees of the committee, he should 
be made aware of it, and hopefully, to prevent him from making 
further statements that might put him in a bad light subsequently. 

Senator Weicker. And he turned yon down ? 

Mr. Mardian. He told me, as I best recall — he was in a hurry; he 
wanted to leave before I got in the room — that he had been assured 



2404 ' 

before he took the job that no one employed in the committee at that 
time had been involved ; he accepted that, and he didn't want to hear 
any more about it, or words to that effect. 

Senator Weicker. And yet at that particular moment in time, you 
were indicating to him that such assurances that had been given to 
him just weren't fact? 

Mr. Mardian. I think the very import of what I told him should 
have indicated that to him ; yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. At any subsequent time, did you again try to 
make contact with Mr. MacGregor, or was that it ? 

Mr. Mardian. Sir, I tried on numerous occasions prior to that time, 
and I think that was the last attempt. 

Senator Weicker. That was the last attempt you made to communi- 
cate with him your misgivings ? 

Mr. Mardian. By that time, I was pretty much out of Watergate 
as such. This was around August 20, 21. Whenever it was, the first 
opportunity I could see him down there. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Mardian, there are three areas that I would 
like to handle and I will try to restrict my questioning on the first 
ffo-around. But specifically, they do relate to the commonly called 
Pentagon Papers and to the Kissinger tapes and to your handling 
of the Internal Security Division in these three areas. 

I would like to cover some of the same ground that Senator Tal- 
madge covered to try to get a more complete story on your flight to San 
Clemente and your receipt of what I refer to, what has been referred to 
as the Kissinger tapes. 

As I understand it, in late September of 1971, you were contacted 
by Mr. William Sullivan on the matter that he had these tapes and 
he wanted to hand them over to somebody; is that correct? 

Mr. Mardian. Late September? 

Senator Weicker. Of 1971. 

Mr. Mardian. I think it was far earlier than that. It must have 
been June. 

Senator Weicker. June of 1971 ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is my best recollection — June or July. 

Senator Weicker. Was it due to the fact that he felt he was on his 
way out and he had these tapes and he wanted to, transmit them to 
some responsible individual ? 

Mr. Mardian. I tried to relate as best I can what he told me, that they 
were not in the ordinary channels of the Bureau, they were in his office 
safe, that his opinion was that he was going to be terminated pretty 
soon. He was concerned about what would happen to them if they fell 
into the possession of his successor. 

Senator Weicker. Now, at that time, did he also indicate to you 
that — what was he referring to ? Was he referring to the logs ? 

Mr. Mardian. He was referring to logs of national security 
surveillances. 

Senator Weicker. That were in his possession ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Did he at that time indicate also to you as to who 
possessed the summaries of the logs ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall the specific conversation. Senator. 
Because of the number of them, I wasn't sure at what time, whether he 



2405 

delivered me the summaries or the logs, and as it now develops, accord- 
ing to Mr. Sullivan, they were logs and summaries and correspondence. 

Senator Weicker. In order to — all right. 

Upon his initial communication with you, did you then go to the 
Attorney General? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Senator Weicker. And ask for his recommendations on this matter ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't ask for recommendations, I don't think. I 
merely related to the Attorney General what Mr. Sullivan had told me. 

Senator Weicker. And did tlie Attorney General give you a response 
as to how to handle Mr. Sullivan's oflPer ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Why do you think Mr. Sullivan came to you with 
this offer? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Sullivan was a friend of mine and I think he 
probably had — I am sure he had quicker access to me than anyone else 
in the Department. 

Senator Weicker. And do you feel it was because of his dislike of the 
Director that he didn't turn to his immediate superior, the Director of 
the FBI? 

Mr. Mardian. Based upon what he told me, he was concerned about 
the motives of the Director. 

Senator Weicker. And what were those motives as he described them 
to you? 

Mr. Mardian. My best recollection is that he thought that the Direc- 
tor might use, as I have said, these logs to maintain his position as 
Director. 

Now, I don't know what Mr. Sullivan's recollection of it is, but that 
is my recollection. 

Senator Weicker. He didn't indicate to you as to why he felt that 
the Director could use these logs to maintain his position? 

Mr. Mardian. I have given it to you the best I can. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. All right, let's proceed then with the subsequent 
events. You did not then go back to Mr. Sullivan prior to flying out to 
California to meet with the President to get any portion of the mate- 
rials that he held ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. In your meeting at San Clemente you met with 
the President on this matter specifically ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And what did you describe to the President as the 
situation ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe I simply told him, in response to his question, 
what Mr. Sullivan told me. 

Senator Weicker. Did you tell the President that you had received 
no instructions from the Attorney General or was that discussed in 
any way? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

First, I told the Attorney General, and the next thing — I didn't hear 
from the Attorney General on it — the next thing I knew, and it was 
sometime later, the Attorney General at that time, as I recall, was at 
the American Bar Association convention in England — in London. 

Senator Weicker. What did the President order done? 



2406 

Mr. Mardian. He instructed me to obtain the materials from Mr.. 
Sullivan — deliver them to Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Weicker. Did you know at that time, at the time of those 
instructions, that the material to be handed over to you by Mr. Sullivan 
included more than just the material held by Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't quite follow that. 

Senator Weicker. Let me be very specific I think both you and I 
know exactly what we are talking about. 

Mr. Mardian. You have the advantage ; I don't. 

Senator Weicker. Were the materials to be collected by Mr. Sullivan 
or some of the materials to be collected in the hands of Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. In the hands of Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, for example, 
had none of the summaries and none of the correspondence based on 
these tapes? 

Mr. Mardian. The — we are getting into areas of procedure at the 
Department of Justice but I presume 

Senator Weicker. No. Let me be very specific, Mr, Mardian. Was 
not the object of turning this task over to Mr. Sullivan to assure that 
all materials connected with these tapes collected by one man, Mr, 
Sullivan, to be turned over to you to be turned over to Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. I was given the obligation of checking with 
Dr. Kissinger and with Mr. Haldeman to insure that they had copies 
of their summaries, but they were never collected or delivered to me. 

Senator Weicker. Were they collected by Mr. Sullivan ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So the only thing, the only task, that was as- 
signed to Mr. Sullivan was to hand over to you what he personally 
had ; nothing else ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is right. 

Senator Weicker. You indicated there was correspondence based on 
these logs. Did Mr. Sullivan write himself ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; I don't recall any correspondence, and I didn't 
know there was correspondence in these two parcels. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Mardian, I think if we go over the testimony 
that you have given to me here this morning, you indicated there were 
logs, there were summaries, and possibly correspondence based on 
those logs. 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Sullivan told me that there were logs, summaries, 
and correspondence. 

Senator Weicker. In his files? 

Mr. Mardian. In his possession, yes. 

Senator Weicker. And that nothing turned over to you came from 
any other source except from his own personal files? 

Mr. Mardian. Bureau files. 

Senator Weicker. Bureau files ? Is that correct ? 

Mr, Mardian, Yes; if you would tell me what you are driving at 
Senator, maybe I could help you. 

Senator Weicker. I wish I had Mr, Sullivan here and I am sure 
the committee will have Mr, Sullivan here so he could in a firsthand 
way, and I think we will leave it in that fashion to describe what his 
orders were. 



2407 

Let's move on to the — is there anything further? I don't want to 
leave this; I don't want you to speculate. I don't want hearsay in- 
formation, I only want your firsthand testimony. What you are telling 
this committee is you returned to Mr. Sullivan and ordered him to 
turn over those materials in his possession relative to the Kissinger 
tapes? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't order him. I told him what my instructions 
were and he 

Senator Weicker. On the authority of the President, is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. I told him that is where my instructions came from. 
I may not have. I don't know. I may have said the Attorney General, 
I am not sure. My recollection is that I told him that I talked to the 
President, and that those were my instructions. 

Senator Weicker. So that at that particular moment in time he 
had nothing further to do but empty out his drawers and give you 
the materials therein, is that right? You received those materials 
right then ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. You did not? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. When did you receive them? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall ; it was sometime later. 

Senator Weicker. Why the delay, Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, he didn't have them with him. My conversation 
with him took place in my office. 

Senator Weicker. Well, by sometime later, in other words you are 
only indicating a matter of hours or are you indicating a matter of 
days or weeks ? 

Mr. Mardian. It may have been a day, it may have been 2 days ; I 
don't know. It may have been a week. I am not 

Senator Weicker. Obviously this was a matter of some urgency if, 
in fact, you had been put aboard a courier plane to fly out to Cali- 
fornia and given orders personally by the President. This is not some- 
thing that is iust left hanging. It was obviously a matter of consid- 
erable urgency to the President, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Mardian. The urgency, if there was any, is the President wanted 
to talk to me and if he was in San Clemente and I was in Washington 
and if a plane was leaving, I don't think he would have thought any- 
thing of having me get on a plane and get out there. 

Senator Weicker. So there wasn't anything particularly urgent 
about picking up these materials from Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr, Mardian. I did not obtain any expressions of urgency. The only 
urgency was on the part of Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator Weicker. Did you think it rather strange that he should 
go the route of you to Mr. Ehrlichman rather than to have these ma- 
terials handed over to the Director of the FBI ? 

Mr. Mardian. The purpose was to take them out of the custody of his 
office because of the concern he expressed with respect to the Director 
of the FBI. 

Senator Weicker. All right, then, Mr. Mardian, the concern then 
just wasn't Mr. Sullivan's concern. It was also the concern of yourself 
and the concern, of the President ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't say that I was concerned. I didn't know — I 
didn't want to assess the dispute between Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Hoover. 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 13 



2408 

Senator Weicker. But the dispute was assessed by the President 
when, in fact, the order was to turn the tapes over to you and then to 
give them to Mr. Ehrlichman, was it not? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe Mr. Sullivan made an assessment and I 
would say the President made a judo:ment. 

Senator Weicker. Made a judgment based on Mr. Sullivan's assess- 
ment? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Can you try to recollect again as to the period of 
time that elapsed between your request of Mr. Sullivan and when you 
received the materials from him as ordered by the President ? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. You made some reference to the fact that you 
contacted certain individuals to try to get materials relative to the same 
set of tapes or am I unclear on that ? 

Mr. Mardian. There was an index of summaries, in other words, a 
list of all of the summaries that had been sent to Dr. Kissinger and 
the President. 

Senator Weicker. They are the only ones that received summaries. 

Mr. Mardian. I am not sure. When I was questioned about this I 
think the Attorney General received some of them but not all of them. 

Senator Weicker. Right, right. 

Mr. Mardian. The President wanted to make sure that each of these 
people had in their possession the summaries that had been sent to them 
by the FBI. 

Senator Weicker. Did you have any — do you have any recollection 
of Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman receiving summaries? 

Mr. Mardian. Not ISIr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Haldeman held them for 
the President. And he requested — I gave — I believe I gave Mr. Halde- 
man a list of the documents which he was to — supposed to have re- 
ceived for him to check against what he had in his possession. I believe 
I went to see — I know I went to see Dr. Kissinger, and General Haig 
was present, and they checked their files at that time. 

Senator Weicker. So this was not really a minor matter. This was a 
roundup of trying to pull together all aspects of what we call the 
Kissinger tapes. 

Would that not be a fair 

Mr. Mardian. It wasn't a roundup of Dr. Kissinger's tapes as I recall 
but to find out if he had all of his summaries ; that is all. I didn't collect 
anything, I simply gave Dr. Kissinger or General Haig a copy of the 
summaries, a list of the summaries that — by dates— that they were to 
have been received, and I believe General Haig, while Dr. Kissinger 
and I were in his office, went out to check to see if they had intact 
everything that they were supposed to have. And that was the end of 
my discussion with them. 

Senator Weicker. When was it then that the matter was closed out 
as between yourself and Mr. Sullivan ? 

Mr. ]\Iardian. When he delivered them ; when he delivered what he 
had to my office. 

Senator Weicker. And then you delivered that to Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

Now, if we can move just for a minute over to the Pentagon Papers, 
I wonder if you might not consider very carefully a statement you 



2409 

made earlier relative to your contacts with Mr. Liddy. I am not talking 
about your contact with Mr. Liddy at the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President but your contacts with Mr. Liddy in your capacity as the 
Assistant Attorney General, the head of the Internal Security Divi- 
sion, You recited one instance where on some — was it treaty, agree- 
ment, or negotiation — you had contact with Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Would you please try to recollect as to whether 
or not you had any meetings with Mr. Liddy relative to the Pentagon 
Papers investigation ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe Mr. Liddy came to my office with Mr. Young 
on one occasion, it may have been more but that is all that I can 
recall ; they were acting as liaison with the State Department, Defense 
Department, the Justice Department. The White House was very con- 
cerned about the Pentagon Papers case. 

Senator Weicker. I am not — and I do not mean to impute in any 
way knowledge by you of any illegal activities of Mr. Liddy. I am 
talking about what you consider or what anybody else would con- 
sider at that time perfectly legitimate activity by Mr. Liddy. I am 
not trying to bring forth knowledge now in our possession to impute 
that to you at that moment in time. But I want to be quite precise 
on the fact as to your meetings with Mr. Liddy and as to the number 
of those meetings and what they concerned. 

Now, you indicate now there might have been one meeting. Are 
you sure there might not have been more than one meeting in his 
capacity as liaison on the Pentagon Papers case ? 

Mr. Mardian. I cannot — he may have been over there more than 
once but I know that he was making the rounds of State, Defense, and 
Justice. At that time we were working, we were under the gun, the 
time was short, we had deadlines in filing pleadings. I believe we 
went from the district court to the circuit court, to the district court, 
to the circuit court, to the Supreme Court, in something less than 3 
weeks, and in my office were the heads of the National Security 
Agency, Admiral Gayler and I worked with- — and other simila/r 
people; I was working with Bill Macomber from State, Fred Buz- 
hardt from Defense and we had all kinds of people going through 
that office. If Mr. Liddy was there during that turmoil — the Justice 
DeDartment was the headquarters for the operation. 

Senator Weicker. I do not mean to be unfair to you; it is my 
knowledge that there were many staff meetings, just of the nature 
tliat you describe in your office and that Mr. Liddy was present at 
those meetings. 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I am not trying to be evasive; I just do not 
recall him — I do not recall him at anv of those staff meetings, frankly. 
Tlie occasion that he came to my office was with Fred Young to get 
a report on how we were doing in the Pentagon Papers case; that 
is as I recall it. 

Senator Weicker. I believe your reference is to Dave Young, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. He was on Dr. Kissinger's staff. 

Senator Weicker. You say you were under the gun. Can you drop 
back in time and indicate as to whether or not you received anv in- 
structions personally from the President on the matter of the Pen- 
tagon Papers case ? 



2410 

Mr. Mardian. I cannot — I should recall if there was a communica- 
tion between the President and me, but I was made aware of the ex- 
treme concern of the President. I recall the meeting in San Clemente, 
most of that meeting concerned his expressions to me about the fact 
that his very ability to govern was threatened, the peace of the world 
was threatened. He talked about SALT, he said SALT ; the Strategic 
Arms Limitation Treaty was the most important thing that faced this 
Nation if we were to preserve the peace of the world, and that informa- 
tion from the National Security Council relating to the American 
position at SALT had been in the possession of the Russians before 
a particular meeting and it was in that context he expressed a very 
grave concern about not only SALT but about his ability to govern if 
he could not maintain the confidentiality of the White House. 

Senator Weicker. Is this the same San Clemente meeting where the 
roundup of the Kissinger tapes were discussed ? 

Mr. Mardiax. That is the only one. 

Senator Weicker. Now, insofar as the pursuit of the Pentagon 
Papers case, was this something that there was continual communica- 
tion between the WTiite House and your office on ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, we finally worked out a staff arrangement between 
State, Defense, and Justice. We were, of course, prosecuting the case, 
but our two constituent clients were the State Department and the De- 
fense Department. 

Senator Weicker. And do you know whether or not memos were 
regularly sent over your signature on the Pentagon Papers case to 
both Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Krogh ? 

Mr. Mardian. I sent a daily memo to the Attorney General. It was 
prepared for my signature and I signed it and if copies went to them, 
I would not think that unusual. 

Senator Weicker. But no reports either from you or in the way 
of FBI memos were sent over your signature to Mr. Krogh ? 

Mr. Mardian, Not to my knowledge, I used to sign a lot of papers, 
but I do not recall sending FBI memos over. If one was requested, I 
think I probably would have complied ; maybe not with revelations of 
today. I might have sent them to the Attorney General and asked him 
to send them to the White House. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Mardian — or, Mr. Chairman, I do not want 
to take up further time of the committee. It is my intention to ques- 
tion Mr. Mardian on other matters relative to the Internal Security 
Division under his leadership. At this time, I will pass to other mem- 
bers of the committee. 

Senator Ervin. Well, Senator, I would suggest that it would be just 
as good at this time as any other time. 

Senator Weicker. I believe Senator Montoya is prepared to ques- 
tion. I am perfectly willing to wait, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mardian, going back to the period right after June 17 in Cali- 
fornia, I believe you testified that you had, on three occasions, talked 
to Mr. Magruder about Watergate and the possible involvement here 
in Washington with respect to the personnel of CRP. Now, one of 
the conferences that you had with INIr. Magruder was on the way to 
the airport where Mr. Mitchell, ]Mr. Magruder, and Mr. LaRue were 
going to attend a conference. That is correct, is it not ? 



2411 

Mr. Mardian. I am awfully sorry, Senator. I did not follow your 
prefatory statement. 

Senator Montoya. I was referring to the briefings or conversations 
that you had with Mr, Magruder during your trip from one hotel to 
the Airporter Hotel where Mr. Mitchell and some of you were going 
to attend some meetings. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator INIontgya. And it was on that trip that Mr. Magruder 
started telling you about the Watergate and some of the ramifications, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. At what meeting did Mr. Magruder first broach 
the subi ect of possible involvement to you ? 

Mr. Mardian. The first information he gave me was in — and I am 
not sure it was a banquet room, but it was a room next to the meeting 
room where the political meeting was being held. 

Senator Montoya. I believe that you stated in your interview with 
the committee, the secret interview, that one of these conferences took 
place with Mr. Magruder while you were in transit to the Airporter 
Hotel. 

Mr. Mardian. The only thing, as I recall, that he said to me was 
he had a slight PR problem. 

Senator Montoya, And you did not go into it any deeper ? 

Mr. Mardian. I tried to. 

Senator Montoya. When did you ? 

Mr. Mardian. He indicated," I think, by gesture that he could not 
discuss the matter further in the presence of the national committee- 
man from California, who was in the car with us. 

Senator Montoya, That is what you stated yesterday. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Senator Montoya. Now, then, you went into the hotel ? 

Mr, Mardian, Yes, sir. 

Senator INIontoya. And there you indicated you had a briefing 
from Mr. INIagruder ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya, Now, what kind of a briefing did you receive 
from him ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think I related — do you want me to repeat what I 
said yesterday ? It was quite a long briefing and I would have to look 
at my notes. 

Senator Montoya. Well, let me just ask you some questions. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Did he relate to vou in that briefing about the 
budget that had been approved for Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardtan, No, sir : I do not think so. 

Senator Montoya. Did he discuss the employment of Mr. Liddy? 

Mr. Mardian. To the extent that 

Senator Montoya. With respect to Watergate? 

Mr. Mardian. Not with respect to Watergate. 

Senator Montoya, Did he discuss with you the intelligence assign- 
ment of Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; he did not describe it as an intelligence assign- 
ment at that time. 

Senator Montoya. How did he describe it ? 



2412 

Mr. Mardian. As I recall, it was — he was in charge of dirty tricks 
and black advance. He either told me dirty tricks at that time and 
black advance later, or both of them. 

Senator Montoya. Now, did you as an inquiring lawyer, ask him to 
amplify that particular phrase or phrases ? 

Mr. Mardian. I do not know at that time. I may have. 

Senator Montoya. Well, did he discuss any more details ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, to the best of my recollection, he indicated that 
he should have suspected that Mr. Liddy would do something like 
that. 

Senator Montoya. Then you left the hotel and went back to the Bev- 
erly Hills Hotel ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And on this trip, do I understand that you were 
accompanied by Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue — that is about all? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Magruder. 

Senator Montoya. And Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And did you on your way to the Beverly Hills 
Hotel discuss any phase of the break-in ? 

Mr. Mardian. As I said, I am not sure. We may have. We had not 
had an opportunity, to my knowledge, to talk — I had not had an op- 
portunity to talk to Mr. Mitchell since I had the briefing. Mr. Mitchell 
was in perpetual motion from the time we arrived there at 11 o'clock 
or a little before until we left, which I presume was some time after 
2 o'clock. 

Senator Montoya. Well, was it not the natural thing for you to do 
to discuss with Mr. Mitchell just exactly what you had been discussing 
with Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, I said it would be very natural, except we were 
in a car with a strange driver. 

Senator Montoya. Did the car have a window that could be closed 
from the front ? 

Mr. Mardian. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Montoya. Then you went to the Beverly Hills Hotel, and 
I understand that immediately you did have a briefing on the whole 
matter ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, that is my recollection. 

Senator Montoya. And it was there that you started discussing the 
public relations question which Mr. Magruder had first broached to 
you and tried to bring about some kind of a press statement? 

Mr. Mardian. No, we — Mr. Magruder's reference to a slight PR 
problem was a very facetious statement. He was referring to Water- 
gate and the break-in and the burglary and the arrest. 

Senator Montoya. But what did you discuss at the meeting at the 
Beverly Hills Hotel when Mr. Mitchell was present ? 

Mr. Mardian. We did discuss there a PR response to the problem, 
but that is not what Mr, Magruder was referring to. 

Senator Montoya. All right, in what context did you have those 
discussions ? What specifics came out ? 

Mr. Mardian. What specifics? I cannot recall the specifics of the 
discussion. 



2413 

Senator Montoya. Well, you must have, because you subsequently 
tried to advise Mr. Mitchell and the others as to the contents of the 
press statement. You must have had all the facts by that time. 

Mr. IVIardian. I had all the facts that Mr. Liddy had given me, yes, 
sir — that Mr, Magruder had obtained from Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Montoya. You mean to tell me that you did not have any 
facts and still you were trying to advise Mr. Mitchell as to the contents 
of a press statement ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I had quite a few — we had quite a few facts at 
that time. 

Senator Montoya. Well, why do you call it a briefing, then, if there 
was no briefing ? 

Mr. Mardian. I am not following you, maybe, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Why did you call the meeting at the Beverly 
Hills Hotel a briefing if no facts came out at that meeting ? 

Mr. INIardian. I think I related all the facts that came out. Mr. 
Maq:ruder briefed me on his telephone conversation with Mr. Liddy 
earlier that morning. 

Senator Montoya. And as a matter of fact, you had some telephone 
conversations with Mr. Liddy, did you not ? 

Mr, Mardian. Not at that time. 

Senator Montoya. When ? Was it Sunday ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; I had one with Mr. Liddy, I believe — well, in 
that afternoon. But the only subject — Mr. Liddy, as I said, would not 
talk on the phone. The only thing he wanted to convey to me was an 
ur^-ent desire for me to return to Washington. 

Senator Montoya, Then vou testified that you received a draft of 
a press statement that you did not agree with. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And that you had made some changes. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya, Now, what changes — what Avas the original draft 
and what changes did you make ? 

Mr, Mardian. I don't recall. 

Senator Montoya. "What was the tenor ? 

Mr. Mardian. The tenor of the statement was to the effect that the 
break-in was unauthorized, that Mr, McCord was the head of McCord 
Associates, that he had other clients, and that the committee did not 
condone that type of conduct and it certainly had no place in Amer- 
ican politics, or words to that effect. 

Senator Montoya. Well, with what part of that statement did you 
disagree ? 

Mr, Mardian, I disagreed with that portion of it that indicated that 
McCord Associates might have been in the employ of another client 
when I was aware of the fact that Mr. McCord was devoting his full 
time to the affairs of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. And 
I didn't feel that Mr. Mitchell should sign or have that statement is- 
sued under his name when we had facts to the contrary. 

Senator Montoya, You had facts from Mr. McCord and you had 
other facts from the conversations that von had with Mr, Liddy? 

Mr, Mardian, We had no facts from Mr, McCord at that time. 

Senator Montoya, I mean, not McCord— Magruder; I am sorry. 
From Mr, Magruder, 



2414 

Mr. Mardian. AVliat Mr. Magruder told me was of such a nature 
that I didn't feel that Mr. Mitchell should sign that press release in 
the form it was in. 

Senator Montoya. So in view of t)ie factual situation that had been 
developed up to that time and what you knew Mr. Mitchell was aware 
of, is it your opinion that this was a dishonest press statement ? Let's 
put it another way : Do you feel that it was inaccurate ? 

Mr. Mardian. It certainly was an overstatement based upon the 
facts that were available, I felt, to Mr. Mitchell. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you indicated also that you were appointed 
counsel on that particular day for the CRP by Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think he told me he wanted me to take the legal 
responsibility for the repercussions that were sure to come from 
Watergate ; yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Was it for the CRP or for the Watergate ? For 
the Watergate episode ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think it was limited to the — on behalf of the CRP 
for the Watergate episode, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Well, you knew at that time that Mr. Liddy was 
the counsel. Were you going to take over his job ? 
Mr. Mardian. He was not counsel at that time. 
Senator Montoya. Well, he was counsel and also counsel to the 
finance committee, was he not ? 

Mr. Mardian. He was counsel for the finance committee, I believe, 
at that time ; yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you had been engaged in the Department 
of Justice in the capacity as Assistant Attorney General Avhen the 
EUsberg investigation was launched ; is that corect ? 
Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And you knew after your conference with Mr. 
Liddy that he was involved in the Ellsberg break-in with Mr. Hunt, 
so he told you. Is that correct ? 
Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And in spite of your involvement as a responsible 
official in the Department of Justice, you agreed to take over as coun- 
sel for Mr. Liddy in a connecting link of the dirty tricks conspiracies 
that he had launched ? 

Mr. Mardian. I did not undertake to represent Mr. Liddy. I told 
him I could not represent him in his personal capacity. 

Senator Montoya. Well, didn't you indicate, and you so argued be- 
fore Judge Sirica, that you had talked to Mr. Liddy in a confidential 
cajjacity as attorney and client ? 
Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Well, doesn't tliat indicate that you had assumed 
employment by Mr, Liddy or a relationship which was inconsistent 
with your previous role at the Department of Justice with respect to 
the Ellsberg case? 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, the biggest surprise I ever received in my 
life, as I think I told you, was the disclosure he made to me after I 
had told him he could talk to nie in confidence. 

Senator Montoya. Then wasn't your a])pointinent as counsel and 
your acceptance of this assignment inconsistent with the disavowals 
that were going out that the CRP nor any of its personnel had any 
complicity in the Watergate affair? Wasn't that inconsistent? 



2415 

Mr. Mardiax. Senator, I doubt seriously if an attorney for a client 
can disavow what his client says when he has received information 
and the only basis for knowing that the statement is not true is in- 
formation he obtained in a fiduciary capacity. 

Senator Montoya. Well, the point I am trying to make, Mr. Mar- 
dian, is that you knew more about the involvement of these people 
than what you have told this committee, did you not? 

Mr. Mardian. I knew more ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. I have tried to tell this committee as candidly and 
as frankly as I can everything I know. 

Senator Montoya. Well, did you know of any involvement as a 
result of your conferences with Mr. Liddy, of any involvement on 
the part of any personnel at the White House ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; other than what I have stated. 

Senator Montoya. With respect to Mr. Strachan, with respect to 
Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. Strachan, Mr, Ehrlichman, and Mr. Haldeman 
were not mentioned, sir. 

Senator Montoya. You inquired for Mr. Liddy as to the possibility 
that someone in the burglary group had had it in mind that they would 
be arrested to embarrass the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 
You testified to that yesterday ? 

Mr. Mardian. I raised that as a possibility. 

Senator Montoya. Yes. Was this the source of some of the planted 
stories that were circulated in the press, not as fact but as possibilities 
with respect to double agents ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, I think I learned that in the press. The press was 
calling it such a bungled job, the descriptions of it at the time were 
almost comical. 

Senator Montoya. Now, going to Miss Dita Beard; I believe Mr. 
Liddy told you that he was involved in that escapade, if you can call it 
that? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And Mr. Hunt also had a prominent part ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. He said the group, and I presume that in- 
cluded Mr. Hunt. 

Senator Montoya. There has been previous testimony here that Mr. 
Hunt was assigned to visit Denver and talk to Miss Beard. Did Mr. 
Liddy tell you this? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall that. Mr. LaRue recalls it. We both 
have — he recalls a lot. He recalls some things 'I don't recall and I recall 
some things I guess he doesn't recall. My recollection of what he said 
was: "We were the ones responsible for getting Dita Beard out of 
town." 

Senator Montoya. And he also told you that he was a member of the 
Plumbers group ? 

Mr. Mardian. The word "plumbers" never came up and I don't 

Senator Montoya. In that context did he tell you that he was con- 
nected with this group ? 

Mr. Mardian. He told me that their group had been operating for 
some considerable period of time, and he did not characterize the 
group as Plumbers. 



2416 

Senator Montoya. Tlien you knew about ]\Ir. Liddy's involvement 
after you talked to Mr. Liddy ; you knew about Mr. Hunt's involve- 
ment; you knew that Mr. Liddy had been working for the Govern- 
ment, and subsequently with the CRP; you also knew that Mr. Hunt 
was also working for the White House about that time, did you not? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And you knew — you were the Assistant Attorney 
General and knew that the Department of Justice was investigating 
the ITT matter, and the "Wliite House was also interested, so the press 
statements indicated, in trying to unravel the possible Government 
involvement in the ITT affair. 

iNow did you, after you heard from Mr. Liddy, after he reported 
all these details to you, tell anyone in authority about such involve- 
ment on the part of Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt ? 

Mr. Mardian. In ITT? 

Senator Montoya. No, in the Dita Beard affair. 

Mr. Mardian. I reported, as best I could, everything I could to Mr. 
Mitchell. 

Senator Montoya. Did you report it to anyone in authority at the 
Department of Justice ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Don't you feel — didn't you feel that it was your 
duty to do so ? 

Mr. Mardian. Sir, I was not in the Department of Justice at that 
time. 

Senator Montoya. But you had been there as an official ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was a private person ; I was rej^resenting the com- 
mittee and I think I explained as fully as I can my relationship at 
the time I talked to Mr. Liddy. 

Senator Montoya. With respect to the budget discussions with Mr. 
Mitchell about the $250,000 budget plan, you indicated that this dis- 
cussion took place in the presence of Mr. Magruder. 

Were there any other discussions about this particular budget in 
the presence of Mr. Mitchell or Mr. LaEue or Mr, Dean or others? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Could it have been possible then that such dis- 
cussions had taken place ? 

Mr. Mardian. It is possible ; yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Wlien did you first learn of the $250,000 Liddy 
budget ? 

Mr. Mardian. As I believe I have testified, I am not positive. To 
the best of my recollection, and my recollection even changes while 
I am here, I think it was in the confrontation that I had with Mr. 
Magruder in Mr. Mitchell's office. It could have been in California. 
It could have been between that time and that meeting; but as of right 
now I would say my best recollection is it was immediately after we 
came back, and it had to do with INIr. Magruder's statement to me 
that he had disbursed $40,000 to Mr. Liddy. And my response, and 
Mr. Mitchell's res]:)onse, elicited the statement : "But it is only $40,000 
of the $250,000 budget." 

Senator Montoya. Wiat day was that, would you say ? 

Mr. Mardian. It could have been the 23d. I believe — 23d. 



2417 

Senator IMoxtoya. Then going back to the meeting of June 20 at 
Mr. LaRue's apartment, it was there that you had the debriefing of 
Mr. Liddy with respect to his involvement in this affair? 

Mr. Mardian. I have stated my best recollection is that the meeting 
was the 21st ; it could possibly have been on the 20th. 

Senator Montoya. Well, everyone has testified that it did occur on 
the 20th, and we are assuming that that was the date. 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I am assuming it was the 21st, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. All right. 

Now, assuming that it was the 20th, as three other persons have tes- 
tified, did you — what time did this debriefing occur ? 

Mr. Mardian. I have said I cannot recall. Based upon my records I 
speculated that it was in the morning. 

Senator Montoya. All right. 

Then did you on the same day proceed to brief Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And who accompanied you on this briefing ? 

Mr. Mardian. Mr. LaRue. 

Senator Montoya. Who else ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is all. 

Senator Montoya. And at what time in the afternoon did you brief 
Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't recall, sir. I think I have testified that T don't 
recall exactly when I met with Mr. Liddy. My best recollection is that 
I would have told Mr. Mitchell as soon as I could have obtained access 
to him. 

Senator Montoya. Did you know that Mr. Mitchell, shortly after 
this meeting, had called the President of the United States? About 
what, we don't know. 

Mr. Mardian. I believe. Senator, that Mr. INIitchell's records show 
a meeting on the 21st of some duration, in the afternoon, which would 
have coincided with my recollection, and if he made a call to the Pres- 
ident a^er that, I am not aware of it. 

Senator Montoya. Now, committee counsel asked you in your ap- 
pearance before the special committee what your reaction was to the 
stories Mr. Mit<?hell was telling about this time that no one in the com- 
mittee was involved in this, and you stated to the committee counsel as 
follows, or in this tenor, that your personal reaction was anpriish and 
torment to the statements being made at that time by Mr. Mitchell. 

WTiat did you mean bv that ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know that I used those adjectives. It would 
describe mv feelings, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Can you amplifv ? 

Mr. Mardian. I think those adjectives describe my feelings. 

Senator Montoya. What statements gave you the torment; what 
statements that Mr. Mitchell was making ? 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, lawyers are not supposed to make judgments, 
pass judgments, they are supposed to represent their clients and wait 
until a court makes" that judgment. I, as most lawyers, am human. I 
felt that I knew that what was going out was not as I had surmised 
and that wa s difficult for me. 

Senator Montoya. The reason I have been asking you to amplify 
these statements is because they might — your possible answers might 



2418 

shed some light in trying to resolve the contradictory nature of testi- 
mony that has been adduced with respect to certain substantive facts 
here by the same people who were at meetings with you, Mr. Mardian ; 
and the committee is faced with the choice of selecting your testimony 
as against the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, 
and Mr. LaRue with respect to some of these matters of substance ; and 
without amplification we cannot reach judgment, so we are at an im- 
passe with respect to this testimony unless we want to resort to the 
weight of testimony theory. 

Now, I have asked you, as sincerely as I could, questions which 
might amplify your conclusions with respect to some of these matters, 
and I am sorry that you have not given us more detail but I wish to 
thank you for your patience in listening to my questions. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervix. We have two votes in the Senate at noon, so I pre- 
sume that we cannot finish with this witness before that time. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m. this same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Friday, July 20, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Mardian, you testified in response to a question by Senator 
Gurney that you did not believe something that Liddy said in the 
conversation you had with him, the first conversation you had, as I 
understand it. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I was sort of uncertain in my own mind of what it 
was you said you did not believe he told you. 

Mr. Mardian. I believe that it was in response to whether I believed 
the President of the United States had authorized him to break into 
the Watergate. 

Senator Ernten. Did Liddy ever claim that to you ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe I testified that he did not use the President's 
name. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. But he meant to clearly imply that to me. 

Senator Ervin. Well, what did he say that gave rise to that implica- 
tion, as near as you can recall it ? 

Mr. Mardian. Senator, I have tried as desperately as I can with 
committee staff to recount the conversation, and it was with some 
degree of caution that I tried to testify; I was testifying as to my 
recollection of what impression he made on me or attempted to convey 
to me, and that was what he — that was the implication of the 
impression. 

Senator Ervin. But you do remember it was not an express charge 
that the President of the United States had authorized this ? 

Mr. Mardian. As I said 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it was an implication rather you 
drew from something he said rather than an express statement on his 
part? 



2419 

Mr. Mardian. He may have said the President. I cannot recall it. 
That was what he clearly intended to imply to me, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. And you did not believe that but you do not 
know what Liddy believed, do you ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I understood you to testify that you did not have a 
chance to inform Mr. MacGregor of what you knew about these matters 
until the Republican Convention. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Now, when did the Republican Convention meet? 

Mr. Mardian. August 12. 

Senator Ervin. August. I am informed, and you can correct me if 
I am wrong, that your diary indicates that you met with Mr. Mac- 
Gregor on the following occasions : July 3, 1972, at 1 :45 p.m. ; 2 :30 
p.m., political coordination with MacGregor, third and fourth confer- 
ence room; 5 p.m., MacGregor; July 12, 1972, 4 p.m., MacGregor; 
July 13, 1972, tentative meeting with MacGregor, whatever that could 
be. July 24, 1972, 8 :45 a.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., MacGregor in each instance. 
Can you explain this to the committee? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes; I think Mr. MacGregor's records would show 
that nearly all of those were canceled, sir. I may have met with him 
on July 3, I believe, but that was not — yes, that was not alone, as I 
recall. It was — he had everybody in, a lot of people in, to talk to right 
after he came over to the committee. I think his records would be 
the best evidence. I tried to make appointments, made appointments, 
and more often than not they were canceled. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, your diary records appointments 
which were made but which were not necessarily kept; is that what 
you are telling us ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My occasion on talking with Mr. 
MacGregor on the occasion I did was one of insistence because, as I 
recall, of a press release that he had issued. 

Senator Ervin. Do you agree with me that of all inhabitants of the 
universe, the one best qualified to testify of whether the President did 
or did not know anything about the Watergate ajffair is the President 
himself? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe that is a fair statement, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge, do you have any other questions ? 

Senator Talmadoe. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Er\t:n. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Now, Mr. Mardian, I would like to read to you, 
if I might, and have your comment on, the opening statement of Mr. 
Dean, where he states : 

The Watergate matter was an inevitable outgrowth of a climate of excessive 
concern over the political impact of demonstrators, an excessive concern over 
leaks, an insatiable appetite for political intelligence, all coupled with a do-it- 
yourself White House staff regardless of the law. 

Would you care to comment on that in terms of your own experience, 
both at the Internal Security Division and the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President? 

Mr. Mardian. I cannot really speak for John Dean. 

Senator Weicker. No, I am just asking you to speak for yourself. 
Do you consider that to be factual or would you phrase it another way ? 



2420 

Mr. Mardian. Would you mind reading it. There were several 

Senator Weicker. Sure. 

The Watergate matter was an inevitable outgrowth of a climate of excessive 
concern over the political impact of demonstrators, excessive concern over leaks, 
an insatiable appetite for political intelligence, all coupled with a do-it-yourself 
White House staff regardless of the law. 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me, please. [Conferring with counsel.] 

I would say this : That there was an extreme concern in the Govern- 
ment with respect to leaks, certainly out of the White House. There 
was a grave concern over the demonstrations, and apparently there 
was a do-it-yourself program going on at the White House as dis- 
closed by these hearings. 

Senator Weicker. Well, we certainly know that a political intelli- 
gence operation was going on insofar as the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President ; that is true, is it not ? 

Mr. Mardian. Apparently. 

Senator Weicker. Well, I mean — not ''apparently." I would ask you 
to be a little more specific than that. I mean, you investigated this 
political intelligence-gathering operation, did you not ? 

Mr. Mardian. The political intelligence gathering as such ? 

Senator Weicker. Well, in that — would we place the Watergate 
break-in into that category ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, if you put it in that category, I was aware of 
the Watergate break-in. 

Senator Weicker. And that certainly was a political intelligence- 
gathering operation, was it not ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And insofar as the leaks are concerned, you had 
personal concern or personal experience with the matter of the Penta- 
gon Papers, did you not ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. And the Kissinger tapes ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. So that brings us really down, I suppose, to the 
area of demonstrators, and this is what I would like to relate to this 
afternoon a few minutes. 

You were sent over to head up the Internal Security Division of the 
Justice Department, and might I ask who chose you for that position ? 

Mr. Mardian. I presume the Attorney General of the United States. 

Senator Weicker. And in choosing you for tliat position, did he lay 
any emphasis on you insofar as putting a halt to the demonstrations 
and making this a prime concern of the Internal Security Division ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. The problem of political demonstrations was 
not handled in my office. There was a team that had been in existence 
prior to this administration. It involved a group of people from the 
Mayor's office, from the District Police Department, the Justice De- 
partment, the U.S. attorney's representatives were there, the National 
Guard representative comprised this unit, and they had a control 
room, one in the INIayor's office. They had one in the Department of 
Justice ; it was set up and was not under Internal Security but it was — 
as I recall, the control room at Justice was luider the jurisdiction of the 
Deputy Attorney General. The one. a similar control room in the 
Mayor's office, was under the jurisdiction of the Mayor and his people. 
But they had representatives from all of these agencies. 



I 



2421 

Senator Weicker. But of course, your particular division related to 
the United States, not just to the District of Columbia ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. My division with reference to civil disorder was for 
the purpose of providing information in the event a demand was made, 
as is constitutionally provided by a Governor of a State, under article 
IV of the Constitution, the U.S. Government guarantees to each State 
a sovereign form of government and guarantees against the overthrow 
of any State government by civil insurrection. 

Now, I don't recall the numbers to date but I think in the history 
of the United States some 18 demands for assistance come from Gover- 
nors. The Attorney General of the United States has the responsi- 
bility of advising the President as to whether or not the state of 
insurrection is such that the Federal Government under its obligation 
under Article IV of the Constitution should respond, and that re- 
quires an independent judgment on the part of the President of the 
United States, and the President of the United States has exercised 
that judgment on those 18 occasions and I think in half of the cases 
he has turned the Governors down. 

But in order to make that judgment the President has to have that 
type of information, and to that extent as it relates to the potential 
for civil disorder, the Internal Security Division is the repository of 
that information. 

Senator Weicker. I am not so sure we are on the same track here, 
Mr. Mardian. Your division was just not an intelligence-gathering 
division, it also became the princijDal litigating division of the Justice 
Department. 

Mr. Mardian. I put it in reverse, principally our job is a prosecutive 
function. 

Senator Weicker. Eight. 

Now, why do you believe that the personnel in Division 5, your Di- 
vision 5, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation — does that ring a bell ? 

Mr. Mardian. I used to get "5" and "6" mixed up. Crimes, I think 
is 6, and 5 is domestic intelligence ; is that right ? 

Senator Weicker. Five is domestic intelligence under the direction 
of Mr. William Sullivan. 

Division 5 under William Sullivan, is that correct? 

Mr. Mardian. Not when I was in the Department. 

Senator Weicker. Who was the head of Division 5 ? 

Mr. Mardian. Charles Brennan, and then later Edward Miller. 

Senator Weicker. Division 5 — did you work with Division 5 of the 
FBI? 

Mr. Mardian. I worked with most all the divisions. 

Senator Weicker. Well, now. Division 5, or the personnel at Divi- 
sion 5, including Mr. Sullivan, who apparently is under the misappre- 
hension that he was the head of Division 5, and Mr. Brennan was his 
assistant 

Mr. Mardian. That was before I went to the Department. 

Senator Weicker [continuing]. Indicated that they considered your 
arrival at the Internal Security Division to be a breath of fresh air; 
a breath of fresh air in that their division was almost defunct, so far 
as their division was concerned, previous to your arrival. 

Did you go ahead and develop a close working relationship between 
Division 5 and the Internal Security Division ? 



2422 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know that it was a close working relationship. 
I hope that I had a close working relationship with all of the divisions 
of the Bureau. 

Senator Weicker. Did you and Mr. Sullivan become particularly 
close friends? 

Mr. Mardian. I consider Mr. Sullivan a friend of mine; j'^es. 

Senator Weicker. Do you feel that^ — did you know him prior to 
going over to the Internal Security Division ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Do you 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me, Mr. Sullivan wasn't in Division 5 when I 
went to the Internal Security Division. 

Senator Weicker. Where was Mr. Sullivan ? 

Mr. Mardian. He was the Associate Director of the FBI. 

Senator Weicker. Just to get back to an earlier question, earlier this 
morning, in what capacity — was it in the capacity as Associate Di- 
rector of the FBI that he was given the job of the Kissinger tapes? 

Mr. Mardian. I do not know. I did not know about those tapes until 
he came to see me. 

Senator Weicker. All right, let us get back to the relationship be- 
tween the Internal Security Division and Division 5. Were they both 
housed in the same building ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Did you utilize the investigatory capabilities of 
Division 5 to a great extent while you headed up the Internal Security 
Division ? 

Mr. Mardian. Only with respect to ongoing litigation as I would any 
other division. 

Senator Weicker. Now, let us 

Mr. Mardian. Pardon me. I do not think that any of the divisions 
of the Bureau would appreciate saying that they were used in the 
prosecutory function. They send you investigative information, the 
attorney who has the responsibility for that particular case com- 
municates with the division that is handling the investigation, and if 
the prosecutor feels they are not developing evidence sufficient to make 
a case, he would then write a memo indicating that they have no evi- 
dence to establish one of the elements of the crime. To that extent, they 
would have to develop further evidence if it was available. 

Senator Weicker. Were you aware when you arrived at the Internal 
Security Division that Division 5's activities had dwindled down to, 
I would say, insignificance? In other words, that they had little to do? 

Mr. Mardian. I did not know that, but my arrival at the Internal 
Security Division coincided with the enactment in 1970 of the bombing 
statute, which was in the organized crime bill, as I recall it. And that 
reposed greater additional responsibilities in two divisions. Divisions 
5 and 6, with respect to giving the Federal Government jurisdiction in 
bombing cases. I would say that the escalation of bombings that oc- 
curred from, say, 1969 to 1971^ — and I do not want to exaggerate; I 
think they went from some — I think they were increased by 500 per- 
cent. And I think that is a minimal figure of cases that were within the 
jurisdiction of those two divisions. 

Senator Weicker. Do yon liave any knowledire, sir, that relates to 
Division 5 and specifically the reason why they had dwindled down to 



2423 

nothing, was because personnel over previous administrations had been 
principally assigned to either civil rights cases or to organized crime 
cases ? 

Mr. Mardian, I doubt that Division 5 went into organized crime. 
They have a jurisdictional problem in the Bureau like they do in other 
areas of Government. 

Senator Weicker. No, what I mean to say is that personnel were 
drained from Division 5 to go into the areas of organized crime and 
civil rights. 

Mr. Mardian. I was unaware of that, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Mardian, does the following motto mean 
anything to you? It has been reported to me by persons that are 
familiar with the Internal Security Division that there was a saying 
prevalent in the Internal Security Division that the Constitution was 
not meant to be a suicide pact. Have you ever heard that ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 
United States v. Kennedy. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, is this what guided your steward- 
ship of the Internal Security Division ? 

Mr. Mardian. Certainly not. 

Senator Weicker. Whv do vou say "certainly not?" What is your 
definition, if you will, of that phrase? 

Mr. Mardian. I never heard of the phrase used as a motto all the 
time I was in the Internal Securitv Division. It was in a brief we filed, 
as I recall. I only recall it because it is cited in the Kennedy case, which 
is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

Senator Weicker. Did you feel or did the administration feel that 
crimes committed in the cause of political dissent were prosecuted 
less vigorously than normal, than crimes committed for money or 
some other gain ? 

Mr. Mardian. Did I feel that way ? 

Senator Weicker. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. I do not think I felt that way and I do not think 
I so expressed myself. I think those crimes are more difficult to 
prosecute, more difficult to get convictions on, but I do not think T 
ever made such an expression. 

Senator Weicker. Do you have any idea how many people were 
at the Internal Security Division when you were sent over there? 

Mr. Mardian. I would have to guess. You mean in terms of 
lawyere ? 

Senator Weicker. In terms of lawyers, professional personnel. 

Mr. Mardian. I would guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 50. 

Senator Weicker. Do you have any idea how many were there when 
you left ? 

Mr. Mardian. A guess again, 80. 

Senator Weicker. Well, the figures that I have, and of course, these 
are subject to confirmation, is that there were somewhere around 90 
when you arrived and 

]Mr. Mardian. Ninetv lawyers ? 

Senator Weicker. I am talking about professional personnel. 

IVfr. Mardian. I think that included all the personnel. 

Senator Weicker. And 158 when you left. 

Mr. ]\f ardian. I would not disagree if those are the figures you got 
from the Division. 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 14 



2424 

Senatx)r Weicker. Can you give me a reason for this additional 
personnel ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes; we had transferred to us over 8,000 selective 
service cases. That is one of the big reasons. 

We were also given the responsibility — we had a floating unit in 
the Department of Justice composed of lawyers from the Criminal 
Division, from the Civil Rights Division, and from the Internal Se- 
curity Division, dealing with radical activities. If it involved a, for in- 
stance, a Ku Klux Klan problem ; then they had an expert from the 
Civil Rights Division. If they had a — just a general criminal bombing, 
they had somebody from the Criminal Division. And if they had a 
radical terrorist bombing, they had somebody from the Internal 
Security Division. 

When I went to Justice, they seemed to have no head, that unit 
seemed to float around, and they put it in my division under my 
responsibility. 

Senator Weicker. It would be fair to say, though, that your divi- 
sion acquired a beefed-up litigating capability, would it not? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; I would say that, and I think that the statistics 
on bombing and terrorist activities in the United States in numbers 
would indicate that the number of lawyers did not rise as fast as the 
number of activities that needed prosecution rose. 

Senator Weicker. How many bombers and terrorists did you 
convict ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't have the statistics. 

Senator Weicker. You must have some idea. Apparently, this prob- 
lem was of major proportions. You as head of the division must take 
some pride in your work. Could you indicate to me exactly how many 
were convicted ? 

Mr. Mardian. I didn't keep those statistics myself. I am sure that 
the Department statistics are available. The conviction rate on bomb- 
ings did increase very substantially. 

Senator Weicker. And also in the area of terrorism ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I put those types of bombings — those are the 
only ones we had jurisdiction over — ^the terrorist bombings. 

Senator Weicker. If you had to set a list of priorities as between 
organized crime, civil rights, political dissent, where would you place 
these insofar as the division when you were its head ? Were you very 
active in the area of organized crime? 

Mr. Mardian. It was not within my jurisdiction. 

Senator Weicker. Civil rights ? 

Mr. Mardian. It was not within my jurisdiction. 

Senator Weigxer. Well, what was within your jurisdiction? 

Mr. Mardian. The statutes that were allotted to the Internal Security 
Division. 

Senator Weicker. And can you define that in layman's language as 
to what that included ? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, one of the functions, for instance, of the Internal 
Security Division which is little known is the Registration Act, For- 
eign Agents Registration Act. The Foreign Agents Registration Act 
has nothing to do with the foreign agents of the type you think of. 
That means anybody that is a representative of a foreign power that 
is working in this country seeking to influence legislation. It is more 



2425 

of a lobbying statute. And they have to register with us and file reports 
with us every 6 months and that is a rather time-consuming job and 
it takes people to do it. 

Espionage, sabotage, sedition — those statutes ; selective service ; the 
bombing statutes. Those types, those statutes that relate to internal 
security. The Subversive Activities Control Board came within my 
purview, but I don't think I filed any cases while I was Assistant 
Attorney General. I could be mistaken. 

Senator Weicker. The Pentagon Papers case ? That came within the 
purview of the Internal Security Division ? 

Mr. Mardian. Espionage. That came under 793. 

Senator Weicker. And the May Day demonstrations ? 

Mr. Mardian. The May Day demonstrations did not come within 
my purview. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Chairman, Senator Weicker, I would like to raise 
this question for a ruling by the Chair. I did not — Mr. Chairman, I 
am making a point in connection with this line of examination. I didn't 
raise the point earlier because I thought that there might be some 
peripheral relationship between this line of inquiry and something 
that might follow. But if I undersitand it correctly, any question is 
proper to be propounded by the Senators which is within the Resolu- 
tion 60 adopted by the U.S. Senate. To engage into an inquirj^ about 
the procedures of certain divisions of the Department of Justice and 
the kind of laiowledge acquired by a former Assistant Attorney Gen- 
eral in connection with the activities of the Department that has no re- 
mote relationship to any issue involved in Resolution 60 seems to me 
to be beyond the scope of the inquiry as I read Resolution 60. 

Senator Ervix. Well, while the Chair hates to make a ruling which 
might be disapproved by any member of the committee, the Chair is 
bound to confess it agrees with your interpretation of the questioning. 

Senator Weicker. I will only say ithat under the circumstances that 
Mr. Mardian did not hesitate to go ahead and issue orders to former 
associates at the Internal Security Division to deliver materials to the 
Wliite House. That has been established by Mr. McCord's testimony. 

Senator Ervin. But that is not the questions you are asking him. 
You are asking about the organization or reorganization of several 
divisions of the Department of Justice while he was Assistant At- 
torney General in charge of internal security. It has been held by the 
U.S. Supreme Court on a number of occasions that a congressional 
committee has no authority to make any inquiry except inquiries which 
are within the scope of the matters it is authorized to investigate. 

Now, it would be germane to the testimony to show that the Depart- 
ment of Justice was cooperating with one of the persons involved in 
some of the activities that the committee is authorized to investigate. 
But I am compelled to agree with counsel that this has gone outside of 
the scope of that. 

Senator Weicker. Although, Mr. Chairman, his division was re- 
sponsible for the prosecution of the Ellsberg matter and Mr. Mardian 
himself was involved in the handing over of the Kissinger tapes. What 
I mean to say is that I think the political activity of this Division was 
quite extensive, both under his leaderehip and when he departed to 
join the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

Senator Ervin. Well, I think the testimony about the Ellsberg mat- 
ter is only admissible io show the plan harmonizing with the break-in 



2426 

of the Watergate and to raise an inference that the same people, tliat 
the identities of the parties were responsible. I think it is competent if 
you want to ask him about anythmg he knows about the Ellsberg 
thing. But this other matter is going rather far outside the scope of 
authority, I think. 

Senator Weicker. I return again to the statement that has been 
made and is a matter of evidence before this committee : 

The Watergate matter was an inevitable outflow of a complement of excessive 
concern over the political impact of demonstrators, excessive concern over leaks, 
and an insatiable appetite for political intelligence, all coupled with a do-it-your- 
self White House staff regardless of the law. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, it has been pointed out very clearly by this 
witness and by others as to the insatiable appetite for political intelli- 
gence. It has been pointed out very clearly as to the excessive concern 
over leaks. It is now my intention to go ahead in this line of question- 
ing, and I will certainly be subject to the Chairman's ruling, to fill in 
the third piece of the puzzle, specifically, the excessive concern of the 
political impact of demonstrators and that this was one of the reasons 
why we ended up in the matter of Watergate. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard just for a 
moment. 

I think that I have a fair understanding of the point of view ex- 
pressed by Senator Weicker and by the chairman as well, and counsel 
for the witness. I know that the role of a peacemaker is traditionally 
to get zapped, so I am reluctant to intervene in this respect. But I 
wonder if we can't accommodate the purposes that Senator wishes and 
still stay within the purview of the inquiry of this committee. 

I confess I did not hear the original question put to the witness; 
I was speaking to minority counsel at the time. But I understand the 
burden of Senator Weicker's concern. I wonder if we could start over 
and see if we can't reach a middle ground on the situation. 

Senator Ervin. I certainly sympathize with the position stated by 
Senator Weicker. One of the things that has puzzled me is why some 
people in the White House didn't trust the Department of Justice to 
prosecute and the FBI to investigate the Ellsberg affair. 

I am puzzled by that and I think that is germane to our investiga- 
tion, because it is right along with, and is very, very closely related to 
matters that we certainly have express authority to investigate. I rec- 
ognize it is the duty of the President, the Constitution says he shall 
take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed, but I don't think 
that it justifies, for example, taking over trying to get records of a 
psychiatrist's opinion of the mental or emotional state of Ellsberg. 
As a matter of fact, I don't know who commissioned that activity ; the 
evidence doesn't quite show it, but whoever did it, if he M^as a lawyer, 
he ought to surrender his law license if he didn't know that there was 
no legitimate way that he could get the record of the psychiatrist 
without either bribing the psychiatrist to violate the Hippocratic 
oath, or by theft of some species. 

I have a great deal of sympathy for the position of Senator Weicker. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Chairman, my objection in no way relates to any 
question of his looking into the burglary of the Ellsberg psychiatrist. 
But the Pentagon Papers — the questions might as well deal with Mr. 
Mardian's duties as General Counsel of Health, Education, and 
Welfare., 



2427 

Senator Weicker. May I point out to counsel that upon questioning 
of Mr. Mardian this morning 'when lie hrst denied Mr. Liddy's pres- 
ence in the Internal Security Division, upon questioning it was es- 
tablished that Mr. Liddy indeed had been there on more than just 
the matter he testified to in response to an earlier question. I think this 
very much goes to Mr. Mardian's knowledge of Mr. Liddy, and the 
fact that the two had worked together on other matters, specifically the 
Pentagon Papers case. 

Mr. Bress. No objection to that kind of inquiry. 

Senator Ervin. Senator, suppose you proceed and see if the ques- 
tions, if they can be brought within the orbit of the Senate Resolu- 
tion 60, which is rather broad. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude; I am going to 
conclude my questioning in a few minutes anyway, but I would just 
say that the thrust of this line of questioning is very directly related 
to the mandate of our committee, which is the utilization of the Inter- 
nal Security Division to stifle political dissent in this country, and 
these questions are asked in that context 

Mr. Mardian. May I comment on that, please. Senator ? 

Senator Weicker [continuing]. And that is the mandate of this 
committee. 

Mr. Mardian. May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Weicker. Yes, please do, Mr. Mardian. 

Mr. Mardian. I think that your statement that the Internal Se- 
curity Division of the Department of Justice was for the purpose of 
stifling dissent in this country does an injustice to the Department 
of Justice and to a lot of fine people who worked there and I feel 
that it is incumbent upon me as a former Assistant Attorney General 
of that Department to say that, and I do not mean that in a contuma- 
cious way. I feel it my obligation to say so. The people in that Depart- 
ment that I know are some of the finest people I know, and I think 
that to suggest that they were involved in that type of activity is not 
fair to them. 

Senator Weicker. My comments are made to your leadership of that 
Department, and solely to that. 

Could you indicate to this committee exactly what role you played 
in relationship with Mr. Liddy, Mr. Young, and Mr. Krogh on the 
matter of the Pentagon Papers while you were the head of the Internal 
Security Division of the Justice Department ? 

Mr. Mardian. The only relationship that I recall with any of the 
gentlemen you mentioned, I recall none with Mr. Krogh specifically. 
Mr. Young, I understood, was the representative from the National 
Securitv Council. Mr. Liddy was the representative from the Wliite 
House. 'I understood that they were compiling information for the 
benefit of the President of the United States and for the Director of 
the National Security Council as to the progress of the investigation 
into the leak of the Pentagon Papers, and I do not recall meeting with 
Mr. Liddy on that subject or Mr. Young on more than one occasion. 
There certainly was not any political purpose involved in any such 

relationship. . • i x j. i 

Senator Weicker. Who did you communicate with m the Internal 
Securitv Division relative to th& handing over of information to 
James McCord ? 



2428 

Mr. Mardian. I would like to straighten some of the testimony out 
in that regard. My recollection is, and I could be wrong, because I 
do not think it is significant, that I had no face-to- face conversation 
that I can recall with Mr. McCord. I believe it was in the latter part 
of May, as Mr. McCord has suggested, that I received a memo, a 
hand-delivered memorandum from Mr. Robert Odle. It was a memo- 
randum from Mr. McCord to Mr. Mitchell, and I do not recall what 
it said. The purport was whether or not information relating to the 
potential for civil disorder at the Republican National Convention 
would be available to the committee to avoid another Chicago. 

Mr. Odle brought that memo to me, as I recall, and it was OK; 
it had an OK by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Odle asked me if I could call the 
Justice Department and make available to the security officer for the 
committee civil disorder information as it related to the Republican 
National Convention. 

I personally called the Justice Department, I called Mr. John 
Martin, I believe, and I told him he would be hearing from Mr. 
McCord. I identified who Mr. McCord was, and I requested of him 
that he make available to Mr. McCord any information relating to 
the potential for civil disorder that the Department could furnish 
him under Department guidelines. That is the sum and extent of the 
situation, as I recall it. And knowing Mr. Martin, I doubt seriously 
if he would have given him any information other than that which 
the guidelines provided. 

I had one other conversation with Mr. McCord and that related to 
the employment of a driver who had been promised employment at 
the committee. In reliance upon that promise he quit his job. When he 
came over to be employed they told him they did not need him. I called 
Mr. McCord and I asked him if he had promised this young man 
employment and he said, "Yes, sort of tentative." They did not need 
him and I said, "It is not too tentative that he did not quit his job"; 
and I asked him to hire him whether they needed him or not. 

Senator Weicker. Leaving aside cases of bombing, did the Internal 
Security Division expend any effort on groups which we would broadly 
term as being peace groups, antiwar groups, et cetera ? 

Mr. Mardian. As to peace groups, antiwar groups, I would say 
no, unless it related to a potential for civil disorder. In other words, 
unless they were planning a mass rally of 50,000 people in Wash- 
ington, then not the Internal Security Division but the Department 
of Justice, I mean the FBI, and other agencies such as the police 
department, would count the buses and planes coming in, to try to 
assess how many people they were going to have to handle. To that 
extent, yes, because — not because they were antiwar people but because 
they amounted to masses of people that were going to have to be 
controlled, as far as traffic and the possibility or the potential for civil 
disorder when you get that many people in the District. 

Senator Wetcker. Do you know of any investigations or wiretaps, 
as they related to either political figures or members of the press, that 
were ordered by the Internal Security Division other than the Kis- 
singer taps ? 

Mr. Mardian. The Internal Security Division to my knowledge, 
never ordered a single wiretap. 

Senator Weicker. Let me repeat the question : Requested a wiretap ? 



2429 

Mr. Mardiax. The Internal Security Division never requested a 
single wiretap during my tenure. 

Senator Weicker. You then make it a matter of record the Division, 
during your tenure, never requested a wiretap of Division 5 of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation ? 

Mr. Mardian". To my knowledge, sir, all those requests had to come 
from persons designated by the President of the United States and 
they could onlv be made to one person and that is to the Director of the 
FBI. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Counsel. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, I have just a few questions, and I 
would first like you to clarify an apparent conflict in the record from 
your testimony yesterday so the record will be straight. At page 4794 
you said : "Mr. Magruder said to Mr. Mitchell that he had authorized 
$250,000 and this seemed but a very small part of that sum. That is 
how the $250,000 budget came up." Let me say in saying that to you 
there is, what I take it to be, a typographical error; the first three 
words are "Mr. Magruder lied to Mr. Mitchell." I think that should 
read "Mr. Magruder said to Mr. Mitchell." 

Mr. Mardiax. Said, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. However, at page 4797, this is the testimony, the 
question was "And did you subsequently confirm that the budget that 
had been allocated to Mr. Liddy was actually $250,000 and your answer 
was this : "To this dav that matter has never been confirmed to me." 
And it appears there is some conflict here, and I would like for you to 
clear that up. 

Mr. Mardian. Read that again, please. 

Mr. Hamilton. The last quote, Mr. Mardian ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. The question was : "And did you subsequently con- 
firm that the budget that had been allocated to Mr. Liddy was actually 
$250,000?" 

Mr, Mardian. To this day that matter has never been confirmed to 
me. I think I was referring to a question relating to the $199,000 and 
that is how I understood it. So I would — I must have misunderstood 
the question or they took the figure down incorrectly. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would be happy to read the statement. "I was never 
apprised of the fact there never had been any agreement on the amount 
of disbursement. I think Mr. Sloan's testimony was that it was 
$199,000." 

Mr. Mardian. Yes ; that is what I would have been referring to. 

Mr. Hamilton. I think the question is: Did you ever have con- 
firmation from either Mr. Mitchell or INIr. IVIagruder that the budget 
that had been approved for Mr. Liddy's dirty trick operations and 
black advance operations was $250,000 ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. I think I testified that I am not sure in what con- 
text it arose, whether it arose in California, whether it arose immedi- 
ately thereafter. Mv best recollection was that it arose in connection 
with the confrontation between — that I had with Mr. Magruder in Mr. 
Mitchell's presence when I asked about — when I asked him how much 
monev he had given Mr. Liddy; and he replied "$40,000," and I said 
in surprise: "$40,000," and it was echoed by Mr. Mitchell, "$40,000." 



2430 

He then said, "That is a small part" or something "of that — of the 1 
$250,000 you authorized." Mr. Mitchell's reply, as I recall, was "Yes, ■ 
but the campaign hasn't started yet," 

Mr. Hamilton. So there was no denial by Mr. Mitchell in your 
presence that he had authorized a $250,000 iDudget? 
' Mr. Mardian. That is what I think I testified to. 

Mr. HLa-milton. All right. 

Mr. Mardian. I think I testified I don't recall Mr. Mitchell saying 
"Yes, I approved $250,000" but simply when that question came up 
he did not deny it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, on page 4827 you testified that after Mr. 
Mitchell informed you that he could not fire Mr. Magruder and Mr. 
Porter you advised him to prepare a memorandum for the file to pro- 
tect himself, and you then said that he instructed you to have one pre- 
pared and that Mr. O'Brien was going to be the actual author of this 
memorandum ? 

Mr. Maedian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. Now, what facts did you intend to put into this 
memorandum ? 

Mr. Mardian. To put in all the facts that Mr. Mitchell was aware 
of at the time the discussion took place. 

Mr. HAMiimjN. Could you fix that time for us ? 

Mr. Mardian. I am sorry; it would have been immediately before 
July 1, probably, maybe I would guess that is in the timeframe. 

Mr. Hamilton. About July 1 ? 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. And you also testified, Mr. Mardian, at page 4827 
of the transcript, that after Clark MacGregor had made certain "flat 
statements," I believe was the term you used, regarding noninvolve- 
ment of campaign personnel, you complained to him that certain 
of his statements were untrue and unsuccessfully attempted to brief 
him about the tremendous exposure of certain people in the campaign. 

Now, in this briefing that you tried to give Mr. MacGregor, what 
facts were you going to tell him ? 

Mr. Mardian. I was going to tell him of the involvement of — I 
thought he ought to know about the involvement of Mr. Magruder and 
Mr. Porter with reference to their activities. 

Mr. Hamilton. When you say "the involvement of Mr. Magruder," 
you mean the involvement as recounted to you by Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. No; I was not going to relate what Mr. Liddy 
told me but I felt that any admission on the part of these men, and I 
felt this admission was going to come forward, at least as far as dirty 
tricks and other unethical activities were concerned, that they had to 
come out even if they didn't admit to the Watergate adventure, who 
were still employed in the Committee To Re-Elect the President w^ould 
reflect adversely on the President of the United States in his cam- 
paign for reelection. 

Mr. Hamilton. Are you saying you were not going to tell Mr. Mac- ■ 
Gregor that it was your feeling that Mr. Magruder had been involved ] 
in the Watergate affair ? 

Mr. Mardian. I wasn't going to accuse Mr. Magruder. I think I was 
going to tell him my suspicions and I felt he ought to know those 
suspicions before he made any further statements. 



2431 

Mr, Hamilton. 'What suspicions ? 

Mr. ISIardiax. Well, it was obvious that they had been engaged in 
dirty tricks and black advance operations and my suspicion was he 
had been involved in the Watergate break-in. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well now, Mr. Mardian, would not revealing these 
facts to Mr. MacGregor and revealing these facts to Mr. O'Brien, 
who was going to write this memo for the file, and revealing these 
facts to whoever might have read the file, be a violation of the duty 
you asserted you had to keep inviolate the conversations that had 
been placed in you by Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Mardian. I wasn't going to violate Mr. Liddv's confidence. I 
felt that Mr. Magruder occupied the position of Mr. Mitchell. I think 
he ought to Imow my suspicions and I said I was not going to accuse 
anyone. I just thought he ought to know my suspicions. I was the 
counsel for the committee and I think the client ought to know what 
the attorney thinks, and I thought it would be helpful in guiding 
him as to the nature of statements he made in the future. 

Mr. Hamilton. Your suspicions, however, were based, were they 
not, on what Mr. Liddy had told you primarily ? 

Mr. Mardian. I can't go into all of it. Wlien the dispute arose be- 
tween the $40,000 and the $199,000, if I knew nothing more than that 
I would have been suspicious. I made the statement on several oc- 
casions to suggest you would give Mr. Liddy $200,000 and then be 
surprised that he used it for an illegal purpose in cash would be like 
suggesting that you gave a young child a loaded pistol and sent him 
into a crowded room and then were surprised that somebody was 
killed, and I expressed myself in that regard, and I could have made — 
I would have expressed myself in that regard indeed without knowl- 
edge of what Mr. Liddy had told me. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well now, you just said you were going to put in 
this memo to the file all the facts that you knew as of the first of July 
and those would include, would they not, the facts that Mr. Liddy had 
told you ? 

Mr. Mardian. I thought Mr. Mitchell ought to put in the memo- 
randum all of the facts that he knew at that time. 

Mr. Hamilton. Includino; what Mr. Liddy had told you ? 

Mr. Mardian. We didn't go into that. I said I think, in order to 
protect himself as justification for his conduct, to put in memorandum 
form what he knew. 

Mr. Hamilton. And Mr. O'Brien was going to be the author, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Mardian. TYhat is that ? 

Mr. Hamilton. You said Mr. O'Brien was designated as the author. 

Mr. Mardian. Was going to ask Mr. O'Brien to draw it, yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. If you had revealed these facts to Mr. O'Brien 
would that not have been \'iolating the confidence ? 

Mr. ]Mardian. I had not revealed them to Mr. O'Brien. 

Mr. Hamilton. But you were planning to do so. It was you who 
advised Mr. Mitchell to put this information in the memorandum. 

Mr. ]\Iardian. "\^niat Mr. Mitchell could put in the memorandum 
was up to Mr. Mitchell and not up to Mr. Mardian. I didn't think, I 
don't think Mr. Mitchell was bound. 



2432 



I 



Mr. Hamilton. I thought you said that Mr. Mitchell instructed you 
to prepare this memorandum and you were going to use Mr. O'Brien 
as the author. 

Mr. Mardian. No. I think Mr. O'Brien — instructed Mr. O'Brien to 
prepare the memorandum and I presumed that he would talk to Mr. 
Mitchell and prepare the memorandum. It was almost immediately 
thereafter Mr. Mitchell told me that the memorandum wasnt to be 
prepared. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, did you confront Mr. Magruder with 
Mr. Liddy's assertion that he, Mr. Magruder, had ordered the break-in ? 

Mr. Mardian. I don't think I — I doubt if I said : "Mr. Liddy told me 
that you ordered the break-in." I may have said it. I doubt it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, you testified that 1 or 2 days after your con- 
versation with Mr. Liddy you asked Mr. Magruder whether he directed 
Mr. Liddy to go in there and he denied it. 

Now, at that time you did not say to Mr. Magruder that : "Mr. Liddy 
has told me." 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir, I don't think so. I am sure I didn't. 

Mr. Hamilton. You did not say that. Mr. Magruder didn't say to 
you, "Well, Mr. Mardian, where did you get that information or what 
makes you ask the question ?" 

Mr. Mardian. I think it would have been a very logical question 
for me to ask him if he had anything to do with it. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why ? Why would it have been logical ? 

Mr. Mardian. He hired him, he paid him. He was the source of Mr. 
Liddy's money. 

Mr. Hamilton. But he had been on the outs with Mr. Liddy ; wasn't 
that a known fact around the committee ? 

Mr. Mardian. That is right. 

Mr. Hamilton. Why would it have been any more logical for Mr. 
Magruder to be asked that question than Mr. Mitchell or Mr. LaRue 
or someone else ? 

Mr. Mardian. It was rather incongruous that the two of them were 
still working together. 

Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Mardian, if I might, I would like to read you 
just a few lines that you testified to yesterday regarding Mr. Magru- 
der's perjury. You said, "I think he" that is Magruder "probably was 
aware of the fact that I, after talking to Mr. Liddy, knew of his in- 
volvement, and I would be less than honest if I did not say that if Mr. 
Magruder went up there" that is to the grand jury "went up there and 
testified that he was not involved he would be perjuring himself. If 
you want mj^ personal opinion I thought he was going to go up there 
and take the fifth amendment." 

Question. Well, did you know after he testified what he testified to? 

Mr. Mardian. No. I did not. I knew he was not indicted so he must not have 
taken the fifth and he must not have testified as to the truth. 

Question. So then you had some indication that Mr. Magruder had committed 
perjury. 

Mr. Makdxa-n. Are you talking about the grand jury? 

Question. Yes. 

Mr. Mardian. Yes. I think I knew an awful lot and I suspected an awful lot. 

Now, Mr. Mardian, I would like to ask you if you are familiar with 
the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility. 
[Child crying in audience.] 
Mr. Hamilton. I hope my question didn't produce that effect. 



I 



2433 

Are you familiar with the ABA Code of Professional Respon- 
sibility? 

Mr. IVL^RDiAN. Yes, sir. Well, when I say yes, sir, I am a-ware of the 
code, I am not aware of all of its provisions any more than any other 
lawyer, I don't think. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would like to read to you, please, rule DR 7-101 
(B): 

A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that (1) his client 
has in the course of a representation perpetrated a fraud upon a person or 
tribunal, promptly call upon his client to rectify the same and if his client re- 
fuses or is unable to do so he, reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal. 

(2) A person other than his client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal 
shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal. 

Now, I would ask you whether you believe that this rule would re- 
quire you either to attempt to rectify Mr. Magruder's testimony or to 
report him to the court. 

Mr. Mardian. I don't know the citation of cases. 

Senator Baker. Before the witness answers, I don't by any 
stretch of the imagination want to limit the scope of your inquiry or 
the witness' answer, and apparently, the witness is willing to answer ; 
he had begun before I interrupted. But I am a little at a loss to see 
how the citing of a canon of ethics or other matter that would relate, 
if at all, to the conduct of this man in his professional capacity, has 
something to do with the scope of this inquiry. 

Now, if the contrary is made to appear, I will be glad to listen to 
the arguments. But that seems to me that is a little far afield from the 
scope of this witness' information and knowledge relevant to the man- 
date of Senate Resolution 60. 

Senator Ervix. Well, I believe if evidence is offered by counsel for 
the purpose of impeaching the witness, it would be admissible for that 
purpose. I would suggest that we permit the examination as much as 
possible, because counsel can ask leading questions to bring out some 
points, I think, more quickly than generally. 

Senator Baker. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to pursue it for just 
one moment further, that it might be appropriate to ask the witness 
if he thought it his duty to do so and so, but to go further and try to 
cite canons of etliics or matters that might or might not be relevant 
to charges of professional misconduct is beyond the scope of the proper 
inquiry of the committee. 

Mr. Bress. Mr. Chairman, as Senator Baker said, to go one step 
further, I agree with his observation, but in view of the fact that the 
question relating to the canons of ethics has been asked, I would pre- 
fer that mv client be given the opportunity to answer it. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand and I withdraw 
my remarks in that connection. 

Mr. Mardian. I have not researched the question or the cases cited in 
support of the cases, but one thing that I have been taught and I 
could be wrong, and that is that it is not the lawyer's duty to judge. 
The lawyer's duty is to permit the court to judge. 

Now, where I have had conflicting evidence as to what went on, I still 
don't know the truth. I told you what I suspected. For me to go to a 
tribunal and to state my subjective judgment to him to the detriment 
of a person who has confided in me, I think, would be highly im- 
proper. And that is my view, that was my belief, that is still my belief. 



2434 



! 



Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chairman, no further questions. 

Senator Baker [presiding]. All right, fine. Thank you. 

We are going to have to recess for a vote at this point. I do want 
to say before I leave, however, that the remarks I made about the scope 
of the inquiry is in no way meant to be critical of the counsel. Mr. 
Hamilton is an exceptional lawyer, he is an energetic interrogator of 
witnesses and it is only through an abundance of caution that I wanted 
to call attention of the witness to the importance of the question being 
put, but it is neither a criticism of the witness nor of counsel. 

The committee will stand in recess until the end of this vote. 

[Recess.] 

Senator Baker [presiding]. The cx^mmittee wnll come to order. 

I understand Mr. Hamilton is finished with his interrogation. The 
chairman asked me to continue. 

Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. No questions. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. No. 

Senator Baker. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. I have just a few very brief questions in winding 
up this line of questioning with you, Mr. Mardian. 

First of all, did you get along with the Director of the FBI, Mr. 
Hoover ? 

Mr. Mardian. Did I get along with him ? 

Senator Weicker. That is right. Was yours a good relationship ? 

Mr. Mardian. I believe that I only had one lengthy conversation 
with him. All of our other meetings were largely social. 

Senator Weicker. Did you ever say to anyone — let me rephrase my 
question. 

At any time, did you use your attorneys in an investigative function ? 

Mr. Mardian. Investigative function ? 

Senator Weicker. Correct, in an investigative function. 

Mr. Mardian. On one occasion, I asked an attorney in my Division 
to inquire as to a matter that was then the subject of inquiry by the 
U.S. Senate. 

Senator Weicker. And what w^as that ? 

Mr. Mardian. It involved a question that had come up during the 
Kleindienst confirmation hearings, when a member of the White House 
staff had obtained a picture that purported to identify two people 
together. The picture was to be introduced into evidence by a U.S. 
Senator. I had taken exception to the use of the photograph, because 
I did not feel it was relevant to the hearings. It had not been estab- 
lished that simply because the two people in the picture were together, 
that they were friends. Before the U.S. Senator introduced this pic- 
ture — it was a group picture — I suggested that we take the precaution 
of ascertaining whether they were in fact friends, and I asked an at- 
torney in my Division, during the Senate hearings, to go to the place 
where the picture was taken and to inquire of the people there — 
openly, not coverty — whether in fact these two people were friends, as 
was going to be suggested by the introduction of the j)icture. I ascer- 
tained from that, the interviews he made, that they were not, and I 
requested the picture not to be used by the U.S. Senator, or I was going 
to. Unfortunately, they had already used the picture. i\ 



2435 

Senator Weicker. And this is the only time that you can recall that 
you used an attorney in the Internal Security Division in an investi- 
gative function? 

Mr. Mardian. Well, I do not know that it was exactly an investi- 
gative function. This was a matter pending before the U.S. Senate 
involving the Department of Justice and I thought I had better use an 
attorney. I did not know who else to use. 

Senator Weicker. But this is the only incident that even would 
come close to filling that definition ? 

Mr. Mardian. The only one I can recall, Senator. 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

Mr. Mardian, can you recall saying when you first came over to the 
Internal Security Division, can you recall making the statement to a 
member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that — 

The way to solve tMs is to set up a list of leaders and we target them for 
prosecution and we go after them with blanket coverage, 24 hours a day, until we 
get them? 

Mr. Mardian. I recall no such statement. Senator. 

Senator Weicker. Did you make that statement or do you recall, 
rather, making that statement to the then Assistant Director of the 
FBI in charge of Division 5, Mr. Brennan ? 

Mr. Mardian. With respect to a particular investigation ? 

Senator Weicker. With respect to demonstrators ? 

Mr. Mardian. No, sir. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions. 

Senator Baker. Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye. No questions, sir. 

Senator Baker. Senator Montoya ? 

Senator Montoya. No questions. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one 
other statement here. I do not want to leave any wrong impression as 
far as Mr. Mardian is concerned. 

In my interview with Mr. Brennan, he also made the statement: 
"Never once did he ask me to do anything illegal or improper." I want 
that to be on the record, too, insofar as Mr. Mardian is concerned. 

Mr. Mardian. Thank you very much. Senator. 

Senator Baker. Mr. ]Mardian, we thank you for your testimony. It 
has been in a most cooperative vein. We are grateful for it. We have 
already requested and you have already agreed to return if that be 
necessary and we will have certain late-filed comments. The commit- 
tee wants to express its appreciation to you for your cooperation. 

Mr. Mardian. I would like to express my appreciation to the com- 
mittee for its courtesy and its cooperation. 

Senator Baker. Thank you very much. 

Counsel will call the next witness, please. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Gordon Strachan, will you please come to the witness 
table? 

Senator Baker. Mr. Strachan, would you stand and raise your right 
hand, please ? 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Strachan. So help me God. 

Senator Baker. You may be seated, Mr. Strachan. 



2436 

Mr. Strachan, just by way of preliminary inquiry, may I ask you 
to state your name and address, and then I will put a particular ques- 
tion of relevance to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF GORDON STRACHAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
JOHN BRAY, COUNSEL 

Mr. Strachan. My name is Gordon Strachan. I live at 8205 Hamil- 
ton Spring Court, Bethesda, Md. 

Senator Baker. And you are accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Would counsel please identify himself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Bray. John Bray, Washington, D.C. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Strachan, you have appeared previously before 
this committee in executive session, where certain questions were put 
to you which you declined to answer on constitutional grounds, at 
which time you were made aware of a petition for a grant of use 
immunity under title 18, sections 6002 and 6005 of the United States 
Code, signed by Judge John Sirica. You were then instructed to an- 
swer questions, which you did, at the executive session. 

The attachment of the grant of use immunity, the Chair rules, 
applies to your testimony now in public session. So without reiterating 
the substance of those decrees signed by Judge Sirica, you are advised 
that you should respond to questions put by counsel for the committee 
and committee members and proceed accordingly to answer under the 
full scope and jurisdiction and the effectiveness of the order of which 
5^ou have received a certified copy. 

Mr. Strachan. I understand. 

Senator Baker. Does counsel have any comment to make in that 
respect ? 

Mr. Bray. None. I think the entire matter of immunity has been 
handled fully to my satisfaction and Mr. Strachan's, in executive 
session. 

Senator Baker. If there is no objection on the part of the committee, 
we will incorporate pertinent portions of the transcript of the hearing 
in executive session in the record at this point. 

[The portions of transcript referred to follow :] 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

In the Matter of the Application of U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Acth^ties 

application for order conferring immunity upon and compelling testimony 

and production of information from GORDON STRACHAN 



I 



The Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities of the United States 
Senate, by its Counsel, hereby applies to this Court for an order conferring: 
immunity upon and compelling Gordon Strachan (the "Witness") to testify and < 
provide other information before this Committee pursuant to the provisions of 
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6005. In support of this appli- 
cation, the Committee states : 

1. The Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, pursuant to 
Senate Resolution 60, Section 1(a). 9.3rd Congress, 1st Session, is inquiring into 
the extent, if any, that 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. 



i 



2437 

2. The Witness will be subpoenaed to appear before this Committee during 
hearings that will be he'd in the near future. 

3. It is anticipated that the Witness will invoke his Constitutional privilege 
against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or provide other information 
relating to his activities that come within the scope of the investigatory authority 
establishetl by Senate Resolution 60. 

4. This Application has been approved by an affirmative vote of all seven mem- 
bers of the Select Committee as attested to by the Certification of Samuel Dash, 
Chief Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. 
The Certification is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

5. Notice of an intention to request this order was given to the Attorney 
General of the United States as required by Title 18, U.S.C. § 6005(b) (3) on 
June 5, 1973, as attested to by the Certificate of Service attached heretx) as 
Exhibit 2. The Attorney General's ten day waiting period between notification 
and request for the order provided for in § 6005 (b) (3) , has expired. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Samuel Dash, 
Chief Counsel, Select Committee on 

Pretiidential Campaign Activities. 
James Hamilton, 
Assistant Chief Counsel. 
Ronald D. Rotunda, 
Assistant Counsel. 
June 15, 1973. 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington, D.C., June 15, 1973. 

certification of vote 

I, Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel of the Select Committee on Presidential Cam- 
paign Activities of the United States Senate, do hereby certify that the appli- 
cation for order conferring immunity upon and com]ielling testimony and pro- 
duction of information from Gordon Strachan filed pursuant to the provisions 
of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 6002 and 6005 was approved by a unani- 
mous vote of the seven members of said Committee on June 5, 1973. 

Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel. 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington, D.C., June 15, 1973. 

certificate of service 

I, Samuel Dash, do hereby certify that on the 5th day of June, 1973, I served 
a notice of our intention to seek an order conferring immunity upon and com- 
pelling testimony and production of information from Gordon Strachan, upon 
the Honorable Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of the United States and 
Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor, by having said notice hand delivered to 
them at their offices, located respectively in the Main Justice Building. 10th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. and at 1^25 K Street, NW, Wash- 
ington, D.C. A copy of this notice is attached to this Certificate of Service. 

Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

In the Matter of the Application of U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities 

order conferring immunity upon and compelling testimony and production 

OF information from GORDON STRACHAN 

The United States Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Ac- 
tivities, having made written application for an order conferring immunity upon 
Gordon Strachan and compelling him to testify and provide other information 
before it, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code. Sections 6002 and 6005. and 
on Court finding that all procedures specified l)y § 6005 have been duly followed, 
it is hereby this 6th day of July, 1973 



2438 ^ 

Ordered that the said Witness in accordance with the provisions of Title 18. 
United States Code, sections 6002 and 6005, shall not be excused from testifying 
or providing other information before the Select Committee on Presidential Cam- 
paign Activities on the ground that the testimony or other information sought 
may tend to incriminate him. 

And it is further ordered that the said Witness appear when subpoenaed by 
said Committee and testify and provide such other information that is sought 
with respect to the matters under inquiry by said Committee. 

And it is further ordered that no testimony or other information compelled 
under this Order (or for any other information directly or indirectly derived 
from such testimony or other information) may be used against the Witness in 
any criminal case, except for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise 
failing to comply with this order. 

John J. Sirica, 
U.S. District Judge. 

Senator Baker. Mr, Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Strachan, do you have a statement to read to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Dash. Would you please read that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the committee, 
1 am here at the request of the committee and prepared to answer fully 
and truthfully, all questions related to the matters specified in Senate 
Resolution 60, establishing this committee's jurisdiction. 

As you know, I met three times in executive session with the com- 
mittee and its staff in order to permit the committee to prepare for to- 
day's questioning. In addition, on four prior occasions my attorney met 
with committee attorneys to explain the subjects on which I could 
testify. 

The committee voted unanimously to grant immunity with respect 
to this testimony and my counsel has advised me that testimony under 
such a grant is a legally proper procedure intended to permit a full, 
candid disclosure of the truth about the Watergate matter. 

I should also add that before my discussion with this committee, I 
had already met — voluntarily — with the Watergate prosecutors on 
three occasions and my attorney met with them and their successors on 
four more occasions. 

In short, even prior to testifying here today, I made a complete and 
honest disclosure to the original prosecutors, to their successors and to 
this committee. 

Much of the information I will disclose is politically embarrassing 
to me and the administration. Some of it shows that I closely associated 
during my employment at the White House with individuals who have 
confessed to criminal wrongdoing. 

Where other witnesses have made charges, if I know their statements 
are true, I am here to confirm the truth of such charges, even to the ex- 
tent it might reflect adversely on me. You will find that I will readily 
admit today many things that anyone who is trying to cover up would 
quickly deny. 

But where I know that the statements of a witness are false, I will 
deny them, not out of a motive to protect anyone — certainly not out of 
a motive to protect myself — for I am confident that the immunity I 
have been granted is genuine. 

In other words, my intention to corroborate specific matters and to 
refute others does not stem from a desire to testify for or against any- 



2439 

one — nor from a desire to feign excessive remorse — but solely because 
I am here to tell the truth. 

Press reports predicting my testimony here have been nothing short 
of incredible. My testimony before the grand jury on April 11, 1973, 
appeared in the Nation's newspapers within a week, although grand 
jury testimony is required by law to be kept secret. Next, several 
grossly inaccurate and contradictory versions of my expected testi- 
mony before this committee were reported — although the committee's 
staff confirmed that the newspaper headlines were a serious distortion 
of the information my attorney, Mr. Bray, gave the committee. 

Then on July 4, television, radio, and newspapers reported coast-to- 
coast that I had agreed to plead guilty. Only a few correspondents even 
bothered to ask my attorney whether that was true. Despite Mr. Bray's 
denials, the story was run anyway. And finally, the day after my tes- 
timony before this committee in executive session, several inaccurate 
stories about my testimony appeared. 

Today, my testimony will, to the displeasure, I suspect, of many 
interested onlookers, conflict with these mistaken press reports. 

In the 214 months I have been unemployed, I have tried to review the 
information I have that can aid this committee in bringing out the full 
story about the Watergate matter. I believe it would be helpful if I 
take a moment now to supply some missing links in the testimony of 
other witnesses, and hopefully clear up some of the confusion and con- 
tradictions — at least to the extent of my own knowledge. 

I was a staff assistant to Mr. Haldeman. My office was located in 
the basement of the White House. One of my responsibilities during the 
President's reelection campaign was to serve as liaison with the Com- 
•mittee To Re-elect the President. It was my job to accumulate all the 
information I could obtain from members of the White House staff, 
personnel at 1701, the Republican National Committee and from the 
campaign personnel in key States and cities. 

Periodically, I was to report important political matters to Mr. 
Haldeman. I wrote him many long reports, entitled political matters 
memos, describing the current status of pending political matters. He 
relied on me as the member of his personal staff who would obtain 
information on campaign matters. Either I would have the answer, or 
I would get it. 

As to the subject of political intelligence gathering, however, John 
Dean was designated as the White House contact for the Committee 
To Re-elect the President. I have advised the committee where the 
documentary proof on this point is located. As a result, my inquiries 
about political intelligence were slight. Mr. Haldeman seldom had me 
attend meetings on the subject. He rarely asked me a question about 
the subject and so I seldom reported about it to him. 

Nor did Mr. Dean report to me about all his activities in the area 
of political intelligence. When the subject of political intelligence 
was mentioned at a meeting I attended, or when I knew the subject 
was on the agenda of a meeting I was not invited to attend, I would, 
as the staff assistant, follow up with the principals and remind them 
about the subjects discussed. On those occasions when I made such 
follow-up inquiries with Mr. Haldeman about political intelligence 
operations, he responded that I should let Dean handle it. When I 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 15 



2440 

followed up with Mr. Dean, he rarely advised me in any detail about 
the status of intelligence matters. Instead, he dealt directly with Mr. 
Haldeman. 

For example, neither Mr. Haldeman nor Mr. Dean advised me 
of the series of meetings with Mr. Mitchell, Dean, Liddy, and 
Magruder. Nor was I invited or informed about Mr. Dean's February 
meeting with Mr. Haldeman at which Mr. Dean says he told Mr. 
Haldeman that the Liddy f)lan was outlandish and that the Wliite 
House should have no further involvement. Neither Mr. Haldeman, 
Mr. Dean, nor, for that matter, Mr. Magruder, ever told me of any 
of those meetings. And I certainly did not attend any of them. 
Turning to my duties and reporting activities with the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President, I found myself in an unusual and not 
entirely comfortable situation. I was the White House conduit for 
reporting the activities of 1701, including the activities of Mr. 
Magruder — the man who shortly before had been my boss at the 
White House. 

Mr. Magruder's reporting practices were marked by two features. 
First, he considered it a burden to report through me. My role — as 
Mr. Haldeman intended it — was somewhat of a constraint upon Mr. 
Magruder's ability to have free rein at the committee, independent 
of the scrutiny of the White House. As a result, Mr. Magruder fre- 
quently tried to avoid the reporting system. When Mr. Magruder 
did report, he reported as much as possible on successful develop- 
ments that reflected favorably on his campaign leadership and as 
little as possible on projects that were not going well. On projects 
that went smoothly or portrayed him in a good light, Mr. Magruder 
would often give a full report directly to Mr. Higby or Mr. Halde- 
man. On ineffective or failing projects he would seldom do more than 
make brief mention to me on the general subject matter — just enough 
to protect himself from later criticism that he had withheld in- 
formation from the White House in case the project went totally sour. 
Second, he considered it a serious impairment of his status to report 
to me rather than to someone more senior, especially since he had 
previously been my boss at the White House. He asked that I deal 
with Mr. Reisner, his administrative assistant, whose position on Mr. 
Magruder's staff corresponded more to my position on Mr. Haldeman's 
staff. I did increase my contacts with Mr. Reisner and other campaign 
aides, but continued to insist on dealing directly with Mr. Magruder 
on many projects. 

With respect to the particular subject of political intelligence, Mr. 
Magruder has testified in very general, carefully hedged, and charac- 
teristically vague terms that he assumes he either automatically sent 
me materials about or called me and gave me a general description of 
intelligence plans. Had anyone ever heard the details of prostitution, 
goon squads, kidnapping, and wiretaps, he would be unlikely to forget 
it. I certainly would not forget it. Mr. Magruder never gave me that 
information and certainly not those details. Because if he had, I would 
immediately have passed it on to Mr. Haldeman, I would remember 
it and I would be here today testifying about it. 

By any standard, the meetings at which the Liddy plans were 
presented Avere classic examples of poor staff work by the committee 
and a waste of time. The testimony has been virtually unanimous 



2441 

that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Dean were shocked by Liddy's plan; Mr. 
Magruder's staff man, Gordon Liddy, was apparently quite humil- 
iated, and nothing was approved. In other words, if those meetings 
were routinely reported to Mr. Haldeman, as evidence of Mr. Ma- 
gruder's administrative ability and judgment, the January and Feb- 
ruary meetings would not very likely inspire the confidence of Mr. 
Haldeman or the President. 

Yet, Mr. Magruder testified that "as he recalled" he returned to 
his office after both these embarrassing meetings and routinely called 
Mr. Haldeman's staff assistant, me, and told me about his blunder, 
presumably so that I could inform Mr. Haldeman. That testimony is 
difficult to reconcile with good sense. Presumably, Mr. Magruder knew 
that Mr. Dean would report on the meetings to Mr. Haldeman — as 
Mr. Dean has testified he did — why would Mr. Magruder want two 
people reporting the same disaster to Mr. Haldeman ? 

It is true, however, that Mr. Magruder called me after he returned 
from the March 30, 1972, meeting at Key Biscayne with Mr. Mitchell 
and Mr. LaRue and reported on about 30 major campaign decisions. 
Each of these decisions was briefly described in that rather short 
phone conversation. During this call, he told me, and I am repeating his 
words rather precisely: "A sophisticated political intelligence-gather- 
ing system has been approved with a budget of 300." Unfortunately 
he neither gave me, nor did I ask for any further details about the 
subject. 

Soon thereafter I wrote one of my regular "political matters" 
memos for Mr. Haldeman. This particular memo for early April was 
8 to 10 pages long with more than a dozen tabs or attachments, but it 
contained only one three-line paragraph on political intelligence. That 
paragraph read almost verbatim as Mr. Magruder had indicated to 
me over the phone. I wrote in the memo to Mr. Haldeman — Again this 
is almost a quote : 

Magruder reports that 1701 now has a sophisticated political intelligence- 
gathering system with a budget of 300. A sample of the type of information they 
are developing is attached at tab "H." 

At tab "H", I enclosed a political intelligence report which had been 
sent to me from the committee. It was entitled Sedan Chair II. This 
report and two others somewhat like it that I had received began with 
a statement such as, "A confidential source reveals" or "a reliable 
source confidentially reports." This was followed by a summary of 
some political information. 

In April 1972, I was mainly interested in reporting to Mr. Halde- 
man on those 30 campaign decisions and other relevant political items. 
I did not give much thought to what Mr. Magruder meant by "sophisti- 
cated political intelligence- gathering system." Nor did I give much 
thought to the real identitj^ of Sedan Chair II, but I remember that 
the information dealt with Senator Humphrey's Pennsylvania 
organization. 

However, on June 17, 1972, and afterward, as the news began unfold- 
ing about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee, I cer- 
tainly began to wonder who else but people from 1701 could have been 
involved. I suspected that maybe the Watergate break-in was part of 
the sophisticated political intelligence operation Mr. Magruder had 



2442 

mentioned to me on the phone in early April. And worse, I feared that 
Sedan Chair Il's so-called conlidential source might really have been 
a wiretap, or might in some way have been connected with the Water- 
gate break-in. 1 immediately tried to call Mr. Magruder so I could 
have a report for Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Magruder did not return my calls 
on Saturday and I was not able to reach him until around noon on 
Sunday, when I again called him in California. 

When I finally reached him and began to ask him what he knew 
about the Watergate break-in, he cut me olf and said that he had been 
on the phone with Mr. Haldeman that morning and the matter was be- 
ing taken care of. 

I doubted that Mr. Magruder had actually spoken with Mr. Halde- 
man so I called Mr. Higby who clears most calls to Mr. Haldeman. Mr. 
Higby told me that Mr. Magruder had talked to Mr. Haldeman and 
that Mr. Ehrlichman was handling the entii-e matter. 

I met with Mr. Haldeman on June 19 or 20 and showed him the 
April political matters memo that mentioned the intelligence gather- 
ing system. After speaking to him, I destroyed that memo and Sedan 
Chair II, as well as several other documents I have told this committee 
and the prosecutors about. I also told Mr. Dean that I had destroyed 
a political matters memo to Mr. Haldeman showing a $300,000 intelli- 
gence budget at the committee and three confidential source memos 
which I said could possibly have been wiretap reports with the sources 
carefully camouflaged. I did not tell Mr. Dean that I had, in fact, 
destroyed wiretap logs, because I was not then sure what they were, 1 
only had suspicions. 

1 also told the prosecutors in April of this year what specific items 
1 destroyed. And I told them I still suspected Sedan Chair II might 
have been a wiretap smnmary. It was not until Mr. lieisner and Mr. 
Porter testified before this committee in June that I learned Sedan 
Chair II was not an illegal wiretap, but was, instead, an informer 
planted in the Humphrey camp. In fact, you will recall that Mr. 
Magruder's testimony has established that I never received his wire- 
tap data. Nor could I have passed it on to others or shredded a wiretap 
transcript. He says he made only one copy of the Watergate wiretap 
log, code-named "Gemstone." He testified that it was so sensitive that 
he would not let it out of his office. 

Turning to matters after the election, I have told the committee 
that I returned approximately $350,000 in cash to Fred LaRue. I 
was not told by anyone, nor did I know what use was being made 
of this money. I had received the money from the campaign commit- 
tee on Mr. Haldeman's instructions and, at that time, returning it 
to Mr. LaKue seemed appropriate since he was the top official left 
at the committee. I took it to him in December 1972, or January 1973, 
after I had left the White House staff. This money was the fund I 
had picked up in April 1972, for the purpose of conducting White 
House polling. It had not been used to pay polling expenses or orig- 
inally planned and after the election I had been asking Mr. Haldeman, 
Mr. Dean, and Mr. Higby what to do with the money. 

The delivery to Mr. LaRue was made in two parts, on two occa- 
sions. In December or January, after talking to Mr. Dean, I took 
approximately $40,000 in two envelopes to Mr. LaKue at his apart- 
ment at the Watergate. I lived two blocks away and the delivery 
was made on my way home from work. 



I 



2443 

Later, I was asked to return the remainder of the money. I again 
called Mr. LaRue, who again asked if I could deliver it to his apart- 
ment. On this occasion, before picking up the money, Mr. LaRue 
donned a pair of gloves and then said, "I never saw you," I had been 
instructed by Mr. Dean to ask for a receipt, so I did, but Mr. LaRue 
refused saying "You will have to talk to John Dean about that." 

At that point I became more than a little suspicious. Frankly, after 
,Mr. LaRue put on the gloves, I did not know what to say — so I said 
nothing. Nor did I know what to do — so I left. The next day I told 
Mr. Dean that Mr. LaRue would not give me a receipt for the money. 
Mr. Dean said he would speak to Mr. LaRue about it. I don't know 
if he ever got the receipt, but I imagine he tried to follow up on it 
because I have since learned from Mr. Dean's testimony that it was 
Mr. Haldeman who asked that a receipt be given. 

At no time did Mr. Dean or Mr. LaRue advise me what was being 
done with the money or that payments were being made to the de- 
fendants. Neither of them ever asked me to do or say anything that 
I can interpret as being part of a coverup. 

In fact, there was only one occasion when I was expressly asked 
to do something that I knew was improper and which I could see 
was aimed at a coverup. That related to my upcoming grand jury 
testimony of April 11, 1973, and I refused to do it. 

I have not attempted in my statement to describe in detail all of 
the subjects that I have mentioned. I have provided the committee 
in executive session with a good deal more of the details surrounding 
these subjects and I am ready to begin the questioning on these 
matters. 

Senator Ervin. It is obvious that no member of the committee and 
no counsel can complete the questioning of Mr. Strachan today and for 
that reason the committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Monday. 

['V'VTiereupon at 4 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 
a.m., Monday, July 23, 1973.] 



MONDAY, JULY 23, 1973 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential. Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.G. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room 
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair- 
man), presiding. 

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 
Gurney, and Weicker. 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred D. 
Thompson, minority counsel ; Ruf us L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun- 
sel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; 
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant 
chief counsels; R. Phillip Haire, Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, 
Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels; 
Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy 
minority counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and 
Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, 
research assistant; Filer Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert 
Baca, office of Senator Montoya ; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 
Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Ray St. 
Armand, assistant publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Counsel will proceed to interrogate the witness. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Strachan, in your statement you indicated that you 
were staff assistant to Mr. Haldeman. Will you please tell us prior 
to that time what position you held ? Did you have any other position 
at the White House? 

TESTIMONY OF GORDON STRACHAN— Resumed 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I did. From August 3, 1970, until December 
1970, 1 was also staff assistant under Mr. Klein, and I technically re- 
ported to Mr. Magruder. 

Mr. Dash. What were your duties at that time ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I was originally recruited to be what was called 
a project manager. Particular issues would be assigned to one junior 
staff man and one senior staff man. For example, in the 1970 election 
the economy issue was assigned to Mr. Saffire as the senior man, and 
I was the junior staff assistant on that project. 

Mr. Dash. Prior to this last position you stated at the White House, 
where were you employed ? 

Mr. Strachan. I practiced law in New York for 2 years with the 
law firm Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, and Alexander. 

Mr, Dash. Is that the same law firm with which Mr. Mitchell was 
associated as a partner? 

(2445) 



2446 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And it is also the same law firm with which President 
Nixon was associated at one time as a partner ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Could you then again give us your duties as staff assistant 
to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the duties changed slightly over the course of 
the 2 years I worked for Mr. Haldeman. When I first began work I 
was assigned an office on the third floor of the Executive Office Build- 
ing, and my responsibilities for the first couple of months were to get 
all the polling files of the office, which were extensive, in order. 
Eventually I became for a certain amount of time the personal staff 
assistant, that is, I would prepare all the papers that w^ould be going 
to Mr. Haldeman, put them in the correct folders, be they action, F YI, 
personal, as well as the material that was going to the President that 
Mr. Haldeman would want to review. I prepared those in folders and 
took those in to Mr. Haldeman twice a day, usually at noon and then 
at the end of the day at 6. 

Mr. Dash. What were your duties really during the period from 
January 1972 to June 17, 1973, and thereafter ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, we shifted Mr. Haldeman's office, shifted 
location, and moved into the staff secretary complex offices and from 
January 1 through the election my primary duties were in the area 
of polling and in the area of political data bank. 

Mr. Dash. And, of course, during that time, I think you have stated 
that you served as the liaison between the White House and I take it 
specifically Mr. Haldeman and the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President. 

Mr. Strachan. It is correct to say I served as the liaison between 
Mr. Haldeman and the committee. As you might imagine there are 
very substantial contacts between all members of the White House staff 
and the campaign organization. So I was the liaison between Mr. 
Haldeman and the committee. 

Mr. Dash, And information that you received from the committee, 
I take it, was that primarily from Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I received information from Mr. Magruder, 
and also from many of the other people on the staff. Mr. Haldeman's 
particular interests were advertising and polling and I dealt directly 
with those senior people in those two areas. I also dealt with the people 
in the political area in order to acquire as much information as I 
could. 

Mr. Dash. What discretion, if any, did you have when you received 
information from the committee in reporting to Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Strachan. I characterized the discretion as very little. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, it was your duty and responsibility to 
report everything that you learned from the committee to Mr. 
Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is right, or be confident that he would have 
learned the information from some other source. 

Mr. Dash. Now, I take it you carried out that duty to the best of your 
ability ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir ; I did. 



2447 

Mr. Dash. Aside from your o^Yn dedication, was there any other 
constraints in seeing to it that you carried out that duty ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Haldeman had a well -deserved reputation 
as a very, very tough staff man, and there were constant pressures to 
perform well, and I worked very hard. 

Mr. Dash. Would you say or would it be fair to say that Mr. Halde- 
man, as staff director, and in his own interest in keeping in touch with 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President, wanted to be on top of all 
the facts ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; that would be a very accurate statement. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us something about Mr. Haldeman's activi- 
ties and how he administered the office, and how he performed his role ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Haldeman, is a very organized individ- 
ual. He had a system, for example, on his telephone where lights would 
indicate whether he was in his office not to be disturbed or in the Presi- 
dent's office or if he would push a green light which would light up on 
one of his personal aide's phones, then that would be your opportunity 
to take a matter in to him if you thought it was important enough to 
bother him. 

I would spend as little time as possible in there, not to waste his time. 
I don't know what else you want. 

Mr. Dash. Aside from your own statement that he had passion for 
the facts, that he was a well-organized person, what was his relation- 
ship with other staff members, as staff director? For instance, what 
was his relationship with Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he had known Mr. Ehrlichman for a long 
time. They, I presume, were close friends. They played tennis together, 
they had direct phone lines to each other. They w^ould walk in 
and out of each others offices, I would characterize it as a very 
close relationship. 

Mr. Dash. And, to your knowledge, would it be fair to say that they 
communicated frequently with each other and that if Mr. Haldeman 
had important information he would be keeping Mr. Ehrlichman 
informed ? 

Mr. Strachan. I don't know that as a matter of fact but I would 
surely assume that. 

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Higby's relationship with Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Higby had worked for Mr. Haldeman for, 
I believe, 4 or 5 years before I joined the White Hovise staff. His title, 
as distinguished from mine as staff assistant was administrative assist- 
ant. He was the senior personal aide to Mr. Haldeman. I think they 
had a very close personal relationship and personal friendship, spent 
a lot of social time together. 

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Haldeman's role with regard to the cam- 
paign itself? 

Mr. Str^vchan. Well, Mr. Haldeman was obviously quite interested 
in the campaign. He would express his views as to the way certain 
things would be done. In particular he insisted upon clearing, that 
is personally approving by initial every piece of advertising, be it radio, 
TV, bumper strip, whatever went out from the committee. 

Mr. Dash. And would it be fair to say that on many important is- 
sues of the committee that these issues would be communicated to Mr. 
Haldeman for his approval — actions of the committee? 



2448 

Mr. Strachan. No; not all matters would be communicated for 
action. He had very little interest, for example, in what the field 
organization would be doing. I would advise him on an FYI basis of 
who had been selected to head the campaigns in the various States 
but he showed very little interest in that. 

Mr. Dash. When you made your reports to Mr. Haldeman, espe- 
cially those reports that came from the committee, could you briefly 
tell us, but in some detail, what kind of reports you made? How did 
you report to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement I 
prepared periodically, usually once a week or once every 2 weeks 
memorandums entitled "Political Matters Memos." 

These memorandums would summarize the information that I had 
accumulated from the politically active people on the White House 
staff, Mr. Colson, Mr. Dent, information I had accumulated from 
1701, from the various State organizations, he had quite an interest. 

Mr. Dash. When you say 1701 what are you referring to? 

Mr. Strachan. That is the Committee To Re-Elect the President. 

He had quite an interest in California so I w^ould talk with the 
California people, and then I would write a memorandum, usually 
quite long, 8, 9, 10 pages, with several attachments as backup. The 
main purpose of attaching the tabs would be that I would refer in 
the paragraphs to information that I thought he should read in the 
original form, and w^ould attach it as a tab. 

Mr. Dash. Were some of your communications in an oral form 
rather than in a memorandum form ? 

Mr. Strachan. He prefers to communicate in writing. Of course, I 
would have oral communications with him but the great bulk of 
information that he received from me regarding the campaign would 
be in writing. 

Mr. Dash. All right, now, when he received from you a political 
matter memorandum with the various items indicated, and the tabs, 
how would he respond to you concerning those items that were brought 
to his attention by you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he w^ould always read with a pen and he would 
write his comments beside them or check the item as he read each 
particular paragraph. Occasionally he would write his views on the 
political matters memo the paragraph that dealt with the particular 
subject. 

Mr. Dash. In instances, I take it, you would be given, or at least 
get indications from him, as to what he wanted you to do to follow 
up on various matters ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, usually, his comments on the side would be 
cryptic and humorous. If he had a disagreement as to the way things 
were being done at the committee, he would send a memorandum to 
John Mitchell or on occasion to Jeb Magruder, or make a note to me 
that I should contact a particular individual about something. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when, on the basis of any particular- information 
that you presented Mr. Haldeman in the form of, say, a political mat- 
ters memorandum, he wanted to have a meeting with somebody, would 
you prepare any particular paper with regard to that meeting ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. I would prepare what would be characterized 
as a talking paper. They were fairly structured, formalized in Mr. 



2449 

Haldeman's office. Prior to a meeting:, for example, with John Mitchell, 
I would prepare a talking paper of subjects I thought he should cover 
with him. 

Mr. Dash. By the way, when Mr. Haldeman would put a check, 
I think you mentioned, by an item, what would that mean to you? 

Mr. Strachax. That would indicate that he had read it. 

Mr. Dash. Now, do you recall whether Mr. Magruder, who frequent- 
ly, I take it, did give you information concerning the Committee for 
the Re-Election of the President, gave you any information concern- 
ing an intelligence plan prior to March 30, 1972 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Prior to March 30, 1972 ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Strachan. No ; he did not. 

Mr. Dash. Now, have you read or heard Mr. Magruder's testimony ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Dash. We have the testimony here, but I think I can expedite 
matters by briefly referring to it. Mr. Magruder did testify that cer- 
tainly after the February 4, 1972, meeting, he communicated to you 
about the meeting, about the contents of the meeting, and in fact, sent 
you copies of the notes or memorandums of the so-called Liddy plan 
that had been presented to Mr. Mitchell in Mr. Mitchell's office where 
Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Liddy met with Mr. Mitchell. Are you 
familiar with Mr. Magruder's testimony in that regard ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Magruder do that? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; he did not. Mr. Magruder — and I have read his 
testimony carefully — relies on the fact that automatically, materials 
would have come over to me. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has 
established that that is not true. Materials do not automatically come 
over to me. And in this particular case 

Mr. Dash. How did the Federal Bureau of Investigation establish 
that that is not true ? 

Mr. Strachan. They inter^dewed several of his secretaries and 
people in his office and they indicated that matters were not always 
sent to Mr. Strachan or to the White House, that they would be held 
back at the express direction of Mr. Magruder. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be true that important matters, matters of sig- 
nificance, would be sent over to you? Would you not agree that a 
plan such as the so-called Liddy plan to engage in electronic surveil- 
lance for political intelligence was a significant matter ? 

Mr. Strachan. Obviously, that is a significant matter, but I think 
Mr. Magruder probably relied upon the fact that John Dean was 
present at the meeting to report to the appropriate peoj^le at the White 
House. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us at this point about that separate re- 
lationship? What was Mr. Dean's relationship with Mr. Haldeman 
as apart from your relationship ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Dean had line responsibility as distin- 
guished from mine of staff responsibility. He would have a certain 
amount of independent authority and would function on projects on 
his own and report to Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman on matters 
on which he needed guidance. 



2450 

Mr. Dash. All right, now. If Mr. Dean attended an important meet- 
ing as the one we have already had ample testimony about, the Jan- 
uary 27 meeting in tlie first instance and the Febniary 4, 1972, meeting 
in Mr. Mitchell's office in the second instance would you expect that 
Mr. Dean would, in fact, report that meeting to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I would think so, because Mr. Dean was aware 
of the interest over the 6 months previous, interest in political intelli- 
gence. And Mr. Dean has testified he reported to Mr. Haldeman about 
that meeting. 

Mr. Dash. Well, what was Mr. Haldeman's interest in political in- 
telligence in the past ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it was a subject that I was expected to raise 
in talking papers and to periodically follow up with John Dean to 
see that certain individual projects were on track. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of a particular interest Mr. Haldeman 
had in political matters, intelligence matters ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am sorry, I do not understand the question. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of any particular interest that Mr. 
Haldeman had in being informed about political intelligence matters? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he was particularly interested — I think this 
is the thrust of your question — he was particularly interested in the 
area of political intelligence and information about Senator Kennedy. 

Mr. Dash, Now, you say that Mr. Dean, to your expectation, in 
fact, did report this meeting. Could you give us a little more descrip- 
tion, to your knowledge, of Mr. Dean's relationship to you and to 
other members of the staff ? How did he carry out his responsibilities 
in making reports and giving factual information to various members 
of the AVliite House staff ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, as I say, he had line responsibility, a certain 
number of staff people under him. He handled conflict of interest 
matters, would usually have an opinion as to what stand the President 
should take on legislation, and so forth. My role on Mr. Haldeman's 
personal staff was to follow up with John Dean on certain matters 
that he was working with for him. The best example is when John 
Dean was working on the President's estate plan. I had done research 
on that subject in private law practice and worked closely with John 
Dean on that. He would prepare memorandums addressed to Mr. 
Haldeman and to Mr. Ehrlichman, and I would liave a chance to look 
over those memorandums, but they would go in in their original state. 

Mr. Dash. But would Mr. Dean share generally with you the infor- 
mation that he would give to other members of the White House 
staff, Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman or others ? 

Mr. Strachan. No; not necessarily. Mr. Dean had a remarkable 
facility, almost that of a litigator, to remember facts and to keep 
track of which facts which staff members knew or should be informed 
about. 

Mr. Dash. And did you have an opportunity to observe that? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Dash. Over what period of time did you experience this re- 
markable quality of Mr. Dean to recollect and also to separate out 
who was to receive what facts ? 



I 



2451 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I observed that the whole time I was on the 
White House staff. Whatever the particular subject would be on the 
President's estate plan, he could keep track of who was handlings which 
tax returns, which people should have access to which parts of which 
tax returns, very tough questions of fact and internal politics. But 
most particularly, during the summer of 1972, for example, when he 
interviewed me regarding Segretti, he had interviewed both me and 
Chapin. Both of us knew something about the subject, yet John Dean 
was able to keep which of us knew what perfectly straight. 

Mr. Dash. Well, you also said that you believe he probably told 
Mr. Haldeman because he has testified that he told Mr. Haldeman. 
Is that based on your opinion or knowledge of Mr. Dean when he 
makes a statement, whether that is a true statement ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I have confidence in John Dean's ability to 
state the facts as he recalls them. 

Mr. Dash. And your knowledge of John Dean's relationship with 
Mr. Haldeman would lead you to what conclusion concerning his 
giving Mr. Haldeman all the facts that he had at any one time that 
he felt Mr. Haldeman ought to have. 

Mr. Strachan. My opinion would be that John Dean would disclose 
the facts to Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you are also familiar with Mr. Magruder's testi- 
mony that after the February 4 meetinaf and when there was an in- 
stallation of wiretap equipment in the Watergate or Democratic Na- 
tional Committee headquarters, he showed you at a particular time 
the so-called Gemstone material. Are you familiar with his testimony 
regarding that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I am familiar with his testimony. 

Mr. Dash. Did he in fact show you such Gemstone material? 
. Mr. Strachan. No; he did not, and if you read his testimony care- 
fully and previous statements, he did not show me the Gemstone file. 
His statement is couched with, "As I recall, I called him up ; as I recall, 
he came over ;" and "as I recall, he read it." 

He told Mr. Ehrlichman within an hour after he talked to the pros- 
ecutors that Strachan may have read the Gemstone file and Mr. Ehr- 
lichman's sworn statement is that when he pressed hard in the ques- 
tioning of Mr. Magruder about that crucial fact, Mr. Magruder an- 
swered that he "Could not testify that Strachan had read the Gem- 
stone file." 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you ever hear, prior to June 17, the code term 
"Gemstone?" 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Dash. Why would Mr. Magruder keep from you this very sensi- 
tive material ? I think his testimony here was that he thought it was 
so sensitive that he did not, as he would usually, send you the ma- 
terials but he asked you to come over to the office to see them, and you 
are right that he said he recalled he did. Would it not be natural that 
Mr. Magruder would ask you to come see these materials ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, his testimony that it was too sensitive to send 
over is inconsistent with his testimony that he sent automatically the 
budgets over to me. If the budgets contain bugging and wiretapping, 



2452 

that would strike me as far more sensitive a matter to send through the 
normal messenger channels than some file which other witnesses have 
indicated was not patently illegal on its face. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, what you are saying is that you never 
did see the Gemstone file, Mr. Magruder never invited you over to see 
it, and that prior to March 30, you had no knowledge of any so-called 
Liddy intelligence plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did that change, at least after March 30 ? 

If it did, could you tell us how it changed ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I was aware that Mr. Magruder would be going 
down to Key Biscayne to review several campaign decisions that had 
accumulated during John Mitchell's working on the ITT problem. 
He called me up in an apparently fairly brief telephone conversation 
and reviewed the 30 or so pending campaign decisions. I took notes on 
that telephone conversation and prepared shortly thereafter a political 
matters memorandum for Mr. Haldeman, summarizing that telephone 
conversation as well as other information. 

Mr. Dash. And what did that include ? I mean did it include a Liddy 
intelligence plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; Mr. Magruder told me that a sophisticated 
political intelligence gathering system had been approved and I re- 
ported that to Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware that that was one of the items for deci- 
sion that went down to Key Biscayne with Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I was not. 

Mr. Dash. So that it was after he came back that he reported that to 
you? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash, Can you recall approximately when he made that report 
to you? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it was shortly thereafter, I would guess either 
Friday, March 31, maybe Saturday. My secretary recalls having typed 
the memorandum on Friday. 

Mr. Dash. And it is clear in your mind that Mr. Magruder reported 
that Mr. Mitchell had in fact approved a sophisticated intelligence 
plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I concluded that Mr. Mitchell had approved it. 
I believe that when Mr. Magruder was .q-oin.qr through the decisions 
and the way I would usually report it to Mr. Haldeman would be that 
Mr. Magruder reports that' Mr. Mitchell has approved the following 
matters, and I would put a colon, and then I would list the items. 

Mr. Dash. But did you do it with regard to this plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; that was one of the 30 items that was listed. 

Mr. Dash. I think in your statement you referred to a sophisticated 
intelligence system with a budget of 300. Three hundred what? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it is $300,000. On almost all of the memoran- 
dums that I wrote to Mr. Haldeman, I would leave off the last three 
zeroes, because usually the figures that we were dealing with were very, 
very large. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you say that you then prepared a political matters 
memorandum for Mr. Haldeman, and you included this approved 



2453 

sophisticated intelligence plan, that $300,000 budget, in that political 
matters memorandum. 

Do you recall the number of that memorandum ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; it was political matters memorandum No. 8. 
Mr. Dash. And how many political matters memorandums did you 
write after that, if you can recall approximately ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, through the campaign and toward the end 
of the campaign, they got a little further apart, but I wrote 28. 

Mr. Dash. Did you receive any information or indication that Mr. 
Haldeman, in fact, read the political matters memorandum No. 18 
with specific reference to the sophisticated intelligence plan with a 
budget of $300,000? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; it was Mr. Haldeman's practice when he would 
read such a memorandum to make notes and check off those para- 
graphs which he had indicated and then he would write it up in the 
upper right-hand corner "To Strachan," in this case indicating the 
memorandum should be returned directly to me, and I would ^o 
through his memorandums after he had read them, and this partic- 
ular one I reread, and noted his checking off of all the paragraphs 
that I had prepared for him. 

Mr. Dash. Was there any other comment besides that particular 
one? 

Mr. Strachan. Besides the paragraph that you are concerned about 
there was simply a blank check. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time shortly afterwards when you 
were asked to do anything abont that particular matter ? 
Mr. Strachan. I am sorry. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time shortly afterward when you were 
asked to write either any other paper or memorandum or take any 
further action with regard to that particular matter ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am sorry, I do not understand the 

Mr. Dash. Well, you testified that you submitted to Mr. Haldeman 
a report on your political matters memorandum concerning this so- 
phisticated intelligence plan, and then that this was checked off, indi- 
cating to you that he had read it. What happened afterward concern- 
ing that particular matter? Did that just stay in your file or did Mr. 
Haldeman take any further action on it to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, after the memorandum came back out Mr. 
Haldeman was going to meet with Mr. Mitchell on April 4. 
Mr. Dash. How did you learn about that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Haldeman had a system on his telephones 
where he could push a button and have one of his personal aides moni- 
tor the telephone conversation. 

Mr. Dash. Would this be similar to an extension phone where some- 
body would be asked to get on an extension phone and just listen in? 
Mr. Strachan. Well it would be different from an extension phone 
because you could not detect the fact that it Avas picked up, and there 
was no way that the person listening on the phone could make any 
noise either by talking or by a secretary typing to indicate that there 
was someone else on the phone. 

Mr. Dash. How were you notified or how was it indicated to you 
that you were to pick up the line ? 



2454 

Mr. Strachan. Well, there was a button on the call director phone 
that I had which would buzz when I was to pick that line up, and I 
pushed down the button and be^an listening to the conversation 
usually at that time which was already in progress. 

Mr. Dash. All right. In this particular case now with a call, I take 
it, you are testifying to Mr. Mitchell, could you tell us, having picked 
up the line, what you heard ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was either 
going to return or had returned from Florida, and Mr. Haldeman 
jokingly said, "Well, that is clearly a mistake. You ought to stay down 
there and vacation some more," and Mr. Mitchell indicated that "Well, 
we had better get together and talk about some matters." Haldeman 
asked him if 3 o'clock that day would be convenient. 

Mr. Dash. And that day was when ? 

Mr. Strachan. April 4. 

Mr. Dash. 1972? 

Mr. Strachan. 1972. 

Mr. Dash. And was there, in fact, a meeting on April 4, 1972, be- 
tween Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I did not attend the meeting so I could not 
testify that there was in fact but I prepared a talking paper for the 
meeting and we would prepare a folder which would include the talk- 
ing paper, and the talking paper went into his office and came back 
out afterwards. 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, in this talking paper, did you include the item of the sophisti- 
cated intelligence plan with a budget of $300,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. In most talking papers I would frequently pose 
the question is the intelligence system adequate? Is the proposal on 
track, just to get the conversation going on the subject, and in this 
particular one I did include that paragraph. 

Mr. Dash. Now, prior to that meeting and when you were pre- 
paring that talking paper, was there any other political intelligence 
plan operative or being considered to your knowledge? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Dash. Did you receive back that talking paper after you had 
given it to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. And to your knowledge, was there any indication as to 
whether all the items on the talking paper had been discussed? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, usually if a matter had not been discussed he 
would indicate that it should be raised again. In this case it was not 
raised again, indicating that he would have covered the subject. 

Mr. Dash. What did you do with that talking paper then when you 
received it back ? 

Mr. Strachan. I put it back in the file with the political matters 
memo 18 files. 

Mr. Dash. And there was no indication from Mr. Haldeman that he 
had either not discussed it or it needed any further action on your 
part? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time after that meeting between 
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman, and also in the same month of April, 



2455 

that Mr. Haldeman asked you to give some communication to Mr. 
Gordon Liddy? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes. Mr. Haldeman called me up into his office. I 
carried a clipboard and he told me to contact Mr, Liddy and tell him 
to transfer whatever capability he had from ]\Iuskie to McGovern with 
particular interest in discovering what the connection between Mc- 
Govern and Senator Kennedy was. 

Mr. Dash. Was that the limit of the instruction that you had ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. What did you do with that instruction? Did you make 
a record of it ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, I had taken notes as he had dictated that to 
me. I walked down to my office, called Gordon Liddy, had him cleared 
into the "VYhite House, had him come over to my office, and literally 
read the statement to him. 

Mr. Dash. When he came into your office could you describe what 
Mr. Liddy did, if anything? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes. Mr. Liddy reached over and turned on the 
radio. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Dash. Do you know why he did that ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, I have heard descriptions later that is what 
you do if you want to drown out and prevent a bug from picking up 
the conversation. 

Mr. Dash. Did you in fact have any bug in the room at that time ? 

Mr. Strachax. 1 have no way of knowing. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Dash. At least to your knowledge that you hadn't installed one 
yourself ? 

Mr. Strachax. No ; not that I installed. 

Mr. Dash. Now he turned on the radio and how did you communi- 
cate the Haldeman message to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Strachax. I said that Mr. Haldeman had asked me to give him 
this message, and read it to him. 

]\Ir. Dash. In other words, you read it almost word for word as you 
got it from Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I opened my clipboard and just read it. 

Mr. Dash. And you didn't give any further explanation as to what 
you meant by transfer his capabilities from Mr. Muskie to Mr. Mc- 
Govern. What capabilities? 

Mr. Strachax. No. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know what capabilities he was referring to ? 

Mr. Strachax. No, I didn't except I suspected that there were plants 
in Muskie's campaign. It was fairly common knowledge that Muskie's 
driver was either in the pay of the CRP or supplying information to 
us. I presumed that these employees would be transferred over to Sen- 
ator McGovem. 

Mr. Dash. We know already from the testimony, even from Mr. 
Mitchell, that the so-called March 30 Liddy plan included fairly sophis- 
ticated electronic surveillance plans and, as you have indicated, it 
was that plan that Mr. Magruder said was approved by Mr. Mitchell 
which you submitted to Mr. Haldeman. With that kind of knowledge, 
would you also now assume that those capabilities could also have in- 
cluded electronic surveillance? 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 



2456 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it's quite an assumption, but I think you would 
have to make it. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Liddy ask you any questions of what did you 
mean or did he seem to understand what that message meant? 

Mr, Strachan. Oh, he seemed to understand and didn't spend very 
much time and left. 

Mr. Dash. And left. 
, Did you learn anything afterwards as to what he did or did not 
do? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I did not. 

Mr. Dash. Was any further report made through you to Mr. Halde- 
man concerning whether he carried out that mission ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, not through me. 

Mr. Dash. Now, if Mr. Haldeman actually wanted Mr. Liddy to have 
that instruction and asked you to communicate that to Mr. Liddy, I 
take it Mr. Haldeman would be interested in seeing that instructions 
of his were carried out. 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. I think you have indicated that Mr. Haldeman was very 
well organized and wanted to have all the facts. 

Would you be the only one, the only avenue or conduit through 
which a communication back — as to whether Mr. Liddy had followed 
that instruction would get back to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. No. The information could have come back throug'h 
a variety of channels. 

Mr. Dash. Would you assume that Mr. Haldeman would have pur- 
sued that and that a com'munication would have gotten back to Mr. 
Haldeman? I ask that with respect to your personal knowledge of 
Mr. Haldeman's working habits and what Mr. Haldeman did when 
he sent a communication and what he expected after he sent a communi- 
cation for a particular action. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Haldeman would normally follow up on 
particular matters. Whether he would get a report back on all messages 
that he delivered, frequently he just assumed something was going to 
be done, and that he would not have to follow up on it. 

Mr. Dash. If he gave orders for something to be done and they 
weren't done, what was Mr. Haldeman's usual reaction ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, to his personal aides he would explain his 
dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when was the first time that you heard about or 
learned of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee head- 
quarters of the Watergate on June 17, 1972 ? 

Mr. Strachan. I was sitting in my car outside Rodman's Drug Store, 
my wife was out shopping and I heard it on the radio. 

Mr. Dash. What passed through your mind when you heard that 
news? 

Mr. Strachan. Shock, disbelief, surprise. 

Mr. Dash. What did you do ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I drove to the White House to get a telephone 
number for Mr. Magruder in California, to call him and find out if he 
knew anything about it. 

Mr. Dash. Did you reach Mr. Magruder ? 



2457 

Mr. Strachan. No, I did not. 

Mr, Dash. Did you later learn from Mr. Magruder anything about 
this event ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I called him that afternoon and then tried to 
call him again that evening, and did not reach him. Placed a third call 
on Sunday about noon, Washington time, and asked him if he knew 
anything about this since I had rather expected a phone call from Mr. 
Haldeman, and he said "Don't worry about it, I have been on the phone 
this morning with Bob, and you needn't know anytliing about it." 

Mr. Dash. All right. What did you do after that ? 

Mr. Strachan. 1 called Mr. Higby, because I didn't really believe 
that Magruder had talked to Mr. Haldeman, Haldeman was down in 
Key Biscayne. Mr. Higby told me yes, in fact Magruder had talked 
with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman was handling the entire 
matter. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Now, at that point were you concerned about 
any particular thing ? 

Mr. Strachan. Pardon ? 

Mr. Dash. At that point having learned that Mr. Haldeman now 
had spoken to Mr. Magruder and was informed, did a concern come 
into your mind ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I expected over the entire weekend Mr. Halde- 
man to call me and ask me w^hat I knew, if I knew anything why I had 
not reported it to him, the usual very tough questions he would ask. 

Mr. Dash. Did you begin at that time to suspect any problem that 
Mr. Haldeman may have with regard to this ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, you have to draw one of three conclusions: 
Either he knew about it ahead of time; either he didn't except me 
to report to him, or he had received a report and had calmed down. 

Mr. Dash. Did you arrive at any one conclusion ? 

Mr. Strachan. It was either one of the latter two, either he knew 
or he didn't expect me to report to him. 

Mr. Dash. What did you do after you learned that he had heard 
about it, what did you do yourself? 

Mr. Strachan. I didn't do anything. The White House logs indicate 
that I was in the White House for a minute Sunday, I don't know 
what that was for. 

The next day, Monday 

Mr. Dash. Monday was June 19, 1972 ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Mr. Strachan. I began going through my files, Mr. Haldeman's 
files, to see if there were any indications of any information that would 
be in any way related to this act. 

Mr. Dash. Well, did you come to any conclusion as to whether there 
was anything in the files that would be m any way related ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I pulled out several documents, most partic- 
ularly the political matters memorandum No. 18. 

Mr. Dash. And that was the one that referred to the sophisticated 
intelligence plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 



2458 



I 



Mr. Dash. Did you also pull out that memorandum or these little 
notes that you had taken concerning the communication that you had 
from Mr. Haldeman to contact Mr. Liddy about his capabilities being 
switched from Muskie to McGovern ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I pulled that document out but I did not take 
that up to Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, what did you believe at that time when you took the docu- 
ment out ? 

Did you believe that a break-in at the Democratic National Commit- 
tee headquarters was in fact related to this plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. I didn't know for sure, but I had pretty strong 
suspicions. 

Mr. Dash. Did you meet with Mr. Haldeman shortly after you pulled 
that file out ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us when ? 

Mr. Strachan. I believe it was the morning of June 20. He had 
returned from Florida, I had given a note to Mr. Higby that I thought 
I should see Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Haldeman simmioned me to his office, 
and I walked in with the political matters memorandum. 

Mr. Dash. I think you had indicated that you were somewhat con- 
cerned about Mr. Haldeman's reaction to you about not being informed. 
Were you still concerned when you met with Mr. Haldeman on June 
20? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I was scared to death. I thought I would be 
fired at that point for not having figured that out. 

Mr. Dash. Were you fired or did he berate you ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, he did not berate me. He said almost jokingly, 
"Well, what do we know about the events over the weekend?" And I 
was quite nervous and retreated to sort of legal protective terms and 
I said, "Well, sir, this is what can be imputed to you through me, your 
agent," and opened the political matters memorandum to the para- 
graph on intelligence, showed it to him. He acknowledged his check 
and that he had read that, and said that he had not read the tab, which 
had been attached, turned, began reading it, said, maybe I should 
have been reading these, these are quite interesting, and read the tab. 

Mr. Dash. What tab was that ? 

Mr. Strachan. That was Sedan Chair II. 

Mr. Dash. Then what, if anything, did you tell him or did he tell you 
after he had gone through this memorandum again ? 

Mr. Strachan. He told me, "Well, make sure our files are clean." 

Mr. Dash. What did that mean to you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I went down and shredded that document and 
others related. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you do that on your own initiative as such, or 

did you feel th'at you were making sure that you were following Mr. 

Haldeman's instruction that you should make sure the files are clean ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I believed I was following his orders. 

Mr. Dash. And you shredded all of No. 18, the political matters 

memorandum No. 18? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. What about the memorandum ithat you had made on the 
communication with regard to Mr. Liddy ? 



I 



2459 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I shredded that also. 

Mr. Dash. Were there any other documents that you shredded ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I did g"o throui^h and make sure our files were 
clean. I shredded the talking paper between ]\Ir. Haldeman and Mr. 
Mitchell on April 4, 1 shredded a reference to Mr. Segretti, I shredded 
Mr. Segretti's telephone number. 

Mr. Dash. "\Yliat reference was that to Mr. Segretti ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, there had been a dispute between whether or 
not Mr. Segretti should continue out in the field functioning some- 
what independent. Mr. Magruder wix)te a memorandum to Mr. 
Mitchell entitled "Matter of Potential Embarrassment" in whicih he 
described this individual in the field and how that individual should 
be under the direction of Mr. Liddy. Mr. Mitchell had a copy of that 
and Mr. Haldeman had a copy of that. And Mr. Haldeman had told 
me to call up Mr. Segretti and to tell him to expect a call and his di- 
rections from Mr. Liddy. I shredded that memorandum also. 

Mr. Dash. Were there any other documents thaJt you shredded? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, we gave the committee a list. 

Mr. Dash. You may have stated, but did that include the talking 
paper that vou had prepared for Mr. Haldeman for his meeting with 
Mr. Mitchell on April 4 ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I think I said that that was one of the items. 

Mr. Dash. Now, after you shredded these papers on the 20th of 
June 1972, did you inform anybody that you had done this? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I went over to John Dean's office and gave him 
a list orally of the documents that I had shredded and told him that 
those had been Mr. Haldeman 's instructions. 

Mr. Dash. Wliy did you inform John Dean ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, John Dean was, as you know, the counsel to 
the President and the man who would presumably be handling this 
problem. 

Mr. Dash. Did you inform anybody else ? 

Mr. Strachax. No. 

Mr. Dash. Now, have you since had an opportunity to go through 
the "\^liite House records to look at the various memorandums that 
you have prepared in the past ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, I have gone back into an Executive Office Build- 
ing office, room 522, to go through the files. 

Mr. Dash. And did these files still have the political matters memo- 
randiun that you had prepared for Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, they contained all political matters memo- 
randums except No. 18. 

Mr. Dash. 18 was missing? 

Mr. Strachax. That is right. 

Mr. Dash. So you reaffirmed the fact that you had destroyed 18? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, I did not forget that. 

Mr. Dash. No. It had not been replaced, anyway ? 

Mr. Strachax. No. 

Mr. Dash. Now, later, did you ever inform Mr. Haldeman that you 
wanted to make sure that the files were clean or that you had destroyed, 
in fact, the particular files that you were worried about? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes. On July 1, I was invited to go out with the 
Presidential party on Air Force One. There were going to be a series of 
discussions out there with Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Malek regarding 



2460 I 

the campaign. I had done a political matters memo for the preceding 
2 weeks and I joined Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Higby on that flight. At 
that time, I reviewed both the most recent political matters memor- 
andum and the fact that I had in fact made sure the files were clean. 

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Haldeman's reaction, if anything, when 
you told him that you had destroyed No. 18 ? 

Mr. Strachan. I do not think he said anything. I just reported it 
as a matter of fact and we went on to something else. 

Mr. Dash. And to your recollection, he accepted that as a matter of 
fact? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I would remember if he had told me that was 
a very stupid thing to do. 

Mr. Dash. Now, was there any discussion as to how many copies of 
these memorandums in the future should be made ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; he asked me how many copies of the political 
matters memorandum had been prepared and I told him three, and he 
told me at that time to cut the number down to two. 

Mr. Dash. Who received these copies ? There were two, one for him 
and one for who ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, one for Mr. Haldeman and one for me. 

Mr. Dash. Now, after this event, and after, of course, the break-in 
at Watergate, what was your relationship with the Committee To Re- 
Elect the President ? Did it continue, and did you continue as liaison ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, it did. I had talked with Mr. Malek on the trip 
out to California and he talked to Mr. MacGregor about how good I 
thought Bob Reisner was as an administrative assistant and the de- 
cision was made to move Bob Reisner to become Clark MacGregor's 
administrative assistant and I continued to work very, very closely 
with Mr. Reisner. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any responsibilities to report to Mr. Halde- 
man concerning the Watergate affair ? 

Mr. Strachan. None. 

Mr. Dash. I take it that after the break-in, the so-called Watergate 
affair became an important matter of concern in the campaign ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, everybody followed it rather closely. 

Mr. Dash. And I take it various meetings were held, and I think 
that we've had considerable testimony from a number of witnesses 
concerning the meetings just after the break-in through June, the 
latter part of July and August. Were you aware of those meetings? 

Mr. Strachan. No, not really. I certainly never attended any. I 
don't think I was specifically aware that they were having all these 
meetings on what has turned out to be the Watergate matter. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of an interchange of information, let 
me say between Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mardian, 
Mr. LaRue, and then on the other side, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. 
Ehrlichman, involving these meetings? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I don't think so and that sort of goes to the point 
of how Dean could keep all facts and people sort of in order. I don't 
think he ever told me that he was having all these meetings. 

Mr. Dash. So as you testified earlier with regard to the meeting back 
on February 4 and also January 27, when Mr. Dean was present, Mr. 
Haldeman would rely on Mr. Dean's report and it was not necessary 
for you to be that messenger of the information. So it happened after- 



2461 

wards, Avhen Mr. Dean attended all these meetings over at the com- 
mittee, he would be the one that would communicate this information 
to Mr. Haldeman if anybody did ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct, and I would guess that he would 
report directly rather than through me or one of his aides. But I didn't 
know that for a fact. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you became aware of a 
transfer of $350,000 from the Committee To Re-Elect the President to 
Mr. Haldeman or the Wliite House under Mr. Haldeman 's control? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. The subject had been discussed for a couple of 
months before that. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat time now are we talking about? 

Mr. Strachan. This would be from December 1971 through April 
1972. Mr. Haldeman — his office conducted extensive polling — and he 
told me at one point, when I was having discussions with Mr. Kalm- 
bach, to make sure that we have an ample supply of cash to pay for 
these polls. 

I talked with John Dean about it, tried to arrange for John Dean a 
method for holding the money. He eventually told me that he could 
not do it. 

On April 6, I prepared a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman saying 
that we are going to get that money from the committee before the 
new finance law and we have to get it very soon ; John Dean can't make 
arrangements. You have four other alternatives. He checked the one 
indicating that I should go and pick up the money. 

Mr. Dash. IVhich one was that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Alex Butterfield had a friend who would hold the 
money. And I went and got the money, brought it back to Alex, and 
presum ably 

Mr. Dash. When you say went and got the money, where did you 
go? 

Mr. Strachan. T went over to 1701, to the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President, either ]Mr. Kalmbach's office or to Mr. Sloan's office. 

Mr. Dash. Was this in cash ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Dash. And you returned it back to the White House? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. You turned it over to Mr. Butterfield ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I eventually turned it over to him. I walked 
into his office and the two of us began counting it and he said he would 
get it to his friend. 

Mr. Dash. Actually, what was that money for? Was that for the 
command or the disbursement of Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Pardon ? 

Mr. Dash. Was this money that was taken over to the White House 
and turned over to ISIr. Butterfield and then to his friend, was the dis- 
bursement of that money really at the discretion of Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Definitely. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you become aware of the fact that any money 
was in fact spent from that $350,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. Somewhere around the time of the Hanoi-Hai- 
phong bombing, Mr. Howard came to me and indicated that Mr. Col- 
son had an approved advertisement — I believe it was under the aus- 



2462 

pices of Tell 'It To Hanoi, but in any event, it concerned indicating 
public support for the bombing and mining decision. Mr. Howard said 
that Mr. Colson needed $22,000 and I asked Mr. Haldeman if we 
should authorize that expenditure. He said yes, and the money was 
delivered. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when the $350,000, or what 
was left of it, was returned to the Committee for the Re-Election of 
the President, or to a particular person there ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, we should back up a little, I think. After the 
election, I got the money back from INIr. Butterfield and 

Mr. Dash. Why did you get it back from Mr. Butterfield after the 
election ? 

Mr. Strachan. Because Mr. Haldeman had told me to return the 
money to the committee. 

Mr. Dash. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Strachan. Then John Dean told me that he wanted to have 
the $350,000 intact and Fred Fielding gave me $22,000, which I placed 
with the $320,000 

Mr. Dash. Well, let's back up a bit here. You said John Dean told 
you he wanted the $350,000 intact. Was there any specific incident 
or event at that time when Mr. Dean communicated that to you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. 

Mr. Dean had told me. Chapin and me that Earl Silbert from the 
prosecutor's office wanted to interview us and that that interview was 
scheduled on November 28, and Mr. Dean indicated that one of the 
questions might be whether or not the $350,000 was in fact intact. 

Mr. Dash. All right, now. You said Mr. Fielding brought back the 
$22,000. 

Do you know where Mr. Fielding obtained that $22,000? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I assumed at the time that he had received it 
from Mr. Stans. I have read his deposition. I don't personally know 
where he got the money. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware at any time that Mr. Dean had received 
any large sum of money, specifically around $15,200, from the unspent 
amount of the $22,000 that had originally been taken out of the 
$350,000? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, there is some confusion as to that amount 
Dick Howard and I did go to John Dean's office and give him some 
cash in lan envelope. I don't think any of the three of us counted it. 
I always thought it was $7,000, but either $7,000 was spent on the ads 
and $15,000 was left, or $15,000 was spent on the ads and $7,000 was 
left. 

Mr. Dash. I think we have Mr. Dean's testimony that he at least 
received $15,200, and I take it that it would be in his interest to have 
given a lesser sum, so 

Mr. Strachan. Oh, I wouldn't dispute Mr. Dean's account, for 
sure. 

Mr. Dash. So I take it he did receive $15,200. 

Can you tell us why you brought this balance or this amount back 
to Mr. Dean when it had been taken originally from the $350,000 
pot? 



2463 

Mr. Strachan. Well, at that time, I was asking Mr. Dean how to 
get the money back to the committee and it was just another prob- 
lem that he would have to cope with. 

Mr. Dash. So you just turned it over to him ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you play a role in seeing to it that this money 
did get back ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us specifically what you did and to whom 
you gave the monev ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Dean called me and asked me to call Mr. 
LaRue. I called Mr. LaRue and he asked me if I could bring the 
amount which John Dean had specified to him at his apartment that 
evening on the way home from work. Mr. DaRue was the senior cam- 
paign official at the Committee To Re-Elect the President, and I de- 
cided that I would drop it by at his apartment. 

Mr. Dash. How much was it that you received ? 

Mr. Strachan, Well, my recollection is that it was $40,000. I know 
John Dean has testified that it was either $40,000 or $70,000 and Mr. 
LaRue has said it was $50,000. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you actually delivered the 
balance to Mr. LaRue ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. Who instructed you to do that ? 

Mr. Strachan. I wasn't instructed to do that, really. Again, Mr. 
Dean called me and said, "Well, it is time we get the balance back to 
the committee. Why don't you call Mr. LaRue?" I called Mr. LaRue; 
he said, "Can you (irop it by at my apartment?" I said "Yes," 

John Dean said get a receipt for the entire amount. 

So, I went to Mr. LaRue's apartment, gave him the money, asked 
him for a receipt. He said, "You will have to talk to John Dean about 
getting a receipt, I will not give you one." 

Mr. Dash. Is this the time when, in your statement, you indicated 
that Mr. LaRue put on gloves to take the money out of the bag ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, that was the occasion. 

Mr, Dash. After he did that did you find it somewhat unusual to 
ask him for a receipt ? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I was quite surprised but those had been my 
instructions to ask for a receipt. 

Mr. Dash. And you did ? 

Mr. Strachan, So I asked for a receipt, 

Mr. Dash. And you didn't get any ? 

Mr, Strachan, No, I didn't. 

Mr, Dash. Now, were you aware at any time that that money was 
being used for the payment of the legal fees for the defendants in the 
Watergate case and the support of their families? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I was not, and I was quite surprised to learn 
about it because 

Mr, Dash. Wlien did you first learn about it ? 

Mr. Strachan, In the press, because within a couple of weeks or a 
month before I delivered it to Mr. LaRue I had talked about the money 



2464 

with Earl Silbert. If you were going to take money to give to the de- 
fendants you surely wouldn't take money that the prosecutors would 
know about. 

Mr. Dash. Who knew that you were talking to Earl Silbert? I think 
you mentioned Mr. Dean knew. 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Dean was present ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. So then, was this another case in which the lines of com- 
munication excluded you, at least, as a party to the communication? 

Mr. Strachan. To whom ? 

Mr. Dash. Is this another case in which the lines of communication, 
specifically with regard to the use of this money for legal defense 
funds, excluded you as one of the persons receiving the communica- 
tion? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Were you interviewed by the FBI in August of 1972? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Did anybody talk to you prior to your interview with 
the FBI at that time? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. Mr. Chapin was also going to be interviewed 
the same day by the FBI and Mr. Dean knew that — I mean we didn't 
learn directly from the FBI. Mr. Dean called us up and said we would 
be interviewed by the FBI and we went over to his office, maybe an 
hour before the FBI interview. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Dean say anything ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. I assumed Chapin had talked to Dean about 
Segretti, I know I had talked to Dean about Segretti before that. We 
reviewed those facts. He indicated to me that "Don't necessarily 
volunteer anything to the FBI, but make sure that your statement 
to them is absolutely correct." 

Mr. Dash. Going back just briefly on the transfer of the money. 
Did Mr. Haldeman know that you had returned that money at the 
request of Mr. Dean to Mr. LaKue ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he didn't know from me at that time. It 
wasn't until later that I told him that I had returned the money to 
Mr. LaRue at Mr. Dean's instructions. 

Mr. Dash. And did you get an indication from him that he had 
authorized that transfer ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he said, "Obviously you wouldn't have done 
it unless you thought Mr. Dean was speaking for me." 

Mr. Dash. What did you conclude from that ? 

Mr. Strachan. That I had not taken the money to the wrong person. 

Mr. Dash. And that you weren't in trouble again at all with Mr. 
Haldeman for doing that ? 

Mr. Stelachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Did you testify before the grand jury in April of 1973? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Did anyone speak to you concerning your testimony 
prior to your testimony ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. I talked to Mr. Haldeman before my grand 
jury testimony. 

Mr. Dash. What, if anj^hing, did he say ? What was the nature of 
that discussion ? 



2465 

Mr. Strachaist. Well, I had drawn up a list of what I considered 
to be tough questions, and I went through them with him, and he told 
me to make sure that I answered the absolute truth. 

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Magruder speak to you prior to the April tes- 
timony that you gave to the grand jury? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. On March 28, Mr. Magruder called me and 
asked if he could see me. I said I didn't think it was a particularly 
good idea. He insisted, said he had to talk to me, could he come over 
to my home that evening. I finally agreed and he came to my home. 

Mr. Dash. And just briefly give us the nature of the conversation. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he walked in. In his ann he had what he in- 
dicated to me were the transcripts of his trial testimony and his grand 
jury testimony, and he said 

Mr. Dash. Did he tell you, that it was his grand jury testimony? 
The grand jury testimony of when ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not sure when but he had a package of docu- 
ments which he indicated were testimony before the trial and the 
grand jury. When I later mentioned the matter to John Dean his 
answer was, "I never understood where Magnider got his grand jury 
transcript." 

Mr. Dash. 'Wliat did he tell you when he walked in with the so- 
called grand jury testimony and his trial testimony? 

Mr. Strachan. He told me that the prosecutors were after him on 
perjury, they were not believing him, and he asked me if I would 
corroborate part of his story and convince the prosecutors that the 
story that Mr. Magruder had told was valid. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat particular part ? Could you be more specific ? Wliat 
did Mr. Magruder want you to cooperate with that would involve you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Magruder asked me to testify that I had talked 
to him about Mr. Liddy and had interceded on Mr. Liddy's behalf so 
that Mr. Magruder would not fire Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. And do you know what time he was speaking about. We 
have had testimony concerning an altercation when Mr. Magruder 
and Mr. Liddy prior to the March 30 meeting in Key Biscayne, at 
which time I think Mr. Magruder testified he was about to fire Mr. 
Liddy and I think he has testified you called him and asked him not to 
do so because "We still needed Mr. Liddy for his intelligence opera- 
tion." Was that the conversation that he was asking you to recall and 
to support him on ? 

Mr. Strachan. I imagine so. That is clearly the time frame. 

Mr. Dash. Well, what was your reaction. Did you say that you would 
corroborate him on that? 

Mr. Strachan. No. He was quite distraught. He made the plea to me 
on the basis of his family, very impassioned, how serious the con- 
sequences were, and I just didn't give him an answer. I just said "Jeb, 
I don't know." I was nervous about the meeting. He continued to call 
me the next week. Eventually on April 8, he called about four times 
when I was away from my home, and I decided to call him back, and 
I told him that, no, I could not corroborate that story. It was not the 
way I remembered it and I could not testify to that. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever intervene on Mr. Liddy's behalf with Mr. 
Magruder ? 



2466 

Mr. Strachan. No, not with Mr. Ma^ruder. The incident, I believe, 
and I believe I learned this from Mr. Liddy, that he did not get along 
with Mr. Magiiider and Mr. Liddy asked if he could report to Mr. 
Haldeman. I knew that to be impossible but said I would check. I 
called John Dean and I said "John, do you know that Magruder and 
Liddy are having a dispute and that Mr. Liddy wants to report to Mr. 
Haldeman." John Dean suggested that since I was going to have to 
prepare a memorandum for Mr. Haldeman that I suggest that Mr. 
Haldeman call John Mitchell and have Mr. Liddy report to Mr. 
Mardian. I prepared the memorandum for Mr. Haldeman, summariz- 
ing the recommendation from John Dean. It came back fix>m Mr. 
Haldeman and instead of approved, disapproved, comment, he had 
written in the margin "Let Dean handle." So I called John Dean up 
and I said "Well, the recommendation didn't get accepted. Mr. Halde- 
man's instructions are that you should handle the problem." 

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

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Strachan, how often did you present these 
political action memorandums to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I presented them to him as often as weekly. If 
something extraordinary came up, that would slip to 3 or 4 weeks. 

Mr. Thompson. How many documents did you usually present at a 
time or how many pieces of paper ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, usually the political matters memorandum in 
the original form would be 8 to 10 pages, and the tabs attached to it 
would make the entire document maybe three quarters of an inch 
thick — an inch thick. 

Mr. Thompson. Besides those memorandums and the talking papers 
were there any other papers you submitted to him on a regular basis ? 

Mr. Strachan. Oh, yes, I submitted memorandums on polling. If 
I took a telephone call for him I would put a memorandum to him 
and say, "I talked to the individual you didn't want to talk to," that 
kind of thing. 

Mr. Thompson. Could you give us some sort of estimate on a weekly 
or bi-weekly basis of how many pieces of paper you might submit to 
him with regard to those matters other than political matters, memo- 
randums and other than talking papers. A rough estimate of paper 
flow in an average week or 2-week period ? 

Mr. Strachan. Quite substantial. Usually I would have one or two 
memos in his action folder each day, in his FYI folder. 

Mr. Thompson. How many pages would they be ? 

Mr. Strachan. Usually just a page. 

Mr. Thompson. All right, and you were one of his aides. Who were 
his other aides during the period of time from January on up through 
the election ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, originally there was just Mr. Higby. Then 
Mr. Kehrli joined the staff, than I joined the staff. When the staff was 
reorganized on January 1, 1972, Mr. Kehrli became staff secretary, 
and I assumed the role that he had been playing for Mr. Haldeman, 
that is, taking the papers in daily to him, still with Mr. Higby. An- 
other individual, George Collins, was added in July 1972, and then 
eventually another personal aide was added close to the election, Mr. 
O'Donnell, who was going to take over the assignment some of us had 
had. 



2467 

Mr. Thompson. So at the time of the election there were besides 
yourself, four other aides which he had working for him directly 
under him ? 

Mr. Strachan. If you count Mr. Kehrli in that group. 

Mr. Thompson. Higby, Kehrli, Collins, and O'Donnell. 

Mr. Strachan. At the time of the election, correct. 

Mr. Thompson. What was Mr. Higby 's job ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Higby was the administrative assistant to Mr. 
Haldeman, the senior aide, who would work on whatever projects 
Mr. Haldeman was working on at that particular time. 

Mr. Thompson. Would the paper flow go through Mr. Higby in- 
variably ? 

Mr. Strachan. Invariably is pretty all-inclusive. I cannot remember 
a case when the paper flow did not go through Mr. Higby. 

Mr. Thompson. All right; Mr. Kehrli, his staff secretary, what 
were his responsibilities and what kind of input did he have with 
Mr. Haldeman during, say, the first 4 or 5 months of 1972 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, his was primarily administrative. He would 
handle the Presidential action memorandums and the Presidential 
follow up, as well as the admiinistration of the staff in terms of 
furniture, secretaries, salaries, recommendations as to who on the 
staff should get a raise, that sort of thing. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he contact Mr. Haldeman usually through 
memorandums ? 

Mr. Strachan. All of us did. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What I am trying to do is to get some 
idea of the paper flow, some idea of a typical day in Haldeman's life 
during this particular time, how much paper he was contending with 
and what his responsibilities were. Could you elaborate a little bit 
further? You told about your own situation. As far as these other 
people are concerned, would it be similar with regard to the paper 
flow, the number of papers that were being submitted ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. The best way is to look at the papers as they 
eventually went in to him in the folders. The folders were organized 
and in the action folder there would usually be one or two memoran- 
dums on which he would have to make a decision, maybe as many as 
four or five, and the F YI folder there would be usually more, maybe as 
many as a dozen pieces of paper. By the end of the day the folder 
would have copies of other staff members' memos, there would be a 
half dozen, a dozen pieces of paper. 

Mr. Thompson. But in addition to following up or supervising or 
whatever you say you did with regard to what was being submitted to 
him by his staff assistants, what were Mr. Haldeman's other duties? 
I know that they were probably pretty varied, but, for example, did 
he not travel with the President ? 

]Mr. Strachan. Yes; he did. 

Mr. Thompson. During the period of time, from, say, January to 
June, could you give us some kind of estimate as to how often he was 
out of the office with the President ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it is better to go the other way. If the President 
was out of the office the chances were pretty good that Mr. Halde- 
man would be with him. That would be the case, for example, during 
the China trip, during the Russia trip. If the President took a trip into 
the country, Mr. Haldeman normally traveled with the President. 



b 



2468 

Mr. Thompson. Did Haldeman actually have a schedule of his own 
or was his schedule completely determined by that of the President? 

Mr. Straciian. Well, he would have regular meetings in the morn- 
ing, 8 :15, 8 :30 meetings but after that any matters or meetings put on 
Mr. Haldeman's schedule would be keyed off of the President's sched- 
ule. If the President were to meet, as he probably is tomorrow with the 
Shah of Iran, that would be a time when you knew Mr. Haldeman 
would be available and you could schedule a meeting at that time. 

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned tab H, and one of the tabs you sub- 
mitted to Mr. Haldeman after your conversation with Magruder on 
March 30, and he had told you in your conversation with him on June 
20, that he had not read tab H. Were you aware of any information, any 
other memorandums or parts of memorandums that he did not read ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he would usually indicate, I think you can say 
that he read every single one of my political matters memos in the 
original form, but frequently he would not want to read the tabs and 
he would write "I haven't read the tabs on it," or if there were no 
checkmarks in the upper right-hand corner of the tabs then you would 
conclude that he had not read them. Your responsibility then would 
be to make a second determination as to whether or not that he should 
in fact be forced to read the tab but that it should be brought to his 
attention again. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Now, let us move to another point, Mr. 
Strachan. You testified that on March 31, according to your best 
recollection, Mr. Magruder told you that a sophisticated political in- 
telligence-gathering system had been approved with a budget of 300, 
and that you, subsequent to that, made a political matters memorandum 
for Mr. Haldeman in which you pretty much set out the same language 
verbatim and attached a tab, a tab H, as an example of the type of 
information that was being gathered. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; that is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Wlien did you submit the political action memo- 
randum to Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not exactly sure. 

Mr. Thompson. How many days after your conversation with 
Magruder ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it would have been within a couple of days, I 
guess. I mean, it is possible that it went over the weekend if he were 
going to be out of town, but it might have gone in on Monday. I just 
do not recall. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Tab H was what has been referred to as 
Sedan Chair material. 

Mr. Strachan. Eight. 

Mr. Thompson. I believe you previously stated that it had some- 
thing to do with the Humphrey campaign. But you also stated that 
you assumed that it had something to do with a plant inside various 
campaigns, Sedan Chair II. Where did you get the Sedan Chair ma- 
terial which you submitted along with this memorandum with tab H? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I had received Sedan Chair from the committee. 

Mr. Thompson. On a regular basis ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I do not think I received it on a regular basis. 
I had received two other reports. This one was far and away the most 
interesting, which was the reason I included it at the tab. 



2469 

Mr. Thompson. All right. This really gets into another area of 
inquiry with regard to the committee, so I will pursue it just a little 
bit further. 

Who did you receive this material from at the committee ? 

Mr. Strachan. I do not recall receiving it from a particular person. 
There_ was a standard messenger system that would deliver all the 
material from the committee to me. It was delivered to a box and then 
the secretaries would open it and bring it in to me. And there was not a 
buckslip or something on it that would indicate where it was from, 
necessarily. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall having any conversations with any- 
one at the committee as to the source of the Sedan Chair material ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; and I did not really know that Sedan Chair II 
was a plant in the Humphrey campaign until, I believe it was either 
Mr. Porter's or Mr. Reisner's testimony to that effect. 

Mr. Thompson. As you were receiving the material, what did you 
assume the origins of this material to be ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, there were a lot of pieces of paper that would 
be characterized as political intelligence that would arrive from the 
committee and other members of the White House staff. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, what did you consider the origins of it to be 
as you were receiving it ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I thought it could have been maybe a report 
from a reporter that was being paid by the committee, maybe a dis- 
gruntled staff member. 

Mr. Thompson. So you did not assume that it was wiretap material ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I did not make that assumption until consider- 
ably later, when I went back and reread the opening remarks on Sedan 
Chair II. that it was a confidential source and reliably reporting some 
information, something: to that effect. 

Mr. Thompson. "When you submitted this memorandum to Mr. Hal- 
deman and attached this material as tab H, what made you assume 
that this indeed was the tvpe of material this sophisticated political 
intelligence-gathering system was producing? How did you associate 
the two? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I had learned on December 2 from John Dean 
that Mr. Liddy was going to assume control of Mr. Porter's intelli- 
gence-gathering activities, and I prepared a talking paper for Mr. 
Haldeman where the question was: Is Mr. Liddy the one person 
responsible at the committee for political intelligence, and if there 
was political intelligence coming from the committee, I assumed it 
was from Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Thoiupson. Well, you received this information back in Decem- 
ber, you say, about Mr. Liddy? 
Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

ISIr. Thompson. And you did not receive that Magruder phone 
call until March 30, wherein he says a new system— I assume the impli- 
cation was a new system — had been approved, or 1701 now has such 
a svstem. Did you not take that to mean a new system which indeed 
had just been approved? Did he not mention the Key Biscayne meet- 
ing or the fact that Mr. Mitchell or someone had just then recently 
approved a new system ? 



2470 

Mr. Strachan. No. I figured maybe the entire system had been con- 
solidated, or something. I knew during January and February that 
political intelligence information was being acquired, presumably by 
Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. So you, in your mind, anyway, thought 
that at that time there were really two systems, programs. You say 
the systems perhaps were consolidated. What do you mean by that? 
What do you mean by consolidated? What was consolidated? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, as testimony has indicated, Mr. Liddy appar- 
ently had received $125,000 well before this budget amount was 
approved. I had told Mr. Liddy that Mr. Segretti would report to him. 
I just assumed that finally, there was going to be one unified system. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. That gets back to the mid-April conversa- 
tion you had with Haldeman when he told you to tell Liddy to transfer 
his capabilities from Muskie to McGovem. And as I understand it, 
now you are saying that you understood that Liddy was engaged in 
other intelligence-gathering operations completely separate and apart 
from electronic surveillance of what went on at DNC; that from 
December, you understood that Mr. Liddy was generally in the intelli- 
gence-gathering business, so to speak, perhaps some of it even in a 
legitimate vein. On the mid-April conversation, what kind of capabili- 
ties did you understand Haldeman was telling you to have Liddy 
transfer from Muskie to McGovern ? 

Mr. Strachan. I do not think I really focused on it, but I think 
I assumed that that would involve people like the Muskie driver. 

Mr. Thompson. Not electronic surveillance, but things like the 
Muskie driver and the Sedan Chair operation that you previously 
testified to ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. Do you know of any indication of transfer from 
Muskie to McGovern ? Do you know of any indications that Senator 
Muskie's office phones were tapped or there were any electronic devices 
placed in any of Muskie's offices ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Thompson. Backing up just for a minute to the April 4 meeting 
between Haldeman and Mitchell. You prepared a talking paper for 
that meeting and one item was the new system. What exactly did the 
talking paper say with regard to the system that Magruder told you 
about on March 30 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it said something to the effect that, is the in- 
telligence-gathering system adequate? Is the intelligence system on 
track ? Typical questions that I had put in other talking papers. 

Mr. Thompson. But you did not know exactly what intelligence 
system you were talking about, did you ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you not assume that Mr. Haldeman's only 
source of information with regard to that was yourself ? Were you not 
supposed to keep up with that ? How did you expect Haldeman to be 
able to talk about whether Mitchell had answered yes or no if he did 
not have any more information than you had ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the purpose of the talking paper was to raise 
the subject. I would frequently say, for example, is the political orga- 
nization in New York functioning smoothly ? I knew very, very little 
about the political organization in New York, but 



2471 

Mr. Thompson. But if you referred to a political plan in New York, 
Mr. Haldeman would have had to know something about what plan 
you were talking about, would he not ? 

Mr. Strachan. No 

Mr. Thompson. Does that not require some substantive knowledge 
in order to be able to discuss it at all ? 

Mv. Strachan. Not necessariljr. The point is to raise the subject 
so that INIr. Haldeman would receive some information from the indi- 
vidual that he would be talking with. 

Mr. Thompson. You mentioned, I believe in your statement, another 
point, that Mr. Dean was responsible for coordinating the intelligence- 
gathering activities, or maybe relating information. Would that be a 
factor also ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. You never knew what Dean was informing him of 
at any particular time ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I knew parts of what Dean was informing him 
of. I did not know all. 

Mr. Thompson. Let me see if I understand. You are saying that, 
generally, it was your responsibility to act as liaison with the Commit- 
tee To Re-Elect. JBut are you saying that this also included the intelli- 
gence area, or are you saying that Dean actually was the liaison for 
this limited area of intelligence? Or did you overlap? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, several of the talking papers that I prepared 
for Mr. Haldeman would pose the question, should Dean be more 
than the AVhite House contact for political intelligence — again, just 
raising the subject for discussion. If I had a particular problem, as 
I did when Mr. Liddy asked if he could report to Mr. Haldeman, 
I would call Mr. Dean. 

ISIr. Thompson. Why do you think that Haldeman asked you to con- 
tact Liddy, your not knowing any more about it than you did in mid- 
April, instead of having Dean do it? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not really sure about that. Maybe Dean was 
not available. It was a very simple message. It was a directive to some- 
one at the committee. I am not sure why he called me. 

Mr. Thompson. You have mentioned the June 20 conversation that 
you had with Haldeman when you discussed the break-in that occurred 
on the morning of the I7th ; you have gone into that in some detail. 
You said that he^ — and I believe I am using your words — said to make 
sure that the files were clean. Are those words that he used as best you 
can recall ? 

Mr. Strachan. Pretty close. 

IVIr. Thompson. Could that have more than one meaning, in retro- 
spect? Could it mean either that you were to destroy documents or 
you were to find out if there were incriminating documents, other in- 
criminating documents, regardless of what decision he would be 
making with regard to them then ? In retrospect, could that be a double 
meaning ? 

Mr. Strachan. Looking back now, it could be given a double mean- 
ing. All I know now is what I assumed immediately at the time the 
instructions were given to me and what I did shortly thereafter and 
what I reported to John Dean shortly thereafter. The impression 
was very clear in my mind that the documents could be destroyed, but 
if vou examine the sentence, it could be subject to two interpretations. 
Mr. Thompson. But there is nothing else he said that bears on that 

96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 17 



2472 

directly? You were operating strictly on his words, "make sure the 
files are clean?" 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. But in your conversation with him on July 1 in 
Air Force One, I think I am quoting you exactly when you said you 
told Haldeman that you had made sure that the files were clean. And 
Mr. Dash asked you what he said when you told him you had destroyed 
the files, and so forth, and you accepted that for destruction. 

If you can recall, what did you tell him? Did you in fact say that 
you had made sure the files were clean, or did you say that you had 
destroyed documents? IVhat words did you use, if you can recall? 

Mr. Strachan. I t/old him that I had made sure the files are clean 
and that the political matters memorandum which I had shown to him 
I had destroyed, and I may have mentioned to him that I had told John 
Dean about it. I don't recall telling Mr. Haldeman that I had told 
John Dean. 

Mr. Thompson. What did you tell John Dean ? I am sure that you 
are familiar with Mr. Dean's testimony. He indicates that his primary 
suspicions with regard to Haldeman came from his conversation with 
you with regard to pre-June 17 involvement. Did you tell him that 
Haldeman had received information which made him aware of what 
was going on with regard to electronic surveillance before June 17 ? 

Mr. Strachan. No ; I think I told John Dean that I had prepared a 
political matters memorandum for Mr. Haldeman with this informa- 
tion in it, with the Sedan Chair II as an attachment, that Mr. Halde- 
man had not read that or had indicated to me that he had not read it 
before, that he read it at that time, and I proceded to tell John Dean 
the documents that I had destroyed. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. Is that all you told him as best you can 
remember ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; I think so. The reason I went to see John Dean 
was to tell him that. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. What do you understand now of what the 
Sedan Chair II material had to do with the origins of it? The fruits of 
electronic surveillance or plants inside of lieadquarters ? 

Mr. Strachan. I just know the information that has been testified 
before this committee. 

Mr. Thompson. Most of the testimony, I believe, indicates the lat- 
ter, does it not ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson. With regard to the money, just one more point, Mr. 
Strachan. On April 6, the $300,000 transfer was made. From Mr. 
Dean's testimony, I believe Mr. Dash is correct, he indicates that ap- 
proximately $22,000 was appropriated, and only about $7,000 was 
spent, leaving him about $15,000, or $15,200, which was turned over to 
Mr. Dean. Then you testified that he said he wanted to make the 
$350,000 whole again, and therefore. Fielding was dispatched to get 
$22,000 from Stans. But it would appear if Dean had $15,000 or $15,- 
200, you would only need an additional $7,000. First of all, who dis- 
patched Fielding to get the money? Who told him how much to get? 
And w^hy was he told to get $22,000 instead of just $7,000, which would 
have made the fund whole ? 



2473 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I assume that John Dean told Fielding to go 
get the money and to get the amount. Why he told him to get $22,000, 
I simply don't know. 

Mr. TiiOMPSOx. If he had gotten the $22,000 would it not appear that 
]Mr. Dean would have the $15,000 or $15,200 over there, over and above 
the original $350,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Strachan. 

I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Strachan, you indicated that you had sub- 
mitted to Mr. Haldeman prior to the Key Biscayne decision a memo- 
randum which indicated that this was going to be one of the subjects 
of discussion at Kev Biscayne. Is that correct? 

Mr. Strachan. No, Senator. I think what I testified to is that after 
the Key Biscayne meeting, I submitted a memorandum to Mr. Halde- 
man describing decisions made in Key Biscayne. 

Senator Montoya. What did you mean when you said that Mr. 
Magruder had called you before he left for Key Biscayne and re- 
viewed with you the decision papers that were going to be submitted 
to Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Strachan. No; I said that I was aware that Mr. Magruder 
would be going down to Key Biscayne to meet with Mr. Mitchell. I 
did not review with Mr. Magruder all pending matters that would 
be a subject for discussion and decision in Key Biscayne. 

Senator Montoya. As I understood your testimony, you had a tele- 
phone conversation with Mr. Magruder before he left for Key Bis- 
cayne and that one of the items of conversation was with respect to 
this particular intelligence-gathering plan. Did you state that? 

Mr. Strachan. No, Senator ; that is not correct. 

Senator Montoya. All right. Now, who was Mr. Butterfield's friend 
where the money was delivered ? To whom was the money delivered ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, this memorandum is in existence and I have 
recently reviewed it, and I believe the name of the individual who was 
a friend of ]\Ir. Butterfield is a Mr. Lilley. 

Senator Montoya. Lilley ? What's his full name ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am sorry, I don't know. 

Senator Montoya. Now, in the process after June 20, you proceeded 
to destroy several documents with respect to political matters that 
might have been sensitive. Now, you testified that you spent several 
hours trying to cull these documents. What particular file room did 
you go to to examine the sensitivity, into the sensitivity of these par- 
ticular documents? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the office that we moved into on January 1 
was a unified office in that there was only one door and both Bruce 
Kehrli and myself and four secretaries were located in one area behind 
one door. Since the documents in this office included Presidential 
memorandums and Presidential action papers, Mr. Haldeman's per- 
sonal notes, the President's files, there was a sensor device installed so 
that when a door was closed, it was monitored at, I believe, the Secret 
Service or police monitoring station so that no one could go into that 
office unless they were cleared with the guard and the time of the per- 



2474 

sons going: into the office and departure would be recorded. So when 
you ask which files I went through, they were the files in this office. 
In particular, I kept the political matters memorandums in one large 
file cabinet out by the secretaries. 

Senator Montoya. In this particular office? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And was it at this particular office and from one 
of the filing cabinets therein that you culled the five specific docu- 
ments which you have mentioned ? 

Mr. Strachan. It is from this particular office and from this par- 
ticular file cabinet that I culled the documents. I am not sure that the 
list is exactly five. 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Now, with respect to the political memorandum document in which 
you mention the Key Biscayne matter, what are the specifics in that 
particular document? 

Mr. Strachan. I am sorry. Senator. Would you repeat that ? 

Senator Montoya. With respect to the particular political matters 
document what are the specifics with respect to the Key Biscayne 
decision ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, one of the 30 or so decisions that Mr. Magruder 
reported to me on, included the statement that 1701, meaning, of course 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President, now has a sophisticated 
political intelligence gathering system with a budget of 300. 

Senator Montoya. Was there more amplification of that statement? 

Mr. Strachan. The next sentence in the paragraph said, "The 
sample of the type of information they are developing is attached at 
tab H." 

Senator Montoya. What did tab H reflect in respect to that ? 

Mr. Strachan. At tab H was a document Sedan Chair II. 

Senator Montoya. Anything else ? 

Mr. Strachan. Concerning that subject? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir. 

Senator Montoya. Now, you mentioned in previous testimony that 
the White House did have a dirty tricks capability. What did you mean 
by that? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Colson's was referred to as the office of 
dirty tricks, so that is what I 

Senator Montoya. Well, within what context did you discuss this 
capability and Mr. Colson? You must have had some background 
information. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, periodically press reports would appear about 
things which you would jokingly or not so jokingly attribute to Mr. 
Colson. The only specific matter that I can recall at the moment 
regarding what would be sort of a dirty trick was concerning the 1970 
election when I worked on the attack ads with Mr. Colson. 

Senator Montoya. What do you mean by the attack ads ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, 1970 there were a series of Senate races 
where 

Senator Ervin. I don't believe we are entitled to investigate 1970. 1 
think we are restricted to 1972 and the campaign preceding the 1972 
election. 



2475 

Senator Montoya. I didn't mean to ask you that question with 
respect to the 1970 races. 

Senator Ervin. I just raise that point in the interest of time is all. 

Senator Montoya. I just wanted to get the background as to this 
capability. You don't have to get into the particular details if you 
don't want to, as the chairman states. 

Now, how long has this capability existed at the White House ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I think it was there when I arrived in 
August of 1970. 

Senator Montoya. And it was there during the 1972 campaign? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya . Who was the head of it ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Colson. 

Senator Montoya. Was Mr. Haldeman acquainted with this 
capability ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, that was a subject of some concern. Every 
once in a while Mr, Haldeman would ask me, "Well, what do you 
know about what Mr. Colson is doing?" and I would tell him, "I am 
sorry I really don't know very much about what Mr. Colson is doing." 

And he would turn to Mr. Higby and say, "Do you know anything 
about what Mr. Colson was doing?" 

And it was sort of a joke, nobody really knew what Mr. Colson 
was doing. [Laughter.] 

Senator Montoya. Did you believe that Mr. Haldeman knew 
what was going on there ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, if he knew he found out directly from Colson. 

Senator Montoya. What is your opinion with respect to what 
knowledge Mr. Haldeman might have had with respect to dirty 
tricks and to intelligence gathering ? Is it your feeling that he did have 
this knowledge of what was going on ? 

Mr. Strachan. You are asking my opinion ? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, my opinion would be that he was certainly 
aware of Mr. Colson's various dirty tricks, not necessarily the specifics 
or the details but that he was generally aware of them, and that he 
was aware of intelligence gathering since it had been discussed in 
several meetings. 

Senator Montoya. Your testimony indicates that in all these politi- 
cal memorandums which you submitted to Mr. Haldeman that 
there was a constancy with regard to the question of intelligence 
gathering and its adequacy. You indicated that you had always almost 
invariably included that particular sphere of inquiry. Why did you 
do this? * 

Mr. Strachan. Well, from the time I arrived on Mr. Haldeman's 
staff there was an interest in political-intelligence gathering. This 
subject was raised in many meetings, never apparently formally 
resolved, so I would continue putting it in talking papers. 

Senator Montoya. Was Mr. Liddy always mentioned when these 
discussions took place ? 

Mr. Strachan. No. The first time Mr. Liddy's name was men- 
tioned, I believe, was on November 4. There were several previous 
references to different intelligence plans. 



2476 

Senator Montoya. What do you mean, what year are you speak- 
ing of ? 

Mr, Strachan. 1971. 

Senator Montoya. And Mr. Liddy's name began cropping up 
with respect to intelligence gathering about that time, is that what 
your testimony is ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. So that when Mr. Haldeman instructed you to 
tell Mr. Liddy to change from Senator Muskie's campaign to McGov- 
ern's you understood the context in which he was speaking ? 

Mr. Strachan. Oh, yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. And what kind of conversation did you have 
with Mr. Liddy in following Mr. Haldeman's instructions ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I called up Mr. Liddy, asked him to come to 
my office, had him cleared to come to my office. He came in, and I 
opened my notebook and really read the statement to him. 

Senator Montoya. Will you please repeat the exact statement which 
you read to him and also try to relate the conversation that you had 
by way of amplification, if you did ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the statement that I read was, "Transfer 
whatever capability you have from Muskie to McGovem with particu- 
lar emphasis on discovering the relationship between Senator McGov- 
ern and Senator Kennedy." 

Senator Montoya. When you spoke about that or testified about the 
monitoring of the conversation between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Halde- 
man, did you take any notes of this particular conversation ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Montoya. What did those notes reflect ? 

Mr. Strachan. Pretty close to what I have testified to. Those notes 
are in existence and I have reviewed them recently. They are very close 
to what I mentioned earlier. 

Senator Montoya, What were they, I didn't hear all of it. 

Mr, Strachan, It was a very brief conversation w^here Mr. Mitchell 
said he was either returning from Florida or had returned from Florida 
and that he and Mr. Haldeman should probably get together. Mr. 
Haldeman mentioned that it was probably a mistake that he wasn't still 
down in Florida on vacation, sort of a joking reference. I think Mr. 
Haldeman suggested that 3 o'clock that day might be convenient. 

Senator Montoya. They didn't discuss any specifics in the conver- 
sation with respect to the subject matter or the agenda for the next 
day? 

Mr. Strachan. It was, the meeting was scheduled for that same day. 

Senator Montoya. Or that day. 

Mr, Strachan. And they did not discuss any specifics. 

Senator Montoya, All right. 

What did you incorporate with respect to intelligence gathering or 
with respect to Mr, Liddy in the talking paper that you submitted to 
Mr. Haldeman for that afternoon ? 

Mr. Strachan. The question I posed, I would prepare the talking 
paper, it would be double spaced and there w^ould be a paragraph on 
intelligence. Under the subject intelligence, I would pose questions 
such as "Is the current system adequate? Is the intelligence system 
on track ?" something to get the conversation going. 



I 



2477 

Senator Montoya. How long did the meeting take ? 

Mr. Strachan. I did not attend the meeting, and I simply don't 
know how long it took. I received the materials back from the meet- 
ing but I do not know how long the meeting lasted. 

Senator Montoya. Now, in preparing these talking papers and 
always including something with respect to your concern for the state 
of intelligence gathering going on, is it reasonable to assume that you 
had a fair background as to what the White House was doing by 
way of intelligence gathering otherwise you would not have given 
such importance to this particular type of inquiry into the talking 
papers. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I had absolutely no background in intelli- 
gence gathering. The reason the subject was included was that when- 
ever we would go into a talking paper there would be a note about it, 
"I would have to check Mr. Ehrlichman" or "It is on track," or "It 
isn't," something to indicate that the subject should be reraised. 

Senator Montoya. Now, a few minutes ago on cross-examination by 
Mr. Dash, you indicated that it was your assumption and belief, be- 
cause of Mr. John Dean's dedication that he would have told Mr. 
Haldeman about everything that he was doing ; that was substantially 
your statement, was it not ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, that is slightly overstated, I think. Senator. 
My statement to Mr. Dash was that Mr. Dean had a remarkable fa- 
cility for the facts, and that he reported independently to Mr. Halde- 
man and to Mr. Ehrlichman. There are many things in John Dean's 
office, minor conflict of interest matters, that I am fairly certain he 
never reported to Mr. Haldeman. So it wouldn't quite be accurate to 
say that he reported everything to him. 

Senator Montoya. Well, you knew Mr. Dean for quite some time. 
Would you say he is a truthful man ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I don't think he ever lied to me. 

Senator Montoya. Now, would it be your opinion that if John 
Dean said he had told the President about Watergate and the coverup, 
would you say that Dean was telling the truth ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, this is my opinion based on my experience 
with John Dean, and my opinion would be that John Dean would 
be telling the truth. 

Senator Montoya. Let us go into this. What was your real motiva- 
tion for coming to work in the White House ? 

Mr. Strachan, Well, I practiced law for 2 years in New York. 
New York is a fascinating place to practice law but a disastrous place 
in which to live. [Laughter,] 

I had known Mr. Chapin, he had asked me to join the White House 
staff, I had worked with certain members of the White House staff 
as an advance man. I liked the individuals, people told me Washing- 
ton was a much better place to live so I accepted the job. 

Senator Montoya, And were you really thrilled and enthused about 
your assignment here in Washington when you first came here ? 

Mr, Strachan, Oh, definitely, [Laughter,] To be 27 years old and 
walking into the White House and seeing the President on occasion, 
and Dr, Kissinger, and it's a pretty awesome-inspiring experience for 
a young man. 



2478 

Senator Montoya. It is quite an opportunity for a young man, isn't 
it? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir; it was. [Laughter.] 

Senator Montoya. Now, I know, Mr. Strachan, how proud your 
family is of you [laughter]. 

Because this information has come to me, and justly so, perhaps, 
but I want to ask you this question, and I think you can be of great 
help with your answer : Now because of Watergate, many young people 
are writing to us, to the different members of the committee, expressing 
great consternation about the future of our country, and also saying 
that public service is not as attractive as before Watergate. In other 
words, they are greatly disappointed, and they feel letdown in their 
expectations. Now the Gallup poll indicates this. 

Going back to your original concept of public service, and the 
motivations which moved you into this spectrum, and then subse- 
quently your soldierly obedience to instructions from your superiors, 
and your fall into the Watergate pit, what advise do you have for 
these young people. I believe they want to hear from you. Will you 
expound on that? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it may sound — it may not be the type of advice 
that you could look back and want to give, but my advice would be to 
stay away. [Laughter.] 

Senator Montoya. I think you have answered it very well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

[Whereupon at 12 noon, the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 
p.m., the same day.] 

Afternoon Session, Monday, July 23, 1973 

Senator Ervin. In the interest of time, I think perhaps I should 
read into the record the communications which I have had for the 
committee. The first letter addressed to me, reads as follows : 

The White House, 
Washington, July 23, 1913. 

Dear Senator : In view of the intervening events since our teleplione conver- 
sation on July 12, I know of no useful purpose that would be served by our hav- 
ing a meeting at this time. If you feel otherwise, please have Mr. Edmisten con- 
tact Mr. Timmons, and he will arrange a time for a meeting. 
Sincerely, 

Richard Nixon. 

Senator Ervin. Well, at long last, I have got something I agree with 
the President on in connection with this matter. If the President does 
not think there is any useful purpose that can be obtained by our 
meeting together, I will not dissent from that view, so I will not ask 
for the privilege of visiting the Wliite House. 

The second letter reads as follows : 

The White House, 
Washington, July 23, 1973. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have considered your request that I permit the Com- 
mittee to have access to tapes of my private convei-sations with a number of 
my closest aides. I have concluded that the principles stated in my letter to you of 
July 6th preclude me from complying with that request, and I shall not do so. 
Indeed, the special nature of tape recordings of private conversations is such 
that these principles apply with even greater force to tapes of private Presidential 
conversations than to Presidential papers. 



2479 

If release of the tapes would settle the central questions at issue in the Water- 
gate inquiries, then their disclosure might serve a substantial public interest 
that would have to be weighed very heavily against the negatives of disclosure. 

The fact is that the tapes would not finally settle the central issues before your 
Committee. Before their existence became publicly known, I personally listened 
to a number of them. The tapes are entirely consistent with what I know to be 
the truth and what I have stated to be the truth. However, as in any verbatim 
recording of informal conversations, they contain comments that persons with 
different perspectives and motivations would inevitably interpret in different 
ways. Furthermore, there are inseparably interspersed in them a great many 
very frank and very private comments, on a wide range of issues and individuals, 
wholly extraneous to the Committee's inquiry. Even more important, the tapes 
could be accurately understood or interpreted only by reference to an enormous 
number of other documents and tapes, so that to open them at all would begin 
an endless process of disclosure and explanation of private Presidential records 
totally unrelated to Watergate, and highly confidential in nature. They are the 
clearest possible examples of why Presidential documents must be kept confi- 
dential. 

Accordingly, the tapes, which have been under my sole personal control, will 
remain so. None has been transcribed or made public and none will be. 

On May 22nd I described my knowledge of the Watergate matter and its after- 
math in categorical and unambiguous terms that I know to be true. In my letter 
of July 6th, I informed you that at an appropriate time during the hearings I 
intend to address publicly the subjects you are considering. I still intend to do 
so and in a way that preserves the Constitutional principle of separation of 
powers, and thus serves the interests not just of the Congress or of the President, 
but of the people. 
Sincerely, 

Richard Nixon. 

Senator Ervhst. Upon the receipt of this communication from the 
White House, the Select Committee held a meeting and unanimously 
voted to authorize and direct the chairman to issue two subpenas, one 
requiring the President to produce the tapes which will be described 
in the subpena, and the other one requiring the President to make 
available to the committee — I should have said requiring the President 
to make available to the committee the tapes which will be described 
in the subpena, and the Presidential papers — that is, the White House 
papers — that are to be described in the subpena. 

This is a rather remarkable letter about the tapes. If you will notice, 
the President says he has heard the tapes or some of them, and they 
sustain his position. But he says he's not going to let anybody else 
hear them for fear they might draw a different conclusion. 

[Laughter.] 

In other words, the President says that they are susceptible of, the 
way I construe it, two different interpretations, one favorable to his 
aides and one not favorable to his aides. 

I deeply regret this action. I have very different ideas of separation 
of powers from those expressed by the President. If such a thing as 
"executive privilege" is created by the doctrine of separation of powers, 
it has these attributes. First, if it exists at all, it only exists in con- 
nection with official duties. 

Second, under no circumstances can it be invoked on either alleged 
illegal activities or political campaign activities. 

I am certain that the doctrine of separation of powers does not 
impose upon any President either the duty or the power to undertake 
to separate a congressional committee from access to the truth con- 
cerning alleged criminal activities. 



2480 i 

I was in hopes that the President would accede to the request of 
this committee for these tapes and these papers. I love my country. I 
venerate the office of the President, and I have the best wishes for the 
success of the present incumbent of that office, because he is the only 
President this country has at this time. 

A President not only has constitutional powers which require him 
to see to it or to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and I 
think it's his duty under those circumstances to produce information 
which would either tend to prove or disprove that criminal activities 
have occurred. But beyond that, the President of the United States, 
by reason of the fact that he holds the highest office in the gift of the 
American people, owes an obligation to furnish a high standard of 
moral leadership to this Nation and his constitutional duties, in my 
opinion, and undoubtedly his duty of affording moral leadership to 
the country places upon him some obligation under these circumstances. 

We have evidence here that during the time the President was run- 
ning for reelection to the highest office, in the gift of the people of this 
Nation, that some of his campaign funds were found in the possession 
of burglars in the headquarters of the opposition political party. And 
I think that high moral leadership demands that the President make 
available to this committee any information in the form of tapes or 
records which will shed some light on that crucial question : How did 
it happen that burglars were caught in the headquarters of the oppo- 
sition party with the President's campaign funds in their pockets and 
in their hotel bedrooms at the time? And I don't think the people 
of the United States are interested so much in abstruse arguments 
about the separation of powers or executive privilege as they are in 
finding the answer to that question. 

I deeply regret that this situation has arisen, because I think that 
the Watergate tragedy is the greatest tragedy this country has ever 
suifered. I used to think that the Civil War was our country's greatest 
tragedy, but I do remember that there were some redeeming features 
in the Civil War in that there was some spirit of sacrifice and heroism 
displayed on both sides. I see no redeeming features in Watergate. 
[Applause.] 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for me to express my 
disappointment that we have arrived at a place where at least the 
leading edge of a confrontation on the question of separation of powers 
between the Congress and the White House is before us. You have 
pointed out that this committee has authorized by unanimous vote 
the issuance of a subpena duces tecum, for certain documents and cer- 
tain portions of the so-called Butterfield tapes relevant to the inquiry 
of this committee. As my colleagues on the committee laiow, I have 
tried as hard as possible to find a way around this confrontation. I have 
suggested several alternative possibilities. Even now, I don't despair 
that no way can be found to reconcile the differences in the conflict 
that impends between the Congress and the executive department. But 
T concur with my colleagues on the committee in the evaluation that 
there was no practical course of action except to authorize the action 
which has been described. I voted for it and I support it. 



2481 

I think the material sought by the subpena duces tecum or, more 
accurately, by the subpenas duces tecum, are essential, if not vital, to 
the full, thorough inquiry mandated and reqviired of this committee. 

I shall refrain from expressing my evaluation of the entire situa- 
tion — that is, the totality of the testimony and the inferences to be 
drawn from it — until we have heard all of the information, all of the 
witnesses, all of the testimony, and examined all of the documents 
that are made available to us. On February 28, 1974, or prior thereto, 
if the committee files its report at an earlier date, I will express my 
conclusions, but not before. 

It is my fervent hope, however, that when we finally get to the 
business of writing a report, that we have available all relevant 
information and that we can in fact write a definitive statement on 
Watergate — without trying to indict or punish anyone and certainly 
without trying to persecute anyone or to protect anyone. 

The committee has been criticized from time to time for its absence 
of rules of evidence, of the right of confrontation, of cross-examination 
by counsel, and a number of other legal concepts. We do not have de- 
fendants, either, and we are not trying to create defendants. We are 
trying to find facts, to establish circumstances, to divine the causes, 
and to ascertain the relationships that make up in toto the so-called 
Watergate affair. I am unhappy that it is necessary for us to come 
to the brink of a constitutional confrontation. Although that is a hack- 
neyed phrase, it is accurate — a constitutional confrontation between 
the Congress and the White House — a confrontation that has never 
been resolved in its totality by the courts. It involves a principle and 
a doctrine that has never been fully elaborated and spelled out. We 
must fiilly discharge our obligation as a committee. 

I have no criticism of any person. I will not sit in judgment of any 
person or the conduct of any person until all of the evidence is taken. 
But I can do no less than try to gain all of the information necessary 
to support later conclusions. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I commend the excellent statement of my vice chair- 
man. Does any other member of the committee have any observation 
he would like to make at this time before we resume the interrogation 
of the witness ? 

If not. Senator Weicker will question the witness. We will please 
have order in the caucus room so we can proceed. Everyone moving, 
move just as quietly as possible so Senator Weicker and the questions 
can be heard by the witness and so the witness' answers can be heard 
by the committee. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Strachan, you indicated to the committee in 
earlier testimony of your monitoring of a telephone conversation be- 
tween John Mitchell and Bob Haldeman, is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Monitoring, in other words, you are listening in 
on the conversation between these two individuals, is that correct? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And, of course, we also know of apparatus in- 
stalled in the Wliite House as to the bugging of rooms or the taping of 
telephone conversations that has been described by an earlier witness. 



2482 

Can you tell me of any otlier system within the White House or the 
EOB, relative to the taping of telephone conversations ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I am not sure it has been described by other 
witnesses before but we discussed this with you, Senator, in executive 
session, as I recall, and at that point I mentioned that several White 
House aides had the capability on their telephone to switch their 
dictaphones to record telephone convei*sations. 

Senator Weicker. Could you give to the committee the names of 
those who had that capability ? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not sure the list would be inclusive. Those that 
I know 

Senator Weicker. Did you have such an apparatus on your tele- 
phone ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, Senator, I did. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Could you name any others that you 
knew of that had such a system on their telephone ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, my secretary, Mr. Higby, Mr. Colson. 

Senator Weicker. Do you have any of the tapes from your telephone 
conversations, tapes derived in this particular way ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the tapes from my telephone conversations 
were usually transcribed immediately, and then the tapes simply re- 
used. Some of the transcriptions still exist in the Executive Office 
Building. 

Senator Weicker. Do you know if transcriptions of the telephone 
conversations over Mr. Colson's phone or did you indicate that Mr. 
Higby had such a system — yes, Mr. Higby. Do you know of transcrip- 
tions of their taped telephone conversations exist ? 

Mr. Strachan. I simply do not know. The only documents that I 
have access to are my own records. 

Senator Weicker. So it is true then, that in addition to the system 
employed by the President, individual members of the ^Yliite House 
staff, at least to the extent of yourself and INIr. Colson and Mr. Higby, 
also had the capability to tape telephone conversations. And that to 
your knowledge, a transcription of those conversations, at least your 
conversations — let me be very specific, still exists at the White House ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, Senator, that is correct. 

Senator Weicker. When was this system set up ? 

Mr. Strachan. I believe it was installed when I joined Mr. Hal de- 
man's staff and became extensively involved in polling operations. 

Senator Weicker. And who is responsible for setting up the system ? 

Mr. Strachan. I do not know who technically set up the system. 
It would either have been the A^Hiite House communications agency 
or possibly the Secret Service. I just do not know who the technical 
people were who made the arrangements. 

Senator Weicker. At what date in time did you acquire this taping 
capability ? I do not think you answered the question I had previously 
asked and I would just like to ask it again, at what date in time did 
you acquire this taping capability ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I definitely had it when we moved into our 
new offices on January 1, 1972, and I think I liad it in the previous 
office that I had 6 months prior to that. 

Senator Weicker. Do you not know whether or not you had a taping 
capability prior to January of 1972 ? Would you like to, let me refresh 



2483 

your memory, if I am not mistaken, did you not have experiences that 
dealt with the taping of polling operations and would not that have 
taken place prior to 1972 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, that is why I am fairly certain I did. I just can- 
not picture in my mind the capability in my prior office. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Then, let us move on from that point 
to an area which you discussed with the committee when I was present, 
relative to the election of 1972, and, more specifically, what I would 
term White House attitudes toward Democratic Congressmen and 
Democratic Senators in the South, just raising the subject in that gen- 
eral way, would you like to indicate to the committee your knowledge 
of these congressional and senatorial races and the attitudes of the 
"VVliite House toward them ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, as I indicated to you in executive session, Sen- 
ator, there was a list of approximately 100 Democratic Congressmen, 
primarily from the South, who had supported the President on the 
crucial votes on the Vietnam war, and I do not recall the list. A num- 
ber of the Democratic Senators, again primarily from the South, 
who similarly have supported the President on crucial votes on the 
Vietnam war. 

Senator Weicker. What was the purpose of this list ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it was my understanding that the 100 Demo- 
cratic Senators would not receive very strong opposition from Repub- 
licans. 

Senator Weicker. Let me be specific. Do you mean to say that the 
100 Senators and Congressmen, you did not mean 100 Senators but 
100 Senators and Congressmen, total ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. Senator, I made a mistake, 100 
Congressmen. 

Senator Weicker. Would not receive opposition from Republicans, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. I do not know if it was quite as strong as it would not 
receive opposition, but the goal was not to give a tremendous amount 
of support to Republicans that would oppose these Congressmen. 

Senator Weicker. In some instances was it discussed that no op- 
ponents would be fielded against the Democrat? 

Mr. Strachan. I cannot specifically recall that. 

Senator Weicker. In the way of financial support to the Republican, 
was this withheld ? 

Mr. Strachan. There was a lot of discussion as to whether or not 
there should be any financial support to Republican candidates pri- 
marily because of the support that the President enjoyed from the 
labor movement. They were supporting Democratic Congressmen, and 
the feeling was that since they were supporting the President maybe 
we would not funnel funds into Republican congressional campaigns. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Strachan, this goes even a little beyond what 
was discussed in the executive session. Now we are in another area as 
to support for Republican candidates. In other words, the two — let rne 
be very clear on this point, in the instance of certain Republican candi- 
dates in the South, support was withheld from them because their 
Democratic opponents had supported the President on the war, would 
that be a fair paraphrase ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, that is my understanding. 



k 



2484 

Senator Weicker. And now also apparently there is another cate- 
gory of Republican from whom support was withheld and that was a 
category that the choice was made on the basis since the President 
enjoyed labor support it would be offensive to go ahead and finance 
the Republican candidacy against the Democrat, is that correct? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. I think the basis of that decision, there were 
substantial campaign funds but Avhen proposals would be submitted 
for some of those campaign funds to be channeled into House and 
Senate races those proposals would usually be rejected. 

Senator Weicker. Who would make these types of decisions? 

Mr. Strachan. The only decisions I know about were made by Mr. 
Haldeman. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, in effect, if I am not mistaken is 
that we have Republicans doing in Republicans here, is that correct? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the President made quite a point during the 
campaign, and knows the campaign literature was not specifically 
tied to the Republican Party because something like 20 million Demo- 
crats supported the President. 

The effort was to not rely tremendously on a party that represented 
only 27 percent of the people. 

Senator Weicker. So, in effect, the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President operation was not a Republican effort, it was a Committee 
To Re-Elect the President operation ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is a fair statement. 

Senator Weicker. So I think, Mr. Chairman, possibly it's not only 
your party that is aggrieved at this stage of the game but also my 
Republican Party that has been aggrieved by the actions of these 
individuals. [Laughter.] 

Is there any other category of Republican that you can think of that 
had support withheld from his campaign ? 

Mr. Strachan. Not that I can think of at the moment. 

Senator Weicker. Did it occur to you then or does it occur to you 
now that absolutely guaranteed the fact that the Republican Party 
could not take control of either the House or the Senate in the election 
of 1972? 

Mr. Strachan. Would you repeat the question ? 

Senator Weicker. Did it ever occur to you then or do you realize now 
that by these actions taken it would be impossible for the Republican 
Party to take control of either the House or the Senate in the election 
of 1972? 

Mr. Strachan. I don't think very many people considered it a rea- 
sonable possibility that the Republicans would ever capture the 
House. 

Senator Weicker. I see. So, in other words, the matter was given up 
on even before it started ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the numbers are simply overwhelming. 

Senator Weicker. Did we have any sort of an election contest — I 
am not talking outside of the Presidency — was there a contest in 1972 
for the House or for the Senate ? 

Mr. Strachan. Of course, and there Avas considerably more inter- 
est in the Senate because there are obviously fewer races and it is easier 
to concentrate your assets. 

Senator Weicker. Who did we contest the Democrats with is m^ 
question ? 



2485 

Mr. Strachan. In which races ? 

Senator Wetcker. Well, that is what I am asking you, where? Ap- 
parently Republicans that ran against Democrats were denied sup- 
port either on the basis of the Democrats' voting record on the war 
or on the basis of the fact that they enjoyed labor support, and what 
was left ? 

Mr. Strachan. I Avould guess the balance. [Laughter.] 

Senator Weicker. I think I have engaged long enough in this sub- 
ject. The other occurred to me on the basis of information that you 
gave willingly to the connnittee the other day, and maybe it puts in 
proper focus the question as to who are good Republicans and who are 
bad Republicans, something I seem to hear of a great deal these days. 

One last or just two last questions: Have you ever had occasion to 
converse with ilr. Richard Moore? 

Mr. Straciiax. Yes, I have talked with Mr. Moore several thnes. 

Senator Weicker. Can you give me the subject matter of those con- 
versations ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, there would be quite a few. Wlien Mr. Moore 
joined the staff, he became, as he testified, sort of senior adviser to 
many of the junior men on the staff, and I accepted gratefully his 
advice. He took me out to lunch a couple of times. 

Senator Weicker. Let me not^ — so I don't put you to too great a 
recounting of your experiences with Mr. Moore, was the last time you 
met ]Mr. Moore — well, did you meet Mr. JNIoore in INIarch of 1973 ? 

Mr. Strachan. I could very well have. I don't keep a diary or know 
what meeting you are asking about. 

Senator Weicker. I am specifically referring to the meeting on the 
Segretti matter. 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. I am not entirely certain it was in March, but 
on a Sunday morning, Dwight Chapin and Mr. Moore and I met re- 
garding the Segretti matter. 

Senator AVeicker. And what exactly transpired as between Mr. 
Moore, yourself, and ISIr. Chapin ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, this meeting was an attempt to prepare, as I 
understood it, a report from Mr. Moore to the President, describing 
exactly the Segretti matter. 

Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Moore have any unusual documents in 
his possession ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. He had Dwight Chapin and my FBI form 
302. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Richard Moore showed to you and to Mr. 
Chapin your FBI 302 files ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Did you consider this an unusual procedure ? Are 
these files that are available to everyone? Is this a rather unusual 
procedure ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the files are not available to everyone. Mr. 
Moore told me that he had received them from Mr. Dean and was 
working with Mr. Dean on this particular matter. 

Senator Weicker. I don't think there is much further, Mr. Chair- 
man, along this line of questioning that I can get directly from this 
witness. But I think it very important, considering the rather harsh 
criticism that was directed against a member of the staff of this com- 



2486 

mittee in his questioning of Mr. Moore, that at some appropriate time 
Mr. Moore be called back before this committee to explain this par- 
ticular activity. Insofar as the staff member, of course, I referred to 
Mr. Lenzner, who received a great deal of harsh criticism, which I 
think in light of these facts brought out now, that FBI files were being 
displayed by Mr. Moore, at least to Mr. Strachan, and then we would 
have to question Mr. Chapin, that he be brought back before this com- 
mittee, and I consider probably Mr. Lenzner's questioning entirely 
appropriate in light of this information. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to interrupt the proceedings to read 
this. This is a copy of the resolution adopted by the committee : 

The Senate Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities hereby unani- 
mously resolves : 

1. That the Chairman of the Committee be and he is hereby authorized to issue 
a .subpoena duces tecum requiring the President of the United States to make 
available to the Committee the electronic tapes and recorded telephone messages 
recording conversations between him and any other persons relating to alleged 
criminal acts occurring in connection with the Presidential Election of 1972, such 
tapes and recordings to be identified in such subpoena. 

2. That the Chairman of the Committee is authorized and directed to issue 
a subpoena duces tecum requiring the President to make available to the Com- 
mittee any papers in his custody or under his control which tends to prove or 
disprove the commission of any alleged criminal acts related to the Presidential 
Election of 1972 which the Committee is authorized to investigate under Senate 
Resolution 60, such pai)ers to be designated in the subpoena to the maximum 
extent pos.sible. 

Senator Inouye. Pardon me, are you finished, Senator Weicker ? 

Senator Weicker. Senator, I have just a few additional questions. I 
will be glad to wait to go around on the second one. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Strachan, in your conference with the staff, you suggested that 
you were aware of the use of the Internal Revenue Service for polit- 
ical purposes. Could you elaborate on that, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the talking papers which John Dean submit- 
ted, as I believe exhibits to his testimony, I received probably the 
originals of those talking papers from Mr. Dean for Mr. Haldeman. 
They are still in existence in my — or rather in the files in the Execu- 
tive Office Building, and I prepared a summary talking paper, one 
page, incorporating those matters mentioned by Mr. Dean and by 
Mr. Caulfield for a projected meeting between Mr. Haldeman and 
the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Senator Inouye. What procedures were recommended in these talk- 
ing papers? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, the suggestion was that the Commissioner 
of the Internal Revenue Service should be more politically responsive 
to requests, presumably from the White House staff, or at least from 
the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Senator Inouye. We have received testimony suggesting that the 
White House made an attempt to place a White House person in the 
Internal Revenue Service. Were you one of those designated for place- 
ment in the Internal Revenue Service ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I have practiced tax law in New York. I had 
hoped to join the Intei-nal Revenue Service, not as one placed there, 
and that was considered at one point. I decided against it because my 
move there from being on INIr. Haldeman's staff would be too obviously 
political, so the suggestion was rejected. 



2487 

Senator Inouye. Do you know of any discussions involving Amer- 
ican citizens who were destined for special treatment by the Internal 
Revenue Service ? 

Mr. Strachan. One individual in particular was mentioned to me 
as a person who, when a more politically responsive commissioner 
had been placed in the Internal Revenue Service^ would be subject 
to a full field audit. 

Senator Inouye. Who was this person ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Clark Clifford. 

Senator Inouye. Any other person ? 

Mr. Strachan. No. I was asked to contact Mr. Colson's office for a 
list of 20 people who would be subject to such activity. 

Senator Inouye. Did you get this list, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. I called Mr. Colson's office and it is my understand- 
ing that the list was eventually sent to John Dean. 

Senator Inouye. Some of us have attempted to determine the spe- 
cific responsibility or function of Mr. Colson in the White House. 

Could you enlighten this committee as to what Mr. Colson was 
supposedly doing in the Wliite House ? What were his responsibilities ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he, I believe his official title was special coun- 
sel to the President. He emerged, remarkably, from having one staff 
assistant to having a fairly substantial staff, maybe 20 people. He 
seemed to be involved in almost every major decision. Originally, I 
believe, he maintained contact with labor organizations, outside busi- 
ness groups, and he continued to do that. But he would also have sug- 
gestions on personnel matters, he would have recommendations as to 
issue stances. For example, what position the President should take on 
the question of abortion ; that sort of thing. 

Senator Inouye. Please proceed, sir. What else did Mr. Colson do ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he also contributed political advice, kept track 
particularly of activities in Massachusetts — pretty across-the-board 
involvement. He was interested in advertising. He was, for example, 
the source of the advertisement surrounding the bombing decision. 

Senator Inouye. Wliy were you referred to Mr. Colson for this list ? 
Was that part of his responsibility, this enemy list ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it was my understanding that he maintained 
the list in his office, both friends and people to contact, key leaders in 
certain areas within the country, and that he would also be able to se- 
lect those who were leaders who rlid not support us. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Strachan, you have indicated that you are a 
specialist in tax matters, and I recall in your testimony that you had 
been singled out to assist the President in establishing his estate plan. 
Isn't that correct, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Inouye. Now, you worked with Mr. Ehrlichman to for- 
mulate a plan. 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Inou^te. Now, in the establishment of this estate plan, I 
gather that you had in mind some tax benefit from the contribution of 
certain papers and documents to the Government, isn't that correct, 
sir? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. Under the tax law prior to the Reform Act 
of 1969, there was a provision whereby Presidential papers and docu- 
ments could be contributed to substantial tax advantage to the donor, 

96-296 O - 73 - pt.6 - 18 



2488 

Senator Inouye. Was any distinction made between personal and 
private papers and public papers, or were they all in one package, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, that question of law has never been settled. 
Most Presidents have taken the view that any documents prepared in 
their public capacity belong to them. Former President Johnson left 
with something like 20 moving vans full of documents and memo- 
rabilia, with no apparent distinction between personal papers that he 
had drafted and papers that had been prepared by other members of 
the Government for him. 

Senator Inouye. Were the tapes that we have been discussing today 
a part of the estate of Richard M. Nixon ? Part of the estate plan ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, usually, the description of the assets which 
would be transferred would be extraordinarily broad. Terms such as 
"materials" would be used to include everything — papers, memorabilia, 
State gifts, tapes, photographs, almost anything related to the 
Presidency. 

Senator Inouye. Were you aw^are that the tapes that have been 
under discussion the last few days were considered as part of the estate 
plan of the President ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I did not know of the existence of those tapes 
until Mr. Butterfield's testimony. 

Senator Inouye. Now, you have said that you prepared several 
political memos which were passed on to Mr. Haldeman. Are you 
aware if these memos w^ere ever seen by the President ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, and I would doubt that they were, because memo- 
randums which I drafted for Mr. Haldeman, that he reviewed with 
the President, would usually concern polling matters, and he would 
put a "P" up in the upper right-hand corner, indicating that he would 
want to take it in and cover it with the President, then it would come 
back to me with a checkmark through the "P," indicating that he had 
covered it with the President. And I do not remember, and I am cer 
tain that I would, that any of my political matters memos were cov- 
ered with the President in that form. 

Senator Inouye. My final question before we recess for a few mo- 
ments. Mr. John Dean has stated that he recalled visiting you in your 
office in the presence of Mr. Richard Moore and recalling your saying 
that you would, if necessary, perjure yourself to prevent involving 
Mr. Haldeman.' 

Just for the record, is that still the frame of your mind ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it is certainly not the frame of my mind now, 
and it wasn't at the time. The particular meeting or conversation that 
Mr. Dean, I believe, is referring to followed a series of meetings to 
decide how to cope with the Segretti matter. Mr. Dean testified that 
there was a Sunday meeting in the Roosevelt room, and he listed the 
attendees, trying to deal with the imminent story on Mr. Segretti. Mr. 
Dean did not mention my name, yet I was at that meeting. 

There were a series of meetings after that, and I believe one of them 
was the meeting in question with Mr. Moore. We were w^orking on 
statements that could be put out to the press by the White House, such 
as the one that Mr. Ghapin eventually released, and I indicated at that 
time that if the statement was to be released in my name, it could indi- 
cate that I had approved Don Segretti instead of Mr. Haldeman. 



2489 

I regretted that at the time, but as Mr. Dean has indicated, it was a 
fairly common practice in the Wliite House. 

For example, Fred Malek assumed responsibility for authorizing the 
FBI investigation on Mr. Schorr, Mr, Colson assumed the responsi- 
bility for the 1970 attack ads. Neither of those were true, but that was 
the statement that was put out. 

Senator Inoitye. You did not say at any time that you would perjure 
yourself not to involve Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I did not. There was no pending body where 
I would take an oath. And have to make a statement. And in fact, when 
I eventually was asked that particular question before the grand jury 
on April 11, who approved the hiring of Donald Segretti, I answered 
Mr. Haldeman did. 

Senator Inouye. So this is one instance where you are maintaining 
that Mr. Dean's memory failed him ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I think it is probably, as Dick Moore described 
it, subject to Ervin's law. 

Three people in a meeting remember the context of the discussion. 

I regret having made the statement, but on the Wliile House staff, 
there was an overwhelming and frequently inappropriate sense of 
loyalty, and in that context, I made such an offer and regret it. 

Senator Inouye. I wish I could continue, sir, but we have a vote, so 
the committee will stand in recess until the return of the chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Strachan, as I understand your testimony, be- 
fore Magruder went to Key Biscayne to meet with John Mitchell, he 
told you about a number of things that he was going to take up for 
decision by Mr. Mitchell, and you made one of your written reports 
to Mr. Haldeman about the matters that Magruder had told you he 
was going to take up with Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Chairman, I believe my testimony is that Mr. 
Magruder called me after the discussion of the Key Biscayne decisions 
and I reported those decisions after they had been made, to Mr. Halde- 
man in the political matters memorandum. 

Senator Ervin. Well, thank you; I had not understood you right. 

It was after he got back from Key Biscayne — he told you about the 
decisions he had made ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. He reviewed the 30 or so pending 
decisions and what had been decided. 

Senator Ervin. And one of those decisions he said was that Mr. 
Mitchell had authorized these sophisticated intelligence operations? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir ; that was one of the decisions that he indi- 
cated had been approved at the meeting. 

Senator Ervin. And then you made a report to Mr. Haldeman re- 
porting that Mr. Magruder had informed you that the following deci- 
sions had been made by Mr. Mitchell at Key Biscayne and you enumer- 
ated among those decisions the approval of the sophisticated intelli- 
gence operation at a budget of 300, as you put it ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Then later, that paper was returned to you with a 
checkmark indicating, according to the custom of Mr. Haldeman, that 
Mr. Haldeman had read that ? 



2490 

Mr. Straciian. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Then, when Mr. Mitchell came back to Washin^on 
from Key Biscayne, I believe you said sometime on about the 4th or 
the 5th, that you got a signal to listen to a phone call of Mr. Haldeman 
to Mr. Mitchell in which they discussed a meeting and that they were 
to hold, and you talked about, Mr. Haldeman saying facetiously, he 
ought to stay down in Florida because the weather or something was 
better down there ? 

Mr. Straciian. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Then, you prepared what you called a talking paper 
in which you put the agenda for the proposed meeting between Mr. 
Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell, that Mr. Haldeman should discuss this 
sophisticated intelligence operation. 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And then later was the talking paper returned to 
you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, it was. 

Senator Ervin. And you filed not only the report that you had sent 
on the basis of the information from Mr. Magruder as to what had 
been decided but you also filed the talking paper or Avas that pre- 
served ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, the talking paper was returned in the pack- 
age of folders surrounding political matters, memo 18. 

Senator Ervin. So there is no doubt in your mind that Mr. Halde- 
man knew of the sophisticated intelligence operation, w^hatever that 
was? 

Mr. Strachan. No, there is no doubt in my mind. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Then, after the break-in at the Watergate became known, you had 
a conversation with Mr. Haldeman in which Mr. Haldeman told you 
to clean the files or see that the files were cleaned or something like 
that. What was the expression ? 

Mr. Strachan. He told me "Make sure our files are clean." 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Now, you construed that to mean to get rid of any papers in the 
files that might be what you might call "dirty papers" which might 
reveal any matter about this sophisticated intelligence operation, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Strachan. That was the very clear impression left in my mind. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Then, so acting upon that impression you had the record which 
showed that you had communicated the sophisticated intelligence oper- 
ation to Mr. Haldeman, shredded? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And did you also shred the talking paper referring 
to that matter? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator Ervin. And then later you were on the plane, I believe 
you said, Air Force One, on the trip in which Mr. Haldeman was 
present, and you mentioned then that you had shredded these papers 
referring to this matter? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator Ervin. And he did not tell you at that time that you had 
shredded the wrong papers, did he ? 



2491 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, he did not. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye, you may resume. I thought I could 
finish, as I have, while you were coming back. 

Senator Ixouye. Just one question. I am glad the chairman came 
up on the shredding business. Did you shred the papers, the documents, 
because you felt that the contents had criminal activity ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I shredded the documents because I had been 
instructed to do so, and also because I felt if they ever became public 
they would be politically embarrassing. 

Senator Inouye. You were aware of the contents, were you not? 
You read the contents ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I reread them many times. 

Senator Inouye. It is your opinion that the contents did not sug- 
gest any illegality or criminal activity ? 

Mr. Strachan. No. The papers suggested matters which if they 
became public, would be embarrassing. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney. 

Senator Gurney. Mr. Strachan, back to that shredding business, one 
final question. Had Mr. Haldeman ever said to you before "clean up 
our files" ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, he had not. 

Senator Gurney. This was the first time you had done any shredding 
for him pursuant to these instructions ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. I had done a great deal of shredding 
before that, however, in terms of copies and keeping the files in 
order. I had been instructed when I first joined the staff to keep copies 
of documents related to the campaign, and I made a very genuine 
effort to do that. 

Senator Gurney. Those were, that was done on your own though, 
not from instructions from Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Strachan. To keep copies of materials from the campaign? 

Senator Gurney. No, about the shredding you are talking about, 
the other shredding. 

Mr. Strachan. No, our office had a shredder right in it that was 
used a great deal to eliminate copies, papers that had been replaced 
by other papers. It was used regularly by the staff assistants as well 
as the secretaries. 

Senator Gurney. You mentioned this morning, somebody inter- 
rogating you asked you, about coverup information, did you attend 
any of the meetings where coverup was discussed and you said, "no, 
I do not think so." 

Will you discuss that further, were there any such meetings, that 
you think so or do you think so ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I did not attend any of the meetings which 
have become highly publicized. 

Senator Gurney. Did you know there were meetings going on on 
coverup ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I did not. 

Senator Gurney. You said that Mr. Haldeman had discussed in- 
telligence-gathering at several meetings. Can you give us any more 
information on that, when these were held, and who was present? 



2492 I 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. On June 30, 1971, 1 prepared a talking paper ■ 
for a meeting that had been scheduled for Mr. Haldeman and Mr. 
Mitchell at which the subject of political intelligence was raised. At 
that particular meeting the Sandwedge proposal was raised as a sub- 
ject for discussion. 

Senator Gurney. Who w^as present ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Gurney. What other meetings can you recall ? 

Mr. Strachan. On November 4, 1971, there was a meeting between 
Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, and myself at which the 
subject of political intelligence was discussed. 

Senator Gurney. Was any wiretapping or bugging discussed at that 
meeting ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir. 

Senator Gurney. What w^as discussed ? How were you going about 
getting political intelligence ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, at that time it was a matter of discussion. I 
do not believe any decisions had been made. It was just a subject of 
discussion. Mr. Mitchell mentioned Mr. Liddy's name, I had not heard 
the name before, and in my notes of the meeting I spelled it L-i-d-d-e-e. 

Senator Gurney. But you must have discussed ways and means of 
going about getting political intelligence at that meeting, did you not ? 

Mr. Strachan. The only specific matter, and I have gone back 
through my files and looked at the notes on that meeting; the only 
specific item that was mentioned was the surveillance of Senator 
Kennedy. 

Senator Gurney. How was that going to be done ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it had been my understanding, based on my 
discussion with John Dean, that there was to be a 24-hour tail on 
Senator Kennedy. I learned later from John Dean that that had been 
cut down to periodic. I did not know that Mr. Dean had, through JNIr. 
Higby, persuaded Mr. Haldeman to rescind that directive. 

Senator Gurney. That w^as one of the subjects discussed at this 
meeting that you are talking about ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. What else was discussed ? Where was this meeting 
anyway ? 

Mr. Strachan. In Mr. Haldeman 's office. 

Senator Gurney. What else was discussed? 

Mr. Strachan. There were a whole series of campaign matters. 

Senator Gurney. I am talking about the surveillance, that is what 
we are talking about. 

Mr. Strachan. It was mentioned very briefly, I believe Mr. Mitchell 
indicated that no decision had been reached on political intelligence 
because the parties were not correct, I called up Mr. Dean after tho 
meeting, indicated to him the discussions. 

Senator Gurney. Were there any other meetings where political 
intelligence was discussed that you know about? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

On December 17, 1971, I prepared a talking paper, again for a 
meeting between Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell, at which the subject 
of political intelligence was to be discussed. 

Senator Gurney. Were you present ? 



2493 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I was excluded expressly from that meeting 
as I had been from the Jmie 30 meeting. 

Senator Gurxey. Do you know from what anybody may have told 
you after the meeting what was discussed ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I recall the questions that I posed in the 
talking paper. One of the questions was, should John Dean become the 
control point rather than merely the Wliite House contact for political 
intelligence? The answer that I got from Mr. Haldeman was that he 
should continue to be the White House contact. The other question 
]iosed and which I did not get an answer, should Mr. Liddy be the 
one man responsible for political intelligence ? 

Senator Gurxey. No answer to that one ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, not that I recall. 

Senator Gurxey. Do you know whether wiretapping or bugging 
was discussed at that meeting ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, it surely was not proposed in the talking paper 
and I have no way of knowing whether it was discussed at the 
meeting. 

Senator Gurxey. Are there any other meetings that you can remem- 
ber where political intelligence was discussed? 

Mr. Strachax. No, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. You testified this morning that you monitored 
the Haldeman and Mitchell phone call after the meeting at Key 
Biscayne. How often did you monitor phone calls for Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachax. I kept a file, and I always made a note of the phone 
calls that I monitored in a separate file entitled "Notes." I have been 
back to that file. I would guess the number of pieces of paper in there 
are somewhere close to 40 or 50. But when I went back to that file, 
I did not go expressly for the purpose of counting the number of phone 
calls that I have monitored. 

Senator Gurxey. Did you monitor any other phone calls where the 
subject of conversation had to do with Watergate? 

Mr. Strachax. No, sir. 

Senator Gurxey. None at all ? 

Mr. Strachax. None. 

Senator Gurxey. Did any conversations that you monitored have 
to do with political intelligence gathering? 

Mr. Strachax. A conversation, I believe, shortly after the June 30 
meeting between Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell, which I monitored, 
discussed the Ellsberg matter at length. But there was not a reference 
at that time to political intelligence. 

Senator Gurxey, When was this ? 

Mr. Strachax. This was, I believe, after the June 30 meeting, 1971. 

Senator Gurxey. What was the substance of the conversation ? 

Mr. Strachax. Mr. Mitchell was reviewing for Mr. Haldeman the 
investigations that were ongoing regarding Ellsberg following the 
leak of the Pentagon Papers. He referred to a person at the State 
Department who had leaked some information to Mr. Ellsberg. He 
referred to an official at the Defense Department who had admitted 
disclosing confidential national security information. My notes on the 
conversation run six or seven pages. It was quite an extensive 
discussion. 

Senator Gurxey. "\^%at was the date of this again, did you say ? 



2494 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I cannot take notes in the Executive Office 
Building, but my best recollection is that it was shortly after the 
June 30, 1971, talking paper. 

Senator Gurnet. You testified that you prepared political memos 
daily, as I recall, from Mr. Haldeman and some of them were rather 
lengthy. Where did you get your information that went into these 
memos ? 

Mr. Strachan. The memorandums were not prepared daily. They 
would be prepared as frequently as once a week, usually once every 
2 weeks, sometimes as late as once every 3 weeks, and I would get the 
information by talking to people on the White House staflf who were 
politically active, such as Mr. Dean or Mr. Colson; people in the 
States, and particularly California, in which Mr. Haldeman had quite 
an interest ; people at 1701. 

Senator Gurnet. Who did you contact at the Committee To Re- 
Elect the President ? 

Mr. Strachan. I would try to contact many of the senior individuals 
personally. 

Senator Gurnet. Who ? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Teeter for the polling information ; Mr. Dailey, 
Mr. Joanou for advertising information; Mr. Flemming for reports 
on the field organization ; Mr. Marik for reports on general research 
done in the campaign. There was a fellow in charge of direct mail, Bob 
Morgan. 

Senator Gurnet. How about Magruder ? Did you talk to him ? 

Mr. Strachan. Definitely. 

Senator Gurnet. How often ? 

Mr. Strachan. Probably daily. 

Senator Gurnet. What kind of information did he give you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, most memorandums submitted to Mr. Mitchell 
would be submitted through Mr. Magruder ; that is, the memorandums 
to Mr. Mitchell would have Mr. Magruder's signature on them, and 
his office would be a funnel for much of the information, if they had 
decided that internal disputes had been resolved at 1701, to send copies 
of memorandums to me. 

Senator Gurnet. How often did Magruder send you memorandums ? 

Mr. Strachan. I received packages of information from the com- 
mittee daily. 

Senator Gurnet. But your testimony is that he never told you any- 
thing about surveillance or wiretapping and bugging, is that correct? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Gurnet. The $350,000 — do I understand — I can't under- 
stand why this went to this Lilly. This was supposed to be used in the 
White House for polling or something in connection with the cam- 
paign. Why would you pick it up and then it be given to somebody 
who later gave it to somebody else ? What was the point of that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, various pollsters who would conduct the polls 
for us would have to be paid and neither Mr. Butterfield nor I could 
go very far from the White House physically. 

Senator Gurnet. Well, what about Lilly? Is he connected with the 
White House at all? 

Mr. Strachan. No, he is not. He is a i^ersonal friend of Mr. Butter- 
field who could travel. 



2495 

Senator Gurney. Why would he, not connected with the White 
House at all, be given $350,000 worth of money that was supposed to 
be used in this campaign in one way or another ? 

Mr. Strachax. Because he could take the cash to a polling organi- 
zation in Princeton or if we conducted one in California, to the pollster 
in California. 

Senator Gurney. How many people were on the White House staff 
during this period of time? 

Mr. Stkachan. Well, there is quite an argument as to who is offi- 
cially on the White House staff and who isn't. I would guess somewhere 
in the neighborhood of 400, but that is just a ballpark guess. 

Senator Gurney. Don't you think it would be possible to find one of 
these 400 who could have been entrusted with the custody of the 
$350,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, and that was one of the alternatives posed to Mr. 
Haldeman in the memorandum. 

Senator Gurney. But why would it be given to somebody totally 
unconnected with the White House? That is a very large sum of 
money which would be used in this campaign. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Mr. Butterfield indicated that he had known 
the man for a long time, that he was able to travel and that he would 
be willing to accept the custody of the cash. Mr. Dean had indicated 
that neither he nor anyone that he could think of on the White House 
staff would be able to do it. 

Senator Gurney. You mean not one of those 400 would be able to 
have custody of this $350,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I am not sure how many people Mr. Dean 
asked. He told me that he would not be able to arrange for the holding 
of the money fairly close to the campaign spending law enactment 
date, and so I scrambled for some alternatives to present to 
Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Gurney. Was Mr. Liddy somebody — Lilly, I guess — some- 
body who constantly handled large sums of money in custody for other 
people ? 

Mr. Strachan. I don't know. I have never met the man. 

Senator Gurney. When the $350,000 was returned, you had left the 
White House staff, hadn't you ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. Why was it that you returned it and not somebody 
who was working at the White House then ? 

Mr. Strachan. It was just one of the matters that I had been asked 
to do before I left the White House staff that I hadn't wrapped up. It 
was like my functions with the Kennedy Center. I was Mr. Haldeman's 
staff man and I went to a meeting on his behalf in January, although 
I was off the White House staff. It was a matter — the last matter that I 
had not taken care of prior to leaving. 

Senator Gurney. Cleaning up pieces of business ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Gurney. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Baker. 

Senator Baker. ISIr. Chairman, thank you very much. I thank 
Senator Talmadge for letting me go out of sequence so I can take 
care of another matter shortly and then return to the committee. 



2496 i 

Mr. Strachan, I don't have many questions. You have covered 
most of the material that I Avould have covered earlier in the ques- 
tioning. But I do have a few things. 

I would like to ask you about the $300,000 that was referred to in 
the convei-sation on March 30, 1972, to the effect that 1701 now had 
a sophisticated political intelligence gathering system with a budget 
of 300. You have indicated to us that that meant $300,000. This was 
to be included in the memorandum or possibly in the so-called tab H 
that went to Mr. Haldeman. 

Is that correct, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, that statement was included in the original 
cover memorandum. Tab H was the attachment, Sedan Chair II. 

Senator Baker. All right, fine. 

But this is the first time I have heard of $300,000 in that connec- 
tion. Are we talking about the Liddy transaction ? 

Mr. Strachan. Presumably. 

Senator Baker. All our testimony so far has indicated $250,000. 
Are you aware of that ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, I am. 

Senator Baker. Can you explain to me how it changed from 
$250,000 to $300,000? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I have no explanation for that other than 
that I wrote down what Mr. Magnidertold me. 

Senator Baker. You are certain in your mind that Mr. Magruder 
told you $300,000 for the budget, for the Liddy budget ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, I wrote down 300 as he told me on the 
telephone and completed the political matters memo within a day or 
two. 

Senator Baker. And March 30, 1972, I believe, would have been 
the day after the meeting in — the conversation was on the 31st, 
wasn't it, between you and INIr. Magruder? 

Mr. Strachan. The telephone conversation wasn't long enough 
for either Mr. Magruder or me to remember specifically. My best 
reconstruction of the events was that it was on the 31st. 

Senator Baker. All right, and the meeting in Key Biscayne where 
the amount was set, $250,000, according to other witnesses, was on the 
30th, the day before. So no great period of time went by between the 
time when allegedly the $250,000 Liddy budget was set and the follow- 
ing day, when Mr. Magruder passed on to you the information that 
it was $300,000 instead of $250,000. 

What I am driving at is, do you know whether or not the Liddy 
plan was in fact funded at $250,000 or $300,000? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I do not know. 

Senator Baker. Did any money ever come into your possession or 
into Mr. Magruder's possession for disbursement to Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Strachan. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Baker. Did you ever have an accounting of Mr. Liddy's 
expenditures that came to your oiRce or was brought to your attention ? 

Mr, Strachan. No, sir. 

Senator Baker. So you have no idea how we can reconcile the 
difference in the Liddy budget between $250,000 and $300,000 ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I do not. 



2497 

Senator Baker. Let's talk about another amount. We heard of the 
$350,000 that was received from CRP and brought to the White House 
for polling and the like. That occurred on April 6, is that right ? 

Mr. Strachax. Either April 6 or April 7. 

Senator Baker. OK. And you picked up the $350,000 in cash and 
brought it to the White House and it was delivered to — who was it 
delivered to ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I went over to 1701 and picked it up and 
brought it back to Mr. Butterfield and stayed with him in his office as 
we counted it. 

Senator Baker. Did Mr. Butterfield take possession of the money ? 

Mr. Strachax. Yes, we counted it and he took possession of the 
money. 

Senator Baker. And it was all in cash ? 

Mr. Strachax. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. In what denominations ? 

Mr. Strachax. $20's, $50's, $100's. 

Senator Baker. Were you aware of the contention that it was to be 
used for polling ? 

Mr. Strachax. Oh, definitely. It had been discussed as a need for 
September — independent polling, several months before. 

Senator Baker. Did you discuss at that time why on earth you would 
pay a polling agency in cash ? 

Mr. Strachax. No, sir, other than the fact that we did not want 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President to know that we were con- 
ducting independent polling. 

Senator Baker. "V^Tiy didn't you want the Committee To Re-Elect 
the President to know ? 

Mr. Strachax. Well, they were conducting extensive polling also 
and we would want to run polls to doublecheck their results. And also 
polls were conducted under Mr. Haldeman's direction on matters unre- 
lated to the campaign, personal questions. 

Senator Baker. I am not being argumentative. I am just trying to 
find out. Why wouldn't it have been better to have a bank account for 
that purpose ? Why on earth — wouldn't cash be the most awkward way 
you could pay a bill to an established and reputable polling company ? 

Mr. Strachax. I would imagine that is correct. 

Senator Baker. Was it in fact used to pay the polling company ? 

Mr. Strachax. No, it turned out that we incurred over the course of 
the campaign something in excess of $100,000 or $110,000 in private 
polling expenses. Mr. Stans and the committee had substantial assets 
at the end and Mr. Dean arranged with Mr. Stans to pay that private 
polling expense out of ordinary campaign funds and not use any part 
of the $350,000. 

Senator Baker. So if I understand the picture, the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President was doing polling; maybe the National Re- 
publican Committee was doing polling; but Mr. Haldeman was doing 
polling, too ? 

Mr. Strachax. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. And the $350,000 initially was for Mr. Haldeman's 
private purposes, that is, to be kept secret from the Committee To Re- 
Elect the President or the Republican National Committee ? 



» 



2498 

Mr. Strachan. And almost all members of the White House staff. 

Senator Baker, Did Mr. Ehrlichman know about it? 

Mr. Strachan. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Baker. Did Mr. Mitchell know about it? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not sure. Not to my personal knowledge. I think 
he knew about the fact that Mr. Haldeman wanted $300,000 to $350,000 
for private polling. 

Senator Baker. Did the President know about it ? 

Mr. Str^vchan. The President knew we conducted extensive private 
pollings. I surely cannot speak as to whether he even worried about 
how it was paid for. 

Senator Baker. Do you know whether he knew or do you have any 
indication that he knew or did not know of the $350,000 cash account 
that was in Mr. Butterfield's custody ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I have no information about that at all. 

Senator Baker. But it is your best impression that the President 
knew that private Haldeman polling was being undertaken separate 
and aside from the Committee To Re-Elect the President or the Re- 
publican National Committee? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, because on numerous occasions I would walk 
into the Oval Office with the polling results and hand them to Mr. 
Haldeman. 

Senator Baker. I am still not quite sure why you would want to 
have separate polling. To check their results, meaning the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President. But why would you want to check their 
results ? If you had reputable polling firms, why would you feel con- 
strained to check the results ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, all polls differ. Harris differs from Gallup, 
differs from Opinion Research, differs from Teeter's results. We had 
confidence in the particular polling firm that we had used. They gave 
us particular demographic information that we wanted. But one of 
the primary reasons for having a separate polling capability was the 
confidentiality of the questions and the results. Not all polls concerned 
the campaign. 

Senator Baker. The point I am driving at, Mr. Strachan, and I 
am not imputing to you any sort of misconduct or impropriety, but the 
point I am driving at is the very fact that private polling was being 
undertaken by Mr. Haldeman secretly and concealed from the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President, and presumably from the Republican 
National Committee, implies some sort of competition or distrust of the 
Committee To Re-Elect the President or the existing Republican or- 
ganization, the Republican National Committee. Can you enlighten 
me in that respect ? Do you have any insight or any information that 
would confirm or contradict that suspicion ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, yes, there was definitely a feeling of distrust 
of the Committee To Re-Elect the President in the sense of the con- 
fidentiality of the polling that they were conducting. There were nu- 
merous times when the number of people who would have access to the 
polling results was cut down. 

One time I had quite an argument with Mr. Magruder because I had 
been instructed by Mr. Haldeman that I was to tell Mr. Magruder 
in Mr. Mitchell's presence that he was not having access to the polling 
information, and that he should leave the meeting. There was a con- 



2499 

siderable amount of distrust, that the more people who had the in- 
formation, the more likely it would be to leak out. 

Senator Baker. I will not pursue that much further, but the image 
that is coming through to me, Mr. Strachan, and correct me if you 
disagree with it, the image that comes through to me is that the Re- 
publican National Committee did not run the race, the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President was set up for that purpose but even it did not 
entirely run the race, and Mr. Haldeman and certain people in the 
White House had a separate organization that was concealed and 
separate from both the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the 
Republican National Committee. Is that fair to say, according to your 
experience at the Wliite House, or not? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, it is fair to say that the Republican National 
Committee played a very small role in the campaign. The Committee 
To Re-Elect the President played a very large role ; Mr. Haldeman's 
role in the polling area was also substantial. 

Senator Baker. But in any event, the $350,000 was never paid to the 
polling organization or organizations employed by Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. In fact, it was paid in a more routine and ordinary 
way when other funds were used. Were those other fimds paid by check 
as distinguished from cash ? 

Mr. Strachan. It is my understanding. I know Mr. Dean arranged 
it with Mr. Stans, and I believe it was paid, as were many bills, at the 
conclusion of the campaign as polling expenses incurred during the 
campaign. 

Senator Baker. So the initial concern for secrecy dissipated at some 
point and you did in fact pay by means other than the cash that you 
had sought for that purpose. 

We have some information that $350,000 was also used in part for 
newspaper advertisement. I believe you indicated as much, Mr. 
Strachan. 

Mr. Strachan. Yes. Part of the $350,000 was in newspaper ads. 

Senator Baker. And $328,000 was left, I believe, and you cannot 
remember whether the ad cost $7,000 and $15,000 was returned or the 
ad cost $15,000 and $7,000 was returned. Is that a fair summation? 

Mr. Strachan. I cannot recall. The money was in an envelope and 
the two jfigures were mentioned orally in a meeting between Mr. Dean, 
Mr. Howard, and myself and I simply do not recall. 

Senator Baker. Do you know how much the ad cost ? 

INIr. Strachan. No, I do not. 
* Senator Baker. Did you not try to find out in preparation for your 
testimony ? 

Mr. Strachan. The prosecutors indicated when I mentioned this to 
them much earlier, that I should not talk with Mr. Howard and try 
to reconstruct any aspect of the handling of the money, and I have 
not talked to Mr. Howard nor Mr. Dean, for that matter. 

Senator Baker. Did you testify before the grand jury on this amount 
of money ? 

Mr. Strachan. Concerning the $350,000 ? 

Senator Baker. Yes, or the $328,000. 

Mr, Strachan. Concerning the $328,000 I recall I was asked if the 
$350,000 was intact, and it was, and I said, yes. 



2500 

Senator Baker. Did you ever mention the figure $328,000 before the 
grand jury? 

Mr, Strachan. No ; I simply was not asked the question. 

Senator Baker. Did Mr. Haldeman ever make any statement to the 
grand jury that you are aware of about the sum, whether $328,000 
or $350,000? 

Mr. Strachan. Did Mr. Haldeman mention that 

Senator Baker. Yes, sir ; or did Mr. Haldeman ever discuss that sum 
with you, the $328,000 as distinguished from $350,000 ? 

"What I am trying to get at, Mr. Strachan, is what was told to the 
grand jury about the amount of money involved and whether or not 
there was, in fact, $22,000 that was returned to this fund or $22,000 
less the amount of the ad. It is pretty fuzzy and I am trying to find 
out if all the money got back, and we are left with an uncertainty about 
whether the ad cost $15,000 or $7,000 — it is a pretty good bite. I am 
trying to find out whether that money, in fact, did get back or not. Can 
you tell me with certainty that all that money was returned ? 

Mr. Strachan. No; I cannot tell you with certainty that all the 
money was returned. 

Senator Baker. Did you tell the grand jury and Mr. Haldeman 
the same thing about this money ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. Do you have any information, Mr. Strachan, of any- 
one skimming, do you know what I am talking about ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; I know what you are talking about. 

Senator Baker. I am talking about people pocketing some of this 
cash that was floating around. Do you know anything about that? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I know that I did not get any [laughter] 
and I do not know if anyone else did. 

Senator Baker. You do not know if anyone else did or that anyone 
else did or how did you say that, I am sorry ? 

Mr. Strachan. The answer is, I do not know whether anybody got 
any money or not. 

Senator Baker. OK. Do you have any suspicion that someone did ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, there is an awful lot of confusion about the 
figures which would indicate some suspicion, but I have no direct 
knowledge. 

Senator Baker. Do you have any leads you can give us that we can 
pursue ? I am not trying to put you on the spot nor ask you to make 
an allegation against someone without substantial evidence, but can 
you suggest any areas of inquiry that we might follow on the question 
of skimming? 

Mr. Strachan. None other than talking to the people who are 
mentioned in connection with the money. 

Senator Baker. AYliich ones? Let me ask you this, rather than take 
your time now and I know there is another vote signal on the clock. 
Are you agreeable to talking to stafi" further on that subject at a later 
date," Mr. Strachan ? 

Mr. Strachan. Oh, definitely. 

Senator Baker. Thank you very much. Thank you. 

There is a vote in progress now, and Senator Talmadge remains and j 
T believe Senator Weicker has a few additional questions. Senator 
Weicker has volunteered to go forward with the balance of his ques- 
tions while I go vote and we will be back just as soon as possible. 



2501 

Mr. Strachan, we have 10-miniite vote sequences and I do not think it 
is possible to continue so we will recess now until we can return for 
further investigation. 

[Recess.] 

Senator Talmadge [presiding]. The committee will please come 
to order. 

Insofar as I know, there is nothing in the record to date as to the 
time the President of the United States first had knowledge of the 
break-in of the psychiatrist of Mr. Ellsberg. Do you know ^ 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir. I do not. 

Senator Talmadge. You have no knowledge of that fact ? 

Mr. Strachan. I have no knowledge of that. 

Senator Talmadge. There has been a good deal of speculation and 
testimony that both Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman ran what's 
known as a very tight ship at the White House. Through your close 
association wnth the two men and particularly Mr. Haldeman, would 
you agree with that statement ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, a very tight ship. 

Senator Talmadge. They were the President's closest advisers and 
confidants, were they not ? 

Mr. Strachan. On domestic matters, yes. 

Senator Talmadge. Which one of the two knew more about political 
matters ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, from an issue standpoint, I would guess that it 
would be Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Talmadge. And, Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Strachan. From a personality or polling standpoint, I would 
guess it woukl be Mr. Haldeman. 

Senator Talmadge. Would Mr. Haldeman make decisions relating 
to political matters, or Mr. Ehrlichman? 

Mr. Strachan. I am not familiar with decisions that Mr. Ehrlich- 
man made. I know decisions that ]\f r. Haldeman made were in political 
matters. 

Senator Talmadge. "V\lien matters of importance to the campaign 
such as memorandums to Mr. ISIitchell and others were sent to Mr. 
Haldeman, would he bring those to the attention of the President ? 

Mr. Strachan. I can't specifically recall ever seeing a memorandum 
from Mr. Mitchell to ]Mr. Haldeman. They communicated primarily 
in private meetings. There were maybe a half dozen memorandums 
from Mr. Haldeman to Mr. INIitchell that I saw. 

Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Haldeman immediately bring to the 
attention of the President matters that he considered important? 

]\Ir. Strachan. I simply don't know that. I would assume that he 
did, but I don't know that for a fact. 

Senator Talmadge. Would it be a reasonable assumption on your 
part that as soon as Mr. Haldeman had knowledge of the Watergate 
break-in, he would bring it to the attention of the President? 

Mr. Strachan. You are asking for my opinion ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes. 

Mr. Strachan. That would be my opinion, yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you have mentioned in your previous testi- 
mony that you knew something about the Segretti matter. What did 
you know and when did you learn about it ? 



2502 

Mr. Strachan. Well, Dwight Chapin and I began in June or July 
of 1971 discussing the probable need in the campaign for a Dick Tuck 
type capability. At some point, one or the other of us mentioned the 
possibility of Don Segretti as a person we had known together in 
college. 

Senator Talmadge. Wliat do you mean, a Dick Tuck type of 
capability ? 

Mr. Strachan. A prankster, a political jokester. 

Senator Talmadge. All right, proceed, please. 

Mr. Strachan. The subject was discussed and in late August of 1971, 
in a meeting between Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Kalmbach, and myself, Mr. 
Haldeman authorized Mr. Kalmbach to pay the salary and expenses 
of Mr. Segretti. 

Senator Talmadge. For what purpose ? 

Mr. Strachan. To engage in Dick Tuck type activities. 

Senator Talmadge. What, for instance ? Name some of them. 

Mr. Strachan. Excuse me. Senator ? 

Senator Talmadge. What, for instance? Name some of them, the 
instances you are referring to. 

Mr. Strachan. Well, to go to, for example, a Muskie rally and have 
a sign that would say, "This is Humphrey territory." 

Senator Talmadge. Nothing an}^ worse than that ? [laughter.] 

Mr. Strachan. Well, we discussed a series of activities, none of them 
illegal. Mr. Tuck had quite a reputation for being an ingenious in- 
dividual and we thought that Mr. Segretti "would likewise be ingenious. 

Senator Talmadge. Well, to attend a rally of that type and claim 
it was somebody else's territory with one sign would be a waste of 
money, would it not ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is why expenses were authorized to Mr. Se- 
gretti, so that there would be more than one person with a sign. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you were interviewed by the FBI in 
August 1972? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir; I was. 

Senator Talmadge. What was the scope of that inquiry ? 

Mr. Strachan. Entirely the Segretti matter. 

Senator Talmadge. They didn't ask you anything about Watergate 
at all? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Didn't ask you anything about Mr. Haldeman 's 
involvement or lack of involvement ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. Were you surprised that those matters were not 
brought up in the interrogation ? 

Mr. Strachan. I was surprised that the FBI did not ask me more 
probing questions, even about Segretti. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you testified that you presumed Mr. Dean 
would be handling the Watergate matter. Were you aware of any 
investigation that had been carried on by Mr. Dean into the Water- 
gate affair in the summer or fall of last year? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I knew that I had talked with Mr. Dean and 
explained to him Avhat I knew about the Segretti matter. I knew that 
Mr. Chapin had similarly talked with Mr. Dean. I did not know 
Avhether his investigation went further than that or not. I had dis- 
cussed those matters with him in the summer of 1972. 



2503 

Senator Talmadge. You cannot answer positively yea or nay, then, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, Mr. Butterfield stated that Mr. Haldeman 
and Mr. Higby knew that the White House was bugged. Did you 
know that? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Talmadge. Is it reasonable to agree with Mr. Butte.rfield 
that Mr. Ehrlichman did not have knowledge of that fact ? 

Mr. Stracilvn. Yes, sir, it is. 

Senator Talmadge. Are there other instances of matters that might 
have been withheld from Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. What, for instance ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I can only remember one or two occasions 
when Mr. Ehrlichman would have access to any of the polling infor- 
mation that Mr. Haldeman conducted through me. 

Senator Talmadge. Any others? 

Mr. Strachan. Nothing that comes to mind immediately. 

Senator Talmadge. As you are aware, there is a direct conflict in 
some of the testimony between you and Mr. Magruder. Can you tell 
us why we ought to believe you in preference to Mr. Magruder? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir. I believe you should assess a witness' testi- 
mony in light of his history for telling the truth and in light of the 
individual's motives to tell the truth. Mr. Magruder has told various 
versions of the Watergate story, many of them believed, to the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation, to three grand juries, to the original 
Watergate trial jury, to the original prosecutors, to the attorneys and 
other officials of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Apparently, 
the story he told them was false all along. Yet, they believed him. 

As to an individual's motive to tell the truth, Mr. Magruder was 
faced with, in his mind, at least 12 counts of perjury and whatever 
other crimes he might be charged with. His desire to deliver an indi- 
Addual on the White House staif to the prosecutors was quite high, and 
I believe he selected me because I had refused to corroborate testimony 
he asked me to corroborate. 

Senator Talmadge. Did he ever lie to you when you were at the 
White House together? 

Mr. Str^vchan. Yes, sir, he did. 

Senator Talmadge. In what respect ? 

Mr. Strachan. He would frequently inform me that a matter had 
l^een decided by someone when it had not in fact been decided by that 
individual, and we had occasional arguments over that misinfor- 
mation. 

Senator Talmadge. Now, you said Mr. Haldeman let you know in 
no uncertain tenns if you ever did anything incorrectly. Would you 
please explain what you meant by that by some illustration? 

Mr. Strachan. AYell, one is an illustration that will forever stick 
in my mind. After the Republican National Convention, a decision had 
been made to send certificates to all those who had attended. That was 
quite a number of people and I had been working with several mem- 
bers of the Wliit« House staff trying to get the various certificates for 
the various levels of people out, and the gifts and so forth. Mr. Halde- 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 19 



2504 I 

man learned somehow that the project was not complete and one morn- 
ing, about 4 a.m., he called me from Air Force One and told me very 
clearly that I had not performed and that the project should be han- 
dled immediately. I had been on the phone late that night and I 
thought it was a bad dream, so I called the signal operator back and 
I said, did I just get a call from Mr. Haldeman ? 

And he said yes, and it was over the radio, and I can tell you what 
he said in the morning. 

Senator Talmadge. Did you ever consider leaving? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir; I did consider leaving, but when I was 
hired for the job, he hired me through the election and I gave him 
my commitment that I would stay through the election. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you very much, Mr. Strachan. I think 
you have made a forthright and candid witness. 

The committee will recess at this point. There is a vote on the Sen- 
ate floor and I think Senator Weicker has a few more questions to 
ask you, Mr. Strachan. 

[Recess.] 

Senator Inouye [presiding]. The hearing will come to order. 

The Chair recognizes Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Strachan, just a very few brief questions. 

Did Mr. Haldeman meet with you at any time in preparation for 
his appearance before the staff of this committee ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir ; he did not. 

Senator Weicker. Now, in the course of his testimony or before that, 
in the course of his appearing before the committee, he made certain 
statements which I would like you just to touch upon very briefly and 
indicate as to what your knowledge of these matters is. 

Specifically, in the area of leaks and the Plumbers in the Penta- 
gon Papers, he indicates only the most general, general knowledge of 
what was going on. This seems to be rather at odds with the testimony 
that 3'ou gave before the staff of the committee. 

Could you describe your underetanding as to what Mr. Haldeman's 
role was in the leaks operation relative to the Pentagon Papers? 

Mr. Strachan. I know very little about the leaks operation as it 
related to the Pentagon Papers. My knowledge of the program to stop 
leaks we discussed in executive session, and that was a program estab- 
lished after the President held a Cabinet meeting and I Avorked with 
Mr. Dean and Mr. Malek on that project. 

Senator Weicker. What was Mr. Haldeman's role? 

Mr. Strachan. Mr. Haldeman was the recipient, of coui^se, of the 
memorandums from me, Mr. Dean and Mr. Malek regarding the leaks 
project. 

Senator Weicker. Was — I believe the term used initially by you in 
the interview was that he was the "Lord High Executioner," given the 
mission of finding the leaks, is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes; that was the statement that he used in the 
original meeting in his office with Mr. Malek, Mr. Dean, Mr. Higby, 
Mr. Colson, and myself. 

Senator Weicker. So that, in fact, that lie did play more than just 
a general role in this matter, is that correct ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes ; that is correct. 

Senator Weicker. All right. 



2505 

In the course of that testimony it was indicated that he had no — 
he did not know whether or not you, Gordon Strachan, subsequent to 
June 16, destroyed any materials pertaining to the investigation of 
the case, et cetera. 

Is that true or not ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, he told me to make sure the files were clean. I 
went and destroyed them. I told John Dean, and I reminded him 
on July 1. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, you did tell him that you had de- 
stroyed these materials, is that correct, that took place on Air Force 
One? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Now, then, in conclusion, I have one question 
which I consider to be extremely important because the element of fair- 
ness is always raised as to this committee, as to the fairness of the 
(Questioning, the fairness exhibited by the members of the committee. 

Now, what I would like to do is apply that standard to you insofar 
as your ability to retrieve infomiation, make notes, et cetera, relative 
to the preparation of your appearance before this committee. I wonder 
if you would describe to the committee the conditions which exist 
insofar as you are concerned when you want to go back and take a 
look at your records and retrieve any material that you might have 
from the Executive Office Building? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, aft-er the campaign, I took all files which I 
considered Presidential paper's because they included memorandums 
from the President to Mr. Haldeman, memorandums from Mr. Halde- 
man to me, from me to Mr. Haldeman, to room 522 in the Executive 
Office Building, and locked them in at least six safes. When it became 
necessary for me to recall specific dates and meetings, I began going 
back to the Executive Office Building, I was allowed access, but I was 
not permitted either to copy any document by Xerox or to take notes 
about any particular item in there, or to take notes in with me for 
matters that I wanted to discover. 

Senator Weicker. Is there somebody present in the room with you ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, sir, a Secret Service agent. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Now, let's assume the fact that you want 
to find some detail or some particular piece of information. You go 
into the room. You retrieve the document; what can you do at that 
point ? 

Mr. Strachan. I can read the document and put it back in the safe. 

Senator Weicker. And what do you do, run out of the room and 
try to jot down the notes somewhere outside of the room? How does 
this work ? 

Mr. Strachan. No. I would not go outside the room to try to jot that 
down. I would try to remember as many things as I possibly could 
in the space of 2 or 3 hours. I would leave the room with the Secret 
Service agent, lock the filing cabinets, lock the room, and usually 
go over to my lawyer's office and try to write up my best recollection 
of the information that I had read. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, you are not allowed to bring any 
paper, pencil, in the room with you or make any notations while you 
are trying to pull together the facts prior to your appearance before 
this committee. 



2506 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. And this has been the situation, and it continues 
to be the situation ? 

Mr. Strachan. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Was it the same situation for your appearance 
before the grand jury? 

]\Ir. Strachan. I don't believe I even went into the room to recon- 
struct my recollection before I went to the grand jury. It has been 
the situation ever since it became important that I be able to recon- 
struct facts accurately. 

Senator Weicker. Do you consider this to be a very fair set of con- 
ditions? 

Mr. Strachan. I would prefer an alternative system. 

Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, except 
to comment that for a man who is as deeply involved in these impor- 
tant matters as Mr. Strachan, I would say that any unfairness that 
has been exhibited to him certainly has not come from this committee, 
and I consider the conditions under which you operate in the prepara- 
tion of your case for presentation to the American people to be grossly 
unfair. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Strachan, I have two questions. You, in your 
testimony, suggested that several of the aides to the President had the 
capability of electronically taping conversations in their offices. You 
have indicated that several meetings were held in Mr. Haldeman's 
office, at which time political intelligence-gathering were being dis- 
cussed. Do you know if these discussions were recorded on tape? 

Mr. Strachan. No, I do not laiow that, and I do not think that Mr. 
Haldeman had tape capability in his office. I do not know this for a 
fact, but I do not think he did. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. John Dean, in his opening statement to this 
committee, said the following : 

It was during this period of time, which I believe was mid-February, Magruder 
had a conversation with Mr. O'Brien in which he told O'Brien that he had re- 
ceived his final authorization for Liddy's activities from Gordon Strachan and 
that Strachan had reported that Haldeman had cleared the matter with the 
President. I reported this to Haldeman who expressed concern over Magruder's 
statement. 

Do you wish to comment, sir ? 

Mr. Strachan. Well, I think the timing of that version of the facts 
by Mr. Magruder is interesting. I think shortly thereafter in Mr. 
Dean's testimony he indicated that the interest in getting Mr. Ma- 
gruder a Government job increased something like tenfold, and it is 
my opinion that that version of the facts was presented by Mr. Ma- 
gruder to Mr. O'Brien for that specific purpose. 

Senator Inouye. In your conversations with Mr. Haldeman, did he 
ever indicate to you that he had received such a report from Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. Strachan. No, he did not. He subsequently told me that Mr. 
Magruder had told him a slightly different version of that story, and 
he dismissed it at the time; well, that is just Mr. Magruder trying to 
get some attention. 

Senator Inouye. For the record, did you at any time give final au- 
thorization for Mr. Liddy's activities? 

Mr. Strachan. No, sir, I did not. 



2507 

Senator Inouye. Were you aware of Mr. Liddy's activities at that 
time in mid-February ? 

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

Senator Inouye. It is your view that Mr. Magruder was less than 
honest in this ? 

Mr. Strachan. Yes, that is my firm opinion. 

Senator Inouye. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Dash. I have no further questions. 

Senator Inouye. Mr. Strachan, in behalf of the committee, I thank 
you very much for your cooperation and your appearance here. 

This committee will stand in recess until 10 tomorrow morning. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :35 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a.m., Tuesday, July 24, 1973.] 



k 



TUESDAY, JULY 24, 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 Ervdn, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, 
Gurney, and Weicker, 

Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; 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; R. Phillip Haire, Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, 
Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant majority counsels; 
Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy 
minority counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and 
Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, 
research assistant; Filer Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert 
Baca, office of Senator Montoya ; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator 
Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John Walz, 
publications clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Counsel will call the first witness. 

Mr. Dash. Will Mr. John Ehrlichman take the witness table? 

Senator Ervin. Will you stand up please, sir? Raise your right 
hand. Do you swear the evidence that 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. Ehrlichman. I do. 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you state your name and address for the 
record. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN EHRLICHMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN J. 
WILSON AND FRANK H. STRICKLER, COUNSEL 

Mr. Ehrlichman. My name is John Ehrlichman. I live on Chesa- 
peake Drive in Great Falls, Va. 

Senator Ervin. I observe that you are accompanied by counsel, and 
I would request counsel to identify themselves for the purposes of the 
record. 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, my name is John J. Wilson. I am ac- 
companied by my younger partner, Mr. Frank H. Strickler, 
S-t-r-i-c-k-1-e-r. We both represent Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you very much. 

(2509) 



2510 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, do you have a statement which you 
would like to read to the committee ? 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, may I make a one-sentence preliminary, 
sir? 

Senator Ervin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wilson. I just wanted to say that Mr. Ehrlichman is here pur- 
suant to a subpena which I advised him to seek in order that we may 
protect ourselves with respect to things which may happen later on. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Wilson. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Ervin. The Chair will find as a fact that Mr. Ehrlichman 
is here pursuant to a subpena issued by the committee. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, do you have a statement which you wish 
to read to the committee ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. Dash. Will you read it, please, sir ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : 

INTRODUCTION 

At the time of my resignation, I assured the President that I in- 
tended to spend such time and personal resources as I had in the state- 
ment of the truth of these matters now before this committee. As I will 
describe, I have willingly and fully testified before several other offi- 
cial inquiries. 

Because I sincerely do not believe I am guilty of any wrongdoing, 
I have not invoked the fifth amendment, nor have I attempted to 
negotiate "immunity" for myself from anyone. 

A member of this committee. Senator Inouye, suggested by a ques- 
tion he asked a witness here, I had invoked executive privilege in some 
forum and thereby had sought to avoid answering questions. Of course, 
only the President can invoke that privilege. On the occasion refer- 
red to, the President had established certain guidelines which are no 
longer in effect. Thus, I will try to fully answer all questions put to 
me by the committee within the new executive privilege guidelines. 

I welcome this opportunity to lay out the facts, and publicly set 
the record straight on a number of questions. Some of these questions 
have been legitimately raised. Others are created by leaks to the press, 
falsehoods, and misunderstandings. 

I am here to refute every charge of illegal conduct on my part 
which has been made during the course of these hearings, including 
material leaked to the news media. What I say here will not be new, 
but it may be different from what you have been reading in the 
papers. 

I have testified fully before three grand juries : One in this city, 
one in New York, and one in Los Angeles. I have testified before other 
committees of the House and Senate. I have had an off-the-record, 
nonpublic, meeting with the staff of this committee, and I have been 
interviewed by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on a 
number ol' occasions. In addition, on request of tlie staff of this com- 
mittee, I have made available pertinent records in my possession, in- 
cluding transcripts of telephone conversations and meetings which I 
had with various people in the course of an inquiry conducted for 



2511 

the President. What I say here will not be different from my testimony 
and evidence in these other forums. 

Finally, in addition, when requested by the committee staff, I sup- 
plied my complete financial records and tax returns from January 1, 
1969. I did this despite my attorney's advice that the scope and au- 
thority of this committee is limited to a study of the extent to which 
illegal, improper, or unethical activities were engaged in by persons 
"in the Presidential election of 1972, or any campaign, canvass, or 
other activity related to it." 

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT 

I look forward to answering your questions concerning a broad 
range of subjects, including the following: 

Did John Dean investigate White House involvement in the Water- 
gate break-in? What did he find? Is exhibit 39's [committee exhibit 
No. 34-43] description of those findings accurate ? 

What was the so-called special unit concerned with the leaks and 
theft of defense and foreign affairs documents bearing "secret" and 
"top secret" classifications, why and how and when the unit was 
formed, what I know about the break-in attempt in California and its 
bearing on the AVatergate, if any; 

Wliether there is any real connection between the California ( Field- 
ing) break-in and the involvement of any White House employee in 
the Watergate coverup; in that connection, whether the California 
break-in ever really could have been "covered up" in view of the 
authorities' actual knowledge or, alternatively, whether any "coverup" 
was necessary in view of the national security aspects of the matter, as 
legally determined by the President; 

Whether or not I knew the purposes to which the Kalmbach money 
was to be put, why and when I agreed to his fundraising, and what 
assurances I gave Mr. Kalmbach in July 1972. 

The story — or should I say stories — of the meeting to discuss How- 
ard Hunt and the contents of Hunt's safe and John Dean's efforts to 
plant one of those stories with me about Hunt leaving the country ; 

What I found out about the destruction of some of those documents 
from Hunt's safe and, more important, when I found out ; 

The President's instructions to me regarding Executive clemency 
and how I carried them out ; 

The effort which I made to get a full public disclosure of the facts 
of this whole matter last summer and fall, 1972. 

The reasons for the meeting with the CIA Director in June 1972, and 
what instructions were really given to the FBI as a result ; 

Why I requested the Assistant Attorney General, Henry Petersen, 
to permit Secretary Stans to give testimony by deposition instead of at 
the grand jury; 

What I did when the President assigned the White House aspects 
of the Watergate problem to me on March 30 of this year, what various 
individuals told me in an interview why the President did not imme- 
diately fire John Dean, and why I taped some of the interviews and 
telephone conversations I have turned over to this committee and the 
grand jury; 



2512 

When I first learned of the Liddy "intelligence" meetings held early 
in 1972 and the other acts leading to the break-ins at Watergate ; 

AVhen I first learned of the actions comprising the concealment of the 
truth about the break-ins ; 

My working relationship to Mr. Dean, his actual duties and mine, 
and his access to the President ; 

AVliat really happened and was said at La Costa in February and 
why the President began meeting with Mr. Dean after that ; 

The President's continued effort to obtain and publish a full, 
factual account of Watergate in its several aspects and why he never 
got it. 

It has been repeatedly said that this is not a trial ; that the com- 
mittee will recommend legislation, not assess guilt or innocence. At 
the same time, the soundness and integrity of the President, his staff, 
and many close associates have been impugned and directly put in issue 
here. Many important questions about the White House, the Presi- 
dency, and its staff system have also been asked here, but not answered. 
I hope and believe I can contribute a few of those answers and also per- 
haps some measure of perspective. 

DEMONSTRATIONS AND THE CLIMATE 

Mr. Dean began his statement with a somewhat superficial but gal- 
lery-pleasing repetition of the old story about fear and paranoia in the 
Nixon Wliite House. Why, Mr. Dean wondered, was there all that over- 
played concern about hippies coming to Washington to march peace- 
fully down Pennsylvania Avenue? Mr. Dean's explanation is simply 
that we were all suffering from some advanced forms of neurosis, and 
nothing else — some strange White House madness. He suggests he was 
the only sane one in the bunch. 

Since he began his statement there, let me take up that subject 
briefly. I submit that on this general subject there are some realities 
of governmental life to be weighed in your deliberations. 

From its first days the Nixon administration sought a stable peace 
abroad and a return of our POW's from Southeast Asia ; to get these 
results required the President to undertake foreign policy moves and 
initiatives whicli were completely interrelated and extremely delicate. 
In pursuit of this result we necessarily gave earnest attention to the 
staffing of critical Government positions with people loyal to the Presi- 
dent's objectives. And the problems of leaks, demonstrations, bomb- 
ings, and terrorism, public opinion, and congressional support Avere 
understandably on the President's mind. 

Today the Presidency is the only place in the Nation where all con- 
flicting considerations of domestic and international politics, econom- 
ics and society merge ; it is there that street violence and civil rights 
and relations with Russia and tlieir effect on China and the Cambodian 
military situation and 1,000 other factors and events are brought to- 
gether on the surface of one desk and must be resolved. 

Some of tliese events in 1969 and 1970 included hundreds of bomb- 
ings of public buildings in this country, a highl}^ organized attempt 
to shut down the Federal Government, which you will all remember, 
intensive liarrassment of political candidates and violent street dem- 
onstrations which endangered life and property. 



2513 

Taken as isolated incidents these events were serious. Taken as a part 
of an apparent campaign to force upon the President a foreign policy 
favorable to the North Vietnamese and their allies, these demonstra- 
tions were more than just a garden variety exercise of the first 
amendment. 

Just as, and because, they affected the President's ability to conduct 
foreign policy, they required the President's attention and concern. 
Had he and his staff been ignorant of the significance of such a cam- 
paign, or merely indifferent, they, that is the President and his staff, 
would have been subject to the proper criticism of all citizens inter- 
ested in securing a stable peace in Southeast Asia and the return of 
our POW's. 

But the President did understand these events to be important in the 
overall foreign policy picture and they received balanced attention 
along with other events and factors. 

In 1969, when he first came into office, the President took this Na- 
tion into a new international era in which the stakes were extremely 
high. From close observation I can testify that the President is not 
paranoid, weird, psychotic on the subject of demonstrators or hyper- 
sensitive to criticism. He is an able, tough international politician, 
practical, complex, able to integrate many diverse elements and to see 
the interrelationships of minute and apparently disassociated particles 
of information and events. 

WHY didn't everyone KNOW ALL ABOUT WATERGATE? 

It has been my limited experience that, in the trial of a long lawsuit 
with a great number of witnesses, it becomes hard for the lawyers, wit- 
nesses, judge, and jury to remember that an5d:hing else ever happened 
in the community back at the time of the disputed event except that 
event itself. The collapse of a tunnel, collision of the trains, or breach 
of the contract in the case which is being tried in court eventually ap- 
pears to have occupied the very center of the stage at the time. I sense 
some of that shrinkage of perspective in some of the questions here, 
and in some of the comments of the network people on the television. 

Here is what appears to be this great big thing, a burglary, a "cover- 
up," "horrors" all going on, and witness after witness goes over the 
exquisite details of a few meetings, phone calls, memos, and conversa- 
tions, day after day here. One begins to think, surely all of this could 
not possibly have passed unseen by anyone of even average awareness. 
How, then, could people on the White House staff have failed to know 
all of these so-obvious and often repeated and significant details, and 
failed to blow the whistle on the wrongdoers long before the 9th 
month ? 

John Dean said one thing in his testimony — page 2929 — falser than 
all the other falsehoods there, when he said : 

[The Watergate] "was probably the major thing that was occurring 
at this point in time," meaning, in the context of Senator Baker's 
question, in the White House between June 17 and September 15, 1972. 

To demonstrate the absurdity of that important misstatement I need 
only briefly develop a few facts which are perhaps a broader view of 
the'^months following June 17, 1972, than Mr. Dean is willing to take 
for his purposes. To this end, I would like briefly to describe the White 



2514 

House, my experience there, and say a few things about the Presidency 
in order to make more understandable some of the questions before 
you, including access to the President, Mr. Dean's role, and who re- 
ported to whom. And you need a clearer picture than you've had so 
far of what was really going on at the White House in June 1972 and 
the following months. 

I do not suggest that we were all just too busy to have noticed. We 
did notice and we kept informed through John Dean and other sources 
on the assumption that he was giving us complete and accurate infor- 
mation. 

But it is important to know that, in today's Wliite House, there 
must be, and there is, a heavy delegation of responsibility and duties. 
. This narrative goes to the question : How could all of this have been 
avoided ? 

And it goes to the important point that a chain of delegation is only 
as strong as its weakest link. 

WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 19 69-70 

I came to the White House as counsel to the President from a 
private, civil law practice in Seattle, Wash. I took a substantial finan- 
cial cut to come into the Government. I came because the President 
asked me to, and because I became convinced that there was an oppor- 
tunity to really accomplish things for the country by assisting him. 

My wife and family made the greatest sacrifice, of course. Their 
lives were totally disrupted in moving here. I worked long hours 
and every day, and they were asked to make new lives around that 
schedule. For us the only real compensation for all of this was a 
great sense of accomplishment as we saw the President's ideas begin 
to take hold and his goals begin to be achieved. 

In my view, all this talk of Wliite House staff power and status 
is meaningless currency which cannot possibly pay for one's lost time 
with his family and the lost freedom to live one's own life. 

Because I once was counsel to the President I know what the Presi- 
dent has delegated to the one who holds that post, specifically, in this 
case, John Dean. 

Aside from being the President's liaison to the departments and 
agencies concerned with legal matters, the counsel to the President 
is supposed to be the "conscience of the White House." It is his job 
to keep a sharp eye out for wrongdoing, such as potential conflicts 
of interest, to insure that Presidential appointees cannot put personal 
interest ahead of the interest of the public in governmental matters. 
He reviews the FBI checks of all potential Presidential appointees 
for such problems. He keeps abreast of legal and other questions which 
are before the executive branch, to be able to answer questions when 
asked by the President or his staff; he reviews documents before they 
go to the President for signing. In addition, he is a conduit for all 
kinds of miscellaneous information relating to Federal law and regu- 
latory agencies, legal technicalities, and legislation. It is his job to 
keep the White House informed of a whole raft of subjects within 
these general areas. And, perhaps most important, he must be a self- 
starter. He must take the initiative because in the Nixon White House 
there is no one else who is going to have the time to supervise, make 



I 



2515 

assignments, decide what should be looked into. Everyone else is fully 
occupied with his own area of responsibility. 

Thus, the counsel is a vital link in a chain of delegation. In my 
view, one in that position must bring to the job sufficient training 
and experience to know what to do and when to do it. 

The counsel also has and has had political duties. The President is 
the Nation's Chief Executive. But he is also, by longstanding tradition, 
his political party's leader. Any President has a political role to play, 
whether he is going to run for reelection or not. But if he is a candidate, 
then he is both an Executive and a practicing politician. Every such 
politician wants information. And the President, in his politician 
role, is no different from the others. He needs and wants information 
about issues, supporters, opponents and every other political subject 
known to man. 

For the year 1969 to 1970, when I left the post of counsel, I attempted 
to gather some purely political information for the President, as I 
was expected to do. Out of real concern for the proprieties, I attempted 
to use only conventional, nongovernmental sources of information. As 
one might hire political aides in a political campaign, Tony Ulasewicz 
was hired to do this chore of information gathering. He was paid 
from existing Nixon political money, by check, under an appropriate 
employer's tax number. Among other assignments, he scouted the 
potential opposition for vulnerability. So far as I am aware, during 
my tenure as counsel, Mr. Ulasewicz conducted his assignments legally 
and properly in all respects. 

THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

To meaningfully answer the question, "What did the President 
know ?" one should have a clearer picture of what the President really 
does. 

One witness here suggested that we define the Presidency in con- 
stitutional terms. But the true, up-to-date picture will not alone be 
found in the pages of the Constitution, nor even in the modem text- 
books on civics and Government. Obviously, he is the Chief Executive, 
responsible for the administration and operation of the departments 
and agencies and bureaus and offices of the executive branch, with their 
millions of employees and billions of dollars of spending. 

And, of course, his duties include the conduct of the Nation's for- 
eign policy in a troubled world. He is Commander in Chief of the 
Armed Forces, frequently works with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a 
personal basis, sits with the National Security Council and the military 
intelligence gatherers for hours at a time, makes the decisions on de- 
fense strategy and is responsible for its long-range planning. 

He must also submit the Nation's multibillion dollar budget to the 
Congress every January, covering every activity of the Federal Gov- 
ernment in great detail. That is sheer month-by-month drudgery for 
the President involving decisions that really cannot be delegated to 
anvone else, and work that is never really done. 

All of this is known to most citizens and surely to the distinguished 
Senators of this committee. 

1 am sure you also realize the Presidency has been dramatically 
changed in recent years by the increasing complexity of the Nation's 



2516 

foreign and domestic problems. A domestic issue which simply could 
be considered and resolved by one agency head in 1935 or 1940 without 
involving the AVliite House today probably involves the conflicting 
interests of two or three major Departments of the Federal Govern- 
ment and frequently results in disputes which only the White House 
can resolve. For example, five or six departments today are directly 
concerned with important aspects of the subject of health. Consumers' 
interests, narcotics and drug abuse, Indian affairs and the creation 
of more parks, for instance, all involve two or more departments. 
These subjects are more complex because the Nation, the society, is. 
And Government is larger and more complex. There are 1,400 
categorical grant programs administered by the executive branch to- 
day, compared to a third that many 20 years ago. Our concept of Gov- 
ernment's role has changed, and, with it, the Presidency has changed 
qualitatively and in terms of the workload. 

As this dimension and complexity has compounded, the demands 
and claims for the President's personal time and attention and his 
personal decision has steadily escalated. Jurisdictional conflicts be- 
tween Cabinet officers, departments, levels of Government all now find 
their way to the White House by some law of governmental gravity. 
I find in conversation that some longtime Washingtonians who have 
been here many years still do not have a true, realistic understanding 
of the quality and quantity of the demands upon a President's time, 
nor of the fact that they continue to escalate with every day that passes. 

THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF 

And so the President must have help ; he has a staff and he must 
have some system for delegating and for determining which of all these 
claims deserve and require his time on a priority basis. 

For example, there has been some surprise expressed here that Mr. 
Dean, his counsel, did not have easy entry to the President's office, to 
drop in to discuss the counsel's concerns. The fact is that, with a senior 
staff of about 20, and a total staff of over 400, and given the real 
demands on his time, the President necessarily must operate on the 
basis that his staff come to him when called only, and all others did 
business on paper. This last is a very important point, however. Men 
and women, even those considerably junior to Mr. Dean on the staff, 
frequently availed themselves of access to the President's evening read- 
ing via the typewritten page ; important papers invariably got a full 
and quick response. Mr. Haldeman, Dr. Kissinger, and the rest of us 
seldom, if ever, saw the President unless he called for us. On the other 
hand, my staff and I had quick and easy access to the President's atten- 
tion whenever there was a need, simply by sending in a memorandum 
or a message asking for a decision, or an appointment, or calling his 
attention to facts or events. 

For example, Mr. Dean admits he informed the President, even 
hourly, of some occurrences in this way. It was an open channel, and 
he knows it. 

The President necessarily delegates responsibility to his staff. I have 
described, for example, the delegation to the counsel. Some problems 
must be handled only at the WTiite House, but need not be handled 
by the President himself, and in my view, these subjects are properly 



2517 

delegated to White House people, to act in the President's place. It 
would be impossible for the President, or any one person in his behalf, 
to keep informed of everything being done by the staff, even in areas 
of major current interest or concern. 

Before I leave this matter of access to the President, I should add 
also that, in my experience, any member of the White House staff 
having vital or sensitive information for the President alone could 
and would be seen by the President if he requested an opportunity. I 
know of a number of instances in which such a need was met during 
my time at the White House. 

ASSISTANT TO THE PRESn)ENT 

In early 1970 my job had changed. I left the counsel's office and 
became one of the several assistants to the President. My assignment 
was domestic affairs and those of us working in that area were given 
the job of bringing to the President those domestic Presidential deci- 
sions which required his attention, along with as much information, 
advice, and opinion as we could gather from all sources, to enable him 
to consider an issue broadly. 

We were the liaison between the President and the departments and 
agencies dealing with the entire range of domestic problems as well. 
The President f ollow^s the news of the day closely, and constantly com- 
municates with these departments and agencies concerning the prob- 
lems they currently face. This is done usually through the responsi- 
ble White House staff person whose assignment includes the subject 
matter or the department or agency involved. 

The President has sent between 20 and 50 domestic legislative pack- 
ages to the Congress in each year of his term. They ranged very broadly 
in subject matter. This legislation was usually the product of many 
meetings, countless drafts and redrafts and the active participation of 
the President, his staff, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
the departments having jurisdiction of the subject matter. 

As you know, the Federal budget is also an instrument of policy. 
Next year's budget begins in preparation the day after this year's 
goes to the Congress. All through the spring and summer months, 
the budget decisions are framed and moved to the President for action. 
In September, 1972, for example, the President formulated his budget 
strategy for the months January to March 1973. In the fall the final 
"marks" are given to the departments and then the President consid- 
ers specific appeals from the Cabinet members or agency heads who 
fe^l they have been shortchanged. Throughout this process the assist- 
ants for national security affairs and domestic affairs must work 
closely with the President and the Director of the Budget on the 
minutest details. 

And then there is the Congress. The legislative packages, the budget, 
and countless other decisions which ultimately rest with the Congress 
are affected by the devotion of time and attention which the Presi- 
dent can give to their explanation and his advocacy with individual 
members and groups of members. A President could, I am sure, devote 
every waking moment to this work and still not satisfy every demand 
or criticism. 



2518 

I have not even mentioned the President's necessary role in the 
area of foreig^n and domestic economic problems: problems of infla- 
tion, balance of payments, the relative values of currencies, import 
and export restrictions, the lev^el of Federal spending, and unemploy- 
ment. All through my log and calendar, you will see meeting after 
meeting devoted to the problem of rising food prices, for instance. 

He must work closely with his Council of Economic Advisers, the 
four departments principally involved with these problems and with 
the key committees of the Congress on an increasingly frequent basis. 

As I worked within this setting, of course, my time simply was not 
my own. Issues were forced upon us by their progress in the Congress, 
by budget deadlines, by the expiration dates of existing laws or con- 
tinuing resolutions. And my subject for the day was frequently deter- 
mined by something assigned by the President when I got to work that 
day. 

As liaison to the domestic operating departments and agencies I 
frequently carried to them the President's expressions of criticism 
and suggestions for change. To the uninformed this undoubtedly 
would appear to create tensions between a Cabinet secretary and me. 
But, actually, I think I maintained a good and frequent contact and 
good relations with our domestic secretaries, including the several 
Attorneys General, over my 3 years in this position. I confess I did 
not always bring them good news, but then that was not my job. 
They and I shared a mutual objective, I think, and that was to do 
all we could to help the President accomplish his stated goals. 

As many here know, not everyone in the executive branch in the 
first tenn shared these goals. There were a number of holdovers in the 
executive branch w^ho actively opposed the President's policies, espe- 
cially his foreign policy, but also in the area of domestic affairs I can 
assure you. 

These people conducted a kind of internal guerrilla warfare against 
the President during the first term, trying to frustrate his goals by 
unauthorized leaks of part of the facts of a story, or of military and 
other secrets, or by just plain falsehood. The object was to create 
hostility in the Congress and abroad and to affect public opinion. 
Henry Kissinger, Secretary Rogers, and others were seriously con- 
cerned that this kind of internal sabotage of administration policy 
could actually ruin our chances to negotiate a strategic arms limita- 
tion treaty and terminate the Vietnam situation on a stable basis, 
for example. A similar threat to a good result in Vietnam was posed 
by the combination of street demonstrations, terrorism, violence and 
their effect on public and congressional support for the President's 
policy. 

THE PRESroENT AND POLITICS 

In his 1960 campaign Mr. Nixon was involved in every minute 
detail. In 1968, when he invited me to manage the campaign,' I agreed 
to manage the campaign tour only after securing his promise that he 
would completely delegate detailed control of the advance work, 
logistics, and schedule. And his participation in these details was 
minimal in 1968. 

In 1972, with the foreign situation as it was, the President decided 
quite early that he simply could not and would not involve himself 



2519 

in the day-to-day details of the Presidential primaries, the convention, 
and the campaign. He made a very deliberate effort to detach himself 
from the day-to-day strategic and tactical problems. And so the 
regular work of the White House relating to Government and the 
Nation's problems continued unabated. If anything, we on the do- 
mestic side were busier with the President on governmental business 
than in other years. 

In 1972, the President had to delegate most of his political role 
and it went to people not otherwise burdened with governmental 
duties. As a result, I personally saw very little of the campaign 
activity during the spring and early summer of 1972. The President 
asked me to be sure that the campai^ organization and the national 
committee said or did nothing inconsistent with administration policy. 
And so I had a few meetings with the CRP people to explain existing 
domestic policy, that is, on campaign issues. Dr. Edward Harper of 
our staff, established liaison on a regular basis to review pamphlets, 
position papers and research, and we worked with the White House 
writere on a series of substantive statements and speeches which the 
President delivered during the campaign on subjects like welfare, 
amnesty, education, and busing, et cetera. 

I began to spend more time with Ron Ziegler, Press Secretary at 
the White House, in the late spring of 1972, helping him to understand 
the campaign issues, reviewing the research with him, et cetera. It be- 
came more important than ever for me to keep ahead of developments 
and in this connection I asked Mr. Dean to inform me as early as pos- 
sible of significant changes, or new events in the Watergate case, so 
Ron Ziegler and I could deal with new issues which would be arising 
in the press. It was for this purpose that I talked to Dean about Water- 
gate in most instances. 

In addition, the President formed an advisory group which met 
twice a week to look at the campaign in overview, at long range, and 
to discuss any needed changes. Attending these Monday and Thursday 
morning meetings were Clark MacGregor, John Mitchell, Bob Halde- 
man, Bryce Harlow, Charles Colson, and I. Presumably, I was the_ sub- 
stantive issue man in the group. Since Watergate was a campaign issue 
it was discussed in these meetings; it was never a major subject of dis- 
cussion, however, and if anyone in the group knew more than the 
others he didn't share his secrets there. 

I also represented the President during the platform committee 
deliberations at the Republican Convention. Dr. Harper and I invested 
many, many hours in the platform issues in the weeks prior to the 
convention and our labors only ceased when the convention voted its 
adoption with a few acceptable amendments. 

Thereafter I traveled with the President on his campaign trips to 
assist in handling last-minute issue questions in speeches, et cetera. 

"nothing more important * * *" 

All of this was superimposed upon active involvement in legislative, 
budget and operational domestic problems, through the summer and 
early fall of 1972. 

During the summer and fall of 1972 there were tough legislative is- 
sues which took the President's time and ours in great quantities. Bus- 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 20 



2520 

ing, water quality, phase II of the economic program, and welfare 
reform are, I know, subjects familiar to you all. They were critical 
issues to the Senate as they w^ere to the President. 

Federal Government overspending was also a hot issue and we were 
engaged in documenting a catalog of bad Federal spending programs 
to justify the congressional repeal or reduction of a great many pro- 
grams that spent great sums of Federal money with little or no bene- 
fit to the public. During those months, along with a great many others, 
we were trying to understand Senator McGovern's $1,000 a year wel- 
fare plan and figure out its true cost, and we were researching and ana- 
lyzing about 20 other major campaign issues ranging from tax reform 
to the death penalty, these issues were being farmed between the two 
candidates as the campaign went on. 

We were checking into the propriety of grain sales which had been 
challenged. 

The President negotiated with the new Japanese Prime Minister 
for 2 days in Hawaii in September. I made that trip with him and 
met for 2 days. 

Other pressing issues the President and the Wliite House staff were 
at work on, the Presidential campaign aside, included air highjacking, 
a ceiling on Federal spending, post office problems, unemployment, 
surface transportation. Government property disposal, the revision of 
the system for classification of secret documents, environmental prob- 
lems : air, water, pesticides, grazing, et cetera, flood damage rehabilita- 
tion, and countless other issues. 

As my log will show I spent considerable time every week with the 
press, attempting to explain and outline for the media the President's 
domestic goals and programs. 

From June to September 1972, my staff and I put in long days, 
the convention platform having imposed additional burdens on some 
of us. After the convention, the speeches, position papers and political 
statements and releases kept the pressure on us. It was a very busy 
time. 

John Dean, on the other hand, never found things so quiet and he 
planned the most expensive honeymoon in the history of the White 
House staff right along this period. 

CONCLUSION 

I do not write many memorandums. Most of my staff communica- 
tion in the White House took place in person or on the telephone. And 
my work pattern was such that I ordinarily took direct phone calls 
only from those with whom I shared direct phone lines: The Presi- 
dent, George Shultz, Ken Cole, Bob Haldeman, and Caspar Wein- 
berger. 

The committee has had the log of how I spent my office time over 
the years. As it shows, the vast percentage of my time was devoted 
to domestic policy issuers. Great blocks of time were consumed by a 
single problem or issue. Literally half of November and half of 
December 1972, were devoted to the President's reorganization plan 
of the executive branch and many personnel changes. Much of the 
impounding and budget cut and veto strategv unveiled by the Pres- 
ident in January 1973, was also developed in those 2 months, as a 



2521 

result of decisions made by the President in a series of long sessions 
in September, October, and November 1972. 

I have attempted in this statement to show you the personal con- 
text in which I worked in the White House during the last 3 years. 
I had heavy duties in a rather specific area of concern. I was not a 
generalist, once I ceased being counsel to the President in 1970. 

Nor was I anyone's Siamese twin during these years. Listening to 
the star witness "hyphenate" me for 5 days, I began to know a little 
of how a caboose feels. Mr. Dean repeatedly and f acilely would testify, 
and he would say "and so I informed Haldeman and Ehrlichman of 
so-and-so" as if it were possible to do with one phone call or drop by. 
It could not really happen and in virtually every case to which he 
referred in testimony it did not happen. 

And how much time did I actually spend with Mr. Dean learning 
about the break-in or keeping abreast of developments to assist Ron 
Ziegler on the issues, or with Mr. Dean on any other subject for that 
matter in the weeks following Watergate ? 

We invariably met either in my office, or more rarely in Mr. Halde- 
man's (with the exception of just three or four meetings) most of 
which were held out of town. 

The logs for these two offices, Mr. Haldeman and mine, demonstrate 
clearly the frequency of my meetings with Mr. Dean. 

Remember : Dean testified that keeping Watergate covered up was 
a tremendous drain of my time and told of all the conferences and 
meetings I was having with him about it. Let's be clear: I did 
not cover up anything to do with Watergate. Nor were Mr. Dean and 
I keeping steady company during all those weeks. 

I have compiled our meetings in 2-week periods from June 17 
through the election, the "critical period," presumably, and here on 
page 27 of the statement, Mr. Chairman, you will see that compilation. 
In the first 2 weeks, June 17 to July 1, which was the period when we 
were trying to learn about this new campaign issue, and whether the 
"White House, the CIA or anyone else were connected with it, I had 
nine meetings with Mr. Dean. 

In the second 2 weeks I had only one meeting. In the third 2 weeks, 
three. In the fourth 2 weeks, two. In the fifth 2 weeks, one. In the 
sixth 2 weeks, two. In the seventh 2 weeks, September 13 to 26, none. 
In the eighth 2 weeks, none. In the ninth 2 weeks, again none, and 
finally, from October 25 to election day, three, for a total of 22. 

It should be noted that this is the total number of our face-to-face 
contacts on all subjects, not just Watergate. These were all contacts, 
including group meetings. 

Of the total 22 contacts, two related to Presidential papers and 
testamentary planning, one related to convention planning, one re- 
lated to grain sales, two on general campaign planning, one regard- 
ing the President's financial statement to be released, one regarding 
settlement of the Common Cause lawsuit. Of the remainder not all 
were devoted to talk about aspects of Watergate, I am certain. 

Now, again, on this Siamese twin business, Mr. Haldeman and I had 
vastly different duties, areas, and methods of operation. On many oc- 
casions he would be away when I was in the office and many days he 
was there and I was gone. He invariably traveled with the President; 
I did not. I had a separate travel schedule. I did many things with 



2522 

and for the President, especially in the legislative and policy area, of 
which Mr. Haldeman was not aware. 

Similarly, I had very little knowledge of what he was doing day- 
by-day. 

I had a number of talks with Mr. Dean about Watergate, largely 
to keep posted on the campaign issues which I never had occasion to 
mention to Mr. Haldeman, but about which I talked to others, Mr. 
Ziegler, for example. 

I simply want to make the point without overdrawing it, that Mr. 
Haldeman and I lived very separate lives and careers in and out of 
the office, Mr. Dean to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The vast percentage of my working time was spent on substantive 
issues and domestic policy. About one-half of 1 percent was spent on 
politics, the campaign, and the events with which you have been con- 
cerning yourself as a committee. That is the context in which I hope 
you will receive this testimony. 

Similarly, you must measure the President's role in all of this in 
true perspective. The 1972 campaign, the Watergate and its investiga- 
tion competed for his attention with the claims of hundreds of Mem- 
bers of Congress, economists, diplomats, educators, scientists, labor 
leaders, businessmen, and countless other citizens, and with the de- 
mands of the problems of the Nation in their manifold and compound 
complexities, with the daily mail and the endless meetings, the speeches 
and other communication with the public, with the need for manage- 
ment, leadership, inspiration, and the need and desire for time to 
study and think. I see redeeming aspects in this process. 

I have faith that good can result from this committee's efforts. In 
the future participants in political campaigns will surely be aware of 
the history of this time. And the standards which they will wish to 
impose upon themselves will be the product of the lessons of that his- 
tory, whatever it may turn out to be. I have great optimism that the 
lessons of the history of this era will bring only good for this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, I think you indicated in your statement 
an extreme loyalty to the President in the position you held, first as 
counsel to the President, then as special assistant to the President in 
domestic affairs. 

Would you tell the committee, when did you first begin to work 
with President Nixon in any political campaign ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Late in 1959, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what role you played ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I was an advance man in the 1960 campaign. 

Mr. Dash. How did you obtain this assignment ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Through Bob Haldeman, who was the cam- 
paign tour manager in that campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell the committee how you knew Mr. Halde- 
man at that time ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, we had been at the university together. 

Mr. Dash. I would take it, then, you were very close friends? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not terribly close friends in college. We kept track 
of one another casually over the years and I was a guest at his home 
in Connecticut during a trip East in 1959 and he asked me if I would 
be interested in taking a leave from my practice and working in a po- 
litical campaign. 



I 



2523 

Mr. Dash. It's true, then, that prior to that time you were in private 
practice of law? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Dash. Where was that, Mr. Ehrlichman ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. In Seattle. 

Mr. Dash. And what branch or area of the law did you specialize in ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, at first, I did trial work for 5 or 6 years 
and then, my practice narrowed and I began to specialize in the prob- 
lems of real estate and land use and toward the latter part of my 
practice, before I left private practice and came here, I was largely 
dealing with either environmental problems or problems of land use. 
Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, during the 1960 campaign, when you 
were working with Mr. Haldeman and also for President Nixon as an 
advance man, is it true that you were serving to some extent as an 
undercover agent, sort of stalking Mr. Rockefeller, as has been once 
stated ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, that was a prior episode. During the pri- 
maries, in the preconvention period of that 1960 campaign, Mr. Finch, 
who then was on the Vice President's staff — President Nixon then be- 
ing Vice President — asked me if I would go to North Dakota and ob- 
serve Governor Rockefeller's efforts to rejuvenate a then abandoned 
Presidential asi^iration. He had been running, he decided not to, he 
decided to get back in, and he was making a tour of the Midwest to 
see if he could pick up some convention delegates. So I went there for 
that purpose. 

Mr. Dash. And what role did you play when you went to North 
Dakota ? 

ISIr. Ehrlichman. Well, other than being a driver in Governor 
Rockefeller's motorcade, I was simply an observer. 

Mr. Dash. How did you obtain that position as a driver in the 
motorcade ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Through mutual friends. 

Mr. Dash. I take it that you were considered part of Mr. Rocke- 
feller's entourage ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I don't imagine that it really occurred to 
anybody to ask. 

Mr. Dash. "Who were you reporting to at that time ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Finch. 

Mr. Dash. Now, in the 1968 campaign, did you play any role in the 
political campaign? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I was the tour director. 
Mr. Dash. And what function did the tour director have? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, that is largely dealing with problems of 
scheduling, advancing, and logistics. And the care and feeding of the 
press. [Daughter.] 

Mr. Dash. Care and feeding of the press. 

Now, when Mr. Nixon was elected President, you joined the White 
House staff first as counsel to the President ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. When did you move from that position to the position of 
Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It was near the beginning of 1970. I can't recall 
the exact date, but in the first couple of months of 1970, 1 believe. 
Mr. Dash. Now, at that time, what was Mr. Haldeman's position ? 



2524 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I think he held the same position throughout the 
first term. 

Mr. Dash. That was as staff director ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. And again, I take it, you were working closely with your 
former colleague, Mr. Haldeman, in this position. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, less closely as Assistant to the President 
for Domestic Affairs than I had as counsel. 

Mr. Dash. What was your official working relationship, then, with 
Mr. Haldeman as assistant to the counsel ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Assistant to the President ? 

Mr. Dash. To the President ; yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I had an area of responsibility in which I was 
pretty autonomous in the sense that I could either select staff or dele- 
gate the selection of staff to any deputy. As it developed, we had a 
separate budget so that our budget was not worked around through 
the White House budget, which Mr. Haldeman had responsibility for. 
My responsibilities were on a direct line with the President rather than 
as previously, through Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Dash. But did you consider Mr. Haldeman as senior to you in 
the White House staff? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I don't think anybody on the White House 
staff ever considers anybody else senior to him. 

Mr. Dash. I take it other than the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. [Laughter.] 

Well, it is a sort of a metaphysical concept among the assistants to 
the President as to who is senior to whom. My reporting relationship, 
so to speak, was direct to the President at that point and only on — in a 
limited number of cases did I come under Mr. Haldeman's area of 
interest, so to speak. 

Mr. Dash. Well, since you had the earlier working relationship, 
and I take it also a friendly relationship with INIr. Haldeman, would 
it not be true that quite apart from whatever the chart of hierarchy 
would show, you did have a relationship with Mr. Haldeman in which 
you would discuss matters and communicate with each other? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, certainly, certainly. 

Mr. Dash. And I take it that if you knew of anything of importance 
that he should know, you would let him know about it? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, we had a kind of clearinghouse meeting 
every week of the senior staff in the White House, and that was for 
the purpose of tabling anything that others needed to know of a busi- 
ness nature. We tried to have that meeting early enough in the morn- 
ing so that before the President opened business, so to speak, we had 
all of those things in the mutual knowledge and understanding of 
everybody in the group. And that Avas a group — well, actually, there 
were two of those meetings : one a large meeting, and then one of any- 
where from five to eight senior staff people. 

Mr. Dash. And your knowledge of Mr. Haldeman, certainly over 
the years, and especially when you worked with him in the White 
House, was he a person Avho was a well -organized person and also a 
person who wanted to know all of the facts? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, he was certainly well organized. I think he 
has the ability not to want to know all the facts, which is one of the 



2525 

big problems, sifting out what you need to know from what just wastes 
your time. I think he had developed an ability to discriminate what 
was important from what wasn't impoi-tant. 

Mr. Dash. Well, then, he certainly wanted to know what was impor- 
tant? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I think that is fair to say. 

Mr. Dash. Now, what was your official and working relationship 
with ]Mr. John Dean during the period, say, from January 1972, actu- 
ally until you left the White House ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, in point of fact, Mr. Dean was not on my 
staff, from a strictly table of organization standpoint. INIy contact with 
him would be, oh, three, four times a month on subjects that we shared 
a common interest or concern in, and they might be problems of mixed 
substantive and technical interest such as this whole problem of im- 
pounding of appropriated funds, which was both a substantive prob- 
lem from my standpoint and from a budgetary standpoint, and a very 
tough, technical, legal problem, which Mr. Dean was working on in 
conjunction with the Justice Department. 

So we would come together on problems of that kind. 

Mr. Dash. Well, even though you have described these so-called 
seniority relationships in metaphysical terms, would it be true to say 
that you were certainly senior to Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, Mr. Dean, I would think, was in the second 
rank, just immediately under five or six assistants to the President. 

Mr. Dash. And if Mr. Dean had important matters which he felt 
either were in your area of concern or that you should know, he would 
report to you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Hopefully. 

Mr. Dash. And he also did have a reporting function to Mr. 
Haldeman ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sorry, would you say that again ? 

Mr. Dash. Did he have a reporting responsibility to Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I don't know what arrangement was de- 
veloped between the two of them. When I was counsel to the President, 
that was my line of report, through Mr. Haldeman to the President, 
and then eventually, it got more and more to be directly to the Presi- 
dent. But the counsel to the Pi'esident is housed in the White House 
staff, and lie is in the White House staff budget, and his line of report 
is to the chief of that staff, who in this case is Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Dash. But it would not be true that many people would feel, 
with some excej)tions, that Mr. Dean, although he had the title of 
"Counsel to the President," would be frequently, on a daily basis or a 
regular basis, meeting with the President and counseling the Presi- 
dent directly? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I don't know if that is a question or an 

Mr. Dash. It is a question. 

Mr. Ehrijchman. What a lot of people tliought ? 

Mr. Dash. No, what your statement of the position was. You held 
that position and you knew, and Mr. Dean held it. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Maybe we had better start over again, Mr. Dash. 

Do you want to put the question again ? I don't think I am tracking 
with you. 



2526 

Mr. Dash. Despite the fact that Mr. Dean held the position of Coun- 
sel to the President, is it your statement that he would not be reporting 
on a daily basis or even a frequent basis with the President, to the 
President directly, but would be reporting to a senior staff member? 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. Well, it depends. If there is a matter in which the 
President is taking a personal interest, a subject matter in which he 
is taking a personal interest, he might very well ask for a direct re- 
porting relationship with Mr. Dean on that subject matter, and in fact, 
did, obviously. 

On the other hand, if it is purely a routine kind of staff function 
that Mr. Dean is performing of one kind or another, relating to — well, 
let us see what-^^ould be a good example — something that might relate, 
say, to the Wliite House grounds and the contractual relationship 
with the Park Department, or something of this kind, he would report 
to Mr. Haldeman. There would be no reason to establish a direct 
relationship to the President. 

Mr. Dash. Well, did you have any personal knowledge of how fre- 
quently Mr. Dean directly reported to the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It would come to my attention from time to time 
that he was doing so in a specific matter, but I certainly did not try 
and, you know, keep track. 

Mr. Dash. Would you have an opinion as to how frequently that 
•would be ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I would not. 

Mr. Dash. If the White House logs indicated that Mr. Dean, from 
the time of his appointment in 1970 to some time in February 1973, 
actually saw the President 10 times, would that surprise you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I do not think the number of face-to-face 
contacts is really the test. It is a question of the flow. A great deal of 
my work, for instance, with the President would not show on any 
log of my personal contacts with him. The President is an individual 
who works off a piece of paper much better than he works face to face. 
So I think there is a real danger of inaccuracy in drawing conclusions 
from that kind of a tabulation. 

Mr. Dash. Now, what was your official and working relationship 
with Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I did not have an official relationship in the sense 
that he was on my staff or anything of that kind. Like Mr. Dean, from 
time to time, he would have a subject matter in his office, which I 
also had in mine, substantive subject matter. More typically, Mr, Col- 
son, as sort of the White House man to organize interest groui^s, would 
come to me with a point of view, almost as an advocate for his clien- 
tele, so to speak, and say, "You have got to leave those veterans' hos- 
pitals open, because the veterans' groups are really worked up about 
this, and I have just had a meeting with them, and they say this and 
this and this, and heie are some facts that mavbe vou do not have." 

So it is those kinds of situations, typically, that I would be hearing 
from Mr. Colson. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know of Mr. Strachan's position with Mr. 
Haldeman ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I learned a great deal more about it in the last 
2 days than I ever knew before. 



2527 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of his particular role as liaison between 
Mr. Haldeman and the Committee To Re-Eleot the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Only very vaguely. 

Mr. Dash. Did he ever report anything to you when he came back 
from the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. Now, were you aware of the fact that by the summer of 
1970, Mr. Haldeman and the President had felt a need for an im- 
proved intelligence system with regard to domestic dissent or internal 
security ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. The answer to the question is, yes, but not the 
Huston plan. There have really been two things talked about in the 
course of the hearings, and I knew about one of them and I had only 
the merest brush with the other. 

INIr. Dash. The question really is not about the Huston plan. I asked 
you whether you were aware of a feeling for the need for an improved 
intelligence i)lan to deal with, say, internal security ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I was aware of the feeling of the need, and 
I shared it. 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, what plan were .vou aware of ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I was aware of a proposal which eventually, I 
believe, was put into effect to establish a small office in the Justice 
Department to correlate and coordinate and bring together in one 
place what the various law enforcement agencies, both in and out of 
the Federal Government, knew about these terrorism bombings and 
the violent — the street violence and these other activities that were 
going on around the country because it looked then like there really 
was a pattern, and that it was a coordinated, planned, and executed 
thing. These things went in waves from one part of the country to 
the other, and it appeared that if what the police knew, for instance, 
in the city of New York could be shared with the police in other 
parts of the country, that you would get a whole lot better response 
to this kind of lawbreaking. 

So under Mr. Mardian's aegis, this effort was made to bring to- 
gether the things that were known to all of the law enforcement peo- 
ple around the country. 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, did you know about the Huston plan ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I did not know about the Huston plan until I 
was invited to attend a meeting that I think has been previously re- 
ferred to here in the President's Office, attended by Admiral Gayler 
and J. Edgar Hoover and the heads of the various — Mr. Helms, the 
heads of the various intelligence agencies, where this proposal was 
announced. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat was the stage of that proposal at this point an- 
nounced as a proposal that would go forward ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I gathered it was an accomplished fact. 

Mr. Dash. Yes. Did you know what the proposal was about? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Just from what I heard at that meeting. I had 
not seen the writeup. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know that the proposal included removal of cer- 
tain restrictions on break-ins, surreptitious entry, or wiretapping? 



2528 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No; I do not believe that was discussed at the 
meeting. 

Mr. Dash. It never came to your attention that was in the plan ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, it did not. 

Mr. Dash. And Mr, Haldeman, who played such an important role 
in that, never discussed that with you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Would you say the first part of the question 
again ? 

Mr. Dash. I say, INIr. Haldeman, who played an important role in 
working on the plan and having it recommended to the President, 
never discussed those aspects of the plan with you? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, nobody discussed any aspects of the plan 
with me. 

Mr. Dash. Why were you called to the meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I do not know that. There were quite a few 
spare characters at the meeting from the White House staff and I was 
simply there to get information. 

Mr. Dash. Just to get information. Were you asked to express an 
opinion ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. So far as you know, the plan was approved? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was the tenor of the meeting. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever hear of anything else about the plan ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I heard that the Director of the FBI, in 
effect, scuttled it by his objection to it, with the support of the Attorney 
General. 

ISIr. Dash. Did you know why he objected to it ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not think I ever knew with any particularity 
why. It was pretty obvious to me from hearing what I heard in the 
hearing that he was losing a good deal of sovereignty and the Bureau 
was going to be asked to do, to enter into intelligence-gathering activi- 
ties that the Director did not want it in and I assumed that that was 
the basis for his objection. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, your assumption was that Mr. Hoover 
objected to the plan because it invaded his territory rather than because 
it had any parts to it that dealt with more surreptitious entry or 
wiretapping? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am not your best witness on this, Mr. Dash. It 
was purely an assumption on my pail and I do not think anybody 
ever told me. 

Mr. Dash. You never sought to inquire as to why a plan that you 
saw at a meeting was being approved and would go fonvard, was 
being ditched be<*ause of Mr. Hoover's objection ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It was so far out of my bailiwick at that time 
that I just had no occasion. 

Mr. Dash. Was it out of your bailiwick to be interested in the 
gathering of political intelligence? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. At that time, yes. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when it Avas not outside 
your bailiwick? 

Mr. Ehrijchman. Well, it had been my bailiwick when I was 
counsel. As assisitant for domestic affairs, I had very little occasion to 
be involved in questions of political intelligence or political anything, 
for that matter. 



2529 

Mr. Dash. Well, after the Huston plan did not go forward, as you 
understood it to be, were you assigned a I'ole to create in the White 
House a capability for intelligence-gathering at any time? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not know quite what you are getting at. If 
you are getting at the special unit and the problems of leaks 

Mr. Dash. I do not know why you have to find out what I am get- 
ting at, if you just answer my question as I ask it. 

Mr. Ehrijchman. It is an obscure question. 

Mr. Dash. It is a simple question. If the answer is "No," say "No." 
If the answer is "Yes," say "Yes." 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Would you restate the question for me, please? 

Mr. Dash. I said, did there come a time when you were asked to 
develop a capability in the White House for intelligence-gathering ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Intelligence-gathering, the answer woidd be 
"No." 

Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, you were trying to see what I was getting at. Wei'e you ever 
asked to set up a special unit in the White House for the pur|DOse of 
determining whether certain leaks had occurred in major national 
security areas? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In point of fact I was — and strictly in terms of 
your question, I was not asked to set it up. Mr. Krogh was asked to 
set it up. 

Mr. Dash. Who is Mr. Krogh? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Bud Krogh, Egil Krogh, Jr., was a member of 
the Domestic Council staff, and he was asked by the President to form 
this special unit. I was designated as one to whom Mr. Krogh could 
come with problems in connection with it, and the President said 
also that he could come to him wuth problems. 

Mr. Dash. Were you in at the beginning of the setting up of this 
plan? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Dash. And you knew what the unit was to do? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. What was the unit to do? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. The unit as originally conceived was to stimulate 
the various departments and agencies to do a better job of controlling 
leaks and the theft or other exposure of national security secrets 
from within their departments. It was a group which was to bring to 
account, so to speak, the various security offices of the Departments 
of Defense, and State, and Justice, and CIA, to get them to do a 
better job. 

Mr. Dash. And, therefore, this unit was to gather facts, if there 
was a leak or to act as a deterrent, I take it, to prevent leaks. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, there would have been no need to gather 
facts under that concept, except to know that there had been an occur- 
rence, but to require vigorous and very active effort on the part of 
the responsible people in the departments and agencies to find out 
who was responsible and how it happened and to make sure it couldn't 
happen again. 

Mr. Dash. Isn't that getting facts. If you were seeking to find out 
who was responsible and the unit was looking for it, wouldn't you 
be wanting to get facts? 



2530 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sorry, you were asking as to intelligence? 

Mr. Dash. You are jumping again ahead of me. I didn't say intel- 
ligence, I said facts. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. All right, facts in that sense, but limited to 
that. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Would you say some people who go to seek 
facts in an investigative way can also say they seek intelligence? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, but you see what I am trying to say to 
you is as originally set up and conceived this was not an investigative 
unit in the sense that your question implies. It was far more a group 
that was established for the purpose of getting the security people 
in the departments and agencies to do a better job of their job. 

Mr. Dash. Was it ever called or was it ever referred to as an inves- 
tigative unit? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Subsequently it was because it became an inves- 
tigative unit subsequently. 

Mr. Dash. So there came a time when you were administering an 
investigative unit? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, in a literal sense, that is true. 

Mr. Dash. Literal sense? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Not in an actual sense ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, here I am dueling with a professor. 

Mr. Dash. I am not dueling with you. I am just trying 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Professor, if you say actual, it is actual. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. Dash. I don't want you to take my questions and I don't want 
to put words in your mouth. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure, I am trying to give you 

Mr. Dash. I really want to have you answer to the best of your 
recollection. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure, I am trying to give you the real essence of 
this as we go along and I don't mean to be fencing over words. 

Mr. Dash. Could you please tell us in as clear a way as you can what 
the responsibilities of this particular unit were both in the beginning 
and how it developed, and as it developed later ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I told about the beginning of it. Let me tell you 
how it evolved. At a point in time in connection with the Pentagon 
Papers theft, a whole series of events took place. One of the first of 
them was that the Pentagon Papers, which were marked secret and top 
secret and which were Defense Department, largely Defense Depart- 
ment documents, were turned over to the Russian Embassy. I knew this 
because I had a call from Mr. Mardian, the Assistant Attorney General 
advising me that the Justice Department had this firm fact. The At- 
torney General came over and reported to the President that this theft 
had evidently been perpetrated by a number of people, a conspiracy, 
and that some of the people were identified by the Department of Jus- 
tice as having had previous ties to domestic communist activities. 

The Attorney General then reported in response to an inquiry, and 
maybe I had better tell you how tlie inquiry came up. Mr. Krogh came 
to me and said "I am having real trouble getting the FBI to move on 
this." And so I said "Well" and basically my function was to do down- 
field blocking for Mr. Krogh when he had problems in the Department. 



2531 

I said ''OK, I will contact the Attorney General and see what I can 
do," which I did. The Attorney General called me back and he said : 

We have a very tough problem here. It appears that a top man in the FBI 
put in a routine request that Mr. Ellsberg's father-in-law be interviewed. The 
Director has given that top man notice that he is going to be transferred and 
demoted, and he has further given notice that that interview and interviews of 
that family are not to take place. 

Now this was the area in which Mr. Krogh and the special unit were 
pressing for the De])artment of Justice to bring information together 
as was their job to do. The Attorney General said "I am going to re- 
verse this decision on the part of the Director to transfer this man 
and demote him" but he said "We have a very touchy situation with 
the Director. Mr. Sullivan in the Bureau is extremely upset and con- 
cerned and disagrees strongly with the Director in this matter, I don't 
know but what Mr. Sullivan may quit as a result of this whole episode, 
it's very touchy within the Bureau." I said "What are our chances of 
getting the Bureau to move ahead on this right away," and he said 
"Very slim or none." 

So it was very — this set of facts, and the real strong feeling of the 
President that there was a legitimate and vital national security 
aspect to this, that it was decided, first on Mr. Krogh's recommenda- 
tion, with my concurrence, that the two men in this special unit who 
had had considerable investigative experience, be assigned to follow 
up on the then leads and rather general leads which were in the file. 

Mr. Dash. 'Wlio were these two men ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Hunt and Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you know Mr. Hunt or Mr. Liddy ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I had met Mr. Hunt once briefly. I had never met 
Mr. Liddy. 

Mr. Dash. Did you meet him or come in contact with him during the 
time he worked in the special unit ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. At no time ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't believe I have ever met him. 

Mr. Dash. Now 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Wait a minute, I will take that back. He may 
have been in my office once, and I can't say whether it was before or 
after, in connection with a project that Mr. Krogh was working on 
relating to the organization of the Justice Department which was his 
area of responsibility. It is possible that Liddy attended that meeting. 
I have a vague recollection of that. 

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Young also worked in this unit, did he not ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. And he worked under Mr, Krogh ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. He worked as a kind of a cochairman. 

Mr. Dash. "^Vliat was the reporting relationship between Mr. Young 
and Mr. Krogh to you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, Mr. Krogh, of course, was on my staff, and 
maintained the same reporting relationship to me that he had always 
maintained. Mr. Young began reporting to me at the time that he 
joined that special unit. 

Mr. Dash, You say the same reporting relationship. Was this a 
regular reporting relationship ? 



I 



2532 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As needed. We didn't have a system of weekly 
reports or monthly repoi-ts or anj^hing of that kind but just when 
something came up that required my attention they would let me know. 

Mr. Dash. And if it Avas important, they would report, would 
they not? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I would hope that most of my people would han- 
dle things themselves. Usually it got to me — I mean I am talking now 
about routine domestic things, they got to me as the last step before 
they went to the President. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever initiate any instructions to them ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I was asked to ratify a number of their decisions 
from time to time, and their practice. Young and Krogh we are now 
talking about. 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Their practice would be to send me periodic in- 
formation reports or status reports or progress reports and sometimes 
those would contain requests for either approval of a decision that 
they had made or proposals that they had or something of that kind. 

Mr. Dash. Is this the special investigations unit that later became, 
began to be known popularly as the plumbers ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. When did that occur ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That it became known as that? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know. That was never la term that was 
familiar to me until it was used in the press. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware that there was actually a sign to the 
door, the plumbers ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. It may be apocryphal, I am not sure. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you actually interview Mr. Hunt before he was 
hired? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No; I had a meeting with Mr. Colson and Mr. 
Hunt after he was hired. It was in July of 1971 and I believe that is 
the only time I have seen Mr. Hunt. 

Mr. Dash. Would it be fair to say that Mr. Colson very much 
wanted Mr. Hunt to be hired ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That would be fair to say. 

Mr. Dash. And you acceded to his request ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman, Well, it was an accomplished fact, I think, by the 
time I saw him. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you make a call for Mr. Hunt to the CIA 
shortly after you saw him ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well I cannot recall ever making such a call. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you said that the major responsibility of this unit 
developed because of the need for the unit to go ahead on an investiga- 
tion of the so-called Pentagon leaks. Were there any other responsibili- 
ties or assignments given to this unit ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Could you state what they were ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I can state some of them ; I cannot state all 
of them. 

Mr. Dash. The ones that you can ? 



2533 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. The strateo^ic arms limitations negotiations 
were underway in the summer of 1971 and a newspaper obtained the 
U.S. negotiating position, in effect, the secret script for the U.S. 
negotiators in that negotiation. That came close on the heels of the 
Pentagon Papers episode and was a major cause of concern for the 
President and for those dealing in this area of foreign policy. This 
special unit was asked to see if they could determine the source of that 
leak. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know what actions the special unit took in seek- 
ing to carry out that responsibility ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In general terms, I do. I know that they worked 
through the security people at the State Department and the Defense 
Department. They narrowed down the probable source of that leak, 
and I believe there were some personnel actions taken as a result of 
that. 

Mr. Dash. Did you become aware of any wiretapping that took 
place at the request of the President and approved by the Attorney 
General in regard to that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In regard to the SiVLT leak ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. Did you become aware of any wiretapping that was 
authorized by the President and also the Attorney General with 
regard to any particular leaks involving national security at this 
time? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. The answer to your question, Mr. Dash, is "Yes." 
It was in relation to an investigation in 1971. Beyond that I cannot 
go. 

Mr. Dash. You say it did not relate to the SALT leaks ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know anything about the so-called Kissinger 
taps ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. I knew— I did not know at the time the 
details of those taps; that is, who was being tapped, the purpose, the 
extent, and so on. I knew generally that such a thing was going on. 

Mr. Dash. And did you know who had approved that? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not know of my own knowledge; no. 

Mr. Dash. Well, how did you know? You said you knew generally. 
How did it come to your attention ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I think Mr. Haldeman told me obliquely and not 
directly and not with any degree of specific fact that such a thing was 
going on. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you had more specific facts? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, obviously, in the last few months, I have 
learned a great deal more about that whole episode than I knew pre- 
viously. 

Mr. Dash. Well, did you ever receive the logs of those taps? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I evidently did without scrutinizing them, 
but I did receive them. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us how you received them ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I received them from Mr. Mardian at the 
Justice Department. 



2534 

Mr. Dash. And why did you receive them ? 

Mr EiiRLicHMAN. Well, pardon me. I did not make that clear. Mr. 
Mardian was at the Justice Department. I did not receive them at the 
Justice Department. I received them at the White House. 

Mr. Dash. Why did Mr. Mardian give them to you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. He gave them to me because he felt that they 
should be in the custody of the White House and proposed that they 
be moved out of the Justice Department because he could not assure 
their safekeeping there. 

Mr. Dash. Well, did you know that actually he was giving them to 
you at the direction of the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I did not know that until I heard him testify to 
that here. In point of fact, I referred the question to the President, 
perhaps unnecessarily, after Mr. Mardian originally talked to me 
about it. The President asked me then to take custody of them, which 
I did. 

Mr. Dash. At that time, did you look at them or did you know what 
they contained ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I looked at them very, very quickly. He told me 
what they purported, what he said they were, which was the logs and 
correspondence and synopses of a national security investigation in 
1969. Well, then, I related that to what Mr. Haldeman had described 
to me, and I 

Mr. Dash. And these were the logs and taps that were put on certain 
newspaper persons and certain staff members of Mr. Kissinger ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That is what I understand. 

Mr. Dash. Where did you lodge these logs? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I lodged those in a two-drawer combination filing 
cabinet in one of the rooms of my office. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know what time this was when you did that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It would have been in the fall of 1971. 

Mr. Dash. And how long did they stay there ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. They stayed there until the day I resigned, which 
would have been the 30th of April of this year. 

Mr. Dash. On that date, did something happen to them ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir, those papers and all the papers in my 
office were then turned over to the President as Presidential papers. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you were beginning to tell us about some of the other 
assignments that the Special Investigations Unit had. Would you go 
on and tell us about those ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. There is only one other that is in the public domain 
that I know of, and that is an investigation into the circumstances of 
the leak of a CIA document relating to relations between India and 
Russia. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you, Mr. Ehrlichman, authorize the taps we 
just discussed or have any part in authorizing them, or any other 
wiretaps ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Would you break the question down for me, Mr. 
Dash ? It is very compound. 

Mr. Dash. Well, the first question is. Did you have any part or role in 
authorizing the taps we just talked about, of which you ended up being 
the custodian of the logs ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 



2535 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any role in authorizing other wiretaps? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. From time to time, I did. 

Mr. Dash. "What area, would you tell us? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, now we are in this area 

Mr. Dash. I am not asking for any specific taps. I am not asking for 
specificity. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. National security, generally national security 
objectives. I am under a stricture which really doesn't permit me to be 
very responsive to your question. 

Mr. Dash. We appreciate that and should there come a time when 
we have to get into it any more thoroughly, the committee can respond 
to that. But I am not going into any specific point. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I understand. 

Mr. Dash. Did you authorize Mr. Liddy's wiretaps in your role of 
supervising the Special Investigations Unit? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In 1971, that was so. In 1969, as counsel, I author- 
ized an attempt which never came to anything. It was not actually 
accomplished. But beyond that, it would have been in one of those two 
capacities, either as counsel in 1969 or in my relationship to this unit 
in 1971. 

Mr. Dash. Were you aware of the electronic surveillance on Joseph 
Kraft's house ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was the one that I was talking about in 1969 
that, so far as I know, never happened. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know who was involved in attempting to com- 
mit that wiretap ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, Mr. Caulfield was. 

Mr. Dash. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Jack Caulfield was. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever discuss that tap with the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sure I did. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know what the purpose of the placing of that tap 
was? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It was a national security purpose. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did it come to your attention that there was an effort 
to either break into the Brookings Institute or firebomb the Brookings 
Institute ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Could you tell us how it came to your attention ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It came to my attention, I think, from John Dean 
at the time that he came to California, as he has described in his 
testimony. 

Mr. Dash. And is his testimony essentially correct on that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I can't vouch for the hearsay aspects of it. 
He says Jack Caulfield told him that somebody else told him that I had 
authorized this thing, and that is hearsay so many times removed that 
it is very difficult to cope with. 

I can say very briefly, I didn't authorize it. 

Mr, Dash. Do you know who authorized it ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever look into who authorized it ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Dash. What was he asking you to do about it ? 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 21 



2536 

Mr. Ehrlichman. He was asking me to make sure that that didn't 
happen. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I believe I did. 

Mr. Dash. How ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. By a phone call. 

Mr. Dash. To whom ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't recall, I am sorry to tell you. 

Mr. Dash. If you could, we might know who authorized it. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Out of fairness — I could give you a list of people 
it might have been, but it has been so long ago, I can't remember who 
it was, but it was whoever he suggested that I call. 

Mr. Dash. I don't want to go into a guessing game. But Mr. Dean 
did say that it was his understanding that it was Mr. Colson who au- 
thorized it and that is a name that he had given to you. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't testify of my own recollection on that and 
out of fairness to whoever is involved, I certainly would not want to 
lay before the committee a name here, because I can't vouch for it. I 
do remember the episode. 

Mr. Dash. And you cut it off ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I believe that did it. He was just, really, looking 
for somebody to give a little clout to his feeling that it shouldn't 
happen. 

Mr. Dash. I think you did indicate that you were aware of Tony 
IJlasewicz' assignments, either for the White House or for some per- 
son at the White House ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know. My relationship with him, so to 
speak, ended at the time that I shifted jobs, in early 1970. He was a 
kind of facility of the counsel's office and he sort of went with the job. 

Mr, Dash. Now, you did become aware at this point, I don't want 
to go into this specifically — of the activities of staff membere of the 
special investigations unit, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Liddy, with regard to 
the office of Mr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Dash. And when did the so-called break in of the Ellsberg 
psychiatrist take place ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I have heard two dates, but it was around Labor 
Day of 1971. 

Mr. Dash. And I take it that was a fact-gathering project? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was the fact-gathering project that I men- 
tioned before in relation to the theft of the secrets and the turnover to 
the Russians and the dilemma we had of the Bureau not moving on 
this. 

Mr. Dash. And when do you say that you learned of that break in? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Within a day or tAvo after my return from a 
Labor Day trip to Cape Cod. 

Mr. Dash. Now, in the fall of 1971, did you also learn of the so- 
called Sandwedge plan which had been proposed for political intel- 
ligence gathering ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know exactly when that was. Is the date 
important to you ? I could look for it. 

Mr. Dash. No, I am more interested in what you knew or learned 
of Mr. Caulfield's recommendations. 

1 



2537 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Jack Caulfield brought this little folder to me 
and asked me to look at it, and it was a plan for him to go out and 
set up an investigation agency, or a detective agency, basically, to 
do 

Mr. Dash. Is that what has been referred to basically as a Republican 
Intertel ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. It was a three or four page double spaced 
typewritten prospectus, is about what it amounted to. At that time, I 
was very much into the domestic policy business and very much out 
of the business of jDolitics or political inquiry, and so I said, "Jack, you 
know, this isn't anjiihing that I can help you on." 

Mr. Dash. Now, having looked at it, were you aware that it included 
both covert and overt activities? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, it was not terribly specific about activities. 
It was mostly a selling piece about the kinds of people who would be 
involved and their ability to carry out an assignment, and that kind of 
thing. 

Mr. Dash. Did it have a budget attached ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No— I don't recall one, I don't think so. 

Mr. Dash. Now, I take it that all of these activities did at least show, 
even though some of them may have been abortive, a continued interest 
in the White House to approve intelligence-gathering so far as internal 
security matters. I think you have answered aiffirmatively that there 
was a feeling for need for this, and that these activities indicated that 
some efforts were going on in order to meet this need. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. You have just scrambled the eggs, Mr. Dash. 
These are all very September subjects and you have taken me over a 
span of 3 years and you have taken me into a lot of different subjects, 
some of which were vital national security, some of which were pure 
politics, some of which were really a ne«d in our law enforcement sys- 
tem in the country for coordination. You have dumped them all in a 
hat and stirred them around and said, "See what these bad fellows in 
the White House were doing." 

Mr. Dash. I said nothing about bad fellows in the White House, and 
I asked you earlier whether or not you were aware of a need that people 
in the White House, Mr. Haldeman and perhaps yourself, felt, for an 
improved need for intelligence gathering. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As an isolated subject, you are absolutely right. 

]\Ir. Dash. And there was a need ? 

Mr. Ehri.ichman. There is no question in my mind. 

Mr. Dash. And some of the things you have discussed did include 
implementation or an attempt to implement the fulfillment of that 
need ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, that particular need for knowing what the 
sheriff and the police department in New York City and the State 
patrol in California knew and bringing it together and comparing 
what is going on around the country actually came into being. It was a 
little, four, five, or six-man office over in the Justice Department, and 
they did a fine job of bringing together this information and putting 
out on teletype to various places in the country that these bands of 
bombers and people of that kind were going around blowing things 
up. 



( 



2538 

Mr. Dash. And the only purpose of the question was to find out that 
in fact some things were done and not to inchide inference of any bad 
guys in the White House. 

Mr. EiiRLiciiMAN. That is very reassuring. 

Mr. Dash. Now, was the concern centered on demonstrations or did 
this concern become centered on demonstrations and possible violence 
in the oncoming 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. I know there was concern for that. The original 
plan was to have the convention in San Diego. I can recall Mr. Dean 
asking me to convene a get-together with the mayor of San Diego, who 
happened to be an old friend of mine, in order that he could talk to 
him about the realities of the probable protest demonstrations at the 
Republican Convention in San Diego. So, I know there was that con- 
cern, because it was discussed at that time. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you become aware or did you play any role in 
the creation of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, that is two questions. 

^es, I became aware of it; no, I didn't play any role. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you know Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, yes. 

]\h\ Dash. How did you know Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, Mr. Magruder worked at the White House. 
I met him there in connection with my duties and his. I can't say spe- 
cif ically on what occasion. 

Mr. Dash. Now, do you know what role Mr. Haldeman played in the 
cnsarion of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Specifically, I don't. I know he was obviously 
thi one on the White House staff who was designated to be the — to take 
the primary interest in the campaign. 

Mr. Dash. Now, when you say specifically, Mr. Ehrlichman, in some 
of my questions, when I ask them, I am really not probing to see 
wiiether you know this as an official, in your official capacity or 
wiiether you played a role. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Sure. 

Mr. Dash. But whether you became aware, either through discus- 
sions with Mr. Haldeman, since you were there at the White House, or 
w;th the committee, to help it take form. And I think you had some 
knowledge as to who played some role in this. Whether this came 
as a 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I have to go back to what I said in my 
opening statement, Mr. Dash, which is the truth, and that is that 
really, this whole area of politics and the Committee To Re-Elect 
and so on was less than a half of 1 percent of what I was doing in those 
days. And it may seem surprising that I was indifferent or unin- 
formed, but that happens to be the fact. 

Mr. Dash. Did you have any paiticular role in the campaign? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Only to the extent that I have set it out in my 
opening statement. I had about three functions which I set out there. 

Mr. Dash. I take it you had an interest in the reelection of the 
President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. A very strong interest. 

Mr. Dash. And that you were dedicated to his reelection ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Certainly. 



2539 

Mr. Dash. Did you know that Mr. Gordon Liddy, who had been a 
staff member in your Special Investigations Unit, took on a very im- 
portant role in the Committee To Re-Elect the President? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I did not know^ it at the time. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know that Mr. Krogh, who worked directly under 
you, had recommended him for that job ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't believe I knew that. 

Mr. Dash. And that never came to your attention at that time ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not at that time, no. 

Mr. Dash. When did you first learn this ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I heard it testified to and I have no recollection 
of having that question referred to me. It's not the kind of question 
that ordinarily would come to me ; that is, a personnel question of that 
type. 

Mr. Dash. You mean you first heard about it during testimony ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I believe so. I believe so. 

Mr. Dash. I know you are very busy, Mr. Ehrlichman 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It is not a question of that. It is how we were set 
up. Personnel questions of that type, somebody leaving or somebody 
being hired, or so forth, were most generally handled by my deputy, 
who handled personnel things. 

Mr. Dash. I am not asking the question now of whether you had a 
personnel relationship or knew it that way, and I know how busy you 
stated you were, but certainly you became aware of the break-in of the 
Democratic national headquarters ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, certainly, of course. 

Mr. Dash. And you read the newspapers about that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That is right. 

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time shortly after the break-in that you 
read of Mr. Liddy's involvement ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, yes, certainly. 

Mr. Dash. And at that time, did vou read that Mr. Liddy worked for 
the Committee To Re-Elect the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. So it is not true that you first learned about it in testimony. 

Mr, Ehrlichman. I am sorry, the testimony that I heard here, to 
which I was trying to be responsive, was testimony of one of the wit- 
nesses, who said Mr. Krogh said — here we are getting into all this 
hearsay again — that he had to get my approval for Liddy to go over 
to the committee, and that is the first that I ever heard that I was 
suDposed to have approved his going over there. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, I suggest what you are doing again is 
anticipating the meaning of my question. The question put to you was 
did vou know that Mr. Liddy was employed at the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President, not did you have a responsibility in that 
employment. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I see. 

Mr. Dash. When you said no, I said, when did you first learn ? You 
said from the testimony. Now, you can correct that answer. 
Mr. Ehrlichman. I see. 

Mr. Dash. You were assuming one meaning to my question which 
was not in my question. 



2540 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That, I understand, is Ervin's law at work. 
Mr. Dash. Now, do you want to correct your answer as to when 
you first learned that Mr. Liddy was employed at the Committee To 
Ke-Elect the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I think it must have been subsequent to the break- 
in at the Watergate. 

Mr. Dash. And do you know how soon subsequently, how many days 
or weeks, after the break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I think rather soon, within a matter of days 
after. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you knew certainly at that time, that Mr. Liddy 
had been involved in the break-in of the psychiatrist's office of Mr. 
Ellsberg? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Did you say anything to anybody at that time when you 
read in the newspapers about this same Mr. Liddy, now working for 
the President's campaign, being involved in another break-in at the 
Democratic National Committee headquarters ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sure I must have commented on it. 
Mr. Dash. Commented ? To whom ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I have no — I don't recall offhand. It would not 
have been a — it is the kind of thing that was a matter of general con- 
versation at that time. 

Mr. Dash. Was this a matter of curiosity or were you concerned ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. For instance, I am sure I talked to John Dean 
about it. As a matter of fact, he may have been the one that first let me 
know that Liddy was involved and that it is the same Liddy who was 
at the White House. 

Mr. Dash. As a matter of fact, is that not true that rather than learn- 
ing it from the newspaper you learned about it from Mr. Dean ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. I think that undoubtedly is the case. 
Mr. Dash. Now, were you informed after March 30, 1972, that the 
Committee for the Re-Election of the President had a sophisticated 
intelligence system with a budget of around $250,000 or $300,000 ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. Do you know whether Mr. Haldeman was ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. Not of my own knowledge, I do not, no. 
Mr. Dash. All right. 

Now, when did you, Mr. Ehrlichman, learn for the first time of the 
break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It was the following day when I received a tele- 
phone call. 

Mr. Dash. Where were you at that time ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. At home. 
Mr. Dash. And what, if anything, did you do ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. I made a couple of phone calls in response. 
Mr. Dash. How soon thereafter did you learn that Mr. Hunt was 
involved ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. His name was mentioned in the original phone 
call. 

Mr. Dash. And who made that phone call to you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Boggs of the Secret Service. 

Mr. Dash. How was Mr. Hunt identified as having been involved ? 



2541 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As one of the people arrested had his name in their 
possession. 

Mr. Dash. And then, shortly after did Mr. Dean make a report to 
you about what he had learned about the break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That would have been the afternoon of the 19th, 
that would have been the following Monday, I believe. 
Mr. Dash. Following Monday. Wliat did he tell you ? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. He just gave me a rundown of the identity of the 
individuals. He told me that he had talked to Liddy, I think, that day 
or possibly it was the next day that he told me this. That Liddy had 
told him that it was his operation, in effect, that he, Liddy, was 
involved, but that nobody at the White House was involved. I think 

that was about the 

Mr. Dash. Did he report to you about his interview and conversation 
with Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not recall his doing so. 

Mr. Dash. So, to your recollection, you say Mr. Dean never told 
you about Mr. Magruder's involvement ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, I do not say never but we are talking this 
first day. 

Mr. Dash. At that time. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. At least, I do not recall it if he did. 
Mr. Dash. So at least by the 19th of June, which is 2 days after the 
break-in, one, on the Ijasis of a call from a Secret Service man, and 
the other from Mr. Dean, that the two men who had been involved 
in the so-called Ellsberg break-in were involved in the break-in of the 
Democratic National Committee headquarters? 
Mr. Ehrlichman. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. These two men, at least one of them specifically, Mr. 
Liddy, had a position of some responsibility with the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President of the United States ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I obviously learned that he was working 
at the committee. I do not know about the responsibility part. 

Mr. Dash. Did you know he was counsel for the Finance Committee 
for the Re-Election of the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am not sure that I did, whether it was de- 
scribed in those terms. 

Mr. Dash. Now, having learned that persons who had the prior 
history that you knew about were w^orking in a close relationship 
to tlie campaign for the reelection of the President you were so dedi- 
cated, honestly dedicated to see that he was reelected, did this produce 
any concern on your part with regard to the campaign itself ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, this was, by Monday was a campaign 
issue. And within a matter of hours the opposition had filed lawsuits 
and were making public statements, and there is not any question 
about the fact that it was an important campaign issue. Yes, I was 
concerned about it. 

Mr. Dash. Would it also be even more of a serious campaign issue 
if it developed or was revealed that Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy had 
broken into the office of Mr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist, the same two 
people ? 



2542 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. No, I would not think so. They were certainly 
identified as former White House people in the media, and that was, 
that connection was, known. This connection was established. 

Mr. Dash. A^Hiat connection was established ? 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. Their connection with the AVhite House. 

Mr. Dash. Yes, but it had not established that Mr. Hunt and Mr. 
Liddy had broken into the psychiatrist's office of Mr. Ellsberg. At 
that point it had not been publicly known ? 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. No, it was not publicly known. 

Mr. Dash. Are you telling the committee that the additional in- 
formation that these former Wliite House staffers working under 
your direction had broken into Mr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office 
would not have created an even more seriously embarrassing situation 
for the campaign ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I would not think so, Mr. Dash, for several rea- 
sons. No. 1, that episode was a part of a very intensive national 
security investigation which had been impressed with a very high 
security classification. The likelihood of that being disclosed was very 
slight. 

No. 2, those people were operating, at least I believe they were 
operating, under express authorization 

Mr. Dash. Express authorization to break in? 

Mr. Ehrlichman, Yes, sir. Under a national security situation, 
under a situation of considerable moment to the Nation in the theft 
of top secret documents, and their apparent delivery to the Soviet 
Embassy. It never was my view that Hunt and Liddy, as individuals, 
had done something that was completely irrational in that break-in. 
In other words, they were operating in a national security setting 
and pursuant to either instructions or authorization and, that being 
the case, that had never been a subject which I considered to be 
seriouslv embarrassing. 

Mr. Dash. Let us first take the first point you made, which was 
that it would be unlikely that it would be revealed. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. 

Mr. Dash. And I take it, it would be unlikely to be revealed was 
because neither Mr. Hunt or Mr. Liddy would talk about it? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Neither would they talk about it nor would a 
prosecutor talk about it if they told him, nor any employee of the 
Federal Government aware of the national security characteristic of 
it be talking about it. 

Mr. Dash. How would you be assured of the fact that Mr. Hunt 
and Liddy would not talk about it? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, the only assurance that one could have, 
I suppose, and I did not give this a lot of thought, but you have a 
couple of individuals here with long training and experience as law 
enforcement or intelligence people in the Government, Hunt for what, 
20 years, and Liddy for 7, or something of this kind, and it just did 
not — it never occurred to me to be a serious likelihood at that time. 

Mr. Dash. Now, I think you have heard the testimony of Mr. 
Mitchell or maybe you are aware of the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, 
the former Attorney General, that he first became aware of the so- 
called Liddy operations, which included the Ellsberg break-in, on 
the 21st of June, and Mr. Mardian, Mr. LaRue debriefed him after 



2543 

speaking to INIr. Liddy, and that he characterized this kind of opera- 
tion, phis some others, as "VVliite House horrors. It was his view as 
presented to the committee that the potential for embarrassment to 
the reelection of the President was such, that he witliheld this infor- 
mation from the President because he thought it might cause the fail- 
ure of the President being reelected. You disagree with his evaluation. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I certainly disagreed with it at the time. 
In other words, trying to reconstruct my frame of mind at the time, 
I considered the special unit's activities to be well within the Presi- 
dent's inherent constitutional powers, and this particular episode, the 
break-in in California, likewise to have been within the President's 
inherent constitutional powers as spelled out in 18 U.S. Code 2511. 

Mr. Dash. I think you have seen, once the information did become 
public, and the press dealing with it, the reaction generally by the 
public to the break-in, would you say that this was treated as a normal 
function of Government to authorize Mr. Hunt and Liddy to break 
into Mr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. By the public, not as you saw 
it, but how the public reacted when they heard about it? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I think what is normal in the press these days is 
perhaps a difficult thing for any of us to define, particularly in this 
setting. Taken at the time either at the time of the Pentagon Papers 
episode, where you had these people stealing top secret documents and 
doing what they did with them, on the one hand, or taken at the time 
of the campaign, it depends on how many of the facts, how much of 
the facts, how much understanding could be sifted through the daily 
press. I think if it is clearly understood that the President has the 
constitutional power to prevent the betrayal of national security 
secrets, as I understand he does, and that is well understood by the 
American people, and an episode like that is seen in that context, there 
shouldn't be any problem. 

Mr. Dash. Well then, you would not have had the same concern 
that Mr. Mitchell expressed that if he had told the President about 
it, one, the President would have lowered the boom and, in lowering 
the boom, he would have probably caused his own defeat for President 
of the United States? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In point of fact, on the first occasion when I did 
discuss this with the President, which was in March of this year, he 
expressed essentially the view that I have just stated, that this was 
an important, a vital national security inquiry, and that he considered 
it to be well within the Constitution, both obligation and function of 
the Presidency. 

Mr. Dash. You say you first discussed this with the President in 
March of this year? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That is the first I can recall discussing it with 
him. 

Mr. Dash, Well, what was the purpose of the President's statement 
of May 22, when he said that he instructed you and Mr. Haldeman 
to take steps to prevent the fruits of the special investigative unit from 
becoming known during the investigation of the Watergate as early 
as June ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. AVell, that is quite another subject, Mr. Dash, 
and that relates to some of the subject matters that I am at this point 
not able to talk to the committee about, which the President has im- 



2544 

pressed with the highest secrec}' classification and which he feels is 
very vital to the national security of the country. 

Now, in furtherance of that, he has had me communicate his con- 
cerns about that to a number of people and he, in turn, has personally 
communicated his decision in that regard to a number of people in 
the executive branch. 

Mr. Dash. I am not trying to probe into any other secrets, but cer- 
tainly at the time in June of 1972, right after the break-in, you were 
aware of, and I take it, he Avas aware of the break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. The break-in ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehri.ichman. Which break-in ? 

Mr. Dash. The Ellsberg break-in. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I cannot speak for the President on that. I can 
only say that I was aware of it. 

Mr. Dash. Well, did not the President in a statement indicate that 
certain acts were taken by properly motivated people, that he would 
not authorize but that he had instructed ]Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehr- 
lichman to see to it that none of this, which he thought were taken 
in the guise of national security, should be investigated into by the 
FBI? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. Well, I took that instruction from the President 
to relate to a number of investigations which the special unit either 
supervised or engaged in in one way or another over a period of 
months, spanning 6, 8. 9 months. 

Mr. Dash. But you included the Ellsberg break-in in that? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I included the w^hole Pentagon Papers episode in 
that. 

Mr. Dash. All right. So it was your understanding you were under 
instructions to see to it that the FBI investigation did not get into 
this, or did not uncover the Ellsberg break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, no. The Justice Department already had the 
information about the Ellsberg break-in. 

Mr. Dash. 'VVlien ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I cannot say when. John Dean told me that Henry 
Petersen had the information and the photographs and the whole busi- 
ness. Oh, I would guess a year or more ago. 

Mr. Dash. A year or more ago ? 

Mr. E11R1.1CHMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash. And actually, the prosecutors did not learn about this 
from Mr. Dean when he went to the prosecutors ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. Mr. Dean told me that, as I say, about a year 
ago. Last November he told Mr. Krogh the same thing, told him that 
both Mr. Silbert and Mr. Petersen had this information and the 
photographs. 

Mr. Dash. And when did Mr. Petersen tell you this ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I have never discussed this with Mr. Petersen. 

Mr. Dash. Did you not say Mr. Petersen told you this ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, Mr. Dean told me this. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

[Wliereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p.m., this same day.] 



2545 

Afternoon Session, Tuesday, July 24, 1973 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Ehrlichman, prior to the luncheon recess you stated 
that in your opinion, the entry into the Ellsberg psychiatrist's office 
was legal because of national security reasons. I think that was your 
testimony. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. Have you always maintained that position ? 

Mr. Ehrlichiman. Well, I do not know 

Mr. Dash. When I say always, I am not going back into eons of 
time. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not know that I have ever been asked to 
maintain it one way or the other. I have had a — I had an awareness 
of the President's constitutional powers and capacity. 

Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall when we had our first interview in 
my office, and we discussed this issue, you expressed shock that such 
a thing had occurred, and indicated that you had informed Mr. Young 
or Mr. Krogh to see that this thing should not happen again but you 
did not take any action such as ordering the firing of these people 
because of the general sensitive issues that were involved. Do you 
recall that? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, that is not on the ground of illegality, Mr. 
Dash. I do not think you asked me at that time whether — what my 
legal opinion was, for whatever it is worth. What you were asking 
me was what I did, and that is what I did. 

Mr. Dash. Well, if it was legal you would ordinarily have approved 
it, would you not ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, no, the thing that troubled me about it was 
that it was totally unanticipated. 

Mr. Dash. Totally what? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Unanticipated by me, unauthorized by me. 

Mr. Dash. Who was it authorized by ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I am under the impression that it was 
authorized by Mr. Krogh. I say under the impression, that has been 
my consistent impression, but it is not based on any personal 
knowledge. 

Mr. Dash. Well, now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Ehrlichman, did you 
not personally approve in advance a covert entry into the Ellsberg 
psychiatrist's office for the purpose of gaining access to the psycho- 
analyst's reports? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. A covert entry ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I approved a covert investigation. Now, if a 
covert entry means a breaking and entering, the ansAver to your ques- 
tion is, "No." 

Mr. Dash. Well, let me read to you a memorandum, and then I will 
have it shown to you — would someone bring to Mr. Ehrlichman and 
his counsel a copy of a memorandum and also have it distributed to 
members of the committee? The memorandum is dated August 11, 
1971, and it is a memorandum to you from Bud Krogh and David 



2546 

Young, "Subject: Pentagon Papers Project — status report as of 
August 11, 1971." 

I think the relevant information is in paragraph 2 rathei- than the 
progress report of paragraph 1. Let me just read paragraph 2. 

We have received the CIA preliminary psychological study (copy attached at 
Tab A) which I must say I am disappointed in and consider very superficial. We 
will meet tomorrow with the head psychiatrist, Mr. Bernard Malloy, to impress 
upon him the detail and depth that we expect. We will also make available to 
him here some of the other information we have received from the FBI on Ells- 
berg. 

Now, more significant : 

In this connection we would recommend that a covert operation be under- 
taken to examine all the medical files still held by EUsberg's psychoanalyst cov- 
ering the 2-year period in which he was undergoing analysis. 

And there is a provision here for approve, disapprove. There is an 
"E," which I take it you would recognize as your "E," and in handwrit- 
ing which I would ask if it is your handwriting, the approval and the 
handwriting is : "If done under your assurance that it is not traceable." 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. Now, how would you interpret in this connection your as- 
sistance recommending to you in this connection, "We would recom- 
mend that a covert operation be undertaken to examine all medical files 
still held by EUsberg's psychoanalyst covering the 2-year period in 
which he was undergoing analysis," and their recommendation taking 
place some time prior to the entry and approved by you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, no interpretation necessary, Mr. Dash. This 
was in the setting of a previous conversation in which it was contem- 
plated that these two men would go to the coast to do this investiga- 
tion as the President's statement of May 22 says. 

The effort here was to find out everything that could be found out 
about the people and the circumstances surrounding Ellsberg in all 
respects. 

Now, whether a psychiatric profile, as such helps an investigation 
or in that situation, is something that the experts would have to tell 
you. It is something that I certainly cannot second-guess about. But 
the point here is that the investigation was ali-eady authorized and 
was going to go forward. Now, coveit, in its literal meaning, and in 
its everyday meaning, is simply that it is a covered operation; that 
is to say, you do not identify yourself as being an investigator from 
the separate committee or ^ 

Mr. Dash. Would it cover this, Mr. Ehrlichman, so at least we 
agree on terms 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Do vou want to hear the rest of it ? 

Mr. Dash. I am sorrv, I didn't want to intcrru]:)t you. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Thank you. 

My concern, and the reason that I certainly acquiesced in the use 
of the term "cover" here, was that I Avas not keen on the concept of 
the Wliite House havin.*; investigators in the field and known to be 
in the field, and I just don't think from a public standpoint, from a 
public relations standpoint, from a public policy standpoint, that 
that is a desirable situation, and T was not anxious to have anybody 
go in and flash a White House pass, credentials, and sav "I am fi-om 
the "\^niite House and I want this or that and I want to ask questions." 



2547 

That is the sense in which I conceived, at least, of this investigation 
as being a covert investigation, and that is the sense in which I en- 
dorsed on here wliat I did in my hand. 

Now, if you are asking me whether this means that I had in my 
contemplation that there was going to be a breaking and entering, 
I certainly did not. I heard a remark by a member of the committee 
to the effect that there are only two ways that one can see a medical 
file, and that is either to get the doctor to violate his oath or to break 
or enter. Well, I knoAv that is not so, and I imagine those of you who 
have been in private practice well recognize there are a lot of per- 
fectly legal ways that medical information is leaked, if you please, 
and when I saw this that is the thing that occurred to me, that by one 
way or another this information could be adduced by an investigator 
who was trained and who knew what he was looking for. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Let me follow that up a bit. After this memo- 
randum, do you recall that Mr. Young and Mr. Krogh then authorized 
Mr. Hunt and Liddy to go out to California? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Do I recall that ? No, I don't. 

Mr. Dash. And that they went out to California for a feasibility 
test to see whether or not they could undertake a covert act, and I am 
not saying breaking and entering? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, my recollection is that that trip west had 
been authorized before this. 

Mr. Dash. Wliat was the purpose of the trip ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As I have said before, it was to find out every- 
thing possible about Ellsberg, his associates, his methods, everything 
surrounding him. This business of the material for the psychiatric 
profile, so far as I was concerned, was an add-on. As a matter of fact, I 
wasn't even sure until I went back and refreshed my recollection by 
looking at this document in the middle of June of this year where this 
all came in sequence and when I had been asked, perhaps even when I 
talked with the committee staff, but I recall distinctly when I testified 
before the grand jury, I was asked which came first, the psychiatric 
profile draft or the trip, and what the order, and I could not recall. 

Mr. Dash. Well, do you know what Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy did 
when they went out on a trip for the feasibility ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I didn't even know there were two trips, as a 
matter of fact, until I was told in the rather recent past. 

Mr. Dash. Now, would your understanding of covert operation be 
that, not a breaking and entering, but being let in by impersonating 
themselves to be somebody else into the building. Isn't that a covert 
operation ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I suppose that phrase could include that. It 
could include a lot of things. 

Mr. Dash. Yes and, therefore, I don't think we have to quarrel 
about whether you approved a break-in, an entry, or even what you 
might consider to be a common-law burglary. What I am now saying is 
that the language here is not covert investigation, but a cover opera- 
tion being undertaken to examine all medical files. 

Now, the medical files, I take it, were in the possession of Dr. Ells- 
berg's psychoanalyst, were they not ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't know. 

Mr. Dash. I take it that is where they should be. 



2548 

Mr. EnRLicHMAN. Well, I don't know that or whether they would 
be in a medical record center or in a clinic or where, and in point of 
fact, as you know, Mr. Dash 

Mr. Dash. I think the memo is pretty clear. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Excuse me. In point of fact when they went in 
there, they didn't find it. 

Mr. Dash. Yes, but read the memo again, ISIr. Ehrlichman. The 
memo says, "Examine all the medical files still held by EUsberg's psy- 
choanalyst covering the 2-year period.'' 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. I think a clear reading of that is that they are in his 
possession. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Again I don't mean to quibble with you. The 
words here are not my words. They are the words of the writers of 
the memo. The thing that was imparted to me by the word "covert" 
was that these people would not identify themselves as investigtors of 
the White House or anything of this kind, and that their identities 
would not be known to the people that they were interrogating. 

Mr. Dash. All right. So they would not identify themselves as rep- 
resentatives of the White House but through some identification they 
might get access to the building. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not necessarily. They might have gotten access 
through another doctor, through a nurse. There are all kinds of ways 
that one could get this information, 

Mr. Dash. But it would include getting access to the building, would 
it not? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not inevitably. 

Mr. Dash. I didn't say inevitably, it would include it. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As one of a number of possibilities. 

Mr. Dash. And also, say, by some covert activity, but not identify 
themselves as members of the White House staff, of getting access to 
the office. 

Would it not include that as one of the alternatives that they could 
take? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, you are asking me to define phrases in some- 
body else's memo. 

Mr. Dash. Well, you approved this memo. You didn't put any other 
conditions on it, did you ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I am trying to tell you what I thought I was 
approving. 

Mr. Dash. Well, those who read it undertook to also interpret what 
you thought you were approving. By the wav, did ISIr. Young and ^Ir. 
Krogh call you while you were in Cape Cod after Mr. Hunt and Mr. 
Liddy came back, and tell you that they had established that it was 
feasible that they could get access, and that vou said, "OK., go ahead 
and let them do it." 

Do you recall that call that Mr. Krogh and Mr. Young made to you 
in Cape Cod? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. I don't— as a matter of fact, I don't recall 
any business calls while I was up there at all. 

Mr. Dash. Would you be surprised if I told you that Mr. Young 
would so testify? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I would. 



2549 

Mr. Dash. That Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt did in fact go out to carry 
out the feasibility study, did engage in what they considered to be a 
covert activity, not a break-in, and through a cleaning lady gain access 
to the building and saw they sould gain access in similar way to the 
office, did return and that on the basis of that Mr. Young and Mr. 
Krogh got on the phone with you while you were in Cap Cod and told 
you that they were able, therefore, to prove that was feasible, and 
you said, "OK" when you were assured that Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy 
would not themselves be involved. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, now that is about how many questions all 
in one ? 

Mr. Dash. I am just giving you a set of facts. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, and I don't recall any such set of facts. 

Mr. Dash. All right. Now 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am stopped at the phone call, as a matter of 
fact, because while I was up there, I am quite sure I didn't take any 
calls from the office. 

Mr. Dash. I think you have already indicated that you had a dis- 
cussion with them before the memo was sent, and before it was ap- 
proved, in which they discussed the possibility of getting access to the 
files of the psychoanalyst. 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No, no, you misunderstood me. The discussion 
that I had with them related to the necessity of putting investigators 
out on the coast to investigate Ellsberg over and beyond the FBI 
effort. 

Mr. Dash. You do not recall that some time in July or August, 
that you had a discussion with Mr. Krogh and Mr. Young in which 
this specific question came up? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. "Which specific question? 

Mr. Dash. I am finishing my question. As to getting the psycho- 
analyst's files on Ellsberg? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. In July or August ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, prior to the date of the memo of August 11 ? This 
was a discussion that you had with Mr. Young and Mr. Krogh? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I do not recall it. I cannot rule it out. It may 
have been along with the memorandum. I just do not know. 

Mr. Dash. You would not be surprised if Mr. Young were to so 
testify here under oath that he had such a specific discussion with 
you? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I would be surprised ? No, I rather imagine that 
this memo arrived in Mr. Young's hand, or Mr. Krogh's hand, or 
perhaps from the both of them, because that was ordinarily the way 
these status reports would come, and we would sit down and use those 
as an agenda. 

Mr. Dash. The question I put to you was not the memo, but prior 
to the drafting of the memo, which came to you first for your approval, 
that there was a discussion that you had with Mr. Krogh and Mr. 
Young about doing this very thing through a covert method of getting 
access to the psychoanalyst's files of Mr. Ellsberg? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No, t do not recall such a conversation. It would 
by my guess that if we had had such a conversation, that would have 
made the memo superfluous. 



2550 

Mr. Dash. Would it? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That would be my assumption, yes. 

Mr. Dash. Would it not be in preparation for the drafting of such 
a memo to get your specific approval in writing? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, that is not ordinarily the way we did busi- 
ness. The only time I would be asked for something like this is if they 
had trouble getting in to see me, that they wanted to set up an agenda 
so that when we did get together, we hit a number of topics, and so on. 

Mr. Dash. Now, do you recall that on March 27, Mr. Young had 
a meeting with you at a time when he was leaving the White House ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. We had a meeting around that time. 

Mr. Dash. March 27, 1973. And do you recall that you asked him 
to pull together a number of the papers that the special investigative 
unit had kept, and that he did? Do you recall that? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I think I asked him to put all of them together, 
yes. 

Mr. Dash. He brought them to you in a bag ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. In a bag? No, I do not — I think my request to 
him was that since he was leaving, all of the special unit's documenta- 
tion should be gathered in one place so that it could be transferred to 
the President's file. 

Mr. Dash. But you reviewed them before they were transferred? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, there were drawers of them. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall receiving a number of papers from Mr. 
Young and then returning them minus this memorandum and an- 
other, which I will ask you about ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. The receipt of documents, as I recall, was in 
Krogh's — this document has been m my files and I saw it there the 
other day. 

Mr. Dash. I will just put the question to you so you can answer it. 
Do you know if Mr. Young raised the question concerning the memo- 
randum and that you said it was too sensitive a memorandum and that 
you had retained it ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. No. First, I know I have had in my files, 
actually unknown to me, this and a number of other documents relat- 
ing to the Ellsberg matter. I do not know for how long, and I do not 
know from what source. I do know that at the time that Mr. Young 
was leaving, we asked that he pull together everything, and I believe 
he turned all of his documents over to Todd Holland in my office. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall telling Mr. Young, in that meeting on the 
27th, that you suspected that Hunt may be going public in California 
on this operation, and that Mr. Young was deeply concerned that this 
may be possible ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, the — well, what I told him was not on the 
27th. As I recall, it was earlier than that. I had an appointment with 
Mr. Young shortly after Mr. Dean came in to say that the White House 
was being blackmailed by Hunt. And I reviewed with both Krogh 
and Young — because this was all quite dim in my recollection — what 
it was that Mr. Hunt might say, what the national security aspects of 
this were again, and went over the whole ground with them in the light 
of the blackmail attempt. Now, that must have been on the 20th or the 
21st or not later than the 22d of March. 



2551 

Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall telling Mr. Young that Mr. Krogh 
was going to be taking the responsibility for that and that Mr. Young 
reminded you that maybe Mr. Hunt or some others made some copies 
of this memorandum ? And that you indicated that, well, if that was 
so, the position to take would be that it would be a national security 
matter and you would button up ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman". No. The conversation, basically, was for me to 
inquire of Mr. Young to get as much information as I could about 
what it was that Mr. Hunt was, in effect, threatening to say. And he 
went into this in considerable detail with me at that time — that is to 
say, the general subject matter. 

Mr. Dash. Now, did you also indicate to him that the President 
knew about this and had fully authorized it or had felt that it was a 
perfectly legal matter at that time ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. If — I may have. I well may have, because in that 
period of time, 20, 21, 22 March, somewhere in there, I did have a 
conversation with the President about this. 

Mr. Dash. By the way, did you also receive a memorandum sug- 
gesting that there would be a congressional investigation about the 
Ellsberg affair? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I have had a memorandum in my file from Mr. 
Colson on that subject. I do not know if that is the one to which you 
refer. 

Mr. Dash. Did you ever receive one from Mr. Young? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. About a congressional investigation? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, suggesting that Mr. Mardian and others might 
be involved in this. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I may have, but that goes way, way back in time. 
I have not seen anything like that. 

Mr. Dash. Dated August 26, 1972. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I well may have. 

Mr. Dash. Do you recall having received this memorandum ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It has my initial on it. I do not have a present 
recollection of the document. 

Mr. Dash. Do you also note that there is an attached memorandum 
on the same date for Mr. Colson from you, Mr. Ehrlichman, subject, 
"Hunt/Liddy special project." 

And I quote : 

On the assumption that the proposed undertaking by Hunt and Liddy would 
be carried out and would be successful, I would appreciate receiving from you 
by next Wednesday a game plan on how and when you believe the materials 
should be used. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I have seen that recently on going back into 

the files. 

Mr. Dash. Now, I just have one last question. There are others, Mr. 
Ehrlichman, that I would like to get into, but I have taken sufficient 
time and I will have a chance to question you later. But you also indi- 
cated this morning when I put the question to you whether you were 
concerned whether or not the so-called entry, whether you call it the 
Ellsberg break-in in this particular case, it was a break-in, the Ellsberg 
break^in, would become known publicly, whether that would be em- 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 22 



2552 

barrassing to the campaign. I think you responded that so far as you 
understood, and I think Mr. Dean, you said, told you that Mr. Petersen 
or the prosecutors already knew this and knew this for some time. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Dean and Mr. Krogh also told me that Mr. 
Dean had told them that. 

Mr. Dash. I think what you indicated is that they had some pictures ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Dash. But was it your understanding that they knew what 
those pictures meant? That those pictures really related to break-in 
of the Ellsberg psychiatrist's office ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, what I was told was that there were photo- 
graphs of the interior of the office, which showed that a ransacking or 
an entry or a search had taken place. 

Mr. Dash. Now, you knew at the time, certainly during 1972 and 
from the summer of 1972 on, that there was a trial in process with Mr. 
Ellsberg as a defendant and that if, in fact, the prosecutors had this 
information, there would have been some responsibility or duty to 
turn this over to the judge, and in fact, the way it was done recently 
with the support of the President. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Did I know that ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I did not know that. 

Mr. Dash. Would you expect that if they had this earlier, they would 
have turned it over earlier ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I did not have any reason to expect that. 

Mr. Dash. Let me show you another memorandum that we just 
have received, dated April 16, 1973, from Mr. Silbert to Mr. Petersen. 

I am sorry, we will make a copy right away. I will have this shown 
to you as soon as I read it. 

This is to inform you that on Sunday, April 15, 1973, I received information 
that on a date unspecified, Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt burglarized the 
offices of a psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg to obtain the psychiatrist's files relating 
to Ellsberg. The source of the information did not know whether the files had any 
material information or whether any of the information or even the fact of the 
burglary had been communicated to anyone associated with the prosecution. 

The accompanying memos take it all the way to the prosecutor and 
back, with Mr. Petersen indicating that these should be shown to Judge 
Byrne, who was presiding at the trial. Were you aware of this memo- 
randum that Mr. Silbert sent to Mr. Petersen in which he indicated 
that they had learned this on Sunday, April 15, 1973 ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I have seen that. 

Mr. Dash. And are you also aware of President Nixon's statement 
on May 22, when he stated : 

I consider it my responsibility to see that the Watergate investigation did not 
impinge adversely upon national security areas. For example, on April 18, 
1973, when I learned that Mr. Hunt, a former member of the Special Investiga- 
tions Unit at the White House, was to be questioned by the U.S. attorney. I di- 
rected Assistant Attorney General Petersen to pursue every issue involving 
Watergate, but to confine his investigation to Watergate and related matters 
and to stay out of national security matters. Subsequently, on April 25, 1973, 
Attorney General Kleindienst informed me that because the Government had 
clear evidence that Mr. Hunt was involved in the break-in of the office of the 
l>sychiatrist who had treated Mr. Ellsberg, he, the Attorney General, believed 
that despite the fact that no evidence had been obtained from Hunt's agent, a 



2553 

report should nevertheless be made to the court trying the Ellsberg case. I con- 
curred and directed that the information be transmitted to Judge Byrne 
immediately. 

You, of course, recall the President making that statement? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Dash. Now, it would be quite obvious that if Mr. Petersen or 
the Department of Justice had information earlier, they certainly 
would not have waited until April 25, 1973, to inform the President 
and get the President's permission to inform the court. Do you agree 
with that? 

Mr. EHRLicHMAisr. No, I don't. 

Mr. Dash. In other words, it would be your position that they held 
this back as long as they could 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. Well, if Mr. Dean told me the truth and told 
Mr. Krogh the truth, then obviously, that is what happened. I can 
very clearly recall Mr. Dean coming into my office and saying, "you 
will never guess the bounce that this thing has taken now." He said, 
"Petersen has got the pictures," and the way he described it to me, 
when Hunt went in there or was around there, he took pictures and he 
left the film in the camera when he returned the camera to the CIA 
and the film was developed and then sent over to the Justice Depart- 
ment. And here was this address and the doctor's name and Liddy 
standing in front of the place and the ransacked business, and we both 
]ust shook our heads over this. 

As it turns out later, that isn't quite what happened. The CIA, out 
of, I guess, sort of traditional caution, made copies of all of the films 
that Hunt turned over to them to get a free developing and printing 
job, so they took these copies and sent them over to the Justice De- 
partment, apparently. 

But in any event, I can't vouch for this on my own say-so. I can 
only tell you what Dean told me and in those circumstances, and then, 
in comparing notes with Krogh, he says that when Dean was counsel- 
ing him on his testimony at the time he was coming before the Senate 
for confirmation with the Department of Transportation, Dean told 
him that not only did Petersen have this but that Silbert had it as well. 

Now, here again, it's hearsay and it's only as good as the testimony 
or reliability of Mr. Dean, and I would be the last one in the world 
to vouch for that at this point. 

Mr. Dash. By the way, did you ask Mr. Dean to get that film back 
from the CIA? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have marked as exhibits 
and introduced into evidence the memorandum to Mr. Ehrlichman 
from Mr. Krogh and Mr. Young dated August 11, 1971, and the 
memorandum to Mr. Ehrlichman from David Young, dated August 26, 
1971, as well as the memorandum just submitted to Mr. Ehrlichman 
from Mr. Silbert and Mr. Petersen. 

Senator Ervin. I understand they have all been identified by the 
witness. 

Mr. Dash. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, sir. 

Mr. Dash. I think he has identified the first one, August 11, and part 
of the second one. 



2554 

I think you recognized that. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I recall the last page of the second. I think that 
is my chopmark on the rest of it, although I don't have any present 
recollection of it. 

The third one, Mr. Silbert's internal memorandum in the Justice 
Department, has been shown to me, but I can't vouch for it. 

Mr. Ervin. I will admit the first two papers as exhibits and the 
reporter will number them appropriately as such. 

[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 90 and 91.*] 

Senator Ervin. The third I will have marked for identification, but 
will not be admitted at this time. 

[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 92 for identi- 
fication only and not for publication.] 

Mr. Dash. I do have other questions that I will not ask at this 
point. I have no further questions at the present time. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman. I do have one or two lines that I 
would like to pursue, and then with the chairman's permission, per- 
haps after the members of the committee have questioned the witness, 
I'll return to other lines. 

Mr. Ehrlichman, I understand that as of June 18, you knew that 
Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy had in fact broken into the DNC or al- 
legedly so and also that they were members of the "White House staff. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't believe so, Mr, Thompson. I think that 
sometime on the 19th, Mr. Dean told me about Liddy's involvement. 
The only connection that I had with regard to Hunt was this call 
from the Secret Service that said that his name had been in the pos- 
session of one of the people caught in the Democratic headquarters 
and that the card or the paper or whatever it was, said ""Wliite House" 
on it. 

Now, it wasn't very many days after that before the link was made, 
I guess, but as of that day, I don't think I knew that. 

ISIr. Thompson. Mr. Dean has testified that Liddy also told him 
that Magruder was involved in some way, that Magruder pushed him. 
Also, Mitchell and LaRue and Mardian testified that they got essen- 
tially the same information from Liddy on June 21, I believe. Was 
any of this information imparted to you in June of 1972 concerning 
Mr. Magruder ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't say, Mr. Thompson, whether it was or 
not. There came a time when there was a feeling that, at least on my 
part, based on what the — on what Mr. Dean was telling me about the 
unfolding of this thing, that Mr. Magruder may have had some in- 
volvement, and that culminated in a meeting with the Attorney Gen- 
eral at the end of July, on the 31st of July, where Magruder was 
specifically discussed. But just where in there I acquired information, 
I can't tell you. 

Mr. Thompson. When you acquired this information, did you dis- 
cuss this information with the President ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, as I say, I can't say in the interim. I do 
recall discussing with the President the comments of the Attorney 
General and Mr. Dean arising out of our meeting on July 31. 



•See pp. 2643 and 2646, respectively. 



2555 

Mr. Thompson. Do you recall approximately when this conversa- 
tion took place? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. It would have been within a day or two aftei: 
Hiat. It would have been in the first week in August. 

Mr. Thompson. First week in August 

Mr. Ehrlichman, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Was the first occasion ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I cannot say the first occasion, but it is the one 
that I have a recollection of. 

Mr, Thompson. Mr. Ehrlichman, let me read to you the President's 
statement of May 22, again which has been previously referred to, 
and give you a quotation from that statement. The President says: 

I wanted justice done with regard to Watergate but in the scale of national 
priorities with which I had to deal, and not at that time having any idea of 
the extent of political abuse which Watergate reflected, I also had to be deeply 
concerned with enduring, insuring that neither covert operations of the CIA 
nor the operations of the special investigations unit should be compromised. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Excuse me, Mr. Thompson, could you tell me 
where you are reading from ? I cannot quite hear you. 

Mr. Thompson. That is on page 5 of the President's statement of 
May 22. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson. It is the last full paragraph. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. 

Therefore, I instructed Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman to insure that the 
investigation of the break-in not expose either an unrelated covert operation 
of the CIA or the activities of the White House investigations unit, and to see 
that this was personally coordinated between General Walters, Deputy Director 
of the CIA. Mr. Gray of the FBI. It certainly was not my intent or my wish that 
the investigation of the Watergate break-in or of related acts be impeded in 
any way. 

Is that correct ? Were you in fact given those instructions ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. We were asked to meet with the CIA people in 
the month of June, and Mr. Haldeman and I did that. At a point in 
time, I think some months in advance of the Watergate break-in, the 
President had made it very clear to me that the whole special unit 
activity was, he felt, impressed with the highest level of security clas- 
sification. It simply was not to be talked about and I had passed that 
along to Young and Krogh and others. But I do not recall ever talk- 
ing to either the CIA people or Mr. Gray about investigations which 
might lead to the special unit as such. 

Mr. Thompson. Prior to the break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Either prior or subsequent, for that matter. 

Mr. Thompson. You talked on June 23 — you had a discussion with 
Mr. Helms and Mr. Walters, did you not ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. But it did not relate to the activities of the spe- 
cial unit with regard to the Pentagon Papers or anything like that. 

Mr. Thompson. But it related to CIA activities? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course, the President refers in his statement to 
both CIA activities. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. And, as I say, I can say that we had the onejneet- 
ing with the CIA on the 1st. I do not recall any conversations or ef- 



2556 

forts to protect the activities of the special unit from the FBI's in- 
vestigation. 

Mr. Thompson. But you did have a conversation, I assume, with the 
President after the break-in concerning the covert activities of the 
CIA and the special investigations unit. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, the sequence of events was that Mr. Halde- 
man told me that the President wanted me to sit in a meeting which 
I then did. 

Mr. Thompson. The June 23 meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir, cold without having talked with the 
President about it. It was not until the 6th or 7th of July that I real- 
ly had a conversation with the President about that subject, and had 
then a full feeling for what his concerns were. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Ehrlichman, the logs which the "White House 
has supplied the committee reflecting your meetings with the Presi- 
dent show a meeting on June 20. 

"The President met with Mr. Ehrlichman in the President's EOB 
office." A meeting evidently with the President w^here no one else 
attended, a meeting of 55 minutes. Of course, this is 3 days after the 
break-in and 3 days prior to your conversation or your attendance 
where a conversation took place with Helms, Walters, and Haldeman, 
I believe. 

My question is what was discussed in this 55 minute conversation 
3 days subsequent to the break-in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was, according to my notes of the meeting, 
was principally taken up with two subjects, welfare reform — I was 
just about to come up to talk with Members of Congress about H.R. 1, 
which was then pending; and the other subject was the Bloomfield 
amendment which related to busing. 

Mr. Thompson. The activity of the special investigations unit was 
not discussed at all at that time ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Of course, at that time you realize that a former 
member of the special investigations unit was implicated in the 
Watergate break-in, did you not ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Meaning Liddy ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. 

Mr. Thompson. And the President did look to you for supervision of 
the special investigations unit, did he not? 

Mr. EhrliciiiAian. Well, special investigations unit. Mr. Thompson 
only had a life of about 60 to 90 days. It was formed on the 24th of 
July 1971. Bv the 20th of September, the President had sufficiently 
stimulated Mr. Hoover and the Attoi-ney General had sufficiently 
stimulated the Justice Department that they were very much back in 
business and the President and the Attorney General had a meeting 
and pretty well turned the whole Pentagon Papers business back to the 
Justice Department. There was one investigation that carried on into 
the end of the year, and })y Christmastime or the first of the year, 
why incidentally, that one only involved one member of the unit, the 
rest of them were out of business. So that all through the early part of 
1972 and on down into the summer there was no special unit. 



2557 

Mr. TiioMPSox. But the problem that Hunt and Liddy presented 
to the President, I would assume, or presented to the administration, 
had nothing to do with the length of time that was served. I assume 
that the problem that they presented was the fact that they had 
worked in the White House, they had engaged in certain activities, 
perhaps knew about others and that might be exposed because of the 
Watergate situation ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I do not think anybody was thinking in those 
kinds of terms, Mr. Thompson. They were thinking in terms of here 
were some people who were in the White House, they are long gone 
from the '\^'liite House, they have not worked here, but it is possible 
for people to impute to the "\^^lite House some implication in this 
silly act by reason of their foi-mer employment there. I do not think 
anybody was thinking that these fellows knew their secrets or that 
there w-as any, that there was anything that they might say that 
would be haraif ul to the campaign of the President in those kinds of 
tenns. 

Mr. Thompson. All right. This problem you just related I assume, is 
the substance of the conversation you say you had with the President 
about July 6 or 7. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, July 6 or 7 is when we talked about the 
CIA, and when I got a feel for why it was that I had been asked to 
sit in this meeting that Mr. Haldeman and I had with Director Helms 
and General Walters. 

Mr. Thompson. But when did the President instruct you to insure 
that the covert. CIA activities Avere not exposed by the Watergate in- 
vestigation ? Was it during this conversation ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. The instruction came to me secondhand, and it 
was not as crystal clear as you have just made it. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, I am reading from the statement 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sorry. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing] . Of the President. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sorry to disagree wdth the interpretation of 
the statement that you are giving, but the fact is that morning Mr. 
Haldeman said to me, "The President wants you to sit in a meeting." 

Now, I did that. Mr. Haldeman led the meeting, imparted the 
President's message to the Director and to the Deputy Director, and 
I was very' much an auditor at that meeting. I just sat and pretty 
much listened until there evolved from the meeting a — and it was not 
hard to figure out what the drift of it was — there evolved from the 
conversation a clear impression that there might be a problem, and 
so the conclusion of the meeting simplv was that General Walters and 
Pat Gray at the FBI would sit do^vn together and talk through what 
the problem might be. 

Mr. Thozmpson. Were those the instiiictions which the President is 
I'ef erring to here ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Aftei-ward, yes, afterward, I learned from the 
President that his concerns were as they are set out there in the state- 
ment, that disassociated, unrelated to the Watergate in any way, there 
might be CIA operations which would be uncovered, and you have to 
understand that right at this time we were experiencing massive leaks 
in the FBI, so that the fruits of the FBI investigation might veiy well 
be in your morning newspaper or in Time magazine more typically. 



2558 

The concern here was that the FBI would come upon some informa- 
tion, bring it into the FBI files, and you would read it in your news- 
paper, and the CIA would be compromised. Now, that is Avhat I have 
learned after the fact relating back to the meeting. 

Mr. TiiOMrsoN. All right, so from what you know the instructions 
related in the President's statement here would have to do with implied 
instructions, if you term it that way, that you got from attending a 
meeting of June 23, plus the President's later statement to you on 
July 6 or 7? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Right. 

Mr. Thompson. Of couree he states here "Within a few days I was 
advised there was a possibility of CIA involvement in some way" but 
he didn't talk directly to you about that until July 6 or 7? 

Mr. Erlichman. I am not your best witness on that. He talked to 
Mr. Haldeman about that and I got things secondhand up to, as I say, 
the 6th or 7th of Julv is when we had a direct conversation. 

Mr. Thompson. When did he advise you or when did he instruct 
you to insure that the activities of the special investigations unit were 
not exposed in the Watergate investigation? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I felt that there were standing instructions from 
about the first of 1972 on that. I don't recall a new set of specific 
instructions, and as I just testified, I am not aware of any conversa- 
tions or any specific instructions as to Mr. Gray or anyone else to 
look out for this area or stay out of this area or anything of that 
kind. There were internal instructions. For instance, at a point in time 
Mr. Young's secretary vv-as to be interviewed by the FBI, and Mr. 
Dean's office contacted her to make sure that she knew about the stand- 
ing instructions that the special unit's activities were not to be dis- 
closed. 

Mr. Thompson. The President says here that within a few days he 
learned of possible CIA involvement and then he instructed you and 
Mr. Haldeman to make sure that the covert activities of the CIA and 
the activities of the special investigations unit were not exposed. 

From what I understand you to say now with regard to the CIA 
involvement, you attended one meeting and you evidently didn't know 
what it was all about until j'ou got into the conversation on June 22 
with Helms and Walters and Haldeman. But you firet discussed the 
CIA involvement on July 6 or 7 and you never did really receive any 
specific instructions to keep the special investigations unit's activities 
from being exposed ? 

Mr. EirRiJCHMAN. Well, I did receive specific instructions but they 
predated Watergate by 5 or 6 months, and 

Mr. Thompson. I mean that would go without saying with regard 
to all internal activities of the "Wliite House, would it not, Mr. 
Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. But this didn't go without saying — this was very 
specific, very strong, very pointed. 

Mr. Thompson. So you received instructions but it preceded the 
Watergate ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. But you felt in your mind after the Watergate 
break-in and after, say, Julv 6, 7, anyway that you did have instruc- 
tions, however they came about, to insure that covert CIA operations 
and the plumbers operations unrelated to Watergate were not exposed ? 



2559 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. No, no [conferring with counsel]. I think you 
have misunderstood, me, Mr. Thompson. 

We had a meeting with ^Mr. Helms and Mr. Walters — General Wal- 
ters, excuse me. There were a series of conversations then as a result 
of that meeting between General Walters and Mr. Gray. The conclu- 
sion of those conversations came around July 6 or 7. The President 
then talked with Mr. Gray and his instructions to Mr. Gray were "In 
view of the CIA's conclusion that there was no danger of such expo- 
sure to go all out with an FBI investigation." And then he backed that 
up with instructions to me that I was to pass along to Mr. Gray, that 
Mr. Gray was to determine the scope of the investigation. So that by 
July 6 or 7 — and I can probably pin that date down for you in just a 
second here— but the— well, I think it was the 8th, as a matter of 
fact — let's see, it was — no, excuse me the 6th, he saw Clark MacGregor 
tlie same day, it was Thui-sday the 6th. By that day the President had 
determined the matter in conversation with Mr. Gray, there was no 
CIA, either involvement or potential, for leak or exposure, and the 
President's instructions to Mr. Gray were "Let's have an all-out FBI 
investigation" and that is just what happened. 

Mr. Thompson. So the matter had been resolved by July 6 ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. You previously stated, I believe, that July 6 or 7 
or 8 was the date on which the President instructed you to insure 
that 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sorrj^, it is the date I understood from our 
conversation what his concerns were. He gave me a very full explana- 
tion of why he had asked that we meet with Mr. Helms and General 
Walters back on in the first Aveek, and his — he obviously had a separate 
source of information that he was acting on back at that time, to the 
effect that there might be CIA involvement or there might be CIA 
operations but somehow or another could be compromisecl by an un- 
limited FBI investigation, and really the purpose of that June meeting 
with Walters and Helms was, it was, to find out if there was any- 
thing like that in possibility. 

The upshot of the meeting was, yes, maybe there was something like 
that in possibility, and so 

Mr. Thompson. So your previous statement, as I understand it, 
was incorrect and did I misunderstand you or are you withdrawing 
your previous statement to the effect that you received those instruc- 
tions on July 6 ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I didn't receive any instructions. I received 
an explanation. 

Mr. Thompson. Of what had already occurred ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. The point I am trying to get at is whether or not 
3'ou received similar instructions with regard to the plumbers. You 
never did really receive any specific instructions from the President 
with regard to seeing that the CIA covert activity was not exposed ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. T did through Mr. Haldeman in the sense of hav- 
ing this meeting in June. As far as the President sitting me down and 
saying, as he did incidentally in the case of the plumbers, sitting me 
down and saying, "I consider this vitally important. I don't want to 
hear about anvbody talking about it," and so on and so forth, which 
happened, as I say, around the first of 1972 with regard to that, no, 



2560 

I didn't personally get a direct order from the President with regard 
to that. 

Mr, Thompson. You personally didn't get any direct orders from 
the President the day after the Watergate break-in with regard either 
to CIA covert activities or plumbers activities ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As we 

Mr. Thompson. To keep them from being uncovered. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As we come into the March 1973 period, yes, I 
did, because as a response to this March 20 blackmail attempt by Hunt 
the President renewed his strong feeling that this whole special unit 
activity was impressed with a national security characteristic of the 
highest order, and he had me renew his injunction at that period to 
several people. 

Mr. Thompson. Let's discuss this June 23 meeting which you had 
with Helms, Walters, and Haldeman. You have explained your pres- 
ence at the meeting I believe that Mr. Haldeman suggested that the 
President wanted you to attend. I assume you are also aware that Mr. 
Walters has given some public testimony with regard to what tran- 
spired at that meeting. 

Would you tell us in fact, what in fact transpired at that particular 
meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, as I recall, Mr. Haldeman explained that 
the meeting was held at the President's request, that it was because of 
the President's concern, as I have mentioned, that CIA activities 
either were involved in the Watergate, one, or tw^o, some totally unre- 
lated CIA activity might be exposed by the investigation of the 
Watergate. 

Mr. Thompson. Could I stop you at that point a minute unless you 
would rather carry through, you just tell me and I will be glad for 
you to do so, but what caused Haldeman or the President so far as you 
know to believe that the CIA might possibly be involved ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, I became satisified later. I did not know 
at the time, I became satisfied later, in this July 6 meeting that the 
President had a source of information on which he was relying that 
was apart, from anything that he described to me. I never did know 
Avhat his source of information was. But it was evident to me from the 
conviction with which he discussed this subject, that his concern was 
based on some source of information which he considered reliable. 

Now, I went on — I should have gone on to say that ]\Ir. Haldeman 
also explained to the three of us. Helms, Walters and me, that the 
President felt that he must order a full, complete, unlimited FBI in- 
vestigation of the Watergate matter. That this had become already a 
serious political issue, and the only tenable political position for him 
to be in was to turn tlie FBI loose on this, and let them conduct any 
kind of an investigation that they could or should. 

Now, Mr. Haldeman then explained the implications of that, which 
were obvious. If the CIA were involved in the Watergate then obvi- 
ously that would be embarrassing, awkward and difficult for the CIA. 
Mr. Helms and General Walters assured us that that was not the case. 

Then Mr. Haldeman said if there were any other CIA activity or 
operation, totally disassociated from Watergate, which an investiga- 
tion of money or people, it being well known that some of these people 
who had been apprehended be on retainer to the CIA, and so forth, if 



2561 

any of these circumstances led to a disclosure of CIA operations, dis- 
associated from the Watergate, that, too, would be awkward. 

It was there that we did not get the same kind of flat assurance that 
we had gotten in the first instance, and so rather than for us to probe 
f hat for dates and places and names, it was simply agreed that General 
Walters would make an early appointment with Pat Gray and sit down 
and talk with him about what the problem might be, and that is what 
was done. 

The outcome of those talks, and I guess there were two or three of 
them, was simply that Walters and Gray agreed that there was no 
problem, and Gray then talked with the President on the phone, when 
the President was in San Clemente, I believe, on the 6th, and then the 
President, very shortly after that, told me about the telephone call, 
what his instructions to Gray had been, and then he explained to me 
what his concerns were about this rather nearly in the terms that I 
have just explained them to you. 

Mr. Thompson. Did he say his concerns were that there was CIA 
involvement with regard to the Watergate break-in or there was un- 
related CIA involvement which might be exposed ? 

Mr. EiiRLicHMAX. Well, he said in the inception, in the beginning, 
that had been, both had been, his concern, because of the fact that some 
of these people who had been arrested had had CIA connections in the 
past, and the information that had to come to him persuaded him there 
was at least a potential problem. 

Mr. Thompson. Did Haldeman ever tell Walters or Helms to go to 
Gray and tell him to in effect "hold off, slow down with regard to the 
^Mexican investigation because of CIA involvement?" 

Mr. EiiRLicHMAN. No. My recollection — no, the answer to that is 
naturally "no." 

My recollection is that the Mexican investigation was one of the 
things that was discussed and as to which INIr. Helms and General 
Walters could not give us a categorical assurance that FBI investiga- 
tion wouldn't create problems for them so that it was simply noticed 
as one of the kinds of problems that might arise in which General 
Walters and the Director of the FBI ought to compare notes on. 

Mr. Thompson. So in other words, you were merely presenting it to 
him, according to your testimony, to find out whether or not there 
would be CIA embarrassment possibly, and it would be for them to 
work the matter out, report back, so the matter could be resolved. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not even report back in that sense, reporting back 
to us. As a matter of fact, we said at that point, look, we are out of this ; 
we just Avanted to crystalize this, wanted to get you together with the 
FBI. The A^Hiite House contact on this would be John Dean, who was 
the fellow following this entire matter. So in effect, we turned General 
Walters and Mr. Helms over to Dean for any future contacts that they 
might have on it. 

Mr. Thompson. You would not know whether or not John Dean on 
June 7 went to Walters and told him that it would be good if the CIA 
could help raise bail money, could help raise some salary money, that 
the witnesses were wallowing and could be in trouble ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I read that in the newspaper and it really sur- 
prised me when I read it. So I wondered at the origin of this until I 
heard Mr. Dean's testimony, which was that he had been asked by Mr. 



2562 

Mitchell to do this. I had in effect set this up without knowing it by 
telling Walters that Dean was his White House contact from that day 
forward. But I did not know about these conversations. 

Mr. Thompson. Dean did not report back to you ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Not about that ; no, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you have occasion to call Mr. Gray to call off a 
meeting which he and Walters scheduled on June 28, to tell him that 
the meeting would no longer be necessary, that matters had been 
worked out some Avay ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Well, I didn't realize that I had canceled it. My 
strong concern about that meeting was that it was going to include 
some staff members from the FBI and as I say, we were experiencing 
these leak problems and right at that particular time, one of the peo- 
ple who would have been included in that meeting was under very 
strong suspicion as being the source of that leak. We had had inde- 
pendent information which we were talking to Mr. Kleindienst about, 
about that specific individual and it appeared that this whole thing 
was going to include him. So that was the reason for my call. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you ask precisely who would be in attendance 
at the meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Yes. Well, I don't know as I asked him. I think I 
was told. As a matter of fact, I think INIr. Dean told me. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you tell Mr. Gray of your suspicions or concerns 
about the individual ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Not at that time. 

Mr. Thompson. Why ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Because at that time, we were talking with Mr. 
Kleindienst about how to go about smoking out this problem around 
Mr. Gray, frankly. 

Mr. Thompson. Why ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Why ? 

Mr. Thompson. Why around Mr. Gray ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Because Mr. Gray at that time was not acknowl- 
edging the problem. 

Mr. Thompson. You had spoken to him about it ? 

Mr. Ehrliciiman. Oh, I had spoken to him about the leaks. I hadn't 
spoken to him about this specific man in this specific meeting until 
this call. Mr. Kleindienst and I discussed on several occasions how 
we might go about determining the source of the leak. He proposed the 
idea of planting a story or a set of circumstances and seeing if it 
turned up and this kind of thing. So we were dealing with the At- 
torney General on that. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you talk to Walters about this meeting? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't believe so. T don't believe I talked to 
John Walters again 

Mr. Thompson. Could not Gray and Walters have had a meeting, 
the two of them, to solve the problem ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, that was the whole idea. 

Mr. Thompson. Was that suggested ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That was suggested in the inception. 

Mr. Thompson. You didn't tell liim that the meeting would not 
be necessary ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't recall what I told him, except that 



2563 

Mr. Thompson. It would be inconsistent with your desire to solve 
the matter, I assume, as to whether or not there was CIA involvement. 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. Well, whatever I told him was for the purpose of 
not having staff meetings on this particular subject. I can't tell you 
precisely what I told him. 

Mr. Thompson. Going back to July of 1971, July 7, 1971, did you 
call Deputy Director Cushman and ask him to give Mr. Hunt as- 
sistance in his activities at that time ? 

INIr. Ehrlichman. No, I have been asked many times about that 
telephone call and I simply have no recollection of having made 
that call. 

Mr. Thompson. Did you know what Mr. Hunt was doing during 
that period of time ? Were you informed ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I knew from my one meeting with Mr. Colson 
and Mr. Hunt jointly what he was supposed to be doing, yes. 

Mr. Thompson. What was he doing? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. He was supposed to be engaged in an analysis 
of the Pentagon Papers and in determining their accuracy, whether or 
not they were in fact complete accounts of the events which took 
place or whether they were edited, tailored accounts which did not 
include the complete facts. 

Mr. Thompson. In June, when you were talking to Helms and 
Walters about the possible CIA problem or uncovering some collateral 
CIA activity, this all evolved around the so-called Mexican money 
problem, I assume, is that correct ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, it was much broader than that. It was any 
unassociated CIA activity. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, what brought it to anyone's attention? I 
thought it was the so-called Barker money that had come from 
Mexico. 

Mr. Epirlichman. You mean that precipitated the meeting? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, it was a much broader concern than that, 
and it included, as I said, the question of direct involvement, it 
included whatever exposure there might be for any CIA activity. 
I think the Mexican money or the Florida bank accovmt or whatever, 
which involved one of these peo];)le who had been a former CIA agent 
or client or whatever they call them, was raised as an example in the 
meeting by one of us as the kind of thing that the President evidently 
was concerned about. And it was discussed as a specific example. But 
the meeting was by no means limited to that. 

Mr. Thompson. Can you recall any other specific examples that 
were discussed ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Bay of Pigs. 

Mr. Thompson. How did that come in ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, because apparently, the President had 
specifically mentioned the Bay of Pigs to Bob Haldeman in suggesting 
the meeting, and then he mentioned it to me again in July as the kind 
of thing that apparently, CIA miglit be embarrassed about, that some 
of the people who Avere involved in Watergate, apparently, had been 
involved in the Bay of Pigs and accordingly, whether there was any 
CIA exposure still existing. 



2564 

Mr. Thompson. The Watergate investigation could possibly turn 
up some additional investigation on the CIA operation in the Bay of 
Pigs? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. CIA involvement or compromise of some sort or 
something in the past. It was very unspecific, but it was nonetheless 
mentioned as an example. 

Mr. Thompson. Can you think of any other examples ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I cannot. The Mexican money or Mexican 
laundry or whatever you 

Mr. Thompson. Of course, that money wound up in the bank ac- 
count of a Mr. Barker. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. 

Mr. Thompson. And Mr. Barker, of course, was a protege of Mr. 
Hunt, brought into the matter by Hunt ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. A CIA protege of Mr. Hunt. 

Mr. Thompson. They were in the Bay of Pigs. Was his name men- 
tioned in the meeting ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. 

Mr. Thompson. The money problem you were talking about seems 
to have been directly related to Mr. Hunt, which gets riglit back into 
the plumber situation again. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Barker's name and Hunt's name were not men- 
tioned in the meeting. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Elirlichman, regardless of what the President 
specifically told you or did not tell you, I assume that you felt a short 
time after the break-in, the latter part of June, that it was the Presi- 
dent's wish to insure that the investigation of the break-in did not 
expose either the unrelated covert operation of the CIA or the activi- 
ties of the White House investigations unit. Did you assume that to be 
the President's wish, as he stated that it was ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Mr. Thompson, I assumed that it was with regard 
to the CIA because of this meeting we have just been talking about. 
Frankly, the question of the special unit simply never entered my mind 
at that time as a potential problem. It just was not in contemplation 
and it was not in the contemplation of anybody that I was talking to, 
so far as I can recall. 

Mr. Thompson. Even though Liddy had worked 

Mr. Ehrlichman. That is correct. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing]. In your office, under your supervision 
generally? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, he had worked in my office, in a very remote 
sense. 

Mr. Thompson. It did not occur to you that, if he was tried, if he 
decided to talk, if he decided to bargain, there were a lot of things 
that he could tell that would be embarrassing, not only politically but 
compromising with regard to national secui'ity ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I assure you, Mr. Thompson, it just was not in 
my consciousness. 

Mr. TiioivrpsoN. It evidently crossed the President's mind. When do 
you think those matters which he sets out in his May 22 statement came 
to his mind? He says he was informed within a few days about pos- 
sible CIA involvement. The implication is that he knew about the 
existence of the unit regardless of any specific activities; that he knew 
about the unit all along. 



2565 

Mr. Ehrliciimax. Oh, he did ; there is no question about that. 
Mr. Thompson. Can we assume that, from the very beginning, from 
the time immediately after tlie break-in, that he was concerned from a 
national security basis, as he says, about the plumbei-s' activities being 
revealed ? 

Mr. P^HRLicHMAx. If I could finish what I started to say, Mr. 
Thompson, he knew about it. His meeting with Mr. Krogh back in 
July of 1971 is what charged it up and generated the system behind it. 
The concern about the special unit, to my knowledge, was not evidenced 
around the White House until the FBI interviews of individuals began 
sometime in June, when Mr. Dean's office did counsel people who had 
been connected with the special unit, like Mr. Young's secretary and 
others, to be very cautious about opening up that subject. 

Xow, that was a verv broad subject. It ranged from the Pentagon 
Papers through SAIvT and these other investigations. But that was 
when this cautionary note was introduced. If the President passed 
that instruction — as I say, he did not pass it to me directly. He must 
have passed it to Mr. Dean or someone else. 

!Mr. Thompsox. When did you first become concerned about exposing 
the ])lumbers' activities? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I Avould think March 20 of this year, 
Mr. Thompsox. March 20 of this year ? 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. At the time of the Hunt blackmail attempt. 
Mr. Thompsox. Where did the President get his information from 
which to make this June 22 statement? He said he was concerned about 
the reasons for the subsequent improper activities which he admits 
evidently took place. The reason for this was people becoming over- 
zealous pursuant to his general instructions that CIA covert activities 
and the plumbers' activities, unrelated to Watergate, not be exposed. 
Well, how could he get his information, how could he be concerned 
about the plumbers' activities except through you ? 

Senator Ervix. There is a vote on the Senate floor. We will have a 
recess now for a couple of minutes so we can go vote. 
[Recess.] 

Senator Ervix. Mr. Ehrlichman, you have been sitting there testify- 
ing a long time. 
Do you need a vacation ? Shall we recess briefly ? 
Mr. Ehrlichmax. No, that is fine. I have had a nice stretch. 
Senator Ervix. Counsel wdll resume the questioning of the witness. 
Mr. Thompsox. Mr. Ehrlichman, I don't believe I gave you a chance 
to answer that last question, if you recall the dialog. If you would like 
to respond, please do so. 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. Maybe you can help me a little bit, Mr. Thompson. 
Mr. Thompsox. Well, you indicated, I believe, that you really be- 
came concerned about exposure of the so-called plumbers' activities, 
I believe in March of this year. I w^as inquiring about what appears 
to have been the President's concern much earlier, right after the 
break-in. 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. You asked me how in the world would he have 
known about it if I hadn't told him. 

Mr. Thompson. What that concern was, and what was the source 
of it, if you know ? 



2566 

Mr. EiTRLiciiMAN. Well, of course, the President has many, many 
channels of information in and he ^ives instructions to a number of 
people besides me on a Avhole range of subjects. So I wouldn't want you 
to haA^e the impression that he depended on me as the sole source of his 
information or the sole conduit for his instructions, either one, 

I became aware of a ver}^ active conceiii, and a vei-y active practice 
on the part of Mr. Dean and his collea<>ue, Mr. Fielding, to counsel 
people who had in some way been associated with the special unit in 
one way or another, that when they were interviewed by the FBI, 
this was a subject that was impressed by the President with a very 
high security classification. That would have been — the FBI really 
was conducting interviews in the White House in the month of June 
and on into July. I think they finished for all practical purposes their 
intensive investigation in the White Plouse during the month of July. 

Mr. Thompson. Would he not normally have expressed his concern 
to you, whether or not he was getting any information from you, since 
he looked to you for supervision of this group? Would he have not 
expressed his concern to you about in effect, your former employees ? 

Mr. EiiRLicHMAN. Would he not ? 

Mr. Thompson. Did he not? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't recall that he ever did, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Thompson. I belieA^e you did state that early on, you felt like 
you had standing instructions that these matters of national security 
involving the plumbers were matters which were not to be exposed. 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes, sir; I have a very clear recollection of a 
conversation Avith the President around the first of 1971, in which he 
made that very, very clear. 

Mr. Thompson. But you had no personal concern until March of 
this year that— Avhat ? Either that those matters Avould be exposed or 
if they Avere exposed, that they Avould have any significant repercus- 
sions ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman, I think the former. I had rested secure in a pas- 
si\'e sense — this Avasn't something that Avas on my mind a great deal. 
But I had felt that this Avas a set of subjects of real delicacy in terms 
of national security and that really, if there Avere any subjects that 
Avould not be talked about freely or find their way into the public 
domain, that this is one of those sets of subjects that Avould not. And I 
didn't have any conscious concern that anybody inA-oh^ed in it. Hunt 
and Liddy included. Avould have told those 

Mr. Thompson. When did you first become aAvare of the fact that 
money was being raised to pay Hunt, among others? 

Mv. Ehrlichman. I am not sur-e that I kncAv Avho money Avas being 
raised for in any specific sense. You have asked me about Hunt. 

Mr. Thompson. The Watergate defendants ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman, Yes, I Avas aAvare that there Avas a need for a 
defense fund, attomevs' fees fund, 

Mr. Thompson. When did that come to your attention? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. It must have been late in June and it came to me 
through Mr. Dean, Avho said that the defendants Avere losing their 
attorneys, attorneys Avere quitting, they Avere not being paid. John 
Mitchell felt verv strongly that it Avas important to haA^e good legal 
representation for these defendants for a number of reasons — for 
political reasons, but also because we had these civil damage suits that 



2567 

had been filed by the Democrats against the Committee for the Re- 
Election and the Re|:)ublicans. 

Mr. Thompson. AYhat do you mean "for political reasons"? 

Mr. EiiRLicHMAx. Well, just that if there were to be a trial and it 
were to take place before the election, that obviously, that trial would 
have some political impact and good lepresentation was simply 
essential. 

Mr. Thompson. How would money help in that regard? Motions for 
continuances or 

Mr. EiiRLicHMAN. Money would help to retain attorneys. At least, 
that was my understanding of the concept. 

Mr. Thompson. It certainly would do that ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Evidently. 

Mr. Thompson. What about later on ? Did it come to your attention 
that there Avere increasing pressures by Hunt specifically for money, 
more money for himself and his attorneys ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I don't think I became aware of that until some- 
time after the 1st of the year. Then it came not in the, not so much in 
the money sense where Hunt was concerned, but it related to this 
episode of his trying to make contact with Mr. Colson to satisfy him- 
self that Colson was still standing by him and that he was still his 
friend, and this kind of thing. It was not until we got into about the 
20th of ]March that I became aware that Hunt was in fact making 
strong money demands. 

Mr. Thompson. You didn't have any discussions with anyone. Dean 
or anyone else, during all this period of time, about Hunt in fact was 
threatening to blow the lid off unless his money demands were met? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't believe so. 

Mr. Thompson. You drew no distinction in your mind between 
Hunt and Liddy and the Cuban- Americans ? They were all just one 
package ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. As two groups? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. You didn't feel like it was any more impera- 
tive that Hunt and Liddy had sufficient funds to hire good lawyers 
to make them happy than for the Cuban-Americans ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No. And it was not, obviously, to make them 
happy and it was for the purpose that I have stated. 

Mr. Thompson. Humanitarian ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. AVell, no ; I conceived of this as being like, you 
know, the Daniel Ellsberg defense fund and the Angela Davis defense 
fund and the Berrigan brothers defense fund. It is apparently a com- 
monplace of American life these days that these kinds of funds are 
created and that people do donate to them. 

Mr. Thompson. Is it your understanding that this particular de- 
fense fund was going to be secret ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. No, as a matter of fact, Mr. Dean told me that 
there was a public defense fund being created in Florida right around 
this time. 

Mr. Thompson. But this was not the one that Mr. Kalmbach was 
engaged in, w^as it ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. This was, as I understood it, one that had been 
generated within the Cuban community down there. 



96-296 O - 73 - pt. 6 - 23 



2568 

Mr. TiiOMPSOX. But is that not somethino; complotely separate and 
apart from what Mr. Kahnbach was doing? Di(hi"t ^Ir. Kahnbach 
come to you and, in essence, tell you that he was raising money and 
ask if it Avas all right ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, not quite in those terms, but I had a con- 
conversation with Mr. Kalmbach about the fact that he was raising 
money for attorneys' fees. 

Mr. Thompson. Give us the essence of that conversation, if you can. 
"\^nien did it occur and what was said ? 

Mr. EiiRLiCHMAN. It occurred on July 14 out in his office in New- 
port Beach. That was a Friday afternoon. I stopped at his office on 
my way from the western White House back to the place that I was 
staying, which was on farther north, and he showed me his offices. 
We talked about the California political situation, which he was 
then very concerned about, on which he had a number of ideas. And 
he mentioned to me in the course of that get-together that he was now 
raising money. He said it rather philosophically, because we had had a 
conversation back sometime in February or March in which 

Mr. Thompson. How do you talk about raising money, philosoph- 
ically? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, this way : He had hoped to get out of the 
money-raising business the first of April and we had hatched a rather 
elaborate plot to get him out of the money-raising business and it was 
that Bob Haldeman and I would be his defense when Maury Stans 
and John Mitchell asked him to get back into the fundraising again. 
He said he had had that activity and he had been at it a couple of 
times in Presidential campaigns and he really wanted to do other 
kinds of things to be helpful. 

So we agreed that when he was approached by Mr. Stans or Mr. 
Mitchell, that he would say, and we would back him up, that he was 
going to do political chores for the White House on assignment. 

He was philosophical about it in the sense that it w^as sort of, well, 
maybe you have heard 

Mr. Thompson. Could I ask you this ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman [continuing]. I am back raising money again. 

Mr. Thompson. Pardon me for interrupting. Could I ask you this : 
He testified essentially that he looked into your eyes and said, "John, 
I know your family, you know my family, is this the thing to do, is it 
all right?" 

You said, "yes. Herb, it is." 

Now, did that happen ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. I am sure that if he had looked into my eyes and 
I had looked into his eyes and we had invoked the names of our wives, 
I am sure I would remember that solemn occasion and I am sorry to 
say that I don't remember. 

I would never in my life ask Herb Kalmbach to do anything that 
I thought was shady or improper, certainly not illegal. And if Herb 
Kalmbacli liad ever said to me, "Do you vouch for the propriety or the 
legality of what I am doing," I would have been very, very slow to make 
any assurance to Herb without a lot of research to satisfy myself. And 
tliat is why T am ])retty sure that that kind of request was not made 
of me and I did not make a response, because I never did have occasion 
to research it or find out about it. 



2569 

Mr. Thompson. Dean had already talked to you about it previously, 
though ? 

Mr. Ehrlichman. Well, he had talked to me about it. He said, 
"Look, I am going to see if we can get Herb Kalmbach wound up to 
raise some attorney's fees for John Mitchell, who says we have really 
got to do it for the reasons that I have stated." He said, "if he checks 
with you, back me up on this." 

Now, it happened that he did not check with me. Herb did not call 
me and we did not talk about it until he was well into the project. As 
I say, it w\as, as I recall, the 14th of July when we first discussed it. And 
the balance of the conversation, after he said, as I say, rather resigned- 
ly, that he was back in this, that he was using Tony Ulasewicz to carry 
cash — and I got tlie impression that he was carrying cash from Cali- 
fornia to the East and I may be mistaken about that, but I related that 
to Dean's very brief conversation with me before about this. There was 
no solicitation of him to me, is this OK for me to do or anything of 
that sort at that time. 

Now, he was in my office again back here, what, 12 days later, I guess 
it was, on the 26th. and my log shows that. I do not know — he made 
periodic visits and he would come in and he would have a whole list of 
things that he wanted to talk about, and we would go down his list. 
It may be that this business was on it, but I am just morally certain 
that there was no such request of him that I vouch for the activity nor 
was there any vouching on my part. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Ehrlichman, I would like to conclude. Now the 
reason I am probing this area wnth regard to your frame of mind at the 
time is this : It appears to me that if, say, the break-in at the psychia- 
trist's office of Daniel Ellsberg was a leo^itimate matter, a matter con- 
cerning national security and was held under your interpretation, I 
presume, of the implied powers of the President under the Constitu- 
tion; if you felt this way, and if, in fact, the President had instructed 
you for national security reasons to see that those matters were not u