^ t , r * y * f / -^ I-
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS
BEFORK THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation, and Related Matters
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 8, MARCH 16, 20, AND 21, 1974
Book 21
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
FRANKLIN PIRRCE LAW CENTER
•Concord, New Hampshire 033QI
or-' ^- °OSIT MAR 6 ' 1975
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OP THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation, and Related Matters
WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 8, MARCH 16, 20, AND 21, 1974
Book 21
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-889 O WASHINGTON : 1974
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.65
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 S. 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
Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel
James C. Moore, Assistant Counsel
Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel
Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel
W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel
Alan S. Weitz, Assistant Counsel
Robert F. Muse, Jr., Assistant Counsel
Mark J. Biros, Assistant Counsel
R. Scott Armstrong, Investigator
Michael J. Hershman, Investigator
Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel
Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel
Michael J. Madioan, Assistant Minority Counsel
Richard L. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel
Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel
Carolyn M. Andrade, Administrative Assistant
Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager
Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority
[Executive session hearings released to the public after the filing
of the final report of the Senate Select Committee.]
(n)
CONTENTS
HEARING DAYS
Page
Friday, February 8, 1974 9677
Saturday, March 16, 1974 9687
Wednesday, March 20, 1974 9937
Thursday, March 21, 1974 10041
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Friday, February 8, 1974
Ehrlichman, John D., former assistant to the President for domestic affairs,
hccompanied l)y John J. Wilson, counsel 9677
Saturday, March 16, 1974
Caulfield, John J., former law enforcement oflScial with the Treasury De-
partment, accompanied by John P. Sears, counsel 9687
Wednesday, March 20, 1974
Rebozo. Charles G.. friend and confidant of President Nixon, accompanied
by William S. Frates and Alaii G. Greer, counsel 9938
Thursday, March 21, 1974
Rebozo, Charles G., testimony resumed 10041
Kalmbach, Herbert W., former personal attorney of the President, accom-
panied by Edward P. Morgan, counsel 10181
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Caulfield Exhibits
No. 1— (9709) :
Tab 1 — Memorandum for Bob Haldeman from Bill Satire, dated
August 4, 1970, re Larry O'Brien ; various other memo-
randums 9738
Tab 2 — White House memorandum for Roy Goodearle from
Charles Colson, dated January 15, 1971. re Bob Bennett,
son of Senator Bennett, of Utah ; various other memo-
randums are also included 9747
Tab 3 — White House memorandum for Mr. Colson from Jeh S.
Magruder. dated April 14, 1971, subject : Ed Muskie ;
various other memorandums also included re same
subject 9759
Tab 4 — White House memorandum for John Dean from Jack
Caulfield, dated July 6, 1971, subject: Potomac Asso-
ciates ; also memorandum dated August 9, 1971. same
.subject 9"65
Tab 5 — Action note with attached memorandums re McGovern
fundraising stationery 9767
Tab 6 — Two memorandums for Bud Krogh from John Dean,
dated July 20 and July 27, re Brookings Institution,
with attachments 9771
Tab 7 — Three memorandums for John Dean from Jack Caul-
field, re John D. Wilkes. Also memorandum for Ron
Walker from John Dean, dated August 10, 1971 9783
(III)
IV
Caulfield Exhibits — Continued
No. 1— (9709)— Ck)ntinued
Tab 8— Two memorandums for John Dean from Jack Caulfield
and one for Jack Caulfield from William Timmons, all Page
pertaining to 1972 San Diego convention 9787
Tal) 9 — Memorandum re Senator Kennedy's movements during
his stop-off visit to Honolulu en route from India,
August 17-19, 1971 9791
Tab 10 — Two memorandums from Jack Caulfield to John Dean,
dated September 10 and October 14, 1971, re Newsday
article assertedly financed by the Kennedy Foundation- 9793
Tab 11 — Memorandum for John Dean from Jack Caulfield, dated
September 22, 1971, subject : John Buckley 9795
Tab 12 — Action memo to John Dean from John J. Caulfield with
attachments re contributions of Lawrence Yale Gold-
berg 9796
Tab 13 — Memorandum to John Dean from John J. Caulfield, dated
September 23, 1971, re three letters signed Robert S.
Strauss on Democratic National Committee stationery- 9803
Tab 14 — Memorandum for John Dean from Jack Caulfield, dated
September 30, 1971. Subject: George Bell's informa-
tion re Virgin I.sland Corp 9807
Tab 15 — Caulfield memorandum for John Dean, dated Septem-
ber 30, 1971, re IRS investigation of Billy Graham and
John Wayne, with attachments. Also audit examina-
tions of other individuals in the entertainment indus-
try who were ix)litically active 9808
Tab 16 — Memorandum for John Dean from Jack Caulfield, dated
October 7, 1971. Subject: Ballot security for 1972
(supplement to earlier memo on 1972 security needs),
with attachment 9815
Tab 17 — Memorandum to John Dean from John J. Caulfield, dated
October 8, 1971, re IRS check of Stewart L. Udall, with
supporting matei'ial 9821
Tab 18 — White House memorandum from Jack Caulfield to John
Dean, dated June 25, 1971. Subject : Emile DeAntonio,
producer of the film "Millhouse : A White Comedy" ;
attached material deals with the same subject and also
the showing of uncut film of Richard Nixon's 1952
"Checkers Speech" 9829
Tab 19 — Two White House memorandums from Jack Caulfield to
John Dean : October 14, 1971, subject : "EMK-Toyota" ;
October 20, 1971, subject : J. Otani 9845
Tab 20 — White House memorandums from Jack Caulfield to John
Dean: September 30, 1971, subject: Antonio Cortese :
October 15, 1971, investigation of Anthony Cortese —
Wine Vault, Inc. ; also concerns stocking wine storage
rack at San Clemente 9847
Tab 21 — Memorandum to John Dean from John Caulfield, dated
November 2, 1971, concerning Los Angeles Times
antitrust action, with attachment 9851
Tab 22 — Caulfield memorandum to John Dean, dated November
4, 1971, subject: Political issues in Florida. Attached
documents discuss Florida political strategy and ap-
pointment of Philip Rutledge to HEW 9854
Tab 23 — Memorandum for the President from John Dean, dated
December 7, 1971. Subject : Condition of George Meany,
with attachment bearing the same title 9868
Tab 24 — White House memorandum from Jack Caulfield to John
Dean, dated January 12, 1972. Subject : Members of the
DNC Advisory Committee on Security for the 1972 con-
vention ; list of proposed members and addresses of ad-
visory committee 9871
Tab 25 — John Dean memorandum to Robert Finch, dated Janu-
ary 17, 1972, concerning a derogatory film about the
President being produced by the Smothers Brothers,
with attachment 9874
Caulfield Exhibits— Continued
No. 1— (9709)— Continued
Tab 26^Two February 1972 memorandums from Jack Caulfield
to John Dean re the Fund for Investigative ^^^e
Journalism 9877
Tab 27 — Wliite House memorandum from Jack Caulfield to John
Dean, dated February 16, 1972. Subject : Advance copy
of the book "Police in Trouble — Our Frightening Crisis
in Law Enforcement," with attachment 9879
Tab 28 — Memorandum from Charles Colson to John Dean, dated
March 3, 1972, enclosing a memorandum from Steve
Karalekas concerning a leasing arrangement between
Larry O'Brien and LBJ 9882
Tab 29 — ^ Various memorandums and documents concerning Henry
Kimmelman, former treasurer and fundraiser for the
McGovern campaign 9885
Tab 30 — John Dean memorandum to H. R. Haldeman dated June
16, 1972. Subject : McGovem's war record : with at-
tachments 9894
Tab 31 — Detailed explanation and propo.sed objectives and goals
of "Operation 'Sandwedge.' " 9899
No. 2 — (9723) Jack Anderson column entitled: "Six CIA Attempts to
Kill Castro Failed— Plot Hushed" 9911
No. 3 — (9723) Jack Anderson column from the Washington Post, Jan-
uarv 19, 1971, entitled: "Were Trujillo, Diem, CIA
Targets, Too?" 9913
No. -^^-(9724) Transcript of CBS TV program "60 Minutes" of Febru-
ary 2, 1971 9915
Affidavit of Carmine Bellino, dated June 21, 1974 10145
Rebozo Exhibits
No. 1— (9949) Check for $6,000 to Thomas Wakefield from C. G.
Rebozo 10155
No. 2— (9950) Rebozo check to Herbert Kalmbach for $1,000, dated
July 17, 1969 10156
Nos. 3 through 5 — (10010) Safe-deposit box visitation records for July
9. 1968; October 14, 1966; and October 12, 1971, re-
.spectively 10157-59
No. 6 — (10038) Letter from Danner to Rebozo dated February 24,
1971, reflecting nature of their friendship 101(50
No. 7— (100.38) Rebozo letter to Danner dated March 1, 1971,
responding to previous letter 10161
No. 8— (10038) Letter from Danner to Rebozo dated March 3, 1970,
re school busing and attorney Ed Morgan 10162
No. 9— (10038) Danner letter to Rebozo dated March 17, 1970, re
AEC underground nuclear testing, with attach-
ment 10163
No. 10 — (10038) Letter from Danner to editor of Life magazine, dated
July 30, 1970, re Rebozo article 10171
No. 11 — (10039) Telegram from Danner to Rebozo dated October 7,
1970, re President Nixon's speech on Vietnam 10172
No. 12— (10039) Correspondence between Robert J. Bird and C. G.
Rebozo regarding Richard Danner 10173
No. 13— (10039) Letter from Richard Danner to C. G. Rebozo dated
May 14, 1971, re Miami Herald article by Nixon
Smiley concerning "cash kidnaping case" 10175
No. 14— (10039) Danner letter from C. G. Rebozo dated May 19, 1971,
regarding Miami Herald's "goofing" 10170
No. 15 — (10126) Memorandum from Jack Caulfield to John Dean,
dated September 10, 1971, re Newsday article 10177
No. 16 — (10126) Caulfield memorandum to John Dean dated October
14 1971, also concerning Newsday article 10178
No. 17 — (10142) Working papers on subpenas to Rebozo 10179
Note : Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record.
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
THE HIIGHES-REBOZO INVESTIGATION, AND
RELATED MATTERS
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1974
U. S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ B.C.
[The following testimony of Mr. Ehrlichman on the Hughes-
Eebozo Investigation and Related Matters is a continuation of the
executive session hearing of February 8, 1974, appearing in books 16
and 18.]
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Ehrlichman, I would like to ask a couple of
questions. Just before the period October 1971, when Newsday did a
series on Mr. Rebozo, do you recall asking Mr. Fielding if he would
come down to Key Biscayne and talk with Mr. Rebozo?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY
JOHN J. WILSON, COUNSEL
Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you give us the background to how that
request occurred ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. That occurred as a result of the President's re-
quest to me, that I talk with ]\Ir. Rebozo about a conversation that
Rebozo had had with the President in which he had — Rebozo had
indicated that he was probably going to file a libel action, and the
President was concerned about it for his friend, and didn't want to
see him going off half cocked and just asked, as an accommodation,
to sit down with him, and so, on the occasion of a trip when we
were already there. I went around to his office and sat, and talked
with him about it for awhile. There were questions there that I
couldn't answer. I mean, there were technical questions that came
up, and some of them involved improprieties on the part of Govern-
ment officials, specifically, as I recall National Park Service, some-
thing to do with the Everglades National Park and so on, and
Rebozo felt that he had been libeled. I was concerned from two stand-
points, one, whether the charges were true or not from the standpoint
of the internal operations of the Government. The other was where
Rebozo might be getting himself into a situation — ^where he was
(9677)
9678
going to get himself into a law suit that would be of disadvantage to
us both, to him and the President. So on my return. I asked Fielding
to go down and find out as much as he could about those transactions
and lie talked to Rebozo. he talked to him about the law suit. He
talked to — I think people in the Government down there.
Mr. Armstroxg. OK. Do you recall — I am not sure I understand
the reference to the nature of the improprieties on the part of
Government employees ?
Mr. EiiRiJCHMAx. "Well, the Xewsday service. I recall, had various
allegations that im])lied undue influence on Rebozo's part, or undue
solicitation, or on the part of Government people because of his
friendship with the President, and things of that kind.
Mr. Armstroxg. This is in the sale of the property?
Mr. EnRLTCH^iAX'. Xo. I am a little vague on this, but as I recall
it had to do with title insurance, and where business had been done
with this title insurance, and the Xational Park Service and the
national parkland down there and also something to do with a park
on an island down there in which he did. or did not have interest
or some such thing. "Well, he felt that that was libelous, that he
had not influenced anybody with the commission of a crime, that he
was going to sue. I was concerned for him and I was also concerned
with the fact of whether there was in fact, improprieties, but it was
not anything that I had anything to do with, in terms of my official
responsibilities. Fielding did so. he was dispatched.
Mr. Armstroxg. It is my understanding that !Mr. Fielding re-
quested on the occasion of his meeting with Mr. Rebozo. certain docu-
ments relating to. among other things. I think Fisher Island, the
stock transactions on Fisher Island.
Mr. EiiRLiCHMAX. Requested of him ?
Mr. Armstrox'g. Of ^fr. Rebozo. and Mr. Rebozo forwarded them
to you with a cover letter, do you recall that ?
Mr. EiTRLicmrAX. Xo. but it could have been.
Mr. Armstrox'g. It is my undertanding the cover letter made refer-
ence to a conversation that the President had had with you regarding
the fact that the documents should not go to anyone other than
yourself, and should either be destroyed or returned to Mr. Rebozo
when their use was included. Do you recall that ?
Mr. EhrtvTCItmax'. Xo.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you recall any discussion with the President
on the subject of Fisher Island ?
Mr. Ehrltchmax'. Oh sure, we had a number of conversations
about Fisher Island, but I don't recall that about the documents.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you recall a discussion with the President on
the subject of how the redemption price for his stock was agreed
upon at S2 ?
'Slv. EiTRi-irHMAX. Xo. That was pretty much left to Rebozo and
a lawyer named "Wakefield to work out within the corporation, but
beyond that I don't recall any specifics.
Mr. Armstroxg. But. at the time of the Xewsday article, you don't
recall any ?
Mr. EHRLTcmiAX. Well, the Xewsday article had in it — yes. I do
recall something. Xow, let's see who told me this. I guess Reix)zo told
9679
me. The Newsday article had something in it about a disgruntled
stockholder who claimed they had been blackjacked into giving more
money than the thing was woi-th. And Rebozo explained that the guy
was a Democratic hack, who was down there and obviously making
a false statement for political purposes and that he was of bad repute
in the community, and so he filled me in and attempted to impeach
this guy on the basis of his past conduct and so on.
ISIr. Armstrong. But there was — was there any discussion as to
how the price was arrived at — the $2 was arrived at per share?
:Mr. EiiRLicnMAN. Well, I think — I don't know who told me this
or how T knew it, but it seems to me that they had a shareholder'
meeting, or a meeting of the board, I forget which, and they deter-
mined it on the basis of market. I am the wrong one to ask how they
did it. There were conversations though in response to the charges
that this fellow had made.
JNIr. Armstrong. But, at the time of the Newsday article this was
not a matter of great concern to you?
Mr. ElIRLICHMAN. No.
]\Ir. Armstrong. Do you recall discussions of a corporation known
as Condev, C-o-n-d-e-v, which ;Mr. William Eebozo, Mr. Charles
Gregory, Rebozo's nephew was involved in ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Or that Senator Smathers was involved in — ^that
Condev provided the money for an operation to buy Fisher's Island;
purchased the operation for $300,000; and, given the opportunity
to — ^that money was the money which, in turn, the President was able
to redeem his shares with ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. No, I don't think I have heard that.
INIr. Armstrong. I^t me leave that area. The second area of con-
cern we had was
Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, wait a minute now. I want to be as com-
plete as I can. It seems to me tliat somelwdy told me that there was
an offer and that that offer had made the market, in effect, which
determined tlie price that would l>e paid. Now, whether that is the
offer or not, I don't know, but I think I was told that at the time of
the redemption the offer was still })ending, and that they had con-
sidered that offer as sound basis for the determination of the market
price.
Mr. Arimstrong. Now, you don't remember the discussions. Was
the offer or at least the deposit — the offer to buy providing the capital
allowing the President to redeem his shares. You don't recall dis-
cussions on that ?
INIr. Ehrlichman. No.
IVIr. AR:MSTRON(i. Now, did there come a time when Secretary
Shultz informed you that the Internal Revenue Service was about
to conduct an investigation of ]Mr. Relx)zo — at least, a preliminary
tax audit of Mr. Rebozo's finances?
Mr. EiiRLicmrAN. I am not sure it came from Shultz, I think it
came from Barth in the office of the counsel there.
INIr. Ar^istrong. Do you recall when that was?
INIr. Ehrlichman. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it have been approximately February
1973?
9680
Mr. Ehrlicitmax. It could have been, sounds reasonable.
Mr. Plotkix. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you related this information you
had received from Mr. Barth to anyone else?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. "Well, he asked me to call Rebozo or — or I
say asked — it came out of the convei^ation that I should. He asked
me how to go about it, T guess is the way. It was a sensitive thing
from their standpoint, because of Rebozo's closeness to the President.
And I said, "Well, I will he glad to call him and arrange it."
Mr. Armstroxg. To facilitate the initial contact?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. They didn't want an audit, they wanted an
interview, as I recall.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did Mr. Barth relate to you what the substance
of the interview was to be ?
'Mr. Ehrlichmax. It had to do with — it arose out of the Hughes
Task Force in Xevada. and it had to do with whether or not Rebozo
had received funds from the Hughes organization, or an offspring
or entity or something. I have forgotten what it was, but they had
had representations from ^laheu or one of those people, that they
had paid money to Relx)zo and they wanted to track down and make
sure that it wasn't taxable or, one or the other, that it was.
Mr. Armstroxg. And did you contact ]Mr. Rebozo about that?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And did you relate to him about what the inter-
view would cover ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And is that the first occasion that vou discussed
the SIOO.OOO contribution ?
!Mr. Ehrlichmax. I don't think even the number was used.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did vou tell him what the funds would be used
for?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. I told him what the agent would be interested
in.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is that the first conversation you had with Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And was the President aware of this phone call
and advice ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you ever inform the President that there
was to be an IRS interview with Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. I don't believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever find that anybody else independ-
ently informed the President ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. No.
ISfr. Armstroxg. Xow, did Mr. Barth, or Secretary Shultz. or
anyone else subsequently inform you of the progress made by the
Internal Revenue Service on that issue ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Mr. Barth informed me later that the cont-act
had been successfully made and that was all. In other words, that
there had been no problem in arranging it. He thanked me for inter-
vening or whatever.
9681
Mr. Armstrong. And did he discuss what the substance of that
interview was ?
Mr. ElIRLICHMAN. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever come to understand what had
transpired?
Mr. Ehrlichman. No.
]Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any source — independent source —
of knowledge as to the nature of tlie transaction betAveen Mr. Danner
and Mr. Eebozo ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. No.
Mr. Plotkin. Off the record.
[Discussion oif the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Let me point out — we got into the substance of
what the investigation was going to be about.
Mr. Wilson. When you repeat the substance, you just— — -
Mr. Armstrong. I apologize if it is in anyway repetitive.
Mr. Wilson. Excuse me for interrupting.
Mr. Armstrong. Prior to recent press accounts, did you have any
knowledge of Mr. Eebozo receiving a $6,000 payment from the Flor-
ida, Nixon for President committee in April 1969?
Mr. Ehrlichman. When you say prior to recent press accounts.
I don't think I even caught up with the press accounts. I never heard
of this.
]Mr. Wilson. It is new to me.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of Mr. Rebozo contributing any
money — INIr. Rebozo having given ]\fr. Kalmbach any money which in
turn went to Mr. Ulasiewicz ?
Mr, Ehrlichman. At what time?
Mr. Armstrong. This would have been in April or May 1969. I
am sorry, I don't have the exact date in front of me.
Mr. Ehrlichman. Gee, I don't remember anything like that.
]\Ir. Armstrong. No, T guess it would have been a little later,
maybe more like July, around the time Mr. Ulasiewicz started. I
don't want to pin you down as to dates.
Mr. Ehrlichman. I just can't. It is a subject I just don't recall
hearing anything about.
Mr. Lackritz. You mention that there was a meeting in August
1972 at Mr. Rebozo's bank where you met Mr. Rebozo — do you recall
the purpose of that meeting in 1972, in August? Did you discuss
with him any other libel actions that he was alx>ut to file?
IVIr, Ehrlichman. Well you have pinned that down to a date, and
T am not — without looking at a log or something — I am not sure of
the date. It is my recollection that the purpose of the meeting at his
bank was to discuss this Newsday series and whether that was
August 1972 or when it was. Anyway, it was while that series had
just finished, it was right close after that. Was that August 1972?
Mr. Armstrong. October 1971.
Mr. Lackritz. The series was in October 1971.
Mr. Ehrlichman. Oh, it would have been a short time after the
series ended, I would think.
Mr. Lackritz. So the meeting in August 1972 at the bank would
have been about this same libel concern?
9682
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Xo. it wouldn't "have been.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, if it wouldn't have been about that, do you
recall what that might have been about ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. August 1972. That's convention time?
Mr. Lackritz. Right. It would be after the convention.
Mr. Ehrlichmax. After the convention? It wouldn't be likely,
because we took off after the convention. I don't think it would have
happened. I very well might have gone over there during platform
week, prior to convention. I may well have done — ^but it would have
been — I can't imagine what it was alx)ut offhand. I was living over
there on Key Biscayne at the time. I may just have dropped in to
say hello, even if I did that. Because what I was doing, was com-
muting from Key Biscayne to Miami Beach for the platform.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. But in terms of discussion about the pos-
sible libel action, that would have just occurred right after the news
article ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Right.
Mr. Lackritz. Second, when you informed Mr. Rebozo back —
when you called him in relation to the request of Mr. Barth. what
was ^Ir. Rebozo's response to you ?
Mr. Ehrlicitmax. Very open, very willing. He said he'd be happy
to do so — he said. "Should I have an attorney present ?" and I said,
"That's something I can't answer for you because I don't know any
of the answers."
Mr. Lackritz. Did he discuss any of the substance of any of the
information that was involved?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Xo, I got the impression that he had an ex-
planation that he wanted to get it on the record, so to speak.
Mr. Lackritz. There is one other question that came up as a result
of notes. You said that Mr. Colson had a political interest in Mr.
O'Brien that you were concerned about ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And you mentioned at one point that !Mr. Colson
came to you with some information about some information that
O'Brien had about organized crime figures in Buffalo?
Mr. Ehrlichmax, Yes,
!Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall what that was?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. It was a tip that O'Brien had flown to Buffalo
and met with representatives of the racetrack or betting syndicate or
whatever. I can't be terribly specific about it. He had some names of
people and so on that — and that he suspected from the fact of that
meeting, that there would have been no legitimate purpose for the
meeting and. undoubtedlv, O'Brien must have been on the take from
the gambling interests. Xow, I don't know whether he ever pinned
it down or whatever came of it,
!Mr. Lackritz. Did you ever hear about this again or was this
just an isolated instance from Mr. Colson?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Oh. I heard about it several times. He repeated
his suspicions several times.
Mr. Lackritz. But he never pinned it down?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. I have no knowledge.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you have any knowledge if any of these in-
9683
stances were connected with any of the organized crime families?
What do you use for colloquial terms?
INIr. Ei'iRLicHMAx. I don't think so. not that I was aware of.
Mr. Lackkitz. Did the name Sam Giancana come into it at all,
do you recall ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. No. It was a name that I never heard before.
Mr. Lackrttz. Did any other context of O'Brien with organized
crime contacts come up on any other occasions with Colson?
Mr. Eiirltchman. No, not that I recall.
Mr. Lackrttz. How about by any other?
Mr. EnRLTCHMAN. No. As I say, that would have been the only
reference of O'Brien contacts like that.
Mr. Armstrong. Two short ones. At al)out the time that Secretary
Slniltz became the Secretary of the Ti^asury, do you recall a conver-
sation with the Secretary regarding an ongoing tax investigation
against Hughes Tool Co. which involved Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall what information you had avail-
able to you and from what source, about the nature of that investi-
gation ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. I had a sensitive case report from the IRS
about that.
Mr. Armstrong. At the conclusion of that investigation, did you
have a conversation of that investigation, did you have a conversa-
tion with Secretary Shultz, Commissioner Walters and Mr. Barth; a
conference call from the Secretary's office
Mr. Ehrlichman. Not a conference call. I talked to them all on
the phone and the Commissioner was there in his office at the
time.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall for us the nature of that con-
versation ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. Yes. He was reporting to me that the audit had
been completed and that it had disclosed no improprieties or de-
linquencies and as far as they were concerned the matter was
closed.
Mr. Armstrong. And what was your response to that ?
Mr. Eritlichman. OK. You know, there it is. My concern was
throughout, that the IRS down in the woodwork was delaying the
audit until after the election and that seemed to be the case, that
there was a stall on because when the sensitive case report came
in, I said, "Aha, when are you going to audit him?" Well, they had
75 well-selected reasons why they should not audit him and they
weren't having any of the same reasons with regard to Republicans at
that time and I thought there was a little unevenhandedness and, I
am talking to the Secretary now, "George, your guys are being lop-
sided. Here is a probable cause for auditing O'Brien and it's appar-
ently not going forward and we can read in the paper everyday
about audits of Republicans. Now how come?" And he said, "Well,
I will check in on it." He checked into it and he came back and said —
he had a whole list of why he shouldn't 1^ audited right now: "His
son is sick, he's out of town. They can't find the books." And I said,
"Are you satisfied with that?"' And he said, "No." And I said.
9684
"Well, neither am I." And I wanted them to turn up something
and send him to jail before the election and unfortunately it didn't
materialize.
]Mr. Ar^istroxg. On the occasion when Commissioner "Walters was
through with the audit and there were no improprieties, do you
recall discussing with Commissioner Walters that either thev had
been stalling the audit
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Sure.
Mr, Ar^istroxg. You had a discussion with him too?
Mr. Ehrlichmax". You are darn right. It was my fii'st crack at
him. George wouldn't let me at him. George wanted to stand be-
tween him and his Commissioner and this was the first time it —
I had a chance to tell the Commissioner what a crappy job he had
done.
Mr. Armstroxg. And did you suggest that they reopen the audit at
that time ?
^Ir. Ehrlichmax-. Xo. They told me it was closed : so there wasn't
any.
Mr. Armstroxg. So you accept it as a fate of happening ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax'. Sure.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Other than the O'Brien one. was there any other
information you had about the Hughes IRS investigation going on
in Xevada at that time ?
Mr. Ehrltch]V£ax*. Well, it was a very long report and involved a
lot of other people.
^Ir. Armstrox'g. Did it make any mention of Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Yes.
Mr. Aemstrox-g. And do you recall if you discussed that informa-
tion with Mr. Rebozo at anytime prior to the time when Barth
indicated they wanted to ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax. Xo. You see. when it came over, it came over with
a note from Barth saying that. "I need to talk to you about this."
and so I immediately called him and he said at that time. "I need
to have a gi^een light on inter\-iew? with Rebozo and Don Xixon."
And so I said. "You know. OK. I think from my standpoint it is
indicated I will give vou the green light if vou are satisfied with
that.-'
Mr. Armstroxg. And that was — go ahead. I'm sorry.
Mr. Ehrltch^iax'. And he said. "Well, this is a little touchy. I
am a little concerned about how we make these arrangements lie-
cause" he said. "I don't want to get crosswise with the White House"
and that's what lead to my calling Rebozo.
Mr. Ar3Istroxg. And this was at the time that you received the
first sensitive case report regarding Mr. O'Brien ?
Mr. Ehrlichmax'. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Armstrox'g. As it turned out there was approximately a year
from the time Mr. O'Brien was first investigated to when Mr. Re-
lx>zo was investigated. Do you recall what might have caused that
delay at the time ?
^Ir. Ehrlich^iax*. Xo.
9685
Mr. Armstrong. And what is your best recollection for the time
period when you called Mr. Kebozo about the fact that the lES
would like to see him ?
Mr. EiiRLiciiMAN. Well, I don't have one. It would have been more
or less contemporaneous with my receipt of that report.
Mr. Armstrong. And it certainly would have been prior to the
election and prior to
Mr. Ehrliciiman. Right. I would assume so. Now, the only thing
that slows me down, is that I was getting continuous sensitive case
reports about that Hughes investigation and it would have been con-
temporaneous with the receipt of the one that related to Rebozo,
whenever that was.
Mr. Armstrong. All right. But it would have been prior to the
time when the O'Brien audit ended?
Mr. Ehrltchman. I don't know with relation to that, I can't fix
that.
Mr. Armstrong. You can't place that in time ?
Mr. Ehrlichman. I can't fix that.
Mr. Armstrong. That's all I have.
["Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee proceeded to the con-
sideration of other matters.]
SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
W ashing ton., D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Buildinoj.
Present: Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel; Marc Lackritz,
assistant counsel; Emily Sheketoff, research assistant.
Mr. Lackritz. This is an executive session, which is the continua-
tion of ]Mr. Jack Caulfield's testimony before the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities.
If there are no objections from counsel, Ave will continue the ex-
ecutive session this morning in the absence of a Senator.
Mr. Sears. There are no objections.
Mr. Lackritz. INIr. Caulfield, just for the record, again this morn-
ing, I would like to briefly go back over how you were hired by
Mr. Ehrlichman in the White House in 1969, if you could, please.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. CAULFIELD, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN P.
SEARS, COUNSEL
Mr. Caulfield. You have that in the 26-page statement.
Mr. Sears. Let's go off the record a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record.
I will repeat the question : You were hired, as I understand it,
by Mr. Ehrlichman in the spring of 1969 ?
Mr. Caulfield. That is correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, shortly after you were hired, did there come
a time when Mr. Ehrlichman called you in his otTice and requested
you to place a national security wiretap?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
]\Ir. Lackritz. On whom was this national security wiretap to be
placed, Mr. Caulfield?
Mr. Caulfield. On Mr. Joseph Kraft.
Mr. Lackritz. And did Mr. Ehrlichman give you any explana-
tion why he wanted you to arrange for a wiretap, rather than going
through the standard agency of the Federal Government?
Mr. Caulfield. Ho indicated this was the way it had to be done;
he didn't go into any heavy specifics, but he indicated it was a na-
tional security matter of top priority.
]Mr. Lackritz. Did he explain to you why he couldn't go through
the agency?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, he indicated— I had suggested to him this
would properly belong in the purvieAv of the Federal Bureau of
(9687)
31-889 O - 74 - 2
9688
Investigation, and he indicated that the FBI was a "sieve", and the
matter would have to be handled in the manner he was suggesting —
in the manner he was directing.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he give you any indication of the source for the
national concern?
Mr. Caulfield. I have trouble recalling exactly what the specifics
were ; the only thing I recall is that he made a reference to Cambodia.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall what the reference to Cambodia was?
Mr. Caulfield. No, I do not; but I do specifically recall he men-
tioned the national security matter had to do with the Cambodian
situation. He did not ever explain those specifics to me.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. AVhen was this meeting in Mr. Ehrlich-
man's office, to the best of your recollection?
Mr. Caulfield. The best I recall, it was in June of 1969.
Mr. Lackritz. And did you agree to follow Mr. Ehrlichman's
direction and implement a national security wiretap?
Mr. Caulfield. I agreed to evaluate the directive — see if it could
be done.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, sir. Could you explain what you did
after you left Mr. Ehrlichman's office?
Mr. Caulfield. I contacted Mr. John Eagan subsequent to the
meeting and advised him of the directive. And I requested that he
and I confer with the view toward seeing that the wiretap would
be implemented.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, who was Mr. John Ragan?
Mr. Caulfield. Mr. Ragan was the chief of security at the Re-
publican National Committee.
Mr. Lackritz. And had you known Mr. Ragan from before?
Mr. Caulfield. I had known him since 1968 — the campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ragan have the capability of implement-
ing wiretaps?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, Mr. Ragan was a former employee of the
FBI, and was knowledgeable in the area of wiretapping during his
tenure at the FBI.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. Do you know how long he had been in the
FBI?
Mr. Caulfield. I know he retired from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. I have no idea how long a tenure that was.
Mr. Lackritz. Did IVIr. Ragan have any wiretapping capability
that was used in the 1968 campaign?
Mr. Caulfield. No; Mr. Ragan's function in the 1968 campaign
was the countermeasure security expert. In other words, his role
would have been to insure the integrity of the communications sys-
tem of the traveling campaign staff.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you mean by that explanation that he had a
defensive sweeping capability?
Mr. Caulfield. That is one way of putting it, yes.
Mr. Lackritz. What was Mr. Ragan's reaction when you con-
tacted him about this project for Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Caulfield. I am sure he would have preferred that it be
handled through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but I im-
9689
pressed upon him, as it was impressed upon me, that it was a matter
of high national security priority.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ehrlichman indicate to you that his in-
structions had come from the President?
Mr. Caulfield. Not that I can specifically recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you assume that his instructions had come
from the President?
Mr. Caulfield. That is a tough question, and I can't say one way
or the other.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Caulfield, I take it you did not assunie that
Mr. Ehrlichman had authority to order national security wiretaps
himself.
Mr. Caulfield. Say that again?
Mr. Lackritz. Did you assume that Mr. Ehrlichman did have the
authority to order national security wiretaps?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, you are talking now about June of 1969,
and frankly, I'm not so sure— I was not so sure at that time exactly
how the Federal system worked in terms of implementing national
security wiretaps. I know now. But at that time I would be hard
put to make a determination on the spot as to whether or not Mr.
Ehrlichman could, in his capacity as, I think, then counsel to the
President, authorize a wiretap.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. So, at the time Mr. Ehrlichman requested
you to implement this wiretap you did not have a clear understand-
ing of the national security wiretap procedures.
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. So then you must have assumed that Mr. Ehrlich-
man, or somebody Mr. Ehrlichman had talked to, had authority to
authorize national security wiretaps.
Mr. Caulfield. That's an assumption, but I am not so sure that
I made it on the spot when I was directed to institute the wiretap.
Mr. Lackritz. All right.
Mr. Sears. I think it is fair to say that he assumed there was
authority residing somewhere, who authorized this.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did Mr. Eagan come down to Washing-
ton to meet with you subsequent to that
Mr. Caulfield. Subsequent to the directive, yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Had you ever used Mr. Ragan prior to this time
to implement any wiretaps of any kind?
Mr. Caulfield. Never.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you used Mr. Ragan since that time to imple-
ment wiretaps of any kind?
Mr. Caulfield. Never.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, what did you and Ragan do when he
came to Washington?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, we went out and took a look at the residence
of Mr. Kraft with a view toward ascertaining whether or not such a
wiretap could be instituted in a discreet manner.
Mr. Lackritz. And how did you try to ascertain that; did you
physically observe the premises — walk around?
Mr. Caulfield. Physically observed the premises and respected
the judgment of Mr. Ragan who had, as I indicated, previously been
9690
engaged in that type of work while at the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did you reach any conclusions as to how
the wiretap could be implemented on Mr. Kraft's home?
Mr. Caulfield. I do recall going back and speaking with Mr.
Ehrlichman and indicating that it was a very difficult type of wire-
tap to install because of the neighborhood in which Mr. Kraft's
house was located in Georgetown.
Mr. Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Would you read back the last response?
[Record read.]
Mr. Lackritz. Did you say anything to Mr. Ehrlichman about
the difficulty of implementing the tap?
Mr. Caulfield. I did.
Mr. Lackritz. "\Miat was his reaction?
Mr. Caulfield. He said it would have to be done, in substance.
Mr. Lackritz. So, he directed you to go ahead and carry out the
tap. Was there any discussion with ]Mr. Eagan about the need for
getting the parent cable numbers of the telephone lines?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ragan request you to obtain that informa-
tion for him ?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't specifically recall whether he requested, or
we both came to an agreement, a consensus agreement that that
would be necessary for him to proceed, if he were to proceed. At
that time there was no hard judgment made that we were going to
go ahead and do it.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. But after you spoke with Mr. Ehrlichman,
I take it he directed you to go ahead and implement the project.
Mr. Caulfield. He indicated he wanted it done. yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you then secure the information of the pairs
and cable numbers for Mr. Ragan?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. I was able to do that.
Mr. Lackritz. And how were you able to do that?
Mr. Caulfield. I contacted a personal friend of mine; and I
prefer not to mention his name.
INIr. Lackritz. Well. I think for the purposes of the record we
would like to identifA' the individual. I believe that individual was
in the Secret Service ; is that correct ?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, that mav well be. but at this hearing I
prefer not to mention his name.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, let me put it this way : This record is at the
present not for public release ; the committee at some later time may
wish to vote to release the testimony given here this morning. If in
fact the committee decides to release the testimony you will have the
opportunity of deleting information that you feel is not appropriate
to be released to the public.
But at this time it is appropriate to have you state for the record
the individual from whom you received
Mr. Caulfield. I can't do that. I have had trouble with this par-
9691
ticular area in other forums, and I steadfastly maintained that I
don't think that's important because the individual who provided
the information was totally unaware of the reasons for the wiretap.
It was done as a favor to me. It is a person of lifelong friendship
and I will not have his name dragged into this. He was totally un-
aware of just what the specifics of this matter were.
Mr. Sears. Can we go off the record?
Mr. Lenzner. Let me say one thing on the record before we do
that. The significance as we see it is not whether he knew, or didn't
know, what the purpose of that information was; but the question
of why he would give you, as a member of another agency, that kind
of information. That seems to me to be entirely appropriate for this
committee to have some legislative review on.
Mr. Sears. Now let's go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lenzner. Back on the record.
The discussion off the record related to the need on Mr. Caulfield's
and Mr. Sears' part to not disclose the name — how many agents are
we talking about?
Mr. Caulfield. One agent.
Mr. Lexzner. One agent who furnished this information to Mr.
Caulfield. As I understand it. if Senator Ervin is agreeable, the name
of that individual will be forwarded to Senator Ervin in a letter
from Mr. Sears and Mr. Caulfield, with Senator Ervin's discretion
to use that information as he sees appropriate; and the letter will
indicate that they prefer it not be disseminated widely, I assume.
Now, for the record, was the agent who furnished you that em-
ployed by the Secret Service?
Mr. Caulfield. Shall I indicate it at this time?
Mr. Sears. Yes.
Mr. Caulfield. The answer is "Yes".
;Mr. Lackritz. Right. Did you explain to this individual from the
Secret Service that that was a matter of national security?
Mr. Caulfield. Let's go oft' the record here.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. The question was. did you explain to this individ-
ual that this was a matter of national security that you were request-
ing his assistance on?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you explain what specifically you were doing
on behalf of Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Caulfield. No, I did not.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. And this individual obtained the pairs
and cable numbers for you?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. How did he obtain them?
Mr. Caulfield. T have no idea how he did it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he get them from a friend of his?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm not certain whether or not that happened.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Do you recall telling Mr. Lenzner and
myself on September 11 that "this individual got the pairs and
cable numbers from another friend of his?
9692
Mr. Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Caituizld. Give me tlie question, again.
Mr. Lackritz. I thuik the (juestion was. did you recall telling
Mr. Lenzner and myself on September 11. 1973. that a friend of
this individual — a friend of this individual who is also in the Secret
Service grot the pairs and cable numbers and gave them to this
fiiend. who gave them back to you: he got them from another
friend also in the Secret v^ervice.
Mr. SiL\R>. I think he recalls telling you that he thinks that's
what happened, but of course he has no direct knowledge of how
tliis indiWdual went about performing this task.
Mr. L.\( KKTTz. Just to clarify that, you i^call telling tliat to Mr.
Lenzner and myself, but you are not now presently sure that is in
fact how the information was obtained ?
Mr. CArxFiEij>. "Well. I have never been absolutely sure how the
infonnation was obtained. "What I say- — T believe that what I said
on the 11th is the wav it happened.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Was there any question raised by you or
Mr. Eagan concerning proper credentials for the indiA'idual who
would be installing the wiretap?
Mr. CArxFTELD. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall who raised this question?
Mr. CATTLFrELD. I think it was Mr. Eagan.
Mr. Lackritz. And what did you do in response to that concern?
Mr. Cattuield. As I i^ecall. he indicated that he would need cre-
dentials of some type if he were to perform the wiretaj^ping. He
indicated that if we could obtain telephone company credentials it
would insure the discretion of the assignment. "With that in mind. I
arranged to have Mr. Eagan supplied with a telephone company
card, installer credentials, as I recall.
Mr. Lackritz. "Where did you get those credentials?
Mr. Cattlfield. ^Ir. John Davies of the "White House staff was
able to provide those credentials.
^Ir. Lackritz. How did you decide to go to Mr. Davies ? "Were you
instructed by anyone to see Mr. Davies?
Mr. Cattlfield. As I recall. I discussed it with Mr. Ehrlichman,
and Mr. Ehrlichman made arrangements for me to speak with Mr.
Davies.
Mr. Lackritz. So. Mr. Ehrlichman was aware of the difficulty in
securing proper credentials for the individual who would be in-
stalling the wiretap?
Mr. Cattlfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. "What was Mr. DaWes" responsibility? "What were
his responsibilities in the TYhite House?
;Mr. Cattlfieij). At the time he was the tour director on the
"White House staff.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And was it normal procedure to obtain such
credentials from Mr. Da^Tes — did he do that on any other
Mr. Cattlfieij). Xo. Mr. Da^nes had a background in telephone
work, as I recall : I think he was formerlv with A.T. & T.
9693
Mr. Lackritz. On any other occasion, subsequent to this occasion,
did you request identification credentials from ^Ir. Davies?
^Ir. Caulfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if Mr. Davies had anv communication
with Mr. Ehrlichman himself on this matter?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm not sure. It is possible, but I can't say for sure.
Mr. Lexzner. Did either of the individuals indicate to you they
had been in touch with each other?
]Mr. Catxfield. I don't know that for a fact. I could assume so,
based on the fact that Davies agreed to provide that information
because it was a national security matter; he stated that when he
turned the card over to me. that he was. in fact, doing that because
it was a national security matter. And I certainly concurred because
that was my understanding of the whole affair, also.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you tell Davies that you were assigned the task
by Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Caulfield. I must have.
Mr. Lexzxer. So. the answer is "Yes"?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. I get the impression that you had the impression
that Davies and Ehrlichman had been in touch with each other.
Mr. Caulfield. That's my impression: yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Anything specific that you base that impression on?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo. I don't have any specifics ; but reviewing it in
my mind, that is my assumption.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any information that Da"\nes previously
furnished the same kind of help to Mr. Ehrlichman or others in the
TMiite House?
]Mr. Caulfield. I have no information about that at all.
Mr. Lexzxer. Except that Mr. Ehrlichman did suggest to you
that Davies would get it for you: so at least he knew that Davies
did have access to that kind of stuff.
Mr. Caulfield. Well. John Ehrlichman was as aware as I was
that Mr. Davies had a high-level background in the American Tele-
phone and Telegraph Co.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ehrlichman indicate to you how the indi-
vidual who was going to install the wiretap should be paid?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no recollection how that was handled, if
there was any payment at all on that whole matter.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you know if there was any payment at all?
Mr. Caulfield. My best recollection is that there wasn't.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did Mr. Davies get the identification
card for you ?
Mr. Caulfieij). Subsequently he did. yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And then, did you turn it over to Mr. Eagan?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. I did.
Mr. Lackritz. And then, how did Mr. Eagan implement the wire-
tap?
Mr. Caulfield. Off the record a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
]Mr. Lackritz. On the record. Would you read the last question.
[Question read.]
9694
Mr, Lackritz. Well, let me ask you this: During what period of
time did these events occur — how long a period of time from when
Mr. Ehrlichman requested you to implement the tap to the time of
your obtaining the telephone installer's card for Mr. Ragan?
IVIr. Caulfifxd. Well, T have no hard way of remembering the
specific area of time. The best I can recall it was within the area of
2 to '^ weeks.
Mr. Lackritz. I see, and did Mr. Ragan go ahead and implement
the wiretap, to the best of your knowledge?
Mr. Caitlfield. At a subsequent time, after we initially discussed
the directive INIr. Ragan came to me and indicated that he had gone
ahead with an individual from New York, whom I do not know. He
indicated that he had installed a device on a pole in the rear of Mr.
Kraft's home in Georgetown.
Now, this was contrary to my involvement in this thing. In other
words, what I am saying is, he wont ahead and instituted — apparently
instituted a wiretap without telling me he was going to go ahead
and do it, along with an individual from New York.
He turned over to me a tape which he said— he indicated they had
some success in connection with the wiretap.
^^r. Lackkritz. All right. Were you involved in the installation
of this wiretap?
^Ir. Caulfield. I was not.
^Nfr. Lackritz. All right. So, you were not present when the actual
de\ice avhs i)laced on the telephone wires?
i\Ir. Cauefield. I don't know for a fact that the device was placed
on the telephone wire ; T was not there ; I was not present — if one
Avas installed. OK?
INIr. Lackritz. Right.
]\rr. Caulfield. IMr. Ragan came to me and said that they — I
don't know the name of the other individual — had placed a device
on a pole at the rear of Mv. Kraft's home; and presented me with a
tape, saying they had some success with it.
Now. T have never listened to that tape; T have subsequently de-
stroyed it. Again, I Avant to repeat that ]Mr. Ragan went ahead and
did install this dcA-ice, apparently, Avithout checking Avith me, or
going ahead and asking me about it before he did it.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, Avere you evei' asked by anyone to stop the
Aviretap, or take the Aviretap off?
Mr. Caulfield. No; John Ehrlichman came to me around the same
time as Mr. Ragan apparently installed the device and indicated in
connection Avith the directive to install the device that I was to de-
sist from it.
I indicated to Mr. Ehrlichman that I hoped it hadn't gone too far,
knoAving that INIr. Ragan Avas exploring the possibility of installing
a device — I'm trying to get the sequence in my mind. Subsequent to
that I Avent to Mv. Ragan and told him to desist from any further
activity in that area.
]Mr. Lackritz. Did INIr. Ehrlichman indicate to you why he wanted
you to desist ?
Mr. Caulfield. He indicated that it Avas going to be handled bv
the FBL
9695
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Then, after Mr. Ehrlichman asked you
to desist you went to ISIr. Ragan and asked him
Mr. Caulfield. I told him to forget the whole thing, that it was
going to be handled by the FBI.
Mr. Lackritz. And what was his reaction ?
Mr. Caulfield. He said, "OK."
Mr. Lackritz. But prior to that time he had provided you with a
tape recording from the listening device?
Mr. Caulfield. I have trouble, deep trouble trying to recall the
sequence of events. In fact, I have trouble recalling where he pre-
sented me with the tape. The best I can recall it was in a hotel here,
the Congressional Hotel; exactly when that happened I have dif-
ficulty recalling.
Mr. Lackritz. But in other words, it was sometime around
Mr. Caulfield. It was sometime around the time that Ehrlichman
was saying to drop the matter, it was going to be handled by the
FBL
Mr. Lackritz. All right. As you recall ISIr. Ragan met you at the
Congressional Hotel and turned over a tape to you.
Mr. Caulfield. I believe it was at the Congressional Hotel. The
best I can remember I was meeting Mr. Ragan at the Congressional
Hotel, and I think at that time he presented me with the tape.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you explain to Mr. Ehrlichman, when Mr.
FJirlichman came to you and asked you to desist, that in fact the tap
had already been implemented?
Mr. Caulfield. I never mentioned to ]\Ir. Ehrlichman that the tap
had been implemented.
Mr. Lackritz. ^Vlien you received the tape from Mr. Ragan, did
you turn that over to Mr. Ehrlichman ?
Mr. Caulfield. No, he never saw the tape.
Mr. Sears. Can we stop here just a moment so we are sure we got
that straight on the record here?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record.
Mr. Caulfield. I want to repeat that ]Mr. Ehrlichman never saw
that tape; I never listened to the tape. I indicated before that I de-
stroyed the tape. I never listened to what was on it, if there was in
fact anything on it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you have anyone transcribe the contents of the
tape?
Mr. Caulfield. No; I never listened to it and I never had anyone
transcribe it.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you know if anyone else listened to it?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You didn't give it to your secretary to listen to, or
give it to someone else in your office?
Mr. Caulfield. Nobody else.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did Mr. Ragan describe what was on the tape
to you?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, if you mean — I think, as I recall, he said
there was some conversation on the tape, and it was not Mr. Kraft,
as I recall. Now, that's all I recall about it.
9696
Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying that when Ehrlichman told you the
FBI was going to do it, you did not know at that time that Ragan
had already recorded some information?
Mr, Caulfield. Say that again.
Mr. Lenzner, Are you saying now when Ehrlichman told you the
FBI was going to handle this thing, you were not aware at that time
that Mr. Ragan had already gone ahead and put the tap on?
Mr. Caulfield, That's correct, not absolutely aware. As I say, the
time sequence of when this occurred was so close, I don't recall
whether or not Ragan had come to me at this particular time, or
immediately thereafter,
Mr. Lenzner. And how long after vou got the tape did vou destroy
it?
Mr. Caulfield. Within a month, or two,
Mr. Lenzner. And how did you destroy it?
Mr, Caulfield, Put it in the burn bag in the White House.
Mr, Lenzner, And was there any reason why you didn't listen to
it. or wanted to know what the information was that was on it?
Mr, Caulfield, T had no reason to believe there was anything on
it of any significance, according to the way Ragan described it,
Mr. Lenzner. Well, it strikes me strange, as I understand the
story, Ehrlichman came to you and told you there was some urgency
about getting this done ; didn't he say that at the beginning ?
Mr. Caulfield. At the beginning, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And he didn't want the FBI to do it because they
were a "sieve".
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct,
Mr, Lenzner. And suddenly, you get the tap put on and get a
tape, and you don't tell Ehrlichman what's on the tape, and you
don't listen to the tape.
Mr. Caulfield. Wlien you say "sudden" — I just explained here
that the tap was put on by Mr. Ragan, and he did not even check
with me before he went ahead and did it.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, regardless whether he did, or didn't, when
you learned he had a tape you didn't take that to Mr. Ehrlichman,
nor did you
Mr, Caulfield. I never told Mr. Ehrlichman we had a tape,
never.
Mr. Lenzner. Why was that?
Mr. Caulfield. IVlien he told me to desist, I was very happy that
the whole matter was over. As I indicated initially, I felt this was a
matter that should have been handled by the FBI, and so indicated
to him in strong, no uncertain terms. It was presented to me as a
high national security matter that had to be done in this way; this
is the way he wanted to have it done.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate to you under whose instructions he
was
Mr, Caulfield. He did not.
Mr. Lenzner. He did not indicate to you that he discussed this
Avith the President?
Mr. Caulfield. No,
Mr, Lenzner, At any time?
9697
Mr. Caulfield. Not that I recall.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did he indicate to you at any time why Mr. Kraft
was going: to be the target of this?
Mr. Caulfield. As I indicated to Marc, I liave difficulty remem-
bering specifically what he said; but I do recall that it had to do
with Cambodia.
Mr. Lexzner. Did it relate, to your recollection, to the trip that
Mr. Kraft was taking, or was about to take?
Mr. Caulfield. No. I learned subsequently that Mr. Kraft was in
France, but I had no way of knowing that at the time.
Mr. Lenzner. You learned it from the news media ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you know if Mr. Ragan ever put on any other
taps ?
Mr. Caulfield. I have had no other business with wiretapping
with Mr. Ragan. I don't knoAV what he has done, other than this.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did anybody else at the White House ever ask you
to do something of similar nature at any other time?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, to the best of your recollection you paid
Mr. Ragan no money at all for his efforts?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall paying Mr. Ragan any money in
connection with this.
Mr. Lackritz. Did INIr. Ragan pav you any money in connection
with this?
Mr. Caulfield. Pay me any money ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
Mr. Caulfield. Why would Ragan pay me any money ?
Mr. Lackritz. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you furnish equipment to Mr. Ragan for this?
Mr. Caulfield. Not other than the card we discussed.
Mr. Sears. Can we break for a few minutes while I go over some
things, to speed this up?
Mr. Lenzner. Sure.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Sears. For the record, I think it would be a good idea, since
we have gone through various chronological points here with the
questions that have been asked, if Jack could just in a narrative,
perhaps, state his recollection of the sequence of the events that
transpired in regard to the Kraft wiretap.
Mr. Lackritz. That's fine.
Mr. Caulfield. Well, we started with June 1969 when Mr.
Ehrlichman called me in and indicated he wanted to — in a high
national security priority matter — he wanted to have a wiretap in-
stalled on the home telephone of Joseph Kraft.
I immediately indicated to him that I felt, since it was a national
security matter, that it would properly be within the purview of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. He indicated that the FBI was a
sieve, and that he wanted the matter handled in this fashion; he
also indicated at that time — and I don't recall the specifics the mat-
ter related to — the Cambodian situation, which at that time was of
deep concern in the country.
9698
I subsequently contacted Mr. Jack Ragan of the Republican
National Committee and indicated to him that I had this directive
from Mr. Ehrlichman, it was a high priority national security
matter, and they wanted a Aviretap installed at ^Mr. Kraft's resi-
dence. Mr. Ragan and I went out and took a look at ]Mr. Kraft's
residence, and we both came to a consensus agreement that it was a
very difficult matter to handle, ISIr, Kraft lived in a very prestigious
area of Georgetown. I went back and spoke to Mr. Ehrlichman and
reported that back to him.
He indicated that it had to be done, and I was to attempt to pro-
ceed to have the wiretap installed. I so directed INIr. Ragan to attempt
to see what he could do with respect to the wiretap. I learned sub-
sequently that Mr. Ragan went out and, with an individual from
New York whom I don't know, apparently installed some sort of a
device on the rear pole of ]\Ir. Kraft's residence. Just about that time
Mr. Ehrlichman called me in and said I was to desist in the matter,
they had decided — he didn't indicate who — that it had been decided
that the FBI was going to take care of the matter.
I went back to Mr. Ragan and we met at the Congressional Hotel,
and I told him that I had been directed that we should no longer be
involved in the matter. He said he and another gentleman, whom he
did not identify, had had some success with the wiretap, and
presented me with a tape which allegedly contained some conversa-
tion.
He, as I recall, indicated that Mr. Kraft was not on the wiretap,
his voice was not on the wiretap, there was some conversation. As
I recall it might have been a maid.
I took the tape back to my office and ran out part of the reel,
approximately 30. 40, 50 feet, and destroyed that. Kept the tape in
my office for about a month or 2, and subsequently destroyed both
the remainder of the reel and the reel itself; put it in the burn bag
in the "\'\niite House.
Mr. Sears. That's about it.
Mr. Caulfield. I did not, at any time, ever indicate to Mr. Ehrlich-
man there had been a tape in connection with his directive.
Mr. Lenzner. "^^Tien you say you ran it out, Mr. Caulfield, what
does that mean when you say you "ran" the tape out?
Mr. Caulfield. I took the tape, unwound part of the tape, I esti-
mate maybe 40, 50 feet, and destroyed that shortly after it was given
to me; within a day or 2. I kept the reel and the tape in my office
and within a month or 2 thereafter decided to put the reel and the
remainder of the tape as well into the burn bag.
]Mr. Lenzxer. Well, why did you destroy' that 40, or 50 feet of it
initially?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, Mr. Ragan indicated to me that there was a
short conversation on the tape that he had given to me; I never
listened to it. I estimated, just a calculated guess as to how much it
would be, a minute or two, and destroyed that part of it. And then,
subsequently, I put the reel and the remainder of the tape also in
the burn bag of the "\ATiite House.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were you able to tell from looking at the tape, the
face of the tape where it was recorded on, and where it wasn't
recorded on?
9699
Mr. Caulfield. No, I was not able to tell.
Mr. Lenzxer. You were guessing?
Mr. Caulfield. I was guessing, based upon his statement to me
that there was a short conversation on the reel.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you listen to the remaining portion of the reel
to determine whether or not you had, in fact, destroyed the entire
conversation ?
Mr. Caulfield. I never at any time listened to the tape.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Caulfield, have you been responsible for getting
Mr. Kagan employed with the Republican National Committee, fol-
lowing the 1968 campaign?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And what were INIr. Ragan's responsibilities with
the Republican National Committee?
Mr. Caulfield. His function was to be the chief of security at the
Republican National Committee offices in Washington.
Mr. Lackritz. How long did he remain in this position ?
Mr. Caulfield. Up to sometime in early 1972,
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Now, did you and Mr. Ragan and Mr. Ulase-
wicz meet secretly during the early part of the administration ?
Mr. Caulfield. We met from time to time. Mr. Ragan and I had
lunch frequently in Washington whenever, as part of his duties, he
would come down from New York for a day or 2 each week. And
on frequent occasions we would have luncheon together in Wash-
ington.
Mr. Lackritz. I see.
Mr. Caulfield. And on an occasion or two Mr. Ulasewicz, ISIr.
Ragan and myself had lunch together.
]Mr. Lackritz. I believe credit records of Mr. Ragan indicate a
number of lunches in 1969-70; what were these lunches about?
Mr. Caulfield. They were just social lunches. Mr. Ragan was a
friend of mine, and as I say, frequently when he was in town a day
or 2 we would have luncheon during tlie period that you mentioned.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ragan have any plans, or any desire to use
Mr. ITlasewicz in an investigative capacity, as you recall ?
Mr. Caulfield. There Avere conversations on one, or two occasions
about ]Mr. Ulasewicz possibly doing some security work in connection
with ]\Ir. Ragan ; INIr. Ragan being in the security business, and Mr.
ITlasewicz being a licensed private detective. I don't think anything
of any substance evolved from these conversations.
Mr. Lackritz. Right, ISIr. Ragan's business was in the security
business. Do you have any knowledge of other jobs that Mr. Ragan
was asked to do for any other corporations, or any other individuals?
]Mr. Caulfield. I know INIr. Ragan traveled extensively in connec-
tion with his work. His prime area of employment, if you put it that
way, was countermeasure expert for a number of major corporations;
and I know that he traveled extensively.
Mr. Lackritz. Do vou know if Mr. Ragan was employed by
A.T. &T.?
ISIr. Caulfield. I didn't know at the time, I found out subsequent
to that. I know that he traveled overseas on numerous assignments.
Mr. Ragan was very careful about this particular area, what he was
doing overseas ; and the only thing I recall, one time he went to Chile.
9700
Mr. La(^kritz. Do voii have any idea when that was, when he
traveled to Chile?
]Mr. Caulfieli). I haven't ^ot any idea.
INfr. Lacikritz. Do you have any knowledge of the purpose of his
trip there?
Mr. Caiilfield. Xo, but I assumed it had to do with his counter-
measures expertise.
Mr. Lackijitz. When you say "countermeasure expertise," do you
mean defensive SAveepinc: capability?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
INIr. Lackritz. All rifjht. Did you ever purchase any equipment for
IVIr. Eajjan, any electronic equipment for ]Mr. Ragan?
Mr. Caitlfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, I take it Avhen we talked to you on September
11, 1973, we were making an effort to determine the purposes of some
checks that JNIr. Ragan liad written to you.
Mr. Catjlfield. Yes.
INIr. Lackritz. It is our understanding, Mv. Caulfield, that you are
still attompting to refresh your recollection as to the purpose of
those checks.
IMr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. I take it, then, at the time when you are able
to determine the purpose of those checks, we will get into that matter.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Lackritz. OK, just for the record, I would like to note that
there are, I believe, approximately eight checks totaling roughly
$800 ; does that give vou anv help in trving to refresh vour recollec-
tion?
Mr. Caulfield. If I can recall specifically what areas they dealt
with, I will come back and be happy to notify the committee.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine. Noav, did you in the Wliite House, in your
responsibility, have any responsibilities for overseeing, keeping tabs
on the activities of the President's brother, INIr. F. Donald Nixon?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, I would like to explain my area of involve-
ment with respect to Donald Nixon. Sometime in 1969, I believe it
was October of 1969, it came to my attention that IVIr. Donald Nixon
had visited the Dominican Republic with three other gentlemen;
they were the guests of the President of the Dominican Republic,
Balaguer. There were ncAvspaper accounts of that visit in a Domin-
ican newspaper, which I forwarded to Mr. Ehrlichman for his
information.
Approximately a year later, and I have difficulty remembering
the date, INIr. Ehrlichman contacted me and indicated to me that he
wanted me to monitor a project which involved the U.S. Secret
Service, the idea being that a wiretap was being placed on the tele-
phone of Mv. Donald Nixon by the Secret Service with the view of
ascertaining whether or not persons of unsavory character might be
attempting to embarrass the President through his brother Donald.
My direction from Mr. Ehrlichman was to monitor the results of
the Secret Service wiretap and report back to him any information
of substantive nature which might indicate that the President's
brother was being embarrassed, or attempts were being made to use
Mr. Donald Nixon to embarrass the the President of the United States.
9701
I did in fact confer with the Secret Service on this matter, and
they reported to me verbally the results of the wiretap that was
installed out in Newport Beach, and I reported back the general
substance of the results of the wiretap.
After approximately 3 weeks the Secret Service people indicated
there was nothing of any substance coming across the wiretap, and
made a suggestion to me, which I concurred with, that the wiretap
should be terminated. I so advised Mr. Ehrlichman, and he agreed it
should be terminated. As I recall, the time frame was approximately
a 3-week period. That would make it sometime in 1970, and I, for
the life of me, can't remember the dates.
]\lr. Lackritz. All right. Now, going back to the first information
from which you learned of INIr. Nixon's trip to the Dominican
Republic, how did you come across this information initially?
INIr. Caulfield. From Mr. Juliano, James Juliano, who was a sugar
lobbyist for the Dominican Republic, brought it to my attention.
There had been an article in the Dominican newspapers mentioning
that Donald Nixon had visited the Dominican Republic. I asked him
if he could get me copies of the newspaper carrying that story, he
did ; and I transmitted them to Mr. Ehrlichman.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you know that Mr. Ehrlichman at that time had
responsibilities for overseeing ISIr. Donald Nixon's activities?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, I knew that was the way to get it possibly
to the attention of the President, and I gave it to Mr. Ehrlichman
with that in mind.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, prior to that, did Mr. Ehrlichman ask you to
keep track of any information that you could learn about
Mr. Caulfield. Prior to that I had no involvement with the Presi-
dent's brother, or keeping track of the President's brother, anything
of that nature. This was just a piece of intelligence information that
T felt belonged with Mr. Ehrlichman.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. Do you have any recollection of any ot the
individuals who accompanied Mr. Nixon on the trip to the Dominican
Republic ?
Mr. Caulfield. As I recall, there were three people, I think one
of them was Mr. Meier
Mr. Lackritz. Is this John Meier?
Mr. Caulfield. I believe John Meier and another gentleman from
the Democratic National Committee — formerly of the Democratic
National Committee.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Napolitan ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, Joseph Nkpolitan; and there was another
gentleman and I can't remember
Mr. Lenzner. Tony Hatsis, does that ring a bell?
Mr. Caulfield. It rings a bell, I can't say for sure. I remember
Mr. Meier and Mr. Napolitan.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you become aware at some time that Mr. Ehr-
lichman had responsibilities to supervise F. Donald Nixon's financial
activities ?
Mr. Caui^field. No, I had no knowledge of Mr. Ehrlichman's
supervising his financial activities. I knew if there were to be any
problems arising out of Mr. Donald Nixon's associates, Mr, Ehrlich-
9702
man would have been the one to transmit it to ; but I had no specific
information about Mr. Ehrlichman being charged with supervision
of his financial situation.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you get any reaction to the initial memo from
Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Catjlfield. Other than interest, no. I mean, I am trying to
recall; I remember transmitting it as a memo, and I don't recall if
I had a conversation. I probably called him up and indicated that I
had this, and I would send it over.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate that he had alread}^ received this
information with regard to this trip, and discuss that information
with you?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know what stimulated ]\Ir. Ehrlichman's
desire to have this project begun on Mr. Nixon's phone ?
INIr. Caulfield. No. that has always been a mystery to me, exactly
why at that particular time. I can't recall the date, the best I can do
is put it a year after the transmittal of the newspaper accounts. But
what precipitated it, I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. "Was the tap placed on his home phone in Newport
Beach?
INIr. Caulfield. That's what I was led to believe.
jNIr. Lenzner. Did you ever see the log of the surveillance ?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't believe I have ever seen the logs. AVliat was
shown to me by the Secret Sei-vice was some photographs of ]\Ir.
Donald Nixon at an airport.
Mr. Lenzner. Orange County Airport ?
]Mr. Caulfield. That rings a bell. Getting on a plane, or meeting
some people at a plane. I do recall it Avas out in California, I didn't
recall it was Orange County. And there was a question as to who
these people were in the photograph. There was Mr, Nixon and some
other people, and I just don't recall who they were, very frankly,
]Mr. Sears. But you did not see the logs of the wiretaps.
INIr. Caulfield. No, I didn't see the logs of the wiretaps. The
assignment indicated that I would report to Ehrlichman anything of
substance that was to come over the wiretaps. I had conversations
, Avitli members of the Secret Seivice, and they would indicate to
me what the substance of those convei'sations was. As I previously
indicated, there was nothing of any substance that would have
justified a continuation of the wiretap.
Mr. Lenzner. AVas physical surveillance conducted of INIr. Donald
Nixon ?
Mr. Caulfield. T recall that there was some physical surveillance
by the Secret Service. "What it entailed, and how it was done, I do
not know. But, T do recall some ph.ysical surveillance in the vicinity
of tlie lesidence.
Mr. Sears. I think it is fair to say that INIr. Caulfield assumed
there was because of the fact he saw pictures and you would have to
have physical surveillance to be able to take pictures. I don't know
that he knows of his own knowledge just what kind of surveillance
was going on ; is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield. I would sav that is substantiallv correct.
9703
Mr. Lexzner. Well, did you receive information with regard to
meetings INIr. Donald Nixon was having that didn't come off the wire?
Mr. Caulfield. If I did, I don't remember at this time. I recall one
picture at the aiiport in California, I believe, of Donald Nixon with
two, or three, individuals in the vicinity of a plane; that is all I
remember about it.
]Mr. Lexzner. And was that picture taken by a Secret Service
agent, do you know ?
Mr. Caulfield. T assume it was.
Mr. Lexznek. And it appeared in nature to be a surveillance
photograph ?
]\fr. CAtTLFiELo, Again, I would have to assume.
Mr. Lexzner. You were not advised, or were you advised; or don't
you recall whether it was a surreptitious photograph?
INfr. Caulfield. Just how the hell — I don't recall just exactly how
it was presented. I remember being shown the photograph that was
in a file having to do with Donald Nixon; and I assume it w^ould
have been a surreptitious photograph.
IMr. Lexzxer. And was any effort made to identify the other
individuals?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. the Secret Service was attempting to identify
them; and if they knew who they were and told me, I don't recall
who the persons were at this time.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Well, were you asked to make any effort to help
identify them?
Mr. Caulfield. I may have expressed an interest in who they
were, yes.
ISIr. Sears. The question was, were you asked ?
Mv. Caulfield. Was I asked to identify them by whom ?
Mr. Lexzxer. The Secret Service.
Mr. Caulfield. No, I was not asked to identify them by the
Secret Service.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you make any effort to show that photograph
to anybody else?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. To Mr. Ehrlichman — it was not transmitted to Mr.
P^hrlichman ?
iSIr. Caulfield. If it was, it Avasn't by me.
INIr. Lexzxer. Did you later learn that Mr. Johnny Meier and Tony
Hatsis were among the individuals at the airport?
Mr. Caut.field. See, I got a problem in this context, I associate
Johnny ISIeier with the newspaper articles. Tony Hatsis' name rings
a bell, but I don't tie it in to the photograph. INIy recollection would
be that they would have been tied in with the visit to the Dominican
Republic. Now, whether they were the individuals in the photograph,
I cannot say here today.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Ehrlichman
having an FBI check run on JNIr. Hatsis?
Mr. Caulfield. No; I do not,
Mr. Lexzxer. Was Mr. F. Donald Nixon aware of the physical, or
electronic surveillance, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no way of knowing that. Mr. Ehrlichman
31-889 O - 74
9704
didn't ^o into tlie si^ecifics of what he considered to be the overriding
interest in Donald Nixon, and I didn't inquire because I did not feel
that was my area. My function was to keep Mr. Ehrlichman apprised
of anythino; that appeared to be of substantive nature with regard to
unsavory people connected — that might be connected Avith Donald
Nixon.
Mr. Lenzner. How could you have identified them as unsavory
characters?
Mr. CAri.FiELD. I would have hoped the Secret Service might pro-
vide me with that information.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did they ever give you names of individuals they
checked out and found to be unsavory?
Mr. Caulfield. They gave me the name of an individual, and I
testified I tried to recall the name.
]\fr. TiENZNER. Do you remember whether the files were maintained
by the Secret Service, or the Wliite House ?
]\fr. Caulfield. They were Secret Service files.
Mr. liENZNER. Did you report verbally, or in writing to INIr. Ehr-
lichman?
]\Ir. Caulfield. Verbally.
]\Ir. Lenzner. And do you know whether a file was maintained in
the "WHiite House on Donald Nixon?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no way of knowing that ; I didn't maintain
a file.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know whether Rose Mary Woods maintained
a file, or had any responsibility for F. Donald Nixon ?
Mr. Caulfield. No knowledge at all.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you, yourself, have a file on F. Donald Nixon
in your office?
Mr. Caulfield. Not a file as such; I might have had a memo or
two that I could have sent to Mr. Ehrlichman. But as to a file, I
Avouldn't classify it as a file. Probably the memos you have there.
Mr. Lackritz. Who were the individuals in the Secret Service that
you were dealing with on this question of the surveillance of Mr.
Nixon ?
Mr. Caulfield. Off the record a moment.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Caulfield. Again I have the same problems, not as great as
we discussed earlier with the Joseph Kraft matter. Could we do this,
could we handle the names of these individuals in the same manner?
Mr. Lenzner. I have no objection to that, we will pursue that same
course of action.
Mr. Caulfield. You can appreciate my concern in those areas.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me ask you this : Were you aware, at the time it
was happening, of the meeting at the airport between F. Donald
Nixon and the other individuals?
Mr. Caulfield. No ; I was not.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you later learn that the people in the White
House were aware of it, and made an effort to determine who was
meeting with Mr. Nixon ?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm just trying to think and recall — I would say
no, for the simple reason that there were probably conversations
9705
goinff on about this matter which I was not privy to. 1 want to repeat,
my function was pist to transmit whatever information was given to
me by the Secret Service.
Now, T don't recall ever having any conversation with Mr.
Ehrlichman as to who the people were. It is quite possible there was
an ongoing effort to identify them, but I didn't have any specific
connection with that.
INIr. Lexzxer. Do you know Avhether INIr. Eebozo was consulted
with regard to Mr. Meier and his relationship with F. Donald
Nixon?
Mr. Caulfield. No. my position in the White House would not
have gotten me into that area, and it would not have been brought
to my attention.
]\Ir. Lenzxer. "N^Hien ]\Ii-. Ehrlichman discussed that with you, did
he indicate that he had also discussed the surveillance of his brother
Avith the Preside!^" ?
INIr. CAULFiELr I'fo, he did not.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you the person, then, that requested the sur-
veillance from the Secret Service?
Mr. Cattefield. No, T don't recall requesting — the reason I am
hesitating, T am trying to recall whether or not John Ehrlichman
indicated he wanted a surveillance conducted, and I can't recall.
Mv. Sears. AVould it be fair to say the extent of your knowledge is
that you were told to speak with the members of the Secret Service
and moiiitor what they were doing?
Mr. Caulfield. That's coi-rect.
Mr. Sears. That is the framework you learned about it, carrying
out the orders.
INIr. Caulfield. That is what I recall.
INIr. Lexzner. And you have no information as to who requested
the Secret Service to conduct the surveillance?
Mr. Caulfield. No. And so you understand why I am replying
this way, I am trying to reconstruct this whole area, which I, again,
cannot put in a solid time frame. ]N[y impression was, when I came
into the picture, that there were conversations between the Secret
Service and IMi*. Ehrlichman; and my role and function was to
monitor what had been established, and I so did. Now, as to whether
I became involved in the request of initiating the surveillance, I
have no recollection of it at this time.
Mr. Sears. You don't recall requesting the surveillance?
Mr. Caulfield. No, I do not. ISIy recollection is that it was already
established, from conversations, and I was not a part of that; that
is my impression. T picked it up and became the medium for the
transmittal of whatever had been established.
INIr. Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lexzxer. Back on the record. Let me ask you, did you ever at
any time discuss physical or electronic surveillance of F. Donald
Nixon with Pat Boggs?
Mr. Caulfield. I have trouble recalling that. I tried to recall, as I
indicated with my attorney here, whether INIr. Pat Boggs was ever at
any meetings in my office in connection with the Donald Nixon
9706
matter. I recall other gentlemen being there, and we have agreed that
that would be handled through letters with Senator Ervin. As to
whether or not IMr. Boggs was present at that meeting, I do not
recall. So, my answer is that I just don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. That suggests that he was not chief liaison on that
project.
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you at any time discuss with Pat Boggs
the physical, or electronic surveillance of anybody?
Mr. Caulfield. No. That's a broad question, are you looking for
anything specific ?
Mr. Lenzner. Well, it's a broad question.
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Sears. Not to your recollection.
Mr. Caulfield. I would like you to repeat the question.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you at any time discuss with Pat Boggs
the physical and/or electronic surveillance of any specific individual?
I'm not talking about general discussions on how to surveille people,
but specific discussions of surveillance of specific individuals.
Mr. Caulfield. Now, the reason I am thinking about this, some of
my functions at the 'WTiite House had to do with law-enforcement
nature. I got involved in many areas of law enforcement with the
Secret Service, administratively, in connection with the executive
protective service; and it is possible that on occasion I might have
discussed an ongoing case of importance that the Secret Service
might be working on. So. I qualify the answer that way. I had a lot
of ongoing activities with ]Mr. Pat Boggs over the 3 years that I was
at the White House.
]\Ir. Lenzner. Well, I am talking aside from legitimate investiga-
tive efforts. I am talking about surveillance of political figures;
surveillance of F. Donald Nixon; surveillance of Joseph Kraft,
surveillance of that nature.
Mr. Caulfield. I never discussed the surveillance of Joseph Kraft
with anyone other than ]Mr. Ehrlichman at the AVliite House. !Mr.
Boggs and I had quite a bit of contact on the demonstrations and the
antiwar groups in the vicinity of the Wliite House; but as far as
political figures, the answer would be "no."
Mr. Lenzner. Well, in regard with the demonstrations, did you
have discussions about physical or electronic surveillance with regard
to people involved in demonstrations?
IVIr. Caulfield. No, by that I mean I Avas the liaison at one time
for the White House. At one time most of my time in the AVliite
House was in connection with antiwar activities. "V^Hien you mention
Secret Service, that would have to do with the security at the "UTiite
House complex. I would be designated White House staff member to
be present at the command post at the A^Hiite House.
Mr. Lenzner. I understand that. My question was, did you ever
discuss Avith Boggs the physical or electronic surveillance of, say,
leaders of demonstrations ?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. I have a few questions about the purpose of this
project that the Secret Service was implementing. As I understand,
9707
]\Ir. Caiilfield, the Secret Service had placed this electronic surveil-
lance on Mr. Nixon's home phone to determine if there were any
individuals who migjht be in contact with Mr. Nixon, who might
subsequently be an embarrassment to the President; is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield. That is the sum and substance, as I understood it,
yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And that was the primary substance of the surveil-
lance, as you understood it.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. Now, I want to qualify that this way : As I
indicated earlier, I was not privy to any decisionmaking: which would
have precipitated this ongoino; interest in Donald Nixon. I took
particular note of the fact that there might have well been a number
of things happening with respect to Donald Nixon that properly did
not belong in my area, or that I should have knowledge of. I
accepted that and performed my role as I was directed by Mr.
Ehrlichman.
Now, it may well be that there were all kinds of things going on,
and I have no knowledge of them.
INIr. Lagkritz. Sure, but I am limiting my question now to your
assignment. Your assignment was to insure there were no unsavory
characters who attempted to use INIr. Nixon.
Iklr. Caulfield. My function was to forward to Mr. Ehrlichman the
results of this wiretap that was being conducted out there in Cali-
fornia, see, if there was any information that would be indicating
that persons of unsavory nature were involved with Donald Nixon;
that was the substance of the assignment.
]Mr. Lackritz. All right. Now, were you aware of any other wire-
taps that were placed, of similar nature, during your tenure at the
AVhite House?
Mr. Caulfield. In the context with political figures?
Mr. Lackritz. Or relative to the President.
Mr. Caulfieijd. No, I was not.
]Mr. Lackritz. Were you aware of any other physical surveillance
that was implemented on relatives of the President, or other indi-
viduals that were close to the President's family ?
JNIr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Were you aware of physical surveillance imple-
mented by the Secret Service of an individual named ISIichael Gill?
Mr. Caulfield. I know the name Michael Gill, and I know he is a
relative of INlrs. Eisenhower. I know of no surveillance, or any
activity in connection with him.
Mr. "Lackritz. Did Ehrlichman ever ask you to participate or
oversee, or keep tabs on a project concerning Mr. Gill?
ISIr. Caulfield. The only thing about INIr. Gill that I can recall,
early after arriving at the White House there was information that
he might have been associated with some people from Zambia. I
recall either sending a memo to INlr. Ehrlichman, or speaking with
him about the associations with INIr. :Michael Gill. ISIr. Michael Gill
was considered to be a potential source of embarrassment to the
AVhite House.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Ehrlichman direct you to follow up on this
memorandum that you sent to him, concerning INIichael Gill ?
9708
INIr. Caplfield. I don't recall specifically. I do recall— associate
the name INlichael Gill with an association with some people from
Zambia, and that is all I recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you direct Mv. UlaseAAdcz to conduct an investi-
pration of Mr. Gill, to "the best of your recollection?
ISIr. Caiii.field. To the best of my recollection, no; but I want to
qualify it by saying that if Mr. Ehrlichman asked me to conduct an
inquiry with respect to Michael Gill in Zambia, that it's quite pos-
sible, but I have no specific recollection.
Mr. IjExznkr. Well, were there other efforts to investio;ate any of
Ml'. Donald Nixon's financial transactions, to your knowledge?
Mr. Gai'lfieed. I ha^-e no specific recollection at the moment.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever request from the Security and Ex-
chang'o Commission information with regard to companies that Mr.
Nixon was dealing: with?
]Mr. Catilfieed. I have no recollection of that at all.
INIi'. Lenzner. Does the name Hallamore Homes mean anything to
you ?
i\Ir. Caiiefield. No other than what I read in the papers.
Mr. Lenzxer. You never did any investigation of Hallamore
Homes?
Mr. Sears. Not that you recall.
Ml'. CAFLFiEEn. I recall reading about Hallamore Homes in the
])aper, regarding Donald Nixon; but I have no specific recollection
of conducting an investigation.
Mr. Lexzxer. Or seeking any information for Mr. Ehrlichman, or
others on Hallamore Homes?
INIr. Oatilfieed. I want to be very careful because when I saw that
article in the paper about Hallamore Homes a bell rang; and if I
did conduct an investigation it would have been a pro forma-type
thing. T want to be careful if there is a memorandum laying around
indicating that I had something to do Avith Hallamore Homes. It is
possible, but I have no recollection about it at this time.
Mr. Lenzxer. How about Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.?
Mr. Caulfieed. It means nothing to me at the moment.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, now we can turn to some of the substan-
tive investigations you were asked to conduct during your period of
employment at the White House.
Do you recall when you were first asked to investigate the back-
ground and/or activities of Mr. Larry O'Brien?
IMr. (^AUEFiEEi). I got a vague recollection of making some inquiries
of peo])le with respect to Larry O'Brien, but as to specifics
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall who asked you to make the inquiries?
Mr. Caui.fieei). No, I don't recall Avho, but it's quite possible that
Mr. O'l^rien obviously, as a member of the opposition party — it's
quite possible there Avas some intelligence information provided to
members of the staff. I do recall specifically one instance Avhen — I
remember asking Mr. UlaseAvicz to conduct an inquiry about him.
I'm pretty sure it's probably on paper somewhere. I don't remember
Avhat the specifics Avere, I'll have to have my memory refreshed.
]Mr. Lackritz. All right, at this time I Avould like to have marked
for identification for purposes of today's executive session this 81/^
9709
by 14 folder, containing 31 tabbed files, eacli containing a series of
documents. I would like to have this marked as exhibit 1.
[The documents referred to were marked Caulfield exhibit 1 for
identification.*]
INIr. Lackritz. Now, before we get into the specific documents
themselves, Mr. Caulfield, do you recall being asked to conduct an
investigation of an organization called Public Affairs Analysts, with
which Mr. O'Brien might have been associated ?
INIr. CAULFiEr.D. That rings a bell. Again, I would have to see a
memorandum f :> refresh my recollection.
INIr. Lexznek, l^et me just ask you a general question. Do you recall
whether INIr. Cf Ison requested specific investigations of Mr. O'Brien?
INIr. Caulfiei..). Of me, for me to become involved in it? The
jinswer is no to that because I didn't deal with ISIr. Colson except only
in one area.
Mr. Sears. If I might clarify this area. In the vast majority of
cases, and it might even be in all, as far as Jack can't remember
exactly all the so-called investigations that were done. He got his
orders at first from INIr. Ehrlichman, and then at a later date from
Mr. Dean. He would not knoAv, however, the substance of what he
was asked to do, whether it was suggested by other parties or not.
So, when questions are asked about ^Ir. Colson, or other people at
the ^Miite House, in regard to their interest in any of these things, as
I said, in the vast majority of cases, he did not know whether they
provoked the investigation"^ by calling INIr. Dean or Mr. Ehrlichman;
or whether they were the ultimate recipients of whatever he would
send back to INIr. Ehrlichman.
Mr. Lexzner. It is my recollection that on a prior occasion, Mr.
Caulfield recalled that he heard from either ^Ir. Ehrlichman or Mr.
Dean, that jNIr. Colson was the one Avho wanted this investigation
done.
]\Ir. Caulfield. In some instances, yes.
Mr. Lexzner. That's what I wanted to get on the record. I also
think you said at some point that on occasion you learned froni either
Ehrlichman or Dean that INIr. Colson wanted some investigations.
Are you also aware of the fact tliat sensitive case reports from the
Internal Revenue Service were being transmitted to employees at the
White House?
;Mr. Caulfield. Well, let me put it this way : I knew there was a
sensitive case-reporting procedure between the AVhite House and — I
should correct that ; between the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Internal Eevenue Service. That was a procedure that was estab-
lished in prior administrations and was continued during the current
administration.
Now, I have no first-hand knowledge as to whether or not the
procedure established between the IRS and the Secretary of the
Treasury, in fact, went over to a similar reporting procedure to
members of the White House Staft' ; I had nothing to do with that.
Mr. Lenzxer. Are you saying you are not aware that sensitive
case reports were tiansmitted on a fairly regular basis, or at least on
occasion to the White House ?
*See p. 9738.
9710
Mr, CAULFif:Ln. As a formal
Mr. Lenzxer. I don't care whether it was formal, or informal, that
information of the reports was transmitted.
INIr. Caui.field. What I am saying is that I had, specifically,
nothing to do in that area. I know there was an individual at the
Secretary of the Treasury's office who w^as responsible for receiving
the sensitive case reports from the IRS and transferring them on a
regular basis to the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Kennedy,
Secretary Connally, and Secretary Shultz, I assume.
Wiether that was also transmitted to high-ranking members of the
White House staff, I can only make assumptions; but I have no first-
hand knowledge.
]Mr, Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
INIr. Lexzner. I^ack on the record.
Are you aware, Mr. Caulfield, that attempts were being made to
make available to aides at the White House, information from
sensitive case reports from IRS?
Mr. Cauefieed. I have no personal knowledge, no specific knowl-
edge of any such activity. I have knowledge of an established x>ro-
cedure Avhereby sensitive case reports are being made available from
IRS to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
IVfr. Lenzxer. AVell, were you aware of a procedure by which
information was obtained between the IRS and White House aide
Avith I'egard to H^S materials and information contained in the mate-
rials; were you aware of instances where information was requested
by the White House of the IRS?
Mr. Caitlfield. I can respond this way: On one specific occasion
I was directed to — let me retract that.
On a number of occasions I was directed to obtain information
from IRS by Mr. John Dean. I'll i-espond to your question that way.
]\Ir, Sears. On some occasions you were asked to act as a conduit
for information requested from the IRS by the A\niite House; is
that correct?
INIr, Cauefield. Well, not by the White House, by ]Mr. John Dean.
I don't know wheie that was coming from, it could have been coming
from a number of different sources. ]Mr. Dean on most occasions
would not indicate for whom the information was being provided.
So, I want to be very careful how I respond to the question.
]\Ir. Lenzxer. Are you saying, also, that Mr. Ehrlichman never
requested you to obtain information from IRS?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't have any recollection at this time that Mr.
Ehrlichman asked me to get information from IRS.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Are vou aware that ]\rr. Ehrlichman got information
directly from ]Mr. Baith at IRS ?
Mr. Caulfield. I was aware, as I indicated in other forums, that
Mr. Barth and INIr. Ehrlichman conferred from time to time on
matters within the purview of the Secretary of the Treasury and
IRS. Now, what those specifics are would be anybody's guess. Mr.
Barth would be the best one to respond to that.
9711
Mr. Lenzxer. How did yon know they were conferrino;?
Mr. Caulfiem). 1 was a friend of Mr. 1-iarth's. and it came up in
conversations. IT(> was ovei- in the White Hous(* on frequent occa-
sions and wonhl confer with Mr. Elirliclunan. That wns AFr. Barth's
business, and ]Mr. Khrlichnian's ]>usiness; it wasn't my business.
jNIr. liExzNER. Did you ever become aware that infornuition was
l)ein<2- coiweyed from TUS to tlie Wliite House with rejrard to tax
oi'ders of tlie Hn<rhes Tool (^o. ?
Mr. Cai LFiEEi). T ne\er lieard tliat before.
]\rr. IjEXzner. Were you awarr tliat information Avas conveyed
from TT\S to tlu» White House with regard to a tax audit of Law-
rence ()"Jiiien?
]\Ir. (\\uLFiEi,i). I was not awaie tliat there was a tax audit of ]\[r.
O'Brien and information beinir conveyed to the White House.
INTr. Lexzxeh. You were never awaie that a tax audit was being
conducted of Mr. O'T^rien ?
Mr. (\\i'LFiEU). Xo. not until it a[)[)eared in the ])a[)er. I think it
did ap))ear in the paper.
INTr. Lexzner. You mean in the news media?
]\lr. CaT'LFielt). Yes.
]\fr. Lexzxer. Were you aware that a tax audit was bein*;" con-
ducted on INIr.
INIr. Caulfield. Xo. I was not.
INfr. Lackritz. Do you lecall beinir asked by ]Mr. Peter Flani<rau
to fjet infoimation from the Internal Kevemie Service on anv indi-
vidual?
Mr. Caulfield. T lecall ^^r. Peter Flani<j:an requesting an investi-
p:ation on certain })eo})le that would have been involved in business
deals.
Mr. Sears. Maybe the word 'Mnvestiffation" is a little too authorita-
tive here. Do you recall Afr. Flani<!;an. and correct me if I am wrong,
calling you and asking you if you could find out anything about
some named indi\iduals; is that correct?
INIr. Caulfielu Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Ivight now. do you recall getting information on
these individuals from the Internal Pevenue Service?
Mr. Caulfield. T recall conducting an investigation and ])roviding
Mr. Flanigan with the results of that investigation; some of it
1 elated to IPS information.
INIr. Lackritz. I see. How did you obtain the ijiformation from the
Internal Pevenue Service?
]\rr. (\\ULFiELD. I received it from an individual who was then
employed with IPS.
INIr. Lackritz. And what was that individual's name?
Mr. Cai'lfield. That was ^NFr. Aci-ee of the Internal Revenue
Service.
INIr. Lackritz. And do you lecall the nature of the information
that was provided on these individuals?
INIr. Caulfield. In substance it would best be described as a back-
ground investigation.
]\[r. Lackritz. X^ow, I would like to show you in exhibit 1 under
9712
tab 1*, there is a series of memos under tab 1 concerning the organiza-
tion Public Affairs Analysts.
The first one you are looking at is a memorandum from JNIr,
William Safire to Mr. Bob Haldeman, dated August 4, 1970; and
then a followup memorandum for Mr. Dean from Mr. Haldeman
concerning stated matter; and subsequently a memorandum which
is not routed to anybody in particular, but is in the form, I believe,
in which you generally made your reports to INIr. Dean.
I ask YOU now if you remember this memorandum entitled
"Discreet"?
Mv. Lexzxi;r. That is relative to the organization Public Affairs
Analysts.
jNIr. Lackritz. I ask you if you can identify that memorandum for
the record. Do you remember having this memorandum typed by
your secretary; or do you recall the contents of the memorandum?
]Mr. Caulfield. AVell, can I continue with this?
Mr. Sears. Could we take just a second while ho reads that?
Mr. Lackritz. Right, sure, take your time.
Mr. Caulfield. It certainly looks like my report.
INIr. Sears. I was asked to join this organization as a member of
the board, and I refused, luckily.
ISIr. Lackritz. JSIr. Caulfield, can you identify that document dated
I believe, August 11, 1970?
Mr. Caulfield. Let me identify it this w^ay : It would appear — the
format is similar to the way I would have written a discreet political
intelligence report. But I don't specifically recall the substance of
the memo. The form and the outline appear to be similar to my style
of writing a discreet political intelligence report.
Mr. Lackritz. I see, and do you recall asking ]Mr. Ulasewicz to
look into this particular organization?
IMr. Caulfield. No, I do not; but it is quite possible that if I did
in fact, write the report, that he would have been asked to make the
type of inquiry that the report outlines.
Mr. Lenzner. In addition, if you look at the paragraph, the fifth
paragraph says, "Source advises that a discreet look at the interior
office structure" ; I take it that would have been something that ISIr.
Ulasewicz would have done at your direction.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, I see it. Yes, this is a form that would have
been followed.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, the question is, Mr. Ulasewicz would have
conducted that on-site surveillance — not surveillance, but observation;
is that correct ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in the last paragraph on the last page you
suggest that Dick Kleindienst would be the best person to determine
this issue over F. Clifton White. Do you know if anything was
pursued with ]Mr. Kleindienst in regard to that?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no recollection of any further activities in
the area of political affairs. The only way that I can respond, I
don't know.
*See p. 9738.
9713
INIr. Lexzner. Xow, look at tlie first paraori-apli of the memo. Does
that refresh your recollection that Mr. Haldeman at times made
specific I'eqiiests, and this was one of them, for investigator's discreet
inquiries?
INIr. CAiTLriELD. As I have indicated before, I don't know, on the
record or off the record; from time to time requests for information
of a political intellioence nature would flow from many sources. In
this instance, apparently, based upon the memorandum preceding
this memo, it woidd ai)pear that ]\Ir. Haldeman made a request for
information regarding the subject organization.
This is the way business was done at the White House on occasion.
Mr. Lexzxer. Is it fair to say that it was known to a number of
people that if a discreet inquiry investigation was to be made that
you were the person that would carry that out?
Mr. Caulfield. I think that is too broad a statement. There were a
number of discreet inquiries being conducted in the White House
over a 3-year period. I would respond if I was directed by my
superiors to conduct an inquiry, attempt to obtain political informa-
tion. One of my roles there, as everyone knows, was to attempt to
develop and supply that information.
\ow, I think it's fail- to say that there nnist have been literally
dozens of in(juiries of that type. I was one person who was involved
in the acquiring of that information upon direction.
Mr. Lexzner. Do you know of any other individuals at the White
House, conducting similar investigations?
Mv. Cavi.fifaa-). Oft' the record?
[Discussion off the record.]
]\rr. Caulfield. I think it's fair to say that a number of people at
the White House were actively engaged in acquiring information of
political interest.
Mr. Lexzxp^r. I don't mean regular run-of-the-mill newspapers, I
mean getting people to go out and do surveillance and inquiries,
getting background infornuition; who would that have been?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, that could have been any number of people.
]Mr. Sears. Let me go oft' the i-ecord just a second.
[Discussion oft' the record.]
Mr. Lexzxer. The (juestion was, were you awai'e of any other in-
dividvuils at the AVhite House who emi)loyed people like Mr. Ulase-
Avicz to conduct these kinds of investigations?
Mr. C\\i r.FiELD. I have not been aware of any, but I want to say
again, on the record, quite possibly there were others, but I'm not
aware of them.
]Mr. LACKRrrz. Can you recall if there was any response after you
forwarded this memorandum back to Mr. Dean, I believe. Did you
get any other inquiries about Public Aft'airs Analysts?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall.
Ml'. Lac'kritz. Do you recall any requests to take information
from their tax returns?
jVIr. Caitlfield. I have no recollection and no knowledge of that
at all.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Well, do you recall being asked by Mr.
9714
Dean or anyone else, to inquire into the relationship that Mr. O'-
Brien had with the Hughes Tool Co.?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You have no i-ecollection of being asked to in-
quire into the relationship Mr. O'Brien might have had with Mr.
Maheu, or other individuals with the Hughes Tool Co.?
Mr. Caulfield. Let me correct that. In connection with Mr. O'-
Brien, there was an ongoing interest in Mr. O'Brien as indicated
here earlier because of his position in the opposition party. Now,
there may Avell be, and if there is a memorandum around, I'd like
to see it.
Mr. Sears. Can we go off the record just a second?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record.
In other words, you do recall that there was an inquiry concern-
ing possible payments of money by the Hughes Tool Co. to Mr.
Larry O'Brien?
Mr. Caulfield. "Well, I don't know that. I would like to see the
memorandum. I recall an iiKjuiry regarding Mr. O'Brien and the
Hughes Tool (^o. If there is a memorandum, I'd like to refresh
my recollection.
Mr. Lackritz. I show you tab 2* and would like you to refresh
your recollection by reading thi-ough the documents in tab 2.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, looking at the January 22 document, can you
identify that document with your initials and name?
Mr. Caulfield. That is my document.
Mr. Lexzxer. And vou prepared it in lesponse to a request from
Mr. Dean?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Haldeman
sent Mr. Dean a request for this investigation, as reflected in these
other memorandums?
Mr. (\\iLFiELD. I would say yes, based on the memorandum as I
view it now.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, you indicate there that "A reliable source
postures the subject retainer in this manner "
Mr. Caulfield. AVhich date are we at?
]Mr. Lexzxer. Still on January 22. I just want to go through,
and I'll ask si)ecifics on each one of them. Do you remember who
your source was on that ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, James Juliano.
Mr. Lexzxer. And do you remember iiupiiring of anybody else —
did you seek information on this retainer from anybody else at
this time — January 22?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did Mr. Juliano indicate that he had conducted
his own investigation to obtain information?
Mr. Caulfield. Mr. Juliano was a long-time friend of Mr.
Desautels, I think that was his source of information.
♦See p. 9747.
9715
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you know if Mr. Juliano went to Mr. Desaii-
tels to obtain further information on your behalf?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recalL
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall whether he had that information?
Mr. Caulfield. As I recall, he had that information.
Mr. Lexzxer. And he reported to you that durin<r the Kennedy
administration there was a continuous liaison between Maheu and
O'Brien.
Mr. Caulfield. On January 22?
Mr. Lackritz. Ask the question aaain.
Mr. Lexzxer. He indicated, accordino- to this memorandum, that
duriuir the Kennedy administration there was continuous liaison
between O'Biien and Maheu.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. If Mr. Juliano is the source, that's where
it would come from, yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did he aive this to vou orally, or in writing?
Mr. Caulfield. Orally.
INIi-. Lexzxer. And you made notes and
Mr. Caulfield. I didn't make notes, that was over luncheon, as
I recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you ask for him to seek other informa-
tion. At the bottom of the pa^e you indicate you asked for other
information; was that of ]Mr. Juliano. on the bottom of this mem-
orandum ?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm sure I did.
Mr. Sears. Is it fair to say that you said. "Well, if you can find
out anything- else about it'', or .somethino- of that kind?
Mr. Cailfield. That's the way I would haye put it. yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And then you have a memorandum on January
25, 1971. those are your initials on top of the page?
Mv. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lexzxer. And you prepared that and transmitted it to Mr.
Dean.
ISIr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. I^ExzxER. And do you know the source of infornuition con-
tained in that memorandum?
Mr. Caulfield. As I recall my only source in connection with
this matter was Mr. Juliano's knowledge of the area.
]Mr. Lexzxer. You make reference, in the second paragraph, to
the fact that a firm associated with Mr. Desautels and Mr. O'Brien
had handled the Hughes interest up until the Maheu controversy
in Las Vegas. Did you do any indei)endent investigation with re-
gard to the Maheu-Hughes conflict, to your recollection?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. And in the following paragraph you say. para-
]:)hrasing, "Mr. Maheu's tentacle structure — each one which is
fraught Avith potential for Jack Anderson type exposure." And
then you giAe some examples. Can you explain Avhat you meant by
that? Take your time and read the following paragraphs.
Mr. Caulfield. Well, specifically what I meant by it was — I
don't know, 1971, I don't know whether the Maheu-Hughes blow-
9716
up had occurred by then, but there is apparently indication that
the whole situation out there in Nevada was getting very sticky
and very ugly, I was attempting to convey that in the third para-
graph and the following three, that there was an inter-relationship,
apparently, based upon Maheu's activities over the years with peo-
ple of the Republican stripe, and it may well have come back and
proved embarrassing to the people in the administration.
Mr. Lenzxer. In other Avords, if you began an investigation into
O'Brien's getting money from Hughes, it might very likely turn
up tliat Hughes Avas also involved, and Maheu Avas involved with
Republicans in a comparable
Mr. Caulfield. That's precisely what I meant.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Caulfield, did you get any of this information
reflected in the memorandum from Mr. James Golden?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't believe so, because as I said, Mr. Golden
at that time was out there in Xevada — wait a minute, he had gone
with Intertel at that time.
Mr. Lackritz. And wasn't Intertel providing security for the
Hughes organization?
Mr. Cai-lfield. Intertel was deeply involved in the Maheu-
Hughes battle, with Intertel being on the side of the Hughes in-
terests.
Mr. Lacrrlpz. Would Mr. Golden have been in a position to pro-
vide you with a lot of information?
INIr. Caulfield. He would have been in a position to provide it,
but at that particular time I was not that close to Jim Golden. He
was talki]ig to other people at the "White House. I think he was
talking to Bud Krogh.
My answer to that is "Xo," although on the surface it would
appear — at least I have no specific recollection of discussing what
intelligence Mr. Golden had Avitli respect to Las Vegas.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know what Ki-ogh's relationship with
Golden was?
Mr. Caltlfield. I think there was an interest in Jim Golden
solely because he had hooked onto the Hughes interest out there.
These i)eople might have been looking down the road when the ad-
ministration finished theie might have been some financial oppor-
tunities there.
Mr. Lex'^zxer. You are talking about Mr. Krogh?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes. I know it was short-lived, rather moot now.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, do you recall that this relationship between
Mr. Golden and Mi'. Krogh began before the summer of 1071, or
was it approximately the time
Mr. (^AULFiELD. Approximately the time, I think, when INIr. Gold-
en wound up with the Hughes interest.
Mr. Lackritz. Did individuals take advantage of Mi-. Golden's
hospitality Avith the Hughes interest to travel doAvn to where the
Hughes interests were?
Mr. Caulfield. I didn't.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, on the second page of youi" .lanuarv 25 memo
you talk about JNIaheu being a close associate of rogue FBI agent
eJohn Frank.
9717
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lkxzner. Just Avhat was that all about, where did you get
that information from?
Mr. Caulfield. I would have gotten that from Jim Juliano.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVhat does that refer to?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, as I understand it. apparently INIaheu and
Frank Avere engaged in activities here in Washington back in the
sixties Avhen Maheu was beginning to make his mark. I believe
Juliano mentioned that he and John Frank worked together. And,
as everyone knows, John Frank is the Xo. 1 rogue FBI agent in
the history of the organization.
Mr. Lexzxer. Meaning Avhat, Avhat does that mean?
Mr. Caulfield. Just as it says there, that it was generally be-
lieved, and this I learned
Mr. Sears. What does it mean to be a "rogue FBI agent"?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, for example Frank is believed to have
been involved in the assassination of Generalissimo DeGalindey on
behalf of Raphael Trujillo.
Ml-. LExzxf:R. Do you know Avho they were operating on behalf
of at the time?
Mr. Caulfield. Who?
Mr. Lexzxer. Maheu and Frank, Avhom they were operating on
behalf of Avlien this assassination was conducted?
Mr. Caulfield. Xow, wait a minute, don't jump up ahead, Terry.
I'm not even sure that Maheu and Frank were together in 1956. I
am saying in the sixties I Avas led to believe — I don't knoAv it for
a fact — that Maheu and Frank were together, Avorking together in
Washington. John Frank, based upon the famous DeGalindey case
in New York City Avas generally believed to have some part — that
has ne\'er been proA^en — in the assassination of Raphael Trujillo —
DeGalindey, I'm sorry. Trujillo Avas assassinated by the CIA, so
they say.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, Avho Avas Frank Avorking for at the time of
this assassination ?
Mr. Caulfield. Who Avas he working for?
Mr. Lexzner. Yes.
Mr. Caulfield. He Avas Avorking for Raphael Trujillo.
Mr. Lexzxer. And Avhat A\'ere Frank and Maheu doing in Wash-
ington in 1960 together?
Mr. Caulfield. The best as I recall, they Ave re involved in con-
sulting, priA'ate detective AAork; that tyj)e of thing.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xoav, in the last paiagraph you indicate that you
recommend an in-depth analysis of information available for White
House perusal.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
INIr. Lexzner. And you include CIA, FBI, and IRS. Were you
aAvare of any effort to ask any of those agencies for information
Avith regard to Mr. Maheu and/or Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Caulfield. It never moved off that page, as far as I knoAv.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xoav, I take it Avhen this task Avas first delegated
to vou it Avas in an effort to obtain derogatory information Avith
9718
rejjard to O'Brien and his income from the Hughes organization;
is that correct?
Mr. Caulfield. There was an attempt to develop information
regarding O'Erien's involvement with the Hughes organization.
Now, if in the course of that in(piiry derogatory information arose,
that would have been ])ut on paper.
Mr. Lenzxek. And what did you understand was the purpose
of the information with regard to O'Brien and Maheu, this rela-
tionship; what was in back of it, what was behind it, Avhat was the
purpose of it?
Mr. C-vrEriELD. Well, the bottom line would have been
Mr. Sears. He is asking you what you knew about the purpose
behind all this.
Mr. Caulfield. Obviously to develop political intelligence in-
foi-mation on the subject that was of great interest to the people at
the White House.
Mr. Sears. That was your assumption.
Mr. Catti^field. Yes.
Mr. Sears. Well, did anyone ever tell you what the exact purpose
of that particulai' infornuition was, the use it was to be put to?
Mr. C^vulfield. Xobody ever discussed that with me.
Mr. Lexzner. So, basically all you knew was, there Avas an in-
terest in determining the exact relationsliip between Mr. O'Brien
and Mr. Maheu, per your memos.
Mr. Caulfield. (^orrect.
Mr. Lexzxer. And what you were concerned about in your last
sentence of your January 25 memorandum that if things weren't
done carefully something else might emerge that might damage
Republicans.
Mr. Caulfield. That was my warning to the people that might
be reading the memo, and to Dean.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, looking at the January 26, 1971 memoran-
dum from Mr. Dean for ]Mr. Haldeman, it indicates some informa-
tion obtained from Mr. Rebozo in the third paragraph. Were you
aware of that inquiry to Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo, I was not. That is apparently something that
Dean developed and I assume he discussed with Rebozo.
Mr. Lex'zner. All I'm asking about, were you aware that Rebozo
had information related to this inquiry, that is INIaheu and O'Brien?
Ml'. (\m LFiKLD. D(^an did not so confide in me.
Mr. Lexzxer. And then, in tlie fourth paragraph, tliat incorpo-
rates the information you had provided him.
Mr. (\vuLFiELD. Yes.
Mr. TiExzxER. On page 2 of Dean's memorandum, were you aware
that Bob Bennett was also iiujuired of.
Mr. C\\i'LFiELD. Xot that T can recall. T have seen the name Ben-
nett in tlie papers so often that I want to be careful.
Mr. Lexzx-^er. OK. Xow, looking at the memorandum from
Haldeman to Dean, January 28, 1971, it indicates some interest in
having Colson leak infoi'mation with ivgard to this inquiry.
INIr. Caulfield. Yes.
9719
Mr. Lexzxer. Are you aware that Avas at least one of the efforts?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo. I was not.
Mr. Lexzxer. And then, looking at February 1, 1971, the memo-
randnm from yourself to Dean; are those your initials at the top of
the page, and is that your memorandum?
Mr, Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And at the bottom of the page it indicates that
Maheu had covert activities from his Washington association with
the CIA. Do you remember where you got that information from?
Mr. Caulfield. T don't recall specifically, but I assume that it
comes fi'om Jim Juliano.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of learning that the
Department of Justice, for the White House, had obtained infor-
mation with regard to Mr. Maheu's CIA relationship?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you obtain any specific information with re-
gard to exactly what Mr. Maheu did with the CIA?
Mr. Cai'lfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever learn of any relationship Mr. Maheu
had with an individual by the name of Johmiy Kosselli?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Or that it was alleged that Mr. Maheu and Mr.
Kosselli at one time allegedlv discussed an effort to assassinate Fidel
(^astro?
Mr. CAn.FiELD. I so read in the pajier.
Mr. Sears. You have no knowledge of it ?
Mr. Cai'LField. Xo. I liavo no knowledge of it.
Mr. Lexzxer. When you say read it in the paper, do you recall
when you read it in the newspaper?
Mr. Caulfield. Well. July. August, September of last year.
Mr. Sears. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall sometime in 1971 when you began
your investigation
Mr. Caulfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer [continuing]. Into Maheirs relationship to O'-
Brien — a Jack Anderson column?
Mr. Caulfield. About Kosselli, yes. that's what I recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you bring that article to the attention
of anybody, that article that spoke about Kosselli and INIaheu; is
that what you are i-eferring to here, his association with the CIA?
Mr. Caulfield. It's possible. Terry.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well. I'll jret that article in a second for vou. and
see if that will refresh your recollection.
Do you know if there was anv incjuiry made of CIA with regard
to this subject matter?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo.
Ml-. Lexzx?:r. And again I take it. in the third paragraph, when
you make reference to Donald Xixon's Dominican Kepublic visit,
did you again remind Dean of the possibility of possible Kepub-
licaii problems?
31-889 O - 74
9720
Mr. Caulfieli). That's correct.
Mr. Lexznkr. AVhile Mr. Lsickritz finds this article I want to
say on the recoi'd these docnments are from unsealed exhibits of
the committee — I mean sealed exhibits, I'm sorry, of the commit-
tee ; and consequently I am ^oin^ to request that the transcript
of this entiiv interview be sealed and furnished copies only to
Senator Ervin.
I am also jjoinjr to direct that staff present here today not reduce
their notes to typewritten form, or distribute them to anybody ex-
cept Mr. Thompson or Mr. Dash because these are sealed, and until
the conmiittee votes to unseal them, it would be unfair to have
any of this material, or any of the answers that Mr. Caulfield has
i^iven to any of these questions furnished to the public.
Mr. Sears. Thank you. Mi-. Lenzner. We appreciate that. Of
course you realize that comes as a ^reat help to us. This has been
a very tryin<>: situation for all of these defendants who have had
to come before this body, and not only this body but the special
prosecutor's office, and I assume other bodies of the Government.
And we appreciate your cai-e in safeguarding; the rifrhts of Mr.
Caulfield and I am sure the other defendants.
Mr. Lexzxer. And I would also say any other individuals who
have been mentioned on the record in the interview, as I said I
will direct, and I ask everybody from staff' to recopiize, on the
record, that the information will not be transmitted in typed form
or related to anybody except chief counsel and chief minority
counsel.
Mr. Sears. As I understand your statement, it covers not only
the record, but summaries of conversations avc were havino;.
Mr. Lexzxer. What I am su<rfi"estin^-. there is a typed transcript,
and there is no need to type up any information and circulate it.
The transcript will be available from Senator Ervin upon request
to his office, and let him decide in his discretion who should, or
should not have access to the transcripts themselves.
I have no objection, obviously, to chief counsel or minority coun-
sel, Mr. Thompson, being; briefed orally because they obviously have
the ri<iht to know the pro<>"ress of the inquiry ; but I would direct
it be oral briefin<r. and that the notes taken not be typed into sum-
maries, or any typewritten form at all.
]Mr. Sears. Thank you.
Mv. Lexzxer. AVhile we are waitino-. looking at the last page of
tab 2 1 wonder, can you identify that document as a memorandum
api)earini>- to be in the same form as other memoiandums prepared
by you?
Mr. (\\T'LFiELi). Yes.
Ml". Lexzxer. And do you have any recollection now of the
source yon referred to in the first parajuiaph of that memorandum?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall, though, if I were to guess I would
say Mr. Juliano. based upon the previous memorandums.
Mr. Lexzxer. Ivct me see if I can refresh your recollection. Do
you know a AValter J. Badden?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, the best man at my Avedding.
9721
Mr. Lexzner. Was he employed at Hughes Aircraft Co.?
Mr. Caixfikld. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever seek information from him with
regard to this inquiry?
Mr. CAiLriELD. Xo; he is the director of security for one of the
Hughes Tool Co. organizations in California, and he had nothing
to do with this area.
As I said, I want to repeat, he was the best man at my ^yedding
and visited me from time to time in Washington. I never discussed
this area with him.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you also know an individual named David
Ludwig ?
Mr. CAi'LriELD. Yes; he is a subordinate of Mr. Badden, and
Mr. Badden introduced me to him when we had lunch one time at
the AVhite House.
Mr. Lexzxer. And he is also an employee of Hughes.
Mr. Caulfield. He is an employee of the same subsidiary corpo-
ration that Mr. Badden is.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you seek to obtain any information from
him with regard to this inquiry?
JMr. Caulfield. Xo.
^fr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of meeting with Mr.
Ludwig on or about Jainiary 15. 197L or about the same period
of time you were conducting these inquiries?
Ml-. Caulfield. I took Mr. I^udwig, upon request of Mr. Badden,
to lunch at the AVhite House on one occasion, and I wouldn't be
able to i-ecall the date. It could have been any time. It might have
been in January of 15)71 ; I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of the subject com-
ing ui). since you had somebody there from Hughes, and asking
him whether he had any information with regard to Robert Maheu
or Larry ()'15rien?
Mr. Caulfieij). Well, I have no recollection of it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection inquiring from any
em])loyee of the Hughes Tool Co. or Intertel to obtain information
with I'egard to Larrv O'Brien, or Maheu's relationship with Hughes
Tool Co.?
Mr. Caulfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, at the bottom of the memorandum that you
have identified as yours, it indicates that ominous relationships
have been established between Maheu and well-known Mafia figures.
Mr. Caulfield. On the last memo?
]Mr. Lexzner. Yes, the first paragraph.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you remember the source of that information?
Mr. Cailfield. What sentence are we dealing with here? Are you
talking about the last memorandum?
Mr. Lexzxer. Yes.
Mr. Caulfield. Paragraph Xo. 2.
Mr. Lexzxer. Paragraph 1 : "Ominous relationships have been
established between Maheu and well-known Mafia figures."
9722
Mr. Caulfield. As I indicatod, my impression is that it would
have come from Mr. Juliano, but I'm not sure — I'm not absohitely
certain. I want to be carefuh And the reason I say that is because
of all the previous information that was supplied to me by Mr.
Juliano. I want to be sure that we are tallvin*>- about the same area.
I will have to leave it at that. My impi-ession is that it Avas from
]Mr. Juliano, but I'm not absolutely certain.
Mr. L?:xzxER. Were you aware that Intertel was conducting an
investioation into the possibility of Maheu's skimmin<r Huo;hes'
Las Veo-as casino?
Mr. Caulfield. AVell, you have to remember that at that time
the ]\raheu-Intertel-Hughes controversy Avas a matter of public rec-
oi'd in the media. In fact, there was a 60-minute CBS show dealino;
with the conti'oversy at that time. Theie were reams and reams of
information bein<i- written about the controversy, and it is quite
possible some of my information could have come from there.
Mr. IjExzxer. From Intertel ?
Ml-. CArLFiELU. From the media ; I had nothino; to do Avith In-
tertel.
Mr. Lexzxek. Are you also aAvai-e that the Department of Jus-
tice Avas conducting a grand jury iuA'estigation into the skimming
in Las Vegas and sought to haA^e Maheu testify in that?
Mr. Caulfielu. No.
Mr. Lexzxeh. Did you ever discuss this matter Avith any individ-
uals in the (^riminal Division of the Organized Crime Division of
the Department of Justice?
Mr. Cai'lfield. Xo.
Mr. LexzxePk. Did you receive any information from that divi-
sion?
Mr. Caulfielo. Absolutely not.
Mr. Lexzx^er. Noav, in the last paragraph of that same memoran-
dum you said it Avas alleaed that rei>resentatives of ]Maheu may
have picked ui) hotel and bar tabs for the Presidential adA^ance
party. Xoav, Avould that information haA^e come from somebody
in the organization or, again, from Juliano?
Mr. Cai'lfield. I think it came from the Secret Service, idle
conversations I jiicked up from friends of mine Avho might haA'e
been on the White House
Mr. Lexzxek. Advance party ?
Mr. Cai'lfieij). Xot the advance
Mr. Sears. The White House detail.
Mr. Caulfielo. The White House detail. I think, Avas kicking
around a piece of information, you know, that Avas incorporated
into this thing.
Mr. Lex^zx'er. Do aou have auA' recollection Avho advised you of
that?
Mr. Caulfield. Xot specifically; it could haA'e been three or four
people in the area aa'c discussed previously.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well. Ave Avill have those names added, then.
Mr. Caulfield. The same names.
Mr. Lexzxer. The same luimes. Xoav, I take it you are again in-
9723
teiidino; to indicate that this is a sensitive area Avith regard to
possible repercussions.
Mr. Caulfield. Or possible embarrassment to the White House.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you aware that Mr. Colson was interested in
tlie relating of Mr. O'Brien to possible crime figures?
Mr. Caulfieij). No; never.
Mr. Lenzxi:r. Was there any feedback to you to pursue the ques-
tion whether Maheu's allegecl association with well-knoAvn Mafia
figui'es might be also tied into O'Brien?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. You are sure of that?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, can we have these two newspaper articles
marked as exhibits 2 and 8 for today.
Mr. Lackritz. A newspaper article by Mr. Jack Anderson dated
January 18, 1971, is exhibit 2; and exhibit 3 is an article written
by .lack Anderson dated January 19, 1971.
[Tlie documents referred to were marked Caulfield exhibits Nos.
2 and 3.*]
Mr. Lackritz. Both of those exhibits have to do with possible
CIA involvement in a plot to kill Fidel Castro.
Mr. Lenzn?:r. And others.
Mr. I^ACKRiTz. And others.
Ml'. Cai LFiELD. Olf the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. You did not seek to inquire from anybody else?
Mr. Caulfield. I have never had any contact as to the activities
of the CIA; that is an area tliat I learned a long time ago to stay
out of.
Mr. Lenzner. Except in one memo you suggested that
Mr. Cai'Lfield. I nuule a i-ecommendation, and it didirt leave the
paper for all I know. I have no recollection of it.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, does that memo refresh your recollection as
to whether your reference to Maheu's covert activity, in your
February 1. 1971, memo, referred to the items in the subject mat-
ter of the Jack Anderson column, which you now looked at?
^fr. Caulfield. I would respond by saying yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, upon reading the January 18, 1971, article
by Jack Anderson, that is what you are referring to?
Mr. Caulfield. That's what I was referring to.
Mr. Lackritz. In your memorandum of February 1, 1971.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Were there any subsequent requests to
follow up on that information in CIA?
Mr. Caulfield. No; not to me.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you make any subsequent inquiries concern-
ing that matter?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Off' the record.
*See pp. 9911-9913.
9724
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackrttz. Do you recall any requests that were made, pos
sibly by Mr. Dean or by any individuals in the Justice Depart-
ment, to pursue any of this information?
Mr. Caulfield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr, Lackritz. Do you have any knowledge of an appearance b}
Mr. Maheu at the Justice Department to be interrogated concern-
ing the Las Vegas casino?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you ever have any contact with Mr. Wil
Wilson from the Justice Department?
Mr. Caulfield. I met INIr. Wilson one time, coming back froir
California.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall wlien that was?
Mr. Caulfield. I believe it was following the chiefs of police
convention in Anaheim — it wouldn't have been that time; I was
out of there by then.
Well, all I can say I remember being introduced to Mr. Wilsor
at a California airport sometime in 1970 in connection with s
law enforcement conference.
Mr. Sears. Perhaps you can ask if he has ever spoken to IVIr
Wilson in connection with this matter.
Mr. Caulfiei-d. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you ever speak with ISIr. Wilson about this
matter, that you recall?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Now, in your February 3, 1971, memo
randum to Mr. Dean, you recommend that Mr. Dean watch th(
CBS-TV show dealing with the ongoing Hughes controversy.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Is this the transcript of that CBS "60 Minutes'
show, dated February 2, 1971?
Mr. Caulfield. I assume so. I don't have any recollection, othei
than the fact the subject dealt with the Maheu-Hughes controversy:
that's all I can recall.
Mr. Lackritz. First of all, can I have that marked as Exhibit
4?
[The document referred to was marked Caulfield exhibit No. 4.*]
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall learning about that time of the
existence of a hand-written memorandum from Mr. Howard
Hughes to JSIr. Maheu?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no knowledge of that at all.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, do you recall that television show, on page
16 of the transcript Mr. Hank Greenspun stated that he had in his
possession a good many copies of Hughes-Maheu memorandums, in
Hughes' handwriting?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall that at all.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you learn on any subsequent occasion that Mr.
Greenspun had possession of a large number of handwritten memo-
randums from Howard Hughes to Robert Maheu?
•See p. 9915.
9725
Mr. Caulfield. The only thing I recall — I read in the newspaper
about Mr. Greenspun's activities, and they were of no interest
to me.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall any inquiries that were conducted, or
did you ask anyone to make any inquiries into Mr. Greenspun's
activities out in Nevada?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. I would like to leave that for the time being.
Turning to surveillance of Senators. Did you ever receive any
request to place Senator Ted Kennedy under 24-hour surveillance?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall when you received that request,
and who made it to you?
Mr. Caulfield. Mr. Dean, and I don't recall the exact time
frame. I assume it was sometime in 1971.
Mr. Lackritz. And specifically, what was the request?
Mr. Caulfield. The request was to have the Senator, Ted Ken-
nedy, placed under surveillance; and as I recall, he wrote a memo-
randum which effectively had the matter dropped.
Mr. Lackritz. And this was a request for 24-hour-a-day surveil-
lance ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Dean indicate to you where the request
came from?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't know whether he indicated or I assumed
that it came from Mr. Haldeman's office.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And your reaction to the idea, that it was
a silly idea was the reason that the
Mr. Caulfield. It was made in strong terms to Mr. Dean ver-
bally, and I think it's a matter of record.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Prior to 1971, had you been asked to
conduct any inquiries into any matters concerning Senator Ken-
nedy ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes ; in 1969 there was a request to have the facts
surrounding Chappaquiddick determined by Mr. Ulasewicz — di-
rected by Mr. Ehrlichman through me, to have Mr. Ulasewicz con-
duct an inquiry surrounding the incident at Chappaquiddick.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And was this on the occasion of the hiring
of Mr. Ulasewicz?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. That was the first investigation Mr. Ulasewicz
was asked to conduct?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall how Mr. Ulasewicz was reporting
back to you on the progress of the investigation?
Mr. Caulfield. Verbally.
Mr. Lackritz. And were these verbal reports subsequently typed
up in memorandum form?
Mr. Caulfield. Only if there was any matter of significance in-
volved, and I don't think there were very many reports.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall Mr. Eebozo coming to Washington,
D.C. during this investigation of the Chappaquiddick incident?
9726
Mr. Caulfield. Doing what?
Mr. Lackrttz. Discussing the matter with you and the reports
of Mr. Ulasewicz.
Mr. Caulfield. I had no conversation with Mr. Rebozo on this
matter.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. And then you do not recall Mr. Rebozo
being present in Mr. Ehrlichman's office watching television about
the time of the Chappaquiddick incident, and listening with you
to reports that Mr. Ulasewicz was sending back to you?
Mr. Caulfield. No, no recollection at all.
Mr. Lackritz. TVHiy don't we turn to tab ,3* of the documents. I
would like you to review the documents in that tab, specifically
with emphasis on the document from you to IVIr. Dean.
Mr. Caulfield. OK.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, turn to the memorandum dated April
19, 1971, that is a memorandum from you to INIr. Dean, and reflects
your signature on the bottom.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you remember writing this memorandum to
Mr. Dean?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. How did that investigation originate?
Mr. Caulfield. This was of interest, going back to 1969, from
the time Clark Mollenhoff came on board, that was generally rec-
ognized as an area of interest to Clark Mollenhoff. MoUenhoff felt
there were same improprieties involved in this whole Maine sugar
beet situation; and it was of interest from August 1969, as I recall.
Mr. Lackritz. I see that is going through April of 1971 that
your inquiry was made, judging from your memorandum.
Mr. Caulfield. Inquiries to whom?
Mr. Lackritz. Your inquiries into Senator Muskie's association
with the Maine sugar industry; is that correct, INIr. Caulfield?
Mr. Caulfield. Now, wait. I see, but I don't like the way that
question is phrased. Why don't you rephrase it for me, or repeat
it, and then I will explain.
Mr. Lackritz. You testified before that this matter went back
to 1969. I am asking you if this memorandum that you were writ-
ing, the date is April 19, 1971, indicated interest in the subject
matter around the spring of 1971.
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct, it continued to be of on-going in-
terest.
Mr. Lackritz. And I take it that during the period of time that
Senator Muskie was identified as the potential leading Democratic
opponent to President Nixon in the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Caulfield. I'm not familiar with the dates of when he
Mr. Lackritz. But it was certainly by the time he was identified
as a potential Democratic Presidential candidate for 1972.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, that's true.
Mr. Lackritz, Now, in the last paragraph of that memorandum,
*See p. 9759.
9727
you state, "because of the hazard of the White House pursuing
this inquiry," what do you mean by that phrase?
Mr. Caulfield. AVell, simply speaking, I felt that the White
House would be well advised to stay far removed from the inquiry,
and suggested that it belonged elsewhere.
Mr. Lackritz. You were worried about possible embarrassment
should it be disclosed that the White House was connected with
investigations ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And when you said you endorsed Fagan and
Nofziger for optimum results, that means from a media stand-
point — from a media impact?
Mr. Catjlfield. If that was what would have been decided, yes.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. And do you recall, Mr. Caulfield, ask-
ing that Ulasewicz conduct an investigation into the Maine sugar
beet industries?
Mr. Caulfield. I asked that Mr. Ulasewicz go up to Maine and
obtain newspaper accounts of the controversy, and he did so.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, turning to tab 4 ^, do you recognize the memo-
randum dated July 6, 1971, from yourself to Mr. Dean?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And do you recall what motivated the inquiry
into Potomac Associates; who asked for that, and what was the
purpose for that?
Mr. Caulfield. I recall Mr. Tom Huston expressed an interest
in the organization and who might have been connected with it.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did you understand why Mr. Huston
was concerned with the organization? Was it thought to be de-
veloping into another Brookings Institute type of organization?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm not certain just what Mr. Huston's interest
in it was. My function and role was just to ascertain where they
were located, and who was connected with them. I think Mr.
Huston would be your best witness there.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you ask Mr. Ulasewicz to conduct this in-
quiry ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And this memorandum reflects the nature of the
substance of this inquiry?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Turning to tab 5 ^, a memorandum dated June 24,
1971, from yourself to Mr. Dean, concerning McGovern's fund-
raising; I think those are your initials on the memorandum.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. A^Tio asked you to conduct the investigation into
the McGovern fundraising
Mr. Caulfield. Mr. Dean.
Mr. Lackritz. Was this potentially valuable political informa-
tion for the upcoming campaign?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't know if I would go as far as to say po-
1 See p. 9765.
2 See p. 976T.
9728
tentially valuable political information for the upcoming cam-
paign; it was a piece of information that I was directed to obtain,
and I did so. What the rationality behind it was, only Mr. Dean
could respond to that.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. And do you recognize the memoranduin
dated July 1, 1971?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And do you know if there was any subsequent
discussion of what to do with the information?
Mr. Caulfield. I have no knowledge of any subsequent activity
in this area.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Off the record.
TDiscussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record. To speed things up some-
what
Mr. Caulfield. Yes, that would be a good idea.
Mr. Lackritz. Let me shift the questions to purely late summer
of 1971. During that period of time, Mr. Caulfield, did you discuss
with any other individual the formulation of a private security
firm ?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Which individual was that?
Mr. Caulfield. Mr. Dean.
Mr. Lackritz. What was his reaction to it?
Mr. Caulfield. He asked me to submit in writing some of my
tlioughts with respect to a private detective organization.
Mr. Lackritz. I see, and then you prepared such a proposal for
Mr. Dean?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And what was that called?
Mr. Caulfield. We called it "Operation Sandwedge."
Mr. Lackritz. And in this operation — what were the functions
that operation would fulfill?
Mr. Caulfield. Substantially a private security entity which
would handle the needs of the campaign organization.
Mr. Lackritz. Xow. among the functions that this organization
was supposed to fulfill, was it supposed to have an offensive in-
telligence capability?
Mr. Caitj^field. That was suggested; yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And was it suggested that this organization was
to have a covert intelligence-gathering capability?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. OK.
Mr. Lexzxer. When you first talked to Mr. Dean about it, hoAv
did he describe what he Avanted?
Mr. Caulfield. What do you mean?
Mr. Lexzner. AVhen he described this new apparatus, Avhat ex-
actly was he describing that he wanted you to prepare?
Mr. Caitlfield. AVe had just general verbal discussions on it, and
he asked me to put mv thoughts on paper, which I did.
Mr. Sears. I don't think it was a matter of Mr. Dean telling Mr.
9720
Caiilfield his thoughts on what he ought to prepare. It was Mr.
Dean saying write up what you think should be done; is that
correct ?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lexzxer. But your thoughts on it Avent beyond simply a
Pinkert on-type operation, something with additional capability.
Mr. Caulfieux My thoughts went beyond and looked towa,rd
the future in terms of having ongoing political security — a security
entity in place, following the campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. I would like to show you, Mr. Caulfield, tab 31 ^
of these documents, and ask you to identify that memorandum on
Operation Sandwedge.
Now, on the first page of the memorandum, the first paragraph,
you talk about, "to ensure that the major ofl'ensive intelligence and de-
fensive security requirements of the entire campaign and Republican
Convention would be professionally structured, programed" — what
did you mean by "offensive intelligence" ?
Mr. Caulfield. Information which would be of value during
the course of the political campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. Did that include the placement of infiltrators in
opposition campaigns?
Mr. Caulfield. Would you repeat that?
Mr. Lackritz. Would the oii'ensive capabilities include place-
ment of infiltrators into opposition campaigns?
Mr. Sears. AVell, I might object to the use of the word "infil-
trators."
Mr. Lackritz. OK.
Mr. Sears. I think it Mould be fair to say that some intelligence
gathering from the opposition campaign was encompassed by that.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, did the offensive capabilities envision place-
ment of undercover personnel in the oi)position campaign?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, bearing in mind that is a suggestive memo-
randum and open to discussion following its being written, I would
say that was a potential consideration.
Mr. Lackritz. A potential consideration?
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. I take it on page 5, where you discuss the offen-
sive capabilities of the proposed organization — page 5 under A.
"Supervise penetration of nominees' entourage and headquarters
with undercover personnel" — that is what you were referring to?
Mr. Caulfield. That is a suggestion open to discussion.
• Mr. Lackritz. Right, that was a suggestion for the proposed
organization.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
INIr, Lackritz. Now, under B.
Mr. Lexzner. Let me just interrupt for a moment because on
September 22, 1971, referring to tab 11 - of the materials, you wrote
a memorandum to Dean with regard to Buckley, which, as you
indicated to us in your prior interviews was with regard — you
1 See p. 9899.
2 See p. 9795.
9730
knew that Buckley was involved and engaged in the placement
of a chauffeur in Muskie's operation.
So, at least by September 1971 this was an activity that was
already being conducted.
Mr. Caulfield. But not with my concurrence.
Mr. Lenzner. I didn't say it was with your concurrence, all I
am saying was you certainly knew it was perceived as an acceptable
political activity.
INIr. Sears The memo in tab 31, of course, was written long before
this. The one that you are referring to was written September 22.
Mr. Lenzner. AVhen was the Sandwcdge memo written? j
Mr. Caulfield. The best I can recall, it was in July of 1971, i
sometime around July. But, I see no connection between the two. i
Mr. Lenzner. "Well, did you have discussions with people with j
regard to the subject matter of surveillance, of penetration of the i
opposition party's campaign ? j
Mr. Caulfield. As I indicated, that was a suggestion back in
July. The Buckley memorandum which you speak of was entirely ,
outside my area. !
Mr. Lenzner. But I sa3\ did you have discussions with other i
individuals with regard to the concept of penetration of the oppo- i
Mr. Caulfield. I don't understand the meaning,
sition campaign?
Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss the subject of penetration of the
opposition campaign with other individuals?
Mr. Sears. Other than Mr. Dean?
Mr. Lenzner. Other than Mr. Dean.
Mr. Caulfield. I may have had a discussion on that matter with
Mr. Ulasewicz as a general topic of discussion; but nothing ever
came of it.
Mr. Lenzner. Any other individuals? "Wliat I am trying to find
out, was that your own idea, or was that someone else's idea?
Mr. Sears. I think it is fair to say that Mr. Caulfield's under-
standing at the time he wrote the memo that is in tab 31 here,
that it was a normal kind of thing in political campaigns to be
either in touch with people who are working with other candidates'
entourages, or indeed to have people that you already knew get
jobs with them. Where he got that impression, I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. That is my next question. Is that the impression
you had, and if so, how did you get that impression, what experi-
ence did you base that on?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, without getting involved in a lot of spe-
cifics, I think it's fair to say that practices of the type I suggested
should come under discussion, or are generally recognized as being
pro forma in the area of political campaigns.
And, as I indicated to you a year ago, we had every reason to
believe that activities of that type were engaged in by the opposi-
tion party in the 1968 campaign. And I think if one looked closely,
one could find that the practice was not dreamed up in July, or
September of 1971, but has been around for probably as long as
political campaigns have been ongoing.
9731
Mr. Lenzxer. Did you discuss the penetration of opposition
campaigns with Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Caulfield. No, I did not.
Mr. Lenzner. Or with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Caulfield. No, never did with Mr. Mitchell, and the only-
reason I hesitated a second on Mr. Ehrlichman, I think he said at
one time that he had seen some sort of a proposal along those lines,
which I don't recall submitting to him. I recall submitting this to
Mr. Dean, and having discussions with him about it.
Mr. Lenzxer. Well, you knew it was going to be submitted above
Mr. Dean.
Mr. Caulfield. He led me to believe that, but I had no specific
information as to who he sat with and discussed it.
Mr. Lenzner. You knew that Mr. Dean wasn't going to make the
final decision on it.
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he not tell you at some point that he was
going to discuss this with Mr. ]\fitchell and Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Caulfield. I think he did, yes. But I did not know, and I
still don't know today whether or not this particular document
was in fact submitted to them. I have no idea, I have no way of
knowing that.
Mr. Lexzxer. TVell. didn't you have occasion to talk with Mr.
Mitchell directly about the feasibilitv of going forward with it in
the fall of 1971?
Mr, Caulfield. No, not this specific document. I never had any
specific conversation with Mr. Mitchell on this specific document.
Mr. Dean has testified that he discussed it with ]\Ir. Mitchell, and
emanating from that the word "Sandwedge" became a word between
the two of them.
I think the record will show that the interpretation of Sandwedge
became confused along the lines. Mr. ]Mitchell was referring to Sand-
wedge having to do with the inquiry up — who was that Republican
Congressman that ran
Mr. Lackritz. ISIcCloskey.
Mr. Caulfield. McCloskey — as a Sandwedge activity, where Mr.
Ulasewicz went up and conducted an inquiry as to the status of the
]McCloskey campaign.
Mr. Lexzner. "Well, I think you described that, I don't want to go
into that; it was described as a Sandwedge type penetration.
Mr. Caulfield. Well, I don't like the word "penetration", a Sand-
wedge type inquiry is the word used in the memo.
Mr. Lexzxer. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, going back to the Sandwedge proposal itself,
Mr. Caulfield, what did you mean on page 5 under B, Offensive —
you say "black bag capability — discuss privately." "Wliat is a black
bag capability ?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, what I meant by that was the carrying of
moneys that might be collected in a political campaign. ^Miat I meant
to propose by that was that ]\Ir. Ulasewicz and anyone else that might
be connected with such a proposed undertaking would have the capa-
9732
bility to supervise the security of the carry in ^r of moneys which
might be collected durino; the course of a campai<i:n.
I was well aware that there was a sio^ificant amount of that type
of activity going; on, and T felt that this particular entity could provide
that type of service.
Mr. Lenzker. Let me go off the record for a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lexznek. Back on the record.
Since this is a continuation of previous testimony, can you explain
what the relationship is between black bag capability and covert steps
necessary to minimize Democi-atic voting violations?
Mr. CAm.Fii:i,D. Well, you've got to go back to Avhat I mean by
minimizing Democratic voting violations in Illinois.
Mr. Sears. It could suggest the payment of money to informants
that might know something about voting violations, that kind of
thing.
You have to keep in mind that this memo was written by a
fellow who was really looking for a job, trying to cover those items
that he felt people who would be reading it might be interested in,
to show some awareneSvS and some sophistication about the kinds
of things that he thought went on in political campaigns.
Now, it is true in politics "black bag" means money, it is often
referred to that way, cash money that is moving in some fashion.
Mr. Caulfield. T would like to support the comments made by
my attorney, and T think it would be fair to say that I — again, I
would like to repeat I know what a "black bag" is, and I know what
a "bag job" is, and they are two entirely different things, there
is a world of difference.
I have been working with the FBI in my whole police career,
and I am thoroughly familiar with what the words "bag job"
mean, and the}' do not mean "black bag".
A "black bag" is a term common to the carrying of money in a
political campaign; that was my intent there. Possibly for use, as my
attorney indicates, to insure that there were not Democratic voting
violations as there were in the 1900 campaign in Illinois and Texas.
Mr. Lenzxer. And that is the interpretation that you stand by
with regard to the Special Prosecutor's office?
Mr. Caulfield. That's correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And you so testified before the grand jury?
Mr. Caulfield. I recall testifying to this document before the
grand jury, but I don't know that the questions you asked were
specifically asked there.
Mr. Lenzxer. AVell, did you intend this memo to cover the pos-
sible needs of breaking and entering into particular locations?
Mr. Caulfield. Absolutely not. I think the record will show that
other than the comments here in this document, that is all there
ever was in connection with this.
Mr. Lenzner. It strikes me that an effort to insure that voting
violations be minimized by paying informants would be a defen-
sive, and not an offensive capability. An offensive capability, I
believe, would be to offensively do something, which would be
breaking and entering a particular location
9733
Mr. Sears. It might be to offensively pay some people to let you
know wliat is going on in the area of specific voting violations.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVell, was there an effort, or an attempt to pay
election officials?
Mr. Caulfield. Possibly. I mean, it's such a vague and wide area.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, I am asking what you intended when you
wrote it. You must have had some intention in mind.
Mr. Caulfield. Well, my intention when I wrote it was, I was
fully aware with the allegations that in 1960 there were substan-
tive violations in Illinois and Texas.
Now, if moneys were necessary to pay people, to insure that
didn't happen, and you want to call that "black bag", fine. That
was my intention.
But the indication by Mr. Lenzner that conceivably, that might
have been suggestive of burglary, that was certainly not my inten-
tion.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Caulfield, why did you put in parentheses
"discuss privately"?
Mr. Caulfield. Because I wanted to be given the opportunity
to explain exactly what I meant; but was never so given an oppor-
tunity.
Mr. Lackritz. By Mr. Dean?
Mr. Caulfield. By Mr. Dean or anyone.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Dean ever ask what "black bag" meant?
Mr. Caulfield. If he did, I explained it to him as I did to you.
I don't have any recollection as to whether or not we went over
this specific point.
ISIr. Lenzner. Do you have any knowledge as to whether that
recommendation was carried out in the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Caulfield. With regard to voting violations in Illinois and
Texas?
Mr. Lenzxer. Yes.
Mr. Caulfield. I do know that the late Mr. Chotiner was in
charge of
Mr. Sears. Security.
Mr. Caulfield [continuing]. Was in charge of security in con-
nection with it nationwide.
Mr. Lenzx^er. Was he given a black bag of money?
Mr. Caui^field. I have no knowledge of that. I know that he was
paid and had a staff to perform those duties.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you know if any officials were paid with those
funds?
Mr. Caulfield. As the record indicates, I was not involved in the
1972 campaign.
Mr. Lexzxer. I'm just asking you, do you have any information,
whether you were involved, or not ?
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Caulfield, I would like to go back to page 3
of the same document, in paragraph E, on page 3.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. You state in paragraph E — "principal, related
9734
to a known Baltimore Costa Nostra figure and released from Fed-
eral service * * * is now in charge of Hughes' security operation
in Las Vegas."
Wiis the source of vour information the Hughes people, or M"
O'Brien?
Mr. Skaks. The source of the
Mr. IjAckritz. Was this indi\idual a source of youi's for info'-
mation?
]Mr. Caulfield. This Avas mentioned to me in the course of social
conversation, and Til try to think by whom. I'm trying to thinV
if it Mas someone in the Secret Service and if it was a social con-
vei-sation — or someone else from one of the Federal agencies. I
just don't recall.
It was put in theiv as a further boost to the selling of the docu-
ment, which is leally what it is. Tt is a document designed to inter-
est people in the formation of a pri\ate security organization.
Mr. LACKRrrz. I understand that. Who was this individual to
whom you were referring?
Mr. Caulfield. I don't recall just now. All I do recall, is it com-
ing from a social contract. ,
Mr. LACKKrrz. AVere you referiing to Mr. (ioldi'n in that para-
graph?
^Ir. Cailfield. I doubt it for the simple reason that I didn't
discuss security principles with Jim Colden.
Mr. T^ACKRiTZ. Well, did you ha\e knowledge
Mr. Cailfield. I can't see telling — ^Nlr. Golden telling me that
information.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVell, who is the intelligence principal that you
are referring to there?
Mr. (^An^FiELD. The name was given to me. and I don't think I
could have even recalled it when I wrote that. That's i)robably
why I put it down that Avay.
Mr. Lenzner. You have no recollection now who that is ?
Mr. Cailfield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you i-emembei' who told you?
Ml-. Caulfield. Xo, I don't i-ecall. As I say. it could be someone
from the Secret Service; or it could have been from other sources
in the law enforcenuMit community. T don't want to take a stab at
a mime. That would be entirely oil base, I just don't recall.
Mr. Lex-^zxer. Well, Mr. Boggs was familiar with the Hughes
interests from his days in Los Angeles; isn't that correct?
Mr. Cailfield. Yes, but T'm pretty sure it wasn't from Mr.
Boggs.
Mr. IjExzxer. AVould yon say that again?
Mr. Cailfield. I don't think Boggs was terribly familiar with
Intertel. I think his invohement out there was long before Tntertel
was formed.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, do you have any recollection which a law-en-
forcement officei- had discussions with you in tliis regard who
Avoiked with Litertel?
Afr. Caulfield. T think vou have to be aware that around the time
9735
of Intertel being a topic of discussion in the intelligence commu-
nity, thci'c M-ere a number of people that had a lot to say about
Intertel. It was generally recognized as a class of the retired
Federal intelligence community, and Intertel frequently came up
in the course of social conversations amongst many people. The
Hughes controversy brought that to a head in many social con-
versations. I just can't put a name on who might have told me.
Mr. Lackritz. OK, I would like you to turn to page 4 of that
same document, Mr. Caulfield. In the second paragraph on that
page it states,
It is recommended that consideration be given to have Intertel neutralized
by Justice to preclude such developments from taking place or to discourage
consideration by O'Brien or Stephen Smith.
What do you mean by neutralizing Intertel by Justice ?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, again, the conversation in the law-enforce-
ment community alleged tliat Intertel had unauthorized access to
sensitive Government files in many areas.
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
]\Ir. Sears. It Avas simply suggesting that a stop be put to that.
Mr. Caulfield. That is correct.
Mr. Lackritz. And what did you mean, just simply not allow
them that access to those files any more, when you say "neutralized"?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, that would have been by intent. I viewed it
as an unwarranted access on the part of an organization.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, did you ever intend that Justice try to mount
an investigation for possible criminal prosecution ultimately re-
sulting in an indictment of the individuals?
Mr. Caltlfield. Ultimately resulting in an indictment? No.
Mr. Lenzxer. Or threatening any kind of a criminal investiga-
tion?
Mr. Caulfield. My feeling was that there should have been an
inquiry into that to see if, in fact, what Avas being told had any
substance.
Mr. Lexzxer. But you Avere not interested in possible criminal
prosecution.
Mr. Caulfield. No.
Mr. Sears. I suppose that the fact AA'hether it Avarranted some
criminal prosecution Avould have been up to the Justice Depart-
ment.
Mr. Caulfield. I didn't make any such recommendation.
Mr. Sears. That is different from that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Noav, Avhy don't you look at the paragraph beloAV
the one j'ou have just been reading.
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzx'er. And one sentence there says — "indictment of In-
tertel principals would effectiA^ely minimize this threat, create a
potentially debilitating intelligence Aveakness for O'Brien's forces and
force them to try other, less sophisticated sources."
I Avould suggest to you that the Avord "neutralized" by directing
Justice to open a case meant exactly that, that you Avere seeking
and recommending that if criminal prosecution Avere possible, an
31-889 O - 74 - 5
9736
indictment be pursued by the Department of Justice. Do you want
to respond?
Mr. Caulfield. I would like to have the question again.
Mr. Lenzner. The question was, that the language here seems
to clearly intend a i-ecommendation that the Department of Justice
neutralize Intertel by a criminal investigation, with a possible ulti-
mate result of an indictment of Intertel's principals.
Mr. Caulfield. I would like to respond by saying that I view the
wordage here given me by Mr. Lenzner — I point out that informa-
tion came to my attention indicating that Intertel was unlawfully
receiving information from Government files, and my intent here
was to see if, in fact, that was the case because it was further indi-
cated that there was a hazard that the, use of this particular infor-
mation might be used for political purposes.
Mr. Lenzner. And going back to page 1 of your so-called Opera-
tion Sandwedge, you indicate there that Lawrence O'Brien — or
you suggested that he had a strong covert intelligence effort against
us in 1972. Were you relating that to ihe Intertel organization?
Mr. Caulfield. That was an assumption, an intelligence assump-
tion that one could make, based upon all of the loose facts that are
outlined in the memorandum.
Mr. Lenzner. By the way, do you know if the FBI had the
capability and conducted transfers of moneys from place to place,
a black-bag capability that you referred to before?
Mr. Caulfield. Say that again.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have information, or were you aware
whether the FBI had black-bag capability in transferring funds
from person to person, and place to place?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, in the intelligence community I am sure
that from time to time moneys are transmitted for local law-en-
forcement purposes; if that is what you mean.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that described, in Bureau parlance, as a black-
bag operation?
Mr. Caulfield. I heard of black bag — black bag to me and to
many people I know in the political sector refers to the carrying of
moneys. Bag job, in the intelligence community, means a burglary.
Mr. Lenzner. And what does black bag mean in the intelligence
community, in the Bureau parlance?
Mr. Caulfield. I'm not so sure that is used in the intelligence
community, black bag.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, turn to page 2 of your memorandum, and
paragraph C
Mr. Caulfield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And I quote, "Jack O'Connell, known by his col-
leagues to have been a black-bag specialist while at the Bureau. . . ."
Was he known as a man who did bag jobs, or as a man who carried
cash from place to place?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, I would have to say that is an incorrect way
to put it.
Mr. Lenzner. He was known to be a bag man, then.
Mr. Caulfield. A "black-bag specialist".
9737
Mr. Lenzner. Which means breaking and entering for the placing
of electronic surveillance; am I correct?
Mr. Caulfield. Well, breaking and entering — placing of elec-
tronic surveillance would be a better way to put it.
Mr. Lackritz. What it means is surreptitious entry.
Mr. Caulfield. For national security purposes, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. If necessary, right?
Mr. Caulfield. If necessary?
Mr. Lenzner. If it is necesary to enter a premise.
Mr. Caulfield. For national security purposes?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes. And I suggest to you that perhaps you mis-
used the word black bag there, and you also misused it in the sub-
sequent reference that we have just been discussing.
Mr. Caulfield. Well, that is a suggestion you can make, but I
have already explained what I meant by it, what the intent was.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I would suggest to you, Mr. Sears and Mr.
Caulfield, there are a number of other points in this memorandum
we want to go over; and I think it might be useful for you and
Mr. Sears to review this document at some length before we con-
tinue this interrogation.
So, I end it again with the instruction, I want you to understand.
Marc, and Emily, that this information will not be transmitted in
typewritten form, except the transcript that is provided by the
stenographer, which will be sent in sealed condition to Senator
Ervin's office.
Mr. Lackritz. The transcript is going to be sealed?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. So, the session stands recessed.
Mr. Lenzner. Subject to setting another day. Do you want to
set another day right now?
Mr. Sears. A week from today.
Mr. Lenzner. Fine.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the executive session in the above-
entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene on Saturday March 23,
1974.]
9738
Caulfield Exhibit No. 1
THE WHITE HOUSE Tab 1
WASHINGTON
August 4, 1970,
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM: BILL SAFIRE
According to Newsweek, Larry O'Brien (along
with Cliff White) will be on the board of directors
of an "international consulting firm. " Lobbying
for foreign governments without the appearance
of lobbying, I guess.
Can't we raise a big fuss about this? Insist that
he register as a foreign agent, demand to know
what fees he will be getting for what work and
"to what extent the Deinocratic National Committee
is available for sale to foreign governinents" ?
We could have a little fun with this and keep O'Brien
on the defensive.
9739
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CONFIDENTIAL
August 5, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. DEAN
Will you please look into this, find out what the facts
are and see what we can do«
H.R. *HALDEMAN
Attachment
9740
rim PEmscQPE
A BREAK FOIR THE YANKEC DOLLAR
South Vietnam's Prcsiilcnl Tliicii bas finally yield-
ed to U.S. urging and aj;reed lo at least a partial
devaluation of the piaster. At present, U.S. dol-
lars sent into Saigon (an estimated $500 million
a year) buy only 118 piasters apiece at the ofTieial
rale, wliile the free- or black-market rale is 360.
Under the new plan, these U.S. dolhus will be
"exchanged oflicialiy at about 235 piasters.
PEKING FACES WEST
Red China is aeccleraling a diplomatic buildup
in East li^urope. Peking will soon establish full re-
lations with Tito's Yugoslavia and has ordered
its ally Albania to do the same. The French offi-
cials who recently visited Mao arc eon\ inecd
China can do this because it has recovered from
its cultural revolution. The French also c\pcct
Red China's No. 2 man, Chou Enlai, to visit
France and East Europe within the next ) car.
CLOUT, INC. '
A high-powered new international consulting
fimi (New York, Washington, London) will boast
some of the top political operators in the U.S.
Called Public Affairs Anal>sts, it is headed by
F. Clifton White (a lop 1961 Coldwaler aide),
backed up by Joseph Napolitan (sometime cam-
paign strategist for JFK, LUJ, Hubert lUnnphrcy
and, last year, Filipino President Marcos) and
includes Larry O'Hrien, Democratic National
Chairman, as a director. The firm will not handle
campaigns in the U.S. but will specialize in gov-
ernment relations.
LONG'S LONE HAND
Despite the implacable opposition of its chair-
man, Russell Long of Louisiana, the belting now
is that the Senate Finance Committee will OK
the Adminislralion's family-assistaTicc program
—and almost in the form the President wants.
The White House, which can count on liberal
Democratic support on Long's commillee, iiow
has lined up such solidly conscrs alive GOP mem-
bers as Wallace Bennett of Utah, Jack Miller of
Iowa and Lcn Jordan of Idaho. •
■ WHO LOVES THE SS T?
William Magruder, the test pilot and engineer
Tirought to Washington to ramrod the .\dminis-
tration's campaign to get Senate support for the
controversial SS'l' airplane, has found his tough-
est opponents within the Adnnnislration itself.
Trcasur)' Secretary Kennedy, for example, dis-
misses the whole idea as a frill. The Senate is ex-
pected to vole on SST funds in about five weeks.
NOW, THE ANTI-ANTI-MISSILE
Those lo)ig-range So\ iet missile tests in the Pa-
cific last week demonstrated two points: (1) the
Minuleman-t)pe Russian SS-11 is now a multiple-
threat weapon (the warheads tested included two
deco)'s plus ihc metallic chaff used lo fool radar);
and (2) Moscow, which has about SOO of these
missiles, has produced in three years a weapon
that can penetrate the ABM defense the U.S. is
still developing.
THIS CUSTOiViER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Iraq has added a new twist to the unremitting
anti-U.S. campaign it started when Washington
and Baghdad broke relations three years ago.
The Iraqis Inwc ordered that the modem U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad (\\hich the Belgians have
been tending) be sold to an "authorized" buyer.
The loiie aiiuiorizeci buyer— Iraq.
HANOI TAKES NO CHANCES
Bombing r.iids against North Vietnam have been
hailed (except for a rare stiikc to protect scout
planes) since November 196S, but Hanoi is not
relaxing. It still maintains a net of 4,000 ack-ack
artillery and machine-gun sites, almost 500 radar
points and 10 batteries of Soviet missiles.
THE JAWBONE THAT FAILED
Despite the President's strong beefs about the
failure of Congress to tax leaded gasoline (and
thus cut air pollulion and raise revenues), his
chances look slim. The tax-writing House ^^'a\■s
and Means Commillee is dead set against it be-
cause, as its No. 2 Democrat, Hale Boggs of Loui-
siana, grandly puts it: "We don't believe the pow-
er to lax should be vised as the power to destroy."
THE HICH C OS T OF SAVI NG
Though costs of the Vietnam war are down by
half— from -^P.O billion to $11.5 billion—Defense
Secretary Laird is busy show ing how the "sa\ ing"
is far less. IViwilely, Laird ga\e Congress
this arilhmclic: keeping up the comb.it lioops
that ha\e left \iclnam but arc still on duly lakes
$1.5 billion; inflation and p.iy raises add $5.9 bil-
lion. Fa en wilh $2.8 billion pared from non-\'iet
spending, Laird ends up with $0.9 billion, the
exact sum Irinuned from his new budget.
9741
DISCRE ET H^QUIRY R SMTIVE TO A m^vrLY FORilED ORGMIIZ/^TION KIJOV.'N
AS PUBLIC AF'I'-AIRS A-NALYSTS
Discreet inciuiry was made in connection with Bob Haldeman's
direction to look into an organization knovm as' Public Affairs
Analysts. Such information vas brouf^ht to H.R.H.' s attention
in a memorandum by Bill Safire resulting from a nev.'s item in
an August 10^ 1970 Kewsueek^ a copy of vhich is attached hereto.
Inquiry reveals that an organization knovm as Public Affairs
Analysts is currently located at 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ,
Washington, D.C. Telephone #296-602^+. These offices of subject ■
firm are housed at the above address in building knovm as the
La Salle Building. Tlie firm occupies Room ^olS and is described
as a tvfo door office v;ith only fair furnishings. It has been
determined that the rental for such office amounts to $300.00
per month and has been continually occupied for the past five
years by Joseph IJapolitan Associates .
A discreet interview of the rental agent located on the premises
reveals that the firm of Public Affairs Analysts initiated
"bucii'iCSo at thi abovo locaLioii ua July ip, lyT*^ 3-t the airecoion
of Mr. Joseph IJapolitan.
Listed below are the naJiies of individuals affiliated with an
apparent group of businesses using the above described offices:
Joseph Napolitan, Claud J. Desautels, Barns Munson Howard, Oscar
Jager, and E. K. Blunt. Additionally the below indicated firms
conduct business fi'om the subject office: Joseph Kapolitan
Associates, Campaign Consultants, Murray VJatson, Ltd., University
of Chicago- Club and Public Affairs Analysts .
Source advises that a discreet look at the interior office structui'e
of the subject business indicates an answering service type environ-
ment with staffing inconsistent with the nujnbci' of finns listed
as doing business at that location.
VThilo further inquiry vdll continue as to the structure and operation
of the firm Public Affairs Analysts, it appears at this time that
the firm is operating in shoestring fashion and may well be an
ad hoc mediiun by ^/hich a group of vrell connected politicians can
have on-going office space vn.th a viev? tov;ards taking advantage of
the needs of candidates for professional advise and guidance. This
is a common practice and one that is not alien to the Republican side
of the coin.
9742
Relative to the intornatioaal consulting aspects of this new
firm, a discreet inquiry vn.ll have to be accomplished either
from friends in the business or more directly from contact \-n.th
F. Clifton Wiite \7ho is listed in liie attached article as heading
up the subject firm. It seems to me that Dick Kliendienst would
be in the best position to make this determination because of
his longtime association with V/hite. Advise if you wish for me
to pursue this particular aspect.
Attachment
9743
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASIUNOTON
August 17, 1970
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
SUBJECT: Public Affairs Analysts
For some time Cliff White and Joe NapoUtan have had a coopera-
tive arrangeinent in wliich they pool their political contacts with
corporations and other organizations in order to market their services
as political consultants. Generally, the idea has been to provide
corporations with programs for employee political education --a
nonpartisan "public affairs" prograin. Obviously, this type of service
can be more easily marketed if it is clearly nonpartisan, which is why
White and NapoUtan decided to pool their efforts. From a business
stafidpoint, this venture was designed to provide two political operatives
witli bread and butter in non-election years.
NapoUtan has had some success in selling his political consulting
services abroad. Apparently last fall, he and White met with some
European political consultants in Florence and discussed those things
which "pols" world-wide find of mutual interest. Shortly thereafter,
Public Affairs Analysts (PAA) was established as yet another
White/Napolitan operation.
As I can piece the story together, Larry O'Brien purchased from
NapoUtan some stock in the new enterprise. I am unsure of the precise
amount, but it is less than 10% of the stock outstanding. By virtue of
his stock interest, O'Brien was elected to the Board of Directors. He
has no management responsibility and no aathority in the day-to-day
operations of the business.
CONFIDENTIAL
9744
CONFIDENTIAL
Public Affairs Analysts is not a lobbying outfit, but a political
consulting firm. At the present time, it has no foreign clients,
although obviously it hopes to get some. Counsel for PAA is a
prominent New York law firm which would be sure to advise White
of the legal implications of any business arrangement with a foreign
interest. Knowing the firm as well as Cliff, I ain confident that any
arrangement would be not only legal but prudent.
O'Brien's relationship with PAA is so minor that I would think
it unworthy of farther investigation.
Attachment
CONFIDENTIAL
9745
August 18, 1970
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN
By a memorandum of August 5, 1970, you requested that I look into
a suggestion from Bill Safire that we "raise a big fuss" about
Larry O'Brien's reported (NEWSWEEK) involvement in an "inter-
national consulting firm."
Attached is the NEWSWEEK article indicating O'Brien's involvement
in Public Affairs Analysts (PAA) along with Clifton White and
Joseph Napolitan. PAA is located in an office on Connecticut
Avenue in a location that has been leased for the past five years
by Joseph Napolitan; some five different firms conduct business
out of this office. For some time White and Napolitan have had
a cooperative arrangement in which they pool their political
contacts with corporations and other organizations in order to
market their services as political consultants. The concept is
to provide corporations with programs for employee political
education of a non-partisan "public affairs" nature. Obviously
this type of service can best be marketed if it is non-partisan
and this is apparently why White and Napolitan have pooled their
resources.
Napolitan has had some success in selling his political consulting
services abroad. The NEWSWEEK article notes his involvement with
President Marcos of the Philippines. I understand that last fall
Napolitan and White met with some European "political consultants
in Florence and discussed areas of mutual interest. Shortly
thereafter PAA was established as another White/Napolitan operation.
Apparently Larry O'Brien purchased stock in the new enterprise
from Napolitan; while the precise amount of stock is not known,
it is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the stock outstanding.
By virtue of this stock interest, O'Brien was elected to the Board
of Directors — as reported Iti the NEWSWEEK article. O'Brien has
no management responsibilities and no Involvement in the day to day
operations of the business. Apparently his present activities with
PAA are rather limited.
9746
Based on the Information that I have been able to obtain, I would
recommend that no action be taken regarding O'Brien's involvement
in PAA. To date they have done nothing that would require them
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and I think
we can assume that they are well aware of the requirements to
register because Napolitan has registered, when necessary, in
the past. The involvement of Clifton White also makes it doubtful
whether any political gain can be made from focusing on O'Brien's
involvement and it might have a detrimental Impact on White's
efforts to manage the Buckley campaign in New York State.
John W. Dean
A TRUE COPY
9747
^MORANDUM Tab 2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 15, 1971
C^-^h^^ f.^^-^^-^.^ tr^-<Z
MEMORANDUM FOR ROY GOODEARLE
Bob Bennett, son of Senator "Wallace Bennett of Utah, has just left
the Department of Transportation to take over the Mullen Public
Relations firm here in Washington. Bob is a trusted loyalist and a
good friend. We intend to use him on a variety of outside projects.
One of Bob's new clients is Howard Hughes. I'm sure I need not
explain the political implications of having Hughes' affairs handled
here in Washington by a close friend. As you know, Larry O'Brien
has been the principal Hughes man in Washington. This move could
signal quite a shift in terms of the politics and money that Hughes
represents.
Bennett tells me that one of the yardsticks by which Hughes measures ,
the effectiveness of his Washington lobbyist is the important people
he knows; that's how O'Brien got on board. Bob Bennett tells me
that he has never met the Vice President and that it would enhance
his position greatly if we could find an appropriate occasion for him
to come in and spend a little time talking with the Vice President.
Maybe you can think of a better way to do this than a meeting in the
officer maybe there is a social occasion that Bennett could be included
in on. The important thing from our standpoint is to enhance Bennett's
position with Hughes because Bennett gives us real access to a source
of power that can be valuable, and it's in our interest to build him up.
Could I have your thoughts on this please?
Charles W.
Colson
9748
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH I NGTON
January 22, I97I
MEMORANDUr^ FOR JOM W. DEAN, IJ-jC
FROM: JACK CAULFIe£w
SUBJECT: ■ HUGIIES RBTAINl^vFOR LAV/RENCE O'BRIEN
Initial inquiry indicates that it will be most difficult to
prove a direct financial transaction between Lawrence O'Brien
and Hov/ard Hughes. A reliable source postures the subject
retainer. in this manner:
O'Brien and Robert Mayhew are longtime Boston area associates,
■going back to the early or pre-Kennedy days. During the
Kennedy Administration, assertedly, there was continuous liaison
between G'Bricu auu. Mayhew. micu O'Bricii. li^ft Luc 'miitc Iluutoc
and prior to becoming Postmaster General, I'layhew offered O'Brien
a piece of the Hughes action in Las Vegas (believed to be
$100,000) and O'Brien came close to accepting.
O'Brien decided against it. Subsequently, after leaving the
government, O'Brien formed a V/ashington-New York based P.R.
firm bringing along one Claude Desautels , his Executive
Assistant at the Post Office.
My source states the Hughes-O'Brien financial retainer transactions
were handled between Desautels and Mayhew with O'Brien one step
removed.
Assertedly, such retainer continued until the recent Mayhew disastei
in Vegas.
This is an interim report. I have asked for additional information.
Will forward when x-eceived.
9749
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Januai-y 25, I97I
O^LARRY 0']
MMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, 11^
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: HUGHES RETAINER TO 'LARRY O'BRIEN AND RELATED MATTERS
^ _
A follow-up inquiry regarding this matter discloses the following:
O'Brien, following his departure from government as Postmaster
General, established a public relations firm. This occurred during
196^. At that time, serious negotiations took place between
O'Brien and Mayhew for O'Briens firm to represent the Hughes intei-ests
in V/ashington. No hard evidence of the fee to be involved is
available. Knov/ledgeable sources assert $100,000 was the amount
under consideration.
It is alleged that for unknovm reasons the above discussed retainer
did no J materialize in this manner. Rather, O'Brien's longtime
confidant Claude Desautels formed a -P.R. type oi'ganization named
DeSautels Associates, 1725 I Street, N.V/. , Washington, D.C.,
Tel. # 296-1338. It is reliably reported that this firm had handled
the Hughes interests on Capitol Hill up until the Mayhew-Hughes
controversy in Vegas. The fee involved for such undertaking is not
knovm to my source.
As one gets closer to Mayhew' s dealings, it becomes evident that his
tentacles touch many extremely sensitive areas of government, each
one of which is frought with potential for Jack Anderson type exposure.
For example i -
Mayhew apparently forwarded Hughes' political contributions, personaUy,
to both parties over the last ten years. It is asserted that he
dealt with one Vic Johnson, now deceased, who was one of Richard Nixon's
fund raisers over the years.
Former Calif ornian Republican Congressman Pat Hillings is very close to
Murray Chotiner, Hillings has been retained byl'ayhew in connection with
Hughes' interests for years.
Former F.B.I, agent Dick Danner has been an aide to Mayhew. Danner is a
close associate of former Senator Srnathers and professes a friendship
with Bebe Reboso. I have reason to believe the Danner-Reboso relationship
Is peripheral at best.
9750
Memorandum fox- John W. Dean • January 25, 197I
From: Jack CaulTield
Page two
Clark Clifford's law firm has been the V/ashington i-epresentatlve
of the Hughes legal interests in Washington for a number of years.
Mayhew \-ra.s a close associate of rogue F.B.I, agent John Frank,
generally believed to have engineered the assassination of Jesus
de Galindez in New York City on March 12, I956 on behalf of the
assassinated Rafael Trujillo.
It seems to me that before any action is taken vis a vis O'Brien
and the Hughes retainer, we should authorize an in depth analysis
of all (CIA, F.B.I., IRS) information available for V/liite House
perusal. There is a serious risk here for a counter scandal if
we move precipito\isly.
9751
Jeuauary 26 ^ I97I
uasmmxMvtmt
B.R* HATjnfF^AB
VRWt
JOBlf CEAK
SQOJBCVt
^
Busies* Retainer of Larry ©•Brten
Porwunt to your aecxxraodUsa of January 18^ 1971> X h«m conducted
aa ixtgpziry into the relatiooshlp betweea Lorry O'Brlea aad Rovard
Sog^ies. Uy prelisdlnary ftmilngs are set forth lielov.
First/ Zgm Bk>£El@er, vho you thou^t hsA been doing irx» vork in
this area^ reported that be had no koovled^ of 0peciClO8> but
had hearsay infttmation of the relationship.
8ecoQd» Z discusaed the matter vlth Bcbe Rehoso 'vbo indicated
tha;t his infbnaation regardii^ the retainer had cosae traa Robert
Mahea, the recently xvleaaed head of Hiighcs* Nevada operation.
Beba said that tbla information had come to his attaatioai at a
tine y^ioBSk Uaheu vsa professing considerable frlenilineas tovarda
the Adml rri stjratioa, bat that it vas not docuaeoted inforsoatioa*
Bebe indicated that he felt that Maheu had possibly retained
O'Brien taae his services without any direct knowledge by Hu(^es
hlBseXf « Bebe is under the iaQ^a:>^i8ion that Maheu had o good bit
of fireedcn iriLth Su^hes' laoney when running the Nevada operation*
Beba farther indicated t^uxt he felt he could acquire sooe docu-
■eaitation of l^iis f^aet if given a little time and that he would
ptroceed to try to get any information he could. He also re-
q^ussted l^iat if any action be taken with regard to Eu^bes that
he be notified because of his fsalliarity with the delicacy of
the relationships sis a result of his own dealing with the Aighas
people*
TSaird, I have also been infoziaed by a source of Jack Caolfleld* s
that 0*Brt.«i and Maheu are lo93g tiiae frien&B from the Boston area^
a Arleadship vhi(^ dates back to early or pre-KJennedy days.
Oaring the Kennedy Adntt nistrstioni there apparently was a ccm-
tinuous liaison betveen O'Brien and Kaheu. \Jben O'Brien left
Urn White Rouse prior to becoaing Postxaaster General^ it is
alli^ed that Maheu offered O'Brien a piece of the Hu^es action
la Las Vegas (believed to be ohout a $100^000 cu-rongecisnt) .
31-889 0-74-6
9752
O'Brien agpipHrently did ryot accept the offer* After leaving the
tfuv t r miB nt» O'Brien fanaoA a Vaahlo^^n-Nev York based public
reirtloiM firm and brcRXght into the firm a oeui by the name of
CXmi30 OeMmltela, «!ho hod been O'Brien's Executive Assistant
Vhlle be yftA Postoaster Oeneral. There is 8<8ac basis to believe
that the Hu^xeo-^'Brlen financial retainer transactions have been
^iHj^TI,f^ Isy Dei»ultel« and MQheu> vith O'Brien one step r^aoyed*
CaaXfleld*8 source further indicated tiiat Maheu, apparently » vaa
the Bsn vho forvsrded all Rushes' political contributions > per-
•cs)allgr# to both parties over the last ten years. It is asserted
that he dealt vith a man by the naiae of Vic Johnson (now deceased)
vbo he believed vas one of the HIxchi fUnd raisers over the years*
X sasune this it tise Vic Johnson vho vas vith the Congressional
CmspaXga CkJEsaittee, It is also noted that fortaer Republican
Oongresfioon Pat Hillings / vho is a friend of Murray Chotiner's^
tttu beoo retained ^sy Maheu in connection vith the Hu^ies' interests
tor several years. It is further alleged that forrser FBI Aeent
Sick Dsnner has served as an aide to M^Uieu and Dann«sr is an
associate of fOnaer Senator Skaathers and Danner professes a
friendship vit^ Bebe Rebozo. I have not confirced this latter
jftot vith Bebe. ISie Clark Clifford law firm has been the
Vashlogton reporesentative of the Bu^^s' legal interests in
Va^ilngton tor a maaber of years*
Fourth > Bob Bennett, son of Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, has
recently left the Depaortment of Transpartatioa to take over the
Mullen Public Relations firm here in Washington. Chuck Colson
Infbnas lae that Bob ]fennett is a trusted and good firlend of
the AdZBlni8tratlon« Oae of Bob's nsw clients is Howard Bi^ghes.
B«matt Infcxnas me tbat there is no doubt about the Jhct that
Uarry O'Brien vas retained by HowEird Hu^es and the contract is
still In existence . Ihe arrangesients were loade by Maheu and
BesBiett believes that O'Brien^ throu^ his associate Desaultels,
is going to seek to have Hu^es follow through on the alleged
retainer contract even though Maheu has been removed. Beimett
believes that Lsrry O'Brien has removed hloself frois the
operation in a visible vay, but for all practical purposes. Is
still involved vith the fonaer Larry O'Brien Associates whi<A is
notf run by Desaultels. Bennett believes that Desaultels is
collecting on the Bu^»s contz^ict and placing funds in a reserve
account for O'Brien vhen O'Brien returns to the firm. Bennett
alM indicates that he will be going to the West Coast to talk
about the specifics of his Hu^^ties relationship vltii Mr. Gay
(the nan vho is responsibla tear releasing Maheu) . Bennett
also Indlcoted that he felt confident that if it vas necessary
to docioaeat the retainer vith O'Brien that be could get the
9753
UtoMiary lafbnoatlon througlh the Hug^s people, but It vould be
vlth the understanding that the documeotatioa vould not be used
la a aaxmer that Bdc^t 0Bft>arraaa Hughes.
As X tin tfODm you are avar6> infbnoatlon in this area Is somewhat
difficult to come by. Bob Bennett appears to be the best source
readily available. I have requested that he get back in. touch
ulth B» irtieQ he returns from California. I will report further
at that tins and shall continue to explore other sources in the
IntsrlJB.
Axiy other lastriictionsT
9754
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASIUNCTON
January 28, 1971
CO NFIDENTLA.L
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
FROM: H. R. HALDEMAN
SUBJECT: Hughes Retainer of Larry O'Brien
l^-
You should continue to keep in contact with Bob Bennett, as well
asr looking for other sources of information on this subject. Once
T-» - Aj. ^^i_ 1. _ _i, j-_ ., ;-Li. i.j_ e: 1 -. --.-1. ..- „--.! /^i-..-i^
Colson should get together and come up with a way to leak the
appropriate information. Frankly, I can't see any way to
handle this without involving Hughes so the problem of
"embarrassing" him seems to be a matter of degree. However,
we should keep Bob Bennett and Bcbe out of it at all costs.
Please keep me ad\ised of your progress on this and any plans
you decide on.
CONFIDENTIAL
9755
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
Februai-y 1, I97I
I.ffiMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, JIf\ Qy
SUBJECT: HUGHES RETAINER TO ' LARRY O'BRIEN
Inq^uiry regarding the Hughes retainer to O'Brien reveals that
it can be documented only indirectly in that payment vas made
via the Mahew-Claude De Sautels route (De Sautels is a long time
confidant of O'Brien).
The revelation that an O'Brien-Mahew relationship exists poses
significant hazards in any attempt to make O'Brien accountable
to the Hughes retainer. Mahev/'s coiitroversial activities and
contacts in both Democratic and Republican circles suggests
the possibility that forced embarrassment of O'Brien in this
matter might well shake loose Republican skeletons from the
closet.
In this connection,, it should be remembered that Don Nixon visited
the Dominican Republic with a group of wheeler dealers in
September 19^9^ who asscrtedly v/ere connected with Ifehev/ raining
forces in Nevada.
Further, former Republican Congressman Pat Hillings has long been
on the payroll of Hughes in a P.R. capacity. Hillings is very
close to. Murray Chotiner. VJhether or not business arrangements
have transpired in this area is not knovm.
Mahew's covert activities from his V/ashington association with CIA
in the early sixties to his Nevada involvment on behalf of Hughes are
only generally known here, at this time. It is again suggested
that in depth infonnation be on hand before pursuing the suggested
course.
9756
METvJORANDUM ""^
THE WHITE HOUSE
''0
WASHINGTON
February 3, 1971
I
x^
MEIvlORANDUM FOR JOM W. DEM
FROM: JACK CAULFIE.
SUBJECT: HUGHES-MAHEW'
I am sure you will find it interesting if you view the
last half of CBS's "Sixty Minutes" show last night.
It dealt with the ongoing Hughes controversy, including
an in depth interview of Mahew. Also an indication of
Intertel's activity in Nevada.
9757
hiq::! jcssi deas
vroi''ld you plc-asa orroiiciQ for m;> to vlcur tlxo Ic^t Irif of
tl}3 CB3 60 lUniitoa Show of Fcbrae^y 2, 19^1, dc^Jdu^ tit;h
F2.C2.CO con<:ir^ tbo dc.t^ and tix^ %7ii-h Joxio* X tMtik X
e!50'o.ld rcvicT/ it oij cooa go ix>ri';lbl^»
^iir^: you, Jcick#
9758
SUBJECT: HAZARD POSED BY WHITE HOUSE STAFF WITH SECURITY
OfTlcIAIS IN HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION INTERESTS IN L\S VEGAS
Infoiiiiation has been received from a source believed to be
reliable indicating tliat the Hbward Hughes operation in Las
Vegas is in serious financial difficulty. Source states that
former l^BI agent Mayhew, longtime associate of the Hughes
operation, had been placed in complete charge of the Hughes
hotel and gambling interests in Las Vegas. Source advises
that Mayhew has gone completely sour in that close and
ominous relationships have been established between Mayhew
and well known Mafia figures. Further, that Mayhew and these
figures have been criminally skimming huge profits from casino
operations for their own benefit. Assertedly, only now are
the Hughes corporate officials becoming aware of the extent
of the monies being stolen. It is feared that substantial
millions are involved.
Source advises that Mayhew is a consumate namedropper and
has convinved Hughes corporate officials that he has close,
influential contacts at the 'rnite House. Assertedly, only
now are these officials becoming av/are that Mayhew has no
influence in this area.
It is alleged that representatives of Mayhew may have picked
up hotel and bar tabs for the Presidential advance party in
connection with the October 31st visit to Las Vegas. Further,
that the same activity may have been involved with the V.P.'s
trip there during the campaign.
9759
MEMORANDUM
Tab 3
THE WHITE HOUSE
>V A S 1 1 I N C T O M
April 14, 1971
confjdp:ntjal
memorandum for: ' mr. couson
from: jeb s. magrudei^^// '
SUBJECT: Ed Muskie
Charlie Fagaii at llie Commerce Department called me this week and
indicated that a conipany in Maine called the Mahie vSugar Industry,
wJiich has had a $13, 000, 000 EDA loan and was put together during the
Kennedy /Johnson years under the urgings of Muskie, will probably
officially announce bankruDtcy late this week or next week.
Most of the key political figures in Maine were instrumental in helping
this company get tliis loan but Muskie was evidentially the leader.
Fagan has all of tlie basic inforniation and is the EDA contact on this
subject. Tt would sccni this might be something we would want to take
advantage of.
cc: Mr. Straclian
CONFIDENTIAL
9760
^!I■^:ouAXl)u^[
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1971
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
FROM: CHARLES W. COLSON Mv/?
Could you assign Jack Caul field to dig out all of the facts with
respect to the enclosed. I liavc some personal familiarity with
this, and I know tliat tliere is a real live issue liere.
At tlie tiine the loan was approved one of Muskie's men was a
deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for EDA. I know
that the loan was ramrodded througli by Muskie and his people,
and I also bclio\'e tliat snrne of the monev intf^Tptjtc; behind f:h«
sugar plant in Maine have been large contributors to M>-.skie's
campaigns. This needs, obviously with some di;;cretion, to
be looked into very carefully and also very quickly. I have ways,
of course, of gelting this out but I do need the facts wliich
apparently, as you will see frona the enclosed, arc availalile fro/n
Fagan at the Commerce Department. He is a political loyalist
and can be dealt with confidently.
Please advise.
Attachnient
EYES ONLY
9761
MI.MORANUUM I
THR WHITE IIOUSI-:
WAS H I N C T O N
u',.A\ ..c.>
April 17, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN DEAN
This relates to my earlier memo to you re the Maine sugar situation.
Will you please give me what you can get on tliis as quickly as possible.
/
Cliarlcs W. Colson
9762
EYj~n 0;;'..Y
April 19, 19V 1
MEMCRANDUX^: ro:'i: H. R. ITALDEM-AN
FROM:
CHAia.KS cGiv::;oN
SUBJECT:
M?.inc Boot Gu;i/?.x' Plant
Clark MoHid'ioiI." will hvc-ik thlty veok an c::clu.t'ivc stov/ on the
tic^-in b.::t.v>cen .'>;;r-.;(or J ■u.'iiac p.nrl c'lc iihont lo Ijc dcCuuct Maine
beet r,u-'.';r pl.'.rir, Tb.;'. Xs.OA v/ill lor;o ;':!.> jriillion (all of it fjuar-
anl'.ood ('AiL-in;-: Iho Jchnoon Aclijii'.nr-tvr.tiori) when the I.Taino sur^ar
plant j":]:_r; fo.v Ijaii'-.viv.rM-.c/, The lc;j.->f! wevo a'^ni^ovcd ky T'.'viskic
r-.n^ociale!^ , one OiWiiOjr r;ub:3':;qi\eri; ly joi.-.r-.d ills ttaff.
There 1? a .r,co<I hi!. oC .fl-.jpnci;j. roc'aaor'Phii) with the pvojjvotor
r.nd I i.Mjlicva a irir .- -nf'Unt: n-: liMi'-v' •'•"ii'rv/ '.'r.'L \/ill fall oat of
thiG. I liave r.'Tvcoii lo vaLnk ti-.ot: the Ir;;; uu vdll be k.opt alive.
Tills io jor.t .for yonr iij.fo amotion.
^ cc: John Dean (v:Y1;S ONL.Y)
9763
THE white: house
WAS H I NGTON
April 19, 1971
ME-lORAIJDUIl FOR JOlfl^I V/. DEAN, III'
FROM: JACK CAULFIPJLD
SUBJECT: ^tUSKIE 'S ASSOCIATION V/ITH M AI NE SUGAR INDUSTRY
FIRM ABOUT TO GO ?.AIIIvi:;UPT
V/ith respect to this matter, be advised that Lyn Nofziger
is most knov/ledgeable in this area. I have v/orked with
him on certain segments of it.
You should also be aware that considerable newspaper publicity-
has already been given to Muskie's involvnent in this matter.
Such publicity is a matter of record in tlie research division
of the R1\TC.
The only nev; develop.^ient here is tliat the subject firm is
about to go bankrupt and we have Charlie Fegan in good
position regarding the current development.
Because of the information available, because of the hazax'ds
of the V/Iijte House pursuing this inquiry, I wish to strongly
suggest tliat Chuck endorse Lyn and Charlie Fagan getting
together for optimum results with minimal V/hite House exposure.
9764
April 29, 1->71
EYES ONLY
MEMOR/iNDUM FOR: CHARLES COLSON
FROM: JOHN DE^\N
SUBJECT: I\i:ur.kl(> - T\'Tc-'in e Svurar ludur.try. Inc.
In view of the tUf:clof.ures and nolox-iety of this case,
and the fact thct \h(t FBI is invefjtif'atin^ cei-tain of
Yahlsing'a activitios, I do not think it would be
adW sable for the V/hile House to have caiy rnox'e
1»_, _*, *«..-^1.--. — _ .- JL ! #-1- ^^ _...-.- I .»•
It would sceiTi thr.t the came advanlitpeo can be
achieved by coineone from the RNC (;c.ttinf; together
with Charlie Fa«an (v/ho han been pinpointed by
Mollenhoff) for any additional facts and current
information that inirht be naeded, and this could
be done with niinimal Adn"iiniEtration exposure.
EYES ONLY
9765
MEMORANDUM Tab 4
' THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July G, 1971
^^
MH'IORAEDUM FOR JOM \]. DEAN, III .-n /
FROM: JACK CAUTJ-IELD N ,
SUBJECT: POTOMC ASSOCIATES \
1707 L STREGr, N^Wv'
ROOM #500
v/askhjgton, d.c.
/
/
/
Above organization occupies space v/ithin the I.T.T. building
which is operated by the Tower Construction Company of the
sane addi'ess.
Organization has a five year lease option beginning August
1970. Cost is scaled from $12,COO-.>il5, 000 per annum. Space
is. subdivided into four offices which include a storeroom,
center alcove and reception roo:n. Listings are indicated for:
Roger D. Hansen
Elizabeth W. King
William Vfetts
Jo H. Tuns tall
Building appears to have good security with guard present in
lobby during day and evening hours. However, a penetration
is deemed possible if required. Attached i s an ex'ample of
the typo of literature published under the sponsorship of the
entity. It is noted that this particular work v/as commissioned
as will future similar works.
Attachment.
9766
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
Auguct 9, 1971
.'^*
JACK CAULPIELD . \^ {
i^c; \ ?
MH-IORAtTOUlu FOR JOHM V,'. DK'VN,
FROM:
SUBJECT: POTOMAC ASSOCIATES
.y
/
Sti-achan called wishing to be pro fonna kept up to date
on any curi-ent inforriation we mi(£ht have on Pbtoinac
Acsociates. You should decide whether or not the attached
is of sufficient interest.
I do not feel that at this time the red flag that went
up last Febi-uai-y warrants more tlian cursory overviev/.
I. TO:
f
ACTIOIT:
9767
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Tab 5
(Date)
MA
JOmf DEAIi
DUE DATE
: ^/c^r
Prcpaxe reply
for John Dean' s signature
Direct Reply
CoiTjXients/ReccrDmendations
Please Handle
Infonnation
File
RET^ARKS:
'/-/ //
(^^
/
o(tJ!of/^^/ j:^^^/^^/^^- r^c//^^//
31-889 O - 74 - 7
9768
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHir,IGTON
June 2k, 1971
MIWORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM:
SUBJECT:
.^
JACK CAULFIELD
MC GOVERN FUND R-AISING SENATE STATIONERY
/ ^
As suggested, I discussed tWis matter with Bill Sessions. At
first blush his opinion is that if the expenses incurred in
the printing are borne by lie Govern, there would be no case .
He has asked that in order for a written response to come
from his office he would have to see the document in question.
I recommend we forv/ard it for his perusal.
/ j Lyn Nofziger has been asked to show the stationery to Dole for
^^^ — . a;-, cpi.iion €.z tz -.rhc thcr thi= i= 5=v=r.-jr.cnt =t-ticr.:ry. '.-.i —
^^^'-'^ \ advise when response is received.
v>"
;1\
^^'
c^
>
A^A >'-- '. .A
CI'
:Jr
F^.V^
UJ'
,>
9769
the: white house
WASH I NGTON
July 1, 1971
MEWORAiroUl-1 FOR JOIIN VJ. DEAN,
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JACK CAULFIEi
MS -GOVERN STATIONERY
V
^
Have discussed this with Lyn and he advises that we have
no issue here in that similar types of fundt-aising
stationery have been used in the past and come under
review by our pol:itical opposition v/ith negative results.
9770
July 6, 1971
EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR: CHUCK COLS ON
FROM: JOHN DEAN
SUBJECT: McGovern Fund Raising Stationery
You requested my opinion as to whether Senator McGovern' s
use of the attached fund raising letter with a U.S. Senate
letterhead possibly violates the law. As long as the expenses
incurred in printing the stationery and letter are borne by
McGovern, there would be no violation of law. We have not
been able to find any indication that McGovern has used
government funds for this fund raising project.
It does not appear that there has been an impropriety here
either. We have been informed that similar types of fund
raising efforts have been used with some frequency in the
past. I should also point out that there are cases where White
House stationery has been used for fund raising, although
hopefully it will not occur in the future.
A TRUE COPY
9771
Tab 6
July 10, 1971
MEMORANDUM rORi BUD KROCH
FROM} JOHN DEAN
In your work on th« Pentagon P»p^rB and related iaauo* yon
will boeoxne awaro of the fact that there is a jrabUcatioa out
ci the Brookings Institate indicating that they are ptanaiag
for the fall of this year a study of Vietmutn based on doeumoBts
of a current nature. Chuck Colson has ntade some etforts to
determine what Brookings is up to but I d<m*t think he has
produced any solid evidence of the nature of tMs publicatioB«
I requested that Caulfield obtain the tax returns of the
Brookings Institute to determine if there is anything that
we might do by way of turning otf money or dealing with
principals of the Brookings Institute to determine what
they are doing and deal with anything that might be adverse
to the AdnUnistration.
Attached are copies of these tax returns and you will noie
that Brookings receives a number of large govenunent con*
tracts. You will also note that on the Board of Trustees
there are several people who might be of assistance to us
in dealings with the Brookings Xnstitote. e« g. « Peter
Peter sotk and K. Chapovaa Rose.
r
When we discuss this issue \ will also give you som^i ^
additional background information on the Brookings probleau
9772
Jttly 27» 1971
MZUORANDUM rORt BUD KROQH
FROMt JOHN DEAN
SUBJECTi Brookings XnatttutioB
A fow days ago I forwarded to you copies of the Brooking s
Iiistltatlon*s tax returns. Please note the attached memorandum
CB what should bo done about the large number of government
contracts now held by the Brooklfags ](nstltutlon. If you want
a&o to "turn the spigot off" please let me know; otherwise* I
will assunae that you are proceeding on this matter.
Thank you* Bud.
9773
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
9774
Indicated below is an examination of the power, influence and
activities of the Ford Foundation and Brookings Institution along
•with recommendations as to how the Administration can deal with them in
1972.
FORD FOUHMT ION
I ^^i™™^ .111. ■ ■ ■ ^^^^i^
The colossus of foundations - and apex of the academic foundation
complex is the Ford Foundation. It's einnual report for 19^9 » released
March 8, 1970, showed assets at market value of 2.5 hillton dollars,
and a principal fund balance of 3-9 billion.
Established in 1936, it became a national organization in 1950.
Since its inception, it is repoi'ted to have disbursed more than 3-6
billion dollars, including grants to 5^880 institutions in the U.S. and
82 foreign countries. Expenditures in I969 were listed at 237-5 million
dollars .
The foundation has provided money for the Brookings Institution,
the Kennedy Memorial at Harvard, the Princeton Institute, and many
other centers of academic-political actionism.
President of the foundation is McGeorge Bundy. Indicated below
are the trustees of the organization who, in the words of Bundy "hold
responsibility for our affairs and who set the policies and programs of
the Ford Foundation:"
9775
Chairman - Julius Stratton
(former President of M.I.T. )
Stephen D. Becktel
(senior Director of the Becktel Corp. )
Eugene R. Black
John Cowles
(former Chairman Minneapolis Standard
Tribune Corp. )
Benson Ford
(Vice-President of Ford Motor Co. )
Henry Ford II
(Chairman of the Board, Ford Motor Co. )
Kermet Gordon
(President of Brookings Inst.)
Alexander Heard
(Chancellor, Vanderbilt University)
Edwin H. Ford
(Chairman and President - Polaroid Corp. )
Roy E. Lars en
(Chairman, executive committee of Time Inc.)
John H. Loudon
(Chairman of the board Rogue Dutch Petroleum
Co. ) ^
Robert S. McNamara - ^^
(World Bank)
J. Irwin Miller
(Chairman of the Board, Cummins Eugene Co.)
Bethuld M. Webster"
(partner, Wfebster, Sheffield, Heischmann,
Hitshcock and Brookfield of New Ycrk)
Charles E. \fyzanski, Jr.
(Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Boston)
I
9776
Ford has financed such activities as a school decentralization project
in New York City that stirred up racial strife and led to three strikes by
a teacher's union; a Negro voter registration drive in I967 that was
credited with helping to elect Carl Stokes as the first black Mayor of
Cleveland, Ohio; and efforts to organize Mexican-Americans in California
and Texas.
The foundation has invested in many community action programs across
the country, and helped fund such Negro organizations as the N.A.A.C.P. ,
C.O.R.E. , and the S.C.L.C.
In July 1968 the foundation provided "travel and study" awards to eigh-j
former aides of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The total amounted to
. $131,069.50 and was subsequently the subject of much hill criticism.
Additionally, the foundation gave $12,717 in I969 to "Joseph A. Colefam
• : I
for a travel study in connection with a book called "The Student Revolution!
A Global Confrontation . " • .1
In the 1969 Ford Foundation annual report, Bundy stated "The natioins j
social ills were still a major focus of our activity in 1969» • .we hope to
do much more in the Seventies." . V
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION ; ,,v.
In November I97O Brookings reported to IRS total assets of $^48, 960,000.
>
Headquartered in Washington, the organization has emerged as the leading
■ • !
Democratic "think tank" in the Nation. Indeed, the large influx of former
Democratic office-holders to the Institution in I969 (See ATTACH "A") promp
one official to describe it as "a government- in-exile."
9777
Brookings was a small organization unl^il the 1960's. During the
Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, it turned into a bigtime operation.
Tlhlle functioning as a kind of holding station for Democrats and of
power, it attempts to influence public opinion and government policy.
Access to huge sources of tax free money, such as the Ford Foundation
makes the task Immeasurably easier.
' .In recent years, the Institution has obtained more than Ik million
dollars in Ford subsidies. Including $175,000 to produce a book called
"Agenda for the Nation" immediately after the I968 Presidential election.
The Wall Street Journal called it a collection of policy jjapers
bylB writers who "comprise an honor roll of academicians of the New
Frontier and Great Society."
' Shortly after the Nixon Administration took office in 1969, the
Institution announced a "new program of foreign policy studies." It
Is alleged that the Ford Foundation agreed to fund 75 per cent of the
project, estimated to cost 7 million dollars over a three-year period.
These studies were to cover such controversial issues as: the
strategic balance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union; arms control
and disarmament; the U.S. role in Asia after Vietnam, relations with
Communist China; the U.S. role in defense of Western Europe; foreign aid,
trade. Investment and development policy, new social and technological
forces in the world, the size of the U.S. defense budget, kinds of * ■'
weapons, and military assistance to foreign countries; a permanent peace- _
keeping force for the United Nations; social change and domestic problems
IniJheU.S.
9778
It is clear from this cursory analysis that the financial wealth and
influence of the Ford Foundation and Brookings Institution when used to
engage in either direct or indirect political activity represents formi-
dable opposition to the best interests of this Administration.
It would appear that ein expeditious political response to this challeng
would be the simple expedient of applying pressures to have the Internal
Revenue Service strictly enforce existing statutes euid promulgated regula-
tions designed to threaten the tax exempt status enjoyed by these organiza-
tions.
In examining this potential with Administration loyalists at IRS,
a disappointing picture emerges. For example, as a result of congressional
pressure in 19^9 an audit of the Ford Foundation was undertaken. It is
still ongoing with no tangible results or progress seen to date. Purposeful
delay appears to be the chosen bureaucratic tact.
Commissioner Walters, according to these same IRS powers, has not yet
exercised the firm leadership expected at the time of his appointment.
Additionally, there appears to be a reluctance on his part to make discreet
politically oriented decisions and to effect major appointments based upon
Administration loyalty considerations.
In this regard, career democrat William Loeb has been named as Walters
deputy, a key policy position. Also, William Connett, another democrat,
continues to function as Walters' Special Assistant for tax-exempt organiza
tions. By written direction of Walters all tax exempt matters of substance
must flow through Connett. Roger Barth is currently being eased out of IRE
by Walters.
9779
It is not believed, therefore, that this personnel alignment would
allow a successful pro forma request for IRS action against Brookings or
Ford. Indeed, under the above circiamstances, such approach would appear
to be politically inadvisable. Certainly charges of political interference
would be raised in the media and elsewhere by representatives of the Ford
and Brookings organizations and their many supporters.
In view of the above circumstances, the following recommendations
are made with a view towards an effective and credible attack against
Brookings and Ford designed to minimize the political impact these organiza-
tions will attempt to bring to bear during the coming election year:
a) The President direct Secretary Connally to give a major address
forcefully dealing with the concern of both the executive and legislative
branches (PATMAN) over political abuses and other apparent illegal activitie
of foundations and other tax-exempt organizations.
(if the Secretary were not inclined to specifically attack Brookings
and Ford in that speech, the Vice Pi^esident could effectively follow with a
hard hitting specific effort in that regard. Pat Buchanan has such a speech
prepared. )
The Secretary's speech could include the announcement of the creation
of a new position in Treasury, such as Deputy Undersecretary for Taxation
to oversee, on behalf of the Administration both tax administration (iRS) ar
policy. Such appointee would be the medium through which the Admini strati or
could force, following the Connally warning , stepped up I?vS action and
•compliance in the tax exempt organization area during 1972. Understandably,
this appointee would have to be outstanding in qualification and loyalty.
9780
B) Clark MacGregor to be directed by the President to work with
Congress and Treasury to obtain more restructive legislation on the
political abuses of tax exempt organizations. We should shoot for
public hearings on Brookings activities.
C) Senator Dole to be directed by the President to have the RNC
develop this entire area as a key issue for the '72 campaign. The
purpose would be twofold:
1) Focus to be brought upon the'^t»es FORD Foundation ?difii(t^4n-^
financed voter registration drives.
2) Take this issue away from George Wallace where it now lies.
D) The President to direct George Schultz to see to it that the
$500,000 in federal grants (HEW, OEO, etc.) presently received by Brookings
be cut.
While a loud public protest could be anticipated, it would
be welcome for the implication would be clear partisan political
involvement of Brookings, Ford and other anti-Administration foundations
in 1972 would be fraught with peril.
t
NOTE: It should be recalled that Kerm^t Gordon, President of Brookings
and a trustee of the Ford Foundation has been appointed to the Phase II
Pay Board.
9781
ATl'ACH^in? NO. 8
3eli<;dule A. Line (a)
THE BROOSHLNGS IMSTIWl'ICXI
1775 >.ti33ttchuael.tii Ave., K,
Wasliirictoii, D. C, 20036
53-Ol9f;577
c ffltt'ri'isA'i'ion Of'' Qtrnc&pn , DifigotoiV) , Mm T!(!\}STm}
Ttt.le
Chftiroau^ floard of Ti'uateea
Vice CUairean, Doard o£ Trustees
and tftiiabar of Finftuoa Conuiittee
Chainaon, E^ceculLvo Committee
and Finance Canrndttee
Truat<!0
Trustee
Trustee
Trufltce
TraatcG
Trustee
Trustee aivi Pi'ealdont, The &rookipga
Institution
Trusteo
Truatea
Trustee
■Trui<tee
Tnietao
Truatce
Ti'uatco
Trustee
Tru^^teo
Trustee and gie<tiber of E:.;«»o,utl'/e
Coctmiittiiie o.nd Finanoe Cooindttoo
Truateo
Trufl'tee atvA cembor of E:ceaiitlve
CooiftilttoG
Trustee mid Ken'oei- of Executive
CoTOoittee
Trustee and sitraber of Executive
Committer axul f'lnaiiGiji Comndttee
MttftUJ and Code Per
In^truotlon I
Time
Devoted Par
Douglas Dillon (o) U^ days
Sydney Stein, Jr. (e) 7 daya **
?/illlaiu R, fllggw (e) 17 days »
Dillon Anderson (e) 1 d«y *
Vinaaut U, Bornett, Jr. 1 dtvy *
touia Y/. Cabot (e) 1 day *
Robert D. Calidtua (<>) '.1 days <♦
Edward II. Cai-tar (e) 2 dayfj *
John Placher (a) 1 day *
Kermit Gordon (e) 10 daya ■*
Gordon Cray (e). 1 day *
Huntit>eton Harrin (e) 2 days '*
Luther G. Holbrook (a) 1 d;iy *
Jalm E, LocUwood (e) 2 days •*
VMUiaiu J/cC, ?/artI.n,Jr. Elected )iay '70
Ro'bort S, WoJIaui-ura (e) 1 day *
ttojoy Miller (e) 1 d.-iy •*
yiter'bert P. Patterson (e) 2 days *
V Peter G. Peterson (c) 1 day *
ir •
J, yToodv/ard Redrvjnd (e) 10 days *
H. Chajwian P.cse (a) 2 days «' ,
Rohcrt Elrookltigs Sftiith(e) 7 daya *
J. Hax'vie y/iUd.n.'K)u,Jr.(e) 1 dfv/ *
Donald B , y/OQdv/>,ird (a ) 9 days
1969-
Mo)
Koi
Ho.
Mo,
Kc
Mo
Ho
«
Ho
No
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
Ho
He
Ho
nc
Ho
9782
ATTACfO/Z^T HO. 8, Pago 2
SohedMle iV^ fitur) (a)
tut; flHCOKINGfl IiTOTI.Tin'IOlI
1775 Matisaohusf-'tts A'rc,
VfMhhiglon, D.r;, a(X)36
53-0196577 '
H.Y/
CQ?.g'p:\MaATrwi py of'O'K^.F.!?;::), C)Hijb:cT0fi3 . A>'m TRurmcp:?} (coatlnued)
HonoiHU'y I'ruaV.eea:
Prealcldut
ViCG PrealrJont for Admltiia-
trtttiou
Vies Pi'eaWeat.
Secretary aivl Aast. Treainucer
Cont.rol'i<!r
iMaaie nml Code Per
Ina tt'UO>,j.on I
Tiiua
De'rotad
Aiinufti
Par
Artliiir .':!tunt.orv Ada«i«(e) ?. daya
Dar^lol II. (iell (e) Jlofiio
EuKeue R. Olaolc (c) fkme
Leonard C-u'Riicliaol (e ) 2. (.hvjvi
Colgate Yf. Dardeii, Jr.(e) None
MiU'loc^ B. Potaoi" (e) Hotic
RnyiRoad D. t'oadiek (e) flowc
f(untJ.>;i,gU')n Gilol:u"iiit.(«) I day
Jobri t*<! Pratt (e) vMouo
KortuJt CiO'i'don
Robert 'II. Hartley
Edv/Aird K. Kaiuiltou
iVju-tiia J. Long
Ed)va J.r. Blrkel
Fiol.la: B, Oorrel.l
i,\r, Thon^L^ fkxisier
-do-
« [Roa, - 100'/,
12 mosi , - 100<fi
-do-
-do-
-do-
Won*
Xotw
<lone
Hone
Hone
Hono
\Mon.o
Moue
IS ev-xi. - lOO^i $ 'jO,fi6'j.T.
. 33,8^3.9;
2li.,78;;!,<0j
l''^,339.lj
lU,039.'5i
2»fj6l0.!i'.
?.0/yj3,o:
^ 190,59 J_.91
« ApproxlKated for Trustees,'
ft/ Flgui'fKi repreaontifig coKiiKirifiatioii of v)ffJ,«era ln(.i]l,ud<! t.liH coat to tiie Orooklnga
iTiatttutlcH of tho following' iVituje iK'nefitri: ContrHiutlon to the rotiromeiit
eyateo.i (which include t,he employHt»<:i ' volimtaji-y r^:duotiotiii iii \)uaf:: pf>.y for piir.'jioaea
of tiio rotlrcaiout contraotti ) , iKicLal. fjf.Kjurlty Xtixers paid liy Vae fOTployar uiid(iir' the
Fednral. iMui'/uice CoatriAnitlonat Act, grovip l.J.fo inrnirmvoo, major tuedioal, dlflfiblli.ty
iTwuraiioe <»nd (jrouj) ho9pi.tall«afc:f.oa.
.• Trvj3^v,«a CKijf Tjtt retroiiarscd roi> aotuft'l fucp«[ae3 of atteadln^ meotiwjfl^ but tiwy do
Tint rnvaV/e <iy.i)C.r\r,e "alLowartcQa" ,
9783
Tab 7
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August G, 1971
.^
MMORAJNiDUlvI FOR JOHII V7. DMN, \I
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
Regarding your inquiry;
The party is identified as John D. Wilkes of 1024 V/isconsin
Avenue, N. W. (Tel. # FE3-2315). A call to that location
results in a voice recording assumed to be the voice of
subject asking caller to leave recorded message and call hack.
Voice can be described as a cultured, media type.
It has been ascertained that subject was a project specialist
at DOD, Office of the Secretai'y, Personnel Division from
August 1961 to July 22, 1971' It has been ascertained that
as V/ilent, Inc., also of 10?-h Wisconsin Avenue, N. V7.
Such firm is engaged in Applied Research ■v/hich as you can see
is a vague description encompassing anything.
A pretext call to the Muskie campaign headquarters asking
for the subject resulted in a negative response. I am
proceeding \ilth. further investigation Jn this area and vill
advise when further information is received.
31-889 0-74-8
9784
THE WHITE HOUSE
\VA S H 1 Isl G T O N
Aucuut 6, 1971
1.5E40R/U\'DU:-'i j-OP. JOlilJ \I. DKMI, III
FROM: JACK CAUIJ^IPJLD
SUBJECT: ADDITIOnAL UrFORriaTIOjI ON JOffil EDV/ARD DEtTBY-V/ILKES
OF C]IERi-vY HILL APAP/niKJTo LOCATED AT 10^1+ VrESCONSIN
AVEiIUE, H. \-l., V.ViSHINGTOIJ, D. C.
Subject born in Paris, France on May 26, 1922. He attended the
f ollovrinG schools :
University Of Paris
SvartJi-.-.oit College, Pa.
Coliunbia Uiiiversity
Princeton University
California Institute of Technology
Sei'ved in U, S. l^arine Coz-ps from lS)Kk-lS)k6.
Held positions at follov/inj locations:
University of Delavare
NorthropAircraft Inc., California
CalifornJa Institute of Technology
University of Southern California
Hup^lies Aircraft Corp. (l95l)
Office Kaval Research, San Francisco
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Recently has been considered for positions at RASA and ABC.
Has a clearance. .Frori October 1970 to April 1971 vas a non-
salaried consult?ait to the International Planning Management
Corporation at Bcthesda, llai-yland.
Subject is divorced. Wife's name not presently knovm.
9785
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
August 9, 1971
MEN0RAM)U1>I FOR JOffiJ \J.
J. DEAiT, iir\\/;/
FROM: JACK CALF LFIELD \ ^\
!H \
SUBJECT: JOHN DENBY-VD:LKES ^ V \
Be advised that Ron Walker called wishing to know what
information we had on this guy. I told hii.i we had made
preliminary inquiry - that you would forv;ard the results .
I am irraJcing a discreet political check and follov/ing through
on Wilkes current involvinents .
Will advise.
9786
August 10, 1971
A DMrN I STRATT.VKLY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMGRA'NJDUM rCR: KCN WALKER
FROM: JOHN DEAN
AttachcfT is the ir.forjnalion tliat v/c were able to obtain
on tlic man found in the Ban;-,or, K'aino, r.irpoi't with
ci tctpc rccoroor by cr,c o£ yo>ii- arjvance men. The
inform:ition is lev:. t;i.\r. conclusive ac io ••.yhy the man
was lui-kii'jg aroun'J t!;e airport. As you can ree,
howevov, iie aoc.r. liot appear to have b-r^cn r~u overt
Mushie type! IT you \7ould lil-.c any furtJicr inforn-iation»
plca.sc advico nic.
9787
THE WHITE HOUSE Tab 8
> y
J WASHINGTON y>/ .
^ . ' ^ August 12, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, II4]
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
subje::t: 1972 C0NVENTI0M>^URITY
The results of my meeting ;/ith Bill Timmons on the above
subject are as follows:
Our discussion clearly indicates that the security needs at
the San Diego Convention will have to be two-fold.
In the first instance, there will be a requirement for the
Nixon CBjnpaign staff to be properly secured at the hotel
wherein their headquarters will be located.
TimmQns advises that the entire Nixon staff will headquarter
at the not yet completed Sheraton Hotel located at Harbor Island
in the San Diego Bay area which is five minutes from downtown
San Diego and ten minutes from the Convention Hall.
Bill indicates that the Nixon forces will occupy the top four
floors of the hotel . At this time it is anticipated that the
President will spend little or no time at that particular loca-
tion. Resultingly, a private security requirement will be
necessary to enable that particular operation to run securely.
We both agreed that the sensitivities of who can come and go
into this area is a delicate problem that must be handled well
and with discretion.
In addition, the staff communications trailer to be set up outside
the Convention Hall creates a security need which the Nixon forces
will have to address themselves to. Further, at this time, it is
anticipated that a large group of eighteen year old Republicans
(approximately 1,500) will be organized and will participate in
rallies during the convention period, as well as at the
Convention center itself.
The Nixon staff will be charged with providing them with secure
housing and transportation. This development will require a
private security capability if we are to prevent any embarrassing
or ugly confrontations by the New Left and/or revolutionaries .
The above requirements are just one phase of security for the
entire convention. The Kepublican JNational Committee will have
significant security needs, not only within the Convention Hall,
but also at the various hotels where key Republican committees
and officials will be housed.
9788
Memorandum for John W. Dean, III
Re: 1972 Convention Security
Page two
As Bill envisions it, there will be a need for two separate
security forces . One programmed by the l^ixon staff (and paid
for by the Nixon organization), the other programmed and
paid for by the Republican National Committee. We both agreed
that the capability of one private detective agency to provide
massive security is severely limited and the quality of personnel
decreases as the size of the force increases.
Bill is interested in seeing that I am charged with the
responsibility for both of these areas, and I have indicated
that I would be willing to do so, but that I would want to explain
our conversation to you before we decided to go forward, and he
agreed. I made reference to the possibility that my stay here
at the White House may be short-lived, and I might be entering
the security consulting area in the private sector. I further
indicated that should this development take place, I would
probably be in a better position to handle the above responsibi-
lities than if I were still on board the White House staff.
In response to Bill's observation that there is a clear dual
security need, I indicated that while I would want to be responsible
for the whole security picture, I personally would direct my prime
attention to the Nixon staff security program. Further, I indicated
that in my judgment Joe Woods would be an ideal candidate to handle
the R.N.C. convention security requirements, and because of the
close relationship that exists, coordination with me in this
regard would be both effective and desirable.
Bill and I agreed that I should undertake an analysis of the
capabilities of the private security forces to respond to the
above described needs. We also agreed that we should have first
call on the services of the b est qualified private security agency.
I indicated that I would initiate inquiry in this area.
Additionally, I agreed to join Bill in San Diego during the latter
part of this month (he is leaving on Saturday for a two week
trip to that area), with a view towards getting a feel for the
entire operation and coming up with a ball park cost figure.
During the conversation, I suggested that we should be alert to
the opportunities that the Presidency presents in this area to
use federal, state and local security forces in a lawful ir3.nner,
and thereby minimize an otherwise expensive proposition. *
I also suggested that because of my contacts with the Service, as
well as my law enforcement background and '68 experience in this
area, I felt that much could be done in this area to promote
cooperation and resultant lower costs.
9789
The V/ H ! T E HOUSE
VVA V H I W GTON
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 3, 1971
JACK CAUl,FlELD
WILLIAM TIMMONS W(
Convention Park Perjnit
I am concerned about the possibility of the city granting
demonstrators a permit to rally on Fiesta Island. As you
know this area is 1-1/2 miles from tlie Sports Arena and
does not really offer adequate containment security. Young
radicals can bridge the water on foot at several locations,
and it is just a short swim at otlicr locations. Also,
there is no legay way I know for sealing the island if
individuals want to leave jicace ful 1)' , only to congregate
at anotl)er location. Should there be 100,000 kids there
it would be an unacceptable risk in my opinion.
Could you investig;ate the j>oss ibi 1 i t)- of using Sessions
Memorial Park if a permit lias to be granted? This area
is near La Jolla some 5-1/2 miles north of tlic Convention
hall and out of T\' camera ranc;e. .If tliC demonstrators
broke camp and moved on the hall tlierc are 0!ily three
arteries available: Mission lllvd., Ingraham Street and
Interstate lligh\;ay 5. Tlie rest is secured by water at
Mission Bay.
Also it would appear that law enforcement authorities
could establish a lock-up compound a mile from Sessions
at Mission Bay Higii School.
I am not personally convinced that a permit should be
granted but tlie Sessions area seems superior to Fiesta.
Could you take a look on the map and discuss in greater
depth wheii v/e are in San Diego.
Thanks , Jack .
9790
THE WHITE HOUSE
\.V r' .~ H ! N -7 '" O N
3ept.eiiiber ih, I97I
MEMORAiroWl FOR JOHN VJ. DEM, lit 'X 'Sw--'
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD '<x \
SUBJECT: CB10NSTRATI0N POLiCYfA^ SAN DIEGO
:^ ,
I think it important that you dfscuss with Bill Tlmmons
the advisability of creating a controling hold on the
issuance of any demonstration permits for the Republican
Convention at San Diego.
My recent conversation with the Sheriff of San Diego last
week indicated the city fath'-^rs may be close to making
decisions in this area which might well have a bearing
on the orderliness of the convention proceedings.
I suggest, therefore, that a discreet means of control
be instituted at this time to ensure that our interests
are protected.
Advise.
9791
Tab
SUBJECT: E« VISIT TO HONOIiJLU AUGUST 17-12, 1971
Indicated below are the results of an on the scene check of the
movements of EjK duz'ing his sbop-off visit to Honolulu enroute
from India;
E-K arrived in Honolulu alone aboard Pan American P'light y?2 from
India via Tol^o (he didn't Get off f)3ane in Tokyo) at 11:00 /jM
August 17th. A running pz-ess interview took place vith Kennedy
obviously reluctant to make any statement. His only comiDent vas
with regard to the President's economic jnoves v;hich he character-
ized as "sound, but late". He departed the airport quickly with
two friends identified as follows: . •
a) John \J. Goeraans
Attorney
Resides in V.'aialua City^ close to Honolulu
Former E-K classmate and Aide to both Jack and
Robert Kennedy
B) John Carl V.'arnecke
Architect
■■■■ Friend of Kennedy family
Designer of JFK giavesigiit
Ostensibly, Et4K's visit was for the purpose of evaluating the
creation of a National Park at the site of a black coral reef
island off the Honolulu coast. The reef bears an identifiable likeness
to the profile of the late JFK. It was detennined that a local
Democratic Councilman, Joseph E. Bulge (l-laui Island) is handling
the project on behalf of E>IK.
D'3C made no public appearances during his stay in Honolulu. Inauii-y
ascertained that he occupied the private estate of one J. Otani,
located at Diamond Head Road, Honolulu. Otani is initially described
as a v/ealthy Japanese industrialist (attempts v/ill be made to identify
him further).
Discreet inquiry determined that Kennedy used the estate solely for
sleeping purposes, took only his breakfast meal at t>iat location
and quietly visited friends at other locations on the island.
It is knovm that he played tennis on August I8 at the estate of one
Lloyd Martin identified as a wealthy Honolulu contractor. Partners
in the tennis match vjere Mrs. .V/arnecke, Mrs. Martin, Lloyd Martin and
9792
£24K
An extensive survey of hotels, discreet cocktail lounf.cn and
other liideav.'ays vas conducted with a view towards detericining
a covert E-2C visit. The resul ts were negative.
Additional co;npanion3 of B'lIC at the estates mentioned were:
■~~-- Stan lliiViOns
A friend of Vfernecke 's and
V7alter Ta{iav/a,
A friend of fertin's
It vas also deter.niined that durjng his island stay E-IK v/orked
on a speech which v;as given 8/26/7I at the National Press Club
in V/ashinoton on the subject of Pakistan.
As previously reported, rcaterial relating to this matter -i.'as
for>7arded to Lyn Nofziger for use in the Monday publication. A
review of the 8/30/7I issue indicates sonie of the material vas
in fact used in the EK- Pakistani article.
In conclusion, it is believed that EGC activity during his stay
in Honolulu was adequately covered. ITo evidence vas developed
to indicate that his conduct ivas improper.
Hyannisport sources indicate K-3C v:ill remain in that area until
reconvenes. A discreet inquiry at llyannis is programmed by our
source during this period.
9793
Tab 10
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H 1 NGTON
September 10, I97I
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJKT: ' NE WSDAY ARTICLE
New York sources advise the following scattered pieces of
information:
a) a discreet look at the newspaper's publication calendar
has been accomplished. There is no indication at this time that
the subject series of articles will appear during the month of
September. However, this could be subject to change because of
the high priority being given to the article.
B) Unusual and highly secretive steps have been taken to
prevent the substance of the article from becoming known to other
employees.
C) A trusted member of the newspaper's staff has stated
that heavy outside pressure is being exerted to uncover the
details of the story before publication. This pressure is
independent of the efforts being programmed from my office.
D) a firm consensus has been reached that Ed Guthman of
the L. A. Times is close to this matter-. It is alleged that
he was in New York at the time of the planning stages of the
inquiry. '
E) Robert Greene, leader of the investigative group, has
been in both Washington and Florida within the past two weeks.
Will continue to push and follow through on this matter.
9794
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
October ik, I97I
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: ' JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: NEWSDAY ARTICLE
KENNEDY FOUNDATI
EDLY FINANCED BY
Proving this assertion may not be possible. As you know,
it is based upon Bebe's observation that Greene and
Guthman are Kennedy loyalists and that Moyers is now with
the Kennedy Foundation.
I cannot believe that a matter of this sensitivity would
be identifiable through normal investigative technique.
It seems to me that we need harder input than now at hand
in order to proceed.
I would suggest, however, that consideration be given
to an oblique Nof ziger media drop vis a vis the" Kennedys,
Newsday, the L.A. Times et al - a sort of an alert that
we are aware.
9795
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA 3 H 1 rv C- TON
September 22, ] 97I
Tab 11
MmORAKDWl FOR JOim V7. DE.'VN, IIJ
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD ^
SUBJECT:
JOm\I BUCKLEY
\V
During Donald Rumrrf eld's tenure at O.E.O., John Buckley
was his Director of Inspection and Ip.vestigation, therefore,
I touched based with Donald and he advised the following:
a) Buckley is a Republican and he is considered
trustworthy. In addition, he can be counted upon to respect
a confidence.
B) V/hile Buckley can be considered intelligent,
Rumsfeld states that he is not "quick smart". Further, in
matters of sensitivity it is P.u-'nsf eld 's .iudanient that he
should be led and the specific details of an assign.v.ent
should be clearly snelled out.
I recomrnent that you so advise Magruder and let them be
guided accordingly.
9796
Tab 12
The White House
WASHINGTON
■ 11 1 yi^ ^ K wB ^lj f ^tfll I !■ ■ J ■—
JOHN W. DEAN, III
TO:
iiuw >i. .Jimwtfi
FROM: JOHN J. CAULFIELO
ACTION:
^Approval/Signature
ComThsnts/ReconCTandations
For Your Information
File
REM'\RKS:
9797
9/22/71
L'
SUBJECT: GOLDBERG, LA^^^ENCE YALE
I have conferred with John Mc Laughlin and he has referred me
to Donald Wyatt the United States Marshal in Rhode Island.
Wyatt provided the follov/ing input:
a) Goldberg is wealthy, having been a principal ovmer
in the Ajiierican ITholesale Toy Company in Rhode Island.
Assertedly, his father currently o-^ms the business.
I am vraiting for results of an I.R.S. check on
Goldberg's financial status.
B) Goldberg has a long time (12 years) history of
involvment in Re;^ublican politics in the State of Rhode Island.
For example, during the period 1969-19^0, he worked for R.K.C.
in V/ashington, D.C. In '6k he v;orked for the unsuccessful
Bruce Selya cajiipaign for the position of Attorney General in
Rhode Island.
^-^ Assertedly, for the past two years he has been the
finance chairman of the Rhode Island State Central Committee.
Selya, I aia told, recommends Goldberg highly.
In addition, Goldberg has practiced law v.'ith former
Republican Governor Del Sesto of Rhode Island.
C) On the derogatory side, it is asserted that Goldberg
vent through a messy divorce which was corr_mon knowledge a:::ongst "
his R. I. friends, but appai'ently did not appear in the m.edia.
D) It has been determined that GoDdberg is actively engaged
in Rhode Island B'nai Brith - Anti Defamation League activities,
in January of this year, Goldberg and tv/o other members of A.D.L.
appeared backstage at a Boston theatre v/here a travelling Russian
entertainment group was performing. Their purpose was to express
dissatisfaction with the Soviet repression of Jewish civil rights
in the Soviet Union.
E) V/yatt advises that at a summer '69 meeting of R.I.
Republican officials, Goldberg made strong coaiments ■ vis a vis U.S.
policy toward Israel in the Mid-East. He attempted at this ineeting
to commit the assembled group tov;ards the position of having the ,
State Department modify its Mid-East policy.
Inasmuch as Goldberg is scheduled to function at I7OI in the
Jewish area, consideration should be given to a potential question
of loyalty with respect to the aims and purposes of that operation.
9798
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH I NGTON
October 6, I97I
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, I
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJKT:
LAWRENCE YALE GOLDBERG
The attached history of financial contributions is for
your information. As you can see, it postures an extremely
heavy involvment in Jewish organizational activity.
I don't wish to raise this issue again. However, in my
judgment, the Attorney General should be discreetly made
aware in this regard. I regard this note as a memorandum
for my files. I suggest you do the same, John.
9799
P.-rJ n^--i^.
Co^j-if?\ {>Ano/»; 5
NAME .
y,^..^/vr^^c y. ^ Q-.-. ;..• V, ffAU\'''<.
ADDRESS V/ "T'rV^Crt ^l/^/r '"itlfl/'cf
^
/^/v>; c(^ '-^ > r "v^ C .> r/<- "7f A<jf ( f^s<>dK
TaxobI* Year . yt rc~
Ended 19^.
/}jLieiiiJr
0<r.-J.' /T r» ( Xt/.o ".; f «. C^ ^. A" • T 7 '• c
>.^oc
—
/%y\i^''f P f^ '/"■}•.>< L
^3,r
—
P?pt?^ '>'■:> l)>^.''- }*/■■ i''/
Iota
^
Al,lc . / f/^r-*AI<'( (^^ff<r.7f>
/S-o
—
f\A^A' eR)Ti\
30>
—
//A"/r.\ ,1,1 "^rL't/r. R C rP"' •-•' ^^ <'C
2r
—
///(-•,■->■ - ^-A.. •' - /C"v-) /<-/•«: (jf
^f^^
so
Trco '.i^s ^-^ '■• ' '(^ '.*'* ' ' ■' y C-^f-> -> <'>?
vr
~Jl?t\)et. ft /^cf^ ^^ir - Of ^'■■( Air C.->u/Jr./,/l^>4.;. l', r.r/.
P20
a
"/<r
/>-:/* /\rw^A}f^'^-^n:
^r
—
c
T<?7?j/
'^/^i
/^
,
/
/
Y
, ///
V
/^
/}
1
^
vs
I *- •
"
■ ■ '. ■ ■' '■ • ■ ■> ? ■ ■ 1
.-X.v'..-.' |';-v;..>- .
.;:''■■-:- i''::^ •;':•='■ rv-^-, •.
"■;-"-'i"'";-',-'^;'."-';'l''^'-- !''-:..;
.■•'•■'-.■"
N ^r*.'"V- ?^^'xi:;.&;-y t'.ilJ£{hS/i;l'jgkij?fe?ii« sV
> 'Nr^^i^i'' ■'•.''»
; ?'.' ' CYpnEss NO. soj
31-889 O - 74 - 9
9800
r ^'- — ' tJ " *^ '"
rfri^iTd^*6t-6c^
Contributions. — Cash — including checks, money orcjer
(Itemize) ■■TOvy'^Lg. cyi/t^jU-S i._
fi.t^L Nfirri co^^r^jct^i
us fit ii'j^i^y L €fi!: ^rfii>H'^ uOfT^f,
Ai^L- fJ^L. Ct fc or. ^. <:>>/v?/v?
11 Total cash contributions ....
12 Other than cash (see instructions on
9801
/^/?^£. ^r^^'l!7r>rrf-rr-^^^-^-''^^i^/v^'^'--^^ ' • - ""'^'v>..'-.i.,:.ivai-'^^-'^-'
:..;..: .:a<
'^^JT^'-
4-.,
^-TZ l/M.f//-W^ /)i/AS/^/l/
.<o
^ \
///JMSi/f^
'/
/-Vl /?f 77^ /<'rf/^/>^
o
-^
'•V
/^//f//^/^ fM/'j-^A
^
•
/^Xr1m^/S o/^/ii/^/iS/r)/
d,^
-:^.////>/ /A^>f£ /i;/^ -r^fd //<^^A
f
J/^J^4k/E ^A' U/nAl^:/J l//>77z/?S
/
■
/^i
*
— '. ' r
-'■ ■
. ,"
■ . -
/
* ' ^ *
J^~\
/^
'N
^^.?'v //'7v
)
( J^.
/
1
1 ■--:^>.'
•
• ' « •*. ' . / " "'
i; "-:.v::::.".
'
> ,■••••:.:. v.-
! • • • . "'..;•:--.'
i •.. — ~:r.z,-- !■! ■■■_.- — ... -■ ^ ^
- - — .^ •■-•'• -;"-~i.''—'T:T—- ' '.H ^.'-/.yvVv ' j*';- ^-^ .-^^^
CYPRESS NO.
':. Ir.'V
o' ,■'>;-:■ -Tp-"
9802
' HK>.z//iMA!^C£^'/^-^-LLA/lJ/£-y.-.^^^^
. ADDRESS
/<o ^6^{)/M MAy
/^/^c/,, /^j: ^/igj-
Taxobia ytar. .
Ended <°< ^/'/
ScM 'A" - r£>A/'r^/^urjo'^S ca^h\
1
1
Jt'm/LK^ //OA-fr tO/Q /lAt'A
/c
Jo
^2wMc'/^ o/^ .:/ki^n^ /T/)^-'AWr'jrA/S
<^'
—
Cr/A/.-WfiL 7ri///i^ r//>f/^/77/ c
Iff^irf/, ^'Trii/zs^ /f/>ty4/
- •
—
i^tlr-i^ /'^^//fr/--^Z
oV<f
^A'oiM~fJ .y/yvv^^-Aj/r/
... /r<>
/U^AU/f^
M
c^//)/ 6'A-/r^ /(^/'/^//v/
./J.
—
, ,
/fMuE €f^ u/fo-./yy \/^^ifff<^
lO
—
—
-—
/y^ry^-f/l" jU-^Ah Srr^Kf
Jo
//?/SC. r/H^ThZ/r/Uj ^'/tr}/e/r}f^S
A^^
— -— -.
/ , -r^i-A ''-w^A/ CA <H :
Ti'^Ai/A'L. /^^ti Ici^AnJii' ii:> bJ= c£ C'fl-^d. ~
1
C^-^^fii-iL. OF vJf^/J*y f'^Ji^^t'^T/Of'J>
J'^C^
— —
■, - :
■ ■' ■ ,- ,.
y -
— '-
—
/^^L
•^ /fl^
■:•.-: .^w..^
■^•V.•^^■•;A':•"'"^^• ." - ;•
_
CYPRESS nO-
9803
Tab 13
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date 9/23/Ti
TO; JOM V7. DSAN, III
FROiM: JOHN J. CAULFIELD
SUBJECT:
As ve have discussed, you might
want to send a copy of the attached
to John vith any comments you deem
appropriate.
I have seen to it that Jeb has been
apprised.
An additional copy for Bob or John
is included, if you so desire.
9804
DEfViOCRATiC
NATIONAL COMMH TfE 2600 Virpinia Avenue . N.W. Washinnlon, D. C. 20037 ' (202) JSJ-SySO
7rc2s-jicr
, «
Dear fir.
I m attaching a copy of the 1 otter wg hsvc sent across
the country in regard to our '72 Club. '
I appreciate your interest and in taking the time to
call us about it.
I c'iir. enclosing a response card which J hope vou will
retin^n.
Enclosures {?.)
Si'i'cerely, A /''■"
Robei^t S. Strauss
9805
DEMOCRATIC
N ATION AI COMMITKC 26 00 Virp.ini a Aven ue, N.W. Wssh injOon, D. C. 20037 (202) 3^3-8750
noiiti s. SiiAuii
(Date)
Dear
In less than a year from toHny tlie eyes of the x.'orld will be focused on the Dc:noci:atic
Party as we i.iect for our 1972 Convention at lilnr.i Beach and begin the ptoccss of
selecting the next President of tlie United States.
Our staffing and planning is underi.-ay and v.'e hope to have tlie most constructive
Convention in tlio long and glorious history of our Party.
The purpose of tliis letter is to asV; you to join a special group -- the "72 Sponsors
Club."
Each liiember is being asked to contribute $72 per inontli for t'..'elve rionth.s with such
monthly contribution to be used to provide the bssic financir.g for our Party activities
as v.'C irove toward the Convention,
Aside fro;n the knoijlcdge and satisfaction of naUing a meaningful contribution to our
Party and our nation's \;f.lfare, you, as a. ncinbcr of the "72 Sp.-^nsors Club", will
receive special Convention reports from time to tir.'.c. Also, wo hope you v:ill attci-.d
the "77 55pr.pcrirp CI uh" Co.-l: tail-Ruff et at the rontaineble::u ilotel v;hich Larry and 1
will host on the famday evening before the Convention opens l.o prcserit our cEndid.-.ttr.
and other distinguished ir,e;i:bers in the leadorsliip of our Party.
Additionally, club rooms have already been sot aside in the ConvontJon Building, to be
co™f ort.'ibly furnished, v.'b.ore ref resh;;cnts and special services will be r.vailable for you
and the oth-;r Piembers around the cloc!;. On the evening our nominees are finally scltctci;
we \.'ill have the first occasion to honor them at a special cocktail pr.ity for our i.;cr;bor.-:
To assist in these arrangcr.ents, vjithin the next few weeks x.'e expect to anr-ounre a
special Convention coordinator, to facilitate housing and other, always existent,
convention problcns.
VTiether you plan to attend the Convention or not, we think you will find nenibersliip
in the "72 Sponsors Club" to be interesting and exciting, as well as i.iost wortln.Oii 1 e,
V.'e need your support. Indeed, \7e hope you \;ill complete and return tiie enclosed card
indicating your desire for membership in the Club.
Larry joins r.ie in assuring you' that we \;ill continue to strive to justify your
confidence and provide the kind of leadership you desire. V.'ith your .support and tl.nt
of tinny others wo take pride in having ir.anagcd to fulfill our comraifrent to bring
stability and responsibility to the Democratic National Ccir.r.n" t tec and daveloii a hard-
hitting political team. \.'ith rene\;ed confidence \:c look forw.-.rd to the next tu'elve
months when we gather In IMorida for a great Convention.
Sincerely,
Robert S. Strauss
9806
DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE 2600 Virs'inia Avenue, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20037 (202)333 -8750
Roiiii S. SiiAuiS
Itejiurcr
I am delighted and grateful to receive your
acceptance of merpbership in the ' 72 Sponsors
Club and your first ironth's payment.
Encloseva xs your oponsoirs \^x'Cu^ caiircl ^or cno
remainder of this year. More complete
credentials will ba issued for use during
the Convention. V7e v;ill be back to you v.'ith
TTiore details in the near future.
I won't take the time or the money to acknov.'lcdge
each of your checks, but I v;ant you to knov/ of my
very deep appreciation.
Robert b. Strauss
P.S. Please let m.e know if, for your convenience,
you v/ould like to receive regular reminders of your
monthly pledge.
«
Enclosure. *
9807
THE WHITE H.C L.' £
^p''pm'l">er JO. j.^^71
MI'l-IORAIIDUl-'I FOR JOHN V/. DE.AJ^, 'ilJ^'Ti
FROM: JACi'-C CAULF^IELD ■^— -
SUBJECT : GFOKIE BELT '3 Il'^O rei ATIOK RF V.TROITI T.SJaAND
CORPORATION
V'
Spoke v/i th Henry Petersen regarding this matter and he advises
az f dIIo-v/s :
a) Based upor. the documents submitted for review (Huwafd
Ross letter and newspaper arti^-je), It is apparent tliat any
thourhts of anti-Lrust aciion are entirely premature, at best.
B) Tlie sifjns of orpani'/ed crime involvment ai luded to
in the material suggests that the situation' shou.ljj and vill
be v/at'thed by Justice.
I have passed on the additional article you have forvarded to
Henry.
You should advise Bell that the i-atter is under scrutiny by
Justice.
Tab 14
9808
Tab 15
THE WHITE HOUSE
V.'A S H I N G T O Is'
Septernber 30, 3971
A
MEI>10RAI\'DU!>1 FOR JOliN V/. DFAl'J, i:\I' ■ .'
•a:--
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD " ^^^
\ \ \
SUBJECT: BILLY GRAHAlvl, JOM- WAYNE IRS ACTIVITY
Graham is currently under IRS audit (Atlanta region). His
1965, 1906, 1969 and 1970 retiirns are being scrutinized v.'ith
a view towards determining whether gifts made to Graham are
in fact taxable income.
A discreet check indicates that an "anonymous" telephone call
may have initiated the audit. A "back door" copy of the sensitive
■'case report out of Atlanta has been viewed and contains a reference
to this fact. However, the copy on hand at the VJashington office
.•.-.-•.■_-j j_l. _j_ 1 TOO
^-r^cjir< ^.i-^ocio tr. o irirMiT 'r*'\r
Some of the areas to be looked into are:
Construction work performed free of charge
Decorator work performed
Clothing received as gifts from Charlotte & A.shville,
North Carolina stores
Tuition involved in sending Grahaj-n's children to foreign schools
The contacting of a number of Grahajn donors by IRS investigators
suggests that the inquiry might possibly surface in the media.
Judgments should be made accordingly.
The material requested regarding John VJayne is not yet in.
Will advise.
9809
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
TO:
FROM: JOHN DEAN
ACTION: DUE DATE:
Prepare Reply For John
Dean's Signature
Comments /Recommendations
Please hr.ndle
Infornnation
File
RE2slARKS:
(j:'^
JLi--->^
9810
Tun: White: House
WASHINGTON -
Date 10/6/71
jQ. JOHI'I V/. DEAN, III
FROM: JOHN J. CAULFIiaD
ACTION:
/^pproval/SicifiaturG
jCoin:ncints/Rocoir,:n::iidatior)S
for Your Inforrration
cr-Ji ^
REMARKS:
T II e \'.''ay n e c o;ti p ^. a i n t vr: e n
viev/ed in the attached context
does not appear to he stx-ong
enough to pursue.
9811
subject: Audit ExardnationG of Individuals in the Kntcrtaininent Industry
\Iho are Politic-ally Active.
Per your instr'actions of SepteiTibcr 28, I97I, ve have selected
some incIividuaD.s in the ontcrtainincnt indur:try vho were politically
active during P-'ior elections and determined their audit history.
V/e atteinpted to select those individuals v<hose econcwic condition
is slT.illar to that of JUUK WAYirC. Our reviev; showed the following:
RICHARD BOOIffi - S.SH ^6^-111-6303
Results of Examination
Pei'iod Action De ficic-ncy or (OvcTaGsoss r'e nt)
7012 Oi;.en in Audit
6912 Open in Audit
6312 Exa;.-iined $ 363
6712 Erraninsd l,OlU
6612 Surveyed Er.'fore
Assi^rar.cr-t Kone
6512 Examined No Cnange
. - C'oii 3u5-/^i:--i»yl«
Results of Tlxard nation
Period Action Deficiency or (O v^erassesym.on t)
6912 Open in Audit
6312 Open in Audit
6612 E>;atiunc-d $ 5,531
6312 Examined 8,633
6212 Exa-nined 6, 67U
6112 Examined 15,795
9812
JERRY L?:..'IS - SSII l iili -12-6399
Rcrultr, of Exanination
Period Action Deficiency or ((XreraGsessraent)
7012 Open in /.udit
6912 Open in AuJit
6812 Exaidncd $11, 266
6612 Exa-ined 30,099
6512 Exan-.ined 9i+,272
61H2 Exa^uinod 28,131
6312 Examined ll+2, 718
6212 rh:a;nined 28, 1+7I
6112 E:-;arP.ined 22,096
6012 Examined 26,437
5912 Examined ^7,983
5812 Examined 30, 839
PETE'R U■^rFQ?^T) - GSH 33h-l6- k'}h6*
Recultc of E:-:amination
Period Action D el'icien cy or (Qverr.GGegs^icnt)
6912 Kxamined $12,ij65
6('l^ E>:aniincd 10, 3'l8
6712 R:a:.iined 7, iYii
6612 Rxcxrain-d 2,735
* Prior year returns appear to have been filed in IJev Yorl:.
FRED ;: '.c; :u:^.'^Y - s:^:; ^6! ^ -09-2382
Results of Examination
Period Action Deficiency or (0\'ei-nr.DeccrT'.ent)
6912 Examined $ 693
6712 Rxai-inen Ko Change
6612 Examined 11, 628
6512 Examined 607
6U12 Examined ' (l,37l)
6312 Examined 6, 788
6212 Examined ('+,3'iO)
9813
GARY i;cRTc;; ?c Lucii.Lr: pjJ,l - ss:j 091-18-50.1^
Pcrloi
Action
6912
Oocn in Audit
6812
Ooen in Audit
6612
Surveyed J'Ster
Assigri-ent
6512
Examined
ROIIAI.D W. RF/iGA:
M - ssr: it3o-07-7'r56
Period
Action
7012
Open in Audit
6912
Open in Audit
6812
Open in Audit
6712
0]3en in Audit
6612
Exar:ined
6512
E;:a;r.incd
6^12
]i<a;iiincd
6312
Ib:aTr.lned
6212
Examined
FR/iI,'K SinATRA -
CP.]! P2^-29-C367'"
Results of Exaniination
Deficiency or (0^/erassesr,inent)
$7,010
Results of !5xa.-)iination
Dcfici ency or (O'/erassessmcnt)
Ko Change
$ 1,122
3,5^1
3,650
Period
6812
6512
6i|12
6312
6212
6012
Action
Open in Audit
Sui'veyed Claim
Exarnined
Exa-raned
Exa'/dncd
E:<ar,ined
Results of Exani nation
D;;fi c iency or (O'/erassessr^ent )
$ 5,708
5,732
7,271
12,036
* Intelli£;3nce control card records shov: an open full-scale investi-
gation on SINATRA coverinj the years I962 through 1965' It is not
knoivTi if this invectif-atlon involves subsequent years.
9814
Mr. JO'.'W V/AYirS'r. audit hie Lory, per the Form 12i4-7 cards, is sho->m
below:
Period
6912
6812
6712
6612*
6612*
6512
6kl2
Action
Open in Audit
Open in Audit
Oi--.en in Audit
Open 'Jn Audita
Exandned
Exai.'ined
Examined
Results of Exarrination
Deficioncy or (0\''erasGesG!ncnt)
$237, 331
7, 39-5
6, 339
* Tne 6612 year \.'as re-opened due to an invectment credit carryback.
Ti\e Revenue A^ent currently aLisicned the JOHN V.'AYKE returns ad-
vised that the 19o2 and 1953 tax years fiad also been exa?nined, hov?-
ever, the Forir. 1247 record cards snov/lng those years as being exatrdJiee
vere not in the closed file at the date of our rcviev. / .
9815
Tab 16
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 7, I97I
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHNW. DE AN, I II.
FROM: ■. JACK CAULFIE^
SUBJECT: BALLOT .^gCTRliy^FOR 1972 ( SUPPLH-IEI ^T TO
EARLIER Mg-lO ON '72 SECURITY HEEDS 7 ~
This is in the form of a reminder. The President has very
strong views on this subject emanating from the '60
campaign.
I am strongly recormnending that Joe V/oods be placed in charge
of the nationwide effort in this regard. Juliana has
considerable experience in this area resulting from his in-
volvment with Lou Nichols in '68. He can be quite helpful
in getting Joe started.
The President gave Joe personal instructions in this regard
in '68 and, as I have indicated, delayed a flight out of
Chicago in October '68 to go over the matter in detail. I
am sure he would agree with my recommendation.
Oil Indiana - out of Chicago) is also expert and was deeply
involved in '68 in both ballot security and absentee ballots
overseas. I am sure the A.G. is fajniliar with this subject.
He should be apprised of my recommendation and the information
(Juliana )__that Lou Nichols does not wish to be so involved
this time.
NOTE:
Just occured to me. Has anyone considered the potential for
fraud vis a vis the I8 year old vote on campuses? Mardian
might be the guy to take a hard look at that possibili-tyi
31-889 0-74-10
9816
roTRODIiCTIOI!
Tiie bioad ran^re of sensitive political activity associated with
a Presidential Carina i^jn iiandates that a controlliuc security
entity be established and prosrairjued to effectively minimize, in
practical i*ashion, the har.ards for conprornise by opposition
forces and t^iereby ensure the smooth function of Republican Party
business during 1972.
It is the purx^ose of this paper to cause focus to be brought
upon these areas reciuirin;;^ such security capability. In addition,
indication is given as to hov the Security Consulting Group of
VJashington, Inc., the proposed na,';'e fa' the coi!'JTiorL;jal security
entity, vill be able to function in thjs regard v;hether it be from
an oper?.tion?.l or overviev; standpoint, as follovs:
a) Repub]icgn national Coj-Tiitte e
Irnraediately after Cai:jpaign '68, Bob Ilaldenian luithoriz-ed the
author of this paper to institute and overviev; a security prograjii
at the Republican Rational Corniriittee . This program has been ongoing
for tvo years and a continual ovem'iev; b.as been structured. Attached (TAj
"A") is' an account of the security procedures presently in place at,
the Coi'iniittee. •
They are found to be generally satisfactory with the exception of
a requirement to tighten up th e P inl-^erton effort to include an analysis
of the quality of their personnel and institute a polygraph
examination of each guard, A.'orking at the Coranittce.
For health reasons ♦John Ragan vill not be able to continue to
perform in this area during the coining months. James Mc Cord,
9817
a hls-ily qualified Republican career security profecsional,
(tab "B") A.'ill be retained as a consultant to the Security
Consulting Group and vrill perform operational overview duties
at the Coiiiaittee and elcevhere, as Indicated, on a scheduled basis
under the direction of the organization.
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue
Tlie Security Consulting Group, Inc. V7ill initiate (Mc Cord) and
supervise a coTiprehensive security systera at the above location.
T)ie procedures established at the R.K.C. (TAB "A") will be tailored
to conform to the expandin^j; requjrei.-.ents of I7OI Fonnsylvania.
In addition, the lollovrlns areas of secuiity concern v;ill be
addressed, evaluated and prograraaed:
.a) the requi?-e;^ent that a scherlulea ELEOTROMIC COUin?EK: IS'vSUIffiS
SYSTE-I be established to include:
1) Office telephone netvork
2) Conference rooias
3) Residence ph.ones of key political staff in
Washington
KOTE: Tlie system established vail be adaptable to the Nixon
staff and G.O.P. needs at Can Diego.
B) The ability to recruit a two inan bod^^'guard protective detail
for the Attorney General throughout Cojnpaign '72 is at hand.
Because the A.G. ijiay have personal prefei-ences in tliis area, no
steps will be taken, until advised. ' ' ~ '-^
C) Computer Security - An inspection capability to ensure the
integrity of tlie Republican computer systems used in Cajupaign '72.
9818
D) Poll Security
A security capability designed to ensure the confidentiality
of key polls instituted by I7OI operatives vill be progranur.od.
E) Undoubtedly, additional security requirements stenniing
from the 1701 operation vrill beccine evident as the cainpaign
progresses.. The above described structure will permit a
professional response to these needs.
Republican Nation al Conve nt ion
The vast private security needs of the Nixon teain and Republican
Party at San Die^jo can be best implemented in tha following I'-inner:
a) Nixon Staf f llea dcnu'irt ers a t the Shera ton Hptel, Harbor Island
The Security Consulting Group, Inc. vill be charged vith tot?.l
operational security responsibility at that location. A coriiplcte
ad hoc security-receptionist entity vill be established utilii:ing
off duty reserve deputy sheriffs from the San Diego Sheriff's office
and Nixon female volunteers. The Sheriff of San Diego County, John Duffy
(Nixon Republican) has agreed to provide such personnel, assured that
they vill be young, bright and capable and, importantly, that they
all vill be Republicans. It vas agreed that a reasonable vage vould
be paid those performing in this regard from Nixon Staff funds .
The above procedure is strongly recoimnended to ensure that tlie
Nixon Staff teai:) vill have qualified and loyal security personnel
under proper controls at the impoi'tant Sheraton Hotel (see belov).
9819
Included in the responsibilities of the Security Conyulting Group
at the hotel '..':'ll be the institutiion of a sophisticated photo-ID
system and elevetor cD.earance process designsd to minimize the
hazard oS! disturbance, unwarranted access to sensitive work areas
and tho lj):e.
B ) Conventi on Sec urity , S an Diec;o
The R.II.C. has selected Ody Fish of V/isconsin to be the Serjeant
at /\rms for the Convention, In that position he vill have security
and usher ros'^onsibilities 'i.'ithin the Convention Kail and at the
GOP Headquarters at the Royal Iim at t.he V/harf dui'ins the Convention
period.
Dick ller.'.an has asked th-C author to liave the Security Consulting
Group act in an advisory capacity in this regard and initiate a
comprehensive cost survey of the security requirenients for tho
GOP Hcaaouarters and Convention Hall. Rirther, Kerr.an lias ai'-ked
that qualified professionals be recruited to assist Fish in this
regard. This reqiiest has been agreed to and such su.rvey vlll be
conducted by the subject organization and submitted to the Arranreraents
Corriinittce for review at the earliest possible time.
It is noted that various private detective agencies are already
attempting to use Republicpai political influence to obtain vhat v/ill
be a prestigious and lucrative contract at San Diego. V/hile the Security
Consulting Group 'Jill ensure tliat all interested parties get
considera.tion, the ability to perform should be considered the
9820
•prime Tactor In av/arding the contract and reccu'jncndaticns will
be niade accordingly. Attached (TAB "C") is a recent article
in the V.'ashingtcnian Magazine clearly jndicating the poor quality
of private security personnel in V.'ashinston. Generally speaking, the
Banie pattern applies natiom/ide. 'It is this factor that strongly
sugcests the use of reserve deputy Sheriffs at the Njxon Staff
headquarters as indicated above).
In addii..:lon to the Sports Arena &*id G.O.P. headquarters
hotel, early signs indicate the ix^ssit'lity cf a security need
at other locations. Foi- exaiaple, the Ilixon staff is contemplating
the housing of a large group of lO year olds at a local San Diego
college for rally purposes. Additionally, the Arrangerrients
Comidttee is loolcing at tlie possible use of a pier near the Hoyal
Inn at the V.liarf as a G.O.P. vor)-ing area.
V/hen these and other like thero decisions are made, the Securitn,'
Consulting Group can effectiveD.y progra'a the security requirements
after it is detenuined i/hether operational activity or advisory
services are needed.
9821
Tab 17
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date October 8. 1Q71
TO:
rTOmJ W. WM, TTT
FROM: JOHN J. CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: STEWART L. ITDALL
J
In addition to the Attached
Udall is a consultant to the Sears
and Roebuck Company. I have asked
for an IRS check to support this
material. Will advise.
' #(^ V'
9822
STEWART L. UDALL - BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY
Shortly after being elected to a fourth term as the United States Representa-
tive from Arizona's Second Congressional District, Stewart L. Udall of
Tucson was appointed by President John F. Kennedy to serve as the 37th
Secretary of the Interior, a Cabinet position he held throughout the entire
Administrations of Presidents Kennedy and Johnsdin. In that capacity, Mr.
Udall directed a Department with wide-ranging responsibilities for the
nation's natural resources. As Secretary, through the ideas he initiated
and the programs he implemented, Udall made his iniprint on the Sixties,
Following the change of Administrations in January 1.969, Mr. Udall formed
OVERVIEW, a pioneering international consulting firm devoted to creating a
better environment for man.
Udall lectures frequently to university and business audiences. In addition,
during the 1969-70 acadeinic year, he was Visiting Professor of ICnviron-
mental Humanism at Yale University. Since June 1970, in collaboration
with Jeffrey Stansbury, he has been writing a twice-wecJcly column, "Udall
on the EnvironiTient, " which is syndicated nationally by the Los Angeles
Times Syndicate.
In his first book, the Quiet Crisis (Holt, Rmchart & Winston, 1963), Mr,
Udall outlined the land and people story of our nation, advancing the "propo-
sition that men must grasp completely the relationship between luiman
stewardship and the fullness of the American earth, "
In his second book, 1976: Agenda for Tomorrow (Harcourt, Brace St World,
1968), Mr, Udall said: "I came to see that the total environment approach
demanded concepts large enough to relate conservation to the overriding
issues of our age. You cannot save the land unless you save the people.
True conservation begins wherever people are and with whatever trouble
they are in. "
On the personal side, Mr, Udall is an outdoorsman and an avid reader.
He has entertained the Soviet poet, Yevtuslienko, in his home; he arranged
for Robert Frost to read frona his own poetry at the Inaugural of President
Kennedy, and later Frost accompanied Udall on a trip to Russia. Udall
brought live theatre back to Ford's Theatre in Washington, D. C. , after a
silence of more than a century. He has climbed Mount Fuji (in wii.'Cr),
and Mount Kiliinanjaro.
A 1948 law graduate of the University of Arizona, Udall was born January 31,
1920, :in St. Jolms, Arizona. He and his wife, the fornier Ermalee Webb,
have six children.
9823
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
October 26, I97I
KEWORAOTDUM FOR JOHN W. DEM,
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: OVERVIEW CORPORAtlOV^ FEDERAL CONTRACTS
Contact in this regard has been made with the following
agencies:
EPA _ No record (Ruckelhaus)
IRS - No record (Barth)
HUD - No record (Kings ley)
DOT - No record (Clapp)
Interior No record (Hitt)
According to Overview's brochure, the above agencies
would fall within their area of operation. Advise if
you wish further checking.
Attachment
9824
THE OVERVIEW CORPORATION
is an international environmental consulting
organization, founded in January, 1969,
whose Officers and Principal Advisors are
known throughout the world for the
positions they have held in public and
private life, and for the variety and
significance of the work they have
accomplished in diverse fields. Their
experience and record is the foundation
upon which OVERVIEW is based and
builds.
There is today a world-wide crisis of the
environment. It stems from the extraordinary
mass migration from rural to urban areas in
virtually all regions of the planet. It stems
from a much too rapid increase in
population. It stems from the abuse and
misuse of the earth's resources.
The OVERVIEW Group believes the
crisis of the environment is rooted in
shortcomings: in failures of design and
planning; failures of politics; the failure in
both public and private sectors to establish
priorities responsive to the needs of man.
While many of these failures are not new,
our era of exploding productivity and
over-specialization has made them more
acute. They are manifest in piecemeal
growth and fragmented approaches to
problem solving. There is resultant
wide-spread indignation over the "affluent"
measure of progress by machine rather than
human— and quantitative rather than
qualitative — standards.
There must be an "OVERVIEW": a
broad systems approach in which gifted
specialists coordinate the practice of their
respective disciplines. The arts, sciences,
humanities, technologies, communications,
and politics must join in focusing their
combined skills on rebuilding and
renewing the total environment. The results
must be both socially and economically
viable.
This is the conviction of The OVERVIEW
Group: the belief that modern man, through
leadership, through participation, through
creative and constructive implementation,
has the potential and the capacity to civilize
technology. Towards this end — man's
enhancement of the environment of which
he is inextricably a part-OVERVIEW
assembles and directs the greatest talents
and energies.
9825
^^>:v'^- ■:
"J '.'
.IS:
■ $1 :y
.^:<S^-
Ste. ^'tL. Udall
Mr. Udall, Chairman of the Board and chief
executive officer, was Secretary of the
Interior throughout the Administrations of
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Prior
to his Cabinet service he was elected to
fourferms as a iVIemberof the U.S. House
of Representatives from his native State
of Arizona.
Under Stewart Udail's personal leadership,
traditional conservation was ushered into
a new era. Interior, since its inception a
"western" oriented Department, initiated
programs of national impact. For the first
time people, as well as land and minerals,
were thought of as a resource to be
conserved. During his tenure, the broad
conservation goals of the 1960's and
beyond were set, public support kindled,
and legislative and administrative
machinery set in motion for the
achievement of a truly nationwide
environmental agenda.
Mr. Udall is the author of "The Quiet Crisis"
(1963), and "1976: Agenda for Tomorrow"
(1968).
9826
.meiman
t(,:: \i\ f..-
l^- :]>■■,,', :\>j^ *■>'!. -^
V ^
V i
i y L. Kimelman, President, Treasurer,
■ chief operating officer, is a member of
loard of Directors of the United States
ional Parks Foundation. During the past
ysars Mr. Kimelman has had
'i.prehensive and varied business and
'srnment experience, in the United
:es, the Caribbean and more recently
Vashington.
was the first Commissioner of
nmerce (1961-1964) in the U.S. Virgin
,nds and was Chairman of the
vfjrnment's Economic Development
, d during that same period. Under his
leadership as Commissioner, per capita
income and Government revenues nearly
doubled, a fact given official cognizance by
the Virgin Islands' Senate in a unanimous
resolution of commendation.
IVIr. Kimelman is presently Director of the
Development International Corporation,
San Juan, Puerto Rico (developers of
"Habitat" for the entire West Indies area);
President and Director of the Virgin Islands
Hilton, Inc., St. Thomas, Virgin Islands;
Chairman of the Board, Island Block
Corporation, U.S. Virgin Islands; and a
Director, Leeward Island Air Transport,
Antigua, West Indies. Mr. Kimelman has
also served as a Director of the Diners'
Club, Inc., the West Indies Bank and Trust
Company, and was for 8 years a Director
of the American Hotel Association.
In 1967 Secretary Udall asked Mr. Kimelman
to become his top Assistant at the
Department of the Interior in Washington,
in this position, Mr. Kimelman's
responsibilities ranged throughout the
Department and he represented the
Secretary at natural resource and tourism
meetings both in this country and ribroad.
9827
Mr. Halprin, Chairman of The Execulive
Committee, and creative coordinator, is a
recipient of the Allied Professions Medal
of the American Institute of Architects, is a
member of the fMational Council on Arts,
and of the President's Advisory
Commission on Historic Preservation.
Ever since he began his own practice as a
landscape architect over twenty years ago,
Mr. Halprin's work has been noted both for
its spontaneity and for its intensity. But
increasingly, out of an acute professional
av/areness of the confines of most
disciplines, Mr. Halprin progressed towards
a widened involvement with man and
his environment.
Mr. Halprin's world wide practico includes
major environmental design and planning
projects such as the Comprehensive
Design Plan for the American Virgin
Islands; the Sea Ranch on the California
Coast, which was a notable first in
ecological planning; the campus of the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem; the
Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis; Ghirardelli
Square in San Francisco; ami the planning
of several now tovjns now unt'er
construction. He is currently working on
the replanning of many urban centers in
major U.S. cities.
Mr. Halprin's books, paralleling his career,
are consistent with his pursuit of answers
to increasingly complex environmental
problems. He is author of "Cities" (1963)
and 'Freeways" (1966). In "New York,
New York" (1968), a study of the quality
and meaning of open space in urban
design, he explores the perceptions and
possibilities of urban space. He is also
co-author of "The Freev;ay in the City"
(1968), a study forlho Bureau of Public
Roads, v;hich defines design tephniques
for weaving transportation arteries into the
socio-ecological fabric of urban areas.
9828
OVERVIEW is not only an organization, but
an approach— an approach which directs
the interactions of creative and highly
motivated experts to derive solutions that
are both responsive and workable.
The first phase of a project is in-depth
analysis by OVERVIEW. The analysis
includes searching discussions with the
client and client constituency: to identify
the problem; define the parameters; and
determine the personnel, program and
techniques to be applied.
Only after doing this does OVERVIEW,
as a second phase, assemble the
appropriate working team that can utilize
the best and latest and most relevant
techniques, tools, and information. The
team is put together not only with the
expert knowledge and participation of the
Principal Advisors, but also in consultation
with the client.
In the third phase, The OVERVIEW Group
and v/orking team determine the precise
requirements of the program: its tiudget;
scheduling; specific character; and
execution. OVERVIEW is unique in the
emphasis its places upon uniting the
planning function and product with
strategies of implementation. Only this
unity ensures effective results.
OVERVIEW gives great emphasis to
practical political public relations, and
to the communications skills necessary
to obtain the participation and support
of all the affected publics. OVERVIEW does
not plan for its clients; it plans with them —
seeking to inform and evoke. The Executive
Committee of OVERVIEW makes decisions
on approaches to projects and philosophy
of operation. It provides day-to-day
direction of the firm's activities as well
as policy review and development.
9829
Tab 18
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
June 25, 1971
IffiMORMDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAUtFIELD
SUBJECT:
EMILE DE ANTON'
A WHITE COMEDY
'^•^Z'
^ ^'^y
' ^4^
&
K^
k^
DUCER OP THE FILM "MILLHOUSE:
Your attention is directed to the attached article from the
Washington Post and the FBI report on De Antonio.
Inquiry by ray secretary was made at the American Film Institute
Theatre at L'Enfant Flaza and it was determined that the film
played only one night. However, De Antonio, according to the
article, is attempting to sell it to a distributor.
I recommend we watch the progress of the film, taking particular
note to determine if Larry O'Brien is stupid enough to get behind
it. If sA, we can, armed with the Bureau's information, do a
Nofziger job on De Antonio and O'Brien, thereby losing the battle
but winning the war. Advise.
Attachment
9830
August 10, 1971
l.lH.iORAIfl3UI«l FOR JOHN W. DEAN, III
FRa-!: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJfl3Ti
SHOWING OF U K CUT FILM OP RICHARD NIXON'S
19^2 "CHECKERS SPEOglT^
X have looked Into this matter^ Apparently the Buainess
WeoX blurb refers to or is 'Similar to a tvo veek shoving
of the speech at the New Yorker Theatre In New York City
lost May# As the accompanying articles Indicate, this
apparently Is not the same fonuat as "Millhous: A White
Ccaedy" which we looked into and determined significant
dorogatoiy informatioa on the producer, Koile de Antonio,
Z will have someone take a look at the Washington showing
of the Checkers Speech once it is advertiaed, with a view
towards determining If the ehowir^ is a shady money-making
scheme or a politically directed attach - or both.
You might wish to so advise BBR and Tlmmons.
Attaclunent
9831
October 6, 1971
MEMORANDUM TO: H. R. Haldeman
FROM: Mort Allin
The NY Review of Books has an ad for rental of Millliouse ••
"a film in the tradition of the Marx Brothers" -• and rental
and sale of the Checkers Speech film. The latter is for rent
at $60- $100 a throw and for sale at $275, Millhouse's price
isnU given •- one needs to apply to New Yorker films for the
price conditions apparently.
{212+EN 2-6330, EN 2»6374, 5)
cc: Jack Caulficld
31-889 O - 74 - U
9832
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH INGTON
October 13, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAULFl] LD
SUBJECT: MILLHOUSE Fim
This matter seems to be building. You are reminded
that a significant derogatory dossier is in the
possession of the bureau vis a vis de Antonio.
Ify view is that we should use such information at a
propitious moment - ideally when interest or support
for the film is evidenced by Larry O'Brien and company.
Attachment
9833
THE WHITE HOUSE
\A/A S H I N G T O N
October 15, I97I
MRviORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, \^^
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT:
H^ILE DE ANTONlOy PRODUCER OF "MILLHOUSE","
NEW YORKER Fm4S, INC; AND DANIEL TALBOT,
Fim DISTRIBUTOR
Attached is a copy of a Variety article indicating the
expected interest of the D.N.C. in "Millhouse". I
recommend that it is time to move on the above firm
and individuals, as follows:
a) Release of de Antonio's F.B.I, derogatory
background to friendly media.
B) Discreet IRS audits of New Yorker Films, Inc.,
de Antonio and Talbot
NOTE: Talbot advised our source today that massive
distribution of the film is planned for colleges after I/15/72.
ATTACHI-ffiNT
9834
\
. ■..,^.f\AC<i Coricclions
.',[■! li-.nx-ll Oswild on
■: CI'S y.^cninx News."
,:J oI.'.cijU sum loluoe
l.nuoJ on pAge Ml
;P;1:LLH0U3-'G
Col His Gun," Daltcn
tntivk-ar vehicle, b.-'icd
1 )91I novel, hc-s bc-en
1 a bit. As a result the
rclcsre, resubmitted
• fi Ralinps System for
:lD:f;.'ic.ition. has btcn
GP, whereas il had
eok's crop tliere's only
ve r. n.irr.ely Warnc-r's
■y.'' ri'.e make it is
n's J't.T.ory." "M.irx-.
cots'' ."T.d "Somclinies
HoMyvood. Oct 12,
Frank Cocr^t-r hss an idea ihat
the Far Lasi is npc Tor filnimakin*!
a la Spiiii, I:.ily. England .-■r.d
other Eurr-)ean points in tlic rai'. ■
"SOs. Agciii will ret out Thurj J ■
on explor.it JoT trip, concent rjti." :
on Japan aci Hon^ Kong. Cot- c
feels irnpcr-'Jiii" visit of Prcsiflo r
Ilichard Nixcr. to mainland Chi;. J
is indicative c( things to come in
terms of incroasc-d travel nnd in-
terest nmor.': p^crles of the F.sit
and V/estern '.'orlds to get to kno>
each other J ttter.
He wiU ill?— .pt to gel b-?arin^
on Asian i;;'.-.rt?l in stones b}
I American wnicrj s«; well as pros-
Ipcc'.s for to-ro:iuclion venturvi
Jn Hon?: Kon:: he wijl have nice:-
in.cs v.ith P.:m Hun Shaw, who liai
j h;s own stici.o complex. Cooper
b-.'Iicvcs ili.tt '.y.o Orient will rnjoy
a fad as a Plm b.nckdrop dmmp
next ?evcr.">l yeai^ and holies to
get in on llic proiind floor.
. --.'JTP* ._
Jordan is crecutivc 'vi'(:i*j,*:;.,i.
dent of Columbia Pictures inter-
national and while abroad h-'-^also
implemented the new Col-', '.tt"-^-,
3ros. joint di^lribu*."^«-/''d •-' -...•
-^^^ (Contia-*-* >,i /Jii 54^* -^
^.v^^iu.n
.1
V
4^^
Fiin
uljL iiiwi-iaAuil
SOUGiiT BY BEuCCRATS
San Francisco, Oct. 12.
Emile de An'.onio. director of
I lie Nixon -slamming docu'ncnlary
".Mill house." says he'll refuse to
rent it to EXrmocralic N.itiona!
Committee for pohlical punch]
oi'oiiist While House.
lie re for San Francisco Film
Fcst after the Stratford Film Fi-sl
shoeing de .\nu>njo stalrd Ek-n'.os
na\e contacted him "asking if 1
would be wilhnc to enter negotia-
tions for 5.1 Ic of richis I went
sell it to thcni bee;! use I^rio not
'Continued on page 22 >
/''^■.
- J - 'lici'.cd. This 1% ■ • ■ ■
..\ ^ V} .francisco, l,s \, ., ' "
C.e».-\ork and \Vi^h,r.-'os ',,■
'".Vllhin five miles olV:e •]. .
of our nation they probjbl;' ,'„,
more prostitutes thjn «e •.-,..,
population in the entire Stale >.(
Nevada." OCallaghan s.iid
Asked £i>out lega]i7cd prcst;tii-
tion, OCallashan said. -I jj -ol
see il as a good Ihin?. but aj j
very danjcrous thing in the urban
areas bcc.Tuse of the associated
problems."
Several Nevada counties have
legalized prostitution.
O'Calla^hin poinied out thai
the problems mcUide "hoodlum-
ism, while slavery and naico'.cs."
Asked uhelher he would favor
lr?ali:ins prostitution as a revenue
measure, the fiovernor said. ".Ne-
vad.i docs not need whore monev."
V.'t'iliir-.-(lav.
;, ... «.^<i'* Z.
:I For Hr!Iv,
fcCliv
■lou'-;'. :r;i?-ns' 2:
God Front Money
■urc
, Oct 12.
Tmi;;io;t, is\
n fiji'.tt-vi a
iio.>.ro."). r.s
nciu-te pc-
ld;>;lli^l:.ts.
hMdj-i by
5, In a !4-
tarireiv !i*.'-
•st0!i Kir.:',:i
3r) his cc".-
co:lt:^'.:s-^:oM
Texas U i
■ith nviun-
d cities il
■■IKcre is
t>;i;ss s'.-
on in corr-
ir.;r';e3^-jr-
en'.;i.TC tn-
lalc. "fka-
t:..Ni li.-is
•r .1 O.-to-
quoslior,: U the way lo'iir..v.c.r!al-
jly in ll'vlly.vood an i'-.c-ii.-c.ble
f-*.'^dri'.'Ss for practical jokes on
the s:l?
fCo:iiin*jrd from pu.".? At
v.'ou!fin*t bo able/ to cast 1:::''.'45 on
'pacts for :.-i-iu5l;i.iis. >'.'ii:U 3::ys
-the ic'ru ir..-iy Ls; v;li:!. b-.il jfs
ccrliiinlj no; dc morrilic."
In -'JJi':-.;!, V.'io;>t ■■y; the tiis-
sidcnis i-.i;.T-^! t red'.icli;!". r' \'.:n
' t:uor'jm rit;.i:rc-m?nts fi'-r S.\C
j meeli:i-:s ly.'i j'i.indon-.'.rnt oi con-
tract li-ffji Lnou:--,'-. in i.ivor rt ac-
ceptance {r re-.^c'.ion of ?. ccn:r.->c;
by the rc'iucrd riuorum.
Thou^.li '.he first of iVe.-e :'^?is
was w.t'i Jr.t'n ."^s 2 CAl' y;fiC-.l
bi.'fore it V. r'< *r'c-d en. c:.\i r.-.-.-^-T
j b.as hccr. i.icl-jdcd in iJ:-; ::i.""'-.'-
I iH-nricnLs* c ;< nt p a i f* n litorMurc.
v.i.st cif.*. ;i;. m "huldcn jil.-'n:-:;"
"Plnzi Suite." "Co:cli 22." "On a
Clonr n.y Ycu C— . '.'.•>■ r—i-.CT"
t:vA "I ::::\ Your V,':>in."
Domcotic rentals for "Love
S'.or\" are now firrurcd at S-H.-
OOO.6OP. "W.-'-cn" is in it r-:2.009.-'
C". ^ ■■'■orKhvidc. SK.COD.CJO of
..'h:»;i is c'lcnestic.
(Continued from p.i:je U
■■upport any Doniocralic c;;ndidate.
c..»her."
V.At press conference, i^irrctor
d;Vclosc--J nics: of film's loc'.a-e
was bof iht I'rnin WAUC in New
York 'b.^c-'U!:? A'BC Is t!:c voorjst
of the three i.elwork.s and y.iu can
;cl a better t-iice from Ihcm b-:-
c^u^e they're more anxioii? to soil
film."
De Antonio, a seU-dc^crlhed
"radical." .nls) contended It.c \vc;>5
snould have no right to ch-,r::c
on>lh::iq for their reus foonr-'-V
■"Tro film Vi-'onas to all the r^'O-
T'le; they ha\*.- no r-.-hl t-" :-:ll i*.
J'jit because tlu-\'rc tnc oi.'.y tlirce
'-*ii0 have :;cress to llic V.'h:tc
iiouse." His oun request to inttr-
\'ew the President was never an-
VAcrcd. he said.
► + ** + ♦ +■•-» ■»-«-♦■ <-(-<- V-«-C-»~*-4"«^-+-> J-M-++ ■♦-+ -♦
i New York Sonne
Lee l-lin^sley hn< j:?ir.ed the Ji;:M Cor.re" : ."•-■
tan. Pile's currtntly toutiri;; the Ulue '-)'■'
Film trade will recaJ! her Ja:e lu;Ojind. Fi-'.-r:
du-'.iib-.itor . . , Cordon Hitchc.is \\ho ' ■-
thcmed" issue of F.'.-:i Culture, gjcs to Ia-.;z,:
Cerr.'anv come No\cr.ber.
NATO has set up a special number for e\
in for resLMations snd in need of other :r.f - :"
3.t28 and ask for Mi'.s r.onnie i'ishcr. Ti.c r •-
Oct. :::5 at tl-.e .\T.eiic?na N^rw Y-^rk . . . Ir:
D.*;;oy Awaid this \e2r ?oes ta Ned l". nfr-'"*
p.'tny exec ■cx-prcz of iJKOi "for the i''-: .-
provic^fd ll:c \Vill Ho.-er N'emo- i.il I'tind " :'
plncc v.iihin tjie frarr.cuork of l*:e Pies^dc:;:'-.
Ircrid ri:;;:er has been appointed boo'.-cr --
Fornieily with Fve P.-o Judinns. she will be ir. ■■
loc.Tl :.nd national shipment of p:i:its u;ih :
Cov- ?.n ajfumes tlie d-iies of executive as.-isi.-.r^
of secretary. She will manage .■^a'.es and ai*
Ellm:-n,
Michael IIr.d(laa. iic.-'d of De'in:l's C'lr.er.:
Lebanon 'he'.s zlsa the TtC.X t'i&tr'.uter .'rj :-
;.'it<it. .-rriv.-d v.-,:h )'i c.-sH'ttcS e\:-ort In Ne'-"
ihcir two di\-s' «;tr>;N.vf. ■: n lo.itc to I'.-'llyvvL'M r
live fritndi in tHe :i!.'.i l-usincss were a".iy ' ■'
Au^:.':--.--.ii;i whiU* in L .\,. where hi« main e'.--
p:-.ce. K.i.ld^d ir.ide a t'.o-rlr.y riet.'^ ir to L: > '■
Ac:tr '..ilifr M.ti;>i3u inTiicJ "Kmi:! of t;; ■■
Hadio C.ty .Mi:sic ll.Ml in honor of hi r«.v*vr.:-
stnr of films pljying .Tt the KockefHUT 5^o-'.^'-■'-'
9835
THE WHITE l-l O U S F-
October 20^ 1971
A ,-A A
MEfvioiWJuU!-! FORJD]B\' VJ, DrJJ^, TU. ■. \ .'/
FROM: JACK CAUJiPMELD ^'^ " '■-.,•
i > ' ■
SUBTBCT : DA-NIET. TALBOT, "irrLL^O USE" F I Ti-1 DIGTRI ^^-JTOR
Talbot has been identified, as foD.lcvs:
Male, white, k2 -yee.Ts of age
Resides 'at l80 Riverside Di-jve, i.:5Lnhat-Lan #3u2-12';3
Occupation - Film Distributor
No criminal record - F.B.I.
Member of Stop t;.e Draft
Mcvc::i:ent-K.Y.C. in ly^T - N.Y.C.F.D.
:e
Talbot was pretext interviewed during a visit to his office
located at 250 V/est 89th St., Manhattan on 10/].c)/71. ouch
office is adjacent to the iiev yor-:er Theatre llocatcu at
Broadv.'^.y and 08 th Street, I-lanhattan. Such tb:-;atre is currently-
showing MTLi:-{0U3E.
Talbot's office was observed as being a sloppy one room operation
with one secretary. Rent was deternined to be ro5 per month.
It was ascert'dined thot th.e filsr. is also bein^ shown Jn
Philadelphia and San Fj^ancisco.
Talbot advised that his future p] ans for the fi^jri include
distribution to colle~ct ri-jups on a lease ba!;is. .He'aJso described
plans to distribute the filr.; to other cities, b\;t cereful
questioning determined a r.arhet only in tli:ird and fourth rate
theatres .
Talbot referred cuestjons about possible Dem.ocratic pressures to
acquire tlie film to the producer, Enile D'Antonno.
C0M[4EI'rTS
Even thouch the financial handling and distribution of this film
appears to be in the hands of ainatours, it must be remembered tliat
it is gettinr: considerabje play in the liberal press. Additionally,
D'Antonlo was interviewed by Agronslr^'' on TV this past \jc-.ck. Further,
Variety' reported the ]Jl;C has approached D'AntDJiio wJ th a view to-.:ards
acquiring t}ie film.
I feel that there is potential here for this filTii to take fire and
become a cause celebre. A.t tlie mo;:ient only the radical left is
patronizing it. V/e must be quite carefu] ny.t. tobe identified with any
act or actions which would incite the interest of the general
public. Resultinr:ly, any action taken vie a vjs P'Antonio
or Talbot should be weijhed carefully and well hidden.
This includes r.y previous co.:c.'.ents re D'Antonio's background
and our capability at I.R.S.
9836
October 20, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR: GORDON STRACHAN
FROM: JOHN DEAN
I am forwarding the attached material regarding the distribution |
of the film •'MLLLHOUSE" for your information. I will keep you |
advised as we monitor the situation and try to do anything we can'
to deal with it.
Attachments
9837
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
J
Date
TO:
>^^
FROM: Fred F. Fielding
ACTION:
^Approval /Signature
Comnnents /Recommendations
Prepare Response
Please Handle
For Your Information
File
REMARKS: / f^
-^ U c^ ^>A..aZ<r^ 'C^^-^ ^-^^^ ^i^^
9838
I v^ish lo reluctanllv de^-yt^m l* Op-
jif^jiljc tenor of Representative Krascr's
fommunication in the August 21 New
fit-f'uhliCt in regard to Democratic Party
rrform.
From my own experience as a member
of the Missouri Reform Commission,
and from information that 1 have re-
ceived from New Democratic Coalition
chapters around the country, the com-
mitment of Democratic Party stale or-
ganizations to party reform is generally
nonexistent. While a number of states,
'including Missouri, have formally met
national guideline requirements, the in-
tent lo use the new rules to maintain
"the old gang" is quite apparent.
It would be most helpful if Represen-
tative Fraser, (whom I admire greatly)
and other Democratic Party leaders
would examine closely the realities of
the power relations in state party or-
ganizations which make it extremely
unlikely in many areas for written re-
form rules to be translated effectively
into democratic delegation selection pro-
cesses. Emphasis on literal reform, while
a step in the right direction, is not
enough. Democratic state party proced-
ures must be open every day of every
year if we are to realistically expect an
open delegate selection process every
four years.
Marvin L. Madeson _-*-«
National Chairmi
New Democratic
Author Replies
I \v^ greatly pleased u> see i \y bo<
TonkinsGuJf, reviewed/in youi Septem-
ber 18 is?ve by Carl h^arcy. Iv r. Marty
without do^bt is o/e of tht persons
best qualifie<Kto copiment on the Ton-
kin Gulf inciaenjC and thei
'oaHti
AUTHOBfS WS^TEO
NEW yORK PU
BY
S-IER
leading t>ook Publisher seeks manui'ipts of<al!
ivpes t'ctioaT por.-f.cnon. poeiry. slhoiarly A\q
juvenile woJts. etc New authors wdcomed ([oi
complete imtoirnaXion. send (or txsoklii NR). fts
free Var.t/ge Press 516 West 34 StJ New VoS(c
NY lOOil .
Ilieic IS .^n inipoit.mt point however
th^: i l-riifvc nrcjs ti.inlitation- My
book dor* not state that an American
con«.pir.ii-y lay behind the Tonkm in-
cidents, but neither does it reject such
an interpretation - as mi^ht be inftired
from the review. The question of a Ton-
kin plot came up many times during my
interviews of the American sailors and
airmen who were involved with the na-
val activ>n. The circumstantial evidence
is plentiful. Tonkin Gulf does not pre-
sume to reach a verdict; it does dis-
cuss the evidence, pro and con, very
seriously.
Eugene G. Windchy
Washington, DC
Kauffmann, from page 22
and so on, but a) there was a great deal
more territory within their limits than
within Benjamin's, and b) they rarely
pretended to be anything but them-
selves in different settings. If one is go-
ing to go the Brando or Hoffman route
of versatility, then one must be . . . ver-
satile. Benjamin's exploding fantasist is
no different from anything else he's
done, and the tacit undercurrent of
near-madness that might have given the
part poignance - and comedy - is utter-
ly mifsing. Just another Benjamii\ per-
formance in which he's smarter than
everyone else. (Is it in his contract?)
The best performance is by Chill Wills,
the old Western actor, as the old West-
ern actor. Over this half-baked film he
pours a gravy of rich old Hollywood
hokum.
Emile de Antonio, who made the pun-
gent III the Year of the Pig about \'iet-
nam, has now made a documentary
about President Nixon called Mi/Z/iowse.
From the deliberate misspelling of the
President's middle name in the title
right to the end. de Antonio makes no
pretense of objectivity. The film misses
fevv chances to shovv Nixon at his worst.
I wouldn t want to suggest that this is a
difficult job. still there are lots of meth-
ods in the picture that could be used
equally against de Antonio's heroes,
whoever they may be. The first se-
quence is in Madame Tus'iaud's as they
fit the waxen head on the Nixon dum-
my; it could have been Lincoln or Saint
Francis. When Nixon is in trouble on
his South American good-will tour, we
get a snatch of Chiquiln Banana on the
sound track. When he's making TV
tapes for his *63 campaign, we get his
off-the-record comments and his fluffs
ia discarded material. What do they
prove?
'Cliv J'llm ^
cmplct.,- {{
\clude the 11
P-ct ih'.n if one rr.:ic an r
dluiiM 1 w\on jn^ «.j it wi
ness, it would have to inch
"Chfckers " speech of '52, the calculated
scurrility of his previous California
campaigns against jerry Voorhis and
Helen Cahagan Douglas, his farewell to
ing of this review. I saw the one annual
TV show I never miss, the Miss Ameri-
ca competition; and after looking at
Bert Parks and listening to his sinceri-
ty. .. .
Millhouse is a good political cartoon
(figuratively). Besides, it brings out
several points. It highlights the blatant
newness of the "new" Nixon, with wide
smile and upstrelched arms. (Who de-
cided on the change and coached him?)
Second, Mrs. Nixon. Repeatedly, one
sees her sitting absolutely rigid as her
husband speaks, her face slightly smil-
ing. I couldn't escape the feeling that
she looked frightened - of what might
happen to her later if she moved an inch
or smiled a fraction more or less That's
an unprovable impression, of course;
but it reminded me of the impression I
used to get from Mrs. Thomas E- Dewey
in photographs and newsreels. She al-
ways stood close lo Dewey (a sort of
Nixon forebear) with a forced little
smile on her face, and I always imag-
ined he was twisting her arm behind
her back.
The most revealing moment in the film
for me w*as a statement by a former
California neighbor of the boy Nixon,
who tells us that the future President's
mother, after a long day's work or early
in the morning, used to bake 40 or 30|
pies for sale. That kind of grinding hard
work around a child tends to produce
one of two kinds of reaction: mone>'-
hate or money-worship. I mean wor-
ship, not necessarily itch for acquisi-
tion: veneration of money and of those
who have it.
That memory of his mother, slaving
that way, is very possibly part of the
foundation of Nixon's world-vicw;
money is the best good and anything
tliat stands in the way of your getting
it legally is the anti-Christ. Imagine how
much more dangerous the present US
economic situation must be than he has
admitted - or his view of it, anyway. It
he is forced to interfere even sliglitly
with a laissez-faire system, how very
frightened he niusl be. His new eco-
nomic policy, flabby and biased as it is,
denies the aspiialions and acccptanccsi
he learned fron\ his mother's pie-baking.
9839
ihe films 01 ihi- fifiits is almobi ironic
— in his glorification of llic swcclncss
of the village idiot, the perversion of
the preacher's son, the secret alfair
between the rich lady and the rugged
ir dualist. And his mcods arc so
beautifully supplemented by the juke-
box and radio sounds of the fifties that
one regrets the patness of his niovie-
ho'jse offerings: h'aihcrof the Rriile for
obvious contrast with Sonny's grubby
romancing of the succulent Cliarlcne
in the back row, Red River for the
theater's final olTering — projected in a
manner befitting Ihe Music Hall rather
than a one-woman dreary moviehouse.
Rut none of these deters my feeling that
The Last Picture Show is Ihe best
American film so far this year and
that Bogdanovich is one of our most
gifted moviemakers.
In contrast The Debul, the Russian
Festival opener, is a sorry little film,
inept, primitive in style, script and per-
formance, an insult to the great tradi-
tion of Russian film. Directed and co-
authored by Gleb Panlilov, it ofTers us
the making of a film within the film,
its plain-lane heroine, Lina Tchouri-
kova, starring in a movie about loan
of Arc amid flashbacks of her dull ro-
mance with a married man whom she
lures from and loses back to his wife.
Certainly the filmmaking scenes are
incredible (not even the stale-supported
Russians make films in sequence, with
dozens of extras acting around the
star's close-ups) and the romance fool-
ish. The attempt to show a homely
warm-hearted silly girl triumphant on
screen is as awkward as the attempt to
show her as loan; the film lacks the
charm and subtlety that makes such a
theme (carried off beautifully in Loves
0/ a Blonde, Shakespeare Wallnh arui
others) potent or even beguiling. It Is
simply superficial and sentimental.! {
Small doubt that Kolcli is sentilnen-
tal. but with Waller Mailhau in iheltilie
role and lack Lcmmon making a hiopt
auspicious directorial debul, the charm
predominaies and Ihe result is a 1 very
nice, neat and touching cntertainiViei^t.
With a screenplay by John Pixtpn
based on Katharine Topkins' noval, ij's
the story of a 72 year-old widower! with
a zesi for life and a will to siirv iyc be-
yond his daughter-in-law's antagc^niim.
Garrulous. gi\cn 10 over-waterirVg ,ihc
garden and to spoiling his infant ir.lnd-
son, Kolch escapes the threat of| .-11 su-
per-jolly "retirement village "f land
winds up with a cottage of his Jbwn
shared by an unmarried pregnant leen-
ager. The outgoing, convivial okllinan
and the uptipht introverted girl iiiite an
odd couple, but Matthau, refrcllungly
I.. .1-:.: . ;.J t> :.::I\ 1.' V li.t..ivK"i li '■.!
iloun to the teeth mucking lies of se-
iiilii). and Debvuah Winters, a cool
kitten from //<ii7. //crrT*-und-'nir I'eu-
pic Next Diior. give the relationship a
shining aiulventiciiv. There arc evcel-
lent perfoi minces too from Gerald
Ai<lin;in. as the guiliriddon son. and
relicia Farr. as the nerve-taut daughter-
in-law. among others. Matthau shows a
new <liniension to his art and Lemmon
proves his abiliiics behind the camera
match those he has shown out front.
Paul Bogart. who directed Marlowe
and H<dls of Anger with a sure hand,
comes upon script trouble with Skin
Game, mainly because the bright idea
derived from a Richard A. Simmons
story is beaten to death in the attenu-
ated screenplay by Pierre Marlon, the
noni de plume (or anonymity) Peter
Stone has chosen for the occasion. The
bri^'hl idea involves lames Garner and
Lou Gossetl, that supcib black stage
actor too rarely seen in films, as a pair
of confidence men roaming the pre-
Civil-War South and conning sla\ers.
Garner getting cash on the line for Cos-
sett and Gossetl lejoining Garner later
for his share. It's Gossett's game (after
all, he's "the color they're buying this
year") but it comes a cropper when he
is "freed" by John lirown's raiders and
then actually sold. The script, alas, pro-
vides romantic inieresi for Garner in the
form of humorless Susan Clark as a
con lady and for Cossett in the form of
I^ienda Sykes as a puny slave girl and
the latlics slow the game to a staiulsiill.
A pity Gainer and Gossetl get ofT 10 a
fine start — but Bun Lancaster and Ossie
Oasis carried things to a happier con-
clusion on a not 100 dissimilar iheme
in The Scidphiinlcrs. whose authors fell
no need — as ihe Sionc script does — 10
make the black man super-pure and the
white man a goodiiatured heel.
Making Richard Nixon super-ridicu-
lous leads to the failure of .Millhouse. a
collage by Emile de Aniojiio. who made
PoiiU 0/ Order. Rush loiludgtncnl and
In the ) car oj the Riti. A self-desci Ibed
"white comedy," "in the tradition of
the Marx Broihers. ' the film is a non-
chronologica! louching of highlights in
the Nixon career, with commentary by
lules Wiico\er, loe McGinniss. lames
W'echsler and others, fiaslibacks to the
\'oorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas
defeats, scenes from conventions and
campaigns. Cut even the most artient
anti-Nixonitc realizes e.iily on that RMN
is no laughing mailer; enough alieady
with the f^.A-R. anti miiKlie-America
tvpcs. .Ami enough of con\eriing the
comerted. The real art lies in making
the truth of Nixon plain in a film the
GOP biggies might watch. •=» |
Lmile (ic .'» '.SKii.^ i^ a \i\-:! .;>■ .:' c if,-
cniatic aei'j'tH ^ iu:e. In siuli u» .■ii;,icii-
lary cssajs as ffini oj didn (.ihoul
the Army-McCarthy hearings) and In
the Year of the /'/:.' (a C)"iTtr.tl vliro--
noKigy of the \iet Nam War), he nee-
dled some popul.ir historic myllis and
a few polnic.il repiitalutns. Now. in t.MII-
houie, He Anioiiio has cmployetl his
usual IechnK|iie ol m. itching fraL'ir.ents
of news film wiih quick on-camcra in-
lervicws to produce an iinllalieiing Inil
funny likcnc'-s of the 37th President
(whose middle n:inie is Milhoiis. not
Millhouse. hut let that go). To he sure.
De Antonio's jubilant bias soineiimcs
plays him false. Nixon is too often
seen stumbling over a fool or a phrase,
and somelimes s.iiire descends lo the
level of easy derision, as when scenes
of Nixon's Soiilh American visit in
I95S are acconip.inicd by the old Chi-
quita Ban;ina jingle on the sound tr;iek.
But when it works, I3e Antonio's
sense of juxtaposition can be lethal.
News film of Nixon's I96S nomination
acceptance speech ( I et's win this one
for Ike") is intercut with foolage of
Pat O'Brien in Knalc Rncktic advising
his lachrymose squad to "win one for
the Gipper" — their hospitalized team-
mate, who. wiih anachronistic irony,
was portraved by Ronald Reagan. De
Antonio is also shievd enough to know
when Nixon is his own wot si enemy,
and he devotes a long section of Mill-
hoa^e to Ihe Checkers speech alone. Re-
citing his list of a^^ets. allemptinc 10
sound hi;irihle and foll.sy l"Pa: i.'o;sn't
have a mink coal, bui she does have a re-
speciahle Kepuiilicm cloth coal"), all
the wliile stri'i'gliig primly 10 looV n.-i!-
iiral, Nixon seems to cineige as the
kind of hiinko aitisi of v honi W'.C.
1 icids .'ilways ran aioul.
Millhon.se touches on exetyihinj! fio:n
the campaign ."■gainst Helen Gahagan
Douglas to all six crises, and ipcUidcs
some unfamiliar fooiare like J. Ldjar
Hoover making Nixon an honorary
FBI agent. Subtiiled a "sshiie comedy."
the film is hardly likely to win praise
for fighting fair.' Put at its best. Mi'.!-
house has the imp.icl of a David I c-
vine caricature.
« }ay Cocks
From Adolescetif to Piterile
That sound \ou hear is of checlJ<ooks
closing all over Hollywood. The hooks
belong to the small money; the le.ison
for iheir action is The Lat Movie' by
Dennis Htipper— the s:niH' Denni.s Hop-
per who reecnlh. opened the checkh.^oks
with liais Riiici. The faults of tint
film are legendarv — ihe paranoid swa;;-
ger. the inept thug trips, ihe comic-
book heroi.-.ni. lUil the film also shared
with other cxainplch of naive an an un-
• Not to he confu^cJ. ah.'ioiich it undoubtedly
will be. V. ith I'l'icr HoLit::novicli's exc.-llinl
r(if Lou ficairr Sl.o'^ IJl Mt, 0>1. It ).
/*/v77^
tiEW YOnK
63
9840
r
1
^^
i V.
yv
t5
I— «
As Oii'-- is written, V.mV.e De Anioiiio's '■MiUlioii-o.''
;i iliiasiil.Kiiiiirr.tiiry on l:icb;iifl Millions Nixon, li.is .v.;J to
11- (liissificil liy ihe Motion I'ii tine Association of Ani.'i:-
tii's Coile iiii.l r;:itiii)r A(iniinislr:ition. Tl nnpht to In' i:ilcil
COP.
F<.r witii Mily o "little fdilinjr by R K. pi.lili. an siif^or, l)e
Antoni./s .•o1l:i!:-. .if ii.wsrctl ■•■n.! 't V ilips loi.M l.r i.iiim.I inlo n
>'.\\<-n campM^M film for l'J72. il.wing :,imr.l )i.r .«:.lnv, the iln.o-
lor has maii:.i;.l to .^ot only n'lu-il us f=r ."s «:i.i;i.-in and jnsl. ;i.j
of pcrliaviPK .-; niniuw-r, be- kn^. >)io\mi a m.tii. , r. • . •
ri,i! Vmiiiii>I have 1 oi-n xhe \Mcnii»n of ttiH iliicitor r.f ■Ti.liit iil
Oniir" a slmlv of ilie hviteiia ».' ,M<<':ii ihyisni, snil •("he viT.r of
i;.o lis.' -in im.'.liiaiilc liiiuHni of Ar.urioa's plomnict into \Ktr,ani.
K'-'i- naAntonio i^i '-.o c'isinteicst-
til ilocumentavian; lie kiiov.s
■,vlu-it he 'lislikcs.
Iii ••Mil)l;o"-c." .--liuwing f.l the
Nnv Yo,ker, il,. ■■:■<!■.• ay ?.t>il S.-lh
M., sn.l the VU.z::. 42 E- 5Sl!i
St., l}e .Vnloni^' lr'n'~ to i-iitr.Tp
his •.ktim in ?. >. l!»!oid v-.-i'
TCho?« v.nrp i< .-liii'.-..-loKy s'l.l
ul.n.e -.oof i.s 11. :;,•.. r.a .Nit'.n
•!0.--,. ■!.•.«■ CSCi;|C; liliclilc, «o
r,-.ii. Ii 50 tliat <•■. ri.iiorcc tl;.-:t
ni.-ic to l;'.i.,ih !hi> "ilcr aflPi-
7-.o..r, lit the r'.-z-i 1- I'l niuKly
),.ipt/s'<.il, if n'.t < : r-.'.;0!C'l.
It 'N not l!';H Oe \i!'....iii»'i <ye
fi-.il til hvse r.:'.'C'\ hi...; tkcy aiv
jis .ll'.il .Tnd •i.cil.it ;..s ever :.nd
l.iHfi- .">l.uy l.s..i:.::."in has :ii-
ji'iv.v.! vhc '.i=?.-Vii:i.- i f^im clip'
'Aiih .'<-rr p:.<:'-- :'"i li^ioC.
'j'i'.il iho l!;:r. ■,;<f' : .».iay lies
■;.i the i'.-..-t that l;-.-!Md Ni\...\
;fpi<:=i-rils som-lWii-.^ '.iiat, what-
tvi-i one ihiuk.« of li'ii, :ti'il-vs a
(Iv.iil \v'io.=c ii..le li= 1. :;nii.n;MUS
),-!h.i- l''<in dls: '.nai-.l.
y.v iia'.olhu' tho l■.■■.^.l fin.-.
Wt'T'T-,. r to ilie '.V')ilc- 'Io;ist, nn.i
f ,ic.>..ii'.-iiiif a :.'"i ■.■.."-.■hcr of , •■ ,
i.,t:. r.i.d .l":oiii= ::■■.- Af wnv, .Sr.oii r..-' strive; f..r sod F..r.i(-v..-d
tl? •Nv.rii'an d!t:if).. >.'d. norhars moir- ;mp..rlni,;ly. he is .lo i-.-y
M.!«.r iiiukiii!; d^, vn n s.iiita.y I0i..l; )"• h-.= had »t h-s sidt- -er.;..-
l'j^,,,n-.. ;,i |,.:..si--' ; .■•;''!';dc i-f i-r' f.r .ii^^.iiieis.
The r''sii!i ic ;i•i:^ 0:10 eana»«t. I.-'-i;.. hat be ii.ipvc^id with the!
JOixon of '-.Millions." r- -n at fiiih ! iitl.- Ii. ia..r.KiHf us his -Chitkoi J |
Siifch'' or hi^ ■■L:.^! ''...-ss c>i'ii'i.>no.!." !
T:-.'.e ihe Ch. ;;T-.-'V« incident: .•■i:ir it v.m rorny ai..l ft littl(^ Vitl
ei.'t-.T..ra--in;;. h'lV e. ■" "nc- really i;".;-_ii at a nia.^ v.tu. , .■.•>ii.ie.~ ti'.".I,j
JMLins j:r.-.l is J.JiVi..:; \r:m J'f iiitc ■■ ■^l, yhtt is c.iiir;.le|-.t tl...t hi^ 1
T.ife i-n with^ta^d :'r'i- d'ffievU. tii' js h(.aii.=e sIk- :s Iii-h r..i'! :
T."'e.-l Tore v.-'ry ti-n:.a ?
Xito-'i's rect::; -...i.O-ant fur ■'•!ii>!^" iUicils a rinie'.le whpn he
s.-.ys I'li.t ihe d!<:v;.\- •r;.= i-.e i.? iiial.ii.s i:re •i.npitet-ndeiU' d ;ii .Ai ;er-
iei.n j..>'!ilii's."
.\: i\ If Nixon .-' .■-- '.-'t. -c-vi-rely r.Tina;.-* himself \\h<-n r>e .-X.i'cnio
'icU "I'l. «r..'ak t'.r !'•.. -idr, neiihir i'..^.'.! Ihe diroc'.o!- >i.. him r.Mu!,
hiir.n v'wii lie n.an:;..!''. 'vs our re;V'''i 1: ^'V ju.\iai..i.-i,i;- lili.i clip'-
Ciid .'.i..:nl tiicl'< t.T ;'::'..t 'l 1 •.lii'jlo'!'^ !i-<:*ct.
l.ii .\ n...iios s':-.-,.- .''.'n th; t ...f N'ijii who a.'-kj li.e l.'.-pnVi-
r; ns III •••..in tl i* 'jii- ''^-r Ii<e" is a.= I.idif.ia:^ as ih.' Vo-'.c Ho- \r»
Ah", .-i.Mi his ?roii.' n:.i:.c fooibal'vis to "'.'in one to:- iSp fiinp.r.'"
Ij«;i .i.fsi'* coit'.c oil". T';. siojy of iCo. ..'-i-'i ph.". inilii'-i^ sii-.i.tr e.ao-
lion^ 'O r.i.iin' aiu:, ;'iiti";.-' i.jve, Lo;i: !';•-• liOl' a.-.u 11. e I''i:.h'.i.i|; Iii?h
won, .iidn't iV.cy ?
S":n:iliily, De .-Vni.-j-iToV ininli;-r.i:.-n !!..it the Ni\on -.'h-i tells f.n
rin'.iivr.? "1 see A d:'y . . . ' i.J .-.dTir ;> i:..! iriit.'.liyli of .'.!;. rtvi I-ath.-r
Kiaj,"£ "I ha'.'c ^ J.-.-.>ni . . .'■ d-i^-s .;..t 'i'l.i'-iate .Si^.in i;-- ..nuh us
hv v:ji;;'- '',.'--:^ like... ^;' rrti^ rC.'.'tf •e;;:: :,n exfr..ii:aiy il- i'l.i.t.'io
^r:'l. ^i."^ E-ii.I 5^Tai!.ie .-.■.'.•.- in }>':r .-r.'iial '.»io;:r;'phy ..'^ Itii.ibautl,
'•■^>:'::~ ■■ l!..i fif; f ■• •_:■ Mr iheil."
The fihn i;as yt-niy .jf fiinr.y ir,* i.ient?: Xix'-fi slan.hl'.is
:rr'';:j:h :. ; i.-shi*;;; t-.-.:i'. viror.ni: >-*j\»-n it. f'e kiichi-ii v i^/n iihi'i..h-
t1 ev; .V>:..a avd Ha »;v •'. i..''.vat»>.'* (■■.•. at ;•■.•.- a sheriffs i-.i .-.:.•) c-.n-
Th. lait Isiijl.?
ii'to ii
''< ir fon-ari;. •..
.,i =.>r.ti-!ir;:Os '
■■■.• If. rule •::■.
'• :■•':] lo 1.. "e
,...; -.1 .
nlaluies. F. ;'. if .■■.!>'. n is s..
1 i'lic-
. )■■
We s!:.a:!il wi-tpi.-!; !■
^o sV' 'il'! l.e jiifil as .... .
I'i ffii'f ;.. :.y he Ii i. r. 1 >
r '.-vi; !'• "•.".:!':.■,,..-,■." that ,-11 ■■." o s.e !! 1
i;i»-;ai-*i .•^'- , -i :'...'i.i M l..m.'i:;'-.' . aiatc.u j
■3 the :..i.e f ■■ ■■.:}■ t.a'h l.:.l;> m-.-I t'.e !
roni.-rr..:,l at-.i.-I t'lis fter,r:if.! ^\'M. Hut J
'i ii:;-l --. 1.: ;•' ^.",0 l.-.ivT-L h'-p; .*^'i.M^ll I. .11 .
■• .5Jl-\i\, ...; ' i:-:. '
—.'£■■.1 r.STf:;
(■Ai.:^:.
9841
(From the New York Post, Sept. 29, 1971)
**" a^ — !■••- a
James A.
V/echsler
ON WHOM IS THE JOKEl
y^
During many moments of the picvicv of Emilc de An-
tonio's newest political documcntao' — ".Millhouse; A White
Comedy" — the predominantly yof.n?, anti-cstablishmcnt
audience howled with a l<in'J of eci'a;ic lr'ii!i;htcr. But fo;'
those who have lived throiiRh the ri.--" and fall and resurrec-
tion of nicyi n;;il^Nixon, there was a certain hollowncss in the
nicriinienc. lias' i fie jol<e so far really been on Nixon — or
on the countr}', and even on sonic of the alienated young who
found this an evening of broad comedy?
In two of his previous filmf, de Antonio, n ciftod, spiriled
ma\oiick fkillfully recorded the decline of Sen. Joseph
) McCarthy ("Point of Order") and the political-military fol-
lies of the promoters of the Vietnam war ("In the Year of
the Pig"). But in both instances the film appeared, in a
sense, after history had rendered its verdict; Joe McCarthy
had died an isolated, discredited figure, and our Vietnam
ro!c had been ovcn^helniinsly leinidiated when that produc-
tion appeared, in November, 19G9.
But "Millhousc"— the misspelling is a superfluity— Is
now to be shown in the crucial 13 months before the 1972
election. P.ichard Milhous Nixon is veiy much alive, and the
notion of his re-election is far from' frivolous. Amid the
entertainment dc Antonio's film will afford hard-core antl-
Nixonites, one wonders whether it wil say much to many
millions of Americans who, whether we lilcc it or not, still
seriously contemplate voting tor Mr. Nixon's re-election.
Nixon has long been vulnerable to caricature; but he
has refused to fade away. One had the uneasy sense
that large segments of de .Antonio's documrntarj-, hilarious
as they seemed to most of the psseuihljj-'e at the Nc\v
■i'oiker Theater on Manhattan's \V. S5th St., could evoke
reverent attention on some streets in Manhattan. Kansas.
All obvious example is the celebrated Nixon news con-
ference in 1W2 after he lost California's •_'i,'o<rra*or:al race.
Some in the audience here appcucd to find this non-
instant replay a ludicrous interlude; some of the lines do
indeed retain their universal vapidity. But in larger terms
the poitrayal may elicit more sympathy than derision. It
shows a man in the very lowest depths of political despair,
swinging out with wearj- biitorness at a hostile world; then,
not too long afterward, ho is seen dutifully campaigning for
Goldwater and staning on the long road back to Republi-
' can rehabilitation. Beyond ideology, this is the anc'icnt saga
I of the battered, bruised figure who will not yield to advers-
ity. Who really wins those lounds?
The "Checkers" speech, in which Nixon is seen literally
fighting for his political life after this newspaper's expo-
sure of the fund created for him by various special-interest
groups, remains a classic of political corn. But will those
who co.isidcred it a moving solilo-iiiy in l'i52— and obviously
there were many— view it as a vaudei-iillo act now?
» * »
.\dni'il(rdly I have my own speeial interest in that
episode because I appear briefly as the conr.uentator, ex-
plaining the nature of the Nixon Fund 'and l.^ter his trial-
balioon speech on Dien Bicn Phu to ihe An;ciican Society
of Newspaper Editorsi. This was my first cinematic per-
formance and I should like to believe that my observations
cast a devastating light on Ni.xon's devious evasions. But I
did not steal the show.
As an incidental member of the cast of characters, I
was also troubled by some indisciimin.-'.te sniping on the
screen: .Nixon's record of deceits and demagogy is hardly
Illuminated by reciprocal trcainiont.
Thus the film treats the HiK-Chambcrs conflict as If
history had firmly established Hi.'^s' innocence anU Chantlicrs
'-. 1 ■ .^n:v^-.l ^ .-;■ !..v
rp:;odc with NiXo;i's u:
ieo ;:i;;-;. .'.t I ;o r-; ; •■'<■ '•'"'• Ilir'S
or.-.ior..iilc oii.'i;..ai,i.:.-. c: IlLi'.n
Gahagan Douglas and Jcrrj- Voorhis is to engage in inno-
cence by association.
At anof7irr-5rmctuit! the film offers a glimpse of one of
the major peace dcmonstratioi:s of the Nixon era; the
cameras focus long and hard on two Vict Cong ilai;.^, as it
to suggest that the assembled multitude was coiuniiited to
Hanoi rather than peace. The scene stirred applause here;
in .Manhattan, Kansas, it could produce a d.ffeient result.
Finally there aie intermittent cioic-ups of the elderly
in Nixon audiences. Their faces presumably reveal some-
thing about the banality of both speaker and listener. But
I suspeci these images reveal nothing more th;ni the cruel
ravages of age, and that similar countenances could be
found in any political assemblage.
s » *
There are marvelous interludes in ".Milllioii'-e," iiicludins
some glimpses of Nixon in rehearsal for TV performances,
and the organization of spontaneity. But the assumption
that there is something palpably comic aljout Ju'.ic Ni.xon
reciting a Thanksgiving prayer at the White House is. in
its own way, as provincial as much of the Nixon B.-ib'n.ttry
that the film burlesques. The tniih is that I'.iciiaid Nixon,
despite all his absurdities, has a sluev.d sen^e of middle-
American suscepiibiii'.ies. It is much too early to assume
condescendingly that he will be den cJ the last laugh.
9842
/.' ■; J'-'.i.S. I J ■/••.■'. y. Of I'i'i. •.:.'. K .', jy. 1
■r~!'!r.ri"~.v---
ri
! i
i-1
i «
M
ri
1:1
r?
^'oimc* A^P;';!,' an> ^umvj p.s 'Vihy At's Ifw'a in •
>
^II^PEUP i^OTE-3:. "Nothing so comically grotesque
as Nixon's transformation into a President lias
happened since Kafl'va's lisro turned into a
cocl<roach; MILLHOUSE faithfully records that
horrible American metamorphosis."
luIHOrmftD !:-!/\nr^SS, Vmi^^ TVe "Ona thlsig is
S'i;e-je5"?ycrij i^erjirisdy, ['irr.rsplisrev, tlis KIgb
x3mJ2ei L"r-?i7l?L^r^; "A zapped portrait of Nixon from
Voorhis to Vietnam: part camp, part Hora'.io Alger
run amuck- the dark side of the American dream."
I. . .;:;^,.V,.._.2al
11
li
i «
« 4
* »
E;.'ILE do AMTON'IO'S
f' - ;::i ii : ^H
an^^
ii
I
■A
i
A
i
.1
u
1
■.•f"
:
A MW T3".-l« ri'.lj rc.KSI
' h^A::.->..,^-9i^jn^*w^\.^i«iA%i
9843
.■/1J,.
'•*r^-
\a;. i -s ?
iZ-. Ai_;^ ii Ji - j;" ;. ^.-j-fi i Aii *i'
P =
^.:^-
<s*;ii. .rtSMw.
""'^•f»it»-?)5i
' ir: o -
I < s •
~ J — °- -
o •— >» -ti
>■. - ^ u
s -s £. § =«:
° is.
»-- ~ "S •
c >
< i
c =; o 5; S
lis
^
23 **
if- !r -= "2 "
cj ^ cj
3 iS o
c —
s - ~ = 5 - 5? ■
Si
c:
c o C ^
— 3
; -^ c d o £; =
■ J 4-' 5 t « o-
*^ o
5 " -
■i; .0 ''• 23 >
- ^ -^ == -^
— — ^ ~ ,1' .^
o Ci
r "J* - ^ ri rt
•3 o
c: O
O J3
.V ^ ^ > -^ 5 .5 £2 3 = ^
I « S; ■= -- j^ 3
z
■r:
>:.
A
^ „
c
Ci
•^
.2
>>
*"' ^
.^
^ ,
c
t^
t^.y:
s
'*^
"H
'
,::i c;'
1
1
<
t3
c
rt
D
c
:
V
c - ^
c
*-*
•^
?:
< -c
.i?
•3
!lf
= ."•5
_>
?■
X
=S
E= £
>'\
j
1. [ :-3
1,
i
P
i
i
c ;i :_ .c
C C :;
c ^ ■= .>.
= --*-" ri ^ s-
=; 2 Zf S-^s g f:
sz--^ r.^
=: ^i^: = = >:
3 >. S =^ 5 " <
i2
"^ " " ' ""^ - ?'■ 3 .L'- ■= .'^
1^ ?-.- ' -
! .'.
c
— -
1
a
^
.^
c
^
■A
"~
""^
.1
:«
c
\-. <^"'
'c
;=:
/;
VJ "C
-- c
<-
^
^1
fr.i"
•5
c:
L-J
i J
F V ji. 1 .; -d g -g ?: i' n £ - =- ^ -3 p = s -^ - i S
6 i' h- r ="' I "^ ^ i .E ^' S ~ I Jl I ^ ^ i
: i ^ E
„ e .5 i:
5 51'^
■;:='• t
? £ Z -
r; .'/; .-: — ^ o
-■ =i = -c
^■j^s^^ i;.!^ -Ei :i.s i n'
- 3 - c c i)
^=:'^ I " *^ 5 - T
• r ^- ■'•5 i -^ i ■" 2 .•?"-= ^ •^- ? f? o ? f- S £? t
-J I
— . - •'- t. c hi -
.ii
2;
J"; *^
■°Si
c
S «;
<
J: ^
rs
-— r
•^
•2:5
rt
C
.= £.
.^S
a*
■s-r
rf
Xj -^
? ~
c
^ ^
£
r ^"
s
c
u -zt
5 -z:
V
g
t> -^
ir
-J
p
=
■^ t"*
k-
jy
z *^
:r
—
=
•' —■
•,—
^
..
es r;
-'.
'- ---• o ^ ^ c
O
= •- -^ c- ^" f. ■'■
9844
fi ^'-rrtT'J
O
C)
T"T
T!
A.
A
;*l n
M :
Lh-I-^.:^
i**r-r •:»"?
I
I:
•■(■
:o",n horrry
il rL'n,-i,ni.-a a i
t J.-..,., ... : . ,
.! 3i lor r-.'-f
!• ■•■■•■.. r-...r:y,: .:■
i ■ ..-I. . . ..:.! I..., •.VCl. I.) •.,!,! I.. ,- . ..
L:
: ni:^m: HSn.n M,n,j| ,.,,.,,
. (..■II, ,\.r-u^ ;:.n,,r..,
SHIPLEY cla;i!;f.
tilt Conn-rlion J^. k r.u'Oo s ,,ij< »i.(-ui
»',-M lu.ik., . .,,».i,„f. (,., ^ f,« chjfe-i,»,tpl.i-f!
u/ :»'<., tp^ C,i-h« .IS J ■^.jfe dance
J'Mir.r,
hv.if*' r
Portra,lr.( J.:;,nln,. ^.•n,„.a:.S,nrc.i.)
r*f do In ..
•>■•■* a\ /t u ■
Kii.utr
M- and Mv l»'t.thpr r.^.^nnk- «''o.. r.n^
AK!i?A IiUP.Orv/'AVA
Tb* Idiot To*h.fc M.'.-iiv n Kufc.s.t»*#\ Su
I.'<*> (onjil.ct of t>i ,t .X. vAf t f f-- il riovfl.
rier,t*lt
: A'.V-
^■iUJjUMU HANI
A Full
Lile ih.', .i*pjficsi' t
t.-.
W/ive woik
uiii lit
Mw'y of « /c-j-'K •^■i
i.*n
y.l.O icawii
her (I. ,5
bi:.J in J«»tcli0l pwllif
a: c
■iir (liticnt.
IO?ni.r
Rrntat E
s.:*~ J.
.-:VV4jr.f^^jr-.V^ "N
JL. ■.•:"»
SEVEN RUSSl,
.N
SI". LfU CLASS
CS
ALKVAKDEn
i>ov/:nt;r!Ko
AfSfn.il inti Larth
.si:r:GEi eisenstejn
Strike jifid Oclobff
VSEVOLOD I. PUnOVKIN
Motlicr rf.wf The tnd o* St Petfrsburs
liOr.MS KAI^NCT
Ttic-Gt:' With the Mj'.hox
.Tirnni cr/'iy ficnf*! Apply
A»*'",*bie mii.vitfii^ily or en m sc^ifj t««tfs
THRtE Ct.Rr.'.AN CLAGStCS
Lenn/ Srute on TV l.*c •/»■- a yprt-.
ti.'»i Id fc.nnrc-;-.-.- ht fi. l*& r'f.-- A oi
rfod r>ii« iKijirt-O TV i-.iot Lfniiy z; t,,
Si ' p.) M'.r^.it- ' . » ■-'■ ■■< .'-'j?.- ■
C ."*:?» o' ur.i 'hit a I os-nn \|<cci •• i
rotin 'und*
^ Pr, ifiji.* J.V 00
X
Interview With Pres-O'-r.l SJ^a-
Alltndc ^n mioiniji n\ci--ew ■>■••■
I'ffid-nt of Clti'"- O'l ri.» ifw^sie
fiijVe fcCitUiii"! mark in l..% country
Color il ,n... »P"f.
Ao.cnc*" P»em,e/e Octobf ?I ^' 4' "
Up Cl.t.in
I I. Id, A C'c^p ur t ■•
>.erf* f.Vf\(fj .*"J It fjl o' IMlr.'-
rie ifjveis tri(ivi»:».ou'. me cour.tT on .-
Co'of 9S M.n '■
D'./'l: A PcDol on «. ■'"" ' .
9845
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
October lU, I97I
Tab 19
MH-IORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, UM^
FROM: JACK CAUIJ'IELD
SUBJECT: FMK- TOYOTA
Dick Allen has passed information to HRH indicating
Kennedy people have engineered a regional Toyota
franchise in New England.
My memo of August indicating H-IK visited with an
ooc;o-»-+o/^ Jo r>r^»-<c>co "^ "^dus trialis t vJ« Otani — not
further identified) during a two day layover enroute
from India now suggests a follow-up on J. Otani.
Such inquiry is underway.
9846
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, I97I
MHVIORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, I
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT:
J. OTANI
Inquiry to date has determineu' the* folloving
Otani is a multi-millionaire Democrat with extensive real |
estate and business holdings in Hav/aii. He is President
and General Manager of the Otani Company which is a
successful wholesale seafood enterprise.
Sources advise that Otani significantly controls local politics
in Honolulu to the extent that he is referred to as the "I.ayor
Maker" .
He is a frequent visitor to Honolulu's Customs area, particularly
when important Japanese visit the island .
U.S. Customs soiirces contacted in this regard were unaware of
any relationship betv;een Otani and Toyota. Since there apparently
exists a friendly relationship between Otani' and Customs officials
in that area, further inquiry through this source is deemed
inadvisable.
Other means of inquiry designed to prove or disprove the
allegation are currently being explored.
cc: R. Allen
9847
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
September 30, I97I
Tab 20
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAUIFIELD
SUBJECT: ANTONIO CORTESE
You should put a hold on this project. There are signs
indicating Cortese may be a small time con man.
Additionally, there is no record of any income tax filing
for Cortese West of the Mississippi. We are doing a
nationwide check.
31-889 0-74-12
9848
THE WHITE HOUSE
WA S H I N G T O N
October 15, I97I
MIMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: ANTHONY CORTESE V wiNE VAULT, INC.,
VIKING SAUNA, INC.
A pretext interview was conducted at the San Jose offices
of Viking Sauna, Inc . The results are as follows :
a) Subject, Anthony Cortese, was hired by Viking Sauna
to effect the gift of a wine storage vault to the Western
White House. The Viking Sauna executive interviewed is
under the impression that a close relationship exists between
Cortese and the President. Apparently Viking Sauna hopes to
profit by the installation of the vault at San Clemente.
B) Cortese has been identified as the owner of an,
Oldsraobile agency in El Cerrito, California. His IRS returns
reflect an operations loss of $102,000 over the last two
years. His net income for I97O was $20,800. He has not
been audited. Cortese, according to the Viking Sauna V.P.
is no longer with Wine Vault, Inc . , but has returned to his
Oldsmobile agency.
C) According to the Vice President, the wine storage
rack has already been installed at San Clemente. Cortese
assertedly worked with a Los Angeles attorney by the name
of CullvuQ in effecting its installation.
NOTE: You will recall the Cortese letter here indicated a
willingness to stock the wine storage rack . We should ascertain
whether or not this was done.
9849
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
HN DEAN
Mil.
Qjj^
ACTION:
DUE DATE
:/6/J^
REMARKS:
Prepare Reply For John
Dean's Signature
Direct Reply
Comments/ RecoiTimendation a
Please handle
Information
File
b cfo '^.>2_
9850
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
fd- TnJ^'-
4
/MD M
uu
dM M>
9851
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH I NGTON
November 2, 1971
Tab 21
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOHN DEAN
JOHN J. CAULFIELD
L. A. Times - Anti Trust Action
I spoke with Lyn on this matter. He had little to give except
to advise that the Times is coming out ■with a new street edition
which, in his judgnient, will stifle newspaper conipetition on the
Southern California Coast.
It is Lyn's view that this move may be countered by an anti-
trust action and strong administration steps designed to limit
the number of newspapers which one corporation can own.
However-, he feels that we should not precipitously move in this
area until he completes his Ncwsday project which is moving along
quickly.
Adivse.
9852
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I In) G TON
December 1, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
FROM: DAVID WILSON Ot>Uj
SUBJECT: Antitmst Action Against the
Los Angeles Times
You have inquired about the possibility of antitrust action against
the Los Angeles Times as suggested in the attached memioi-andum
fronn Jack Caulfield. This proposal is apparently triggered by the
fact that the Times is coming out with a new street edition which is
expected to eliminate certain coinpetition on the Southern California
r-^-
The ~ "lost likely antitrust action that miglit be considered in this
situj on would come under either Section 2 of the Sheri"nan Act or
Secti n 3 of the Clayton Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits
monopolization or attempts to monopolize. As defined in the leading
case of United States v. Grinncll, 384 U. S. 563 (1966), the offense
of monopoly has tw^o elements: "(1) the possession of monopoly power
in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance
of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a
consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic
accident. "
If the area of expansion of the Times is contiguous to Los Angeles,
the market area might be drawn to include all of the Los Angeles
area and thereby give the Times a percentage share of the market
which would approach monopoly proportions. If the area of concern
is further down the coast, the market area would probably be narrowly
limited giving the Times far less than a monopoly share of the market
and eliminating any possible charge of monopolization.
9853
A crucial element of this offense, over and above pure size and
power, is a deliberativcness in acq\uring and maintaining the mono-
poly power. Thus, a natural monopoly such as most local ne-ws-
papers which are the only newspaper in town, do not unlawfully
monopolize merely by acting as strong, dynamic competitors.
Union Leader Corp . v. Newspapers of New England, Inc. , 284 F. 2d
582 (1st Cir. I960). These natural monopolies are defensible
because they have had monopoly thrust upon them in a market which
cannot support more than one viable competitor. An unlawful mono-
polizer inust engage in some sort of predatory, unfair practice
aiiTied at eliminating any possible competition.
The offense of attempting to monopolize requires proof of even more
specific intent to coininit predatory practices than mere monopolization.
Furthermore, newspapers can be charged under Section 3 of the Clayton
Act if they engage in such practices as selling below cost with the
intent to destroy coinjictition. Proof in these situations, however,
is very difficult -- particularly in the newspaper industry which
operates on very marginal economic grounds. The trend is toward
lewer and fewer newspapers because of the economic iiiiiitai.iuiis on
the number of newspapers in a given market which can be viable. In
these circumstances, practices which might in other conditions violate
the antitrust laws are soinetimes used and accepted as part of the
struggle to survive.
Congress recognized this problem in its passage of the Newspaper
Preservation Act (P. L. No 91-353 (1970)). This law immunizes
existing joint newspaper operating agreements from the operation of
the antitrust laws and exempts new agreements approved by the
Attorney General upon finding that one of the jointly operated news-
papers is in "probable danger of financial failure. " The Antitrust
Division also learned these harsh facts of life recently when a news-
paper in Chattanooga after suit was brought by the Government folded
rather than attempt to live with the restrictions proposed in the suit.
Therefore, before any action might be considered against the Los
Angeles Times, there must be strong evidence of predatory practices
on their part such as selling below cost, offering rebates to advertisers,
or attempting to purchase smaller competitors. In discussing this
general area with feruce Wilson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
for Antitrust, he mentioned almost all the cases concerning news-
papers in \yhich the Division was currently involved. The Los Angeles
Times was not included among these, indicating that so far it has not
engaged in any practices which have caused a competitor to complain.
9854
Tab 22
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
November 4, 1971
i
1
i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOHN DEAN
JOHN J. CAULFIELD
Political Issues in FlorlQa
1. In connection with paragraph #1 of the attached confidential
memorandum I suggest you talk with Dent and then place a call
to Ray Farrell, establish that the assertion is accurate and,
if so, insure that Yeager remains at his position.
2, My impression with the rest of the memo suggests that we
might be wise to have someone with political astuteness performing
at HEW in an on the scene capacity.
My good friend Jack Sherwood, former head of the Nixon Secret
Service detail during the Eisenhow^er years, is leaving Rossides
staff on or about December 15 and returning to Dade County where
he resides.
He has expressed interest in a consultant position at HEW, specifically
desiring to overview HEW programs in Dade County. Jack is very
astute politically having been through many political wars with the
President.
It seems to me that if he were given a consultancy position as he
desires by Henry Hyde, true Nixon loyalist and Special Assistant
to Elliott Richardson, he would be the ideal operative from the
inside to keep a close watch on what appears to be a very significant
political matter. He could report in to Harry Dent in cover fashion.
Decisions could then be made accordingly in 1972.
Advise,
9855
Republican
National
Committee. November 2, 1971
MEMORANDUM FORkJOHN DEAN
JACK CAULFIELD
FROM LYN NOFZIGER
I think you ought to take a look at this.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Soutlneast. Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 434-6500
9856
National Republicarri-feritage Groups(Nationalities)Coi
November 1, 1971
MEMORANDUM
Confidential
TO: Laszlo C. Pasztor
Director
Heritage Groups Division, RNC
FROM: Manuel R. Giberga
Advisor, National Cuban Coordinator
Heritage Groups Division, RNC
SUBJECT: Imminent Political issues in Florida
1. There is a lot of pressure being made by Democratic Party politicians
to remove from the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service)
office in Miami - Deputy District Director, C. Gordon Yeagar. Mr.
Yeagar is a registered dedicated Republican, and every effort should
be made to keep him in that position in Florida - by the RNC.
2. The appointment of Phillip J. Rutledge ( a Kennedy man) to become
Deputy Administrator of SRS which gives him responsibility for ad-
ministering special programs Including the Cuban Refugee Program
in Florida, represents a great threat to our alms of furthering the
Republican Party cause and the re-election of our President in the
State and especially in the Dade County area where the bulk of the
Cuban-Americans reside. (HEW memorandum attached)
3. A new project is in the process of being approved by the State of
Florida, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Division of
Family Services, which through a U.S. HEW grant Title IV A of the
Social Security Act of 900,000 dollars, sets up 18 referral centers
in the impoverished neighborhoods of Dade County to serve the poor'
The purpose of the project is to provide, in effect, storefront
service centers in order to receive the poor, diagnose their needs,
refer them for services and to represent them if services are not
complete or satisfactory. The actual operation will be jointly con-
trolled by the United Fund, The County Manager of Dade County and
such individual agencies as the Urban Coalition.
Upon approval by the State of Florida, and the Federal Government and
yith the arrangement of the final details, the plan will be ici-
.pleracnted as a worthy type of social service. It has implications,
ifhowever, far beyond its social merits. It, in fact, sets up a network
of workers, known to and looked up to by the neighborhood poor who
5LQSl^!LS}caRUS.^J4^^shinAtonJ3jD^0.0P3
9857
will exert grcac influence on the Indivduals served. Since it
is controlled by the County Government and the welfare estab-
lishment, it can be expected that this organization will be used
for political purposes. Since there are no republicans in the county
government and few democratic conservatives, it can be assumed that
any political bias would be towards the left.
Specifically, however, I feel it necessary to point out that cer-
tain features which we understand to be a part of the staffing
pattern for the new program will do incalculable damage to the
standing of the cuban community and its political outlook. In
a nutshell, the progrnnr. is designed to be administered by and to
employ Blacks, even in those areas where the population is pre-
dominantly Latin American. This will not only hinder service, but
will create a problem in the Cuban Community where qualified people
•are willing and able to perform these services even on a temporary
basis. While some effort is being made to force the program to
hire bi-lingual Latin Americans, so far, these efforts have met with
failure.
The County Manager of Dade County (D) Mr, Ray Good controls the
United Fund and Urban Coalition through the leftist Deirocrats,
Mr. Bernardo Benes and Mrs. Athalie Range, Special Assistant to
the Governor in Minority Affairs.
I feel that it is imperative to arrange a meeting with Harry S.
Dent, Special Counsel to the President in order that jointly with
the RNC^ pressure should be brought to bear on Executive Departments
concerned to stipulate that with four centers being in predorainently
Latin American neighborhoods and others in areas with a large con-
centration of Latin Americans, staffing should follow neighborhood
ethnic patterns as closely as possible for representation on behalf
of Cuban-American DE=au:.' n at.j>ii 4 3 m L -J isa Republicans and other Spanish
Speaking minority groups.
$900,000 managed by Ray Good and Bernardo Benes is a devastating
blow for our Republican Party in Florida and to our new citizens
registration program.
cc Chairman Robert Dole u
Co-Chairman Thomas B. Evans
Harry S. Dent
1 Peter Millspaugh
9858
4.- flow ?0 IMPROVE TH3 REPUBLICAN PARTY POSITION IN ?L0RID;, AXD
CAPTURS THli CUB/VK VOTiiS.
-f) Meeting In the Office of Kike Thornpson .Republican Party-
State Coromitteeman in order to coordinate a Proffram on behalf
of furthering the cause of the Republican Party and develop
an strong coalition v/ith Cuban-Americans of il:ide County .
The meeting was attended by the follov.-lng Cuban-American He-
publicans :
*)
- Manuel R Giberga -
- Ruben Mendiola
- Humberto Quinones-
- Rene Diaz
- Jose Cabrera
National Coordinator
Former Cuban Senator and President
of. the Cardenas Municipalities.
Assistant to the Director of the
Cuban Refugee Center.
Vice President of the I'unicipalitis
Ass. Director of '/Q3A Radio
Mr. Euttari and Mr.Hevia , did not attend and . they are blocking
Mike Thompson's efforts for a Cuban-American coalition.
Manuel R Gi berr-'a made a proposal that every new citizen shall
receive a Diploma vrhen adopting U.S. Citizenship. It v.-ill be very
helpful if the Diploma couid be Issue V7ith the signature of the
Vice President or the President himself.
The Diplomas can be printed vrith the signature and leave the
name in blank , to be filled by the Office of the Republican
Party in Florida.
I have ma
me of the
addresses
Diplomas
to them p
ganizinc.
Unit.
The Rotar
Chair.nan
was a com
Comnuni ty
de arrangements v:ith top IKS Official , to have the na-
citizens to be , 15 or 20 days in advance , and their
as vrell. Therefore, v;e would be able to have all the
ready by the time of the swear-in ceremony or delivered
ersonally by a volunteer group vjhich vre are already or-
,v;hica could operate easely with the Mobile Registratic
y Club 3anquet in honor of the Cabinet Committee's
(Dr. Ramirez) , Mr, Buttari, and myself as Vice-Chairr'^n
plte success with an attendance of close to 45b Cuban
Easiness and Civic leaders .
v;e V7ere honored to have with us
Concressman V/illiam J Keating (R) Ohio ■
" Lou Prey Jr. (R) Florida
DAV3 ZACKSI-I
MIKE THOMPSON .
9859
Itional "Republican Heritage Groups(Nationalities)Counc
THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN H'.DS C0U2-:TY.
The election of I968 vras the first real , if limited , oppor-
tunity for Cubans to participate in a presidential vote. This
election differed from those in the past in that there were,
for the first time in many years, three relatively strong pre-
sidential candidates for the race . Two of the candidates ,
RICHARD M KIXOK and GTJORGE '.;ALL/iC3, both expressed many poli-
tical vievrs that can be characterized as niddle of the road
to conservative in nature. The Democratic candidate HU33RT
HUMPHREY, expressed vievfs generally conceded to be middle of
the road to liberal. Nevertheless ,even with a three-v/ay race
and two candidates popular to the South, the voting in Dade
County went as follows :
HUMPHREY 176,000
• ■ NIXON 135,000
WALLACE' 53,000
HOWEVER , the three Cuban neighborhoods , in contrast rave the
Republicans a slight r.a;;ority over the Democrats, showing thei;
greatest strength in the Hialeah-Miami Sprinrs area by ta-.cing
12 of 20 precints, even though only 13,500 Cubans v.'ere able to
.'vote out of a total of 2o,000 Cuban citizens in the area, fro::
/ v/hich the difference (12,500) were not registered .therefore
not elegible to vote .
9860
As codld be seen , HIXON lost DADS COUNTY by only 41,000 votes
a great achievement considering that total registration in D.'iD3
COUwTY i-eflects 5 to 1 against the Republican Party.
STATc) VOTE IN THS PRg SIPgNTIAL 0? I968
• • HIXON 806,000 votes
HUMPHREY 676,000 "
VfALLACE 624,000 "
In the rest of the State ,V/ALLACE shov:ed a great strength spec:
lly in the areas with old-retired persons,
TKS CUBAN SVfll'fG V0T3 IN Di\DS COUNTY AND PLORIDV STAT3.-
NEW CITIZENS.
1968 ■
t
1971
Eleglble voters
13,500
22,000
Non-registered
12,500
34,000
Kevr Citizens at the rate of
close to 1,000 per ::ionth since
July 1971 to October 1972
15,000
Cuban
_c_lti
zens ;
71.000
It is essential that a Caiapaign registration Drive should be
launched in order to register these Cubans in the Republican
Party .
' Nunberc do not lie , and if with only 13,500 Cubans voting in /
^ 1968 we lost Dl\DE C0U:\'TY by only 41,000 votes , with a total /•
of 71,000 Cubans In the area (if registered). President »Nix/*
9861
can taVce the Couuty for the Republicans for the first tl-jie
and established Republican stronghold areas in places that
v:ere before in the hands of the Ite-ocrats each as the Hialeah
iiianl Springs area , and other areas of the Southvrest.
SUIIKARY.-
I strongly recor.-nend that the R}rC ~,lve this area an special'
attention .specially , resolving the items that I have presented
In the enclosed AGSNM.
Vfas/in^tor., D. Zi
Ko/er^er If^t. ^/f-^i/
Manuel R Giir^rja
Guban I'ational Coordinator
Heritage Division, Rj{C.
9862
.iv/vi\i.;uAJ
. Wv J .M.. V 1 . '. ;..,..:.. I ;, 1.1 I'. • \ I i. ' ., .\.M) \Vl
S(K;ial A lu.iiAiiii.i lAiKjN .si.:,\ic:i.
Ollicc of llic ArfmintsfrAtor
SRS Executive Staff
DATE:
OCT -^ 1971
CT:
Administrator
Social and Rehabilitation Service
Appointment of Deputy Administrator
1 am extremely pleased to announce that Philip J. Rutledge
will become Deputy Administrator of SRS, joining us in
early December.
■" >
Ph'il has a distinguished background in the human resources
field, and can make a very significant contribution to SRS
in the period ahead.
IChilci I'm sure he is known to many of you, the attached news
release provides details of his background.
J o) iV/ iV^i.-i name
Attachjacnt
9863
U.S. DCPAmWfNT OF HCALTM. EDUCATION. AND V/ELFARE
! 1 r?--'^"'\\ A /'^k Ofdcc o{ iIt Soc.ctory
! .J Lrj:-.--3 v., \^' \ Office of Public Affairo
^p. fl-v /\ /C^, / '• KiiLSO— (?02) 963-h21il
MV.»^V 'J %.=^"K ' (llo-c) — (202) 633-2012
?m m^DUrZ HEL^SE BRUBSCK-(202) 963-!i2a
Wednesday, Cbtobcr 20, 1971 (Hono) — (301) C.8I-7I483
The appointment of Philip J. Rutledce as Deputy AdniniRtrator of HSV/'a
Social and Rcbtbilitation Service iras announced jointly today by Secretarj'
Elliot L. Pdchardson and Mayor ;. alter Waahinfjton of the District of Columbia.
■ Mr. Rutled^e has been Director of the De.p.irtnent of Hu-T.an Resources of
the District Govem-Tient since Karch, 1970. Earlier this nonth he received the
Louis Brownloi; Award in Public AdTanistration for reorganizing and adralnisterir
the "coniplox and sensitive human resource procra.-:is in the District."
Under the President's proposal for a Federal Department of Human Resourc
SRS vould beconc the primary ir.3trur.:ent for building State and local capacity i
deliver social and rehabilitative services in a nore coordinated and syste.Tiati<
way. :
Secretary Richardson said, "Phil Rutledije's efforts to unify the many
fragmented programs which try to serve the sawc people in the District of Colu;
parallel what we hope to accomplish nationally."
SRS, headed by John D. Twina.-nc, will play a key role in the health and
welfare reforms proposed bj' the Nixon Ad/ninistration. It ad-ninistcrs the prcs
welXare prograra and is particularly concerned i:ith the administrative seperatii
of welfare payi.ients from services required under reform; it is developing norc
effective linkage of SRS-ad-sinistered social cervices with manpower, education
and other human service systems; and it is naking changes in its Medicaid prog
that ;support health reform. . . •
£ In addition to these prograr-.s, Mr. Rutl.ocsc will have responsibility fo
ad-Tiinistering wit)iin SRS special programs for tlie aging, youth devclopcnant and
31-889 0-74-13
9864
-2-
delinquency prevention, rehabilitation 6cr\'icc3, and the Cu ban rcfu p,ce program,
Mr. Rutlcdge, li6, a native of Dawson, Georgia, holds degrees from
Roosevelt University, Chicaco; the University of /Jichigan, Ann Arbor; and has
, done additional graduate vork at V.'a^Tic State University, Detroit.
In 1969-70, he served as assistant to the Mayor for Human Kesourcc
Ptograras, Gov'erpr.ent of the District of Columbia, and daring the two previous
years he was executive dii-ector of the President's Committee on Manpower, and
Associcte Manpower Administrator, U.S. Department of Labor.
Other Essignments have included service ca Director, Mayor's Committee
for Huff.an Resources Development, Detroit; and Director, Bureau of Health
Education, Detroit and Wnyne County. " •
Mr. Rutledge has served as a consultant to the National League of Cities
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and has been a mc-.nber of the Director's Task
Force on the Comrcunity Action Progricr., Office of Economic Opportunity; the
Michigan Governor's Conrnission on Urban Problems, and the Michigan Governor's
Commission on Higher Education.
He is a member of the National Association for Conununity Development; the
Aroeri can- Public Health Association (a fellow); the /LT.erican Society of Public
Administration (President of the Kstional Capital Area Chapter ajid a national
executive council KCmber); the American Association for the Advance-neot of
Science; the American Politiccd Science Association; and the American Sociological
Association. " • ■ . •
Mr, Rutledge is married to the forr:sr Violet Eidund. They reside at . ' |
I520U Red Clover Drive, Rockville, Maryland, with their four children, Phyllis,
Janet, Edw^d, and Patricia. .
"■ ■ . .. t I I
9865
PJVtIc AHolrf Office, DiU'itt of Columblo CovornmonI . t
DUtrlei Culldlng, f'oor.i 510 629-2577 -2706
' <?TATEMENT OF NAAYOR WALTER E. WASHINGTON
iyi/^it^ivc. . October 20, 197
' 1 am reluctant to accept the resignation of Mr. Rutledge. .
- . However, at HEW lie will have an opportunity to use at
the national level tha great administrative and organizational talents
I-. • ■ • • ■
he possesses and his expertise in the field of human resources.
Under his leadership, the D-. C. Department of Human
Resources |->as been organized into an. operating departnr>ent that has
coordinated and strengthened a wide range of programs and services
and improved the delivery of services to the community.
1 appreciate sincerely tha personal assistance Mr. Rutledge
has given to my -office in helping meet the most basic needs of our
* citizens. . •
Mr. Rutledge is highly regarded as a member of my cabinet
I • •• - •
eind his innovative approaches to the human resources system, has
earned for- hirr) a reputation of a top ndiminislrator in this field.
The departure, of Mr. Rutledge will be a great personal loss
.to my administration and the City. 1 wish Phil every success in this
now undertal'xing and 1 know that his commitment to the human rcsourc
!*• ■ . . . •
system v/ill continue.
t
9866
RKPUBILICAN
EXECUTIVE COMMIT^rEE
2008 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI. KLOlilDA 33137 TELKPHOME 374-
1/
October 12, 1971
Mr. Tom Evans, Co-Chairraan
Republican National Conmittee
Dwiglit Eisenhower Republican Center
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Dear Tom:
You are very likely aware thatNlayjird_Paljiiat-u>r7 the Director of the Cuban
Refusee Center, recently suffered a severe heart attack. He win require a
lorIg~ c o nv.iles ceTTCc~^d less strenuous duties once he is out of the hospital.
iVhile in no way wishing to add to his personal problems, it is obvious that
n o w is the time to re p 1 a ce hin with a director who would not he so anta^onist i
to Republicans in particular and the Administration generally.
There can not be the slightest doubt that the prestige of President Nixon
has suffered badly in the Cuban community because of the retention of a Kenned
follower in a key role. Replacement of Palmatier with someone generally conser
vative and known to be loyal to Nixon would help all of us. However, if we arc
to be much better off than now, it is in r^o rative that another mistake of the
wapnitude of the Rurmri nppnintnent NO T be made.
On the other side of the coin, we are starting to make some headway with
our Latin Action program, as such. I am sure you already know we had some fina
ial success from the Pawley dinner, though Cuban support was almost non-existe
l\'e would like to officially dedicate our new Latin Action Center -{Partido
Republicano Centre Latino-Americano) on eitlicr the afternoon of November 5th,
or the morning of the 8th. Your attcndnnce, along wit)» Dr. Manuel GilbcrQa,
Senator Gumey and State Chairman Tommy Tliomas, would permit us to capitalize
on the dedication among the entire Latin conununity as well as the press. To sz
it would be a big help would be an understatement.
] Hopefully, it will be possible for all those listed .ibove to attend on one
.the two dates. Since Senator Gumey is having such a tight schedule and havinp
'to remain available for votes, I picked Friday afternoon or Monday morning,
fiowevcr, it will bo appreciated if I am notified of any conflicts at tho ci*rli
,T est possible time. . *
■1. w-
w=- :.- _ i .
. , ..! ■■*■
•■fV^'
't,A.h?^^:^i.\M''C»unitui ' •- "y^ co«««»foNOi«»««e«cT.«T'<^ , ii«eor.oii.« ••CBiTAift r^ T»«»»M«««-
9867
Mr. Tom Evans
October 12, 1971
page 2
Sincerely,
Bob Rosas CO,
Ch airman
RAlVpw '.
CC: Dr. Mnnuel H. Gibcrca
Senator F.dward Giimey
; ;, Honornble Toji.ny Thomas
'.. . Mr. Derlyn.Moe, Latin Action chairman
'. ;■; Mr. Mario Menescs, Latin Action Center Director
V-4
9868
■'' Tab 23
December 7, 1971
SENSITIVE INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM: JOHN W. DEAN
SUBJECT: Condition of George Meany
Dr. Marvin Fuche, George Meany' s personal physician, was
discreetly interviewed today. In brief. Dr. Fuchs provided
the following inforination on Meany' s condition:
-- Meany suffered a mild heart attack on November 26th.
The attack is medically defined as a "myocardial infarct"
(acute coronary thrombosis) and described as the
stoppage of blood to a part of the hecrt tissue with
resulting dannage to that part of the heart.
-- Dr. Fuchs emphasized that it was a mild heart attack.
Meany did not lose consciousness at any time. Meany'a
stay in the intensive care section of the hospital was
characterized as routine for the condition; the isolation
was also said to result from the fact that Meany ex«
perienced anginal pains for a five day period,
-- Meany was removed from the intensive care section on
December 3rd. He is presently in a private room in an
open ward and has been walking for the last two days.
-- This was Meany's first heart attack. His present
condition is described as good and it is anticipated
that he will be released on December lOth or Uth.
-- Dr. Fuchs feels that Meany has an excellent life ex-
pectancy if he follows a program of diet, rest and
exercise.
9869
The Information wc ha-vc obtained was reviewed byNDr. Lu<<a8h(
who feelB that Meany '^dll have to restrict his activitjMphysical
and emotional) considerably. Dr. Lukash also notes tli^tjvlcany
is clearly susceptible to a fatal heart attack, which could bd
triggered by a sudden emotional situation.
I shall continue to monitor this situation and report any significant
developments.
I , rt' I f',
9870
CONDITION OF GEORGE MEAIJY
Dr. Marvin Fuchs, George Meany's personal physician has been
talked to today on a very discreet basis by a physician
working at George V7ashington University Hospital wherein •
Meany is confined. It is believed that the below indicated
information therefore is accurate and reliable:
Fuchs stated that Meany suffered a mild heart attack following
the AFL-CIO Convention in Florida. - /
The condition is referred to in medical terms as a l^cardialinfahit.^,,_^j. ^ ._ y
This according to Fuchs was confirmed by EKG andly enzyme changes. . ^
There was a stoppage of blood to a part of the heart tissue
causing a death to that part of the heart. There is a remaining
tissue scar at that location.
Fuchs emphasized that this was a mild heart attack. Meany did
not lose consciousness at any time. Such attack apparently is I
considered to be a routine case. 1
i
Meany has received routine care in this regard which includes j
his stay in the intensi"7e care section of the hospital. I
i
Fuchs stated that the reason Meany has been in isolation is due j
to the experiencing of anginal pain for a five day period. i
Meany left the intensive care section on' December 3- He is
currently in a private room in an open ward and has been walking
for the last two days.
Dr. Lindsay, Chief of Cardiology at G.W. U. Hospital, did examine
Meany on at least one occasion. While he was visited by a surgeon,
it is clearly stated that no heart surgery is needed or under
consideration at this time.
Meany has not previously had a heart attack. His heart is described
as being in good condition at this time and it is anticipated now
that he will be released on December 10 or 11.
Fuchs further stated that Meany's life expectancy will be excellent
if he follows a program of diet, rest and exercise. Failure to
do so will reduce his life expectancy by l/3 according to Fuchs.
The source advises that the above information is as close to an
actual examination as one can get.
9871
Tab 2A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
January 12, 1972
"Yrf
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, I
FROM: ■
SUBJECT:
JACK CAULFIELD
MEMBERS OF THE[I).j8^.C. A DVISORY COMMITTEE ON SECURITY
FOR THE '72 COI^yfelON
Attached is a list of proposed members of the above advisory
committee. The source is reliable and the infoni.d.tion
believed to be accurate.
You should be aware that former F.B.I. Assistant Director
William Sullivan has joined the indicated Jajnes Ahern at
the listed Insurance Crime Prevention Institute. It would
be safe to assume that Sullivan's expertise in the militant
axea might well be utilized by Ahern in connection with his
above committee duties. This observation might be of interest
to both the A.G. and the Deputy A.G.
Attachment
^
9872
PROPOSED MEMOERS OF THE ADVISORY COtSIITTEE OH SECTOITY
'•• ^'^cs Pomc roy - llcnd of the Deportment of Luw Enforcement Arfmlnictrntlon
of the University of Minnesota and form'?r Deputy Administrator of the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the Department of Justice
and former Under-Shorif f of San Mateo
2. Cliff Cassidy - Chief of the Department of Public Safety of Texas
3. James JE. Bassett , 1_II^ - President of Kecnlond Race Track and former
Chief of the Kentucky State Police
U. James Ahem - Former Police Chief of Mcv7 Haven, Connecticut, end for-
mer member of the President's Coirwisslon on the Causes of Violence
5, Floyd B orin g - Former Inspector for the United States Secret Service
6, Henry Montague - Former Chief Postal Inspector for the United States
Post Office Department
7, Howard Baugh - Superintendent of the Atlanta Police Department
9873
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Address List
Mr. Wesley A. Pomeroy (612-373-7713)
222 Northrop Auditorium
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55A55
Mr. J. E. Bassett, III (606-256-3^12)
President
Keenland Association and Company
Post Office Box 1690
Lexington, Kentucky
Mr. Henry B. Montague (202-038-8765)
Apartment 204-B
111 Center Street, North
Vienna, Virginia
Mr. James Ahem, Director (203-226-6347)
Insurance Crime Prevention Institute
21 Charles Street
Westport, Connecticut 06880
Superintendent Howard Baugh (406-659-1313 ext. 305)
Crime Prevention
Atlanta Police Department
175 Decatur Street, S. E.
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Floyd Boring \ ,
2017 Oakwood Street, S. E.
Washington, D. C. 20031
Mr. Cliff Cassidy (214-235-3724)
Richardson Savings and Loan Association
Richardson, Texas
9874
Tab 25
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 17, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY RESTRICTED
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
.SUBJECT:
ROBERT FINCH,-
JOHN DEAN ' .]
Derogatory film
about the President
During a recent trip to Los Angeles, u'e received information
that the Smothers Brothers were producing a derogatory film,
about the Pi-esident. A pretext inquiry at the offices of SmoBro
International Productions, Inc. , Los Angeles, revealed that
that company had just completed production of a film entitled
"Another Nice Mess. " It is scheduled for nationwide distribu-
tion beginning in March.
The film is described by SmoBro' s press agent as a satirical
spoof. The President and Vice President are portrayed as
^Laurel and Hardy.
I would appreciate any thoughts you might have on how we
could develop further information about this film, its proposed
distribution, and its backers, in order that vre may be in a
better position to assess its potential impact.
cc: H. R. Haldeman
Chuck Colson
ADMINISTRATIVELY RESTRICTED
9875
The White House
WASHINGTON
1/1T/T2
Date
FRED FIELDING
TO:
FROM: JOHN J. CAULFIELD
ACTION:
A pproval/Signature
Comments/ Recommendations
for Your Information
File
REMARKS:
9876
■L/V(/12
SUBJECT: RUMOR S^IOTHERS BROTHERS A.RE PRODUCING
A DEROGATORY FILM ABOUT RICR/VRD NIXON
A pretext inquiry at the offices of SmoBro International
Productions, Inc., Los Angeles developed the following
information:
SmoBro has just completed production of a film to be entitled
"Another Nice Mess". It vill be distributed to nationwide
theatres beginning in March.
The film is described as a satirical spoof. According to
Lanny Scher, SmoBro 's press agent, Richard Nixon will be
portrayed as Oliver Hardy and Spiro Agnew as Laurel Hardy.
Rich, Little and Herbert Voland, not further identified, will
play the respective roles.
9877
Tab 26
i
T¥A€ White* Hrvusr
*V * ^ H • N & ' 'J .**
CONFIDENTIAI.
I
2/4/72
FOR; JOHN W. DEAN, III
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJECT: THE FUND FOR INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM
An early indication regarding the Fund for Investigative
Journalism points towards an affiliation with the Philip
Stern Family Fund. That fund is believed to have financed
Seymour Hersh's disclosures on the My Lai massacre.
Additionally, it is believed that the Fund for Investigative
Journalism financed the Senator Tom Dodd financial
disclosures.
Details will follow.
9878
THE WHITE HOUSE
vvv. = H ! ^J r-~ ."^ >.'
February 17. 1972
' \ r-
MIMORAM)UM FOR JOHN W. PEAJT.' III^v i
FROM: JACK CAULFIEID ^'~~"^-
SUBJBCT: F UND FOR INVE3TIQATIVE JOURNAIJSM
29 j3 Ordvay St., N.V/.
A discreet inquiry has positively determined that the
Fund for Investigative Journalism enjoys a tax exempt
staxus granted by the Internal Revenue Service in
April, 1970. It has been further determined that the
FFIJ is supported entirely by monetai-y contributions
from the extreme left Stern Faraily Fund.
It has also been learned that the FFIJ was the financial
medium for the financing of the My Lai massacre stories
vrritten by Seymour Hersh.
A request has been made for more detailed information
relative to these matters and will be in hand on a
discreet basis during the early part of next week.
1
9879
Tab 27
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I NGTON
February l6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN,
FROM: JACK CAULFIELD
SUBJKJT: ADVANCE COPY OF "X^'BOOK "POLICE IN TROUBLE
OUR FRIGHTENING CRISIS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT"
BY JAMES G. AHERN
We have received from a reliable source an advanced copy of
the book "Police in Trouble" by former New Haven Police Chief
James F. Ahem. Ahern is now affiliated with the New England
based Insurance Institute, along with former Assistant FBI
Director William Sullivan.
Ahern also served as a member on the Scranton Commission on
Civil Unrest and is generally recognized as a liberal spokes-
man on law enforcement matters with a similar philosophy to
former Assistant Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
A review of the docioment indicates that it can be described
as a liberal treatise on the overall problems confronting
police and the entire question of law enforcement at both the
local and Federal level.
Ahern makes biting and severely critical comments with respect
to the President, the Attorney General, the Administration
and the FBI. Some the areas marked for criticism by Ahern are:
A charge that the Administration has created a leadership
vacuum with respect to law and order in the nation.
The President has injured the cause of police
professionalism.
The President has contributed to the reasons why
police are feaired, hated ajid sometimes killed by
segments of the American society today. ^^
A charge that the President interfered with NYCPD
policy by injecting himself into the issue of whether
or not police officers should wear American flag emblems.
Implied criticism of the President in connection with
his support of Governor Rockefeller's actions in
suppressing the Attica riot.
31-889 O - 74-14
9880
Memorandum for J. W. Dean, III
"Police in Trouble"
Page two
A charge that John Mitchell's role as Attorney-
General has been political and insensitive to the
overall objectives of federal law enforcement.
Severe criticism of Director Hoover and the FBI in
the area of police coordination and the Bureau's
approach to the Black Panthers. Further, Ahem
claims that an analysis of the stolen Media, Penna.
FBI files reveals a conscious FBI policy to create
fear amongst the political left.
Ahem calls for and recommends the removal of FBI
Director Hoover.
It can be anticipated that this highly critical document
will be well read by the leading Democratic Presidential
candidates .
It can be further anticipated that the liberal left media
will initiate highly favorable reviews of the book. Indeed,
it is probable that one of the major candidates will examine
the document with a view towards using it as a master plan
response and criticism of the Administration's overall law
enforcement effort.
I
i
9881
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I N GTON
March 8,1972
MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN DEAN
FROM: PAT BUCHANAN
What should be done on this in my view is:
a) A research job on crime in New Haven, while Ahern
ran the show;
b) An investigation of public records to ascertain Ahern' s
connection with the Democratic Party;
c) Preparation of a review of the book when it hits, which
can be published w^idely and can take apart his contentions^
about RN and the Scranton Commission, and others; and _,
take Ahern apart as a liberal propagandaist, a^sociate^'
with whatever candidate he is associated v/ith at^he time; ^.
d) We should seek to have our friends review^ the book in
whatever papers we can -- and then move those reviews
around to places where the book is having any impact\
whatsoever. The problem for us of course is that we
appointed this turkey to the Scranton Commission.
Buchanan
9882
MEMORANDUM ig. Tab 28
'-. ^ i;- T H E W H I T E H O U S E ft (H ' 1 '» : r^ t'" " "T 1 ^ 1
WASHINGTON t. .> j -. j .'.-.-. '^ L U .; -..
March 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
FROM: CHARLES C OLSON '^,\'
Can you do anything with the attached? I have no idea,
obviously, whether there is anything to it, but it might be
worth taking a look at. It seems to me I do recall some
publicity about this about two years ago.
I
I
9883
CONFIDENTIAL
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASH I NGTON
March 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: CHARLES W. COLSON
FROM: STEVE KARALEKAS ShU
It has been suggested to me that the appropriate office in this Adminis-
tration should commence an investigation into the background and circum-
stances surrounding the leasing arrangement of the Department of Trans-
portation headquarters building in Washington.
According to my source, it seems that Larry O'Brien, present Democra-
tic National Chairnnan, and two cohorts were involved in very shady deal-
ings jvith LBJ. These dealings resulted in an extremely, lucrative leas-
ino urr^nciprnfrtt with O'Rrjpp ?ind romoanv as the lessors and the U. S.
Government as the lessee.
I arri unable at this" time to be more specific, but according to my source,
it is well worth checking. His suggestion was triggered by the current
ITT - Jack Anderson revelation.
CCNFIDENTIAL
9884
April 6, 1972
MZMORAKDUM FCRi
CHUCK CCLSON
FROM:
JOHN DEAN
Per your e-jf^gcstion, I have looked Into the poooibillty that Larry
O'Brien and others r^cra involved in coine hij^Vily questionable
Isaclnp arr.-.nf;cments ^?.'ith the United States Government during
tho Johnson Ac!muii3tr?tion. Spcch'icr-lly, I reviewed t!io subject
of lease crr.^r gcmruts with GSA for tho DOT Keadquartors Building,
but apparently his r.ctivitica were even more vridesprcad.
As a result of my Invr^cliratlon end discussiona, it appears that It
would be extrenoly ui/iicult to cst^liUsh the direct tie-in between
O'Drlrn and C'^A, Even If this could be done, however, it is the
cpnsengus of all with vrho:TJ I hr.ve discussed thii? that raising the
icruc rr.ijiht opou £. l^..nl.ji.a' s r>ui i'.i^i. wy -wouLu later tc^tcz opeoinp.
It is not that this Admiristratlon or prior Republican Adr-ninistrationo
have been E.e culpable as it in obvious the Democrats •w.-^re: rather
charges of slicked in^p^opri*'ty could be leveled against the current
GSA AdmiJiiGtration, and our point v/ould bs lost in the smoke.
This Is not to say that I thir^ we ehould forget the whole matter. ?
For your information, Senator Pro>cnnire has had GAG people !
Investlgaticf: the GSA loasinc policy for come tLnse now. If It appears
that the Senator will attempt to make this another of his causes"
during the election yesr, which I currently think Is not a realistic
possibility, we f.hould be prepared to show that we are at worst
guilty of bad judgment whereas the Democrats were actually pullty
of criminal convercion, etc.
CCK^mENTIAL
9885
Tab 29
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CONFIDENTIAL/
EYES ONLY
May 12, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED FIELDING
Henry Kimelman is Campaign Treasurer /Fund
Raiser for McGovern. He was nearly indicted
last year because he is a liquor iinporter in the
Virgin Islands and apparently he really rakes
off the profits. While Udall was Secretary of
Interior he wheeled and dealed because the Virgin
Islands was nnHpr Tnterinr. We bplieve there
must be material at Justice and Interior on this
sleezy character that we would like to obtain
through your fantastic sources. We could, of
course, control the release of this material but
need your help in getting, what apparently is some
pretty good stuff.
Thanks.
W.- Richard Howard
9886
r'
ic lA^ --
Henry Kimmelnian
We would like to know any relevant information about Kimmelman's
activities and associations. This might relate, inter alia, to the
following:
Questionable land deals or favored treatment in
Virgin Islands, while Udall was Secretary of
Interior.
Signs of organized crime involvement.
By way of background, we know the following involvements:
Chairman of the Board - West Indies Corp.
Co-owner - Virgin Islands Hilton, St. Thomas.
President - Overview Corp. (environmental
consulting firm)(Stewart Udall is chairman of
the board).
Liquor importer in Virgin Islands.
- Apparently has substantial landholdings in Florida
(perhaps some hotel syndicates).
(
9887
June 5, 1972
CONFIDENTIAL /EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR: DICK HOWARD
FROM: JOHN DEAN
SUBJECT: Henry Kimelman
Per our conversations, to date we have been unable to come
up with any material on Kimelman that might be used to
illustrate the true nature of the money man in McGovern's life.
Last September we did receive information alleging the possibility
that Kimelman' s corporate activities might be violative of the
anti-trust laws, and also allegations of organized crime involvement.
At that time the infomniation was reviewed by the Department of
Justice and we were advised that there was no sufficient basis to
verify such charges.
I am still seeking further data on Kimelman from Interior and
other sources, and will keep you advised of the results of these
inquiries as soon as they are available.
JWD:FFF:bav
CONFIDENTIAL /EYES ONLY
A TRUE COPY
9888
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY
June 27, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN DEAN
The attached is additional information on Kiini-nelman
and, as you know, George Bell spent a lot of time in
the Virgin Islands. As Colson says, there must be
something that we can use someplace in this govern-
ment and he wonders if we are still pushing to try to
locate this information.
f
W. Richard Howard
\
9889
IviUiani I L. ^leor MLssociaios ' * itJ^
CONSULTANTS
June 12, 1972
^Vf^^
/
The Honorable Hariy S, Dent
The V/hitG Jlouse
Washington r D.Co
Dear Mr. Dents
EncDoced herewith is a copy of
infornation cent by riiy husband to Jack Anderson,
At the tin.G b.e t^ent this to Andersoji, ho felt
that a disclosure of this kind should come from
one \v]io is nc:ninally a Daj;:ocrat or v/ho is syinpa-
thetic to the Deinocratic party.
Yesterday 0* Brian made much of the
failure of the Republicans to disclose the names
and ap.ounts of ca).ipai£pi contributors, I believe
that this material ir.ight b3 used as a counter-
attack.
The stati'jTP.L'nts made in the ineinorandurn
have been carefully researched and are correct.
This can be verified by the Justice Department's
Criminal Intellir^ence section.
You have always helped us with our
problems, I hope this will help on the national
level.
S
Sincerely,
1 Q^\<-JL.>L_
Nellie Greer
Home phone
(809) 77'i-ll65
,V:ii ■■■-■:
9890
'^^ ... .-. Fincnoo Dirootor :'■'.:
• ••; ■^•. ^^V .*.. .'Ooovfio HcOovom CMipalga
Honrr TTj.r:n^ri'!lni nnjl'^ag cloae' family ond buolhooo tloo
with what ic Imov.'n in Crinlnal Intollogdrjcooiroloa o»
tbo "KoshoT. Hnfin '^. : •;.::,:.-:: A:^ -^s;; .^^^ . ^: .,^: V-^^^
-. -> Kiranolwan ia norriod to .tho daughter of Sidnoy .. .- .t A
Iftoooior, ■;':..• '^ :^ ": ':.-.* •■ • -. ,/ -. i • .;v\-:-: >r;'X
rr~I ~1 - ,- •'..■\-^''^'>---V^v'V;-;:.is:^:!;' - 'r* - ■• -i:'^'^'' ■"■■-■■= ••■^•>^-v
-• Konslop M na en. Important figuro In tho liquor buslnooa
bo'fore and during tho Inat war. Bofcro that hlo none woa.
forailiar to tho prohibition law cnforceraQnt.officera
in. and around Doaton, Hnso, ■/...!.
"•'• Sidney Keoaler oot hiraaoif up in buoineso (diotllling)
In Puerto Hico and the Virgin Islands d\iring the last -^;
war find became a cloao asoooiato of Ralph M, Paiwonskl -^-V".
whoso name io aloo fcmiliar to the prohibition law en- • fi'^
f orceraent offioex's of that era, '!>. '
..Ralph Paiwonpki ia better Icnovmas aa n former Dercocratio
Uotional Corxiitto© Men ond, lotor, oo Governor of the
Virgin Islando, lie was appointed by Jack Kennedy, Ke
loerved during tho Konnody and Johnnon administrations*
(^ , It woa Poluonalrl who ohoved Kinnjelmon dqwn tho throat^
of Stu Udall whon ho, Udell ^ was Secrotary of tho .
Interior. - . • ■;...4-'
:^-'.. ' :■..•"•..'■..■"' '' ■ •■'• • ■ '"■'■'>•-." '••-'-■■• ;;^ ''-■Vi
'As you may know, the Virgin Inlonda la virtually a '.*'•'
flefdoro if tho Interior Department, A big operator . "\ i
could find it very convenient to hove an understanding. "
friend in on important spot in Interior. !,•'.•:
• . V s :.; ■. ^ ■ . • •• . ' •■ - i ■ -' = V
;• Kimmelrcon ia o hnndsome man, wellbpoken and plausable.
It is quite posaiblo that floorfre' HcGovcrn ia totally . , •
unai/oro of. Kin^raolncna connect ion3 « I f ho does no t j
Irnow of it he should be informed . I f hedoen know of » .
it. he ahould not bo Proaidont . >
.-. Kimraotman, personally, nay be clean but I personally
doubt it very much, I do know that he la not, and
oen not be, a free agent, Sidney Kesalor set bin, and.,
hiq otbor eon-in law Eliot Kiahman, up in the hotel
bualneaa, '«rhon that didn't work out he oot thera up in A
the liqvior buainesa •( Henry Elliot, Ltd), Tho ownerahip
of record hoa since changed,. ■ ^ .■ -;-.:'*•.-:
.rV •-•"--•..• - \- - I . • • ' t. • : . • ^- ' •'- • . O
•^ •- . ^ • • • •-••••' • - ■ ■ t I
.;~.^ Mr, Andorron, If you havo good oontoota In the j
eriminal Intollogence aootion of Justice I am auro
9891
that' thoy oen vorif? what:! on about to tell you.'Thoy r;
Havo a vary fino criminal rintollogonoo notwork in the . --'.^
Qorlbboan otnffod by oomo Mory compotont ogorvts* . •. ^i'?j^;
y"" A yoer ago, loot. Januar:i a. kingpin of tbo Kooher v ;•••
Kaflc dio(5. llo waa a cioo»| friend and. osooclate of- " ;..?•:
Sidney Kooclor, Hia narao una Morris Roson « Ho open t /' ;r-
'oomo tiir.o boro gottinr: bio jduoko in a row to introduce. i',i
gambling to thoso ialnnda. -Roocn wno vory hipch up in ^.-^.V'l
the mob bier'nrohy» probo bl;; nex t in lino un der Moyer v- :: '
Landky v/ ho xo nov; in oxllo iin loraol, — - ■"'/';
Booena* death, and the j'act that Ralph Paiwonskl '
was not oloctod Govoi-nor, na bo fully expected tobe,
pulled the rug out from untlor Kooalor, Paiwonskl,
Kimraelmnn and othora including tho Arooricnn Motor
Inno which temporarily dro^ipod plans for a new hotel .-,.
with gfjibling. Motor Inna recently decided to go
dn ead which raal:ea rao believa that they now think gamb-
ling will raakc it this tinci, Koaslor tried It before _-...
in 1950- 'SI. A follow nam6cl Bill Greer owned a radio .'
DvtiwlviA I'tcro at th-t tine •'^'^ >^«flt him hands dovm.
, In qny.ovont, the mobo nro rapidly taking over _ . ?■
thcae ialnnda throuf^h corptirationa whoso individual
etookholuoro can nover bo i.ound. General Trading . '. .
Corporation as an oxaTjplo, owned by fifty or sixty • •" ";
:littlo corporcticna located on nany lalando and countrios
including nome.tox havona. Tho owner corporations are, .-.
in turn, owned by fifty or alxty othera-ed infitura,
I don't think that over? tho Department of Justice has ' '
the raanpowor to oort out tho ownorohip, .'.li"'.
;:.;■ Kosolor> Pniv;onoki, and their osaocifltes probl^Y , . ^
includinf; KiTnr.clnan. are nil tiod in with thio Tcob in
one way or another and I would hate to ace this gang roake <
inroada into 'cno vci^ top acnolono of the nationa l -. ••• •
g overnricnti. v:hich night happen if George HcGovern i a . .. ,_..-^'}
elected and in innobtod to Henry Kiici-nolraan. .• . ."'j*-:-. ".
i I donft think I ahouid go into noro detail' in thlo ' "-
nomoranduja and ere aorry that I can't sign ray nauo, I'd be '.
«lad to talk^ to you but even that ahouid not be necessairy. •
*ibo criminal Intolligcneo boys can fill you in. Its | .. i ..
not a nice ptoturo, • . r. t ■.., , ...'■• ^- .«v , • v' i.-t; •v':!::J-;':=r:^
■H^-M'^y^c-^y^-^i:^'^-'.- Pood .11
-*•-
^..^•<iy-.
9892
May llth, 1972
P.O. Dox 4306, St. Tliomns, V.I
Telephone ii (809) 774-1165
Ml*. Jacl: -AndcrGon
1612 K Street, Kortliv-ost
Wachluiiton, D. C. 20006
Dsar i\1r. Anderson:
Conprcti'.lations on your PiiUtzcr Awaixl. Like many others, I fesl
that it Is well deserved.
I am nendlix? you the (;nclo?ed rricnioran-Jum lin.t you nilj'ht find
interesting. It is i!u:ji£;iieci for reaeonc liiat v;)ll bs app^irent to you.
I. have a wife, f.vo children and tcvoral t'randchildren presently re-
piding v/ith UiC c.y.:\, for ilieir f;afcty, I J:opc; that my anonimity will
hi preserved. Tijis rrciion ox nilne couid 'oo vcxy tipnr^^^O'JS. I will
have to rely ou yoi'r ciiscretion.
T l-nf\>» pr.'-.u r'^-'-.V^y rnH h\r. fr.thrr vr.iin'i K^U.-^r. whcn lie W.^S Cover-
nor of I'lD Vir- i:: Iclai.ds hi c'.\o rnidtilc thirties, icu don't knov/ me.
For thnt reaton i ;:m rivin'i >ou inc ran-!C;5 and cd:irei:r.es of come
poople La V,'a:.riiv..?,VO!: li.at yss ir.i^i.L ceil to Isarn .v.iLt v/ho 1 am. I'd
apprectr;te it if you would not rcior to ilvj contents of the eacloeed if
you do contact ihooc people.
Ccorfe C. Davis
6500 Lid-e Street
McLc.-n, Virr.irda 22101
Tel. - ELmv.'Ood 6-3021
AvUnxr Fciiroeder
Millert Schroedcr & Ba.nkson
aute5]4
1225 0:)i-.'rie Client Avenue, N.V*'.
Wa'/iiirj-'.ion, i'-.C. 20036
Tel. - 65 9 -MOO
Since ectnUislilnr; recldcnee In the Virgin IslarJs in 1950, I have
Ger\-ed on the CovNirnor's /sdvi:-ory Cornr.iittee on Education, the St.
TJiomas Police Commicaioa and nc United StatcB M.irnhal. Juat l>eforo
the lu;.l w. r ani r;icii };.:;. i -^' , > .t-v .cd on the Central CiviH-n
Defense Commivice in Sa« Jv«:\a, 1 iurto Lico ui:-Jer Governor Kexiord
Guy Tugwell. That'o about ti)e Bi/.e of Jt.
Ywurn very truly.
9893
.IKMOK WDLM
run WHITIL HOUSE
\VASllIN(.TON
June 26, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: CHUCK COLSON
FROM: GEORGE T. BEL
i^tS
As you undoubtedly know, Kimmelman, McGovern ' s finance
chairman, is one of the Virgin Islands' really well-
known fast buck artists. He is the son-in-law of
Piawonsky, has been involved in every conceivable
deal down there during his regime, was some kind of
assistant to Udall and got him into that Overview
Corporation contract, etc., etc. Interior has plenty
of knowledge about him, and I knov/ Justice and IRS have
files on him. In addition, Lt. Governor Maas can give
you chapter and verse. . .
It just might be useful to have in stand-by a good
runuuwii uu him.
9894
Tab 30
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS H I N GTON
June 16, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY RESTRICTED
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
H. R. HALDEMAN
JOHN DEAW'
McGovern War Record
As I ain sure you are aware, following the release of the
attached article and a reiteration of the same charges by
William Loeb, McGovern has asked DOD to release his
military "201" personnel file.
Arrangements have been made to insure that if and when .'^ /
the Army does release copies of the contents of thig^file to ^ "
McGovern, a pi.blic announcement of the same will be made .__;._..—
This should reduce tlie chances that McGovern will only '
release selected and favorable documents.
You should also be av/are that there is nothing in McGovern's--
file which directly substantiates the allegation about his
cowardice. We are advised that there is only one paragraph in
one of the documents which is not complimentary to the Senator.
Also, the file lists the number of coinbat missions McGovern
flew, and although i:o additional notations are made the reviewer
stated that the number seemed somewhat low by comparison to "->
other pilots flying in combat at that time. The file also contains the
citations for McGovern' s decorations, including his Distinguished
Flying Cross, and reflects his various promotions during his
military career. ^
The party reviewing the file also advised that there is no evidence
that any documents have been removed heretofore, or that there
had been any tampering with the file.
ADMINISTRy\TIVELY RESTRICTED
cc: Chuck Col son
JWD: FFF:bav
9895
n ..-.
[
U^i:~-:-i\i\:\:: ■■^:i^\:\';k:j
',.' f!'^ '"'■ .T* '"*
; . ■ : I ■ : : ' '■ u: <■ •',
t. >
• » »
. I- -..» I
Frank A. Cripcll 'jviiluntcs inl'j'!i(,-fitic3 f-orn both private
and official sou.r.os in V.'jsliii-.gion and atoiincl tho world.
t3 Anu'.kkwns of J'oliJi c:;l;;iclicin
will s().>ii I'C ;iskc(l lo i-f-iiliibiilc funds
lo liclji fqiiiji y \V;irs:i\v sciciilific
cciilcr for iistionomy rcscnrci). A
proiip of Amcriciin scionlists ccnncc-
tcd will) ;hc Knlioiial Acadcinv of
fo inciCiso ii^>;t year by 25 f.Tccnt
liic sci:nti;ij c:;cl.::ii;'es lv.M\vc-cn ll:f
U.S. and ('(inimuiiii'i P^lnnd. wiili
cwn more ir. liic iic;ir fiil'irc. Qjiiy onc-
"problem" e^i^ts — app:ov;iI by liie
U.S. Congress will be required lo use
lis election yc.ir a cood time to rai5.e ^^
10 mntlcr v.i'.ii ihi'ii Concrcssj-nen. i^
Sciences in \Vasliinpt(;;i plans to pre- the acciim'.ih'tcd U.S. funds. Con
sent Coiiimunist Poland with a Si cerned Conscrvalivev might consider
million ."flronomicil rc.searcli center tin
next >car, maiking the 500lh Annivcr-\ tli«.
sary oi the birlh of N'irobus Cnpevni -^l' \vi,y ,v,-,s V..J..\ piJet G'ccr^'e MoGov-
cus. ll:-^c is ihc ri;i:,cr: Ail b>ii (..„ irnl h'Xur. o-nln^i Wot\i\ W'v.r 1!
$100,000 ol the money for ilic piojcct v.iiii fiffcvn i.:iv,ions of In's icli.^dnlrd
v.ili come from Polish /lolys accunni- \<nir sfill unfi.Uilled? Intclli<;c:)ce per-
latcd by the United Stales in Poland .sound \^i{h firsthand Ki.ov.lcdp.c cf
from the post-War sale of surplus the ninltrr s:y it >va.s because 1. 1. Mc-
agricullma! products. Govern landed liLs airtrnrt on the Js-
Inchided in the eriuipmcnt to be land of \'is in the Adri.itic and ivrr.'scd
presented to the Polish Conmiunist lo fijibf. These sources report ihnt the
Governmciit is an l.B.iM. 11.30-class co-pilol had to return the phme to
conipuier, a vciy sopltisiicalcd device toml^at niflu.ut ^teGo^^^l.
X'mv K.^unlnr McCiovem, :;»rd fond
of riling his "naj- rcio/d" as proof
• « . 1- u .:
military ])ur])oscs.
•- / ■ • ■
Faily ir. May, Di. Pliilip Handler, th.nl lie cculd fnce dcAn A«neiic".'s
Pres;dv.nl ;;f \h: y.A:vv.?.\ .Xcat'cniy of c'cinV; 1\' :'>>\'.:ti <;ce.-<i<: toivpe'lttl
Sciejices, made a Iriji to Warsaw to to eniphaMte that he is no cow.mij. TIic
discuss Pohsh-Americaii scientific ex- Army .Ai-- Corj)s ihouj^ht diHcrenth.
clianr.es and ihe proposed astronomy Intelht'i-nt-c sources report Ihr.t, nTicr
center. Dr. Handler spoke with Prot'cs- nhandcnirs his li-'.'A, lA, McGovern
sor Jan Kac/marek, l\<land's Minister was reh"i"ved of his command ;.nd
of Science, Technology and Educa- broH};ht before a board of cfliccrs
tion, who was quite pleased with the wliich lie.ird evidence of his cowardice
proposed offer. As a result of these and recominciidcd :i di'.hoiior.-^ble dis-
conversations, plans liave been made charge, ("eneral Ira Ealcer is reported
June 7, 1972 53
31-889 O - 74 - 15
9896
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHir.GlON
June 16, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN DEAN
FROM:
CHUCK COLSON(^V^'''^
Has anyone run any checks or investigations on the key McGovern
staffers? I was told yesterday that Gordon Weil has some very
questionable things in his background. He is apparently one of
the chief brain trusters who travels with McGovern.
cc: Pat Buchanan
/
9897
THE V/HITE HOUSE
WAS H I N G TO N
August 16, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR: CHUCK COLSON
FROM: STEVE KARALEKAS
Max Friedersdorf sends the following report:
^<.
We arranged an administration speaker for Rep. Glenn Davis
(R. -Wise. ) in Milwaukee last weekend and Davis' administrative
assistant, Jim Bolton, called today to thaiikthe White House for
our efforts. Bolton also passed along information that his son
wiio lb utx SecriiL 5isrvn:is uctail gLidrding IvJCVJU ve rii, i c^ui us dii -
tail was upset last weekend because the candidate stayed at the
Massachusetts estate of a Belmont Tobin. Bolton said his son
described Tobin as "a commie who is no. 1 on the Massachusetts
State Police list of subversives."
Bolton's son has promised to keep his dad informed of these and
any other kinds of activities, who in turn will communicate the
same to Max.
I'm discreetly checking the above information out and will report
any additional findings.
vfiN
\ '-'
t
\ ^
^
9898
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHI^'GTO^'
August 28, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
E YES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN DEAN
Per Chuck Colson's request on the attached, can
you check out the facts as well as Tobin's back-
ground. We could certainly use this information
if true. Please let us know.
Thanks.
W. Richard Howard
i
9899
SUBJECT: ■ ■ " ' OPglATION "SANDVIEDGE" . - Tab 31
The 1972 Presidential Canp?.ign sti-onglj' cur^Ccsts a definitive Rsjrjblican -
need for the creation of a political Intellifience-security entity to be
■ ■ . ■ ^^ . ■ ... > - - ."■- " ... ^ ■' ;.■■■■■" •■ , . , . ■ -'
located v/ithjnthe private sector. This entity, surfacely "disassociated
fros the Adiainistratlon "by virtue of an established business cover, would
have the capability of pex-formine in a highly sophisticated nanner ' ' ,-•. .; ■..
. designed to ensure that the major offensive intelll.-ence a nd defe n sive 'iy.
"'security requirements of the entire campaicn and Republican convention"' "^ • "l-. '
^i^\~^ - . ''^ ' ' '■ ■ '■-' \ ' ' ■ -'^"^ ' •■_■'■ '':^^v-Lv '•.'•
' vould be professiotially, stimctured. pro^ra-Tunf d and implemented. In the-, -..-'ii
■ 'author's judjjment, this effort voald make a sicnificant and perhaps ".'- ' V' V" /.i
"crucial contribution to-'ards the reelection of Richard Hixon. - rf.- " J- I'v !''r^'"
'.•'.- . •. -' ■ 'r - - ' .,'•.- •\ .■ '■ .■ -;v.-:,-»." "-..'.Z'- ..".-'i
"■..•-■' ... ■•".= .• r 1 ."•- . . - - , ■ . ■ .'-. • - ■ - - '■ ■ 1 i '■: r ■:..'.: r ' • '■
.'indicated below, therefore, ere a series of considerations and sucztstions/"' ...
'posed in this regard for the review of those requested to endorse the . i • v j. ; ','"
suggested undcrt-aking. , . -_ ■ . . - ....'-";..-:■.•''... V
'*' X'u'-''^' •... " ■ ■ -. " • ' '^'^■r^rT.'■~-"'^
■-••'.'. ■ \ ^ - ■"'-" ^•- ■;*•*■" ^- "■'" * ■*
" • ' ' - . , .^^ *." '* •f. . ■. •- •
,; I. opposmoi? itrrPxiJCET'c?. effo itt . ,\.-'/ . ri :^- ■t' ■^r^j^'tii''--:' ■
." The. presence of Lawrence O'Brien ar. Chairman of the Democratic National • "." ■■
Coamittee unquestionably suggests that the Democratic nominee will have .- "r
a. strong, covert intellicence effort mounted against us in ISTTS. The. "\ .-"•._
' 1953 L. A. Times, New York Post, U. S. Iiarshal tean which' operated f rom : V.--.
• - ' ' '
forn:er U. S. Attorney lior^enUiau's office (aosertedly without his kn.owledge)
'■'■■" » . . • _- : - ■ . ■ • . ' • .' *! .
Is evidence of O'Brifen's niod'.is operandi and indicative of what" we can expect.,.
.*■ .- '.'. ■ -. • . ■■ .-'^-•. '. : ■ ■ ' "^ ~- r .■ ''>;•";—■* ''•'■■
-'. this tine aroond- •''.■■
9900
In thio rej-;rc, "..c zb.ojld bo parLi -nilarlLy concerned aboiit Die ncv/ and
rapidly c.rci:i lv.-_; Intcrlcvl oirn.nixr..'. ion (flee T.ib "A"). Should this
Kennedy naf ir. do;n1r!al'/-e j triCllit:*: n.-c "^un for hire" be turned against
us in '72, ve '..'Ojld, indeed, have a. da:if,erou3 tuid for.-nidable foe.
Close scrutiny of thin or^?.ni:iution '3 activity han been ongoing here.
Indicated belov; ai-e a .r.eriC:D of oc^ints dc:s:igned to suEC^st the political
hazards that this group i-epresents:
a) The oi'canir^ation v;as co-founded by Bill Hundley,
former Special Assistant to A. G. Hobby ICcnnedy and Bob Pelloquin,
Kennedy loyalist v.'ho fur.ctioned as Senior Attorney in Justice's
Organized Criir.e and Rac!;eteerinr; Section, also under Bobby Kennedy.
• B) Other Kennedy :::af ia types, includins the so called
mysterious David I. Bclicle, for:::er Director InveGt i gations for the
national Se c '.;rity Agency, are principals in the orj^ani zation.
C) It has been rel:iably determined that Stephen S.-nith,
E-Dv's brother-in-law, has privately visited Intertel's Rev; York office
headed by former FBI supei'visor Jack O'Connell linoirn by his colleagues
to have been a "black bag" specialist \.'hlle at the Bureau. Smith,
unquestionably, would thinii Interte] should BUC go for the big prize.
D) On Intertel's Board of Directors is Jerome S. Ilardy,
Executive A'ice President of the Dreyfus Corporation which is cliaired
by HoA/ard Stein. The r.edia reports \,hat Stein v/ill be a heavy contri- .
butor to a De;:;ocratic-l.iberal or 3rd Party Presidential candidate.
Shortly before this media revelation, the aforementioned Jack O'Connell
9901
accor.ranlcd an elec:l.:C'r>J r .r, .si;;.c:ifli.sv lo uyi.'i Stein's c pd Hardy's officer
for s'..-cf.-pinij purposes.
E) It Ivdo been vejy reliably cletcrnined that some of
Intertel's princjpalr, pc.-,se[;s [^nriibllr!^ '..'cal;tiC3se3 or. liuve been quietly
let go fro.M their sensitive federal lair euforoerient positions becaiise of
financial improprieties. One InLertel principal^ related to a linoim
Balticiore Cosa Nostra f icure and i-eleased fron federal service because
of an established Cii'-'^lif^i; veaVjiess, is nov.' in charge of .Hughes' security
operation in Las Vcfjas. - * .
F) The investigative reporter fraternity is taking a
closer look at the potential for Intertel to be exposed as a iiiafia front
or a nafia exploitable tool for its Caribbean and Vegas operations.
Tne recent Look article on Kovard Hui:her, alludes to this point. Dill Kolar
(forner Chief of Intelligence at lllS) and Resorts International's Pi-esident
I. G. (Jack) Davis, recently testified before the llev; Jersey legislature
advocating legalised ganibling in that nafia ridden state. '
All of the above facts are mentioned to suggest hou the weaknesses of
Intertel, intertv/ined vith established Democratic-Kennedy loyalties make
the organization most susceptible to a '72 intelligence gun for hire
approach by O'Brien or the Democratic Presidential no.niinee. The deep
concern here is that the assigiunent could be accepted on a corapartir.entalized
basis and easily hidden from republican Janics Crosby, Chairman of the
Board of Resorts International (assertedly o'.ming ^91 of Intertel stock).
Jim Golden, formerly v/ith Intertel, has no\; si/itclied over to the Hughes'
9902
Tool Co:;ip:\';y and ir far r-:r.;Ov-':d 3"j-o:a tlic dc.y to clay liit.el] j(:cnce
ECtivitJes o." Iriterlel . Thus, the- o ncra t iir' hPadcii:2.rt.eT-n; is bereft
of any I!ixon support or loyf-.lcy.
It is rcco::--:e!K'ied t'lat roiir^iclerat ion be (jlvcn to have Intertel
neutralizecl by Justice to prcc3ucle such devciloprnent from tahving place or
to discoui'ave conGiaerirtion by O'Brien or SLcplien Srnitli. This can be
accoifiplislied by directing; Justice (if it has not done so already) to
open a case vith a vie\.' to-'ards detGriiiinins if the ori:;anis:ation has
unauthorized a:cess to sensitive £:overninent fii.es. It most certainly
has. = ,
C
Among other factors supporting this contention is the consensus in the
I
federal intelllGence scjtor indicating that Intertel, in all likelihood,
delivered the delails of a reooi led Jus Lice- IF;ij skii.i;i!ins inve3ti£:ation
of Bob Maheu to Hughes causing Ilaheu's fall and Hughes' departure from
Veras. The manipulated threat of 'indictr.-.ont of Intertel principals would
effectively niniinize this threat, create a potentially debilitating
intelligence v/eakness for O'Brien's forces and force them to try other,
less soph.isticated sources. Additionally, "Operation Sandv.'edge" A/ould
be free to operate both offensively and defensively vithout a dangerous
adversary' .
PROPOSED "s.-jTDv.>;ix;?;" ie?po::3iruLiTiE3
The total offensive intelligence, defensive security requirements foi'
the '72 Presidential Campaign and Republican National Convention uill be
a large and sensitive undertaking.
9903
! Cv^Tztlon S2nd'.;e(lra prnn^^cc thr-.l- it be chiT-^cd in t;iis rc^^ard with
th-2 i"ollo\7in^ iccponsibiiities:' ' •
Or?.'.':SI'v'?i (Nc\7 York Cilv b?.:sed - clsindGatinc opeiation)
a) Supcfrvjse peneLrticior' of no.-nineer; entourage and
headcuar^erG \il'ch undercover personnel. . -
B) "Black Bag" capiibility (discuss privately) including;
all covert steps riscessary to niinimi^e lieinocratic
votiii.- violations in IllinoiSj Texas, etc.
C) Surveillance of Cemocratic prir.iaries, convention,
riieetin£G, etc.
D) Deror-ntory inforr.idtiori inver.ti native capability,
vorld-A.'ide.
. ■ E) Any other offensive requirement dee.r.sd advisable.
DZFglSIVE OPER^VTIOIIS ' • ^ -
a) Select and supervise the private security force hired
in connection vith the Republican National Convention.
Conduct all political security investigations at
Republican Convention.
• B) Establish and supervise nation-vide electronic counter-
Eieasures capability in connection vith all non-presidential
security aspects of '72 campaign.
C) Supervise all security operations at I70I Pennsylvania
Aven\ic, 'tC'.Z. Conduct all security investigations (leaks,
perso:i:iel, etc.)
9904
: - D) rn^ure the x.-.O.'. tical cc.iniLy af^jj^rclf; of thci
•-' . ■ -■ ■ • i
ti-f:.vc;;ilii!;;; cij.ii.'o.irn :;t-dfr.
E) Conduct any IV.Mublicari Pa i- ty -C an; naifjn oriented
investiEat.iop. riation-\ride.
The consensus dictates that a privately crea.tcd corporate business
entity v.'ould be the nost effective tool to iinplei;ient the sensitive
resj>op.3ibilities indicalcd above. The corporation v;ould- posture itseli*
as a nei.'.ly formed security consulting orgariization ostensibly selling
itself as a nroup of highly talented investJ{iator-security experts with
impeccable Republican credentials v;ho actively seek only Republican
Corporations and lav; firms as cDienis.
Since the key operating principals (3 or h persons) in the corporate
entity v.'ould be veil knovm Ilixon loyalists in the lav; enforcement area,
the defensive involvnent, as outlined above. v;o'jld be plausible and readily
acceptable to all friend or foe inquiries.
The offensive involvment outlined above v.ould be supported, supervised
and prograr.r;ed by the principals, but co.-rpletely disassociated (separate
foolproof financing) Iron; the corporate structure and located in Hew
York City in extreme clandestine fashion, liy source would be charged with
setting up atid supervising 'this operation. In other words, he v;ould not
surface. Rather, liis responsibilities vo.ild be increased and he would be
charged with setting up the clandestine operation in exactly the same
fashion as he did during liis caiccr. You are av;are, of coui'se, that his
9905
expertise in this area vas considered the model for police departments
throughout the nation and the results certainly proved it.
"SAND'./SDGE" PRIIICIPALS
It is suggested that the best method of ensuring the success of Sandv/edge
is by limiting the principals to an absolute iiiiniraum, but to allov; for
an expansionary backup of consultants on a case by case basis where
the need arises. The invol''/nent in defensive campaign activity as
indicated above vould^ under inquiry, be postured as a natural "ad hoc"
contribution on the part of the corporation to the '^2 Republican effort.
The covertor offensive side of the operation, in no way connected to the
corporation, would be untraceable to any of the principals or the
Administration.
Necessarily then, the principals should be strong Nixon loyalists,
possessing the necessary credentials to perform in this highly sensitive
area, professionally, v/ith the described effective cover. Below are listed
the principals v/no are ready,- willing and able to so participate in the
manner designated. r
JOHM J. CAULFIELD -
.1. Cover - Because of VThite House experience and contacts,
has decided to create a Washington based security consulting- investigative
organization which v;ould seek Republican corporations and law firms as
clients. • ' ' .
2. Assif.nnent - Receive and program all activities and
9906
aJi£i{Ifl-~2n'te;, including the IIcv; York City operation, act as liaison with
selected V/hite House staff before and daring cainpaign for sensitive
investif^ative ncds. Liaison vnth Cabinet when necessary. Liaison vrith
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue operation on all security-investigative needs.
Liaison with Republican national Conuaittee in connection with their investi-
gative needs (Nofzi^er). Liaison with the RIIC on the prograjnining of all
security at the Republican National Committee.
JOSEPH V/00D3
1. Cover - Since only engaged part time as a County
*
Commissioner in Illinois and needing funds to support his lalrge family
(true enough.'), has decided to become a principal in a potentially lucrative,
V/ashington based. Republican oriented security consulting firm utilizing
expertise in lav/ enforcement (FBI - Sheriff Cook County) and political
contacts nation-v/ide. V/ill seek to build the organization in the raid-west,
taking advantage of the large influx of Republican big business into the
Chicago area.
2. Assignment - In charge of all private security forces
at the Republican National Convention. In charge all covert efforts (discuss)
designed to preclude voting frauds in Illinois, Texas, etc. Liaison active
and retired FBI agents, nation-vri.de, for discreet investigative support •.;
(Hoover also? - Evaluate). Liaison nation- vride vzith Republican State
Chairmen for investigative support. Support Nev/ York City covert operation.
MOTE ■
It is interesting to report that Intertel made a lucrative offer to Joe
V7oods last week ($30,000 per annum, stock options, etc.) indicating he
would be in charge of their nev; Chicago office. This tack is viewed as an
attempt to purchase V.Hiite House prestige. In the author's judgment, the
compart:5entalized political hazardr,, previously indicated, would still
constitute a real and present danger.
i
9907
VERIJOn (iTIfCE) ACREE - Deputy Coiamissioner IP.3, Inspection Division '
. t
Mike is the highest ran!;ing Republican career official in the Internal
Revenue Service. A synopsis of his outctanding career is attached hereto.
(tab "B"). He is a strong Ilixon loyalist and iias so proved it to me,
personally, on a number of occasions. His manzr^enent and investigative
expertise \;ill be invaluable to the undertaking, especially in the
financial investigative area - crucial in a campaign of this type..
*
1. Cover - Mike has decided to retire after 32 years
of federal investigative service. He has v;itnessed the financial success
of Intertel and has decided to join a small group of Republican oriented
principals who wish to craulate and improve on the Intertel experience
dealing only, however, vith repub2ic."n corporations and lav firms.
2. Assigpj-'isnt - IRS information input, financial
investigations, liaison federal lav; enforcement establishment nation-v/ide,
preparation of reports, briefings to key Administration campaign figures
on results. Support Nev; York City operation.
coiisuLTAirr PEHsor:iJEL • . r • ■ .. ' •
Under the cover of the corporate entity hiring Republican consultants
to assist in meeting the needs of its clients, a medium for the likely
required expansion of the covert aspects of the undertaking would be
established in compartmentalized fashion , thereby minimizing any threats
to exposure inherent in a large covert operation. The consultants would
be 'brought on to perform ad lioc assignments on a case by case basis in
any area or undertaking.
9908
C0:;?01'AT1'J oTAJ^^"
A3 suGSCst'-'cI, a brisht younc Niycon loyali£;t v;ith .-vLtonTiy and
business maiin. /,er lal c re dentia ls s)inulcl be bro\i(;i]t on board to take
complete charce of t!ie corporation's businer.s requirements. He vould
function as a technician v;ith little or no responsibility or knov;ledge
recarding the covert aspects of the operation. ' ' . .
s
Ko candidates v/ill be considered for this assicncent until the •
concept receives a go. Anne Davson, understandably, would be a key
and valuable asset to this undertal'vins: Trudy r.ro\m (presently
in V/hite House Security ' liaison vith FBI) i/ould, if willing and
could be spared from her present duties, also be highly valuable.
Any other administrative help brought on board vrould be of the sjime
c&liber as Anne and Trudy.
9909
rJT."Dr: 3 • . .. *>
■ Revieving the abc've proposed broad ransed responsibilities of Operation
Sand"r;ed£e, it is clear that it would be impossible to judge, at this
tins, vhat total costs for such an undertaking v/ould be involved. The
major initial costs, of course,, vould relate to principal, management,
technical and secreterial salaries, as veil as office space and
equipment in V/ashington and Chicago. It is expected that substantive
additional costs would becc.-ne evident as the requirements for effective
operation cojs nore clearly into focus. " .
V/hat Is obviously needed, therefore, is a funding technique which would
enable the corporate cover to raise v/hatever monies would be required
on a legitiriate and painless basis. It is suggested that the business
cover, indicated above, provides '.he idoil and proper frasiework to
resolve this problem, as f ollov;s :
The overt security consulting services to be offered
Republican corporations by the business entity would clearly be a i'
deductible business expense. There are no IRS requirements dictating
the ar.ount, type or quality of service which must be performed for a given
consulting fee. This is strictly a matter for negotiation between the
client and the entity performing the service.
Tnus, it is clear that if the nev; Corporate Security Consultants International
firn vere in a position to "negotiate" as many lucrative consulting
agreer.ents as required on an expandable, need basic wit'n trust-v/orthy
Republican corporate giants, the funding of this effort could go smoothly
forward with no direct financial connection to the Administration
9910
or Republican ITational CoMiittee. Farther, tlie sensitive- and often'
traceable area o;' political 'contributionG vould be elininatr-d r-s a
hazard to this undertaking.
As Indicated, funding for the proposed Kev; York City operation would
require special seasures. There are some very discreet and viable
approaches to this matter but, it is suggested that they be discussed
on a private basis only.
coh::i;j3Ion ■ ' , ■
This paper, then, is submitted ^7ith a viev7 towards presenting, for revievr,
a highly sophisticated approach to a critical aspect of the 1972
Presidential Canpaign. It is suggested that the various subheadings
Indicated (SE5 TAB "C") in the prcpo.ial Mvovide a proper agenda after
high level review; for a meeting bet\;een the principals indicated and
the officials charged with final decision.
It has been indicated that it is already very late for this proposed
undertaking to be in revj.e\7 , status - the authors concur. It is
respectfully requested, therefore, that tne highest priority attention
be given this catter. V/e await your reply. •
9911
Caulfield Exhibit No. 2
MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 1971
SECTION B, PAGE 3
■;"'-"' •1-'%' \^i
Six CIA Aftempis to Kiir
Castro Failed-Plot Hushed
ib>^>:-.:>dw(Ww^-Jtr62^:'-M^.v>^ ;x^ -#»s*^ J-ijC;.^;^
LOCKED IN THE darkest recesses
of the Central Intelligence. Agency is
the story of six assassination attempts
against Cuba's Fidel Castro.
For 10 years, only a few key people
have known the terrible secret. They
have sworn never to talk. Yet we have
learned the details from sources whose
credentials are beyond question.
THE PLOT TO KNOCK off Castro
began as part of the Bay of Pigs opera-
tion. The intent was to eliminate the
Cuban dictator before the motley in-
vaders landed on tlie island. TOeir ar-
rival was expected to touch off a
general uprising, v^diich the Communist
militia would have had more trouble
putting down without the charismatic
Castro to lead them.
After the first attempt failed, five
more assassination teams were sent to
Cuba. The last team reportedly made it
to a rooftop within shooting distance of
Castro before members were ap-
prehended. This happened around the
last February or first of March, 1963.
NINE MONTHS LATER, President
Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas by
Lee Harvey Oswald, a fanatic who
previously had agitated for Castro in
New Orleans and had made a
mysterious trip to the Cuban Embassy
In Mexico City. i
•m^MZiigymmz^m^^^si By Jack Anderson
Among those privy to the CIA con-
spiracy, there is still a nagging suspi-
cion — unsupported by the Warren
Commission's findings — that Castro
became aware erf .the U.S. plot upon his
life and somehow recruited Oswald to
retaliate against President Kennedy.
TO SET UP THE Castro assassina-
tion, the CIA enlisted Robert Maheu, a
.former FBI agent with shadowy con-
tacts, who had handled other un-
dercover assignments for the CIA out of
his Washington public relations office.
He later moved to Las Vegas to head up
billionarie Howard Hughes's Nevada
operations.
Maheu recnnted John Roselli, a rug-
gedly handsome gambler with contacts
in both the American and Cuban un-
derworlds, to arrange the assassina-
tion. The dapper, hawk-faced Roselli,
formerly married to movie actress
June Lang, was a power in the movie
industry until his conviction with
racketeer Willie Bioff in a million-
dollar Hollywood labor shakedown.
THE CIA ASSIGNED two of its most
trusted operatives, William Harvey and
James "Big Jim" O'Connell, to tiie
hush-hush murder mission. Using
phony names, ' they accompanied
Roselli on trips to Miami to line up the
assassination teams.
31-889 O - 74 - 16
9912
The ftill story reads like the script of
a James Bond movie, complete with
secret tr^'sts at glittering Miami Beach
iiuttfls aiid midnight powerboat dashes
to secret landing spots on ihe Cuban
coast. Once, Roselli's boat was shot out
from under him.
FOR THE FIRST try, the CIA
furnished Roselli with special poison
capsules to slip into Castro's food. The
poison was supposed to take three days
to act. By the time Castro died, his sys-
tem would throw off all traces of the
poison, so he would appear to be the
victim of a natural if mysterious ail-
ment
Roselli arranged with a Cuban,
related to one of Castro's chefs, to plant
the deadly pellets in the dictator's food.
On March 13, 1%1, Roselli delivered the
capsules tq his contact at Miami
Beach's glamorous Fontainebleaa
HoteL
A couple weeks later, just about the
right time for the plot to have been car-
ried out, a report out of Havana said
Castro was ill. But he recovered before
the Bay of Pigs invasion on April 17,
196L
THE CUBAN WHO had sneaked the
poison into Havana was never seen
again. The CIA, unsure whether the
Elotters had failed or the poison simply
adn't been strong enough, decided to
try again with a more powerful dose.
Roselli arranged for triple-strength
capsules to be slipped into Castro's food
several weeks after the Bay of Pigs.
But once aga'm, the plot failed and the
conspirators disappeared.
Four more attempts were made on
Castro's life, using Cuban assassination
teams equipped with high-powered
rifles, explosives and two-way radios.
At intervals in the dark of night, Roselli
personally delivered the teams in twin
powerboats to the Cuban shores.
THE PRINCIPALS IN the CIA con-
spiracy, sworn to deep secrecy, refused
to comment on the caper. We got an ad-
mission out of Maheu oidy that he had
handled special jobs for the CIA, but he
refused to discuss them. Roselli
responded with a flat "no comment"
My associate Les Whitten located
Harvey, who left the CIA about two
years ago, in Indianapc^s. Asked about
Roselli, Harvey said he had a high
regard for him.
WE GOT AN ADMISSION from
"Big Jim" O'Connell, who is still with
the CIA, that he had met Roselli
through Maheu. But when we asked
about Roselli's CIA mission, O'Connelh
also clammed up.
Finally we spoke to John McCone,
who headed the CIA at the time of the
assassination attempts. He acknow-
ledged the idea had been discussed
inside the CIA but insisted it had been
"rejected immediately." He vigorously
denied that the CIA had ever partici-
pated in any plot on Castro's life.
Asked- whether the attempts could have
been made without his knowledge, he
replied: "It could not have happened."
1
COiii^i&kS
CO luiu ecc e.
nowever, in our sources.
9913
Caulfield Exhibit No. 3
( Miami Herald, Tues. Jan. 19, 1971 )
DENIALS ALL AROUIVD, BUT . . .
Die
CIA Targets Too?
?
By JACK ANDERSON
■II
;■ WASHINGTON -r- The plot to kill
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, hidden for
"]0 years from the public, raises some
Vgly questions that high officials would
ratKer keep buried deep
inside the Central In- •
telligcnce Agency. < ;
•- 1— Mas the CIA
tried to assassinate
any other leaders?
John McCone, who
headed the CIA during
The six attempts to
knock off Castro, de-
nied emphatically that
the CIA has tried to
kill anyone. But ex-
Senator George Smathers, one of John
"F. Kennedy's closest friends, told us the
'late President suspected that the CIA
had arranged the shootings of the Do-
minican Republic's Rafael Trujillo in
1961 and South Vietnam's Ngo Dlnh
'Diem in 1963.
. •;.'>.;..'■?'■;•, \>'
'• ■&■ ■■'■' '•'' '<*
Anderson
The last surviving brother, Senator
Ted Kennedy, could give us no insight.
|His brothers had never spoken to him
'about any assassination attempts
against Castr6, he said. He was aware,
be "volunteered, only that Senator Smath-
ers had talked to the late President
about eliminating Castro.- '■' '.
»«.i«
SMATHERS told us that President
Kennedy seemed "horrified" at the idea
of political assassinations. "I remember
him saying," recalled Smathers, "that
the CIA frequently did things he didn't
know about, and he was unhappy about
it. He complained that the CIA was al-
most autonomous. ' .' . .
"He told me he believed the CIA had
arranged to have Diem and Trujillo
bumped off. He was pretty well shocked
about that. He thought It was a stupid
thing to do, and he wanted.to get con-,
trol of what the CIA was doing.**
But McCone, disagreeing vigorously,
told us that "no plot was authorized or
9914
^PM
/i_
implemented" to assassinate Castro,
Trujillo, Diem or anyone else.
"During those days of tension, there
was a wide spectrum of plans ranging
from one extreme to another," McCone
admitted. "Whenever this subject (as-
sassinating Castro) was brought up —
and it was — it was rejected Immediate-
ly on two grounds. First, It would not be
condoned by anybody. Second, it
wouldn't have achieved anything."
There was also talk In high places,
McCone acknowledged, of supporting a
coup to oust Diem. The former CIA di-
rector said he had argued against tliis at
a secret session with both Kennedy
brothers. He had contended that there
was no one strong enough to take
Diem's place and that a coup, therefore,
would bring "political upheaval."
"I told the President and Bobby to-
gether," recalled McCone, "that if I
were running a baseball team and had
only one pitcher, I v/ouldn't take him
out of the game."
THE November, 1963, coup caught
the U.S. completely by surprise, he said.
While the plotters were moving on the
palace, he said, then-Ambassador Henry
Cabot Lodge was visiting Diem. Admiral
Ulysess Sharp, then our Pacific com-,
mander, had also been present, but had
left early to go to the airport
McCone said President Diem escaped
through a tunnel but was caught In
nearby Cholon and "shot In a statiqn
wagon."
9915
Caulfield Exhibit No. 4
\
V
60 MINUTES
VOLUME III NUMBER 11
as broadcast over the
CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
Tuesday, February 2, 1971
10:00-11:00 PM, EST
With CBS News Correspondents Morley Safer and Mike Wallace
PRODUCED BY CBS NEWS
EjCECUTIVE PRODUCER: Don Hewitt
9916
WALLACE: Splro Agnew on his father's knee at ten months. With his
dog, Frisky, at ten years. His high school graduation picture.
Drafted before Pearl Harbor. Married at 2h, Vice President of
the Kiwanis Club in 1959. Vice President of the UnJ-ted States in
1969.
AGNEW: I don't think that it's fair to say that suddenly a yokel
has descended upon the national government.
SAFER: Las Vegas, I suppose, reflects just about the worst of
America. And it was to here, four years ago, that Howard Hughes
came. In what seemed a matter of days he laid claim to the city
and the state.
HANK GREENSPUN: Now here's the world's wealthiest man suffering
from malnutrition. He was - he had three blood transfusions in
the past week. His hemoglobin count was down to four. If you
have any medical knowledge it means that you're net functioning too
well, certainly not - nothing's going into the brain where you could
make a rational decision.
WALLACE: I'm Mike Wallace.
SA.FER: I'm Morley Safer. Those stories and more tonight on 60
MINUTES.
( ANN OTO! CEMENT)
WALLACE: In 1959, Spiro Agnew was elected Vice President of the
Kiwanis Club of Lochraven, Maryland. Nine years later he was
elected Vice President of the United States. And there in a
nutshell you have the American dream. From suburban obscurity,
the son of a Greek immigrant vaults to fame and power. If what he
was is the key to what he is, 60 MINUTES thought a look at early
Spiro Agnew might be useful.
This is the block where the Agnew family lived when Spiro was
born fifty-two years agOc It hasn't changed much. Their apartment
was on the second floor. It might surprise Mr. Agnew to know that
it is now occupied by a young art student. The life style she
represents has been a frequent target of his. Spiro 's father,
holding the future Vice President on his knee, migrated from Greece.
His mother was a Virginian by birth. Both parents now are dead.
Father was a stern parent, not a pal, but the authority in the
family. Spiro with his dog Frisky.
His grades at Forest Park High School were mediocre at best. We
asked to see the grades but school principal Charles Michael told
us Agnew' s record was pulled from the file when he became Vice
President. The 1937 Yearbook shows two Agnews in the senior class.
9917
One his cousin, Catina Agnew. Among her activities and honors, the
Presidency of the Leaders Club. Young Spiro played the piano at
assembly, but he belonged to no clubs, won no honors. Since
graduation though, he has never missed a class reunion. Spiro, it
seems, was a fun-loving adolescent. A friend since high school,
Attorney Lee Harrison, recalls those early dayso
MR. HARRISON: We'd go to football games. We'd go out to clubs or
things of that sort that we could be admitted to as teenagers in
those days and perhaps have a drink illegally. We cheated a little
bit too, I suppose the way kids do nowadays. He was a very clever
guy and he was always a very witty guy. And I knew that he was
always a great man on limericks. And he had some very witty and
very clever limericks.
WALLACE: Oh, he had a feeling for language even back then?
MR. HARRISON: Oh, yes, because even back in those days, I can
recall that he had, I suppose, a fixation you might call it, on
learning a new word a day- And he really did, even as a kid.
WALLACE: From high school, he entered Johns Hopkins University
when he majored in chemistry. Again, his grades were no source
of pride and Spiro Agnew dropped out of college after his second
year, when his father just cut off his support. So, to support
himself, Agnew found a job paying eleven dollars a week in the
file room of an insurance company. Later, he enrolled in night
classes at the University of Baltimore Law Schoo] , an institution
not accredited by the American Bar Association. Here too he did
poorly scholastically. He admits he cut a lot of classes. But at
work he won a promotion and the title of Assistant Underwriter in
the Sprinkler, Leakage and Water Damage Department.
In September, 19^1, three months before Pearl Harbor, Spiro Agnew 's
career in insurance was terminated by the draft. Four-and-a-half
years in the Army won him the Combat Infantryman's Badge and the
Bronze Star, He served as a company commander in the 10th Armored
Division. He saw action in four campaigns Including the Battle
of the Bulge and was discharged with the rank of Captain.
Back home, twenty-seven years old and married now to Elinor Judefind
of Baltimore, who used to work at the insurance company with him,
Agnew went back to night law school. After Agnew won his law degree
he opened a practice of his own but he couldn't make a go of it.
So back he went to the insurance business. A few months later he
quit that job to take a better one as personn^jl director at a
supermarket. Like the other employees, Agnew often wore a smock
with the words, "No Tipping Please" on it. For several years
Agnew was part of the management team at the market, but a dispute
with the boss got him fired.
By now, Agnew was in his middle thirties, a family man with three
children and a home in the suburbs. He needed work, money. So he
9918
joined another law firm, but he soon resigned, again, to open his
own law office. His principal client was the Meatcutiters Union.
Local President Harry Menapace, recalls those days.
MR. MENAPAGE: Up until he became Vice President, I always considered
Ted Agnew a real liberal, progressive, practical guy who was a
friend to the labor movement and to the workingman.
WALLACE: The liberal, progressive Agnew was a registered Democrat
'til he was nearly thirty. Attorney Lee Harrison explains why
Agnew switched.
MR. HARRISON: Because there was little hope of being recognized
and achieving anything in the mass of Democrats in Baltimore County.
WALLACE: So the only way that he could be upwardly mobile, so to
speak, would be to go to the Republicans?
MR. HARRISON: Well, I feel that not the only way, but certainly
the opportunities were much greater to become a Republican in -
in a heavily Democratic county where he would immediately come to
the forefront and be recognized.
WALLACE: Whether or not he had planned a long-range strategy
Agnew' s next moves were ideal building blocks for a political career.
He moved his practice to Towson, the County Seat. The underdog
party was hungry for campaign workers. First he campaigned for
a Republican Congressional candidate. General James Devereu^, h^jro
of Wake Island. And Devereux won. Later, in appreciation, the
party got Agnew appointed to the minority seat on the Zoning Board
of Appeals in Baltimore County. And Splro Agnew was on his way.
His new home in nearby Lochraven Village underscored the tone of
suburban respectability that was to characterize his public life.
Agnew joined the PTA, The Inter-Community Council and the Kiwanis
Club of Lochraven Village, and for the next seven years he never
missed a Kiwanis Club meeting.
Clark Langrall, a Kiwanis past President, remembers.
MR. LANGRALL: We felt that we needed some music and we were looking
for a piano player, so they could accompany Happy Birthday, and the
anniversaries and all the fellowship things we like to do. And
Ted Agnew was introduced as a prospective member who could play the
piano.
WALLACE: During some political infighting regarding his seat on
the Zoning Board, his name became, in Baltimore County, a household
word; and he ran for County Executive. The local Democratic
machine had been badly hurt in a primary fight and Splro Agnew
9919
breezed in, the first Republican elected since before Civil War days.
In conservative Baltimore County, n,gnew was considered a moderate,
or even a liberal, especially on racial matters. He forced through
a civil rights program opening all public accomodations to blacks.
Agnew's interest in national politics blossomed early. During his
first year as County Executive, he called upon the Republican Party
to draft Senator Thomas KLuchel, the California liberal, for
President in 196M-. Later, Agnew actively supported the candidacy
of Governor William Scranton and he took part in the Stop Goldwater
movement at the Republican Convention. But in his ovm county,
Agnew was headed for trouble. He fought hard for an urban renewal
project, but urban renewal was decisively rejected by the voters.
It was during Agnew's fight for civil rights that he attacked
politicians he regarded as opportunists. "The greatest enemies of
effective, Intelligent government," he said, "are opportunists who
have learned that a measure of popularity can be cheaply purchased
by boldly assuming oversimplified positions on highly complex,
volatile issues." Agnew's County Solicitor in those days was Scott
Moore, a good friend.
If he had run for re-election as County Executive would he have
won?
MR. MOORE: The people who were the ultra-right in this county
had such a large following that they would have defeated him.
WALLACE: Was he an ambitious man?
MR. MOORE: Yes. He wanted to run for Congress, he wanted to run
for the County Council. He wanted to be a judge. Anything that
would improve himself, he was always working in that direction.
WALLACE: Convinced that he would lose if he ran for re-election as
County Executive, Agnew raised the stakes to double-or-nothing.
He ran for Governor. This was one of his television commericlals
during that campaign.
WOKiAK: (SIKGING) Our kind of man, Ted Agnew is. A great new talent
for Governor and what ' s more ....
WALLACE: His opponent was a Baltimore road contractor, Democrat
George Mahoney, a six-time loser who campaigned principally against
open housing.
MR. MAHONEY: Your home is your castle.
MR. AGNEW: This slogan is being sold as a ring that is being drawn
around a house saying that this is all your responsibility, to
yourself, to your family. You have no responsibility to your
community.
9920
WALLACE: The issue of racism shattered the unity of the Democratic
Party. Agnew won the endorsement of the blacks, the white liberals,
the ADA, iimericans for Democratic Action, organized labor and
college professors. State Senator Clarence Mitchell explains why
he backed Agnew.
MR. MITCHELL: Primarily because we really didn't have a choice.
Mr. Agnew was a nonentity, was an unknown and Mr. George Mahoney,
the Democratic candidate for Governor, was running a racist campaign^
An anti-open housing campaign and Mr. Agnew was pro-open housing.
WALLACE: Agnew became the fifth Republican Governor in l80 years
of Maryland history. An analysis of the vote shows that two out
of three blacks favored him. In high income white precincts he
was favored by three out of four voters. The Jewish preclhcts favore^
him. But in the white working class neighborhoods, he got little
more than one in three votes. So it turned out that it was the
Democrats, the people who are now so vocal against Agnew, who helped
to put him here in the State House in Annapolis. And it is those
voters who are now such Agnew enthusiasts, including the hard-hats,
who tried to keep him out.
And so, Spiro Agnew moved up a mng. His inaugural speech included
a quote from the Maryland State Constitution that bespoke his
political philosophy just five years ago.
AGNEW: Whenever the ends of government are perverted and public
liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are
Ineffectual, the people may, and of right, ought to, reform the
old or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance
against arbitrary power and opression is absurd, slavish and
destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.
WALLACE: Governor Agnew put more blacks on the state payroll, he
set up a Human Rights Commission, he pushed through the first
State Open Housing Law south of the Mason-Dixon Line and he set
up programs to control pollution. And all the while, he found
time for national politics.
AGNEW: As you know, I recently assumed, I guess that's a good word,
temporary leadership of a national Draft Rockefeller Movement, with
headquarters in Annapolis.
WALLACE: Sometime later, he stated his position on Richard Nixon.
AGNEW: You recall when I was asked during the time I was most
violently campaigning for Mr. Rockefeller, I guess violent 's a good
word, because I was probably as active as anyone, was this Stop
Nixon Movement. And I said at that time, and I repeat, I'm not
against Mr. Nixon. He may, may, even be ray number two choice.
9921
WALLACE: And then Governor Rockefeller announced his decision,
ROCKEFELLER: That I am not a candidate campaigning directly or
indirectly for the Presidency of the United States,
WALLACE: Agnew was embarrassed and deeply hurt that Rockefeller
would pull out without advising him in advance. Although Rockefeller
changed his mind eventually and ran, he had lost Agnew's support
for good.
Meanwhile, problems were developing for Agnew. When Bowie State
college students staged a sit-in at the State House, Agnew had 227
of them arrested and he closed the college.
Then after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Baltimore was
torn by riots. A few days later. Governor Agnew called in the
moderate black leaders of Baltimore.
AGNEW: If you'll observe the ready-mix, instantaneous type of
leader is not present. The circuit-riding, Hanoi-visiting type of
leader is not present. The caterwauling, riot- inciting, burn- _
America-down type of leader is conspicuous by his absence. This
is no accident, ladies and gentlemen. It's just good planning.
Do you repudiate black racists? Are you willing as I am willing
to repudiate the white racists? Are you willing to repudiate the
Carmichaels and the Browns?
WOMAN:
We've already done so.
AGNEW: Answer me 1 Answer me J Do you repudiate Rap Brown and
Stokley Carmichael? Do you? Do you?
WOMAlNl: We don't repudiate them as human beings.
AGNEW: That's what I was afraid of.
WOMAN: Walt a minute.
WALLACE: Some seventy-five black leaders walked out. But Senator
Mitchell remained.
SEN. MITCHELL: I condemn Rap Brown. I condemn Stokley Carmichael.
I condemn George Wallace. I condemn Ross Barnett. I condemn all
of the racists in this country. But I'm not going to pick out
Negro racists and
AGNEW: I didn't ask you to.
SEN. MITCHELL: Negro racists only.
9922
AGNEW: I didn't ask you to.
SEN. MITCHELL: Let's condemn the entire broad spectrum of this -
AGNEW: That's exactly what this is all about. If we can get that
done then we can start without those people to solve some problems.
SEN. MITCHELL: Agnew felt that we had not lived up to our
commitments to him, to keep the place cool, to keep things cool,
even though he had lived up to his commitment to the black community.
He didn't understand why all black people couldn't be like Roy
Wilkins and then said that. He felt that we had let him down. He
expected the black ]eadership to be able to control the total black
community, which is certainly unrealistic. He slapped - attempted
to slap our hands, insulted us. And I'm convinced at that point
he was seeking a position with the Nixon Administration, and had been
told that he had to develop a conservative image in order to be
included.
MAN: That in my judgment could not be any further from the truth.
He thought it was right and therefore he did it.
MAN: He couldn't say that I'm going to go on helping you and let
you burn dovm the city. What he said was, the same as I would say
to ray children and the same as I'm sure he said to his children,
that when you want adult privileges you must demonstrate adult
responsibilities.
WALLACE: Whether motivated by principle or by politics, Agnew 's
image indeed changed.
AGNEW: And I emphasize my absolute conviction and my determination
to react aggressively against this kind of violence.
WALLACE: The blacks and the liberals turned against him. And Just
one month after the Baltimore riots, Richard Nixon announced that
he had added Agnew' s name to his list of Vice President-^al
possibilities.
Two months later, in July of 1968, Agnew denied that he had changed.
AGNEW: I had a fellow say to me the other day, how come you have
changed your stance from that of liberal to conservative? And
I said, well, I really haven't, it's just that I've stayed still,
while literally thousands of people have rushed past me in a wild
dash to the left.
WALLACE: Then came the nomination and the campaign of 1968 and
Agnewisms like "Fat Jap" and "If you've seen one slum, you've seen
9923
them all" rattled across the nation. Two weeks before he took
office as Vice President, I visited Mr. Agnew at the Governor's
Mansion in Annapolis.
After the election and on this broadcast 60 MINUTES your Democratic
Vice Presidential opponent, Senator Muskie, said, "A lot of the slips
that Governor Agnew made were the slips of inexperience. So the
question is whether the Governor is politically educable fast enough
to catch up with the kinds of responsibilities v/e're told he's
going to be given." Is this a fair statement of the problem that
confronts you?
AGNEW: To a degree it's - it's fair, but one of the things I thinlc
is - is a fiction about the basis for that kind of statement is that
I've suddenly been jerked from a zoning board into the Vice
Presidency.
I don't think that it's fair to say that suddenly a yokel has
descended upon the national government.
WALLACE: Governor, the publication Current Biography characterizes
you as a" self-made, middleclass, middlebrow suburbanite straight
out of middle America, that broad core of American society that
feels its values thi'eatened by social turbulence and permissiveness = '
How do you plead?
AGNEW: Guilty.
WALLACE: That's you?
AGNEW: I think that's me, and I hope I don't ever change.
WALLACE: Spiro Agnew came to the Vice Presidency a much under-
estimated man.
For the first two years of his Vice Presidency he has been coolly
successful at doing the jobs he's been assigned there. He has
kept the conservatives, notably the Southern conservatives happy.
He has put - and kept - the press on the defensive. And he has
travelled the low road, when it was deemed useful, to hold
Democratic feet to the fire.
Now, one hears that Mr. Agnew' s image is being retooled for 1972,
that we shall be seeing a less colorful, less abrasive Agnew. Afte:
all, it is said, he has changed before.
Well, I wouldn't be on it. For one thing, he clearly enjoys the
gadfly role in which he has been cast. But more to the point,
despite the gnashing of liberal Republican teeth, the President
needs the constituency the Vice President has developed, if he's
to be re-elected.
9924
"Dump Agnew" may be a wistful war cry in 1972, but political logic
seems to indicate that the man who was the object of all of the
"Dump Nixon" talk back in 1956, will turn a deaf ear.
Brad Jacobs is the ditor of the Baltimore Evening Sun . He has
been an ngnew-watcher for the past decade and here's his instant
psychoanalysis.
BRAD JACOBS: We Marylanders find it helpful to think of Ted Agnew
not as one man brit as two men quite different and even contradictory
The first Agnew on public display, I suppose, was the Agnew of cool
intelligence, of rational approach to tricky problems. We saw him
a moment ago - the progressive county executive fighting for a bette-
break for co\inty blacks - poor county blacks. Suddenly there was
the other Agnew - and you saw him too. This one was the testy
one who operates, I suppose, less on intelligence, more on instinct.
This Agnew found young people disconcerting, news reporters
irritating and black people, when they acted up, scandalizing.
Here's the point. We see two Agnews co-existing - one the hip
suburbanite, unafraid of a long philosophical look into the future.
He know the future belongs to the young, the poor and the black.
In his early phase as a practical political leader, he was just
hurrying to catch up with his followers. But always inside was
the other Agnew, the immigrant's son, still quick to resent an
imagined slight, still jolted off balance by bad manners, disorder.
One side of him reaches out to the social goals he cannot help but
recognize as inevitable. The other side recoils in distaste for
that twisty, sometimes rutted, path that leads to those goals.
Agnew has a tiny but revealing personal habit. Whenever he sits
down in a chair, he carefully keeps his legs uncrossed so that no
wrinkle will disturb the crease in his trousers. What makes this
revealing is that both the cool, deliberate Agnew and the not-so-
cool, uneasy Agnew show through side by side.
(ANNOUNCEMENT)
SAFER: Tonight we have a tale to tell or part of a tale. The
whole story may never be known.. It includes some of the most
extraordinary people you will ever meet and a most extraordinary
person whom you'll never meet.
It is the story of a rich, secluded king whose health has failed, anc
around him all the barons are struggling for all the riches of
the kingdom. And there is a court jester too, who is pri\'y
to all the secrets of the kingdom and whose main interest is to
reveal them.
The story is confusing. The main character is missing. The minor
characters are evasive; not surprising, perhaps, when the kingdom,
at current market prices, is valued at two billion dollars. The
tale, such as we know it, begins here, in Las Vegas, Nevada, the
center of the kingdom » whore this is the pow3r - and the glory.
9925
Las Vegas, .vhere all thus girls.: are beautiful and all thp men aiv=!
rich, or that's what they would have you helieve.
Las Vegas, I suppose, reflects just about the worst of America. It
is the ultimate In bad taste - and getting worse - a blemish on the
raw beauty of Nevada, but it has become an economic necessity to
the state, a fallen woman who knows no other way to make a living.
A beacon in the night to all the suckers adrift in the world.
And it was to here four years ago that Howard Hughes came. In what
seemed a matter of days he laid claim to the city and the state.
Hughes, the sportsman and pilot, engineer, eccentric, but most of
all, billionaire. He made Nevada his home and empire.
Up there in the penthouse suite of the Desert Inn Hotel he cut
himself off from the rest of the world. Total, absolute seclusion.
But the kingdom quietly thrived until last November, when Hughes,
now 65) stopped roaming the penthouse. He fell ill, desperately
ill - and we learned that his hemoglobin count had fallen to four.
He was suffering from anemia and malnutrition. He had a heart
condition and pneumonia. On November fourth and fifth he was given
a number of blood transfusions •> doctors said he should be put into
a hospital immediately. Then he disappeared.
Someone once described him as the presence that is also an absence,
Paul Laxalt, who until a few weeks ago was Governor of Nevada, has
never met the man, but he has felt the presence.
LAXALT: Howard Hughes is one of those people around whom there is
always going to be mystery, always, until the day he dies and
thereafter. I think that if he personally came forward as has
been suggested, and dramatically said, "I'm Howard Hughes"for all
the world to see, "I want this and that done," there would be still
many, many people who would not even accept the fact that he
was Howard Hughes.
There was a time when there was no doubt about who he was.
In the mid-thirties Howard Hughes was one of the most attractive
young men in the land. He designed his own airplanes , flew them,
broke aviation speed records. He was young and handsome and rich.
Even then he was a bit shy of publicity , a bit laconic , but it
only made him more attractive . He was the kind of character that
Gary Cooper could play so well.
And he was brave. He walked away from a number of crashes himself
- and was embittered by the death of Will Rpgers and Wiley Post.
HUGHES ON FILM: You've asked me to say something but at this time
it's very difficult for me to think of much in connection with
flying except the death of Will Rogers and Wiley Post, which is
9926
so damn - I don't suppose I can say damn, can I - but I mean it's so
ghastl.y and so terrible that it makes me wonder whether all this
flying is worth the cost, whether there's any reason to get from
one place to another so quickly.
SAFER: In 19*+? Hughes developed a plane practically as big as
today's l^^l ^ an eight-engine troop transport made of plywood and
nicknamed "The Spruce Goose." With Hughes at the controls, it
was flown only once - for a distance of one mile and an altitude of
70 feet. Hughes was called before a Senate Committee and was
accused of wasting 18 million dollars in government money. It
turned into a personal vendetta between Senator Brewster of Maine
and Hughes. It was one of the rare times he showed emotion - and
just about the last tine he showed himself publicly.
HUGHES ON FILM: When Senator Brewster realized that he was fighting
a battle against public opinion, a losing battle, he folded up and
took a run-out powder. Yes, that was the tip-off - when Senator
Brewster hit the road for the backwoods of Maine, that meant the
hearing was over - Washington was too hot for him. He couldn't
take it.
SAFER: In the mid fifties Hughes was described as a Swinger. He
spent a lot of time in Las Vegas, flying his own planes by day
and squiring film stars at night. In 1957 he married actress
Jean Peters, They are now separated. He liked Vegas. Pferhaps
the sheer glare of it all enabled him to become anonymous. He
returned in 1966 and took up residence, and started to buy every-
thing in sight.
His Investments went beyond the city. He spent 18 million dollars
on mining claims covering thousands of acres of Nevada. One expert
says they could eventually be worth 600 billion dollars.
But Las Vegas was where his big stake was and Hani Greenspun,
the crusading publisher of the La s Ve>/as Sig n, second largestproperty
owner in town, is the man who knows everyone's secrets.
How much did he pay for all this land, all this scrub land here?
GREENSPUN: Well, it's hard to tell, because a lot of it was bought
through other names so they wouldn't know Hughes ras buying it.
But his total investment in land, buildings and property here was
about two hundred and thirty million dollars.
SAFER: Do you think that was a good buy?
GREENSPUN: Well, I think he can double his money right now, not
on the land as much as on the hotels, the gaming hotels. He paid
twenty- three million for the Sands, He can get forty- two million
right now for it.
9927
SAFER: How much did he pay for the Frontier?
GREENSPUN: The Frontier, I think the total was about twenty-four
million.
SAFER: Here's the Desert Inn where he lived.
GREENSPUN: Yes.
SAFER: How much did he pay for that?
GREENSPUN: Well, it was six and a quarter million, he assumed
about seven million in debt, it was about thirteen and a quarter
million. And he lived right up there on the ninth floor in the
penthouse.
SAFER: And now, on the left here is the Silver Slipper, Tell me
about the Silver Slipper.
GREENSPUN: Well, you see that large slipper up there?
SAFER: Yeah.
GREENSPUN: That's very illuminated at night - the brightest, garish
light you can imaging/^ And it used to bother him up there, so he
decided he wanted it turned off, but they wouldn't turn it off,
so he decided he'd buy it. Well, after he bought it, I think he
paid about five point ^hree million for it.
SAFER: A mere bagatelle.
GREENSPUN: Yeah, then he was told the sign is necessary to bring
in the patrons. Well, if it was good for business, now he had
second thoughts about the sign, so the sign remained.
SAFER: This television station, Hank, which used to belong to you?
GREENSPUN: That's right, I built the first one in Nevada,
SAFER: How much did he pay for that?
GREENSPUN: I think he paid, well, with the debts which he assumed,
was about four million nine, something along that line.
SAFER: Why on earth was he interested in a television station?
31-889 O - 74 - 17
9928
GREENSPUK: Well, he perks mostly In the small hours of the morning,
you know, after midnight, and he likes to watch television, he
likes to watch pictures, things of that sort, and we used to go off
at one o'clock in the morning. And he'd like to see it until about
five in the morning or a little - a little later if necessary. And
the calls became so frequent, you know, why don't I run the westerns,
why don't I run aviation pictures, why don't I run WINGS over again,
and some of Jean Peters' pictures that I finally said, "Why don't
you buy it?" And I think that's how this thing came about that
he purhcased the station. Now, they run all night long, twenty-
four hours a day. And they show all the good movies that he likes.
Westerns.
SAFER: You got almost five million dollars for this station. Is
that a good price?
GREENSPUK: Well, I was very satisfied. I don't know if he can get
a return on his money, but I was happy. In fact, I sold him a golf
course also.
SAFER: Just like that, a golf course.
GREENSPUN: He gave me a good price, two million six. It wasn't
making too much money; that's why I sold it so cheap.
SAFER: We have a man who lived up on the top floor of that hotel
in that penthouse there - would see no one, was protected by
security guards, armed guards, by five male secretaries. Why does
he cut himself off this way?
GREENSPUN: Well, he was always afraid of being overheard on the
telephone. He claims many years ago the Japanese stole his secrets
for their Zero, from a conversation that they overheard him talking.
So he was super careful. But as far as being a recluse is concerned,
that was almost necessitated by his health. Because of the many
crashes he had, he became very vulnerable to respiratory problems
and could have been fatal to him if he did. And that's why they say
this germ phobia developed with him. He wouldn't let anybody come
close to him even, that could possibly breathe on him, you know.
I've studied this man for four years, being exposed to his
memorandums and being very close to many of the people who were
around him continually, you know, upstairs, and I'd have to say he
had periods of complete brilliance, I mean he was a genius really
in all his thinking. But there are other times when he would sack
out and was just completely unreachable. You couldn't get to hJm.
And those periods would last for as much as fifty-two hours at a
time where he wouldn't even eat or sleep, he just wasn't interested,
so to speak. And the greatest decisions in history are waiting for
him and he couldn't, wouldn't make the decision. iOid then snap
out of it and by God, he came back and moments and hours, and days
didn't mean a thing to him.
9929
SAFER: Hank, tell us what life was like up in that top floor of
the Desert Inn? How did it work out, did Hughes live in one room
and the secretaries in another?
GREENSPUN: No, the secretaries lived on the ninth floor, on the
eighth floor. The whole ninth floor was reserved for Hughes. And,
he pretty well roamed around the ninth floor. But after a while,
it got to the point where he would never leave this little apartment
of his, which was Just two bedrooms and a living room in the center
which doubled as a sort of an office.
SAFER: Did anybody else come into those rooms?
G?£ENSPUN: Well, once in a while if it was very urgent, one of the
secretaries would come in, but most of the time they would hold
up signs to him, so and so is on the phone. He just didn't want to
get too close to anybody because of this involvement, this
respiratory involvement.
SAFER: What kind of medical attention is he getting?
GREENSPUN: The medical testimony shows - now the sheriYf's office
suspected foul play so they called in the local physician who Last
attended him up there. And the sheriff's office got the report,
you know, because they were suspecting something which was irregular
and they reported that he was suffering from nutritional anemia.
Now, here's the world's wealthiest man suffering from malnutrition.
He was - he had three blood transfusions in the past week. His
hemoglobin count was down to four. If you have any medical
knowledge, it means that you're not functioning too well, certainly
nothing is going into the brain where you could make a rational
decision.
SAFER: Rational or not he decided to leave Las Vegas. Some people
are sure he went to a sanitarium in Los Angeles, others are
convinced he went to the Bahamas to another ninth floor penthouse.
We tested the theory and were gently, but firmly, thrown out.
I'm from CBS News, and I'm looking for Howard Hughes.
GUARD: (Indistinct)
SAFER: Wherever Hughes may be, the battle for control of the
Nevada kingdom centers on a curious cast of characters. On the
right, Chester Davis, for ten years general counsel for the Hughes
Tool Company. He's never seen Howard Hughes. And Bill Gay,
senior vice president. He hasn't seen Hughes for ten years. They
claim that Hughes approved the firing of a third senior executive
Bob Maheu, a former FBI agent and counterspy who had been paid
half a million dollars a year by Hughes to run the Nevada operation.
9930
Hughes also built him this house, said to have cost another half-
million. Maheu says he was Hughe's alter ego. Davis and Gay say
Hughes wanted to get rid of him and they have a letter they say
proves it.
The letter says: "Dear Chester and Bill, I do not understand why
the problem of Maheu is not yet fully settled and why this bad
publicity seems to continue" and it goes on to say it's damaging
his business. And it's signed Howard R. Hughes.
Maheu refused to believe Hughes ordered his dismissal. Then
Governor Paul Laxalt said he got a call from Hughes confirming it.
SAFER: You're one of the last people who actually spoke to him.
What did he say to you in December?
LAXALT: Well, essentially, he told me first of all that he was
feeling all right. That he had left voluntarily, that he was
in the Bahamas on vacation. And then he indicated that he wanted
to personally advise me that he wanted to terminate Bob Maheu,
and asked me to communicate this to him directly.
SAFER: There's no doubt at all in your mind that it was indeed
Howard Hughes you were
LAXALT: No doubt at all. No doubt at all. I had talked to him
previously and he's one of those people, after you've talked to
him you simply don't forget him.
SAFER: So you then did what, you transmitted his thoughts to Mr.
Maheu?
LAXALT: Yes, this must have been three o'clock in the morning or
so. And I had the very unpleasant chore of going to Bob's home
and advising him of the telephone call,
SAFER: Can you tell us about that night when Paul Laxalt came
over with the word?
MAHEU: Well, he didn't tell me that I had been fired. He confirmed
what had been told me previously, and I am sure that the former
Governor feels that he was talking to Mr. Hughes.
SAFER: And how do you feel?
MAHEU: I had then my doubts about it and still do. I felt reasonabl
sure that if Mr. Hughes had been dissatisfied with any of my
operations that he would have been the first to so inform me as he
9931
had without hesitancy in the past, which, of course, makes what
has happened even more incredible to me. He would have not waited
one moment to pick up the telephone and really lay me out in lavendar,
so to speak, if I had pulled what he considered a big boo-boo,
SAFER: I asked Bob Maheu if it would be valid for us to assume,
considering Mr. Hughes' condition, that other people are making
decisions for him.
MAHEU: I would hate to go that far, except that I certainly have -
have challenged some of the decisions, thinking that they were not,
in fact, his true desires.
SAFER: Do you think that the truth is being kept from him?
MAHEU: I'm not sure. I've seen incidents in the past where certain
communications by design were not passed over to him.
SAFER: Just how close were you to the man? How well did you know
him?
MAHEU: I felt that I was extremely close. /e have had conversations
from time to time wherein he discussed with me things of utmost
confidence. He gave me assignments of great magnitude, left to
me decisions to make in three instances in matters involving in
excess of 1 50 million dollars.
SAFER: One of the things that we've touched on a number of times
in this conversation is the fact that somebody is first of all
after you. Why? To take over the entire Hughes operation, or is
it a simple vendetta against Bob Maheu?
MAHEU: Well, the fact that somebody is after me has become quite
clear to me, especially of recent vintage. However, it's not
something with which I was not familiar. As a matter of fact, over
the years Mr. Hughes himself has on many occasions called to my
attention certain inputs that he had received from some of his
executives and in each case he would say to me, "Let's make sure
that we don't allow these people to cause any cleavage between you
and me as individuals."
SAFER: Were those executives Davis and Gay?
MAHEU: Not necessarily. He knew that there was intense Jealousies
because of the relationship that had built up over the years
between him and me.
SAFER: Jealousies is putting it mildly when there is two billion
dollars at stake, and Hughes, it seems, has a knack for playing
one side off against the other with letters. Hank Greenspun has a
knack for finding copies of the letters.
9932
GREENSPUN: I have a document in my pocket. I don't know if I can
show you. I have friends in very low places so I can get lots
of information. I'm not going to read this document to you, but
this is his own handwriting.
This was when Mr. Hughes was being pressed by Mr. Maheu to send
Bill Gay's daughter a wedding gift when she was getting married.
And he refused. He says, "I have read your message about Bill
again, and the more I read it, the more angry I get. I certainly
cannot get very sympathetic about Mary Gay being shook up when
Bill's total indifference and laxity to my pleas for help in the
domestic area, voiced urgently to him week by week throughout the
past seven to eight years, have resulted in a complete, I am afraid,
irrevocable loss of my wife. I am sorry, but I blame Bill completely
for this unnecessary debacle." This is Bill Gay who succeeded to his
entire empire.
SAFER: During all the filming in Las Vegas, we had the feeling and
some evidence that we were being watched.
GREENSPUN: Morley, you're sitting out here on the Strip of Las
Vegas. Your car's being under surveillance at every moment. The
conversation most likely is being bugged by all the sophisticated
equipment. It's a group that this Chester Davis brought in here
called Intertel. A lot of ex-FBI agents, ex-Secret Servicemen.
ex-Revenue agents.
SAFER: In Nevada, the Hughes empire reached everywhere even into
the Governor's mansion, during the time Paul Laxalt was Governor.
Among the reports that are circulating in Las Vegas, and I'm sure
you hear a great deal, all of them, is that you are being groomed
to take Maheu 's place in that job.
LAXALT: There was speculation to that effect,
SAFER: Did you talk about that on the telephone when you spoke
to him in December?
LAXALT: He indicated to me as he had previously indicated, that he
wanted me to join his organization. I had advised him that this
is not within my plan
SAFER: In your law practice, do you have anything at all to do with
the Hughes organization?
LAXALT: Oh, yes, our law firm has done some legal work for the
Hughes organization. I don't know whether they'll continue to do
so or not. So in that area, of course, as a member of my law firm,
we may do Hughes' work.
9933
SAFER: IVhat was the relationship between you and Maheu during your
tenure as Governor and since?
LAXALT: The very best. The very best. And during the time that
I was Governor we had a good close personal relationship.
SAFER: Did you have many straightforward dealings with his immediate
associates other than Bob Maheu?
LAXALT: Yes, I dealt, of course, with Tom Bell, his general counsel.
SAFER: Tom Bell is not only Howard Hughes's general counsel in
Las Vegas, he is a partner in the Laxalt family law firm.
Since Davis and Gay would net agree to filmed interviews, the last
questions go to Bob Mahea.
Do you walk away from Howard Hughes a rich or potentially rich man?
MAHEU
SAFER
MAHEU
SAFER
MAHEU
SAFER
MAHEU
No, I do not.
Does Howard Hughes have a will?
I have no idea.
Who would be the heir to his fortune?
I have no idea.
Relatives?
I have no idea.
SAFER: If Howard Hughes is well enough to watch this broadcast,
what would you say to him, if he were watching you on television
right now?
MAHEU: I would, I guess, have to put forth as my first preference
that he please call me.
SAFER: Mr. Hughes, if you are watching , Bob Maheu has moved out
of that half-million dollar house you lent him at the request of
dear Chester and Bill. Possibly, because tomorrow he is suing
you for fifty million dollars.
WALLACE: Morley, do you know for sure where Howard Hughes is at
this moment? '
9934
SAFER: V/e know very little for sure about tne story, but one senior
executive of the Hughes Tool Company told us quite flatly that he
is in the Bahamas, and when we said how come telephone calls to
and from the Bahamas don't exist, there's no trace of these, he
said. Aha, all the calls go through a magic secret switchboard
in Miami «
WALLACE: You mentioned something about surveillance of you and the
60 MINUTES crew while you were doing this piece.
SAFER: Well, for example, we were staying in the Sands Hotel in
Las Vegas, which is a Hughes-owned hotel, v/e got a call one day
from a man who simply identified himself, and said please call me
back, but don't call me back from the hotel. We went out of the
hotel to a telephone booth and were followed, quite clearly and
obviously followed. We went to a second telephone booth, followed
again, but anyway we made the call. And it was simply an invitation
to meet with a couple of executives, senior executives of the Hughes
Tool Company in another city.
WALLACE: To what end?
SAFER: To give their side of the story, but the meeting as they
described it was a meeting that didn't take place, It's interesting
- the people - I asked Bob Maheu if it was - if they were people
for him, agents of his who were following us. And he said "Really,
Morley, it wasn't any of my agents. My agents are all too busy
following the Davis and Gay agents." Mike, if this sounds like
a cheap B spy movie, it isn't. It's a very expensive B spy movie.
(AKKOimCEMENT)
SAFER: The Howard Hughes drama could take an interesting turn.
Art Buchwald, the Washington Post columnist, has a plan,
BUCHWALD: This is the time when everyone is suggesting someone
for President of the United States in 1972.
I would like to propose the perfect presidential candidate. His
name - Howard Hughes. Now, before you start laughing at me I would
like to tell you why I believe Howard Hughes is the only one to
run this country.
Since Howard Hughes owns the State of Nevada, he has a bigger
financial stake in this country than any other man and he would do
everything in his power to keep from going down the drain.
He is the only man in the United States who would never have to go
up to Congress and ask for money. Any funds he wanted for his
administration he'd put up himself or borrow from Frank Sinatra.
9935
I know many of you out there are thinking, "But we've never seen
Howard Hughes." This, I believe, is a big advantage. Howard Hughes
is the only personality in America who is not suffering from
overexposure on television.
One of the troubles with our country is that they know too much
about their Presidents. They know everything that is going on
in the White House from the Blue Room to the bedroom.
But Hughes would add mystery to the Presidency. He'd be holed up
on the top floor of the Executive Mansion and nobody would even
know if he was there or not.
as far as foreign relations went, Howard Hughes would be a
tremendous asset. He could meet heads of state on dark street corners
at three o'clock in the morning. No country would be sure where the
President was or even if there was a President. It would put the
fear of God in the Russians and Chinese. One of the reasons our
Presidents have so much trouble with other countries is that they
keep saying all the time that they're willing to go anywhere at
anytime to meet with other world leaders. Since the leaders know
he's there all the time, they're not in a hurry to meet him.
But with Howard Hughes it would be different. No one would ever be
sure if they could see him or not, and they'd soon be pounding on
the White House door.
The truth of the matter is that, with modern communications,
familiarity has bred contempt for Presidents. We could reverse this
trend by electing a man whom nobody knows, or will ever know during
his term of office.
We could bring a mystique back to the highest office in the land
that we haven't had since Warren Harding was in the White House.
This broadcast has been paid for by the "Howard Hughes for President"
Campaign Committee. Don't write us, we'll write you.
WALLACE: Most of our mail the past two weeks was about our story
on Helen Leavitt, the lady who wants to ban all private cars from
the cities. An official of the New York State Department of
Transportation wrote us: "Contemporary man craves the freedom,
convenience and privacy of driving his own car no matter what the
consequences. . .to stop building highways would be disastrous."
Another viewer wrote: "Right on I Wow I And whoopee !.,. .cars are
so diimb. I've waited a long time to hear somebody say ban them."
And there was a lady who wrote: "Hooray for Mrs. Helen Leavitt!
As the wife of a man successful in the automotive business, I lack
Mrs. Leavitt 's guts to sign this letter."
About our story on the cloistered life of the Carmelite Nuns, a
mother wrote: "My daughter is a nun... my husband who is not a
Catholic. o .was very impressed with your program and is now content
that our daughter can find peace and happiness in such a life."
9936
A viewer who described himself as "not a hippie and over MD,"
wrote of the Carmelite Nuns: "If you had photographed a group
of hippies in a secluded commune. . .the general consensus would be
that they had copped out..oWhen nuns do the same thing, it's called
dedication to God."
And another viewer wrote: "Suppose all the beautiful women were to
place themselves. .. .in monasteries? There would be no beautiful
babies in the world."
Finally, when our guest columnist, Nicholas von Hoffman, included
The Maine Times in his list of the best of the underground news-
papers, the publisher of that paper wrote: "It will titillate...
our readers - the majority of whom are Republicans over the age
of thirty - to learn they subscribe to an underground newspaper...
but, Mr. Wallace, my mother will never understand."
SAFER: I'm Morley Safer.
WALLACE: I'm Mike Wallace- We'll be back four weeks from tonight -
that's four weeks from tonight - on March 2nd, with another edition
of 60 MINUTES.
WEDNESDAY, MABCH 20, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Present: Senators Ervin, chairman, Talmadge, Montoya, Baker,
and Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Terry
F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; Marc Lackritz, and James Moore,
assistant majority counsels; Fred D. Thompson, minority counsel;
Robert Silverstein, and Eichard Schultz, assistant minority counsels ;
Carmine Bellino, chief investigator; Scott Armstrong, and Emily
Sheketoff, investigators ; Eichard Eust, office of Senator Inouye.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. Would you hold
up your right hand ? Do you swear that the evidence you 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. Eebozo. I do.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you. Senator.
We have been over a variety of these areas with Mr. Eebozo so I
think we can go ahead right in. I think Mr. Eebozo understands
that the scope of the inquiry — and for Mr. Frates' benefit, I should
cite that it is related, Mr. Frates, I think we have discussed before,
to sections 2, subsections 11, 12, 13, and 16, of S. Ees. 60.
I do not want to get into a long discussion, at this time, but have
any documents been brought with you today in compliance with the
subpena ?
Mr. Frates. Well, the subpena is not a subpena duces tecum. It did
not call for any documents.
Mr. Lenzner. I mean a prior subpena.
Mr. Frates. We have brought docimients. We have brought all
that we thought were the relevant documents, although I want the
record to clearly show that we are here under a subpena that is not
a subpena duces tecum. But we really want to conclude it, and that
is why we brought the documents that we feel are relevant and ma-
terial, and hopefully, we will have no problem on that.
Mr. Dash. Well, just for the record, and there is an outstanding
letter, the last letter — do you have the letter. Marc ? The outstanding
letter that Senator Ervin last sent, which I think put together all
of the outstanding subpenas in the past?
I know that you are here under a subpena ad testaficundum for
executive session testimony. There are outstanding subpenas which
were put together, I think, in a letter from the chairman of the com-
(9937)
993S
mittee asking that it be complied with, and I think the question to
be put is that in order to get it over with, all we want to get on the
record is what documents that are contained in that request have
been brought today. That is all.
Mr. Frates. Well, gentlemen, we are here. We were subpenaed here
to appear before this hearing by subpena. It required no documents.
We have brought all the documents we thought were relevant mate-
rial and we are certainly going to try to cooperate.
And I think if we proceed on, as Senator Baker said, with the
interrogation, and then see what happens about the documents. We
are here trying to conclude this matter, Senator, so I would rather
not get into an argument before we start so we might avoid any
argument down the line, but I think the record, Sam, I don't quite
understand you — I think the record, technically is, we are here under
the subpena requiring our presence here.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, may I just say this?
Senator Ervin. What I would suggest, it seems to me that the best
way to proceed is to ask oral testimony, and then after you get
through with the oral testimony, then call for any records you think
are relevant to the oral testimony, because we can bog down in a
discussion of documents.
Mr. Dash. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't want
to do that right now and I didn't want us to bog down. I just wanted
to open on the record that on March 12, 1974, a letter was sent by
you to Mr. Bruce Harper, in Mr. Frates' firm, which finally put
together all of the matters that were outstanding as far as subpenas,
and asked for their compliance.
Senator Ervin. I think all of the past subpenas that have been
issued are still effective, but I think it would be better to go ahead with
the oral testimony because certainly Mr. Frates is entitled to raise —
if he thinks he's been called for a record that is not relevant to the
matters that the committee is authorized to investigate — he certainly
has a right to raise that point.
And I think that we had better get the oral testimony down before
we go to the documents. The documents will keep, and better sought
now is the oral testimony.
Mr. Dash. Well this is the procedure we intended to follow.
Senator Baker. Well, if I might interrupt, Mr. Frates, Mr. Chair-
man, because I have to leave. Let me say, quickly, I entirely agree
mth the chairman. I think we are, in effect, borrowing trouble. Let's
get into the testimony and see what we find out and if we have
difficulties, the committee can rule on them.
Mr. Lenzner. I think the record should reflect that Senator
Weicker joined the group.
Mr. Rebozo, could you give us your address for the record, please ?
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES GREGORY REBOZO; ACCOMPANIED BY
WILLIAM S. FRATES AND ALAN G. GREER, COUNSEL
Mr. Rebozo. 490 Bay Lane, Key Biscayne, Fla.
Mr. Lenzner. And tell us what duties or responsibilities you had
during the 1968 campaign — the Presidential campaign ?
9930
Mr. Frates. 1968?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frates. Well, I don't want to start again on the technical ob-
jections, but that is beyond the resolution. And if we are going to
have some ground rules — and Senator Weicker and Senator Ervin,
I am not here to technically involve ourselves in this thing, but why
that has anything to do with the resolution 60 I do not see.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, as I understand it
Mr. Frates. And if that's the way we're starting, then it seems to
me we're starting on the left foot.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, as I understand it, I am trying to get into the
conversations that Mr. Rebozo has already told us about with Mr.
Danner and I'm trying to lay the groundwork to determine whether
Mr. Rebozo, prior to his conversations with Mr. Danner with regard
to the Hughes contribution, had any official duties with the campaign
and inquiries in the past, as Senator Ervin and Senator Weicker have
gone into, the past histories of campaigns and I would cite as a prece-
dent, one executive session of Mr. Cartha DeLoach, D-e-L-o-a-c-h,
conducted by Senator Baker, which went into the 1964 Presidential
election and the FBI survey done during the 1964 election, and I
think this ties in more closely
Senator Ervin. Well, unless you can tie it to the 1972 election
Mr. Dash. Would you repeat the question, Terry?
Mr. Lenzner. The question was : "What duties did Mr. Rebozo have,
if any, for the 1968 Presidential campaign?" I think it's easier to
answer the question than it is to argue it.
Mr. Frates. ,No, it isn't, because it's an improper question. I don't
think it's a proper way to start this and I think the chairman has
already ruled. It's a broad question, completely outside the scope of
the resolution — and I don't want to object to your questions.
We are here to let you interrogate as broadly as we can to conclude
this matter, but the first question is what were your duties in the
1968 Presidential campaign, and we object to it, sir.
Senator Ervin. Unless that can be tied to the campaign in some
way, I would have to rule that we are not authorized to investi-
gate it under the resolution. Now can you tie it in some way to 1972 ?
Mr. Lenzner. Well, let me go ahead, Senator, and ask some other
questions.
Mr. Rebozo, when did you first have discussions with regard to
obtaining a contribution from the Hughes Tool Co. or Howard
Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. The first time was during the campaign of 1968.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you remember, approximately, when that
conversation took place?
Mr. Rebozo. No, it had to be somewhere in the summer.
Mr. Lenzner. The summer of 1968 ?
Mr. Rebozo. The summer of 1968.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall where that conversation took place?
Mr. Rebozo. The arrangement was made for me to meet with Dan-
ner and an attorney who represented Hughes. I had been under the
impression that the conversation was held in Washington, but I think
9940
it must have been held in New York because I was not going to
Washington much at the time.
Mr. Lenzner, This is with Mr. Danner and the Hughes attorney ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Prior to that discussion, did you have discussions
with Mr. Danner with regard to the possibility of getting a contri-
bution for the 1968 campaign ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, of course. He brought it up one time and wanted
me to meet this man.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall where he brought it up, or where you
were?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably on the phone, but I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall if anybody else was present ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall how long before you met with Mr.
Morgan and Mr. Danner that Mr. Danner brought the contribution
up to you ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, it could have been a matter of a few weeks, a
couple of weeks, 3 weeks. If it was in New York, it would have been
because I occasionally went to New York to visit the now-first
family. They were living there and I would occasionally go up, so
that is why I think probably I did meet them in New York. But I
really can't be sure. I read somewhere that we met in a restaurant. I
don't even recall whether we did that or not. I remember meeting in
the hotel.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, when the discussion first arose, did you bring
it up with Mr. Danner, or did Mr. Danner bring it up with you ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no, Danner brought it up with me. I had no rea-
son to bring it up with Danner. He was a practicing lawyer in Wash-
ington and was not even connected with Hughes.
Mr. Lenzner. So nobody had discussed the contribution from
Hughes, prior to Mr. Danner raising it with you ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Now did you ever have a discussion with President
Nixon — or then-candidate Nixon — with regard to the Hughes contri-
bution during this same period of 1968 ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. You never met with Presidential candidate Nixon
and Mr. Danner and discussed the possibility of obtaining a contri-
bution from Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. Never.
Mr. Frates. Terry, excuse me. You say "Hughes," and then you
say "Hughes Tool Co."
Mr. Lenzner. I say Howard Hughes or the Hughes Tool Co. It's
not clear exactly who is dealing with whom.
Mr. Frates. Well you've been changing the terms here and I want
to make sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I should say, and I mean to say, either
Howard Hughes or the Hughes Tool Co., or somebody representing
Howard Hughes or the Hughes Tool Co., when I say that. I would
like to be that specific.
9941
Mr. Frates. Well so long as you are communicating and the witness
understands.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you understand, Mr. Rebozo, that Mr. Danner has
testified before this committee that Mr. Nixon and you discussed
with him the question of a contribution from Hughes, or the Hughes
Tool Co. during the 1968 period?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I saw something about that in the paper, but
that doesn't conform with my recollection of any discussions we had.
The President just doesn't discuss those things.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying you never had a discussion with
the President in 1968, or after 1968, with regard to specific contri-
butions for his campaigns?
Mr. Rebozo. After 1968, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. But not before ? December 1968 ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. I want to make sure it's clear on the record, then.
You are saying now that prior to December 1968
Mr. Rebozo. Now let me make a point here. We are talking about
something 6 years ago and I just — I may be depending on logic, and
I may be depending to some degree on my knowledge of the Presi-
dent's MO, I don't know. But I don't believe that we ever had any
conversation — and the reason I want to qualify it is because if there
was some passing comment that escaped, but when you speak of
sitting down and just going over campaign contributions, no; that
would never have happened.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying no, it never could have happened
prior to December 1968 ? Or ever ? It could never have happened ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I have previously testified, I did discuss with
the President, after the election
Mr. Lenzner. The Hughes contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. That was in 1973. Aside from 1973, let's say before
his election in 1972, in November of 1972, did you have any discus-
sions with President Nixon, prior to November 1972, with regard to
specific contributions, or specific possible contributors to his cam-
paigns ?
Mr. Frates. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to object, but I think
we are going far afield. It seems to me we ought to get to the issue
and then if it relates — obviously, I think imder the rules, if it relates,
he can come back to it ; but it looks like we're going to spend an hour
or two on 1968.
Senator Ervin. Well, we have information— or rather we've taken
evidence — which indicates that this thing was sort of a continuous
process as far as the Hughes thing was concerned.
Mr. Frates. I think it was. We can say that ; yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And the actuality was that these had — ^the Hughes
contribution was supposed to have a relation to the 1972 campaign.
However, I think that Mr. Rebozo has answered that question several
times.
Mr. Frates. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. As I understood Mr. Rebozo to say, in effect, that
9942
he never had any conversation with the President about a campaign
contribution.
Mr. Frates. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Before the 1972 election?
Mr. Lenzner. Before November 1972.
Senator Ervin. Or after?
Mr. Rebozo. After the 1972 election, I have testified that I, of
course
Mr. Lenzner. Well, that's correct. After the November 1972 elec-
tions you did have a couArersation, we're going to get to that, but —
Senator, you wanted to say something?
Senator Weicker. My interpretation of what Mr. Rebozo has
testified to is the same, I believe, as the chairman's which aside from
the specific situation which arose in 1972, or 1973, whenever it was,
as I understand Mr. Rebozo he said that he didn't discuss such mat-
ters, in other words, with the President.
I gather that to be rather broad. Except as an incidental comment
might come up, you did not discuss campaign contributions with
candidate Nixon, or President Nixon, except as it relates to the spe-
cific matter that comes up in 1972? Is that correct? Am I correct in
that interpretation?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Is that what the chairman gathered?
Senator Ervin. That's AV^hat I understood.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, let me — ^so the record is clear, let me ask this
question. Did the President ever ask you, before November 1972, to
contact any particular contributor or discuss with you a specific polit-
ical contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no, never. You know I could qualify this, but it
would take another 15 minutes.
Mr. Frates. Well don't.
Mr. Lenzner. The answer is no ?
Mr. Rebozo. The answer is no, emphatically.
Mr. Lenzner. OK. Now going back to your initial conversations
with Mr. Danner, did Mr'. Danner tell you what he would do — what
was your reaction to Mr. Damier? I^et me ask that first. When he
first brought this Hughes contribution to your attention ?
Mr. Frates. Well now just a minute. Which one are we taking
about? Terry, you've asked three questions — ^so the record is clear.
Mr. Lenzner. Well I think I only asked one and a half.
Mr. Frates. Well I heard three, I'm sorry. What question are you
asking him now, please?
Mr. Lenzner. What was your response when Mr. Danner first talked
to you about the Hughes contribution in 1968 ?
Mr. Rebozo. As I said, I went up there and met with him and with
Morgan, and the atmosphere just didn't seem appropriate to accept
the contribution.
Not that I thought th(ire was anything morally wrong, or legally
wrong; it was just that I had been a friend of the First Family for
over 20 years and I recall, vividly, the incident of the 1958 loan to
the President's brother, and the fact that Drew Pearson had made a
9943
lot of that in the 1960 campaign, and then in the Grovemor's cam-
paign in 1962. It was rehashed over and over again.
The fact that Ed Morgan represented Drew Pearson and the fact
that I just did not want to be responsible, in any way, for anything
that might create embarrassment. I declined.
Morgan, I presume, had the money with him — I don't know — ^but
he wanted to hand the money to the President, himself, and I told
him that the President would never accept it. I know he has never,
ever, to my knowledge, ever accepted anything of any kind, for any-
thing. He just does not handle money, and this is part of the things
I referred to when I tried to describe him.
I could re<;ognize that if I were living here and reading the Post
and the Times every day, and Newsweek and Time, I would
not believe what I am saying right now — ^but I have never known
a person who cared less about money than he. And everything was
done through appropriate channels.
So I declined on the l^asis that the Morgan situation, and on the
basis — and while Dannei' was a friend of mine, I didn't know what
his position in this whole picture was because he was a practicing
lawyer in Washington and he was not working for Hughes at the
time and I think I probably should, to set the foundation — and I
swore I wasn't going to talk much and answer questions — but I think
that, frankly, I've always admired Howard Hughes and still do
and I don't think that — I admire him because he's a person who did
inherit some money, but then went ahead and did a lot on his own,
without living off of it or becoming a bum.
Danner, while I have seen him described in the press as a "Hughes
henchman," it's a very unfair description of Danner who is a very
responsible citizen in Miami. He was agent in charge of the FBI
during the war. He's sort of a local hero. He figured prominently
in the most famous kidnaping down there and the most famous
vice case that they had. Then he managed Smathers' campaigns in
1946 and 1948, and became city manager for 3 years. So if you speak
of Dick Danner in the Miami area, you don't hear anything deroga-
tory about him — so I want to dispell that thought.
But I just had a feeling, after agonizing with the loan to Don
Nixon, how it had been repeated year in and year out over the years,
and that true story has never been told — for example, it's my under-
standing
Senator Ervin. I believe you're going a little far afield now.
Mr. Kebozo. All right, I'll limit my answers to yes or no, but this
is the background.
Mr. Frates. Well, Mr. Chairman, while we have a break here,
I'm glad you stopped him. I don't know about the air-conditioning,
but I see our interrogator here is puffing away at that pipe, and it's
getting down here, and I'm wondering, at the end of the day — now
there's no reflection on North Carolina tobacco, Senator, but I'm just
wondering
Mr. Dash. It's an appropriate request.
Mr. Frates. Just take a bottle or a blanket.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, was any specific amount discussed with
you and Mr. Danner, or Mr. Morgan?
31-889 O - 74
9944
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, he said $50,000.
Mr. Lexzner. And did he indicate it was going to be in cash, or
a check, or some other means?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know if he indicated how it was going to be.
I guess I had the impression it would be in cash.
Mr. Lenzner. He didn't specifically say that, though?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. And Mr. Morgan indicated whatever it was, he
wanted to give it directly to the candidate ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And I think you also indicated, at some point in
our prior interviews, that you first agreed to accept it and then
changed your mind. Is that correct, or not correct?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I never agreed to accept it first.
Mr. Lenzner. So you never indicated that you would accept the
money on behalf of the campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no, I don't believe I ever did, because I declined
it immediately when he said that he wanted to give it to him directly.
I knew the President would not accept it. Then subsequently, when
they wanted to give it through me, I still declined for the reasons
I have mentioned.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any other contact with fundraising
efforts during the 1968 campaign, besides this one?
Mr. Rebozo. The 1968 campaign?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. I don't think we are authorized to investigate the
1968 campaign.
Mr. Frates. No, sir, again I didn't want to object, but
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you ever advise Mr. Danner or Mr. Morgan
that they ought to discuss this matter with the finance committee or
the finance people, rather than you?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Senator, can I ask this question? Were there
other occasions when you talked with contributors during the 1968
campaign, with regard to contributions?
Mr. Frates. Senator, this has nothing to do with the issue.
Senator Ervin. Frankly, we're not authorized to investigate the
1968 campaign. Now the conversations he had about the 1968 cam-
paign, I don't see where they are relevant, unless they bore some fruit
in 1972, frankly.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I'm trying to determine, Senator, whether
this was an aberration in his discussions, or whether this was in the
regular course of his duties during the campaign, and that is rele-
vant.
Senator Ervin. Well it's not relevant. He might have managed the
campaign in 1968, but that would be none of our business unless he
saved some funds from that campaign and used them in 1972 or had
them in 1972.
I drew this resolution veiy specifically and confined it to the 1972
campaign, and the campaigns related to it — that is, the preceding
campaigns for the nomination because I realized that we would never
get through with an investigation.
9945
Now it's true that on one or two occasions that people went off on
a tangent, as Fred did one time — he got over in Vietnam, back there
in the Diem days with Mr. Plunt.
I suggested that he was going outside the scope of the resolution,
and we would have been investigating every campaign since George
Washington ran for President if we hadn't restricted this thing. So,
unless you can relate what happened in 1968 to 1972, I don't think
we've got authority under the resolution to go into it.
Mr. Dash. Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, the question Mr. Lenzner
was putting was not to go into the 1968 campaign — in fact, not to
ask an additional question on 1968, but to look to the response of
Mr. Rebozo on the question of method of operations, whether or not
his answer is consistent.
Senator Ervin. Well, why not go down to the method of operation
with relation to the 1972 campaign ?
Senator Weicker. I think the chairman is absolutely correct be-
cause if you will recall there was an attempt during the hearings
to do this very same thing, as far as campaign tactics were concerned,
relative, I think, to Haldeman and then Ehrlichman, relative to
earlier California campaigns, and we ruled no.
Mr. Dash. The only time we ruled otherwise was with Mr. Dean
and his being fired at an earlier period of time. I know that was
consistent.
Senator Weicker. But if it's 1968 funds, that is a different thing.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, we do have some evidence — wliy don't we put
that on the record and see if that makes any difference.
Mr. Frates. Well, it seems to me — and the chairman has overruled
your interrogation — ^it just seems to me we're starting off on the
wrong foot. I've often wondered why
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Senator Weicker has made a good suggestion,
Mr. Frates. and I'd like to pursue it. Let me ask this question, Mr.
Rebozo
Mr. Frates. Well, excuse me just a minute. You have asked a
series of questions. The chairman has ruled them out of order. I
can't think of one more out of order than the one you just asked.
Mr. Dash. Well, the chairman just said if you can link the 1968
to the 1972, he's now trying to do that.
Mr. Frates. Well, he's talking about funds, but it seems to me we
all know why we are here — to interrogate on a $100,000 contribution.
It just seems to me he hasn't had any interrogation — we ought to
go to the issue and then come back and develop from that, other-
wise we'll be here a week — and we are prepared to stay a week — but
your whole line of questioning has been off the issue, in my opinion.
I am sure we are not going to object in anything that is related to
it. I think you can be entitled to interrogate him about it.
Mr. Dash. Well Mr. Chairman, I think — let the next question be
asked. If it's out of order, rule it, and then
Senator Ervin. OK.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, did you retain any 1968 campaign funds
in your possession after the election in 1968?
Mr. Rebozo. You're talking about funds that belonged to the cam-
paign ?
9946
Mr. Lenzner. Funds thai either belonged to the campaign or
were received from a campaign committee.
Mr. Frates. The question is campaign funds in 1968?
Mr. Lenzner. I am asking of funds received from a campaign
committee or of campaign funds
Mr. Greer. One question at a time.
Mr. Frates. Well, ask the question.
Mr. Lenzner. I thought I did.
Mr. Frates. You asked two questions.
Senator Ervin. Let Mr. Lenzner put the question.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you retain or control, after the election in 1968,
any funds received from a campaign committee ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I know what you're getting at and the answer
can maybe save some time. There was — the fmids that we controlled
were for the — I forget what it was called now, but it was the com-
mittee for the 1968 campaign — and during that time, we deposited
everything to the account.
We sent the appropriate records to the headquarters and paid
the bills. We had the headquarters office down there where we paid
the rent and the water and the Xeroxing and the stamps and so forth,
and I think three paid employees, they were paid out of that account.
Additionally, we had the convention down there. We had a number
of other activities going on, and very often I would personally pick
up bills, for one thing or another.
'When the campaigii ended, they owed me $6,000, in round figures,
and I sent back everything, down to the $6,000. I went to draw a
$6,000 check to me and I figured well, hell, it's just going to look, at
some future date, somebody's looking at this and wondering what
I did, so I really just forgot that it was there. I left it there intend-
ing to get it out and I finally got it, subsequently. Now that's prob-
ably what you're talking about?
Mr. Lenzner. So you're saying that this $6,000 was put into the
trust account of Mr. Wakefield ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And you are saying that those were funds
Mr. Rebozo. Those were funds that belonged to me.
Mr. Lenzner. That you were reimbursed for expenses you had
incurred?
Mr. Rebozo. "WHiat happened to it though, after we had done that,
I had earlier told them that I had this account if they needed some
extra money, we probably have some there that I could send them,
and after this was done, Kalmbach had asked me for a couple of
contributions — I don't recall the amounts and I just sent him checks
for that which really brought it down to $4,500-and -something, and
I just paid it and let it go at that.
Mr. Lenzner. You say you told somebody about the money in the
account? I didn't quite get that, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Rebozo. I had reported that we had this account there and T
reported regularly the income and expense items so the contributors
could be properly thanked by the finance office in New York. And
they had all the records of that.
9947
Mr. Lenzner. But I thought you said you advised somebody that
you had a remaining $6,000 ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no ; during the time that I had this money, I had
advised them that I had this account and if they needed some addi-
tional help, I thought that we would probably wind up with more
money than we did, but I advnsed them and then I got called upon
after I had already disbursed everything but the $6,000, so I just
went ahead and sent them that.
Mr. Lenzner, What I'm trying to find out is who did you advise
that you have that $6,000?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it was Kalmbach, who was Stan's assistant
at the time. I believe
Mr. Lenzner. Did he have some continuing responsibility after the
election, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't follow you.
Mr, Lenzner. Well, you said that you sent him some money and
that he had a continuing fund raising responsibility.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, I don't know about that. I'm sure your continuing
expenses — I know the good Senators, here, after the campaign is
over, there are bills that are unpaid.
Senator Ervin. I never had an unpaid bill, yet. Every time I have
run, I have refunded money to my contributors.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't mean that, I mean the bills coming in.
Mr. Frates. You're a minority group. Senator,
Senator Ervin, I think myself and George Aiken are the only two
in that class.
Mr. Rebozo. That must shock a few constituents to get a check ?
Senator Ervin. Yeah, well I gave them a 20-percent dividend last
time, unspent.
Mr. Frates, You sound like a good investment.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall — let me ask you this. Did you have
discussions with Mr. Kalmbach with regard to those funds — what
you should do with them?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't follow you.
Mr. Lenzner, Well you said at one point you sent some money
out to Mr. Kalmbach. What I'm trying to get at, how did you arrive
at that arrangement?
Mr. Rebozo, He just asked me for it. He told me he needed a
couple of checks and I sent them to him.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he ask you orally, or in writing?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was orally,
Mr. Lenzner. And did he indicate the purpose for which the funds
were to be used ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no, I didn't ask. I wasn't concerned with the
purpose. He was just a little late in asking me and I thought every-
thing was paid. But it had been some time earlier when I suggested
to him that perhaps we could be helpful,
Mr, Lenzner, But you did not know when you sent the money to
him what he was going to do with the funds ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, no.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you recall, was the $6,000 received from the
Florida committee for Nixon ?
9948
Mr. Rebozo. That is the account's title, I think.
Mr. Lenzner Why did you set up an account in the name of
Wakefield?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, actually, I wanted to — I wanted to get my $6,000
back, but I didn't know how to do it, frankly, because I just
thought
Mr. Frates. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bellino is hollering "Oh
Jesus" down here, and I resent that and I ask that you caution him
and these other investigators to at least conduct themselves in a
proper manner.
Senator Ervin. I didn't hear him, but I would suggest that every-
body keep quiet.
Mr. Dash. I heard him. Mr. Frates is correct and I would join
with Mr. Frates' request that no staff react to any question.
Senator Ervin. I think that conversation and explanation should
be restricted to the cross-examiner and the counsel and the members
of the committee when they have to rule on something
Mr. Frates. Thank yoT', sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, what was the question — why did you put the
account in the name of Mr. Wakefield? The $6,000 account?
Mr. Rebozo. Well I suppose it just seemed like the best way to get
my funds back without drawing them to attention. There was nothing
wrong with it, it's just that you have to worry about how something
mig'ht look in years later and Wakefield handles a lot of business for
me, closings and whatnot, so that was the reason.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall when you first talked to Mr. Kalmbach
with regard to sending those funds out to him?
Mr. Rebozo. No, it probably was immediately before T sent them.
He probably called up and said he needed a check and I sent it.
Mr. Lenzner. This would have been in 1969 would it not?
Mr. Rebozo. Whatever it was. I don't know what the date was.
Mr. Lenzner. And you were not aware at that time, or any later
time, that Mr. Kalmbach actually put those funds in an account to
pay for Mr. Tony Ulasewicz's activities ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think T read about that somewhere. This might save
you a later question, but I never heard of Mr. Ulasewicz. I never
saw him and never knew he existed until I saw him on television and
read about it in the paper.
Mr. Lenzner. But you were never aware, then, of any efforts on
behalf of the White JFIouse or Mr. Kalmbach to set up a separate
entity to conduct these kinds of investigations?
Mr. Rebozo. It was none of my affair. I was not involved in the
mechanics of the White House operation.
Mr. Lenzner. T take it the answer is "no," you were not aware of
the efforts to set up a separate entity ?
Mr. Rebozo. That is correct, the answer is "no."
Mr. Frates. Now Mr. Bellino, you say the Senators don't know
what the facts are? Now, again, Mr. Chairman, T don't know whether
he's saying that just so you can hear it or what his motivation is
Senator Ervin. What T think — Mr. Bellino has a right to assist
counsel, but T would suggest that he does so in as near an inaudible
fashion as possible.
9949
Mr. Dash. Well if you can read it that would be better.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Mr. Bellino was merely suggesting
Mr. Dash. Well, excuse me for interrupting. If you could write
Mr. Bellino. I'm trying to write, when I can.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Bellino was merely suggesting that I have an
exhibit marked as an exhibit to show to Mr. Rebozo. I would like to
have that done. Could we have that check marked?
Mr. Frates. Well we certainly have no objection. That's an orderly
way to do it and we have no objection to that.
Mr. Greer. It hasn't been marked.
Mr. Lenzner. Why don't we mark it so we can refer to it?
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 1 for identification.*]
Senator Ervin. Let me see, that looks like April 15, 1969 ?
Mr. Lenzner. Why don't you go ahead and look at it, Mr. Frates,
and Mr. Rebozo. Take your time.
Mr. Frates No, go ahead and interrogate him. Are you going to
ask him some questions about it ?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes sir. Can you identify that as a c^heck that you
signed setting up the trust account which has been previously
described ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. So you were the signator for the committee from
which those funds were drawn ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes, we kept the books on it. We paid all of the
bills for the Cubans for Nixon and all the work that they did. We
kept the books on it.
Mr. Lenzner. In other words, you simply could have drawn your-
self a check, payable to cash, if you wanted to, but instead you set
it up as this Wakefield account ?
Mr. Rebozo. I could have. I could have. But, again, you know, I
really didn't know what to do and later I frankly just forgot that
it was even in there.
Mr. Lenzner. You forgot that the account existed ?
Mr, Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner, When did you recall, after this transaction, after
you sent the money to Mr. Kalmbach, when did you recall that you
had money remaining in that account ?
Mr. Rebozo. It was quite some time later. I think my bookkeeper
called it to my attention.
Mr. Lenzner. That would be Miss Moncourt?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr, Lenzner, Do you recall approximately when that was?
Mr. Rebozo. No, but it was some time later. We have, I guess, a
dozen accounts and everything that I'm involved in we have a
separate account, just to simplify bookkeeping, and to have your
receipts and so on.
Mr. Lenzner. And what happened after Miss Moncourt reminded
you that the fund existed ? Did you do anything with those funds ?
Mr. Rebozo. I spent it.
*S€e p. 10155.
9950
Mr. Lenzner. When was that, sir ?
Mr. Frates. Your Honor, we have an objection. I know we've
gone far afield in this matter. We have objected to these documents,
as the Senators know, and you've not ruled on it.
Senator Ervin. Well, I frankly don't see the connection between
this and the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Dash. I think we can explain that. Senator, that we can.
Senator Ervin. Ask him a direct question on — even a leading
question that sets out how this related to the 1972 campaign. But I
can't see the relationship.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Senator, he already testified he sent Mr.
Kalmbach $1,000 which ended up
Senator Ervin. He never said when he did it.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, we'll take care of that.
Senator Ervin. Well, let me understand. I understand your testi-
mony that this was money that was left over, that you had some
connection with the management of the campaign in 1968 in the
Key Biscayne area— in the Florida area, and these were funds that
you had spent — $6,000, approximately $6,000 of your own money.
And this $6,000 that you had deposited in the account of ]Mr. Wake-
field was to reimburse you for those expenditures. And, thereafter,
at sometime Mr. Kalmbach contacted you and asked you for some
financial help of some kind for political purposes and that you sent
him approximate! V — or others — approximate! v $1,500, leaving $4,500
under your control or Mr. Wakefield's control ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator Ervin. "When was it that Mr. Kalmbach asked you for
that money?
Mr. Rebozo. T don't know. It apparently was sometime after I
had mentioned to him that I had some funds available and he didn't
know and T didn't bother.
Senator Ervin. Can you give the year ?
Mr. Rebozo. T am sorry. I really couldn't.
Mr. Greer. Well, Mr. Lenzner has the check.
Mr Lenzner. Could we make this exhibit 2 ?
Senator Ervin. Well. I want to get directly to these things.
Mr. Frates. Well, Senator, our objection is he has testified that
these are his funds; that he did .q:ive the difference between the $4,500
and the $6,000 to Mr. Kalmbach. T think if that Avas related to the
1972 campaign, he has test.ifie'd to that and so we have not objected.
Now he's asking, what did you do with the other money? Now that
goes into personal.
Senator Ervin. Put that down as exhibit 2.
rWhereupon. the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 2 for identification.*]
Mr. Frates. Personal funds? ^^Hiat he did with his personal
monev? We're taking the position that vou're ffoing far, far afield
on that. And, again, I call the Senator's attention to the fact that
we have raised the entire situation here and the full committee has
not ruled on it, and what I Avould like to do is get off of this and
♦See p. 10156.
9951
back on to fundamental issues without making an issue on this at
this time.
Senator Ervin". Well, that gives a date on which he gave $1,000 to
Mr. Kalmbach.
Mr. Lenzner. That was July 1969.
Senator Ervix. July 1969. And I still don't see where
Mr. Dash. Well, the record shows the testimony already that Mr.
Kalmbach used that money for the payment of Mr. Ulasewicz on
behalf of the 1972 campaign. That is on our record, Mr. Chairman,
so, that transfer money did get into the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Frates. The $1,000?
Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Eebozo says you can ask him if he
knows anything about the transaction between he and Mr. Kalmbach.
Mr. Thompson. Well, INIr. Chairman, would it not be accurate to
say that if he gave money to Kalmbach which was used in the 1972
campaign, the fact he gave that money and what Kalmbach did, is
relevant, but all of the background and what he did with the other
money and all of that would not be relevant. Would that not be
accurate?
Senator Ervin. I would think so.
Mr. Frates. Very well put.
Senator Ervin. I would suggest to counsel that if counsel thinks
it's relevent to 1972, what he did with the rest of the money, to ask
him a leading question.
Mr. Lenzner. I was about to do that, Senator. Were any of the re-
maining funds spent in any way related to the 1972 Presidential
election ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Was it spent
Mr. Frates. Well, now
Mr. Lenzner. Let me finish the question.
Mr. Frates. Well, I think that's a fine question — that's the end of
it, I hope.
Mr, Dash. There may be another question.
Mr. Frates. Well, Mr. Lenzner?
Mr. Dash. I think Mr. Frates should object correctly, but I don't
think he should instruct our counsel how to ask questions.
Mr. Fr.\tes. I think somebody, in fairness now, I'm very fond of
Terry, but I think Terry has a tendency to wander all around and
ask the same question three or four times and I think we do have a
problem here. We have two Senators sitting here
Senator Ervin. I think the last question was the most direct
question.
Mr. Frates. That's fine. I have no objection and he answered it
and he answered "No."
Mr. Lenzner. I asked one direct question anyway, but let me just
go on and ask you, did you spend those funds that were left over on
behalf of any employee^of the White House or the campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he frequently has fimds of mine for various
things and he keeps them and I don't think he's ever given me a
refund when he needed more money.
Mr. Dash. Well, who is "he"?
9952
Mr. Rebozo. My attx)rney, my attorney.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Wakefield, you're referring to now?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you aware when you talked to Mr. Kalmbach,
prior to sending that money out, that Mr. Kalmbach was raising
funds for the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. I knew that he was making contacts — well, I don't
know, this was in 1969. No, I don't believe I knew it then. I believe that
maybe a year or so later — I know I am under oath and I don't
want to conjecture, but I can only say, to the best of my recollection,
I did not know what his part would be. You know, he was assistant
to Stans, in 1968. That is where I first knew him and I did not know
at that time who was going to be in charge, but I knew somewhere
along the line that he was
Senator Wbicker. Let me ask this question, then, if I might? If
you did not underetand that the funds were to be used relative to
the employment of Mr. Ulasewicz, and if you did not understand
that the funds would be used in the campaign effort of 1972, what
did you understand that the funds were to be used for?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I said, very often there are bills that come
out very late for the campaign and I recall in about 1962, the
President got a bill for $12,000 from the 1960 campaign and paid
it out of his pocket because somebody had failed to pay for some
advertising, 2 years later. I just assumed that
Senator Weicker. So you assumed that this was money to be used
for the paying of bills from the 1968 campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. The 1968 campaign, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recx)llection of Mr. Kalmbach
telling you in 1969 that he was, in fact, at that time, raising con-
tributions for the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. He told me at sometime but I can't tell you what
year it was.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't place it around the same time?
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't see much of Kalmbach until 1969 when the
President bought the home in San Clemente and I made occasional
trips out there and ran into him.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, aft:er the 1968 election, did you again
have a conversation with ISIr. Banner with regard to the Hughes
contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, of course.
Mr. Lenzner. And approximately when did those begin again?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, Mr. Danner used to come to Miami occasionally.
His mother lives down in Florida and I could not tell you just when,
but I think it weis sort of continual, you know, periodically, he would
bring it up again.
Mr. Lenzner. And was it he that always raised it with you? And
not you that raised it with him?
Mr. Rebozo. I am sure that was the case.
Mr. Lenzner. You never were the person who initiated the con-
versation with Mr. Danner with regard to the contributions?
Mr. Rebozo. I possibly could have.
Mr. Lenzner. Senator Montoya has entered the room, for the rec-
9953
oixi. I don't know if the stenographer got the last question and
answer, Mr. Rebozo.
Did you, at any time after the 1968 election, initiate discussions
with Mr. Danner with regard to liim obtaining a contribution for-—
from the Hughes people ?
Mr. Rebozo. Not that I can recall. It is my recollection that he
always initiated it because they were still trying to get me to accept
that money.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of ever making the
statement that you couldn't remember whether you, in fact, were the
one that approached Danner or Danner approached you?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe I would have made that statement, but
there was no reason for me to approach Danner. He wasn't even
working for Hughes. He was an attorney practicing law in Wash-
ington and an old friend.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, didn't he discuss with you, in January and
February of 1969, whether he should in fact go to work for the
Hughes Tool Co?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, yes. He mentioned it one time that he was offered
this ix)sition.
Mr. Lenzner. So you knew at that time that he was considering
it. Did you learn after that, that he had in fact become employed
by them?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. But you are saying that despite that, you don't
recall ever making the statement that you couldn't recall whether
it was he who initiated discussions on the contribution or you.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, it just didn't seem relevant, and it doesn't to
me now, who initiated it. I believe that he always initiated it be-
cause of my original turndown of the original offer.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you explain to Mr. Danner, by the way, why
you had turned that original contribution down, the reasons for it?
Mr. Rebozo. I think so. There was a combination of reasons, some
of which I had mentioned.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you tell Mr. Danner in 1969, that you knew
Hughes had made a substantial contribution to Mr. Humphrey's
campaign ?
Mr. Rebozo. Danner told me.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Danner told you that. Did you ever, in the
spring of 1969, approach Mr. Danner and ask him to raise funds
for polling purposes for the 1970 congressional election?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall anything like that. Again, 5 years ago,
but I don't recall it.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you have any duties
Mr. Rebozo. I have read a lot about that, but he did tell me when
he gave me the $50,000 that it was the same money that he had tried
to give me before when he had been in the vault, and I finally
agreed to take it, and I read a lot about it, and I know the testimony
has indicated that that is what he gave it to me for, and if he said
anything about it, I would have thought it was just sort of a face-
saving device to give it to the President's next campaign because
there was no suggestion made about what races were to be favored,
9054
or who to give it to, or anything like that. And it was money that
was intended for the President.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, was the specific purpose of the money dis-
cussed with Mr. Danner between the two of you, Mr. Banner and
youi-self, when you discussed it in 1969?
Mr, Rebozo. I don't know that it was. I think that the discussion
principally was around my taking money which I had refused
repeatedly.
Mr. Lenzner. So you're saying now — I want to get this straight,
because, as you're saying, Mr. Banner's testimony has indicated that
it was his undei*standing it was for the 1970 campaigns, that your
recollection is that there was no specific discussion with regard to
what campaign this money would be intended for.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I stated that they did not suggest that I give
it to any specific categories, that if they were interested in the 1970
campaign, and if something was said about it, I would have just
assimied that they were saying, "Look, I want you to have this,"
and that's because they were trying too hard to give this to me.
Mr. Lenzner. I am sorry, I missed that.
Mr. Rebozo. Because they had tried so hard to give it to me.
Mr. Lenzner. Did they ever indicate to you, did Mr. Danner ever
indicate to you that it was for
Mr. Rebozo. I've answered that question, the question that he could
have said it in the past, but it didn't make any impression with me
because I was only interested in money raised.
Mr. Lenzner. And that was the 1972 reelection of President
Nixon.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Were there a number of occassions when Mr. Danner
offered the money and tried to furnish you with the money during
1969?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you approximate how many times that
occurred?
Mr. Rebozo. It would be purely a guess, but I suppose that he must
have approached me on it four or five times.
Mr. Lenzner. In person or telephonioally, or mostly in person?
]Mr, Rebozo. Mostly in person.
Mr. Lenzner. And did he, on any occasion, have the funds with
him when he approached you on those occasions?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, on one occasion I know he did.
Mr. Lenzner. And where was that, in Key Biscayne?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And did he show you the funds at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. I just saw the envelope.
^Ir. Lenzner. But he indicated that he had $50,000 in cash in the
envelope.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever suggest to him during that period of
time that he should give those funds to the Republican National
Committee ?
Mr. Rebozo. No. I honestly wasn't interested in the Republican
National Committee. I was interested in the President.
9055
Mr. Lenzner. But they could have supplied the funds, to the Presi-
dent's campaign, could they not?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, that's
Mr. Frates. That is a statement.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I'm asking a question.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, that's getting into a q^uestion that is beyond
the area, that's beyond the scope of my activities or knowledge. I
have made my point that, as far as I am concerned now and was
then, that it was for the President's 1972 campaign.
Mr. Lenzner. I know, but wha/t I'm asking you is, are you saying
you were not aware of the fact that the Republican National Com-
mittee could have held those funds and furnished them to the Presi-
dent's campaign in 1972?
Senator Ervin. Isn't that sort of — that's going out of the realm of
evidence and discussion I believe, Terry.
Mr. Frates. Thank you, sir. I think everybody knows that the
political committee can help any candidate for the party that it's
supporting.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, could you describe on the occasions that Mr.
Danner tried to offer you the funds, could you describe what he said
to you and what you said to him on those occasions?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I have described it about as well as I can.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you indicate to him why you didn't want to
accept the funds ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I did, partly.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you relate to the oommifctee what those rea-
sons were as you described them?
Mr. Rebozo. Again, it goes back to my apprehension over the
original $205,000 loan and the adverse publicity that evolved from
that, the facts of which have never, even to this day, been clarified
publicly, and I lived with that in the 1960 campaign and the 1962
campaign, and in the interim I Avas just apprehensive. I think, tliat —
I didn't think there was anything wrong with taking the money.
It is just that I wanted to avoid any possible embarrassment.
Mr. Lenzner. So, your main reason was as you describe it.
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Were there any other reasons?
Mr. Dash. Well, Terry, can I interrupt a minute ? There are a lot
of people in the room, 1 am beginning myself to feel the fumes, so
I wish you would refrain from smoking.
Mr. Rebozo. Maybe that'll limit the interrogation.
Mr. Lenzner. Limit my endurance.
Mr. Frates. You're not supposed to be the nervous one.
Mr. Lenzner, Was there any other reasons why you did not want
to take the money?
Mr, Rebozo. Well, there were other reasons that it didn't conform
to the pattern that I felt comfortable with. I was told that they had
given considerable money to Senator Humphrey and that Hughes
Tool had the Senator's son on their payroll, and that they had paid
Larry O'Brien six figures. And with all of this combination of facts,
together with the history of the original $205,000 loan and the Ed
Morgan-Drew Pearson connection, it was just a combination of
9956
everything that made me apprehensive again, not because I felt that
there was anything wrong with it, but it was just I felt I didn't
want to risk, even remotely, any embarrassment to the campaign.
Mr. Lenzner. How did you learn that Mr. O'Brien was receiving
a six-figure income from the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Rebozo, Well, I was told that, and more recently, I read it
somewhere.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, obviously you knew about it at the time in
1969 when you had the discussions with Mr. Danner. Do you recall
who told you that then?
Mr. Rebozo. I think Danner told me.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember how that came up in the
discussion ?
Mr. Rebozo. No. As I say, Danner and I have been friends for 30
years. We talked about a lot of things. It probably just was
mentioned.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you not, in fact, raise that as an issue to Mr.
Danner as to why the Hughes people should, in fact, contribute
the additional funds?
Mr. Rebozo. I could have.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you not also cite the fact that Mr. Humphrey's
son was on the payroll as another reason why they should raise the
funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No. He told me that. He told me that. I didn't know
anything about it.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you, on occasion, cite that to Mr. Danner as a
reason why the Hughes people ought to get up a contribution for
the President's campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. I think what I probably said was that I could not
understand if he was genuinely trying to support the President,
why all of these other activities were going on, too, or something
along this. I just couldn't understand.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you remember what Mr. Danner's reaction
was when you made that statement?
Mr. Rebozo. No. Danner is not the type of fellow who reacts too
much to situations like that. He is a strong, quiet type of fellow,
and again, we're talking about something that happened 6 years
ago, and if you ask me specifics about it, about who said what and
what was his reaction and all of that, it is not easy to recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, what I'm getting at, Mr. Rebozo is, didn't
you, on occasion, indicate to Mr. Danner that you knew the Presi-
dent's campaign for 1968 had not received a contribution from
Hughes but the Democrats had, and you were going to see — ^you
wanted to see what Htighes was going to come up with?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have said something about that in our conver-
sations, but he's the one who told me about it.
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Danner come back to you on one occasion
and indicate to you the specific amounts that, in fact, the Hughes
people had given the Republican campaign in 1968?
Mr. Rebozo. Only that — what I have stated about what they were
paying Larry O'Brien and those are the exact words he used — six
figures. He did not give me the amount.
9957
Mr. Lenzxer. Let me break here and see if ainybody has any addi-
tional questions in these areas.
Mr. Lackritz. One thing I wasn't clear about, Mr. Rebozo. You
said Mr. Danner brought you a package in 1969 to your home in Key
Biscayne, Fla., and that you turned down the money in person on
that occasion.
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't say when it was. I don't recall what the date
was when he brought the package.
Mr. Lackritz. Who was ^vith Mr. Danner when he brought that?
Mr. Rebozo. No one.
Mr. Lackritz. He was bjr himself?
Mr. Rebozo. [Nods in the affirmative.]
Mr. Lackrii^ And can you describe the package that he brought ?
Mr. Rebozo. It was one of these letter-sized thick manila envelopes.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And did he explain to you that he had $50,000
in $100 bills inside the package on that occasion?
Mr. Frates. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have gone over this before
and these are repetitious questions, and again, I don't want to be
technical and we want to conclude this, but I think this is the prob-
lem of several people interrogating. Every person thinks he can ask
the questions.
Senator Ervin. All three of those questions have been asked and
answered at least once, and we're asking them again.
Mr. Lenzner. I don't think the last question has been asked or
answered.
Senator Ervin. All of this relates to 1969, and I have not seen
it tied to the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Dash. This is the 1972 contribution. This is the Hughes con-
tribution for the 1972 campaign which Mr. Rebozo said he received.
Senator Ervin. Well, I thought that was the one he said he re-
fused to take.
Mr. Frates. It is.
Mr. Lackritz. But he eventually did take that very same contri-
bution, as he has testified.
Senator Ervin. Well, it would seem to me it would come down to
the one that he took.
Mr. Frates. Well, sir, I hope we're going to get to that before
the day is over.
Senator Ervin. I just don't think — I think what happened in 1969,
unless he got some money then and kept it for the 1972 campaign,
is not within the ambit of our investigative power.
Mr. Lackritz. Senator, l<jt me rephrase my question. At the time
that Mr. Danner brought the package to you and said there was
$50,000 in it for you, were you raising any money at that time for
the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. By raising money, was I out actively soliciting ?
Mr. Lackritz. Were you accepting contributions?
Mr. Rebozo. Accepting — now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Are
you talking about 1969?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You were not accepting any contributions.
9958
Mr, Frates. The answer was "No".
Mr. Rebozo. No. You see, this gentleman, now, I've never seen him .
before. Lenzner and Armstrong, they've been through all of this
before. We've had 4- or 5-hour sessions. j
Mr. Dash. This is an executive session on the record, and there ]
are many questions that may be put to you, Mr. Rebozo, that you've ^
been through before.
Senator Weicker. The thing which I don't quite understand is, if
you were not accepting contributions for the 1972 campaign, how
is it that people arrive on your doorstep with $50,000 in manila
envelopes? Is this to pay past bills?
Mr. Rebozo. I think the question was, was I accepting other
contributions ?
Mr. Frates. Well, Senator, excuse me. Since this is going to be on
the record, and since, apparently, it goes out to newspapers in var-
ious places, and certainly— ^ —
Senator Ervin. I hope it doesn't go out to newspapers from here,
and I'll have to agree that all congressional committees have too
many leaks, but I would say that noibody in here should say a word
outside this door as to what happened, what the testimony was.
Mr. Frates. Senator, I don't think you were in here, maybe you
weren't in here when he described his longtime relationship Avith
Danner and I think your statement, again, "arrive on his doorstep"
overlooks the fact that they have been friends for a long time, and
he's indicated to no question that he was trying one way or the other,
Danner, to get some money for the President, or as he said pre-
viously, for the congressional races, to Mr. Rebozo.
Senator Weicker. Were these the 1970 and 1972 races? That is
all I am trying to establish.
Mr. Frates. Well, sir, there again I think there's been some con-
flict in it, as Mr. Rebozo has repeatedly testified. I think he has
said here that, in his mind, it was for the 1972 Presidential
Senator Weicker. What I am asking your client is this, on the
matter of the $1,500 that v/e just discussed, we established the fact
that he thought he was sending this money to pay bills for the 1968
campaign. We established t-hat.
Mr. Frates. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Now, what I'm trying to establish is this other
amount of money which Mr. Danner produces, what was your client's
impression as to what this money was for, for paying off bills or
for campaigns? What, in your mind, was this money to be utilized
for, this money that you refused ? What was this money for ?
Mr. Frates. Can I raise one objection because the chairman raised
it for me, that that 1969 has nothing to do with Resolution 60?
Mr. Dash. Our committe<i has ruled that the 1972 campaign began
the day after the 1968 election ended, and if it was raised in that
period, it is in the resolution. The chairman did rule that.
Mr. Frates. Well, I'm just quoting the statement the chairman did
rule.
Senator Er\tn. Well, wait a minute. I don't see — it's very interest-
ing as to what we get money for, as Mr. Rebozo says he refused
to take. It's interesting, but I don't see how it sheds much light on
what we're investigating.
9959
Mr, Dash. Well, Senatoi-, it does.
Senator Ervin. How?
Mr. Dash. We have to do it in executive session inquiry, and as
to his motivation of why it was refused and later accepted, and his
explanation as to why he later accepted it and why he first refused
it, and unless you get into this question, Senator, you are asking
to ask the ultimate questions which cannot be understood unless you
lead up to it with the earlier questions dealing with the same money.
It's not — ^without all the questions, we can't get into the understand-
ing of this contribution.
Senator Erven. I don't see why we can't ask him directly when he
actually received it and what he did with it.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Ervin. Now, it's veiy interesting. That's the important
thing, and then we can ask him why, why he received it. I don't
think what motivations a man had when he didn't take any money
shed any light on the thing.
Senator Wp:ickp:r. Well, Mr. Chairman, my question was
Senator Erven. But the whole basis about why he received it and
why he didn't aren't very important.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, my question about motivations
was, was this money for the 1972 campaign ? That is what I asked.
Senator Ervin. I thought your question was proper.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Chairman, I might say that Mr. Rebozo
stated that, in his mind, during the conversation with Mr. Danner,
and on one occasion when he brought the $50,000 and ultimately
when money passed to him, he was in his own mind under the im-
pression that it was for the President's campaign. Now, if any
money was brought by Mr. Danner during this period, it had to be
for the 1970 campaign.
Senator Erven. Not necessarily.
Senator Montoya. Well, because he received it with that in mind.
Senator Erven. We had testimony from Mr. Kalmbach that he
had vast sums of money left over from the 1968 campaign which
were used in the 1972.
Senator Montoya. I'm talking about the big contributions which
came eventually from Mr. Danner. Now, if he receives them with
the tliought in mind or with the impression that they were to be
for the President's campaign, the question I was going to ask was,
what fact or conversations took place that led you to believe, in your
mind, that the money that Mr. Danner had was for the President's
next Presidential campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. I think you might say principally the fact that the
money was first proffered for the President's campaign, and he cited
to me that the money that he finally gave me were the identical bills,
the envelope had been in a vault all of that time.
Mr. Frates. I don't know whether the Senator was here when he
was talking about 1968, the preliminary offer.
Senator Montoya. Well, I assumed that from the conversations.
Mr. Frates. In 1968 for the President. He wanted to give it di-
rectly to the President.
Senator Erven. Your question is proper and relevant, and it is
right within the ambit of our investigatory powers.
31-889 O - 74 - 19
9960
Senator Moxtoya. That is what I am asking. What M^as in j^oiir
mind when these conversations were taking place with respect to
the Presidential campaign, and what facts transpired, what conver-
sations took place that led you to believe that, in your mind, the
monies that were to be contributed were for the Presidential
campaign ?
Mr. Rebozo. That is — ^well, that's what I explained. Perhaps you
weren't present.
Senator Montoya. That's what I wanted to ask. You said that in
your mind this was for the Presidential campaign. Now, what in
your mind, what facts triggered that in your mind, what thought?
Mr. Rebozo. I suppose nobody ever offered me any money for any
other campaigns. It was always for the President, and the President
was the focus of the original tender and the subsequent ones, and
there just was no question in my mind, just as I read now that
Senator McGovem got a half million dollars for his campaign 2
years in advance.
Senator Montoya. But. if Mr. Banner came to you and said,
"here is $50,000," he wasn't just going to hand it to you and let
you assume it was for the President.
IVIr. Rebozo. Well, he had offered it numerous times.
Senator Montoya. For the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. All right.
Mr. Rebozo. And, as I said a while ago, we had had many, many
discussions with Banner. He stayed at my home. We had been
friends for many years, and he could have easily said, "if you want
to use it for the 1970 campaign, do it," but they never specified any
congressional races or Senate races or anything else.
Senator Montoya. Let me ask you one other question. Now, this
is after the 1968 campaign, and so is it reasonable to assume, when
you were speaking with Br. Banner about the contributions, that
you had the thought in mind, and it was reasonable to assume that
any money contributions were with respect to the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. I did not accept contributions from anybody for any-
thing else.
Senator Montoya. All right. That's all I wanted to know.
Mr. Lenzner. Bid you say, in answer to Senator Montoya's ques-
tions, that Mr. Banner said you could use it for the 1970 campaign
if you want?
Mr. Rebozo. I said he might have. Now, you see, we're talking
about something that happened 4 years ago, and I've read a lot of
this stuff, and I am trying to be careful not to be conjecturing and
not to believe what I read always. But I've read about his testimony
and the many, many conversations that we've had over these 6
years, well, you could have easily assumed that. I would just have
assumed it was sort of a means of getting me to take the money that
was really for the President. But here is a face-saving excuse to
give it. I can't tell you what was in his mind.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm not asking what his intentions were. I'm just
asking what you recall him saying to you, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I said, we've had many conversations. I can't
specifically recall everything that was said.
9961
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, if he said, "Use it for the 1970 campaign," did
jou then put him on notice?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he didn't say that.
Mr. Lenzner. He never said that?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall stating last year to somebody, making
this statement that the money was in fact to be applied to the Repub-
lican congressional elections in 1970 ? Do you remember making that
statement last year?
Mr. Rebozo. No; I don't recall any such statement,
Mr. Lenzner. You say you never made that statement?
Mr. Rebozo. I said I don't recall ever making such a statement.
Mr. Greer. If they've got a record or something
Mr. Frates. Since you have repeated and are referring to the rec-
ord, we ask one of the Senators, Senator Weicker or Senator Mon-
toya, whoever's presiding, to refresh his recollection, if you have any
document there or any statement.
Mr. Lenzner. I will refresh his recollection if I can. Do you recall
meeting with Special Agent Whitaker of the FBI in 1973 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, yes, sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember asking him to come to your office,
and do you remember talking to him at that time about the money,
about the money that you had received from the Hughes people?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Was anybody else present on that occasion when
you were talking to Whitaker?
Mr. Rebozo. I think Wakefield, the bank's general counsel, was
there. I'm not sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall telling Agent Whitaker, at that time,
that the money that you had received was to be applied to the Repub-
lican congressional elections in 1970?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I am positive I didn't say anything like that. I
will tell you where that misconception could have come in, and we
might forestall some subsequent questions on this point.
Mr. Lenzner. All right, sir.
Mr. Rebozo. I know I shouldn't elaborate
Mr. Dash. Well, I think the witness has a right to add and
elaborate and explain his answers.
Mr. Rebozo. After the 197'2 campaign, then I was hoping it might
be used for the 1974 congressional election. Now, Whitaker, I might
have said something like that to him, I don't know, and that is where
your misconception might have come from.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me ask you this, Mr. Rebozo. Did you seek any
advice irom anybody during this period of time that Mr. Danner
was trying to give you the contribution as to whether you should
take it or not take it?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't t;hink so.
Mr. Lenzner. All right, sir. Then I take it there came a time
when you did, in fact, decide to take contributions.
* Mr. Rebozo. The decision was purely mine.
Mr. Lenzner. You didn't consult with anybody else?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
9962
Mr. Lenzner. And do you remember approximately when you
decided to take the contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't. As I recall, again, to give background to
put things in appropriate perspective and understand what my
logic was at the time, it would take too long, but I'll make it very,
very brief. As I recall, Danner then had been working for Hughes a
couple of years or so. I had come to know Maheu, whom I didn't
know when he first offered the money. Morgan was seemingly out of
the picture, and I began to get a little confidence in the fact that
maybe this money could be utilized, and it wouldn't present any
ernbarrassing problems. So it was somewhere after he had been
with them for sometime that I agreed to take it.
Mr. Lenzner. And you're saying a couple of years. Is that what
you said before ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know what the timeframe was. It was
Mr. Frates. Well, excuse me. I think what he said, Mr. Lenzner,
that Danner had been with the Hughes people approximately 2
years.
Mr. Lenzner. When you decided to take the money.
Mr. Frates. That was a factor.
Mr. Rebozo. He might have been there a year.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, if he started in February of 1969, which I
think is accurate, Mr. Rebckzo
Mr. Rebozo. Well, then, it would have been a year and a half.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, are you saying now during the year 1969
you did not decide then to accept the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No, that is correct, that's correct. It was decided
shortly before he gave me the first envelope and he was going to
come to Miami to do that, and I said, "Well, I'm going to b^ in
California next week, and I'll save you a trip." And that is the
way it came about.
Mr. Lenzner, How did you communicate to him when you decided
to accept the funds ? Was this in response to another offer by him ?
Mr. Rebozo. I am sure it was. As I said, it came up any number
of times and it was really beginning to strain our relationship be-
cause I was refusing it.
Mr. Lenzneir. So you're saying that he continued to offer it dur-
ing 1969, and then into 1970, and at some point you indicated to
him OK.
Mr. Rebozo. He wasn't calling me every day.
Mr. Lenzner. I understand. On occasion he wanted to see if you'd
still accept the funds. Did he indicate how much the total contribu-
tion was going to be before you accepted the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I don't think so. He may have given
it to me and said there Avill be more later, but again, I read that as
though — that's probably correct.
Mr. Lenzner. And you're saying now that when you received the
funds on the first occasion, it was your understanding at that time
that there would only be a $50,000 payment.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I didn't say that. I said that he may have said
there was going to be some more, but I don't think he ever said
how much more.
9963
Mr. Lenzner. And when did you receive those funds?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I think we have well established that the first
contribution was made on July 3d of 1970.
Mr. Lenzner. And that was where, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. In San Clemente.
Mr. Lenzner. And exactly where in San Clemente?
Mr. Rebozo. Apparently it was done at the administration offices
because this all came up— the only reason I would know the date
at all came up in my IRS examination, and then I think, subse-
quently with you people, I dug up an airline ticket, and I thought
that he had stated the San Clemente Inn, where I frequently stay,
but I had them check their records out there, and they reported
that they liad never had him registered there.
So, then I just had to assume that the other was the case. I some-
times stay at the residence, and so, apparently, I was staying at
the guest cottage in the residence, and then I think that he came
over, and I think that we had lunch over there at the administrative
mess.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you sajdng that you are certain now that the
first payment that you received from Mr. Danner was in California,
in San Clemente, rather than in Florida?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I am as certain as I can be. Again, I put a lot
of things together, and during all of these months, and that appears
to be the fact. As I understand it, Danner had, originally thought
that it was here and then later changed his testimony and said that
it was out there.
Mr. Lenzner. "Well, let me ask you this. Do you recall when we
first talked to you, Mr. Rebozo, do you recall at that time you re-
called that you had received the first payment in 1969?
Mr. Rebozo. I told the IRS I had received it in 1968. That is
how bad my recollection was at the time. I didn't know when I had
received it. I had thought I had gotten the first in 1968 and the
second in 1969, but I was sui'e that the first was given in California.
Mr. Fr.\tes. Senator Weicker, I think Mr. Lenzner doesn't mean
to mislead, but you're talking about the first inter\'iew. He said he
originally thought it was 1969 until they had checked the airline
tickets with Danner, and then it became obvious that it was July
3, 1970, and so he didn't say that he got it in 1969. At that interview
the date was established as July 3, 1970, and I don't know what you
purport to be stated in your question, that he told you that it was
in 1969, because he didn't say that, and we have the records of that,
and the typed records and the recording of that.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, that was the second interview we had with
]\Ir. Rebozo.
Mr. Rebozo. We have notes of it, and I don't think there's any
question.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, there's no sense in arguing about it. Let me
ask you this, Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Frates. Well, excuse me. Senator Weicker, I think there is,
because he did not make the statement that he got it in 1969 at
that hearing. He said originally he thought he might have gotten
it in 1969 until Danner checked his airline tickets at San Clemente.
9964
He had only been there one time, and we gave Mr. Lenzner the copy
of Mr. Danner's affidavit, I think to the IRS. I have a copy of it
where that date was clearly established as July 3, 1970, the only
time that he had gone to San Clemente, and that was — you have
all those records, Teriy. And I'm sure you don't mean to
Mr. Lenzner. Wliich records are you referring to?
Mr. Frates. Danner's records. I gave you the aflSdavit sitting in
our conference room.
Mr. Lenzner. What does that suggest?
Mr. Frates. The first contribution was made — ^this is Danner's
affidavit, of which copy I voluntarily gave you. I assume you have it.
The first contribution was made to Mr. Rebozo on July 3d, 1970, while he
was visiting San Clemente, Calif. I determined that date from my expense vouch-
ers from the Frontier Hotel, Las Vegas, Nev. This $50,000 Avas, according
to my best recollection, the money apparently had been collected in 1968 for
a possible contribution in 1969 Presidential campaign. I am now certain that
this was the occasion of the first contribution, July 3, 1970.
Mr. Lenzner. I think that is the second affidavit, not his deposi-
tion.
Mr. Frates. Terry, you've seen this.
Mr. Dash. Well, you have his interrogation. The only point I
raise is you need a statement and the statement calls for clarifica-
tion. I'm sure you didn't mean to
Mr, Lenzner. Let me tell you this way. In fact, didn't you make
the statement in 1973, that you had received the first contribution
in 1969?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I just got through saying that I had first
told the IRS that I thought the first thing was in 1968 and the
second was in 1969. I never made such a statement as you refer to.
Mr. Dash. Statement with whom? Clarify the record.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, do you recall telling, again. Special Agent
Whitaker from the FBI, in June of 1973, that you received the
funds in 1969?
Mr. Rebozo. No. June of 1973 — I don't know if that was a period
when I wasn't sure that I received it. As I've repeatedly stated, I
originally even thought it was 1968, as I said. But we have firmly
established that regardless of what you say I told him, the payment
was made July 3 of 1970. That has been very, very firmly estab-
lished.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm sorry, I can't hear with all this talking going
on, Mr. Rebozo. I apologize.
Mr. Rebozo. I said I believe it has been firmly established that
the first payment was made on July 3, 1970, regardless of what
you say that I told T^Hiitaker.
Mr. Lenzner. All I'm asking now, though, sir, is when you had
that conversation with Special Agent Whitaker, do you recall telling
him that it was, in fact, 1969 that you received the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No; I don't recall telling him that. I could have.
Senator Weicker. I gather — correct me if I'm wrong — Mr. Rebozo
admits to the fact that quite frankly, at one time, he said it was
1968 and very possibly, he told you it was 1969, and now that he's
sure it's 1970. That's my understanding of what's going back and
forth here.
9965
Mr. Frates. You summed, it up nicely, sir.
Mr. Dash, Is the assurance based on Mr. Banner's recollection of
the records?
Mr. Rebozo. His and mine, and my plane tickets.
Mr. Dash. Well, are the records that you just referred to, Mr.
Rebozo, are those what reminded you that the first payment was
in 1970 in San Clemente?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, because I had contacted the San Clemente Inn
and asked them to check out what dates Danner was there in 1968
or 1969, and they said he was nev^er there. They checked 1970, 1971
and said, "He has never been checked in here." I didn't recall that.
Senator Montoya. I just want to ask one more question. Mr.
Rebozo, you said that Mr. Danner visited you in Florida four or
five times and he was trying to give you a contribution during 1969.
Do you recall that?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, he visited me a number of times and he didn't
always stay at my house. I think he stayed there one time.
Senator Montoya. And he had this money?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know that he always had the money. He
talked about it.
Senator Montoya. How many times would you say
Mr. Rebozo. On one occasion, I know he had the money because
he brought it over.
Senator Montoya. And it was the same yellow type manila en-
velope ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Montoya. At which time it was used to deliver the $50,000 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Montoya. Was anybody else at San Clemente when you
said he delivered the first contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. No, there was nobody present when I say he deliv-
ered the first contribution.
Senator Montoya. What did you do with the funds after you
leceived them at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe I put them in my bag and brought them
back.
Senator Montoya. I mean did you open the envelope and count
the money?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Senator Montoya. So you didn't open the envelope at all before
you put it in your bag?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Senator Montoya. Did you introduce Mr. Danner to anybody at
San Clemente after he delivered the money?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. If anybody would have walked up, I
would have introduced him.
Senator Montoya. Do you recall having a conversation with
President Nixon and Mr. Danner after you received the funds on
that date?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall him seeing the President on that visit.
Someone has said that we went in to visit him, and if the President
were free, yes, I think it would have been a very logical thing.
9966
Danner has known the President for more than 20 years. But I don't
recall just going in there and talking to him. If we had, you can
be sure that there was never any money discussed. It would take a
long time to prove this point, and a lot of incidents and examples
that I could use that would prove it, but I know in the interest
of time, I'll not go into that now.
Senator Montoya. Have you made any effort to have — I know
you told us at one time that you had the compound records checked
to see when Mr. Danner was in the compound. Did you attempt
to determine from the President's logs whether he and you and
Mr. Danner met on that occasion?
Mr. Kebozo. No, I did check — what I was referring to was the
gate. I wasn't sure that they had it, and I did check the gate and
he was logged in.
Senator Weicker. Wliere did the actual transfer of the money
take place?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe there at the staff mess. He just came in
with his briefcase and I don't know whether we went to my cot-
tage or not. I just don't know. It was just a plain manila envelope.
Senator Weicker. To the best of your recollection, the manila en-
velope was given to you in the staff mess, is that right ?
Mr. Rebozo. I really don't know. It could have been there, it
could have been at the cottage. The reason I'm inclined to doubt
that we saw the President when I visited, is because when he is
in that office, he has one appointment after the other and I don't
like to inject something like this if there were Cabinet officers
or Senators or someone there. But he could have. I don't recall it.
Mr. Lenzner. You recall the President being there, though, when-
ever it was, on that date?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall having a conversation with Miss
Rose Mary Woods, Mr. Danner and yourself, after you received the
funds in San Clemente?
Mr. Frates. That day?
Mr. Lenzner. The same day.
Mr. Rebozo. We may have. I don't know whether he knows Rose
or not. So if he does not, we wouldn't have had occasion to stop
there.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you give Mr. Danner a receipt ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And I take it he did not request a receipt?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you make any record of the existence of the
transaction? I mean did you make any written record?
Mr. Rebozo. I have a pretty good record right here [tapping his
head].
Mr. Lenzner. What did you do after you got back to Florida
with the funds in your briefcase? What did you do with the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. I put it in the vault.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you open the envelope before you put the en-
velope in the vault?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I think at a subsequent time, I did.
9967
Mr. Frates. Excuse me, Senator. Mr. Rebozo has been interro-
gated on four or five occasions and I would just like to caution him,
because I think he's talking — I have already told you this, Terry,
but you must realize that this is being transcribed, so you have
to tell the complete story of it.
Mr. Rebozo. OK.
Mr. Lenzner. Did I miss something?
Mr. Frates. No, I just say I think you are on about the fifth
conversation with him, and I want to make sure he's telling the
complete transaction, make it clear on the record.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you want to add something, Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. I have nothing to add.
Mr. Lenzner. You say you came back and took the envelope un-
opened and put it in a particular safe-deposit box, or just a vault?
Mr. Rebozo. A safe-deposit box.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you make any markings on the envelope at
that time?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes; I just marked "HH" in the corner of it.
Mr. Lenzner. That is the only record, I take it, of the existence
of the — that the funds w^ere from Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. No, as I previously testified I wrote a letter and
put it in the director's box, and on the envelope I wrote, "Instruc-
tions to Wakefield, General Counsel," who had the extra key to
that box, that if anything should happen to me, to turn these funds
over to the finance chairman or the campaign director when they
are named. At that time, there was none. I did not tell my attorney
what was in there; I simply said there were some important docu-
ments and if sometime something happens to me — I'm flying a lot —
to open the box and follow instruction.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm sorry; you wrote those instructions on the
envelope ?
Mr. Rebozo. I wrote them on the envelope and I also wrote
another
Senator Weicker. Just to clarify, because I don't think — as I
understand, this is a different envelope.
Mr. Rebozo. The same envelope.
Senator Weicker. I thought the only thing that happened to the
manila envelope was "HH" in the corner.
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Senator Weicker. That one gets put in the box, right?
Mr. Frates. With a letter.
Senator Weicker. With a letter?
Mr. Frates. Yes.
Senator Weicker. And the letter went into the director's vault?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. And this letter is what you're now talking
about ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Not the manila envelope with "HH" on it, is
that right?
Mr. Frates. Yes. Well, just to make sure
Mr. Rebozo. Both.
9968
Mr. Frates. You put both in?
Mr. Rebozo. I wrote on the manila envelope instructions and
then I wrote a letter and put it in the — addressed to Wakefield —
in the director's box.
Mr. Lenzner. And this is at the time that you originally — the first
time you put tlie envelope, which you assumed was money, in the safe-
deposit box ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I would say it was that evening or a few days
later, but I think it was done at the same time.
Senator Montoya. Let me clarify one point. You said you put
this letter of instruction in the director's box. Wliat is the direc-
tor's box?
Mr. Rebozo. The director's box, the attorney also has a key to
that. It contains financial statements of directors that the bankers
periodically review, and any other papers pertaining to the bank
Senator Montoya. And in the letter, you stated that you had this
package in your safe deposit box, is that right?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And you identified it in the letter?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. How did you identify it?
Mr. Rebozo. I simply said it was in box No. 224.
Senator Montoya. How did you identify it?
Mr. Rebozo. And the instructions were on the envelope, the same
instructions, really, that were in the letter. I don't know why I
doubled up on it. I just assumed I would lose the key or whatever.
Senator Montoya. Is a copy of that letter of instruction available?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir; I don't think so.
Senator Montoya. Was it torn or destroyed?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, when the signals changed, you know, I just
got rid of it, put the letter in a different envelope.
Mr. Dash. That's ambiguous. Wliat do you mean, the signals
changed ?
Mr. Rebozo. That gets into a substantive aspect of it.
Mr. Lenzner. We'll get into it. If you want to get into it now,
Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Frates. May I, if the Senator will permit, let him go ahead
and tell the full story? I don't know if they want to come back
after lunch. Go ahead and tell the factual part of it.
Senator Montoya. Just tell me when it was destroyed and then
you can continue.
Mr. Rebozo. I'm not sure when it was destroyed, but it was
somewhere along the time that — I think when Howard Hughes had
his problems. You see, this first contribution was July 3 and the
second one was a couple of months later, somewhere along in there.
Senator Montoya. Did you have the same instructions with
respect to the subsequent contributions?
Mr. Rebozo. As I recall, it was attached to the same envelope. I had
rubberbands around two of them. Thanksgiving of that year was
when Howard Hughes pulled out of Las Vegas, and then they started
having this donnybrook between the different ones — Maheu — Hughes
fired Maheu ; Maheu had hired Danner ; and then bad blood immedi-
9969
ately ensued between Danner and Maheu, and I got more apprehen-
sive of how this might be interpreted. Not that I felt there was any-
thing wrong with it, but after the previous experience, I was mostly
concerned with how it would be interpreted. So as time went on, I just
thought it better not to use that money for the 1972 campaign and try
to see if things cleared up and hold it for the 1974 or 1976, some point
where I could turn it over to the properly appointed authority. But
matters went from bad to worse with the Hughes organization and I
could just see one talking about the other, and I felt that sooner or
later, this matter would come up and be misunderstood. This was the
reason
Senator Montoya. Did you consult with anybody on making that
decision ?
]Mr. Rebozo. No, the decision to just hold onto it was my own. I
didn't start with anyone until after the election, the balance of it.
Mr. Frates. Excuse me again. If I may interrupt, I think the rec-
ords show. Senator, that he did tell Rose Mary Woods that the money
was there. That was the only person.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes ; I did tell her.
Senator Montoya. Was that after the election ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, before.
Senator Weicker. I think counsel's suggestion is a good one, to just
let Mr. Rebozo, in narrative form, to go on here, because otherwise, it
does get a little difficult to follow.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Just to help you, we're back at the point where
two envelopes have been put into the safe.
Mr. Frates. At Key Biscayne Bank, which he actively runs.
Mr. Rebozo. With the appropriate instructions. Then, of course,
when all this happened, the instructions stayed on it until — •! think
it was after this Watergate business.
Mr. Dash. You mean the break-in?
Senator Weicker. I think it might be helpful if you d.o exactly
what your counsel says. We still haven't gotten to the point where
the second enevlope has gone into the safe. We're just at the point
where $50,000, with letters of instruction, have been put into the
safe.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, I see. Well, this second envelope, of course, it
was brought to Key Biscayne and put into the safe, attached to
the other.
Senator Weicker. Could you give the details of the receipt of
that money?
Mr. Rebozo. It was in an envelope identical to the first one and
Danner brought it. I don't remember whether he brought it to
my office or my home ; I don't recall. But after the Hughes problem
in 1970, then these other problems arose, so it was getting more
complicated all the time.
I almost have to digress; a little bit to further clarify the basis
of my apprehension. I'm sorry to bore you with this, but it has to
go back to the original group thing involving Drew Pearson and
Ed Morgan and so on. My understanding of that loan — it has be^n
written up so many times as having never been repaid. My under-
9970
standing of that loan wats that the property was appraised, the
money was loaned through Mrs. Nixon, Hannah Nixon, his mother.
The property was appraised at something like just under $230,000.
Part of the condition of thei loan was that they were to spend $40,000
of the money to build a service station on the property, and that
is what they did.
My further understanding was that when Don Nixon went broke,
they deeded the property back and the lessors rights on the service
station and that Hughes didn't lose anything on it. But in spite of
my understanding of that, it still gets play in stories after all these
years. That was in 1958, I believe, when that happened. So it is
easy to see how anything <:;onnected with the Hughes name, especi-
ally where money is concerned, raised a flag with me. So I took all
the precautions I could.
Now, when it came to returning the money, I took into consid-
eration that there may be sovae question about whether I was — ^liad
used the money and was replacing it, or what, because IRS had
come in and I had told tliem about it. So I debated just how to
go about returning it and proving that it was identical money.
My first inclination was to call the Chief of the Secret Service,
but he is so closely identified with the administration — they work
under the Treasury — I decided to call the head of the FBI locally,
whom I also knew. That is Whitaker, who was just mentioned. He
came over and I told him the purpose in having him there was
that these funds had been in the box all these years and I wanted
to see if, through their crime lab, they could ascertain that the
money — by smell, feel, touch, deterioration, or something — had
been locked up, in fact, that long. And too, I told him that I'm
sure that everybody who works in Las Vegas is fingerprinted and
they could fingerprint those bills and find a Vegas print on every
one of them so that this question could never arise.
So he was there at the opening of the box, and the attorneys.
They counted the money. He didn't stay for the full count. He
initialed a few of them and looked at them all, and so on. And he
was very, very careful so as not to obliterate the prints. The attorney
took an eraser and took each bill by the very corner, turned it
up and read the serial number off, made a list of the serial number,
and prepared a receipt for them to sign for those identical bills.
When they got through counting them, as you have probably
read — of course, I was a little apprehensive that somebody may be
short of $100,000 and be accused of something. It turned out that
we had an extra $100 in <-,here. We returned 1,001 $100 bills, with
the serial numbers.
Mr. Dash. At what point, sir, to follow your narrative at what
point did you say you did destroy the letter, or that the letter was
destroyed, after the Hughes incident?
Mr. Rebozo. I think that the letter — again, time is hard to fol-
low, but I think that the letter was destroyed later. I think the
letter remained in there. You see, the campaign director and chair-
man — I do not believe were engaged until February or March of
1972, and it was shortly after that that the problem started.
Mr. Frates. May I interject by saying in clarification, Tom Wake-
9971
field, who he had written to, is one of the people who was there
when the money box was opened and the money was counted. Four
people were there — ^Wakefield, Rebozo, Barker, and AVhitaker. Ken
Whitaker is the FBI man. Ajid the instructions were written. They
were to Wakefield, of course.
Go ahead.
Mr. Rebozo. I think that — you asked me when I changed the
signals. I don't recall when that was done, when I decided to take
that off, but it was somewhere in that timeframe, after the Hughes
problems started and the campaign got underway, somewhere along
in there. I don't recall, really.
Senator Weicker. Prior — I'm a little confused. This envelope,
this is prior to the opening of the safe and the counting of the
money in the presence of the FBI Agent, Wliitaker?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. So, in fact, the envelopes in which the money
was situated were not the same envelopes that were the original
enevlopes ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. And at the time that occurred, neither was there
a letter in the director's bos, is that right?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I took that out. I had forgotten that was in
there until I went into the director's box one day, and then I took
that out because the signals were no longer valid.
Senator Weicker. In other words, the day that you changed the
envelopes on the money was not identical to the day that you took
the letter out of the director's box?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I destroyed the envelope that was in the box
where the directions were on the big enevlope. But the letter in the
director's box I did away with later.
Senator Weicker. Could you give us some sort of timeframe as to
these two actions?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't go in there very often and it could have
been — anything I say will be a guess.
Senator Weicker. 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. It could have — no, I think it was — I really don't
know.
Senator Montoya. I would like to ask a question along that line.
Senator Weicker. Sure.
Senator Montoya. This is the first time you have said this since
I have been here, that you put a manila envelope, a yellow manila
envelope, with $50,000 in the safety-deposit box and that later on
at Key Biscayne, you received another envelope with $50,000 and
you proceeded to tie that to the other manila envelope so that it
would be found pursuant to the instructions that you had left in
the letter in the director's box.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I also had directions on the first manila envelope,
too.
Senator Montoya. Yes, you had directions on the first manila
envelope and you had directions in the director's box addressed to
3' our attorney?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
9972
Senator Montoya. Now, then, now you say that sometime subse-
quent to the placement of those enevelopes in the safety deposit
box, you took the money out and destroyed the envelope with the
instructions, right?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Montota. Now, what did you do with the money ? Where
did you place it?
Mr. Rebozo. I put it in the other — what happened was — and I
didn't recall until after we had been talking one time down there.
I didn't recall why I didn't put it back in big envelopes until during
the conversation there. I recall that I took the box into my office to do
it and I didn't have any big envelopes in there, and I put it in — I
don't know, lO's or 20's — in large brown envelopes that I have in
my desk. Then I tied them together. I continued to separate the two
and then the number 50's by — although it was in two or three en-
velopes each, I put elastii; bands around those and when I — when
we inventoried the money and recorded the serial numbers of each
one, the inventory list separated — I think it is A and B, whatever it
is — ^the two and then the number 50's, so I was trying to clearly iden-
tify in every way possible every detail of the transaction and even
separate the two contributions.
Senator Montoya. When was this done ?
Mr. Rebozo. I really
Senator Montoya. More or less when you took them into your
office?
Mr. Rebozo. I really don't know. It was sometime — I don't know.
I'm afraid to guess.
Senator Montoya. In what year was it ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I said, I even thought the contribution was
in 1968 and it was 1970. I'm afraid to guess.
Senator Montoya. Yes, but this was more recent.
Mr. Rebozo. Even so it was still probably more than a year ago.
Senator Weicker. 1972?
Mr. Rebozo. It very easily could have been 1972. It probably was.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me ask you on that, aren't the pro-
cedures such that you have to sign in and sign out on your safe-
deposit box ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes ; all the customers do, and I used to do it when I
first opened the bank. But we're a small bank and we only have 18
people in the whole operation, and the girl who handles that is almost
invariably busy, so I just quit doing that. I would go get the key
and go in and do it myself.
Senator Montoya. So there would be no record of your being
signed in or signed out?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. The only record is we did all sign the card
when Whitaker came and counted the money. All four of us signed
the card.
Senator Montoya. But prior to that, there would be no record
of your coming or going?
Mr. Rebozo. No. Now and then, we used to have one receptionist
there who would say, "OK, sign it for me this time," and I would
sign it. But most of the time, I would just go in.
9973
Senator Weicker. Now, counsel, you are the one — I certainly
want to make this at your convenience and certainly your client's.
We have been going a long time. Would it be your desire to break
now?
Mr. Frates. Sir, we are here at your convenience.
Mr. Dash. I take it as human beings, we're going to have a lunch
break. We could go on until 12 :30 unless
Senator Weicker. Why not put it this way? We're talking about
a matter of a few minutes. Why don't we break for lunch now and
what would be a good time to come back ?
Mr, Dash. May I ask Mr. Frates for his convenience — and I ask
it solely for your convenience and Mr. Rebozo's convenience. Unfor-
tunately, we have a horde of people.
Mr. Frates. That is one thing we don't hold against you.
Mr. Dash. First of all, we have arranged for enough people out
there so you can go and come as you will.
Mr. Rebozo. You did an extra good job.
Mr. Dash. I made sure we had an extra good group there. Now,
if you want to leave and go to lunch alone somewhere else, that is
up to you.
Mr. Frates. Again, I want the Senator to realize we're here at
your convenience. It appears to me it's not going to be a day's session,
it's going to be a 2-day session.
Mr. Dash. With the narrative, it has been very helpful. With
specific questions, we can follow it up.
Mr. Frates. If we may, if we can go, I would like for our group
to go. The officers have l>een wonderful. If they can get us down
there, and Mr. Rebozo down there, we can eat, when your Honors
set a time to come back, we'll come back.
Senator Weicker. Then I would suggest that we recess until 2
o'clock.
Mr. Frates. Fine.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me ask you this : Would you have any objection
if we reviewed during lunch hour the records you brought us so we
can see whether or not
Mr. Frates. I would rather not, Terry. We have done this before
and I can assure you we're going to cooperate with you completely,
but I think that is iust goina: to lead to
Mr. Dash. In other words, you want a Senator in the room.
Mr. Lexzner. We can abbreviate the session if we didn't have to
break
Mr. Frates. That is what we have said several times, but it never
worked that way.
Senator Weicker. We'll come back at 2 o'clock.
r Whereupon, at 12 :10 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at
2 p.m. the same day.]
Atternoox Session
• Senator Talmadge [presiding]. Mr. Rebozo has already been
sworn.
Mr. Dash. Yes, he has, "Senator.
Senator Tai.madge. Then we'll proceed.
9974
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, did you have any official fund-raising
responsibilities in 1969 when Mr. Danner began to discuss the Hughes
contribution with you ?
Mr. Rebozo. The answer is "no."
Mr. Lenzner. During that period in 1969, did you on occasion have
discussions with other individuals with regard to contributions for
the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Frates. Excuse me, Mr. Lenzner. Senator Weicker, I guess
I'll direct this to you. It seems to me, again, we're right back in
1968, and I thought the chairman had
Mr. Dash. I think his question was
Senator Weicker. Let me say, I did not hear the question. What
is the question?
Mr. Lenzner. The question is, did you have discussions with other
individuals, in addition to Mr. Danner, with regard to contributions
for the 1972 campaign ?
Mr. Frates. All right. That question is all right.
Mr. Rebozo. You mean in
Mr. Greer. In 1969.
Mr. Rebozo. You mean discussions with respect to raising money ?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes.
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Senator Weicker. How about in respect to receiving money ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, neither one. I simply thought there may have
been some casual conversation that he was alluding to, but no, I had
no conversations with respect to soliciting or accepting contributions
at that time.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me clarify it, then, because it's not clear. What
T was asking is, did you speak to any specific individuals other than
Mr. Danner in 1969 with regard to specific contributions for the 1972
election ? That is what T meant to ask?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I probably spoke with Kalmbach sometime or
other. I didn't participate in requesting a contribution or accepting
anv contribution in 1969.
Mr. Lenzner. But vou spoke to Mr. Kalmbach with regard to
Mr. Rebozo. I said, T may have. I may have because I saw him
whenever I went to California, and I mav have. He mav have men-
tioned contributions. We discussed a wide variety of things from
time to time, and that may have been mentioned.
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Kalmbach ask you to see anv specific
individuals with regard to contributions — for the 1972 campaiprn.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. T think that later on. I don't know whether it
was 1969 or 1970 — it mieht have been 1970 — ^he asked me to make
an appointment with him with a couple of people that T knew. One
was Paul Gettv and another was Ravmond Guest.
Mr. Lenzner. Who was that, sir?
INTr. Rebozo. Ravmond Guest.
INTr. Lenzner. T don't even know who that is.
l\Tr. Rebozo. He was Kennedy's Ambassador to Ireland.
Mr. Lenzner. I se^.
l\fr. Frates. That's a generation gap.
9975
Mr. Lenzner. You said he requested sometime in 1969 or 1970
for you t© make an appointment for him to speak to those two
individuals?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe so.
Mr. Lenzner. Any other individuals ?
Mr. Rebozo. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Lenzner. And that was for the purpose of obtaining con-
tributions for the 1972 election ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Had you been asked by anybody else to speak to
Mr. Getty yourself?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. You had not been requested by anybody else to
seek to obtain money from Mr. Getty ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if Mr. Kalmbach received contribu-
tions?
Mr. Rebozo. I understand he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did those funds go to him and to vou, or just to
Mr. Kalmbach?
Mr. Rebozo. Direct to the campaign committee, I think.
Mr. Lenzner. Not to you, though, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if those were checks or cash?
]\fr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know what the amounts were?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Senator Weicker. Off the record.
PDiscussion off the record.]
Senator Wetcker. Back on the record.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, did I ask you what amounts those
contributions were?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, you did. I said, T don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever have occasion to speak to the President
with reafard to those two contributions or contributors?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And you can't remember the exact day when those
contributions came in, I take it?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. But Mr. Kalmbach did report them to you ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir; I don't. T would imagine it was 1971 or — I
don't know.
Mr. Frates. Let's not start to guess. I'm sure you don't want to
guess.
l\f r. Lenzner. But vou have no specific record ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when Mr. Danner and you met in San Clemente,
Calif., do you recall, was that at his request or your request, that
meeting ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I stated, T had finallv ae-reed to accept the
rontribution and he was iroing to bring it to Miami and T said, "well.
I'm o:oino: out" — T think it was the following week — "to San Cle-
31-889 O - 74 - 20
9976
mente," and I said, "to save you a trip out here, I'll get it out
there."
Mr. Lenzner. And he agreed to that?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you on any occasion suggest to Mr. Danner
that he ought to retain the funds until the Republican Finance Com-
mittee was formed for the campaign ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you ever suggest to him that a check would
be more appropriate to use than using cash ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. When you went to San Clemente on that occasion,
did you know he was going to furnish you with cash?
Mr. Rebozo. I assumed it, because that is what he offered before
when I had turned it down.
Mr. Lenzner. We have, Mr. Rebozo, some records from Mr. Danner
on his telephone. I'm told that they do not reflect any calls just prior
to July 3, 1970, to you. Is it possible that you called Mr. Danner and
allowed us how you were going to be in San Clemente, if he wanted
to be with you?
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. I'll ask Senator Weicker — ^he referred to
records and some explanation of them. What records are those? His
liome or his phone, or all telephone calls, or does he deny that he
talked to Mr. Rebozo? It seems to me you ought to delineate.
Mr. Lenzner. We're not getting into his testimony. I'll state for
the record, that we subpenaed and received what he described as his
telephone bills, both from the hotel and, I believe, his residence,
which did reflect a number of calls between Mr. Rebozo and Mr.
Danner, but none immediately preceding — in fact, none in the
month of July 1970 — or I'm sorry — or June 1970. The last phone
call reflects his May 21, 1970, calls. What I'm asking you is, based
on that record, is it conceivable that you called him ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall who called who.
Mr. Dash. Could the record say that it would be possible that you
did call him?
Mr. Rebozo. I guess it's possible. That didn't necessarily mean
that I called him about this. We've been friends for over 30 years.
Mr. Lenzner. So your recollection is not clear on that, is that fair
to say, who called whom to set up the San Clemente meeting?
Mr. Rebozo. [Shakes head in negative.]
Mr. Lenzner. He did call you — I withdraw that question. Let me
ask you this. You had luncheon, apparently, with Mr. Mitchell —
this is from Mr. Mitchell's diary — on May 28, 1970. Do you have
any recollection of discussing with Mr. Mitchell the Hughes contribu-
tion on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. To this day, to this moment, I have never discussed the
Hughes contribution with Mitchell, ever.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I hate to go back to this, but in 1968, when you
went to New York to see Mr. Morgan and Mr. Danner, isn't it true
that you met with Mr. Mitchell at that time ?
Mr. Rebozo. As I stated before, that was some sort of a conclave
planning for the campaign and I met all these people. There wasn't
any specific meeting for the purpose of this type.
9977
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember being in Mr. Mitchell's office with
Mr. Danner and receiving a phone call from what you described,
allegedly described, as a Hughes representative, that you interrupted
the meeting, and when you came back into the meeting
Mr. Rebozo. I don't remember that.
Mr. Lenzner [continuing]. When you came back into the meeting,
you allegedly said, and this is based on other evidence that we have,
that the contribution would not, you could not go forward with
accepting the contribution, and that Mr. Mitchell was present at that
time ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't remember that.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when Mr. Danner first gave you the funds in
San Clemente on the first occasion, did you tell him what you were
going to do with the funds ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think I felt it was necessary. I don't think I
specifically did. He told me they were the same funds that he had
earmarked for the campaign, that they had been in a vault, trying
to get me to accept it all that time.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he tell you what vault, where they had been ?
Mr. Rebozo. He may have mentioned it, but I don't know. His
office vault or something ; I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. But you did not tell him that you were going to put
them in your safe-deposit box and retain them there?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I wasn't that specific with him.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, how soon after you — by the way, did you see
the President yourself after you received the funds in San Clemente?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, I'm sure I did, because I was staying at the guest
cottage at his residence.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you advise the President
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. No, sir ; I never discussed it with the President.
Mr. Lenzner. I was going to ask you, did you advise the President
that his friend, Mr. Danner, had been there ?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have. As I said before, Danner may have even
seen him and said hello to him. I don't recall any such thing happen-
ing, but it could have happened. I probably would have told him
that Danner had been by.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of having a discussion
with the President and Mr. Danner with regard to shows in Las
Vegas and what seemed to be clean shows and what weren't clean
shows in terms of entertainment?
Mr. Rebozo. We may have, but I don't
Mr. Lenzner. You have no recollection of that?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you tell Mr. Danner that you would not tell the
President about the contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm inclined to think he knew that already. I'm sure
I didn't specifically tell him that. At the appropriate time, of course,
I intended to tell him. He knows the President pretty well, too.
Mr. Lenzner. "V^Tien you say, "he knew that," you mean from his
prior-
Mr. Rebozo. I would assume that he knew that, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. But you didn't explicitly say that?
9978
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when you say, "at the appropriate time, you
would tell the President," what do you mean, "at the appropriate
time"?
Mr. Rebozo. I intended telling him after the election, as I did in
1968 with respect to previous contributions then.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there any reason why you would wait until
after the election to tell the President about the contribution?
Mv. Rebozo. Well, those who have worked with the President
closely, who know him well, know that he just doesn't like to discuss
these matters. Afterwards, he should know who helped.
I was interviewed during one of the earlier sessions. I remember
in 1960 when I was given money for him and directed to hand it to
him. When I went to do it, he wouldn't even touch it. He said, "Give
it to Len Hall, the campaign manager."
Mr. Lenzner. So had you furnished the money to the campaign,
you would have Avaited until after November and after the election to
tell the President with regard to that money ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think that is true of most of those who knew him
well and worked with him.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, how soon after you received the money did you
leave for Key Biscay ne?
Mr. Rebozo. I wouldn't know without finding the plane ticket. I
think the plane ticket indicated I went out on the first and probably
was there a week.
Mr. Lenzner. So where did you retain the funds after Mr. Danner
gave them to you ?
Mr. Rebozo. In my bag.
Mr. Lenzner. In your bag in your room ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And you told nobody else while you were in San
Clemente that you had those funds with you?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And then you brouffht them back on an airplane.
How soon after you arrived in Key Biscayne — what did you do with
them after you arrived in Kev Biscayne?
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. When you say "nobody else," I don't know
how to interpret that. His testimony is he told no one at that stage
nbout receiving it.
Mr. Lenzner. That's what I mean.
Mr. Frates. I thought you did.
Mr. Lenzner Let me go back over that.
Mr. Rebozo. I put it in the vault after that.
Mr. Lenzner. "\ATiat T was asking before, Mr. Frates, let me ask
aa-ain. Did vou advise anybody that was in San Clemente on about
Julv 3. 1970. that you had,' in fact, received $50,000 from Mr. Banner?
Mr. Rebozo. No; T don't think I did. I don't know when I first — I
may have told Rose Woods then, but I don't know. I know I told her
shortly after having received it, but it may not have been— it may
have been lat«r, because there iust always isn't a chance to be alone.
Senator Wetcker. If I could ask a question here. Wlien Mr. Dan-
9979
ner gave you the money at San Clemente, did he give it to you with
the idea that this was for the President's campaign of 1972?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, that is the understanding I had.
Senator Weicker. Now, you have indicated that in the past,
when similar situations have occurred, either in this campaign or
the previous campaign, you would accept money but you would
not tell the President until after the election.
Mr. Rebozo. Normally, I turned it right in to the finance chairman.
Senator Weicker. Right.
Mr. Rebozo. With a list.
Senator Weicker. Right.
Mr. Rebozo. And I think he reported the contributions after the
election and if I had occasion to mention it, I would do so, but after
the election.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in this particular instance, did you indicate
the receipt of this money to the finance chairman or anybody con-
nected with the finance committee?
Mr. Rebozo. There was no finance chairman at the time. That is
why I put it in the vault. You see, I received the money in the middle
of 1970, and the finance chairman wasn't named until 1972.
Senator Weicker. But you wouldn't have, for instance, indicated
to the treasurer of the Republican National Committee or any other
ongoing: entity that you received the money ?
IVIr. Rebozo. No.
Senator Weicker. Let me ask right now, have you ever had occa-
sion, before or since, to hold a campaign contribution in your safe-
deposit box, of this nature?
Mr. Rebozo. You mean to hold — you say "of this nature." To hold
it for some time, vou mean?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir, following up on Senator Weicker's question.
Mr. Rebozo. No. If I got contributions and put them in there, T
turned them in at the earliest date. I took some up at one time and
took some up in 1968.
Mr. Lexzner. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Rebozo. I took some up in 1968 that I had and I was holding
it temporarily.
Mr. Lenzxer. But that was before the election, I take it.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And shortly after you received the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. But you had kept, I take it, funds in this same safe-
deposit box — that is, political contributions — on prior occasions be-
fore vou put Mr. Danner's money in there?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I think what I told you was that I used — we
have three boxes that I have access to. Sometimes, if I were going into
the box and the bank was busy, rather than tie up everybody, if T
had somethins: for two or three boxes, I might put it all in one and
transfer it later. T\Tienever I was going north, then I would take
out whnt T wanted to turn in.
INfr. Lenzner. Well, maybe we ought to s:et clear for the record,
vou had three boxes. You say now you used all three boxes to hold
political contributions?
9980
Mr. Rebozo. No. no. I don't know what I put in — I have one box,
my personal box. One box is the director's box, and this other box
here that I have shared with my attorney for many years. What I'm
saying is that from time to time — I don't go into the vault that
often. From time to time, when I go in, I'll have things in my
drawer, stock certificates or whatever, and might have something —
maybe I had a contribution — and I just put them in. Maybe I put
them in the contribution box until some other time when I'm ready
to take them out and deliver them, and transfer whatever I had in
that other box when I needed to go in there.
Mr. Lenzner. "When you say contribution box, you mean the box
that was shared with Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Yes, that is a misnomer, because it is a box that
had other documents in it — my will and stock certificates and a
variety of things like that.
Mr. Lenzner. That was box 224 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, wh^^n you had contributions in there on prior
occasions, did you use a similar recordkeeping thing ? In other words,
when you previously had cash as contributions, had you written
ins<^ructions on the container?
Mr. Rebozo. No. It wasn't necessary, you see, because any other con-
tributions came in during the campaign and it was already set up.
This was the only contribution that came in before there was a
campaign director or finance chairman named.
Mr. Lenzner. In other words, if a campaign contribution came in,
on prior occasions, you just put it in a box, but you wouldn't make any
written notation with regard to that contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes. I think that I always notified the finance office
that so and so had made a contribution, because I wanted him to be
acknowledged at the earliest date, and rather than just jump on a plane
and run up there, I would wait, because I went up there frequently
enough and took it with me.
Mr. Lenzner. So you would just correspond and your correspond-
ence would be the record of the contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I think a lot of it was done by phone.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when you — did you go immediately to the bank
when you got to Key Biscayne and put the money into your safe-
deposit box ?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe so. I don't recall when I got into town. When
I came in at night, I couldn't have. I would have kept it at home that
night and put it in the next day.
Mr. Lenzner. When you put it into safe deposit box 224
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner [continuing] . And it was in an unsealed envelope and
you still had not unsealed it at that time.
Mr. Rebozo. In a sealed envelope.
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, you're absolutely right, in a sealed envelope
that you had not unsealed.
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner, And did you, at the same time that you put the
envelope in, did you also write on the envelope the materials that
you previously described ?
9981
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm not sure we have the record. Wliat, exactly,
did you say on the envelope ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I think I said something like :
Addressed to Thomas Wakefield. In the event something happens to me,
please see that the contents herein are delivered to the Finance Chairman for
the Re-election of the President or the Campaign Director, when named.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you indicate from whom the funds had
been received?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you, at the same time, prepare a letter for your
director's box ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think the letter may have been a month, may have
been a couple of weeks, I just don't know. At one time, when I was
in the director's box for some other things and it suddenly occurred
to me that I had other notes in there, and I want to change my will —
my lawyer gets after me for trying to do that by separate note. But
anyway, I put things in there where he can readily get them. I think
it was a short time afterwards that it occurred to me that — why not
just double it up with that in case something happens to me and if
he had to go to the director's box, he would go there first.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what that letter said ?
Mr. Rebozo. The same thing.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you know — do you have any recollection of
whether that was a typed letter or
Mr. Rebozo. Handwritten.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you tell Mr. Wakefield that that letter was in
the director's box ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I think I did. I think I did; I'm not sure. T
know that I told him about the other box and he had a duplicate
key to it.
Mr. Lenzner. Had you advised him that the contribution was in
224?
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't tell him it was a contribution. I simply told
him there were some important documents in there that I wanted
him to take care of immediately.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there any reason why you didn't want Mr.
Wakefield, your counsel, to know that you had a contribution in there
in case anything happened to you ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I didn't think it made a difference. He didn't
ask. He wasn't involved in the campaign. I felt that my notes had
served the purpose intended.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you notes also indicate that Mr. Danner had
been the one to provide you the money if any question had come up ?
Mr. Rebozo. No. My letter may have said that it was a contribution
from Howard Hughes, but I don't recall the exact wording of the
whole thing now.
Mr. Dash. I understand, at this point, Mr. Rebozo, you had made
up your mind to accept it, thinking that there was no longer a serious
problem, and there had not yet come another time when you had
thought that there may be a problem. So at this time, there would
be. no reason for you to want to keep secret, other than your prior
9982
practice of not telling the President, the fact that this contribution
had been made?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably that and my practice of being a very private
person until the last few months.
Senator Weicker. Did you intend, at that time, to turn it over to
the appropriate finance committee for the campaign of 1972?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. That was 5'our intention at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any specific recollection of other docu-
ments being in 224 when you put the envelope in?
Mr. Rebozo. Gee, I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. You have no recollection like that?
Mr. Rebozo. No, not at this stage, because things get moved around.
I don't have any specific recollection.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall — did an officer of the bank have to
go^with you when you put that contribution in ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. How long after you put it in did you have occasion
to go into that box again and see the envelope?
Mr. Rebozo. Gee, T don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did there come a time — you can't estimate at
all how long it was before you had occasion to go back into the box?
Mr. Rebozo. No. sir ; T don't know.
Senator Weicker. Was there a time between when you put that
envelope with the money into the box and when you put the second
amount of money into the box that you went into the box? As I
understand from this morning's testimony, is there a 2-month
interval ?
Mr. Rebozo. That is right. My guess is there is about 2 months'
difference. T probablv had occasion to go in there.
T don't know whether in that timeframe — we had a propertv down
there that I have a lot of stock in and a lot of stock certificates,
and they were in an envelope in there, too, because if T were out of
town and we had a contract to sell the property, if T were out of
town, my attorney would have needed that. So it was in there. T
don't know when T went in or out.
Mr. Lenzner. You say that contract was in the box at the time?
Mr. Rebozo. Not the contract. My stock certificates with stock
powers were in the manila envelope — in a manila envelope.
Mr. Frates. Senator, the record seems to indicate that Danner,
although Mr. Rebozo has no clear recollection, it was August 19 or
20 of 1978 foi- the second trip.
Mr. Lenzner. You mean 1970?
Mr. Frater. 1970. Did I say 1973? 1970 Avas the second trip made
to Key Biscayne.
Mr. Lenzner. Did there come a time when you did go back into the
box. though, to open this envelope finally and count the monev?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes — no, T didn't count the money. But at one time.
T thought T ought to take a look at it and T saw it had Las Vejras
Avrappers on it, so T took them off and put rubber bands on it —
again concerned about how it might be misinterpreted.
9983
Senator WEicKf:R. Was this between the first group of money and
the second group or collection?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know.
Senator Weicker. If you had done that the first time, would it have
been logical to do it a second time, if it came from the same source?
Mr. Rebozo. It might have been after the second group. I don't
recall exactly.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did all the cash have wrappers that said Las Vegas?
"WHiat you're saying is all
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. As I recall, they were all from a Las Vegas
bank. Actually, that's the one of the factors that made me feel that
I didn't have to worry about it being skimmed money or .something
drawn from the bank.
Mr. Lexzxer. So neither of the cash contributions had wrappers
that indir-ated that it came from any of the casinos or the hotel ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I'm sorry I didn't leave them on.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. But the answer is "No, they didn't" ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall the name of the bank that it had?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. All it had was the name of the bank, and said,
"Las Vegas. Nev."
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I just saw "Las Vegas" and the bank and that
was all.
Mr. Lexzxer. Could you explain on the record to Senator Weicker
why you decided to remove the wrappers?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, just because of the stigma that is applied
Senator Wetcker. I think he alreadv has.
Mr. Rebozo [continuing]. To anything from Las Vegas.
Mr. Lexzxp:r. Were you concerned al>out people possibly proceed-
ingr with what vou call skimmed money from the casinos?
Mr. Rebozo. No. I tell you. at first. T had some consternation about
it, but as I talked to them more and as I was told that the money
came from Hughes' privately owned rasino and that taxes were paid
on it. and I could see no reason to doubt that.
Mr. Lex'zxer. That vou were advised bv ^Vfr. Danncr with regard
to that?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. T think Dannor told me that that was one of
one — during" one of the numerous discussions. I don't know. I may
have felt that I had some apprehension about that and volunteered
it. T don't know how it came out. but that is the storv' that I got.
y^r. Lexzxer. Now. between the time — as T understand vonr testi-
mony, you're not sure whether you took the wrappers off the first
money vou received before Mr. Danner brought you the second
amount ?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct. My inclination is to think that T hadn't
even looked at the money at that time. "^Vhen the seeond one r-ame
in. that's when I first looked at it. T believe, and saw those wrappers,
and I knew.
Afr. Lex'zx'er. How soon after the first contrihmtion do you think
voii srot the .second contribution?
9984
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was a matter of weeks. It could have been
.3 months.
Mr. Lenzner. Three months ?
Mr. Rebozo. It could have been 3 months, it could have been 6
weeks. I really don't know. I think I saw something where Danner
had indicated it was in August and that would bo correct.
INIr. Lexzner. How was that meeting arranged, Mr. Rebozo?
Could you describe that?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I recall, I didn't even know he was bringing
any money on that trip. I think ho just probably called and said ho
was coming down, or that lie called me when ho got thoro. Ho comes
down quite frequently — not to see me. As I said, his mother lives in
Florida; he lived there many, many years. I ran into him once at
the golf course at Key Biscayne and I didn't even know he was in
town. Ho was playing golf in my backyard. But he's an old friend
of Senator Smathers, and ho visited him. He lives in Key Biscayne.
So I don't know what different times we had discussions about
various things.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Avhat I was getting at, did there come a time
when you became aware of the fact that he was going to deliver
another $50,000 in cash?
Mr. Rebozo. As I said, just now, I really don't remember him
telling me ho was going to do it.
Mr. Lenzner. I see.
Mr. Rebozo. I'm inclined to think ho just brought it. T could be
mistaken, but T don't recall any arrangement on that. I recall the first
one.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, after the fiist delivery, did you expect a
second delivery of money?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe that he had indicated that thoro would be
more.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate how much more?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And when he came the second time, did ho come to
your house? I mean when ho came to deliver it at Key Biscayne, was
it at your homo, or is it your i-ecolloction it Avas at the bank?
Mr. Rebozo. T don't know. He probably came to the bank. Ho
probably came in the daytime.
INfr. Lenzner. Again, I don't want — is this your best recollection,
or are you guessing on this?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, both.
Mr. Lenzner. T mean, do you have a recollection of seeing him
phvsically with the funds in the bank?
]\fr. Rebozo. No. As T said, ho probably did. I'm conjecturing T
aruess. T don't know Avhethor ho gave it to mo at home oi- at the bank,
but my guess would bo that he brought it to the bank.
Mr. Lenzner. Was anybody else ])rei5ent when he delivered the
money to you?
Ml'. Rebozo. No.
ISfi". Lenzner. Plow was it packaged ?
INfr. Rebozo. The same way as the first one.
INTr. Lenzner. Did you open that envelope at the time?
9985
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. What did you do with the envelope ?
Mr. Rebozo. Put it in the box.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Danner
with regard to the purpose of the fund at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he tell you how much was in the envelope?
Mr. Rebozo. He may have. It was the same size envelope and prob-
ably weighed about the same.
Mr. Lenzner. So when you put the second envelope in, you're not
sure whether you knew there was a total of $100,000 in the box or not?
Mr. Rebozo. He probably told me that there was another 50.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you make any notations on the envelope that
would reflect any new information at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. On that, I think I just put a rubber band around it
and put it in the box and later put a rubber band around them. I
don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. But you didn't add anything to the letter in the
director's box or on the envelope itself ?
INIr. Rebozo. No. I may have written Wakefield's name on it, too.
I really don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Maheu present on that occasion with Mr.
Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. No; he was never there when Danner gave me the
money on either occasion.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection, though, of advising or
making a statement in 1973 that Mr. Maheu was present with IVTr.
Danner when the money was delivered to you in Florida?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think what you're referring to is at one point,
T said that I thought that on one of Danner's visits, Maheu was with
him at the hotel, but not with him when he delivered the funds.
Mr. Lenzner. At the hotel in Florida?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes ; I think he was with him there.
Mr. Lenzner. So the answer is, you have no recollection of making
that statement in 1978, that Maheu was with Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. No, and I'm pretty positive I didn't make the
statement.
Mr. Dash. Terry, did you get into the question — there was a
time, as I understand it, you went, when you opened the envelope to
look at the money, and then you took the wrapper off. There was a
time you mentioned this morning that you took the box into your
office and you bi'oke, you put it into other envelopes. Was that the
same time, the time you took the wrappers off?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I had done that previously.
Mr. Dash. In other words, you had done what pre^nously ?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe I had taken the wrappers off previously.
Mr. Dash. Previously. Then, when was the time that you took
the box into your office and put the money into different envelopes?
Mr. Rebozo. Somewhere in there when I decided that the letter
nnd the message were no lonffer appropriate. So I took the box into
my office to switch it and I didn't have any big envelopes, so I just
put it in this oA-ersized manila brown envelope.
9986
Mr. Dash. Can you recall when that occurred, Mr. Rebozo? You
say it occurred at a time when you — I think you said "switched the
signals," or you were concerned?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I was asked that question before and I still don't
recall.
Mr. Dash. You did mention this morning once, and I don't know
whether this refreshes your recollection, you did think it may have
been at the time of the Watergate problem. I think you said this
morning — could that have been after the break-in of the "Watergate,
when all the news Avas
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think I changed the signals principally because
of the Hughes problems at Las Vegas. I was — because of the violent
flareup between Maheu and Danner, and both of them had to he. in
on this, I didn't want to risk even the remotest embarrassment about
any Hughes connection with Nixon. I was convinced that it cost the
President the 1960 election and didn't help him in 1962 in California.
Drew Pearson had gone out there during the 1962 campaign and
spent 2 weeks out there and every day, he was talking about that.
Mr. Dash. Was it your concern, when you say the Hughes flareup
that ultimately got JNIaheu fired, was it your concern that maybe this
$100,000 would be claimed to be not an authorized expenditure from
the Hughes funds? Was that the concern? I'm trying to pinpoint
what the concern was.
Mr. Rebozo. The concern, I think, was principally any disclosure
that the President had received Hughes money — not because, again
I Avant to repeat, that I thought there was anything wrong with it.
but because of the Avay the previous loan had been handled and
kicked around for all those years.
Mr. Dash. But if there had been no flareup at all, you had made
up your mind at the time you receiA'ed the money that it Avas all
right to receive it. and you put "HH" on the euA^elope and you Avere
going to. I guess, Avhen there Avas a finance committee, to turn it
over and give Hughes credit for it.
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Mr. Dash. So you had no concern, then, that it was a Hughes
contribution. So it Avasn't just the Hughes money, Avas it?
ISIr. Rebozo. I don't folloAv you.
^fr. Dash. I'm saying you had made a decision Avhen you received
the money that it Avas all right to receive it.
:Mr. Rebozo. That's right .
]\fr. Dash. That Avould have been a recognition that once you gaA'e
it over to the campaign organization, that Hughes money Avas going
into the President's campaign.
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Mr. Dash. That didn't bother you at that point?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, but you'll i-ecall that at that time, they didn't
liaA-e to 7'e])ort those funds that Avere turned in. I'm sure that Hughes
jK-obably didn't care about it being reported. He Avas giving to both
sides.
Senator Weicker. Let me ask this question : When did you abandon
your intention to turn this over to a finance connnittee? You said you
accepted it Avith the intention of tui-ning it OA'er. so when did you
abandon vour intention to turn it OA-er?
9987
Mr. Rebozo. Somewhere along in — when the Hughes flareup came
about, I thought that maybe it Avould blow over, but it got worse
and then they got involved in suing each other. Then I realized that
it Avas bound to create some embarrassment, because somewhere
along the line, somebody was going to bring it up.
Senator Weicker. I think what might be confusing Sam Dash, as
it confuses me, is that there are two different situations that seem
to have caused you concern : One in the past, one that occurred after
you received the money. In other words, that which related to — I'm
not familiar with these facts— the loan to Nixon, et cetera, that
related to the 1960 and 1962 campaign, and then that situation which
actually occurred when you had the money, which was a blowup
between the various factions in the Hughes empire. Is this correct,
Sam?
ISIr. Dash. Yes. that was the area. That is Avhere I was a little
confused. It was as to \\'hat was the real concern. It apparently was
of no concern, Avhen you I'eceived the money, to receive the Hughes
money, but you have said that's because you didn't have to report it.
ISIr. Rebozo. There was considerable concern when I received the
money.
Mr. Dash. Yes, but vou said
Mr. Rebozo. Finally, there was no problem, and they were bugging
me to take it.
Mr. Frates. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
iVIr. Dash. You did come to the conclusion that it was all^ right
finally; and that is between that time and when you again got
worried. Is it your position that you were satisfied to accept it, but
you were also satisfied, since this was appearing and you didn't
have to report it, that it wouldn't come out that it was Hughes money,
because if you turned it over to the campaign organization, they
wouldn't have to report it as a Hughes contribution, so this Avould
be sort of an anonymous gift.
Mv. Rebozo. That's correct.
]Mr. Frates. Senator. I'm sure Ave all recall, but a lot of events
had passed until the Hughes thing broke up and it was a pretty
dramatic and interesting thing, as you recall, Avith a lot of repercus-
sions. The Avhole empire then Avas fighting each other. I think it was
in that context.
Senator Wetcker. I understand that. Could I just ask for an an-
SAA^er to the question, then, AA'hen did you decide not to turn this
money in to the appropriate finance committee?
Mr. Rebozo. It had to be someAA'here betAveen Thanksgiving of
1970 and February or IVIarch of 1972. AA'hen the committee Avas
appointed. As matters got AA^orse and Avorse and the publicity to qo
Avith it. aloiifr with the Clifford Irving thing and the intervicAV with
Hughes on the telephone, Avhere he called ISTaheu a thief and I had
heard that ^Sfaheu Avas fired and Danner Avas kept on, Maheu irot
mad at Danner. "\"\lien you get family squabbles sometimes, they
shoot from the hip in CA'ery direction and I thought that I just
didn't Avant anythiiiir, even remotely, to reflect on the campaign.
Fnfortunatolv. the Huirhes name had almost become a stigma Avith
9988
respect to campaign contributions because of this previous issue,
wliich really was not a campaign contribution issue. It was a loan
to the President's mother, not his brother.
Senator Weicker. Did you discuss with anybody on the finance
committee or Mr. Danner the fact that you had these mental reser-
vations relative to turning over the money?
Mr. Kebozo. I didn't discuss it with Danner, and I discussed it.
of course, later after the campaign. I just kept thinking, hoping,
that maybe something. would straighten out and that we would be
able to clo— — -
Mr. Dash. If I may. I want to follow this one bit. You made the
decision after the flareup, and recognizably, Avhen people fall out.
people start talking. Apparently, you were concerned about the dan-
ger that somebody then may raise the question of the contribution
and. therefore, you didn't put it into the campaign.
'Sh: Frates. Excuse me. I don't think that is — that's not a correct
summary. I think not the contribution, but what each might be say-
ing about the contribution.
:\rr. Dash. Whatever it is. the fact is that ?il00.000 from Hughes
had been given to you for the President. This could be very embar-
rassing if that came out. You got to feel that because of the squabble.
But wouldn't it have been true that, whether you sent it by Avith-
holding it from the campaign oi-ganization and yet holding onto it.
you faced tiie same danger of. say ^Nlaheu or somebody saying that
that $100,000 had been paid OA'er. In other words, the fact that it
occurred. So that whether you gave it to the campaiirn or held onto
it. the danger that there would be an exposure that that contribution
had been made was still goiuir to happen.
^Ir. Rebozo. Except that I still had the money in its identical form.
^Iv. Dash. You had the money.
Senator "Weicker. Iji other words if I can just get a complete
answer, you did not discuss Avhat to do with the money with any-
body.
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. that was purely my decision, just as it was my
decision to hold it and see what happened. I did tell the President's
.secretary only because I felt that somebody should know about it
in case something happened to me and I wanted the appropriate
ones to get the credit for it.
Senator Weicker. All tight, now. let me be very careful on this
point. From the time of the receipt of the last $50,000, you did not
discuss this $100,000 contribution with anybody, with the exception,
as you have noted, of the President's secretary.
!Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
Senator Weicker. And with the exce])tion of the — I'm talking
about that time when th.?re is $100,000 in the safe — and with the
exception of the instructions in the envelope and on the envelope in
the bank in Kev Biscayne. Is that correct?
^Fr. Rebozo. Yes, sir. that's correct.
Senator Weicker. Those would be the only two sources?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Xow, there were newspaper stories to the effect.
Avav bark then, that Hughes had given me $100,000.
Senatoi' AVeicker. I'm talkinir about as fnv as vou're concerned.
9989
As far as yoirre concerned, if you had passed off the face of the
earth, there were onl}- two persons that would have known, Eose
Mary Woods and the writt(ni instructions in the vault. Is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. That's corrcfct.
Senator Weicker. Xow, at what time did the written instructions
get eliminated ?
]\fr. Rebozo. "Well, I've heard so many stories about someone
Senator Weicker. No, this is yours ; I don't want any news stories
or reports. I just Avant your best recollection. If you can't remember,
then say that.
IMr. Rebozo. I can't remember.
Senator Weicker. So when that event occurred, whenever it was,
then the only person that had any knowledofe. aside from yourself,
was the President's secretary?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
]\fr. Frates. Senator, I think again, for the record, I'm sure that
up to that date — in other words, there was a subsequent date, of
course, where it was revealed and discussed and returned.
Senator Weicker. That's absolutely understood. Counsel is en-
tirely correct.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I discussed that with several people afterwards,
about the return of it.
Mr. Lexzxer. OK. Up to that point, as I understand it, there
were just those instructions and Miss Woods. And as I understand
it, you set the date of when you decided not to furnish the funds
to the campaign at approximately March of 1972 — or have I mis-
understood that ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I didn't say that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Approximately when did you decide not to furnish
the fimds to the campaign?
Mr. Rebozo. I decided to just hold them and see if this matter
cleared up and when it didn't clear up, then we decided to return
them. That was maybe March of 1973.
]Mr. Lexzxer. That's when you decided to return them?
Mr. Rebozo. Somewhere along in there. I don't know the exact
date.
Mr. Lexzxer. So what you're saying is that — but you held through
the November election, with the hope that things would clear up
and you could then turn them over, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. "V^Hiat I said was that then I could turn them
over to apjjropriate committees for congressional races and so forth.
Senator Weicker. Of 1974, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. And you held that feeling until March of 1973,
when you decided that you had to return the funds back to Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, during that period of time, did you ever count
the funds prior to returning the monej^? Did you have occasion to
go into your safe deposit box and actually count how much money
was in there?
Mr. Rebozo. I never counted it until the day it was inventoried
to return it. And I didn't count it then, the others did.
9990
Mr. Lenzner. All rig-ht. Now, sir, as I understand it, we have
three contacts with the safe deposit box : When you first put the
mone;y in, the first contribution in; when you put the second con-
tribution in; at some point later on, you opened the box and — 'I'm
not sure if I got this straight — you changed the envelopes.
Senator Weicker. No, that's not true. He testified that he took
the wrappers off,
Mr. Lexzner. The first thing you did is you took the wrappers
off and you put the money in rubber bands. Is that correct?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzner. On that occasion, did you put the money back into
the envelopes which had the instructions to Wakefield?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe so — no, I don't know. I really don't know
whether I did it then — yes. I must have, because at that point — ^I
believe at that* point' — 'I assumed that they were going into the cam-
paign. So I don't know when — I think the instructions were on
there all along.
Mr. Lenzner. So when you, sometime after you got the second
contribution
Mr. Rebozo. I'm really trying to be specific, and if I sound vague
it's because the only reason that I have as good a recall about these
instances is because we've been hashing them over now for so long
and some of these dates come to mind. But I really don't know the
timeframe involved.
Mr. Lenzner. Right now, I'm just asking if you have a recollec-
tion that Avhen you took the wrappers off and put the rubberbands
around the money, that you put the money back into the original
envelopes with the Wakefield instructions or into the new envelopes ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, there did come a time, then, when you took
the money out again — ^I take it on a fourth occasion — and put the
money into different envelopes? At some point, you did that?
Mr. Rebozo. I did that when I wanted to eliminate the instructions
on the envelope. That was the sole purpose of changing envelopes.
Mr. Lenzner, And as I understand it, on that occasion you de-
stroyed the original envelopes and put the money then into four or
five other euA'clopes. Is that correct?
IVIr. Rebozo. I believe that's right.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you count the number of packages on that
occasion ?
Mr. Rebozo. No; I separated them. As I recall I put them in the
several other smaller envelopes and put a band around each of those
so that, at all times, th(^ two 50's would remain segregated, and
they inventoried that way on the inventory which you have.
Mr. Lenzner. But as I understand it, the money was broken up
into four or five envelopes?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. How could you tell which envelope went with the
shipment and which witli the second?
Mr. Rebozo. No, the money first was in two enveloeps, just as it
was given to me. It was broken out Avhen I moved them into the
envelopes, emptied them out, put them into several envelopes, sealed
them, put the rubberband around them, and then did the other.
9991
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you make any markings on the envelopes — ^the
new envelopes?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have done the same thing, put "HH," but I
don't
Mr. Lexzner. No other markings, other than that?
Mr. Rp:bozo [continuing]. But I don't really recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. How could you tell, after you put them into those
other envelopes, wliich was the first shipment of money and which
wtLS the second shipment of money?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. I think that — ^I don't know if I had
it correct or not. I was principally interested in separating the two,
so I really don't know that I could positively say which was first
and which was the second.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow. you've described this incident as. you said,
changing signals. Do you have any recollection of approximately
when you did this and why you did it ?
I mean, you had these instructions on for Mr. Wakefield. Why
did you suddenly want to
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I thought I explained that. What do you mean
there ?
Mr. Lexzxer. I'm trying to get at what you mean by changing
signals.
Mr. Frates. Well, Senator, we did go into that, but I think the
quickest way is to explain it and do it again. But I think that ques-
tion was asked and answered at least twice.
Mr. Rp:bozo. I, as you recall, said that when the incidents began
fermenting out at the Hughes organization, then I realized that we
may not want to use those funds in the campaign. Somewhere in
there is when I changed signals, as you express it.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you advise Mr. Wakefield of the change?
Mr. Rebozo. There vras no reason to. He had the instructions.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, he had the same instructions, to turn the
money over to the campaign if anything happened to you?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so. When we put it in the smaller
env("loi)es. I don't tliink that the instructions were thei-e. Tt was latei-
that I found the envelope in the other place.
Mr. Lexzx'^er. And you destroyed the other letter?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. In the director's box?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzx^er. Now, if something had happened to you after that,
what instiuctions did ]Mr. Wakefield have as to what to do with
those funds?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, that could have been a problem.
Mr. Lexzxer. But is it not accurate to say that he had no in-
structions with regard to those funds if something happened to you?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think that all I told him was that the instruc-
tions in there were to follow instructions as they were listed there.
Mr. Lexzxer. In other words, if you had an unfortunate
Mr. Rebozo. You're getting into details that at the time didn't
seem like they would be significant. I naturally don't chronologically
piece everything together like perhaps T should be able to, but I
can't.
31-889 O - 74 - 21
9992
Mr. Lexzxer. What I was trying to figure out was, was there a
period of time, thougli, when, if something happened to you un-
foi-tuiiatoly, Mr. "Wakefield would not have known — he would have
found the money later but would not have had any instructions on
wliat to do with the money?
Mr. Eebozo. It's possible. I don't know if I might have told him
to call Rose or what. I may have told him that, I really don't know.
]\Ir. Lexzxer. You think you may have told Wakefield to call
Miss Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have, but I really don't know. I know I didn't
have any written instructions left in there.
Mr. Lenzner. After the blow-up with Mr. Maheu, did you have
occasion to call Mr. Banner and request instructions from him on
what to do with the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
I\Ir. Lenzner. Did you ever have occasion to call him and ask
him what was going on with regard to the conflict out there and
how it affected
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. I didn't haA^e to do that. I saw him on occasion,
and natui'ally. that was a topic of conversation at that time.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever ask him if you should or should not
keep the funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And he never told you, I take it, then, that it's OK,
Mr. Rebozo, you keep the funds?
INIr. Rebozo. No, not until I tried to return them and tried to get
him to take them and he was reluctant to take them back.
i\Ir. Lenzner. That was in 1973. though?
Mr. Rebozo. It was later.
Mr. Lenzner. In 1978?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever have occasion to call him after the
Anderson article, which was on, I think, August 6, 1971 ?
Mr. Rebozo. If I called him, it was coincidentally. It Avouldn't
liave boon bocauso of the Anderson column. I'm one of the few
peo])le who don't place a lot of credence in those columns.
]\Ir. Dash. But that was correct, that column. That story was
true, wasn't it? I mean the fact
Mr. Rebozo. I mean I just don't read it because of my
Mr, Dash. Were you aware of that column?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I read it now and then. If somebody points
something out to me.
Mr. Dash. Following the question, up to that point, there had
been no public disclosure and this Anderson disclosure
Mr. Rebozo. I think he Avrote about it two or three times, and I
think there were other columns or something.
Mr. Dash. Now, since you had wanted to keep this, as a private
man, and also you were concerned about these matters, then you
saw it in the column; you were not the one who revealed this, ob-
viously, to Mr. Anderson. The only persons who knew it now were
Rose Mary Woods and, of course. Danner. who gave it to you.
Mr. Frates. Excuse me, jNIr. Dash. And Maheu and the Hughes
organization. They certainly may have.
9993
Mr. Dash. Cortfiinly, others in the Hughes corporation. Did it
occur to you to want to call to find out what was going on?
Mr. Rebozo. No. But Maheu, of course, knew about it and he
was having this problem with Hughes and, I understand, lES, and
lie was a friend of Morgan's — had him on a retainer. I felt that is
where it all came from. All that did was fan the fire that I was
already trying to tend.
]Mr. Dash:. As a matter of fact, though, even though he wrote
about that in that column, there wasn't any pickup on that.
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Dash. That sort of died, didn't it?
Mr. Rebozo. Right. No one ever asked me about that.
Senator "Weicker. Let me ask you this: You referred to the fact
that your actions, relative to the money, Avere influenced by the
problems of the Hughes organization, and then later, the Clifford
Irving business, ct cetera. At any time, Avere the matters of Water-
gate, as they became public, an influence on your decisions as to
what to do with the money? And if so, Avhen?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, Watergate came along in 1972.
Senator Weicker. Right.
Mr. Dash. June 17, 1972.
Senator Weicker. Right.
]\Ir. Rebozo. I think if anything, the Watergate thing must have
confirmed the inadvertent wisdom of my apprehensions. But the
main pro})lem
Senator Weicker. In what way?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, by now, tliere were even problems involving
the finance committee, so it made matters that much worse. I really
was in a dilenuna about what to do about it. T finally consulted
with a few people and then tried to get him to take it back and
had a hard time doing that.
Senator Weickei;. AMien you say you consulted with a few peo-
ple, who would you consult with?
Mr. Rebozo. I talked to several people that I have a lot of con-
fidence in, lawyere and
Mr. Dash. Fixing that time, though, it was sometime in 1973,
wasn't it?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, in 197.'^.
Senator Weicker. No, this isn't quite the same thing at all. We
arrived at a deadline of that point when the money is returned. I'm
sort of in between the period of June 1972, when the Watergate
thing occurred, and — what's the date the money was returned?
Mr. Lenzner. June
;Mr. Fr.\tes. 27.
Mr. Lexzner [continuing]. Of 1973.
Senator Weicker. Wien you say you discussed this matter of
what to do with the funds — there is this time s])an of a year.
Mr. Dash. When was that?
Ml-. Frates. I think the Senator's question is: Was the AYatergate
affair having some impact on his action?
Senator A\'eickei;. A\"hich 1 gather he answered, yes, it did.
Mr. Frates. I think so.
9994
Senator Weicker. In the course of that answer, he indicated that
he discussed with others what he should do, and I'm asking who he
discussed that Avith.
Mr. Rebozo. I discussed it with Bill Griffin, who is a New York
lawyer, a fellow whom I have a lot of respect for. I think I dis-
cussed it with my accountant, and I discussed it with Gemmill.
Kenneth Gemmill. I don't recall who else, but I was getting opin-
ions from a few people that I trusted, and they said, well, the best
thing to do is to give it back.
Senator Weicker. And of course, you have indicated that your
concerns wore of a political iiatuiv. as to any unfavorable impact
that might relate to the President, both as to the Hughes matter
and then Watergate came along. Was anybody, in other words, aside
from these gentlemen, of a political bent that you turned to for
advice? Since it had become — it wasn't a matter of your personal
financial concern, it was a matter of concern that you had vis-a-vis
the President.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Yet those individuals that you're discussing
now are ones that you might logically turn to if this were your
personal concern. That's why I asked the question of you as to
whether or not there were those individuals of a political bent that
you discussed it with.
Mr. Rebozo. I mentioned it to the President, too, and he thought
I ought to give it back.
Senator Weicker. When was that?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. It was probably early 1973, I would
guess.
Senator W^eicker. Wlien you say early 1973
Mr. Rebozo. It could have been March.
Senator Weicker. Of 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Was this mentioned — obviously, this was a mat-
ter of deep concern to you. This is not the type of thing that comes
up in a casual conversation. Did you make a specific appointment
wnth the President to discuss this matter?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I sometimes save up things to discuss with the
President, because during all this period, he was certainly busy
with a lot of very important decisions, and I never want to throw
something else in the pot that further would tend to clutter his
thinking or have him be concerned about me. He worries more about
his friends than he does about liimself.
So I just waited for an appropriate time and mentioned it, and
he just that (piick said, "You ought to give it back." Immediately
he said that.
Senator Weicker. You mean that was the extent of the conver-
sation? You described it and all he said was, "Give it back"?
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Senator Weicker. He didn't inquire at all as to the history of this
situation ?
Mr. Rebozo. No. Well, I had already told him that at this point.
Mr. Lexzner. I was getting into these contacts at the safe deposit
box. T^t me ask you with regard to Senator Weicker's question, as
999(5
I understand it. you consulted two attorneys and then soiiofht the
President's advice and decided to give the money back immediately
after that. Is that accurate? And your accountant — I'm sorry. And
that basically it.
Mr. Rkbozo. Yes — no, I may liave discussed it with some others.
Mr. Lenzner. I mean right after
Mr. Rebozo. It was no secret anymore. There was no reason for
it to be a secret. It had to come out someway or other and it was
just a question of getting the best advice I could get. I still had
hopes, futilely, that maybe the money could be used to help in some
campaigns.
Mr. Dash. I don't think the record shows very clearly — I think
you liave now said the time is around the time you spoke to the
President, I think you said around March of 1973. That was around
the time you spoke to some other persons. Could you just pin down,
generally, when the first time was that you spoke to anybody about
this concern — Mr. Gemmill, Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was all in that period.
Mr. Dash. In early 1973?
]Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any other contacts with the money in
the box other than the ones you have already described, before you
got back to the question of returning it, in 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, as I've said, I go into those boxes from time
to time. When you say contact with the money. I might have opened
the box to put in or take out something else, but I don't know if
you call that contact with the money.
Mr. Frates. Senator, I wonder if we can take a 10-minute. break.
Senator Weicker. Yes, why don't we take a 10-minute break?
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Weicker. Are we all set?
Gome to order.
Mr. Lenzner. i\Ir. Rebozo, prior to the time that you had the
money returned to the Hughes people in 1973, did you ever on
occasion remoyo the money from the safe deposit box for any period
of time?
Mr. Fii-VTEs. Excuse me. With the exception of what he has stated
he took into his office in the box. with that exclusion. We want to
be sure he undei-stands.
Mr. Lexzxer. Let me clarify by saying, did you ever take the
money or have the money taken out of the bank physically prior to
1973 ?■
Mr. Rebozo. No, no. The money remained all that time, the money
remained in the box all that time. This is why I thought — I read
about all of the sophisticated equipment that the FBI has and I
thought they could test it and prove that it had been locked up
all that time.
Senator Weicker. Let me ask a question in that regard, Mr.
Rebozo. That is this: Did you request an FBI investigation or an
FBI presence when the money was counted, or did you request the
presence of i\Ir. Whitaker, who was a member of the FBI. but was
asked to be present as a friend, rather than in an official capacity?
yir. Rebozo. No, Mr. Whitaker is agent in charge.
9996
Senator Weicker. Right.
Mr. Rebozo. So I just went to the top man. It happens that I
know him, but I've lived there 55 years. I know a lot of people.
Senator Weicker. So when you asked him to be present at the
counting of the money, you asked him to be present in an official
capacity, is that right ?
Mr. Rebozo. He asked me what I wanted him to do with the re-
port and I said, "You do whatever you're supposed to do."
Senator Weicker. What do you mean?
Mr. Rebozo. He asked me, what do you want me to do with this
report tliat I've got?
Senator Weicker. Let me just drop back a little bit. I'm asking
about the request of Mr. Whitaker to be present. Never mind after
3'ou got through with the counting. I'm asking when you requested
him, did you request tliat he be there in an official capacity ?
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't use the term, "official capacity." I would
assume that he would know that.
Senator Weicker. It's just your assumption?
Mr. Rebozo. It's just that I wanted someone present identified
with the Government in the highest responsible position locally,
wlio could perhaps prove that tJiis was the identical money just
in case it ever came up.
Senator Weicker. So that when you asked Mr. "\^niitaker to be
present, you did so believing that this exercise or the knowledge
gained would become or go into — come into the hands of the U.S.
Government, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I, of course, assumed that his responsibility is
to perhaps make a report, or whatever it is, I don't know. I didn't
suggest or impose or even hint any limitations on what he did
with it.
Senator Weicker. Is it usual for agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation to ask persons who are not members of the Bureau
as to what tliey are to do with their reports? "V^Hiy would he ask
you that kind of question?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know whether that was, you know
Mr. Dash. Senator, could I follow that up?
Senator Weicker. Let me just finish.
You indicated that he asked you, "What do you want me to do
with the reix)rt." I just wondered
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know that it would be usual. I asked him to
make the rejwrt because I felt I had nothing to hide and I wanted
to make the picture as clear as possible, and I wanted a represen-
tative of authority to
Senator Weicker. I understand, and I'm in no way disputing
that at all.
Mr. Rebozo. I first thought of calling Newbrand, who was in
charge of the Secret Service, who I understand would have a lot to
do with currency. Then I thought, no, I've known him 20 years
and he's identified with the administration more, even though he's
under Treasury. Then I thought, well, the FBI is the only other
entity, and so I called on the help of tlie FBI.
From time to time, you know, operating a bank, you have expo-
sure to the FBI.
9997
Senator Weicker. I understand.
Mr. Rebozo. We have always cooperated with them fully in their
investigations.
Senator Weicker. I understand. So that it's my understanding
from your response to this, to categorize your response, it is, that
you very definitely were under the impression when you called Mr.
Whitaker in, that he was there in an official capacity. My only
question now is that apparently, after the continuing process took
place, you indicated to me that Mr. Whitaker turned to you and
said, "What do you want me to do with the report?"
Mr. Rebozo. Well, maybe those were
Senator Weicker. I asked you the question, is it usual, in other
words, for someone with the FBI to turn to somebody outside the
FBI and ask for instructions as to w^hat they wanted him to do
with the report.
Mv. Rebozo. Maybe I didn't quote him exactly. I made a para-
phrase of what he said.
Senator Weicker. Well, how did you respond?
Mr. Rebozo. I thought, at least, that what he meant was should
I send tliis report to any specific person, or something like that,
and I said. "You do whatever you think is proper in your position."
That's about the extent of it.
Senator Weicker. That you turned to him and said that he should
do with it whatever he saw fit?
IMr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Senator, I just want to follow on afterwards.
This g(x^s to the role of ]\Ir. Whitaker, say, in his official capacity
with the FBI. I think it is quite understandable how the FBI had
occasion to have something to do with the Federal banks, or banks
generally. But I take it that there was no — in turning back this
money to ]\Ir. Banner or to Hughes Tool people — ^that you weren't
reporting a theft? There was no crime involved, a Federal crime
that would come within the jurisdiction of the FBI? In fact, I think
you said, Mr. Rebozo, that you were interested, you read about or
heard about tl.is equipment and you would like for them to be able
to fingerprint and other things to show it was the same money. Is
that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Dash. If they did that, though, they would have to use their
crime facility laboratories, and I think the record would show that
they do that"^for law enforcement purposes wdthin their jurisdiction.
If they did that for you, this would be sort of as a private favor.
Mr. Rebozo. No, if there was anything wrong with it, there w^ould
be something done about it, I presume.
Mr. Dash. Were you making any claim to the FBI that there
might be something wrong with it?
:Mr. Rebozo. Xo. At that stage. I didn't think there was anything
wrong with it. Early in the game, I was concerned, you know, sort
of casually, could it be skimmed money. But then, as I got to learn
more about the Hughes operation and all, I was convinced that it
wasn't.
:Mr. Dash. What jurisdiction did you think the FBI would have,
through Mr. Whitaker or anybody "else, to use these crime labora-
9998
tories to make a determination whether this was the same money
Mr. Banner had given you, not related to any Federal crime or
something that the FBI wouldn't get into?
Mr. Rebozo. I felt I had three choices: the Secret Service, the
FBI, or the county sheriff's office. I felt that of the three, the
Secret Service was logical, but I thought because of my — I've known
'WTiitaker like a year or two. I've known the Secret Service chief
20 years.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Whitaker agree to utilize FBI crime facili-
ties to check
Mr. Rebozo. No, he told me that they don't have any equipment
that can tell how long money has been in storage, and he said that
they could get prints off of it, but it would deface the money or
something. So we took the numbers and returned them, and at any
time those prints could have been taken and I presume they still
could. I don't know whether they still have them or not; we were
very careful in handling them.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, did Mr. Whitaker ever have financial
dealings with you?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. There is a K. Whitaker in the Fisher Island journal
entries. Is that the same K. Whitaker ?
Mr. Rebozo. It is K. Whitmer. .
Mr. Frates. Kenneth Whitmer, opthalmologist, a very famous
one in our area. That's W-h-i-t-m-e-r.
Mr. Lenzner. Going back to the other question I had, did you
ever make a statement or tell anybody else that in fact, you had
removed the money or caused it to be removed? Did you ever make
that statement to anybody ?
Mr. Rebozo. No reason to.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever make the statement to anybody that
you had used the monej^ or had somebody else use it on behalf of
other individuals?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. I don't think anybody else did, either.
Mr. Frates. Could I ask Mr. Lenzner, or ask you to instruct him,
Senator, as to where did he get that statement or who made that
statement? Because this is the very kind of thing that has been
leaking out and the press picks up, just as they have done on several
interviews we have had with the staff, with ]\Ir. Bellino, Mr. Lenzner,
or Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Lenzner. You forgot Miss DeOreo.
Mr. Frates. INIiss DeOreo is just a sweet young girl. On what
basis did you make the statement that he told somebody he used the
money? Because he has never made that statement to anybody, and
you know that from your previous interrogation of him. If you have
somebody who says that. I think he should be permitted or should
tell him who it is, or who allegedly said that.
Mr. Lenzner. We're not going to disclose the basis of our infor-
mation.
Mr. Frates. No. you aren't, because nobodv said it. If vou asked
that kind of question in a coui-t of laAv. you would never frot away
with it.
9099
Senator AVeicker. I think he's askino; the question of the witness
as to whether or not he did. He's not saying the witness did this.
Mr. Frates. But, Senator, the press, or whoever reads this, that's
the only inference that sources Avill say that that there is someone
Avlio has said that. I might say to you, sir, that no one lias said that,
that he used the money, that knows anything about the facts of it.
Senator Weicker. Well, let that be a part of the record. Would
you repeat the question, or would you care to have the reporter
repeat the question?
Mr. Lenzxer. The question Avas, have you ever made a statement
or told anybody that the money had been used on behalf of other
individuals ?
Mr. Rebozo. The answer is "no."
Mr. Lenzner. In November of 1970, you had a fairly long tele-
phone conversation, according to ^Iv. Danner's records, with Mr.
Danner. Of course, that was about the time that the Hughes prob-
lems arose in Las Vegas, as I recall it. Do you have any recollection
as to whether that phone call related to the Hughes conflict and
the Maheu problem?
Mr. Eebozo. It could have. I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzner. It was a $8 phone call.
Mr. Rebozo. He paid it or I paid it?
Mr. Lenzner. He paid it. Do you have any recollection of what
that fairly lengthy phone call Avould have involved?
Mr. Rebozo. Danner is a slow-talking fellow. He doesn't talk that
slow. He has a great sense of humor, and sometimes when we get
into conversations, he throws a lot of extraneous matter in. Was
November the 18th before Thanksgiving or after?
Mr. Frates. It should have been before.
Mr. Lenzner. It has to be before.
Mr. Rebozo. So, I don't know what it could have been about spe-
cifically.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, press reports that Ave have referred to in
August of 1071 by INIr. Anderson came out reporting the existence
of this contribution, or at least alleging it. Did any representative
or agent or employee of the White House inquire of you as to that
column ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, strangely enough, nobody ever mentioned it.
Mr. Lenzner. Nobody ever asked you about that at all?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenznp:r. Did you ever make any effort too contact any ern-
ployee of the White House or anybody else and try to discuss it
with them?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. That Avould include the President, I take it?
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Mr. Lenzner. And is it not a fact that as a result of that column,
the existence of the contribution Avas a matter of public information?
That's clear, is it not?
My question is, since it had already become a matter of public
information, AA^liy did you not thereafter go ahead and furnish the
funds for the campaign, since it already Avas out in the public?
10000
Mr. E.EBOZO. Well, it may have been construed as a matter of pub-
lic information amono; those who believe Jack Anderson. Two days
after Watergate, he went on television and said I financed the whole
burglary and was paying the legal expenses of the burglars and
everything else. There's just about as much accuracy to that as there
has been to many other columns. So obviously, there are a lot of
people who do not believe him, but there isn't anybody who even
brought it up.
Mr. Lexznek. Do j^ou have any recollection of speaking with Mr.
Danner immediately after that column came out and going over it
with him as to how Mr. Anderson
Mr. Rebozo. No; I don't have a recollection. I think it's possible
that I could have spoken to him about it, but I don't recall it.
Mr. Lenzner. So what you're saying is, you evaluated the column
as not sufficient public information to allay your fears about pos-
sible embarrassment, if you did turn over the contribution to the
campaign ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it might have compounded my fears rather
than allay them.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, weren't you concerned about continuing col-
umns by Mr. Anderson? He does have a habit of repeating columns
when he
Senator Weicker. I think the witness has answered that question,
to be honest with you. I think it has been sufficiently answered.
Mr. Lenzner. All right, sir. Mr. Armstrong at this point has a
series of questions on the next subject.
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. Does this include the Hughes questions?
Mr. Lenzner. No, these will be followups on other areas involving
the Hughes questions.
Mr. Frates. But it's related to it ?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, it's all related.
Mr. Frates. Oh, all right.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo. prior to the time that you received
the money from INIr. Danner, the first payment, which you place now
as July 3, 1970, did you indicate to anyone else that you were going
to receive such a contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Armstrong. And subsequently, the only person you feared,
vou testified, was Miss Woods ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Frates. Senator, again, this is again what haj^pens when several
people start interrogating. These all have been asked several times.
Mr. Armstrong. If you will let me ask the question, then
Senator Weicker. Counsel, I think what Mr. Armstrong is trying
to do is be level, rather than trying in anyway to harass your client,
only to catch things up. If he goes on, as I said — I think this will
probably be more level.
Mr. Frates. All right, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Arisistrong. When you spoke with Miss Woods subsequent
to the first contribution, did you indicate to her that she was the
only one you were going to talk to about this subject?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
10001
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you indicate to her why she was the only
one that would be aware of this?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe so.
IVIr. Arisistroxg. "What Avas the reason you gave her at that time ?
ATr. Kkbozo. Well, she would know that I didn't want to discuss
it with the President, and there Avas always a possibility of some-
thing happenning to me. and I felt that she should know about it.
She has been with him over 20 years and she knows how he oper-
ates, too. As I said, you know, this point could be far better clarified
and proven, but it would take a lot of examples and a lot of time
and a lot of examples of previous experiences to bear this out.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you give Miss Woods any instructions at
that time?
Mr. Rp:boz(). Of course, she knew what it Avas for.
Mr. Armstrong. But you gave her no explicit instructions as to
Avhat she would do with it in case you
INIr. Rebozo. I don't believe so.
Senator Weicker. In past interviews or today, has anybody estab-
lished the date of this conversation?
Mr. Lexzxer. Xo, that should Ix*, the next question.
Senator Weicker. Can you tell me when?
Mr. Rebozo. Senator. I've been asked that question and I honestly
can't^I'm sorry. I'm trying to see if I can tie it into something, but
I can't do it.
Mr. Dash. Would it be shoi-tly after you got the first contribution?
Ml'. REB(tzo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Shortly after what?
Mi-. Dash. The receipt of the money.
Senator Weicker. Shortly after the first contribution or the sec-
ond contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. I think both times. I think I discussed it with her
on both times.
Senator Weicker. In other words, upon one occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Was there any time after that, that you dis-
cussed it Avith her again?
Mr. Rebozo. I suppose I alluded to it, you knoAV, in conA^ersation,
but never any specific meeting to try to discuss this matter. Over
the yeai-s, as you knoAv. I go to the White House, I discuss a lot of
things Avith a lot of people there, but very little of it to do Avith
(jovernment or business. I try to stay out of it as much as I can.
Sometimes I get in it and Avind up like I am now.
Senator AVekker. Have you discussed or tried to refresh your
recollection by discussion Avith Miss Woods in the last several months
as to these times?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, sir: I haven't. I probably should. I probably
should. I don't knoAv whether she could be helpful in that or not.
Senator Weicker. Counselor, is there anything here you can shed
light on
Mr. Frates. I have a copy of her testimony before the committee,
and I'm trying to find out her ansAver.
Mr. Dash. That's a copy, I take it, of Miss Acker's notes of our
informal int<?rvieAv Avith Miss Woods?
10002
Mr. Frates. I don't recall specifically what she said about that.
Mr. Armstroxg. Could I inquire how you got that, sir?
Mr. Frates. The same way, Mr. Armstrong, you got many of the
documents you had. It was legally furnished to me.
Mr. Armstroxg. I'm sorr}-, I was just asking how you got it.
Mr. Frates. It was legally furnished to me.
Senator Weicker. Go ahead, proceed. Who was asking the ques-
tion? I initiated the question of the date. You go ahead and pursue
it. I'll tell you what's going to happen. That's a vote.
Mr. Armstroxg. I believe that earlier we placed the point of your
discussion Avith ^Sliss Woods at sometime either during the time you
were at San Clemente or immediately thereafter. You characterized
it as a short time after. Is that correct?
]\Ir. Rebozo. I believe that's correct.
]\Ir. Armstroxg. Do you recall whether you spoke with her in
person or on the phone ?
Mr. Rebozo. In person. I am sure it was in person.
Mr. Armstrong. Is it your recollection that it was in San Clemente
or that it occurred in Washington?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't really know Avhether I was able to tell
iier then or afterwards. I may have been back to W^ashington from
there and told her. I don't recall.
Mr. Armstroxg. You also informed her of the second contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
]\Ir. Armstroxg. Did you do that by phone or in person, do you
recall ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think in person.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall where that would have been, where
that conversation would have taken place?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably at the White House.
Mr. Armstrong. And would you have informed her whom the con-
tribution has been received for?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Armstroxg. From, and for what purpose it was received?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Armstroxg. And that would have been for the Presidential
campaign of 1972?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrox'g. And would you have indicated precisely how it
had come to you. from Mr. Danner as opposed to being a Hughes
contribution ?
]Mr. Rebozo. Precisely. Simply that Mr. Danner had given it to
me. That's about as precise.
Mr. Armstroxg. Had you indicated to her where the money was
being kept and in what form?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And tlie instructions for all of that were given?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
My. Armstrong. And the fact that ]\Ir. Wakefield was the party
designated in the instructions?
Mv. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. At some point, did you discuss with Miss Woods
the conflict and confusion in the Hughes organization that arose?
10003
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sure we probably discussed it several times.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss that in light of the money that
you were holding — the contributions you were holding?
Mr, Rebozo. Very likely.
Mr. Armstrong. Did she ever offer an opinion?
Mr. Rebozo. Did she ever offer me an opinion on what?
Mr. Armstrong. Regarding the confusion as to what you should
do regarding the confusion on the Hughes organization.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you give us an estimate of how many times
you might have discussed the contribution with her between the first
tAvo discussions and this final return?
]Mr. Rebozo. No. You know, we have many discussions on many
topics. Generally, it pertains to the First Family's best interests or
activities, or something of that nature. So occasionally, in some of
these discussions, undoubtedly, we touched on this. But to say how
many times, if I were going to guess, maybe I would say three or
four times.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, at any time, have you indicated in the past
to anybody that you had not discussed this conversation with any-
body, including INIiss Woods, prior to 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. I know I indicated to you people on four different
occasions.
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. I think the question is confusing. Would
you mind repeating it?
Mr. Armstrong. The question is, have you indicated to anyone
in the past that you had not discussed the contribution with anyone,
including INIiss Woods, prior to 1973?
Mr. Greer. That's an impossible question.
Mr. Frates. That is a triple negative, I think.
Mr. Rebozo. How could I tell them I hadn't discussed it with any-
one?
Mr. Armstrong. Did you tell anyone at any time that prior to
1973, you hadn't discussed it with anyone, including Miss Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. I have already said that, so I wouldn't be telling any-
body else that I had only discussed it with Miss Woods, because I
would have been discussing the very matter that I have also stated
repeatedly I had not discussed.
Mr. Armstrong. You might have discussed in 1973 the fact that
you had not discussed it prior to 1973 with anyone, including Miss
Woods.
Mr. Ri:bozo. Oh, I may have. I see no reason that I would have
concealed it at that point, so I may have.
Mr. Lenzner. I think there is some confusion.
Mr. Greer. I'm totally confused.
Mr. Rebozo. And you have a law degree.
Mr. Frates. I think the question you want to know is, prior to
this date, or prior to whatever date, have you told anyone that you
did not discuss the contribution with anyone — no one.
Mr. Dash. No one ; that's right.
Mr. Frates. That's the question.
Mr. Lenzner. Right.
Mr. Greer. That's still confusing.
10004
Mr. Frates. But that's what he's asking.
Mr. Rebozo. What do you want me to answer?
Mr. Dash. Do you understand the question?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Sam, could I try this once?
You're having a conversation with somebody and you said, "Look,
I have never talked about this with anybody until you came into
the room," and this allegedly happened in, say, 1973.
Did you make that statement in 1973 to anybody — basically, "I
have never talked with anybodv about this until you started talking
to me"?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. As I said before, I discussed this when
it was already a moot matter, and I decided to return the money.
So I may have told somebody that I hadn't discussed it before. There
would be nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Dash. And that way, I guess the question is, an inference in
it that you had concealed the fact that you had discussed it with
Miss Woods. The question put to you is: have you ever told any-
body that you hadn't, prior to telling it at that point, with anj^body
else, which means that you hadn't discussed it with Miss Woods.
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sorry. I don't have a law degree. I don't even have
a college degree. You're way over my head.
Mr. Frates. I think what they're trying to find out is, at any time,
did you say or make a statement that you had not discussed it with
anyone ?
Mr. Rebozo. Obviously, they have some indication that I did tell
someone — make this statement to someone. Tell me who that was
and I might be able to
Mr. Frates. I don't think, obviously, they have necessarily made
that statement, because they have asked several of those questions.
Mr. Rebozo. I realize that.
Mr. Frates. He's asking you if you have any recollection of ever
making a statement that you hadn't discussed the contribution with
anyone.
Mr. Rebozo. You know, again, I've read so much about perjury
and I'm trying my utmost to be honest in this thing and I don't
want to say anything off the top of my head that may not conform.
I don't see the relevance to this to begin with. If you ask me a
specific question, did you ask Joe Blow, did you tell him that you
have never discussed this with anybody, I could probably recall
whether or not I had made such a statement. But I would have no
(jualms about saying it, once the decision was made that this monej'
had to go back.
Mr. Lenzner. But the point was if you told Miss Woods and then,
after telling Miss Woods, you have indicated to someone that you
didn't tell anybody about it, why then, would you have concealed
the fact that you had, in fact, advised Miss Woods ^vith regard to
the money?
Mr. Dash. It makes an assumption, I know.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, if I had concealed the fact — if I admitted I
have — concealed the fact from anybody else except Miss Woods,
wh}^ would I go to somebody else and tell him, Miss AVoods is the
I
10005
only one I told this? They would say, told what? It doesn't make
sense.
Mr. Lenzxer. But I'm saying, if you talked with Whitaker —
hypothetically, now, as an example, and we said
Mr. Frates. Let's not go on a hypothetical. Let's ask you if you
have some evidence that a witness has said that he told me he didn't
tell anyone about it, I think you should tell him who it was and
who said it if anyone said it.
Mr. Lexzner. I don't think we have to
]Mr. Frates. No, using names like this leads right into what has
happened over and over again. You people operate on a stated
assumption that somebody told you of some rumor that some of
your paranoid investigators have picked up, and you say somebody
told it. Xow, you're making a serious accusation. You're saying a
man is lying. Now, who did he tell that to, if anybody.
Mr. Lenzxer. Is it your position that you don't want to answer
ttiat question, Mr. Kebozo?
Mr. Frates. His position is not that. We're calling on you or Mr.
Armstrong. You're asking him a question which indicates that he
might be stating a falsehood or an inconsistency. Now, who did he
state that to, if anybody? That's all we want.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you directing him not to answer?
Mr. Frates. No, we're not directing him. But I would say from
my experience with you, Scott Armstrong, you're just the type who
would make a statement that you picked up somewhere or manu-
factured from a source, and then tried to ask somebody about it.
"What you're doing is reprehensible stuff in a court of law. But I
don't think you're a lawyer, are you, Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No, I'm not.
Mr. Dash. Let me say this. In any executive proceeding, Mr.
Frates, I don't believe it's the responsibility to give to the witness
the name and information of everything we get. I do think that Mr.
Rebozo was quite accurate in his concern, and I think he expressed
it quite well when he said that he has heard a lot about perjury
and that he doesn't want to venture an answer when there may have
been some specific information that he doesn't recall. I don't believe
any question should be asked of him that should lead him into that
kind of situation.
Ordinarily, I would suggest to him that he can only give his best
honest recollection. If he has no honest recollection at this time for
that, that Avould be an honest answer.
I would say, Scott, that Mr. Rebozo is at least entitled to know
whether or not we do have a statement from somebody credible to
us that such a statement has been made. And I don't believe that
we have to reveal our investigation sources at this point, whether
or not this is a hypothetical question or whether or not it is based
on information we do have from a credible source.
Mr. Frates. I appreciate your attitude, because I'm not taking
the position that you have to, but I think in something — and I think
you've put your finger right on it — in something of this nature,
we're entitled to it.
Mr. Rebozo. In this instance, it's not a cavSe of my being afraid
of perjuring myself. I don't understand the question yet.
10OO6
Mr. Dash. I understand that, and I think because everybody has
tried it, we're compoundino; it.
Mr. Armstroxg. It's not a hypothetical question. It's based on
information that we have.
Mr. Frates. From whom?
Mr. Lenzxer. We're not going to disclose it.
Mr. Frates. That's right.
Mr. Armstroxg. The witness can answer it or not. Let the record
show the witness is not going to answer it.
Mr. Frates. Don't say let the record show that the witness is not
going to answer the question, because that is not what the record
shows. I see no reason why you cannot, under this assumption, tell
us who said that. I think that you can certainly — you don't have to,
I guess, but in fairness it would seem to me that you should, because
I'm always interested in IVIr. Armstrong's sources.
]\Ir. Lexzxer. I would be glad to confirm the fact that we have
received information. "We're not at this time going to disclose where
the information came from, because witnesses come to us, as you
know, and we're not going to go around disclosing who said what
to whom.
Mr. Frates. We're taking the position that no credible person has
made that statement, and I would like the record to show that, that
no credible witness has made that statement. If you want to deny
that, put that in the record and tell us who the credible witness is.
Mr. Rebozo. I'm willing to answer the question if I'm made to
understand it. I don't understand it yet.
Mr. Lexzxer. Just ask the question and see if he understands it.
Mr. Armstroxg. The question, ]\Ir. Rebozo, is was there ever an
occasion that you indicated to someone that you had not told anyone
about the contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. When?
Mr. Armstroxg. During 1973.
Mr. Greer. Obviously, they're referring to Mr. Whitaker.
Mr. Rebozo. Again, we get right back to it. By the time Whitaker
was in the scene, sure, I probably told several people that Rose Woods
was the only one that knew it.
Mv. Dash. The actual question, Mr. Rebozo, is did you ever tell
someone in 1973 that you had told nobody, including Rose Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, no.
Mr. Dash. You see, "nobody" is the question. To the best of your
recollection.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, no. To the best of my recollection, I don't recall
making a statement like that.
I could have said, well, the President doesn't know about this,
or nobody knows about it, or, I've kept it quiet, or something along
those lines, and he could have drawn that conclusion. But I don't
see where the question or the answer is pertinent to this whole dis-
cussion.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss Avith Miss Woods your concern
that you wanted to return the money, return the contribution?
Mr. Frates. When? At any time?
Mr. Armstroxg. I'm asking if he discussed it.
Mr. Rebozo. I probably did.
10007
Mr. Armstrong. And when did you discuss it?
Mr. Rebozo. I probably did.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell use when that would have been?
Mr. Eebozo. That would have been a long — all of this occurred in
or around March of this year — 1973.
Mr. Armstrong. And not prior to that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. It could have been February, could have been April.
Mr. Armstrong. But certainly not in 1972?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
jNIr. Armstrong. And can you tell us when you last talked with
Miss Woods about the contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. When I last talked with her about it? Oh, it has
been a long time.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you talk with her subsequent to its return?
Mr. Rebozo. A\Tiat?
Mr. Armstrong. Did you talk with her about it subsequent to its
return, to its actually having been returned?
Mr. Lenzner. That would have been June of 1973.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe I did. I don't think there would be an}-
need of it. It was all over the papers. Everybody knew it had been
returned.
Mr. Armstrong. I don't believe there had been any reference to
the contribution in the papers in June of 1973. Do you recall
Mr. Frates. There was what?
]Mr. Armstrong. I don't believe there was any reference to the
contribution in the papere in June of 1973.
Mr. Frates. You mean the return or the contribution?
]\Ir. Armstrong. Either one.
Mr. Frates. In 1971, it was in Jack Anderson's column several
times.
Mr. Armstrong. We're referring to 1973. I don't believe he ran
his column
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, about that time, and I don't know the exact
date, when the IRS showed up. it was all over the. papers.
]Mr. Armstrong. At that time, did you discuss with Miss Woods
the fact that you were removing the instructions from the contribu-
tion in the box?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have.
Mr. Armstrong. Is it your recollection that you did?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have.
Mr. Armstrong. You're not sure?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you told her you destroyed the
letter in the director's box, which you found again subsequently?
Mr. Rebozo. I doubt that I even mentioned the letter in the direc-
tor's box. It was just a backup advice.
Mr. Armstrong. After Miss Woods, who is the next person you
informed of the existence of the contribution? \Vlio was the next
person to learn of it?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, she learned of it early. No one else learned of
it until after the elections of November 1972. ^Vlio the first person
was, I don't know, but I know I did tell the President on one of
his visits.
31-889 O - 74 - 22
10008
Mr. Dash. Was that still in 1972, after the election?
Mr. Rebozo. I was asked that question before and I've tried to
fip:ure if I can pinpoint it, but I really can't tell if it was after the
election or the inauguration or just when it was.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have been the next person?
Mr. Rebozo. Could have been.
Mr. Armstrong. Was the President the next person to have
known ?
]Mr. Rebozo. It could have been, I said. I don't recall.
Mr. Armstrong. Other than the President, who else did you tell?
Who else did you tell in that early period?
Mr. Frates. Excuse me again. What do you mean, the early
period ?
Mr. Armstrong. I mean the period around the time the President
learned. I gather no one kncAv until after 1972. Mr. Rebozo can't
recall the fii-st person he told about it. It might have been the Presi-
dent. I was wondering who was his next most likely choice.
Mr. Rebozo. As I've said, I've discussed it with the two lawyers,
with a PR man, a friend of mine down South, Avith Wakefield, and
I don't know Avho else I discussed it with. It was a matter of trying
to determine what to do with it.
The IRS questioned me on some of these aspects, and I think that
was in April I discussed it with them.
Mr. Armstrong. You mentioned a PR man who was a friend of
yours from the South?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Who would that be, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. You know, I am almost afraid to ever inject a new
name in these. ]My experience has been that they get hounded and
questioned and get involved. But he's just an innocent friend. His
name is Hank IVIeyer, INI-e-y-e-r, who is one of the top guys down
there and a good friend of mine. It was just a very passing sugges-
tion, so please don't have him up here next.
INIr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo, when did you first notify Mr. Wake-
field that he should go to the safety deposit box in case of your
death?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it was the day before we opened it. What
was your question?
Mr. Armstrong. The question was when you indicated to Mr.
Wakefield that if you should die, there was something in the box and
he should go to it
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, immediately.
Mr. Armstrong. Immediately at one point?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, immediately when I put the money in.
Mr. Armstrong. In other words, prior to your having put the
money in, he was under no instruction to go to the box and look for it?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he had a duplicate key to the box all the time.
Mr. Armstrong. When did he first receive the duplicate kev to
the box?
My. Rebozo. Well, we had always had a joint box. I don't know
when he got it — maybe 1967, 1968.
10009
Mr. Armstrong. But at the time the box was opened, is that
Mr. Rebozo. The time the box was opened was this year, and you
have a copy of that signature card with the four signatures and the
date.
INIr. Armstroxg. Excuse me, the four signatures — we're referring
to box 224.
Mr. Eebozo. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. In that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
]\Ir. Armstrong. When the box was opened initially, when you
and Mr. Wakefield decided to have a box together, for whatever
purpose, was INIr. Wakefield under any instruction, from that time
to the time you received the first contribution, to go into the box
in case of your death?
JNIr. Rebozo. Oh. no, no; probably just in conversation. He drew
my Avill. He handles real estate closings. You know, he does a lot
of things for me, and if I'm traveling and I think there's anything
that might happen that would require his attention, he can go into
the joint box.
INIr. Armstrong. But was he under any instructions to go in there
in case of your death?
]Mr. Rebozo. AVell, I don't know that he was under any specific
instructions. I'm sure that that's the first thing he would do, being
a lawyer.
i\Ir. Armstrong. But at the time you received the first contribution,
you did so instruct him explicitly that he should go in?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And I take it that he had the keys to 224 from the
time it was opened until the time the money was returned?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
]Mr. Armstrong. Now. what was the original purpose of that safe
deposit box — maintaining it with Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, we had a box all along for the purposes that
I've previously testified to. Being out of town as much as I am, if
some matter comes up that requires his attention or his signature
on something, he can go in and get it.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, it's your testimony that the money from
the contribution was never stored in any other place than box 224,
is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
Mr. Armstrong. From January 1, 1969, to the present, can you tell
us what safety deposit boxes vou had access to in the Key Biscayne
Bank & Trust Co.
Mr. Rebozo. Numbers?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rebozo. 222 is the director's box and 633 is my personal box.
yiv. Armstrong. OK, tliat's a box which you hold jointly with
Caroline Rebozo; is that correct?
ISIr. Rebozo. She probably is on that. She's my sister and she prob-
ably is on that. A^Hiat are you asking me these questions for? You
know the answers.
10010
Mr. Armstrong. No, I'm sorry, I didn't know who Caroline Kebozo
was.
Have you ever had any other box during that period of time, or
does that comprise the full extent?
]Mr. Rebozo. No, I had a joint box. I was administrator for a
minor's estate and I had a box there with his uncle and just had
some of — his parents — his father was a director of the bank and
they were killed in that BOAC crash in Tokyo. This was the only
boy and I was his godfather and became his coexecutor, so we had
some of the papers in there. I don't recall the number of the box.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you say that box is still open?
Mr. Rebozo. I just noticed it came up for renewal, and I had con-
tacted the boy and he asked me to go in there and just take out
the contents and send it to him. It was just nothing. I think there
was a cheap ring that belonged to his mother and some little per-
sonal mementoes that the parents had kept, like a note from the kid
when he was going to run away from home at age 5, and things
like that.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there any other box that you have access to
in the bank other than the four you have just mentioned? Again,
that's from January 1, 1969, to the present.
Mr. Rebozo. No, no; I don't believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you or do you have any safe deposit boxes
in any other banks or locations in the same period?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I patronize home industry.
Mr. Dash. That's a good banker's statement.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you indicate for us what other items would
have been stored in that safe deposit box when the money was there ?
Mr. Frates. Again, Senator, I jvist want to point out that here is
another repetitious question. I think Mr. Armstrong's — half of them
have been repetitious. I do not want to interrupt; I just want to
get it over with.
Senator Weicker. I agree, Scott. We have been over this ground
many times, and unless there's something specific you're driving
toward, I would like you to tighten it up a bit.
]Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever place any money inside the box?
Mr. Rebozo. I've said that.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there any possibility that this rtioney was
connningled with any other money that was present, that the moneys
were mixed?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Armstrong. Has anyone else ever had access to that box,
other than Mr. Wakefield?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. We would like to put three exhibits in the rec-
ord, if we could.
Mr. Lenzner. I'll have them marked as exhibits 3, 4, and 5.
[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Rebozo ex-
hibits Nos. 3, 4, and 5, for identification.*]
Mr. Armstrong. Can jou identify those documents for the rec-
ord?
*See pp. 10157-59.
10011
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir, they're copies of our safe deposit box leases.
Mr. Lexzxer. And I believe two of them, exhibits 3 and 4, reflect
some entries into boxes 224 and 222. Is that correct ?
]Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, the entry record for box 222, which shows,
next to your name, the word, "sample," is that just a sample sig-
nature, but the original
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know why it says, "sample," but that is the
card. I guess I've just never signed it. As I've said, the little girl
we used to have would occasionally shove a card before me, and
apparently she just didn't use that one. She shoved one of these
other cards. I did sign the others on several occasions.
Mr. Armstroxg. But that is the original visitation record for
the box?
jNIr. Rebozo. Yes. You see, box 222, I have to go in that twice a
year when the examiners are there. That's where the directors' finan-
cial statements are, and I obviously haven't signed in there since
January 1972, though I've been there several times since then.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other records relating to these
three safe deposit boxes that are kept by the bank?
Mr. R?:bozo. Not to my knowledge.
jSIr. Armstroxg. Does the bank keep rental records of the payment
of rentals on the boxes?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you indicate to us why we did not receive
those in response to our subpena?
]\Ir. Rebozo. I don't know. I just turned the subpenas over to
them to supply what was requested, but I don't know wh}^ the
rental records would be pertinent.
Mr. Armstroxg. May we receive those?
Mr. Rebozo. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you arrange for us to receive those?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Dash. What do the records show?
]Mr. Rebozo. I think what he's talking about is whether we paid
the box rent or not. I don't know what bearing that has on this
hearing.
Mr. Dash. That's what it ought to show,
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo, if you'll look at exhibit 3 in front of
you, when you're saying, "additional documents," the document
above the access cards, do you have documents reflecting the rental
or use of 224 in addition to the documents reflected on that sheet?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe this is all that we've done
Mr. Frates. Senator, I think the subpena called for tlie records.
Mr. Greer. I think it calls for the access records.
Mr. Armstrong. It calls for any and all records.
Mr. Frates. What you have asked him is, is there a record of
payment of the rental.
Mr. Armstrox'G. Right.
Mr. Greer. Those documents are the only records that reflect am'
access to the boxes. There may be some document in the tank thi'
was not provided earlier that would i-eflect the ]>p.vrae.nt. r»f a ronf.i
10012
on the box; I don't knoAv. Bnt it would not in anyway show any
access or any activity related to the box.
Mr. Lexzxer. And that would be the entire extent of any rec-
ords relating to this safe-deposit box?
Mr. Rebozo. As far as I know, it is a mechanics of operation
that I don't know about.
Senator Weicker. Before we Avaste a lot of time
INIr. Frates. We'll make them available.
Senator Weicker. I gather that. Before you keep on bouncing back
and forth here, I gather that they'll make them available.
Mr. Frates. Surely.
Mr. Greer. It's certainly no big point.
Mr. Armstrong. jNlr. Rebozo, was there any time when you lost
your keys to the safe-deposit box?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, at one time, I lost all my keys to the boxes and
to my house, and everything else.
Mr. Armstrong. So you would have lost the keys to all the safe-
deposit boxes, is that co^L^ect?
Mr. Rp:bozo. Yes, one of them.
Mr. Armstrong. You only had one safe-deposit box key that you
kept with you?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr. Armstrong. So you did not lose the safe-deposit box key for
633 or 222? '
INIr. Rebozo. No. You see, every safe-deposit box has two keys. I
lost them all and then had the locks changed later.
]VIr. Armstrong. OK. What I'm asking you is, did vou lose even
one of the keys for box 633 and 222 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Ye-s.
ISIr. Armstrong. So you lost one of each of the keys for all three?
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Mr. Armstrong. How did you replace the keys for each of those
boxes ?
Mr. Rebozo. What we do is the locks on the boxes are interchange-
able and the keys don't have a box number. We initiated this some
years ago so that if somebody loses a key, he's less likely to know
what box to go into. It happens to serve an additional useful pur-
pose in that we just put a tag on it showing what the number is and
they can take the tag off.
Now, when anybody closes out a box or loses a key, we change
the lock from that box to some other box — we have 800-some boxes —
that's open and have new keys made, and they are blank and it's
no problem.
Mr. Armstrong. And that was done for all three boxes, is that
correct ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, who changes the lock ?
Mr. Rebozo. Now, I think that the auditor does it. We used to
call the Mosler Safe people, but we devised this other plan and,
even though somebody may have lost his keys, our feeling was that
somebody could have had a duplicate made and just turn in two
keys anyway. So any time a box is vacated, we automatically change
the lock so no one knows what their key fits.
10O13
Mr. Armstrong. Who is the auditor who would have
Mr. Rebozo. Jack Brown.
Mr. Armstrong. Is he an employee of the bank, or is he an inde-
pendent auditor.
Mr. Rebozo. He's an officer of the bank.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Brown would physically change the locks,
is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. There may have been others who would have
done it, but I do know he has done it.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he do it in this case, replacing these three?
Mr. Rebozo. I think he did.
Mr. Armstrong. Is this process what is known as drilling the
box?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there any difference ?
Mr. Rebozo. Wlien we had numbered keys, as some banks still
do, the only thing you can do when a customer loses the key is to
drill the box and put a new lock on it. Then, when INIosler charges
you $20 to do it and you bill the customer, they go through the
ceiling. So this other plan is working out much better.
Mr. Armstrong. How do you get access to the box to remove th«
lock?
Mr. Rebozo. With the key.
Mr. Armstrong. So you would have had to use the other key
to get into the box
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. So did you then request from Mr. Wakefield h^"
key so you could get into the box ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that was ?
Mr. Rebozo. Just before — I don't know when I lost the keys,
actually, but I think that it went back well before we opened the
box up to get these funds out.
Mr. Armstrong. By "well before," can you give us an estimate?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, it could have been a year before. I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. So you believe it would have been 1972, is that
right?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably.
Mr. Lenzner. Was the cash in the box at the time when you
went in there after you lost the keys ? Was the money in the box ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, sure; sure.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, at the time when you replaced the lock,
did you then give Mr. W^ikefield another key, a replacement key for
the new
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sure I did.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you give Mr. Wakefield any other key
for anv other boxes at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think he still has the directors' box key, No.
222. I hope he has. I think he has vault keys for a lot of clients'
boxes. He handles a lot of estates and this and that.
Mr. Armstrong. My question was, I guess, did you replace
the directors' box key that he had with another one when you
changed that lock?
10014
Mr. Rebozo. That's a good question. I hope we did. I don't ■
Mr. Armstrong. You have no recollection of giving him two
keys?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. You definitely recall giving him the one for
224, however, is that correct ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I believe that — I believe we did. I don't recall
the details. These things are so automatic that it doesn't impress
me. We have certain security measures that we do just automatically,
like we have two keys to the front door. Every officer has both
keys. Every time there's an officer or anyone who had the key, jani-
tor or anyone else, who leaves oui- employ, we change both of the
locks.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Rebozo, for the record, is this something you
would personally do, changing they key and changing the lock?
Mr. Rebozo. I said I don't do it.
Mr. Dash. There is somebody, some service person, I would think,
who does this?
Mr. Rebozo. We formerly used Mosler, but
Mr. Dash. Now the auditor does it.
Mr. Rebozo. He does it.
Mr. Armstrong. When you say "Mosler," are you referring to
the Diebold Co.
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it's Mosler. Maybe it's Diebold. Whoever
has our vault. We have equipment from both of them
Mr. Armstrong. Is it a policy in the bank that records are kept
of each visit into the vault ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that, is that pretty much an ironbound
rule?
Mr, Rebozo. Oh, yes. I'm apparently the only one who doesn't
follow it.
Mr. Armstrong. And when you don't follow it, how do you get
the second key you need to open the door?
Mr. Rebozo. I just go to the receptionist's desk and almost invar-
iably she has been sitting there, or if the bank has been busy, I just
open the drawer and take it out and go in and replace the key.
Mr. Armstrong. But you always use her key as opposed to some
other key?
Mr. Rebozo. There are only two keys out there, I think, hers and
one of the vice president's.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Wood's key?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I might use his occasionally. The keys are on a
big ring.
Mr. Armstrong. Separate keys for
Mr. Rebozo. Whoever is up at that front desk.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever instructed your receptionist not to
record your entries into the box?
Mr. Rebozo. Never.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever been aware of the fact that she
would record your entries even if you went in and let yourself in?
Mr. Rebozo. They wouldn't know which box I was going into.
10015
Mr. Armstrong. Is it not the custom to ask you whicli box you had
been into to make sure it's as recorded?
Mr. Rebozo. They never have.
Mr. Armstrong. They have never made any inquiry of you?
Mr. Rebozo. No, as I said, one receptionist on Wednesday, a cute
little i^irl, now and then she would say, here, you should si^n this and
she would pull out a card and I would sign it. That is why you see
some of the cards with signatures there.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us which receptionist that would
be? Why don't we look at the record for 224? I notice there are
three.
Mr. Rebozo. There was a girl who is no longer with us. Her name
was Regina Moreira.
Mr. Armstrong. Who would "SB" be? There is an indication of
the initials "SB".
Mr. Rebozo. "SB" Avould be probably — What year is that?
Mr. Armstrong. That's 1970. Would that be Susan Bagdones?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And "SL" ?
Mr. Rebozo. "SL," that's Sharon Leber, L-e-b-e-r. She also was a
receptionist for a while.
Mr. Arimstrong. Now, referring to the records for box 224, if you
still have them — Can you take a look at that ?
First of all. can you recall the purpose of entering the box on the
day after Christmas 1969 ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I wouldn't know the purpose on entering on any
one of these days, except the last one, and that was to take the money
out.
Mr. Armstrong. I note three entries in April of 1970.
Do you recall why you might have entered it three times in 1 month?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I wouldn't know.
Mr. Armstrong. And June 5. 1970?
Mr. Rebozo. I know one time in there I wrote a letter for my at-
torney. I wanted to make some changes to my will and I just put it
in there and later told him about it, and he said, that ain't the way
you do it. I might have put it in on one of those occasions, but I
don't know.
Do you happen to know what — I notice that it was April 3 and
April 10, exactly a week apai't. I am just wondering what day of
the week that was.
Well, it wouldn't make much difference, I guess.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm sorry, I don't have that.
Mr. Rebozo. But I don't believe I could recall that.
Mr. Armstrong. If it's any assistance, I also notice on box 222,
you entered on April 16, 1970.,
Mr. Rebozo. Well, generally what I go in there for is to either
put in the directors' newest financial statement or take something
out for the examiners.
Mr. Armstrong. But that doesn't help you recall the purpose of
entering box 224?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Now^ Mr. Rebozo, can you perhaps help me under-
stand how^, during the period 1969 through 1970— well, actually,
10016
from December 26, 1969 through June 5, 1970, a period of 6 months,
a little bit more, the records record five entries and then you de-
scribed to us another five entries wliicli you place after July 3, 1970,
when you would have gone into that box to either place the money
there or to remove it, to take the wrappers off or to take instructions
out?
Can you indicate to us why they wouldn't have noticed any of
those entries or been able to record any of those?
Mr. Rebozo. Reggie was the only one who would shove a card at
me, generally. Maybe I went up there one time and Susan was there
and not busy and I signed the card. But the thing about it is I don't
believe I ever even, on these occasions, specified what box I was
going into. When they wanted me to sign a card, they would just
pull out one of the cards and have me sign it.
Mr. Armstrong. Could we have a brief consultation for just a
second, off the record?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstroxg. ]Mr. Rebozo, can you explain to us why it would
be that Mr. Wakefield maintains that at no time did you come and
ask him for his key or give him a replacement key for that safe de-
posit box or any other?
Mr. Rebozo. Why he maintains that?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, is there any explanation for why he would?
Mr. Rebozo. [Shakes head in the negative.]
Mr. Greer. Let me object at that point. I was present at least
during one of Mr. Wakefield's interviews and it seems to me I recall
he specifically stated that the key was obtained by Mr. Rebozo at
one time.
Mr. Armstrong. At the time the money was returned is what he
stated.
Mr. Grekr. Tt seems to me I recall — I don't have his notes present —
t liat he said it was obtained at one time.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, at any rate
Mr. Frates. I don't think it is "at any rate" at all.
Mr. Dasii. I think here is a case where you have posed a question
involving a named pei^on.
Do we liave a record of Mr. Wakefield's statement to the contrary ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, we have the notes of a staff person and my-
self, who were present.
Mr. Greer. And my recollection is different from that. Again,
that's the problem with not having verbatim testimony in these
interviews, which we have requested several times.
Senator Weigker. I don't think we're going to resolve it in this
room, I can tell you right now. Counsel has indicated his recollec-
tion is different from the staff members', and quite frankly, if any-
body wants to make an issue out of it they're obviously going to have
to get Mr. Wakefield to make his statement and swear to it.
Let's get on to the next one.
]\lr. Dash. AVould there be any reason why Mr. Wakefield would
indicate that he did not receive any keys from you — is that the
question ?
Mavhe in fact he does not
10017
Senator Weicker. That's not my recollection of the question.
Mr. Fkates. I've got to needle you on that one.
Senator Weicker. If you want to answer, fine. But otherwise, as
I said, on this matter it seems it's easily enough resolved without
everybody going off to everybody else in the room.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Eebozo, are there any other safe deposit boxes
in the bank on which you pay the rental, other than the four we have
discussed?
Mr. Rebozo. No. I think I paid the fee on my godson's and it's
just due now, and that's why I recall that we just haven't gone into
it in all that time. But I don't have any other — I paid no other fees
on any other boxes.
Mr. Armstrong. And that would have been just recently, not on
any prior occasion ?
Mr. Eebozo. I beg your pardon?
Mr. ARMSTRONG. In the case of your godson's box that was a recent
payment you made?
Mr. Rebozo. No, having paid the payment, it just came due and
it was called to my attention and I had forgotten that he had
emptied the box. He's now 21, you see, and he should take it over,
but he has moved upstate. So he just asked that we empty it and
send it up to him. That is, vacate the box.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have a box 225 in the bank, safe deposit
box number 225 ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I formerly had. I think 225 is a box I for-
merly had.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you not have that during the period January
1, 1969, to the present?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall who the other signatures were on
that box ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, but you probably have copies of it if you know
that. Maybe I have a box that I don't know I've got.
Mr. Armstrong. The answer is you don't recall
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. He asked a question, and I think
Mr. Rebozo. 225 is familiar, and at one time I
Mr. Dash. There is a record from Mr. Rebozo's bank.
Do you have who the signatories are?
Mr. Armstrong. No, we don't.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me make it clear, we don't have any records
of the actual access or leasing of this box. AVliat we do have is a
reference to it in the financial records, but not the records relating
to the safe deposit box itself.
Mr. Frates. What reference to it?
Mr. Lenzner. I'll read it to you.
Mr. Rebozo. I think I know what that may be. I'm going to
conjecture.
Mr. Frates. A¥liy don't you have him read them?
Mr. Rebozo. I think that probably was a box I had before I
switched to 633. I believe maybe 225 was poorly located or a smaller
box, or something like that. The number is familiar to me and I
probably at one time did have that box. If the date is on the back. I
10018
think you mioht find, if that is the caso. that that box was probably
closed out on the same day the other one was opened.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you indicate to us why you switched boxes?
Mr. Rebozo. It probably was either a wider box — I had this narrow
one. "\^nien you ^o to jiut stock certificates or legal documents in, it's
better to liave the wider box.
The same thing, I believe, was true of the Wakefield and my box.
I think we had a different box and tiien switched. We have a huge
demand for boxes over there, and there are never enough of the larger
ones.
I would liave either switched to get a more conveniently located
box so I don't have to climb the ladder to get it, or to get a l)iggei' box.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it help if Ave pointed out that the fii-st
box, box 225, was a more expensive box than the second box, assum-
ing it is a larger box?
Is that a fair assumption?
Mr. Rebozo. a more expensive box than which box?
Mr. Armstrong. Than box 633,
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm sorry. I thought the payment was $20.50.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me read it to you. It says: "Release No. 225",
and it refers to a record in the amount of $20.50 from your bank
account on October 12, 1971.
Mr. Rebozo. "Release 225"?
Mr. Lenzner. I'm just reading w^hat the record reads.
Mr. Belling, "Release 225, obtain 633", just as you said. This was
on October 12, 1971.
Mr. Rebozo. That's the answer.
Mr. Belling, The amount was $20,50 and when it oame up the
following year in November, there was a $1.50 charge, but it was
crossed out. So whether you paid it
Mr. Rebozo. Maybe they gave me a break.
]\Ir. Beluno. ISIaybe it was a courtesy.
Mr. Armstrong. Would there have been any reason for moving
from one box to another, other than moving to a larger box?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. You do not recall the signature on the box?
Would that also have been yourself and Caroline Rebozo?
Mv. Rebozo. Probably. I don't know. I had forgotten Caroline was
on this one. She has never been in it.
Mr. Armstrong, Have you ever had a box on which Miss Woods
was a signator?
Mv. Lenzner. Senator, at this time we have a series of other ques-
tions, but I thought it might be appropriate to at least begin to get
into the documents question and hopefully, have us mark some ex-
hibits before we break this afternoon, if you think that is appro-
l)riate.
Senator Weicker. Let me put it this way. First of all, let me ask
you, insofar as questions of the committee, do you estimate that it
will be necessary to convene tomorrow, get together with Mr. Rebozo
tomorrow ?
Mr, Lenzner, Yes,
10019
Senator Weicker. Do you think it will be possible to accomplish
the questioning in a morning session, or do you envision an entire
day ?
Mr. Lenzner. I think we'll do the bulk of it in the morning. There
may be some slopover after lunch ; I can't tell. It also depends upon
if we can get the documents tonight, whether we want to base any
questions on those.
Senator Weicker. Now, let me ask— and just a minute, counsel —
let me ask counsel if I may, of the committee, exactly what is the
status now of the subpena relative to these documents ?
Mr. Dash. It is covered in a letter by Senator Ervin.
jNIr. Frates. Well, might I
Mr. Dash. Well, may I respond to the member of my committee?
Mr. Frates. Well, I'm just mumbling.
Mr. Dash. There are a number of outstanding subpenas. There
ai-e some objections, I know, that you and INIr. Frates made, and all
of these issues were brought to a head in a letter from Senator Ervin,
chairman of the committee, dated March 12, 1974, in anticipation
of this meeting, and it makes according to the various paragraphs,
it refers to the particular matters. No. 1 refers to original correspond-
ence between C. G. Rebozo and Richard Danner or Maheu and other
agents. No. 2 goes into certain telephone records and No. 3 certain
credit card records. No. 4, other documents — it's all very clear.
Actually No. 4 goes into documents invohdng the $4,562.38 that
were in the Wakefield trust account.
But the chairman — ^by the way — let's see, and the ones of the
tclej^lione calls from other matters. There was a response by mail
we did receive and in those cases, telephone calls, the response was
tliat they did not have sucli records. The information the staff has
that tliere sliould have been some records in order to assist counsel
and Mr. Rebozo, tb.e telephone numbers were provided in this letter.
.Vlso, there was some indication that some bills, travel records, should
have been included other than the ones that were included along
with the letter in response, and therefore I think it's easier to go
down the line of the March 12 letter paragraph by paragraph be-
cause I think the chairman has ruled on that for the committee, but
they should be supplied to the committee.
Air. Greer. All right, that's not exactly correct. The chairman
lias already ruled in paragraph 4 in terms of the $4,562.38 in today's
I'.earing tliat Mr. Rebozo testified he spent the money for personal
purposes, and therefore there is no further need to go into that sub-
ject. So that takes care of that paragraph.
Mr. Dash. I'm not sure it does.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me try to do this in orderly fashion
so I understand what's going on hei-e. Rather than just jump into the
middle of the letter, can I understand what your position in this
matter is?
Mr. Frates. Well, go ahead. Mr. Gre^r, who's handled this. Senator,
will — I think again, though, it is important to bear in mind that the
subpena— and I show that to the Senator — that's the one that we're
here under. We contend that there are no outstanding subpenas. There
are questions and disputes about some of the previous subpenas, but
100'20
so that technically the record is correct, that's the subpena we're
here under today. We did — just a minute, Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. I'm waiting.
Mr. Frates. Now, what we're trying to do is to take this letter
and comply with it as much as we can so that we would not get into
a don ny brook about it.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me talk to Mr. Frates for a minute.
I do not undei-stand myself how Ave can possibly resolve the letter
with Avhat you purport to be complete compliance unless we can see
what it is you liave complied with. In other words, what I'm sug-
gesting to you is there is some objection — we're not obviously — I am
not sitting liei-e, you know, deciding a motion to quash a subpena.
We're talking about the letter and that's what you're trying to do.
Would it be appropriate this evening to find out, iu other words,
enter the documents you brought into evidence, to find out whether
there is anything that we are arguing about at all ?
Mr. Dastt. It may be the one thino-, ap])arently, Mr. (rreer, that
you're saying is resolved, and I think that ran be an issue that we
can still talk about.
Mr. AR^rsTRoxo. Well, Seuatoi-, let's fiud out.
Mi-. Lexzxer. I^et's go ahead.
Mr. Frates. Well, let me ask this.
I think agaiu when we're talking about the documents we can
run down this lettei- and take it pai'agi'a])h by |)aragraph.
Senatoi", I think that many of those documents they already have
in their possession, so this idea of let us see your documents
Mr. Dash. If we had them, we wouldn't ask for them.
Mr. Frates. You've had them, Sam. hours and houi's and houi"S.
Mr. Dash. Well, Senator
Senator Weicker. Well, let him finish.
Mr. Frates. Well, whv don't we run down the lettei'. I think.
Senator, the quickest way is to run down the letter, tell you what we
have and what we'\'e objected to, and then we can debate whether
you think we should make them available this evening.
Senator Weicker. Go ahead.
Mr. Greer. Senator, to pi-esent the i)rocedural aspect, we are here
under a subpena Avhich calls only for Afr. Rebozo to ap])ear on wliat
Avas ^fai-ch 18. and then by telegram was modified to ^larch 20,
today. There Avas no duces tecum attached to that subpena.
Wait, Sam.
Prior to that time, theie weiv a series of duces tecum subpenas.
We have objected to a noi'tion of those and Ave have complied with
other portions. Koav. avc received late last Aveek a letter from Senator
Frvin dated ^Nfarch 12. addressed to Mr. Harper of our office, setting
forth a series of things Avhich the Senator and the staff contended
have not been comolied Avitli. Gei'tain of those things Ave are pre]iared
to compl V with at this time. Others avc are not.
NoAv, I can tell vou Avhat those things ai-e nt this time and Avhat
our objections are to the other's.
Senator Weicker. All right.
INIr. Dash. That's an orderly j^rocedure. That's all I'm askino- for.
Mr. Greer. Now, ]iaragra])h 1, the correspondence Avith Mr. Dan-
nvr and the othei' TTnghes i'ei)i'esentati\es. we haxe those letters
10021
present and they ha\'e already been looked at by the committee, but
we are happy to show them to them again.
Paragraph 2
Senator Weicker. Now, as he goes over the letter, I don't have
a copy, this is a matter between you two.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, may I just make a comment, Mr. Greer one
simple question.
Do you have any objection to us making copies from the original
documents you've brought with you ?
Mv. Greer. If we ha\e the originals.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, if you have copies, can we make copies from
the copies?
Mr. Greer. You may make copies from the copies.
Mr. Lenzner. All right. That's fine .
Mr. Greer. Now\ as to the remaining items, paragraph 2 calls for
all original phone records or phone messages which reflect telephon**
calls from C. G. Rebozo to
Senator Weigker. Xow, excuse me. I'm trying to listen to Mr.
Greer. Let's knock it off.
Mr. Greer [continuing]. To any of the following individuals: And
there was a whole host of over 100 names. We perused the phm^"
records
Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me. How many?
Mr. (treer. Over 100 I believe.
And we perused Mr. Rebozo's phone records and there were ur^
records which reflected such contacts.
We informed the committee of this. They replied that they thought
there should be, and they gave us a list of 170 ]^hone numbers for
11 different phones. Now, we got this the end of last week.
Senator Weigker. All right.
IVlr. Greer. We have had no way to begin to look at the records
to determine if over a 5-year period there were any phone calls to
or from those phone numbers.
Now, personally, I think that is an entirely objectionable request
to have to go in and do this, and we mav want to object to it on that
gi-ound. We have not decided that as of yet, but right now we just
physicallv have not had a chance to beaiji to look at the records to
see if these 170 -phone numbers foi- 11 diiferent ]:)hones ovei- a 5-year
period can be complied witli.
Senator Weigker. Does anybody have an objection on that?
Obviously it doesn't
Mr. Dash. Well. T think counsel, at this point, if he is raising the
question of reasonable time to comply, is raisinc- an appropi'iate
issue, and if he needs inore time to reply, I think he can do that, of
('oui*se.
Mr. Armstrong. It's actuallv a very simple process to go through
those records. It would take no longer than an hour.
Mr. Greer. I do not agree with you at all.
Mr. Armstrong. If you show me the records
Mr. Greer. To do it ]noperlv, you would have to take — the first
number as area code 202-20.3-2900. You have to take each record
for each of 11 i:)hones for 5 years and go down each of those records,
lookins: for that number.
10022
Mr, Armstrono If you take a few key numbers
Senator Weicker. You can't do that. You made a specific request.
Mr. (irREER. You made a request for 170 numbei-s.
Senator Weicker. All I am sayiii<!; is, if you are given a reasonable
time, can you comply?
Mr. Rehozo. My fjal said it would take her a month to do this.
Mr. (iREER. Frankly, I don't know wluit records are available. I
haven't had a chance to go out to the bank and look. That is why
I want to hold it in abeyance and we'll come back to the connnittee
v."ith a specific response.
Mr. Frates. We'll tell the Senator that we will certainly make
an effort to do it.
Mr. (treer. I frankly don't know. I have not been able to look at
whether the phone records are there. That's why I can's tell you.
Mr. Rrnozo. I've glanced at these nimibei's, and I us\ially remember
phone inimbei-s, and I would say most of them I've never heard of,
and some of the area codes they fall in I've nevei- heard of. If they
would just pini)oint certain numbei-s that I've had certain conversa-
tions with
Mr. (treer. If there's anv way we can get it narrowed down.
Senator Weicker. Well. I see no reason Avhy in this matter —
Counsel has indicated he will tiv. Now. Sam, tliis is something — now,
obviously there is a i)hysical ])i-o])lein.
Mr. Dash. I agi-ee with that, and I talked to Mi'. Greer about that
iind admitted it earliei-.
Senator Weicker. All i-ight. We'll try to resolve the thing. Go on.
Mr. Greer. All right, ])aragraph '> calls foi- anv and all credit
card and other charges reflecting contact Avith certain named indi-
viduals. We have pi-ovided the few items that i-eflect actual contact
in instances where it has any ))Ossible relationship to Senate Resolu-
tion 00. There may be others that I'cpi'esent ]>rivate contact betw(MMi
Mr. Rebozo and say the President, but it has nothing to do Avitli
cami)aigns. So everything that does have to do with campaigns we
have ]>rovided.
Now, thev've come back and said, we don't think that we have.
Our position is that all of it has been provided that reflects a contact.
Senator Weicker. Does somebody care to I'espond to that?
Mr. Lenzxer. Well, one way we may have to develop that, if you
are i-epresenting that tlH> only records related to that reqiu\st are the
ones vou ali-eady have is by going into extensive questioning with
'Sh: Relmzo on all of the meetings with Mr. Danner and all of the
))eople. and Avhether h(> has in his possession credit cai'd vonchers.
records, oi- expense items that reflect when those meetings took ])lace.
Let me just <ii\-o yOu oiu^ exami)le. Say there was a comersation
OI- meetinir in Las Vegas that we think is pertinent with Mi'. Rebo/o
and Ml'. Danner. "We would ob\ioiisly want to see the tra\-el records
to )iin that date down and how long he staved out ther(> and who
he mav have met with.
Air. Rkuozo. That's easy.
Mr. Frates. We ha\e no — we ha\-e no objection.
Mr. Ri:iU)Z(). T^nt to gi\-e me 5 |)atrcs of ohone numbers — —
Mr. Dash. We're not talking' about phone niinibers. We"i'(> tall\ing
about travel records with particular persons.
10023
Mr. Rebozo. But they've asked for all travel records, including?
o\orv time I visited the President. Well, that's been in the paper
every time, you know, and I <iet it every time I go into Washinojton,
I assume, but it seems like the request is a little extreme and
unreasonable.
Senator, the problem that I've got, I've got a small office. I've got
people about out of their minds. We've got over 2,000 man-hours
invested in pulling out documents and stuff for this committee. Back
in September we gave things we felt were not really required by
the mandate but we said, we'll get it behind us. Let's go ahead and
cooperate. We'll get it to them. Now, much of the same stuff is being
i-equested over again, and my people are just up tight, and it is just
an unfair added burden to impose on them at a time like this when
our small staff is busy during the winter season.
Mr. Greer. And the ]:>roblem is, these records don't reflect contact.
You'd have to take the records, determine dates, determine exactly
where the trip was to, and then determine if there was any later
contact from that record. We provided everything that shows on it
a contact, and that is Avhat the subpena called for, that reflected a
contact.
Mr. Lenzner. Pertaining to
Mr. Greer. Specifically named individuals, and where the records
have a reference on them to those individuals or to a meeting, we
liave provided that.
Mr. Dash. In other words, to clarify that, assuming Mr. Rebozo
made some trips to Las Vegas, the travel record wouldn't necessarily
show that he met with Mr. Danner.
Mr. Greer. And the same thing is, if he went to Washington or
Xew York or anywhere else, that we would have to have some indica-
tion without having to force Mr. Rebozo to sit down and take each
record and reconstruct what he did on each and every trip, and if
during the course of that trip he may have seen or talked to some-
]iody on the phone. It is physically almost impossible to do.
Mr. Dash. Is there any way that the staff can guide, I mean make
much more specific the meetings that we would like to address
ourselves to?
Mr. Frates. Senator, I think another thing, we have sent a memo-
randum of law on this matter, but if I mav, the Supreme Court of
the United States in several decisions has said — if I can just briefly —
because I think this gets very close to what we're talking about, of
course, a legislative investigation. This is according to the Supreme
Court, is anv investigation must proceed step by step, but step bv
step or totalitv, an adequate foundation for an inquiry must be laid
1)efore proceeding in such a manner as will substantially tread upon
and severely curtail or inhibit constitutionally protected activities, or
seriouslv interfere with similarly protected associations ric:hts.
Mr. Greer. The case savs vou can't go on a fishing expedition.
Senator Weicker. Well, I understand that, and I think what
we'i"e trving to work out here is
'Mv. Frates. We want to comply, and we will comply with anything
that we feel — when T say we feel — that is related or covered by this.
And if Avc don't we will specifically say we think that is not.
10024
Senator AVeicker. Well, I tliiiik we're makin^: <rood progress
here and I think Sam asked Terry if there is any way that he
can give additional guidance in this matter.
]\Ir. Lexzner. Well, my original suggestion I think was simply
to include in our questioning — ^we've already been ovei- some con-
tacts — whether Mr. Rebozo is aware of whether he has specific
records relating to the particular meeting or transaction.
Mr. Greer. If you can give us a list of meetings, and if we already
know the general timeframe, we'll go back in and search the records.
]Mr. Lenzxer. For example, I don't understand. We don't have
a — you have not produced a copy or a record of the trip — I think
you showed us an airline ticket one time but we never did get a copy
of that — to San Clemente for the July 3, 1970, meeting.
INIr. Frates. You've got the information. We'll produce that,
we'll give it to you.
Mr. Bellino. Well, something to support it firmly. That's all we
want.
Mr. Frates. Well, all Mr. Bellino wants is in complete violation
of every Supreme Court record I've ever read.
Mr. Bellixo. Senator, I object to him. I have said nothing to him
at all.
Mr. Fr.\tes. Mr. Beilino's idea of an investigation is to make
everybody produce all of their records, and that is what they've dene
in every bank in this country, and every record, and he's bird-dogged
it and he's j^ersisted on every private record that he's had. all in
complete violation of the Supreme Court records, and we say, if
you relate something specific, we'll produce it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, that's exactly, Bill
Mr. Fr^vtes. We've tried, Senator, from the inception, to cooperate
to make records available without sub])enas, hour on hour after. So
we have over and over again tried to cooperate, not secret informa-
tion, and Ave are still willing to do that.
Mr. Lexzxer. I thiiik ^Iv. Bellino was simply pointing out to my
attention, Mr. Fi-ates, there are specific items that we can indicate
to you are items we think are pertinent to our inquiry.
Mr. Greer. If you can ffive us a list, itemized
Mr. Frates. We've asked for this OA^er and over again,
Mr. Rebozo. Pick out the phone numbers, too.
Senator Wetcker. AVell, you're going to cooperate on the i>hone
numbers, and he's going to give you as mucli as he can to assist you
in the othei^s.
^Ti-. Greer. Pai'agraph 4 goes into the 19G8 campai.qn and the
$4,562 which was discussed earlier this mornino-. Senator Ervin ruled
that Ml'. Rebozo's testimony that he sj^ent the $4,r)00. tliat was his
money and he s))ent it on jieisonal items, was sufficient, and it ended
that line of inquiry. I don't think we need to sxo into it any furthei'.
Ml-. Frates. Well, the record will show tliat.
Mr. Dash. Well, Senator Weicker, he ruled on a question. The
question wasn't backed up bv any documentation, and thei-efoi-e, the
questionei- had a problem. We have not been pi-ovided with the
records.
10025
Now, Avait a minute. Let me finisli. I ao-ree that if the records were
to show that this jiarticiiLar item liad notliino- to do with the cam-
paign in 1972, and did not relate to funds tliat were used in tlie
campaio^n of 1972, tliat w^e under our resoUition. liave no rij^ht to
pursue it. But, in an inquiry to find that out, and whether we ever
use it in our report or whether we ever conchide on that, we cannot
make that decision until — if we have probable cause to believe that
the money may have been used — until we see the records.
For instance, we do know that a portion of these funds were sent
to Kalmbach, and Kalmbach used it for Ulasewicz.
Mr. Frates. And you can interpret into it anything you want,
but what he did, he sent it. the document is in evidence, there's no
question about that.
Mr. Dash. Unfortunately we're askino- a question from the blind,
and I think Senator Ervin had to rule on the basis of the question
asked in the blind which we could not at this poiiit — in fact. Senator
Ervin was the one who said that this has to be complied with.
Senator Weicker. "\"\'liat is the request ?
Mr. Greer. Here is the request. Specifically refers to the 1968
campaifyn, Xo. 4.
Mr. Frates. Senator, let me show you these two
Mr. Dash. And the purpose of Senator Ervin's request
INIr. Frates. "Wait a minute.
Senator Weicker. Well, it seems to me — I'd be olad to listen to
counsel, but it seems to me that Senator Ervin, having- signed this
letter specifically requesting documentation, relevant to this amount,
Avould control insofar as the subpena and insofar as the document
is concerned. I don't in any Avay intend to overrule the chairman's
ruling this morning which related to a question, but as far as docu-
ments are concerned, I would have to be guided by the chairman's
letter.
Mr. Frates. "Well, Senator, I don't know if you were here when
we were talking about these two.
Senator Weicker. I was here.
Mr. Frates. And I think the record will clearly show that the
chairman will rule that those were not proper questions, and he
established the ground rule.
Senator "\Veicker. Counsel, I don't disagree with you insofar as
the question is concerned. Here we are talking about documents
subpenaed. and quite frankly, if the chairman has signed the
letter
Mr. Dash. Senator, he said in his ruling if Terry could show
where it related to 1972, he would allow it in. And he couldn't show
it because we didn't liave the documents because they hadn't been
produced. "We are looking for the documents.
Xow, documents may show that they don't i-elate, l)ut in all in-
vestigations, von don't know until you see, but if they do relate, we
believe that they do relate.
]\rr. Greer. "We're back to a fishing expedition.
Mr. Dash. Xo, this is not a fishing expedition because we do know
the money was used in part for the 1972 campaign. "We don't know
what. "We liolieve that the rest might be able to show this.
10026
Mr. Greer. Senator, let me say this on this one particular thinc^.
This has been posed to the full committee where we came up here
and objected to these vai-ions tliinfrs. As far as we know the full
committee has not ruled on this. You were here, we were satisfied
that the chairman's rulin<r would substantiate that under the Supreme
Court decisions that we do not haA'e to produce anything; other than
what has already been produced on that.
And I will say to you. Senator, that we are not o;oin<2: tp pro-
duce them. T mean, I don't want to play games with you because we -
feel, for whatever motivation we might have, we are not going to
produce them and if the chairman rules that we have to
Senator Weicker. Well, let me put it this way. As far as that
item is concerned, just mark down they're not going to produce
them. We're going to be getting together again tomorrow morning.
The chairman will have a chance to be here. You might want to re-
view it again there. I understand — well, let me put it this way. I
received your objection. T don't intend to do anything about it. It
is just received, it's noted, and as far as that item is concerned, we'll
take it up again tomorrow.
Mr. Dastt. I think it should be noted for the record that the
chairman's letter, which is the chairman of the committee, says that
there was no compliance, and the letter calls for this compliance.
Mr. Frates. The letter is not a subpena, and again, we're debating.
Mr. Greer. Well, let's not argue anymore. Everybody has every-
body's position.
Senator Wetcker. I understand the objection of counsel. I have
noted and I have so interpreted the chairman's letter to mean what
it says.
Mr. Dastt. Which directs compliance with the subpenas.
Senator Wetcker. Which directs compliance.
Now, as fa?' as anything else is concerned, I suggest we wait on
that item imtil tomorrow.
Mr. Greer. Finally, it asks for
Senator Wetcicer. And we can sit here and talk until we're blue
in the face and we won't solve anything.
Mr. Greer. Terry, I don't think we need to discuss anything
anymore.
Mr. Lenzner. Well. I just want to add one thing. Senator. At one
point T think we ought to have in the record — and whether vou want
to do it now or tomorrow, your advice — just an explanation of the
pertinency, our statement as to the perti7iencv tliat tliose documents
have to our mandate, so that it's clear on the record for both Mr.
Frates and us.
Mr. Dash. Well, whv doesn't it go in right now ?
Senator Weictver. Wiy doesn't it go in right now? We've heard
their statement : now let's hear your statement.
Mr. Lenzner. Again, Senator, we also want to include in the
record the subsections of the resolution that Ave feel are the founda-
tion for the subpena duces tecum for these specific documents.
Do you want us to do that now, too?
Mr. Frates. We are not standing on that.
Mr. Greer. I would like to know, Bill, because it's going to come
up.
10027
Mr. Dash. Well, we're layino: the groundwork.
Senator Weicker. Well, why don't you
Mr, Lenzner. AVell, why don't I cite them and have tlie reporter
odd them for the record. They're quite lengthy.
The first, we are talking about Senate Resolution 60, including the
language authorizing an investigation of "illegal, improper, unethical
activities in the Presidential election of 1972," which appears on
page 21.
Mr. Greer. Can you give us the section citation?
INfr. Lknzxkr. T will in a second.
"Which my quote indicated, this is in section 1(a) at page 22 of the
rules,^ "indicate the necessity or desirability of the enactment of
new congressional legislation to safeguard the electoral process by
which the President of the United States is chosen."
We also would include in that section 2 of Senate Resolution 60,
subsections (11), (12), and (13) and (16)^
Mr. Greer. I don't think you have to quote them. We all have
copies.
Mr. Lenzner. I will not quote them now.
In addition to the question of the funds going to Mr. Kalmbacli,
Senator, which we have already documented, we also have an interest
in determining what manner formerly campaign funds were utilized
as late as 1072, campaign funds going back to 1968, apparently were
converted to Mr. Rebozo's use in 1972. We want to determine what
actual use was made of them, No. 1, because it may relate directly
or indirectly to the campaign of 1972. It may relate directly or
indirectly to a whole variety of other things that the committee has
been investigating, ITlasewicz and the setting up of funds to pay
for the Watergate def(^ndants, but indeed, it is in itself evidence of
a conversion of campaign funds, albeit from a prior campaign, and
that to me also refers and is pertinent to our inquiry and what hap-
pened, and what use, if any, was made of the $100,000.
Now, if you are having an inquiry, a prior similar act related
to the incident that you are looking at is entirely pertinent to de-
termining whether the incident you are looking at could have hap-
pened, whether the person you are looking at could have had flie
propensity to do exactly the same thing.
Mr. Greer. Prior similar acts are never admissible.
Mr. Lenzner. That's absolutely incorrect.
Senator Weicker. Well, let him lay his groundwork.
Mr. Greer. Keep on.
Mr. Lenzner. The prior similar act is pertinent because if in fact
campaign funds were converted to Mr. Rebozo's personal use in 1972,
we are siiggesting that that is a precedent at least for the possibility
that he mav have converted some or all of the $100,000 campaign
funds in 1972.
Mr. Fratf^. We object to your statement of the campaign funds
because the record is clear and there's absolutelv no evidence that
these were not campaign funds, that it was in the Thomas Wakefield
special account which he had gone over in considerable detail.
> See Book 1, p. 427.
"See Book 1, p. 430.
10-028
Mr. Lenzner. Can I finisli, l^ill ^
Mr. Frates. Well, 1 \n]t his Ktatompiit in there, but I'd like the
Senator to know that we are ii'oinir to — we think we are on valid
jCfrounds here. We're not aoino' to produce them. If we're jjoing- into
citation, we will, and we'll go to the Sui)renie Court. I don't say that
in a sense of arroo-ance. and I ]io])e you understand that, but we ai'e
tryino- to save time because we feel if there ever was an instance
where the investio;ative committee has ^one completely out of bounds,
this is it, and we feel this is
Senator WEirKER. Well, mv ))Osition in the matter is. as I have
stated to you. which is nobody's rulin<j: on anythino- toniirht, thai
we'll have a chance to discuss it a.o-ain tomorrow. Very fi-ankly. even
if it were not resolved tomorrow, it's a matter that the full committee
would o;et together, so that in no wav ai'e vou beino- forced to do
anythiuir at this stao-p of the frame. I thiidv it is just fjood to <xot the
jwsitions out on the table and v,-e can 2:0 from there.
So. why don't you continue with laying out your statement?
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Senator, if it's OK wnth Mr. Frates, with-
out <roino: on and layino- out everythino-. if I could submit a copy
to the record and I wnll submit a copy.
Mr. Dash. That's fine.
Mr. Frates. That's fine.
Senator Wetcker. ]^ow\ let's continue on.
IMr. Greer. There's one remainino- item in the letter, Senator,
which calls for the production of all of ^h: Rebozo's original bank
statements and checks from 1969 throuo-h. 1973, and if ever there
was a fishino; expedition, that is it. These records have been pro-
vided to Mr. Bellino
Ml'. Dash. AMiat I'ecoi'ds are those?
Mv. Greer. It's on pa<re 2 the next to the last parao:raph. These
records have been shown to Mr. Bellino. He has been tliroug'h them.
IMr. Belling. What's that?
Mr. Greer. Repeatedly, and if there are specific relevant items
which apply to this investij^ation and those relevant items will
be provided to us by list, we will provide them. But to just come
in and dump all of Mr. Rebozo's bank records and checks into
the committee's lap and say here you are without any showing
of relevance
Mr. Dash. I'm still trying to find that.
Mr. Lenzner. It's page 3, second to the last paragraph.
Mr. Dash. You are also i-equested
Mr. Greer. By telephone, copies of the originals of INlr. Rebozo's
bank statements and checks from 1909 through 1973, a period of
5 years.
Senator Wetcker. You say Mr. Bellino has already seen these?
Mr. Greer. We set him down in front of them, and he's gone
through them.
Mr. Belling. No, sir, I've not seen anything subsequent to De-
cember ')]. 1972. and furth(>rmoi(>. the disbursements that I saw
were selected items which they w^ere iiishing me to get through.
]\Ir. Frates. Rushed you for 3 days.
Mr. Bellino. All I'm asking for is to get copies of the bank state-
ments. I don't care whether thev give us the checks right now or not.
10029
The bank statements, because I found other items that I want to
check ag:ainst those bank statements.
]Mr. Greer. It says bank statements and checks, and we still say
that is an entirely improper request. If you can present us with the
specific items you want to see, we will be happy to comply, but just
to bring in a man's entire financial records and say here, we think
that is totally and entirely objectionable under all Supreme Court
citations.
Mr. Dash. Do you have a statement of pertinency as to this?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, if we could follow the same procedure to save
time. I'll furnish you a copy of the statement of pertinency for
you and for the record and for the Senators.
]Mr. Frates, is that agreeable?
Mr. Frates. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Is that acceptable ?
Senator Weicker. Well, let me ask a question here.
I don't understand counsel's position on this matter. Are you
saying that you do object to this one as you did object to the one
before? Are you saying that you suggest some method whereby it
can be worked out?
Mr. Greer. We're saying we suggest a method whereby it can be
worked out, if we can be provided with specific items from Mr.
Rebozo's records in which the committee has legitimate interest,
they will be provided, but to require anyone to come in and provide
all of his financial records, we feel is objectionable, and we will not
comply with that.
Mr. Rebozo. May I say a word, Senator?
One of the reasons for this^and I know counsel doesn't like the
client'
Senator Weicker. I was about to ask counsel if he is going to
let his client talk.
IVIr. Frates. Well, I'm waiting to hear what he says.
Mr. Dash. Do you want to go off the record ?
.Mr. Frates. No, no.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I'll put it on the record.
One of the reasons for this is that after he got through going
through all of my bank statements, canceled checks, when Bellino
finished all of that, there was one check in there that I had written
about 3 years before to a lawyer for $700 and they called on that
lawyer to see what it was for, and it involved a case involving
a nephew of mine that had no bearing whatsoever on this case, but
it shows you the extent to which they go. And I just don't feel
that that is fair.
Senator Weicker. Well, I've got to say, too, Mr. Rebozo, and
also to counsel, that we all do the job that is given to us, and
your counsel does a verv A'igoi'ous and very excellent job, and very
frankly, I think Mr. Bellino does the same thing, and I think the
record should so state.
So I'm sure that you obviously do not embrace Mr. Bellino to
your bosom anymore than, as I said, that in doing their job, are
your counsel. But the fact is, they're all doing their job, and I thmk
the record should show that each is doing a proper job, and I
don't want any personal comments in the matter.
10030
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I don't want any personal comments on that,
but he seriously affected my credit ratino^ by going to a bank that
loaned me money and questioning the wisdom of the loan and the
President of the loan told me this.
Senator Weicker. Well, I suggest that if there is anything spe-
cific, I think you should refer it to counsel.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, there are several things, and I — we'll go into
it. This is the only reason. Otherwise we'll go right back to what we
did in the l>eginning. AVe'll give them everything.
Mr. Lenzner. On that point, Mr. Rebozo, can Ave agree that at
the beginning Mr. Bellino was given access to certain documents
from 1969 through 1972, but we were not given copies nor were
we allowed to make copies of any of those documents?
Can we agree on that ?
Mr. Greer. No, we cannot.
Mr. Frates. Senator, for your information, INIr. Bellino on one
of the first days of many, many days in our office, made a list and he
just said he didn't have the bank statements, and here we have
it, I guess this is your own writing, isn't it, Mr. Bellino? You have
a very good hand. Statements from December 31, 1968 to Decemlicr li,
1969.
Mr. Belling. That's right.
INIr. Frates. And this, I understood, you had them right on
through 1962.
Mr. Rebozo. 1972.
Mr. Frates. 1972.
Mr. Bellino. Read further, read further. You'll see the rest of
them.
Mr. Frates. But you just said you didn't have them.
Mr. Belling. I just said I looked at everything up to 1972, but
I didn't see anything for 1973.
Mr. Frates. Well, then, you've looked at everything from 1969
to 1972.
Mr. Belling. That's right. You made them available to me.
Mr. Frates. And you examined them for 3 or 4 days in our office,
at least 3 or 4 days.
Mr. Belling. That's right.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, the only point. Senator, is that at tliis point.
we-
Mr. Greer. Well, I think, Senator, at this point
Mr. Lenzner. Alan, can I just finish?
We have in every instance that a subpena has been served, on
every other witness, always required that the documents be produced
in their original form so that we can make copies of them at our
own expense. And that's
Mr. Dash. By the way, I want to say, as chief counsel, this is ex-
actly what we've done. In Mr. Rebozo's case, we did the convenient
thing of having our staff go down there and work with them so that
they would not be inconvenienced. Everybody else has had to come
in here or produce the originals here in Washington.
Mr. Greer. That does not make it right, Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. I agree, but we've been working, as Senator Weicker
well knows, under tremendous pressure of having to put on hearings
10031
and an invpstioation in the time of a l-year resolution in a broad
area, and I think, as Senator Weicker said, that the investigative
staff' has liad a tremendous burden to produce facts, and we've had
our job, and we've tried to do it in the best way we can, and an
investigation means getting facts and asking things that some people
don't "vvant.
Senator Weicker. Well, if eveiybody would sit down, please, and
let nu' try to weed this thing out as to where we now stand.
Xow, in tiiis letter there is agreement on the first item re<|uested.
And let me just start from the beginning now and go thi-ough.
Mr. Lenzner. We have one other item, Senator, that we haven't
finished.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me start at the beginning. We'll end
up at the last.
The first portion of the letter is what?
Mr. Dash. That's the correspondence, and I think they said we
can make copies of it.
Senator Weicker. That is being provided, is that correct?
Mr. Greer. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Point No. 2 is what?
Mr. Greer. Point No. 2 is telephone records.
Mr. Lenzner. I just wanted to ask him a question.
After we finish going through the letter. Senator, I would just
like to have that correspondence marked tonight as exhibits so we
can have access to that prior to tomorrow.
Senator Weicker. I gather that was agreed to.
Mr. Dash. They agreed we can make copies.
Senator Weicker, As far as item No. 1 is concerned.
Now, item No. 2.
Mr. Greer. Is the telephone records, as we have said.
Senator Weicker. I gather that they're going to try to be of as-
sistance, along with you. try to narrow this thing down in order that
there not be a logistical problem.
Mr. Dash. And you're going to see w^hat kind of a problem it's
going to be.
Mr. Greer. Eight.
Senator Weicker. All right.
Item No. 3.
Mr. Greer. Item No. 3 is
Mr. Dash. Do you want to make a statement on that?
]Mr. Lexzxer. I just want to find out if you have the records here,
the telephone records you're going to be using?
Mr. Greer. No, we do not.
Senator AYeicker. Item No. 3.
Mr. CJrker. Item No. 3 is the travel i-ecords, documents and vouchers
that reflect contacts, and we've agi'eed that you're going to give us
the si)e('ifi(' list of dates and places so we can search the records.
Item No. 4
Senator Weicker. You object?
Mr. Greer. We've objected to, and that is on the record.
Senator Weicker. And you're going to deliver your statement of
pertinency, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Lenzxer. Yes.
10032
Mr. Greer. Item No. 5 is all of Mr. Robozo's bank statements and
checks. We clicln't feel that since INIr. Bellino has been through at
least 1968 to 1972
Mr. Dash. 1969.
Mr. Greer. He told us that he wanted 1968, all of 1969 through
197*2. As to those records, you ouaht to l)i' able to tell us what specific
items are of import and if thci'e is uo objection to them \\-e will ])i'OAide
them.
Mr. Belling. The only thing I ask on that, Senator, is copies of
the deposit statements. They could hold onto the checks. We'll ask
for specific checks after we get the item, because in some cases I
could identify the amount and I won't need the check.
Mr. Frates. Well, you've had the statements, you looked at the
statements. You had the statements.
Mr. Belling. I had the statements, but I didn't copy every item
down.
Mr. Frates. Please don't yell at me.
Mr. Belling. I am not yelling. I just want to hear you.
Mr. Frates. I'm having no trouble hearing you.
Senator Weicker. But he doesn't hear you.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, can I suggest. Senator, here the simple point,
as I understand it Mr. Bellino's request seems limited and reason-
able. All we have to find out is wdiether 3'ou agree to comply and
furnish those.
Senator Weicker. May I suggest on this item, let me think about
this one. and you think that, and I gather it is a little bit narrower
than what is contemplated in the letter.
Mr. Greer. That is correct. Let us discuss that.
Senator Weicker. We can talk about it, because we're going to
oe back on it tomorrow morning, and there's no reason everybody has
to get their heels in cement on it.
Now, what's the last item?
Mr. Greer. As far as I know that's the last.
Senator Weicker. Isn't there one more?
Mr. Lenzner. In the last paragraph, it has also been brought to
my attention that the conniiittee has not yet i-cceived the majority
of materials previously subpenaed and specified at Mr. Frates request
in Mai'c Lackrit/' letter of X()\('mlH'i' 2, 197;5. and the cliairman
goes on, please forward those materials, identified in Mr. Lackritz'
letter, which have not been ])ivviously pi'ovided to the committee.
Now Senator, the background of that is, at a meeting in the fall
at Mr. Frates' request, Mr. Frates had a meeting with Senator Ervin
and Senator Baker. And one of the understandings that we had com-
ing out of that meeting was that we would specify specific areas that
we wanted documents from, and we would contact them, as we did,
telephonically and latei- in writing fi-om Mr. Lackritz. Mv. Lackritz'
letter is tab 7 of the documents.
Mr. Dash. If you could give Senator Weicker a copy of that.
Mr. Greer. Do you have a copy of that letter?
I don't seem to have it.
Mr. Lenzner. And that request was previously included in Sena-
tor Ervin and Senator Baker's letter of
10033
Mr. Frates. Well, we considered that letter to be completely a
tishing expedition. Senator, and we did not feel that it represented
the feeling of Senator Baker and Senator Ervin, who were there,
and we thought we were going to be asked for specific docnments.
And if we felt they were relevant or within the resolution, then
they were going to be produced.
Mr. Lenzner. Senator, if you will turn to tab 8 you will see a
letter to Mr. Frates of January 10, 1974, which refei-red to the
meeting and the information that Mr. Frates brought to Senator
Ph'vin and Senator Baker's attention. In the last two paragraphs
signed by both the chairman and cochairman, you'll note it says:
In this context we are advised that while certain documents have l)een
furnished to the Committee staff for inspection pursuant to the Committee
subpoenas, ;Mr. Rebozo has refused to furnish tlie committee witli copies of
some documents and lias refused to furnish, even for examination, all the
documents properly subpoenable pursuant to S. Res. 60. As you are aware,
the subpoenaed documents were examined in Florida to assist Mr. Rebozo's
convenience and not only to furnish them in Washington. However, the
committee now requests that Mr. Rebozo furnish the copies of the specific
documents sought, including those documents which Mr. Rebozo has up to
now refused to furnish the committee.
It is our intention to maintain these documents in a secure fashion with
limited access to a specified number of staff employees.
Now, those documents-
Mr. Dash. Now, that is signed by both the chairman and the vice
chairman.
Mr. Lenzxer, Now, those documents are the documents that were
referred to in a meeting between Mr. Frates, Senator Ervin, and
Senator Baker.
Mr. Frates. I disagree with you on that, Teriy, but again
Senator Weicker. Is that the letter of November 2, then?
Mr. Lexzxer. We received no response to Senator Baker and Sena-
tor Ervin's letter that I just read as far as I know.
Mr. Frates. Well, we received no further requests.
Mr. Lkxzxkr. Let me finish answering Senator Weicker's (|uestion.
if I may. As a result, in Senator Ervin's letter to Mr. Frates with
regard to this meeting of March 12, he again reiterated that there
was a need to comply with the previously issued subpena, and re-
ferred specifically to the Lackritz letter of November 1974— of 1973,
I'm sorry.
Mr. Frates. Senator, again, getting down to not the semantics of
the word game — we are here and going to cooperate and tiy to pro-
duce every record that we can that we possibly feel is relevant and
material. We could debate what was said on the telephone and argue
all of these things. If they will tell us what specific records they
want, we will certainly try to have them available. We have many
of these records here with us and we will try to make them avail-
able, so that we can conclude this matter. That is why we are here.
Mr. Greer. But things such as November 2, where you ask for
all records, all personal records containing cash receipts, cash dis-
bursements — generally, you are saying, turn over Mr. Rebozo's en-
tire I'ecords, everything he ever had or ever will have. We think
that is totally objectionable and outside the case law.
10034
These records have been provided. They have been looked at. They
have been through the accountant's records. If you could give us
specific instances
Senator Weicker. Well, let me ask you a question.
For instance, have you brought with you to Washington — I'll just
pick out four items because they're obviously quite specific — the rec-
ords re Key Biscayne Bank building, records re B&C Investment,
records re Monroe Land Title, records re Adams Key?
Have you brought those with you?
Mr. Greer. No, sir We have not.
Senator Weicker. Well, that's a little bit different. You see, the
difficulty I find is, I might, on the one hand, I agree with your argu-
ment that all personal records containing, you know, cash disburse-
ments is one hell of a request. On the other hand, when I see that you
haven't brought the documents relative to something like records
re Adams Key, I figure you're not complying at all.
Mr. Frates. That has absolutely no relationship to this.
Mr. Greer. Senator, the problem is, you cannot look at this re-
quest in isolation. When you look at items 1 through 14 and you
look at the history of Mr. Rebozo's life, those requests make up a
total request for the entire file of Mr. Rebozo. It asks for every-
thing, every business transaction he has ever had with no showing
or no indication of any pertinency or relevancy.
Now, ]\Ir. Armstroxg has made a statement to me
Senator Weicker. Of course, isn't there a remedy available to you
which seems to me
Mr. Frates. Without producing
Senator Weicker. Well, listen to me.
You could have moved to quash the subpena, couldn't you?
Mr. Greer. The committee has taken the position that the only
way we could get into court — as a matter of fact, we tried to quash
the subpena. Your ITonor — oh, excuse ine. Senatoi' — and tliis com-
mittee went into court and took the position that the court had no
jurisdiction to rule on the validity of those subpenas, and that is the
position of the committee. And we did try to quash the subpenas.
Mr. Lenzner. Did we win that one?
Mr. Frates. No, they threw your subpena out.
Mr. Dash. The subpena was a court subpena. It was signed by
the district court. Actually, under the law, as I understand it, you
can move to quash a committee subpena if your basis is that it is out
of the resolution of the conunittee. That is the only reason.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I think the real question here is on the items
related to the November 2, 1973, letter, as I understand.
Mr. Dash. They're different, aren't they?
Mr. Lenzner. Relating to the November 2, 197.S, letter that Sena-
tor Ervin referred to in his letter of March 12, 1974. I take it the
position you are taking is that none of these documents — you're
not going to furish these documents?
Mr. Frates. Senator, we have made these documents available.
They have examined them. It's true, we have not pennitted them at
this time to make copies — Mi-. lU'lliuo. Mi-. Dale. .Mr. Aiinst rong.
Senator Weicker. Obviously you've got to follow the same be-
luivior in the instance of ]Mr. Rebozo that we have of all of the other
witnesses.
10035
Mr. Greer. I don't know if that is correct.
Senator Weicker. Well, the onl}^ thing I'm trying to find out now
is, we run tliroui>h the list — where do we stand on this last item?
As I say, Ave're not going to resolve everything tonight.
Mr. Frates. Senator, why I said that, they are now in a position
to tell us specifically what they want, instead of gunshotting it. and
we'll attempt to ])ro(liu'e that even if we don't have some of the records.
We'll try to get them up here. This is the only reason I say, they
have seen them, so they should know if there is any relevancy or
materiality in the documents they have examined. And if they will
tell us that we will attempt to produce them.
Senator Weicker. Is there any reason, is there any reason, just
out of curiosity, why counsel from the staff and counsel foi> Mr.
Rebozo should not be able to sit down tonight and do some talking
on this subject of these documents if they brought documents mth
them?
Oh, why are we all
Mr. Dash. What documents have been brought?
That's what Ave don't have.
Mr. Frates. We brought a lot of documents.
Mr. Dash. Well, the finance records?
Mr. Frates. We've got tAvo suitcases full of them, Senator.
Senator Weicker. Well, instead of all this bouncing, rather than
hold up.^Ir. Rebozo and a lot of others, it seems to me there ought
to be some dialog going on here as betAveen counsel.
Mr. Frates. Well, I think to some extent, Ave haA^e had a fair
dialog between ]Mr. Dash and ]Mr. Lenzner AAdien Ave got doAvn to
specifics and weren't hollering at each other, and Ave seem to have
worked these problems out. I think, again, as they insisted, frankly
again, Avhere Ave haA^e a problem Avas Avhen Ave try to do business
with Mr. Bellino and ^Ir. Armstrong. And I'm not saying that
INIr. Dash. Well, INIr. Bellino and Mv. Armstrong folloAved through
on assignments given to them.
Mr. Frates. I'm not asking you to defend them or not. I am stat-
ing a fact. I Avould hope that Ave could Avork out some specific state-
ment of Avhy, Avhat documents you Avant to ask tomorroAv about,
instead of — and Ave are not going to. again, Ave are not going to turn
all of Mr. Rebozo's records over here, and Ave think have them
revealed to the Avorld.
j\Ir. Lexzxer. Are you saying noAv that you Avill not alloAV us
to make copies?
Mr. Frates. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying, I would
hope that Ave Avill make every effort to produce the records that
you feel are material and relevant for the interrogation.
Mr. Lenzner. For copy ?
Mr. Frates. For copy.
Mr. Greer. If you can give us specifics, Avithout saying all doc-
uments on a certain subject.
Mr. Lexzxkr. AVell, I Avant to say, Senatoi', the problem here
has been, frankly. foHowing the meeting. This same request Avas made
back in November when Mr. Frates came up here to meet Avith
Senator Ervin and Senator Baker. The letter, Mr. Lackritz also
telephonically communicating after the meeting, it Avas an effort
10036
to rcduco, what Mr. Fratfis was obJGctini»: to on a broad siibpena
to specific transactions and items that INIi-. Bellino and others and
myself and Mr. Dash felt were appi-opriate and relevant to our
inquiry.
NoAv, the answer to that letter has been, as I understand it,
nothinfi^. you're not ^oino^ to get it. AVe have never been told that we
can get any of those documents since we have sent that letter.
And in addition, there were a iiumber of documents i-eferred to in
that letter that we have never seen. Now, I uiidei'staiid that Mr.
Armstrong did make an effort to talk to INIi-. Frates about this re-
quest some time ago, and was told that ^fr. Frates would not dis-
cuss it.
Mr. Frates. Now, that's not entirely ti'ue, Teri-y. You see,
the trouble is, after these communications Mr. Ai-mstrong has been
down in out* office several times and we've asked him for specific let-
ters and specific designations. But I don't want to get in a hassle.
We're trying to i-esolve what we can do tomoi'i-ow.
Senator- "Wkfckek. T think — look, we're not going to resolve it
here tonight. T think we've made great progress on this item here
plus this last item. I still Avould like to see my suggestion pursued
whereby there would be some dialog this evening — in othei- words,
as between counsel — especially when all these documents are here,
as to what can be done on the matter.
In my job, I am obviously — let me put it this way. It's very
easy to I'ule on the chaiinian's i('(|nest, which in fact is a subpena.
Boom, that's it. I am not ready to rule anything at this stage
of the game, in hopes that these matteivs can be woiked out. And
T think some of them already have.
Mr. Lknzneh. Well, we can cei-tainly sit down and try.
Senator Weickek. I wish you would. I fiiul it — you know, I
understand yon've got a job to do and I iindeistand your job has not
been made easy over (lie inonllis. I)U( on the otiici- liaud. We got to
con less to you that just out of common sense — you know, when I see
ii sul)pena for somebody's paid telephone bills — I don't know how
old this guy is oxer hcic. but Christ, if it were uu\ 42 years of tele-
phone bills, whatever it is, :ire supposed lo go nhead Jind be j)roduce(|.
Mr. Lexzxer, AVell, Senatoi-, it's common, frankly, for investi-
gative committees, not to mention grand juiies, to ask foi- what we
were asking for hei-e, which is the telephone bills for a specific
period of time. 196f) to the present. It's doiu' every day.
Senator Weickek. AVh(>re is that?
Mr. Armstroxg. It's in the lettei-. It's in the subpena.
Mr. Rei{oz(». El(!ven phones.
Mr. Greer. The letter shows "all".
Senator AN'ekkki;. The letlei' says '"aH".
Ml-. Lexzxer. AVe ha\c never asked foi' anything beyond 1068,
Senator.
Senatoi- AVeicker. AVell, if the letter is the frame of reference,
there is nothing here.
Mr. ARMSTitoxo. AA^'ll. the subpena, which is tabs 13 and 14
Senatoi- AVekkkr. AAHiere's the subpena?
Mr. Armstron(j. Tabs 115 and 14.
10037
Senator AVkkkkr. You arc the ones that said that "all" refeired
to the letter. The letter says ''all", period.
Mr. Dash. Terr}-, what T suoffrest is that in following up on Mr.
Frates oifer that you and, I think if you need the assistance of Mr.
Bellino, meet with Mr. Frates and find out how much you can nar-
row this down and what they would be willing to agree.
Senator Weicker. I agree.
Mr. Bellixo. Senator, how can you narrow this down?
Here is Monroe Land Title, which is one of Mr. Rebozo's com-
panies. In the period Ave are interested in, he received from that
company over $222,000. We don't know whether any part of this
SlOO.OOr] ever went in there. We are interested in the whole of those
records.
Senator Weicker. But let me explain this to you. That could
very well be entirely proper part of the request. I'm not saying it
is or isn't. That could be. I'nfortunately, there are a whole series
of requests in here and some of them, as I said, seem to go very far
afield. Xow, all I'm saying is, nobody's ruling a damn thing here.
Mr. Lexzxer. I undei-stand.
Senator WEifKER. What we've got is an argreenient of a good jjor-
tion as to the course of action that's going to be taken. I waiit counsel
to get together this evening to see what further can be accomplished
along the lines of the last item, which is tho.se things requested in
]\farc*s letter.
Mr. LEXzxf:R. We'll jnoceed with that.
Xow, Senator, can we get a ruling on the correspondence markf^d
as exhibits, and then we can close up shop?
Mr. Frates. AVhat coirespondeiK-e?
Mr. Dash. The Xo. 1, which we liad no i)roblem with.
Mr. Frates. Senator. I'd be glad to meet at any time. I'm just
wondering; I'm here and I have nothing else to do. So I am at their
convenience. As I sometimes find at the end of the day, everybody
gets a little uptight, everybody but me. I am available from now on.
I'm available early in the mornijig, 7 :?>0 on til 10 a.m., to meet any-
where to discu.ss this.
Senator WEifKER. All right.
May I make the suggestion that we )-econvene at 10 o'clock to-
morrow morning the heaiing and that, whv doesn't counsel get to-
gether at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning on this niattei?
Mr. Frates. That's fine, that's fine.
Senator AVehker. If you worked for me you'd be \\\> ur o'clock
in tlie morning.
Mr. Dash. 7:30 a.m.. you're talking to the one man on my staff
that's impossible to get up in the morning.
Senator Wekker. All right. I'd suggest 8 o'clock in the morning,
8 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Mr. Lexzxer. All right.
Mr. Frates. That's fine.
Senator Wekker. And then we reconvene at 10 o'clock, and in the
meantime, yes. let's make that which has been agreed to^ let's mai-k
it foi- inclusion in the record.
10038
Mr. DxVSH. To be copied and returned.
Senator Weicker. Riolit.
Mr. Lexzner. Do you want to start tonioht ?
Mr. Frates. No. Terry. I'm afraid even I won't be able to ojet
along with yon tonight.
Mr. Lexzner. Well. I've stood yon this long
Mr. Dash. I think 2 hours ou<>ht to be enouiih to at least arrive
at what
Senator Weicker. Aftei* i2 hours you're going to disagree, he's
going to go his Avay and that's that. And obviously we've got to take
our steps within the committee.
Mr. Lexzxer. All right, we'll be hei-e at 8 o'clock.
Mr. Frates. Are we going to meet in this room, Senator?
Mr. Dash. We can meet in my office.
Mr. Frates. The formal proceedings.
Mr. Dash. As soon as I get out of here, I'm trying to arrange for
S-143, for the formal proceedings.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can we get the correspondence marked now so we
can peruse it for tomorrow?
Mr. Dash. I thought Ave were going to do that.
Mr. Frates. Sure, sure.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did you want to go ahead and have the whole thing
marked or have each exhibit marked?
Mr. Frates. All right, we can do that. We don't have to have the
Senator here.
Mv. Greer. All right, for the record I have a letter from Richard
DamuM- to Mr. Bebe Rebozo dated February 24, 1071, which would
be exhibit Xo. 6.
[WhereuDon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
Xo. 6 for identification.^]
^Ii-. Greer. The exhibit Xo. 7 will be a letter from — a copy of a
letter from Danner — excuse me, from Rebozo to Danuei-. dated
>rarch 1, 1971.
[Whereu)>on, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
Xo. 7 for identification..-]
Mr. Greer. Then S would be a letter from Danner to Rebozo,
March .3, 1970.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
Xo. S for identification.^]
Ml-. Giu:er. Xext would be — 9 would b;' a letter from Danner to
Rebozo dated ^Nfarch 17, 1970. with an attached memoi-aiulum entitled
"To Whom It May Concern." consisting of 1, 2. ?>. 4, 5. {>, 7 pages.
[WhereuDon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
Xo. 9 for identification.'!
Mr. Greer. The next is a carbon copy of a letter from Danner to
the editor of Life magazine, tlie carbon copy to Bebe Rebozo, dated
Julv 30, 1970.
[Whei-eupou, the document refei-i'ed to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 10 for identification.^]
1 Sep p. inifiO.
= Spe p. lOlBl.
" Soo p. loir,'.'.
■• Spp p. 101 or?.
•'■Sec p. 10171.
10039
Mr. Greer. Exhibit No. 11 will be a telegram to Rebozo from
Banner dated October 7, 1970.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 11 for identification.^]
Mr. Greer, Exhibit No. 12 is a carbon of a letter from Rebozo to
Robert J. Bird, re Dick Banner, -with a copy attached of the letter
from Bird to Rebozo dated April 12, 1971.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 12 for identification.-]
Mr. Greer. Exhibit No. 13 will be a letter. Banner to Rebozo,
May 14, 1971.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 18, for identification.^]
Mr. Greer. And finally, a letter from Rebozo to Banner dated
]\ray 19, 1971.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 14 for identification.']
Senator Weicker. Is that it ?
Mr. Greer. That is it.
Senator Weicker. The meeting is recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
Mr, Lackritz. This is in ansAver to the subpena. This is all the
correspondence between Mr. Rebozo and Mr, Banner?
Mr, Greer, That is all the correspondence that we have been able
to locate in Mr, Rebozo's possession. This does not mean that there
are not possibly additional letters,
Mr. Frates. And I say in his record, we got something. But any-
thing that he had
[Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter
recessed] .
1 See p. 10172.
- See p. 10173.
"See p. 10175.
■* See p. 1017C.
31-889 O - 74 - 24
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
S-143, U.S. Capitol.
Present : Senators Inouye, Montoya, and Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dasli. chief counsel and staff' director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel ; Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief coun-
sel; Camiine S. Bellino, chief investigator; Marc Lackritz, James
C. Moore, and Ronald D. Rotunda, assistant majority counsels;
Richard L. Schultz and Robert Silveretein, assistant minority coun-
sels ; Scott Armstrong and Lee Sheehy, investigators ; Richard Rust,
office of Senator Inouye; Emily Sheketoff, research assistant.
Senator Weicker. Everyone is here and the witness has been sworn,
so we'll resume.
Mr. Lexzxer, Mr. Rebozo, after Mr. Banner joined the Hughes
Tool Co. in 1969, did he have discussions with you after that with
regard to issues relating to Hughes Tool Co. or Mr. Hughes?
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES G. REBOZO— Resumed
Mr. Rebozo. Issues — you mean — are you talking about a possible
quid pro quo?
Mr. Lenzner. No, just any pi'oblems. If he discussed with you a
quid pro quo, I would like to hear about it, but any problems that
lie brought to your attention.
Mr. Rebozo. I think the only — there were no problems seriously
discussed, in my judgment, at any time. I guess as I said before,
that at one time, they expressed concern over the nuclear tests
underground in Xe\ada. and anotlier time thev expressed concern
about the nerve gas that was being transported. Beyond that, I
can't recall any discussion on any subject that Hughes was concerned
with.
Mr. Lenzner. When you say "they", can you identify who "they"
is?
^Ir. Rebozo. Well, "tliey" is Danner and Maheu.
]Mr. Lenzner. Do you I'ocnll when you discussed the atomic bomb
testing in Xevada with them? Was that before or after j'ou received
tlie funds from Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know wliether it was before or after. It was —
I'm reasonably sure it was aftei-, but in each instance, it was shortly
before the actual tests were to be conducted.
(10041)
10042
Mr. Lenzner. And are you say in o- that yon don't liave a recol-
lection now as to whether those discussions began before the time —
do you remenibei'
Mr. Rebozo. It could be determined. I don't know when the tests
were conducted, but it was like days before. But I did not transmit
to anyone their consternation, and I told them that I was not goint; to.
Mr. Lexzxek. I think you have indicated that on prior occasions,
you recall receiving; the funds after Mr. Danner called you two or
three times with regard to the atomic bomb testing.
Mr. Rebozo. What was the question ?
Mr. Lenzner. One second, please. The question was — I think you
said before, that it was vour recollection that after you got the con-
tnbutions, not before — in other words, there was no discussion when
you were discussing the contribution, there was no discussion about
the Agency, but after you got the contribution, then Mr. Danner
started to call you with regaid to the Agency test?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I just said that I thought it was after, but I
wasn't sure.
Mr. Lenzner. Xow, you furnished us yesterday, pursuant to sub-
pena, a letter from Mr. Danner dated March 17, 1970. marked
exhibit 9.* Would you look at that and tell me if you had discussions
Avith ^fr. Danner on the Agency test after you received that
document l
INfr. Rebozo. I probably did. I doubt that I have ever read tlie full
letter. I don't read long letters.
Mr. Lenzner. You're referring now to the letter and the memo-
randum attached, is that right, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
y[\\ Lenzner. Do you recall where you had your discussions with
Mr. Danner and ]Mr. Maheu after you received that letter?
Mr. Rebozo. Pi'obably in ]Miami. I don't recall where.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever see Mr. Malieu in Las Vegas?
Ml". Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Ajiproximately when Avas that?
]Mr. Rebozo. Well, airain, I think T testified before about one time
having gone out on the way to California and meeting him there,
but T find it difficult to pinj:)oint the time. Tlie fact remains tliaf
nothing was ever done, to my knowledge, for them. Tliey asked me
about the underground thing just slioi'tlv befoi-e the test was to be
conducted, and T told them at the time that it seemed to me that
that was soi't of an 11th hour approach, that the ])lans for anv such
ojiei-ation nnist have been goinp; on foi' months and months, and foi-
me, an outsider, to step in and suggest, e\en that thev should call
them off would have been most presum|)tuous, to sav the least, and
T didn't feel that T could properly convey that message. And I didn't,
and thev know that T didn't.
y[v. Lenzner. But did von e\er send a memo on to anvbodv for
analysis?
Afr. Rebozo. Sav that again ?
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever send the memorandum on to anybody?
*Spp ).. 1016.-'..
10043
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I don't think so. Because had I done
so, the chances are, up here where it says "Danner, file" I would
probably also have said, ''Copy to.''
Mr. Lenzner. Do you do that as a matter of course when you're
sendino; copies on to somebody else?
Mr. Rebozo. Generally. I may not always.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of ever discussino- the
subject of the A<>;ency testin<r with anybody in the administration,
including the President?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't. I may have just, in passing, in some
of the conversations referred to the thing, but no, I again — contrary
to what some people I'm sure assume — try my best to stay out of
anything to do with Government. It has been my practice for many,
many years, even before I knew the President, even though I've been
close to a number of Senators and Con<rressmen over those years.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, Mr. Danner and Mr. Maheu did request of you,
though, did they not, that you pass the information and request on to
other people in the administration?
Ml-. Rebozo. I think that they Avere interested in getting the infor-
mation passed on, but I don't believe that I even discussed it. I
could have discussed it with someone. I certainly didn't discuss it
with the President, nor did I urge that anything be done about it
Avith anyone. If it was discussed at all — I say if it was discussed at
all — it would have just been in casual conversation.
Mr. Lenzner. With Mr. Ilaldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Rebozo. It could have been with anyone up there. I saw them,
you know, all on different occasions.
I\Ir. Lenzner. Miss Woods ?
]\Ir. Rebozo. But there was no concentrated effort to try to accom-
plish this thing, and thev knew that I wasn't going to make it and
they knew that I didn't make it.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you get back to them and indicate to them tliat
the tests were going to go forward and you couldn't do anything
about it?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think I told thean at the time that I couldn't
have avoided the tests. If the tests went forward or didn't go for-
ward, they would i)robably know it before I.
Mr. Lenzner. Did vou ever respond in writing to Mr. Danner's
letter of March 17. that is exhibit 9?
Mr. Rebozo. If I did, a copy of it is in that file.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I can't find anv response, so would that sug-
gest that you did not answer the letter in writing?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
]\Ir. Lenzner. Bv the way, you say you saw Mr. Maheu on occa-
sion in Florida. Was he ever present, to your knowledge, in Florida
at the time Mr. Danner delivered the $5,000 in cash that you pre-
viously testified to?
Ml'. Rebozo. I think I've answered that question about 15 times
and the answer is still the same it was on all the previous occasions.
Danner — there was no one else present.
Mr. Lenzner. INIy question was, to yoiii- knowled<>e, did Mr. Danner
or aiivbodv else indicate that Mr. AfaluMi was in Florida at the time?
10044
Mr. Rebozo. He may liavc. T know that INIahon was there on at
least one occasion.
Mr. Lknzxer. Do you remember when that was?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo sir; I don't.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you meet with 'Sir. ^Nlalieu on that occasion ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
INIr. Dexzxer. What was discussed on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. I think that mi<::lit have been one of the occasiolns
where either the nerve gas or the underground testini>- was discussed.
Ml". Lexzxer. You don't recall which, thouo:h?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Xow, the records of Mr. Danner's jihonc calls to
you totaling $8 and some cents — $8.60. Do you recall whether he was
calling with reference to an appointment he was seeking at the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm positive he wasn't. Was not.
Mr. Lexzxer. And Avhy are you so certain about that, sir?
yiv. Rebozo. Because he wouldn't call me for that. He knew John
Mitchell and I never made any a})pointments for him with anyone
up there, nor did he ever request that I do.
Mr. Lexzx-er. How did you knoAv that he knew Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, he worked some in the campaign and he prac-
ticed law in Washington, and he had to know him,
Mr. Lex'zx^^r. Well, were you ever ]iresent when Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Danner met together oi- talked together?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. So you're making an assumption then that he knew
him, but you had no knowledge
Mr. Rebozo. Well, from conversations. T know that you know Mr.
Dash. You're both in the same room and have some association.
Some things you know without someone specificallv si)ellin<>: it out.
Mr. Lexzxer. In other woixls, Mr. Danner had indicated to you
at some i^oint that he knew Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well. I think he knew him. He worked in the cam-
paign right in the headquarters up there, the Committee To Re-Elect,
in lOfi.S. Mitchell was campaign manager. How he coukl hel]) from
knowing him, I wouldn't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have discussions — my question is — with Mr.
Danner ivgardino- Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Rebozo. My answer is the same as before, no.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did Mv. Danner ever discuss with you the Hughes
problems with regard to the acquisition of any hotels?
Mr. Rebozo. Never.
Mr. Lexzxer. Would the ]\Iarch 16 phone calls that show up in
Mr. Danner's records, to your knowledge, be related to the letter he
sent to you on INfarch 17, which is before you as exhibit 9?
Mr. Rebozo. I w^ouldn't know.
Mr. Lexzxer. On March 18, I believe it is, Mr. Danner met with
Mr. Mitchell at the Department of Justice. On March 19 he went
to Key Biscayne and has indicated that he had some discussions with
you. That would have been the day after he met with Mr, Mitchell
in the Department of Justice. Am I correct in that?
;10(M5
Let me give you the specific dates. He met with Mr. Mitchell,
according to Mr. MitchelPs logs, at 12 :15 on March 19, and on
March 19 he departed for Biscay ne, where he indicates that he met
with you. He lias also indicated that Mr. Mitchell told him that the
Dej^artment of Justice would not object to the Hughes acquisition
of the Dunes Hotel.
Now, the day after he received that word, he apparently saw you,
according to his records and recollection. Do you have any memory
now of him telling you that he had seen the Attorney General the
day before and that they had discussed the Dunes Hotel?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he may have mentioned having seen Mitchell. I
don't even recall that. But I'm positive that he didn't talk about the
Dunes Hotel. Now, that date was right after this date here of this
letter. This is March 17. You're saying he went there on March 19 ?
Mr. Lenzner. He went to the Department on March 19, and he
went to see you on March 20 of 1970.
Mr. Eebozo. Well, he probably came down, just as when he was
in the East, he came down to see his mother and called on me, too.
Most of his visits were purely social.
JNIr. Lenzner. Except for the times he discussed the Agency and
the nerve gas?
JNIr. Rebozo. They were probably social then.
Mr. Lenzner. On March 21, Mr. Mitchell's records show that he
went to Key Biscayne, March 21 of 1970. Do you have any recol-
lection of seeing Mr. Mitchell about that time, either alone or with
Mr. Danner or somebody else?
Mr. Rebozo. I generally saw Mr. Mitchell on probably every
visit he ever made to Key Biscayne.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you every see him with ]Mr. Danner together in
Key Biscayne?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss with Mr. Mitchell at any time any
problems related to Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
]Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever receive a memorandum from Mr.
Danner on the subject of the ABM, antiballistic missile?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall it.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you ever tell Mr. Danner that the memo-
randum had, in fact, been distributed to people in Washington and
that tliey were impressed with Mr. Hughes' comments?
Ml-. Rebozo. I don't remember that.
Mr. Lenzner, Did you ever tell Mr. Danner tliat both Dr. Kis-
singer and the President had read the ABM memo that he had
sent to you?
Mr. Rebozo. I couldn't have told him that. I wouldn't have known
it.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm sorry, sir ; I didn't get your answer.
Mr. Rebozo. I couldn't have told him that, because I wouldn't
have known Avhether tlioy did or didn't, if there were such a memo
forwarded to them.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying now that that is because you never
had discussions with the President or with Dr. Kissinger with re-
gard to the Hughes position on the ABM?
10046
]Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't know anything about that sphere of gov-
ernmental operation any more than I know about others. I just
draw a total blank when you start talking about ABM, and Kis-
singer, and the President and all.
Mr. Lenzxer. So your answer is you never sent on to anybody
information or a memorandum from Mr. Danner on the ABM?
Mr. Rebozo. You know what I do occasionally? I'll get, as you
can appreciate, many, many requests from all kinds of people for
certain things. Most of the people are people I don't even know
and I have a standard procedure. Many of them are nuts, but there
is always a possibility of some of them having some validity, and
with the thought in my mind that eveiybody perhaps is entitled to
some sort of response, I have taken material, put it in a blank
enveloi^e, and sent it up there so they don't even know it's coming
from me; therefore, it doesn't get any special attention or I don't
get credit or discredit for whatever may be in there. But at the
same time, the sender gets some sort of a routine acknowledgement.
Mr. Lenzner. In other words, you send it in a blank envelope
with no cover letter or anything indicating that you're involved in it?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, that's correct. On occasion. But I don't recall
having sent anything to do with ABM like that, but I do send quite
a bit of stuff that comes through just that way.
Mr. Lenzner. Wlio do you send it to, Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. If it's a letter that someone said, "When you and
the President are relaxing on the beach, will you hand him this
and have him review it?" Something like that. If my name is not
on it, I just put it in a blank envelope and send it to the President,
the White House, that's all. It gets the routine treatment.
Mr. Lenzner. But the envelope does not indicate that it is from
the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust or Mr. Charles G. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. I have blank envelopes for use for that.
Mr, Lenzner. Would you have somebody type those for you, or
do you just write it on yourself?
Mr. Rebozo. Usually, I write it myself. In fact, I think always.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you mail it yourself, or do you have somebody
mail it for you?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I have had on occasion just told the secretary,
"Put this in a blank envelope and mail it on."
Mr. Lenzner. Which secretary is that?
Mr. Rebozo. Whoever it happens to be. I don't have a secretary
as such. "^^Hioever happens to Ix^ sitting — occupying the desk nearest
my office — is the- one I usually use.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever sent anything on to the President
from somebody that you knew, from a friend of yours? Or an
acquaintance?
Air. Rebozo. I really don't believe I have ever sent anything on
to the President, and this might sound ridiculous, but in the 5 years
he has been in office, I have phoned him one time on my own — that
has been nearly 5 years ago. I have returned his calls when he has
called me, but I have initiated a phone call one time since he was
first elected President.
Mr. Lenzner. And when was that?
10'047
Mr. Eebozo, Way back; I think it was something spectacular that
had happened, and I just felt like I had to tell him how great it
was, and that is the only time that I have ever initiated a call to him.
Mr. Lenzner. That would be back in 1969 or something, way
before this
Mr, Rebozo. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Lenzner. In reviewing your records, have you been able to
locate the date of that phone call?
Mr. Rebozo. That phone call?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Mr. RuBOZo. No. You see, a phone call would only show to the
White House, and I call different ones there frequently.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what the subject of the thing
was that stimulated you to call the President?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it, though, what you're saying is that you
had known Mr. Danner for some time — in fact, as I understand it,
Mr. Danner introduced you to the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Actually, he did, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And as a result, if Mr. Danner had wanted to, he
could have sent these materials on himself, directly to the President ?
Mr. Rebozo. Surely.
Mr. Lenzner. And you have no recollection — do you have any
recollection of telling Mr. Danner that Dr. Kissinger or somebody
else from the administration would be willing to brief Mr. Hughes
with regard to the ABM?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Yes, now I do recall. I do recall that on one
occasion, they wanted — I think what happened was that they wanted
— I don't know whether he wanted to talk to the President or what
it was, but I do recall now that on one occasion I did talk to them
and Kissinger was willing to do it, and Hughes did — that's right.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember when that was, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, it was a long time ago. I don't recall when.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall whether it was before or after you
received the contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, the contributions were, what, 4 years ago? I
would purely guess that it was before, but I would just venture a
guess that it was before. But I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you recall what the subject matter was that
the briefing was going to refer to?
Mr. Rebozo. No. No, I wouldn't know if you told me, but it was
just a case of wanting to be briefed, presumably. No, I think he
declined. I think Hughes didn't want to meet with anybody.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall how the matter that you discussed
with the President got started?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't. It just didn't seem — I don't know, it
didn't seem significant to me at the time. It was just a routine sort
of action. I believe probably Danner or Maheu or both of them
suggested that maybe it would help if he were briefed, and I sup-
pose I may have talked about it with Kissinger. But it has been a
long time ago.
10048
Mr. Lenzner. You're saying you talked about it with Dr. Kis-
singer. Do you have any recollection of discussing it with the Presi-
dent also?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have mentioned it. I may have mentioned it
to the President. I really — that phase, I had totally forgotten until
right now.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, wouldn't the President have referred you to
Dr. Kissinger?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably.
Mr. Lenzner. And you don't recall whether that related to the
ABM matter or not?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know whether it was ABM or whether it was
an underground nuclear testing, or just what it was. I really don't
know. But I do know that the ofl'er was made to have Kissinger
brief him on it.
Mr. Lenzner. And I take it Mr. Danner or Mr. Maheu had indi-
cated that Mr. Hughes was concerned about this issue and that is
how the briefing with Mr. Hughes came up. Is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Say it again?
Mr. Lenzner. In other wor<is, I take it Mr. Danner or Mr. Maheu
or both represented that Mr. Hughes was very concerned about this
particular issue.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, because I think everyone knew how concerned
he was. It had been in the pr(^.ss enough.
Mr. Lenzner. With regard to
Mr. Rebozo. His concern about underground testing, et cetera.
Mr. Lenzner. So you think the briefing then, was with regard to
underground testing ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. I don't recall what it was about. I
think it would have been ABM, it could have been underground
testing. But I do recall that there was an offer made that, on one
of the trips when Kissinger was in California, to brief Hughes if
he wanted to be briefed. And I believe that he declined — Hughes
declined.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any correspondence with the Presi-
dent or Dr. Kissinger with regard to Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe so.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you think of any other matters that Mr. Dan-
ner or Mr. Maheu brought to your attention, aside from the inider-
ground testing and the nuclear — the underground testing and the
dumping of nerve gas?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. I have read in the papers, of course, about
the possibility of getting favors with respect to the Dunes and
with respect to Air West, but I can tell you that there was never
any discussion with me about either of those matters. That might
save a dozen questions later.
Ml-. Lenzner. Well, let me ask you this: Did you ever discuss
with Mr. Danner or Mr. Maheu the lawsuit involving TWA?
Ml-. Rebozo. Only cursorily. It naturally was in the press, so of
course, wlien a fellow's got a judgment against him for $147 million
or so, you would make mention of it, perhaps, in your casual discus-
sion with a close friend. So I'm sure that it was discussed — not in
10049
the context, let me emphasize, that he was asking me to help him
do anything about it or anything like that.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you ever have discussions with Mr. Ban-
ner with regard to the possibility of settlement of TWA?
Mr. Kebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of telling Mr. Danner
that you, in fact, knew the principals of TWA?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't see how I could have told him, because I don't
know them.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't know any of the principals in TWA?
Mr. Eebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you know any in 1970 or about that time?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I have never known any. I may on some occasion
have met one at a function or something like that, but I can't say
that I would know them.
Mr. Lenzner. Then you never indicated to Mr. Danner that you
could be of some assistance to him in regard to a negotiated settle-
ment with TWA?
Mr. Rebozo. Never.
Mr. Lenzner. Did j^ou ever tell him that you had talked to people
in the administration with regard to the TWA problems?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have told him that we discussed it, agaiin like
I'm referring to, but I don't recall ever having done so.
Mr. Lenzner. Talked to the President about it?
Mr. Rebozo. No. No, I don't recall ever having talked to anyone
in the White House about the settlement.
Mr. Lenzner. It's obvious that this is based on some testimony
that we've had, so let me ask you this : Did you ever tell Mr. Danner
that, in fact, you had talked to people in the administration and
that they were concerned about what was going to happen to TWA,
because it appeared to be in economic trouble?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have. It may be that in these discussions that
we're talking about, someone may have expressed concern about a
major airline like that getting in trouble, and I may have said
that, or I may have said it on my own, because that's the way I
feel. I think it would be disastrous to a major airline to go under.
Mr. Lenzner. But you never represented to INIr. Danner that you
had talked to specific figures in the administration and they were
concerned about TWA?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection
Mr. Rebozo. Everything that I am testifying to now, of course,
has got to be to the best of my recollection. I don't — if I knew
anything about it, I would tell you. I just don't. If there are any
of these questions that you have a basis for asking me about that
you could be a little more specific, maybe I could recall a little bit
better. But in general, the way you're asking the questions, I have
to answer them just as I believe them.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, are you saying, though, that it's possible
that you had a specific discussion with the President or somebody
else in the administration with regard to TWA, related that dis-
cussion to Mr. Danner, and would not remember that?
10050
]\Ir. Rebozo. I'm sure I didn't have a specific discussion with the
President about TWA and tlioir problems as such.
Mr. Lexzxek. Well, how about other people in the administration?
Mr. Ri:bozo. As I just got through saying, it may have been just
in normal discussion. TWA may have come up, and I may have
expressed the sentiment that I just finished expressing, because IVe
ahvays been interested in the airlines and I know what they did
during the Second World War, and I just think it would be terrible
for a major airline to go under. But that's my personal sentiment.
I'm sure that Danner knew that I don't go to the President with
these jiroblems, so he really wouldn't have expected me to.
Mr. Lenzner. Except that you did go Avith him to the President
on the one issue that you say later there could have been a briefing on.
Mr. Rebozo. "\^niat did 1 say?
Mr. Lexzxer. You did say that you discussed with the President
the one issue where you, where there was a possibility of a briefing
by Dr. Kissinger.
]\Ir. Rebozo. Yes, I think that I mentioned that, but that wasn't
a case of going to the President with something. It's something that
evolved out of a discussion.
What I'm sure you're getting at is, do I go up there on a specific
cause, I want to see the President and I want to see him about this
and that. When I see the President, it's purely social as it has
been for all these years. Naturally, during conversations, things
come up and I may have expressed on one of those occasions a con-
cern on the part of Hughes. He may have been the one to suggest,
"A\niy don't you have Kissinger brief him and he'll feel better about
it." I think it was shortly before a trip to California. But it was
nothing more than I believe the President would have said with
respect to any other important businessman in the country that was
concerned about something, and felt that he was entitled to know a
little bit more about it from the horse's mouth.
Mr. Lenzxkr. In that instance, you communicated that back to
Mr. Danner and the word came back that ]\fr. Hughes did not want
the briefing, is that accurate?
Mr. Rebozo. In essence, I suppose that is correct.
Mr. Lexzner. Now, you asked me to give you some specifics. Let
me ask you this and see if we can pin this down. Do you recall on
occasion flying on the Hughes company plane, the de Havilland?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you recall on how many occasions you did that?
Mr. Rebozo. I think just once.
Mr. Lexzner. Do you remember when that was and where you
flew to and from?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was an occasion where I was in California
and the plane was there, and they took me to Las Vegas.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVere you at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad at
that time? Is that where you flew from?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think I flew from the Orange County Airport,
but I can't be sure. I believe that 's where it was.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you have any i-ecollectiou, thougli, of requesting
the Hughes plane to pick you up at the Palomar in Carlsbad, Calif.?
10051
Mr. Rebozo. I never requeBted the Hughes pLane to pick me up,
or anyone else's plane, in my life, to pick me up.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, do you have a recollection of flying from
Palomar Airport to Las Vegas?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know whether — I've been under the impres-
sion that it was Orange County. Where is Palomar?
Mr. Lenzner. In Carlsbad.
Mr. Rebozo. Where is Carlsbad.
Mr. Lenzner. It's in southern California.
Mr. Rebozo. I w^ns in San Clemente, and if they said they had
a flight that was there at the time, if it was at Carlsbad, why, that's
probably where they directed me to go to get it. But normally,
when I would fly out of there, I would fly out of Orange County.
It's closer.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what purpose you were going to
Las Vegas for?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it was to see Jimmy Durante, if I'm not
mistaken.
Mr. Lenzner. How did you learn that there was a Hughes plane
at the airport?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think that I learned that there was one sit-
ting there. I think that perhaps — and again, you know, we're going
back a few years. It's sort of a routine thing. I think, perhaps,
Danner invited me and said, "We've got a plane out there, you can
come back on it."
Mr. Lenzner. So Mr. Danner arranged it?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sure he must have.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you see Mr. Danner and/or Mr. Maheu
in Las Vegas on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably did.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Dan-
ner or Mr. Maheu with regard to the contribution on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. No. No, I really don't recall discussing contributions
with him on any occasion in Las Vegas, but I could have. I've been
to I^as Vegas, I don't know, maybe four or five times in m}^ lifetime,
and Danner being manager — at that time I think he was manager
of the Frontier Hotel — why, as an old friend, he made arrangements
to meet me. I don't believe that I have ever stayed in Las Vegas
nioi-e than 1 night. I've flown in, had dinner, seen the show, and
left the very first thing in the morning.
Mr. Lenzner. You stay at the Frontier Hotel?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Do vou always register there under the name,
Charles G. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. Danner registered me. I didn't register at all.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you ever use the name, Charles Gregory?
Mr. Rebozo. All the time. I use it all the time.
Mr. Lenzner. For what purpose?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I use it for a variety of purposes. I started
using it many years ago. When I first got a marine phone on the
boat and, conversations on the boat are all monitoried by every
other boat, of course, and having the odd name that I have, I had
10052
somebody kid me one time before I started using it that they heard
the conversation, so I just started using Charles Gregory, which is
my first and middle name, on the marine phone and I could carry
on conversations and people didn't know who was talking.
Subsequently, after I started getting a little notoriety, it developed
that if I would ask somebody to tune the piano, he would say that
he was the President's piano tuner and so on. So it became in-
creasingly more difficult to enjoy the anonymity that once was a
precious possession, so I used the name Charles Gregory on maga-
zine subscriptions, when I buy something out of a catalog. When I
draw a personal check — you've seen all of those checks. You've seen
many of them that I got cashier's checks for, and then ordered —
usually, in the name of Charles Gregory, sometimes Nicki Moncourt
would order it.
Mr. Lenzner. Why would you have to do that for business trans-
actions, Mr. Rebozo? I don't quite understand.
Mr. Rebozo. That's not exactly a business transaction, but you
buy something, and people are funny. But with the name having
gotten so much publicity, and it is an odd name, of course, they
start saying that I'm a customer of theirs or that I endorse this
or that or the other thing, so it's just my desire for privacy perhaps,
principally.
There's nothing wrong with it. Everybody in the bank knows it.
'\^nien they get a phone call from Mr. Gregoiy, they know who it
is, who it's for. There's no l)ig secret about it. Any mail that comes —
by ordering these things in the name of GregoiT, I've gotten on a lot
of mailing lists. T get (juite a bit of mail for Gregory.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, would you say that it even goes to the ex-
tent of having people calling you and leaving messages for you
under the name of Gregoiy at the bank and other places?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I've had calls like that. If, for example, some-
one is calling on a marine phone, we'll say, we do it that way.
Mr. Lexzner. ^V\mt about just a line telephone — a telephone-to-
telephone ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think that's any problem, except where
perhaps someone is soliciting from a mailing list that they acquired
as a result of this. But there is no mystery about using the name
Gregory. In fact, it's so well known now, I am going to have to
find another name to start using.
Mr. Lenzner. Just don't use mine, because then I'll be inter-
vicAved.
Mr. Frates. That you don't need to worry about.
Mr. Lenzner. In other words, what you're saying, is when you
have a secure line phone, you don't instruct people to call you by
the name Gregory ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no: people that I know, you know, it's no prob-
lem. I get many, many phone calls and stacks of mail. Normally,
the Gregoiy mail doesn't even get opened. I just throw it in the
trash because I know it comes fi-om these mailing lists.
Mr. Lenzner. I understand that, but just on a secure line phone,
you never instruct people to call for Mr. Gregory?
Mr. Rebozo. No, no.
10053
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, on the question of your trips to Las Vegas,
sir, do you have records, do you know, that would reflect — would
help us pin down the dates of tliose occasions?
Mv. Rebozo. I could pi^obably find something, you know. I can't
know about it through a credit card — I don't use credit cards much
any more, either, because they reveal my name. I only use it where
I'm already known. It just saves time and conversation.
Mr. Lenzner. You mean you have credit cards in the name
Gregory ?
Mr. JRebozo. No. No, I don't think I could get away with that.
Mr. Lenzner. But you think you do have some records that would
help us pin down when you may have been
Mr. Rebozo. I think I could find some.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, do you recall a trip that you made, I believe
also on the de Havilland company plane — the Hughes plane — from
Las Vegas to Miami, Fla., on about February 2, 1970?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't.
Mr. Lenzner. I believe — do you have any recollection that Mr.
Danner and Mr. Maheu accompanied you on that flight? And I be-
lieve also there may have been an astronaut on board that flight.
I'm trying to see if this will help your memory. It might have been
Gene Cernan, and he was dropped off in Melbourne, Fla.
Mr. Rebozo. I think I would have remembered that, because I
later got to know Gene Cernan. He's a wonderful fellow. I got to
know him about a year ago and have corresponded back and forth
with him. So I don't recall that. If I were out there at the time and
they wei-e coming here, I would see nothing wrong with riding in
their plane with them. They had, I recall, on one occasion offered
to send a plane for me or to take me somewhere, and I declined.
Mr. Lenzner. On the occasion of this trip, apparently, JNfr.
Rebozo, we're told that after arriving in Miami, you all then went
over to Nassau, Grand Bahamas, with, I think, you and Mr. Danner,
perhaps Mr. Maheu. Does that help you refresh your recollection
on that ?
Mr. Rebozo. What year? When was that?
Mr. Lenzner. This would be February of 1970.
Mr. Rebozo. ]\Laheu, I don't believe, ever went to Grand Bahamas.
Danner has been over there with me once or twice.
Now, the one occasion I can pinpoint the date on was somewhere
in 1967, because it was the night of the Bahamian election that
Pindling got elected, and I remember that we went over to the little
villages to celebrate, and that is the only way I remember that date.
But Danner was probablv over another time, but I'm pretty sure
that Maheu was never there.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, let me say this, the airline air transportation
division records reflect a flight that you and Mr. Danner took with
yh'. ]Maheu, fii-st from Las Vegas to Miami, and then Mr. Danner
and you went on fi'om ^Nliami to Nassau, Grand Bahamas, and I
think stayed in the Britannia Beach Hotel.
INIr. Rebozo. You're talking about two things. Nassau is not Grand
Bahamas. Grand Bahamas is Abplaiuilp's i)lace, the northern ])art
of the Bahamas, and the Britannia Beach Hotel is in Nassau, New
Providence Island.
10O54
Mv. Lexzner. I bclievo tlie pilot told us that ho went to — I be-
lieve the pilot testified before us that he landed at Paradise Island
and that von all staved overnia-ht at Paradise Island. Does that help
refresh your recollection?
iNIr. Rebozo. Tie couldn't land there. Tie couldn't land at Paradise
Island.
Mr. Lkxzxku. lie landed, I <iuess. at Nassau and you went ovei' —
is that possible? I've never been down there to tell.
Mr. Dash. Some of our stafl' have been more fortiniate in havintr
been able to «>o down.
Mr. Lexzxkr. Does that refresh your I'ecollection?
]Mr. Rehozo. "We could liave ^-one over there. There have a great
restaurant that I hiy-hlv recommend to evervbodv. It's worth iust
makino- a tri]) for one meal, the Cafe Martini(|ue in Paradise Island. I
think we could have o^one over there for dinner.
Yon have to i-emember, Danner is a friend of, you know. 30 years'
standinof. and every time we <xot too-ether we weren't talkina' about ne-
farious goin<>-s on. He's a <rreat kidder. and I do my share. We enjoy
each other's company, and 1 think, perha[)s. we just went over there, as
I have done many times, just for dinner and come back the next morn-
iuir — take a 4 :.'>() oi- T flia'ht. have dinner, and come back the next
mornino-.
Let me hasten to say that since all this publicity about laundei-ed
funds and all, I've quit g'oing o^■er there, so I haven't been to Nassau.
I <ro to Grand Bahama with my friends.
Mr. Lexzxeij. I know you're <rreat kidders just from the corresi)ond-
ence you turned over last ni<rht, but do you have any recollection that
you discussed, (hii'ino- this trip with Mr. Danner. the TWA lawsuit?
That's what I wanted to know.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. I don't think there was anything-
s))ecific to that. I really think that, you know, I can swear, I think,
that you're spendin<r a lot of time on somethinii- that is a dry hole,
as far as I'm concerned. I don't know anvthino; about that o])eration,
and if it was discussed, it could have beeu discussed anv number of
times, because that kind of monev is a lot of money. To have that
judoniient han<rino; over youi- head, would make anvone want to lea\e
the country. But there's nothino- involved there that I think would
concern this committee remotely, insofar as I'm concerned.
Afr. Lexzxeh. Well, did you ever discuss doin<r anythin<»" on
behalf of Mi-. Dannei- or the Iluohes people witli regard to getting
some aspect of the lawsuit with TWA?
Mr. Rep.ozo. I think this is the third or fourth time that I've said
no.
Senatoi- Weuker. Yes, I beliexc in fairness to the witness, he has
answered that he has not about three or four different ways. Now.
let's iret on with this, Ten-v. I don't know how else he can respond
that lie didn't. Now. if you'iv going to bebuMe him or not. tliat's your
pri\ilege. but he has answered, and I think he has answei-ed very
clearly.
Afi'. IvENZNKiJ. In this context, Senator, let mo ask this different
((uestion. Do vou have a recollection that AFr. Dannei' discussed with
you, in addition to the TWA jiroblem, the problem of the Hughes
10055
acquisition of Air West and the amount of money that that was
going to tie up in Air West?
Mv. Rebozo. Well, I anticipated that question earlier and answered
it in order, 1 thought, to save us, as I said, 10 minutes or so, that I
]iever discussed or had anything to do with either the acquisition
of Air West or the Dunes, and about all 1 know about it is what I
have read in the papers. And that I'm saying under oath. That's
that.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, after the trip to Nassau, the plane records
reflect that you and Mr. Danner and iNIr. Maheu went from Miami
back to Washington. Do you recall that? In February of 1970?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know. We may have. The question would imply
that I went up there with them to show them around and introduce
them to somebody, and if I went up there, it was only because they
were going, and I was going, and our ways parted after that. I don't
remember going up there with them. But if the plane records show
tiiat the three of us went, we went.
Mr. Lenzxer. But you did not show them around or introduce
them to anybody in Washington ?
Mr. Rebozo. You say the plane records show that the three of us
went ?
Mr. Lexzner. And the pilot has also testified to that.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, perhaps I hitched a ride to Washington.
Mr. Lenzner. But once you got to Washington, my point is, you
didn't take them around and introduce them to anybody?
Mr. Rebozo. There is one other thought that comes to mind, and
I don't want to falsely accuse anybody because this, too, is pure
conjecture. I don't know whether the plane records were read by
Howard Hughes and whether there was some attempt made to
appear that I was being consulted or carried along or whatnot.
I could have gone with them. But I'm just injecting the thought
that it's possible that the plane records could have been prepared
in order to make it appear that I was assisting in these matters. I
repeat again. I never assisted in them, I knew nothing about them.
If I rode up in the i)lane it's because I was going anyway, and there
was no action taken on my i)art for that period.
Mr. Lexzner. In other words, when you got to Washington, there
was no effort made by you to take Mr. Danner or Mr. Maheu around
and introduce them to any of the administration officials?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Ml". Lexzxer. Now, again, on May 6, approximately, of lOfiD, Mr.
Danner's records reflect that after dinner, he took you and other
individuals out for entertaimnent. Do you i-ecall that? I believe one
of the friends was an individual by the name of Jack Davis.
Ml'. Rebozo. Where was that?
Mr. Lex'^zxer. In Washington.
Mr. Rebozo. Jack Davis, T know. He's the president of that opera-"
tion over thei-e at Paradise Island. He could have taken us to dinner.
[ don't remember that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you remember if thei-e were any discussions on
that occasion with regard to the $100,000 contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm suie there wasn't.
31-889 O - 74 - 25
10056
Mr. Lenzner. Did yon ever discuss with Mr. Da^is politiccal
contributions?
Afr. Kebozo. Xo.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you recall anybody else who may have been
present with you and Mr. Davis and ]Mr. Danner on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't even remember the occasion, so I couldn't
recall anybod}' else.
Mr. Lexzner. And I think Mr. Danner has also indicated that
vou were in Las Yeffas between June 14 and June 16 of 1969. Do
you recall that, occasion, what the purpose of yom- visit to Las Ye^as
was?
Mr. Rebozo. I can tell you the occasions that I was there. I can't
tell you the dates, but it would be easy to determine them. Once was
to see Jimmy Durante do this (rvont show. Another time was Danny
Kaye ; another time was Sammy Davis. Now, it could be that I saw
two of those shows on the same visit — the early show, one place and
late, another. But they were just great entertainers that T thorouirhly
enjoyed seeiiigf. and that is the principal purpose, really, of makini;
the trip.
Now, I don't belicAe that — in fact, I know I never made a trip
from Miami to Las Veo-as and back to Miami, specifically for any
]iurpose. The trips that I made were when, once, as I indicated pi'e-
viously, when I was on my way to California for some charity affair.
I overniofhted there at the Frontier. The otlier time was when T came
from California to Vegas and back to California. Or maybe T took
that plane trip on one occasion back home, got a ride.
Senator Weicker. If I could just interject for a minute, for a 10-
minute recess. I have one question before we recess. You mentioned
yesterday, it seems to me, in the testimony, the fact that Danner
mentioned to you the fact that AFr. O'Brien was on the Hughes
pavroll. Ts that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator "Wetcker. Did it cause you any concern, either befoi-e,
dui'in<2:. or aftei- the receipt of the $100,000, or any portion of it,
that Ml". O'Brien was invoh'ed with this operation, which opei'ation
was making a contribution to the Pi-esident's cam]iaign ■?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Or vice versa, of the concejot that everybody
was feeding at the same trough here? Was this a matter of concern?
Afr. Rebozo. Yes, Senator. That was a contributino- cost for the
appi-ehension that I had about accepting the money. There were the
other causes which I mentioned, but that was certainly a contributin.q:
cause, and it was cont.ri])uting to the deiiiee that T had exDivssed it
to Danner on several occasions. I could not understand all this.
And finally, it was on that trip that Danner and Maheu made to
Key Biscayne. T recall, that apparently Danner had told Maheu
about mv feelings, and Maheu said that Lan-y O'Brien had done
them so many favors that they had to do this.
Senatoi- AYek'ker. You say this was a ti'ip with Danner and Malieu
to Key Biscayne?
Afi-. Reiu)Z(). Yes, sir.
Seuatoi- AVeicker. "When was that?
10057
"Sir. Rebozo. I tliink they havo the date that he was there.
Senator Weicker. Do you have the date ?
Mr. Eebozo. I believe it was in 1970, did you say?
]Mr. Lenzner. Are you talkino- about when you took the plane
trip with Maheu and Mr. Banner?
Mr. Rebozo. "When Banner and Maheu were at Key Biscayne.
Mr. Frates. Senator, I think this is the testimony of yesterday and
previous testimony, not mider oath, tliat on one of the occasions,
tlie visit to Kev Biscayne, Maheu was with Banner. I think that's
wliat you're referriufj to.
Mr. Lenzner. Tliere are several dates we have — September of
1969 and February of 1970.
Mr. Frates. Of Maheu ?
Mr. Lenzner. Of Maheu and Banner.
Mr. Frates. I think he testified that it was once, and it could
have been more times. I think this is what you're referrino^ to.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. This visit and this subject matter — I'm sorry,
because I don't have a list of dates in front of me. Was this prior to
or after receipt of the moneys?
Mr. Rebozo. The information on O'Brien came to me when the
money was fii'st oifered in 1968.
Senator Weicker. All rifxht.
Mr. Rebozo. And it didn't make sense to me. I understand better
now that sometimes people will contribute to both parties. But I
had apparently expressed such concern about it to Banner that he
told Maheu, and Maheu sort of went out of his way to explain to me
that O'Brien had done them so many favors that they had to com-
pensate him.
Senator Weicker. That's what I'm tryino; to find out. In other
words, that visit — and as I've said, this is entii-ely my fault because
I don't have the list of dates in front of me. Was that visit prior to or
after receipt of the moneys?
Mr. Rebozo. It would have to be prior, if his dates are correct. He
said 1969 and early 1970. So it would have to be prior to receipt
of the money.
Senator Weicker. And I assume, then, from the facts, that what-
ever reservations you had were allayed as a result of that visit.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I'm sure that the purpose of tellino- you that
was to hel):> allay those reservations.
Senator Weicker. We'll recess for 10 minutes.
FA brief recess was taken.]
Senator Weicker. Let's come to order, please.
Mr. Lexzxer. You did raise an interesting issue and I want to
inirsue it. As I understand, Mr. Rebozo. in 1968, you and Banner
liad a discussion with reofard to why the Huo-hes people had hired
Mr. O'Brien. Later. Mr. Maheu came down to explain that.
Mr. Rebozo. No, we didn't have discussions about whv he had
hired him. He simnly told me that he was on their payroll. That's
all. He said — you know, it was kind of — Avell, I'm not sure that I
said it at first*. T was sort of non))lussed. because I thoufrht that it
was a o-enuine effort to help the President in his campaio-n. Then,
10058
when I learned that, coupled with the other things which I've
related, they all contributed to my apprehension about accepting the
contribution.
Ml-. Lenzner. In 1068 ?
Mr. Rebozo. In 1968, yes, sir.
Mr. Lenznek. And did they ever specify what favors Mr. O'Brien
had done for them ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, was there indication that the reason that the
discussions of the contributio]i with you were premised on feeling
that since the Democrats were out of office, they needed to show
favorable position toward the new administration?
Mr. Rebozo. No, the only thing that I've seen with respect to that
was reported in the press, where there was su])i)osedly some memo
that Hughes had sent Maheu about contributing to this man because
he very easily could be President. The wording of it, I don't recall,
but I I'emembei- seeing somethino- like that in the pa])er.
Mr. Lenzner. But you're saving there was no indication at any
time that one of the reasons for the contribution was an effort to
have a favorable reaction to any Hughes problems?
Mr. Rebozo. No. sir. Never, not even remotely.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you evei- had occasion to discuss the facts of
Mr. O'Brien's favors and emplovment with the President? His em-
ployment with the Hufjhes Tool Co.?
Mr. Rebozo. Onlv in the — only to the extent that I've stated that
I understood that he had done them a lot of favors and that they
were paying him six figures.
Mr. Lenzner. What was the President's reaction to that, do vou
recall ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, you say did I ever discuss it with the President?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, I don't know whether I did or not. T didn't
understand your question. I don't i-emeuiber whether I ever discus.sed
it with him or not. Possibly.
Mr. Lenzner. You would recall, specificallv, if you discussed souie-
thinir like that with the President of the United States, wouldn't
you ?
Mr. Rebozo. Not necessarily, but I probably did mention it.'
Mr. Lenzner. Do you i-ecall any reaction he had when you did
mention it?
Mr. Rebozo. No, the Pi-esident doesn't leact on matters like that,
I don't think, outwardlv. I don't know.
Mr. IjENzxeh. Did he ask vou to get any more iuforuiation foi-
him?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Ml-. Lenzner. Did vou e\er becouie aware of the fact that there
was an IRS audit being conducted on Mr. 0'l-5rien witli rehition to
his emnloyment with the IIu<rhes Co.?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I may have read something about it.
Mr. I^ENZNER. Aside fi-om the news media, did you learn from
some individual ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, no; no, no. no.
10050
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall when you read about that in the news
media, that Mr. O'Brien Avas beino- audited?
]\Ir. Rebozo. No, I just saw one time some little something. I just
assumed it was a routine audit.
Mr, Lenzner. That was some time ago, though; that wasn't
recently ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was a while back, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. 1969 or 1970 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Whenever it was.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of discussing the
O'Brien tax audit Avith anybody else at the White House, Mr. Halde-
man or Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of traveling to Las
Vegas, Nev., shortly before Mr. Danner delivered the $50,000 to you
in San Clemen te, about a day or two before that?
Mr. Rebozo. No. You'll recall, I provided a copy of my plane ticket
and it was from Miami to Tvos Angeles direct, where I went to San
Clemente.
Mr. Lenzner. As part of the documents furnished us last night,
there's one exhibit I wanted to inquire about, exhibit 8* of March 3,
1970. Do you have that?
Mr. Frates. What is it?
Mr. Lenzner. It's a letter to Mr. Rebozo from Mr. Danner.
Mr. Frates. Did you give the originals back to us?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
Mr. Frates. It doesn't look like all our files are here.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I recall this letter.
Mr. Lenzner. The question is, did you pass on the letter from
Mr. Morgan to anybody else, as requested by Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have mailed it up to whatever department
that was — HEW or whatever- — ^but I don't know that I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall ever getting any response to it?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you know Mr. Morgan, Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I've testified, you know, that I met him. He's
the one who first offered the money.
Mr. Lenzner. Had you had any conversations with him, or com-
munications with him, between that time and the time you got this
letter on March 3, 1970?
Mr. Rebozo. No. In fact, I don't think I've had any communica-
tion with him since 1968, when that offer was made.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever learn that Mr. Morgan was seeking
out information with regard to the $100,000 contribution that you
had received? Did you ever hear that?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I would have assumed that he knew about it,
because he w^as the first emissary to deliver it.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever learn whether he had a conversation
with Mr. Ehrlichman or others with regard to that subject?
Mr. Rebozo. No, not to my knowledge. I don't even know if Mor-
gan knows Ehrlichman.
►See p. 10162.
10060
Mr. Lenzner. Does anybody have any questions in that area?
Senator Weicker. Let me,' not necessarily in this area, but I
can at least get an answer to an area that is of interest to me Ijefore
we break for the morning.
Mr. Rebozo, tell me about trying to return the money to Mi.
j).^n,iPi- — ;is specifically, the fii-st time you discussed it and any
subsequent times, and what the gist of the conversation was, insofar
as you're concerned?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, Danner is a funny guy about phone calls. He
just takes forever returning a phone call, even from his closest
■friends. I think his closest friend is probably Smathers, and he
has told me this, that he has a hard time getting an answer to calls.
So I did talk with him and told him what I wanted to do, and
he said he would have to talk to his superiors.
Senator Weicker. A^Hien did you
Mr. Rebozo. This was in the spring of 1973.
Senator Weicker. The spring of 1973 ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. You contacted Danner by phone, or was this
in pei'son?
Mr. Rebozo. I think by phone — I tliink.
Senator Weicker. Wiat did you say to Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I told him that 1 wanted to return this money, that
I had been advised to, and so on. He said, well, he didn't know
how to handle it, or words to that effect.
Senator Weicker. Did you tell him, at that time, that you had
been advised by the President?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know whether I did or not.
Senator Weicker. Had you been advised by the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Weicker. In other words, by the time you got on the
phone, talked to Mr. Danner, and requested the return of the moneys,
you had discussed the matter with the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. But you don't know whether or not you said
that to Mr. Danner, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. No ; I don't know. I was more concerned with getting
the message to him that I wanted him to take the money. He said,
well, he would ha^■e to talk to his superiors. I didn't hear from him
and I kept calling and calling. I called any number of times and
left word. He never would return my calls.
I knew that Chester Davis was the — one of the superiors, and I
arranged somehow, I think I arranged for the lawyer to get hold
of him.
Senator Weicker. Wiat lawyer?
Mr. Rebozo. Gemmill, who was handling my tax matters.
Senator Weicker. You arianged for Grcmmill to get hold of him?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe that's the sequence. I believe I arranged for
Gemmill to get hold of him because I couldn't get hold of Danner.
I took the money to Gemmiirs office in Philadelphia and he had
made some arrangements with Davis. At that point, I thought that
either Davis would be in Philadelphia or in his office in New York.
,10061
T thought Davis stayed in New York all the time. But when I got
tlicre, I learned that Davis was out West and wouldn't be in New
York for a few days.
I was going on to New York anyway, so then, that's when I drew
Bill Griffin into it, to just hold the money. He had a bank, he's a
lawyer, I have great confidence in him. He had been one that I had
consulted about how to handle this earlier, so I just asked him if
he would hold it and we would have Gemmill and Da^as contact
him when they could get together. That was Griffin's entire part in
this whole thing. As a matter of fact, Griffin is principally Bob
Abplanalp's attorney and he didn't even tell Abplanalp about it,
Abplanalp first learned about it when he read it in the paper that
morning. But Griffin just kept the money in the vault until he got
a call, and then delivered it to them.
Senator Weicker. Now, you never, then, heard again from Mr,
Danner after the initial request that he accept the money?
Mr. Rebozo. No. I went to— while I was in Philadelphia, from
Mr. Gemmill's office — I told Mr. Gemmill that I had just exhausted
every effort to get Danner to take it, that he now wouldn't even
return my calls. So he said, "Well, why don't you try one more time
from here." So, I called him right from there and I told him where
I Avas, and I said, "I'm going to leave the money here and I want
you to know it." That's about the length of the conversation.
Senator Weicker. And what did he say?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know what he said, other than perhaps, he
would look into it or something. But by then, I believe Gemmill
had already made arrangements with Davis, or maybe he made ar-
rangements — was in the process of making arrangements.
Senator Weicker. What was the lapse of time between the first
phone conversation with Mr. Danner, where you asked him to take
back the money, and when you called him again from Gemmill's
office in Philadelphia?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, you mean from the first time I asked him to
take the money, or the last call I had made to him? I had made
inmierous calls.
Senator Weicker. I gather you made numerous calls which he
would not accept or never returned. Is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I don't know. It could have been 2 or 3 weeks,
or something like that, maybe longer.
Senator Weicker. Did you actually only talk to Mr. Danner,
then, two times? In other words, the first time when you requested
that he take the money back
Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
Senator AYeicker [continuing]. And the second time from Gem-
mill's office?
Mr. Rebozo, That's correct.
Senator Weicker. And in between, you had attempted to get
hold of him, but were uiuible to do so i'
Mr, Rebozo, Yes,
Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell us who I'eferred you to Mr. Gemmill,
in light of Senator Weicker's questions?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe that somebody in the White House — ^I think
it was Len Hall, I'm not sure — I had heard of him before and I
10062
had been told when all this bnshiess started that I would probably
need Washington counsel. So I got hold of him.
Senator Weicker. Excuse me, Terry. Just one last question which
I forgot to ask. After you deposited the money with Mr. Griffin,
did you have occasion to tell the Pi'esident that the money had been
given back?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes; I'm sure I did.
Senator Weicker. Can you tell me when that was?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it would have been shortly after that. The
next time I saw the President, probably.
Senator Weicker. The next time after you had met Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes,
Senator Weicker. And did you tell the President to whom you
had given the money?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. And what was the President's response?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I think he said something to the effect, well,
you did the right thing.
Senator Weicker. I'm sorry, Terry. Go ahead.
Mr. Lenzner. "\Yliere was that meeting held, Mr. Rebozo, with
the President, that you just described?
Mr, Rebozo. There wasn't
Mr. Lenzxer. Well, the conversation.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Probably at the White House. I don't know if
on that occasion, I came back through Washington or whether I
went back to Miami and saw him on the next visit down there. I've
always made it a practice to — I know all the things he has on his
mind all these years, and I generally just wait to tell him anything.
That, perhaps, I wouldn't have waited as long to tell him, because I
thought that it was the thing that he would feel better about. I
don't know just where it was, l)ut it was shortly thereafter.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, was it in the President's office in the White
House ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know where it was.
]\Ir. Lenzner. Are you saying you have no recollection now at all
of where you had that discussion?
Mr. Rebozo. No, it wasn't a discussion. It was just to let him know
that I had returned the money.
Senator Weicker. But it was in person ? It was in a conversation ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker, It was in Washington?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably, but I really don't know, because I'm in
Washington more often than he's in Florida. So I would presume,
because of that, that it would have been there.
Mr. Lenzner. When you said "I^n Hall" before, did you mean
Len Garment?
Mr. Rebozo. Did I say I^en Hall? I'm soriy, I meant Len Garment.
Mr. Dash. Just to fix the time, do you have any recollection of
how soon after you returned the, money that you told the President
about it?
ISfr. Rebozo. I think it was as very shortly afterwards. T would like
for the record to reflect that the Len Hall was just a slip of the
tongue, because if this becomes public information, then I'll have
Len Hall on my back.
100G3
Mr. Dash. I think the record will reflect that.
Senator Weicker. Is there a memlDer of the staff here who can
tell nie Avlien the money was turned over?
Mr. Lenzner. June 22, 1973.
Senator Weicker. June 22, 1973.
Mr. Rebozo. They have a copy, Senator, of the receipt and the
serial numbers of the bills.
Mr. Dash. And therefore, you said it's your recollection that it
was very shortly after that, that you told the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frates. Terry, show that to the Senator.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm showing the Senator a letter from Mr. Rebozo
to Mr. Chester Davis, dated June 22.
Mr. Frates. I think he actually got it on the 27th, though.
Mr. Lenzner. On the 27th, yes.
Mr. Dash. It could have been in the same month, actually. I'm
still trying to follow it up.
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sure it was immediately after.
Mr. Dash. Immediately after, sometime after June 22, 1973, that
you told the President and that might haA'e been the place where it
may have occurred ?
Senator Weicker. Do you keep any record of your appointments?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, sir. I've tried that time and again. Up until a
couple of years ago, I had one of these tear-off appointment books,
or sheets. Then subsequently, I have had the other kind. But I don't
have anybody keep it for me, and if I'm there and think of some-
thing, I put it down. I use that for scratch pads and for everything
else.
Senator Weicker. I think it would be most helpful to the com-
mittee and, as I said, it's impossible for any of us, just in the
sense that we're human beings, to remember all details and facts,
but I would appreciate it if you, in consultation with your counsel
— and maybe it might develop in questions here, but if it does not,
to try to pinpoint the date on which you met with the President
to tell him that you had it — that you had returned it.
Mr. Frates. Senator, I think to clarify that situation a little bit,
the relationship between the President and Mr. Rebozo is a friendly,
informal one and not one of appointments. As someone expressed to
him the other day, which I thought sums it up ])retty good, he's like
an electric liglit." When tlie President pulls a switch, turns him on,
he'll talk about something now. But it's an informal tiling. It might
seem strange to someone that vou don't go and have an appointment
and tell him that. They are in constant and close relationshij).
Senator Weicki:r. I understand that. That's Avhv I'm saying — it's
quite fi-ankly why I don't pursiie the matter of an ai>pointment
book, because I do understand the relationshi]). It's an in and out
type of situation. But I do think it is inn^ortant, in certain instances,
tliat an effort be made to trv to pinpoint the time. This is one of
them.
ISIr. Rebozo. I'll try to see if there's anything I can associate with
it. I don't have hiali hoi)es of finding sometliing because of — when
we're tofrether, I don't sit down and write wliat we're talking about.
jVfr. Frates. I think you can check the next time you were to-
gether, either up here or down there, and I think tliat would tie it in.
10064
Mr, Dash. For instance, I take it. if it was up here, I take it even
with the informal relationship, you're logoed in with tlie President
on any meetings, and anybody else is, on meetings with the President.
Mr. Rebozo. Probably.
Senator Weicker. And it is, to the best of your recollection here
today, within several days aftei- you turned the money over?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir. I wouldn't be logged in. though, Mr. Dash,
if I went there and just liad dinner, something like that.
Senator AVeicker. Oli, I think you would be, I think you would
be. In the White House. I think you would be. If you're not — I thiuk
anybody ouglit to be.
Mr. Lexzner. I think the logs that are kept are of his public
visits as well as of his quarters.
Senator Weicker. As I say, even his guests are logged in. This is
the President of the United States.
Mr. Dasii. I think even if he went to eat dinner, you are.
Mr. Lenzner. AVhen you discussed the situation with Mr. Garment,
Mr. Rebozo, did you describe to him the nature of the problem, why
you needed an attorney?
Mr. Rebozo. I think perhaps I got into that, but T w\as more con-
cerned with who should I get to represent me in Washington. You
know. I just felt that my problems would be here, and I thought I
would obtain a Washington attorney to handle them. He was
recommended.
Mr. Lenzner. And you say Mr. Garment described him as a Wash-
ington attorney. I think Mr. (ilemmiirs offices are in Philadelphia.
Mr. Rebozo. He practices a lot here. His office is in Philadelphia,
but he takes that
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Garment indicate that Mr. Gemmill was
representing the President at that time ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I'm not sure he Avas. He ma}' have
been; I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. But you were not told that at that time ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I was just told that he was the
former — you see, the problem at the time centered largely around the
IRS and I was told that he was former Chief counsel for the IRS
and that he would best be able to handle it. So that's why I employed
liim.
Mr. Lenzner. Arc you saying also that you employed ^Ir. Griffin
as an attorney representing you in this case, also?
Mr. Rebozo. With Mr. (iriffin, from time to time — I have great
confidence in his judgment on many matters, and he did some i-e-
search on it advised me to turn it back.
Mr. Lenzner. And those are the two people i-epresenting you as
attorneys, except for Mr. Frates, when he later came in?
Mr. Rebozo. I discussed it at sometime along with Wakefield, who
has handled a lot of my work over the years.
Mr. Lenzner. That was aftei- you decided to turn it back?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. And incidentally, I was thinking last Jiight^l
may have yesterday, when T injected Hank Meyers' name into this —
I i-ecall that I did not di.scuss it with him until after we had decided
to send the nionev back. I want to clarifv that.
10065
Mr. Lenzner. He's not an attorney, though?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he's just a pretty good guy.
Mr. Frates. You mean that can't be consistent?
Mr. Rebozo. Strike that. I was simply intending that he's a good
guy in spite of the fact that lie's not an attorney.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, when you were trying to contact Mr.
Danner — ^this is in the period in the spring of 1973. Would that
have been from when to when? Approximately when did you start
trying to contact him?
Mr. Rebozo. My guess is it probably started around March or
April. I don't know. I'll tell you, it probably wasn't as long as it
seems to have been in my mind, because I was anxious, as they say
doAvn South, to get shed of it. But I just couldn't get him to return
my calls or do anything about it. But he is a sort of procrastinator.
He's a bright fellow and decent person, he just procrastinates, and
probably that was the reason he didn't return the calls.
Mr. Lenzner. And you left messages for him, under the name
"Rebozo," I take it, to have him call you back?
jVIr. Rebozo. I don't know. I think I always used "Gregory" there.
I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. You used "Gregory" with Mr, Danner? Why?
Mr. Rebozo. When I would leave a message wnth a switchboard,
with a person who knows I use "Gregory", I just use "Gregory" so
they don't tune in or create another aura of suspicion of any kind.
Mr. Lenzner. Is there anybody else you use "Gregory" with be-
sides Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. As I've said, I've used it with him in his switchboard.
I use it quite a bit. It's done for the reason that I mentioned and
it's always, sometimes it saves a lot of small talk. If somebody said,
"Oh, Mr. Rebozo, such and such and such and such." So it's just
easier to do it that way.
Mr. Lenzner. What — would you call from your home and your
office to Mr. Damier during that period of time?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Any other phones you might use besides those?
Mr. Rebozo. No. I never went out to a phone booth and used a
phone or anything like that.
Mr. Lenzner. The reason I ask it. is our records don't reflect any
phone calls from you to Mr. Danner between — during the month of
May at all. Is there any reason why you didn't try to contact him
during the month of May of 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. I remember calling him from New York two or three
times, and calling liim from — I may have called him from Washing-
ton, probably did. There should be a record of my calling him
in that time frame from Miami.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, would you charge those calls, long distance,
to your home numbers or your office numbers?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Generally, I would charge them to my home
numbers.
Senator Weicker. Terr}', I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's to save
asking questions later. During June of 1973, did you have any occa-
sion to talk with, personally or by telephone, either Mr. Dean or
Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman?
10066
Mr. Kebozo. I had very little contact tliroiio;hout all the years with
Dean.
Senator Wkicker. I'm specifically saying June of 1973.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe — 1 don't believe so. I could have talked
with anyone or all three of them about something, but I don't be-
lieve so. In June of 1973 — no. In June of 1973, by them, they had
left the White House, hadn't they? So I don't believe I had any
conversation with any of them.
Senator Weicker. All right, let me backtrack. That's correct. Let
me backtrack. From the first of the year 1973, from the first of
January 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have, Senator, but I don't recall. I had very
few convei-sations with Dean, either on the phone or personally, over
the years, just seeing him. I had probably — I could have talked with
Erlichman or Haldeman.
Senator Weicker. Did vou talk with any of these three individuals,
either in 1972 or 1973, about the $100,000"?
]Mr. Rebozo. No, sir. No, sir, they laiew nothing about it, to my
knowledge. You have to remember that by then
Senator Weicker. I'm sorry. I see why it slipped by my mind. My
original question, which I think you have answered anjrway, in this
answer, was June of 1972. But I gathered, in other words, you
covered that in the answer you've just given me, which is you did
not talk to any of these three men at any time about this $100,000?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did you ever call Mi-. Danner from the Wiite House
phone, to your recollection, Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably.
Mr. Lenzner. "Wliere would that phone have been located? Did
you ever use the })hone in the President's office to call Mr, Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I don't think so. In the "White House,
you just pick up any phone and the operator gets the number for
you.
Mr. Lenzner. AYell, during a certain period of time, there was
some uniqueness about some of those phones, and I just wondered if
the phones in the President's office — if you ever used the phones in
the President's office, or in the sitting room of the residence.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think I've ever used the phone in the Presi-
dent's office. In the sitting room of the residence, there's one phone
right by the chair where the President always sits, and the phone is
right at his left hand. I can only recall using that phone once or
twice when he wasn't around, or something I wanted
Mr. Lenzner. To call Mr. Danner or somebody?
Mr. Rebozo. No. No, I wouldn't have called Mr. Danner from
there. I might have wanted to call Julie or something like that.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if the President ever telephoned Mr.
Danner during this period of time?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't believe so. I doubt that he has ever had a
phone conversation
Senator Weicker. Terry, could you clarify, for my sake, and also
just m case, so you don't confuse Mr. Rebozo, what time are we
talking about here?
10067
Mr. Frates. Any time. Is that right?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, any time.
Senator Weicker. Any time?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes,
Senator Weicker. You're not relating it specifically to the time
the money was returned, that period?
Mr. Lenzner. I assume that "any time" would include that period
of time.
Senator Weicker. I didn't know how broad your range was.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo's answer was that to his knowledge,
President Nixon never called Mr. Banner at any time.
Senator Weicker. All right.
Mr. Lenzner. Would the answers be the same for the President's
Executive Office — the Executive Office Building — as to the Oval
Office?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, when did you first learn that your name had
come u}) with regard to the IRS investigation of the Hughes con-
tribution ?
JNIr. Rebozo. It came up during an investigation that IRS was
making of Howard — of Maheu, I think, and Hughes and Danner
and — about a year before in early 1972. The agent called me from
Las Vegas and wanted to come and see me, and we set up an appoint-
ment. Two of them came over. So they started asking me questions
about it then.
I don't want to go into a dissertation. I've answered your question.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, was that the first time that you learned that
your name had come up, when the IRS people called you for an
interview ?
Mr. Frates. Came up. I ask you to clarify. Came up where?
He testified about the Andereon column in 1971.
JVIr. Lenzner. I mean came up in connection with the IRS investi-
gation.
In other words, that there had been testimony to the effect, to the
IRS, that the money had gone to you.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. The first time you were aware that there had been
such testimony Avas when you were asked for an interview?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe that's right.
Mr. Lenzner. Do vou recall when thev called vou? How soon
after?
ISIr. Rebozo. You mean when they came over?
Mr. Lenzner. When they called and asked you for an interview.
JVIr. Rebozo. It was March or April of 1973, I guess.
AL-. Lenzner. Now, I believe that Mr. Danner was interviewed
originally in May of 1972, and Mr. Frates, we both have copies of
that original interview.
Are you saying that ]Mr. Danner did not notify you after May of
1972, that he had disclosed to the IRS that he had given you the
$100,000?
Mr. Rebozo. No, he didn't tell me.
Mr, Lenzner. And you're also testifying that nobody else advised
you of that fact?
10068
Mr. Rebozo. No. Danner had told me on one visit that the IRS was
makin<>; what lie described as a routine examination of their taxes
out there. He said that they would take everybody over a certain
salary, income, in Vegas, and check them out.
Mr. Lenzner. But he didn't mention at that time that he had
told them about the $100,000 that they were investigating and
wanted to talk to you about that?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr, Lenzner. And nobody in the administration contacted you
before the IRS contacted you and told you that your name had
arisen in the IRS investigation as the recipient of the $100,000?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think the first that I knew of it was when they
called me.
Mr. Lenzner. The agents, you mean?
Mr. Rebozo. The agents called me.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what their names were?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I remember very well, because one of them was
Skelton and Red Skelton is a friend of mine and he comes from the
same town in Indiana that Skelton came from, and no relation.
Mr. Lenzner. Does he look like him — I withdraw that.
Mr. Frates. He's not a comedian.
Mr. Rebozo. He sure isn't.
And the other one was — I can't think of his name now.
Mr. Armstrong. Keeney?
Mr. Rebozo. Keeney, yes.
Senator Weicker. Terry, as I said. I'm going to recess at 10 past.
I have just one more question — I have two more questions. You have
plenty of time. You're going to be getting together at 1 :30.
Mr. Lenzner. Let me ask this one question. Did you ever discuss
with Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Haldeman, prior to your contact with
the Internal Revenue Service, the fact that your name had come up
with regard to the $100,000 contribution and the IRS investigation
of it?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have. I had very few discussions Avith Halde-
man. He didn't discuss much with a lot of folks. But occasionally I
would see Ehrlichman more. I may have mentioned it to Ehrlichman.
Mr. Lenzner, You may have mentioned it to Ehrlichman?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have mentioned it to him.
Mr. Lenzner. That would have been after the IRS contact?
Mr. Rebozo. Pardon me?
Mr. Lenzner. That would have been after Mr. Skelton called you
and asked for an interview with yon?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Lenzner. What I'm asking you is, Mr. Ehrlichman never
called you and said. "By the way. Mr. Rebozo." or however he
addresses you, "we've learned at the White House that you're going
to be interviewed by the Internal Revenue Service"?
Mr. Rebozo. Not that I can recall.
Senator Weicker. When was this that you believe von talked to
Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know, Senatoi-. It was all right in that same
period.
10069
Mr. Lenzner. Which was when?
Mr. Eebozo. Which was March, April, or May of 1973.
Mr. Lenzner. But you would have been on notice, I take it, if
Mr. Ehrlichman had called you before then, and that would have
been a pretty significant conversation if he had told you, "By the
way, the IRS is going to want to talk to you"?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think that one time in conversation, I think I
told Ehrlichman about the call I had from Las Vegas.
Mr. Lenzner. That was from the IRS agents, you mean ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, that was about the extent of it.
]\Ir. Lenzner. Were you requesting Mr. Ehrlichman to do any-
thing with regard to that call ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. What was the purpose of telling Mr. Ehrlichman
about that call?
Mr. Rebozo. I suppose it was just conversation, and naturally it
would be something that I would be concerned about. But I'm not
even sure that Ehrlichman knew about the money then. I'm not
even sure that I had discussed that with him at that point.
Mr. Lenzner. You're not sure that was discussed — why the IRS
wanted to talk to you then ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think I told him what they had told me, that
they — they called twice. They called once and they wanted to set up
an appointment.
Mr. Frates. The agents?
Mr. Rebozo. The agents. Then, when the agents called again, or I
returned their call, maybe, I asked them what they wanted to talk
about, so that I could be prepared. They said, well, it's nothing to
do with yon, we're investigating — running a tax investigation on —
I think they said Hughes and Maheu. I think that's what he said,
and maybe others.
So when they came over, they, as a matter of fact, reemphasized
during the couple of hours, maybe, that we w^ere sitting there, II/2
hours, several times they reemphasized that they were not after me
at all, they were just trying to get what information they could get.
Senator Weicker. Let me just clarify this in my own mind, and
then also make a comment.
First of all, the question. That is, did you have this discussion with
]Mr. Ehrlichman before your discussion with the President or after?
As I understand it, yoii discussed, or y u told the President around
the same period of time — it has not been pinpointed
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Senator AVeicker [continuing]. That you had this money.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. 1 had told the President, I'm sure, before this
that I had the money.
Senator Weicker. So you think the conversation with Ehrlichman
came after the conversation with the President?
Mr. Rebozo. I think, yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Let me make just one observation, counsel. I
think it is awfully important. I'm trying to be of assistance to you
and your client.
You made a very proper observation at the beginning of these
hearings, let's get to the point of this questioning, and 1 tried to
10070
assist yon about our going around the bush a thousand different
times. I asked a question awhile back that related to these three men,
the contact between your client and these three individuals. I can,
as I say, cite a thousand different instances and stay here and go
around it, but I thought that would be the most direct way to
handle it. I would only suggest that you ask your client to think a
little bit harder before he responds, because clearly, this is a meet-
ing which very definitely relates to that which I asked about. It
only comes to pass by virtue of one of the questions.
Nobody wants to rush you at all. Neither do I want to see you
harassed by a whole series of questions. I would rather get right to
the point, which is what your ow^n counsel asked for.
Mr. Rebozo. I appreciate that.
Senator Weicker. I think we do have to recess now, because I have
to get to my office. We'll reconvene at 1 :30.
[Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled mat-
ter recessed, to reconvene at 1 :30 p.m. the same day.]
Afternoon Session
Senator Inouye [presiding]. I understand the witness has been
sworn and will continue his testimony.
Mr. Dash. That's right, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Very well, proceed.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Bellino will initiate some questioning.
Mr. Frates, this is in line with our discussion this morning. Mr.
Bellino will be asking some questions in the areas of the questioned
materials so as to identify certain things.
Mr. Frates. Mr. Dash, can I ask you to help me keep on the line
that we delineated this morning?
Mr. Dash. Oh, yes.
Mr. Frates. I would appreciate it.
Mr. Bellino. I have other questions, also.
Mr. Dash. You're not limited on the questions
]\Ir. Frates. We were here at 1 :30, ready to go.
Mr. Dash. So, let him proceed. I think I ought to say this, too,
that there may be some misunderstanding at times in places where
Carmine may not be able to hear the answer.
Mr. Frates. Senator, this morning, we had a 2-hour session where,
at the suggestion of Senatoi- Weicker, we got together and resolved
some of the problems we had about exhibits, scope, clearance, things
of that nature, and I think Mr. Dash and I have a very workable
arrangement on it.
Mr. Dash. We're proceeding on that basis. It has to do with a
number of things, questions that Mr. Frates has raised. We're trying
to woik it out. Let's leave it that way.
Senator Inouye. With that preliminary discussion, the hearing
will please come to order. By ])rior arrangement, Mr. Bellino will
please proceed Avith his questioning.
Mr. Bellino. Mr. Eebozo, I understand the Key Biscayne Bank
pays youi- salai-y in cash, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. We pay all salaries in cash.
10071
Mr. Belling. Does any other firm or company you're connected
with pay you in cash ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Belling. Have you Avon any substantial amount of casli in
any games or anything?
Mr. Rebgzo. No.
Mr. Belling. Who prepares your annual financial statements, usu-
ally as of September 1?
Mr. Rebgzo. A bookkeeper and I prepare it.
Mr. Belling. What's the source of the information that you use ?
Mr. Rebgzo. The files that we have.
Mr. Belling. You have files — financial files?
]Mr. Rebgzg. You see, a financial statement has to record what your
balance is, so we have to check that. It records what mortgages you
have. We have files to show who we owe what to.
INIr. Belling. Did you ever advise w^hoever was making up your
statement, your 1969 financial statement, that you had a sum of cash,
currency, on hand?
Mr. Frates. I don't understand the question.
Mr. Rebgzg. No.
Mr. Belling. In other words, the cash you would report
Mr. Rebgzg. The cash is in the account.
Mr. Belling [continuing]. You would report on your financial
statement would be mainly w^hat w^as in the bank?
Mr. Rebgzg. Exactly.
Mr. Bellino. Did you ever have a sum of $50,000 in cash w^iich
you considered your own?
]Mr. Frates. Excuse me. Senator, "Did you ever have $50,000 cash
that you considered your owai.'" May I ask some date? Because we're
going way far away from what our agreement was.
Mr. Dash. Yes, can you limit that question?
Mr. Belling. Since January 1, 1969, of course. I understand all
our questions relate to prior to — subsequent to January of 1969.
Mr. Rebgzg. No, I never had that much cash, not deposited.
Mr. Belling. Would you say you might have had $20,000 or
$25,000 ?
Mr. Rebgzg. I don't know what amount of cash I've had at any
one time. As I indicated, I'm paid in cash and I use funds from my
pay and I keep the rest.
:Mr. Belling. Your September 1, 1969, financial statement which
vou distributed to various institutions reflects a cash on hand and
in bank of $23,741.36. Your bank statement shows the balance in the
account as $3,741.36.
Mr. Rebgzg. Which bank statement?
Mr. Belling. Your bank statement at Key Biscayne Bank. You
can clieck it from your own
:Mr. Rebgzg. No," I don't need to check that. I've had cash in other
banks, deposited.
Mr. Belling. Could you specify what other bank accounts you
have ?
Mr. Rebgzg. Well, I have a couple of small savings and loan ac-
counts.
Mr. Belling. Whereabouts?
31-889 O - 74 - 26
10072
Mr. Rebozo. One in Key West First Federal, and one in the
Greater Miami Federal. I've liad occasion to keep cash in banks
where I borrow money.
Mr. Belling. Well, wliat banks are those?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, you have the list of all the banks I've borrowed
from, and several of them have requested some semblance of com-
pensating baLance. That figure that appears in that statement is not
my figure. The bookkeeper got it from the records, you can be sure.
]\[r. Bellino. Your principal account is that 134 in the Key Bis-
cay ne Bank?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
Mr. Belling. Do you have any other savings or checking accounts
in the Key Biscayne Bank?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Belling. No other, any accounts in which you're the signator,
where you have the right to withdraw funds?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Belling. Have you ever used another name in connection with
any accounts?
Mr. Rebozo. No, not in connection with any bank accounts.
Mr. Belling. In what way have you used
Mr. Dash. I think you have asked him that, for the record.
Mr. Frates. We spent a half hour on that. Senator, where he ex-
plained he uses the name Gregory.
Mr. Armstrong. He uses the name, Charles Gregory, in order to
remain anonymous in small transactions.
Mr. Dash. We covered that this morning.
Mr. Rebozo. I've been using that name since I was a Democrat,
even. No, Senator, for your information, what I'm getting at is I
started using that name about 20 yeai*s ago for marine phone calls
so that everybody couldn't hear. You know, a name like yours or
mine, if you mention it once, everybody is going to know who is
talking. So I just used the Gregory just to keep anybody from know-
ing who was talking. That's all.
Mr, Fr^vtes. Senator, Mr. Bellino was not here this morning.
Mr. Rebgzo. I didn't mean that derogatorily, I'm sure you know.
Mr. Belling. Mr. Rebozo, you said you had some other accounts
in the Kev Biscayne Bank. Would that account for the difference
of $20,000'?
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't say I had some other accounts in the Ke}^
Biscayne.
Mr. Belling. I meant the Key West.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I had some other small amounts there, maybe
$3,000 or $4,000, and the Greater Miami Federal has a small amount.
But from time to time, I have had compensating balances in ac-
counts. I have had in Manufacturers Hanover when I borrowed from
them. I have had balances in, I think, the Hialeah-Miami Springs.
I've got another balance right now, $10,000, I think, in the First
National Bank.
Wlien I borrow money, they want you to have an account with
them. But I could supply you — I'm sure my bookkeeper could sup-
ply you to the penny, where that was at that time.
10073
Mr. Belling. Could you explain where the $20,000 cash might have
come from?
Mr. Rebozo. I just tried to.
Mv. Belling. Well, that's around $3,000 you mentioned.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I mentioned the other banks. You see, it depends
on whom I was borrowing- from at the time.
Mv. Belling. You didn't have an account in Manufacturers over
that distance of September 1, 1969.
My. Rebgzg. I'm mistaken.
Mr. Belling. That $5,000 compensating balance you had, you
didn't have it in Septoml^er 1969.
Mr. Rebozo. I've had accounts with them, I've borrowed money
with them since before then. I don't know when I started a com-
pensating balance with them, but those figures, we can account for
them readily.
Mr. Belling. Could this $20,000 in cash be part of the money that
Dick Danner brought over to you?
Mr. Rebgzg. Mr. Bellino, you brought that question up numerous
times, and last evening, you suggested that I had draw^n $200,000 out
of Monroe Land, and that you were curious as to whether $100,000
of that was the Hughes money. I have testified under oath that the
Hughes money was entirely returned to them in the identical form
that I received it, and there's no way that that could have been a
part of anything.
Mr. Belling. Well, would you just answer the question?
Mr. Rebgzg. I'll be happy to.
Mr. Dash. I think the question has been answered. I think he has
answered the question.
jVIr. Belling. Well, but he hasn't. He hasn't directly answered it.
I asked specifically Avhether any part of this is — $20,000, is part of
the $50,000 Dick banner gave you. You can answer yes or no.
Mr. Rebgzg. The answer is no.
Mr. FR.VTES. I think. Senator, we have been somewhat at odds
with Mr. Bellino and his tactics for some time. We don't want to get
into personalities at this time. I think w^e resolved it, and I appre-
ciate Mr. Dash's attitude in the whole matter.
Mr. Belling. With respect to your returning of the money. I un-
dei-stand you were questioned this morning. Did you meet at any
time with Mr. Rose or Mr. Gemmill?
:\Ir. Rebgzg. I met with Mr. Gemmill several times, and I thmk I
met with Mr. Rose once.
Mr. Dash. Would you identify for the record who Mr. Rose is?
Mr. Gemmill was identified earlier, but not Mr. Rose.
Mv. Rebozo. I believe that the onlv time I met Mr. Rose
Mr. Dash. Who is Mr. Rose ?
Mr. Belling. H. Chapman Rose, I believe, an attorney m Cleve-
land, who is associated with Mr. Gemmill. I think he also has an
office here in Washington.
Mr. Dash. I'm sorry, Mr. Bellino.
Mv. Rebozo. I believe the only time that I met with Mr. Rose was
when he and Mr. Gemmill came to Key Biscayne, working on the
President's statement, for Cooper's Lybrand or whoever it was. I
think that was the only time I met with him.
10074
Mr. Belling. When would you say that was?
Mr. Rebozo. -Well, whenever they did this audit. You'll recall
earlier this .year, was it, that he engaged the Cooper's Lybrand to do
an audit to prove that he had not used campaign funds for the pur-
chase of these properties.
Mr. Belling. Did vou discuss with them the matter of the
$100,000?
Mr. Rebgzo. I never discussed it with Rose. I previously testified
I have discussed it with Gemmill.
Mr. Belling. Did he advise you
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. Senator, again, Mr. Dash, we went into
this at some length this morning. I don't object to the repetition as
long as we just don't spend all afternoon going into what we went
into this morning.
Mr. Dash. I don't think this is repetitious. Senator Weicker, since
he wasn't going to be back, went ahead and asked some questions
concerning the return of the money. There were some specific ques-
tions that we had. I don't think this is repetitious.
Mr. Frates. Well, the conversations between Mr. Gemmill and he
were. I'm not talking about specifics, I'm talking about the context,
just so Mr. Bellino will know that.
Mr. Belling. I understand that we'll be coming back to those
questions, so the Senator will ask them later on.
In 1969, you did have in your bank, at least one Presidential cam-
paign account on which you were a signator, and on which you per-
sonally controlled the funds. That is correct, isn't it?
Mr. Rebgzg. Correct.
Mr. Belling. Did you have any others besides that one which
was called the Florida Nixon for President Committee?
Mr. Rebgzg. No.
Mr. Belling. As a banker, you know the value of having funds in
your bank which your correspondent bank will invest in Federal
funds. For each day, the excess is in theii" control, which also means
that interest ranging from 8 percent to as nuich as 11 percent is j^aid
to youi' ))ank even when the funds are held over a weekend. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Rebgzg. Yes, sir, except that the Federal funds went up last
yeai- to 14.5 percent.
Mr. Belling. Yes. In fact, even when you borrowed money, you
have requested that the funds be credited immediately to your bank
so that they could get the benefit of the Federal funds. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Rebgzg. We do that with every large deposit.
Mr. Belling. Sir?
Ml". Rebgzg. We do that with every large deposit. We try to get
immediate credit. We'i-e a small bank and if we, particularly if it is
over a weekend, we're earning interest on that money over the week-
end.
Mr. Belling. Besides the $6,000 which you withdrew from the
Florida Nixon for President account and deposited in the Thomas
H. Wakefield trustee account on April 15, 1969, did you withdraw
any other funds from that account?
10075
Mr. Rebozo. I drew quite a few funds during the time that that
account was open to pay campaign bills, rent for headquartei-s, sec-
retaries' salaries, stationery, rental of the desks and chairs, and lights
and water.
Mr. Bellino. After January 1, 1969, we're talking about not be-
fore.
Mr. Frates. Senator, again, we have gone into this at considerable
length. Senator Ervin made a ruling on it which I have asked the
reporter to transcribe, that it was — I don't want to summarize the
testimony up. I thought we had put this thing to rest and, again, Mr.
Bellino is now back into this field.
Mr. Dash. Senator, this dealt with an amount which Mr. Rebozo
has indicated, a fund that had originally been a campaign fund for
the President, that he said that he had put his own money into the
campaign and reimbureed it himself from this account, and it be-
came his own pereonal money.
Mr. Frates. It went to another account, Mr. Dash. I think you can
show the Senator two exhibits. It went to the Thomas Wakefield ac-
count and there, after that — that was in 1969.
Mr. Dash. Did that empty out that account?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Well, I guess that covers it.
Mr. Frates. And Senator Ervin has ruled that that precluded any
further discussions on that, that that was his money and that it
wasn't relevant under the mandate of the committee. I have asked
the reporter to type that up. Sam, did he give you that ruling?
Mr. Dash. I think that the ruling of Senator Ervin had to do with
any question with regard to the funds of the 1968 campaign that
could not be ruled out in the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Frates. He ruled that there be no further questions on that
amount specifically. I have asked the reporter to type it up.
Mr. Dash. He meant the questions on the amount to Mr. Kalm-
bach.
Mr. Armstrong. The question is not on the same account.
Mr. Frates. The question is exactly on the same account. I have
asked in addition to that. Senator
]Mr. Armstrong. Can I clarify the question?
Mr. Frates. I^t me finish, because I want the Senator to know
the background.
AYe have presented on this identical thing a motion to the full
committee to preclude and prohibit any production of these docu-
ments, which the full committee had not taken any action on. It
was not until yesterday at the start of these hearings, when Senator
Ervin clearly ruled this out.
Mr. Dash. Senator, there is a letter from Senator Ervm to Mr.
Fi-ates— actually, some attorney in Mr. Frates' office — as of March
12. in anticipation of the meeting actually saying that the records
dealing with this particular account are still required under the
subpena. AVhat Senator Ervin did rule on, is questions on this mat-
ter which are not linked to the 1972 campaign should not be asked.
Xow, I think Mr. Annstrong says, and perhaps Carmine did not
phrase his question correctly, we're not talking about this account
and the matter Senator Ervin ruled on. If we can get a clarification
10076
as to what we're talking about, maybe we don't have to get into this.
Mr. Armstrong. INIr. Bellino's (]uestion, I believe — and correct me,
Carmine, if I'm wrong — was based on whether or not there were any
other 2:)ayments made out of the Florida Nixon for President Com-
mittee account. The account Chairman Ervin ruled on was the
Thomas H. Wakefield account. The chairman did not rule on the
Florida Nixon for President Committee account. We're talking about
a different
Mr. Frates. The evidence is that it was closed out.
Mr. Armstrong. AVe're talking about those transactions which took
place after the election of 1968 and took place in 1969, and tliose are
the directions of Mr, Bellino's questions.
What we're attempting to find out is whether or not those moneys
were used for campaign purposes in 1972.
Senator Inouye. I think it is relevant if it is for that purpose.
Mr. Belling. The question is whether he had withdrawn any
other funds from that account since January 1969.
Senator Inouye. In 19^9 or thereafter.
Mr. Frates. The Florida Nixon for President account is what
you're talking about, not the Wakefield account?
Mr. Dash. Eight.
Mr. Frates. I have no objection.
Mr. Belling. If you had any other funds from the Florida Nixon
for President account in 1969, besides what you paid to Kalmbach
and what you gave to Wakefield, in the Wakefield Trust?
Mr. Rebozg. No, I only drew that back myself.
Mr. Belling. You say you iiave not withdrawn any. but you used
it for yourself?
Mr. Rebozg. Yes.
Mr. Belling. In other Avords, you have withdrawn money.
Mr. Frates. Just a minute, Bellino.
Excuse me, sir. We're getting right back into the situation where
it was transferred to the Wakefield account. You're talking about
the Florida for Nixon account,
Mr. Belling. Yes, the transactions.
Mr. Frates. That's right, Mr. Bellino, you're talking about what
Senator Ervin ruled you had no right to ask about.
Mr. Dash. Maybe Mr. Rebozo's answer will clarify that.
Mr. Frates. I recall Senator Ervin said that was his money and
that is the end of it,
Mr. Dash. I understand the question is excluding the amount that
we havo discussed that was transfen-ed to the Wakefield account,
was any of the money left in the Florida Nixon for President ac-
count ?
Mr. Frates. That's not Mr, Bellino's question,
Mr. Dash. I'll ask it.
Mr. Rebozg. No. That closed the account.
Mr. Dash. So that closed the account?
Mr. Rebozg. Yes.
Mr. Belling. You say the Florida for Nixon account was closed?
Mv. Rebozg. Yes.
Mr. Belling. When was that closed?
10077
Mr. Eebozo. You have the records there.
Mr. Belling. No, we don't liave the Florida for Nixon acconnt.
Mr. Rebozo. You had them for about a week.
Mr. Belling. We had the Thomas Wakefield acx;ount.
Mr. Dash. I'll still put the question. At the time you withdrew the
$6,000 from the Florida for Nixon account and transferred it to the
Wakefield account, did that close out the Florida for Nixon account?
Mr. Kehgzo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Just to clarify this, between the period January 1,
1069, and the time you closed out the Florida Nixon for President
account with the $6,000 check to the Thomas H. Wakefield special
account, between that time, were there any other checks written on
that account?
Ml-. Rebgzo. Well, the two that were mentioned yesterday, but I
did not withdraw anything to myself. There was the $4,500 or what-
ever
Mr. Akmstroxg. No, sir, I'm not referring to the Thomas H. Wake-
field account. I'm referring to the Florida Nixon for President ac-
count. Were there any checks between January 1, 1969, and, I guess
it's April 15, 1969, when the check was written to Thomas H. Wake-
iiold special account. I^etween those two dates, were any checks
written on the Florida Nixon for President Committee account? I'm
soi-ry we don't haye the records here.
Mr. Kep^ozo. I don't believe so, but I produced all those records
for you, and you can't i-emember them so I'm sure I can't.
Mr. Frates. I think the records show they were not, other than
those testified to yesterday.
Mr. Dash. Was the payment to Mr. Kalmbach by check?
Mr. Frati:s. $1,000, yes, in 1969.
:Mi'. Arm8thox(;. That refers to the Thomas H. Wakefield special
account. We're not asking any (piestions about that account. We're
asking (|uestions about the Florida Nixon for President Committee
account.
Ml'. Frates. He has answered that.
Mr. Armstrong. The reason I believe there is confusion — when
you're talking about the $1,000 check for Mr. Kalmbach, that was
not written on the Floiida Nixon for President Committee account;
that was written on the Thomas H. AVakefield account. We're asking
about the Florida Nixon for Pi-esident Committee account.
Mr. Dash. Have we gotten any lecord of the Florida Nixon for
President account ?
Mr. Belling. No, we ha\e not.
Mr. Frates. You cei'tainly have.
Mr. Belling. I'm saying we have not received the Florida Nixon
for l^iesident account
Mr. Frates. Fxcuse me, Fm— Ave try to cooperate, Senator, and
when Mr. I^ellino gets in, eveiything bogs clown. I don't want to be
personal, but I thought we had a working arrangement.
Mr. Dash. You do, as we'ie trying to identify.
Ml'. Frates, are you saying you showed the records to the staff?
Mr. Frates. Thev ha\e seen tliem.
10078
Mr. Dash. Do you Iiaxc any objection, since, we luive seen them
and our undeistandinjr this inornin<»; was that tliev woukl be able to
have access to them i
Mr. Fratks. Absolutely.
Mr. Kkbozo. SuT'ely.
Senator Inoiyk. AVhere are the records now?
Mr. Kkhozo. I think they're probably back in Miami.
Mr. Fratks. I do not haxc those Avith me, I don't think. But I'm
sure that they have a copy, and we made a copy for them, and it was
provided to the committee.
Mr. AiorsTi;()N<J^ Just to clarify the i-ecord. I l)elieve a^rain. sir, I
say respectfully, there is a confusion. The records you provided us
Avere for the Thomas H. AVakeHeld special account and Ave did not
receive any records from the Floiida Xixon for President account.
Mr. Fr.ATKs. Mr. Armstron<r. T disa^rree Avith you. If Ave haA^e not,
they Avill be available. I tliink I have a clear recollection of your
havin<r them, but Ave'll make them available.
Mr. Rkrozo. You received them, because otherwise, hoAv did you
knoAv about two checks that
Mr. Fkatks. That Avas on the Wakefield account.
Mr. Dash, (^ould you proceed. Carmine?
Mr. Bklltxo. Mr. Rebozo. you ha\'e on occasion i>aid miscellaneous
bills for 5()() Bay Lane. Avhich is President Nixon's ])roperty. ha\'e
you not ?
Mr. I\f;H()Z(). Yes, sir.
Mr. Belltxo. Are you reimbursed for those expenditures?
Mr. Rkhozo. Yes. I say "usually.'" I am not froin<r to nitpick Avith
the Presidejit. Tf there's somethin<r T think he should have. I mi<rht
just <io ahead and do it Avithout even him knoAvinjr about it. He just
doesn't concern himself at all with financial problems ever; ncA'cr
lias.
Mi-. Bkij.ixo. Were you reimbursed from the Floi-ida Xixon for
President account ?
Afr. Rkhozo. Xo. sir.
Mr. I^KKKixo. On September 0. IDGO. a certificate of deposit Avas
issued to I'resident Xixon or Pati-icia Xixon for $100,000 at 6^4 per-
cent. Can you tell us how i)ayinent Avas made foi' this $100,000 CD?
Mr. Hkiu»Z(). T am sure that oui- records would show it. We have
provided you Avith copies of all his CD's. Ajrain, it <rets to the point
where you i)ick out a date and an amount. I am sorry that Hujrhes
didn't <iive me the $11."').00() oi- $ST.OOO, or some other amount, because
eveiy time a $100,000 fiiruie shows up, it's immediately identified
with that.
In HH)!). you'll I'ecall — ^the i)iess has been full of it and your docu-
ments reflect that he had sold his interest in Fisher's Island, and he
i-eceived soinethinL'' like $;'),s().000 oi- $:V.)0,000 for that. lie had sold
his Xew "^'ork apaitment and he i-eceived somethin<r like $:U0,0()0
foT- that. So thei-e is no (piestion about his ability to havo ])urchased
a CD. Tie's so little concerned about his fimincial affairs that the
moneys Avere just sent in and placed in a checkincr account. I'm the
one Avho has transferred them to CD's .so he Avould be earniu"; some
10079
iiitorost oil thoni. And ho roceivos the saine interest that any other
customer comin'i;' into the bank would receive.
Mr. Heixixo. Xow. I nii<>:ht mention Avhen you said "vve have the
(^I)'s available. 1 haven't seen anythin<r on (^I)'s from your bank.
Mr. Fhatks. "Well. they'\e been fui-nished. We have them and they
clearly show all the various deposits. This is a matter that has been
discussed fully in the newspapers and if you don't have them, we
cei'tainly will <j:ive you them. They show the deposits. They show
where the money has come from. This has been in the New York
Times and the Washin<rton Post.
Mr. Belli xo. I was referring to all the CD's.
Mr. Rebozo. As a matter of fact, that same CD that you're referrino;
to has been renewed reoularly on maturity and it is still doAvn there.
Mr. Armstroxo. If I can just clarify for the record, I believe
there Avas an occasion on which members of the minority staff were
present and certificates were shown them, but members of the ma-
iority staff have never seen them. We're not informed by the minor-
ity staff if they've been available.
Mr. Frates. Mr. Armstrono:, to me. the committee is a committee —
])eriod. I don't break it up in majority and minority. Rut we went
over each deposit, each certificate, and I thought everyone was com-
pletely satisfied that there was no way that that money could be
I'elatecl to the Hu«rhes money.
Mr. Dash. You would have no objection to our seeing them?
Mr. Frates. Absolutely not. I'll be glad to show you each one of
lliem.
Mr. Bellixo. ]Mr. Rebozo, have you on occasion purchased a
cashier's check with currency?
]\Ir. Kebozo. Never — no, wait a minute.
Xo. T don't believe so. I Avas going to say my cashier's checks arc
generally small amounts. SlO. $15. $25 — something that I'm pur-
chasing that I don't want to purchase in my name, so I use the
''Gregory."' But no
Mr. Bellixo. Have you purchased any cashier's checks under some
other name ^
Ml". Kebozo. Xo. sir.
Mr. Belltxo. You have never used another name in purchasing a
cashier's checks
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, sir.
Senator Ixoiye. He has just testified that he used the name
''Givgory.''
Mr. Bellixo. Would vou use the name "Gregory''?
Ml-. Rebozo. Yes. I use that all the time. I thought that was as-
sumed.
Mi-. Belltxo. On A))ril 15. 1971. you dei)osited a cashier's check
amounting to $5().()00. The deposit ticket didn't show where it came
from or what it was for. Coidd you explain that transaction?
Mr. Rebozo. It wasn't cash.
Ml-. Bellix'o. Sir?
]\fr. Rebozo. It wasn't cash.
Mr. Bellix-o. It was a cashier's check.
10080
Mr. Rebozo. I deposited a cashier's check?
Mr. Bellixo. $50,000 on April 15, 1971.
Mr. Frates. Do you liave those work records?
Mr. Bellino. Yes. April 15 — ■ — •
Mr. Frates. Can yon show him the work records from the account
so maybe he can refresh his recollection?
Mr. Bellixo. I don't have his account. I have my notation, which
is the same thin<r.
Mr. Frates. You have the work records from the accounts, Mr.
Bellino.
Mr. Bellixo. This is not from the account, this is from his own
records.
Mr. Dasii. I think what our understandinfr was, was that if a
question was put by Mr. Bellino concerning: a specific amount, back
to a date — 1971 — in which he was <roin^ to have to refer to his re-
cords, if he couldn't recall, you would make a note of this and iro back
and look at your records
Mr. Rebozo. What was the date of that cashier's check?
Mr. Bellixo. April 15, 1971.
Mr. Rebozo. It sounds like income tax, doesn't it ?
Mr. Belltxo. This is my notation from his records.
Mr. Frates. Uh, what bank is that. Key Biscayne?
Mr. I^ELLTX'o. That's his bank. 134 — his Key Biscayne bank. I'm
just askin<>: if he can explain it. There's no other notation on your
other records ?
Mr. Rebozo. Mr. Bellino. you have orone through somethiuf; like
12 corporate and partnership and individual ownership accounts of
mine and all the checks and all the deposits and all the bank state-
ments and evei-ythin<x else. You know how many transactions jxo
throu<j:h my i)oi'sonal account. T have been meticulously careful since
I was examined by IRS about 10 years a<ro to have a separate
account for every entitv, and if T borrow monev, for example, from
one of my companies. T don't use that money for whatever purpose
it Avas. T run it thi-ouirh my personal account. Then, Avhen T pay it
back. I draw a check on that account and pay it back. Even the IRS,
when thev finished tlieir examination, complimented us on the book-
kee])in,ir that we have— that avo maintained.
Mr. Bellixo. Well, you've had many ti'ansactions — I Avas just
askinjr to see if you mifrht recall.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. T have had many of them; $50,000 Avas somethino;
deposited in my account ?
Mi-. I^elijxo. If vou can't i-ecall uoav
Mr. Dash. T don't Avant Mr. Rebozo to <ruess on a (juestion of this
nature. I think. Seiuitor. that if a ((uestion is put to him and he doesn't
haA-e the record Avith him here, T think Mr. Frates indicated this
morniuir that avc could i)ut that aside and he could «rive us the an-
sAver, and at anothei- time it could be made part of the record.
Mr. Frates. Ricfht.
Mr. Belltxo. Mr. Rebozo, have you. since January 1, 1969, had
anv transactions Avitli brokerage firms other than Walston Co. and
liache & Co. ?
10081
Mr. Rebozo. Probably. They were my principal ones. I am not
that h'lg a stock dealer. But they both, the manatjers of each one of
those firms, liave accounts at the bank and on occasion, there Avould
be someone else.
Mr. B?:llixo. Who would those banks be?
Mr, Eebozo. In the bank dealings, we deal with quite a few. We
buy Government bonds, and agencies and industrials and such. So
T do have dealin<rs with a number of brokerage firms.
Mr. Bellixo. I'm talkintj about your own personal
Mr. Rebozo. Me personally, I can't recall one instance where I
personally have purchased any stocks or bonds through anyone
othei- tlian Bache & AValston,
Ml-, Bellixo. It is possible that you might have but you can't
recall, maybe
Mr. Rebozo. Anything is possible, but I seriously doubt it. If you
have something you particularly want to ask me about, ask me and
I'll toll you if I know.
Mr. Bellixo. Do vou recall Becker & Co. — any transactions with
them?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, Ave did have dealings with Becker & Co. Was that
me personally, or was that the bank?
Mr. Bellixo. That was your purchase, to my recollection.
Mr. Frates. Do you have a record?
Mr. Bellixo. T don't have it. I have that in the office.
Mr. Rebozo. These brokerage firms are constantly calling us for
business and we must deal with a half dozen of them. But generally,
if I want to buy something, I'll just tell one of the men to order
•zuch and such.
But I don't believe I have ever personally.
.Mr. Bellixo. Becker & Co. might be the bank, but how about
Val Stover and Companv?
Mr, Rebozo. Who?
Ml-. Bellixo. Val Stover.
^{v. Rebozo. To my recollection, I've never heard of it,
Mr. Bellixo. V-a-1 S-t-o-v-e-r.
Mr. Rebozo. I've never heard of them before.
:Mi-. Bellixo. Do you have any brokerage accounts in someone
else's name?
Ml-. Rebozo. All of my stock, as I've testified repeatedly, is pur-
(-hased in my sister's name, Anita Reynolds. I think for the benefit
of the Senator. I probably oug^it to explain that, too.
Some few vears ago. I bought 400 share ^ of Pan Am stock at $26,
Then it went down to $22 and I bought 400 more. Then, through
the grapevine. I got word that there was some word out ih^i I knew
sometliiniT about l^an Am. Well, what has happened sincB then,
everybody knows, but it finally got down to $15 and I sold it.
But the onlv thing that I could determine was that perhaps some
irirl in the offic(> typing up an order or a certificate or something
thought, being a friend of the President. Avhy, he has told them
they're about to get a neAv line or something that never even occurred
to me when T ordered it.
10082
So ever since that date, I buy stocks and bonds in the name of my
sister. Anita, and we have a bona fide Icirfil document filed Avith the
aj)piopriate authorities. I pay tlie taxes on the income from it or the
sale and so on, and she doesn't have to declare it at all. But that is
done for the very same reason.
Mr. Bellixo. Do you always make payment by personal check?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bellixo. On September 1, 1970, you list as an asset on your
financial statement Maison Neuve Investments, $59,914.38.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes?
Mr. Bellixo. Could you tell us what that is?
Mr. Reiu)Z(). Sui-ely. That's a Canadian investment firm that
specializes in shopping centers and when I started Jiettinc; so much
heat about the Cuban shoppino; center that we built and the SBA
iniaranteeinir the loans and so on, I just decided to tret out of it and
sold them. I have a partner in that and that fisure represents half
of the mort<T:a<!^e that they owe us.
Mr. Bellixo. What shoppinc; center was this?
Mr. Rebozo. That's the Central (^onmiercial Cubano.
Mr. Bellixo. From January 1969 to December 31, 1972, you were
paid — you received various payments from Fisher Island, or I
should say you paid a total of $274,000 to Fisher Island, Inc. AVere
these |)ayments all for the purchase of stock on your behalf and on
behalf of others?
Mr. Rebozo. They were all on behalf of me. That's the annual
preemptive rij2:hts issue. I am sure you must have seen documentation
on that, because you saw the Fisher Island books. The way that's
operated, every year Ave have to make up a bud<ret. There are 3 mil-
lion-some-odd shares, and all the shares have always sold for $1 a
share. That's our means of meeting the budiret — the interest on the
morto:a«]:e. $90,000 a year or so in taxes, the legal expenses, and other
expenses that would normally <ro with that type of investment.
Mr. Bellixo. Have you received anv funds from Fisher's Island,
over $5,000. since Janu'ai-y 1. 1909?
Mr. Rebozo. Not before — not since, nor before.
Mr. Bellixo. Wlint Avas the reason for the payment of $10,000
driven to you in May 1971?
Mr. Rebozo. From Fisher's Island?
Mr. Bellixo. Yes.
Mr. I^EBozo. I don't knoAv. At one time, the auditors found that
there had been a mistake, that they had misfiiriirod mv preemptive
rinfhts and I had picked uj) more stock than I was entitled to. That
may be the case, so I returned the stock and they reimbursed me.
That could be it.
Mr. l^ELLixo. Is the Central Commercial Cubano the same as CCC
Laundry?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, CCC Laundry is in that complex.
Ml-. Bellixo. Two separate entities?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Bellixo. Xow, in 1970, vou received from CCC— Avould that
be the laundry?— a total of $74"500.
10083
Mr. Rebozo. I think that probably was some of the proceeds of the
sale, or the property across the sti-eet, which Ave owned and sold. We
were going to build an apartment building there, had the plans
draAvn. Then, when everything started, you know, I just decided to
get out of a lot of these things and we sold that property, too ; so it
would be from one or the other of those.
Mv. Belltxo. Is this the property on which your tax returns, the
gross, had come to $7,352, and had a loss of $22,178 ? Is that the same
property ?
Mr. Rebozo. What year was this ? When Avas this ?
Mr. Bellixo. 1970.
Mr. Rebozo. 1970. and it's identified — Ave filed separate returns on
CCC. That Avould clarify what that was for if it's for that. But it
could very easily be — and again, that's the sort of thing that the
President is plagued Avith a little bit right now. There are — you knoAv,
there's nothing wrong Avith avoiding taxes so long as you don't evade
them, and I'm certainly not going to do that. But probably, that
Avas depreciation on the building as opposed to income from rents.
It offset it. I couldn't tell you, but you have seen all those records
and you probably could put it together better yourself.
]Mr. Belling. We haven't seen the records of the company. We've
seen just your records. This is the only information Ave could get out
of your records.
XoAv, $74,500 that you received from CCC, did you say that Avas
from the sale of the land or something? I didn't quite get it.
]Mr. Rebozo. Xo, if it Avas that large amount, it had to be from the
sale of the shopping center.
Mr. Bellixo. That is AA'hat that Avould be?
Mr. Rebozo. I can provide you Avith that date and the closing
statement and all other materials necessary to satisfy you.
:Mr. Bellixo. Xoav, your records reflect that you exchanged checks
Avith George Smathers on Iaa'o occasions during the period from Jan-
uary 1. 1969, to December 31, 1972. It Avas $20,500 on one occasion—
you' have it going in and out of your accounts — and you have a $36,-
'725.63 on another occasion, Avhere you received it on August 28 and
paid back September 11. Have you had any other financial trans-
actions AA'ith Mr. Smathers?
Mr. Rebozo. I have had a number of them. I have knoAvn him since
the fourth grade.
Mr. Bellixo. I'm talking about 1969 on.
Mr. Rebozo. He lives on Key Biscay ne. He Avas associated Avith us
oriirinallv in Fisher Island and got out. Then he Avas Avith me on the
Adams Key sale, Avhich I'm sure you've got recorded there. I don't
knoAv if Ave've had any other joint dealing or not. but the fact that
you have got those records, in and out, those checks in and out, is
'further evidence of Avhat I just said, that Ave run everything through
that account so the records are complete and clear.
Mr. Belling. Did you borrow any money from him ?
Mr. Rebozo. Fi'om Smathers? Yes.
;Mr. Bellixo. Hoav much did you borroAV during this period of time
that Ave're talkinf; about?
10O84
Mr. R?:bozo. Januarv 1, 1069? No, I don't think I ever borrowed
from him in that period of time.
j\Ir. Bei.mxo. Your tax return shows you paid him $13,875 in in-
terest in 1970.
Mr. Rebozo. What tliat could very easily be was the result of
horrowinos much earlier. I had borrowed $25,000 from him back
about 1959 or so to invest in a company and paid him back about
this time. So that's probably what that is.
Mr. Bellino. How did you pay him back ?
Mr. Rebozo. I paid him — what I did in this instance, T believe this
is the oidy instance where T borrowed that kind of money from him.
I transferred some real estate I owned to him.
Mr. Relltxo. And liow much was involved? Did you say that?
How much did you borrow ?
Mr. Rebozo. As I recall, it was valued at something; like $32,000.
How much interest did T show paving?
Mr. Belltno. $13,875.
Mr. Rebozo. $13,000. Well, I could have — and it was in and out,
you say?
Mr. Bellixo. No, not the interest ; no. This is on your tax return.
Mr, Rebozo. Well, you wouldn't know whether it was in and out
or not, if it was just on a tax return?
Mr. Bellixo. No, this Avas not in and out. I don't see it at all on
your books.
Mr. Rebozo. I believe that that's Avhat it had to be. I believe it had
to be the transfer of this property, and it was computed on value at
the time.
Again, it's not necessary to coniecture on this. T can provide you
with the documents, because the files are complete on this. I'm sure
we might save a little time by it. But give me those dates and that
amount again.
Mr. Bellixo. That Avas the 1970 tax return— $13,875.
In the purchase of any stock you've purchased from Key Biscayne
Bank or Fisher Island, have you made payment by any other Avay,
other tlian through your checking account — the 134 checking account?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir, you've seen all of those checks, I'm sure. You'll
find canceled checks for that.
Mr. Bellixo. You haven't purchased any otlier stock other than
Avhat's shown through your record?
Mr. Rebozo. No. No, you'A^e seen tliose checks, and you'll find that
they correspond right witli the preemptive stock issue dates.
Mr. Bellixo. On your financial statements, you include ahvays an
item, notes pavable to others, unsecured. From 1969 on, thev range
from $108,350' to $171,215. What's the source of that information?
Do you have some records?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I have complete records on that. I Avas formerly
in tlie finance busiiu'ss Avliere you borrow money from banks, going
back to 1949 and 1950. Numbeis of my friends Avould ask if they
could invest. I Avas advised that the best Avay to do it was to just issue
notes witli geiierous interest and not get involved with the possibility
that an investment may turn sour and I could be accused of causing
10086
problems. So I did that and got in certain sums of money from a
variety of people, and every 6 months, they <>et their interest check.
Xow, when I sold the business, I contacted them all. I wanted to
pay it off. and every one of them asked me if I could invest it in
somethinjr else for them. I said: "Well. I'm investing all the time;
if you want to continue the same procedure, we'll do it, and I don't
commingle funds of any kinds."
So for all these years I have paid them, most of them have all their
money back and still getting interest. Occasionally, I will get a letter
from one of them asking if I can take more deposits. But I have the
copies of all tliose notes and names of all of them, and it goes way,
way back.
Mr. Relltxo. Your financial statement
INIr. Frates. Excuse me. Mr. Rellino. Senator, I think you probably
know that the IKS has conducted an initial investigation, 14 weeks
Avith four agents, and have gone over every one of these records in
some detail — in complete detail. I understand now that you have
those records available.
INIr. Dasti. Xot those from the IRS.
]\Ir. Frates. We have been told by the IRS
INIr. Dash. The IRS has taken it. There was a resolution passed
by the Senate at the request of our committee authorizing us, but
I think the IRS at this point are awaiting a meeting between the
chairman and the vice chaii'man before
INIr. Frates. We have been informed directly by the agent in charge
that they have found no improprieties, nothing illegal in it. The
IRS has now come back. There was an exchange and there have
been no further investigations. I just wanted the Senator to know
that.
Senator Inouye. But we have not received those records yet?
Mr. Dash. Xo, avc have not yet. They have asked for a meeting of
the chairman and the vice chairman to determine whether or not
certain regulations that they have permit them to show the records.
Mr. Rebozo. I might say additionally that we have had swarms of
so-called investigative reporters that have gone through anything I
ever did. Xewsday had six men there for 6 months, spent a quarter
of a million dollars. They went through everything in the courthouse.
They talked — in their report, in their story they said they talked to
over 400 people.
The \ew Yoik Times about 8 or 4 weeks ago. said they had con-
ducted theii- investigation and they had a crew down for 30 days.
They inspected everything and found no wrongdoing. The story
was' back on page 43, so everybody didn't read it. But the attacks
previously wei-e on page 1.
I just can't begin to tell you how anxious I am to bring this thing
to a close, because there is no Avay you would believe the harm that's
done me and my business in my community where I have lived 55
years.
Mr. Dash. I think the Senator can appreciate this. That was the
purpose of trying to make these arrangements, so we can get an
agreement between what staff wants to do, whether there was any
harm or harassment. Of course, you and ]Mr. Frates know that any
investigation has an impact, and this is an unfortunate thing.
10086
Mr. JivA^ozo. I'm sure. "Mr. Dash, tliat yon foel that way. and I
know from wliat I know abont tlio Senators on tlie connnittee, that
thoy share that viewpoint. T wish T conkl say as nuich for some of
yonr investigators.
IMr. Dash. The investigators — T tliink the record slionld show that
our investi<rators have the responsibility of trying- to do as auf^res-
sive, but legal a job as possible and o:et as many facts as they can.
"We cannot criticize investio:ators for bein<i; afrefressive. We certainly
can keep our investi«rators within the bounds of law and ask them
not to harass.
INIr. Rkbozo. I think they can temper afrgressiveness with reason-
ableness. T haven't found any semblance of that. Even the First
National Bank, which is tiie largest bank in the State, told us the
subpena served was so broad it would take them months to comply.
City Xational said they weren't going to the expense of that. If you
wanted it done, you Avould have to pay for it.
It has been like this in all these banks. T do a lot of business with
banks, and it has been impairing — I'm afraid it's going to impair
my banking relationship with people that I have enjoyed a good
relationship with before. Xobody wants to be in partnership or doing
business with somebody if every few weeks they're going to have to
answer subpenas that ask them to sweep out the cellai-.
Now, the Xewsday people, in their investigation, went back so far
that someone in the courthouse told me that the records were so old
that they had to go back to the warehouse and dig out records for
them.
Mr. Frates. Mr. Eebozo. INIr. Dash. Senator. I think the Senator
in his military career recalls that with a statement like that, you send
him to the chaplain. I suggest that while this is interesting to the
Senator, we get on with the intei'rogation on the facts.
IVIr. Belt.ixo. Mr. Rcbozo, in vour financial statement of Septem-
ber 1, 1070, there is a loan liability of $100,000 owed to the Key
Biscayne Bank. I don't find that in your receipts. The proceeds have
been taken by cashiei's check and put somewhere else. Do you recall
that?
Mr. Rebozo. That would be news to me if that's the case, because
the bookkeeper generally puts everything in my personal account and
then pays it out of tliere. I believe if you examine it carefully, you'll
probably find that that was done, and if it wasn't it's a very simple
matter to provide that information.
Mr. Dastf. For these purposes, we're noting things that we're going
to get additional i-ecords to show.
:Mr. Rebozo. What Avas that date?
Mr. Dash. There was a thing Mr. Frates indicated he wanted to
do to clear this up once and for all. If there was a questionable
amount, write it down and ixet it for the record.
Mr. Eebozo. What was that date?
Mr. Beleixo. That was the 1070 financial statement.
Mr. Rebozo. Aiul it said what?
^fr. Beeeixo. It shows a liability of $100,000. but I don't find the
receipt of it anywliei-e before the date of that statement, but you did
pay it back. So you must have done it — if it didn't go into your 134
account, what account did it go into?
10087
INIv. Rerozo. T prol)nbly liaven't paid it back.
Mr. Belling. No, this has beoii paid back.
Mv. PIRATES. Ho said it has boon paid back.
]Mr. Rebozo. Well, it Avas probably something borrowed in 1969,
and tliat's why it apj^earod
Ml'. l^ELi,ixo. It couhl liavo been borrowed in 1960 and paid later
on, but I don't find it even in 1909 or 1970, unless it was 1968. But I
don't think so.
Mr. Rebozo. I have always borrowed from our bank.
Mr. AR:NrsTR0XG. For the record, INIr. Rebozo, it didn't show in the
]969 financial statement. That's why Mr. Bellino raised it.
INIr. Rebozo. T see. Then it has to be on the 1970, I'm sure.
Mr. Bellixo. In 1969, you had a balance of $64,000. In 1970, it's
$100,000. The balance would show.
INIr. Rebozo. You see, the balances I show in my accounts are the
balances as of September 1 of each year. I, sometime back, adopted
the procedure of picking one day to make out all my financial state-
ments for the various banks so as not to have to fool with it too often.
INIr. Bellixo. Mr. Rebozo, have you invested any funds in Water
Pollution Control, Inc.?
Mr. Rebozo. In the Water Pollution Control Act?
]Mr. Bellixo. Water Pollution Control, Inc.
IMr. Rebozo. Not to my knowledge. I don't even know what it is.
INIr. Bellixo. Your friend, I believe Jake Jernigan
Mv. Rebozo. No, I'm not in that. I know Jake. He's a fine fellow.
]Mr. Bellixo. Has he ever fronted for you with any financial trans-
action ?
Mr. Rebozo. INIr. Bellino, the word "front" annoys me, very ob-
viously, because I saw once before, the term you used was "straw
man" — something like that. He has not fronted for me or been a
straw man for me. I have known him for about 20 years. He's a nice
fellow. He tries hard. He chases rainbows a lot, and I have never
invested in that company, though I would see nothing wrong with it
if I did.
INIr. Bellixo. Have you had any other financial transactions with
W. A. Baraket besides the $100,000 that you borrowed from him?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Bellixo. I would like to get on the record the transaction you
had with Dick Danner. Will you tell us about that $1,000 transaction
with him and how it arose?
INIr. Rebozo. ^Nlr. Bellino, I explained that to you before as best I
could recall. It seems to me, and I don't know whether — I think that
I borrowed $1,000 from him and then sent him a check for it, and
you ran across that canceled check when you had my books pulled.
I have yet to even look at any of those checks. My bookkeeper got
them together when I gave them to you before. I haven't looked at
them yet because I know there is nothing there.
]Mr. Bellixo. You say you borrowed $1,000 from him?
jNIr. Rebozo. I am inclined to think that that is what I did when
I was in Las Vegas. He may have borrowed $1,000 from me. I really
don't even remember which it was. Was there a check of mine written
to him for $1,000?
]Mr. Bellixo. That's right.
31-889 O - 74 - 27
10088
I\fr. Eebozo. "Well, then, that's what it was.
]\rr. Bklltxo. Did lie pay you back imtnodiatoly ?
Mr. Eebozo. Xo, I was paying liini back.
Mv. Bkijjxo. Or did you pay him back?
INfr. Rehozo, Sure.
Mr. Bi:llixo. That is — 1 don't quite understand it. The record
sliows you <xave him a check on May W for $l,()r)().
Senator Ixouye. INIr. Rebozo has responded tliat lie had borrowed
from Dick Dannei-. This was repayment of tlie loan.
]\rr. Beleixo. And the next day, on INfay 20, you deposited the
$1,000 and I've been tryino; to find out whether that was cash, because
it doesn't show.
Ml-. Rehozo. As you'll recall, the question was brouo;ht up before
and the deposit slip said, "exchan<!:e."
]Mr. Beleixo. Xo, it didn't say anythino;.
]Mr. Rerozo. Something said "exchan<2;e." T recall us discussing it.
So when you have an exchange, you have an in and out, wdiatever it
was. Wliat vear was that?
Mr. Beeeixo. That's the same, 1969.
INIr. Rebozo. T don't remember what it was. But T can tell you that
it was not a payoff or anything. It was a straight, honest transaction
between two old friends.
Senator Txouye. Do you want to take a shoi't break?
Mr. Fr.\tes. Yes. sir. Before that, Mr. Bellino has indicated, along
with our agi-eement. several documents, and if we can have him
write those down, or Mr. Armstrong, so we can check them so there'll
be no misunderstanding
INIr. SniuLTz. Senator, before we bieak, may I speak to an issue
that was raised before?
Senator Txouye. Go right ahead.
]Mr. ScTiuETz. On January IT, Mr. Thompson and T interviewed
IMr. Rebozo in ]\riami. At that time, ]\[r. Frates displayed to us copies
of certificates of deposit Avhich, according to my writeup. originated
on September 9, 1969. This memo was provided to ^Nlarc Lackritz, so
he does have the date.
We did not make any notes nor did we bring any copies of those
certificates. My reason was T saw no significance to the 1972 Presi-
dential campaigiE So the record is correct, he did display them to
us. T made no notes.
Mr. TiioMPsox. T suppose they're still available.
]N[r. Frates. Yes, they are, OIVs of the President and INIrs. Nixon.
]\rr. Dasit. If the staff feels it's important to look at it, he raises
no objection to pi-oducing them.
Mr. S( iii'ETz. Tf Mai-c does not have copies of the memo, I have it
here and he's welcome to it.
^Fr. LACKRrrz. T verify the fact that you ]>rovided me with a copy
of the memo of your interview. T believe the ])oint was only raised
that we had no copies of the certificates of deposit and were pro-
vided no copies. T tliink Ave clarified that for the record.
]\rr. Dash. You're right, Avhen you see any member of the staff of
our committee, you have the right to expect you're talking to the
whole conunittee. I don't think it's an issue
10089
Mr. Frates. I don't wjint to eroate an issue.
jNTi'. Dash. It's not an issue. Sometimes one staff may see some
significance that another doesn't and it falls in the crack, that's all.
Senator Ixouyk. Do any of the staff wish to speak before we take
a recess?
INIr. Frates. One other thin<r, since this is your first time in these
hearinirs. Fiom the inception of the "Wateroate investirration, we have
tried completely to coopei-ate. We have had some disagreements and
I think we resolved that this morning between the investigative staff
and ourselves. They felt they were entitled to examine all personal
records of all corporations fi'om 1969 right on through. I think we
haA"e resolved that situation now.
I also assured these people that from my examination, we are not
trying to conceal any document, withhold any document that is rele-
A^ant to the investigation of this committee. This is the approach that
we have tried to adopt in these examinations.
Mr. Dash. We did agree as of this morning that — I think you
said you do have them here, the bank statements?
Mr. Frates. I have this whole thing of the checks and the bank
statements. I don't think they'i-e through 1973. Again, Senator, this
is Mr. Rebozo's ])ersonal checks, which Mr. Bellino has seen, from
December 1969. He spent several days in our office examining them.
T just want you to know.
Mr. Dash.' They're here. I think he said he didn't have to follow
the checks with checks, but he was interested in bank statements.
Mr. Frates. T told that to my client and he doesn't think they have
the right, but he has agreed. I think this is one of the matters.
]Mr. Dash. And you have copies through 1973?
INIr. Frates. June of 1973.
Mv. Rebozo. I have no objection to showing appropriate persons
representatives of this committee anything and everything that I
have of recoid. I do strongly object to their photographing any-
thing for very, very impoitant reasons. There have been ]ust entirely
too many leaks. I don't want to see a copy of my check up here in
some magazine or newspaper with a distorted story saying what it
was for. It was embarrassing to me when they singled out some people
I've made checks to and then went and called on them as though I
were a ci'iminal.
Mr. Dasii. Carmine, so we can save time, would you be in a posi-
tion to go through those statements if we don't have copies of them,
while they're here?
Mr. Bellixo. I would like to have them, because from time to
time
]Mr. Dash. This can be off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Senator Txouye. We'll take a brief recess.
[A brief recess was taken.]
^Ir. Lackritz. ]Mr. Rebozo, we would like to get to the questions
of the circumstances surrounding your decision to return the money
in the spring of 1973. As I recall your testimony, you testified that
you were contacted bv the IRS on the matter in March or April of
1973. Is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
10090
Mr. Lackritz. I believe yon told iis also earlier in yonr testimony
that you fijst talked to the President about the money in March or
April of 197;5. Is that correct?
Mr. K?:bozo. Xo. I had first talked to him earlier about having the
money, but about retuiiiing it then.
Mr. Lackritz. When did you first talk to him about having the
money ?
Mr. Eebozo. I was asked that question before and couldn't recall. I
did it on some occasion. I beileve it was at Key Biscayne.
Again, you know, ho has had so many bombshells for so long, I usu-
ally wait if I have anything to tell him to seek a time when it's a re-
laxed atmosphere, and so foith.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you tell the President that you had the money
prior to the time that you were contacted by the IRS ?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes.
jNIi". Lackritz. At the time you told the President that you had tlie
money, did you tell tlio President who had delivered the money to
you?'
Mr. Rkbozo. Yes.
Ml'. Lackritz. So you told him, in fact, that ISIr. Danner had deliv-
ered it to you ?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. At that time, he offered you no advice about Avhether
or not to return the money, is that correct?
ISfr. Rebozo. Xo — yes, that's correct.
]\Ir. Lackritz. Xow. you say you subsequently had another discus-
sion with the President about the money, is that correct?
INIr. Rebozo. As I have indicated, yes.
INIr. Lackritz. OK. Xow, was that second discussion with the
President about the money prior to the time you were contacted by
the IRS. oi- subsequent to the time you were contacted by the IRS?
Mr. Rebozo. I think it was about the same time, and T think that
perhaps I ouglit to correct a misunderstanding 1 may have made to
Senator "Weicker earlier, because I was asked about Ehrlichman and
I do recall tliat Ehi'lichman did mention about the IRS to me. I
didn't i-ocall any specific convei'sation, but now I do I'emember that
he had said something about the IRS was going to check this out.
It was about that same time frame.
INfr. Lackritz. Do you recall Mr. Ehrlichman getting in touch
with you in Maich or April?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes, and I don't know whether he told me that after
T had received the call from the Xevada IRS or before. That part
T can't pi)i down, but I do remember him saying that it was going to
be investigated, or that I was going to be investigated. So it must
have been — well, no, it coukhrt have been after, because again Ehr-
lichman left there in April and that's about the time all this was
ha]>i')ening.
Mr. Lackritz. AVell. had you talked to the President about whether
or not you should return the money prior to the time that ]\Ir. Ehr-
lichman adA-ised you that you were going to be talked to by the IRS?
Mr. Rebozo. I would say about the same time. ]n'obably.
INIr. Lackritz. Wei], which came first?
10091
INIr. Eebozo. As I say, I don't know, and it's not like you make
appointments to g;o see sometliin<i: about sometliin^. When I go to the
AATiite House, T oenorally — I don't botlier tlie President, I go around
and visit the different ])eople I know and say liello. During tliese
visits, discussions on all topics of moment at the time naturally come
up, particularly if they involve me.
JMr. Lackritz. Well, was the fact that the IRS contacted you a
factor in your deciding to return the money?
INIr, Rebozo. I think so. I think that had something to do with it.
ISIr. Lackritz. So in other words, you had not made the decision
to return the money prior to the time that the IRS contacted you?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo; as I indicated previously, I had hoped that maybe
this Avhole situation would clear up — that is, the situation between
JNIr. Lackritz. I understand that. Mv. Rebozo.
INIr. Rebozo [continuing]. Between Hughes and jNIaheu, but that
hope diminished witli time, and I sought counsel with several people,
as I've indicated, and the sort of unanimous conclusion was, i-eturn it.
Mr. Lackritz. I understand that, but as I also understand your
testimony, the fact that you were contacted by the IRS played some
part in your decision to return the money?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm sure it had some effect on it; yes.
INIr. Lackritz. So you did not decide
Mr. Rebozo. Even though tlie IRS told me that they weren't check-
ing me at all.
Let me say tliis about that particular meeting, because it may be
relevant. They came over to see me at Key Biscayne, these two agents
whose names are Keeney and Skelton — came to see me and they told
me that tliey were checking the tax returns of whomever it Avas —
whether it was Dannei', Maheu, Hughes, or what — and tliey would
like to ask me some questions. So they went on with a few questions.
Then thev asked me if Danner gave me anv monev or did he give
me $100,000. I said "ves." Tliey said, ''What did you do with it?"
Well, when I said, ''I've still got it,'' they did a doubletake, because
that was not expected.
So he said, "What Ave're here for is to try to locate $1 million."
They said, "We've searched all over; there's a million that Ave feel,
])erhaps, taxes have not been paid on and this is the first amount
that avc'a'c been able to locate.''
Then two or three times during the discussion, thev told me that
they Avanted to make it very clear that I'm not under investigation and
so on. At one point, they asked me: "Who do you think the money
belongs to?" I said, "At this stage, I don't have any idea. I knoAV
it doesn't belong to me."
Then I proceeded to get Danner to take it back or get his people
to tnke it back.
]Mr. Lackritz. I see. So in other Avords, your efforts to contact
Danner to ha\'e liim take it back Avere not until after you met Avith
the IRS?
Mr. Rebozo. I tliink that's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. So then it would have had to be after your first
interview Avith the IRS?
]Mr. Rebozo. I believe that's correct.
10092
INIr. Lackritz. I see. So as T nndorstand it, you met with the IRS
shortly aftoi- the time you Avere first contacted by them, is that correct?
Mr. Rkhozo. Yes, sir. They came to see me.
INIr. Lackritz. T take it at tliis time, you were not represented by
counsel wheji you talked to the IRS?
^Ir. Rerozo. Xo.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Following your meetin": with the IRS. what was
the next thine; you did with respect to tryin<r to return the money?
]Mr. Rkbozo. Well, that's when T spoke to the various people that
I indicated to <ret their iud<;ment on it, because by then, T was fairly
well convinced that the money could not be used for any campaign
purposes.
I thoup:ht of all kinds of thinjxs. I thoutrht of ^ivinp half of it to
the Democratic Pai-ty and half to the Republican. T thoup:ht of all
kinds of thinirs just to see A^hat I could do to dispose of it. AAHieTi I
talked to the few lawyers that I mentioned, why, it Avas pretty unan-
imous that I should return it.
Mr. Lackritz. All ri^ht. After you talked to the IRS, who Avas
the first laAA-yer? That AA-as Mr. Gi'iffin, I take it, that you spoke to
about it?
jNfr. Rebozo. I think so.
INfr. Lackritz. And AA'hat did ^Nfr. Griffin advise you to do Avith
the money?
INIr. Rebozo. Turn it back.
ISIr. Lackritz. Did you ask INIr. Griffin if he Avould take the money
back for you ?
]\rr. Ri:bozo. Xo, not then. That iust happened later, because I
Avas Avorkino: AA'ith ^Nlr. Gemmill, and he AA^as
Mr. Lackritz. I understand, but at that time
INIr. Frates. Let him finish, please,
INIr. Lackritz. Fxcuse me.
INIr. Rebozo. Xo, it never occurred to me to iuA'olve Griffin and
I'm A'ery sorry I did, uoav, l^ecause he had nothino; to do Avith this,
just that one act for a friend, and didn't eA'en let his principal client,
AA'ho is Abplanalp, knoAA' he Avas doino; it. He had to read it in the
paper and it Avas rather embarrassino- for him. But Griffin researched
some laAv on it and said that that Avas the best thinp; to do.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And this Avas A^ery shortly after your meeting
Avith the IRS, as I understand it?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. As I also understand your testimony, you at that
time did not ask Mr. Griffin himself to take the money back to Mr.
Danner?
INIr. Rebozo. Xo; that came about as the result of takin^: the money
to Philadelphia, thinking that Ave Avould meet Avith Chester DaAns
there and giA-e it to him, and then finding out that Davis Avasn't
CA'en theie or in Xcav York, and Avouldn't be foi- a couple of days.
INfr. Lackritz. OK.
Mr. Rei?ozo. So that's Avhen I asked Griffin if he Avould hold the
money, since he lived in XeAV Yoi-k, since he's director of a bank,
and then put it in the vault, and since he kncAv the details of it. So
he took the money and then they made their arrangements after that
to turn it OA'er.
10093
Mr. Lackritz. Then g:oiu^ back to this meeting; shortly after the
IRS interview, did Mr. Griffin give you any advice that you should
have an independent thii-d party arrange to return the money?
INIr. Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Now following the meeting with Griffin,
did you contact any other attorneys in ]\Iay?
Mr. Rebozo. I said that I had talked with several friends. T talked
with my own attorney; I talked with my accountant.
Mr. Frates. Wakefield.
Mr. Lackritz. Your attorneys?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Yes; I'm sorry, my house attorney.
Mv. Armstroxg. Are you referring to INIr. Davis when you say
your accountant?
]Mr. Rebozo. That's Warren Davis.
Mr. Lackritz. Did ]Mr. Gemmill advise you to arrange to return
the money through an independent third party?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, he knew that I was trying to return it to Danner,
but Danner, for some reason, either didn't Avant to accept it or didn't
know what to do, or just didn't bother, I don't know what. So then,
I think. I had Gemmill get hold of Chester Davis, because I knew that
he was their top counselor, and arrange to give it to him.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Xow, at your first meeting with Mr.
Gemmill, did you
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. Senator. Again, I don't want to object,
but we went through this thing this morning in some detail.
jNIr. Dash. I know Ave did. I think Senator Weicker started to ask
questions in this area. I Avasn't sure he would come back. But it was
my understanding that Ave shouldn't repeat questions
]Mr. Frates. It seems to me Ave're repeating a majority. I'm not
objecting, but
^Ir. Dash. I think my understanding was that you were willing to
explore the record further, but not repeat questions.
Mr. Lackritz. We're just trying to lay a foundation for a subse-
quent meeting that I didn't think Ave had gotten into prior to this
time.
Senator Weicker. In any event, I agree with him. So far, every-
thing I have heard Ave've gone over. Let's get it going.
]Mr. Dash. One way to expedite it — you Avouldn't object to some
leading questions?
INIr. Frates. Of course not. I Avould prefer them.
Mr. Armstrong. For the recoixl. I think it's Avorthy of note that
one of the reasons wliy some of the questions have been repeated is it
giA^es Mr. Rebozo an additional opportunity to reflect. As I pointed
out Avhen he returned to the room, during the lunch period, he rec-
ollected a meeting Avith Mr. Ehrlichman.
Senator Weicker. At any rate, let's get going.
]Mr, Lackritz. You testified previously that you contacted Mr.
Danner on numerous occasions after your contact Avith the IRS. Did
vou ever contact ]\Ir. Danner and ask him to come to Washington in
May of 1973?
]Mr. Rebozo. I met him in there, and I knoAV the date because I
read about it, and that storv Avas totallv distorted also. I don't knoAV
10094
if I asked him to come oi- if lie was in Washington on other business,
but T did see liim tliere.
Mr. Lackritz. You don't recall asking ISIr. Danner to come to
Washington ?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't.
INIr. Lackritz. Wiere did you meet ISfr. Danner in AVashington?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe we both stayed at the ^Madison.
INIr. Lackritz. Yon both stayed at the ]Madison?
INfr. Rebozo. I think there was some function going on. There was
some reason for being thei-e at that time, but I don't recall what it
was.
INIr. Lackritz. AYas this on or about JSIay 18 or 19, 197H?
INIr. Rebozo. It Avas in IVIay, the date that was indicated in the
paper — I thought it was the r)tli — of this year, but I don't — whatever
the date was, was, I believe, accurate.
]Mr. Lackritz. Did you have any discussions with INIr. Danner at
the JNLadison Hotel about returning the money on that occasion ?
INIr. Rebozo. I must have.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you have any recollection of those discussions?
INIr. Rebozo. Well, I've just — you know — I'm sure that the decision
had been made and I have to presume that we did discuss it.
Mr. Lackritz. But you have no recollection of discussing it?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Not specifically. Again, Danner aiid I have been
friends, you know, for so many years. We talk about everything
under the sun. We used to talk about girls ; we don't do that any more.
Mr. Lackritz. I understand that, but as I understand your earlier
testimony, you had testified that you had been trying to call Mr.
Danner on numerous occasions after your first IRS interview?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And this meeting in Washington would have been
sometime after that time period, so you did discuss with Mr. Danner
the retui'n of the money?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe so.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you see Mr. Danner on more than one date
during that period, or was that just a 1-day meeting?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, I saw him that one day. Then the next morn-
ing or that night, I went to Camp David and Danner spent a lot
of time telling me about the pulse of the people that he meets out
there. In Vegas, he meets people from all over the country. It was
his feeling that the AVatei-gate didn't get the play out there that
it's getting in the East and that he didn't feel that the President
was in serious trouble. Damier is a very convincing, deliberate
speaker.
So at Camp David, I lelated to the President what Danner had
told me. but I didn't get the feeling that he was buying it. I just
had the feeling that maybe he thought this was more his friend
trying to make him feel better.
Then the thought occuried to me that if T could just get him
to talk to Dannei-, he would be getting it right from the horse's
mouth and it mioht lelieve the tension some.
So I called and Danner was still down there. I checked with the
aide and he said they have courier cars coming up. So I arranged
for one of them to bring him up.
lOOQo
I was staying in one of the cotta<j;es tliere and they brou<»;ht him
ri<rht to the cotta<re I was in. We talked abont every thinj;. I <>uess.
Then I eased over and talked to or else I called — I <i:uess I called
Manuel — that's the way I usually do it — the President's butler. But
in any event, I got the President to come over for a few minutes.
Mr. Lackiutz. That is, come over to your cottaj^e?
Mr. Rkbozo. Yes. I <ruess he was there 5 to 10 minutes, some-
thing like that, and I cited the purpose. I said I would just like,
you know, I think I said, "I have the feeling that you don't be-
lieve me, but I wanted you to get it from the horse's mouth." And
I just told Danner, "I just want you to relate to the President
what you related to me." And Danner did. He told liim the same
stories that he had told me.
Mr. Lackritz. AVhen did you first talk to the President? Did
you talk to the President about your conversations with Danner
on the night that you went out to Camp David, the night before?
Mr. Rebozo. I cion't know whether I went that night or the next
day to Camp David, but I talked to him at some point wdiile we
were there. Sometimes we take walks, and these are things that I
generally choose to talk to him about when we're alone, rather
than when all the family is around or whatever. So I always make it
a practice to just wait for a convenient time.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. Now, during that time, did you discuss with
the President anything concerning your efforts to have Mr. Danner
take the money back that he had given you ?
Mr. Rebozo. No. Xo; again, I'm sure I didn't.
Mr. Lackritz. Did the President ask you any questions about
whether you had been able to return the money to Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Lackritz. Are you sure?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Lackritz. I see.
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. You don't think so, are you sure — I
don't think the record is clear.
Mr. Lackritz. I'm sorry. Are you certain that the President did
not ask you any questions about whether you had been successful
in having Danner take the money?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, I'm not certain.
INIr. Lackritz. So, in other words, the President could have raised
some questions with you on that occasion?
Mr. Rebozo. Could have. What was that date again?
Ml-. Lackritz. I believe it was May 20, 1973, for the record. How
long was your discussion with the President that evening, or that
next morning?
]Mr. Rebozo. Well, the President was probably there 5 or 10
minutes.
Mr. Lackritz. Xo, I mean with you alone, not with Mr. Danner.
Mr, Rebozo. Xo longer than it took me to tell you this. As I say,
it was part of a general discussion that I mentioned this to him.
Mr. Lackritz. I see.
Mr. Rebozo. I mean, I don't go in for an appointment with the
President and they say, you have ?>0 minutes, or 20 minutes, or an
10006
hour, or wliatever. Generally, I ^o over when he calls me, and he's
usually workinjx, and he'll work for hours on end sonietunes. If
he has a free moment, he'll call to see what you're doino;, see if you
want to <io swimmin*; or take a walk. Very often, on the walks,
the walks seem to present a o-ood opportunity to brin<): up some-
thino; like this.
Mr. La( kkitz. All rioht. Xow, you say tlie President, after hear-
ing your version of what Mr. Danner had to say, asked you to have
Mr. Danner brou<>ht out to Camp David?
Mr. Rehozo. No, it was my idea.
Mr. Lackritz. You sufr^ested that to the President ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir. I thou<>;ht that — I didn't know at first that
Danner was still there, but I just wanted him to talk to him di-
rect, because I provide him with reports. T liet voluminous mail
from all over the country supportin<j the l-*resident. and T tjet phone
calls, and people sometimes come in the bank with tears in their
eyes wanting to send him a messaj^e or something. I have relayed
some of these thinfrs to him. but I think that — T'm not sure that he
believes it always. He mio;ht think that I'm makin<r it up to make
him feel better.
But Danner, as T said, had told me this without any coaxinj^ and
without the President beinj; there, and Danner is rather articulate.
I know the President likes hiti and I thou<rht he would believe
somebody else sayino- some of these thinjjs ratlier than me.
Mr. Lackritz. All rioht. but I take it at this point, Mr. Danner
had not yet agieed to take the money back. Is that correct ?
Mr. Rebozo. He never did agree.
Mr. La( KRrrz. That's ri<>:ht. So by that time, he had not ao;reed
to take the money back?
Mr. Rebozo. That's rio^ht. He was always goinj; to let me know,
Mr. Lackritz. As I understand it, you talked to the President
about the advisability of retui'iiiuf; the money at about the same
time that you were contacted by tb.e IRS?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Which was a short time earlier.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I think it's all ri<rht in that timeframe.
Mr. Lackritz. Yet, your testimony is that you had no discus-
sions with the President about the returii of the money?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. I think I said earlier
Mr. Frates. At that time. At that meetino; you're talking; about.
Mr. Lackritz. At that meetin<r.
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, at that meetin<r. Xo, I don't believe it came up.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Xow, you then called to get a couiier car for
Mr. Danner to have him brou<>lit from the Afadison Hotel out to
Camp David?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. IjAckritz. Did you ask Mr. Danner to stay over for the pur-
pose of coming up to Camp David the following day?
Mr. Reboz(i. Xo, I called and he was still there. I said, "What
are you doing?" He said, "I thought I would pi'obably do a little
sightseeing." I said, "When are you going back?'' And I think he
10097
said some time that iii^ht. Tlien I asked him if he could come up
there if I could make some arranj»:ements.
Mr. AimsTRoxG. Could I ask two clarifvino- questions? The
President was not aware that Mr. Danuer was comin*^': out to Camp
David, is that rio;ht ?
JNIr. Rebozo. I don't know whether he was or not. I may have
told him. I'm inclined to think I would have.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did he know the reason why Mr. Danner would
be comino- out ?
ISIr. Rehozo. Well, T had related to him what Danner had just
told me the day before, so
Mr. Armstroxo. Did he think it was for the purpose of relating
that as opposed to a social visit ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, not just relating that. I think it was more in-
tended to get a feel of the pulse of the crossroads of the Nation,
where he's always talking to people and seeing people.
Mr. Armstroxg. Whom did you contact to arrange the car to
have it bi-ought out ?
Mr. Rebozo. One of the aides.
Mv. Armstroxg. Militarv aides, such as Mv. Golden or some-
body?
Air. Rebozo. I just asked them if they had any cars coming up.
He said, "Yes, we have courier cars coming all the time, we have
coui'ier cars coming, changing shifts for the Secret Service and
so on."
Mr. Lackrttz. What time of dav did ]\Ir. Danner arrive at Camp
David ?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think we had lunch there. I don't remember.
I am inclined to think it was morning.
Mr. Lackritz. What part of the morning?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, I'm inclined to think it was late morning.
INIr. Lackritz. Late morning?
Mr. Rebozo. That's my guess.
Mr. Lackritz. And he came directly to your cabin?
Ml'. Rebozo. Yes. They luul insti-uctions where to bring him.
jMr. Lackritz. And how soon after he came to your cabin did
President Nixon come to youi' cabin?
JMr. Rebozo. I believe it prol)ably was a half hour or so.
Mr. LACKRrrz. So you and Mr. Danner had an opportunity to
discuss matters for half an hour before the President came?
Mr. Rebozo. Sure.
Mr, Lackritz. At that time, did you discuss with Mr. Danner
the need to retui-n the money and ask him if he could take it back?
Mr. Reb(»zo. I believe so. But, again, I'm trying hard to be com-
pletely accurate, and I don't want to say anything that I'm not
positive of.
Ml'. Lackritz. Right, but you say you're fairly certain that you
discussed that in the time that you were alone in that cabin?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm inclined to think so.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. Now, I take it Mr. Danner still did not
agree to take the monev back. That is correct, isn't it?
10098
Mr. Kebozo. ITo was ^oinj; to check witli liis superiors.
Mr. L.vt'KRiTz. OK. Xow, did you call the Presideut to come over
to the cabin, or did the Piesident just wander over on his own?
Mr. IxKHozo. 1 think what I did was to call tlie butler and tell
hiui that we were there and if he had a couple of minutes, I would
like for him to drop by.
Afr. Lackkitz. I see. So the President then came over and it
would have been around noontime Avhen the PresicU-nt came over.
"Was it prior to lunch i
Mr. Kkbozo. I said T think it was. I don't know.
Mr. Lackkitz. AA'hat did tiie President say to Mr. Danner when
he came in?
Mr. IvKBozo. Well, of course, he hadn't seen him in a lonn; time
and greeted him as anyone would oroet soiueone else, and asked
him how b.e was doinjr out there — just jreneral small talk.
Senator AVkickkk. Is tliis the Camp David meetin<r. by the way,
that we're talkiuii' about attain?
Mr. Kkhozo. Yes.
Mr. IjAckkitz. So Mr. Dannei- said he was fine, and then did the
I'lvsidiMit ask him specifically about what the mood was?
Mr. Kkhozo. Xo. 1 think T initiated that. T think T said to the
President that Danner had related some thin<2:s to me the day before
that I would like him to repeat if he didn't mind. So Danner ^ot
into this discussion, which he does very well, and that was it.
^fr. IjAckiutz. Aiul what did he tell the I'resident specifically?
Mr. Kkhozo. A\'ell. he told him in essence what I previously said,
that all the people that he sees out there don't show the concern
about this matter that he reads in the Eastern press, that most
l)eople that he has seen are behind him. appreciate* the (jreat job
he has done, and alono- those lines, just in <:;eneral.
I think he cited maybe one or two people that had said certain
things.
Mr. Lackrttz. Ri<xht. Xow, was anything}: else discussed other
than small talk aiul the general mood of the country in that dis-
cussion with the President i
Mr. Reuozo. X'^o. The President may have talked a little bit about
football or somethino- like that, but — no. that was ^NFay. I don't
know. It was snuill talk.
Mr. IjAi^Kurrz. .Vnd how lonir would you estimate this meeting
with Mr. Danner and the President was?
Mr. Reuozo. I don't believe the President was there more than 10
minutes, if that lono-.
Mr. LACKurrz. And at the conclusion of the meetinir, what did
the President do ^
Mr. Rebozo. He went back to his quarters. Danner and I visited
a Mhile. and then he went back.
Mr. Lackkitz. OK. X^ow. did you take a walk — did you and Mr.
Danner take a walk with the 1^-esident around the Camp David
grounds ?
Mr. Rebozo. The President and T Avalk around there all the time.
It s possible that wi> niav have, but I don't
10099
Ml'. La( Kiurz. Would you recall that if you and Mr. Daiiner
and the PiesidcMit
Mr. Kkbozo. Xo, no, T wouldn't. I've walked around there so
many times with the 1^-esident and the First Lady or someone else.
Mr. Lackim'I'z. Do you recall what kind of day that was, tiiat day
that Mr. Damier came out to see the President?
Mr. Rehozo. Xo, 1 don't.
Mr. La( KiuTz. AVas it rainy?
Ml'. IvKiiozo. I don't iccall.
Mr. Lackiutz. And you don't recall whether oi- not you and Mr.
Danner and the President took a walk around the <rrounds follow-
iii<r the meetin<r?
Mr. Kkbozo. Xo. I don't recall.
Mr. La( Kurrz. Is it possible that that happened?
Mr. Kkbozo. Yes. it could be possible.
Mr, Lackkitz. And if, in fact, 3'ou walked ai'ound the grounds,
would that have been a lon<r walk, a short walk?
Mr. Ri:i',()ZO. I don't believe we walked aroimd. but you said is it
possible, and I say, sure, it's possible.
Mr. Lac-kritz. But you have no i-ecollection of walkin^r around?
]Mr. IvKI'.dZO. Xo.
Mr. Lackhitz. How Ioii^lt aftei- your meetin<r with President Nixon
was it before Mr. Danner left Camp David?
Mr. Kkbozo. Well. I presume a half liour or so.
Danner and I have a lot of mutual friends, and we no doubt in-
dulged in some conversation about them.
Mr. Lackkitz. Do you know, after the meeting with the Presi-
dent, did you liave any further discussion with Mr. Danner about
requesting him to take the money back?
Mr. Kkbozo. I don't recall that. I thanked him for the presenta-
tion, which I tliought was effective and useful, and a'pologized for
inconveniencing him by bringing him up. But outside of that, I
think it was just talk about some of our mutual friends.
You mentioned Jernigan a Avhile ago. We probably talked about
him and his diiTerent ventures, and jjiobably about Smathers.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. How did Mr. Danner get l^ack? Did you
call a car for him (
Mr. Kkbozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. To take him back to Washington?
Mr. Kkbozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Who did 30U ask to call a car? The similar mili-
tary aide?
Mr. Kkbozo. Yes. Usually the aide does those things.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Do you recall the aide, incidentally, that was
there that day?
Mr. Kkbozo. Xo, T don't. I generally just call for the duty aide
and wlioevei- it is does it. But I don't recall the aide.
^Ir. Armstrox(;. Do you recall if there Was any time that the
President and Mi-. Danner just were together out of your presence,
outside of your presence?
Mr. Kkbozo. Xo, they weren't out of my presence at any time.
10100
Mr. Armstrong. What cabin were you staying in?
Mr. Rebozo. 1 don't know whether — I stay at different cabins,
and sometimes — I think it was Maple.
Mr. Arafstroxo. Is it possible that the discussion took place in
the President's, in Aspen (^abin rather than Maple?
Mr. Rkhozo. Xo, it didn't take place, wasn't discussed there at all.
Mr. Armstrong. The })i'evious evenin*;, when you discussed "with
the President Mr. Danner's L^Mieral reflections on the situation, his
view from the West, where did that discussion take place, do you
recall that?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know if it was tlie previous evening or that
morning, but it would ])robably have taken place in Aspen.
INIr. Armstrong. Do you recall where it would be in Aspen? I
mean Avhere in the cabin it was?
^Iv. Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. AR^rsTR()N<;. In his study?
Mr. Rebozo. It could have been. I don't know.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall that same weekend, Mr. Rebozo,
did you see Mi-. Abplanalp?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm piecing together some things that almost seem —
it seems to me that we went up there on a Saturday rather than a
Friday because it seems to me that the President was — I was
staying at the Madison. I would normally stay at the AMiite House.
So, I think that what happened — there was something going on.
Abplanalp Avas here. too. And I believe that — Abplanalp has his
owni plane. I believe the day before we flew up to Abplanalp's place
and had lunch at his Eldied preserve
Mr. Lackritz. You mean the trout preserve?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And who was on tliat trip ?
INIr. Rebozo. I don't know whether (ii'iffin was with him or not,
but I think it was just the tliree of us.
Mr. Lackritz. You, Mr. Al)planalp and Mr. Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And to the best of your lecollection, that was the
previous day. which would have been a Friday?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I think that — you knoAv. when you make so
many trips to a city, it's awful hard to keep from confusing what
hapi)ened on one trip with what might have luippened on another,
l^ut I connect Danner's visit there with the trip to Eldred because
I remember us all going up there, and there's no other occasion
that T can recall when we did.
Senator Moxtoya. AVe'll haxo a recess because there's a vote. I
only have 3 minutes to make a vote.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator AVeicker. Back on the record.
Mr. Lackritz. Pefore the break, we were talking briefly about
your trij) to upstate Xew York with ^fi'. Abplanalp and Mr. Dan-
ner previous to the date you went up to Camp David. ^NTr. Rebozo,
do you i-ecall on that tri)) to ui^state X>\v York, did you discuss
with Mr. Danner the po.ssible return of the money?
10101
Mr. Krbozo. I don't tliiiik so.
You see. Abplaiuilp knew notlHn<r about it all this tinio until he
read it in the paper. We were tofjethei- all the time. We were all
staying at the same hotel here.
Mr. Lackiutz. AVell, was there a specific reason why you didn't
inform Mr. Ahplanali) about the money?
Mr. Kebozo. I ^ruess only that it's just my nature to not, you
know, it was a private affair, and not that 1 Avould distrust him;
I just didn't do it.
Mr. JjAcivritz. I see.
Mr. Rkbozo. Then, too, I had involved his lawyer, and I didn't
know whether his lawyer had told him or hadn't, and he hadn't
mentioned it, so I just thoujiht I'd better not, to put his lawyer on
the spot.
Mr. Lackritz. So, in other words, your trip to Xew York w^as
subsequent to the time that you had contacted Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Kebozo. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Lackritz. Yet you decided you were still not ^oinfj to tell
Mr. Abplanalp about the money at all.
Mr. Rebozo. That's ri^lit. If Griffin had told him. he would have
brou<i:ht it up himself.
It was just a spur of the moment thin^ to <ro up there.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Xow, as I understand it. ])rior to the time
that you went out to Camp David to see the President, the previous
time that you liad discussed tlie money Avitli the President had
been
Mr. Fratks. Wlien you say "see the President," he was staying
out tliere.
Mr. Lackritz. To see the President at Camp David. When Mr.
Rebozo went out to see — well, when vou went out to stav at Camp
David.
As I understand it. Mr. Rebozo. i)iior to that time, you had dis-
cussed the advisability of returning the money with the President
in March or April, in there?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Xow, the President said to you that it was ad-
visable for you to return the money?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he advise you to talk to anybody about the
?-etui-n of tlie money?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think .so.
Mr. Lackritz. Are you saying that he did not advise you to
talk to anyone else?
Mr. Rei'.ozo. I'm saying I don't think he did.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, would you recall specifically if the Presi-
dent did advise you to talk to anyone about it?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall that he did.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you. at the request of the President, talk to
anyone else about the money?
Mr. Rp:bozo. Xo. That's the same question, but I talked with — I
think I told the President who I'd talked with about it.
10102
A[r. Lackiutz. This is wlioii (lio Pivsiiicnt was discussiiiji; with
you his julvico to retnin the money'?
IMr. l\i:nozo. Yos. 1 think Bill (irirtin was the first one I spoke
to about it. I could be wroua", but I believe he was.
Mr. Lackrvpz. I see. And (iriflin had advised you to return tlie
money prioi- to the time he talked to the l*resideut about it?
Mr. Rehozo. Yes. and his advice was not just oft' the cuff, as I
said. lie said. "Let me do somethiuir on it." and — he was in Miami.
As a matter of fact, he had aone to AValker's (\iy. and, as T recall,
he tlew back to l^auilerdale and went to a law library or somethin<i
and did a couple of hours research on it and advised me to return
it.
^Ir. Lackhitz. All riaht. Did you tell the President that you had
discussed this matter with anyone else piior to your seekinc; Mr.
Nixon's advice about whether to return the money?
^[r. Kkbozo. I think so.
^Ir. Fkates. Mr. (iriftin.
Mr. IvACKRiTZ. Othei- than Mv. Griftin.
Mr. IxKROzo. The chronoloiry of somethiuir like this is very difli-
cult to try to i>iece toirether. It was all part of one packairc, and
what went in first, I tind it difticult to recall to the point that I
can be that specific. The fact remains that once all this came about,
I. with as nnich haste as possible, talked to those in whom I liad
confidence that I felt Avould irive me trood counsel.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And once you informed the President of tlie
individuals with whom you had already consulted, did the Presi-
dent suuirest any additional individuals that you miirht consult I
^Iv. l\KBozo. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzxer. I take it, Mr. Kebozo. if I may just drop this in
quicklv. you didn't talk about Mr. Gemmill witli the President,
or did you ?
^Ir. Rehozo. Xo. T talked about it with Mr. (Tcmmill but not with
the President and Mr. Gemmill.
Mr. Lenzxer. Xo. I mean, did you tell the President that you
were retainiuir Mr. Gemmill as an attorney?
INIr. Rebozo. Yes.
' Mr. Lexzxer. And wliich occasion was that, sir?
I understand from the questioninff that there weie two occasions.
Do you recall which one ?
Mr. Kriiozo. It would have been early in
Mr. Lexzxer. The first one?
Mr. Rebozo. Possibly.
Mr. Lexzxer. If you've jrotten into this, stop me. but how many
total convei-sations did you have with President Xixon Avith re-
jrard to these funds?
Mr. Reboz«x Well. Terry, I've had so many visits — not meetintrs
but visits
Mr. Lexzxer. AVell. I said conversations.
Mr. Reboz(^ [continuini:]. AVith the President on so many occa-
sions that it would be impossible to su<rfrcst how much on those
occasions this was even mentioned. Once a decision was made to
10103
return it. I tliink tho I'rosident ])j'ol);i}>ly dismissod it from his
mind, and that was the end of it there. He goes on to other thinf!;s.
Mr. Lknznkr. So. can you a[)proximate the numlK'r of times that
you talked about this with the President? 1 take it it was more
tlian two.
Mr. Rkbozo. Xo, I can't approximate.
Seiuitoi- MftNTOYA. I would like to ask one question there.
Mr. l\VA',i>7.(). Yes, sir.
Senator Moxtoya. At what time did the President reach a deter-
mination that the money should be returned to Mr. Danner? What
was the time ?
Mr. Kkbozo. You mean the date?
Senator Mr)XTOYA. Yes.
Mr. Rkijozo. We've been tryinjr to establish that, but T Vxdieve
that it was a^rain in early 1073 when all tliis — I think all this
happened in. you know, a very close time span. He didn't reach a
decision and tell me. I consulted with him about it.
Senator Moxtoya. J)\d he take it under advisement after you
first broached it to him i
Mr. Rerozo. Xo. sir.
Senator Moxtoya. He made the determination immediately?
Mr. Rebozo. He felt that I was — I told him that I had been advised
to return it. and he thought that was the right thing to do.
Seiuitor Moxtoya. And when did he know about this Danner
contribution ?
Mr. Rebozo. He didn't know about it until after the 1972 elec-
tioji. Seiuitor. I explained that to them, not perhaps as clearly as
I wish I could, but I recall it was on a visit to Key Biscayne after
tlie election that I told him. It was one of those occasions, again,
where I would choose a time when his mind isn't involved in
other things.
Senator Moxtoya. And when did you advise Rose Mary Woods
of the contribution i
Mr. Rebozo. I advised her immediately after receipt of it.
Senator Moxtoya. Did you tell her it was a contribution or did
you just tell her that you had the money from Danner?
Mr. Rebozo. I told her it was a contribution from Howard
Hughes, or from Danner. however.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo. let me ask you this: Did you ever
di.-cuss — after your initial interview with us — did you ever dis-
cuss the fact that the Watergate committee. Senator P>vin's com-
mittee had Ix'en to see you or seeking to see you about these funds
with the President ?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh. I'm sure I mentioned it.
Mr. Lexzxer. And in addition, at some point did you learn that
Mr. Cox's office, the Special Prosecutor's office, was also lx*ginning
work on this investigation?
Mr. Rebozo. The only place I learned anything alx)ut that was
in the newspapers, and I find it difficult to believe that he was
working on it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, did you discuss that with the President also?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. sir.
10104
Mr. Lexznek. You did learn at some point, did you not, that
Mr. Cox's office had obtained a disclosure agreement with the In-
ternal Revenue Service? Weren't you advised of that at some point?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
]\fr. Lexznek. In other words, that they had the right to obtain
information from the Internal Revenue Service? You never learned
of that?
jNIr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lackritz. I would like to oet back, if we could, to the Camp
David meet in OS briefly.
As I understand it, when you said that the President advised you
to return the money, that was at the same time you were contacted
by the IRS, about the same time?
Mr. Rebozo. All of this happened Avithin a relatively short pe-
riod of time.
Mr, Lackritz. As I understand it, you were interviewed by the
IRS in early May of 1978, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. Somewhere in there, whenever it was. I thoujiht it
was JMarch or April, but it could have been May, I don't know.
JNIr. Lackritz. So in other words, it would have been only a few
weeks prior to the May 21 date that vou would have been discus-
sinss: this matter with the President, is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. What's the May 21 date?
Mr. Lackritz. The date that you were at Camp David with Mr.
Danner and the President, oi- the May 20 date — I'm not sure which
is accurate. I just want to understand that at no time durino; that
meeting with Mr. Danner or duriufr your meeting: with the Presi-
dent was the subject of your difficulty in returning the money to
Mr. Danner brought up in any way by anybody?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Seiuitor, do you have any other questions
about the Camp David meeting?
Senator Weicker. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Terry?
Mr. Lexzxer. I assume vou've covered how the President learned
why Mr. Danner Avas in Washington?
Mr. Frates. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. I have one question — again stop me if this has
been covered. I don't want to repeat anything.
Aftei- the II\S called vou for an intei'view, did vou advise anv-
bodv besides 'Mr. Ehrlichman of that? In the White House staff?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know that I advised hiui of that, and I don't
know the chronology of his telling me that, that that was going
to hapi)en. But I may have.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you tell Miss Woods that you were going to be
interviewed by the IRS?
Mr. Rebozo. I'robablv. AVe talk all the time about all kinds of
things. Verv few of these thin.fjs. however, do I discuss with the
President. AVe have always felt — and Miss Woods, although she
has been Avith him so long, is of the same opijiion — that if there's
any matter that can be resolved without bothering him or involv-
ing him, those close to him try to do it.
10105
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if Miss Woods over discussed the
Huirhos contribution with the President? Your involvement in the
Hu<i:hes contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm positive she didn't.
Seiuitor MoxTOVA. You say you're positive that she did?
Mr. Rehozo. Did not. I've got to quit dropping my voice.
Mr. Lexzxer. Let me go back to one thing. As I luiderstand it,
wliile I was out, Mr. Rebozo, you testified about a conversation you
did have with i\Ir. Ehrlichman with regard to your name coming
up in the IRS investigation?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did Mr. P]hrlichman advise you as to how he
learned of that?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I just would assume that he would
have friends over there, or contacts over there. It never, you know,
really concerned me anymore than all of this investigation has
concerned me, except for the horrendous consumption of time that
I've devoted to it and the humiliation as a result of the bad media
stories. The facts, though, no problem; I'm delighted to give them.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were you aware that Mr. Ehrlichman was receiv-
ing sensitive case reports from the IRS which reflected your name
when it came up?
Mr. Rebozo. If he was receiving them, this was the first I've
heard of it.
Mr. Lexzx-^er. You were not aware of that?
Ml-. Rebozo. Xo, sir.
Ml-. I^EXZXER. Did he give you any advice or ask you any ques-
tions with regard to when he called you to tell you that they wanted
an interview?
]Mr. Rebozo. Xo. Xo, as I recall, it was a very brief thing and
Ehrlichman is the kind of fellow who didn't linger, waste a lot of
time.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he ask you if there was any problem involved
in the
Mr. Rebozo. lie may have.
Senator AVeicker. In the summer of 1972, June and July of
1972, did von have any occasion to speak with either Mr. Mardian
or Mr. LaRue?
Mv. Rebozo. I don't know Mr. ;Mardian and if Mr. LaRue was
at Key Biscayiie. I could have spoken to him. I knew him from
19 — from previous campaigns.
Senator Weicker. Did ho over have occasion to discuss Water-
gate with you ^ ]Mr. LaRue?
Mr. Rebozo. I think onlv in the context that we're all, of course,
interested in, most of which is in the press.
Senator AVeicker. Did you know of the Cubans that were in-
volved in this matter
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, sir.
Senator Weicker [continuing]. Prior to seeing them appear in
the media ?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Xo, Senator, I didn't know them before nor since.
There's a lot of conjecture on that in the press.
10106
Senator "Weicker. Woll. T think there's nothin": Avrong with con-
jecture. After all, you know, you're looked up to by members of
that community in Miami. I wouldn't get too distressed about con-
jecture, I'll put it that way.
^Ir. Rehozo. Well, wlnit T was jj;oinfr to allude to was more than
just conjecture. A day or two aftei' the break-in. Jack Anderson
announced tliat I was, implied that I was financin«>: the Cubans, and
since then, several stories came out tliat I was in real estate deals
witli them and other kinds of investments — these stories jret picked
up by frin<re ])eriodicals that will print anything and amplify it —
that tliey had us in as pai'tners and all.
On the contrary, Sturgis is supposed to be a close friend of
Anderson's. But I got a lot of bad press on account of that. But
T don't know.
Senator "Weicker. ]\Iy comments were not made in the way of —
I didn't even know there was such a story. But rather to try to
tie the loose ends together insofar as any knowledge of the indi-
viduals is concerned or any relationship witli them after the bi-eak-
in. or in the course of their various ti-ials and relations.
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, sir. To my knowledge, I've never seen or met
any of those men to this date.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have a discussion at some point also with
former Senator Smathers with regard to the $100,000 contribution?
Mr. Eerozo. Smathers
Mr. Frates. Excuse me. May I ask at what time? Before or
after or at any time?
Mr. Lexzxer. I would like to start Avith at any time. I think
we can narrow it down.
Mr. Frates. All riglit.
]Mr. Bebozo. AVell, no. Smathers. of course, fii-st learned about it
from the press. We've had virtually no discussion about it other
than perha])s the dominant results.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Are you saying that after it came out in the press,
former Senator Smathers called von and said he had read it in
the press and Avanted to chat Avith you about it?
INfr. Bebozo. Xo. no, I didn't say that. I'm simply saying Smath-
ei's lives on Kev Biscayne. He's a lifelong friend. He would nat-
urally have read the stories and be concerned to a degree, and any
discussion we had Avas just about Avliat happened. Danner, coin-
cidentally, Avas Smathers' campaiirn manager in his first race for
the Coniri-ess in 1940 and again in 1948. and then for the Sen-
ate race in 1950. and they had been very, very close. So he had a
dual reason for being interested in it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he tell you that he had talked Avith Mr. Dan-
ner about this matter?
Mv. Bebozo. He could have, but I don't know.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did lie ever ask vou Avhether in fact aou had re-
ceived the $100,000?
Mr. Bebozo. Xo, I think that AA-ould have been a moot question.
I never denied that and there Avas ne\-er anv indication that I had.
10107
Mr. Lkxzner. Did he over ask you what the reason or the pur-
pose of tlie money was?
^fr. IxKnozo. Xo.
Mr. Lkxzxkk. Did he ever tell you that, or did you ever tell liim
that you were very upset with Danner for telling the IKS about
the contribution?
Mr. Kebozo. No, I think I may have expressed the sentiment that
the least Danner could have done was let me know.
Mr. Lexzxeu. That's understandable.
INIr. Rebozo. Maybe I would have returned the money a year
sooner.
Mr. Lexzxek. Did you ever tell Senatoi- Smatliei's that your recol-
lection of the delivery dates and the pui'pose of the money was
different from Mr. Danner's?
ISIr. Rebozo. I don't know when T talked with him about it, but
Danner and I have not collaborated on any of this in any fashion.
As I understood it, when IRS first (juestioned me, as I said, I was
so confused al)out the dates, I didn't knoAv what year it was, even.
But I did know that the first payment was made in San Clemente.
Danner, I was told, had tolcl that the first payment Avas made in
Key Biscayne. It was subsequent to that that Danner, in checkinj^
liis lecords and his expense vouchers and all. found that he had
only made one trip to San Clemente in all these years and it was
on July 3 and he recalled that beings the first payment.
Ml-. Lexzxer. And you say you i-ecall uoav describing all that
to Senator Smathers?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. I think that what I'm saying is, that what you
injected into your cpiestion would indicate that maybe Smathers
and I had had a convei-sation with respect to the money at a time
after Danner realized. But if we had such a conversation, it would
have been very early, before that time, and since then. Danner has
substantiated Avhat I had said. There has been no collaboration of
any kind and no discussion, no phone calls, nothing between Dan-
ner and me since then.
]\Ir. Lexzxer. Also, I'm sure you've testified that you consulted
with ]\rr. Genmiill. Did you tell" Mr. Gemmill that the reason you
held the money was because Danner had never given you instruc-
tions as to how the money was to be used?
Ml-. Rebozo. That's not exactly cori-ect. I don't think I told Mr.
Gemmill that. I think that that just ensued from conversations
that we've had, such as we're having now. There was never any
question in my mind what the money was for and there has been
plenty of conjecture about it.
Mr. Lexzxer. So your answer is that you don't recall telling —
you didn't say that to Mr. Gemmill ?
INIr. Rebozo. That's right.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know hoAv Mr. Gemmill obtained the let-
ter that he obtained from Miss Woods Avith regard to her knowl-
edire of this matter? Did you know he Avas doing that, by the Avay?
Mr. Rebozo. I understood that IRS had requested a letter from
her.
10108
Mr. Lenzner. And it was Mr. Gemmill who then contacted some-
body to iiot it ?
INIr. Rerozo. I don't know who contacted her. I thought that the
II\S had coiitac'tod lior.
]Mr. Lenzxer. You were not aware, then, tliat Mr. Gemniill liad
contacted the "White House to <ret tlie lettei'?
Mv. Kr.iidzo. Xo. Xo. it was my undeistandin<r tliat the IKS had
contacted lier and asked her for a letter. 1 believe that was correct.
Mv. Lexzxer. I'm sorry, Mr. Rebozo. Go ahead. I didn't mean
to interi'upt you.
Mr. Rerozo. You know, she may liave given INIr. Gemmill a copy
of it or \vhate\er.
Mv. Lexzxer. Did she consult with vou before she prepared that
letter?
Mv. Rerozo. Not with respect to the preparation of the letter.
AVe've consulted, if you want to use that word, many, many times
on numerous matters.
Mr. Lexzxer. And I take it includin.ir the details of the $100,000,
the fact that you still had it and all that business?
Mr. Rerozo. Yes, I would say so.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever consult with Mr. Buzhardt or with
Mr. Ilaii; with legard to this matter?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I've only seen Mr. Buzhardt once in my life,
A'ery. very briefly. T think he was at Key Biscayne. getting off or
on the i)lane.
Mv. Haig, I've talked with him about anv number of things and
I consult with him because I feel that he should know what's
going on.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, when did you first talk to General Haig
about this, if you can recall ?
Mr. Rerozo. Probal)ly about that same period, you knoAV, the
early part of 197-5.
iNIr. Lexzxer. Did you call l>im on it or did you see him in
person ?
Mv. Rerozo. Probably saw him in i)erson.
Mv. Lexzxer. It was at your request. I take it. or did he ask to
see you about it ?
Mv. Rerozo. I think 1 went in to see hitn. Usually when I go to
see him, I know he's busy, too, and I have two or three things T
Avant to pass on for what they're wortli.
Mr, IjEXzxer. .Vnd was anvbody else iiresent?
Mr. Rerozo. AVasn't this the period that the President was sick
or not? I'm trviuir to think wlien he went to the hospital. AVas
that in May of 1978?
Mr. Dasu. That was in the summer. That was July.
Mr. Rerozo. Xo, that wasn't it, then.
IMr. D.\siT. Are you speaking about talking to General Haig at
the time when he had taken over as chief of staff after Ilaldeman
left, oi- before that? T don't know if that's clear.
Mr. Rerozo. Xo, it would have been after,
Mr. Dasti. After he had taken over when Mr. Ilaldeman left?
INIr. Rerozo. Yes.
10109
Mr. Dash. Wi-ll, that didirt take place until after April 30.
Mr. Kkbozo. Yes.
Mr. Lkxzxkk. So you placed this sometime after April .30. Do
you remember what month it was?
^fr. Kkbozo. It would have had to be probably iji May.
Mr. Lkxzxkr. Do you recall if anybody else was present during
that discussion?
Mr. Kkbozo. I don't believe so. I believe that the very brief and
periodic and few discussions that (Jeneral Ilaiii' and I have are
generally alone. I'll sometimes stick my head in and ask the secre-
tary if iie has anybody with him. If he has, I go on.
Mr. Lexzxkr. Did you tell him basically what you told us today
with regard to your recollection of the money and its purpose?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know if I went into that much detail.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ask him for any advice or counsel?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Lexzxer. What was the pur[)ose of that? Just telling him
about it?
:Mr. Rebozo. Well. I think that any high official's right-hand man
should know a lot about what's going on so that they can field the
balls that may be thrown out of bounds or whatever. I think that's
l)robably it. I don't bother him with a lot of minutia. If I think
there's any area wherein he might l)e drawn in or might want to
understand or might want the answer to in advance, I try to brief
him on it. I know how busy he is and I very seldom bother him.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have more than one conversation with
(xeneral Ilaig about this?
Mr. Rebozo. I doubt it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did General Ilaig know about this incident be-
forehand and supply you Avith any information about it?
Mr. Rebozo. You mean about my having the money?
]Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rebozo. Xot to my knowledge.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he advise you to retui-n it?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think that I counseled with him on that.
Mr. Lexzxer. You discussed it with Miss Woods, the President,
Mr. Khrlichman. Genei'al Haig, and Mr. Garment. Was there any-
body else at the White House that you discussed this Avith that
you can thiid< of?
Mr. Rebozo. There were probably some, because once a determina-
tion was made to retuiii it. I had' no compunction about discussing
it with anybody in whom I had confidence. It might even shed
some light on some aspect of it that may not have occurred to me.
Hut I don't recall who else.
Mr. Lexzxer. You say you had talked to these people after you
had made the decision, after the President
Mr. Rebozo. Some of them. Some of them I got their counsel on.
But as I say. there was no louirer any reason to keep it a secret.
Mr. IjExzxer. Because you had decided to return it?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. it was known that I had the money and it was
known that I was returninir it.
10110
Senator ^Fontoya. I have just one question.
Mr. Lknznkk. Yes, sii-. surely.
Senator Montoya. Did vou at anv time discuss the returning of
the money Avith anyone at the Connnittee To Ke-Elect the Presi-
dent i
Mr. l\Ki5(»/(). Xo. Senator.
Senator Moxtoya. At no time?
Mr. Kkhozo. I don't think so. T think, as T tokl them hefore, I
think I mentioned it to Kalmhach one time. I just ran into him
there at the Wliite House (hirin<>- that same period. If tliei-e Avas
anyone else, I don't recall.
Senator Moxtoya. Do you recall discussing it with Mr. John
Mitchell?
Mr. Kkiiozo. Xo, sir.
Senator Moxtoya. Did you yisit Mr. John Mitchell at Key Bis-
cayne Ayhen he \vas down there for the political strategy session?
Mr. Eebozo. Not during the strategy session.
Senator INIoxtota. Did you during that time?
Mr. Kebozo. P'.yery time that the Mitchells were at Key Biscayne,
at one time or another, I yisited them. They were staying at a house
that belongs to the bank.
Senator Moxixiya. But you didn't discuss the Huglies contribu-
tion with him?
Mr. Kebozo. Xo, sir, I don't belieye I eyer discussed Hughes with
^litchell.
Senator Moxtoya. Do you know whether anyone else discussed
it with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir.
Senator Moxtoya. Thank you.
Mr. Lexzxer. How about Mr. Ziegler? Did you talk with him
about this?
Mr. Rebozo. X'^o.
Mr. Lexzxer. He was one of the few left out, I guess.
Let me ask you this: Does that pretty much conclude whom you
talked with with regard to the money? Can you think of anybody
else?
Mr. Rebozo. No. As I said, I talked with Abplanalp's lawyer
but didn't talk to Abplanaljx as close a friend as he is. But I
can't think of anybody else I discussed it with.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVhat about Mi-. Rose, Chapnuin Rose? Did you
discuss it with him?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know whethei- it was discussed on the one
occasion that he was with Mr. (lennnill down there. I'm sure that
he was awai-e of it.
Mr. Lexzx'Er. Haye you been oyer this?
I'm soi'ry. Let me go on to something else, then.
Did you discuss it with any employees or directors of the Key
Biscayne Bank and Trust?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. Frates. I think that mi<rht be misleading. When you talk
about — in what time context?
10111
Mr. Lexzxkk. Prior to the time that he loturned it in June of
1J)T8.
Mr. Frates. As lon^f as the record is clear on that.
Mr. Rehozo. Only with Mr. Wakefield, who is a director
Mr. Lexzxek. Xo othei's^
Mr. Rebozo [continuinjj;]. Who participated in getting it back,
but no one else.
Ml'. Lexzxer. After June, you did discuss it with members of
the bank or the board of directors?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't — I think that T didn't discuss it at any board
of directors' meeting, but I think the board was all well aware of
what was ffoinor on, and with the daily assaults on the TV and
radio, they were getting a little flak from their wives for being
on the board, in the beauty pailors and every place else. So I ex-
plained the thing to them, I think just individually, so that they
would know that nothing wrong had been done so that at least,
they could put tlieii- wives at ease. I^ecause they were getting ribbed
a lot and they were beginning to get a little supersensitive about the
publicity that the bank was getting with respect to all these
goings on.
Mr. Lexzxer. This would have been after the news disclosures,
I think in October of 1973.
Mr. Rebozo. Well, no, it staited when your committee people came
to the bank with television cameras to photograph their arrival
and appeared and put it on ABC. That was very early in the
matter.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever have occasion to discuss this with
James Golden, the $100,000 contribution?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo; I did not.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow. did you tell us last time and today again,
you mentioned that you ran into Mr. Kahnbach. Can you tell us
where you ran into him and what the discussion was?
Mr. Frates. I have no objection, but we've been over that in de-
tail.
Mr. Dash. Yes. Ran into him where, when?
Mr. Lexzxer. Today?
Mr. Frates. X^ot today, no. but we were here yesterday. I think
in the 2 days, we've spent 1 day and 1 day asking the questions
again. We're not objecting, but T just
Mr. Lexzxer. We have not, I'm sure, except for Mr. Rebozo's
statement, we haven't. I have my notes and I know we haven't
Mr. Frates. I'm telling you we did discuss it yesterday. But go
ahead.
Mr. Dash. There was a discussion yesterday of giving Kalmbach
money
Mr. Frates. X'o. no. the discussion was — but let's go, we/re wast-
injr more time with my talking.
Mr. Lex-zxer. Can you tell us where and when that was?
Mr. Rebozo. Kalmbach was one of those whose jiulgment I
sought. I think, about returning the money.
Mr. Lexzxer. Where and when did you see him?
10112
Mr. Rebozo. In the White House, I Avas over in the "West Wing
and ran into him over there.
Mr. Lexzxer. I'm sorry. Mr. Kebozo. I take it that when you say
"you consulted him," you- didn't seek him out for that, but since
you ran into him, you asked for his judgment?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. On whether you should or should not return the
money ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Kalmbach ajid I — that wasn't the only reason
I wanted to talk with him. We had the other interests in Cali-
fornia that he was handling, ])roperty that Abplanalp and I
owned. There might have been some other things, but I also asked
for his judgment on this.
]\Ir. Lex'zxer. I think you told us that before, too. I believe you
told us also that vou met him, vou ran into him on the morning
of April 30, 1973?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. We recalled, I think, that it was the day that
the President was at Camp David and Haldeman and Ehrlich-
man left that day. That's how we can pinpoint that.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you explain to him again that you had
received the funds and that you had kept them and why you kept
them ?
Mr. Rebozo. I think I passed over that.
Mr. Lexzxer. And I take it you did tell him vou kept it be-
cause you were asking for his judgment on whether you should
return them or not ?
Mr. REBozf). That's right.
Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you ask him to do anything other than giv-
ing you his judirment at that time?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you ever discuss with him again the $100,000
contribution from Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I've seen very little of him. That
may be the last time I saw him.
Mr. Dash. Did you tell us what recommendation he did make?
Mr. Rebozo. He thought I should give it back.
Mr. Lexzxer. I think you told us also that you had had a prior
conversation with ]\lr. Kalmbach with regard to — that he had come
to you at some point — it's not clear from the notes of the prior in-
terview — that he had come to you and asked you at some other
prior time whether Mr. Hughes, the Hughes peoi)le had given a
contribution in the past. Do you i-ecall that?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I think he did ask the question and I think I
simply told him yes, they had.
Mr. Lexzxer. And had you told him — so he knew before this
meeting that you had received the monev in the past?
Mr. Reboz(». He didn't ask and I didn't otter tiiat the money
hadn't been turned in. His question was simply, "Did Howard
Hughes contribute?'' and I said "yes."
Mi-. Dasti. When was this time?
Mr. REBOzf). Oh. this was wav back.
Mr. Dash. 1972?
10113
Mr. Rebozo. Org of tlio California visits where I saw him.
Mr. Fratks. Excuse me. I think for clarification, you're talking
about, (lid they contiibutc in l'.)()8?
Mv. Rebozo. AVc're talkinjr about the contribution.
:Mr. Frates. In 19(hS ^
jSIr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Frates. Before.
Mr. Reboz(\ He asked me if he contributed.
Mr. Dash. That isn't clear. That he contributed in 1968?
Mr. Frates. Tliat's Avhat he asked him, and that's what he said,
but I think from the question you did not understand that answer.
]Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Senator Moxtoya. During what year was the discussion?
Mr. Rebozo. I believe it was when Kalmbach was — I don't think
he was makina' collections, he was lining- up commitments. So it
was probably 1969 oi- 1970.
Senator ^Ioxtoya. Well, why would you interpret his question
as referring to a time prior to 1968?
Mr. Rebozo. I didn't say prior. I thirik his question Avas did he
contribute in 1968.
Mr. Frates. The 1968 camj^aign.
Senator ^NIoxtoya. Specifically?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Frates. He was looking for prospects, Senator.
Senator ^Ioxtoya. All I'ight. *
Mr. Lexzxer. You talked, I think, to Mr. Kalmbach sometime in
October or November of 1978. Did he ever advise you of those dis-
cussions ?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, I don't think so. I don't know. I don't think
I've seen Kalmbach — yes, I did see him once in California since
that meeting we just referred to. That simply had to do Avith the
grounds, the Presidential grounds out thtu-e, certain repairs that
needed to be made and so on.
Mr. Lexzxer. There was no discussion on that occasion about
the Hughes contribution of $liK),000?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. I'm sorry, sir^
Ml". Rebozo. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. You told him. then, on April 30 that, basically
that you had retained the same funds that had been given to you
])reviously. Did vou tell him when you had received those funds —
Mi-. Kalmbach. on April 30?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. Actually, at that time. 1 wasn't even sure when
I iuul received them. That was established later.
Ml-. Lexzxer. And you did tell him that they were the same
fuiuls and you wanted to kno\v what to <lo about it?
Mr. Reboz(i. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Again, stop mo if I'm asking this again. Have you
goiu^ over the return of the money to Mr. Griffin. Avhen you ac-
tually gaA'e him the funds?
Mr. Frates. Yes.
10114
;Mr. Lknzxkr. That has been covered?
Mr. Kehozo. Yes.
Mr. l^ACKKiTZ. Then.' was one si)ecitic (luestiou that I don't think
was covered. I'll just ask it briefly. Did Mr. (Teniniill ask you to
brin^ this money u}) to his office at'tei- you met with liim tlie first
time ? Is that correct ?
Ml". Kkhozo. At'tei' I met with Wv. Gemmill ^
Mr. IjACKinTz. Yes. He asked you to brin^- the actual money
Mr. Kebozo. lie didn't precisely ask me to brinj; it. It was a
question of tryin<2: to determine how it would be returned.
Mr. Lackkitz. But at some point. Mr. (lenunill did re(piest you
to brina' the money ^
]Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Ml". LA(^KRrrz. So then you went to your box and I think Ave did
^o throuiih the other indixiduals who were there dui"inir the count-
ino" ?
Mr. Rehozo. Yes.
Mr. Lackuitz. And I think at that time, you took out the same
identical bills that had been jjiven to you by ]\Ir. Danner?
Mr. Kehozo. Yes. sir.
Mr. Lackiutz. And you took them up to Philadelphia to Mr.
Gemmiirs otlice ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Ml". Lackkitz. At that time, did you attempt to <rive them to Mr.
Geiymill ^
Mr. Rebozo. I testihed earlier today that I was under the im-
pression that Mr. Davis would be there to accept it. That's Avhy
my cover letter with the inventorv of the bills was addressed to
]Mi". Davis, liut I didn't know until I had arrived at his office that
Davis had been delayed in Califoi'uia and couldn't i>et back for
several days. So Mr. (icnunill had made the arran<i:ements to de-
liver the money to him in Xew "^'ork, and somehow or other the
conversation evolved around — I don't think he wanted to have it
ai"ound his ]>lace. But somehow or other — maybe I suirjrested it or
Avhatever — since I was "ioino- to Xew York anvway, we would let
Bill Griffin, who already knew about it, hold it until Davis came
a couple of days later and turned it over to him.
Mr. Lackritz. But did you try to <i:ive t\\o money to ^Ir. Gem-
mill and Ml". Gemmill told you to take it ui> to Xew York?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't know how that came about. I may have
suiTirested, look. I'm aoinjr to leave it here, and he may have su^:-
<rested. take it to X'^ew York. Then avc came about the thou<rht of
lettin<r some trusted person, who already knew about it. since he
lived in X'ew York, handle it, and since he's a director and general
counsel for a bank.
Mr. IvACKRiTZ. OK. Xow. where specifically, in terms of location,
did you turn over the actual funds to Mr. Griffin?
Mr. Rebozo. I turned them over to him at his bank.
Mr. Lackritz. Inside his bank or outside?
Mr. Reboz<i. I believe it was inside the bank.
Mr. Lackritz. And that v.as the last time vou saw the money?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
10115
jNIr. Lackritz. Did you rail anybody aftor you turnod the money
ovci- to y\v. (Irilliii to tril tliom that you had, in fact, <ijotten rid
of tiio moneys For oxamplc, did you call I'rcsident Nixon?
Mr. Kkiuizo. Xo.
Mr. Lackimtz. Did you call Mv. Danncr?
Ml-. Kkhozo. Xo.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you call Rose Mary Woods?
Mi-. Rerozo. Xo. Xo. I'm sure that it was just on another visit that
I related that.
Mr. F'ratp:s. To the President, you're talking about?
Mr. Kebozo. To anyone.
Mr. Fratks. That's the context of his pievious testimony.
Mr. Dash. There is a question in my mind about the return to
Mr. Griffin. Did you clear that area now?
Mr. Lackritz. I have.
]\rr. Dash. T think you have indicated, Mr. Rebozo. that you
souirht Ml-, (rriffin's advice on whether to return the money. I un-
derstand the record shows that you said Mr. Griffin actually did
some research?
Mr. Rehozo. TTi-huh.
Mr. Dash. And that he advised you to return the money?
Mr. Rehozo. I'h-huh.
Mr. Dash. What was the issue, as you understood it, that he was
researc-hint!;. and what did he 1)ase liis advice on?
Mr. REH(tz(). Well, of course, Fm not a lawyer.
Mr. Dash. T don't want you to give me a legal answer, but just
your assumption on the questi(jn.
Mr. Rebozo. I think what he was trying to do was protect me,
and T think what lie was trying to ascertain was whether or not I
would have any IRS liability on it. and how best to divest my-
self of any such potential liability were there some.
Mr. Dash. l^)ut then the advice you were getting from Mr. Griffin
had tax implications, rather than anything to do with whether
or not it was wise to liold onto the moi\ev because it was from
Hughes, or that if there was a Hare-up in Hughes, that the matter
might become known, that tliis was a Hughes contribution to the
President ?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo. I'm sure that Mr. Giiffin was interested in my
best interests in the overall picture. "We're good friends, he's a
brilliant attorney, and he's a fine, honorable person. I'm assuming
that the research he did had to do with taxes, but I don't know.
The reason that I assume that, is that he didn't give me an off-
the-cuff opinion: he indicated what lie thought his opinion would
be. but he said he wanted to research a little bit, and he did, and
told me that definitely, I should return it.
Mr. Dash. Did you raise the question with him, whether or not
there had been any prol)lem of your turning this money over to
the finance committee^ Is that an issue that you raised with him
or had vou alreadv made up vour mind that you were not going to
do that?
Mr. REBf)Zo. Xo. By then the finance committee was in trouble,
weren't thev?
10116
Mr. Dash. AVell, actually, it appeared that the first time you
beo-an to consider these issues of return was when vou were also
beine notified bv the Internal Revenue Service that there were
questions beins: raised and they were *i:oinj^ to talk to you.
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And the tax issues were being raised. Xot yours per-
sonally, but
Mr. Rebozo. Let me emphasize that my consternation wasn't
motivated by tax implications involvino; me. Again-, I still was
concerned about embarrassment to the administration principally,
that here was a possibility that we get another Drew Pearson-type
series about Hughes money and it goes on and on. It "would break
him forever. It never even occurred to me that I had any tax
problems. I was custodian of some funds. They hadn't been touched.
They Avere sitting there. I hadn't spent them, T hadn't done any-
thing: Avith them.
Mr. Dash. So the only question Mr. Griffin was researching for
you was how to best turn it over so as not to raise any tax impli-
cations?
Mr. Rp:b()zo. Xo, I think it was whether I should turn them over
and hoAv it should be done in order to aA'oid embarrassment.
Mr. Lexzxer. FolloAving Mr. Dash's questions, did these individ-
uals that vou consulted Avith — ]\Tr. Haig, INIr. Garment, Mr. Ehr-
lichman, Griffin, Kalmbach. and so forth — did you discuss with
them the issue of AA'hether the funds had been used or not?
Mr. Rebozo. That Avas no issue. They had not been used. I still had
the funds.
Mr. Lexzxer. So the ansAver is no, you ncA^er discussed that with
any of those individuals ?
]\Ir. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. One question that I guess Avasn't asked. A^Hien you
were Avith the President and Mr. Danner at Camp David. Avas Mr.
Sanchez or any other individual present during any of those dis-
cussions ?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo, T think Sanchez brought in coffee and he never
JNIr. Lexzxer. He didn't overhear any of the couA'ersation ?
INIr. Rebozo. Xo, no, they come and go.
INIr. Lexzxer. I Avas going to f^et into another area.
INIr. Frates. What area is that, Terry?
Mr. Lexzxer. One thing I Avanted to ask you about Avas — there
Avas a neAvspaper article recently, and since Ave didn't knoAv about this,
it couldii't have come fi-om us, regarding a conversation Avith A. D.
Davis, T think it Avas.
]\Ir. Rebozo. Uh-huh.
^Ir. Lexzxer. T don't knoAv AA'hether that ncAvspaper article is ac-
curate or not. I just Avanted to ask you, did you receiA^e a cash con-
tribution from A. D. Davis?
Mr. Rebozo. What does the article say?
Mr. Lexzxer. I don't have it Avith me. I saw the article in Mr.
Anderson's column, so I thought I Avould ask.
]\Ir. Frates. "\^lien Avas this?
Mr. Lexzxer. The article?
10117
Mv. Frates. No.
]Mr. Lexzner, It was supposed to be for the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Frates. What was it made on?
]\Ir. Lenzner. I don't know. Do you recall a contribution?
ISIr. Rebozo. Yes.
INIr, Lexzner. Do you recall when you "ot it?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Yes, Davis made a contribution before the deadline,
the April 7 deadline.
Mr. Lexzner. In cash?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
jNIr. Lenzxer. How much was it? AVlien was that?
Mr. Rebozo. It was purported to be $50,000. I never saw the inside
of it. I just turned it in.
]\Ir. Lexzner. You received it on April 6?
Mr. Rebozo. I guess it was the 4th or 5th. I think it was 2 or 3
days before the deadline.
Mr. Lenzxer. And it was cash?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Supposed to be.
IVIr. Frates. He said he didn't see it.
iNIr. Dash. Was it in an envelope ?
IMr. Rebozo. A big envelope.
INIr. Lexzner. AVhat did you do with it after you received it?
Mr. Rebozo. I called the finance office and turned it in.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you mail it up to them or
]\Ir. Rebozo. No, no, they sent someone down to get it.
Mr. Lex^zx'er. Do you remember who came down to pick it up?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. Yes, Fred LaRue came down and picked it up.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you give him anything else besides that en-
velope ?
iNIr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. And you did not open the envelope yourself?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. You contacted Mr. Davis and asked him for a con-
tribution?
]\Ir. Rebozo. No. the way it came about was that Davis had made a
contribution in 1968 through me, and the way it came up was the
State chairman, the State finance chairman for the 1972 campaign,
lives in Jacksonville where Davis' headquarters are. He had ap-
proached Davis for a contribution. Davis had said they wanted to
give it through me. So that's what he did.
Mr. Lexzxer. It's A. D. Davis of the Winn-Dixie Co., is that
correct ?
]Mr, Rebozo. Yes. The Davises have always — they have about 900
supermarkets in a lot of cities. I recall some years ago they made
contributions to a Governor's race and got a lot of bad publicity about
it, so ever since then, nw understanding is that they just pay thern-
selves big enough salaries every year to make their contributions in
cash. It's very apparent why, because if they're identified as being
a big contributor, they're going to be besieged with every office-
holder in every city they operate in and every councilman, everyone
else. He is, incidentally." a Democrat, and I think he gave money to
the other side, too. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzxer. He was covering all his bets.
10118
Mr. Rebozo. They have to do it, I p;uess.
Mr. Lexzxer. Was this money from Mr. Davis personally, or from
his conjilomerate of people?
INIr. Rebozo. Xo, from what I understand, he and his brothers each
year do this. They pay themselves salaries — ever since they had the
problem some — it must have been 20 years ajro. about contributions,
they've handled their political activities in this fashion, from what
I understand. They — I think there are 4 brothers, and they went in
business in Miami originally with 1 little store and they now own
the Winn-Dixie and Kwik-Chik chain of about 900 stores.
They are very, very highly respected people, hifjhly re<?arded. I
want to dispel the idea that seems to be prevalent amon^ those who
aren't involved in politics; when you talk about cash, rigrht away,
people think there is something nefarious. But there are many rea-
sons for people to give cash. They may give to both sides and they
don't want the other side to know it. At this time, it was perfectly
legitimate and legal, according to the — before April 7 to make a con-
tribution.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you receive any other cash contributions?
]\Ir. Rebozo. No, just minor ones. I think like $10 or $20. I recall
getting one check from a poor old lady for $10. It was all wrinkled
up and she said she was so anxious to help this President that she
took this out of her tithing money. So I sent that up so that it would
get special attention, maybe get a letter for her or something like
that.
]Mr. Lenzxer. If I can sum up in two questions, now, just about
everything we've been focusing on
INIr. Frates. For 2 days in two questions?
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Frates, if you can just wait a second. In sum,
you're testifying that at no time was the money that INIr. Danner
delivered to you ever used on behalf of any other individuals?
Mr. Rebozo. That's correct.
]Mr. Lexzxer. And at no time did you ever make that statement
or say that you used it on behalf of any other individuals?
Mr. Rebozo. That's to the best of my understanding and knowledge.
Mr. Lexzxer. And obviously, if you hadn't used it, you wouldn't
have told people that you had used it?
INIr. Rebozo. No.
INIr. Lexzxer. I would like to get on now to some other areas.
INIr. Dash. These are not lengtliy, Mr. Frates.
Mr. Frates. I'm not rushing him, just so we don't repeat.
INIr. Dash. I'm also interested in finishing it.
INIr. Lexzxer. If I start repeating, stop me. Do you recall having
discussions with INIr. Danner with regard to the employment of a
Johnny INIeier, M-e-i-e-r, by the Hughes Tool Co.?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Yes, we went over that pretty thoroughly during our
previous-
Mr. Frates. He has the i-ight to ask that. This is under oath.
INIr. Rebozo. I didn't wjint to go into that, that thoroughly. I just
wanted to point that out so those Avho weren't present at the time
can check your records on it. Johnny IMeier — I think I've met him
one time, and I had heard through Danner and Maheu that he was
10119
suspected of fraudulent mine claims or something to that effect. They
felt that he was buying abandoned mine claims and selling them to
Hughes for a much higher price. And there were other factors in-
volved. He was, as I said before, very patronizing to Don Nixon and,
as I've said before, I don't think Don Nixon is dishonest; I think
he's very naive. And I was concerned, again, about the possibility of
some more embarrassment, such as he had showered on the President
in 1960 and 1962, because of the Hughes loan then, and from the
things that they were telling me, why, I just didn't think that addi-
tionally, that Don Nixon should be consorting socially and otherwise
with a representative of Hughes Tool Co.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you so advise Mr. Danner and ask him
to
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lenzxer [continuing]. Ask him to make sure that that rela-
tionship didn't continue?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you later learn after that conversation with
Mr. Danner of a meeting between Mr. Meier and Mr. Donald Nixon?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lex^zxer. You know what I'm referring to?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, you're talking about the airport
Mr. Lexzxer. Exactly.
INIr. Rebozo. Yes. Yes, I understood that they were seen and photo-
graphed there at the airport together after they were not supposed
to be consorting with each other.
INIr. Lexzxer. Do you recall hearing from an individual at the
"VMiite House that — advising you that the meeting in fact was going
on right at that time and asking you to find out if, in fact, it was?
INIr. Rebozo. No. Someone called me, but I don't really remember
who it was.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. From the White House?
Mr. Rebozo. I think so.
INIr. Lexzxer. Telling you that in fact, the meeting between Mr.
INIeier and Mr. Donald Nixon
Mr. Rebozo. At the airport right then. Someone took their picture.
I don't know how that was engineered.
ISIr. Lexzxer. Do you recall if that phone call was from Mr. Ehr-
lichman?
Mr. Rebozo. Could have been. I don't recall, you know, for sure.
Mr. Lexzner. And do you recall whether the information of the
meeting was obtained from physical surveillance by the Secret
Service ?
]Mr. Rebozo. I don't know how it was obtained.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you call Danner and ask him to check it out?
Mr. Rebozo. I sure did.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did he get back to you on that?
Mr. Rebozo. I think later, he told me that it was true, that they
were photographed.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you forward that information on to anybody,
to ]\Ir. Ehrlichman at the White House or others?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, if Ehrlichman was the one who told me, I
wouldn't have any occasion to tell him. I don't think so. Certainly
31-889 O - 74 - 29
10120
not the President. These are the kinds of things that we all kept
from the President, because there was nothing he could do about it
and we were hoping that the matter could be handled properly
otherwise.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did you discuss that subject with Rose Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. Probably.
Mr. Lexzner. Did slie have — did ]\Iiss Woods have any responsi-
bility for Donald Xixon and his activities?
Mr. Rebozo. Rose?
Mr. Lenzxer. Yes.
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so. She shared the sentiment of
those of us close to the family. Many families have relatives they
would like to keep in the closet for awhile now and then, but I'm
not saying — I don't mean to say this derogatorily about Don, be-
cause I want to repeat, I really just feel that he's overly endowed
with naivete.
Mr. Lexzxer. Have you ever had any financial transactions with
him, by the way, Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
JNIr. Lex'zxer. Never furnished him any money or
IMr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you, after that incident at the Orange County
Airport, ask that Mr. Meier be terminated?
]\Ir. Rebozo. I think that was the whole objective. I think that they
were trying to terminate him all the time because of these appre-
hensions they had about mining claims, of which I know nothing.
But as I understand it, Hughes doesn't terminate a lot of people.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever have written communications with Mr.
Danner with regard to Mr. Meier?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have, but I don't — I don't know. If I had, it
would probably have been in that file.
Mv. Lexzx'er. Did you ever ask him to send you any information
on INIr. Meier?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't think so. I think we had a very clear under-
standing about my feeling about INIr. INIeier, and I believe the feeling
was mutual.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were you aware of the fact that the IRS was doing a
tax audit on Mr. Meier, also?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
ISIr. Lex^zx'er. Did you ever learn whether the AVhite House had
requested investigative files on Mr. "Meier from agencies?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
IMr. Lexzxer. Let me show you what has previously been marked
as Danner exhibit 15* in an executive session of December 19, 1973.
Mr. Dash. Letter to whom ?
Mr. Lexzxer. It's a letter from INIr. Danner, I believe, to Mr.
Rebozo, dated November 11, 1969.
Mr. Rebozo. They could have sent some news releases. I wouldn't
have any occasion to file them. So I don't know anything about it.
I don't even remember — was that after Meier's separation?
Mr. Lexzxer. You don't recall receiving that letter, though, Mr.
Rebozo ?
•See Book 20, p. 9675.
10121
]\Ir. Rebozo. No, I don't remember the letter. "\^Tiat it may have
been — I recall one incident when they were trying to apparently
fignre out a way to get rid of Meier, and he kept cropping up with
Don Hughes in different places
Mr. Frates. Don Xixon.
INIr. Rebozo. Don Nixon, I'm sorry. I recall that at one time, he
was supposed to have gone to the opening of — I think it was Caesar's
Palace, and they had adjoining tables, so they weren't together. That
may have been what the news article that he sent me w^as about.
]Mr. Lexzxer. The letter refers also to a memorandum on the same
subject, "which I discussed with you." Do you recall what that mem-
orandum was?
INIr. Rebozo. It must have had to do do with his zeal for publicity.
He had told — Danner had told me that this fellow loved publicity
and he Avas actually a geologist, I think. And he has travelled with
Nixon, as I understand it, one time to Europe and one time to the
Dominican Republic.
JNIr. Frates. This is Donald ?
Mr. Rebozo. Don Nixon, and it may have been some clipping like
that, and if it were, I could have very easily folded the memo and
the pictures up and sent them to Ehrlichman. I don't know. I could
have. I don't know. Meier, you know — there's really nothing I can
tell you about JNIeier that w'ould assist in this investigation, I don't
believe, because I hardly know^ him and I've told you everything that
I know.
Mr. Lexzner. Well, were you aware that Don Nixon was under
electronic surveillance at any time before it came out in the news
media? ^
]\Ir. Rebozo. No, not until I read it in the paper.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did the presence of Donald Nixon and Johnny
Meier in New York, have anything to do with your refusing the
Hughes contribution initially?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I read that also. I'm sure it didn't. It would have
added to my rationale. So I have no reason to say I don't think it
does, unless' it did. But I had — I think at that time, I knew nothing
about Johnny Meier and I had no reason to. At that time, Danner
wasn't even with Hughes, so I couldn't have even learned about
IVIeier and his relationship. The name, "Johnny Meier," I think at
first rang a bell because several administrations back, there was a
wheeler-dealer John Myer. This fellow's name is spelled differently,
a different person.
Senator Montota. He was also a Hughes boy.
Mr. Rebozo. Was he?
Senator ISIoxtoya. Yes.
INIr. Rebozo. I didn't know that.
Mr. Lexzxer. I've given Mr. Frates a copy of exhibit 12* that you
furnished us, Mr. Rebozo.
]\Ir. Frates. This came out of our file, so the Senator understands.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can you tell us who Mr. Bird is and what that
refers to?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes. I hadn't seen Bird in years. I wouldn't know him
if he walked in this room now. But I remember years ago, he was —
♦See p. 10173.
10122
I think he worked in Senator Smathers' office. T think he was a young,
bright fellow there. I remember this letter, and he was suggesting
that we get Danner into the camj^aign and Danner was doing too well
to make any move. I don't think I even spoke to him about it, but
I would have known that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Turning to another subject very briefly
]Mr. Frates. You'd better get these back.
Mr. Lenzxer. I take it at some point, you learned that this News-
day magazine in 1971 was conducting an investigation and — I don't
know if you describe it as an investigation, but they were planning
on writing a series of articles on you. Do you recall that, sir?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes, sir, I recall that vividly, because I first heard of
it in February, that they were going to do a story for the October
issue, and I wondered why in the world are they down here now?
They had six men doAvn there, spent 6 months, and the first tipoff
I had about them was from somebody in the courthouse, whom, I
don't even know to this day. But they contacted someone who they
knew was a friend of mine and told me these people were down
there and they had a surly way about them and they were asking a
lot of questions, and they were digging up every record that I had.
This went on for Aveeks and weeks and weeks and they were concerned,
because they even had many — many of the records were stored in
the warehouse some distance away. They even went back there.
They got the records of my divorce in 1949 and they went through
every land purchase and every transaction I had ever had, and they,
by their own admission, conducted over 400 interviews with everyone
even remotely connected with me. And they came up with this bunch
of tripe that I would say was about 2 percent accurate.
]\[r. Lexzx'er. I can imderstand your concern about that matter.
Did you discuss this investigation and pending article with anyone
in the "\^Tiite House?
INlr. Rebozo. Probably.
INIr. Lex^zx'er. Do you recall who you might have discussed that
with — the President ?
INIr. Rebozo. I don't think so. That's the kind of thing we never
bothered him with. And he doesn't read the papers, anyway.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr, Ehrlichman?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I don't think so. I know what you're getting at,
that possibly, somehow or other, I had triggered an investigation
on one of their reporters. But that's not the case. I made no request
of any kind, nor Avould I. And after what I've been going through
with IRS, I would never do it to my worst enemy, regardless.
Mr. Lexzxer. You Avere not aware, then, that an audit had been
ordered on some of the reporters on Newsday?
]\Ir. Rebozo. T read in the paper that one of the reporters had
Mr. Lexzxer. But weren't aware of that?
Mr. Rebozo. I read in the papers that one of the reporters had
them investigate a previous year's tax return, a routine audit.
ContraryAvise. they didn't have IRS men, they had intelligence,
fraud men on me. and still are. They have four of them there, five
of them sometimes. They conducted 3 years, CA^ery corporation and
partnership that I'a'C been iuA-olved in for 3 years. They've seen
10123
every check I've ever written, and any one of these companies,
they've seen eA'erv statement, every deposit slip, they've tracked
everythino; down. They came back in September and said, "There's
no wronofdointi'. we've found no wrono;doino;."
So we asked them, "File your report," and they said they would
file it by the 1st of October. Then they didn't, so we asked them
again and they said, "Well, we're going to wait for AVatergate
to end." So you have an idea why I've tried to be as cooperative as
I could be by handing you my whole soul and my life to review and
try to get this miserable nightmare behind me.
There are many, many other considerations and I know it doesn't
bother you people, but it bothers me in a community that I've spent
my entire life in. I'm the youngest of nine children and my 97-
year-old mother sees my picture on television or sees something in
the paper that's bad; they all worry. I just hope that when this is
over, assuming that you give me a clean bill of health, that I'll get
some sort of a strong statement to that effect. Because it has affected
our deposits by about $7 million. It affected our profit at the bank
last year by "approximately $270,000. We had 900-some accounts
closed in the last 6 months of last year, most of which can be at-
tributed to this. It's the first year in the 10-year history of the bank
that we didn't increase 30 to 35 percent. Our deposits were actually
below the previous year. I don't want to bore you all with my
personal problems, but I just want to emphasize the anxiety that
I have to bring this thing to a conclusion and hopefully, this will
do it. Even though in the middle of October, we met there with
Terry and he said if we turned these checks over to Bellino and let
him go through them and all, and doesn't find anything, we'll end
this thing. So a week later, we met again and Terry said, "We've
found no evidence to indicate that we need to call you to Washing-
ton, and everything looks good." But I'm still here and I hope that
I'm not just turning the stretch. I hope that we're winding it up.
Mr. Dash. We're winding it up. We're winding it up, one, be-
cause Senator Montoya knows we're also winding up ourselves.
We're closing the investigation. I hope we'll be able to make what-
ever findings we can from the evidence. It's in our interest and that
of the committee, and I speak for the committee as well as the
staff, that we make findings of, not of culpability, but of nonculpa-
bility. We enjoy that more.
Mr. Rebozo. I think so.
iNIr, Dasti. But no time in any of this investigation has anybody
on the staff or the committee been out to get anybody.
Mr. Frates. I disagree with that, ]Mr. Dash, since you've said it,
because we have evidence that the staff has made the statement,
"We're going to get the whole damned crowd."
Mr. Dash, I saw that quote, but I
Mr, Frates. No, sir, that Bellino and Armstrong have indicated
a paranoid investigation technique, and I submit to you that they
have been out to get
Senator Montota. I would like to know who they said that to.
;Mr. Frates. All right, sir, it's published in the paper, and we'll
furnish you affidavits for that.
10124
INIr. Dash. I've seen that quote, but I don't know Avho it is at-
tributed to.
Mr. Frates. In the early stages of it.
Senator Moxtoya. Let me get the record straight.
We of the committee have met with the staff. Every policy de-
cision which has been made has passed the committee unanimously,
except one, when the vote drew political lines. Now, we have not
badgered any witnesses. I hope you M-ill go out of here convinced
that we have been as courteous as anybody could be with a witness
or with his attorney.
Mr. Frates. Couldn't ask for more.
Senator IMoxtota. We're more concerned with doing justice and
getting at the truth than with trying to find anybody guilty of
anything. That's all we want.
]Mr. Frates. Senator, I have no reservations. I think that the
Watergate, the total picture, has been very helpful to this country.
I supported it, Mr. Robozo has supported it. I think he has per-
sonal things. I do feel, and I wasn't going to say anything about it
until JNIr. Dash did, I feel and INIr. Rebozo and everybody in his
office has indicated, I think every one of these Senators, we couldn't
have asked for better treatment. I think the whole proceedings, as
I've watched it on TV. But I did feel maybe sometimes overzealous
investigators — I'm an active Democrat, Senator, so this is no parti-
san thing with me. It doesn't make any difference. We're out for
justice, too. But I do believe that we have done irreparable harm
to INIr. Rebozo. I hope he's going to be able to recoup it. That might
be tough, because he has been involved in it.
With that, I'll stop. But there has never been any question in our
mind.
I will say that Mr. Dash has been extremely cooperative with us.
Any time that my partner, Alan Greer, and I have gone to him,
we have seemed to work out the problems.
Primarily, Terry Lenzner and our staff have attempted to work
out the problems. But I say to you. sir, that Armstrong and Bellino
bring no credit to the Senate of the United States, in my opinion.
Mr. Belltxo. I resent that.
Senator jMoxtoya. I would like to know if they have overstepped
the bounds of propriety in investigative work. I would like to know
the details of it, because that has not been the policj' of the com-
mittee.
]\rr. Frates. I know, sir.
Senator ^NToxtota. We don't want any of the employees to do that.
In fact, in the spirit of fairness, I was going to ask at the conclu-
sion that INIr. Rebozo make his own statement and say anything
into the record, because this might be spread publicly. He has that
privilege under our rules, as you know.
Mr. Frates. Yes, sir.
Senator INIoxtota. Certainly, we don't want you to go out with
the feeling that we're badgering INIr. Rebozo or even that those who
are investigating the factual situation liave any authority in the
committee to do that. We want to know.
Mr. Frates. Senator, one of the incidents that happened here, to
show, Mv. Rebozo had a nephew who got into some minor criminal
10125
activity 3 or 4 years ago, paid a lawyer some $700, the president of
our Dade County Bar. They investigated — I don't know which one,
it slips mo now. After seeing all checks, goes over there, calls him
about it, asks him about it when they were trying to check out
$100,000. It was just constant repetition of things of this nature.
Mr. Rebozo. Mr. Bellino called the president of one of the banks
that I had borrowed money from and questioned the wisdom of
the loan.
Mr. Bellixo. That's absolutely not true.
Senator Montoya. Go ahead.
Off the i^ocord.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Dash. Back on the record.
Again, I don't need to make a defense or a charge. I think we
have made a statement. I think one thing I have asked of our staff' is
to have — and I would ask for — an aggressive investigation. We have
had this responsibility. I understand that at times, an aggressive
investigation can be understood to go beyond that by one who is
the subject of it. Xobody likes to be under investigation. We who
have had the responsibility of conducting this investigation do not
find it pleasant to bring into or probe into private matters. But
we have a responsibility and we're going through it,
I know that, for instance, IVEr. Bellino, who has had a long record
of public service and an excellent record for the Senate, is a very
thorough investigator who seeks — and ISIr. Frates, I would agree
with you that at times, under the law, he might seek more than he
w^ould be entitled to under the law, but he does it in accordance
with what he considers to be his responsibility.
I have known and worked with Mr. Armstrong throughout this
investigation. I've known him to be a man of integrity but a very
tough investigator.
We felt during this period of a year, that in order for us to get
the facts, we had to have people go out and pry and probe and get
information. Investigation at all times — I'm sure Mr. Frates knows
as a good trial lawyer and experienced lawyer, we all know that
investigation isn't necessarily the most pleasant thing to do.
Mr. Fkates. ]Mr. Dash, we appreciate, we could argue this thing.
It just so happened that Senator Ervin was down making an ad-
dress at the University of Miami Law School. He said the leaks
in the Senate committee staff are like a sieve.
Mr. Dash. He probably didn't say leaks of the staff, he said
leaks out of the committee.
Mr. Frates. But really, I'm sure Mr. Rebozo appreciates what
the Senators have done aiid we didn't expect anything else but from
a Senator.
Senator, when you walk in this room, you or any one of the other
Senators. I stand up and Mr. Rebozo stands up. That is the way we
feel about a T^.S. Senator. That is the way we feel about the Presi-
dency, the office of the thing. We want to cooperate and conclude it.
Mr. Dash. Can we now, as quickly as we can, proceed to the
closing questions?
ISIr. Armstroxg. I have no other questions.
10126
INIr. Lexzxer. Goinjr back to the Newsday problem, I didn't get
quite — did you know whetlier an IRS audit had been requested by
the "\^niite House on one of the Newsday's reporters?
^Mr. Rebozo. I didn't know it; no. I've read it in the newspapers.
]\Ir. Lenzxer. But nobody advised you of that except what you
read in the newspapers?
Mr. Rebozo. No; and I've wondered who ordered my audit. The
"^ATiite House may have ordered it. Mine is more than an audit. It's
a criminal investifjation of 3 years.
!Mr. Lexzxer. Did you seek to obtain from anybody at the "White
House, or have them obtain, any information with regard to News-
day or Newsday articles?
i^fr. Rebozo, No, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. "Were you aware that, in fact, an attempt was made
to obtain information with regard to those news articles?
Mr. Rebozo. I'm not aware of it now.
Mr. Lexzxer. IVfay I have this marked as an exhibit today?
[WHiereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo ex-
hibit No. 15, for identification.^]
Mr. Lexzxer. It's a memorandum from Mr. Caulfield to Mr. Dean
dated September 10, 1971, and it's subject is "Newsday Article."
I'm particularly interested in item C, for example. It says:
A trusted member of the newspaper's staff has stated that heavy outside
pressure is being exerted to uncover the details of the story before publica-
tion. This pressure is independent of the efforts being programed from my oflice.
Mr. Rebozo. I know nothing about it, Terry, but I tell you, one
thing I'm really graced with is a lot of friends. I'm very proud that
one of them would have made that effort to try to find something
out.
INIr. Dash. I don't think the record shows what that memo is.
You identified the memo and who it's from.
Mr. Lexzxer. It will be part of the record.
Mr. Frates. It's from Jack Caulfield to Mr. Dean, I don't see
why it's relevant.
Mr. Lexzxer. I was trying to refresh ]\Ir. Rebozo's recollection.
Mr. Rebozo. No, sir; but as I said, I wouldn't wish this on any-
one. The kind of investigation I'm getting, as I said, is not a routine
investigation like this fellow Green got, or O'Brien or anybody else.
My accoiuitants are Horwith & Horwith, one of the large firms.
Every partner there says they have never seen an investigation in
depth as much as this one is.
^fr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo, did you ever suggest to anybody at
the "\Aniite House that the Newsday articles were being financed
actually by the Kennedy Foundation?
INIr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Let me have this marked as an exhibit.
Mr. Frates. I have a hard time seeing where this is relevant or
material.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit
No. 16, for identification."^]
1 See I). 10177.
2 See p. 10178.
10127
Mr. Frates. We're talkiiio; about an article written against Mr.
Rebozo after some investigation. I don't see what that has anything
to do with the resohition of the question.
Mr. Dash. We have already had in the record in the first phase
the use of certain agencies of the Government
Senator IVIoxtoya. I remember that.
Mr. Dash. That created an atmosphere which the committee has
already ruled on in our resolution, as to the use of IRS, and the
committee has been investigating, not just from Mr. Rebozo but
the question of enemies lists as well as other types of abuse of agency
powers of this nature. Therefore, the committee has a ruling on this.
Mr. Rebozo. Let me answer that question in this way, ISIr. Dash.
I have been privileged over all these years to have been acquainted
with a number of Avonderful, wonderful people in the Senate and
House. Today, Stuart Symington is a dear friend of mine; Russell
Long is one of my dear friends, both of them over some 20 years. Spes-
sard Holland was one of my friends. Smathers I went to school with
from the fourth grade. Dick Russell was a good friend of mine. I
could go on and on with people like that, high caliber, wonderful
people, fine people that I have the greatest respect for. Our local Con-
gressman, Fascell, I've known him 30 years. He has been up here 25
or so.
Not one of these men will ever tell you that I ever asked a favor of
any of them at any time. Why would I suddenly start doing it now?
Mr. Frates. Of course, I don't think, Terry, that the letter indicates
the question you asked, but I don't w^ant to get into semantics.
Mr. Lexzxer. This says :
"As you know, it'' — being the Newsday article — "is based upon
Bebe's observation that Greene and Guthman are Kennedy loyalists
and that Moyers is now with the Kennedy Foundation."
My question really is: Did you relay that information to anybody
at tlie AMiite House' and ask them to determine whether the Kennedy
Foundation was financing the Newsday article?
Mr, Rebozo. I think I may know' how that happened. Someone
told me. and we're going back into an area that I don't think is
even relevant, but for what it's worth
Senator Moxtoya. It's not relevant as far as you're concerned
or your testimony, but it's relevant with respect to something else
that we uncovered earlier in the hearings.
]\Ir. Rebozo. Yes. Someone told me. Senator, that one of the hotel
bills down there was paid for by Ted — what's-his-name's lawyer
for Kennedy? There could have been a lawyer, a story, somebody
with the same name. You know who I mean, a nice looking young
guv — Sorensen. Someone told me that one of the hotel bills was
picked up by Ted Sorensen. I may have relayed that to somebody
and they pieced it together like this.
But I knew — President Johnson Avas a friend of mine since
before he was majority leader and never have I asked — I have never
mixed.
Senator Moxtoya. I don't think it's important anyway.
INIr. Rebozo. I don't think so.
10128
Mr. Lenzxer. Mr. Rebozo, as I understand it, at some point, you
indicated a desire to file a libel suit against Newsday for this. Do
you recall discussing that with Fred Fielding?
Mr. Rebozo. With who?
J\Ir. Lexzner. Fred Fielding, of the "White House.
INlr. Rebozo. Who is Fred Fielding?
Mr. Lexzxer. I think he was one of Mr, Dean's assistants.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall anything like that, no; unless he brought
it up and the thought went through my mind. I've considered fil-
ing libel suits against quite a few and have been told that we have
some pretty good grounds. Unfortunately, all of this notoriety has
made me what they consider a public person, and I have to prove
malice was intended, and it's not quite that easy. But we have filed
one against the Post, as you know.
Mr. Lex^zxer. But you don't recall Mr. Fielding coming down at
the request of Mr. Ehrlichman to discuss financial transactions with
regard to this libel suit?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall that, no. I talked over the years, you
Icnow, to a lot of those people around the White House, and many
of them I don't even know their names. But I'll say that I cer-
tainly seriously considered bringing action against them. I con-
sidered ABC, of all places.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do you recall discussing that with Mr. Ehrlich-
man ?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have, but
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall Mr. Ehrlichman indicating to you
ihat the President did not want you to file such a lawsuit if
possible ?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever receive a written request from Mr.
Ehrlichman requesting more information
Mr. Rebozo. About what?
Mr. Lexzxer. About the financial transactions that were being
investigated by Newsday?
Mr. Rebozo. It was in all the papers. It Avas a bomb. A lot of
them didn't buy it. They had a big investment
Mr. Lexzx'er. You have no recollection of discussing with Field-
ing all the financial transactions save the B & C Investment Co.
when he came down to see you?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall Fielding at all. I don't recall him
coming to see me. And that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. A
lot of these people, when they come down, they'll come down for
a vacation for a week or so, and they'll drop in to see me and it
may have been mentioned.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall Mr. Lewis, Hobart Lewis, coming
down and talking to you or talking to you at some other time?
Mr. Rebozo. I talked to Hobart Lewis about it.
Mr. Lexzxer. What did you seek from him ?
Mr. Rebozo. I wanted to get his opinion. Hobart's got both feet,
well, solidly planted. He's a journalist, and he's a friend and a great
person.
10129
Mr. Lexzner. You wanted to get his opinion on whether you
should tile a lawsuit?
Mr. Rp:bozo. I wanted to get his opinion about the whole thing.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did you rec^uest INIr. Lewis to conduct an inves-
tigation and obtain information for you with regard to the News-
day article?
^Ir. Kebozo. I didn't request it, but he volunteered it, and he
did have one of his men do a check on his own. The fellow was
the most objective investigator reporter I have ever seen, because
he didn't want any list of people from me to go to see. He just
took the article and worked from scratch on liis own.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he try to obtain information from Newsday
itself as to what they were going to print?
JNIr. Rebozo. I don't know — no, I think this was after the story
was printed.
Mr, Lexzxer. After the story w^as printed?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, do you recall, again, INIr. Dean or another
individual discussing with you in 1971, the relationship between
Larry O'Brien and the Hughes Tool Co. and Robert Maheu?
Mr. Rebozo. I've had very few discussions with Dean, and ob-
viously not few enough. But I don't recall any such conversation
with him about that.
I would discuss things with Ehrlichman and I would venture to
say in the 5 years he was there, I probably had maybe five discus-
sions Avith him. I would see him, sure, talk to him here and there.
But I mean about anything substantive.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall telling Mr. Dean that you had re-
ceived information from Mr. Maheu with regard to O'Brien, and
that you felt that Maheu had possibly retained O'Brien for his
services without any direct knowledge by Hughes himself?
Mr. Rebozo. The last sentence I couldn't have, I would have been
purely conjecturing, and it's not like me without qualifying it. I
could have at sometime, if he asked me or brought it up, and it's
possible that I had mentioned it to Ehrlichman and Ehrlichman
told Dean and Dean asked me about it. I don't know.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall telling Dean or Ehrlichman that
you were under the impression that Maheu had a good bit of free-
dom, refuses money, and that you could acquire some documenta-
tion of that fact?
Mr. Rebozo. What in the world would have been the object in
my offering that kind of
Mr. Frates. I think the question Avas, did you make the state-
ment. Mr. Rebozo, if you would answer the question, and then if
you want to explain. I'm sure the chairman will let you.
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall such statement.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you also recall telling Dean or Ehrlichman
that you requested, if any action be taken with regard to Hughes,
you be notified because of your delicacy of relationship and dealings
with the Hughes people ?
Mr. Rebozo. I may have done that.
10130
Ml'. I^EXZNKK, You may have told that to Doan or Ehrlichman?
Mr. Kkbozo. Well, you say Dean or Ehrlichman. Which one?
Mr. Lenzxer. Well, which one do you recall telling that to?
Ml-. Kehozo. I don't recall tellinji; it to either one, but if I told
it to anyone, it would probably have been P^hrlichman. I don't
recall it, but I could have. That Avould be lo«!;ical for me to do
if a man has made the kind of contribution he has.
Mr. Lexzxek. Were you aware of any effort to obtain dero^jatory
information on Larry O'Brien by the AVhite House?
Mr. Rehozo. No, and I don't know that they did make any ef-
fort. No, and I can't conceive of it even now — what use it would be.
Mr. Lexzxer. Any possible discussions with the President with
re<rard to the tax audit, of the use of information fi-om the tax
audit to document O'Jirien's retainer from the IIu<j;hes Co.?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I didn't even know they were conducting a tax
audit on O'Brien.
Mr. Lexzxer. I think that's about it for me.
Mr. Armstroxcj. Mr. Rebozo, did anyone ever tell you or did
you ever learn that Mr. Hank (ireenspun had a large number of
memos in Mr. Howard Hughes' handwriting?
Mr. Rep.ozo. T think that came up during one of our previous
interviews. But no, L firsthnnd. had no knowledge and I don't be-
lieve I've ever met (ireenspun.
Mr. Armstrox(}. You don't recall Mr. Danner ever discussing
that with you?
Mr. Rebozo. I don't recall it. He could have said it and it
wouldn't mean anything to me.
Mr. Ar^fstroxg. Do you recall if INIr. Kalmbach ever mentioned
it or Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstroxo. And do you recall nny discussions that Mr.
Greenspun had made iiupiiries to Mr. Kalmbach and others in the
administration, regarding the receipt of the $100,000 contribution
to Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Rebozo. The only thing T recall about that is what I've read
in the press.
Mr. Armstroxg. You have no independent knowledge of that
other than the press?
Mr. Rebozo. No; no knowledge of it.
Mr. Armstroxg. And similarly, about the use of the contribution
in San Clemente that Mr. Greenspun
Mr. Rebozo, AVhich contribution?
Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. That Mr. Greenspun had inquired about the use of
the $100,000 contribution in San Clemente?
Mr. Rebozo. That's the first I've heard that.
ISfr. Armstrox'^o. Mr. Rebozo, have you ever liad any financial or
business transactions with the President, and would you describe
them for us, please, since January 1, 19()9?
Mr. Rebozo. AVell, we've had the Fisher Island matter, which is
well known, and the lots on Key I-Jiscayne.
Mr. Armstroxg. That's tlie Cape Florida development?
10131
INIr. Rebozo. Cape Florida. And the purchase of the San Clemente
property.
]\rr. AR:\rsTRoxc.. That's the B & C Investment Co.?
Mr. Rkbozo. Yes; and I assisted in the acquisition of the two
houses at Key Biscayne.
Mr. AR^rsTRONG. In wliat capacity did you assist in the acquisition
of tliose liouses?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, the first capacity was a very interesting one. It
sort of depicts the President's attitude pretty well about money. I can
cite many more, but when it was understood that he was going to
buy — move down there and buy a couple of houses, the president of
the chamber of commerce came to me and said they had voted to buy
the houses for the President, renovate them, do anything he wanted
and let him live there free for the term that he was in office. He
immediately declined it.
Mr. Armstrong. AVell, were you involved in the financing of the
houses?
INIr. Rebozo. Only to the extent of calling a mortgage company and
working that out. not personally.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other financial transactions you can
recall ?
Mr. Rebozo. The Fisher Island matter, which we've gone over
numerous times.
Another tribute to his lack of interest in money, because as I've
stated before, Avhen he became President, he decided to divest himself
of his interest in Fisher Island. He had something like 189,000
shares. He paid $1 a share for it, as we all did and still do. I tried
to urge him not to sell it because we had a contract to sell it that we
expected to close in 6 months. He said, "Xo," he wanted to get out of
it, he would just get his money back. And I told him, "No," that it
was worth over $3 a share and it wouldn't be right to just take his
monev back, he had to take a profit.
Then he said, "Well, I don't want much profit, just $l.'i5 a share."
And I said, "No, sir; it's Avorth over $3 a share and we have this sale
all ready to go. In 6 months' time, you'll get this money."
So I went before the board and told them of my conversation with
him and his insistence on not making a lot of money on it, and I said,
"Well. I think the least we can do is give him $2 a share." And
everybody on the board unanimously approved the sale, and the
interest in it was such that the board members wanted to pick it up
themselves, because we already had the property sold. The President,
by waiting 6 months, would liave gotten, according to the contract,
$175,000 more for it. but he declined to do that because he was going
in office. So we went ahead and arranged the sale.
AVe kicked it around a bit and realized that we might be criticized
for the board having inside information, and maybe buying this
stock up for themselves, so we called a shareholders' meeting and told
them the details of it, and we bought the stock in the treasury, put
it back in the treasury. So everv stockholder participated in a pro
rata share of what they had. AVe^ paid for it out of the $330,000 that
the buyers had deposited with us.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever borrowed money from the Presi-
dent?
10132
Mr. Rebozo. Well, I borrowed $10,000 from him, and that was the
first time back — I don't know when it was, late last year, that I paid
him back.
Mr. Armstrong. A^Hien you say late last year, you mean 1973, or
do you mean late 1972?
]Mr. Rebozo. Well, it could have been — it was probably December
of 1973 or January of 1974. No, I guess it was in the latter part of
last year.
Mr. ArmstronCt. December of 1973?
INIr. Rebozo. I don't know when it was. I borrowed $10,000 from
him last year.
Mr. Armstrong. Was it over a year ago, or was it jusc a few months
ago?
Mr. Rebozo, I can tell you when it Avas ; when I bought that INIary-
land house, however long ago that was. It was longer than that.
INIr. Armstrong. So it was at the end of 1972 ?
]Mr. Rebozo. That's right.
ISIr. Armstrong. And it was for the purpose of purchasing that
house ?
]\Ir. Rebozo. "\\niat happened was that I'd looked around and found
this house and decided to buy it. There was a possibility of Julie and
David moving there. David was in the Navy and I thought I would
buy it for an investment or rent it in the meantime, or use it, or
whatever, but principally in the event that they wanted a place. But
I had looked at, I guess, 200 houses on paper, and I made the rounds
for 2 full days of the pick of the houses that I found, because I felt
that if Julie and David did go there, the house had to be one that
would provide maximum security for his visits, rather than have a
whole street full of people every time the President came and went.
It was about 18 minutes from the White House.
"Wlien I talked to the President about it, he said, "Well, why don't
I biiy it for them?" And I said, "OK, if you want to buy it, OK."
So what happened was I charged his account $10,000 for the
initial deposit to buy the house. Then I got thinking about it and I
thought, well, I don't know what they're going to make of it. He
already has houses in (California and Key Biscay ne, plus the fact
that if he does it, then what's he buying for the other daughter? And
I talked him out of it.
So I said, "No, let me buy it." Then I went ahead and bought it
and returned the $10,000.
Mr. Armstrong. So at what point did you repay the loan?
Mr. Rebozo. Oh, it was several months later. Actually, I had
forgotten I had charged his account for it until the audit was made,
which reminded me, and I paid it back.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm sorry, sir, it wasn't paid back until when?
Mr. Rebozo. It wasn't paid back until that Coopers Lybrand audit.
I had forgotten about it. When the audit was made, they said,
"A^Hiat's this $10,000?" and I said, "I owe it." But it was a very
innocent, logical thing.
I think that we made the right decision and it has been perfect for
them when they want to go out, because nobody bothers them. They
10133
have an acre of ground, they have a big, high hedge. It's just perfect
sechisioii, and it's near enough.
Senator ]Montoya. We're going to have to be in recess. I have to
go up and vote. I'll make sure Senator Weicker is coming. If he's
coming, I won't come back.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Weicker. We'll reconvene now.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe, if I'm correct, you had just finished
telling us about the instance in which you had borrowed money from
the President.
Mr. Frates. Since Senator Weicker has just come in, when you say
"borrowed money," I think that's a misnomer. If you're going to ask
any questions on that, I would like INIr. Rebozo to repeat for the
Senator what this is, because it's for the purchase of Julie and
David Eisenhower's house. It's not a cash transaction.
Mr. Dash. We have no further questions on it. Do you, Scott?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
INIr. Dash. If that's all right with you
]\Ir. Frates. I thought he was going to start asking some questions.
It wasn't any borrowing, but it was a charging back.
JSIr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo, have you ever loaned any money to
the President since January 1, 1969?
]\Ir. Rebozo. I haven't. The bank has. Wait a minute, not since
January of 1969, though,
]\Ir. Armstrong. And have you ever given any gifts of cash or stock
or any other negotiable commodity of value in excess of $1,000 to
the President?
JNIr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And with the exception of the B & C Investment
Co., have you ever purchased any real property from the President?
Mr. Frates. From him ?
INIr. Armstrong. From the President, ves; again since January 1,
1969.
Mr. Rebozo. Only what the corporation purchased in Fisher
Island, which I've explained.
Mr. Armstrong. But only as a corporation member of that orga-
nization ?
Mr. Rebozo. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever sold any real property to the
President from January 1,1969, to the present?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever cashed any checks in excess of
$10,000 in the President's behalf for cash?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Have you evei- had any financial or business trans-
actions with any relatives of the President?
Mr. Rebozo. Only the matter involving Tricia's participation in the
lots. You know, that has been explained.
Mr. Armstrong. In the Cape Florida situation?
]Mr. Rebozo. Yes. And Julie and David's renting a house.
Mr. Armstrong. That is in the relationship of landlord and tenant,
technicalh' speaking?
10134
INIr. Rebozo. Yes, teclinically and actually.
INIr. ARi\rsTRoxG. Ri<rht. Have you ever had any financial or busi-
ness transactions with Fxlward Nixon, the President's brother?
Mr. Rebozo. Xo.
INJr. Armstrong. Have you ever borrowed money from ISIr. Edward
Nixon ?
jNIr. Rebozo. No.
]Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever loaned him any money?
JNIr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever given him gifts in excess of $1,000 ?
ISIr. Rebozo. No.
ISIr. Armstrong. Have you ever purchased any real property
Mr. Rebozo. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Have you ever sold any real — it should have been
real or personal property ?
]\fr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever sold any real or personal property
to him?
]Mr. Rebozo. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Have you ever cashed any checks in excess of
$10,000 for Mr. Edward Nixon?
Mr, Rebozo. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any financial or business trans-
actions with Rose INIary Woods?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Only the, again the Fisher Island, her small portion
in Fisher Island, which was a corporate transaction. But, no; I
have had none.
]Mr. Armstrong. Can you describe that transaction briefly ?
]\Ir. Rebozo. Well, you recall she had part of the — the President
sold her part of the stock that he had. I think it w^as 10,000 shares or
5,000 shares, at $1 a share. I think when we sold it, she got her money.
Mr. Armstrong. At the same rate that the President redeemed his
share ?
ISIr, Rebozo. Yes.
]\Ir. Armstrong. And at the same time?
Mr. Rebozo. As far as I recall.
]Mr. Armstrong. Now, have you ever borrowed money from Rose
Mary Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1069, have you ever loaned money
to Rose INIary Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever given money in excess of $1,000 to
Rose INIary Woods ?
]Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever purchased real or personal prop-
erty from Rose IMary Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever sold real or personal property to
Rose Mary Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
10135
INIr. Armstroxg. Have vou ever cashed anv checks in excess of
$10,000 for Rose Mary Woods?
Mr. Rebozo. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you describe the financial or business trans-
actions you've had with Robert Abphmalp — just briefly list them?
INIr. Dash. That just helps us. This goes to the question we had this
mornino: of identifying. This will substitute for tlie records.
Mr. Rebozo. The B & C operation. You've gone througli all
those records. And more recently, we've purchased jointly some prop-
erty on Key Biscayne.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us — could you just describe that
property ?
Mr. Rebozo. On Key Biscayne?
ISIr. Armstrong. Is that one parcel ?
Mr. Rebozo. I have 150 feet next to the bank and 650 feet sepa-
rated a parcel that Abplanalp had previously bought of 450 feet. I
had an option on the 650 and he participated in the purchase of that
with me. That Avas just this year.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that property properly described as Matheson
property ?
Mr. Rebozo. Yes.
ISIr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that purchase was made?
Mr. Rebozo. It was recently. I'm sure you have the record, because
it's a very recent one or you would know about it.
]\Ir. Armstrong. I don't believe we have the record, because I
believe it was in 1973 and we don't have any 1973 records.
ISIr. Rebozo. Well, it would have been December of — yes, I know
when it was done. It was December of 1973.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us, please tell us the purchase price
of that property ?
jSIr. Rebozo. It was $6 a square foot.
Mr. Armstrong. So the total transaction
Mr. Frates. Again, I don't see where this — Senator, where we
have an agreement, how can this possibly come — December of 1973 —
this is just inquiring into business transactions way beyond 1972
without showing any relationship at all.
Senator Weicker. Let me ask, Scott, do you intend to pursue this
line of questioning?
Mr. Armstrong. I was only going to pursue it with two more ques-
tions and then get back to a question to tie in its relevance. If you
would prefer
Senator Weicker. Whv not invert the order so counsel can under-
stand ?
Mr. Armstrong. At what point, sir, did you terminate your share
of the pai-tnei-ship in the B «& C Investment Corp. with Mr. Ab-
planalp?
Mr. Rebozo. Some time in 1973, maybe the middle or a little after
the middle of 1973. I don't know the exact date, but it's a matter of
record.
INIr. Armstrong. And can you tell us what happened to your share
of the property?
Mr. REBOzo.'lt was purchased by Abplanalp's children's trust.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us the purchase price ?
31-889 O - 74 - 30
10136
Mr. Rebozo. Yes; he paid me my cost plus 10 percent.
Mr. Armstrong. And how much would that be, sir?
INIr. Rebozo. I think it came to something like $290,000 — some-
where along in there.
Mr. Armstrong. Total ? I mean, in other words, that would include
your cost plus the 10 percent ?
INIr. Re'bozo. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can vou indicate to us why you sold your share of
the B & C Investment Co. ?
Mr. Rebozo. Well, this is why I'm selling just about everything
else. There's just too much publicity attendant on anything that I do,
and I would like to get back to my private existence.
Mr. Armstrong. Did it have anything to do with your financial
affairs at that time, with your liquidity?
INIr. Rebozo. Oh, you've seen all my bank statements and all of my
borrowings. Up until recently, you're well aware that I've had no
trouble borrowing. I don't know how much trouble I'm going to have
after all of this inquiry of all these bank presidents about me, but
that remains to be seen.
Senator Weicker. Let me say this right now. I think we have just
about reached the limit, and I'm going to inject myself into this and
inquire as to its relevance to the campaign of 1972. As I understand
it, counsel have agreed upon bank statements being made available
to the committee as a part of the subpena.
Mr, Frates. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Certainly, that would give as good an indication
as any other as to the financial condition of INIr. Rebozo, et cetera.
If we're going to continue on this for any length of time, I'm going
to rule it, quite frankly, as not proper.
]\Ir. Armstrong. ]\Iay I speak to you out of the hearing of the
witnesses for one second? I don't have many more questions, perhaps
one more.
Senator Weicker. Ask one more question.
Mr. Armstrong. I just want to be sure the answer to the question
is as to whether or not it had anything to do with your liquidity or
ability to borrow as pait of the portion of the B & C Investment
Co. The answer is "No," is that correct?
Mr. Rebozo. No, I think any time you sell something, it has some-
thing to do with your liquidity position or if you want to get hold of
cash for somethinjr or other or to retire some debts, so I don't know
whether the question is a fair one, really.
Senator Weicker. I think you've answered the question.
]Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me just a second.
That's all.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo, the President's diary for April 15, 1973,
indicates that he met with Attorney General Kleindienst, and later
with Attorney General Kleindienst and TTenry Petersen, and in the
interim with i\lr. Ehiliclunan and Mr. Hakleman. That Avas the day,
of course, that the information started to come to the President with
regard to the iuA-estigation of Watergate.
The diary also shows that at 5 :2r), you and the President departed
for the Navy Yard. You boated for several hours. INIy question is,
10137
did you discuss with the President at that time the information that
he had received that day with re<iard to "Watergate?
Mr. Rebozo. That's one date I can pinpoint very well, because
April 15 is income tax day and it happened to fall on Sunday, so
I had a 1-day reprieve. I hai)pened to be at the Executive Office
Buildinti; when Petersen and Kleindienst came in. I was not in his
office ; I was outside. I did not know Petersen at the time. I was
wondering who this fellow was comin<^ dressed like he was — he was
dressed like a mechanic. It later developed that he had been working
on his boat and Kleijidienst had told him to come right on over.
Rut I waited, and later, the President asked me to go out on a boat
ride with him. That's the same day that there had been a lot of
activity around the White House, far more than usual. So the 6-hour
tape ran out at 3 that afternoon in the midd 
TVNews
OpenLibrary