Skip to main content

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

See other formats

^ t , r * y * f / -^ I- 










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 


•Concord, New Hampshire 033QI 

or-' ^- °OSIT MAR 6 ' 1975 











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 

31-889 O WASHINGTON : 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.65 


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

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


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


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.] 





Friday, February 8, 1974 9677 

Saturday, March 16, 1974 9687 

Wednesday, March 20, 1974 9937 

Thursday, March 21, 1974 10041 


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 


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 



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. 




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? 


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 



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 


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? 


]\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 

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 


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 

Mr. Ehrlichmax. I told him what the agent would be interested 

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. 


Mr. Armstrong. And did he discuss what the substance of that 
interview was ? 


Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever come to understand what had 

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? 


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- 


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 

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 

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. 


"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 

]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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

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.] 


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. 



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 


31-889 O - 74 - 2 


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 

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- 


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 

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 


engaged in that type of work while at the Federal Bureau of Investi- 

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- 


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? 


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. 

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. 


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- 

Mr. Caulfield. Off the record a second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

]Mr. Lackritz. On the record. Would you read the last question. 

[Question read.] 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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, 

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 

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? 


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. 


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- 

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 

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? 


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- 

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. 


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- 

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 

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. 


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- 


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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

Mr. Lenzner. How could you have identified them as unsavory 

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- 

]\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 


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 

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 


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 

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, 


]\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, 

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. 

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 ? 


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 

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/^ 


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 

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 

]\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 

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. 


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. 


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- 

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 

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 

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 


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 

Mv. Lexzxi;r. That is relative to the organization Public Affairs 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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. 

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- 


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- 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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." 


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- 

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- 

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 

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- 


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. 


[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 

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 

[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. 


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? 


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 

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- 

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. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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- 

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 

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. 


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. 


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- 


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 

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 


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- 

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- 

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 

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 

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 


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" 

Mr. Skaks. The source of the 

Mr. IjAckritz. Was this indi\idual a source of youi's for info'- 

]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- 

^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 

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. 

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 


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- 

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 

Mr. Lexzxer. But you Avere not interested in possible criminal 

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- 

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 


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". 


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, 


Caulfield Exhibit No. 1 


August 4, 1970, 


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. 





August 5, 1970 


Will you please look into this, find out what the facts 
are and see what we can do« 




rim PEmscQPE 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. • 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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." 


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 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. 



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 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. 


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 \ 
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. 






August 17, 1970 

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. 




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. 




August 18, 1970 



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 

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. 


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 






January 15, 1971 

C^-^h^^ f.^^-^^-^.^ tr^-<Z 


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 

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. 





January 22, I97I 




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 

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. 




Januai-y 25, I97I 

O^LARRY 0'] 



^ _ 

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. 


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. 


Jeuauary 26 ^ I97I 


B.R* HATjnfF^AB 





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 

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 


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 


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 

Axiy other lastriictionsT 





January 28, 1971 




SUBJECT: Hughes Retainer of Larry O'Brien 


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. 





Februai-y 1, I97I 



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 

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 





February 3, 1971 




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. 


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# 




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. 



Tab 3 


>V A S 1 1 I N C T O M 

April 14, 1971 


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 






April 15, 1971 




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. 







u',.A\ ..c.> 

April 17, 1971 


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 


EYj~n 0;;'..Y 

April 19, 19V 1 



CHAia.KS cGiv::;oN 


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 amotion. 

^ cc: John Dean (v:Y1;S ONL.Y) 


THE white: house 


April 19, 1971 




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. 


April 29, 1->71 




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. 






July G, 1971 





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. 





Auguct 9, 1971 



i^c; \ ? 






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: 





Tab 5 





: ^/c^r 

Prcpaxe reply 

for John Dean' s signature 

Direct Reply 


Please Handle 




'/-/ // 



o(tJ!of/^^/ j:^^^/^^/^^- r^c//^^// 

31-889 O - 74 - 7 



June 2k, 1971 






/ ^ 

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. 






A^A >'-- '. .A 







the: white house 


July 1, 1971 







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. 


July 6, 1971 




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. 



Tab 6 

July 10, 1971 



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. 


When we discuss this issue \ will also give you som^i ^ 

additional background information on the Brookings probleau 


Jttly 27» 1971 



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. 




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 

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:" 


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) 



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 


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." 


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 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


ATl'ACH^in? NO. 8 
3eli<;dule A. Line (a) 

1775 >.ti33ttchuael.tii Ave., K, 
Wasliirictoii, D. C, 20036 


c ffltt'ri'isA'i'ion Of'' Qtrnc&pn , DifigotoiV) , Mm T!(!\}STm} 


Chftiroau^ floard of Ti'uateea 

Vice CUairean, Doard o£ Trustees 
and tftiiabar of Finftuoa Conuiittee 

Chainaon, E^ceculLvo Committee 
and Finance Canrndttee 







Trustee aivi Pi'ealdont, The &rookipga 










Trustee and gie<tiber of E:.;«»o,utl'/e 
Coctmiittiiie o.nd Finanoe Cooindttoo 


Trufl'tee atvA cembor of E:ceaiitlve 

Trustee mid Ken'oei- of Executive 

Trustee and sitraber of Executive 
Committer axul f'lnaiiGiji Comndttee 

MttftUJ and Code Per 
In^truotlon I 

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 














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 ' 


CQ?.g'p:\MaATrwi py of'O'K^.F.!?;::), C)Hijb:cT0fi3 . A>'m TRurmcp:?} (coatlnued) 

HonoiHU'y I'ruaV.eea: 


ViCG PrealrJont for Admltiia- 

Vies Pi'eaWeat. 

Secretary aivl Aast. Treainucer 

iMaaie nml Code Per 
Ina tt'UO>,j.on I 





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 B, Oorrel.l 
i,\r, Thon^L^ fkxisier 

« [Roa, - 100'/, 
12 mosi , - 100<fi 



IS ev-xi. - lOO^i $ 'jO,fi6'j.T. 

. 33,8^3.9; 


^ 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 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" , 


Tab 7 


August G, 1971 




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 



\VA S H 1 Isl G T O N 

Aucuut 6, 1971 

1.5E40R/U\'DU:-'i j-OP. JOlilJ \I. DKMI, III 




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. 




August 9, 1971 


J. DEAiT, iir\\/;/ 


!H \ 


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. 


August 10, 1971 




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» advico nic. 



> y 


^ . ' ^ August 12, 1971 



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. 


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. 


The V/ H ! T E HOUSE 





September 3, 1971 

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 . 



\.V r' .~ H ! N -7 '" O N 

3ept.eiiiber ih, I97I 

MEMORAiroWl FOR JOHN VJ. DEM, lit 'X 'Sw--' 



:^ , 

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. 




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 

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 
■■■■ 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 



An extensive survey of hotels, discreet cocktail 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. 


Tab 10 


September 10, I97I 




New York sources advise the following scattered pieces of 

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 

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. 




October ik, I97I 






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. 



WA 3 H 1 rv C- TON 

September 22, ] 97I 

Tab 11 





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. 


Tab 12 

The White House 


■ 11 1 yi^ ^ K wB ^lj f ^tfll I !■ ■ J ■— 



iiuw >i. .Jimwtfi 



For Your Information 







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. 




October 6, I97I 




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. 


P.-rJ n^--i^. 

Co^j-if?\ {>Ano/»; 5 


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^. 


0<r.-J.' /T r» ( Xt/.o ".; f «. C^ ^. A" • T 7 '• c 



/%y\i^''f P f^ '/"■}•.>< L 



P?pt?^ '>'■:> l)>^.''- }*/■■ i''/ 



Al,lc . / f/^r-*AI<'( (^^ff<r.7f> 



f\A^A' eR)Ti\ 



//A"/r.\ ,1,1 "^rL't/r. R C rP"' •-•' ^^ <'C 



///(-•,■->■ - ^-A.. •' - /C"v-) /<-/•«: (jf 



Trco '.i^s ^-^ '■• ' '(^ '.*'* ' ' ■' y C-^f-> -> <'>? 


~Jl?t\)et. ft /^cf^ ^^ir - Of ^'■■( Air C.->u/Jr./,/l^>4.;. l', r.r/. 




/>-:/* /\rw^A}f^'^-^n: 











, /// 







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 


r ^'- — ' tJ " *^ '" 


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 


/^/?^£. ^r^^'l!7r>rrf-rr-^^^-^-''^^i^/v^'^'--^^ ' • - ""'^'v>..'-.i.,:.ivai-'^^-'^-' 

:..;..: .:a< 



^-TZ l/M.f//-W^ /)i/AS/^/l/ 


^ \ 



/-Vl /?f 77^ /<'rf/^/>^ 




/^//f//^/^ fM/'j-^A 



/^Xr1m^/S o/^/ii/^/iS/r)/ 


-:^.////>/ /A^>f£ /i;/^ -r^fd //<^^A 


J/^J^4k/E ^A' U/nAl^:/J l//>77z/?S 





— '. ' r 

-'■ ■ 

. ," 

■ . - 


* ' ^ * 




^^.?'v //'7v 


( J^. 



1 ■--:^>.' 


• ' « •*. ' . / " "' 

i; "-:.v::::.". 


> ,■••••:.:. v.- 

! • • • . "'..;•:--.' 

i •.. — ~:r.z,-- !■! ■■■_.- — ... -■ ^ ^ 

- - — .^ •■-•'• -;"-~i.''—'T:T—- ' '.H ^.'-/.yvVv ' j*';- ^-^ .-^^^ 


':. Ir.'V 

o' ,■'>;-:■ -Tp-" 


' HK>.z//iMA!^C£^'/^-^-LLA/lJ/£-y.-.^^^^ 


/<o ^6^{)/M MAy 

/^/^c/,, /^j: ^/igj- 

Taxobia ytar. . 
Ended <°< ^/'/ 

ScM 'A" - r£>A/'r^/^urjo'^S ca^h\ 


Jt'm/LK^ //OA-fr tO/Q /lAt'A 



^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 


^A'oiM~fJ .y/yvv^^-Aj/r/ 

... /r<> 



c^//)/ 6'A-/r^ /(^/'/^//v/ 



, , 

/fMuE €f^ u/fo-./yy \/^^ifff<^ 





/y^ry^-f/l" jU-^Ah Srr^Kf 


//?/SC. r/H^ThZ/r/Uj ^'/tr}/e/r}f^S 


— -— -. 

/ , -r^i-A ''-w^A/ CA <H : 

Ti'^Ai/A'L. /^^ti Ici^AnJii' ii:> bJ= c£ C'fl-^d. ~ 


C^-^^fii-iL. OF vJf^/J*y f'^Ji^^t'^T/Of'J> 


— — 

■, - : 

■ ■' ■ ,- ,. 

y - 

— '- 



•^ /fl^ 

■:•.-: .^w..^ 

■^•V.•^^■•;A':•"'"^^• ." - ;• 




Tab 13 


Date 9/23/Ti 


As ve have discussed, you might 
want to send a copy of the attached 
to John vith any comments you deem 

I have seen to it that Jeb has been 

An additional copy for Bob or John 
is included, if you so desire. 



NATIONAL COMMH TfE 2600 Virpinia Avenue . N.W. Washinnlon, D. C. 20037 ' (202) JSJ-SySO 


, « 

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 

Enclosures {?.) 

Si'i'cerely, A /''■" 
Robei^t S. Strauss 



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 



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 

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 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. 

Robert S. Strauss 



NATIONAL COMMITTEE 2600 Virs'inia Avenue, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20037 (202)333 -8750 

Roiiii S. SiiAuiS 

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. * 



^p''pm'l">er JO. j.^^71 






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 

You should advise Bell that the i-atter is under scrutiny by 

Tab 14 


Tab 15 


V.'A S H I N G T O Is' 

Septernber 30, 3971 


MEI>10RAI\'DU!>1 FOR JOliN V/. DFAl'J, i:\I' ■ .' 



\ \ \ 

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. 







Prepare Reply For John 
Dean's Signature 

Comments /Recommendations 
Please hr.ndle 





Tun: White: House 


Date 10/6/71 




for Your Inforrration 

cr-Ji ^ 


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. 


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^ 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 


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) 


GARY i;cRTc;; ?c Lucii.Lr: pjJ,l - ss:j 091-18-50.1^ 




Oocn in Audit 


Ooen in Audit 


Surveyed J'Ster 





M - ssr: it3o-07-7'r56 




Open in Audit 


Open in Audit 


Open in Audit 


0]3en in Audit 











FR/iI,'K SinATRA - 

CP.]! P2^-29-C367'" 

Results of Exaniination 
Deficiency or (0^/erassesr,inent) 


Results of !5xa.-)iination 
Dcfici ency or (O'/erassessmcnt) 

Ko Change 
$ 1,122 





Open in Audit 
Sui'veyed Claim 

Results of Exani nation 
D;;fi c iency or (O'/erassessr^ent ) 

$ 5,708 




* 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. 


Mr. JO'.'W V/AYirS'r. audit hie Lory, per the Form 12i4-7 cards, is sho->m 











Open in Audit 

Open in Audit 

Oi--.en in Audit 

Open 'Jn Audita 




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. / . 


Tab 16 


October 7, I97I 




This is in the form of a reminder. The President has very 
strong views on this subject emanating from the '60 

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. 


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 



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; 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, 


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 

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. 


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). 


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 

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, 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 


•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. 


Tab 17 



Date October 8. 1Q71 






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' 



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. 




October 26, I97I 




Contact in this regard has been made with the following 

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. 



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 

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 

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. 


^^>:v'^- ■: 

"J '.' 


■ $1 :y 


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" 



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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


Tab 18 



June 25, 1971 





^ ^'^y 
' ^4^ 





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. 


August 10, 1971 




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. 


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 




October 13, 1971 



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. 




\A/A S H I N G T O N 

October 15, I97I 




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. 




. ■..,^.f\AC<i Coricclions 
.',[■! li-.nx-ll Oswild on 
■: CI'S y.^cninx News." 
,:J oI.'.cijU sum loluoe 
l.nuoJ on pAge Ml 


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 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 '.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^* -^ 






uljL iiiwi-iaAuil 


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 

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." 


;, ... «.^<i'* Z. 

:I For Hr!Iv, 


■lou'-;'. :r;i?-ns' 2: 

God Front Money 

, Oct 12. 

Tmi;;io;t, is\ 
n fiji'.tt-vi a 

iio.>.ro."). r.s 

nciu-te pc- 

hMdj-i by 
5, In a !4- 

tarireiv !i*.'- 

•st0!i Kir.:',:i 

3r) his cc".- 


Texas U i 

■ith nviun- 

d cities il 

■■IKcre is 

t>;i;ss s'.- 

on in corr- 


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:!. 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 hccr. i.icl-jdcd in iJ:-; ::i.""'-.'- 

I iH-nricnLs* c ;< nt p a i f* n litorMurc. 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. 

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 

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" : ."•-■ 
tan. Pile's currtntly toutiri;; the Ulue '-)'■' 
Film trade will recaJ! her Ja:e lu;Ojind. Fi-'.-r: 
du-'.iib-.itor . . , Cordon \\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'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* 

Michael IIr.d(laa. iic.-'d of De'in:l's C' 
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-'.^'-■'-' 



October 20^ 1971 

A ,-A A 

MEfvioiWJuU!-! FORJD]B\' VJ, DrJJ^, TU. ■. \ .'/ 

FROM: JACK CAUJiPMELD ^'^ " '■-.,• 

i > ' ■ 


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. 


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. 


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 \ 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. 


October 20, 1971 



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. 








FROM: Fred F. Fielding 

^Approval /Signature 

Comnnents /Recommendations 

Prepare Response 

Please Handle 

For Your Information 


REMARKS: / f^ 

-^ U c^ ^>A..aZ<r^ 'C^^-^ ^-^^^ ^i^^ 


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 

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 





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 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 

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 

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 

'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. 


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)" vliro-- 
noKigy of the \iet Nam War), he nee- 
dled some historic myllis and 
a few 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 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. 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 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 ). 


tiEW YOnK 






i V. 


I— « 

As Oii'-- is written, V.mV.e De Anioiiio's '■MiUlioii-o.'' 
;i iliiasiil.Kiiiiirr.tiiry on l:icb;iifl Millions Nixon, .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 


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 til hvse r.:'.'C'\ hi...; tkcy aiv 
jis .ll'.il .Tnd • ;..s ever :.nd 
l.iHfi- ."> 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 |,' ; .■•;''!';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. , .■.•> 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;..!''. '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 ••• 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^ 
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 ? 

S":n:iliily, De .-Vni.-j-iToV ininli;-r.i:.-n !! 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'. >-*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:; 



(From the New York Post, Sept. 29, 1971) 

**" a^ — !■••- a 

James A. 



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;,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. 


/.' ■; J'-'.i.S. I J ■/••.■'. y. Of I'i'i. •.:.'. K .', jy. 1 



! i 

i « 





^'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 



i « 

« 4 

* » 


f' - ;::i ii : ^H 












A MW T3".-l« ri'.lj rc.KSI 

' h^A::.->..,^-9i^jn^*w^\.^i«iA%i 




\a;. i -s ? 

iZ-. Ai_;^ ii Ji - j;" ;. ^.-j-fi i Aii *i' 

P = 


<s*;ii. .rtSMw. 


' ir: o - 

I < s • 

~ J — °- - 

o •— >» -ti 

>■. - ^ u 

s -s £. § =«: 

° is. 

»-- ~ "S • 

c > 
< i 

c =; o 5; S 



23 ** 

if- !r -= "2 " 

cj ^ cj 

3 iS o 

c — 

s - ~ = 5 - 5? ■ 



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 





^ „ 






*"' ^ 


^ , 








,::i c;' 











c - ^ 





< -c 




= ."•5 





E= £ 



1. [ :-3 






c ;i :_ .c 

C C :; 

c ^ ■= .>. 

= --*-" ri ^ s- 

=; 2 Zf S-^s g f: 

sz--^ r.^ 

=: ^i^: = = >: 

3 >. S =^ 5 " < 


"^ " " ' ""^ - ?'■ 3 .L'- ■= .'^ 

1^ ?-.- ' - 

! .'. 


— - 













\-. <^"' 




VJ "C 

-- c 








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 - 



J"; *^ 



S «; 


J: ^ 


-— r 





.= £. 





Xj -^ 

? ~ 


^ ^ 


r ^" 



u -zt 

5 -z: 



t> -^ 





■^ t"* 



z *^ 




•' —■ 




es r; 


'- ---• o ^ ^ c 


= •- -^ c- ^" f. ■'■ 


fi ^'-rrtT'J 







;*l n 

M : 


i**r-r •:»"? 




: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.. ,- . .. 


: 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 

hv.if*' r 

Portra,lr.( J.:;,nln,. ^.•n,„.a:.S,nrc.i.) 

r*f do In .. 
•>■•■* a\ /t u ■ 


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. 


: A'.V- 


A Full 

Lile ih.', .i*pjficsi' t 


W/ive woik 

uiii lit 

Mw'y of « /c-j-'K •^■i 


y.l.O icawii 

her (I. ,5 

bi:.J in J«»tcli0l pwllif 

a: c 

■iir (liticnt. 


Rrntat E 

s.:*~ J. 

.-:VV4jr.f^^jr-.V^ "N 

JL. ■.•:"» 






i>ov/:nt;r!Ko inti Larth 

.si:r:GEi eisenstejn 

Strike jifid Oclobff 


Motlicr The tnd o* St Petfrsburs 
Ttic-Gt:' With the Mj'.hox 

.Tirnni cr/'iy ficnf*! Apply 

A»*'",*bie mii.vitfii^ily or en m sc^ifj t««tfs 


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 


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' " 


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 «. ■'"" ' . 




October lU, I97I 

Tab 19 



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. 



October 20, I97I 




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 

Other means of inquiry designed to prove or disprove the 
allegation are currently being explored. 

cc: R. Allen 




September 30, I97I 

Tab 20 


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 




October 15, I97I 




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. 











Prepare Reply For John 
Dean's Signature 

Direct Reply 

Comments/ RecoiTimendation a 

Please handle 



b cfo '^.>2_ 



fd- TnJ^'- 


/MD M 


dM M> 




November 2, 1971 

Tab 21 






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 






December 1, 1971 



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 


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. 


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. 


Tab 22 



November 4, 1971 








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 

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. 




Committee. November 2, 1971 




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 


National Republicarri-feritage Groups(Nationalities)Coi 

November 1, 1971 


TO: Laszlo C. Pasztor 
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 



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 

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 



-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 



to them p 



The Rotar 
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 


Itional "Republican Heritage Groups(Nationalities)Counc 


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 . 


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. 


• • 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, 



1968 ■ 



Eleglble voters 






Kevr Citizens at the rate of 
close to 1,000 per ::ionth since 
July 1971 to October 1972 




zens ; 


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/* 


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. 


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. 



. 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 


OCT -^ 1971 



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 



! 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 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 



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 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 


PJVtIc AHolrf Office, DiU'itt of Columblo CovornmonI . t 

DUtrlei Culldlng, f'oor.i 510 629-2577 -2706 

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. 





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 . 

. , ..! ■■*■ 


't,A.h?^^:^i.\M''C»unitui ' •- "y^ co«««»foNOi«»««e«cT.«T'<^ , ii«eor.oii.« ••CBiTAift r^ T»«»»M«««- 


Mr. Tom Evans 
October 12, 1971 
page 2 


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 



■'' Tab 23 

December 7, 1971 



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 


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 

I , rt' I f', 



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 

Meany has received routine care in this regard which includes j 

his stay in the intensi"7e care section of the hospital. 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. 


Tab 2A 



January 12, 1972 



FROM: ■ 


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. 





'•• ^'^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 


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) 


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 


Tab 25 



January 17, 1972 







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 



The White House 






A pproval/Signature 
Comments/ Recommendations 

for Your Information 






A pretext inquiry at the offices of SmoBro International 
Productions, Inc., Los Angeles developed the following 

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. 


Tab 26 


T¥A€ White* Hrvusr 

*V * ^ H • N & ' 'J .** 






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 

Details will follow. 



vvv. = H ! ^J r-~ ."^ >.' 

February 17. 1972 

' \ r- 




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. 



Tab 27 


February l6, 1972 




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 

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 


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. 






March 8,1972 


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. 



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 



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. 







March 3, 1972 



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. 



April 6, 1972 





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;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 discussed thii? that raising the 
icruc rr.ijiht opou £. l^' 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. 



Tab 29 




May 12, 1972 


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. 


W.- Richard Howard 



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 

Questionable land deals or favored treatment in 
Virgin Islands, while Udall was Secretary of 

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). 



June 5, 1972 




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. 







June 27, 1972 


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. 


W. Richard Howard 



IviUiani I L. ^leor MLssociaios ' * itJ^ 

June 12, 1972 



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- 

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 



1 Q^\<-JL.>L_ 

Nellie Greer 

Home phone 
(809) 77'i-ll65 

,V:ii ■■■-■: 


'^^ ... .-. 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;-;^:!;' - '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 


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 



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 of come 
poople La V,'a:.riiv..?,VO!: 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 


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. 





June 26, 1972 



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. 


Tab 30 



June 16, 1972 





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. 


cc: Chuck Col son 
JWD: FFF:bav 


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 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, lie cculd fnce dcAn A«neiic".'s 

Pres; ;;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. 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 





June 16, 1972 



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 





August 16, 1972 




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. 


\ '-' 


\ ^ 





August 28, 1972 



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. 


W. Richard Howard 



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- •''.■■ 


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 


accor.ranlcd an elec:l.:C'r>J r .r, .si;; 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' 


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 It most certainly 
has. = , 


Among other factors supporting this contention is the consensus in the 


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. 


! 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, 

. ■ E) Any other offensive requirement advisable. 


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.) 


: - D) rn^ure the x.-.O.'. tical cc.iniLy af^jj^rclf; of thci 

•-' . ■ -■ ■ • i;;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 


expertise in this area vas considered the model for police departments 
throughout the nation and the results certainly proved it. 


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 

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 


.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 


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. 


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,, for discreet investigative support •.; 
(Hoover also? - Evaluate). Liaison nation- vride vzith Republican State 
Chairmen for investigative support. Support Nev/ York City covert operation. 

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. 



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. 


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. ' ' . . 


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\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. 


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 


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. • 


Caulfield Exhibit No. 2 



■;"'-"' •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. 

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. 

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 

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 


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. 

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- 

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 

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, 

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. 

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. 

"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." 



CO luiu ecc e. 

nowever, in our sources. 


Caulfield Exhibit No. 3 
( Miami Herald, Tues. Jan. 19, 1971 ) 



CIA Targets Too? 




;■ 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. 

. •;.'>.;..'■?'■;•, \>' 

'• ■&■ ■■'■' '•'' '<* 


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.- '■' '. 


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 get con-, 
trol of what the CIA was doing.** 

But McCone, disagreeing vigorously, 
told us that "no plot was authorized or 




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 


Caulfield Exhibit No. 4 



as broadcast over the 
Tuesday, February 2, 1971 
10:00-11:00 PM, EST 

With CBS News Correspondents Morley Safer and Mike Wallace 




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 

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 


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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 

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 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 


"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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


SAFER: How much did he pay for the Frontier? 

GREENSPUN: The Frontier, I think the total was about twenty-four 

SAFER: Here's the Desert Inn where he lived. 


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 

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 


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. 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 

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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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? ' 


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. 


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. 


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." 


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. 


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 

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- 



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 ? 


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 ? 


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 

Mr. Rebozo, when did you first have discussions with regard to 
obtaining a contribution from the Hughes Tool Co. or Howard 

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 


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 

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. 


Mr. Frates. Well so long as you are communicating and the witness 

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 

Mr. Frates. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. As I understood Mr. Rebozo to say, in effect, that 


he never had any conversation with the President about a campaign 

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 

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 


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- 

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 

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 


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- 

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. 


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 

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. 

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 ? 


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 

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. 


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 ? 


Mr. Rebozo. That is the account's title, I think. 

Mr. Lenzner Why did you set up an account in the name of 

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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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"? 


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- 


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, 


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 

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 

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 

Mr. Rebozo. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you approximate how many times that 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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- 

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- 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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- 


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 

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 

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- 


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- 


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 

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, 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 

Mr. Dash. Yes, he has, "Senator. 

Senator Tai.madge. Then we'll proceed. 


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. 


Mr. Lenzner. You said he requested sometime in 1969 or 1970 
for you t© make an appointment for him to speak to those two 

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- 

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 

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 


mente," and I said, "to save you a trip out here, I'll get it out 

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. 


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 

Mr. Rebozo. I would assume that he knew that, yes. 
Mr. Lenzner. But you didn't explicitly say that? 


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 

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- 


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? 


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 ? 


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 

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 


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. 


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? 


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 

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 

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? 


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. 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

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? 


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, 

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 

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 


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- 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 

31-889 O - 74 - 21 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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. 


Senator Weicker. I understand. 

Mr. Rebozo. We have always cooperated with them fully in their 

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 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 

:Mr. Dash. What jurisdiction did you think the FBI would have, 
through Mr. Whitaker or anybody "else, to use these crime labora- 


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- 

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. 


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- 

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? 


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. 


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? 


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? 


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 

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- 

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 

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. 


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 

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 



only one I told this? They would say, told what? It doesn't make 

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. 


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 

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- 

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. 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


Mr. Armstrong. No, I'm sorry, I didn't know who Caroline Kebozo 

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- 

*See pp. 10157-59. 


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 

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 


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. 


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 

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« 

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 

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? 


Mr. Rebozo. That's a good question. I hope we did. I don't ■ 

Mr. Armstrong. You have no recollection of giving him two 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

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, 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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- 

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, 


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 


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 


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^" 

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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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. 


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, 

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 

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. 


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 


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 

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. 


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 

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 

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 


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 

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. 


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 


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 

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 


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 

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, 

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. 


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 

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 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 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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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? 


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 

Mr. Lenzner. When you say "they", can you identify who "they" 

^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. 



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 

Afr. Rebozo. Sav that again ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever send the memorandum on to anybody? 

*Spp ).. 1016.-'.. 


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? 


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? 


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 

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? 


]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 

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? 


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. 


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 

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 


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? 


]\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.? 


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 

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 


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, 

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- 

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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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 

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 

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 


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 

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 


Mr. Lenzner. Did yon ever discuss with Mr. Da^is politiccal 

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 

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? 


"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, 


when I learned that, coupled with the other things which I've 
related, they all contributed to my apprehension about accepting the 

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- 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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? 


Mr. Kebozo. I had very little contact tliroiio;hout all the years with 

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 

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? 


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 

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- 

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 

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 

Mr. Rebozo. No, he didn't tell me. 

Mr, Lenzner. And you're also testifying that nobody else advised 
you of that fact? 


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 


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 


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. 


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- 

Mr. Belling. Whereabouts? 

31-889 O - 74 - 26 


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}^ 

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. 


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. 


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 

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- 

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? 


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- 

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- 

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 


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? 


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- 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 

Mr. Bellixo. Would vou use the name "Gregory''? 

Ml-. Rebozo. Yes. I use that all the time. I thought that was as- 

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. 


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. 

Mr. Bellixo. This is not from the account, this is from his own 

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. ? 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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? 


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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

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? 


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 


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 


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 

]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. 


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 

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 

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? 


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. 


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 

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. 

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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 


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 


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- 

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? 


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 

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 


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. 


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? 


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 

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 

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. 


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 

^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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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 

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 


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 

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 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. 


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. 


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 

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 

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 

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? 


Mr. Lexzxkk. Prior to the time that he loturned it in June of 

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 

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- 

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 

Mr. Dash. There was a discussion yesterday of giving Kalmbach 

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? 


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? 


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. 


;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 the last time vou saw the money? 

Mr. Rebozo. Yes. 


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? 


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- 

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? 


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- 

]\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. 


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- 

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 

]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 

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 


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 

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- 

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 


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 

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. 


]\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. 


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 


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. 


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 

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- 

]\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 


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. 


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 

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 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Rebozo exhibit 
No. 16, for identification."^] 

1 See I). 10177. 

2 See p. 10178. 


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, S