tyf 1^'U/f:T^'rA/,j^^f
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation and Related Matters
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE lO, 11, 12, AND 14, 1974
Book 24
Printed for tbe use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
FRANKLIN PIERCE LAW CENTER
Concord, New Hampshire 033Qi
ON DEPOSIT J*" ^^ '"^
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation and Related Matters
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 10, 11, 12, AND 14, 1974
Book 24
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-889 O WASHINGTON : 1974
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.20
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session)
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee, Vice Chairman
HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY Florida
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Fred D. Thompso.x, Minority Counsel
RuFus L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel
Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant
David M. Dorsex, Assistant Chief Counsel
Terry F. Lbn^ner, Assistant Chief Counsel
James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel
Carmine S. Belli no. 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
Wayne H. Bishop, Chief Field Investigator
R. Scott Armstrong, Investigator
Michael J. Hershman, Investigator
Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel
Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel
Michael J. Madigan, Assistant Minority Counsel
Richard L. Sciiultz, 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.]
(II)
CONTENTS
HEARING DAYS
Page
Monday, June 10, 1974 11279
Tuesday, June 11, 1974 11387
Wednesday, June 12, 1974 11539
Friday, June 14, 1974 11621
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Monday, June 10, 1974
Wakefield, Thomas H., counsel to President Nixon and Charles B. Rebozo,
accompanied by Marion Sibley and Robert C. Ward, counsel 11279
Tuesday, June 11, 1974
Banner, Richard G., emploj^ee of the Hughes Tool Co., accompanied by
Chester C. Dayis, Solomon Freedman, and Lawrence S. Burstein,
counsel 11 387
Wednesday, June 12, 1974
Banner, Richard G., testimony resumed 11539
Bayis, Chester C, counsel to Richard G. Banner, accompanied by Solomon
Freedman and Lawrence Burstein, counsel 11567
Friday, June 14, 1974
Walters, Johnnie M., former Commissioner of the Internal Reyenue
Seryice, accompanied by Stephen Sachs, counsel 11621
EXHIBITS SUBMITTEB FOR THE RECORB
W^AKEFIELD EXHIBITS:
No. 1-A— fll281) Check No. 265 dated October 17, 1972, from
Thomas H. Wakefield to the Finance Committee
To Re-Elect the President in the amount of $15_ 11346
No. 1-B— (11281) Check No. 266 dated October 17, 1972, from
Thomas H. Wakefield to the Finance Committee
To Re-Elect the President in the amoimt of
$250 11346
No. 1-C— (11281) Check No. 434 dated September 5, 1972, from
Thomas H. Wakefield to the Florida Finance
Committee To Re-Elect the President in the
amount of $1,000 11346
No. 2 — (11281) Receipts for checks accompanied by yarious corre-
spondence and form letters 1 1347
No. 3 — (11285) Safe-deposit box records, lease, and yisitation card__ 11370
No. 4 — (11297) Signature card for Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield special
account, dated April 16, 1968 11371
No. 5-A— (11312) Check No. 167 dated Noyember 20, 1972, from
Thomas H. Wakefield to Catalina Pools, Inc.,
for $1,000, with endorsement 11372
No. 5-B— (11312) Check No. 171 dated Becember 18, 1972, from
Thomas H. Wakefield to Catalina Pools, Inc.,
for $1,165.06, with endorsement 11373
No. 5-C— (11312) Check No. 169 from Thomas H. Wakefield to
Catalina Pools, Inc. Amount and date not
legible 11374
No. .5-B— (11316) Check No. 170 dated Noyember 28, 1972, from
Robert Hewitt to Catalina Pools, Inc., for
$2,000, and endorsement 11375
Note.— Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record.
(Ill)
IV
No. 6— (11316) Check from Thomas H. Wakefield to Falls Carpet, Page
amount and date not legible 1 1376
No. 7— (11317) Check No. 2917 dated February 20, 1973, from
Thomas II. Wakefield to the Belcher Oil Co. for
$1,727.26, with endorsement 11377
No. 8— (11317) Check No. 172 from Thomas H. Wakefield to Clima-
trol Corp. for $1,500, with endorsement 11378
No. 9— (11317) Letter from Thomas H. Wakefield to Climatrol Corp.
dated December 28, 1972 11379
No. 10— (11320) Check No. 184 from Thomas H. Wakefield to Belcher
Oil Co. for $141.87, with endorsement 11380
No. 11— (11322) Check No. 173 from Thomas H. Wakefield to Belcher
Oil Co. for $138.50, with endorsement 1 1381
No. 12— (11322) Check No. 189 from Thomas II. Wakefield to Henry
E. Bezold, Jr., for $1,500, with endorsement 11382
No. 13— (11322) Check No. 190 from Thomas H. Wakefield to C. G.
Rebozo for $25,863.15, with endorsement 11383
No. 14— (11322) Check No. 197 from Thomas H. Wakefield to
Meridian Abstract & Title Co. for $20, with
endorsement 1 1384
No. 15— (11323) Deposit slip dated August 17, 1973, to the First
National Bank of Miami for a total of $28,383.15. 11385
Danner Exhibits:
Nos. 1 through 15 — Entered in previous testimony. See Book 20.
No. 16 — (11389) Letter from Chester Davis to Senator Ervin dated
March 20, 1974, questioning the legality of some of
the staff's activities 11479
No. 17 — (11389) Letter from Senator Ervin replying to Chester
Davis, dated May 10, 1974 11488
No. 18— (11391) Letter to Paul R. Michel dated May 31, 1974, de-
scribing material forwarded to Department of
Justice pursuant to subpena 1 1492
No. 19 — (11391) Document listing 160 items to be produced for the
Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1 1494
No. 20 — (11392) List of items not to be produced on grounds of
privilege 11501
No. 21 — (11392) Interdepartmental correspondence from Richard
Danner to Chick Hirsch dated October 21, 1971,
re expense account for July, August, and Septem-
ber, 1971 - 11502
No. 22— (11392) Letter to R. G. Danner from C. G. Rebozo dated
May 19, 1969 11503
No. 23— (11392) Letter from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo dated
November 11, 1969 11504
No. 24 — (11392) Letter from Mr. Rebozo to Mr. Danner, dated
November 17, 1969 11505
No. 25 — (11392) Letter from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo, dated
November 19, 1969 11506
No. 26 — (11392) Letter from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo dated
March 3, 1970 11507
No. 27 — (11392) Letter from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo dated
March 17, 1970 11508
No. 28— (11393) Letter from Mr. Rebozo to Mr. Danner dated May
19, 1971, with newspaper clipping entitled,
"Hoover Took All the Credit." 11509
No. 29 — (11393) Letter from Mr. Danner to Eugene McGrath dated
January 18, 1972, with attachment 11512
No. 30— (11393) Letter from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo dated
March 1, 1972 11519
No. 31 — (11393) Letter from Mr. Rebozo to Mr. Danner dated
April 19, 1973, with attachment 11523
No. 32 — (11393) Retained in committee files.
No. 33 — (11393) Retained in committee files.
No. 34— (11393) Retained in committee files.
Note.— Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record.
Henley Exhibits:
No. 1— (11396) Copy of a check dated July 30, 1968, for $25,000 pay- Page
able to cash with receipt attached from Mr. Maheu- 1 1526
No. 2— (11396) Check payable to Robert Maheu Associates for $50,000
dated September 9, 1968, Avith receipt 11528
No. 3— (11396) Check payable to Robert Maheu Associates for $100,-
000 dated September 9, 1968, Avith receipt 11529
No. 4— (11396) Check for $50,000 payable to cash, dated December 5,
1968, with receipts and notes attached 11530
No. 5— (11397) Check for $50,000 dated March 3, 1969, to Robert A.
Maheu Associates, accompanied by unsigned
receipt 1 11532
No. 6— (11397) Check dated June 27, 1969, for $50,000 payable to cash
with receipt dated July 11, 1969, signed by
Robert A. Maheu as agent 11534
No. 7— (11397) Check dated May 26, 1970, for $100,000 payable to
Robert A. Maheu Associates, accompanied by
receipt 1 1535
No. 8 — (11397) Letter from Chester Davis to Marc Lackritz dated
February 22, 1974 11536
Chester Davis Exhibit:
No. 1 — (11615) Letter dated June 12, 1974, from Senator Ervin to
Chester Davis requiring Ralph Winte to testify
before the committee 11619
Walters Exhibits: /
No. 1— (11628) Handwritten notes of Mr. Walters dated March 3,
1972, re briefing with Secretary Shultz 11657
No. 2 — (11632) Handwritten notes for a briefing with Secretary
Connallv dated INIarch 24, 1972 1 1665
No. 3— (11636) Handwritten notes dated August 25, 1972 11666
No. 4— (11640) Affidavit of Johnnie M. Walters dated June 10, 1974,
re O'Brien meetings with the IRS, August 17, 1972_ 11667
No. 5 — (11645) Handwritten note of Mr. Walters Avritten on Sep-
tember 5, 1972 11672
No. 6— (11648) Walters handwritten notes dated February 22__ 11673
No. 7 — (11648) Memorandum for Secretary Shultz from Johnnie M.
Walters, dated February 23, 1973. Subject: "IRS
Investigation Involving Howard Hughes Interests
and Associates" 11675
No. 8— (11651) Handwritten notes dated March 8, 1973 11679
No. 9— (11656) Affidavit of Johnnie Walters dated May 6, 1974 11680
No. 10 — (11656) Letter from Laurence N. Woodworth dated July 11,
1973, to Johnnie Walters, with reply letter. Both
letters refer to list of opponents of the White
House. List is attached 11684
No. 11— (11656) Handwritten note dated September 25, 1972 11717
Note. — Figures in parentheses indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record.
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
THE HUGHES REBOZO INVESTIGATION AND RELATED
MATTERS
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1974
U. S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 :25 p.m., in room
S-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Present : Senator Weicker.
Also present : Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; Richard L.
Schultz. assistant minority counsel ; R. Scott Armstrong, Carmine Bel-
lino and Lee Sheehy, investigators.
Mr. Armstrong. This is a continuation of the executive session we
began this morning before Senator Weicker.
Mr. Wakefield, could we have your name and address for the record ?
^Ir. Wakefieij). Thomas H. Wakefield, 5201 Southwest 101 Street,
Miami. Fla.
Mr. Armstrong. Am I correct in understanding you have a state-
ment you'd like read into the record ?
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. WAKEFIELD, ACCOMPANIED BY
MARION SIBLEY AND ROBERT C. WARD, COUNSEL
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. I have been served with a subpena duces tecum,
requiring me to appear before this committee and to bring Avith me
certain records of my clients.
I have considered my responsibility to my clients and my obligations
to comply with the subpena. And in the examination, pursuant to my
appearance here before the committee, I reviewed the rules of pro-
fessional responsibility relating to the legal profession in the State of
Florida, where I'm licensed to practice law, and as the same, I have
been promulgated and approved by the Supreme Court of Florida, on
June 3, 1970.
As a lawyer, I am bound by Canon No. 4, the code of professional
responsibility, which states simply that a lawyer should preserve the
confidence and secrecy of his client.
Since the right of confidentiality and nondisclosure is the client's,
not mine, as an attorney I feel compelled upon the advice of my asso-
ciate counsels, Mr. Sibley and Mr. Ward, to advise the committee that
I Avill. at every appropriate time, decline to answer questions regard-
ing the affairs of mv client.
And I might add, as one of the persons mentioned in my subpena
is Mr. Charles G. Rebozo, that I have for many many years been Mr.
Rebozo's attorney, generally, and he has consulted me as attorney and
client about many many thincs. both business and personally.
Mr. Armstrong. In order that the record be clear, Mr. Wakefield, in
regard to the subpena duces tecum, which you referred to, the clients
(11270)
11280
with whom you have an attorney — you feel you have an attorney /client
relationship with Mr. Rebozo. Is there anybody else?
Mr. Wakefield. And Richard M. Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any records relating to any of the
other individuals mentioned on the subpena?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Sibley. Personal records.
Mr. Wakefield. Oh, I meant — I thought you meant with reference
to people. I brought my personal records concerning contributions to
the campaign, under item 4.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any records for F. Donald Nixon, Ed-
ward Nixon, and for Rose Mary Woods ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, I have none of their records.
Mr. Armstrong. You have no records pertaining to those
individuals?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any records relating to Charles
Gregory ?
Mr. Wakefield. No. My only knowledge of that name is that it is
a traveling name of Mr. Rebozo's.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you have any records to present under
item 4?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; I believe those — my personal
Mr. Ward. Mr. Armstrong, for the purpose of the record, and so,
we didn't get it on. In order to get the record clear, could we establish
that Mr. Wakefield is a lawyer, practicing in Florida? The question
wasn't asked or answered. I think it is an assumption we all have made,
but it isn't on this record.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you a member of the Florida bar?
Mr. Wakefield. Florida bar.
Mr. Armstrong. How long have you been a member of the bar?
Mr. Wakefield. Since 1946.
Mr. Lenzner. And how long have you represented Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Over 20 years — 22 years.
Mr. T>ENZNER. And President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. Some time in the middle of the 1960's, mavbe 1966
or 1967.
Mr. Lenzner. You've represented him personally in your various
firms?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Tn response to the subpena, Mr. Wakefield has
presented three checks, drawn on the Thomas H. Wakefield — two
drawn on the Tliomas H. Wakefield-Bettv B. Wakefield account,
Ki\y Ripcayne Bank, chocks No's. 265 and 266, both dated October 17,
1972, in the amounts of $15 and $250, i-espectively, both made pay-
able to the Finance Committee To Ro-Elect the President. And a
check No. 434, on the Thomas TT. Wakefield account at the Key
Biscavne Bank & Ti-ust Co., to the Florida Finance Committee To
Re-Elect the Pi-esident, dated September 5, 1972, in the amount of
$1,000.
Mr. Lenzner. Let's have those marked 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C, if that's
nil riffht witli counsel.
11281
[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked "Wakefield
exhibits Nos. 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C, for identification.^]
Mr. Wakefield. In response to paragraph 4 of my siibpena, I
found I had a small file set up on the reelection of the President,
in which there are receipts for these checks and correspondence with
respect to a luncheon that was held.
Mr. Armstuong. We will — OK, we'll have this marked as exhibit 2,
[Wliereupon, the documents referred to were marked Wakefield
exhibit No. 2 for identification.^]
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Wakefield, can you tell us how long you've
known Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have known him since I was in junior high
school, 13 years old.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when you first had any business,
professional, or financial relationship with Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. We started attorney-client relationship, I believe,
1951 or 1952.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if you are also an officer, a stock-
holder, or counsel for the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. All of those ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Wliat office do you hold in the corporation ?
Mr. Wakefield. Vice chairman.
Mr. Armstrong. And you so hold office in the Fisher's Island Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, the secretary of Fisher's Island.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other corporations of which you
are officer or stockholder in which Mr. Rebozo has an interest ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. Monroe Land Title Co., I am secretary. I am
an officer in two subsidiary corporations for Fisher's Island — Coco-
lobo Key, Inc.. and Harbor Terminal, Inc. I was an officer in the
Wash Well, Inc. I think within this timeframe of the subpena, those
are the only ones that I'm connected with, to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you an officer of Shamco ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, I am.
Mr. Armstrong. "\Yhat office do you hold there ?
Mr. Wakefield. President.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo OAvns half of the stock of Shamco, is
that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. He and Mr. McCrae.
Mr. Armstrong. Approximately equally ?
Mr. Wakefield. I believe so.
Mr. Ward. Let the record show that the questions here are relat-
ing now that you're asking Mr. Wakefield with relation to the cor-
porate status. We have established that he is a president of a corpora-
tion, an officer and any information he is giving you, is as an officer
of the corporation and not in any capacity as an attorney-client.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you also an officer in the Cocolobo Key, Inc. ?
Mr. Wakefield. I could have been, Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. And Mutual Acceptance, Inc. ?
1 See p. ll.'?4n.
3 See p. 11347.
11282
Mr. Wakefield. T could have been. These companies have been
inactive for many, many years.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other business or financial relation-
ships that you have with Mr. Rebozo, other than as an officer of, and
costockholder or counsel for any of those corporations ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have had business relationships, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you describe those for us, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. We have owned real estate together on two differ-
ent matters, and others. I acted as attorney for others and myself,
in connection with the handling of Adams Key or Cocolobo Key
for some time. And I've acted as attorney and had a self-interest in
a piece — a parcel — of land on Key Biscayne.
Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me, a parcel of land ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, a parcel of land on Key Biscayne.
Mr. Armstrong. In which Mr. Rebozo also has an interest ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the location of that parcel ?
Mr. Wakefield. We no longer have it. It's across the street from
Key Biscayne Bank, south.
Mr. Armstrong. But it is immediately across the street ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. It is now owned by the bank.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there a gas station across the street? I'm trying
to picture it.
Mr. Wakefield. No, the gas station is on the east end of the block.
This is a vacant lot at the west end.
Mr. Armstrong. And when was that property sold, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. Probably in 1970—1969-70.'
Mr. Armstrong. And the two pieces of real estate that you have
mentioned, are those the two pieces — are they the two real estate
ventures you are talking about, Adams Key and a parcel of land
across from the bank ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. There are no other real estate ventures you've been
in joint?
Mr. Wakefield. No. Except I said I Avas a stockholder in Fisher's
Island.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you hold the power of signature jointly with
Mr. Rebozo on any bank accounts ?
Mr. Wakefield. Key Biscayne Bank, I believe I'm on their corre-
spondence account.
Mr. Armstrong. That is in your capacity as an officer ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, as an officer. And I was a joint signator on one
other account.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the name of that account, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. Thomas H. Wakefield, special account.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other accounts on which you are a
signator with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. No other bank accounts, to my lecollection.
Mr. Armstrong. I l)elieve Avhen Mr. Sheehv and I visited with you
on — I think it was January 15 — vou mentioned at that time you
thought there was one other account in which — wliicli I believe was one
of Mr. Rebozo's accounts on which you also had power of signature.
11283
Mr. Wakefield. Bank account ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. "Wakefield. I don't recall it.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm trying to find a reference. If I remember cor-
rectly, I think you stated that you weren't sure, but you believed Mr.
Rebozo had one other account which he had given you power of a sig-
nature on in case anything should happen to him, or if it became neces-
sary for you to sign any checks on it.
Mr. Wakefield. Could be, but I don't recall any particular account.
Mr. Armstrong. And are there any — can you tell us what safety
boxes you have power of signatur-e on ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have the key on the director's box at the Key
Biscayne Bank, which is 222. I was a deputy signer on 224.
Mr. Armstrong. Box 222, you are referring to, is the lx)ard of di-
rectors' box at the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co. ^
Mr. Wakefield. Eight.
Mr. Armstrong. And box 224, you were joint signator with Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. I wasn't joint; I was a deputy, to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any other safety deiwsit boxes, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. Personally ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. I have one for my wife.
Mr. Armstrong. And what bank is that ?
Mr. Wakefield. First National Bank.
Mr. Armstrong. And are there any firm ?
Mr. Wakefield. There's one firm box at the First National.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other than the two boxes at the Key
Biscayne Bank & Trust Co. Mr. Rebozo also has power of signature on ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us how you happened to become sig-
nator on box 224 at the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co. ?
Mr. Wakefield. I was requested to by my client, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that was, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have no accurate recollection of the time. It is
cither 1068 or 1969.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if Mr. Rebozo mentioned this to
you prior to giving you a key to the box ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mentioned what?
Mr. Armstrong. Mentioned that he was opening a box, or that there
would be such a safetv deposit box ?
Mr. Wakefield. He simply asked me to be a party signator on it.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when he gave you a key to the
safety deposit box ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't have any recollection as to the time. It was
probably about the same time I signed the card.
Mr. Armstrong. OK, sir.
Mr. Tenzner. Mr. Wakefield, are you also an officer of the partner-
ship which owns Fisher's Island ?
Mr. Wakefield. It is not a ]:)a7-tnership ; it is a corporation.
Mr. Lenzner. Are vou an officer of that corporation ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, sir ; I am secretary of that corporation.
11284
Mr. Lexzner. Have you received information, as an officer of that
corporation, regardin*; financial transactions relating: to the corpora-
tion ?
Mr. WAKEFif^LO. I think the information — any information I re-
ceived re^ardino; that was as attorney, and therefore I would rely on
the privilege.
Mr. Lexzner. You received no information in your capacity as sec-
retary of the corporation ?
Mr. Wakefieij). No, sir.
Mr. TjEXzner. Have you attended meetino;s of the officers of the
corporation ?
Mr. Wakefield. I attend meetinj;s of tlie hoard of directors.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you a memher of the board, also ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. As secretary, do you take notes of those meetings?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And that is in your official capacity as secretary of
the corporation ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that information you receive as secretary of the
corporation taken down in your capacity as a secretary of the
corporation ?
Mr, Wakefield. As attorney and secretary. It is a little difficult
sometimes because I'm consulted as attorney in standard.
Mr. Lenzner. In what, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. In standard. Durino- the course of a meeting I'll
be consulted as an attorney of those reports, as well as simply
transcribing the notes.
Mr. Lenzner. I understand that. At times certain questions arise
and your advice is sought on during those meetings, is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. In addition to that, you do receive information, do
you not, as secretary of the corporation ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. As secretary of the corporation, have you learned of
ownership of stock in Fisher's Island Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And have you learned whether Mr. Patiick Bu-
chanan has owned stock in Fisher's Island Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if any stock is held in trust for Mr.
Buchanan ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And who holds that stock in trust?
Mr. Wakefield. I do. I'm named as trustee under a trust letter.
Mr. Lenzner. In a trust letter from ]\fr. Buchanan ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And at whose request did you establish a trustee
arrangement on behalf of Buchaiian ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Buchanan.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you have a trustee relationship arrangement
for Fisher's Island stock of any other individuals ?
Mr. Wakefield. One other, I believe.
11285
Mr. Lenzner. Who's that, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Burke Hedges is one of our shareholders.
Mr. Lenzner. How many shares does INIr. Buchanan hold in trust?
Mr. Wakefield. AVell. I issued, as secretary, 3,000 shares.
Mr. Lenzner. Who purchased those shares i
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't know who provided the funds for Mr.
Buchanan's purchase ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed with other individuals your
trustee arrangements with Mr. Buchanan ? -
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And you say it was at Mr. Buchanan's direct request
that you held these shares in trust ?
Mr. W^akefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you know what reason Mr. Buchanan of-
fered, if any, why shares should be held in trust, rather than directly
by him ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know what the form of payment was for
these shares ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. The books and ledgers of the corporation do not
reflect how the funds were paid for ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know how much was paid for these shares?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I don't.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever discussed the trustee arrai.^ement
you have with Mr. Buchanan, with Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. I may have as attorney /client.
Mr. Lenzner, You say you've discussed it Avith Mr. Rebozo as
his attorney ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, as Mr. Rebozo's attorney.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed it with — Mr. Buchanan's shares —
with Mr. Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever represented Mr. Buchanan as his
counsel ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever received any compensation from Mr.
Buchanan at any time ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. I have here what is reported to be safe-deposit box
records for box 224, dated July 9. 1968, first day, and what appears
to be a safe-deposit box lease and then a visitation record. I have
this marked as exhibit 3 for today.
[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Wakefield
exhibit No. 3 for identification.*]
Mr. Ward. Mr. Armstrong, for the purpose of clarity of the record,
since the witness has not identified these yet, do you want the witness
to identify it and then mark it as an exhibit ?
*See p. 11370.
11286
Mr. Armstrong. Well, can you identify it, Mr. Wakefield, and then
I'll mark it.
Mr. Wakefield. Well, it appears to be a copy of a first page of a
safety-deposit box lease and a ledji^er of visitation rio;hts.
Mr. Armstrong. Canyon identify your signature on there?
Mr. Wakefield. It appears to be my signature on there.
Mr. Armstrong. Does it appear to refer to the box tliat avc Avere
discussing before, box 224, in the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co.?
Mr. Wakefield. It doesn't say anything about the Key Biscayne
Bank on there, but Ave'll have to assume it.
Mr. Armstrong. It say, "C. G. Kebozo or Thomas 11. AVakefield."
Would that be the only account ?
]Mr. Wakefield. I assume so.
Mr. Armstiwng. I believe in an interview tliat I conducted with
you, on October 18, 19To, you recalled that Mr. Kebozo ga\e you a key
to the safety deposit box some time in 1D68 or 1969, and you believed
it was 1969 after the election. But do you have anv recollection now
that would help us?
Mr. Wakefield. No, I don't.
Mr. Armstrong. Pin down when he provided the key to you? Do
you recall whether ^Ir. Rebozo's signatui-e was already aflixed to the
card when you signed the card ?
Mr. Wakefield. INly recollection is that it was.
Mr. Armstronc;. Do you know if the account, or the box. lind been
open for some time prior to you signing the card ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't have any recollection as to specific dates.
INlr. Armstrong. Even regardless of the specific dates, do you know
if it had been open prior to your signature on the card?
Mr. Wakefield. C^ould have been.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, did INIr. Rebozo give you any instructions
af the time, regarding the box, at that time or subsequently ?
Mr. Wakefield. Well, if we're — I think we're approacliing a point
where my relationship with Mr. Rebozo is as his attorney-client. And
I think that for the reason stated in my opening stateuient. that is
privileged communication.
Mr. Armstrong. Are my notes coirect in saving that on Octo-
ber 18, 197'^. you told me that Mr. Rebozo ex[)laiiied, in the case of his
death, you should open the box and follow instructions you would find
therein ?
Mi-. Wakefield. Mr. Armstrong, T can only repeat tliat T did have
an interview with you, but any Iviiowledge or infoi'ination which 1 liaA'e
gained by my attoi'iiey-client relationship with Mr. Rebozo, I must
decline to answer on the gi'ounds tliat it is privileged comiiiimicatiou.
Mr. Lenzxer. AFr. Wakefield, pi-ior to your iiiter\ie\v with Mi*.
Armstrong on Octobei- 18. U)?-'). did you discuss with ^Nlr. Rebozo the
question of what areas you might be able to answer ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Ml'. Lenzner. Did you describe to him after that interview, the
ai-eas that you did discuss with Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sii-.
Mr. Lenzner. You also had an interview on January 16, 1974, ac-
cording to our records, with ^fr. Slieehy and Air. Armstrong. Prior
11287
to that interview, did you discuss with Mr. Kebozo the fact that you
were goiii*:: to be interv iewed ?
JNIr. Wakefield. On January 16 ?
Mr. Lexzxeh. That's what' our records indicate, January 16, 1974,
in your hiws ofHces in Miami,
Mr. Wakefield. I could have mentioned it. I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzner. And also present at that interview was Mr. Alan
Greer of the firm of Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, I had asked Mr. Greer to be my counsel at that
time.
Mr. Lexzxer. You are aware, at that time, that Greer and the firm
he is associated with, also represent jSIr. Rebozo ?
jNlr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you discuss, prior to the interview on January 16,
1974, the fact that you were going to be asked to discuss certain arens
regarding Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Ward. I'm going to object to the question unless you state
with the question, with whom he was supposed to have conferred.
Mr. Lexzxer. With Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. And did you discuss after your interview of Janu-
ary 16, the areas that were pursued, with ]Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my recollection.
]\fr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss Avith your counsel — with Mr. Greer
or Mr. Frates, or anybody else, who was also representing Mr.
Rebozo — in order that they might discuss it with Mr. Rebozo what was
to be covered ?
Mr. Sibley. Make it clear that Mr. Greer was your counsel and not
acting for Mr. Rebozo at the time this interview occurred.
Mr. Wakefield. Well, that is correct. It is a couple of questions in
one.
]Mr. Lexzxer. My — our notes r-eflect that during your interview on
January 16, 1974, with investigators of the committee, you did discuss
with Mr. Greer present, certain instructions that Mr. Rebozo gave you
with regard to safe-deposit boxes.
T take it that Mr. Greer, at that time, did not object on the behalf
of Mr. Rebozo. even though he also represented Mr. Rebozo. And you
are answering that question ?
Mr. SiHLEY. Make it clear that Mr. Greer represented you at that
and not INIr. Rebozo.
Mr. Wakefield. At that hearing. Greer was there at my request,
as my attorney. And my conversation with Mr. Greer is also privileged,
tliat I do not waive. And I'd add that Mr. Greer, in the beginning,
I believe, of tliat interview, made an objection with respect to client
confidence.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Onbehalf of whom?
]Mr. Wakefield. ]Me. In fact, it was reiterated several times.
Mr. Lkxzxei:. Was there also a discussion with reference to the
action that Mr. Greer and his firm were going to take with regard to
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. AVas there a discussion with whom and where?
11288
^Mr. Lexzxkk. With Mr. (iiver on .January 16, 11)74. lie also indi-
cated certain actions that tliey were takin^: — he and his firm — on be-
half of Mr. Rehozo.
Mr. Wakefield. Did he indicate them tome?
Mv. Lenzxek. At the conference.
Mr. Wakefield. I don't remember that.
Mr. Lenzner. You don/t remember that?
Mr. SciiuLTz. Terry, if T may. just for clarification, we have re-
ferred now to January Ki and October 18 as a meeting and as a
conference. Were you under subpena from the connnittee on October
18, 1973 ? Is that what prompted your interview ?
Mr. AVakicfield. No, I think Scott Armstrong joave me a subpena
at the conclusion of it.
Mr. SciiULTz. How about January 16, 1074. -svas that under sub-
pena ?
Mr. Wakefield. No; T believe I received a subpena after that date
on the 26th. I had also received a subpena from Mr. Hershman on
Au<j:ust 13.
Mr. SciiuLTZ. 1973 ?
Mr. Wakefield. I doirt believe any of them were complete subpenas.
Mr. SciiULTz. I was tryin<x to establish whether you were being
interviewed by the staff in response to your subpenas. Was that, in
fact, the situation? Mr. Lenzner would obviously not like to comment
on this.
Mr. ARMSTitoxo. What do you mean in response to subpena? Was
he subpenaed to appear ?
Mr. SciiULTz. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxo. No; Mr. Wakefield consented to an interview and
we interviewed him informally at tliat time — on both those occasions.
Mr. Sc'iiiTLTz. We are talking about information that's on your rec-
ord as a staff interview, from an informal interview?
Mr. Armstrox'g. That is correct.
Mr. Lexzxer. From an interview, which we do all the time, which
you very well know. T just don't quite understand.
Mr. SiiEETiY. Did there come a time when you discussed with Mr.
Greer, in his ca]>acity as i'e])resentino- ~Mv. Rebozo. any waiver of the
attorney-client ))rivilege — Afr. (irreer, or Mr. Pirates in their capacitj^
as attorneys for Mr. Ivebozo ?
Mr. AYakefieli). I discussed it with Mv. Frates before I came up
hei-e tliis time, and he adxised m(» that th(>r(> would be no Avay of
responding.
Mr. Armstrox<5. On any matters
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; on any matters.
Mr. Ar.ms'I'roxc; [continuing]. Regarding Mr. TJebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. An^rsTRoxo. TTave ^■ou discussed it })ri()r to tliat with Mr.
Frates?
Mr. Wakefield. No; T don't think so.
Mr. Ai;msii;ox<;. Cnn you tell us — and I'm not trving to g(>t into
your relationship with INlr. dreer and Mi'. Greer's representation of
vou but, did you iiKjuire of Mr. Greei- — of any members of the Frates
law fii'in — whether or not Mr. Ivebozo would waive his ])iivilege. [)rior
to Januarvl6, 1974?
11289
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my recollection.
iNIr. Akmstroxo. Now, can you tell us, after receiving the safety
deposit key from ]Mr. Rebozo. what you did with that key ?
Mr. Wakeeieed. I threw it in an envelope in the safe.
Mr. Armstrong. How is that envelope marked ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think it was marked, Mr. Rebozo's name and
the number of the box.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall wliere in the safe you put it, what
portion of the safe?
My. Wakp:field. I believe in the bottom drawer. That's where I
keep my clients' stuff.
INIr. Armstrong. Can you tell us w^hen you next saw that key, or
when you next removed that envelope ?
Mr. Wakefield. On June the — I believe it was the 18th of June
1973.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what you did with the key at that
time ?
Mr. Wakefield. I took it to the bank on that day and I met Mr.
Rebozo, Mrs. Barker, and Mr. Whitaker, in his office.
Mr. Armstrong. And to whom did you give the keys ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I gave it to the clerk in charge of the safety
deposit boxes. The four individuals named entered the box together —
the safety deposit box area — and removed the box together.
INIr. Armstrong. And was your key used to open the box ?
Mr. Wakefield. I believe so.
INIr. Armstrong. And what happened to the key after the box was
opened ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have no recollection, except I must have left it
there.
Mr. Armstrong. Between the time that vou received the key, some
time in 1968 or 1969, and June 18, 1973, did that key leave your safe?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to mv knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Did INIr. Rebozo ever request that you give him
that key?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo ever give you another key to the
safety deposit box, or any other safety deposit box — or for the same
safety box?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; not to my knowledge, other than the directors'
1)ox. T have a key to.
]\Ir. Ar:mstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo ever give you another key to box
224 ?
INIr. Wakefield. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Did Mi-. Rebozo ever inform you that he had
changed the lock on box 224 ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, at the time when the lx)x was
opened. Avlint — well, from tlio time the box was opened did you — did
someone lemove the box in your presence and take the box into Mr.
Rebozo's office ?
Mr. Wakefield. Give me the question again, please ?
Mr. Armstrong. Can you describe what happened after the box was
opened, from that time forward ?
31-889 O - 74 - pt 24 - 2
11290
Mr. Wakefield. June the 18th — on that day ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. The box was opened in the board room of the bank.
And there was phiin, brown envelopes, to my recollection — plain,
brown envelopes containing cash, $100 bills in bmidles.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you count — did you participate in counting
the cash ?
Mr. Wakefield. I was requested to count the cash and Mrs. Barker
recorded the numbers.
Mr. Armstrong. You made an inventory of the bills ?
Mr. Wakefield. An inventory of the bills.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the total funds present were?
Mr. Wakefield. $100,100.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what discussion took place on June
18, 1973, regardintr those funds?
Mr. Wakefield. I can remember certain areas. I can't say specifi-
cally, maybe who said wliat. They were informed by Mr. Rebozo that
we were going to take the box and inventory the moneys in the box.
Then we went in the board room together and we did the inventory
on the box.
I recall that somebody told me to be sure to handle the bills in such
a manner that I wouldn't smudge fingerprints, or something, if there
were any on there. I think that was Mr. Whitaker. I don't remember
offhand whether it was he or- j\Ir. Rebozo. And we proceeded to count
the money, Mrs. Barker and myself. And Mr. Rebozo signed the
release.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there any discussion as to whether — what the
source of the funds was — were ?
Mr. Wakefield. At that stage, T don't honestly recollect, but I
believe we all knew it was allegedly the Hughes money that had been
published in the paper.
Mr. Armstrong. And how did you do that ?
Mr. Wakefield. Because it had been published in Mr. Anderson's
colunm somewhere.
Mr. Armstrong. For what purpose had you gone to the bank on
June IS, 1973.
Mr. Wakefield. To inventoi-y that money at ]Mr. Rebozo's request.
Mr. Arjistrong. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate at that time what the
.source of the fund was when he requested that you come to the bank?
Mr. Wakefield. He could have.
Mr. Armstrong. Had you had any discussions prior to that with
Ml-. Rebozo i-egarding these funds?
Ml-. AVakefield. T learned of the funds about the last week in May
or tlie first week in June.
Mr. Arms iRoNG. And f lom whom did you learn of those funds ?
Mr. Wakefield. ]\f r. Rebozo.
INfr. Armstrong. What did lie tell you at that i)oint ?
Mr. Wakefield. At that time T learned of the funds, but I'll have
to plead privileges to the r-onvei-sation.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo seek from you, or did you offer
INfr. Rebozo, aiiv legal advice regarding the source, or his retention
of the $100,000?"
11291 '
]Mr. Wakefield. The only way I can answer that question, is to
state that Mr. Rebozo consults me generally about many matters
in which we had an attorney-client relationship. In fact, he has other
attorneys discuss matters with mo under attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he request, or did you offer, any legal advice
in this area?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe on October 18, 1073, and again on Janu-
ary 10, 107-1, we discussed this area, and at that time you advised us
that he had requested or that you had offered any legal advice to Mr.
Rebozo in this area ; is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. Well, Mr. Armstrong, I again state that I will
not reveal anything which I have learned through by attorney-client
relationship with Mr. Rebozo. If, in any of our interviews, I have
violated that code, tliat's a mattei- between me and the Supreme Court
of Florida. I am now here under oath, asserting my client's con-
fidentiality in relationship.
Mr. Armstrong. Isn't it a fact — a case, Mr. Wakefield — that in
actualitv, INIr. Rebozo advised you some time in the last week in May,
or the first week in June 1073, that he had received $100,000 in $100
bills through Dick Danner, from IVIr. Howard Hughes, in 1060, and
that he stated that he had kept this money in the safety deposit box
which was in both your name and his name, and the amount was still
in the form of the original bills received;, that he further stated that
he had also consulted an attorney regarding the box, and that the
attorney, Mr. Gemmill, had advised opening the box and having the
bills inventoried, and that was the full and complete substance of your
conversation with Mr. Rebozo in the last week of May and the first
week of June 1073 ?
Mr. Sibley. You'll have to assert your privilege according to that.
Mr. Wakefield. I'm going to assert my attoi'uey-client privilege
relationship on the grounds stated in my opening statement.
Mr. Bellino. This is a statement that you have already made. You
already made it to the staff.
Mr. Sibley. I'm not going to argue that he violated his duty to his
client.
Mr. Belling. He hasn't violated any duty. He's already violated his
duty.
Mr. Sibley. If he did, that is up to the supreme court. He is not
going to have another chance to do it while I'm representing him.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, I guess one of the problems is, that you have
said here today, under oath, that you furnished legal advice wnthout
specifying what it was at that time. That this, apparently, is incon-
sistent with youi- prior statements to us, and of course that i-aises a
question, aside — apart from — what the Supreme Court of Florida
might do. and that is that we now have on the record, here, the state-
ment that you furnished legal advice, and apparently a statement to our
staff, on prior occasion, that you did not furnish any legal advice.
Mr. Armstrong. Let me make clear for Mr. Wakefield, wdiat I
stated in my statement was what Mr. Wakefield reported was the full
and complete discussion with Mr. Rebozo, which is absent of any legal
advice. He did not specifically say that he had offered no legal advice.
11292
but I asked him if there was anything else that was discussed at that
time, and he said "No.''
Mr. Lexzxer. I guess the question is, do you want to clarify that,
that apparent conflict in what your position has been prior to this
and what you testified to today '?
Mr. SiBLF-Y. You'll have to assert your privilege.
Mr. Wakkfi?:ld. T can only decline to respond on the grounds of
cl ient privileged communications.
Mr. L?:NZNf:R. Did you hold that lx)x that the money was retained
in. as Mr. Kebozo's counsel ?
Mr. AVakkfieu). As I stated in my opening statement, I have been
attorncv for Mr. Rebozo for many, many vears, and I considered I
did.
Mr. Beli.ixo. You have also been an associate of his in financial deal-
ings. You're more than just a lawyer. You've been a partner in a lot
of transactions.
Mr. Wakefiei>d. But I was also the law-yer.
Mr. Bellino. You Avere also a partner. Where are you going to draAV
the line ?
Mr. Lenzner. You mean you were representing yourself ?
Mr. Wakefield. The line is, I can tell you what my part is, but
I can't tell you my client's part.
Mr. Lenzxer. Tn other words, you can testify about those transac-
tions as they relate to you. But mv question goes back to whether your
role in counseling and advising Mr. Rebozo. included the fact that you
were also a cosignator on the box? Noav, how did that relate to your
role as counsel for Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. I've been attorney for Mi'. Rebozo for many years.
He's consulted me about everything. T handle all his pei-sonal prob-
lems, all his personal business. I consider that his personal business.
Mr. Lenzner. The fact that you were going over there to inventory
this money, you were doinji' this in your role as counsel to Mr. Relx)zo?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. sir. I don't believe he would ask anybody to
walk in and do it.
Mr. Lenzxek. And that was done, Avas it not, in full vieAv of tAvo
otiier individuals?
Mr. Wakefield. That is ricfht, and I liaA'e testified to that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mus anybody else there. i)resent. on the day you fur-
nished Mr. Rebozo advice with regard to this money ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. TTa\e you discussed that coiiA'ersation Avith anyone
else^ — Mr. Scott — besides Mr. Armsti-ong and Mr. Sheehy?
Mr. AVakefield. T didn't discuss it Avith them. I don't have their
notes, but I didn't discuss that conversation.
Mr. Lexzxer. Are you saying that because you did not discuss on
October 18 and January 16, that coiiA'ersation Avith Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. Not in its entirety, no.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can. you tell us noAV. on the record, what reason you
had foi- not di.sclosing it in its entirety ?
Mr. Wakefield. Because. T have an attorney-client i(>lationship.
and that is pi-ivileged.
11293
Mr. Lexzner. And that is the reason you did not disclose it in its
(Mitirety; the conversations on October 18 and January IB. 1972.
Mr. Wakefikld. That is ri^ht.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you so indicate to Mr. Armstrong and Mr.
Slieeliy ^
Mr. Wakefield. On January 16, everybody was under oath.
^f r. Armstroxo. You mean on October 18.
Mr. Wakefield. I mean on October 18.
Mr. Armstroxo. One thino; that isn't clear on the record, and I let it
pass before; I slionkl state it is not my recollection that Mr. Greer, or
you, asserted attorney-client privilege in relationshi]) to anything
other than the use of Mr. Rebozo's funds after a deposit in the Wake-
field, Hewitt & Webster trust account and perhaps in. a couple of
otlier mattei-s related to real estate transactions, and that the blanket
objection which Mr. Greer brought up several times, was not in rela-
tion to that but was in relation to the committee staff's investio-ation
of things — activities — occurring in the year 107-3. And that was the
lunning objection, not any objection to the attoi'uey-client privilege.
Mr. Ward. Let me clarify something here, gentlemen, on behalf
of Mv. Wakefield, if I can. In. the first place, you seem to be approach-
ing this on some basis that the attorney can waive this pi-ivilege. An
attorney cannot waive that privilege. If there Avas such a discussion, at
any time, wliether it was or wasn't has no bearing whatsoever on the
man's testimony here today, mider oath, under a subpena, to testify in
a pi'oceeding before a committee of the TT.S. Senate. He is here in
I'esponse to a subpena. You have asked him questions. He has in-
A'oked the attorney-client privilege which he has to invoke under
canons of laAv.
As I read your rules of procedure, in the first place any interview,
wliether it took place or not, Avith a staff counsel, is confidential infor-
mation anyway. So, therefore, I think we nnist forget about the fact
that there was an interview and that you'i-e attempting to badger this
witn(>ss into makin<>; statements regarding an attorney-client privilege,
based upon a confidential communication with you, and based upon,
and against, his assertion of the attorney-client privilege. And T don't
think you can do it.
Mr. Sibley. I think the word "badger" is a little strong.
Mr. Ward. I'll Avithdraw "badger."
Mr. Sibley. These gentlemen have been A'ery pleasant.
Mr. Ward. I would Avithdraw the statement of "badger." There has
been no badgering of the Avitness.
Mr. Sibley. That's AAdiat they get for being an adA'ocate. They'll say
anything.
Mr. Lexzxer. I think in all fairness to Mr. Wakefield, that I Avas
not at this interview — these prior intervicAvs — but it seems to me that
in addition to ^[r. Wakefield's attorney-client problem, Avhich I under-
stand fully and obviously he cannot AvaiA'e this on his OAvn, although
it's to some extent ])eitinent that ^Ii-. Rebozo's attoi-ney. also acting
attorney on behalf of Mr. Wakefield, Avas present at this last meeting
on January 16 and raised no objections on behalf of Mr. Rebozo.
And also, Ave have to take into consideration, Mr. Ward and Mr.
Wakefield, so that you understand, our record, as it goes to the Senate
11294
committee and onward, as to the fact that there apparently exists
now, in Mr. Wakefield's mind, further testimony re^ardin<r this con-
versation, which I undcMstaiid he is exertino- privileoo on. which he did
not come forward with wlien he was interviewed on prior occasions.
And I think that is of pertinent relevancy to these questions. We're
not tryin;^: to do something through the back door, which you obvi-
ously can't do, but rather that the recoid now exists — our record ex-
ists--that with Mr. Greer present, he testified that Mr. Rebozo, ac-
cording to our notes, had told him in May or June that the safety
deposit box contained $100,000 that Avas from Mr. Danner and his
tool company; that upon advice from another attorney, named Mr.
Gemmill, that he was going to return the money.
And during this conversation, Mr. Rebozo said he Avas going to make
an inventory of the money and he called Wakefield in for those pur-
poses in that process.
So apparently, according to this prior statement, Mr. Rebozo then
said he w^as going to return the money according to the advice of an-
other counsel, and there is no indication in our record that Mr. Wake-
field was asked for or did furnish any advice. I might add this too. if
we can — I'm not sure you can answer this, but did Mr. Rebozo indi-
cate at that time that he had also consulted another attorney prior to
his meeting with you ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I'll have to decline that also. It is communi-
cation with my client.
Mr. Lenzner. I just want to make it clear for both you gentlemen,
I'm not trying to seek out testimony.
Mr. Wakefield. I'm going to say one thing; that I don't believe that
during any of my two interviews with Mr. Armstrong — I didn't make
any notes. So I'm testifying from my recollection of these things. I
have nothing to go back to. And I think Mr. Sheehy and Mr. Armstrong
made copious notes.
Mr. Lenzner. And I think at the first meeting — Mr. Armstrong
made no notes in the first meeting. I think Ave made a tape recording
with Mr. Wakefield's understanding and consent.
Mr. Wakefield. You see. I don't even recollect that.
Mr. Sibley. We do have a problem with certain things Avith Mr,
Frates. I've got to protect him. That is the only reason I'm here.
Mr. Armstrong. I Avant to go back to one point and make sure we
are A^ery clear on it. At any time, did Mv. Rebozo come to you and re-
quest the use of your safety deposit key for box 224, in order to enter
box 224. have the lock changed, and have ncAv keys made for it?
Mr. Wakefield. Honestly, to my recollection. I don't know. I don't
recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Before you leaA'e that date — I hate to interrupt again,
but did you observe hoAV the money Avas Avrapped in ]:)ackages?
Mr. Wakefield. It had rublx^r' bands aroimd it, in bi-oAvn j^aper
envelopes.
Mr. Lenzner. Hoav many envelopes?
Mr. Wakefield. Three, four, five, six
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall if the money Avas contained m any-
thing else, other than rubbei- bands?
Mr. AVakkfielu. It was i-nbbcr bands.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you see anything that appeared to be bank
Av rappers?
11295
]\Ir. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. And do you have any information as to whetlier, if
it is not priAile^jed — as to whether that money was ever contained in
anything other than bank wrappers — in anything other than rubber
bands ?
Mr. Wakefield. T only know wliat T saw that day.
Mr. Lexzner. You have no information one way or the other?
Mr. Wakefield, No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall, Mr. Wakefield, seeing in 1971- — Au-
gust of 1971 — in a Jack Anderson column, about Mr. Rebozo getting
a campaign contribution for the President from Howard Hughes?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I saw it.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. Do you recall if you discussed that newspaper ar-
ticle with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not until this past end of Mav or .lune.
Mr. Armstroxg. And do you recall if, at that time, he indicated
that this was the money out of the safety deposit box ; it was the same
money that the newspaper article referred to ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think you're asking me for communication with
my client, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. I meant when the four of you were there.
Mr. Wakefield When the four of us were there? He could have
said something, INIr. Armstrong. He could have mentioned it, that it
was Hughes' money, but as I say, there was very little conversation,
and what there was is a big blur now.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know where ]\Ir. Rebozo, during the period
January 1969 through June 18, 197-S— where Mr. Rebozo kept his will?
Mr. Wak?:field. Xo : I don't.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Did you have a copy of his will in your office ?
INIr. AVakefield. No ; I don't.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Did he ever indicate to you that his will was kept
in a safety deposit box?
INIr. Wakefield. He could have. I don't recollect it.
Mr. Armstroxg. When the safety deposit box, 224, Avas opened, was
there any other contents in the box. other than the $100,100?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Was any explanation given in any wav for the extra
$100?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. Did Mr. Rebozo seem surprised at that extra $100?
Mr. Wakefield. I think there was a comment made.
Mr. Lexzxer. Which was made by INIr. Rebozo ?
]Mr. Wakefield. And the only way to verify it would be to recount
it. And I decided we were not going to recount it.
Mr. Lexzxer. What was Mr. Rebozo's comment?
]Mr. WAKErii:LD. He didn't make any that I can recall, except possi-
bly express amazement that there was an extra $100.
]\rr. Lexzxer. Do you remember that, or don't you remember that?
Mr. Wakefipxd. I don't recollect exactly, at all, what he said, except
that T assume we wouldn't have discussed recounting it if he had
knowiL
Mr. Armstroxg. IMr. Wakefield, was the safety deposit box which
Avas in your name, along with Mr. Rebozo's, used for anv purpose other
than keeping the $100,000— storing the $100,000 ?
11296
Mr. Wakefiet.d. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any irlea why the safety deposit box
was ori<T:iiially opened, other than to place the $100,000 in it?
Mr. "Wakefield. I don't liave any knowledge of why it was opened,
])eriotl. at the time that it was opened.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, without characterizing, as I understand it,
before you clainuMl attoiney-client privileges on the instructions that
Mr. Rebozo gave you on what to do in case of — with the box ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when, though — when he gave you
those instructions? "Was it at the same time he gave you the key to the
box?
Ml-. "Wakefield. Some time arouiKl that.
Mr. Armstrong. That would be roughly the time when the box was
opened ?
Mr. "Wakefield. T assume so.
Mr. Armstrong. "Which the records show to be July 0. 19fi8.
Mr. Bellino. "\^niy do vou say you assume so? Couldn't it have been
later?
Mr. "Wakefield. That T received instructions from my client?
Mr. Bellino. Yes.
Mr. Wakefield. T think he told me at the time he gave it to me.
He cave me instructions, but I can't comment on those instructions
under my privilege assertion.
Mr. Armstrong. Again, Mr. Wakefield, without describing the in-
structions which you feel are privileged, did there ever come a time
wheii Mr. Rebozo altered those instructions or amended them in any
way ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there any time when he added any additional
instructions?
Mr. Wakefield. AVhen I was called to go to the bank on the 18th.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us? Is that alteration also privileged?
Mr. Wakefield. I'd say that was privileged. T arrived there that
day, there Avere three other people.
Mr. Lenzner. When he gave you those further instructions on that
occasion, did he give them to you in front of other people?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he give them to you before or after the box was
opened ?
Mr. Wakefield. Before.
Mr. Lenzner. You mean you had a meeting Avith Mr. Rebozo prior
to the time you went in to open the box ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, sir. T said so.
^fr. Armstrong. By opening the box, do you mean the physical re-
moval of the box on June 18?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes.
Mr. AR:MSTRr)N<;. Did there come ;i f iiuc when Air. R(>bozo advised you
that he wished to use your name in tlie bank — on a bank account on
which he would have |>ower of signature?
Mv. Wakefield. T1i(> (|uesti()n again, Mr. .\rmstrong?
11297
Mr. Armstrong. Did there come a time Avhen Mr. Rebozo — did he
jidvise you that heVl like to use your name on a bank account on which
he would have power of sig:nature?
Mr, Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong, Can you tell us when that was ?
Mr. AVakefield. January or February of 1969.
Mr. Armstrong. Did that convereation result in the opening of the
account entitled, "Thomas H. Wakefield, Special Account"?
Mr. Wakefield. JNIay I consult my attorney? [Pause.] All right, the
answer to the question is "No.*'
Ml'. Belling. You did not, did you say ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did it result in the opening of any other bank
account ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
IMr. Armstrong. Did you subsequently have any conversations which
resulted in the opening of a bank account in your name to which he
Avasasignator?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did there come a time when INIr. Relx)zo ad^nsed
you that he had opened a bank account in your name to which he was
a signator and he would like to use you also to be a signator ?
INIr, AVakefield, Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us when that was, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. Either January or February of 1969.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us when you signed the signature
card for that account ?
Mr. Wakefield. During that ]ieriod of time. It might haA^e been
January or February — the end of January, or in February.
Mr. Armstrong. T have a signature card — a copy of a signature
card — for Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield, special account, opened April 16,
1969. Can you identify that card, or the copy of it — the card of AAdiich
that is the copy and your signature on it ?
Mr. Wakefield. That appears to be my signature ; yes.
Mr, Armstrong. Ts that the same bank account AAe Avere just refer-
ring to, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes,
Mr, Armstrong, Can Ave have that marked as exhibit No. 4?
[Whereupon, the document referred to Avas marked Wakefield
exhibit No. 4. foi- identification.''']
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us Iioav long the account Avas open
before Mr. Rebozo forAvarded a signature card to you for signature?
Mr. Wakefield, I'd put it at an hour and a half.
INIr. Armstrong. That soon after it Avas open, but you're not sure
hoAvlong?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us AA-hat your understanding of the
purpose of the account Avas ?
Mr. Wakefield. I can't answer that, because anything I've learned
by virtue of my signature on that card Avas a communication priAaleged
betAA'een myself and my client.
^See p. 11371.
11298
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware that a check for $6,000, drawn on
the Florida Nixon for President connnittee account and signed by
Mr. Rebozo, on April of 1969, was deposited to the Thomas PI. Wake-
field special account ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you, at any time, become aware that campaign
funds were deposited in the Thouias H. Wakefield special account?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever signed any checks on the Thomas H.
Wakefield special account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever received any of tlie proceeds or
funds from the Thomas H. Wakefield special account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us hoAv much that was, sir ?
Mr, Wakefield. Its amount — I don't recollect the amount ; $4,000-
odd.
Mr. Armstrong. $4,562.38 ?
Mr. Wakefield. That sounds correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what you did with those proceeds ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir. Any information I have concerning that
is the result of a conversation and communication wdth my client.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever dejwsit those proceeds in any other
bank account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, sir; they were placed in my firm trust account.
That would be the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what bank that was ?
Mr. Wakefield. I believe it was the Key Biscay ne Trust.
Mr. Lkxzxer. At whose instruction was that, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll repeat the fact that any information that I
am aware of, or have, by reason of that sum of money, is a result of
a communication between me and my client, Mr. Rebozo, and I am
prohibited from exposing that communication.
Mr. Armstrong. That deposit, I believe, took place on June 28, 1972,
is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. T believe so.
Mr, Arimstrong. Can you tell us when the instructions to deposit
proceeds from the Thomas II. Wakefield special account to the Wake-
field, Hewitt & Webster trust account, took place ?
Mr. Wakefield. That date, I believe.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if the funds from that account were
expended on behalf of any other individual, other than Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. I have to decline to answer on the grounds of
privilege.
Ml-. Lenzner. And on that question, your client Avo\ild be who?
Who would youi- client be on that stand ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, did any defendant, in any
criminal proceedings resulting from the break-in of the i)remises of
the Watergate, the Democratic National Headquarters in the Water-
gate office building — to your knowledge, did any of the i^roceeds from
the Wakefield^Thomas II. Wakefield special account — were any of
those proceeds used for the payment of legal fees or maintenance to
11299
any of the defendants in criminal cases, arising out of the break-in
of the premises of the Democratic National Committee in the Water-
gate office building, June of 1972 ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. I meant the proceeds of the special account which
went through the Thomas H. Wakefield trust account ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. That went through the Wakefield, Hewitt & Web-
ster trust account ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. You were getting, were you not, bank statements on
that trust account ?
INlr. Ward. Which trust account, JNIr. Lenzner ?
]\Ir. Lenzner. The trust account in the name of your firm in the
Key Biscayne Bank & Trust.
Mr. Wakefield. We receiA^ed a monthly statement on our customers ;
yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you not also receive copies of checks that went
through that account?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. I^ENZNER. And did you not also receive copies of the checks that
were de]:)osited into that account ?
]Mr. Wakefield. No ; I don't think we get copies of checks that are
deposited.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever see the checks that were deposited into
that account?
Mr. Ward. What account are we talking about ?
Mr. Lenzner. And, again, the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster account
in the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust.
Mr. Ward. The question, as I understand it, did you receive the
checks that were written on the account ?
Mr. Lenzner. Deposited in the account.
Mr. Wakefield. I don't receive all the checks that are deposited.
And the $-l,000-odd that was transferred by consent charge to that
account.
Mr. Lenzner. You say you did see that ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. You say that — did you ever learn, without specifying
the specific source — did you ever learn the source of those funds?
Mr. Wakefield. Did I ever leai-n the source of those funds?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. I don't, for the fact, know the source of those funds
today. I think Mr. Armstrong told me, at one time, that they had come
out of a political campaign.
Mr. Lenzner. That is the only information you have ever received
with regard to the origin or the source of those funds?
]\Ir. AVakefield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Belling. As a matter of fact, the statements did not come to you,
you Avould not have seen them.
Mr. Wakefield. No. As a matter of fact, they were marked, "Hold".
Mr. Armstrong. Now, we are referring to the Thomas H. Wakefield
special account.
Mr. Sibley. I was talkinof about his trust account.
11300
Mr. Armstrong. Have you, or your firm, represented President
Nixon in any matters, other than the acquisition of property at 500
and 510 Ray Lane, and the acquisition and sale of properties in the
Cape Florida Development Corp.?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't believe we have. Those are the only items I
recollect.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what happened to the proceeds
from the sale of the Cape Florida Development Corp. — The Cape
Florida Development lots— when the President sold them to Mr.
Griffin?
Mr. Wakei- lEED. I'll have to decline to answer that on the grounds of
the client-attorney jirivileged communication.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, did anyone, other than the President, receive
the proceeds of that sale, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armsit^ong. Did the President receive all of the proceeds from
that sale, other than Avhatevei- ajipropriate fees, escrows that your firm
may have absorbed ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think so.
Mr. Armstrong. Has the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account
in the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co., or the First National Bank of
Miami, ever paid for any of the expenses incurred by President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. T think T would have to assert a confidential priv-
ilege with i-espectto attoiiiey and client.
Mr. Arinistrong. In this case we are not referring to the proceeds
of the Caj^e Florida development property.
Mr, Wakefield. I'll state it once again.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me put it this way. Other than what
President Nixon may have received from the proceeds of the sale of the
Cane Florida develo])ment lots, has he received any other funds?
Mr. Wakefield. From oui- trust?
Mr. Arimstrong. From the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust ac-
counts in the Key Biscavne Bank or the First National Bank of Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Armstrong, I'll have to decline to answer on
privileged communication.
Mr. AR:NrsTRONG. Between yourself and Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No, l)etween myself and President Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. For the point of clarifying the record
Mr. Wakefield. Or his attorney.
l\fr. AR^rsTRONG. Can you tell us between Avhich attorneys the com-
municntion would hn\e been with?
Mr. Wakefield. I have to travel on memory. T don't know if I can
identifv him. It was an attornev in the office of counsel.
Mr. ;Vrmstr()ng. Would that have been Mv. Parker?
Mr. Wakefield. I wanted to say that name, but I'm not really sure
it Avas. There Avere several attorneys.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it haA^e been Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlich-
man?
Mr. Wakefield. It Avould not have been INIr. Haldeman. I neA^er
spoke to him. I don't think Mr. Ehrlichman is in the office — most of
mA' communications Avith respect to businessmen are handled by the
President. He came f i-om the office of counsel.
. 11301
Mr. Bei.IvIxo. Came from the office of what ?
Mr. Wakefield. Of counsel.
]\fr. Belli xo. The White House here?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Bellixo. John Dean's office?
Mr. Wakefield. He was there for a time, yes.
Mr. Armstroxo. Can you tell us if the communications that we are
talking about took place before or after April 30, 1973? For the pur-
pose of identifying the date, that was the date that Mr. Haldeman and
Mr. Ehrlichman left public service and Mr. Dean left public service.
IVfr. Wakefield. J jet's ^o back to Avhat we were talkinjs^ about — dis-
bursements, from the ^^''akefield. Hewitt & Webster tiust account.
Mr. Armstroxo. Eifjht, on behalf of the President.
INfr. Wakefield. INIy instructions came before that date.
Mr. Lex'^zxer. Before April 30, 1973, is that correct, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
INIr. Lexzxer. The answer is yes ?
INIr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do vou know if thev would have come from Mr.
Fielding?
Mr. AVakefield. I don't recall that name.
Mr. Armstroxg. Mr. Dean?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Mr. Morijan. Do you feel that it could have been
Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Wakefield. I have talked Avith Morofan and I have talked with
Parker. Those names, I know.
ISIr. Armstrox^g. Mr. Krogh.
Mr. Wakefield. Ivrooh, not in recent years.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us, sir, if this was after June 1972?
Mr. Wakefield. Are we talkine; about any disbursements out of my
account ?
Mr. Armstroxg. We are talkinof about the communications that are
privilesred and we are trying to identify when they occurred?
INfr. Wakefield. T have had communication with the office of coun-
sel over the yeai's. I don't know exactly what you are talking: about.
Mr. Armstr(^xg. Were anv funds expended on the President's be-
half in 1969?
INfr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Arinistrox'g. And any communication reirardin^ that expendi-
ture is privile<red as you say? The communication was not with Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Which client are you claimino; privileges with
regard to communication?
Mr. Wakefield. Mv. Nixon. My instructions mainly came from the
office of counsel, and sometimes Mr. Eebozo, as the President's ag^ent.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you describe those conversations for us?
Mr. Wakefiet.d. No ; because I think he was acting- for the President
and that is privileged.
Mr. Lexzx-^er. Mr. Pebozo is 7iot an attornev, though, Mr. Wake-
field.
11302
Mr. Wakefif.ld. That is true, but he was an afrent for the President
and for that purpose and for those particular instructions.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you receive, or did vou have any documenta-
tion?
Mr. Wakefield. So said.
]\fr. AR^rsTROxo. Did you receive a documentation from the Presi-
dent, in the President's hand, that would indicate that Mr, Rebozo
was a<rent for that ):)urpose?
Mr. Wakefield. T have no documents.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you discuss it directly with the President,
whether or not Mr. Rebozo was the ao;ent for that purpose?
Mr. Wakefield. Well, many years ago.
Mr. Belling. What do you mean, many years ago ?
Mr. Wakefield. T think in connection wnth any conversation I had
with the President, I think they are privileged too.
Mr. Armstrong. Can we place them in time?
IVfr. Wakefield. Lonor l>efore the 1972 election.
Mr. Armstrong. You did have privileged communication long
before the 1972 election that Mr. Rebozo was the President's agent?
]\f r. Wakefield. Or tlie President's counsel ?
Mr. Ar:mstrong. I'm sorry. You had conversation with the Presi-
dent, or the President's counsel, which made it clear that Mr. Rebozo
was his business agent ?
Mr. Wakefield. Was his agent for certain purposes.
Mr. Lenzner. Wiich purposes Avere defined to you ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I have to decline to answer that on the
grounds of ]:)i'ivile2'ed communication.
Mr. Lenzner. Which counsel advised you of that?
Ml-. Wakefield. Mr. Ehrlichman was one.
Mr. Lenzner. Telephonically or in person ?
Mr. Wakefiei-d. In person.
Mr. Lenzner. Anvbody else present at that time ?
Ml-. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Where was that conversation held ?
Mr. Wakefield. At the White House.
Mr. Lenzner. Then tliis was aftei- January 1 . 19G9 ?
Ml-. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And for what ]iuri)oso did yon come to the White
House ?
Mr. Wakefield. T was at a receiition.
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Ehrlichman talk to you at a reception ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, we went to his office.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he ask to see you ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. Rebozo could have been present there too.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Rebozo was present, was he not?
ATr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. What did Mr. Ehrlichman say to you at that time?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll have to decline on the grounds of jn-ivileged
communication.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there any communication related to your client
andlMr. Xixon?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
11303
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo was present ?
Mr. Wakefieu). Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. 1 su<rjiost rheii that there was communication with a
third person present and, therefore, it cannot be a confidential com-
munication or intended to he a confidential communication.
Mr. Sibley. That, of course, is true.
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo was designated as agent in the begin-
ning of the conversation.
Mr. Lexzxer. By Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did they say they wanted to go on an attorney-client
basis ?
Mr. Wakefield. I considered as such.
Mr. Bellixo. Was Mr. Kalmbacli })resent also ?
Mr. Wakefield. Xo, sir.
Mr. Armstroxc. So we can define this area of privilege as it relates
to President Nixon, insofar as it related to conversations you had with
Mr. Rebozo. Can you tell us in what agency capacity Mr. Rebozo acted
on behalf of the President without describing events^ We're talking
about a business agent.
Mr. Wakefield. Did I leave you hanging on a question, Mr.
Tvcnzner ? I think there's a question.
Mr. Armstroxg. I think it's the one that was hanging. The question
was, can you define the nature of the agency relationshii^, without
going to specifics of it ? Can you tell uS whether he was acting as a
business agent ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, I can't. I'm going to have to decline to answer
on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Bellixo. Then your client there is the Pi-esident ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Bellixo. Where is this going to stop. Mr. Sibley? I mean, how
many people can talk to him, come to the President, and he can't
Mr. Sibley. This is an unusual situation. I assure you he can't
answer. If he could, I would let him.
Mr. Lexzxer. I do find it rather difficult to accept the ]:)roposition
that simply because Mr. Rebozo was designated as the President's
agent, that immediately closed with the attorney-client protection and
any communications in his presence would be closed.
Mr. Sibley. In the particular transaction, of course, but in the —
any agents of — and the agent of the client that was designated for
that purpose, and he communicates with the attorney for the benefit of
a client, that is privileged. That's right. Otherwise a client would have
to whisper in his attorney's ear, he could never lose his control.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, I know, but there are certainly business com-
munications that were simply not privileged and not intended to be
pi-ivileged.
Mi-. Sibley. That may be true, but communications with lawyers are
privileged.
Mr. Wakefield. In my understanding, they are, in the canons of the
Florida Supreme Court decisions. An agent of my client has the same
confidentiality that he has.
Mr. Lexzxer. If it is an appropriate attorney-client privilege, on
the other hand it may be, but if it's really a purely business relationship
11304
and Mr. Robozo was simply actino- as a business aofent of the President
so certain things could be facilitated. It hardly strikes me as being a
protected comniunication.
Mr. SiBLKY. Of couise, if that was the situation you would be cor-
rect about it, but of course that is not the situation.
Mr. Lkxzxki!. But that is called <roin<j around in a huire circle. Let
me ask you a question. Was the discussion in the counsel's office with
Mr. Ehrlichnian with reoaid to future specific expenses that would be
incurred on behalf of the President ?
Mr. WAKEFiKi.n. No.
Mr. Lkxznkk. "Was there discussion of any specific financial
transaction?
Mr. Wakefiei.d. Xo.
Mr. AinrsTKoxG. Does the agency relationship with INIr. Rebozo
whicli ^Nfr. Ehrlichnian advised you of between the President and Mv.
Rebozo, did that extend beyond the calendar year 1960?
Mr. Wakefield. T treated it so: yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was it specifically designated to extend beyond
that calendar year?
yiv. AVakefield. It wasn't specifically designated for any period.
Mr. Akmstroxg. Well, did the agency relationship — I gather it
did continue beyond lOGO?
INfr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Does it continue up through the present?
]\Ir. Wakefield. T consider it does.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Was there any discussion in ^Nfr. Erlichman's office
with regard to fiuids that might be available?
]\Ir. Wakefield. Xo.
INfr. Lexzxer. Was there any discussion in ^fr. Erlichman's office
with ]\Ir. Rebozo. with regai'd to what role, if any, Mr. Rebozo might
play in fundraising?
INlr. AVakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. AVas there any discussion of Air. Rel)ozo maintaining
a fund in behalf of the Pi-esident. in Elorida?
Mr. AA'^AKEFIELD. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. AA^as there anv discussion of any fund being main-
tained on behalf of the Pi-esident?
Air. AA'^akefield. Xo.
Mr. TvExzxER. AA'as there aiiv discussion with regard to certain con-
tributoi-s that Mr. Rebozo might contact to raise funds?
Mr. AA^\KEFTELD. Xo.
Mr. T>ExzxER. AA''as there any discussion of any debts that President
Xixon had incurred?
Air. AA'^AKEFIELD. Xo.
Mr. Lex'zxer.. AA^'as the discussion limited solely to a specific trans-
action ]-elating to Mr. Rebozo and the President?
IVfr. AA^vKEFiELD. At that time; yes.
INfr. Lex'zx^er. And T take it that it related
Air. AA\\KEFiELD. A specific matter.
Mr. Lexzxer. A specific matter? AA^as it a financial matter?
Mr. AA\\KEFIELD. Xo.
Mr. SiHLEV. T am sure it's a blind alley. Yoii can run u]) it all
day long. AA^e're not aetting anywhere. T mean, it really is. It's
11305
invokin<j the privilege, because a privilege exists, not because of the
matter involved.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you, on occasion, discuss that conversation with
other individuals besides your counsel today — your counsel here?
Mr, Wakefield. Did I discuss
Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss the conversation you had with Mr.
Ehrliclnnan and Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you take any action as a result of it, not speci-
fying what action you took?
Mr, Wakefield. No.
Mr, Lenzner. Can you tell us what action you took?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Bellino. Mr. Wakefield, are you the signator on the Florida
Nixon for President account?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir; not to my knowledge, I'm not.
Mr. Bellixo. You are an officer in Fishers Island?
]\Ir. Wakefield. Yes, sir.
INIr. Belling. Would you tell us from whom the $300,000 deposit
was received in 1969, when you were about to sell the property?
Mr. Wakefield. I think that falls in my attor-ney-client relationship.
I\Ir. Belling. I am asking you as an officer, as a member of the
board of directors, not as an attorney-client to Rebozo.
Mr. AVakefield. I don't believe I was an officer at that time.
Mr. SiRLEY, Anything you have as an officer you have to expose,
but if it comes by reason of your attorney-client relationship, you
don't have to sav anvthing.
Mr. Belling. Would you tell us about the $800,000 deposit your
corporation received from Conden.
Mr. Wakefield. The company did receive the deposit. Conden
was originally known as W-u-e-s-t-o-f-f . the Wuestoif Co. and changed
its name to Conden.
Mr. Belling. Who were the officers of that corporation?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know. I don't recollect.
Mr. Belling. Do you know anyone else connected with that com-
pany or corporation? Who was the lawyer that represented them?
Mr. Wakefield. Voorhees, McGuire &' Wells, in Orlando.
Mr. Belling. Did Senator Smathers have anything to do with
that com])any ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Belling. Did William Rebozo have anything to do with it?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; I believe that he was involved Avith Conden
somewhere. I don't know how. I don't represent INIr. Billy Rebozo.
Mr. Belling. Why wasn't the $300,000 returned?
Mr. Wakefield. Now, as an officer of the company, Conden Corp.
defaulted in their contract approximately a year after that date, as a
result of that default the deposit was forfeited.
Mr. Belling. "Wliat did the contract call for, sale of the property at
a certain price? Were there any other restrictions? For instance, the
buildinof of a causeway before they would go ahead with the contract?
Mr. Wakefield. There were no conditions.
31-889 O - 74 - pt.24
11306
Mr. Bellixo. In otlier words, tlioso attorneys were ready to buy
the properties from Fisher's Island without any condition, whether a
causeway would l)e built or a bridge or anything?
Mr. Wakefield. They had 1 year to buy it.
Mr. Bellino. And they made no effort to protest the action that
they were taking in retaining the $300,000 ?
Mr. Wakefieu). Not to my knowledge.
Mr. BeUvIno. I believe you may have answered it. but I'd like to get
it clear. Did President Nixon ever pay you a fee for anything other
than what you did in connection with the land transactions?
Mr. Wakefield. To tell the truth, I don't know.
Mr. Bellino. Did Rebozo pay you any fee on behalf of the Presi-
dent?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Bellixo. Did he ever advance any funds on behalf of the
President ?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll have to decline to answer that. Not as fees.
Otherwise, I decline to answer that on the grounds of a privileged
communication.
Mr. Bellixo. When you said you received your keys, I believe you
said you put it in an envelope and you wrote the number of the box
down. What else did you write on that envelope.
Mr. Wakefield. I dont' believe anything else.
Mr. Bellixo. You didn't i^ut Rebozo's name on it ?
Mr. Wakefield. I put Rebozo's name and the number.
Mr. Bellixo. Name and number, and anything else ?
Mr. Wakefield. I doubt it. I don't think so.
Mr. Bellixo. That's all. And did yon know at the time when they
gave you the key what was in the box ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Bellixo. You only learned what was in the box in June of
1972— in June of 1973? '
Mr. Wakefield. 1973.
Mr. Beu.ixo. You never heard anything about it, no discussion ?
Mr. Wakefield. No discussion.
Mr. Bellixo. Suppose something happened to you, how would
anyone know? The only thing — they would know that this box be-
longed to Rebozo. There is no other instructions that you had, if what-
ever was in the box didn't belong to anyone but Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Wakefield. That is right.
Mr. Armstroxo. Can we clarify one of the answers to Carmine's
questions? Carmine asked whether there were expenditures made on
behalf, by INIr. Rebozo. for the President — advanced any moneys on
behalf of the President? You said you'd have to invoke the attorney-
client privilege.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes ; as both clients.
Mr. Armstroxo. Was that a result of connnunication from your
attorney-client relationship with the President. Mr. Rebozo as agent
for the President, but also on your attorney-client relationship with
Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. That is right.
Mr. Bellixo. Did you cvei- have access to 224, at all, before June
1973, when the box was opened and the money counted ?
11307
Mr. Wakefield. I presume I had access.
Mr. Belling. You had access to it ?
Mv. AYakefield. I was cosi^uer and deputy on the box.
Mr. Belling. Did you ever have access to it ?
Mr. AVakefield. Xever went into it.
Mr. Belijno. Do you have other boxes there at tliat bank ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; not personally.
Mr. Beli>ino. And when you went to visit the board of directors'
box, did you si<2:n an access caixl ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, sir, I always sijrned it. I don't think I've been
in it but a couple of times.
Mr. Belling. Were any of the funds — are you familiar with any of
the funds being transferred from tlie Fisher's Island Corp., or the
Cocolobo Key, or Harbor Terminal being transferred to Rebozo at
any time ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Belling. How many bank accounts did you have in the Key
Biscayno Bank ?
Mr. AYakefield. Do I have, personally ?
Mr. Belling. You and the firm.
Mr. AYakefield. AA^akefield, Hewitt & AA-'ebster ti-ust account; AYake-
field, Hewitt & AA^ebster. attorney account ; I have a personal account
and I have a joint account with my wife.
Mr. Belling. That is all?
Mr. AYakefield. I believe my children have accounts there.
Mr. Belling. Could you tell us how much was in your firm trust
account that derived from sources, either Rebozo or the President?
Just an overall figure ; could you tell us that ?
Mr. AA^VKEFiELD. IVl liave to decline to answer, I believe, on the
grounds of a privileged matter.
Mr. Lenzner. AA^hat's the difference between your attorney account
and your trustee account ? I don't quite understand that.
Mr. AYakefield. AA^'e utilize our attorney account to pay our office
expenses and all fees come into our attorney account. Ex])enditures —
we spend no money on expenses out of the trustee account, except for
clients.
Mr. Armstrong. Can we catalog these accounts more definitively?
In the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust account there's a Thomas H.
AYakefield, special account, which you are signator with Mr. Rebozo.
There's also a AA^akefield, Hewitt & AA'"ebster trust account at the Key
Biscayne Bank.
Mr. AA^VKEFiELD. Yes. And there's also another one — I'm going to
answer to Mr. Bellino. There was a Thomas H. AA^akefield escrow
account.
Mr. Armstrong. AA'^as there also a Thomas H. AA'^akefield trust ac-
count, or is that just the escrow account ?
Mr. AA-^AKEFiELD. I bclievB there's a Thomas H. AA^akeficld trust ac-
count there.
Mr. Armstrong. A Thomas H. AA^akefield attorney account?
Mr. AA^AKEFiELD. I dou't think there's a Thomas H. AA^akefield, at-
torney account.
Mr. Lenzner. There's a Tliomas H. AA^ikefield. Hewitt & AA^ebster
attorney account at the Key Biscayne Bank ?
11308
Mr. Armstrong. And theio/s also a Thomas IT. Wakefield and Betty
B. Wakefield account at the Key Biscayne Bank.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is that all the accounts at the Key Biscayne Bank
& Trust Co.?
Mr. Wakefield. As relate to me and my family, personally, or my
firm ?
Mr. Armstrong. We just have seven accounts. I believe the Thomas
H. Wakefield trust account, that is on the First National Bank of
Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. There may be one in Key Biscayne, too.
Mr. Armstrong. So we have six or seven accounts at Key Biscayne ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And at the First National Bank of Miami, there
is a Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account. There's a Thomas
H. AYakefield ti'ust account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. There's a Thomas H. Wakefield attorney account?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes ; rifjht.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, first of all, in the Wakefield,
Hewitt & Webster trust account at the Key l^iscayne Bank & Trust
Co., do the records of that account include records which are covered
by — you feel by — attorney-client priviletje between yourself and
President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And are there also records there that are covered
by^from that account that are covered by — an attorney-client priv-
ilege between you and Mr. TJebozo ?
Ml-. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. The Thomas H. Wakefield special account, as T
understand it, the records — the records there are covered by a privilege
with Mr. Rebozo, is that correct
Ml-. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong [continuino:]. As well as President Nixon?
Mr. Wakefield. What are you talking about ?
Mr. Armstrong. I'm talkin*; about the Thomas H. Wakefield spe-
cial account at the Key Biscayne Bank.
Mr. Wakefield. That's not related to Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Lenzner. On the trust account of tlie Kev Biscayne Bank &
Trust?
Mr. Armstrong. Which trust account of the seven ?
Mr. Lenzner. The Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account, at
the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust, are there records reflectino; other
clients in addition to President Nixon and Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, tlie account is solely and exclusively for our
clients.
Mr. Lenzner. For your clients? Were any of those accounts set up
just for Mr. President Nixon and Mr. Pebozo. otlier than special ac-
counts?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. At the Key Biscayne Trust Co.. does the Thomas
H. Wakefield escrow account include records that are covered by the
attorney-client pri\ileii(> between yourself and the President?
11309
Mr. Wakefield. Whicli account ?
Mr. Armstrong. The escrow account.
Mr. Wakefield. I think it is an escrow agent, I don't know. That is
a matter of public record. That account was opened for the account of
the organizer of the Key Biscayne Sayiiigs & Ix)an Association.
Mr. Armstrong. But doesn't it represent any funds of which Mr.
Rebozo has an interest indiyidually ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. In the Thomas H. Wakefiekl trust account at Key
Biscayne Bank & Trust Co.
Mr. Wakefield. I said I belieye I do liave an account there. It's so
inactiye, I don't belieye I remember what it was for.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it contain records which you would say were
privileged betAveen youi-self and the President and Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No, myself and my client.
Mr. Armstrong. But other than INIr. Rebozo and the President. And
the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster account on the Key Biscayne Bank
was for office expenses, so there would be no records there that would
be privileged regarding the President or INIr. Rebozo, is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. The Thomas H. AVakefield personal account and
the Thomas H. Wakefield and Betty B. Wakefield personal account
in the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co., do they include any records
that are included in the privilege between the President and Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. In the accounts at the First National Bank of
Miami, the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account at the First
National Bank of Miami, do they include records that would be privi-
leged between yourself and President Nixon?
Mr. Wakefield. I would say, yes; to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. And between yourself and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. In the Thomas H. Wakefield trust account at the
First National Bank of Miami, would that include records that would
pertain to attorney-client relationship between yourself and President
Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Between yourself and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. In the Thomas H. Wakefield attorney account at
the First National Bank of Miami, does that include any records
that would be privileged between yourself and President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. At the First National Bank; no. I might say that
that account is one of the first accounts I opened when I staited prac-
ticing law. I've never bothered to change the title. It is a personal
account.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it include any records that are privileged
between yourself and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. I think that's all I have. Do you have any accounts
in any other banks ?
Mr. Wakefield. Personal ?
11310
]Mr. Armstroxg. Personal or firm accounts ?
Mr. Wakefield. I believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you signator on any accounts to which Mr,
Rebozo is also the si^nator, other than the Thomas H. Wakefield
special account in the Key Biscayne Bank ?
Mr. Wakefield. Correspondent accounts? Not to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Are there any other bank accounts in which
Rebozo has an interest other than those in his name in the Key
Biscayne Bank & Trust Co., and those which we just discussed ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
INIr. Bellino. I believe Nicky Moncourt be<jan working for INIr.
Rebozo in 1970, is that about right, if you can recall ?
Mr. Wakefield. I can't pini:)oint when he hires people.
INIr. Bellino. Do you recall who was there before Nicky IMoncourt.
who was his bookkeeper or personal secretary, or Avhatever you mijrht
call her?
Mr. Wakefield. To tell you the truth, I don't know.
Mr. Belling. Do you know a girl named Susan ?
Mr. Wakefield. There's a Susan that's a secretary there now.
Mr. Bellino. Susan Bagadonis, was she there before ?
Mr. Wakefield. The name doesn't come to me. I don't recollect
anything from the name. There is a Susan there now.
Mr. Belling. What is your best recollection as to who was there
before ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have forgotten. I've forgotten.
Mr. Bellino. Does Shainco — you were an officer in that ?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes, sir ; the president.
Mr. Bellino. How much is in there? What is your share or Mr.
Rebozo's share in that company ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I've already answered Mr. Armstrong
or somebody on that one. I said the two stockholders Avere Mr. Rebozo
and Mr. INIcC^rae and I serve as president. I think IVIr. Hewitt is
an officer.
Mr. Belling. How long has that been in existence ?
Mr. Wakefield. I did not form the company. It has been in ex-
istence a number of years.
Mr. Belling. Approximately what number of years ?
Mr. Wakefield. It may be 10 years, I don't know exactly.
Mr. Belling. And what property is that — Avould that be involved
in?
Mr. Wakefield. As the president, it's acquired — we have acquired —
we have acquired maybe three lots — maybe four.
Mr. Belling. Three lots ? Whei-eabouts ?
Mr. Wakefield. They are located off 27th Avejiue. one l)lock south
of U.S.I.
Mr. Belling. Is that in Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. It's the city of IMiami.
Mr. Belling. South Miami"?
Mr. Wakefield. No, it would be in the Coconut Grove area. Any-
thing south of U.S. 1. in that area, is referred to as C^oconut Grove.
Mr. Belling. Hoav much is involved in the cost of the j^roperty in
respective shares ? I'm asking as an officer of the cor]ioration.
11311
Mr. Wakefield. Are you talking about the value of the property
in the corporation ?
Mr. Bellixo. Hoav much was invested in the property owned by
tlie corporation '.
Mr. Wakefield. I doivt recollect exactly. It was maybe $30,000
for the three lots — or four.
]\Ir. Bellixo. Was that purchased as the result of some other
transaction? Was it actually purchased as the result of some other
transaction 'I
Mr. Wakefield. No. Actually purchased.
Mr. Bellixo. And it is still held of the same.
Mr. Wakefield. In the name of Shamco, I believe so.
Mr. Bellixo. Is this S-h-a-m-c-o?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstkoxg. Are you familiar with a Mr. Cravath, C-r-a-v-a-t-h?
Mr. Wakefield. A Mary Cravath. I don't know them. I've heard of
them.
Mr. Armsthoxg. Have you had any business or financial transac-
tions with the Cravaths. with Mr. and Mrs. Cravath?
Mr. Wakefield. I have not. I have on behalf of a client.
Mr. Armstroxg. Has Mr. Rebozo had any business transactions
with them ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. That included a sale of a piece of property to
the Cravaths ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Arjistroxg. Can you tell us where that property was located?
Mr. Wakefield. Johnson Drive, which is south of Miami.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Have you had any business transaction with Cata-
lina Pools. Inc.?
Mr. Wakefieli\ I personally have not.
Mr. Armstr()X(;. Do you know, of your knowledge, if Mr. Rebozo
has had any transactions with Catalina Pools?
Mr. Wakefield. He undoubtedly did. I believe so.
Mr. Ar:mstr()XG. Did that include installation of a swimming pool?
Mr. Wakefield. Yos.
Mr. Armstroxg. Has tlie President had any business or financial
transactions, to your knowled<re ?
Mr. Wakefield. Xot to my Icnowledge.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us the location of the swimming pool
that INIr. Rebozo had installed ?
Mr. Wakefield. The actual location of the pool ?
Mr. Ar:mstr()Xg. Yes.
Mr. Wakefieij). T don't kuov; its exact location.
Mr. AR:\rsTRox(i. This is an original, do you have a copy of this?
Mr. Lexzxer. While he is looking that up, were you aware that the
pool was i:)urchasp(l on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll ha\ e to decline to answer that question on the
grounds of confidential relationships between myself and INfr. Rebozo
as au attorncv-cliont.
[Recess.]
Mr. AR:MS'rr.()X(;. Can vou tell us when you became awai'e of any
plan to install a pool at ^Nfr. Rebozo's request ?
11312
Mr. Wakefield. I don't recall an exact date, the end of October, the
first of November 1972.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall from whom you learned that the
pool was to be installed ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you discuss a pool with anybody else?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did — other than signing chocks, or expendinjj^ funds
on Mr. Rebozo's behalf, did you take any actions associated with the
installation of the pool ?
Mr. Sibley. I assume you spent money for the pool.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, other than that, Avhether oi- not you did?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll have to decline to answer on the fjrounds of
privileofed communication on behalf of my client.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you identify these four checks drawn on the
Wakefield. Hewitt & Webster trust account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, those are my sig^iatures.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe one is sijrned by INIr. Hewitt, is that
correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. Oh, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recognize the check. hoAvever ?
Mr. Wakefield. It is a check ag^ainst our trust account. It appears
to be a copy.
Mr. Armstrong. Can we have these four copies marked for identi-
fication ?
[Wliereupon. the documents referred to were marked Wakefield ex-
hibits Nos. 5-A, 5-B, n-C, for identification.*]
Mr. Armstrong. Now. Mr. Wakefield, in referring; to exhibit No.
5-A, a check draAvn from the Wakefield trust account on November 20,
1972 — you've already identified your sifrnature — can you tell us on
whose instruction that check was issued ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I have to decline to answer the question
on the grounds that anv infoi-mation on matters that concern that
check is based on the confidential client relationship.
Mr. Armstrong. And T believe in answer to an earlier question you
answered you weren't sure of tlie location Avhere the swimminf; pool
was installed.
Now. havinn; reference to exhibit ;VA and the check which makes
reference to the deposit on tlie swimmino; pool contract for 500 Bay
Lane, Key Biscayne. Fla., and it makes reference to Kebozo. C. G..
below, can you tell us if that was issued and where that swimminfr
pool was installed?
Mr. Wa7<:efteld. The check bears the notation of 500 Bay Lane.
Mr. Armstronc;. What does that mean to vou. that the i)ool was in-
stalled at that location.
Mr. Wakefield. I would presume so, but you asked me the exact
location. T don't know the exact location. I've nevei- seen the pool.
Mr. Lenzner. Do vou know how that infoi-niation <rot on that check?
Mr. Wakefikt,d. No, my bookkeepei- uses his own legends on checks
to tie them into his records.
Mr. Lenzner. What T mean, does he receive instinctions from any-
body when he types up a check?
* Sop pp. 11372-74.
11313
Mr. Wakefield. Sometimes from my secretary who Avill make up a
re(|iiest on a clieck.
Mr. Lexzner. Do you have any recollections of furnishing instruc-
tions to him with regard to this check ?
Mr. Wakefield. No. I wouldn't deny it. I don't know anything
specific. I don't tell him what to put on the check, is what I'm saying.
Mr. Lenzner. AVell, is he furnished with documents that would re-
flect the purpose and nature of checks when he types them ?
Mr. Wakefield. Sometimes, sometimes not.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you prepare any memorandum with regard to
this check, to your recollection? Did you have any conversations with
any agents or representatives of the President with regard to this
check, check 5- A — or exhibit 5-A ?
Mr. Wakefield. With the President, no.
Mr. Lexzxer. Or any of his agents or representatives ?
^Ir. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. And before, you refused to answer Mr. Armstrong's
questions on the grounds of privileges as to whom instructed you to
make out this check. Which client were vou claiming pi-ivilege on
behalf of?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzxer. And just so I get this straight, is it your understand-
ing then that this check related to a matter that was related to INIr.
Rebozo, rather than your other client, the President?
jMi'. Wakefield. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Next to Mr. Rebozo's name on exhibit 5-A — to the
left of his name — tliere are a series of numbers which appear to be
the letter W, followed, W72M, capital MI-435. Can you tell us what
those numbers mean ?
Mr. Wakefield. That would be a file code.
Mr. Armstroxg. Which is a file code ?
]Mr. Wakefi?:ld. W means Wakefield, the year follows, MI is mis-
cellaneous, and real estate would be RE, and so forth, and the name
f)f the firm.
Mr. Armstrong. So it's miscellaneous. Miscellaneous No. 435,
then Mr. Rebozo's name. And so that file would be found in your firm's
files in the segment that is identified as your files, miscellaneous, under
Mr. Rebozo's name ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is it customary for all checks out of the trust
account to be so identified, to identify the file number that they relate
to, or the transaction that they relate to ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don' know. As I stated, the bookkeeper uses his
own code. He's not under any specific instructions.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is it customary to indicate the client involved in
each check from that account ?
Mr. Wakefield. I know it is sometimes, but I wouldn't know
whether it's done every time.
Mr. Armstroxg. Are you aware of any instances where the funds
were expended on Mr. Rebozo's behalf, where it was not- — on his in-
struction— where it was not so indicated ?
Mr. Wakefield. On this matter ?
11314
Mr. Armstrong. On any matter.
Mr. Wakefieu). In 22 years, I just don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any instances that Mr. Rebozo re-
quested yon make an expenditure on his behalf, with funds in which
he had an interest, or at his instritction, in which he asked that he
not be identified on the check ?
Mr. "Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever issued such insti'uctions to your
bookkeeper, that Mr. Rebozo — not to identify
Mr. Wakefield. Not to identify ? No.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. Mr. Rebozo?
Mv. "Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Lenzner. Before you go on, with regard to 5-A, Avhich is $1,000,
a $1,000 check dated Noveuiber 20, 1972, do you know whether this
check was paid for on behalf of individuals other than jNlr. Rebozo?
Mr. Sibley. If your information
jNfr. Wakefield. All infonnation I have concerning that check, I
stated it with my client, with Mr. Rebozo, and there was a privileged
communication involved.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know the origin source for the $1,000 repre-
sented in this check?
Mr. Wakefield. I would have to answer in the sauie way as my pre-
vious answer.
Mr. Lenzner. Which is that you refuse to answer because of privi-
lege on behalf of Mv. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds
it is privileged commimication that involves attorney-client
relationship.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm not asking for a communication, all I'm asking
for is a "yes" or "no."
Mr. Wakefield. Anything I know about that check is involved in
my attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Lenzner. I understand that. I'm not asking for a communi-
cation; I'm just asking if you know, yes or no, the origin of the funds
that ai-e represented in this $1,000.
Mr. Sibley. If your knowledge comes from infoi-mation supplied
by your client, you cannot answei-. If you know, otherwise, you can.
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know, other than what Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Lenznj:r. And do you know whether Mi*. Rebozo applied any
funds that he received, designated as campaign funds contribution,
as part of this — $1,000 — which would be in violation of the Federal
Court Practice Act?
ISfi'. Wakefield. I have no knowledge of any campaign activities
of Mr. Rebozo, or cam)>aign funds.
Mr. Lenzner. So you have no information that any of these funds,
repi-esented in the $1,000 check, oi-iginated with a campaign coutribu-
tioiL Do you know that to be untrue ?
Mr. Wakefield. What to be untrue, that they may have origi-
nated
Mr. Lenzner. That part of these funds could have come from cam-
paign contributions received by Mr. Rebozo.
11315
Mr, Wakefikld. I don't know anything except that I received my
instrnctions from my client, Mr. Eebozo. I received instructions; I
received funds from him ; T disbursed funds.
Mr. Lenznkr. I understand that. T am asking, did you receive any
information from Mr. Rebozo tliat would indicate to you that he
violated the law by acceptino; campaifjn contributions and applvinjr
part of them to this $1,000 check?
Mv. Wakp^field. No ; never. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you know that campaig:n contributions re-
ceived by Mr. Rebozo were not applied as part of these funds ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think, based on what I said, I can't say what
doesn't applj'.
Mr. Lenzner. I am asking you, do you know — do have sufficient in-
formation to say that campaign funds were not applied to the $1,000
represented in this check ?
Mr. "Wakefield. I don't have any information. Tliere's no way I
know.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't have any information one wav or the
other?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. All right, now, did you ever discuss the construction
of the pool as represented in check — in exhibit 5- A — with your other
client. President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefielix No.
Mr. Armstrong. Referrino; to exhibit f)-B. can vou tell us on w^hose
instruction that check was paid ?
Mr. Wakefield. The check Avas prepared at my instruction.
Mr. Ar^istrong. Can you tell ns at whoso instruction the expendi-
ture Avas made ?
Air. Wakefield. At mine.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell ns on whose authority that expendi-
ture was made?
Mr. Wakefield. I made the expenditure on behalf of my client. Mr.
Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. And that also makes reference to 500 Bav Lane.
That is check No. 160.
Mr. Wakefield. No ; it doesn't.
Mr. Armstrong. I am sorry, that is check No. 171. dated Decem-
ber 18. 1972. It makes reference to final payment for construction of
the swimmiufr pool. Did you understand this to be the SAvimming pool ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And similarly, foi- exhibit 5-C; that Avas also ex-
pended on behalf of Mr. Rebozo, and that makes reference to the same
swinnning pool, is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Noav, making reference to exhibit 2, from Mr.
HcAvitt's executiA'e session, here's the copy of the same check. A copy
of check No. 170, on the Wakefield, HeAvitt t^c Webster trust account.
First National Bank of Miami. And that makes reference to payment
upon installation of caulking and tile and makes reference to the same
file number, W72MT, 435. Rebozo. C. G. Did a'ou also understand
11316
that to be a payment as part of the installation of the same swim-
ming pool ?
[ Wliereupon, the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
liihit No. 5-D, for identification.^]
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any other funds expended at
Mr. Rebozo's request, or on his behalf, for the installation of that
swimming pool ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have to decline on the grounds of the privilege
between myself and my client.
Mr. Armstrong. Again, your client is Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you engage in any negotiations Avith the Cata-
lina Pool Co.. regarding this matter yourself?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you review the contract of any sucli existence
with that company ?
Mr. Wakefield. I may have.
Mr. Lenzner. You have no specific recollection of that ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; T don't.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if Mr. Rebozo received any reimburse-
ment from — any help from — any other individual in regard to these
payments ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of the installation of outdoor car-
peting in the area of the swimming pool that was installed in November
of 1972?
Mr. Wakefield. T believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us from whom you gained that
information ?
Mr. Wakefield. From my client, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussions with any other in-
dividual regarding that?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you identify check No. 0. on the Thomas
H. Wakefield trust account. Key Biscayne Bank?
Mr. Wakefield. This is First National Bank.
Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me. First National Bank.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes ; that is inv signature.
Mr. Armstrong. Can we have that marked as exhibit fi ?
rWhereupon. the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
hibit No. 6 foi- identification. "1
Mr. Armstrong. Were you also aware of the installation of a swim-
ming pool heatei- foi- the same SAvimming pool ; some time shortly after
the installation of the pool ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you become aware of that also from Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussion Avith the Belcher Oil
Co. reorardine: its installation ? Can vou identifv check No. 2017, draAA'ii
1 Sp(> p. lL*^7r>.
2Seo p. 11376.
11317
on the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account, drawn on the Key
Biscayne Bank & Trust Co ?
Mr. Wakefield. That's a pretty bad one, but I think that would
be rnvsimiature.
Mr. Armstrong. The record should reflect that you are referring
to the quality of the copy.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
["N^liereupon. the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
hibit Xo. 7 for identification.^]
Mr. Armstrong. This is a check to Belcher Oil Co. in the amount of
$1,727.26. was also expended on behalf of Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. Can you identify the top check on this pajre, check
No. 172, draAvn on the Wakefield. Hewitt & Webster trust account at
the First National Bank of Miami, payable to Climatrol,
C-l-i-m-a-t-r-o-1 Corp.. in the amount of $1,500? "
]\Ir. Wakefield. Bad as it is, it appears to be my signature on the
copy of the check.
Mr. Armstrong. AVas that for — again, on behalf of ]Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. For a screen enclosure installed at 500 Bay Ijane
around a swimming pool.
Mr. Wakefield. The check, T believe, states — what's on there doesn't
refer to what it is for.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe that is a better copy of the check. We'll
have that marked as exhibit 8.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Wakeu..ld ex-
hibit Xo. 8, for identification.-]
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; and this is the letter I wrote to Climatrol.
INfr. Ar^nistrdng. We can have that marked as exhibit 9. That is a
letter which makes reference to an invoice for a screen enclosure, I
believe, at 500 Bay Lane.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
hibit Xo. 0, for identification.^]
Mr. Wakefield. It's addressed to Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. Making reference to exhibit 8, and in light of
exhibit 8 being the check for $1,500 to Climatrol — in the light of ex-
hibit 9, it appears that exhibit 8 would be one check that was for-
warded to Climatrol, one of the payments for the screen enclosure that
exhibit 9 makes reference to ?
Mr. Wakefield. I would say yes.
Mr. Lenzner. You quickly pointed out, Mr. Wakefield, that ex-
hibit 6, to Falls Carpet, was drawn on the Thomas H. Wakefield trust
account at the First National Bank of INIiami. I'm going to give that
back to you. Can you explain why these other checks were drawn
on — some of these other checks were drawn on — your account at the
Key Biscayne Bank, and one of these checks, at least, was drawn
on the trust account of the National Bank of Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. They are all drawn on the First National.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, exhibit 7.
1 See p. 11.S77.
2 See p. 11. ^7R.
^ See p. 11.S79.
11318
Mr. Wakefield. Exhibit 8 is drawn on a different account than ex-
hibit 6.
Mr. Lkxzxer. Why was it drawn down on two different accounts ?
Mr. Wakkfiem). Apparently he had more money in one account.
Mr. Lexzxeh. Was there any determination on your part of whicli
account you would utilize for those expenditures?
'Mr. Wakefield. No particular determination.
]Mr. Lex'zxer. And whose funds Avere they that you were drawin<r
down aoainst.
Mr. Wakefield. IVIy client's.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo ?
]\Ii'. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And to your knowledge, did he deposit those funds
directly into that account?
Mr. \Yakefield. I think T have to decline to answer on the tjrounds
it is pi-ivilejred communication.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, have you seen documents or records of bank
statements that would reflect such information ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have access to all my firm's bank accounts, all
the accounts. As to seeing those specific ones, T don't know.
Mr. Lexzxer. And those are records prepared by the First National
Bank of INIiami ?
Mr. Wakefield. The records prepared by them ?
Mr. Lexzxer. Yes : that they would reflect how the funds entered
those two ti'iist accounts, that you say were clients' funds.
Mr. Wakefield. T would assume the records reflect something.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. But what I'm saying is. you are testifying that you
have seen records that would indicate
INIr. Wakefield. T said I had access to all my records when it came
to my film's accounts and niy clients' moneys.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Well, would those records reflect IVfr. Eebozo. in fact,
deposited funds into those two accounts covered by those checks?
Mr. Wakefield. ^NIv records?
Mr. Lex'zx'er. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. ]\Iv records, yes.
IMr. TjEXzxer. Did he ever furnish you cash to deposit in those
accounts?
Mr. Wakefield. T am going to deline to answer on the grounds
that is a comnumication between me and my client.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he ever furnish you cash that was received as
campaign contributions? Did he deposit it in those accounts?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; not to my knowledge.
Mr. Lexzxer. Are vou saving that you know for a fact that none of
the cash you received was i-eceived from a ca.mpaifni contribution?
Mr. Ward. I'm going to o})iect to the form of the question, Mr.
Lenzner. Tie hasn't testified that he received any cash.
Mr. Lex'zxer. Well, he was so certain about the fact that none —
whatever was i)ut into the account was not a result of cam]">ai<rn con-
tributions, that T Avanted to find out how he made that determination.
Mr. SiULEV. Tie said he had no knowledge.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know one way or anothei? Did you receive
information, one wav or anothei-, whether they were or were not cam-
paign contributions?
11319
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr, Lexzxer. So the answer is "no," that you've never received
any information with regard to that?
Mr. Wakefield, No.
Mr, Lexzner. Now. showing you exhibit 7, you say you will not
answer the question as to Avhether Mr, Rebozo furnished you with cash
to be placed into his accounts?
Mr, Wakefield. I think everything concerning the subject matter
of tliese checks, between ^Ir. Rebozo and myself, is attorney-client and
it is privileged.
Mr. Lenzxer. Even the question of whether he furnished you cash
to be deposited into those accounts?
Mr. Wakefield. The question of whatever he furnished me is
privileged.
Mr, Lexzxer. Did any other individual that is not your client, fur-
nish you M'ith funds to be placed in this account on behalf of INIr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
]Mr. Lex-^zxer. Did Piesident Nixon ever furnish any funds to be
placed in the account?
Mr, Wakefield, Are you talking about these two accounts?
Mr, Lexzxer. Yes.
Mr, Wakefield. No.
^fi-. Lexzxer. Now. if you'd look at exhibit 7, this Avas drawn on the
Key Biscayne Bank, tlie Wakefield. Hewitt & Webster trust account
of the Key Biscavne Bank. And this check, $l,727-and-some cents,
dated February 20. 1973. can you identify whose signature that is?
It is sliirhtly obliterated.
Mr, Wakefield. It certainly is.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do vou have a recollection of signing that check?
Mr. Wakefield. No. T signed a number of checks.
^Nfr. Lexzxer. Do vou have any recollection as to why you drew that
check down against the trust account at the Key Biscayne Bank, rather
than the trust accounts at First National Bank of Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I don't.
Mr. Lexzxer. You have no recollection, or do you have any recol-
lection of having any discussions as to the decision in drawing against
the Kev Biscayne Bank as opposed to the First National Bank for that
check?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now. did there come a time when you were also in-
structed to pay out of your trust account, expenses to pay for oil for
the heater at the pool ?
Mr. Wakefield. Do T recall what?
Mr. Lexzxer. Receiving instructions to pay for the oil that was
for tlie heater for tlip r>ool, under whose direction ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzx'er. And who furnished you those instructions?
Mr. Wakefield. Mi-. Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzxer. And Avere you instructed to furnish payment for heat
for the i^ool on a continuing basis ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lex'zx'er. Just on one occasion ?
11320
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know. I don't remember.
Mr. Lenzner. Were bills sent to you directly for that i^urpose?
Mr. Wakefield. There may have been one or two, maybe three, but
I did not pay it on a continuing, permanent basis, no.
Mr. Lenzner. It was not your understanding that it be paid on a
continuing basis?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And were the bills sent directly to you, Mr. Wake-
field, or to your law firm ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't believe so.
Mr. Lenzner. How were they furnished to you ?
Mr. Wakefield. By Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you understand that to be expense that Mr. Rebozo
had incurred?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll have to decline to answer on my attorney-client
privilege and my understanding with my client.
Mr. Lenzner. Which client was that, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Let's have this next check, which is check No. 184, on
the Wakefield. Hewitt & Webster trust account on the First National
Bank of Miami, in the sum of $141.87. Can you identify your signature
on that copy of the check which will be marked exhibit 10.
Mr. Wakefield. I think so. That is my signature, on check No. 184.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
hibit No. 10, for identification.*]
Mr. Lenzner. Now, you recall any other expenses, Mv. Wakefield,
that were paid by the funds in your trust accounts on behalf of Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. There could have been others, but I think I'll de-
cline to respond. I can't recollect any offhand.
Mr. Lenzner. You're declining to respond because you can't
remember ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Sibley. He'll have to claim his priviletre on that.
Mr. Lenzner. Well. I'm talking al)out in the same period of time in
late 1972 and early 107;^. Do you recall other specific items that Mr,
Rebozo requested you to i)ay from the trust accounts?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Do vou recall anv payment to a coiporation called the
ChiirgottCo.?
Mr. Wakefield. I could have been requested to make payment for
that.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall foi- what purpose that payment was
made ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall the construction to houses at 500 and
516 Bay Lane, for which vou furnished pavnKMit to the Claggett Co.,
I think in the amount of $(),50S.ll ?
Mr. WakefieT;!). T don't recall any details on it, no.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall
Mr. Wakefield. IN Faking the payment ? No ; but I could have done it.
♦See p. 11.380.
11321
Mr. Lexzner. Do you recall receiving instructions to furnish such
payment to Claggett from Mr, Rebozo ?
Mr. "Wakefield. If I made it, then I got instructions to do it. I'm not
trying to be cute.
Mr. Lenzner. But you have no recollection of it at this time?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't recall, but I won't deny it.
Mr. Lenzxer. I take it that the checks that we have just reviewed
were part of a series of expense items that you do not lemember the
specifics of all the individual items ?
Mr. AYakefield. I think that would be correct.
Mr. Lexzner. Did you bring any records with you that would help
you refresh your recollection at this time, as to other items that you did
furnish payment ?
Mr. Wakefield. No; because I considered that immaterial, of which
I became aware of, involved in, and became involved in because of my
attorney-client relationship and I think it's privileged.
INIr. Lexzner. Do you recall furnishing any funds on behalf of
President Nixon, in the amount of approximately $2,000 for the con-
struction of a fireplace in the President's house in Key Biscayne ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I don't recall anything of that nature.
Mr. Lex'zxer. Do you recall spending funds from the Wakefield
trust accounts — the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust accounts — for
the construction of the fireplace.
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge. I don't recall that.
Mr. Lexzxer. Plave vou furnished cash to other individuals on
behalf of Mr. Rebozo?
INIr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. It's always been through the Wakefield trust accounts.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzx'er. Now, I notice the expense items regarding the pool
all began — a series of checks began in November of 1972. Did you have
any discussions after the election of 1972 with regard to these expendi-
tures, with Mr. Rebozo, or the President?
Mr. Sibley. Don't answer that question.
Mr. Wakefield. I'd have to decline to answer on the grounds of
privileged relationship.
Mr. Lex'^zx'^er. Did you ever have any discussions with President
Nixon after the 1972 election was over, with regai'd to the use of cam-
paign contributions left over from the 1972 election to be used for
expenses on his behalf in Key Biscayne, Fla. ?
]Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever have such discussion with ]Mi'. Rebozo?
INIr. Wakefield. No. sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you evei- have a discussion witli President Nixon
with regard to the use of funds in the Wakefield. Hewitt & Webster
trust account to be used on his behalf at 500 and 51fi Bay Lane?
Mr. Wakefield. With ]\Ir. Nixon, no, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. Or with any agent, representative, or designee of the
President?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
IVfr. Lexzxer. Did you evei' see anything in writing, to or from
President Nixon, that would indicate notice to him that such funds
Avere being spent on his behalf ?
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 4
11322
Mr. AVakefiei.d. No, sir.
Mr. Lenznkr. Have you ever been advised that the President was
aware tliat the funds in your trust accounts were beinfr used on his
behalf at 500 and 516 Bay Lane ?
Mr, Wakefield. No.
Mr. Belling. INlr. Wakertekl, did you <xct a letter from Cooper and
Lybrand, the auditors of the President, authorized to make an audit
of his accounts?
Mr. "Wakefield. I have had no communication from them.
Mr. Belling. Never heard from them at all, in person or by letter ?
Did your firm ^et a letter ?
Mr. Wakefield. To my recollection, I don't believe we ever received
communication from them.
Mr. Belling. Did you see the auditor's report, a copy of (^ooper
and Lybrand report ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I hav(>irt.
Mr. Sibley. Wliat do they call this? How to take a chance. It's very
celebrated to i^ass this poll around. I think this is really a little unusual.
If one ^ets through one question, you <ro to another. Tm not com-
plainin<r. You gentlemen liave been very nice. See if you can't wind
up. You'll Avear yourself out. You've said eA'erythino- you've wanted
to say.
Mr. Ar-mstrgng. I will try to finish, sir. Mr. Wakefield, just so the
record will be clear, can you identify this check No. 173, drawn on
the Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster trust account, drawn on the First
National Bank of Miami ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't l)elieve I can identify the amount of the
check, but the sipiature appears to be mine.
Mr. Armstrong. It appears to be — I think it's a little clearer in the
upper riofhthand corner where it is typed in. It appears to be $138.50.
Above that, to the rifrht. I think it is typed in.
[Whereupon the documents referred to were marked Wakefield ex-
hibit No. 11. for identification.^]
Mr. Wakefield. It looks like $13.50. but I won't argue about it.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Wakefield, do you have exhibits 12. 13, and 14?
[AVhereupon the documents referred to were marked Wakefield ex-
hibits Nos. 12, 13. and 14, foi- identification.-]
Ml-. Wakefield. I have exhibit 12 befoi-e me.
Mr. Ar:mstrgn(;. Do you al?o have 13 and 14, consecutively? Can
you tell me if all three of tliose checks pertain to the sale of propei-ty
by Mr. Kebozo to Mrs. Cravath ?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes.
Mr. Arms'I'Rong. Can you tell me if the PT-"sident had any interest
in this Groperty ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my Icnowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Whether he received anv proceeds or any benefits
of the ])roceeds from the sale of this projierty ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my Icnowledire.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. Can yon identifv the deposit slij) to the Thomas —
to the Wakefield, Hewitt .?• Webster trust account at the First National
Bank of Miami. Miami, Fla., dated A uirust 17,1973?
' Sop p. 11. "^SL
^ Sop pp. 11^i82-S4.
11323
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. We should have that marked exhibit 15.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Wakefield ex-
hibit \o. 15. for identification.*]
Mr. Ward. Is this both sides of the deposit slip ?
Mr. Armstroxg. I believe it is pa^re 2 that is a copy of the back
side.
Referring to exliibit No. 15, it makes reference on the front side
to — it says "Rebozo" under item 1. And then there appears two checks —
Avhat appear to be two checks. Deposits listed, one for $2,500 and one
for $25,88^.15. Can you tell us if both those checks were checks received
on Mr. Rebozo's behalf ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Yes, they are ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And tlie $25.88-3.15 check, T assume, pertains to the
Ci'avath sale that's the game amount as the check Mr. Rebozo
JNIr. Wakefield. They aren't related by any instrument, but I assume
so.
Mr. Armstroxg. It's the same amount as in exhibit 18.
]Mr. Wakefield. Dilference by $20 Avhich is the abstract.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Excuse me; yes. Can you tell me what the $2,500
check represents ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think that was the initial — T don't know. It was
two checks, as the result of the closin<r, that I deposited.
Mr. Armstroxg. Both relate to the Cravath sale ?
Mr. WAKEnELD. Yes.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Do you recall if you were aware of any work done
by Bartlett Construction Co. at 51(> Bay Dane for an installation of
a puttinjj frreen in 1969 ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Were you aware of the ])urcliase of furniture —
interior furnishings at 500 and 516 Bay Dane, from Rablen-Shelton,
R-a-b-1-e-n hyphen S-h-e-1-t-o-n?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Were vou aware of the pavment of architectural
fees to Dittle, Blaii- & CokiuL^ton— l^lair is B-l'-a-i-r— in 1969?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Dex-^zxer. If I could intercede here, with your permission, witli
one jreneral question here. I think you said befoi-e I may be mistaken.
You were aware of some expenses that were i)aid for in 1969. Is that
incorrect ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think so.
Mr. Dexzxer. Well, were vou aware of any expenses paid for bv
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. I tliink tlie cjuestion you asked me before, was I
aware of the disbursements made for my customer.
Mr. Dexzxer. Is that how we <rot up to the White House in 1969?
Mr. Wakefield. Rifrht.
Mr. Dexzxer. And Avere any of those disbursements related to ex-
penditures? Were tbey ex])ense items?
Mr. Wakefield. T would sav. "No."
*.Seo p. 11. ^S.').
11324
Mr. Lexzner. They were made on behalf of Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakkfiei.i). Now you've <rot to jro to a point in time.
Mr. Lenzxer. 1969, I'm sorry.
Mr. Wakefield. I made some disbursements for President Nixon.
Mr. Lenzxer. Out of the trust account again ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzner. Now the expense items that were made out of the
trust accounts on behalf — you say on behalf of President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. From whose funds were those items paid out?
Mr. Wakefield. I respectfully decline to answer on the jrromids of
privilege.
Mr. Lexzner. First of all, I can't remember the question T asked.
And whose privilege are you exerting at this time ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think with Mr. Nixon. With the matters that you
have asked, T am exerting it on behalf of the President and IVfr. "Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzxer. And the question was: Whose funds were used to ])ay
for expenses of the President ?
Mr. Ward. That is not the question you asked. You asked him the
question, whether he disbursed any funds on behalf of the President,
and he declined to answer that question on the grounds of his i^i-ivilege.
Mr. Lexzxer. He said he had disbursed funds on behalf of the Presi-
dent, and then my question was, whose funds Avere they that you dis-
bursed? And he declined to answer on grounds of privilege — grounds
of the privilege related to the President and Mr. Rebozo. Can you tell
us at Avhose instructions you disbursed those funds?
Mr. Wakefield. On the instruction of my client, Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzxer. And they were funds that were retained in your trust
accounts. Do you remember which bank in regard to that ?
Ml". Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzner. It could have been the trust account at eithei- Key
Biscayne or First National, is that right, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. or both.
Mr. Lenzner. Or both. And did these expenditures — when did these
expenditures begin, approximately? What year? Can you put a year
on it ?
Mr. Wakefiei^d. December 1908.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did they relate directlv or indirectly to the purchase
of the 500 and .510 Bav Lane properties ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I have to decline to answer.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you receive anv instructions in wi-itinir from either
the Pi-esideiit or Mr. Rebozo. or designated i-ei)resentative of either,
with reo-ard to expenditui-es of tliese funds ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were these funds held ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't believe so.
Mr. Lexzxer. Is it possible you received .something in writing in
regard to this?
Mr. Wakefield. You'i-e talking about a comnnniicntion in writing
from President Nixon, or his attorney, or Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Lexzxer. Oj- his representative, Avith regard to these
instructions.
11325
Mr. Wakefield. If I did, they were very inconsequential, that I
remember.
Mr. Lexzner. And they related to matters that President Nixon
had consulted with yon with regard to your role as counsel ?
Mr. "Wakefield. It is as his agent, as his attorney.
Mr. Lexzner. Did other individuals, besides Mr. Rebozo, furnish you
with instructions with regard to such instructions on the President's
behalf?
Mr. AYakefield. No ; except the attorney.
Mr. Lexzner. And that would include Mr. Ehrlichman on occasion ?
I think you indicated that prior to this.
Mr. Wakefield. Whoever was in the office of counsel. You can name
someone. Krogh — Ehrlichman was not at the office of counsel, but he
was an assistant to the President.
Mr. Lexzner. Who was that, sir ?
Mr. AVakefield. I think he was counsel to the President.
Mr. Lexzner. I think that when he was counsel to the President that
was his first position.
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Ehrlichman.
Mr. Lex'zxer. I meant, who would furnish you with instructions,
on occasion, to expend funds for President Nixon?
Mr. Wakefield. It was just one of those groups, one of those attor-
neys, or Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzner. Without belaboring the topic on occasion, do you
recall specifically Mr. Krogh telling you to expend certain funds
on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I wouldn't put it that way ; no.
Mr. Lex'zner. But you do recall Mr. Ehrlichman giving you such
instructions on occasion ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think so.
Mr. Lenzxer. Do vou recall Mr. Morgan doing so ?
Mr. Wakefield. Not at the time. Not 1968; not 1060. I think he
came later.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were these funds that were used held ?
Mr. Wakefield. They could have been. I don't remember when he
was
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you maintain any records of your own to reflect
these expenditures and instructions that you were receiving?
IVfr. Wakefield. Other than my normal office records, no.
Mr. Lex'^zner. Did vou ever file or furnish the President, or any
representatives, a written report reflecting your carrying out these
functions?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lex'zner. You mean you would send him a memoraiidum reflect-
in.qr the carrying out of these instructions?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Wlio would you send that to, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. I would send it to liis tax adviser.
Mr. Lexzner. Who was that in 1068 and 1060 ?
Mr. Wakefield. Vincent Andrews.
Mr. Lenzner. In New York ?
Mr. Wakefield. And later, Mr. Kalmbach, and Mr. DeMarco — ^that
firm.
11326
Mr. Lenzner. Kalmbach, DoMarco firm ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Occasionally, did you send them to Arthur Blech?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. These writings that you would fiirnish them, was the
nature of the expenditure and the purpose of it on behalf of the
Pi-esident?
Mr. AVakefield. T think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you always expend the funds by check rather
than by cash ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you maintain any kind of segregated or separate
account so that these funds were held separately as opposed to other
funds in the trust account?
Mr. Wakefield. No. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if any of the funds that were utilized
for those purposes were received in cash as campaign contributions?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
ISfr. Lenzner. Do you know the origin or source of the funds that
were used on behalf of the President, to your own knowledge and
information?
Mr. Wakefield. Some of them ; probably all of them, I would guess.
Mr. Lenzner. From your own firsthand information and
knowledge ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And were they funds that were furnished by Mr.
Rebozo for that account ?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll have to decline to answer that.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell us whether any other individuals, other
than Mr. Robozo and President Nixon, contributed to that account,
who were not your clients ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. The answer is "No"; nobody else besides President
Nixon and Rebozo contributed to that account ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. Nobodv else.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if any of the deposits to that account,
by Mr. Rebozo and the President, were made in cash? Do you know?
Mr. Wakefield. No, I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. And you were draAving these debits down against
the Wakefield, Hewitt — do you remember what the name of the ac-
counts were, at that time, tliat you were using for these purposes?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes. T was drawing against a Wakefield-Under-
wood ti-ust account.
INIr. Lenzner. Ts tliat the only one that you use for this purpose?
Mr. Wakefield. T think Wakefield and T'^'nderwood had two or
three trusts.
Mr. Lenzner. And were tliey all the First National Bank, or were
some at the Key Riscayne Bank?
Mr. Wakefield. No, Key Biscayne and First National.
Mr. Lenzner. And you say you reported to Mv. Andrews and then
later to Mi-. Kalmbach and then Mr. DeMarco, every one of these
transactions tliat you handled for and on behalf of the President, is
that correct?
11327
]Mr. Wakefield, Right.
Mr. TjExzxer. Did you, on occasion, ever purchase cashier's checks
on, or out of. the account on behalf of the President — to be used on his
behalf?
]\Ir. Wakefield. No, not to my recollection.
INIr. Lexzxer. All the checks were made out to specific payees for
matters on behalf of the President — that occurred on behalf of the
President ?
Mr. Wakefield. I would assume so. Sometimes in real estate trans-
actions you are required to make cashiers' checks — sometimes not— but
I don't recall.
JNIr. Lexzxer. I take it though that some of these expenditures would
go beyond the purchase of real estate ; isn't that correct ?
Mr, Wakefield. I'll have to decline that.
INIr. Lexzxer. Did INIr. Rebozo, on occasion, obtain cashiers' checks
on behalf of the President without hitting on the specifics ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. I'll have to decline to ansAver that.
Mr. Lexzxer. A\niich client would that be ?
Mr. Wakefield, Mr, Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Was it Mr. Rebozo who obtained cashiers' checks
for expenses incurred on behalf of President Nixon ?
ISIr. Wakefield. That would be ]Mr. Rebozo.
]Mr. Lexzxer. You Avon't answer on the grounds it's privileged with
Mr. Rebozo ?
ISIr. AVakefield. Right.
INIr. Lexzxer. Do you know if Mr. Rebozo ever deposited any
moneys, any cash, into vendors accounts at the Key Biscayne Bank &
Trust to pay for expenses incurred by, or on behalf of. President
Nixon?
INIr. Wakefield. I have no knowledge.
INIr. Lexzxer. Did you ever do so ?
]Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever furnish any funds — any cash funds —
to President Nixon or Mr, Rebozo ?
]Mr, Wakefield. No, sir.
!Mr. Lexzxer. And you never utilized cash funds — any cash funds —
on your behalf, on either Mr. Rebozo or President Nixon ?
!Mr. Wakefield, I decline to answer on the grounds of my privilege
between myself and my client.
Mr. Lexzxer. Were you able to furnish funds on behalf of Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. I decline, and cannot answer that.
INIr. Lexzxer. Can you say whether you ever furnished funds or
cash to vendors, on behalf of President Nixon, that would not be re-
flected in the checks ?
^Ir. Wakefield. I never furnished cash to vendors — period.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can you say whether there are other checks of any
considerable number, in addition to the ones you reviewed today, or
expenses incurred, at the instruction of Mr. RcIdozo?
Mr. Wakefield. You kind of lost me before you got through.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can you recall whether there are additional checks,
ill considerable number, drawn on your trust accounts at the instruc-
tion of Mr. Rebozo, that vou had not seen fit — in otlier words, is there
11328
an additional series of checks that was outstandin<i: that we have not
shown you?
Mr. Ward. Do you mean that may have been drawn for any purpose?
Mr. Lp:xzxer. No, that may have been drawn at ISIr. Rebozo's in-
structions on these trust accounts?
^Ir. Ward. For any purpose ?
Mr. TjEnzner. Between January 1, 1960, and the present.
Mr, Wakefield. Not in a ^iven matter, no.
Mr. Lenzner. But there are additional checks that we have not
shown you, is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. We have a lot of matters, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And do they include the expense items on 500 and 516
Bay Lane properties?
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my recollection.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you certain of that ?
Mr. Wakefield. Pretty certain.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any contracts or undcrstandiufr that
Mr. Rebozo had with Pi'esident Nixon, whereby the expenditure of
certain moneys on President Nixon's behalf as improvements and fur-
nishings for the President on 500 and 516 Bay Lane properties?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever discuss Avith any of the Presidential
counsel that you mentioned, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Kroo;h, Mr. Morjran,
and others, Mr. Rebozo's role as a fundraiser after January 1, 1060?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Sibley. You mean a campaiofii fund?
Mr. Lenzner. Well, raising funds for a campaio;n, or for perhaps
other purposes. I hate to limit my questions.
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. INIr. Wakefield, did Mr. Rel)ozo ever withdraw
funds from any of the Wakefield, Hewitt. Webster trust accounts, or
any of your trust accounts, directly by cashier's check, at your instruc-
tion, in his capacity as a bank president?
Mr. WAKf:FiELD. No.
Mr. Armstrong. In other words
Mr. Wakp:field. There was no authorized sipiator on our account.
Mr. Armstrong. In his capacitv as bank president
Mr. Wakefield. That doesn't ffive him any ricjht to touch my
accounts.
Mr. Armstrong. It is my understandino- that on occasion a bank
officer will draw a cashier's check on an account on the advice of — at
the request of the authorized si<>:nator.
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowled<re, no.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you become aware of any modifications or im-
provements— physical improveuients — made to 500 or 516 Bav Lane?
Mr. Wakefield. Did I become aware of physical improvements?
Mr. Armstrong. INIodifications made to the structure, the addition
of offices oi- conversion of a frarajre into an efficiency apartment?
Mr. Wakefield. T think in connection Avith that matter T have to
decline to answer on the frrounds of privile<re.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm just asking- vou if vou vvev became aware
of it?
Mr. Wakefield. I know.
11329
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when your privileged communica-
tion— if you've become aware of it from any — have you had any source
of information other than your client on the subject ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us Avhat that information is ?
Mr. Wakefield. Newspapers. There was broad publication at the
time.
Mr. Armstrong. Other than newspapers, were there any other?
[Mr. Wakefield nods in the negative.]
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, in that case, on behalf of what
client?
Mr. Wakefield. Other than the matters I consider privileged ?
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us on behalf of what client you are
exerting that privilege ?
Mr. Wakefield. The President.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any discussion with Mr. Rebozo
on that subject?
Mr. Wakefield. Possibly, but only in connection with his instruc-
tions on behalf of the President.
Mr. Armstrong. Before, I believe, I asked if you represented the
President in anything — in any other business or financial transac-
tions— other than the acquisition of the 500 and 516 Bay Lane prop-
erties and the acquisition and sale of the Cape Florida Development
properties. Is there any other matter in which you've represented the
President ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't think so.
INIr. Armstrong. In other words, all the financial transactions in
which you tried to discuss here and exerted the privilege, related to
one of those two areas ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. In the period of January 1, 1969, up to May 15,
1973, did INIr. Robozo ever consult you regarding any matters related
to gift tax ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Has he consulted you with regard to any matters
related to tax, related to Internal Revenue Service taxation?
Mr. Wakefield. You are talking about subject matters?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Wakefield. Well, I think you're getting awfully close — I think
I have to decline to answer on the grounds of privilege.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I'm not inquiring as to what the advice was or
what the area was, just Avhether or not the tax questions came up within
the
Mr. Wakefield. Possibly, possibly.
]Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any funds which Mr. Rebozo
has expended in which he has not complied — he has expended on be-
half of anyone, or funds he's given to anyone, in which he has not
complied with the Federal gift tax, or filing the appropriate forms to
the Internal Revenue Service ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you represent either the President or Mr.
Rebozo in relation to the B & C Investment Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
11330
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us Avhen you first became aware of the
B & C Investment Corp."?
Mr. Wakefikli). I think he mentioned it to me once.
Mr. Armstkoxg. Can you tell us when that was?
Mr. Wakkfiei.d. No, I don't even remember.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was it before or after the sale of his share of B & C
Investment Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know if it was before or after the money
was removed from the safety deposit box in the bank?
Mr. Wakefiei>d. I have no idea.
Mr, Armstrox'g. You have no recollection of whether it was before
or after that?
Mr. Wakefield. I think it was before, but T don't know. I didn't pay
any attention, because I wasn't ■
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate to you why he had to
^et out of the R & C Investment Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Are you acquainted with Mr. A. D. Davis of the
Winn-Dixie Corp., or any of the Davis brothers who are principals in
the Winn-Dixie Corp. ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Have you ever had any discussions with Senator
Smathers relatino- to Mr. Rebozo's receipt, maintenance, and/or re-
turn of the $100,000?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. None whatsoever?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever discussed with Senator Smathers
Avhether or not Mr. Rebozo Avas upset with you ?
Mr. Wakefield. With me ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Wakefield. I miofht have. We *ret upset with each other every
once in awhile.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, can you tell us the nature of that conversa-
tion— the substance of that conversation ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't even recollect it.
Mr. Armstroxg. Have you ever met Avith Mr. Richard Danner?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us wlien vou first mot Mr. Danner?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't recall exactly. Mr. Danner was city manager
for the city of Miami, and I tliink we Ave re in the chamber of com-
merce at the same time.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. Were you aware of any contributions which Mr.
Danner jjave to Mv. Rebozo, or facilitated to Mr. Rebozo at any time?
Mr. Wakefield. No. not at the time.
Mr. Ar^sistroxg. With the exception of the $100,000 from Mr.
Huffhes, aie yon UAvai-e of any now ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. Have you ever represented Mr. Abplanalp?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And is that in relationship to anythino; other than
the acquisition of property in the Florida area?
11331
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstroxg. Does that just include the property in Bay Lane?
Did you represent him in that matter, the acquisition ?
Mr. Wakefield. At the time that he purchased his home, yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you represent him in any other matters ?
INIr. Wakefield. Yes, other real estate matters.
Mr. Armstroxg. And were those matters in which Mr. Rebozo was
also a partner — in which Mr. Rebozo was also a principal ?
Mr. Wakefield. One of them, yes.
IMr. Armstrong. And is that the INIatheson property, then ?
Mv. Wakefield. Yes ; the Matheson estate.
Mr. Armstrong. And is that what Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp
were each 50 percent partners in — half and half ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
IMr. Armstrong. Was that purchased in November of 197^3 or Decem-
ber of 1973?
]Mr. Wakefield. I believe that was the date. Sometime in December.
Mr. Armstrong. AYas the other matter — did you also represent Mr.
Abplanalp on the purchase of the property adjacent to that site in Key
Biscayne ?
Mr. Wakefield. I represented Precision Valve Corp.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. Did you represent INIr. Abplanalp in any acquisition
of property apart fi-om Precision Valve?
ISIr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did the piece that Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo,
and the Precision Valve property, and the Bay Lane property — are
those all the matters in which you were representing Mr.
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us how long before the acquisition of
the property, the IMatheson property by ISIr. Rebozo and Mr. Ab-
planalp it was originally anticipated? How much prior to this acquisi-
tion it was initially — the purchase was anticipated ?
Mr. Wakefield. I decline to answer that.
Mr. Sibley. '\Aniat are you talking about ?
Mr. Ar:mstrox'g. Can you tell us when an individual first discussed
the purchase of that property?
Mr. Wakefield. What was that again?
Mr. Armstrox-^g. Can you tell us when any individual first discussed
the purchase of the INfatheson property?
Mr. Wakefield. With me ?
Mr. Armstroxg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. Probably 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. Armstrong. And who was that, sir?
Mv. Wakefield. INIy client. Mv. Rebozo.
Mr, Armstrox'g. Were you aware of Mv. Rel)Ozo securing any loans
for purchase of that ju-operty, prior to Decejuber 1973, prior to its
purchase?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Were you aware of anv loans between Mr. Abpla-
nalp and Mv. Rebozo, between the Precision Valve Corp. and Mr.
Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No; none that I handled.
Mr, Armstroxg. Are vou aware of a few that vou didn't handle?
11332
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of a $225,000 loan, in November
of 1972. from Precision Valve Corp. to Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of a $225,000 loan from Hudson
Valley National Bank to Mr. Rebozo in November of 1972?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of any purchasing of property of
a value of approximately $200,000 in November or December of 1972
by Mr. Rebozo ?
IMr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the location of that property ?
Mr. Wakefield. That is located on Crandon Boulevard.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that adjacent to the piece that INIr. Abplanalp
and Mr. Rebozo joined in?
Mr. Wakefield. Seven hundred fifty feet, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. The one that Precision Valve owns?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Arjistrong. Those three pieces are contiguous?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. On January 16, 1074, avo discussed a loan from the
Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co. to Mr. W. A. Baraket and at that
time you said that you did not specifically recall the November 1971
loan to Mr. Baraket of $219,000, in my notes. Have you subsequently
learned of or received any information on that land?
Mr. Wakefield. Not subsequent to our discussion.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any information that you had prior
to our discussion that you didn't recall at that time?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Arimstrong. Are you aware of any loans from Mr. Baraket to
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Reirardino: the sale of the Cape Florida Develop-
ment property to INfr. Griffin, can you tell me when you first learned
that the President intended to sell the propei-ty to anyone, that the
property was for sale?
Mr. Wakefield. December, T believe.
Mr. Armstrong. Of 1970
Ml-. Wakefield. Of 1972.
Mr. Ar^mstrong. That was the same month that Mr. Griffin pur-
chased the property?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And can vou tell us when the propei'ty was origi-
nally puj'chased bv the Pfcsident ; what understnndinor, if any. you had
with the owneiship of the property when tlio Pi-esident first purchased
the property, as to who owned the pi-o])e]-ty ?
Mr. Wakefield. As far as T know T i-epi-esented the President.
Mr. Ar^istrong. And subsequentlv did you liecome aware that any-
one had a proprietary interest in that pi'oi>erty?
Mr. Wakefield. I've never been advised.
Mr. Arinistrong. You were never advised that Tiicia Nixon Cox had
an interest in that property?
11333
Mr. Wakefield. Not to my knowledge.
ISIr. Armstrong. After the sale of the property to Mr. Griffin, did
yon become aware of what happened to the proceeds after they were
disbursed to the President?
Mr. Wakefield. No,
Mr. Armstrong. Were you ever aware of a loan from the President to
Mr. Rebozo of $65,000 in March of 1973?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Armstrong. OK ; I think we're about done. Let me make sure
that he is happy.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lenzner. I'm still not clear with regard to the instructions that
were established for the expenditure of moneys on behalf of the Presi-
dent. Did the President ever furnish you with specific instructions with
regard to that in 1969?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever discuss that with the President? For ex-
ample, ]Mr. Rebozo's role on the President's behalf?
Mr. Wakefield. I was under instructions that Mr. Rebozo would
give me the instructions, yes, on behalf of the President.
Mr. Lenzner. And did the President give you those instructions?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Ehrlichman, I believe.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever discuss the subject of Mr. Rebozo act-
ing as the President's agent, with the President himself?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. "N^Hien was that, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. It would have been Inauguration Day of 1969, or
the day after, I believe.
Mr. Lenzner. And where was that ?
Mr. Wakefield. At the White House.
Mr. Lenzner. And were you there at the President's request ?
Mr. Wakefield. Invitation.
Mr. Lenzner. And where, physically, was the meeting held ?
Mr. Wakefield. Just off to the side in a room.
Mr. Lenzner. Were other people in the room ?
Mr. Wakefield. They could have been, but nobody heard.
Mr. Lenzner. In what room was it ?
Mr. Wakefield. I'm sure there were people all over the place.
Mr. Lenzner. Was this at some kind of a function or social gather-
ing?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes ; at a reception for his staff, on his behalf.
Mr. Lenzner. And the President pulled you aside ?
Mr. Wakefield. With respect to INIr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Was anybody else part of that conversation ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't think so.
Mr. liENZNER. Do you have any recollection of any of the staff
employees, or jNIi-. Rebozo, being present ?
Mr. Wakefield. He was present. He was standing there.
Mr. Lenzner. Who ?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. LicNzNER. Anybody else ?
Mr. W AKEFIELD. No.
11334
Mr. Lenzner. And can you describe what the conversation was ?
Mr. AVakefield. I don't tliink I should, under the privileged com-
munication.
Mr. Lenzner. Was a Secret Service agent within hearing of this
conversation ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't think so.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, Avas this before or after your meeting with
]Mr. Ehrlichman ?
Mr. Wakefield. This was before.
Mr. Lenzner. And was this the first time that you had discussed
that subject with anybody; the subject of Mr. Rebozo acting as the
President's agent ?
Mr. Wakefield. To the best of my recollection, I believe so.
Mr. Lenzner. And Avere you asked for any specific legal advice or
counsel at that meeting Avith the President ?
Mr, Wakefield. I was told to do things ; that's all.
Mr. Lenzner. You were given some instructions ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes,
Mr, Lenzner, Did the instructions result in you going back and
doing any legal research ?
Mr, Wakefield, No, I don't think so, I doubt it, I don't think I
had to do any research.
Mr. Lenzner. Were the instructions general instructions ?
Mr. Wakefield. I did have to do some. I did some research.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe the research you did as a result
of the instructions the President gave you ?
Mr. Wakefield. I researched the law.
Mr, Lenzner, In any specific area ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. What areas ?
Mr. Wakefield. Metropolitan Dade County Code.
Mr. Lenzner. And did it relate to the i^urchase of property ?
Mr, Wakefield, No,
Mr. Lenznek. You say it did not ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Belling. What did that have to do with expenditures ?
Mr. Wakefield. Nothing really,
Mr. Bellino. Why did you have to look up the code ?
Mr. AVakefield. I didn't know he Avas still on expenditures.
Mr. Lenzner. Did the discussion Avitli ]Mr. Rebozo and the Presi-
dent the day after the inauguration relate to instructions regarding
expenditures on the President's behalf ?
Mr. AVakefield. Not by me.
Mr. Lenzner. I didn't say by you. Any expendituivs on behalf of
the President?-
Mr. AVakefield. I Avas given instructions concerning matters Avhich
did result in exi)enditures.
Mr. Lenzner. Incur-red on behalf of the President ?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And the instructions of Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. AVakefield. I receiA^ed instructions from Mr. Re]K)zo, yes,
concerning those matters.
11335
Mr. Lenzner. But what I'm trying to establish is, the day after
the inauguration, in essence, were you instructed by the President that
Mr. Kebozo would henceforth be his agent and incur expenditures
on his behalf ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't think it was put exactly that formal, but it
was put to me — the gist. yes.
Mr, Lexzxer. Can you describe it in your own words to the best
of your recollection ?
Mr. AVakefield. I think I'll decline to answer on the grounds of— —
j\Ir. Lexznek. Declining on the grounds of which client now, sir?
Mr. Wakefield. The President and INIr. Rebozo.
Mr. Bellino. You've already answered that question a few minutes
ago.
Mr. Ward. Then it's been answered. Then it's repetitious.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Did you want to add anything to the record,
Mr. Wakefield ?
Mr. Wakefield. N^o, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. Can you relate any part of that conversation you had
the day after the inauguration ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. You cannot, and because of attorney-client privilege
on behalf of President Nixon and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. But it did relate somehow to actions that you took,
which related also to expenditures on behalf of the President?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And it was a result of that meeting that you under-
stood, henceforth, that Mr. Rebozo Avas empowered to act as the
President's agent ?
Mr. Wakefield. I would say "yes" to that.
Mr. Lexzxer. And tliat somehow his agency related also to your
representation of the President in legal matters?
Mr. Wakefield. His agency related to the President.
Mr. Lexzxer. In other words, what I am saying, that Mr. Rebozo's
specific instructions thei'eafter are also privileged because they relate
to matters that you represented the President in ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Ml'. Lexzxer. Tliat is your position, as I understand it, is that
correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mv. Lexzxer. That question, as I asked it, was confusing. Was
]\fr. Rebozo's agency, as desci'il)ed by the President the day after the
inauguration, related to your representation of the President in legal
matters?
Mr. Wakefield. I had represented the President prior to that time.
Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir, I understand that, but the instructions you
Sfot, reirardino; ^[v. Rel)Ozo's airencv, related directly to your repre-
sentation of tlie President with regard to legal matters?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Lexzxer. Is there any doubt in youi- mind about that?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
11336
Mr. Lenzner. Now the instructions you received from Mr. Rebozo
with regard to the President, did tliat continue tlirouffh 1969-70,
1971, and 1972?
Mr. Wakefield. I assume so, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. But, I mean, do you recall today receiving instruc-
tions in 1970 and 1971 from. Mr. Rebozo relatina'to expenditures on
behalf of President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, not durinof these years.
Mr. Lenzner. Did the great bulk of ex^x^nditures, on behalf of the
President, occur in 1969 and after tlie November election in 1972?
Mr. Wakefield. Mostly in 1969.
Mr. Lenzner. Mostly in 1969 ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you give us an approximate figure of — approxi-
mately how much Avas expended on behalf of the President in 1969?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. But you did report those expenditures to either Mr.
Anderson or Mr. Kalmbach ?
Mr. Wakefield. The ones I made ; yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you know of any expenditures that other people
were making on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; security measures were taken by the Govern-
ment agencies.
Mr. Lenzner. Other than the Government — I mean private
individuals?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And can you testify that expenses paid on behalf of
the President on 500 and 516 Bay Lane came from either instructions
from Mr. Rebozo to you, or Government financing? In other words,
there were no other private finance expenses to your knowledge?
Mr. Wakefield. Oh, yes; the President has a mortgage on both of
those houses.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you represent him in obtaining those mortgages?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; I did. One was a pui'chase money mortgage
and one was — well, there were two purchase money mortgages, and
then the i-efinancing.
Mr. Lenzner. And did Mr. Rebozo incur any obligations with
regai'd to loans and moi-tgages at the time the President purchased
those properties?
Mr. Wakefield. Did Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Lenzner. Did he have anv role to play in regard to the loans,
or the mortgages, that the President obtained for the purchase of 500
and 516 Bay Lane ?
Mr. AYakefteld. T don't know.
Mr. SiRLEY. Tf that comes from information that comes from the
clients, then you can't answer.
Mr. Lenzner. The answer is, you don't know ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you 7e))resent the President with regard to a
loan obtained from the First National Bank of Miami?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Are you awaiv
11337
Mr. Wakefield. I'm aware of it.
Mr. Lexzxer. What information did yon receive with reoard to the
loan obtained from the First National Bank of Miami, the proceeds
of which, I understand, were used to purchase, in part, the 500 and 516
Bay Lane properties?
Mr. Wakefield. I believe the proceeds were deposited in our trust
account.
Mr. Lenzner. To the Wakefield and Underwood ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. And deposited by whom, sir?
]\Ir. Wakefield. I don't know ; it was from the bank. I got a credit
advise.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you apprised of that, or were you told by some-
hody that that was going to happen ?
^ir. Wakefield. That there was going to be a loan made at the bank
and the proceeds put in my account ?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes. sir.
Mr. Wakefield. No ; I didn't know the details.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you apprised ?
Mr. Wakefield. Except in the vague way that the money would be
put at my disposal.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, was it put at your disposal — for what purpose?
Mr. Wakefield. Acquisition of a home.
Mr. Lenzner. And was it so used ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. At whose instruction ?
Mr. Wakefield. Instructions of my client.
Mr. Lenzner. INIr. Rebozo and President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you know whose loan that was?
Mr. Wakefield. No; I didn't handle it.
Mr. Lenzner. You mean you don't know who was obligated on the
loan?
Mr. Wakefield, No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know who paid it back ? Do you know if it was
paid back?
Mr. Wakefiei-d. No ; I don't know anything about it.
Mr. Lenzner. You've never seen the note papei-s?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have a discussion with the President or Mr.
Rebozo with regard to that loan ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Who first told you that the proceeds were going to be
put into your account — your trust account ?
]Mr. Wakefield. That's a communication from my client.
Ml-. Lenzner. Therefore you cannot answer ?
Mr. Wakefield. Therefore I can't answer.
Mr. Lenzner. I thought you said before you didn't discuss with
President Nixon or Mr. Rebozo the existence of that loan ?
Mr. Wakefield. The existence or the making of the loan, I did not
discuss the making of the loan, but when the money went in my account,
I Avas told. I received instructions from my client.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 5
11338
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describo which client that is?
Mr. WAKE?"iEr.D. ]Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss that loan with President Nixon?
Mr. AVakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember when Mr. Rebozo discussed that
transaction with you?
Mr. Wakefield. Not exactly. I presume it was in 1968 — December.
Mr. Lenzner. As a matter of fact it was prior to the time that
Piosident Nixon advised you that Mr. Rebozo was going to act as his
agent, was it not?
Mr. Wakefield. At that meeting, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. In fact it was December — approximately, as I under-
stand it, December 18, 1968, that loan was made and you met with
President Nixon first, after the inauguration, and then you met —
later met — with Mr. Ehrlichman ?
Mr. Wakefield. Right.
Mr. Lenzner. So at that time, December 1968, to your knowledge,
Mr. Rebozo — you had not received instructions, at that time, that Mr.
Rebozo was acting as the President's agent ?
INIr. Wakefield. I was acting at that time for Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. And is it your testimony that it was your understand-
ing that that loan was a loan for 3'our client, Mr. Rebozo?
]\Ir. Wakefield. I didn't handle the loan at the bank so I have no
understanding. I was informed that I would have money in my account
to close the transaction from the account of Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. From Mr. Rebozo's account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Right. Well, I don't know. I got acccredited — a
credit advise — and I was under instruction from INIr. Rebozo w^ith
respect to the transaction and closing.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you understand who was purchasing the
house and upon whose benefit these proceeds were going to be used ?
Mr. Sibley. That information came by reason of your attorney-client
privilege.
IMr. Wakefield. Right.
Mr. Lenzner. What client would that be?
Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Rebozo.
Mr, Lenzner. That is Mr. Rebozo acting on behalf of another indi-
vidual whose identity was unknown to you, is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. Identity miknown?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wakefield. The question iuA^olves a communication with my
client, and I'll claim under the ])rivileged information.
Mr. Lenzner. Were vou representing your client in the purchase
of .500 and 516 Bay Lane?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you receive a fee from Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. AVakefield. Yes.
Mr. IvENZNER. You received a fee from Mr. Rebozo with regard of
the Durchase of 500 aiul 516 Bay Lane ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes; my recollection is — yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Was it your understanding that Mr. Rebozo was
going to purchase that ])roperty ?
11339
Mr. Wakefield. I decline to answer on the grounds of my client's
privilege.
Mr. Lexzner. When did yon first learn, Mr. Wakefield, the Presi-
dent owned 500 and 516 Bay Lane '?
Mr. Sibley. If you got that through communications Avith attorney
and client, decline to answer.
Mr. Wakefield. T^et me consult my attorney.
Mr. Armstroxg. Tlie question, incidentally, is when ?
Mr. Wakefield. I actually decline to answer on the grounds that
it is privileged communication.
Mr. Lexzxer. The question was, when did you learn that the Presi-
dent owned 500 Bay Lane — 500 and 516 Bay Lane?
Mr. Sibley. Yes, sir. I instructed him, though, if he acquired the
information with reference to the time the President acquired the
property, if the President acquired the property through communica-
tion from his client, then he is not to answer.
IMr. Lex-^zx^er. Did you ever receive confirmation that the President
owned these properties, fi-om a source other than the clients. Mr.
Rebozo or President Nixon ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzxer. And when was that, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. The record of Dade County.
Mr. Lexzx'er. When was that, sir ?
Mr. Wakefield. During December.
Mr.LExzxER. Of 1968?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lex'zx^er. And I take it you were involved in the transaction
and that you were handling some of the records; is that correct?
Mr. Wakefield. I handled the transactions with the account of Mr.
Rebozo.
Mr. Lexzxer. For which Mr. Rebozo paid you a fee : is that correct ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. Even though Mr. Rebozo paid your fee, in December
of 1968, you were aware then that it was actually the President who
was purchasing the property, from the records?
Mr. Wakefield. I decline to answer.
Mr. Lex'zxer. From the record, I said. You were aware when Mr.
Rebozo j^aid you a fee for the public records that you just referred to,
that the President owned the property ?
Mr. Sibley. The time he paid the fee and the time you heard it
from your client, that may be cats of a different kitten. You're hanging
that on some incidental.
Mr. Lexzxer. I don't think it is worthwhile to belabor it, frankly.
How were the proceeds transmitted that were placed in your trust
account — from the trust account to the payees? Were they in cash or
by check ?
Mr. Wakefield. By check.
Mr. Lexzx^er. Were they split up between Senator Smathers and,
T think, Arcott ? Do you recall ?
Mr. Wakefield. I've handled his first transactions from my trust
accounts to the source.
M''. Lex'zxer. Per Mr. Rebozo's instructions ?
11340
Mr. Wakefield. Rifjht.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you over rooeive any information thereafter
as to Avhere the funds came from that repaid that loan '^
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir.
Mr, Lenzner. And did you eyer receive information, other than
from Mr. Rebozo or the President, as to who ^vas pi-imarily obligated
on til at loan ?
Mr. AVakefield. I haye no knowledgfe of that.
Mr. Lexzner. Do you know of the amount of that loan? Was it
approximately $65,000 that was deposited in your ti-ust account?
Mr. Wakefield. I think that was the approximate amount that went
into my trust account, yes.
Ml'. Lenzner. Do you know how lon^ it was before you disbursed
those funds after they arrived in your account?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Who j^laced the funds in your account? Did you say
already that it was Mr. Rebozo, or don't you know ?
Mr. Ward, He said it was accredited to his account.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you say who handled that ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever speak Avitli Mr. John Dean with regard
to expenditures on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did these expenditures include expenses incurred in
San Clemente?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Were they solely limited to the properties at 500 and
516 Bay Lane?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Were any expenses incurred regarding — at the in-
struction of Mr. Rebozo, regarding his house here in Maryland that
he recently sold?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Ml'. Lenzner. Were any expenses incurred, or funds paid, to, or
on behalf of , Miss Rose Mary Woods ?
Mr. Wakefield, From my trust account, no.
Mr. Lenzner. Or for F. Donald Nixon ?
Mr, Wakefield, No,
Mr. Lenzner. Or to, or on behalf of, Mr, Edward Nixon?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Rellino. One question. These expenditures that you have been
discussing, do you have reference to only tlie acquisition of the prop-
erty in Key Biscayne, or are you referring to remodeling and renova-
tions to those ])roperties? Could you at least tell us whether it just
involved the acquisition of them ?
Mr. Wakefield. T think T have to decline to answer, Mr. Bellino,
on the grounds of my client's i)rivilege.
Mr, Lenzner. After you first discussed it with the President, the
day after the inauguration, did you thereafter have further communi-
cations or discussions with President Nixon with regard to these
matters?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't believe so, except through his attorney.
11341
Mr. Lenzxer. OK, sir. Prior to this meeting today, as you did with
Mr. Frates, did you attempt to contact counsel for the White House
to determine if you could testify; that they would waiA-e the attorney-
client jDrivilege relating; to thest^ matters ?
Mr. Wakefield. I thouofht — I spoke with Mr. Buzhardt.
Mr. Lexzner. Allien was that, sir ?
Mr, Wakefield, He didn't specifically refuse to waive them,
Mr, Lenzner, When did you speak with him, do you recall ?
Mr. Wakefield. INIonday.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did he — is there a time period between the time yon
requested permission and the time he said "No," or did he just say
"No" right away ?
]\Ir, Wakefield. Both.
Mr. Sibley. He said "No,"' and came back and said "No," again.
Mr. Lenzner. His immediate reaction was "No," but he Avould check
it out with the client ?
Mr. Wakefieij). Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And when he came back he said "No," again ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Belling. Did you make a report to anyone when you made any
expenditures on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. I answered that question ; yes.
Mr. Belling. To Mr. Kalmbach ?
Mr, Wakefield, Yes.
Mr, Belling. And where were the records kept ?
Mr. Wakefield. Well, Kalmbach and DeMarco, My correspondence
Avas with DeMarco,
Mr, Belling. So any other expenditures that may have been made, if
they weren't reported by you, they had nothing to do with those ex-
penditures? In other words, any expenditures you made, you reported
it?
Mr. Wakefield. Any expenditures I made went through the trust
fund, or whatever. Whatever expenditures I made through the Presi-
dent, T reported them,
Mr, Belling, If any other expenditures were made, you had nothing
to do with those expenditures ?
Mr. Wakefield. That is correct.
Mr. Belling. And that is the expenditures in 1969. Now, in 1972, did
you re])ort those to the Kalmbach
Mr. Wakefield. To Mr. DeMarco.
Mr. Belling. To Kalmbacli and DeMarco. When did you make that
re])ort?
Mr. Wakefield. In January 1978.
Mr. Belling. January 1973? If they had been reported then they
would have shown up in the records of the President, would they not
have ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. I have no idea, Mr. Bellino.
]Mr, Belling. You don't know whether they were or not ?
Mr. Wakefield. I have no knowledge of it.
Mr. Belling. How did you report it to Mr, DeMarco in January
1973 on expenditures that you were making on behalf of the President?
How was that reported ?
11342
Mr. Wakefield. In 1973 — T did not make any reports in 1973.
Mr. Bei.lino. When did yon make the repoi-ts^ In other words, you
didn't make it in January 1973 ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes, I made one in January 1973 with respect to
matters that I had done in September.
Mr. Belling. Coukl you say what kind of report that was? Just
a report saying that you had spent these moneys, or were you asking
for reimbursement
Mr, Wakefield. Not a report of expenditures.
Mr. Belling [continuino;]. As a report of expenditures?
Mr. Wakefield, It was a report of financial matters.
Mr. Belling. And it went to DeMarco ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes,
Mr. Belling. Are you positive about that ?
]\Ir. Wakefield. I'm pretty sure, yes. To the best of my recollection.
Mr. Belling. And that included what expenditures you had made
from your trust fund in the latter part of 1972. is that what you report ?
I just want to get that clear.
Mr. Wakefield. Regarding financial matters, yes.
Mr. Belling. Expenditures on behalf of the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. Expenditures, yes.
Mr. Belling. Was there another report at a later date ?
Mr. Wakefip:ld. I don't think so,
Mr. Lenzner. Did you furnish those reports to anybody besides
the people you already described?
Mr. Wakefield. I^sually I sent a copy of Avhat I sent to the auditors
to the President, or to his counsel.
Mr. Lenzner. How about to Miss Woods ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't believe so. Possibly she may have gotten
a copy of some repoits.
Mr. Lenzner, Did you ever discuss any of these items with Miss
Woods?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever learn that Mr. Rebozo also paid to a
company called Babcock & Co., a])proximately $11,000 in 1969, for
an alteration or remodeling of one of the President's homes ?
Mr. Wakefield. No. The question was, did I know about it ?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir.
Mr, Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. So the only funds that you expended or that you're
familiar with, are the ones that were directly through account?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenznei{. Was it explained to you by the President, or Mr, Re-
bozo, or Mr. Ehrlichman, why your trust accounts had to be used,
rather than direct payments out of the President's own checking
accounts?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr, Lenzner. Did you ever ask why?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you receive any fees at all from the President
with regard to these matters, at any time after January 1, 1969?
Mr, Wakefield. I think — yes. I received a few. Yes.
11343
Mr. Lenzxer. From the President ?
Mr. Wakefield. From his funds, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Were those funds that went through the trust
account ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzner. Did Mr. Rebozo, thougli, pay most, if not all, the fees,
except for that one you just mentioned ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzner. And also did those funds come out of a trust account?
Mr. Wakefield. Which ones ?
Mr. Lexzxer. The funds that Mr. Rebozo paid ?
Mr. Wakefield. Xo. sir, not at all.
Mr. Lexzxer. And where did those funds come from ?
Mr. Wakefield. He usually pays his fee bills separately.
Mr. Lexzxer. By check or cash ?
Mr. AVakefield. Check.
Mr. Lexzxer. Has he ever furnished you cash ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, not to my recollection.
Mr. Lexzxer. Xow. did the trust accounts also pay for heating oil,
electricity, and those types of services for the President's homes?
AVere your trust funds also expended for heating oil or utilities at
the President's home ?
Mr. Wakefield. I don't know anything otiier than what revolves
around those checks that I've identified.
Mr. Lexzxer. But on a regular basis you did not write out checks
to utility companies on behalf of the President's homes ?
Mr. Wakefield. Xo, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did vou ever discuss these expenditures with Mr.
Kalmbach?
Mr. Wakefield. Xo, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. You said before you were aware of the source of these
funds that went throne:!) the trust account. Was that information that
you received from independent parties?
Mr. Wakefield. Xo.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you receive that from certain documents that you
obtained ?
Mr. Wakefield. T don't know if you're asking exactly the way it
was asked l)efore. ])ut I stated that the origin of any funds that I re-
ceived, disbursed on behalf of Mr. Rebozo, Mere privileged commu-
nication and matters between attorney and client.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if President Nixon furnished any funds
that went to the trust accounts, to your own knowledge ?
Mr. Sibley. If you crot any information, or you got it from a client,
whether he did or he didn't, you can't answer it.
Mr. AVakefield. I decline to answer that one.
Mr. Lexzxer. And that would be on behalf of the President you are
exerting the privilege now ?
Mr. AA''akefield. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. AYhat I'm trying to get — when you learned the source
of the funds that went through your trust account, was that an oral
communication from either your client, INIr. Rebozo. or your client.
President Xixon ?
11344
Mr. Wakkfikld. Witli icLiaid to what iiiatter?
Mr. Lenznkk. With looaid to tlie funds that wont to your trust
account, funds whicli wciv utilized t'oi' oxpcnditiires on behalf of
President Nixon i
Mr. Ward. When. Mr. Lenzner? We've run u[) from 11)()9 to 1974.
You asked him about a lot of transactions.
Mr. Lenznei!. As I understand it, if l"m wr()n<i con-ect me, funds
were ])laced in your trust accounts partly for the pur})ose of payino;
for expenditures on behalf of President Nixon. Now, what I'm askin*;
you is, when you learned the soui-ce of those funds that were i:)ut in for
that purpose, did you learn that as from oral conniiunications with
your clients?
Mr. Wakefield. Any connnnnication I <ret from the clients is my
clients' ]iri\ileo:e.
Mr. Lexzxei;. All I'm askino now
Mr. Wakefield. Which client ?
Mr. Lenzner. All I'm tryino to find out is. were tliey contained in
some kind of documentation, that is. the source of the funds, or was
it simply told to you l)y one of your clients that these funds came from
X source. Avithout identifvin<i the source?
Mr. Wakefield. I'll still decline to answer on the <irounds of priv-
ile<T:e.
Mr. Lenzner. You won't identify what kind of communication that
was ?
Mr. Wakefield. No, sir. on the grounds of privileoe.
Ml'. Lenzner. And you'i-e refusino- to answei- that on the arounds
of privile<ie on l)ehalf of President Nixon and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Wakefield. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Rebozo ever purchase any property or stock
in trust to President Nixon, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Wakefield. I decline to answer on the <>rounds it is my client's
pi-ivileofe, comino; to me throuo-h my client.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any financial transaction entered
into by Mr. Kebozo on behalf of President Nixon, fen- the President's
benefit, that Mr. Rebozo did not report as re(iuired by either the IRS
laws or by some other laws ?
Mr. Wakefield. I decline to answer on the orounds it is my pi'ivi-
le(rc of my client.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any transaction enteied into by Mr.
Rebozo that inured to the benefit and income of Piesident Nixon that
the President did not rei^ort on his ivtni-ns?
Mr. Wakefield. T decline to answer on the orounds of my client
privileo:e.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, that would be — if the answer to that was yes.
of coui-se it would be a possible \iolation of law which would not
be privile<>"ed, would it ?
Mv. Wakefield. I can't eithei" confirni oi- deny it. on the <>-rouiids —
on. furtluM' <2;rounds fi'om my client pi-ivileu'e.
Ml'. Ward. There is no evidence, whatsoevei-, that this witness has
any knowledge whatsoevei- of what President Nixon repoi-fed on his
return.
11345
Mr. Sibley. Tliis is not a ti'ial. Don't be wide open. Yon can't pin
him doAvn to any rules of evidence.
Mr. AVapj). I can try at this hite hour.
Mr. Lexzner. Senator Ervin said Ave have no rules of evidence.
Have you had any discussions with any representatives of Mr. Rebozo
with reirard to their requostin<r you not to furnish certain informa-
tion to any investifrative authority, other than for attorney-client
I'easons ?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Ml". Lexzxer. Have you had any such discussions with any of the
President's i-epresentatives, counsel, or designees or agents ?
Mr. Wakefield. I think I have to decline a,c:ain.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you understand what I'm askino; you rioht now
Mr. Wakefield ? I'm asking you, has any representative, counsel, desig-
nate, or agent of the President — or for that matter, the President him-
self^come to you or talked to you and asked you not to furnish cer-
tain information?
Mr. Wakefield. No.
Mr. Ward. Let him finish the question.
Mr. Lexzner. I think that's pretty much it.
Mr. Bellixo. Have you advised your First National Bank not to
furnish information to the committee that related to your trust
accounts?
Mr. AVakefield. No; I have asked them to furnish no information
of my clients, other than what was subpenaed.
Ml". Belling. Under subpona, have you said to thein that you'll
bi'ing a suit if they do produce ?
Mr. Wakefield. Never.
Mr. Belling. Plas anyone said that to your bank ?
Mr. AVakefield. I don't know.
Mr. Belling. Not at your request?
Mr. Wakefield. Not mine.
Ml'. Lenzner. Dick, no questions.
Mr. Armstrong. Any <|uestions that you can answer that you're
hoping we won't ask ?
[No resi^onse.]
[AVheieupon, at 7:15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter
adjourned.]
11346
Wakefield Exhibit No. l-A
Tni' n- w« ■ i-t^^ > , I I -I t;
Thomas H. W/Vkefield
Betty B. VV^akefield
5201 S. W. lOIST STREET 63-138 I
} MIA-Nn, FLORIDA 331 55 _ Octobor 17, , q 7 2 ~63T —
I PflfeTINAJ^CE COMMITTEE ■ TO RE-ELECT THE s 1 5 . 00
I ■■) iFREHTDMT ' "~ ~ ~~ ■
"' FT FTFFN P, 0 n/.1-^f>-"-^-^- - - - Dm t a p.;
i:o&3-i'"D"ir3ai:*' e- doe, 311^—-^ .''dooocjOiboo.''
U"'LJLJa3" •'■^ rLJLJLJLJl_JLJ«jLJLJ('
.l>
Wakefield Exhibit No. 1-B
Thoal\s H. Wakefield .... 26 6
BETTY"BrWA1t€FUEiJ3. '
52(U S. W. lOlST STREET """**"*" — -- ^ ; 63-138
MIAMI, FLORIDA ^3156-- ~ ' ^K^L^ OctOber 17, ,Q 7Z631
B [tW% FINANCE "COT-g-IH'^EE-jrO RE-ELECT THE S 2 50. 0 0
n I PREStDENT. ,
S TITO HUNDR£D/FIPTY-g 00/100--
tf . KEY BISCAYNE- MIAMI. FLORIDA W/^-.-:^^ • ii
<r..
I i:o&3 i-'O 2i3ai: B"'00&3ii"— 3 /ooodd'ssood/
Wakefield Exhibit No. 1-C
' ■■ 0 p r> ^3 4
/
r
September 5, 72 53^:;^ y
M-rn. FLORIDAJFIN^KCE G^.^Mr^^B/gD' Rp -ELECT . q no iin '^
ONE THOUS.flJ^!D^.; 'Z'Z'j'^Z 3 — >~~.^«>.^-.u^>;^- - j dollak's :=
(7 A~0 TBU^'^OM™-^' ' ' ' ll<'r-[--^i;-^ /■,/ // {Ji^\^^fT'<^'
r-
5 h:o£>3 i:>"a;3a«: ■ E'-'ESi. i-sn' /ddoo iODODD/ ?
*.J^JC»i«p«*.#i
11347
Wakefield Exhibit No. 2
FLOP"^ FINANCE COMMITTEE TO RE ELECT Tl-
Suite 80^ ■ 440 First Avenue So.
PRESIDENT
St. PetersbL. a. Florida 33701 M©
703
natP October 5. 1972
The Florida Finance Commirtee to Re-elect The President, for the nomination and election of Richard M. Nixon to the
office of President of the United States in 1972, acknowledges with thanks receipt during 1972 of S 1000 -00
from
Thomas H. Wakefield
5201 S.W. 101 St.
Miami, Fla. 33156
4^
CHAIRMAN
The Committee declares tfiat Internal
Revenue Service Form 4909 was or will
have been properly filed before the erxl
of this calendar year, and that the
undertakings in such form will be
observed.
Please save this receipt tor tax purposes.
<2^ily^-
TREASURER
Finance Committee to .tlect the President 17cn Pennsylvania Ave J N.W., Washington, D.C 20006
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
I want to help in President Nixon's campaign for re-
election. Please accept my contribution, enroll me as
a Member of the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the
President, and send me my Bronze Limited Edition
Nixon Ompaign MedaL
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield
Suite 211, 150 S. E, 2 Street
Miami, Florida 33131
I enclose my contribution for:
H$15
n$25
n$5o
n$ioo
D (OTHER)
For record purposes, please fill in the information
below:
Occupation
Attorney
Njme o*
Employ^
«(.<>»)
Self-employed
Citt
Miami su.. Florida
331
31
A copy of oor rrpoil (tied wilh iKe Comptrollef Oner^l ««M be •vail-
<b1e (or purchuc fn>m Ihc Supcriniendenl <A OocumcnU. United
%\h\t\ Ccrvcmment P/inting 0«ic«. Wuhinglon, O C 70*02.
K4akc chtck payable to: Finance Committee to Re-€lect the President (No corporal'ion checks accepuble.)
?*i* «"**▼■
11348
—
>-
-n
"b
J2
(1)
o
a.
1—
>-
tn
_3
(/I
E
o
"a
n3
>>
1—
o
-o
1
3
<
■q3
o
S H5
p, a. ^
-ado
? 3 "
3 SS O ,
O)
(A
o >
t^ e»_, "^
OJ o Sj
Co-"
(3 a, c
S3 ."ti
g-g
«
O CM
o o
ft «
CO Qj
w "
o
QJ C
o o
^ ° g
■2^ o
I- 5: .5
o "S ^
CO o (3
J >--
2 ■"
O) ■"
1 e
-" o '^'c 'ti rt
dj o
M
b
j3 -a
. - c
gw
c ■"
01 C
53
« >
tHtS^
3 3
O O"
CO rrj
-" s
e o
CD l-c
XI CIS
O) _ 3
J3 3 XI
-" CO -p
, .H -^
^ -^ 3
O X3 o
3 o
ft ft
■3 <u CO
O t- "3 ^
§2
^ 3
S s
w ^ .:
-9 o
.9 •■3
: ^ c3
3 tXl(^
.2.S c
- - ■ - -ti ft c3
-" > rt O O
.2 p -^
.2 E^
-t; ca a!
-^ '^-^ o
*-• a o
«*-! TJ rs
O "^ • — '
CO o
3 o (O
CD U. _
,M Cu 3
Q HH .„
♦J ^d
CO t^ 3
3 o " ^
■^ -*-» ^^ ff!
f-i CO TJ HM
ft o • —
ft w
>, m a)
t- <:j rt
cu ^ :S
> a
■^ 3.5
>;".§
rt t- *-■
ftj "
•- Bl3
-o 5 ^
u B -^
••-'3
Li *^
-a ? o
3 _ 3
-a
1^
to
6 g
O c3
O ft
o o
3 "
-5 ^ ■£ :2 ft
oo
o c3 t;
« 3-^
ft3 ■"
•2 3
>^ ft °
rt W as
<*■ ca
o
§§■
cU
i5 1^
■" cS
2 "ft
S S
0
0)
CI- CJ
c
.=■ .^
'■E 9-
c "^
^. Z^
L_~:
en
"C ft
ft ft
; >.''
3 3
; a a
1 a <u
en 3
: cB
"^ 3
(M 3 .
■95- a!
: ^
* CO ,
lO -
T-H 3
■eft- o
5-S
2 >
3"-S
o c
-a ;3
<v 13
2 s
3 -a
•3^
■2 e S
o! 3 00
-f 03 o
5 g CU
ti ca !S
a^8
i « §
013 ca
•^•S > .
o "^ ^, *
p3 tn O CO
O) ^ ^ c3
e 3 o 0)
3 — -" P-.
«J S £ »
.s-5g5
o -j:: ,
u ^
>. 3
(3
>
' C3
u
to
; 3
13
dj
CO C«-)
(3
13
OJ
3 S
13 3
o 3 ■ - -a ^
> e a — r -"
x; t- i
.2 ■=!
x; o
'*-' CO
ft
1e
11:
CO -a
o ^
fti
'" g
-^ O
c8 CO
s, >-
'3 ""5
.2 5
Xi 3
5 <^
^ 'S
2 .-
^ *r— •
.3 3
St3
ft o
C T3
/'~\
11349
<
04 S !^
j;^ 5 2
^ z H
^ <J ^
Z uj
=1 > ^
O P Q
z ;<
^ ^ < Q
O a: >
>^ 5 >
<
u
^ i- 2
^ < Q
o z
Q.
<
5 %
o 2
~ -c
O u
O m
S; °-
C fc
at *9
00 '-J
o at
MAUniCC M. VTANS
11350
FfNANCE COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT
I70I rCNNBTLVANIA AVCN
WAftMINCTON. O C. aOOO*
t aot) 339-0«20
October 2, 1972
O. C. CARMICMACL. JR.
MRS ANNA CMtNNAULT
■CNJAMIN FCRNANOCZ
lconaro k riRirroNC
MAX M nSHCR
marold n helm
6ustavc l lcvy
JCRCMIAM Mll.a*NK. Jit.
MRS OCDEN PHIPP*
JOHN W. ROLLINS
TAFT ■. SCMRKJaER
MRS ALBERT M. •WANKE
OAMICL W. MOFCRCN
LCC n MUNN
DAMiCL a^ PARKER
MAROI-D •. «COTT
NKWCU. WCCO. JR.
PAUL C. ■AMUCK
COOHMLi
•TANLCV KBMEH
iVatOMAL CMAtftMBM.
KCiTH L. BROWN
A. LEWtB BURRIDCC
KCMNCTH M OANLBCRC
J. WALTER JONES. JH.
DARlUa N. KEATON. JR.
WIU.tAM C. LIEDTKL JR.
LOUIB F. POL.K. JR.
PIER TALCNTI
U-OVD B. WARINO
DAVID K. WILSON
HOY WINCHESTER
DON 1_ WOLFSBERCER
•TATK CMAIRHlHi
ROBERT- H ALLEN
JEROME ANDERSON
OLOF V. ANDERSON
ROBERT R. BCFFIC
CLAUDE RCKINS
HILTON H. BLAKEMORE
PETER BOVC
WILLIAM H. T. BUSH
CRIC M. auzzA
HAL C. avRD
PATRICK N CALHOUN
W. SAM CARPENTER. Ill
GEORGE CHAMPION. JR.
THOMAS CLAWSON
DAViD R. CONCOOH. M O.
NOBERT C. DAVIDSON
DONALD C. OATTON
T. COOPER EVANS
ADM. HARRY FCLT
LEONARD K. FIRESTONE
WILLIAM H. C FITZGERALD
LEONARD FORGCRCN
COWARD P. HARDING
HAROLD H. HELM
WILLIAM H HOUSTON
C BRONSON INGRAM
CLLIS R. IVORY
LOCAN T. JOHNSTON
J. WALTER JONES. JR.
CCORGE W KNOWLES. JR.
LAWRENCE LEWIS, JR.
A. A MAYER
FRANK C P. McCLINN
WILLIAM C. MESfilNGER
FRANK P. MIDDLCTON
WILLIAM D MOUNCER
DrLLARD MUNFORD
JAIME PIERAS. JR.
ODELL POLLARD
•COTT PROeASCO
HARRY A RICHARDSON. JM
WILLARD E ROBERTSON
ALE« K. SAMPue. JR.
PAUL SCHORR. Ill
JOHN H SCHULER
ROLAND O SEWARD. BR.
MONTGOMERY BHEPARD
ROBERT D. STUART. JR.
BURR S. SWE^CY. JR.
HON COE SWOBE
CLDON R. ULMER
BEN VOTH
GEORGE M. WALKER. Ill
LLOYD B WARING
HARMON H. WATT
DELVIN N. J. WELTER
JAMES C. ZIMMERMAN
Mr. Thomas H Wakefield
5201 S.W. 101 Street
Miami, Florida 33156
Dear Mr. Wakefield:
Thank you for taking the time to
Roy Owens, a member of my staff. He has^^just told
me of yoar intention to contribut>e'""?3-5tr.0Ql^'sward the
re-election of President Nixon .(and^TlSB-^appy to ex-
tend my personal thanks for your generous cooperation
and assistance.
I am most pleased to add your name to the dis-
tinguished group of Americans who have demonstrated
their commitment to the ideals pursued by the President.
President Nixon's serious concern for achieving
peace throughout the world, as well as guaranteeing the
security of the United States, has been reflected by his
tremendously successful visits abroad in recent months.
While the President has received wide recognition and
praise from the American public for his diplomatic accom-
plishments, he cannot be returned to office without the
active support of involved citizens such as yourself.
You may be sure that your contribution will be
effectively used in aiding President Nixon's re-election
campaign, and we are most appreciative of your important
and timely assistance.
With best wishes, I am
incerely ,
A/. '-'^^Sl^i-v^--^
Maurice H. Stans
P.l'S/^ MrJ Wakefield, may we count on receiving your
I, contribution now to insure victory in November?
a-^';.v»'
t3
11351
FINANCE
>MMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THF
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
3SQ
—<;>
RESroENT
.NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield, Attorney
5201 S.W. 101 Street
Miami
STATE:
FL
OCCUPATION or TITLE:
Attorney
EMPLOYER:
cnv:
self-employed
Miami
ZIP:
33156
STATE:
Florida 33131
YOUR CONTRIBUTION NOW IS AN INVESTMENT
IN A REPUBLICAN VICTORY THIS NOVEMBER.
I enclose my contribution fon
D $100.00 □ $500.00 •• D $1000.00
D $3000.00 g OTHER
Please credit my contribution to the State of Florida
A copy of our report, filed with the Comptroller General, will be available for purchase from 1*^
Superintendent of Documents, United Suies Government Printing Office. Wathingtoo, D. C 20402.
Checks should be individual, not corporaii:, and made payable to:
FINANCE COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT
An official receipt «1U be tent to yon.
11352
MIAAAI . TAMPA ♦ JACKSGNV./J . ORl^N^O • ATUAMA . AUANY
MeAOOt.ARTeRS OFFICE.
3500 N. W. SeVENTM STR£LT — MIAMI. F1.CR1OA 331 2&
SLOAN MCCRCA
P«t»tOINT
;'HONCi 1303) 049-2343
BOX 03O. RIVERSIOC STATION
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
June 30, 1972
Dear Tom:
Because Former ?.:cretary of Commerce Srans likes to » --ei ho \^
some personal feeling as it relates to the people he is ir. oti.ig,
would it be possible to list the names of your Luncheon guests
for his prior posting. This also will help us on the setting
of proper arrangements for the Luncheon reservations.
r'
Thanks,
Sloan McCrea
(
11353
The following persons were invited to attend a luncheon
on Friday, July 7th, at the Columbus Hotel in honor of
Maurice H. Stans , former Secretary of Commerce:
Name Will Attend Will Not Attend
ANDERSON, Thomas H.
BOUREAU, Harry N.
BREWER, Lawrence J.
BREWER, Walter F.
ETLING, Walter
FRATES, William S. a t— i
FRIEDMAN, Harold l^>J-'-- /-'<=•-■• ■'i '^Ir^., ^-^ <i/JU^-J
GRAY, William L., Jr. ^^ •>" <^^-^fv^--
GUNN, John H. '^'^'-' J'-r —
HALL, Frank Dawson N tJt- y-i f-'A"---
HALL, M. Lewis, Jr. /
HILL, Henry F. - -5^*^ Vu«^wuA;^^^^tt^-M»-<'i--^'-^>»-^ ^^"^
LANE, William A.. JrJ^'~\ Vv^^^
McLAMORE, James W.-\/rfO> ^
PEARSON, Ray H. ^^^^
SIBLEY, J. Harper
TAYLOR; Henry H. , Jr.
WEBSTER, Willard C. ^ 7
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 -
11354
MAPHT N BOunCAU
THOMAS H ANOCRSON
WILLIAM p Simmons, jR
RICHARD M WNITC
WILLARO R SROWN
JOHN S CHOWNtNG
PRCSTON L PRCVATT
SCNCCA B ANDCRSON
JAMCS r DURHAM, n
THOMAS L WOL^C
THOMAS C BRITTON
CHRISTOPHER C LARIMORt
R08CRT C OUNN
JOHN a WHITC
ANTONIO MARTINEZ, JR.
RICHARD M LCSLie
PHILLIP G NtWCOMM
KARL V HART
ROBERT C 50MMCRVILLC
STEPHEN L PERRONE
BOWMAN BROWN
ROBERT A JARVIS. JR.
EDWARD J WALDRON
WILLIAM J KENORICft
JOHN P MtNUTT
B. MACHAY BROWN
MENRV H rOX
ERIC B METERS
GUlOO A- AGUILCRA
SHUTTS & BOWEN
ATTORXKVB AND COUNKliI.lX>RH AT LAW
TENTH rLOOR FIASI NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MIAMI, FLORIDA J31JI
TCLCPMONC (30S) 356-6300
CABLC AODBCSS'SHUTTSBO"
June 29, 1972
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield
5201 S.W. 101st Street
Miami, Florida 33156
Dear Tom:
Thank you very much for your invitation to
attend the Ivmcheon given by your committee at
which time the Honorable Maurice H. Stans will
attend.
I regret to advise that I will not be able
to attend because I will be out of the city at
that time. Best regards.
Sincerely yours.
HNB : mmr
H. N
11355
October 16, 1972
Mr. W. Sloan McCrea PERSONAL
Earl V. Wilson Company
P. 0. Box 930, Riverside Station
Miami, Florida 33135
Dear Sloan:
I enclose herewith checlc of Tom Anderson
as a contribution to the President's campaign. I
would appreciate you processing the same on and I
also enclose a copy of Tom's letter for your informa-
tion.
With kindest regards, I ara
Sincerely yours,
WAKEFIELD, HEWITT § WEBSTER
By:
THW:B
Enclosures
cc: Thomas H. Anderson, Esq.
11356
MAMMY N. BOURCAU
THOMAS M. ANDCnSON
WILLIAM ^. SIMMON*. Jf*
MiCmamo m wmitc
•wtLj-AMD m. anowTM
jOMM a. CMOWMtN^a
PNCSTON L.RMeVATT
scmcca B. ANOCMSON
^AMCS r. ouMHA*^ a
THOMAS L. WOLFC
THOMAS C. BMITTOH
CRlSTO'Mrn C. l-ARtMORC
ROBERT a.. OUNN
JOHN B WHtTC
ANTONIO MARTINEl.JR.
RiCHARO M. LCSLie
PHILLIR O. NCWCOMM
MARL V. MART
ROBERT C. SOMMCRVILLC
STCRmCN L. PERRON K
BOWMAN BROWN
ROBERT A. JARVIS, JR.
EDWARD J. WALOnON
wrLLIAM J. HCNORtCK
JOHN R. MCNUTT
B. MACkat BROWN
HENRT H. rOX
ERIC B. MEYERS
OUIOO A.AOUILXRA
LAWRENCE m. METSCN
SHUTTS & BOWEX
ATTOHlfEVS AND COtTNSEXXORS AT LAW
TENTH ^LOOR riRST NATIONAL BANN SUILOiNQ
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
TCLCRHONC (309) 39a-0300
CABLE ACORCSS 'SHUTTSOO'
October 9, 1972.
Thomas H. Wakefield, Esq.,
150 S.E. 2nd Street,
Miami, Florida 33131
Dear Tom:
This isn't a big check, but it might help.
However, Nixon had better quiet the broadcasting
stations and not give all the time to McGovern, or
else Nixon might not wake up in the White House next
November .
Cordially,
THA:EE
End.
11357
September 5, 1972
Mr. W. Sloan McCrea PERSONAL
c/o Earl V. V/ilson Company
P. 0. Box 930, Riverside Station
Miami, Florida 33135
Dear Sloan:
I am pleased to enclose three pledges for
myself and partners together with our respective checks
in the amount of $1,000 each, payable to the Florida
Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours ,
WAKEFIELD, HEWITT 5 WEBSTER
By :
THW:B
Enclosures
11358
MAURICC H. 9TANS
Florida Finance Committee to Re-elect the President
POST OFFICE BOX 16213
JACKSONVILCC. FLORIDA 32216
August 31, 1972
CCOROe CHAMPION. JR.
CHAIRMAH
WILBCRT R. CANNING
TWKACUACn
J. ROBERT TERRY
CO-CHAIRMAM
RCOIONAi. CHAIRMEN
AL AUaTIH
LtNDLCV CAM^
JOHN CHRISTO
MKNMV COLKMAM. •A.
DANIBL O. COODNUM
JOHM C.^CNNINOa
W. BLOAN MCCRXA
WILLIAM a. MILLS
LOUia C. MUARAV. M.O.
WILLIAM F. O'NEILL
WILLIAM L. AALCV
■O aTACK
WILLIAM TimNAM
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield
Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster
150 S.E. 2nd St.
Miami, Fla. 33131
Dear Mr. Wakefield,
Florida is beginning to move ahead well against our quotas. We have
certain areas of the state that have already dramatically exceeded their
quotas. This has helped Florida to stay among the top states in the
country. We were ranked sixth at the end of this week.
Washington is pressing urgently for collections. We have all received
commitments from contributors that we haven't collected yet. Now is
the time to get these commitments tn.
Additionally, all of us on the committee can quadruple our production if
we will just ask every person we talk to all day long to make their
contributions to the F>resident through us. Most people very much want
to contribute, but just don't know where to do it. They are waiting for
someone to contact them. Let's make sure they are not disappointed.
Let everyone you talk to know they can forward their contribution to the
President through you. You will be amazed at what you will collect.
Remember to comply with the new law. We need the name, address,
and name of employer of each contributor. Make sure all checks are
made to "Finance Committee to Re-elect the President. " Please
fotTvard those checks to me, or give them to your area chairman, so
we can give you full credit for the amounts you collect.
Looking forward to hearing from you, and with all best and warmest
wishes.
Yours sin
hampion, Jr.
P.S. Harry Dent says, "Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot.
McGovern promises pot in every chicken. "
11359
FLORIDA FINANCE COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT
Suite 800, 440 First Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Yes, I want to help re-elect our President— to assure 4 years of peace, prosperity,
law and order, for America. Enclosed is my check made payable to the FLORIDA
FINANCE COAAMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT. Please credit this to the state
of Florida and send me a receipt for tax purposes.
I enclose my contribution for:
Name
Address
Occupation
Employer
(date) City State
Note: A copy of our report filed with the Comptroller General will be available for
purchase from tne Superintendent of Documents, United States Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402. Corporate checks cannot be accepted.
11360
KOOD BROKERS
MIAMI . TAMPA ♦ JACKSONVILLE ♦ OIOANOO ♦ ATLANTA ♦ AUANY
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE:
3900 N. W. SEVENTH STREET — MIAMI. FLORIDA JSIIS
PHOIRi 13031 e4>-2343
W. SLOAN MCCRCA jOj, gjg RIVERSIDE STATION
rwuioCNT MIAMI. FLORIDA 331S3
July 24, 1972
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefield
Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster
150 S.E. Second Street
Miami, Florida
Dear Tom:
This is just a note to thank you for taking time out of
your busy schedule to attend the Luncheon with Secretary
of Commerce Maurice Stans. Subsequent events I feel sure
have underlined the importance of doing all we can to
make certain that you and your families can continue to
enjoy a life of freedom and opportunity in the kind of
America we love.
We need your investment in the form of your pledge or
your check. Equally important is your continued help as
we spread this message to others who could not attend the
Luncheon. Enclosed are two pledge cards > and if you have
an opportunity to add a friend to our group, it would be
much appreciated.
Please call on me if 1 can be of any help, and thanks
again for being with us at the Luncheon.
Sincerely
Sloan McCrea
SM:mb
Encs . 2
11361
July 17, 1972
Mr. W. Sloan McCrea
c/o Earl V. Wilson Company
Box 930 Riverside Station
Miarai, Florida 3313S
Dear Sloan:
One of my absent guests for the luncheon for the
Honorable Maurice H. Stans, was Mr. Henry F. Hill,
whose address is:
10140 S. W. 53 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33156
Henry has been confined to his bed because of a back
injury for some tine and has left for New York for
a serious operation on his back. Before he left, he
gave ne the enclosed check in the araount of $500.00
payable to Florida Finance Connittee to Re-elect The
President.
V/ill you please see that the sane is transmitted to
the proper depository authority on his behalf.
Kindest regards.
Sincerely,
Thomas H.- Wakefield
TKl'7:jl
Encs.
11362
Thomas D. Wood
ATTORNEY AT LAW
14*1 brickcll avenue
Miami. FijObida 33131
Phone (3051 379-36«a
Dear Tom:
I have volunteered to chair the Dade Coxinty Finance
Committee for the re-election of President Richard M. Nixon.
Instead of a highly commercialized fund raising campaign
with numerous meetings, reams of paperwork, and a complicated
bureaucratic structure, our campaign will be simple. OUR
COMMITTEE WILL, NEVER MEET.
You are one of thirty three personal friends I have asked
to assist me in this very important task. Each member's only
responsibility will be to raise $3, 000. 00. Our goal is $99, 000.
Our symbol - 33-3-99.
I am enclosing a card for your signature and return.
The President needs your help.
Sincerely,
A ccpy cf o'.T ropcrt flic:! v.i:!i tr.D rr;:
;-:-ic:tQ r-up?;'.';?cry o.riccr is (or will be)
, ;:: ■:r.'v;.^:■:r^ rf Dcc:;;:-!an:s,
- " ' - = •■-.-•- -^^ ■.. pi '^ ''T'n?
11363
HELPFUL INFORMATION
1. Make all checks payable to Florida Finance Committee to
Re-elect the President.
2. If contribution exceeds ten dollars ($10. 00), I need the full
name, nnailing address, occupation and principal place of
business, if any, of the contributor. Corporation checks
are not allowed.
3. If cash is received, then advise Thomas D. Wood immediately
so that he can prepare the proper receipt and forward same
to the donor.
4. Messenger service is available by calling the office of Thomas
D. Wood - 379-3648.
5. Deadline for contributions is September 15.
Please call me at home or at the office if you need any assistance.
11364
BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE
TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT
Dade County, Florida —
June 20, 1972
CO-CHAIRMEN
J. DEERING OANIELSON '' ° °°* '"**
MRS. EDWIN J. REEVES MlAMI, FLORIDA 33133
Pt. Thomas H. Wakefield
150 S. E. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Dear Mr. Wakefield:
1972 is truly The Year of Decision. The importance of
keeping Richard Nixon in the White House is more clearly
demonstrated every day.
-In 1968 Joe Gassen contacted you for the "Early Birds
For Nixon". This year the "Bipartisan Committee to Re-Elect
the President" is starting early to be ready, fully financed,
for maximum impact in Dade County. We wish to ensure that
when the re-election is won, its contribution will be both
clear and significant.
To do this we need your help. We join Joe in asking you
to serve actively and to assist financially. We expect to
be in our headquarters shortly. In the meantime, please
send your contribution (made out to "Re-Elect the President")
to Box 1148, miami 33133 and indicate in what areas of leader-
ship and to what degree you feel that you can participate.
Responsible government must be maintained and this means
purely and simply that Richard M. Nixon must be re-elected.
There can be no alternative.
Very sincerely,
J. Deering Danielson
Mrs. Edwin Jr Reeves
Co-Chairmen
11365
The following persons were invited to attend a luncheon
on Friday, July 7th, at the Columbus Hotel in honor of
Maurice H. Stans, former Secretary of Commerce:
Name Will Attend IVill Not Attend
ANDERSON, Thomas H. .
BOUREAU, Harry N. ,^i-_ »>= r.^rJ c —
BREhTER, Lawrence 3 ^_tf t,^-r-
BREWER, Walter- F, "
ETLING, Walter
PRATES, William S.
FRIEDMAN, Harold
GRAY, William L. , Jr.
GUNN, John H.
HALL, Frank Dawson ^
HALL, M. Lewis, Jr_AJ<J.
HILL, Henry P. „-<, ^c ./^^>/td ^j. (S----? </^r//. -■'ii*-^ ^A^
LANE, William A.. Jr. '
McLAMORE, James W.
PEARSON, Ray H.
SIBLEY, J. Harper— ^V-a v^
TAYLOR, Henry H. , Jr. " ' ~ ' ' ^
lifEBSTER, Willard_(L^=jJ^ aJT .^ c-^"^^/ i-^
The following persons were invited to attend a luncheon
on Friday, July 7th, at the Columbus Hotel in honor of
Maurice H. Stans, former Secretary of Commerce:
Name Will Attend Will Not Attend
ANDERSON, Thomas H. -. J.
BOUREAU, Harry N. a--V<i^..ri-^
BREWER, Lawrence J.
BREWER, Walter F.
ETLING, Walter
PRATES, William S.'
FRIEDMAN, Harold
GRAY, William L. , Jr.
GUNN, John H.
HALL, Frank Daivson
HALL, M. Lewis, Jr. , \ . n ^i ,
HILL, Henry P. - i/<? 't^ <m.-*o.c,2L^ ^->^' -^..^^ ^ h^>^.:c/<. . CuU£e^ V3j7-u.
LANE, William A.. Jr. '^ ^
McLAMORE, James W.
PEARSON, Ray H.
SIBLEY, J. Harper
TAYLOR, Henry H. , Jr.
WEBSTER, Willard C.
11366
June 28, 1972
Copies of these letters were sent to Mr. W. Sloan
McCrea.
11367
EIaki. Vo. "^ViLsor*^ (Do^iQPAi^^'
MIAMI
FOOD broi£]e:rs
TAMPA . JACKSONVILLE . ORLANDO . ATLANTA ♦ ALBANY
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE:
3500 N. W. SEVENTH STREET — MIAMI. FLORIDA 33125
W. SLOAN MCCREA
mtaiDCNT
^^^
PmonKi 13051 649.23-33
BOX 930. RIVERSIDE STATION
MIAMI. FLORIDA 33)33
June 23, 1972
Mr. Thomas H. Wakefiield— • — pT ■ , . ,
Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster/ lAj (_ //V<Su6~»'C<^w
150 S. E. Second St. / _i_,-.-~— — — — -
Miami, Florida 33131
Dear Tom:
All my life I've been an active Democrat. Increasingly, tne-iyJOyp^
ship of the Democratic Party has left me on policies that appear to
me are best for the safety and strength of America. As we approach
a Presidential election, contrast the position of the men who it
appears will represent the Democratic Party on one hand with the
committed hardworking, courageous statesmanship of President Nixon.
It seems to me it's time to stand up and be counted, and for that
reason I've volunteered to serve as a member of the State Finance
Committee to Re-elect President Nixon. The purpose of this letter
is to ask you to jgin rae on that Committee.
On Friday, July 7th, the Honorable Maurice H. Stans, former Secretary
of Commerce, will be in Miami to have brcakfoot with thic Committee.
r At-Noon-there-wiit-be-a-iaig-er Luncheon attended by the Committee
•.''•^' andz-guests. C As a member of the CommitteeJ I would ask you to invite
to the Luncheon 10 substantial South Florida men who might be
interested in this Campaign. They and you would be guests of the
Committee, with Secretary Stans as the speaker. This Committee
will not have a lot of meetings and the time commitment will be
minimal beyond the Luncheon. What we will need in the next week
would be the names of those who would be your invitees.
In the next few days, I'll be calling you or seeing you to ask for
your confirmation on this commitment, but in the meantime may I
thank you for letting me place the matter for your consideration.
(v/t'-piwy^
Sloan McCrea
SM:mb
,/.
^^
The Breakfast and Luncheon, will^be at thp-TTolumbus Hotel. vy
(A^^^^t^^ Cj<C^ (F o_
11368
TuoMAS H.Wakefield
&20t &OUTHV/CST lOiV SIRCCT
MiXmI, FlORIDlA 33130
June 28, 1972
Mr. J. Harper Sibley
Sibley Management Company
Suite 1100
200 S. E. First Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Dear Harper:
All my life I've been an active Democrat. Increasingly,
the leadership of the Democratic Party has left me on
policies that appear to me are best for the safety and
strength of America. As we approach a Presidential
election, contrast the position of the men who it
appears will represent the Democratic Party on one hand
with the committed hardworking, courageous statesmanship
of President Nixon. It seems to me it's time to stand
up and be counted, and for that reason I've volunteered
to serve as a member of the State Finance Committee to
Re-elect President Nixon. The purpose of this letter
is to ask you' to aid that Committee.
On Friday, July 7th, at Noon at the Columbus Hotel, the
Honorable Maurice H. Stans , former Secretary of Com-
merce, will attend a luncheon given by the Committee
for their guests. As a member of the Committee, I
would like to extend to you an invitation to attend
this luncheon.
I would appreciate your calling me at 373-6526, letting
me know if it will be possible for you to be present.
With kindest personal regards, I am.
Thomas H. Wakefield .
TfflV: jl
Editor's note. --The above letter was also sent to the following
list of people:
Mr. Edward J. Reilly Mr. Walter F. Brewer
174 East Flagler Street 5501 S.W. 105 Street
Miami, Fla. 33131 . Miami, Fla. 33156
Mr. Willard C. Webster Mr. Henry F. Hill,
c/o Webster Outdoor Advertising Company 10140 S.W. 53 Avenue
P.O. Box 649 Miami, Fla. 33156
Buena Vista Station
Miami, Fla 33137 Mr. James W. McLamore
10250 S.W. 53 Avenue
Mr. Walter Etling Miami, Fla. 33156
c/o Walter Etling Company
DuPont Building Mr. Lawrence J. Brewer
Miami, Fla 10750 S.W. 53 Avenue
Miami, Fla. 33156
11369
John H. Gunn, Esquire
Gunn and Venney
Suite 1525
Alfred I duPont Building
Miami, Fla. 33131
WtlHam S. Frates, Eszulre
c/o Frates, Floyd, Pearson &Stewart, P. A.
66th West Flagler Street
Concord Building
Miami, Fla
Henry H. Taylor, Jr. ,
1451 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Fla
Esquire
William A Lane, Jr., Esquire
100 North Biscayne Boulevard
^iami , Fla.
Thomas H. Anderson, Esquire
351 S.E. Second Street
Suite 1000
First National Bank Building
Miami, Fla. 33131
Ray H. Pearson, Esquire
66 West Flagler Street
12th Floor
Concord Building
Miami, Fla.
Mr. Lewis Hall, Jr., Esquire
150 S.E. Second Street
Miami, Fla.
Frank Dawson Hall, Esquire
150 S.E. Second Street
Miami, Fla. 33131
Harry N. Boureau, Esquire
351 S.E. Second Street
Suite 1000
First National Bank Building
Miami, Fla. 33131
Harold Friedman, Esquire
c/o Friedu.an, Britton & Stettin
8th Floor
First National Bank Building
Miami, Fla.
William L. Gray, Jr., Esquire
First Federal Building
100 N.E. First Avenue
Miami, Fla.
31-889 O - 74 - pi. 24 - 7
11370
Wakefield Exhibit No. 3
r. ■' . .•;//■- Date: J^ly .9.,..1.968
'fife Depcf:: Box Lease: . V_
-TT.i \:nceri-ig.-,ed itaies Safe Deposit Box No. __22_4 afan annua] rental of
;: _-.2.p_3.j _• "L. i.^-3n2rs. s-jOjt^:: to RuJ-es ir;c Re-^u!2t:ons and acxnowlcdg-s receipt of
"V .vo keys ' . . - .
-"Dpecial Stipulations: \ . . . .-. • ' .
>i-<.<?
^^M^^
.-<?"
L t S 5 c e
RSBOZO, C. G, or Thomas K. V'akefiald j
t..ox
NO 224
£>.3»NI I --5- i
—1
I S*tt
I "f^-/.-<
-i? i-C
^.-^1 U^Ar
<o
.30
.^^^'
W/^o/^
^00
^,^yA
/X.'-V
^/^/-/?:, ! / 'c
X"
/^/?7 /,A^
^^c2>ife^_-LU
:l5 y^ • -^-^
-^JTU -C_-:
I y
__J_
I_.
VISITATION ;?c<:o:?o
I><iOL9 C*.JC.'*t:» fO»-* 7*^^ i-CMli
11371
Wakefield Exhibit No. 4
THOMAS H, V7AKEFIELD - SPECIAL ACCOUNT
2-1691 . ,^ , 4-69
I,; R . T H 0 :i A 3 H . V. A K E FIELD
Sr'LCiAL hC^JJ:ii joint account
ACCT.<» c?-/^^^/
[, ^T iTh^undersignedjoi:^ depositors are opening an account in KEY BISCAYNE BANK
tt jJi'aV.I. Vl/OTXlDftr •T?!49.'-^d hereby authorize and direct said banV to recognize and honor either
znd/or both and/or every of the signatures subscribed as the bank's authority for the pa>Tnent of funds
frcm said account; and the undersigned hereby a^ree each with the other and with said bank that all sums
heretoio.-e or hereafter deposited by the undersigned in said account shall be owned by the undersiened
jointly, with ri^ht of survivorship, and shall be subject to payment upon the check of either or any one of
the undersigned, or the survivor or survivors of thetn, and pajtoent thereof to either of them upon the joint
or several order of either of them shall discharge said bank from Lability to either, or the heirs, executors,
administrators or assigns of either. As a condition of the acceptance of said account by the bank it is
agreed Lhat s?Jd account shall at all times be subject to all reasonable rules and reculatioos of said bank.
The account may be closed by either of the iindersismed.
The Bank is authorized to apply this account toward the payment of any indebtedness due the Bank
from the depositor or depositors, or either of them, whether the debt is several and this account Is joint,
or the debt is joint and the account is severaL
The Sank is authorized to supply the endorsement and to place to the credit of this account, any
and all checks, drafts/'or other items^ payable to both of the depositors jointly or to either of them
severally. whether_deposited by thetrvoi^sent to the Bank by others for the account of either of them.
SIG
I _
S1GNATU"RE
LOCAL ADDRESS.
HOME ADDRESS_
REFERENCE
BUSINESS V DATE
IM 7-67 DIXIE PRINTERS, MIAMI ^ '
y/^/^9
11372
Wakefield Exhibit No. 5-A
-«^
n»f..»f1 t>>i ^Tntri j««il (-.■nlt.rt f.ir '>l"iO ni.v I •r.'"
ttj f<l.r^yiJ«. ft, 5j\l»
11373
Wakefield Exhibit No. 5-B
WAKtrrtVA HtWiTT ft WtMTf «. Tnuti AecnuNi
Ml
"" .••'^- V-. 1^
;3'/3*e/;K->4^-^
q
11374
Wakefield Exhibit No. 5-C
11375
Wakefield Exhibit No. 5-D
■-'^^^vi^immm^^^' -mrn^- ■-mtmrn'm'
11376
Wakefield Exhibit No. 6
J.mf»Wf<|
\J. I -..-^N
-iw -;,- -»
-si:
11377
Wakefield Exhibit No. 7
nm
t
. I. Vlvi^ ^'t**^:
a/2»
/
rTftiralie *
. 1 ? .«^«» wCW«»«# - T^v:**' ^^SSEVOVT^:
I *fc lrll^*^«^i.J6«^
-:-¥_
ti'^.
11378
Wakefield Exhibit No. 8
11379
Wakefield Exhibit No. 9
LAW OFFICES
Wakei-u:i-u, Hewitt & Weusteu
SUITE ? I 1
ISO SOUTHEAST SECOND STREET
THOMAS M, WAKCFIELD MlAMI, FLORIDA 33131
P03ERT G HEWITT TELEPHONE 373-6526
GARTH A WEBSTER AREA CODE 305
WILLIAM W MUIR
OF COUNSEL
December 28, 1972
Climatrol Corporation
P.O. Box 563, Tamiaini Station
Miami , Florida 33144
Re: Invoice No. 38801
Gentlemen :
Enclosed please find check drawn on The First National
Bank in the amount of $1,000.00, which together with
the two previous checks totals $3,600.00.
We regret this error.
Thank you.
Very truly yours ,
WAKEFIELD, HEWITT § WEBSTER
'.y. Jf)'^ ^ '
;i^^-' , .. '-ci^u
■lliorias H. Wakefield
THW : j 1
Encs .
11380
Wakefield Exhibit No. 10
11381
Wakefield Exhibit No. 11
J73
I"
1-'
11382
Wakefield Exhibit No. 12
la^^a«*/.r^reaM8aaBH^^5aMa5l«^'Kala
..wiivof HEVXT C. BEZOUD. Jft.
T^'^micf^lSOO ''OOcls
Brokerase comklailoo Rabcuui ula In Crxatk
icli^-.2Hi. V'liiuc.o.Tra.ath
a.
>r ..
n
•Ar ;
»i.
MO.
00
_
_ ,_
1
•••UjI«»
•
.:n; ^
I
•:' ir » i-i'! n>:
'4 1-I-H-4-* ^r..iOOi«.(ioocv
11383
Wakefield Exhibit No. 13
11384
Wakefield Exhibit No. 14
WA*irt«ijo Hi«irr ft Wtasnn Tsun Account
tvo a ■ tH« •^••v* •utiK ail
MIAMI ptomoA B9iai
"""^SS^iF :_!tE«IDlA« ABSnUCTJk TI71* CO
so. 1 97
Augutt 2t 1x71. »>JC
_ ^ ao.oo
Jbs^ffllo£S2aa:ilQQx:tx
TMS"
n
11385
Wakefield Exhibit No. 15
DEPOSIT TICKET
THIS DCPOSIT IS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION, AND
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THIS DANK.
PLEASE ENDORSE ALL CHECKS /
DAT. 9l\l^./^^<
CP
o
o
o
o
ru
U-l
m
o—
un
PLEASE LIST EACH CHECK SEPARATELY
'-">
r.>
ri.
O-l
f.r
i-'
>
IS
m
r-t-
o'
C5
c»
— :>
=3
tJ SJ, C"
CURRENCY
COIN
CHECKS
1 i">.
^
12AS^{AL
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
DOLLARS
X
iCoc
l^,'2S?.
CO
Sj
16
17
18
'ig
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
2B
^
O 29
C
z
-I
o TOTA
TOTAL AMOUNT
rPOM OTHCH ?IDE
l*ff«
>-t?-'>r^
E
FOR BAr^«'s use only
No. IT
^
■ <■« iit',9»f'r te
31-889 O - 74 - pt.24 - 8
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ D.C.
The. Select Committee met, pursiumt to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
G-884, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Present : Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; INIarc Lackritz and
James Moore, assistant counsels ; Richard L. Schultz, assistant minor-
ity counsel ; Scott Armstrong, investigator,
TESTIMONY OP RICHARD BANNER, ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER
DAVIS, SOLOMON PREEDMAN, AND LAWRENCE S. BURSTEIN,
COUNSELS
Mr. Lackritz. This is a continuation of the executive session which
is to take testimony from Richard Banner and a continuation of that
session that was adjourned back on December 20, 1973, or excuse me,
recessed on December 20, 1973.
Before proceeding, Mr. Davis, counsel for Mr. Danner has indicated
he wished to place some objections on the record so I think it's appro-
priate at this time for Mr. Davis to make his objections.
INIr. Davis. INIr. Lackritz, initially I would like to obtain a confirma-
tion on the record that I will be furnished a transcript of this hearing
and I would like to inquire of the reporter if he's in a position to do so
and when I may expect a copy thereof?
Mr. Lackritz! If I can respond to that point, as I indicated on the
telephone on two separate occasions to Mr. Burstein, that request will
be forwarded immediately to the executive session of the full com-
mittee which has to approve the provision of the transcript and I do
not anticipate any problem in tei'ms of obtaining a copy of the trans-
script for you. Our only requirement is that there should be a formal
meeting of the full committee to make that decision. I'm not authorized
as staff to provide the transcript for you. However, in light of the past
action of the connnittee taken most recently on your request, I do not
anticipate there will l)e a prol)lem in providing that transcript.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Lackritz, I appreciate it and I am very sympathetic
to your position but you put me in a very difficult position also because,
as you know, and for reasons I need not go into at this time, I had an
understanding in the past with respect to obtaining a transcript and
then for reasons I've never been able to adequately understand that
transcript was denied to me. I thought I made it clear in our under-
standing with respect to the circumstances under which Mr. Danner
and my other clients would appear, was on the specific underetanding
that I would have a transcript axid I was hoping I would be able to
(11387)
11388
obtain a transcript witliin 24 hours. 'I'lic last infoi-niation I ivceived
was you wcio not in a jmsition to couuuit tlio leport that I could obtain
a transcript within 24 liouis but 1 could obtain a transcript as rapidly
as ai'raniioiHcnts could be made for tiansci-ibin*!;.
The. problem of obtainina' authorization for providin<r nie with a
transcript is, as far as I'm concerned, a condition i)recedent to any
pi'oceedinir. If there was a way of pi'oceediiur, subie( t to an ap])i'opri-
ate detei'minat ion. I would be <ilad to do it but I don't know how you
can pi'oceed.
Mr. Lackkitz. Mi-. Davis, I think T can cloai- this up rijrht now. The
committee had authorized the provision of a ti'ansci'ipt of Mr. T^auner's
testimony to you and I will inter[)ret that authoi'ization by the com-
mittee as iuclu(lin<2." this session today with Mr. Danner and I will make
an etl'ort to provide you with a copy of said transcript as soon as
possible. The oidy pi'oblem, there is no provision foi* Mr. AYinte's testi-
mony which is cominfi" up.
Mr. Davis. We'll deal with the next problem when Ave run into the
next problem.
Mr. Lackhttz. T can rejuesent to you that as soon as vce can irot a
copy back fi-om AVard & Paul we will provide you with a copy of it
pursuant to the committee's authorization.
Mr. Davis. On the basis of that representation and relying^ on that
i(>presentation. I am prepared to proceed,
Mr. Lackkitz. If T can make sure if that is the undcrstandinir of
minoi'ity counsel ?
Mr. Sciii^r/rz. Yes. if the subpena continues, the authorization to
provide the transci'ipt would also contimie.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Lackritz, I believe it would be appropriate for the
record to reflect — apart from the fact that Mr. Lenzner walked into
the room— that INfr. Danner is here under jn-otest. Further, that he is
here at the insistence of the staff of the committee, and I assume, and
would like to be coi'i-ected if I'm in error, that the committee claims it
is authorized to insist that Mr. Dannei" appear under the circumstances
here invoh^ed.
Mr. Lackkitz. If T could just speak for a moment to clarify that
point, Ml". Davis. Mi-. Danner is here pursuant to the dii-ection of the
chairman, (^haiinian Ervin, that Mr. Dannei- appear for further testi-
mony and it's not at the insistence of the staff but authorized by the
chairman of the coimnittee.
Wv. Davis. I think the recoi-d should also reflect that we haA'e a stip-
ulation and understandin<i- that this ajipearance by Mr. Damier is
without pi'ejudice and without waiver of all the objections heretofore
expi-essed on the i-ecord and T would like the I'ecord to reflect these
further- ol^jections, namely, the staff has requested that Mi'. Danner
produce at this time documents requested of him by a <irand jury in
connection Avith an onsroino: jji-and jury investigation.
Tt is my position, on behalip of Mr. Danner, that to request him to
produce either testimony by way of the production of documents or
otherwise, material which he has furnished to the ^rrand jury is im-
proper and in my view, illejifal.
Tn that connection T would like the record to reflect and to mark as
an exhibit to this proceeding, a copy of a letter which I wrote to
11389
the committee, dated March 20, 1974, addressed to Semitor P^rvin, a
copy of which was sent to tlie othei- members of the committee, reflect-
ing, our views with respect to our contention that the staff, as well as
the committee, is engaged in quasi-prosecutorial activities which are
not authorized either by the enabling resolution or by the applicable
statutes of the United States and I would like to have a photocopy of
this letter of ]March 20, 1974, identified as an exhibit.^
Ml-. Lackritz. Why don't we have that ma!-ked as exhibit IB for
[)urposes of today's executive session, and Mr. Davis, I would like to
have marked as exhibit 17 for the purposes of today's session the reply
received.
[Whereupon, the documents referred to Avere marked Danner ex-
hibits Xos. 16 and 17 for identification.-]
Mr. Davis. Yes, I was going to do that, but you do it.
^Ir. LACKinrz. I was not sure you were going to include the reply
from Senator Ervin which I take it is what you're referring to.
]N[r. Davis. I agree that the record should also reflect tliat in response
to the letter of March 20 which is being marked as exhibit IC). we
received a response to tliat letter, by letter dated May 10, 1974, which
may be uiai-ked as exhibit 17, and subsequent to that exchange of let-
ters I received a recpiest by telegram that ^Nlr. Daiiner appear, not-
withstanding the information furnished to the committee and its staff
that Mr. Danner had been sei-ved with a grand jury subpena under
the direction of the Special Piosecutor's office particularly charged
with investigation of the facts and circumstances which have been
the subject matter of Mr. Danner's prior testimony and we are
proceeding or are pi'epared to proceed only if my undei-standing is
correct that the staff' and the committee is in eff'ect. threatening ^Ir.
Danner with an application for contempt proceeding, that if he fails
to respond to all your requests.
Mr. Lackkitz. I should interject at that point that the conunittee
is not threatening, nor is the staff threatening Mr. Danner with anv-
thing, Mr. Danner was asked by the counnittee and by the staff' to
reappear for further testimony in light of additional information that
the conunittee has received subsequent to Mr. Danner's past testimony
in an effort to clear up some of the contradictions that have arisen in
his testimony before the committee prior to the expiration of the com-
mittee's mandate from the Senate.
]Mr. Davis. I undei'stand that but T want to make sui-e the record
reveals that since the exchange of correspondence to whicli I have
alluded, this action by the grand jury has taken place. Mr. Danner
is not willing to reveal or discuss with the staff' or anyone else the
testimony that he has given or is about to give to the grand jury, in-
cluding the documents whicli the grand jury subpena called for and
will do so only if the staff' of the conunittee persists in what we regard
as improper, if not illegal, conduct.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you state for the record as to whether Mr. Dan-
ner has appeared before a grand jury proceeding in response to the
subpena you've made mention of ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, Mr. Danner has responded to a grand jury sub-
pena by making available pursuant to that subpena the documents and
1 Danner exhihUs Nos. 1 thrmifxh 15 npiioar in Book 20.
- See lip. 11479. 114SS.
11390
mateiial in (luostioii. He has not yet appeared before tlie ji::raii(l jury
itself but lie lias furnished to the grand jury — I don't know what
happened to it after we made delivery of it to the Special Prosecutor's
office.
In all candor I should state to you it is my understanding or has
been stated to nic by the Special Prosecutor's office that after the pro-
duction of the (lo<Minients which had been pioduced to them, they
are planning to interview Mr. Danner and that has not yet taken place,
but my i)osition is and the record ought to be cleai- that Mr. Danner
has responded to this gi'and jury subpena and is not appeai-ing liere
voluntai-ily disclosing any inaterial which he has submitted to the
grand jury.
jNIr. Lkxzxkr. 1 think the recoi'd is clear on that. I think I also
ought to point out, under our reading of rule HE of the Federal Kules
of Criminal Procedure, I think it's the rule that applies to the testi-
mony of a witness, that the committee has unifoiinly taken the posi-
tion that the testimony of a witness before the committee is not barred
by similar testimony if such exists before any grand jury and, in
addition, has entered into an understanding with the Special Pros-
ecutor's office that if the committee subpenas documents ]iroperly
subpenable by it, which documents had also been subpenaed by the
Special Prosecutor, that those documents will also be nuide available
to the committee i)ursuant to those subpenas and rule HE. Indeed,
it's my understanding a witness can disclose, if he so desires aftei' his
testimony before the grand jury, exactly what he did testify to befoi-e
that grand jury in pul)lic if he so desires, but of course, no member of
the grand jury or any member of the prosecution team can so discuss
any of the testimony, but I tiiink you made the I'ecord clear and why
don't we go ahead and proceed on that basis.
Mr. Davts. INfr. Lenzner, I think I should point out to you and I
don't purport to have the breadth of knowledge tliat you have in the
field of ci'iminal law; T don't happen to agi'ee with youi" interpreta-
tion of the law under the rules but tiiis is not the time nor ])lace to
voice our different opinions. The point you were making and which
I want to be sure is perfectly clear is that relates to the fact that a
witness may, if he so desires, reveal material infoi-mation he fui'iiishes
to the grand jury.
I want to be perfectly clear that Mr. Danner is not doing that
and that we are here only because of the coercion being applied on
Mr. Danner in a manner which be l)elieve is improper, but l>ecause of
the close relationshi]) of Mr. Danner to Mr. Uebozo and his acquaint-
anceship with the President, we are concerned that the publicity which
a refusal to appear at the direction at the staff and/or the coanmittee
might create and the injury this would create to Mr. Danner and
others and only because of the mannei- in which the pi-ess has been
used and is l>eing used, including if you please, release to the press of
interim drafts of the proposed reports, that Mr. Danner feels he is
under a compulsion to comply with the direction of the staff and the
committee to appear at this time and it's done under pix)test and only
because of the coercive tactics which have been employed in this situ-
ation. I've made my record.
Mr. Lknzxkr. Why don't we go ahead and proceed.
11391
Mr. Lackritz. I think the record is clear and your characteriza-
tion of the situation is clear on the record.
Wh^' don't we beoin, if we may, Mr. Davis, by askino; if you, or the
witness Mr. Daiuier, has brouoht with him any rele\ant documents
to our investi<>:ation. specifically referring to any copies of diaries
that he has brought with him.
Mr. Davis. "We have what we understand is what you i-equested
Mr. Danner to bring with him; namely, a duplicate set of that which
he made available to the grand juiy and which in our view is neither
relevant to your investigation nor called for by the subpena that here-
tofoi-e has been served on Mi". Danner pursuant to which he produced
a great deal of documentation. Now, if you wish and direct me to do
so, I'll be glad to identify for the record that which Mr. Danner is
now producing.
Mr. Lackritz. Before I ask you to identify for the record the
materials Mr. Danner has produced. I'd like to just make it clear on
the record, Mr. Davis, when I asked you if ]Mr. Danner had any
diaries, you responded to me that the only diaries he had at that point
were diaries from lOfiS and 1973 and that he does not have other
diaries and I asked you at that ))oint to bring in with you to this
session today, the lOGS and 19To diaries and any others you may have
been al)le to discover.
Mr. Davis. There may be a misunderstanding betw^een us. Mr.
Danner previously produced whatever was called for, including diaries
or testified with respect to entries in those diaries. The subpena of the
grand jury covered a year that your committee subpena did not
covei'. What we did and what I have here is that and only that
which was made available to the "Watergate Special Prosecutor's
office.
Mr. Lexzxer. Why don't you go ahead and identify that.
Mr. Davis. I have nothing else to give you.
Mr. Lackritz. Please identify that for the record, JNIr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. I think first I would like to identify as exhibit 18 for
the good guys
Mr. Lkxzxer. "Why don't you make that Danner Exhibit 18.
]\Ir. Lackritz. There arc no plaint iii's or defendants in our inves-
tigation, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Shall we make them all Danner exhibits? This is a
letter May 31, 1974, addressed to Paul R. Michel, Esq., "Watergate
Si)ecial Pi-osecution Eoi-ce, U.S. I)ei)artment of Justice, wliich iden-
tifies and describes the material forwarded to Mr. Michel f)ursuant
to the grand jury subpena previously referred to.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 18. for identification.^]
Mr. Davis. A document seven pages long entitled, "List of Rec-
ords To Be Produced."
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 19, for identification.^]
Mr. Davis. A one-page document entitled, "Documents Not To Be
Produced on the Ground of Privilege."
1 Sop I). 114!)2.
2 See p. 11494.
11392
["Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
liibit No. '20, for idontificationJ]
Mr. Davis. One slieet dated October 21, 1971, entitled, "Interde-
partnient Correspondence" and hein": a nicniorandum fioni Richard
Danner to Chick Hirsch rehating to expense accounts for July and
Au^rust, 1971.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit Xo. 21, foi' identification.-]
Mr. Davis. A letter dated May 19, 1969, from C. G. Rebozo to
Mr. Danner, a one-pacje letter.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner exhibit
Xo. 22. foi- identification.*]
Mr. Davis. I think the record oucht to reveal that I'm refer-
ring in all instances to photocopies of the document described and
not the original document itself.
A one-page letter dated November 11, 1969, from Mr. Danner to
Mr. Rebozo.
["Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner exhibit
X^'o. 28 for identification.^]
Mr. Davis. A one-page letter dated November 17, 1969, from Mr.
Rebozo to Mr. Danner.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner exhibit
No. 24, foi- identification. '']
Mr. Davis. A one-page letter dated November 19, 1969, from Mr.
Danner to Mr. Rebozo.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner exhibit
Xo. 25, for identification."]
Mr. Davis. A one-page letter dated INIarch 3, 1970, from Mr. Dan-
ner to Mr. Rebozo.
["Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner exhibit
No. 26, for identification.']
Mr. Davis. A one-page letter dated March 17, 1970, from Mr.
Danner to Mr. Rebozo.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit, Xo. 27, for identification.'^]
Mr. Davis. The record should reveal at this point that those photo-
copies of letters I've described as being from Mr. Danner to Mr.
Rebozo are obviously photocopies of copies of such letters found
in Mr. Danner's file and presumably reflect an accurate copy of the
letter that was actually sent. This is what we found in Mr. Danner's
file.
A one page letter dated May 19, 1971, from Mr. Rebozo to Mr. Danner
to which is attached a ])nrported copy of the letter dated May 14, 1971,
from Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo and photocopy of a newspaper clip-
ping entitled, "Hoover Took All the Credit" under the byline of Nixon
Smilev.
' Sep p. 11501.
2 Sc>o |). lir)02.
•■' Sco II. iir.o;{.
< Seo p. 1 1 r>04.
kSpc p. 11. -.05.
" So(> p. 1 1 500.
•See p. 11507.
«See p. 1150S.
11393
[Whoreiipon, the document referred to was marked Banner ex-
hibit No. 28 for identification.^]
]\Ir. Davis. One pa^je letter dated January 18, 1972, from Mr. Danner
to iNIr. jNIcGrath to which is attaclied a two page letter dated Janu-
ary 7, 1972, from Mr. McGrath to Mr. Danner and a photocopy of what
purports to be a copy of a one page letter dated January 7, 1972, from
Mr. ISIcGi-ath to Mr. Rebozo to which last mentioned letter there is
attached a three page memorandum entitled, "Informal Meeting Em-
bassy of Panama, 9 November, 1971, 2 PM."
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 29 for identification.-]
Mr. Davis. A two page letter dated March 1, 1972, from Mr. Danner
to IMr. Rebozo to which is attached a two page letter dated February 18,
1972, from ISIr. McGrath to Mr. Danner.
[AVhereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 80 for identification.^]
Mr. Davis. A two page letter dated April 19, 1973, to Mr. Rebozo
from Mr. Danner to which is attached a one page letter dated April 12,
1973, f I'om Mr. Rebozo to Mr. Danner.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 31 for identification.*]
Mr. Davis. Photocopies of the entries of the business diaries — photo-
copies of entries appearing in a document entitled, "Business Diary
for Daily Appointments and Personal Diary for the Year 1968.''
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Davis. A photocopy of the entire diary of Mr. Danner for the
year 1968. However, it will be noted that as reflected in the covering
letter to Mi: Michel, entries in that diary other than those called for
by that grand jury subpena were blanked out.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 32 for identification and retained in files of the connnittee.]
Mr. Davis. Then I have a photocopy of the 1973 diary of Mr. Dan-
ner, likewise reflecting all entries in that diary called for by the grand
jury subpena.
[AVhereupon. the document referred to was marked Danner ex-
hibit No. 33 for identification and retained in files of the committee.]
Mr. Davis. Mr. Lackritz, this reflects a duplicate of what was pro-
duced pursuant to the subpena of the grand jury. I should point out for
the record that part of the understanding with the Special Prosecutor,
with the Office of the Special Prosecutor was that Mr. Danner need
not duplicate material theretofore produced to the Senate Watergate
Committee pursuant to its subpenas to Mr. Danner and what took place
in that connection was that we received from the Office of the Special
Prosecutor a list of documents which that office presumably obtained
from the staff of the Senate Watergate Committee and Mr. Danner
undertook to produce pursuant to this grand jury subpena documents
in the possession and control of himself covered by this subpena and
which were not identified or described in the list furnished to us by the
Special Prosecutor's Office.
' Spe p. 11509.
2 See p. 11512.
■■' See p. 11510.
«See p. 11523.
11394
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, as loiio; as we have just marked the diaries,
would you please describe to us wliich items have been blanked out of
the diaries so that we have an undei-standino- what has l)een omitted
from the diaries?
Mr. Davis. It isn't a question of what was omitted, it's a (juestion of
what w'as included. You Avill note by examininii; the photocopy an in-
dication of wiiat tlie maskin<r was which took i)lace and if you will
h)ok at the <irand jury subpena wliich 1 assunu' yon have a coi)y of.
Mr. Lackritz. I don't have a copy of it.
Mr. Davis. I have no objection and perhaps the record should reflect
and have marked the subpena which was issued to Mr. Danner which
has been referred to on the record as the «)jrand jury subpena.
Mr. Lackritz. That's not responsive to the question.
Mr. Davis. Yes; it is, if you'll listen to what I'm sayino;.
]\Ir. Lackritz. I'm trying.
Mr. Davis. Therefore, the diary entries which you have are those
diary entries which the grand jury subpena calls for. We have pre-
viously furnished you with all diary or diary entiies which the prior
subpena of the Watergate Connnittee called for and there is only one
way we know of to produce information and that is pursuant to the
request. So if you will look at and study the grand jury subpena served
upon Mr. Danner, you will have a clear understanding of just what it is
that you have received today.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record. ]Mr. Davis, I just want to clarify
my request to you. When I asked you to produce the 196<S and 1973
diaries, I was expecting to get the 196S and 197;^ diaries in their en-
tirety and that is why I'm asking now on what criterion you eliminated
certain entries?
Mr. Davis. The criteria reflected by the terms of the grand jury sub-
pena Avhich, if you will look at, you Avill find requires us to produce
Mr. Lackritz. That's all I'm asking.
Mr. Davis. That's why I'm suggesting you take a few minutes to
look at this grand jury subpena whicli we were required to i-eveal all
diary entries which reflected or recorded Mi'. Danner's travels outside
of Wasliington, D.C., during the period when he was residing and prac-
ticing law in Washington, D.C., and outside of Nevada.
Mr. Danner. And outside of Nevada.
Mr. Davis. You open that mouth again and you're going to have to
go see a dentist. All travels of Mr. Danner outside the State of Nevada
during the period when he became employed by what was then known
as Hughes Tool Co. and he moved to Nevada in 19()9. So all diary en-
tries wdiich reflected any of those travels anywlieie outside of Wash-
ington, D.C., during the peiiod when he resided and practiced law here
or outside of the State of Nevada when he resided and was employed
in the State of Nevada.
In addition to that, all diary entries which I'eflect or relate in any
way to the subjects described in paragiaph two of this subpena;
namely, political contributions given by or on behalf of Howard R.
Hughes oi' Hughes Tool Co.. directly or indiiectly to oi- for the benefit
of any Federal office or candidate foi- Fedeial office, the payments of
any kind by or on behalf of Howard R. Hughes or Hughes Tool Co.,
directly or i?ulirectlv to or for the benefit of any Federal office oi'
11395
candidate for Federal office. Transworld Airlines litigation involving
Howard 11. Hughes and Hughes Tool Co., inidergronnd nuclear test-
ing in Nevada and acquisition of any hotel and/or casino located in
Las A>gas. Xev. by Howard K. Hughes ot- the Hughes Tool Co. in-
cluding the Stardust, the Landmai'k, and the Dunes hotels.
In addition all diary entries which related to item 3 which is all
records which I'ccord, refer or relate to any meetings, conversations,
coi'respondence, or any other communication or contacts that you
have had with any of the following people during calendar years
15H)(S through 1973 inclusive, listing Richard M. Nixon, Charles G.
Kebozo. H()wai-(1 K. Hughes. John something Mitchell
Mr. L.\CKRrrz. I belie\"e it's j)robably N. Newton.
^Nlr. Davis. John N. INIitchell, Rose Maiy Woods, Edward P. Mov-
gan. John H. Meier. F. Donald Nixon, and to answer your question
then. sir. the diaries I furnished you reflect all entries relating to the
subject matters which I've just described and which are set foi'th in the
subpena and what was masked are personal entries unrelated to the
subject mattei- described in that subpena.
Mr. Lexzxkk. And who made the determination as to what was rele-
vant to the subpena and what was not. ^1j-. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Counsel reviewed the entire diaiy and carefully applied
the language of the subpena to the entries appearing in the diary.
Mr. I^ACKRrrz. This was you ))ersonally. ^Ir. Davis?
Mr. Davis. It was done by ]Mi'. Lawrence Buistein of my office.
Mr. Lackritz. With the assistance of
Mr. Davis. "With othei- lawyei-s associated with me. but he had the
i-esponsibility for and took up with me any problems, if he had any,
and my recollection is he didn't have any.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Did you also bring documents rielative to the testi-
mony of Miss Nadine Henley?
Mr. Davis. AIi-. Lackritz. pursuant to and at the insistence of the
staff of the conuuittee that certain documents be produced as reflected
by the i-ecord and subject to the same objection of rights previously
indicated. I have today and under pi-otest made available to you the
following.
Mr. Lackritz. The subpena will be marked.
[Whereupon, the document referred to above was mai-ked Danner
exhibit No. ;U. for identification and retained in files of the committee.]
Mr. Lackritz. Let's number these separate, maybe as Henley ex-
hibits if we could for the record.
Mr. Davis. Henlev exhibit No. 1 consisting of a photocopv of a check
dated July ?,(). 1908." in the amount of $25,000 payable to cash to which
is attached a receiT:)t dated July 30. 1968, from Robert A. Maheu, agent,
and also a photocopy of a document — the computer broke down on
that. I know something got fouled up.
Mr. LACKRrrz. In the absence of that, is it possible for you to char-
acterize what the missing note said so Ave could at least get that on the
record now. pending production at a subsequent time.
Ml-. Davis. Am I on the recoid now? I have a receipt of Robert A.
Maheu to which is attached photocopies of notes from a meeting be-
11396
tween Mr. Malieii. Miss Ifciilov. aiul Mr. Gav. of tlie Ccntiirv Plaza,
on July HO, 1!)()8.
Ml-. Lackiutz. Can wo put that on tlio rocoi-d that you will replace
that, that you will fuinish us with a full copy of tlie notes written
on the back.
Mr. Frkkdmax. This is what exhibit?
Mi-. Sciultz. One.
Mv. Lackimtz. This re<-oi-(l will be coinpletecl with a full and com-
plete phot()('oj)y.
I Whereupon, the document above referred to was marked Henley
exliibit No. 1, for identification.^]
Mi-. Davis. Thotoc-opv of a (-heck dat(Ml l^ecember — of a check dated
Septembei- 0. lOGS. for" $50,000 payable to Kobert Maheu Associates.
r Discussion olf the record.]
Mr. Davis. Henley exhibit No. -2 is a check dated September 0. liX'.S. in
the amount of $r)().()()0 payable to Kobert ]\raheu Associates to which
is attached a receipt dated September 0, lOGS, by Kobert A. ]\raheu as
a^ent.
[Wliereupon. the document aboA-e referred to was marked TTenley
exhibit No. 2, for identification.-]
Mr. Davis. Exhibit No. n is a check- dated September 9. 1968, for
$100,000 payable to Ivobei't A. Maheu Associates to which is attached a
recei))t dated September 9. 1908. by Robert A. Maheu as a<ivnt.
[Whereu])on. the document al)o\-e r(>feri-ed to was marked Henley
exhibit No. '^. for identification.^]
Mr. Davis. A check dated December .5. 1908. for i^oO.OOO payable
to cash to which is attached a i-ec(M])t and to which is attached the
followiuir. one receipt dated December ."). 19()8, for $25,000 cash by
Robeit A. ]\raheu as a^-ent. another receipt dated December 6. 1968.
for $25,000 cash by Kobert A. :\raheu.
Oh, yeah, here is the piece of pa])er that's missino-.
IMr. Sciii'i/rz. That iifoes with exhibit No. 1.
Mr. Davis. That's the back side of exhibit No. 1. the one that says
notes of meetino- at the (\Miturv Plaza Hotel.
]\ri-. TjACKinrz. This will be included in Henley exhibit No. 1.
^fr. Da\is. The record should reveal there is nothin<r missing.
What is attached to this ai-e notes dated December 5. 1968, entitled,
"Delivci- (o KAM".
Mv. Fkkkdmax. That exhibit consists of two panes. That's exhibit
No. 4.
[Whereupon, the document above referred to was marked Henley
exhibit No. 4, foi- identification.']
^fr. T)a\ IS. Henley exhibit No 5 consists of two ])ai:'es. a photocopv of
a check dated March '■). 1969, in the amount of $50,000 payable to Tvobei"t
A. ^laheu Associates to which is attached an unsii>ncd receijit dated
INIarch 1969, but ha vino- a note readin<>-. ''Check drawn ;)~')-69. deliv-
ered by H(i. no 7-ecei))t si<rned but we ha\(> canceled check'." initialed
NH. ■
1 Spo J). 1 1 520.
2So<' r). iir)2s.
•^ s«'o p. iir.2n.
* Sop II. iir,:?o.
11397
[Wlioreupon, tlie docnineiit above referred to wms innikod Honley
exhibit Xo. H, for identification.^]
Mr. Daais. Exliil)it Xo. (> consists of two {)a,<res beiiiii" a photocopy of
the check dated June 27, 19()0, in the amount of S^.^O.OOO to casli and
accompanied by receipt dated July 11, 19()9, sioned l)y IJobei-t A.
INIaheu as agent.
[Whereupon, tlie document abo\e referred to was marked Henley
exhibit Xo. 6, for identification.-]
Mr. Davis, Uenlev. exhibit Xo. T, consistinfr of two pa<>es and bein<>' a
l)hotocopy of a check dated ]\Iay 26, 1970, foi- $10().()()() payal)le to
Robert A. Maheu Associates to which is attached a leceipt dated ]\[ay
2(), 1970, on behalf of Kobert A. Maheu Associates. The identity of
the person actino- on behalf of Kobeit A. JMaheu Associates lieinc:
illecible but I believe it refei'S to a Mr. Olsen.
[AVhereupon. the document above referred to was marked Henley
exhil)it Xo. 7, for identification.^]
Mr. Lackrttz. That last item was a check from jNlay of 1970?
:Mr. Davis. Yes ; that is all.
^Ir. Lackritz. Xow. there was one other recpiest but before we leave
that I'd like to ask one othei- (juestion. ^fr. Davis. On some of these
copies I can't make out — lilvc for example, exhibit Xo. 1. they didn't
))irk out — do vou now ]<iio\v Avhose name ap[)eared on tlie si<j^nino; part
oftliat?
]Mr. Davis. I'm quite ronfident it's Lee ]\[urray and it appears moie
clearly in the endorsement on the l)ack side of the checlc.
Mr. Lkxzxkr. Xow on tlie second pao'e of that which you have just
furnished us, the extra pa^e, do you know whose handwritin::^- that is?
That's the second page of exhibit Xo. 1.
yiv. Davis. T believe ^Nliss Ilenley testified those were in tlie hand-
Avritino-of Mi-. ]\Iaheu and on the l)a('k side of that single sheet of paper
is ^liss Henley's handwriting indicating what ai)pears on tlie front
side of that exhibit.
^fr. Lkxzxek. Similarly for exliibit Xo. 4. the fourth page of exhibit
Xo. 4 is also handwritinir which appears to be 'T)elivered 12-5-68 to
K.A.M."
Mr. Davis. That's the handwi-iting of Xadine Henley.
^Ir. Lackritz. Just to clarify the items you're luoducing now from
]Miss Davis, I'd like to submit foi- the record a copy of the lettei- sent
to you, Chester Davis by Marc Lackritz dated PVbiuary 22, 1974, and
have that marked as a Henley exhibit, ]ilease.
[AMiei-eupon. the docnment abo\'e ri'ferred to was mai'ked H(Miley
exhil)it Xo. 8. for identification.']
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, in regard to that letter about Miss Hen-
ley's testimony there was an additional check from an nnknown
Ml-. DA^^s. 1 didn't hear that.
Mr. Lackritz. There was an additional check requested in that letter
with tiie date unknown from 19()9. It was made out to Robert A. ^Nlaheu
Associates for an additional $50,000. As I understood ]\Iiss Henley's
testimony she said Mr. Maheu received $150,000 in 1969.
' See p. lir.?,2.
2 Spp p. lir).'U.
" S(»f p. lir);',;").
« Spo II. 11 T).'!*!.
11398
Mr. Davis. That, sir, is correct, but that testimony also revealed that
the other $50,000 was furnished to "Sir. ^Nfalieu with tlie uotaHon tliat it
was for statewide Nevada and Las \'euas conti-ibutions whi'h I under-
stood from the testimony, the ixniuest, you were interested in contribu-
tions nuide for the national offices.
Mr. Lackritz. Could I make a point and then I'll be more than
happy to let you respond. We're inteiested in the sum total of cash
received by Mi". Maheu durino- 19()0.
Mr. Davis. You will not have that, sir, unless you descrilK' what foi-.
Mr. Maheu i-eceived cash for a lot of thinos incbulinc: some of his own
personal activities. The testimony of Nadine Ileidey and that which
I undertook to consider and furnish to you, which T am fuinisliinji; to
you, are moneys made available to Mr. ^Nlaheu foi* Federal oflices. We
have not attempted to, and Miss Tlenley did not attempt to testifv
with i-espect to cash made available to Mr. INIaheu for State and local
contributions. In her testimony she made clear the sum you referred
to, $.50,000 of it was for State and local contributions and T i)ersonally
satisfied myself that the notation with ies])ect to that j^5().()()0 states
that it was for State and Las Ve<>as contributions.
Mr. Lackhitz. I will A'erify in the testimony of Miss Heidey that is
what she did identify that $50,000 as beino- for. My oidy (piestion is
when was that $50,000 oiven to ^Nlr. INIaheu and in what form was it
f>-iven to INIi'. INIaheu so that we have an accurate record of what trans-
spired in 1969?
Mr. Davis. I don't know what the basis for that inquiry is with i-e-
spect to a matter so clearly outside of your inquii'v, but I'm ])erfectly
willin*!: to obli<>-e vou bv sayino; that that ])articular check was (hited
May IH, 19(>9, for"$50,o6o and it was payal)le to the order of Kobert A.
Maheu Associates.
]Mr. Lackritz. Is thei-e a receipt from Mr. Maheu that he received
that money?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir, on which receipt is dated and has for Nevada
and L. V. local.
Mr. Lackritz. Would you like to take a brief recess ?
Mr. Davis. That happens all the time. It just pi-events me from aet-
tinjj ulcers.
Mr. Lackritz. Now referi-iufr to exhibit 8 of the Henley exhibits,
do you have a copy of the list compiled by the accountants for the
Silver Slipper Casino detailin<r the withdrawal of cash from the Silver
Slipper that obviously would be used for political contributions?
Mr. Davis. No; what Miss Henley referred to as havino- seen is pai-t
of the woi-k |)roduct in connection with an effort to ol)tain an adequate
accounting from Mr. Maheu. It is not a document that Miss Henley
had. It is not pai-t of — well, the corpoi-ate records reflect what they
reflect. What she testified to and that which I'm not producing; is any
poi'tion of the investigative work which was done by counsel in connec-
tion with the. pendinj": lawsuit.
Mr. IjAc^kritz. You're representin*j on the record that the copy of
this list was as a result of counsel's investijjation of private matters?
I just want to make suiv that is put on the record.
Mr. Davis. Miss Henley recalls havino; seen something -which had
been prepared. It's a creation, it's not a record of the company or Miss
11399
Henley and I confirmed what it is that she recalls having seen and it
was part of, and only pni-t of, the investio-ative process that was then
ona-oin2' witli respect to withdrawals from the
Mr. Lackiutz. Who compiled the list so we can accurately identify
it on the record ?
:Mr. Davis. The work was done by my statf. based npon records that
we were then unearthing relatino- to withdrawals from the Silver Slip-
per and involved a number of withdrawals by INlr. Maheu, on behalf
of Mr. Maheu and involving :Mr. Nigro and relating, among other
things, the investigation which was undertaken under my guidance
and supervision in connection with this lawsuit.
Mr. Lackrit.7. This is a list of those records having been prepared
by your statf which is being produced at this time ?
Sir. Davis. I'm not pi-oducing any part of it.
Mr. Lackritz. You haven't produced that to date, have you?
Mr. Davis. 1 didn't understand they were being asked for. It would
be improper to ask for- that on entirely different grounds.
]Mr. Lackritz. I don't want to get into that, I just want to make
sure the record is clear. OK, ]\fr. Davis, then the third item requested
in the letter was a copy of a memo dated January 7, 1970, from Nadine
Henley to Mr. Hughes concerning withdrawal of cash from the Silver
Slipper and certain disci'epancies in the books of account of Miss Hen-
ley and Mr. Maheu. Do you have that item ?
Mr. Davis. I'm not producing and am i-ejecting a request, if you are
making a request, that particular memo from Nadine Henley to Mr.
Hughes.
Mr. Dackritz. On what gi-ounds, Mr. Davis ?
Mr. Davis. It's none of your business. You've got the facts. I've
given you the facts and you can do with them whatever you want to.
Mr. Lexzxer. I think we've hit a new low or a new high and I'm not
sure which.
Mr. Lackritz. This is a legal objection, I take it?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. T>et me ask you, INlr. Davis, so it's clear on the record,
you're not pi-oducing item :] of that letter ? Item Ir we requested from
you on February 22, 1974, a copy of a list of expenditures incurred in
1968 by Rol>ert Maheu Associates on behalf of Howard Hughes. ]\Iiss
Henley testified it was pi-ovided to her by Richard Ellis in 1969. Have
you produced that list foi- us today ^
Mr. Davis. No. I'm not producing that list if it was covered by your
l)iior request. It was the subject of testimony in the action now pend-
ing in the courts in California. I'm unclear at the moment whether
or not it was put into evidence in that proceeding. If it is a matter of
public record I'll have no objection as a matter of courtesy to you, not
because I think it's anything you as a representative of the staff of the
committee is entitled to have. I may point out in that connection that it
does not relate as such to Federal contributions but I'll be glad to in-
quire as to whether or not it has been put into evidence in the liable
action aiul if it has been, obviously you can have access to it.
^Ir. Lackritz. To complete the record, INIr. Da^ns, the fifth item
refpiested in the letter on Feluniary 22 was a copy of the memo from
Nadine Henley to Mr. Howard Hughes dated sometime in May, in and
around Mav 1970.
11400
Mr. Davis. IVIy prior comment is equally applicable.
Mr. Lackrh-z. Alle*i^edly written as a followup to the prior memo
which you i-efuse to produce and I take it j-ou're objecting on the same
grounds to the production of this memo?
Mr. DA^^s. That is correct. T may say if the staff of the committee
would like to make some appropriate ai'iaugcment to participate with
me in the actions now pending in the Fedcial courts, your assistance
will be welcome.
Mr. Lackritz. I take it that is not any kind of offer, is it, Mr. Davis?
That would l)e wholly inappropriate?
Mr. Davis. I don't know what your ground rules are as to the activi-
ties you engage in and whether they are appropi-iat€ or not.
Mr. Lenzner. Withdrawal of funds from the Silver Slipper are
related, are they not, to the testimony Ave received heretofore, that
those funds were used in the Federal campaigns for Presidential elec-
tions.
Mr. Davis. No, that is a question which is the subject matter of a
disi)ute which is now being litigated. Those records to the extent to
which they are relevant to anything to the extent to which they have
been offered except in evidence in the liable action are presumably not
a public record but they merely i-e fleet withdrawals from the Silver
Slipper.
INIr. Lenzxer. They reflect withdrawals that are related to funds
that were openly expended on Presidential campaigns, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Not to our knowledge. I think those are funds that went
elsewhere as part of the proceeding wliicli is now involved in a liable
action.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if that document that is rex|uested in
Mr. Lackritz's letter has been produced as a i)ublic document in Los
Angeles to your knowledge?
Mr. Davis. T think Pve indicated before.
Mr. Lenzner. You don't know whether tliat has been an exhibit out
in California?
Ml'. DAns. What has been an exhibit?
Mr. Lenzner. Item 5.
Mr. Davis. Item 5 i-eferred to the testimony of ^liss Henley haA'ing
seen something which was the work product. Quite apart from that
there has been in the liable action in I^os Angeles an attempt to obtain
an accounting with respect
Mr. TvENZNER. I tliink item 5 is not that. Item 5 is a copy of a memo
from Mr. Henley to Mr-. Hughes.
Mr. Davis. That I've coveivd ali'eady. You're ivferring to with-
drawals fi'om the Silver Slippei-.
Mr. Freedisian. He defined it clearly before and lely on tlic record
for youi- understanding. You weren't listening.
Mi-. Lenzner. All he said was it was none of oui- business. He said
it was subject to the same objection.
Mr. li\('KRiTZ. As item o and that was objected on the same basis.
Mr. Davis. I'll try to Ix^ accurate with ivspect to what is in evidence
in the California action. T said to you the extent to which it is in evi-
dence and the extent to which the court rules permit documents that
have been introduced in evidence becoming a public record, I have
11401
no objootioii to cooperatinor <is a matter of personal courtesy and make
you available that which is a matter of public record but to my knowl-
edjxe what you're now talkiuir about is not a matter of i)ublic record.
Mr. Lkxzner. All I'm notin<]r foi' the record is that it's our under-
standing; that that transaction may relate to withdrawal of funds that
Avere use<l in Federal elections and therefore, would come in the pur-
view of our subpena and, therefore, ^Ir. Davis, the subpena should be
complied with in that re<zard.
IMr. Davis. You're confusin<>: several thinp^s, ^Ir. Lenzner, which is
not unusual. Let me point out something to you. You'i-e referrinc; now
to a memo from Miss Henley to Mr. Hu*i:hes Avhicli she identified,
inform inir Mr. Hufrhes of the request of INIr. Maheu for funds. It is
not a disposition of funds. One moment you talk al)Out the records
which i-eveal withdrawals from the Silver Slipper and in the next in-
stance you i-efer to memos fi'om Miss Henley to Mr. Hufrhes and then
you refer to matters which have been put into the record and then you
refer to a subpena which is an entii-ely diiferent question.
What I undei-took to do durino; the course of Miss Henley's testi-
mony— in her testimony slie made references to her recollection with
]-espect to certain documents. A request was made for her to produce
those documents. I undertook to take those requests under advisement
and I have "riven the matter consideration and I have responded to the
request as reflected in the record, not pursuant to any subpena but that
is the extent to which I expect to comply with the request.
Mr. I^AC'KRiTZ. Why don't we start, iNIr. Danner, by o^ettino; into the
1968 diary entries that you produced today and oui' questionino- will
focus on the events in lOfiS that led up to the attemi)ted contributions
in 10fi8 which we discussed previously.
Mr. Armstrong. There are some entries that are hard to lead. The
entries are a little faint, so I probably will have some questions which
aren't relevant to our inquiry.
January 5, can you tell me Avhat it says and if it has any ])earinor on
^Iv. Rebozo oi- the campai^i and your relationships with INIr. Morgan?
]Mr. Daxxer. The only thino; I can I'ecall — —
]Mr. Davis. Either you can read the entry or you can't.
ISIr. Danner. I can read "Tampa".
Ml'. Lenzxer. Is that your handAvriting on the copy?
INIr. Daxxer. It's hard to say.
Mr. Davis. ]May I suj^ofest that Mr. Danner, durinjj the luncheon re-
cess, attempt to liave the entr-y itself read to him, Avhich is not legible
on this photocopy ; and for the record we'll apologrize for the ille<ribil-
ity of the photocopy.
Mr. Armstrox'g. On a tiip to Tampa durinfr that period, Mr. Dan-
ner, would you have likely visited Mr. Rebozo or met Mr. Rebozo in
Tampa?
Ml-. Daxxer. January .5, 1968?
]Mr. Armstrox'g. Yes.
Mr. Danner. I would say it would be unlikely.
Mr. Armstrox'g. AYould that have any
Mr. Dax'xer. I don't ever recall havinof met him in Tampa.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that a place you would likely visit Mr, A. D.
Davis ?
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 9
11402
Mr. Banner. No.
Ml'. AimsTiJ()X(;. Or would that hnxc any boarino; on your relation-
ship at that time with Mr. Kdward Morgan?
Mr. Dannkr. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Or with the campai^i ?
Mr. Danner. No.
ISIr. Armstrong. Or any officials or to become officials of the 1968
campaig^i?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Monday, January 8, 1968, "NAL to DC A.'' I as-
sume that's a trip to Washino-ton 'i
Mr. Banner. National Airlines to "Washington, tips and cab.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that your handwriting ?
Mr. Banner. Yes, that looks like it.
INIr. Armstron(;. Bo you know where you would have been return-
ing from, the innnediate prior entry that hasn't been blotted out in
the diarv is the trip to Tampa. Would you have been to Tampa from
the 5th through 8th ?
]Mr. Banner. Yes, I could have been.
Mr. Armstrong. If there had been a trip up to INIiami from Tampa
or down to JNIiami from Tampa, that would not have been blotted out,
is that right, under the ground rules ^
Mr. Bavis. That is correct. All entries reflecting travel outside of
Washington, B.C., during that period were produced.
Mr. Armstrong. I have an entry January 25, 1968, to Miami and
Freeport, National Airlines. Bo you know if that reflects a visit to
]Mr. Rebozo oi- if you saw Mr. Eebozo on that trip. It might help if
I also showed you January 28 entry which reflects a trip to Miami
via the Bahamas and there are parts of that entry that I can't make
out either.
Mr. Banner. Sunday, January 28. My recollection of this is that
this was the dedication of a ship. A client I was representing had a
new ship to be connnissioned there at the port of Miami and this ship
to ply between Miami and Freeport aiul I was making some arrange-
ments. This has nothing to do with any campaign activities.
Mr. Armstrong. Would it have reflected a visit with Mr. Rebozo?
jNIr. Banner. I don't recall that he was involved in this at all.
Mr. AR]NrsTRONG. Incidentally, at any time, did you lepresent Mr.
Ludwig, B. K. Ludwig?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Or- National Bulk Carriers ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Ar^istrong. January 29, trip to Miami, from Miami to Wash-
ington. I'm sorry, that's just the return of you down there on the 28th,
isthatcoi-rect?
Mr. Banner. It looks like Fm coming back. That's about all T can
say.
Mr. Armstrong. Febi'uary 1-1 reflects a luncheon with Fdward
ISloi-gan I'egarding Las Vegas?
Mr. Banner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what that would be ?
11403
Mr. Daxner. T wouldn't know offhand what the subject matter hsiv-
ino- to do with Las Vefras was. I don't know if this was the begin-
nin<; of those negotiations or not.
Mr. Armstrong. The propaganda negotiations ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes,
Mr. Armstrong. T^nderneatli on the same date, underneath that
entry it reflects a meeting, a cab to the St. ]Moritz Hotel and then it
says', "McGrath". Is that Eugene McGrath ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
]Mr. AR:\rsTRONfi. T)o you know if tlmt business would have had any-
thing to do with something you may have later discussed with Mr.
Kebozo i
Mr. Banner. Xo. T was representing him at that time in another
matter.
Ml-. Armstrong. On the 15th it reflects a trip to the Dominican Re-
public. Do you know if that reflects a matter that ever became the
subject of conversation with Mr, Rebozo I
Mr. Danner. I'd state it did not.
INIr. AR:\rsTR0NG. February "29 there is a long distance call to Mr.
]\Iorgan. This is still precampaign involvement ?
]\Ir. Danner. Yes.
]Mr. Armstrong. Would the discussion with Mr. Morgan during
that period have had to do with the campaign ?
Mr. I )anner. Xo. I was not interested at that time.
Mr. Armstrong. March G. a trip to Orlando. Do you know if there
would have been a meeting in that period with Mr. Rebozo?
]\rr. Danner. Xo.
^Iv. Armstrong. Friday. March 8. the second line of writing says,
'"To Wildwood to pick up Ilurlong and return to Leesburg." Does that
reflect anything ?
]Mi'. Danner. Xo.
Mr. Armstrong. Anything vou would later have discussed with
Mr. Rebozo ?
]Mr. Danner. Xo.
Mr. Armstrong. On March IG and 17 is another trip to Tampa,
would that have reflected any contact with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Xo.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. Tuesday. ^Nlarch 19 to Annapolis. INId. for a hear-
ing before House committee ?
Mr. Danner. That had no connection.
IVfr. Armstrong. On Friday. ]March 22 there is an entry Avhich
appears to be long distance and then something- — "Bebe R. regarding
campaign.''
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell what the substance of that would
have been ? Can you tell what the words are between LD and Bebe R. ?
^Ir. Danner. It looks like LD call, long distance call to Bebe R.,
re campaign. My recollection is that it was about this time that I was
first approached as to whether I would take an active part in the 1968
campaign.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you know who would have approached you
initially.
11404
Mr. Danneh. Hebe.
Mr. Akmstroxc. And do yon know — what was your understanding
of INIr. Tfebozo's i-olo in locniiting you at tliat point ?
Mr. Danneu. "Well, my recollection in the early conversations which
could have been around this time was just to sound me out as to
whether I would be intei-ested oi- available since T was a registered
Democrat being recruited for a Kei)ul)lican camjiaign.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if that call would have been at the
President's request ?
Mr. Daxxer. No ; T wouldn't know at that time.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Ar.msii;()X(!. Would that have been at the re([uest of then candi-
date Nixon ?
[No response.]
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if Mr. Rebozo mentioned the then
candidate Nixon in the first conversation ?
Mr. Danner. Kennedy, Nixon. At this time Kennedy had passed
from the scene.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm sorry, candidate Nixon.
Mr. Danner. My recollection of the approach was, would I take an
active part in the Nixon campaign should he be the nominee.
Mr. Armstrong. Was INIr. Rebezo recruiting people at that time or
what did you understand his connection with the campaign to be?
Mr. Freedman. Just what Mr. Rebozo told you, not your under-
standing.
Mr. Danner. You must understand this was before even the Presi-
dential primaries had started and I think he was sounding out people
like me as to whether at some future time we would participate.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate anyone else he was sounding out
at that time ?
Mr. Danner. No ; or I don't recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he indicate to you what his responsibilities were
going to be in the 1968 campaign ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall any specific conversation. We assumed
he would take an active role in whatever campaign Nixon might run.
Mr. Lackritz. Did that include an active role in a variety of areas in
the campaign?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did it include an active role in fundraising in the
1968 campaign?
Mr. Freedman. At this point did you know that ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. La{'kritz. Is the no answer in i-esponse to Mr. Freedman's
intei-jection?
Mr. Danner. The only contacts then were lining up those people who
had previously been active in the Kennedy campaign of 1960 Avho
might now support Nixon if he became the nominee.
Mr. Lackritz. At that time did Mr. Rebozo ask you if you would be
interested in any fundraising activities?
Mr. Danner. No; there were no specifics, just would I be interested
and would I take a role in it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo say at that tnno he was involved in
fundraising?
11405
]Mr. Banner. No. Funds never came up in the discussion at that time.
Mr. Armstkong. Did Mv. Hebozo indicate then or at any subsequent
time liow he liad decided to call you or what criteria he had used?
Mr. Banner. Well, as I previously testified we had been tog:ether in
several campaiorns in Floi-ida and I think his reasonino; was that I had
experience, organizational experience particularly that might be
advantageous to have me involved in the campaign.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Danner, the question was whether or not you knew
how Mr. Rebozo decided to do something. Now, unless Mr. Rebozo
told you something that would lead you — or somebody else told you
something to lead you to understand why he did what he did, I suggest
that you answer the question that is put to you, otherwise, we will
never get through and they will always find something else that
requires further explanation or reconciliation. I'm not objecting to the
form of your question, Mv. Armstrong. I understand you're not a
lawyer by training.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir, that's correct. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate at
that or any later time what criteria he used to recruit individuals
involved in the Kennedy campaign for the upcoming Nixon
campaign ?
Mr. Danxer. I recall no specific discussion on that.
INIr. Armstrong. On March 29, Friday, it indicates a trip to New
York City. Do you know if that was related to the upcoming campaign
activity or meeting anyone who would be involved in the upcoming
campaign ?
Mr. Danner. No; I can't.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall who that meeting was with? I
assume your copy also blots out a line and then the amoiuit expended
on the trip and return?
Mr. Danner. Is your question do I know what that trip was for?
Mr. Armstrong. Right.
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Ar]mstrong. Do you have accessible to you the original copy
of the diary so that you, yourself, can be sure your answers are
complete.
Mr. Davis. The original diary is still available, sir, somewhere. A.s
I pointed out earlier, the request was to include all entries that indi-
cated travel outside of AVashino-ton, D.C, during the period and that's
why that entry was there. If the entry related to any of the other
subject matter or if there was anything in the entry which the witness
couid relate to any of the subject matters of this subpena, it would not
be blanked out. So that's the i;eason why you will find there an entry or
portions of an entry which reflect a movement outside of Washington,
D.C, since Mr. Michel insisted that all such entries be revealed but he
also concurred that there was no need to have any entry which related
to subject matter unrelated to the items described in the subpena. So,
I can assure you that whatever there is following New York City
relates to a subject matter outside the scope of that subpena and does
not refer to any of the persons listed on that subpena.
Mr. Armstrong. I was merely suggesting, Mr. Danner, if you had
the original diary in front of you as we were going through it you
might be in a better position to say definitively what the nature of the
trip was.
11406
Mr. Davis, His aiiSAver is quite definite.
Mr. Danner. Tlie subpena did not say for what pui'pose. It just
said travel.
Mr. Davis. Tlie point Dm tryin,ir to make. Mr. Armstrong, is that
Mr. Michel refused to construe the sub])ena as one which merely called
for out-of-town trips relatino- to the suliject matter of the subpena.
Do you follow wliat I'm snyinii'^
IVfr. Akimstijong. I folh)w what you're sayino;.
Mr. Davis. Therefore, in compliance with the subpena we furnished,
not only all entires relatino- to the subject matter of the sub])ena
includino- the person's name thei'ein, but we also included all enti-ies
which sliowed a trip outside of Washiniiton, D.C. durinir the one
period oi- outside the State of Nevada during the subsequent period,
whether or not those trips related in any way to the subject matter
of the sub]x^na or the persons named in the subpena. If you want
to question what we're doing-, you're free to do so at some time. You're
ffoino- to waste time so far as I'm concerned by attempting to sug-o^est
that these entries involved in any way. shape oi' form, any of the sub-
ject matter of the subjiena or the pei'sons named therein, because if
that entry did, it would be reflected in what is before you.
Mr. AmrsTRoxc. All I'm suo-o-estino-, Mr. Davis, is that it might be
the most expeditious way to proccHMJ. if the diary is available in AVash-
ington, when we come back after lunch, might be to pi'oceed ■
Mr. Davis. T think the I'ights of tliis witness have been sufficiently
tram])led. We have provided what Ave provided and I suggest we
proceed as expeditiously as we can.
Mr. Armstroxo. As I understand Mr. Danner's answer, he doesn't
believe the ti-ip had anything to do with the campaign but he can't
be certain ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, he's certain of eAerything, because if it had to do
with the campaign it would not have th:it maskino: on it. I don't know
how many times I'm going to have to repeat the same thing, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Danner edit the diary himself?
Mr. Davis. It was done in connection with liim. Any time there was
any entry that suggested ;inything, Mr. Danner was consulted as to
whether oi- not it had any possible relationship to the subject matter
of the subpena and for your information, Mr. Armstrong, Ave have
comi)letely complied Avith Avhat is being done here even though I
think youi' conduct is com])letely improper and illegal and I'm pev-
fectly pi-epared to test that position in court at any time.
Mr. Armstrong. Moving along to April 2, it reflects a long distance
call to Mr. Tiebozo folloAved by the initials ONA. Can you tell us what
the substance of that call Avas?
Mr. DANNKit. ONA is Ovei'seas National Airlines, a client of mine.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell me Avhat the conversation Avith Mr.
Ke1)Ozo Avould have consisted of?
Ml". T^AXXKR. I lun-e no i-eco1lection at this date.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you i-ecall at this time any reason why Mr.
Rebozo Avould have had anA^ interest in or Avould liaAT been a ]iro]>er
person to call Avith respect to something about OA-erseas National
Airlines?
Mr. Dannkr. No, I have no recollection.
11407
Mr. Lexzner. Do you know if it had anj-thing to do with the
campaign or campaign contributions, Mr. Danner ?
Mr, Danner. No, I liave no recollection but that date would be Aery
unlikely.
Mr. Lenzner. And just to clarify, did I understand you to testify
prior, when Mr. Eebozo called you ori]n:inally it was to seek your
assistance, possible assistance once Mr. Nixon was nominated but not
your assistance durinof the primary campaign ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, 1 don't recall whether or not he had even an-
nounced his candidacy at that time. It was sort of an idea would you be
helpful if he decided.
Mr. Lenzner. If he decided to run for the nomination or if he was
nominated and ran?
Mr. Danner. After the nomination.
Mr. Armstrono. Now, the entries beginning April 9 and running
through April 12, the first entry Tuesday, April 9, says. "Long dis-
tance from Rebozo-Miami legarding meeting there tomorrow." Can
you ex})lain those entries thi'ough the entries on April 12 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, I was called by Bebe and asked if I could come
down to Miami and attend a meeting which was to be held in Miami.
"When I got to the airport, I was called to go over to Butler Aviation
where a private plane was waiting and they fleAv me over to Walker
Cay which is in the Bahamas and there I met with Mr. Nixon and
Mr. Rehozo at Mr. Abplanalp's house. He owns the island. I visited
with them for a couple days.
Mr. Armstrong. In addition to Mr. Nixon and Mr. Eebozo, was
Mr. Abplanalp present ?
Mr-. Danner. Yes.
Mr. .Vrmstrong. "Was anyone else present?
ISIr. Danner. Not that I recall.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the purpose of that meeting
was and what the subjects discussed were?
Mr. Danner. As I recall it was mostly a social visit. "We fished, we
talked, they took me on an entire tour of the islands, the property, two
cays called Walker Cay and Brand Cay and what their future devel-
opment plans were on the island. I don't recall any discussion of poli-
tics on that occasion.
Mr. Armstrong. "Wlien you say their future development plans, lu
whom are you referring ?
Mr. Danner. The plans to develop Walker Cay and Grand Cay.
Ml'. Armstrong. I mean whose plans were those ?
INIr. Danner. These were Precision Valve, Ab])lanalp"s company.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there any indication Mr. Nixon or Mr. Rebozo
had any interest in those islands ?
Mr, Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And there was no discussion of the cam.paign at
that time?
Mr. Danner. None that I recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Was there any discussion of potential campaign con-
tributions or contributors?
Mr. Danner. No,
IVIr, Lenzner, Was there any discussion of any investments or any
iiitei-est Ml". Nixon might be aliout to acquire in Florida?
11408
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. And you rptnrnod from that trip on Friday, April
12, is that correct, you returned to Miami and then to Wasliinfrton?
Mr. Danner. It looks like it. "We returned from Walker Cay on the
11th.
Mr. Armstrong. It says a trip to New York City on April 14. Would
that have any bearing on the campaifrn ?
Mr. Danner. I have no recollection that it did.
Mr. Armstrong. The trip on April 15 to Santo Dominj^o, would that
have had any l^eai'inp; on tlie cainpaiirn and aiiythinix to do witli what
you may have discussed with Mr. Rebozo subsequently ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. On Thursday, April 18 there is a word and I can't
read. It says something to San Juan ?
Mr. Danner. Carib Air to San Juan.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have reflected a meeting with Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. No, that's returning from the trip to Santo Domingo.
Mr. Armstrong. Then it says Eastern Air Lines to Miami ?
Mr. Danner. Right.
Mr. Arinistrong. Do you laiow if you would have met with Mr.
Rebozo on that occasion ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, it reflects you rented a car there. I assume
you stayed in Miami that night. On Friday, April 19 it says, "Break-
fast, Rebozo and Smathers."
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what was discussed on that
occasion ?
Mr. Danner. No ; I have no recollection.
Mr, Armstrong. Do you know if that would have included a dis-
cussion of upcoming campaign finances ?
Ml-. Freedman. He already said lie didn't know what it was about.
Mr. Danner. I wouldn't recall. We may have been getting up a golf
game.
Mr. Armstrong. Was it anticipated at that time that Senator
Smathers would play a role in the campaign ?
Mr. Freedman. Only if you know.
Mr. Danner. Not that I know of.
Mr. Armstrong. Friday, May 3 reflects an entry, "Ed Morgan,
Tropicana." That's the proposed acquisition of the Tropicana and
other officials by Winn-Dixie?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know at that time if you would have had
any discussion with Mr. Morgan relating to the upcoming campaign?
Mr. Danner. I have no recollection. This had only to do with
Tropicana.
INIr. Armstrong. Would you have discussed at the time or any sub-
sequent time with Mr. Morgan any possible contributions by Mr. A. D.
Davis in the campaign?
Mr. Danner. No; Morgan didn't know Davis.
Mr. Frp:edman. As far as you know.
11409
Mr. Danner. For all T know.
Mr. Armstrong. On Monday. May 6, that's long distance to Morgan,
Las Vegas, Tropicana Hotel reflecting the same matter ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Still no campaign bearing?
Mr. Danner. The answer is yes.
Mr. Armstrong. It has no bearing on the campaign ?
Mr. Danner. No bearing.
Mr. Armstrong. Trip on "Wednesday, May 8, Las Vegas trip. That's
returning from Las Vegas ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesday, IVfay 14, long distance to Rebozo regard-
ing meeting in Miami ?
Mr. Danner. I have no recollection what the meeting was concerned
with.
Mr. Armstrong. It reflects on Friday, May 17. Do your records
have an entry, "Rebozo-lNIiami-Nixon." Is that the meeting?
Mr. Danner. I recall tliat soiuotime around this time — this is getting
into mid-May. of having met with Rebozo and Nixon in IVIiami at
which time we discussed further the possibility of my participation in
the campaign in the event Mr. Xixon was nominated.
Mr. Armstrong. Does vour entrv on Fridav. Mav 17. indicate vou
were in ^Nliami at that time?
Mr. Danner. It Avould appear so — no, it looks like "L. D."
Mr. Armstrong. You mean next to 12 o'clock there appears to be
somethino; above Rebozo^ You think that's "L.D.''^
Mr. Danner. It looks like "L. D."
j\Ir. Ar:mstrong. That would reflect a long-distance conversation
with Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And what would ^liami-Nixon mean after Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. Probably a call to ^Nliami disciissing the same subject
matter of Nixon's potential candidacy.
Mr. SciiULTz. "We're still in 1968 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. On Sunday. May 19, there's a notation, "Nixon to
New Yoik City via Eastern Airlines sliuttle, cab to "Westchester." and
then an entry ito Pittsburgh and ]\[iami. Eastern Airlines shuttle and
then there is something blotted out and $18 ?
]Mr. Danner. I was asked to go up to New York and meet with
Mr. Nixon in "Westchester and to fly with him to I*ittsburgh and Miami.
Mr. Armstrong. Is what you're referring to the mid-May meeting
that took place in ISIiami ?
Mr. Danner. This is when we began to get more active in these
discussions as to the role I might play and so on.
Mr. Armstrong. "Would that have reflected the first time yoii dis-
cussed Avith the President himself the role you might play?
Mr. Danner. No, I think there was a previous occasion when we
met in Miami, but I had not yet made up my mind whether I could,
No. 1, or should. No. 2.
Mr. Armstrong. The previous occasion you met in Miami would
have been
11410
Mr. Fkkkdman. AVliatevor he said it was. Ho testified to it.
Mi-. Aiimsthoxc. Tie hasn't. ITc said iiiid-^ray.
INIr. Davis. Let's uiukn-stand, Mr. Aniistroiio-. tlie witness is not tiT-
infj to mislead yon and I'm certainly not tryin<>- to mislead you by
suiT.irestinj? this diary would reflect all trii)s to Miami or elsewhere.
All we can o;ive you is all the enti'ies in this diai-y which do reflect
without any representation of any kind that this diary necessarily
reflects every time Mr. Danner left AVashin<iton or visited Miami or
did anything; else.
Mr. Akmstrong. T appreciate that. T think Mr. Danner's testimony
is helpful.
Mr. Davis. Your question seemed to indicate you did not understand
which entrv in this diary reflected a meeting which this witness has
some recollection of havin*; taken place. I iust want to make sure for
the record that you're not misled into thiidving this diary necessarily
reflects everythin<2: INIr. Danner did.
Mr. Armstijong. I'm just tryino- to see if that was not the first time
Mr. Danner had met candidate Nixon, if he thouaht the fii-st meetin<i:
with Nixon on the campai<]:n was sometime in mid-Mav in Miami?
INIr. Danner. I seem to recall we had had a meeting- in Key Biscayne
earlier.
Mr. Lenzner. You mean prior to this last entry ?
Mr. Danner. Ein;ht.
Mr. Armstrong. Would there have been any discussion of campaioii
finances on the trip, either the earlier meetino; in Miami or on this trip
from Westchester down throua-h Pittsbui-.ah find to Miami?
INlr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. What was your undei'standino- from talkino- with
the Pi-esident as to how he conceived your role ?
Mr. Freedman. What was his uiiderstandino? Why <lon't you ask
him what the President told him ?
Mr, Armstrong. What did the President tell you in mid-May?
Mr. Danner, He related to me he was in the process of foi-nudatiuii;
a campai<i"n committee and felt that T should take an active role in it
and T recall the discussion that T could not participate in the Presi-
dential primary, T didn't have the time, but that T was interested in
his candidacy and T would have to reserve a decision until later on.
Mr. Lenzner. You say on this aii))lane tri]i with Mr. Nixon he
indicated he did want you to woi-k durinii' the primary for him?
Mr. Danner. No, I had made no conunitment yet.
Mr. Lenznet{. I'm not askini>- abou*^ a conunitment vou mad?. I'm
askinof whether he indicated to you he wanted you to work in his
behalf durin<i' the primaries?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall his askin<i- me that. T had made it (piite
clear earlier that T would not )iarti<-ipate in tlu'S(> Pivsidential
I)rimaries,
Mr, Lenzner. You mean at the pi-ior meetino- iu Koy Biscayne?
Mr. Danner. The discussions with Bebozo and Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Lenzner. On the plane trip on May 19. Avas anybody else present
as part of those discussions with Mi'. Nixon besides yourself?
Mr. Danner. No, there was just the two of us on the flijj:ht.
Mr. Lenzner. And did ]Mr. Nixon indicate any specific role he
wanted you to play in his campaiirn ?
11411
Mr. Daxxek. No.
INIr. Lenzxer. Did ho indicate any specific role Mr. Rebozo was
goiiig to play ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, in the meetino- that took place prior to ^Nlay 19
in Key IViscayne. who was present at that meetino?
Mr. Daxxer. 1 think accordino- to this it would just be Bebe Rebozo
and Nixon and I.
Mr. Lexzxer, You're referring to the meeting of May 19 ?
Mr. Daxxer. Right.
Mr. Lexzxer. Is it your recollection that entry does reflect a meeting ?
Mr. Daxxer. T can't recall. This was probably a phone call. It very
well could have been they called me and set up the meeting on the 19th.
I don't recall.
Mr. Lexzxer. l^ut you do recall having specific ivcollection of being
in Key Biscayne prior to ^Nlay 19, 1968 ?
]\fr. Daxxer. No, I don't.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall a discussion with ^Ir. Nixon and Mr.
Rebozo prior to your last tri[) where your possible role on behalf of
Mr. Nixon Avas discussed ?
Mr. Daxxer. I recall there was some discussion which Mr. Nixon
and Mr. Rebozo were involved together, all luiving to do with tlie same
subject matter but nothing specific as to the role I might play or the
duties I might assume, when I might come in. It was just generally
whether I could lielp.
Mr. Davis. For clarification of the record, I think tlie question, Mr.
Danner, was whether or not you recall if such a meeting took place
before May 19 oi- after May 19 or if you can place any kind of a date
other than the extent to which you've indicated so far ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I have no independent recollection.
Mr. Davis. As to the time ?
]Mr. Dax'xer. As to the time.
]\Ir. Davis. You just recall that a conversation or meeting took
place as you've described it ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Lexzx-^er. Was there any discussion at the meeting you've just
described ]>rior to ]May 19 as to what Mr. Rebozo's role might be,
between Rebozo, yourself, and Mr. Nixon ?
jNIr. Dax'^xer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. On youi- trij) <m Sunday. May 19. at that or any
other time, did you discuss with the President his ])ersonal finances?
Mr. Daxxer. Did I discuss with him?
INIr. Armstrox^g. Yes.
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. "When did you return from ^Nfiami? I gather that
trip indicates a swing up to Westchester and down with the President
to Pittsburgh and Miami and then there is an entry blotted out on
May 2M and on May 21 an entiv. "National Airlines to Jacksonville."
INIr. Daxxer. Jacksonville, yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Would that have been coming back from Miami?
INIr. Daxxer. Well, the shuttle doesn't run to Miami. It's only
AVashington to New York. I don't know what that reference is.
11412
IVlr. Akmstroxg. By that reforeiice, you're poiiitin<j^ to tlu' section
blotted out on May 19 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. In between Eastern Airlines shuttle and $18?
Mr. Banner. Ri<i:ht.
Ml-. Armstrong. Do you recall returnin<»: fioin Miami prior to Tues-
day, May 21 ? '
Mr. Danner. My recollection is I went to Miami from Jacksonville.
Mr. Armstrong. That would be on Tuesday, May 21 ?
Mr. Danner. Ri^jht.
Mr. Armstrong. AVhy don't we stop there.
[Whereupon, at 1 :05 p.m., the conmiittee recessed, to reconvene at
2 :15 p.m.]
Afternoon Session
Mr. Armstrong. This is a continuation of this morninf^'s executive
session.
Mr. Davis. Have we fjot an estimate as to when we will have a ti-an-
script of this morninii's session ?
]\Ir. Lackritz. He is ^oinji; to type it up as soon as he can and return
it to us. We will get it to you as soon as we <!:et it.
Mr. Davis. I am sure you will.
Mr. Armstrong. Reflecting a trij) to Xew York on IMay 22, does that
have any bearing or relationship to campaign activities ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe there is also another trip reflected to Santo
Domingo on
Mr. Davis. Ye3; that is all pait of the same trip.
Mr. Freedman. How about a date ?
Mr. Danner. May 28.
Mr. Armstron(}. Reflecting a trip to Santo T^omingo, did that have
any bearing on the campaign oi- any item you might have discussed
with Mr. Rebozo at a subsecpient time^
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Sunday, ^lay 26, reflecting a trip to Miami. That
does not reflect a retui'ii f i-om Miami, does it ?
INIr, Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. It does the same day ?
Ml-. Danner. I take it, this is to the Hotel American Express, cab to
airport. Pan Am to Miami. Since tliey do not fly domestic that must
have been coming back from Santo Domino'o ;nul then
Mr. Armstr()X(j. OK, and that is t lie return flight ?
Mr. Danner. To D.C.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesday, June 4, reflects a tri]> to St. Louis and
Dallas.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Did that have any relationship to campaign ac-
tivities?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. AVill you tell us?
Mr. Danner. That is for the purpose of visiting potential con-
tributors in the Texas area, Dalhis and Fort Worth, in connection
with the campaign.
11413
Mr. ScHULTz. What year.
Mr. Danner. 1968. No funds were raised, no commitments were
made.
]\Ir. Armstrong. Did you see anyone in St. Louis regarding cam-
paign contributions?
Mr. Daxner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us what individual you solicited
in Texas?
Mr. Danner. Clint Murchison, Jr., in Dallas, and there were sev-
eral people in Fort Worth — I do not recall their names offhand — old
friends of mine. I just dropped by to see them to see what their ideas
were on the campaign. I am trying to think of any other I recall. Off-
hand I can't recall their names.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you saw^ Mr. John Murchison in
addition to Clint?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you request any particular size contribu-
tion from Mr. Murchison ?
Mr. Danner. No, I asked him if he was going to be interested in the
campaign, who he was going to support. He indicated he hadn't made
up his mind yet. But if he did he would work through a Texas
committee.
Mr. Armstrong. And did he indicate who he would contact in the
Texas committee, whether he had a personal contact ?
Mr. Danner. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Did he indicate if he had any contact ^''^<^h the
President or Rose Mary Woods?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And did he indicate at that or any subsequent
time that he had made a contribution to the campaign through Kose
Mary Woods?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he ever indicate to you that he made a cash
contribution to the campaign ?
Mr. Danner. No, I don't recall any conversations or specific con-
tributions.
Mr. Davis. At this point is it the intention of the staff' to repeat
the testimony heretofore given or is this just preliminary to something
which you are attempting to clarify ?
jNIr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, it is not the intention of the staff to go
over testimony previously given, however, and I may point out this
particular testimony lias not been given.
Mr. Freedman. Yes, it has.
jNIr. Davis. I understand there is bound to be a certain amount of
overlapping.
Mr. Armstrong. We are trying to clarify the documents.
Mr. Lackritz. To undei'stand the diary, which we have not seen as
yet, to make sure there is no misunderstanding on the record about
the diary.
Mr. Armstrong. Friday, June 7, reflects a trip to Harlingen, Tex.,
is that correct ?
Mr. Danner. Yes; that was a fishing trip with my children. It had
nothing to do with the campaign.
11414
Mr. Armstrong. And tlien Tuesday, Juno 11. "Well, first of all, I
believe June 9 shows a return to Dallas and then the next mention of
a tri]) is Tuesday, ,lune 11, it says to T^as \"enas. Destination cT'ossed
out and underneatii it says return to \\'ashin^ton, D.(\ Do you know
if you did travel to Las Ve^as at that time ?
Mv. Danner. As I i-ecail, I came hack to Washin<»:ton. This, I think,
pi'obably was an inadvertence because I would not have fjone to Las
Ve<ias and then back to AVashin<;ton all in the same day.
Mr. Arms'iijoxo. Saturday, ,Iune '22 reflects L.I)., Rebozo. Long-
distance call to Rebozo. Can you tell us what the substance of tliat
call would have been ?
Mr. Dann?:r. No ; I would have no idea.
Mr. Armstrox(;. Hut that was during- the j)eriod when you were
actively involved in the cam|)aia'n fundraisin<:' !'
Mr. Daxner. No; I was not active in fundraisino^ then and I think
liad that had anything to do with the campaign I would ha\e had
some notation.
Mr. Armstrong. Wednesday, June 26, reflects Smathers-^Nlorgan-
Las Vegas. Thursday, June 27, says lunch at Morgan's, A. D. Davis.
Mr. Danner. No; this had nothing to do with the camj)aign.
Mr. Armstrong. This was again in relationship to the Tropicana?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Monday, July 8, i-eflects a meeting, says to New
York C^ity via Eastern shuttle, cab to Nixon headquarters meeting
John Mitchell, Tom Evans, et al. Can vou tell us what occurred on that
Mr. Danner. This, as I recall, had to do with the discussion as to
what role I would play in the campaign as it got underway. 1 think
by this time Nixon had declared and had probably been tlu'ough some
primaries, but in any event, Tom Evans was one of the local managers
hei'c in Washington. There was a meeting called in New Yoi'k and I
was asked to come up and attend.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Rebozo attended that
meeting?
Mv. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you saw Ed or Donald Nixon
at that time?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mv. AR]\rsTRONG. Or Mr. John ]Meier ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Monday, July 15, has the notation "lunch, Morgan,
Las Vegas mattei'." Can we assume that is again Tropicana?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesday, July 16, has "LD 2,"" and thei-e is appar-
ently a list blotted out and the last item on it indicates there was a
long-distance call to Mr. Rebozo, then on Thursday, July IS, there is
a reference to Miami via National Aii'lines meeting with Rebozo and
Garcia, then Pan Am to Rei)ublic of Panama, (^m you tell us, fiJ-st
of all, about the phone calls?
Mr. Danner. I don't know what the calls were to Rebozo. The trip
to Miami was for a meeting with Rebozo and a man named Garcia
Avho lived in Tampa, who was quite active in Democratic politics, who
11415
was beinj; recniited to become active in the Nixon campaign, and the
tii]> to Panama, of coui'so. was law business.
Ml'. Ak-mstkoxg. Did Mr. (larcia eventually play a role in the
campaitrn? '
]\rr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. An:\rsTR(»xa. And can you tell us what that role was?
Mr. Daxxer. He assisted in the formation of the Florida Demo-
crats for Nixon in the Tampa area.
Mr. Armstroxg. And do you know if ]\Ir. Garcia was involved in the
fundraisin<r campaijjn?
Mr. Daxxkr. I know he was not.
Ml'. Armstroxg. Saturday, July 20, reflects a flight, Braniff Air-
ways to Miami, then National Airlines to the District of Columbia.
Is that just your return?
Mr. Daxxkr. That is return from Panama.
Mr. Armstroxg. Tuesday, July 28, has long distance to Rebozo-
Miami-Morgan. Gai'cia, et al. Can you tell us the purpose of that
meeting? They just reflect a phone call?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes; I don't know what the nature of the call might
have been. On that occasion, dinner — Smathers. Morgan, Thomas —
that had to do with the Tropicana. To Las Vegas. Again, that is
Tropicana business.
Mr. ARMsrRox(j. Can you indicate — in the Rebozo call, there is a
notation Morgan named along with Mr. Garcia — what you have been
speaking with Mr. Rebozo about regarding Morgan?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is that Edward P. Morgan?
Ml". Daxxer. Yes; I am sure it is. No; I don't recall why he would
have been included in that miless these were separate calls made on
that date.
Mr. Armstrox'g. "Well, the full notation is — —
Mr. Daxxer. I^D to Rebozo-Miami-^NIorgan, Garcia, et al. It doesn't
ring a bell with me what that was.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Could that have been in relationship to campaign
fund raising^
Ml-. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Freeumax. Only if you know.
Mr. Daxx-^er. Why don't you hold this off as far as Morgan is con-
cerned, and see what the next date comes up because this might have
l^een — I think it is too early — but it might have been in connection
with the ultimate contact with Hughes.
Mr. Armstrox(;. You say it could have been?
Mr. Dax'xer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. And at whose request ^^•ould a conversation of that
type have occurred ?
Mr. Freedmax. I don't understand that kind of question. It could
have been a million people.
Mr. Danxer. I am not certain what the nature of that was, whether
I happened on that day to have talked to Rebozo in Miami and Morgan
here in Washington or Las Vegas, if he happened to be out there. I
don't know. I am not certain just what the connections are.
11416
Mr. AmrsTRox(;. There is a notation on Wednesday, July 24, dinner-
Smathers-Moi-<;an, Thomas. Kenwood CC', Tropicana. That was in
rehitionship to the Tropicana purehase?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Ml-. Armstroxg. Can you tell us is Thomas E. Perry, Thomas?
Ml'. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. AR]vrsTRox(}. And was Senator Sniathers representing a party
for that acquisition at that time?
Mr. Danner. He was in some manner, T never knew just wdiat the
connection was, but he was a consi(leral)le stockholder in the Tropi-
cana or the Continental Connector. I believe that controlled that stock.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have been a matter that Mr. Rebozo
would have been aware of about which you had discussions with Mr.
Kebozo ?
Mr. Banner. What was that ?
Mr. Armstrong. Would the acqvusition of the Tropicana have been
a matter about which you would have had a conversation with Mr.
Kebozo ?
Mr. Danner. No; he wasn't concerned at all with that.
Mr. Armstron(;. Was he aware of the attempt to acquire the Tropi-
cana by Mr. Davis?
INfr. Danner. T don't recall that he was in on it at all.
Mr. Armstrong. July 29 shows long-distance call, Morgan-Las
Vegas. T assmne that would have been in connection with the Tropi-
cana ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesday, July 30, conferences, Chicago, then there
is a series of names. Can you iust read those names?
INfr. Danner. Kanterr, Stein, Smathers, Morgan, Feinberg, JafFe,
et al. That was a conference having to do with the real estate involv-
ing the Tropicana Hotel.
INfr. Armstrong. OK, and Mr. Jatfe in that case
Mr. Danner. That is a fellow named Ben Jatfe. They ow^n the real
estate.
INfr. Armstrong. And what does the notation LD in office mean?
Mr. Danner. LD in office looks like I called my office.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesday, August 3, says to IMiami via TRW plane,
and then there is a notation T can't make out, to airport, cab fare to
Key Biscayne Hotel. Can you tell us what that refers to?
Mr. Danner. No, it doesn't mean anything.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have reflected any meeting wnth Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. T don't see any notation as to Rebozo being involved.
Mr. Armstron(;. The next entry that isn't blotted out is Tuesday,
August 6.
Mr. Danner. Irving Davidson, .Tack Anderson, Rebozo, Jim Golden,
Si Tjaughtcr.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what that is?
Mr. Danner. That was breakfast at a hotel in the Nixon head(|uar-
ters for the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Armstrong. In Florida?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
11417
Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. In INliami ?
]Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
]Mr. Armstrong. Was this a meeting ?
INIr. Danner. Just a visit.
]Mr. Armstrong. And is the Jack Anderson there the columnist ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstr()N(j. Jim (Jolden was a Secret Service agent that pro-
tected Vice President Nixon ?
INIr. Danner. Yes, sir. I don't recall wliat capacity he was in then.
Mr. Armstrong. Would he have been working for Resorts Interna-
tional at that time?
Mr. Danner. I really don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. And the notation, Si?
Mr. Danner. Laughter. Si Laughter was going to become active in
the Xixon campaign, form the committee of athletes, athletics, celebri-
ties, in support of Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. Is it L-a-u-g-h-t-e-r?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
jMr. Armstrong. And that is not Si Alter ?
Mr. Danner. No, no.
INIr. Armstrong. A-1-t-e-r. And do you know what Mr. Golden w^as
doing at this meeting, how he happened to be there ?
]Mr. Danner. No, I don't know. It seems to me that is the first time
I met him.
Mr. Arinistroxg. And who is ]Mr. Davidson ?
Mr. Danner. Ervin Davidson. He is a person here in town quite ac-
tive in politics.
Mr. AR:\rsTR0NG. Did he belong to the campaign?
Mr. Danner. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Friday, August 9, this is Miami-Key Biscayne,
called Bebe, Avill see us today or tomorrow\
INIr. Danner. Yes, sir, call to Bebe, Avill see us today or tomorrow.
Mr. Armstrong. And then there is a reference, Saturday, August
10, says Miami, drove to Flamingo in Evei'glades National Park to pick
up car, called Bebe, no return, exclamation point. Can you tell us w^hat
occurred ?
Mr. Daxxer. I had my family with me and they were just on a little
sightseeing ti'ip and I called Bebe and apparently he did not return my
call.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is that in fact an exclamation point after no return ?
Mr. Daxxer. It looks like it.
INIr, AR:\rsTRONG. You didn't get a return on your phone call, is that
what it indicates ?
Mr. Danner. I would imagine.
Mr. Freeoman. Don't imagine.
Mr. Danner. No, it is an exclamation, no return, blank.
]Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall w^hat your business with Mr. Rebozo
would have been at that time?
INIr. Danner. I was just trying to get in touch with him.
JMr. Armstrong. Sunday, August 11, shows a trip to Las Vegas.
Woidd that have been again concerning the Tropicana ?
Mr. Danxer. Yes, sir.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 10
11418
yir. Artsistroxg. The next entiy is Tuesday, Au^ist 20, Ed ]\roro:an,
lunch, Zeibei't's. Is that a reference ?
Mr. Daxner. What is that date ?
Mr. ARMSTRON(i. August 20, Zeibert's.
IVIr. Danner. Yes. "\Miat was tlie (juestion a<>:ain ?
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what tlie purpose of that meetino;
was ?
INIr. Danxer. T don't know what. T don't i-ecall any.
Mr. Armstrong. "Wednesday, Auojust 21, it appears to me to say Ed
Morojan-Nixon, and I can't read
Mr. Danner. August 21. The top one is
Mr. Armstrong. The first entry said Ed ISIorgan-Nixon and Tropi-
cana ; is that correct ?
jNIr. Danx'er. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, there is an item blotted out and the next
item is LD to Bebe Rebozo-Nixon-Fortas, funds.
Mr. Daxner. Hughes.
Mr. Armstron(j. And can you tell us what happened on that day and
what those entries were?
Mr. Danner. ]\Iv recollection is that was the time when we were set-
ting up the meeting between Rebozo and INIorgan for a report on his
contact with Maheu as to whether or not Hughes would make a con-
tribution to the campaign.
iNIr. Armstrong. And that would indicate you had an ear-lier contact
with Mr. Morgan to find out w hether or not Mr. Hughes was interested,
it had occurred at an earlier time than August 21 ?
Mr. Danx^er. That was pi-obably carrying out the assignment that
I had to go through Morgan and see if Hughes would make a
contribution.
Mr. Armstrong. I guess my question is, does the notation to you
on Wednesday, August 21, that first notation, Ed Morgan-Nixon
and Ti'opicana, indicate at that time Mr. Morgan was reporting back
to you on an earlier contact you had had with him to find out if Mr.
Hujjhes was interested ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall what the reference to Nixon would
have been there. Again, the Tropicana was wdiat we have been talking
about, the acquisition of the hotel.
Mr. Au:\rsTROx^G. T am sorry, I thought you said the reference to
Nixon was that Mr. Morgan was i-epoi-ti ng back on Mr. Hughes,
]\rr. Maheu's pi-edisposition foi- making a contribution to Mr. Nixon
(m l)ehalf of the company. Did I undei'stand that?
^Ir. Danner. Tliat could possibly be it. T couldn't say wnth any
degree of ceitainty. That could have been when I fii-st asked him
about it.
^fr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the entry LD to Bebe
Rel)ozo-Nixon-Foster, fund, Hughes, et cetera, indicates ?
Mr. Danner. It would indicate to me that I was reporting to
R(>bozo that contact was going to be made in connection with the
approach to Maheu re Hughes conti-ibution.
Mr. Armstroxg. (^an you tell us what you would have been re-
porting on that subject?
Mr. Freehman. Would have or
11419
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall what he did report if it was on that
occasion, wliether this was the time that he said he would make it
or wliether he said that he had made it, that is, made the contact
with Malum.
]Mr. Ahmstroxg. Can you tell us why the word '"Foi-tas" is men-
tioned in that context?
Mr. Daxx-^er. I have no idea.
Mr. Armstrox-^g. Would this refer to the former Chief Justice?
Mr. Frkedmax\ ITe wasn't former Chief Justice.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Former Justice.
Mr. Daxxer. AVell. I don't know. T only know one Fortas, but how
it oot in there I have no recollection whatsoever.
Mr. Armstroxg. And what fund indicates there, given the
sequence
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. AR:\rsTROx'G [continuino-]. Of nouns?
]Mr. Dax'xer. Xo. That doesn't rino- a bell.
Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. Does that indicate — Avas there an attempt to
raise funds from othei- individuals other than Mr. Hughes?
Ml". Daxxer. Xo. the only one I was woi'king on was the Hughes
contact.
Mr. AR:\rsTROX^G. iNIondav. August 26. can vou tell us what this
enti"v is foi-?
Ml'. Daxxer. LD to Kebozo i-e Xixon campaign.
IVfi'. AR:\rsTRoxG. Can you tell us what your conversation with Mr.
Kebozo was?
Mr. Daxxer. Xo. T wouldn't have any recollection. Obviously, it
had to do with the campaign.
Ml'. AR:\rsTRox'G. And the entry on Tuesday, August 27, lunch,
Fd Moro-an. Tiopicana and I'elated matters.
Mr. Dax'xer. That was still the Tropicana and related mattere.
What that means. I don't T'ecall.
Mr. Armstroxg. Would related matters have included the contri-
bution from Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't know.
Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. Thursdav, Auoust 20, LD from Dick Nixon on
campaign matters. Can you tell us, that was a call from then can-
didate Xixon?
Mr. Dax-^xer. Yes, but T don't recall the nature and purpose of
the call. 1 don't recall any of the specifics.
Mr. Ar^istrox-^g. Do you recall any of the substance of the conver-
sation, generally ?
Mr. Dax'x-^er. Xo, but it says on campaign mattere. Just what
that included. I have no recollection.
Mr. Ar:\istrox"g. Well, at this point, can you tell us what role you
had assumed in the campaign?
Mr. Dax'x^er. Well. I had become active by this time. I was still
based in Washington but I was doing quite a bit of traveling to
Floi'ida preparatory to organizing the Democrats for Nixon down
there.
Mr. Ar^istrox^g. Tuesday, September 3, shows DD, Ed Morgan,
Las Vegas, Tropicana matter. I assume that is
11420
Mr. Daxxer. Tlio same.
Mr. AuArsiijoxci. Tliat doesn't spark any recollection of any other
additional conxersations?
Mi-. Daxxer. No. sir.
Mr. Armstroxo. Wednesday, September 4, LD to, and there is
a name blotted ont and it indicates LD to Bebc Rebozo. Do you
recall what that conversation was?
Mr. Daxxer. No, 1 have no recollection.
Mr. Arisfstroxo. Tuesday, September 10, at 0 a.m. It says Gar-
cia and Bebe, Nixon campaio;n. Does that indicate a meeting with
Mr. Garcia and Mi". Nixon ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. And Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. I think tliat had to do with Garcia's taking an
active role in the Florida Democrats for Nixon.
Mr. Armstroxg. And that would have been in Washington?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Arms-hjoxg. Do you recall where that meeting took place?
Mr. Daxxer. No. I don't.
Mr. Armstroxg. OK, Wednesday, September 11, says breakfast, Re-
bozo and ISIorgan, Be})e to airpoi-t, car parking, $1.
Mr. Daxxer. That was a breakfast that I had with Rebozo and
INIorgan, at Avhicli time Morgan made his rei)oi't resulting from his con-
ference with Robert Maheu as to whether or not INIr. Hughes would
make a contribution.
Mr. Armsttjoxg. And that was the meeting about which you testified
previously ?
Mr. Daxxer, Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Does this particular notation spark any additional
recollections that you haven't shared with us previously?
INlr. Daxxer. Well, as I i-ecall my previous testimony, we discussed
the fact that ^Nlaheu had reported back that INIr. Hughes would make a
contribution. I don't recall now whether it was at that time that
$50,000 was mentioned, but I am certain tliat that was the meeting
where the word came back that he would make a contribution. And
Bebe to the airpoit, I probably drove him out to the aiijiort.
Mr. Armstroxg. And where w^as that, do you recall ?
Mr. Daxxkr. That was at Duke Zeibert's, as T recall, but I have no
notation, but (liis is where it was.
Mr. Armstroxg. For breakfast?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
INlr. Arisfstroxg. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Danxer. Obviously we had breakfast. The location, T am not
certain.
Mr. Armstroxg. Now, Sunday, Septembei- IT), 10 a.m., says LD from
Rebozo and Nixon. That is a long distance call to you in Washington
from ]Mr. Rebozo and then candidate Nixon, is that correct ?
Mr. Daxxer. That is what it appears to be; yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us what the subject of that conversa-
tion would have been?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall the specifics of the convei-sation.
11421
]\Ir. Armstrong. Do you i-pcall speaking in the same phone call to
both ]Mi-. Rebozo and Mr. Nixon durino- that period?
]\Ir. Danxer. On this occasion? I don't know whether I talked to
both of them at the same time or they called separately.
Mr. Armstrong. Would the subject of that conversation have been
the Wednesday, September 11, meeting between yourself, ]\lr. Rebozo
and ]Mr. ^Morgan ?
Mv. Danxer. I don't recall.
Mr. Ar:mstr()Xg. Now, the next day, Monday, September 16, shows
LD conference with Rebozo. The next line underneath says, closed
circuit TV. Then, the line following has LD to Rebozo, report. Then
11 p.m., Rebozo called fi'om Anaheim, and then two lines below that
cab to office, $1. Can vou tell us what happened on Monday, Septem-
ber 16?
Mr. Danner. Apparently I had a conference on the phone with
Rebozo. I don't recall what closed circuit TV had reference to. Then
another call to Rebozo, report, 11 p.m., Rebozo called from Anaheim,
which I suppose is California, but I don't recall the subject matter of
that discussion.
]Mi-. Armstrong. During this period, would you have been working
in the office of the Nixon headquarters in Washington?
Mv. Danner, Yes.
Mv. AR:\rsTRONG. Did they have a closed circuit TV facility there?
JNlr. Danner. I don't i-emember whether they did or not. I vaguely
recall that from time to time they would set up closed circuit TV's
at which time the candidates would talk to principal campaign work-
ers at the headquarters. Whether this was one of the occasions or not,
I don't know.
Ml". Armstrong. And do you recall what the LD to Rebozo report
was?
Mv. Danner. No, I don't.
]\Ir. AR:\rsTRONG. Do you recall the subject of Mr. Rebozo's call from
Anaheim?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. ARMsntoNCi. Wednesday, Se]>tember 18, the entry reflects Re-
bozo, then I can't make out if there is any punctuation or not, whether
it is a comma.
INIr. Danner. Dash.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, Nixon met plane; is that correct? At 6 a.m.
Or 6 something a.m.
Mr. Danner. Met ]:)lane at 6 a.m.
Mr. Armstrong. To Willard Hotel for conferences?
Mr. Danner. AVell, I don't know whether they met me or I met them.
To Willard Hotel for conferences.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you i-ecall the subject of your meeting with
INIr. Rebozo and ]Mi-. Nixon on that date?
Ml-. Danner. No, I don't.
INlr. Armstrong. You testified previously, I believe, that you dis-
cussed with ]Mr. Rebozo in the President's presence and with the Pres-
ident, the Hughes contribution. Would this have been the period dur-
ing which tliis conversation took place?
INIr. Danner. No, my recollection of that was nmch, much earlier
than this date.
11422
Mr. ARArsTRoxG. In other words, would that liavo \yeen miich earlier
than this date, do yon mean ])]'ioi- to Mi'. Morgan's ineetin<r with
INIr. Kebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. Morgan speaking to
Mr. AR:\rsTRoxr.. INForgan meeting with Mr. Kebozo.
INIr. Daxner. Yes, it would have been pi-ioi- to that.
Mr. Arimstrox^g. Which was placed here as Septemljer 11 ?
Mr. Freedmax. What is September 11 ?
Mr. Armstroxg. 1908.
Mr. Daxxer. That is when they had breakfast.
Mr. Freedmax. Are yon talking alwnt the meetino- between Rebozo
and Ml-. Danner and
Mr. Armstroxg. And Mr. ISIorgan. The same one we talked about
about 5 minutes ago. Thank you. Wednesday, September 25, shows
Nixon calls, et ceteia, is that correct ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. AR:\rsTP»oxG. And also Thursday. Sejitember 26. says Nixon
calls, (^m yon tell us what occurred on September 25 and 26?
Mr. Daxner. No, I have no recollection of what the nature and
purpose of those calls were. Specifics, I don't recollect.
yiv. Armstroxg. Does it help to take a look at Friday, September
27, which has an entry Nixon and then there is something appears to
be crossed out, call regarding finance?
Mr. Daxxer. Is that crossed out?
Mr. Armstroxg. Do we know what it is that is crossed out? Is it
intelligible prioi- to its being crossed out? In other words, is it intel-
ligible what was there prior to that?
JNIr. Daxx'^er. I.ret me say the "Nixon" undoubtedly has reference to
the fact that these calls re finance had to do with the Nixon campaign.
It doesn't indicate to me that it was Nixon calling me or vice versa.
IVIr. Armstroxg. Now, well, with whom would you have been dis-
cussing finance?
Ml'. Daxxer. I don't recall.
INlr. Armstroxg. And your role in the finance in the campaign was
raising campaign funds ?
Ml". Danxer. No.
Mr. Ar^fstroxg. I am trying to find out what the entry implies.
Mr. Daxxer. Well, I am sorry but I can't recall what it was.
Mr. Arafstroxg. Saturday, Se])tember 28, there is an entry of 9 a.m.,
Eebozo, Key liiscayne, Garcia. Then, underneath that appears to be,
re ITurlong s|)eech, et cetera. Can y^" fell us what
Ml-. Daxxer. Yes, that Avas a discussion had with Rebozo and Garcia
relative to the possibility of former (Congressman Sid Hurlong mak-
ing a speech endoi-sing Nixon.
Mr. Arivfstroxg. There was a meeting that Mr. Garcia attended with
]Mr. Re])ozo? •
Mr. Daxxer. It looks like it.
Mr. Armstrong. And Mr. Garcia was working as a Democrat for
Nixon at that time in Florida ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
11423
Mv. Armstrong. There is an entry, incidentally, Sunday, Septem-
ber 20, to Philadelphia. Would that have been in relationship to
campaign activities?
JNIr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you still practicinji' law during this period?
Mr. Daxxer. Not very actively.
Mr. Akmstroxg. T assume, however, that tlie items on September 30,
October 1 and -2 that are blotted out are not related to the campaign?
Mr. Banner. No.
INIr. Ar^vistrong. Thursday, October ?>, savs Nixon, lunch. Eebozo,
and Garcia. Excuse me. Tt says Nixon a.m. line and the next line says
lunch, Ivcbozo, and Oarcia. Can vou tell us wliat occurred on that dav?
Mr. Dan^x'er. I had lunch with Rebozo and Garcia and what the
discussion was, I have no recollection.
INIr. Armstrox'G. Did you also have a meeting with the President on
that day?
INIr. Daxxer. No, I think that just refers again to the campaign.
]Mr. Armstroxg. Thursday. October 10, shows a trip, I gather, to
Miami via National Aiilines, staying at the International Hotel. Do
you recall ?
Mr. Dax'xf:r. Miami via National Airlines, International Hotel.
During this period I was spending virtually all of my time in Florida.
Why I went down to Miami and stayed at the International Hotel, I
don't recall.
Mr-. Armstrox'g. The entries on October 11 and October 12 that are
blotted out do not relate to campaign activities again ?
Mr. Daxxer. October 11 and 12, no.
Mr. Armstrox'G. Now, the same thing, of course, for JNIonday, Octo-
ber 14. Tuesday, October 15. shows 0 a.m., bi-eakfast and lunch. And
then the next line says Hurlong and Rebe and $13.
]Mr. Daxner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what occurred on that date?
Mr. Dax-^xer. I don't recall specifically, but as I told you before,
Hurlong had by this time endorsed Nixon's campaign.
Ml". Armstroxg. And Mr. Eebozo was sitting in as a cam))aign
adviser?
Mr. Daxxer, Yes, sir.
INIr. Ar:mstrox'g. I note on October 17, returned to Washington.
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. October 19, you again returned to Fort Lauderdale.
Was that also on campaign business?
Mr. TX\x"XER. Yas, the Sheraton Hotel was soit of our headquarters.
Mr. Armstrox'g. And on Wednesday. October 23, again all of these
items that are blacked out did not relate to campaign business dur-
ing that period?
Mj-. Daxxer. Yes.
ISlv. Armstrox-^g. Wednesday, October 23, says to INIiami.
Mr. Daxxer. Miami Springs Villa for cocktail party, finance. A
group down there had a cocktail party to raise money for Nixon and
invited us down there to mix with the people.
Ml-. Armstron(;. Do you kiiow^ if the President was present on
that occasion?
11424
Mr. Danner. lie was not.
Mr. Armstrono. You had dinnor with Mr. Kebozo that evenini::^?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frkkdman. ^\niohad dinner?
Mr. Armstrong. T said 3'ou had dinner. At tliat time, did you dis-
cuss with Mr. Rebozo any oanipuijifn eonti-il)utions, do you recall?
Mr. Danner. No. The <rroup that put this paity on had pledge
cards and they were raisino; the money and we just showed up to lend
color, T suppose. I wasn't doino; any hust1in<r.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any other subject of conversation at
dinner with Mr. Rebozo that evening?
INIr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Other than the cocktail party ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mv. Armstrong. Friday, October 25, the notation Fort Lauder-
dale— then I can't read.
Mr. Danner. INIeals and tips.
Mr. Armstrong. Again, these items blotted out on October 28 and
29 and oO are not related to the campaign ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. ARiNrsTRONG. Thursday, October 30, reflects a trip to Tampa.
]\rr. Danxer. October 81.
Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. AVas that related to the cam])aign ?
Ml-. Danner. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Armstrong. Friday, November 1. Is that drive to
Mr. Danner. Gainesville, Fla.
Mr. Armstrong. Was that related to the campaign? Is tliis the
Howard Johnson location there ? That was not a meeting with Howard
Johnson?
Mr. Danner. No, my best recollection is that was an annual affair
called the Blue Key Ban(iuet of the ITniversity of Florida that all
politicians attend and I think I went up to the Blue Key Banquet.
Mr. Ar:mstrong. And November 2 reflects a trip. I gather that is
Eastern Airlines to Jacksonville and then NEA ?
Mr. Danner. Noi-theast Airlines to Fort Lauderdale via Tampa.
Ml-. AR^vrsTRONG. Again campaign ?
Mr. DANNf:R. Campaign activities.
Mr. Armstrong. Monday, November 4, Nixon, dri^-e to Miami. Do
you recall what that
Mr. Danner. That means Nixon's campaign went down to Miami
and caught National to Washington.
Mr. Arms'itjoncj. The President wasn't present at that time ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Tuesdav, November .5, American Airlines to New
York (^ity, Waldorf Hotel.'
Mr. Danner. I went up to get the election returns at the Waldorf
PTotel.
Mr. Armstrong. Was the President there on that occasion ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you meet with the President on that day ?
11425
Mr. Danner. I saw him along' with several hundred other people.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you have any meetings with him on that
day. any discussion with him ?
Mr. Danner. No; eveiybody was there to get the election results.
There were parties going on all over the hotel and we visited with
him from time to time as the results were coming in.
Ml-. Ar3istrong. Did you have any discussions with him regarding
campaign finance?
Mr. Danner. No ; it was all over then.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any subsequent discussions with him
on that day, other than the election returns ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall any.
Mr. AiarsTRONG. Friday, November 8, there is an item, I believe it
says to airport, airline.
Mr. Danner. Eastern Airlines to Raleigh.
Mr. Armstrong. There is something before Eastern Airlines. Was
that on campaign business ?
Mr. Danner. No ; that was a golf trip to Pinehurst.
Mr. Armstrong. Was the President or Mr. Rebozo present on
November 9 or 10 ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And Monday, November 11, to Miami via East-
ern Airlines, rental car, stay at Rebozo's, and there is an entry below,
dinnei-. Do you recall what occurred on November 11 ?
Mr. Danner. No; nothing specific, iusta visit.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, November l2, you went to Fort Lauderdale?
Mr, Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Was that in relation to campaign business?
Mr. Danner. That was, as I recall, closing up the headquarters.
Mr. Armstrong. And you were there also on Wednesday, Novem-
ber 13 and returned to ]Miami on November 14 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir; I returned to Miami and Washington.
Mr. Arisistrong. I am sorry. Then, Wednesday, November 20, re-
flects a long distance call from ]\Ir. Rebozo. I believe it says LD from
(XtR, Miami. Is that a call from INIr. Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. It looks like it.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall the subject of that call ?
Mr. Danner. No ; I don't.
Mr. Arinistrong. On Thursday, November 21, says LD from CGR.
I assume that is again Mr. Rebozo, Miami regarding house project.
Tan you tell us what that is?
INIr. Danner. No; I have no recollection. I have studied that thing
for a long time and I have no recollection whatsoever of what "house
pr-oject" had to do with that conversation.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware that Mr. Rebozo was purchasing
a house on Ray Lane for President Nixon at that time?
Mr. Danner. I am not certain whether it was at this time. I knew
that there was negotiations afoot for Nixon to purchase Smathers'
house which was adjacent to Rebozo's.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, were you aware of any of the
details of that transaction ?
Mr. Danner. No.
11426
Mr. AmrsTRoxG. Were you aware of what financing was to be sought
or was available?
Mr. Banner. No, I knew none of the details. I just knew that
Smathers had agreed to sell his house to Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall when you learned that ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Or from whom ?
Mr. Banner. I am sure I learned it from Smathei-s.
Mr. Armstrong. And then there is an item blotted out, which 1
assume is not related to the campaign or JNIr. Kebozo or the President.
And then LB to CGR-Key Biscayne. Bo you recall
Mr. Banxj:r. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you advised after the election in 1969 by
Mr. Rebozo or Senator Smathers that Senator Smathers' house was 'to
be purchased by or on behalf of President-elect Nixon ?
Mr. Banner. I think the extent of my information was Smathers
had told me he was going to sell his house to Nixon.
Mr. Lenzner. Bid he tell you that before or after the election, if you
can recall ?
Mr. Banner. My recollection is after the election.
Mr. Lenzner. And did he advise you with whom he was negotiating?
Mr. Banner. No, he never told me any of the details, just he was
going to give up his house, sell it and find something else.
Mr. Lenzner. Bid he ask you to play any role with regard to that ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Bid you discuss that with Mr. Rebozo at any time?
Mr. Banner. No, my only recollection is Smathers talking to me
about his house, that he was going to sell it. I wasn't concerned, wasn't
interested, had no i-ole in the matter.
Mr. Lenzner. Bo you have any recollection as to the "house project"
reflected in your diary was related in any way to that discussion you
just had with Mr. Smathers?
Mr. Banner. No, I don't think that it did because, as I say, I had no
role in the matter at all. I wasn't handling any of the negotiations,
nothing between — no discussions with them whatever. I just knew it
was going to happen, that it was being discussed.
Mr. Lackritz. Then, you have no recollcotion at all of what the house
project would have been ?
Mr. Freedman. He said that.
Mr. Lackritz. I am asking again.
Mr. Banner. I knew Smathers' house. I had stayed there.
Mr. Fricedman. The question is "house project".
Mr. Banner. House project means nothing to me. I can't lecall
what that refers to.
Ml'. AR^rsTR()NG. Friday, November 22, LB from CGR appears to
be general.
Mr. Banner, General ?
Mr, Armstrong. That is a phone call again from ]Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Banner, Yes.
Mr. Armstroncj. And can you tell us what the substance of that
phone call was?
Mr. Banner. No, I have no recollection.
11427
Mr. Armstuoxo. Sunday. Xoveniher 24, 10 a.m., reflects CGR — I
assume that is maritime or martini. Maritime.
Mr. Daxxer. Maritime problems, it looks like.
Mr. Armstkoxg. Can you tell us what that was about?
Mr, Danxer. Xo, I don't recall what the nature of that discussion
was.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall discussing with Mr. Rebozo any
maritime problems at that or at any other time ?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't hardly know what the w^ord ''maritime" refers
to. If it was a specific matter. I think I would have mentioned it, so it
leaves me in the dark.
Mr. Armstroxg. Were you representing any clients during that
period that had maritime problems?
Mr. Daxxer. If I remember. I represented a company that was
putting a boat or had a cruise ship in operation, sailing out of Miami
to the islands. Whether it had something to do with that I don't know.
Mr. ARMS'raoxG. Earlier you mentioned the trip to Miami. You said
a ship had been launched. Is this the same client?
Mr. Dax'xer. I am not certain.
Mr. Armstijoxg. What client is it that had the cruise ship in Miami?
Mr. Daxxer. U.S. Freight Forw^arders. I don't know what name
they were operating the ship under though.
Mr. Armstrox^g. And do you know who are the principals of that
corporation ?
Mr. Daxxer. Well, it is a big public corporation.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know who was president ?
Mr. Dax'xer. There was a man, Horace Forgash who died, I think
prior to this period, and I don't recall the name of his successor.
INIr. Armstroxg. Can you spell that ?
Mr. Daxxer. F-o-r-g-a-s-h.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Then, November 25. at noon, or 12 a.m., reflects
a call LI) to CGR-general. That is again a long-distance call to Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxc;. Do you recall what the subject of the conversation
would have been on that date?
INIr. Dax'^ner. No.
INIr. Armstrong. Then, on Tuesday, November 2P) — LD to CGR
regarding status applications, api)lication for Key Biscayne. Do you
recall what that entry reflects?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I do not. I haven't the slightest recollection of
what that i-efers to.
Mr. AR>rsTR()X(}. Well, did you or any of your clients have any appli-
cations pending in Key Biscayne or Florida ?
Mr. Daxner. No.
Mr. AR:\rsTROxG. Did^NIr. Smathers?
Mr. Daxxer. Not that I know of. He would have handled his own.
Mr. Armstroxg. Were you aware of any applications Mr. Rebozo or
the President would have had pending in Key Biscayne ?
]Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. The word there, it's status, s-t-a-t-u-s?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
11428
Mr. Armstrong. Application?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. For Key Hiscayne. That is all one plii-aso?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. That is in youi- own hand ?
Mr. Danner, Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Xow, on Friday. November 29, it says LI) to CGR —
re project. Do you recall whether there was a conversation with ^Ir.
Rebozo again?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. AR:\rsni{()NG. And do yon recall wliat ])roject is being referred to?
Mr. Danner. What project that could have referred to, I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Were there any projects that you or Mr. Rebozo
had pending during that time that you would have been discussing?
Mr. Danner. No; T was active, quite active in Florida, not in connec-
tion with any specific projects, but I was rei)reseiiting an association
of Florida real estate developers. I represented them in Washington in
connection with some legislation that was coming up. Whether it refei-s
to that, I don't know.
Mr. Ar^mstrong. Would that have been a matter you would have dis-
cussed with Mr. Rebozo, that legislation?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall ever having discussed it with him because
hearings ^vere going on in the Senate.
Mr. Armstrong. Just for clarification of tlie record, Avhat was tlie
legislation pending at that time?
Mr. Danner. This was when the land sales companies were selling
real estate in interstiate commerce and were getting out of line. Federal
legislation had been proposed and it Avas supposed to go vuider SECl
and the pressure was to change the legislation in such a manner if a
State had a model land law that they would be exempt from filing
provided they could satisfy, which later became FHA, that their filings
were complete. Their brochures, their statements were honest, and so
on.
Mr. Armstrong. That filing require any apidication ?
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. Are you talking about the pending
legislation or the legislation that was finally enacted ?
Mr. Armstrong. I am talking about Mr. Danner just made refer-
ence to the fact that, as I understand it, certain States would be exempt
from legislation provided that this association
Mr. Freedman. That is what he said he had a part in attempting to
get the Congress to pass.
Mr. Armstrong. And he made refei-ence in the course of liis narrative
to the word "filing'' and I asked if tlic filing that he was referring to
would have been a filing re(iuired in the application?
Mr. Freedman. The word "filing'' does not mean application.
Mr. Armstrong. That is why T asked the (piestion.
Mr. Freedman. It is clear it doesn't mean ap])lication.
Mr. Armstrong. That is why I asked the (question.
Mr. Freedman. I gave the answer.
Mr. Danner. The land company would have to make a filing under
the State law. If that met all of the requirements of the State law and
the State law met all of the ivquirements of the Federal law, then
11429
they did not have to come up liere and go throng:h any appearances or
redtape.
Mr. Armstrong. Was Mr. Rebozo involved in any land company that
mi^jht have so filed?
Mr. Danner. He was active in real estate but he, to my knowledjje,
(lid not do any snbdividin<i: and sellino; off of lots.
Ml-. Armstroxg. Was this a matter tliat you referred to as a ])i-oject
during that period and was it something to you that meant project?
Mr. Banner. It could have been, I am not certain.
]\Ir. Lenznp:r. Before we go on, let me ask, Mr. Danner, with legarxl
to the series of notes that we have been interviewing you on, LD to
CGK, would those reflect a completed call or is that a reminder for
you to make a call ?
ISfr. Daxner. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner. OK. Did you make it a practice or procedure to keep
notes of completed calls and the subject matter of the calls in this
diary during the period 1968 ?
Mr. Danner. If it had to do with my law practice, yes, because I
would use this in connection with billings.
INIr. Lenzner. This would help you reconstruct your items?
Mr. Danner. That is right.
]\f r. Lenzner. Your billable hours.
Mr. Danner. That is right.
Mr. Lenzner. And do you have a recollection of making notes in
your diary contemporaneously w^ith phone conversations relating to
work in your law office ?
Mr. Danner. I would make notations as to whom I had talked to
and unleas it was a well-known client, sometimes, the subjex't matter.
If a new client woidd call in I would make a notation as to what his
problem was, but for the most part I would just make some notes such
as this, ^yiiat it pertained to, I can't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Rebozo a client of yours in 1968 ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he pay you any fee or compensation in 1968 ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. I^ENZNER. Did you do any work that relates to any of these
matters?
Mr. Danner. Not where it concerned Rebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of dictating any mem-
orandums based on these notes that you made contemporaneously in
1968?
Mr. Danner. I recall writing letters corresponding with the attorney
for the Florida association giving him periodic reports, if this per-
tains to that subject, reporting ])rogress being made up here, what was
going on, normal intercourse between two attorneys.
Mr. Lenzner. Does the word "project" here represent a code word
of some kind to you ?
Mr. Danner. No; it could mean a variety of things. "Project," I
would consider my work in connection with representing the land peo-
ple as a project.
Mr. Lenzner. If that is what the project refers to?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
11430
Mr. Lenznkr. I take it your recollection is not firm on that ?
Mr. Danner. No,
Mr. Lenzner. Does this word "project" refer back to house project
in your handwriting: on November 21, lOGS? Is it the same project?
Mr. Danner. I don't know,
Mr. Lenzner, December 2, 1968, a notation after the morning, which
is blotted out, there is a notation Ed Mor<ran — and I can't read
Mr. Danner. Central 9 meetinoj,
ISIr. Lenzner. What does that mean ?
Mr. Danner, That would have been a meeting with the board of
directors of Central 9, which was a corporation formed to make ap-
plication for an FCC license,
Mr. Lenzner. And did Mr. Eebozo or the President have any rela-
tion to that?
Mr. Danner. None whatsoever.
Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Rebozo aware of that application ?
Mr. Danner. I don't believe so.
Mr. Lenzner. Tuesday, December 3, LD to CGE — Miami— Tlur-
long, et cetera. Do you recall what that phone call, what that reference
refers to?
Mr. Danner. No. Apparently a discussion tliat had to do with Ilur-
lon^. What the nature and purpose of it was, I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any common business with ]Mr. Rebozo
or with Mr. Hurlon^?
Mr. Danner. Otlier than what T have mentioned? Hurlon«r did ac-
tively support Mr. Nixon in Florida, Democrats for Nixon, very
effectively.
Mr. Lenzner. Did that involve anything- after the campai<^i, after
the election ?
Mr. Danner. No,
Mr, Lenzner. Was Mr. ITurlono: appointed to any office?
Mr, Danner. Not durino- tliis period. That came up some time later.
Mr. Lenzner. So this couldn't refer to any potential appointuient
that Mr. Hurlouff mi^ht be considered for?
Mr, Danner, No,
Mr. Lenzner. There is a reference on Wednesday, December 4 to —
T (rather that is a trip to Miami — NAL to Miami] Is tliat what that
says ?
Mr. Danner. It looks like it.
Mr. liENZNER. Tlien, there is an item blotted out and it says, "Ed
Moro^an, Frontier Hotel, Las Vestas, manaoement deal — and then to
Everglades City." Can you tell us what happened on that day?
Mr. Danner." This, I'judi^e, IVIorofan called me in Miami to broach
the subject to me of coming with the Iluglies organization taking OA^er
the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas.
Mr. Lenzner. Wouhl that have been the first mention ]\Ir. Moi-gan
had made about coming to woi'k for the Hughes oi-ganization?
Mr. Danner. No, I think it came up early in the fall and at that time
I said I didn't care to even discuss it, I was too busy and didn't know
what the future was going to be, and after the campaign was over I
would talk to them about it.
Mr. Lenzner. Was this your first opportunity after the campaign
to talk to them about it ?
11431
Mr. Danxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lenzxer. At any leno;tli ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes. sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. And that yon believe, reflects a phone call that Mr.
Morgan would have made to you or a phone coversation you would
have had?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, I was in Miami. T am certain it was a phone call.
Mr. Lexzxer. Then it is P^verolades ('ity on the ni<>ht, I assume
tliat is sometime on Wednesday, December 4. Did that involve any
business with Mr. Rebozo or the President ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. And then return to Miami, Thursday, December 5.
Then later in the day it says, NAL to Las Vegas Desert Inn.
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. Tliat reflects a trip to Las Vegas?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. "What was the purpose of the trip ?
Mr. Daxxer. To go out for an interview with the Hughes people.
Mr. Lexzxer. At this time had there been discussions since the elec-
tion with Mr. Morgan regarding the Hughes contribution, any contri-
bution fioni Ml'. Hughes to the campaign or to the President or
through ^Ir. Rebozo?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Then, Sunday, December 8, reflects TWA to Chicago
and TWA, I gather, from Chicago to Washington. That is just the
return trip?
Mr. Daxxer. That is right.
Mv. Lexzxer. Tuesday, December 10, to Spanish Cay. Does that
I'eflect a trip to •
Mr. Dax^xer. No, that is an island out in the Bahamas that I
visited. I was invited by some friends.
Mr. Lexzxer. Would Mr. Rebozo, Mr. Abplanalp, and the Presi-
dent have been present on any of those occasions ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Friday, December 1?>, to Freeport, and it says Wallace
Groves, and then underneath that it says back to Spanish Cay. Can
you tell us what happened on that trip ?
Mr. Daxxer. That was an indi^ddual who wanted to talk to me
about possible representation i-epresenting him.
Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Groves?
Mr. Daxxp:r. Yes, sir, G-r-o-v-e-s.
Mr. Lexzxer. At that time can you tell ns what Mr. Groves' busi-
ness was or what capacity ?
Mr. Daxxer. He was a very prominent
Mr. Freedmax. What does that have to do with this ?
Mr. Lexzxer. Trying to identify Mr. Groves.
Mr. Freedmax. He told you he was a prospective client.
]\lr. I^EXZXER. I am trying to identify who Mr. Groves was.
Mr. Freedmax. I don't see that is relevant to anything. You are
talking about his attorney-client relationship that has nothing to
do
Mr. Lex'zxer. T am asking him to identify Mr. Groves.
Mr. Freedmax. He did.
11432
Mr. Lexzner. He lias not identified Mr. Groves.
Mr. Fiu<:edman. Go ahead.
Mr. Dannek. a axmv pioininent meinber of that community, a sub-
stantial real estate owner with a numbei- of investments, but nothing
resulted from the contact. It was just I flew up and had lunch with
him and came on back.
Mi-. TjKxzner. Did yo" have any discussions with Mr. Groves which
related to Kesort International *.
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And any of the matteis you discussed with Mr.
(xroves, did you later discuss those with Mr. Kebozo or the President?
Mr. Danxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you discuss campaijj^n conti'ibutions with Mr.
Gi'oves?
Mr. Dax'xer. No, sir.
Mr. Lexzner. To your knowle(l<!;e, did Mr. Groves make any cam-
pai*jn contributions?
Mr. Danxer. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Lenzx'er. On Fi-iday, December 20. there is a reference^ — does
that say office ? Is that all it says ? I can't make that one out.
Mr. Danner. Apparently I just made a note to myself that I was
in the office on that date.
Mr. Lexzxer. I pxther that is what Friday, December 27. also
indicates ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lex-^zner. Then on Monday, December 30, there is a reference
11 a.m., call to C. G. Rebozo regardinjj: fjeneral politics. Is that what
that says?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lexzner. Can you tell us what the subject of this conversation
would have been?
JMr. Danner. No ; I wouldirt recall what we discussed.
Mr. Lenzner. That was during the transition period ?
Mr. Danxer. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you play any role during the transition period?
Mr. Freedman. What transition period ?
Mr. Lenzner. Between the 1968 election and the time when the
President-elect became President Nixon, after the inauguration.
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrox(;. Would you like to take a lO-miimte break?
[Recess.]
Mr. Armstroxtj. Beginning in February 1973, Febi-uary 11. First of
all, the 1973 diaiy, you kept these yourself?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir-.
Mr. Armstroxc!. AVhere were these kept?
Ml". Daxxer. On my desk.
Mr. Ahivistroxg. At the Sands?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And in general what types of meetings or events did
you recoi'd in these?
Mr. Daxxer. ,Just what you will find in it.
Mr. ARMS'rRoxG. I understand that. It was kept as an appointment
calendar?
11433
^Ir. Daxxer. No,
Mr. Armstrong. It was kept as a diary of what liad occurred diir-
in<; tliose periods?
Mr. Danner, Just events or dat-es that I considered possibly of
sifTiiificance.
Ml". Armstrong. Significant in terms of having to testify at a later
time ?
Mr. Daxxer. No: just to keep a reminder of wliere I had been.
INIr. LACKRrrz. I take it then, your testimony is that the 1978 diary is
not as detaik^d as your 1968 diary ?
Mv. Daxxer. No way.
Mr. Lackritz. Because you didn't have to keep these for tlie purpose
of billing in your legal practice ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Let me also clarify for the record, you have testified
previously that you cannot find any diaries for 1969-70, 1971, and 1972,
is that correct ?
Mr, Daxxer. Tliat is correct ; yes,
Mr. Lackritz, Now, is it still true that you have not been able to
locate diaries for those years?
Mr, Daxxer, No, It is still true; yes,
Mr, Lackritz, Thank you,
Mr. Armstroxg. Beginning February 1973, Sunday, the 11th, there
is an entry to Orlando, Fla,, Hurlong,
Mr, Daxxer. Hurlong Hassle. This is a golf tournament that is held
over the Lincoln recess wherein a bunch of Washington people travel
to Florida in a party and have a big golf tournament, Leesburg, Fla,,
where it has been going on for 20 years.
Mr, Armstroxg, During the subsequent week. T notice the week of
the 12th, did you stay in Orlando during that week? It reflects you
returned to Las Vegas,
]Mr. Daxxp:r. No ; I stayed in Leesburg,
Mr, Armstroxg. Florida. Did you see Mr, Rebozo Avhile you were in
Florida at that time?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
;Mr. Armstroxg. Did you converse with him?
Mr. Daxxer. Xo; he wasn't invited.
Mr, Armstroxg, And you returned to Las Vegas on Sunda}', Feb-
ruary 18?
Mr, Daxxi:r, That is right.
Mr. Armstrox^g. Now, no entries on the week of April 16, 1973, I be-
lieve that is the week when you met with — Mr, Rebozo visited Las
Vegas, is that correct ?
Mr. Daxxer, What was that date, April 23 ?
Mr, Davis. Did the witness answer or do you want to change your
question?
Mr. Armstroxg. The witness asked a question.
;Mr. Freedmax. You asked him the question and he Avasn't sure.
Mr. Lackritz. The question pending is did Mv. Rebozo visit Las
Vegas during the week of April 16, 1973 ?
Mr. Freedmax. I think when he testified before, back in December,
he mentioned something about that. If you give us the page reference
then I think in all fairness to the witness it might be helpful to him.
31-889 O - 74 - pi. 24 - 11
11434
Mr. Danner. T am only iiiteiested in the date.
Mr. Fkkkdman. My notation indicates tliat in tlie tliird volnme, on
])a<i-e IC), you say in April 1!)T;> Keho/o stayed at tlie Sands. 1 will show-
it to you.
Ml". AR]\rsTRox(}. Let me put it this way. Your diary shows from
April 1 thi'ouoh the end of A])i'il lOT^), no entries. Is that correct?
Mr. Daxxek. If I can hnd that.
Mr. Davis. T think the record ou^ht to reflect there is no masking
of any enti'ie^s durin<; that period either. We have established the diary
does not necessarily reflect everythin<; that is goin<»: on in the woi'ld.
Mr. Ar:\istr()X(;. So yon didn't consider ^Nlr. Kebozo's visit an event
worthy of note in the diary ?
Mr.DANXER. No.
Mr, Armstrox(}. May IS. 197']. Friday, it shows an entry C Greo;-
ory— breakfast. Then it appears to be Rob Abplanalp. Then there is a
marking; after Abplanalp, a dash and marking.
Mr. Daxxer. To Catskills, return at 5 p.m.
Mr. Ar:mstroxcx. OK, and that refers to when you came to Washing-
ton to meet with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. That is right.
Mr. Armstroxg. On the 18th. And traveled with Mr. Abi)lanalp to
the Catskills in Mr. Abplanalp's private plane?
Mr. Daxxer. That is right.
Mr. Armstroxg. There is a reference on Saturday, May 19. Can you
tell us what that indicates — two markings there?
Mr. Daxxer. Burning Tree. BT.
Mr. Armstroxg. That reflects a golf date ?
Mr. Daxner. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And with whom did you play golf?
Mr. Daxxer. I have no recollection.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was Mr. Rebozo a member of that golf party?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was Senator Smathers ?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall.
Mr. Armstroxg. And on INIay 20, 1973, CD for conference. Was that
Camp David?
Mi-. Daxxer. Yes.
Ml-. AR]\rsTRoxG. Was that the day you met with the President and
Ml-. Kebozo at Camp David ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. On May 21, 1973, you returned to Las Vegas on
United Airlines?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. Then on June 5, 1973, Tuesday, it says to LA, con-
ference with Bill Gay.
Mr. Daxxer. That is right.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us what the subject of that confer-
ence was?
Mr. Daxxer. Hotel business.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was there any discussion of the Hughes contribu-
tion to Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
11435
Mr. Armstroxg. "Was there any discussion of politics or campaign
activity at all ?
Mr. Daxxek. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. "Was there any discussion of Mr. McCord's testi-
mony before the "Watergate Committee in May 1973 ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. Then on June 10, it says to Dayton, Ohio, and
there is a reference.
Mr. Daxxer. Bogey Busters.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Is that also a golf
Mr. Daxxer. That is a golf toui-nament. annual golf tournament.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. And the same reference. Bogey Busters, appears in
date in Oliio on June 11 and 12.
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. Ai'e those during that period of time when Mr.
Rebozo reached you while you were at a golf tournament?
Mr. Dax'xer. T recall that he called me. You reminded me he had
made a call. Plow you learned of it, I don't know, because T had not
made any notation of it. He called me up there relative to getting to-
gether with me.
Mr. Arivistroxg. And then on "Wednesday, June 13, 1973, it says
calls fi-om CG — Kenneth Gemmill.
INlr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
INIt-. Ar^istroxg. Then, can you tell us what is underneath that?
INIr. Daxxer. CG would refei- to Rebozo. Charles Gregory, Kenneth
Gemmill, 3 Penn Centi-al. They gave me the location, address. ]>hone
numbei-s. Re trips to Key Biscayne and San Clemente, Avhich I recall
had reference to the contributions that had been made.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Whs that trying to establisli the dates of the
conti'ibutions?
Mr. Daxxer. No, that was just the subject matter.
INIr. Armstroxg. They wanted to talk about contributions?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
INIr. Armstroxg. Then in the next line it refers to Chester Davis?
Mr. Daxxer. That is correct.
Mr. Arinistroxg. I gather the two phone numbers are Mr. Gemmill 's
office and home phone numbers. It savs 215-LO 8-1600 — office, and
215 DT 3-1570, residence ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
ISfr. Armstrong. Do the notations on June 10, 11, 13, recall any addi-
tional facts to mind you have not shared with us previously?
Mr. Daxxer. No, my testimony on this originally is the same as
these were.
INfr. Freedmax. You already testified, you don't have to repeat it.
Mr. AR:NrsTRONG. On July 3, 1973, Tuesday, it says, there is a refer-
ence Don Skelton, S-k-e-1-t-o-n, special agent, IRS, interview, dep-
osition previously given re campaign contributions. "What do<'s that
reflect?
Mr. Daxxer. That was when the IRS people brought back a deposi-
tion which I had given some 13 months previously to correct it.
Mr. Arivistroxg. Does that spark any recollections of testimony not
previously given ?
11436
Mr. Danxek. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Then, on July 8, 1973, Sunday, to Monterey, Quail
Lodtje.
Mr. Daxner. That was just a trip made with my family.
Mr. Armstrong. And Monday, July 9, 1973.
Mr. Danner. Pebble Beach.
Mr. Armstrong. That is c^olfin^?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir. Cyprus Point — those are all golf courses up
on the JNIonterey Peninsula.
Mr. ARisrsTRONG. July 11 says to SF" via United Airlines, reception,
Slieraton Palace.
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir, tluit was a Sands customer who bought the
Sheraton Palace and was having a cocktail party for the opening. He
asked us to come up.
Mr. Armstrong. Was Mi'. Rebozo pi-esent on that occasion?
INIr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. And then. July 16, 1973. a Monday. Can you tell
us what that reference says?
Mr. Danner. That is a call from someone.
Mr. Armstrong. Don Kessler?
Mr. Danner. Don Kessler, Washington Post, re Rebozo. Question:
Who introduced him to Nixon and when? Wliat did I know about it
and about Kebo/o's HuaDces. et cetera, and T made the notation "re-
porter veiT ])ooi-ly infoi'med. asked rude (luestions, very ske})tical." and
I concluded the conversation without talking to him.
Ml". Armstrong. Did you i'ei)ort that plione call to anyone else, sir,
that you received a call from Mr. Kessler ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. August *1, 1973. Saturday. William Turner, SEC,
interview regarding Air West ?
Mr. Danner. That is riglit.
Mr. Armstrong. That is regarding the SEC investigation of this
matter ?
Mr. Danner. That is right.
Mr. Armstrong. These entries in August 1973, from the 19th through
the 25th, that are blotted off have no bearing on Mr. Rebozo or the
President or any campaign contr-ibutions ?
IMr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Now. would there be any other diary that would
reflect meetings that you held in your office, other than this? Did you
make imtations of business appointments on anything else ?
Mr. Danner. Rarely would T make notations otliei- than just a little
slip on my desk. The stenogi-aphei- might type uj) something and, when
finished with the interview, thi'ow it in the wastebasket — mostly staff
people.
Mr. ARivrsTRONG. Did you have a desk calendar?
Ml-. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you make notations of appointments on that?
Mr. Danner. Sometimes she would come in and mark them down but
again they were mostly staff meetings within the hotel or appoint-
ments I would have outside on Nevada Resort Association matters,
general managers' meetings, and thin<rs of that sort.
11437
Mr. Armstrong. Was this a daily calendar, a flip-type calendar ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know what happened to the 1973 calendar?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. I note that Mr. Wenzler and I met with yon on
Angnst 80. We note we weren't mentioned.
Mr. Davis. Perliaps yon are not very important.
Mr. Armstrong. Our feelin<;s are hurt but it is apparently true. But
October 4, 1978, October 5, 1 gather the references there are to visits to
the SEC?
Mr. Danner. Eight.
Mr. Armstrong. And again, Mr. William Turner, and I gather that
is Mr. Freedman's name under Mr. Turner's ?
Mr. Danner. That is right.
Mr. Armstrong. Did yon have any other meetings in Washington
during that trip? I note you returned on Sunday, October 7?
Mr. Danner. Saturday, I think I visited with some friends here.
This is October?
INIr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Danner. I think I visited with some friends out in Potomac,
Md., on that date.
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have included Mr. Ed Morgan ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if you saw ]Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall him having been there.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there a reference on Tuesday, October 9, Ed
Morgan, the rest is blotted out.
Mr. Danner. I don't recall what that was.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall Avluit that entry refers to on Octo-
ber 9 ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Does it reflect a meeting with Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Danner. 1 take it it does, Ed Morgan, looks like, and Pxl Moigan
but the reference below must have had something to do with legal
representation.
]Mr. Armstrong. Would it be possible to doublecheck that reference
and make sure it doesn't have any bearing?
Mr. Danner. I am certain it didn't.
Mr. Armstrong. October 80, says to LA for conferences with SS and
BG regarding Sands.
Mr. Danner. Steve Salvodelli and Bill Gay.
Mr. Armstrong. Was the subject of that conference related to the
Hughes contribution?
Mr. Danner. No ; it had to do with the Sands Hotel.
Mr. Armstrong. Or Watergate hearings ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And November 26, 1978, can you tell us what that
is?
^ Mr. Danner. It looks like Watergate, New York City via some air-
line. Tliis is when I went up to JFK, porters, limousine. That is when
I came up to New York for the meeting at your office [speaking to
Davis].
11438
Mr. AimsTROXG. This indicates a meeting in Mr. Davis' office in
Now York City?
Mr. Daxnkr. Yes, sir,
Mr. AmfSTRoxo. Regarding; Watei-^ate?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxo. And can yon tell us, it says to New York City
via some aiiline and what it says afte?- that, the next four words?
Mr. Daxxkr. That must be United Airlines; yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. AVere those hotel ci-edit ?
Mr. Daxx^er. Yes. sir; that is what it is.
Mr. AmrsTRox^^o. Can you tell us. was anyone else present besides
yourself and Mr. Davis ? You did meet with Mr. Davis ?
Mr, Dax'xer. Yes ; I don^ recall who all was there.
Mr. Armstrox'o. And do you remember any other individuals be-
sides Mr. Davis?
Mr. Freedmax. Tie iust said he didn't remember.
Mr. Daxner. I don't remember other than the office staff.
Mr. Armstroxg. He said he didn't remember who all was there.
T said if he remembered any other people.
Mr. Dax^xer. His stafl', stenographers.
Mr. Armstroxg. Then on December 1,
Mr, Davis. AAHiat date ?
Mr. Dax^xer. Monday. November 26.
Mr. Armstrong. I assume December 1 indicates when you came to
testify here befoi'e this committee.
Mr. Danner. That is rio;ht,
Mr. Arinestroxg. And the item on Monday, December ?>, is blotted
out. It has no bearin<i: on your testimony here ?
Mr. Daxner. No.
IVfr. Armstrong. And similarly on the 4th, no bearinn;. And on the
5th, says return to Las Veo^as.
Mr. Danner. That is riofht.
Mr. Arisistrong. Then on Monday the 10th, another trip to testify
here?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox^g. An item blotted out on Tuesday, the 11th, has
no bearinjTon Mr. Rebozo or the President?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Or the Waterj^ate hearings ?
Mr. Danner. No,
Mr, ARisrsTRox-^G. And similarly, your- trip on the 17th to Wash-
inirton, was that foi- the purpose of testifying; here ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox^g, And the items blotted out on the 18th and 19th
have no bearino; on your testimony here. Or, Mr, Rebozo, the Presi-
dent, or
Ml', Danner, No,
Mr, Arivfstrong, Have any beai-iuir on INIr. Morgan ?
Mr, Danx-er, No. I am certain it didn't,
Mr, Armstrong, OK. that is it for 1073,
Mr, IjA(^kritz, Mr, Dannei-, we have gone through the diary en-
tries for 196S that you have pi-oduced here today. As I mentioned
11439
previously to counsel, one of the many reasons for wanting to get
you bark in to testify again prior to the termination of the committee
mandate was to try and clarify some contradictions that are pres-
ently on the record between your testimony and the testimony of
some of the othei- witnesses we have had.
Is there anvthinp; that vou recall, havincf crone thi-ouirh these 1968
diai'ies, fi-om your pi-ior testimony before this connnittee that you
would like to change, in light of having gone through these diaries
and refreshing your i-ecol lection about the events?
]Mr. Danner. No ; I can think of nothing.
Mr. Freed:m.\n. If you have something specific then I think in
fairness to the witness you ought to tell him. Ask him anything at
all. the most minute thing in the world.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Freedman, if I may, I was just giving the wit-
ness an oi>iiortunity ])i'ior to mv asl^ing him specific rpu'-tions, to volun-
teer anything he could recall off the top of his head.
Mr. Freedman. Go ahead.
]Mr. Davis. Bear in mind the purpose and function of this hearing
is not to prosecute anybody about anything but to develop facts which
are I'elative to your inquiry, and I do think Mr. Freedman's remark
is well taken, but proceed with anythino- which you would like to
have the witness explain, if there is anything to explain, and if you
have anv testimony by anybody else which you think conflicts with
his recollection. I sugirest you produce whatever it is that was said
by anybody and see if that i-e freshes his recollection.
Ml'. Lackritz. As 1 recall vour testimony the last time you wei'c
here, you testified that you met some time during the summer of
1968 with then candidate Nixon and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. That is right.
Mr. Lackritz. To discuss the question of ascertaining whether Mr.
Howard Hujihes would be willino; to make a contribution to the 1968
campaign?
Mr. Davis. At this point I would like to have a reference to his
testimony to which you are referring.
Mr. Lackritz. I am referring, Mr. Davis, to the transcript from
December 18. 1973.
Mr. Davis. What page?
Mr. Lackritz. T am referring to pages 19 and 20 of that transcript.
Mr. Da\is. While we are at it and while the witness is looking at
that, will you then refer to whatever transcript of the testimony by
anyone else that refers to that ?
i take it this is a foundation, you find something we are unable
to explain?
Mr. Lackritz. I am only aslcing if the records you produce today
can verify the specific date that Mr. Danner testified previously as to
when that meeting occurred, when Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rebozo dis-
cussed finance with you. Mr. T^anner.
Mr. Davis. I thought you were referring to some contradictory tes-
timony by someone else.
Mr, Lackritz. Not as yet.
Have you read through that testimony ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
11440
jMr. Lackritz. I take it tliat that is still youi- testimony, is it not?
Mr. Danxer. Yes. I can t'xtcnd that a little in tliat the <renoral dis-
cussion that was had at this time iiad to do with |)otential contributors,
during which time the name of Ilu<j:hes came up. AViio raised it, I don't
recall. But I did say that perhaps I said that I did not know Hughes
or any of Hughes' people but that perhaps Ed Morgan, who did have
a contact, can ascertain whetliei' oi- not Iluglu^s would be interested
in making a contribution.
Mr. Davis. My recollection of the question is whether or not your
diary can pinpoint the date^
Mr. Laokritz. That is right.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Of this particulai' meeting any more
than —
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. It cannot. And you have gone through the diary to
ti-y to j)inpoint when tliis meeting occurred ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. You did testifv on that occasion, on page 23. line 24,
in response to the question by Mr. Lenzner, of whether or not there
were other possible contributors you were asked to contact. You re-
sponded : "I think there was one, Clint Murchison, Jr., and I agreed
to talk to him, which I did.''
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Is that correct?
Mr. Danner. That is correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Is that still your recollection of the discussion you had
at the meeting?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. When you testified from your diary entries, Mr. Dan-
ner, as I recall, there is an entry on June 4, 1968, which indicates that
you took a trip to Dallas, Tex., and that you testified this morning
that you saw ISIr. Murchison concerning a coutiibution at that time?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. So would that indicate to you that your meeting
among Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rebozo occurred pi-ior to June 4, 1968?
Mr. Danner. Prior- to what date?
Mr. Lackritz. To yoiu- trip down to see Mr, Murchison in response
to the suggestion at this meeting?
Mr. Freedman. Which was on June 4, 1968, according to j'our diary.
Do you understand the question ?
Mr. Davis. I think the inference that you are drawing, counsel,
could be misleading the witness. I have no objection if it refreshes his
recollection.
Mr. Lackritz. I am merely making an etl'ort to refresh his recol-
lection.
Mr. Davis. You are implying that somehow or other liis prior testi-
mony has some relationship to the date of the meeting. His prior testi-
mony merely indicated, apait from the re(][uest that was made of him
to contact Mr. Hughes, a question was asked wliether or not he had
been asked to contact anybodv elst% and he said: Yes, he contacted
somebody else, namely, INIr. Murchison. We established today from his
diary he went to Dallas on June 4, 1968,
11441
The. thino: I want to make clear, he has no recollection. I have no
objection to o:ivino: his recollection. I don't think it is fair to imply
that there is any connection lo<i;ically between the time he visited Clint
]\Inrchison an(i the time he was asked to approach Hughes.
Mr. Armstkoxg. Mr. Davis, tlie (juestion was. in the meeting with
Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Xixon were there any other possible contrib-
utors he was asked to contact. This is referring to the one meeting. And
he said I think there was one, Clint Murchison. So I think there is
some logical connection.
Mr. Davis. I don't want the witness saying something unless he
recalls it, if he recalls more definitely. You are attempting to identify
the date of that meeting, is that correct?
The question to you, Mr. Danner, is whether or not what has been
said refreshes your recollection as to the date of the meeting to which
you previously testified?
Mr. Danxer. No, it does not.
INIr. Lackritz. All right. Were there any other contributors that you
can presently recall that were brought up at the meeting you had with
then candidate Nixon and Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. My recollection of the discussion is that there were a
number of names mentioned, none of which meant anything to me, as
possible contributors.
Mr. Lackritz. Was the name Paul Getty mentioned at this meeting?
Mr. Danxer. I don't recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Was the name E. D. Ludwig mentioned at this
meeting ?
Mr. Daxxer. T don't recall. It was just a general discussion. It
wasn't an ongoing, step-by-step discussion. It was sort of a brain-
storming session, who are potential contributors. The name Hughes
came up and that is when I volunteered to see if Ed Morgan could
find out for us. But this meeting, I didn't want you to draw an infer-
ence that this meeting was purely a meeting to discuss campaign
finance. It was not.
Mr. Lackritz. It Avas a more general meeting to which the subject
of campaign finance arose?
Mr. Daxx^er. That is right.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, when you traveled down to Texas on June 4,
do you recall any other contributors that you contacted aside from
Ml-. Murchison ?
Mr. Dax'ner. As I told you, I went over to Fort Worth, where I
foi-merly lived and had a Ford dealership, and visited with some old
fi-iends, told them wliat I was going to do. I don't recall soliciting
any of them for a campaign contribution. I think my recollection
is more sounding them out as to what they thought of Nixon's chances,
were they going to support him, what did it look like?
Mr. Lackritz. Rut you do not recall specifically asking any of those
individuals for campaign contributions?
Mr. Danner. No.
Ml-. Lackritz. But you did ask Mr. Murchison for a contribution?
Mr. Dax-^xer. I talked to him about his attitude, what he was going
to do, and he indicated if he did go he would make other arrangements.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall if this trip was after your meeting
with Mr. Nixon and ISIr. Rebozo ?
11442
Mr. Danner. My rocollectioii is it would have been aftet- the meeting;.
Mr-. Lackkitz. Your trip to Texas would have been after your nieet-
inc: with Mr. Kebozo and Mr. Nixon?
Mr. Daxneu. Yes, sir.
Mr. LACKRrrz. OK.
Turninji: to yo\ir nieetinjjjs with Mr-. A. I). Davis (bjrin<!: tliis pei-iod
of time, which are reflected in your diary. iVt this time you were
i'e[)resentinj): Mr. Davis in his ell'orts to purchase the Tropicana Hotel,
is that correct ?
Mr. Danxer. Yes, sir.
INfr. T.ackritz. Were you involved at all in solicit in<r any canipaio^n
contiibutions for the 1968 campaign from Mr. A. I). Davis?
Mr. Danker. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. AVere you aware of any contributions made by Mr.
A. D. Davis in the 1968 campai^i?
Mr. Daxner. No. sir.
Ml-. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo ever inform you he received any
cami)aio:n contributions from INIr. A. D. Davis?
Mr. Daxner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. All rijT:ht, are you awai-e of any contributions to the
1972 Pi-esidential campaion made bv Mi-. A. I). Davis?
Mr. Danxer. No; I am not. Which is not to say I haven't read about
it. but I had no knowledG:e of it.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you ever discussed with Mr. Rebozo the subject
of contributions to the 1972 campai<»:n made by Mr. A. D. Davis?
Mr. Daxner. No; not that I have any recollection of.
Mr. Lackritz. All ri<>ht. when did you first become aware that
allejTedly a contribution was made by Mr. Davis to the 1972 campaign?
]\Ir. Danner. When I read about it in the newspapers.
INIi-. Lackritz. Do you recall when that was?
Mr. Danner. It has been within tlie last month or so.
INIi-. I^A( KRiTz. After you read about it in the newspapers have you
had any discussions about the alleged contribution by Mr. Davis to the
1972 campaign with INIr. Rebozo or witli any official or past officials
of the White House?
Mr. Danxer. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you discussed this subject with Mr. Ed IMoi-gan ?
Mi-. Dax'xer. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. ILave you talked to Mr. Davis since you learned of
this alleged contribution?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir, I have not.
Mr. Lackritz. Were you aware of any other campaign contributions
in 1968, other than the ones that you have described to this committee?
T would like to (lualify that — in excess of $10,000?
Mr. Daxxer. No; I have no personal knowledge of any such gifts.
Mr. Davis. INIay I say do you have any testimony by anyone that is
inconsistent with this witiu'ss' testimony?
Mr. Lackritz. You can nsk.
Mr. Davis. I am asking.
Ml-. Freedman. If somebody else says lie knows
Mr. Lackritz. Can T just resi)ond to the inquiry of Mr. Davis? First,
I would be more than happy to have a collocpiy with you about it.
11443
In response to your inquiry. Mr. Davis. I don't want to discuss the
specific testimony that the committee has or does not have. Mr. Ban-
ner's testimony. I think, will speak for itself and I am not in a posi-
tion right now to discuss any other testimony.
Mr. I)avis. T have no objection to <;ivino: you his best recollection,
obviously, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But at the same time, you
are ti-yiii*; to create the impression as a justification for pursuiuf; prior
interro»!:ation of Mr. Danner that you liave some conflicting or incon-
sistent testimony, and I don't think this is a fair way to proceed in
this kind of a proceeding. Obviously, Avhat T am saying, you are claim-
ing that you are in possession of facts inconsistent with this witness'
recollection.
Either you want to answer or you don't want to answer. I know this
witness is right when he appears before the grand jury in prepara-
tion for it, which is one thing, and you are claiming that you are pei--
forming a function which parallels, to be sure, the grand jury in-
vestigation, and I suggest to you, sir, that this way of proceeding is
improper.
Mr. Lackrttz. Let me make two points. Mr. Davis. One is that we
have not asked the witness prior to this date if he had any knowledge
of contributions greater than $10,000.
Mr. Davis. If you want to say what you recall has been told, know-
ing of the contribution by X, Y. Z. you name him, and either he has
a recollection or he doesn't. But this kind of interrogation smacks
very much to me of a sort of cross-examination with which I am more
familiar in judicial proceedings than I am in this kind of hearing.
That is what I am objecting to. In a judicial proceeding at least I am
entitled to an open hearing.
Mr. Lackritz. The only point that I was hoping to raise, and in
response to your inquiry, were, one, that we have not asked that ques-
tion of Mr. Danner previously and had not obtained that information,
and second, we are not at liberty to discuss close information we may
have obtained from other investigative agencies.
Mr. Davis. I am asking you to address your questions specifically —
do you have a recollection of a conti-ibution by X, Y or Z, so as to
fairly attempt to refresh his recollection.
I don't know what you are trying to do here.
Are you trying to impeach the witness or trying to get information
from him? If you are trying to get information from him, refresh
his recollection.
I am not asking you to tell me what anybody else said to you. You
can ask him, do you have any recollection, specifically of any contribu-
tion made by X, Y or Z ?
]\Ir. Lackritz. Do vou have anv recollection of any contribution
in 1968 bv Mr. Don Kendall ?
Mr. Davis. AYlio ?
Mr. Lackritz. Kendall.
Mr. Davis. Can you identify him ?
Mr. Danner. Is that the Pepsi Cola man ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
Mr. Danner. No: I have no knowledge of any contribution he made.
Mr. Lackritz. And, second, do you have any knowledge of any
contribution made bv Mr. Elmer Bobst ?
11444
Mr. Banner. No; I don't. That name doesn't even rino: a bell.
Mr. Lackiutz. F'ine. Do yon have any knowledge of any contribu-
tion made by Clement Stone?
Mr. Dannek. Xo.
Mr. LACKRrrz. In the 1068 campaign?
Mr. Danner. No.
Ml". Davis. I take it, in your answer you are excluding anything
you might have read in the ]iewspai)ers ^
Mr. Danxer. I knew that, for example, Maui'ice Stans was raising
money. I didn't know who he raised it from.
Mr. Lackritz. Now; the same question ai:)plies to knowledge of any
contribution in the 1972 campaign by those previously mentioned
individuals. Do you have any knowledge of any such contributions?
Mr. Danner. None whatsoever.
Mr. Lackritz. And, finally, do you have any knowledge of any con-
tribution made to the 1972 campaign by Mr. C. Ainholt Smiths
Mr. Danner. C. Arnholt — no.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine.
All right, now, in your pi-evious testimony, Mr. Danner, you
testified that you had a meeting with Mr. Morgan and IMr. Rebozo in
Washington, D.C., and that following tjiat meeting at some point you
were in New York City and uiet with Mr. John iVIitchell. During this
meeting Mr. Rebozo was called out of that meeting and apparently
went to a telephone and came back souie time later very angry since he
was allegedly supposed to meet with Mr. John Meier and F. Donald
Nixon ?
Mr. Freedman. Can you give us a i)age reference ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes; it is in the first day of testimony. The page
reference is page 30. Roughly pages 30 through 40 describes the
incident.
Mr. Freedman. Of what day's testimony ?
Mv. Lackritz. The fii'st day.
Mr. Freedman. "First day" doesn't mean anything.
Mr. Lackritz. December 18.
Mr. Freedman. OK.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Danner, I take it, after reviewing these tliaries,
your testimony is the same that it was following your meeting with
Mr. Morgan and Mr. Rebozo, that you I'ecall meeting in New York
with campaign manager John Mitchell when Mr. Kebozo was called
from the rooui, is that correct ?
Mr. Danner. Yes. I am not so certain that was the meeting which
I discussed here today where we talked to Mitchell about Florida but
my I'ecollection still is the same, that we had gone up to meet, I had
gone up to meet Mitchell and Stans, meet Rebozo, and that is when
he got the call concerning the Hughes contribution and he went out
by himself to make the meeting and came back very upset and because
Donald Nixon ami Johnny Meier were involved in it he didn't want to
have any i)art in that.
Mr. Lackritz. Judging from your testimony this morning about
the dates in your 1968 diary, if your meeting with Mr. Morgan and
Mr. Rebozo was on September 11, 1969, then to the best of your
recol 1 ecti on
Mr. Danner. 1968.
11445
Mr. Lackritz. Excuse me. Then to the best of your recollection, this
meetin<j in New York would have been after September 11, 1968?
Mr. I)axxer. Yes, sir, that would be my best recollection.
Mr. Lackritz. And is it also your recollection that that meeting is
not reflected in your 1968 diary ?
Mr. Daxxer. The New York meeting?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
Mr. Danxer. I don't think so.
Mr. Lackritz. You don't think that the meeting is reflected in your
diary ?
Mr. Daxx'^er. I don't recall making any notation in the diary as to
the meeting up there with Rebozo when he made contact with the
Hughes people.
Mr. Lackritz. Now you have testified before that on Thursday. July
18, you met with INIr. Rebozo and Mr. Garcia in Miami ?
Mr. Daxner. l^'liat year?
Mr. Freedman. What year ?
Mr. Lackritz. 1968.
Were any campaign contributions discussed at that time with Mr.
Garcia ?
Mr. Davis. If you recall any.
INIr. Daxner. I don't recall any.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, was the primary subject of discussion at
that time JNIr. Garcia's role in the Democrats for Nixon organization?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. In Florida ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Were any campaign contributors discussed with Mr.
Garcia at that time?
Mr. Daxner. I don't recall any.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of Mr. Rebozo receiving any large
quantities of cash on tliat date or prior to that date ?
Mr. Daxner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Prior to November 5, 1968, prior to the election
day, were you aware of Mr. Rebozo receiving any quantities of cash
in excess of $10,000 from any source ?
Mr. Dax'xer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, now, prior to the election of 1968, Mr.
Danner, did anyone provide you personally with any sums of cash
over $10,000 ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You received no cash at all ?
Mr. Dax'x^er. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. And are you aware if Mr. INIorgan had any cash at
the time that he met with you and Mr. Rebozo for breakfast on Sep-
tember 11. 1968?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You are not aware or he did not have any cash ?
Mr. Danner. I am not aware that he had any.
Mi-. Lackritz. Can T finally — with respect to 106S attempted con-
tribution from Mr. Hughes, there is a direct conflict between your
testimony and the testimony of Mr. Rebozo concerning who initiated
the discussions about the contribution.
11446
Ts it still your testimony that it was Mr. Rebozo who asked von to
ask the Hiio;hes people if they were interested in makinjj; a contribu-
tion to the 1068 campai^ ?
Mr. Frekdmax. Wiiat pafje?
Mr. Lackritz. Roughly the same section of the December 18 testi-
mony, Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Davis. The assertion you are niakino; is there is a conflict with
Mr. Rebozo's testimony. If you want this witness to address himself
to that, I think he oug-ht to be shown the testimony.
Mr. Lackritz. I make the representation to you.
Mr. Davis. Make the representation as to what IMr. Rebozo said.
There is the problem about who said what first.
Mr. Lackritz. T just did, Mr. Davis. T said Mi-. Rebozo represented
that Mr. Danner initiated the contact of the Huohes contribution and
Mr. Danner's testimony is
Mr. Freedman. He did initiate the contact.
Mr. Lackritz. He initiated the subject of the Hughes contribution.
Mr. Freedman. That is the difficulty, unless 3^ou have tlie exact
language.
Mr. La(^kritz. T am only asking the question, Mr. Danner. If Mr.
Danner's testimony
Mr. Davis. Do you remember who said what first ?
Mr. Lackritz.' Page 21 of the transcript of December 18, 1973, is
that still your testimony ?
Mr. Danner. [reading].
Mr. Lenzner. Who first raised the subject of contribution from Hughes Tool
Co. at the time of the meeting, to your recollection?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall. The discussion generally was did I know or did
I have any contacts that I could use to raise money? Generally, the people that
I knew, of course, they knew equally well or better. The question arose as to
what would be the best way of contacting Mr. Hughes as to whether or not he
would contribute.
Mr. Lenzner. Who raised that?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall.
Mr. Lenzner. It was not you?
Mr. Danner. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Lackritz. Is that still your testimony ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. La(^krttz. You do not believe you raised the subject initially?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. He is not changing his testimony. T don't agree with your
characterization of his testimony. That is my problem, INIr. Lackritz.
Mr. Lackritz. OK.
Mr. Davis. It seems to me he is not changing his prior testimony.
Mr. Lackritz. That is all I am asking him, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Fine. Basically, as T understand it, he doesn't remember,
exce[)t some things that were discussed genei-ally.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, Mr. Danner, your diaiy shows that you traveled
to Las Vegas on December 5, 19(;8. Did you meet with Mr. Robert
Maheu (m that occasion ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And where did you meet with Mr. Maheu ?
Mr. Danner. My recollection was that I met him at a cocktail party
at the Sands Hotel with a number of his stall people.
11447
Mr. Lackritz. So that would have been late in the day on Decem-
ber 5?
Mr. Daxner. Yes. I o:ot in \ate in the afternoon, as I recall, and went
over to this cocktail paity, a small cocktail party in Ed Nigro's apart-
ment.
Mr. Lackritz. And do von recall how many people were at the
party ?
INIr. Danner. Possibly 8 or 10.
Mr. Lackritz. Were they all employees of Mr. JNIahen ?
Mr. Dan'xer. Yes, sir.
Mr, Davis. I think the witness is refen-ing to employees. I don't
know what you mean by employees of Mv. Maheu.
Mr. Lackritz. Were they all individuals who worked for ]\Ir.
Maheu ?
Mr. Danner. Let me state it this way.
Mr. Lackritz. I take it, j^ou are objecting to the legal term employee ?
Mr. Davis. I don't answer this witness' answers.
Mr. Daxnp:r. I undei-stood this to be Maheu's stall' people.
Mr. Lackritz. And how did you decide to go out to Las Vegas on
that occasion ? Did Mr. Maheu invite you out?
Mr. Danner, Yes, sir.
iNIr. Lackritz. And was this an invitation issued through Mr. Mor-
gan or-
Mr. Danner. Both of them talked to me about it.
Mr. Lackritz. And the purpose of this meeting was to discuss pos-
sible employment with the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Danner. That is right,
Mr. Lackritz. Did you have any discussion at this cocktail party
M'ith Mr. Maheu ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall whether we discussed at the party oi- just
met and visited with tlie people and had the meeting the next morning
up in his office, but there was a discussion with Maheu and Nigio.
]Mr. Lackritz. A^^lat was the nature of the discussion ?
Mr. Danner. About me coming out there as manager of the Frontier
Hotel.
Mv. Lackritz. All right, at that time did the subject of the Decembei-
5 meeting, in the late afternoon, the subject of political contributions
arise ?
]\fr. Danner. Xo, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. jNIaheu discuss with you anything concern-
ing Mr. Maheu or the Hughes Tool Co. involvement in the 1968 cam-
paign ?
Mr. Danner. No ; I recall no discussion along those lines.
Mr. Lackritz. In the afternoon of December 5, 1968, did Mr. Maheu
provide you with any cash ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. And did he provide you with any checks of anv
kind to be used for political contributions ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Freedaian. How far forward are you going from December 5?
IMr. Lackritz. I am talking about the afternoon of December 5,
1969. I tliink, if it is not clear for the record, the previous line of ques-
11448
tioning has been directed to the meeting on December 5, 1968, between
Mr. Maheii and Mr. Danner.
Did you meet later on Decoinhoi- 5. after this cwktail party, did
you have any other discussions that same day with Mr. Maheu?
Mr. Danner. No; my recollection was that we met the next mornin<i'
up in his office, which would have been the sixth.
Mr. Lackkitz. That woidd have been the next time that you saw him ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he discuss with you at that time any attempt to
make a political contribution at Palm Sprin<js?
Mr. Freedman. You are talking about the morning of December 6?
Mr. Lackritz. That is right, 19()8.
Mr. Danner. I recall there was some conversation. ^Yliethcr or not it
was at that time or prior to his visit to Palm Springs or after his visit
to Palm Springs, he having mentioned to me that he was either going
to or had tried to make a contribution to the President at Palm
Springs. I am just hazy as to the timing of that. But I do know that
later he told me Governor Laxall had accompanied him down there and
they had not been able to see the President.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall him telling you that immediately after
returning from Palm Springs during the same visit by yourself to Las
Vegas ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall this having been discussed dur-ing my
first visit to Las Vegas. That was purely business having to do Avith
the possibility of my taking employment in Las Vegas.
Mr. Lackeitz. But you just testified that he may ha\e told you
prior to his going to Palm Springs he was going to attempt to make a
contribution at Palm Springs.
Mr. Danner. I am not ceitain as to the timing, whether it was before
or aftei' the attempt.
Mr. Lackritz. And he also reported to you that the attempt was
unsuccessful, at a later time, not on this first visit ?
Mr, Danner. That is right.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, did he on the second day, on December 6,
provide you with any cash ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Provided you with no cash ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. To be used as a political contribution to eithei- ])ay
for election debts of President Nixon's 1968 campaign or for any
other purpose?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, did you meet witli him on any other
occasion during the first visit to Las Vegas eitliei' on Decemlx^r 6, 7,
or8?
Mr. Danner. I don't know, T don't recall how long I stayed out
there. It was a rather short period. Most of the time was spent in con-
ferences wherein they were explaining to me the luiture of tlie setup,
the problems they were encountering, and pressing me for an earlier
decision as to whether T would come out there. But it had nothing to do
with campaign, campaign contributions, none whatsoever.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you see any cash in the presence of Mr. Maheu?
Did Mr. Maheu show you any cash that he may have assembled at
that time?
11449
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. In your testimony before Judge Pregerson in the
trial in Las Vegas on May 3, 1974, at page 7794, Judge Pregerson
asked you in reference to the two $50,000 contributions, did you ever
handle $50,000 cash before, and your response was, "Yes, sir," on page
7795. And the matter was not pursued further.
What were you referring to in that testimony ?
Mr. Banner. I recall the ques'tion. It had to do with prBvious
campaigns, nothing having to do with Presidential elections. Wherein
campaign contributions in excess, not in one amount, in excess of
$50,000 were contributed. This had nothing to do w^ith the Presidential
campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. But these were contributions in cash greater than
$50,000?
Mr. Banner. No; the Judge's question was, didn't I consider $50,000
to be a large amount, and I said in previous campaigns, funds that were
raised would be in excess of $50,000 but I didn't handle them.
Mr. Lackritz. In other words, you are explaining your testimony
before Judge Pregerson referred to aggregate sums of contributions
in cash ?
Mr. Banner. Yes, dating back to the fifties.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, so it did not refer to any conti'ibutions that
you may have received from Mr. Maheu prior to the time you delivered
the money to Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Banner. No connection whatsoever.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, Mr. Banner, in your diary of 1968, on Thurs-
day, November 21, you have a notation LB, presumably long distance
call, from CGR, referring to Mr. Rebozo, Miami, re, "House project".
Bid your visit in Las Vegas with Mr. Maheu have anjiihing to do
with the house project referred to in your diary on November 21 ?
Mr. Banner. No, my visit w^ith Maheu in Las Vegas, I am pretty
firm in my recollection, solely was concerned with possibility of
employment. We discussed no politics, no projects or campaign con-
tributions, nothing of that sort.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, so you are fairly firm in your recollection
of the meeting from December 5 through December — in Las Vegas, it
has nothing to do with campaign contributions and nothing to do with.
the house project mentioned in your diary on November 21, 1968?
Mr. Banner. Yes; I am, my recollection seems to be very firm on
that.
Mr. Lackritz. Adding, to make sure that we can't misrepresent what
the diary says, it had nothing to do with your long-distance call on
November 29, 1968, to Mr. Rebozo re, project, your meeting with
Mr. Maheu?
Mr. Banner. I do not recall any connection between Rebozzo, et al.,
and Maheu, el al., at that stage. One was entirely separate from the
other.
Mr. Lackritz. Two completely different entities?
Mr. Banner. That is right.
Mr. Lackritz. Bid you have any questions at this point about 1968 ?
Mr. SCHULTZ. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Banner, you have testified that you \dsited the
Bahamas shortly after the 1968 elections at the request of Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Freedman. What page?
31-889 O - 74 - pt.24 - 12
11450
Mr. Lackritz. I don't recall the page reference in your testimony.
I will ask yon the question fresh then as opposed to flipping througli.
Mr. Davis. Are you referring to the diary entry where he said he was
met at the airport and then went to the Bahamas? I don't know what
you mean by recpiest of, if he visited the Bahamas when he said he did.
Mr, Lackiutz. Did yon visit with President-elect Nixon following
the 1968 campaign?
Mr. Danner. 1 will have to look up the date. I did go down there to
Walker Cay and met with Rebozo and Abplanalp and President
Nixon. Was that befoie or after the election ?
Mr. Davis. Whenever it was. Mr. Nixon?
Mr. Danner. Mr. Nixon.
Mr. Lackritz. Is Walker Cay a dirt'erent island than Grand Cay?
Mr. Danner. They are adjacent to eacli other separated by a small
lagoon and body of water.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall when you visited on Walker Cay with
the President?
Mr. Danner. Well, it is in that
Mr. Davis. He testified to it a moment ago. It was in the diary.
Mr. Lackritz. I thought that was Spanish Cay.
Mr. Danner. These are two separate visits.
Mr. Lackritz. I stand corrected then. My recollection from diary,
in the diary in 1968 was, following the election tliere Avas no reference
to any trip to AValker Cay or Grand Cay.
Mr. Danner. Spanish'Cay. That had nothing to do with Abplanalp-
Nixon.
Mr. Davis. You will find in connection with the reference he was
met at the airport by Butler Aviation, as I recall the testimony.
Mr. Danner. That was Walker Cay.
Mr. Davis. He was met there to go to Walker Cay.
Mr, SciiuLTZ. April 9, 1968.
Mr. Davis, This was before. It is your construction which is
confusing.
Mr. LACKRrrz. Maybe I will have to find INIr. Danner's pi-evious
testimony. He has testified following the election, I believe, you earlier
testified sometime in early 1968 oi' eai"ly 1969.
INIr. Davis. His i-ecoUection may be wrong as to dates. The point
is today he testified one entry on the calendar.
Mr. Lackritz. I am just trying to determine if there were moie than
one meeting.
Do you recall?
Mr. Daxnei:. Spanish Cay in December 1968 ?
INfr. Lackiutz. Yes.
Mr. Danner. That had nothing to do with Walker Cay.
ISIr. Lackritz. I undei'stand that. Do you recall going down to visit
with President-elect Nixon in Walkei- Cay following the fi)6S election ?
Mr, Danner. When, whatever the date was, and we can ascertain
that very easily, it is in the diary.
Mr. Lackritz. Well
Mr. Davis. A moment ago the witness said he did \isit Walkei- Cay
when Mr. Nixon was there but he did not know whether or not it was
before or after the election.
11451
Mr. Moore. Maybe I could clear this up or refresh your recollection.
In the May :> testimony in Los Angeles you Avere asked, page 7781 :
Now. Mr. Danner. let's so back to the pf)litieal aeti\it.v. After the election you
recall a particular social trip that you took to the Bahama Islands? Answer.
Yes. Will you tell His Honor and members of the jury where you went in the
Bahamas? Answer. I was in Florida and received a call from :Mr. Rebozo telling
me if I could get away for a couple of days they would have a plane pick me up
in Fort Lauderdale and fly me to one of the Bahamas group islands. Walker Cay,
owned l>y a very good friend of Mr. Rebozo, Mr. Nixon. I flew over there and
we visited, spent a day and night and returned the next day.
That is page 7781 to 7782. That was your testimony.
Mr. D.vvis. Where?
Mr. MooHE. A month ago in tlie ^Nlaheu against Hughes litigation
in Los Angeles, it was after the election.
Mr. Davis. That is not the testimony today based on his calendar.
We want to go and find out whether or not he was, if you recall,
whether that testimony was accurate as to date. It is fine with me if
we are going to stay here for the purpose of this proceeding to try to
straighten out the testimony in all of the legal proceedings on the
ground that it is relevant to the enabling I'esolution of the Senate com-
mittee. I respectfully submit that the objection that I stated at the
beginning of this hearing covers more gi-ound than I anticipated be-
cause I don't think that it is appropriate at this juncture to attempt
to *ret this witness to reconcile all of the testimony he has ever given
in any other proceeding.
I don't mind your asking him if he recalls today any meeting fol-
lowing the election at Walker Cay or anywhere else, because I don't
fliink that this is an appropriate forum, pai'ticularly in the uianner it
is l)eing conducted to have this Avitness attempt to reconcile all of the
testimony where the witness is answering questions based upon the
thread of whatever the line of questioning is.
I will instruct the witness not to answer any further questions until
I have an opportunity to review all of the testimony he has given in
every forum.
Mr. D.\xxEn. Wednesday, April 10, 1908. is when I went to Walker
Cay.
Ml-. L.vc^vRiTz. My question, ]\Ir. Danner, is a purely simple one,
I think.
Do you recall any other occasions, aside from the one noted in your
diary, when you would have visited with President-elect Nixon, Mr.
Rebozo, and Mr. Abplanalp on Walker Cay ?
Mr. Danner. No, I was only there on one occasion. So if I said, if
I understood yon to say that I testified this was after the election, I
was in error- as to the date.
Mr. LAC'KRrrz. Fine. That is really all I wanted to clear up.
Mr. Davis. Now, since Mr. Lenzner just walked in, Ave are noAv mak-
ing an effort to reconcile his testimony as refreshed by this particulai-
diary Avith respect to testimony he gave in the action pending in the
Federal courts in Los Angeles Avhere he did not have his diary and
where he made a mistake Avith respect to the date. I submit tlnit this
is neithei- the proper place nor forum to attempt to do that kind of
attack.
11452
Now, we liave established tliat api)areiitly lie was in error as to the
date when lie visited Walker Cay, as he testified before Judfje Pre<rer-
son ill California.
INIy question at this ])oint is what has this <'ot to do with the ena-
bl i n <2: resohit ion of the Senate ?
Mr. IjACkritz. I think we have clarified the
]Mr. Davis. This is ontrajxeous.
Mr. Lackhitz. Mi-. Davis, foitunately
Mr. Davis. I don't know what kind of prosecution this is going
on here.
Mr. Lackhitz. Mr. Davis, if I may
Mr. Davis. 1 think you ought to call this to the attention of Judge
Pregerson so Ave can reopen the trial and correct that part of the
testimony.
Mr. Danner. I think what caused my mistake is that the tiip to
Spanish Cay was after the election of 1908.
Mr. LACKraTz. The only reason for clarifying that was to insure
we wei-en't gong to unfairly represent your ti-avels. ]Mr. Danner, in
connection with President-elect Xixon, and since this is the first chance
we have had to look at 3'our diary
Mr. Davis. Now we are trying to straighten out the testimony of
this witness based upon secret hearings that were held by this com-
mittee with resi)ect to public hearings he had in the Federal courts in
Los Angeles, and at some point I have to protect this witness from
this kind of conduct.
Mr. Lackhitz. T understand that.
Mr. Davis. And I seriously object to the star chamber proceedings.
Mr. Lenzner. Let the record reflect Mi-. Davis is smiling.
Mr. Davis. P^verybody is laughing but it is a serious matter.
Mr. Lackritz. It is certainly a serious matter. Let us get on to other
matters.
When, INfr. Danner, do you recall that Mr. Smathers first mentioned
to you that he was going to sell his home to President-elect Nixon?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall the exact date. I j)lace it some time late
in 1968.
Mr. Lackritz. Was it prior to the time that you went out to Las
Vegas to discuss possible employment with Mr. Maheu ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall whethei- it was before or after that trip.
Mr. Lackritz. And you recall where it was that Mr. Smathers made
these comments to you ^
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Tjackritz. Was anybody else present when Mr. Smathers was
discussing this with you ?
Mr. Danner. T don't lecall anyone else present.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, do you recall discussing with Mr.
Smathers anything concerning the financing — ^the purchase of the
home bv President-elect Nixon ^
JNlr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you ever discuss the financing of this purchase
with Mr. Kebozo ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Freedman. PTe answered that.
11453
Mr, Danxer. I wasn't involved in it.
Mr. Davis. He is subject to cross-examination.
Mr. Danner. Smathers simply told me
Mr. Freedman. One calls it direct and Lackritz cross-examines.
He answered this before when Mr. Armstrong- questioned him,
Mr. Lackritz. I am trving to refresh his recollection.
Mr. Freediman. If he didn't remember it when Mr. Armstrong
asked the question I don't see how he is going to remember any more
when you ask the question.
Mr. Daxner, I can say it meant so little to me, it wasn't a memora-
ble event, it was just Smathers said he was going to sell his house to
Mr. Xixon. That was it. I never heard the details how they were going
to handle it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you learn that President-elect Nixon was going
to i)uichase two homes on Key Biscayne?
Mr. Daxner. Xo.
Mr. Lackritz. So your only knowledge of these purchases was
former Senator Smathers mentioned one home was going to be sold?
Mr. Danner. His home.
Mv. Lackritz. All right, did you ever learn from Mr. Smathers or
from anyone else that Mr. Rebozo was going to purchase another
home on Key Biscayne ?
Mr. Daxxer. No; I think I read about it in the paper later, much,
much later.
Mr. Lackritz, When you say much, much later, when would that
have been?
Mr. Daxxer. I would say in recent months.
Mr. Davis. I understand that the Senate committee may be in-
terested in pursuing President Nixon but so far as I am concerned,
this enabling resolution to which you are pursuing relates to con-
tributions related to the 1972 Presidential campaign. If you will re-
late that la?t line of questioning to the proper scope of the enal^ling
5-esolution I will not interfere. But I must rely, Mr. Lackritz, on your
representation that there is some connection that you will reveal fairly
soon, I hope, between this line of questioning and this attempt to cross-
examine this witness with respect to not only his prior testimony in
other proceedings, all of which to my mind is completely immaterial.
Now we are going into some real estate transactions.
Mr. Lackritz. I think Mr. Danner has testified that he has no
knowledge of these transactions, Mr. Davis, and I think answers the
questions in terms of relating
Mr. Davis. I think von are going wav above and bevond vour
enabling resolution. I think you are conducting some kind of
previously unheard of proceeding paralleling a number of other in-
vestigative agencies with respect to Avhatever Mr. Nixon, President
or otherwise, has done or has not done, which is wholly unrelated.
The oidy purpose of this inquiry by the Senate is to report on possible
legislation which may be recjuired relating to political contributions,
and I cannot see the relationshi}).
Mr. IjEXzxer. A\niy don't we lay some foundation for the questions?
Did you ever discuss with former Senator Smathei-s or other in-
dividuals the need to raise funds to pay for President Nixon's homes?
11454
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lenznkr. Did yon ever discuss with Senatoi- Smatliers, Mr.
Rehozo, or President Nixon or otlior individnuls the raisinjr of cam-
])ai£rH oontribntions for the purpose of defrayiiiii' expenses, improve-
ments, or fnrnishina's at President Nixon's homes at 500 and iMC) Hay
Lane. Key Biscayne, Fla. ?
Mr. Daxner. No, sir.
Afr. TjExzxer. Did you ever learn of or receive any information
otlier than from tlie news media that funds desi^rnated as campaiijn
contributions for the 197^ election were, in fact, used to pay for ex-
penses, iinpiovements, or furnishings at the President's homes at 500
or 516 Bay Lane?
Mr. Daxxer. To my own knowledge, I had no knowledge of that,
no information. I have since read news reports intimating that might
have been so.
Mr. Lexzxer. I said aside from tlie news media, did you receive any
information firsthand from anv individual?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
INli-. Davis. Now may we conclude? Doesn't that cover the water-
fjont?
INIr. Lackrttz. Did Mr. Rebozo ever indicate to you after President
Nixon was inaugurated, on January 20, 1969, that he had any respon-
sibilities for raising any funds for general purposes at that time?
INli". Daxxer, No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo at any time when lie approached
you about a contribution from Hughes, after President Nixon Avas in-
augurated on January 20, 1969 — did INIr. Rebozo ever indicate to you
that the purpose of the fund was for anything other than political
races coming up in 1970 and /or 1972 ?
INIr, Daxxer. Well, now, if you are getting into the area of campaign
contributions for the 1970 congressional elections, those conversations
were instituted or began sometime in the first half, late in the first half
of 1969, according to my recollection. They had no reference whatso-
ever to defraying any preAnous expenses, making up deficits.
Ml'. Lexzxer. How about future expenses?
Mr. Daxxer. Only insofar as the 1970 congressional elections were
concerned.
INlr. Lackrttz. All right, my question was, did Mr. Rebozo indicate
a pur])ose for the fund to you other than the 1970 congressional
campaign?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
INIr. Lexzxer. You say the first half of the year of 1969? Is that
Avhat you said?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Lexzxer. The latter part of the fii-st half of the year?
INTr. Daxxer. That is right. T think around May or June.
Mr. Lexzxer. Springtime?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir. May or June.
Mr. ARAis'iiioxo. Did Mr. Rebozo over relate to you, or anyone else
relate to you, the fact that INIr. Rebozo had funds which he was ex-
pending and intended to expend on behalf of President Nixon?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
11455 I
Mr. La( KRiTZ. I would like to direct yonr attention to a letter dated
May 10, 1060. from Mr. RelK)zo to yourself and marked as exhibit 22
in tills mor'nina''s session.
Take a niimite to read the letter to refresh vour recollection.
Mr. Banner. Yes.
]Mr. Lackkitz. Xow, directino^ your attention to the first parao;raph
of that letter. Excuse me, counsel.
Directino- your attention to the first parao;raph of this letter, Mr.
Rebozo states. "The last evenino- there,"' refeT-rino- to Las Veijas,
"turned out very v;ell. The o]i]ior'tunity to discuss the matter which
wo had talked about presented itself and as it turned out I don't believe
it could liave worked out better.'"'
AVhat was Mr. Rebozo i-eferrin^r to?
Mr. Danner. I cannot recall. I have no recollection whatever what
sul)iect matter he is referrino; to in the letter.
Mr. Lackritz. The date of the letter is May 10, 1060. Could that
have referred to his solicitation of you of political contributions?
Mr. Danner. I just don't recall.
jNIr. Lackritz. Coidd it have referred in any way to the purchase of
the homes at Key Biscayne?
Ml'. Danner. I don't recall. I don't Avant to speculate on it because
T have no recollection whatsocAer. "When T found the letter to bring in
liei-e I was completely in the dark as to what the nature of that was.
Mr. Lackritz. All rio:ht, the last sentence of the first paragraph
reads. "I am sure the message came through loud and clear with re-
spect to both matters which you mentioned to me at the cocktail party."
Do vou recall what that refers to?
]\rr. Danner. No; I don't.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall the cocktail party that you attended
with ^Ir. Rebozo on his visit ?
]\rr. Danner. Yes. I am certain this was at a time when there was a
large cocktail party at a prominent home there in Las Vegas to which
T had been invited, my wife and I, and he accompanied us.
Mr. Lackritz. Whose home was that ?
Mr. Danner. A woman named Tony Clark, Mrs. Tony Clark, whose
husband used to be a prominent owner in the Desert Inn.
Mr. Lackritz. And this was a cocktail party in honor of Mr.
Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Xo, no. lie just happened to show up coincidentally at
that time.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. And do you recall how long he stayed on this
occasion? I take it when he refers to a wonderful weekend m Las
Vegas he is referring to the ]:)revioiis weekend. Would that be correct ?
Mr. Danner. T don't recall how long he stayed on the occasion of
this visit. The party, as T recall, Avas sometime on the weeke: cl. When
he went back, I don't recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall the ])urpose of his visit?
Mr. Danner. Just visiting Las Vegas. I think it was on this oc-
casion he told me he hadn't been there in a number of year-s and
wanted to see it and see what it looked like uoav.
Mr. Lackritz. Were there any meetings on that weekend among
yourself. Mr. Maheu, and Mr. Rebozo ?
11456
Mr. Danxer. T am sure I introduced him around the place to various
officials.
^^r. Lackritz. Well, do you recall spex'ifically any meetinojs that
you had with Mr. Kebozo i
Mr. Danner. No ; I don't recall any meetin<>:s as such.
Mr. IjACKRrrz. Were any political contributions discussed on that
occasion, that you can recall ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You are sure they were not ?
Mr. Danxer. My best recollection is that they were not.
Mr. Lexzxer. Have you made any effort to refresh your recollec-
tion since you discovered this letter as to what these matters refer to?
Mr. Danxer. No, sir.
Mr. Lexzner. Have you discussed this letter at any time, since dis-
coverin<r it, with Mr. Rebozo himself or any i-epresentatiA'e of his?
Mr. Danxer. No. sir.
Mr. Lex^zxer. Was this an occasion when Mr. Rebozo stayed at
tile Frontier Hotel ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir, on that date he woidd have been.
Mr. Lexzxer. And do vou recall discussinii' anv mattere with him
durin<r the weekend that he speaks about that he was there?
Mr. Dax'xer. I don't i-ecall anv what you mitrht call official dis-
cussions, anythino; of any nature, note or seriousness. It was just more
of a fun weekend. We took him to a show. It was on that occasion
that he saw several shows in towni, dinner, things of that sort.
Mr. Lexzxer. Was he alone or was he with somebody else?
Mr. Daxxer. He was alone.
Mr. Lexzner. Tliis language seems to indicate that the matter that
you had spoken about with him w\as discussed by him with some other
individual. Do you know who the other individual or individuals
were that he took this matter up witli ?
Mr. Danner. No; I don't.
Ml-. Lenzner. And it says: "I am sure the inessaoe came through
loud and clear both with respect to the matter you mentioned to me
at the cocktail party."^ — Do you recall eitliei' of the matters referred
to there?
Mr. Danxer. Mr. Lenzner, that letter is meaningless to me at this
point. I have no recollection whatsoever what the subject matter was
we discussed, with wlioni we disci'ssed it or wliat it was all about.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall any issues that you were concerned
witii or dealing with during this period of time that you were inter-
ested in raising with Mr. Uebozo?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now it also refers to an advance you provided him.
"\Yliat was that with reference to ?
Mr. Daxxer. T loaned him some mone3\
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you remember how much ?
Mr. Daxxer. $1,()(>().
Mr. Lexzxer. And did you give it to him in cash ?
Mr. Danner. I think I cashed a check at the cage and gave him
the money.
Mr. Lenzner. Cashed your own check ?
11457
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lexzxer. And did he enclose a check with this letter, to your
T'ocolloction?
Mr. Daxxer. It seems to me that^ — is there a mention made of a
return of
Mr. Lexzxet?. Is says, "The adA'ance you pro\aded me is returned
licrowith.''
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, sir, he sent me a check which I deposited to my
account.
Mr. Lackritz. All rifjht, Mr. Danner, do you recall traveling to
Waslnnffton. D.C. in November 1969, to attend a stag dinner for
Prince Philip of England?
Mr. Dax'xer. Yes, I recall attending a stag dinner for Prince
Philip. Whether it was in November, I am not in a position to say.
You have got the date.
Mr. Ijac'kritz. I believe for the record, it was early November,
around November 5 or 6, 1969 ?
Mr. Dax^xer. Yes, sir.
jNIr. Lackritz. Did you meet with Mr. Rebozo on that occasion?
Mr. Daxxer. He was there, yes.
Ml-. Lac^kritz. Did you meet with President Nixon on that occasion ?
Mr. Daxxer. I met him in the reception line.
Mr. TjAckritz. Did you have any discussion with President Nixon
on that occasion ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. It was merely a
Mr. Dax'xer. He introduced me to the Prince.
Mr. Lackritz. "Was Mr. Maheu with you on that occasion ?
Ml'. Daxx'er. No, I don't believe he was.
Mr. Lackritz. You do not?
Mr. Dax'X'er. I do not bolie^■e he was.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, showing you a copy of exhibit No. 24,
wliich is a letter to you dated Novemlier 17, 1969, is there any reason
why you would have requested the list of guests that attended that
dinner from ]Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Dax^ner. Oh. just to have a record to see who was there, the num-
ber of prominent people.
Mr. Lackritz. Was it for any other purpose ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. I^ACKRiTz. It was not for any purpose of your responsibilities
in the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. And also referring briefly back to exhibit No. 2?>,
correction, exhibit No. 22, Ave just discussed AAdien Mr. Rebozo said the
message came through loud and clear Avith respect to both matters,
could that haA'e referred to any matters of concern to Mr. Hughes or
the Hughes Tool Co. that you Avould haA^e brought up AA'ith Mr. Re-
bozo in May 1969 ?
Mr. Daxxer. Again I haA^e no recollection what the purpose of that
Avas.
^Ir. Lackritz. Showing you a letter dated NoA'ember 19, 1969,
mai'ked as "Exhibit No. 25'' from this morning, this is a letter from you
to Mr. Rebozo and discusses a INIr. Walker.
11458
I want you to read that to refresh your recollection and explain what
that letter is all about.
Ml". Dannf^r. This fellow "Walkei- who had worked very dilifj;ently in
the 1968 cainpai«;n had written me a letter apparently seekin*r some
help and I sent this on to Bebe with these comments. Anything- they
could do to help him certainly would be appreciated — which is cus-
tomai-y after a political campai<rn.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you know if anythin<»; was done to help this indi-
vidual ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You are not aware of anything?
Mr. Danner. I don't know of anything.
Mr. Lackritz. Any position that may have been offered?
Mr. Danner. No. He is not seeking a job, I don't think.
JNIr. Lackritz. What was his first name ?
Mr. Danner. I don't remember.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall receiving a response from Mr. liebozo
to this letter?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. AVould it have been in your files if you had received
one?
Mr. Danner. I am sure it would be.
Mr. Lackritz. Showing you a copy of exhibit No. 26 from this
morning, a letter dated INIarch 3, 197(), from yourself to Mv. Rebozo —
could you describe the purpose of that letter?
Mr. Danner. INIorgan had taken it upon himself to prepare a brief,
having to do with the constitutionality of school busing and asked me
if I thought the administration would be interested in it and I said I
didn't know but I would send it down to Bebe and if he thought there
was any interest he would get it in the right hands.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Morgan came to you with this bi-ief and you did
not solicit from him ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you receive any instructions from Mr. Rebozo
to seek out any views on school busing?
IVIr. Danner. No, sir, this was gratuitous on Morgan's part.
Mr. Lackritz. You say in the first paragraph of this letter "It
occurred to me some of your friends \\\) the line might be interested in
these comments."' Prior to this time had you sent any similar ]^apers
to Mr. Rebozo or had he solicited any similar papers ?
Mr. Danner. On this subject?
Mr. Lackritz. On any subject of issue.
Mr. Danner. I sent, I don't know the dates, I sent liim a memo on
the atomic testing, but this was not in answer to any in(iuiry.
Ml-. Davis. What position had IMorgan taken about tliis ?
Mr. Danner. It was unconstitutional.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know what Mr. Rebozo did Avith the matei'ial
Mr. Morgan fui-nished you?
Mr. Danner. No, I did not follow up that.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you hear from Mr. Rebozo what, if anything, he
did with them ?
Mr. Danner. No, I don't think I ever did.
11459
Mr. Lexzner. By the way. where were these letters physically when
you discovered them, the letters identified by you today ?
Mr. Daxxer. Some of them came from the Frontier, some of them
were unearthed at the Sands, after an exhaustive searcli.
INlr. Lexzxer. They were physically in a file room somewhere ?
Mr. Daxxer. They were all over the place. There was no central fil-
in<j:. They went throuo:h file after file after- file and dug these out.
Mr. Lexzxer. They are not in a file with your name on them?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Thev were scattered throughout different subject mat-
ter files?
jNlr. Daxxer. That is right.
]\Ir. Lackritz. I would like to show you a copy of a letter dated
May 14, 1971, which is part of exhibit 28 from this morning. It is from
you to Mr. Rebozo. T would like you to read it to refresh your recol-
lection.
Mr. Daxxer. Yes. What do you want to know about this ?
Mr. Lackritz. The letter dated May 14 ?
Mr. Dax^xer. Yes.
Mr. LACKRrrz. 1970.
Mr. Daxxer. Rebozo sent me this column pertaining to the ^ash
kidna})ing case which occurred back in 1938 in which T had been
very prominent for which I took a gieat deal of credit in those
days and he was sending it to me needling me that the newspaper
aHicle disagreed with my version of the thing. It was just a joke.
Mr. Freedmax. You want to know what he did in 1938?
Mr. Lexzxer. I don't think I asked that. In the letter of May 14,
1971, in the second to last paragi'aph, you write INIr. Rebozo that Jim
Golden tells me you have not been feeling well. Was Mr. (xolden in
Las Vegas about that time?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes; I think he had already come out there.
Mr. Lexzxer. At that tiuie he was working for the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Daxxer. I am not cei+ain whether he had come aboard then or
whether I happened to i-un into him. What is that date again?
Mr. Lexzxp:r. May 14, 1971.
Mr. Daxx'er. I am not certain whether he was with the organization
at that time or not.
Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall having any discussions with Mr. Golden
on or about that date about the $100,006 that you had transferred to
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lex-^zxer. Did Mr. Golden ever bring the subject up with you ?
Mr. Daxxer. Not until aftei- my testimony.
Mr. Lexzxer. Until aftei- vour testimony where ?
Mr. Daxxer. Before IRS."
Mr. Lexzxer. In 1971 ?
Mr. Daxxp:r. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lexzx'er. When was that occasion ?
Mr. Daxxer. May, I believe it was, 1972.
Mr. Lexzxer. "V\niy did Mr. Golden bi'ing up this subject of the
$100,000 contribution?
Mr. Dax'xer. I discussed the matter with him. I had been before
IRS and detailed the contribution that had been made. I don't refnll
11460
having previously discussed it with Golden or that he liad any knowl-
edge of it.
Mr. Lenzner. And why did the subject arise with i\Ir. Goklen?
Mr. Danner. Well, I don't know of any })articuhir i-eason other
than it just came out during the discussion, lie was (juite friendly with
Kebozo.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate tliat he talked to Mr. Rebozo about
the subject?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall whether he got the information from
Rebozo and was discussing it with me or vice ver-sa.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, do you recall if anyone else was present during
this discussion?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Where was the discussion, do you recall that?
Mr. Danner. It was in Las Vegas. 1 don't know the exact location.
INIr. Lenzner. It came up in the course of a social convereation with
Mr. Golden?
Mr. Danner. As I recall, yes.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ask Mr. Golden to do anything with respect
to the information?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ask him to contact Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenznp:r. Did he indicate that he would contact Mr. Rebozo and
convey this information to him ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you liave any knowledge of whether or not Mr.
Golden did in fact contact Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner [continuing]. About this information?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any knowledge Mr. Golden, at the time
you discussed this with him, had any knowledge of the contribution
himself?
Mr. Danner. No ; I had no such knowledge of whether he did or not.
It was not known to me.
Mr. Lenzner. When you explained this information to him how did
he react?
Mr. Danner. No particular i-eaction. The contribution had l)een the
subject of a Jack Anderson column earlier in the year so it was not,
I am sure, a surprise to him.
Mr. Lenzner. I believe it would have been later in the year. Earlier
in the year, 1972 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Let me show you exhibit 29 of this morning's ses-
sion. It includes a letter from Mr. Eugene McGrath to you dated
Januarv 7, 1972, and a response from von to Mr. McCirath on Janu-
ary 18, "1972.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Referring fii-st to the letter from Mr. IMcGrath to
you, can you tell us, first of all, Avho the Gongressman is, tliat makes
reference to?
11461
Let me read one sentence into the record.
Mr. Banner. That refers to Mr. Nixon when he first came to
Miami.
Mr. Armstrong. Could you let me read that one sentence? First of
all, the opening paragraph, "I know how fond you are of Panama
and how much interest you have in helping me to do 'the right thing.' "
Second paragraph.
I remember all too well how you met "the Congressman" in Miami when he
was dressed in a heavy winter suit in the middle of the Miami winter heat. You
took him to buy clothes and held his hand during his most difficult days. I know
how tine yo»i are to Bebe and how much influence Bebe can have on that ex-
Congressman.
Then the third paragraph says:
Therefore, I attach a copy of my letter of this date to Bebe as well as a copy
of the transcript of the opening remarks of the Panamanian chief negotiator —
U.S. Panama treaty talks.
Explain what the second paragraph makes reference to.
Mr. Banner. He is referring to Mr. Nixon, wdien he came down to
Miami on the first occasion, when he met Bebe Rebozo. He exaggerates
the situation to some degree, which is understandable. By this time,
of course, he knew Bebe's relationship with the President, And what
he was seeking was some help for Panama during the treaty negoti-
ations,
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. This is the treaty that governed the Panama Canal
Zone ? Is that correct ?
]\Ir. Banner, That is right,
Mr, Armstrong. The second paragraph seems to make some refer-
ence to some assistance you gave to President Nixon at an earlier date,
when he was a Congressman. Can you tell us what that assistance was?
Mr, Banner, He came down to Florida. He was tired, worn out,
wanted to relax. I w^as living in Vero Beach. He stopped off there,
visited with me. He was not dressed for Miami weather. He bought
some summer clothes, I then took him on down to Miami to go fishing.
Bebe had a boat. We took him out on Bebe's boat, and that resulted
in their friendship.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us what, if anything, came of Mr.
McGrath's request to solicit your assistance in getting Mr. Rebozo
together and, in turn, enlist the President's assistance in regard to the
treaty?
Mr. Banner. Nothing, to my knowledge. Nothing.
Mr. Armstrong, T would like to show you in exhibit 30 of this
morning's session a letter dated February 18 from Mr, McGrath to
you and have you read the fourth paragraph in that letter,
Mr. Banner [reading].
I assure you from the l)ottom of my heart that, due to his advisers, Nixon is
steering a short course of auto-li«iuidation of virtually any influence that the
United States might have had or might have in the future in connection with
Latin America.
Mr, Armstrong, I'm sorry. It's the fifth paragraph.
Mr. Banner [reading],
I have lived to regret my agreeing to you to pay .$2,200 to hire airplanes for
Nixon in his first primary in New Hampshire in 1964. Perhaps if I had not done
11462
so, someone else would have. I would like to believe so. I do not even regret that
I have never had acknowledgement from him nor from anyone else for this
favor, hut I am convinced that Ilumplirey would have done immensely better
as President of the ITnited Statt-s.
Mr. SciiuLTz. Did he say 1964?
Mr. Lackritz. There must liave been a mistake. AVe are trying to
coi-rect it.
Mr. Dannek. It's 1964.
Mr. Akmstkong. Do you understand that to make reference to 1968?
Were you aware of any assistance provided in 1968?
Mr. Daxner. No ; this says 1964.
Mr. Lackritz. I didn't realize President Nixon was runnino; for
President in 1964.
Mr. Daxner. Well, that's wliat he says. I don't know what he's re-
ferring to.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any firsthand knowledge of assist-
ance he provided to the Presidential campaign of 1968?
Mr. Danner. I don't know. Not of 1968. I have no knowledge of
anything that he did.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any assistance that he gave to
the Pi'esidential campaign of 1972?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. All right.
Now, Mr. Danner, I would like you to review exhibit 31 from this
morning, which is a letter dated April 19. 1973, from yourself to ]Mr.
Rebozo and a lettei- dated April 12, 1973, from INIr. Rebozo to you.
Would you just briefly review that ?
Mr. Danner. The first paragrai)h
Mr. Lackritz. Well, just read the letter, and there are a couple of
specific questions.
Mr. Danner. "I wanted to thank you for your nice letter''
Mr. Lackritz. Just read it off the i-ecord before we ask you any
questions.
Mr. Danner. Yes; well, I know what it says.
Mr. Lenzner. Go ahead and ask him the questions.
Mr. Lackritz. That indicates, does it not, Mr. Rebozo 's \isit to Las
Yegas in April of 1973 ?
Mr. Dannf;r. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall wheji tliat visit was?
Mr. Danner. It must have beeii close to tiiis date.
Mr. Lackritz. It would have been. I take it from the date of Mr.
Rebozo's letter to you and from your discussion of being out of debt,
it would have been early April 1973 ?
Mr. Danner. I would guess.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, there's no indication in the letter of any dis-
cussions concerning the return of the $100,000, is there ?
Mr. Danner. No.
INIr. Lackritz. Would that indicate to you, Mr. Danner, that that
subject had not arisen by that point ?
Mr. Danner. Right. It had not arisen.
Ml*. La(^kritz. The subject had not arisen.
Now, when do you recall receiving the first call from Mr. Rebozo.
or the first mention by Mr. Rebozo, of returning the money?
11463
Mr. Banner. That occurred here in "\Vashiii<>ton in May of 1973.
Mr. IvACKRiTZ. And you recall no prior telephonic contacts from Mr.
Rebozo to YOU askinsj: vou to take the money back. Is that correct?
^Ir. Daxxer. That is correct.
Mr. Freedman. Well, here let's get somethino; straight.
You testified that you did get calls from Mr. Rebozo that he wanted
to see you here in Washington ?
jNIr. Daxner. Yes ; that is true.
Mr. Freedman. He did not say what about ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Freedman. OK.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, T think the record is clear on that. And I take it
these telephone calls from Mr. Rebozo asking to see you here in
Washington were subsequent to this letter of April 19, 1978?
Mr. Danner. That is correct.
INIr. Lackritz. Fine.
What was the purpose of INIr. Rebozo's visit in April 1973?
Mr. Danner. As I recall, lie called me about 6 o'clock one evening,
and he was down in southern Califorjiia, and he wanted to come up
and have dinner, see a show, had to go back early the next morning. He
came up; we had dinner; we went to a show. We both fell asleep in the
show, went back to the hotel, went to sleep. He got up in the morning
and left. I didn't even get up to see him off.
Mr, Lackritz. Did you have any discussions with him on that occa-
sion about the contributions you had provided him earlier ?
^Ir. Danner. Xo.
Mr. Lackritz. None whatsoever?
Mr. Danner. Xone whatsoever.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, this was 4 days subsequent to Mr. Rebozo's — I
take it l)ack. This is referring to a visit that he made before April 12,
1973. Is that correct ?
Mr. Danner. Yes. We figured it was early in April.
]Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of any discussions he had
with you with regard to the break-in of Watergate or any information
he had received from President Nixon with regard to that subject?
]Mr. Danner. I don't recall any conversations on that subject, al-
though, apparently, my references to statements made by the Presi-
dent were in refei-ence to Watergate.
Mr. Lenzner. I take it you're referring there to public statements the
President made on April 17 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. I'm asking you if Mr. Rebozo furnished you on this
occasion any information he had obtained from the President with
regard to the AYatergate break-in.
Mr, Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. And he did not indicate to you on this occasion that
he had retained the funds and had not furnished them to the 1972
campaign ?
Mr, Danner. He did not.
Mr. Lackritz. Now. there are some questions I think we would like
to ask about the meeting in Washington on May 19, but prior to doing
that, why don't we go into the questions about the details of the cash
contributions that Jim wanted to ask?
11464
Mr. Moore. All ri<rlit. Mr. Daniicr, I'll try not to repoat too much
what you've gone over before. There will be a little bit of overlap
there, but there are some specitic questions that I hope will clear this
up.
I would like first to turn to your recollection of the date of the Key
Biscayne delivery Avhich you now place in 1970.
Mr. Dannkh. Xo.
Mr. Fkeei):max. lie doesn't do that.
INIr. MooRE. xVll ri<2:ht. We'll start ri<rht there.
I would like to ask you if you now have a recollection of the date of
the Key Biscay ne delivery ?
Mr. Danner. No. I have no way of placinii: that date.
Mr, Moore. Now, I take it fi-om reading your testimony before us
and elsewhere that in trying to place that date, you have placed some
reliance upon your expense and travel records, consulting particularly
vour August i969 and August 1970 records. Is that correct?
Mr. Daxner. That is correct.
Mr. INIooRE. Is it correct that part of your basis, although you are not
particularly terribly certain on it — part of your basis of thinking that
it ma}^ have been during the August 19, 20 trip to Key Biscayne in
1970, that that delivery was made is based upon the fact that you do
not have any records for August 1969 shoAving you in Key Biscayne?
Mr. Danner. That is correct.
Mr. Moore. In making that determination, looking at your two Au-
gust records, did you also go through your travel records for months
near to August 1969, the date you originally thought the delivery
might have been ?
Mr. Danner. There were several trips to Miami during this period
in 1969, but none of which I could place as the date I made the cle-
livery. I've thought about this ])robably more than any other subject
that has been discussed with me. I'm certain of the date July 3, 1970,
at San Clemente. My recollection is that there was a lapse of time be-
tween the first contribution and the second, which causes me to be-
lieve that from July 3 to August 20 would not be much of a lapse of
time. So that is why I am confused, and I have been able to find no
record, no recollection as to when this occurred.
In reading testimony in the press from INIr. Maheu and INIr. Rebozo,
it looks like none of us have been able to fix that date with any degree
of certainty.
Mr. Moore. Do you remember, Mr. Danner, taking a trip to Key
Biscayne on September 11, 12, 1969; in other words, shortly after
the August 1969 time frame?
Mr. Danner. Yes, if that's what my travel account says are the
dates, yes.
Mr. Moore. Is there anything you can remember about that trip that
may give you some indication that might have been a delivery, since
you originally thought that August 1969 was the date?
Mr. Danner. No. Is that the trip that ISIaheu accompanied me?
Mr. Moore. That is the trip on which there was an indication Mr.
Maheu was in Key Biscayne.
Mr. Danner. My recollection of the reason for that trip was to con-
tact Mr. Rebozo and discuss the dumping of the nerve gas. And I am
11465
reasonably certain that no delivery of money was made on that date.
Mr. Moore. Are you also certain today that Mr. Maheu was not
present in Key Biscayne at the place and time of delivery to Mr. Re-
bozo with one of the contril)utions?
Mr. Danner. When I first testified on that subjex^t, without any
reference to any records at all, because it was a cold interview, I stated
that my recollection was that Maheu had been present. In a subsequent
conversation with Bebe Rebozo, he was very emphatic in his recol-
lection that he was not present. So I would have to believe that the
had a better recollection than I did on that subject.
Mr. MooRE. So it was Mr. Rebozo's firm recollection that prompted
your })resent belief that Mr. Maheu was not there ?
Mr. Banner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Just so the record is clear, when you said it was
Mr, Rebozo's recollection that he was not present, by "he" you meant
;Mr. Maheu ?
Mr. Banner. Right.
Mr. ISIooRE. Bo you remember, Mr. Banner, even though now you
believe Mr. Maheu was not present at the moment of delivery, whether
]\Ir. Maheu was in Key Biscayne or Avas in Florida with you during
the trip on which that delivery was made ?
Mr. Banner. No. My recollection is that I made that trip by myself.
Maheu did not accompany me.
Mr. Lenzner, Is that your own recollection, or are you basing that
on your information you received from Mr. Rebozo?
]Mr. Banner. After talking to Mr. Rebozo, when he was so emphatic
that Maheu was not present, I came to the conclusion that delivery
was made on a sepai-ate occasion. I think it would have been Dretty
difficult for me to go down for that purpose and not have Maheu
present, to exclude him from the meeting.
And I think there was the visit on the nerve gas, and then on some
subsequent visit I made the delivery. But it has been impossible for
me to pin it down.
Mr. Lenzner. Bo you know if Mr. IVIaheu ever furnished funds to
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Banner. No. What funds ?
Mr. Lenzner. Any funds. Cash contributions, either in your pres-
ence or not in your presence.
Mr. Banner. Certainly not in my presence, and I know of no others.
Mr. Lenzner. Well, one other clarification before we go down the
road too far, you say there was a lapse of time ?
]\Ir. Banner. Between the first and second.
Mr. Lenzner. The first and second delivery. And you referred to the
July 3, 1972, delivery, which you are certain is the date of one of the
deliveries, but you're not certain whether that's the first or second
delivery? Isn't that true?
Mr. Banner. That's true.
Mr. Moore. You also state now, Mr. Banner, your recollection as
to where the Key Biscayne delivery was made.
Mr. Banner. My recollection is it was made at the Bank of Key
Biscayne in ]Mr, Rebozo's office.
Mr, Moore. You are certain that it was not made in Mr. Rebozo's
residence in Key Biscayne?
31-889 O - 74 - ot.24 - 13
11466
Mr. Banner. No; it was made in his office, because I recall his leav-
ing the office, disappearing for a few minute, and coming back and
saying that he had placed the money in a safety-deposit box that
he used for that pni-pose.
Mr. MooKE. Did you — after delivery was made — did vou and Mr.
Rebozo go anywhere? Did you go out to eat or any other — take any
other kind of a trip ?
Mr. Danner. I don't remember.
Mr, Moore. You also, I know, have previously testified about what
kind of condition the money was in, that is, how the money was
wrapped. Was the money wrapped, to the best of your recollection,
both the first and second delivery, in bank wrappers ?
Mr. Danner. INIy recollection was that the — eithei- all of it did,
or at least a portion, had the Valley Bank of Nevada wrappers on it.
Mr. MooRE. Now, to make sure, that is Mr. Thomas' bank? Is that
correct ?
Mr. Danner. That is correct.
Mr. JNIoore. To make sure that is correct, that at one time was called
the Bank of Las Vegas? Is that correct? Do you know, Mr. Danner?
Mr. Danner. I don't know.
Mr. INIooRE. Your recollection is that
Mr. Danner. It has always been the Valley Bank since I have been
out there.
Mr. Moore. So the words "Valley Bank of Nevada" would have ap-
peared on that wrapper, or on the wrappers.
Mr. Danner. [Nods in the affirmative.]
Mr. INIooRE. Do you recall whether the wrappers had any dates
indicated on them ?
Mr. Danner. No ; I didn't examine them that closely.
Mr. Moore. Were there any bank wrappers that had any other
bank notations on them ?
Mr. Danner. No; I didn't examine that closely. But I seem to re-
call seeing "The Valley Bank" on at least some of them.
Mr. MooRE. Did you ever receive cash for political contributions
or for any other jDurposes from a Hughes lawyer in Las Vegas named
Tom Bell?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Moore. You never received any checks or any money in any
form, cashiers checks, personal checks, cash, from Mr. l^ell for politi-
cal contributions?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Moore. Did you, on each occasion, for each delivery, deliver
the money shortly after you received it ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Moore. So you never, yourself, stored the money any place, kept
the money in your own quarters or safe-deposit box ?
Mr. Danner. Not as I recall, no; I never stor-ed it. I may have put
it in a box overnight. I don't recall. But it was delivered immediately,
to the best of my I'ecol lection.
Mr. M(K)UE. Did you, yourself, ever withdr-aw cash from any of the
casinos for [)olitical contributions?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
11467
Mr. INIooRE. During your visits to Key Biscayne durin<r 19G9 unci
1970, did you ever see or meet with President Xixon in Kev Biscayne?
Mr. Danxek. 1969?
Mr. Moore. Yes. sir. We can 0:0 tlirouffh the individual dates, if
you want. There were several trips that you took to Key Biscayne.
]Mr. Danner. I recall having seen him down there; what period,
I do not recall, or hoAv many times. But I do recall having seen him
down there, met with him, say hello, something of tliat sort.
Mr. ]\looRE. Do you recall whether President Xixon was in Key
Biscayne or whether you met with President Nixon on the time at
which the delivery was made in Key Biscayne, Avhenever that may be?
Mr. Daxner. Xo. No.
Mr. Moore. You don't recall hearing that he was there?
Mr. Daxnp:r. If he was there, I did not see nor hear from him.
Mr. jNIoore. Do you know whether ]Mr. ^laheu ever met with or saw
the President when Mr. Maheu was with vou in Kev Biscavne in 1969
or 1970?
Mr. Danxer. Xo, sir.
Mv. Moore. Did vou ever see Mr. INIitchell in Kev Biscayne during
1969 or 1970?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall ever having seen him down there; no.
jNIr. ^looRE. Were you aware of whether Mr. Mitchell was in Key
Biscayne the weekend of jNIarch 20-22, 1970, shortly after you and
Mr. INIitchell had a meeting here in Washington ?
Mv. Daxxer. Was I aware of that ?
Mr. ISIooRE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Daxxer. Xo.
JNIr. ]MooRE. Or whether- he was there? I also want to, finally — and
we can move on to sometliing else — I'll try to clear up one other area.
We realize it is a little bit difficult, but it would help us if you can jog
your memory, and that is where you got the money, or from whom
you got the monev on each of the deliveries. You have iriven some
indication that it might have come from Mr. Robert Maheu or fioin
Peter JNIaheu, or some indication that it might have come out of the
cage at tlie Frontier or one of them.
Mr. Daxxer. INIy recollection is that one, perhaps the first one, had
been in a lockbox in the Frontier cage. And it was obtained from that
source. Whether I got it or Mr. Maheu got it or one of the secretaries
got it, I don't recall. The second contribution, again, I don't recall
whether it was Robert ]\Iaheu or his son, Peter Maheu, who delivered
it to me, either in their office or my office. But I am reasonably certain
that this is the way the two deliveries were made to me.
Mr. INIooRE. OK. Do you have some ? All right, go ahead.
IVIr. Armstroxo. Mr. Danner, if I understand your testimony, you
testified that your first recollection was that Mr. INIaheu was with
you when the delivery was made to Key Biscayne ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And it was after talking to Mr. Rebozo and Mr.
Rebozo saying he was ([uite sure that Mi-. INIaheu was not ni-esent when
the money was passed, that you decided that your original recollec-
tion was wrong?
Mr. Daxner. Right.
11468
Mr. Armstrong. Now, isn't it tiiie that there's not necessarily any
inherent inconsistency in the two accounts, and that Mr. Maheu may
have been on the trip with you but not present at the time of the
delivery, that youi' first recollection
Mr. Danner. No. He could have been there.
Mr. Armstrong, So he could have been in Key Biscayne at the same
time?
Mr. Danner. But my recollection was that I made that trip down by
myself.
Mr. Freedman. He also said today, not too lon^ a^o, that if Mr.
IVIaheu was with him, it would have been very difficult to keep Mr.
JVlaheu away when the delivery was made.
Mr. Lenzxer. He did say that, and the recoid will so indicate it.
Ml-. Freedman. Yes; he did.
Mr. Armstrong. YevS. But I just want to make it clear, you're not ab-
solutely cei^tain that Mr. Maheu was on the trip, but it was your
orig:inal recollection that he was. Tlien Mr. Rebozo didn't point out
that he wasn't on the ti'ip but merely pointed out that he wasn't
present when delivery was made, and that it was your later recollec-
tion that you made the trip alone.
Mr. Danner. Well, as you can see from my testimony, if you read
all of it, you can see the subject came up each time, and is belabored
and belabored. But I cannot remember, but my best recollection is, at
the moment, that I went down on that trip by myself and met with
Bebe at the bank.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you absolutely certain that there were were
only two contributions, two deliveries of money to Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. P^reedman. By Mi'. Dannei?
Mr, Armstrong. By INIr, Danner ; by IVIr, Danner, yes.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. Just let me iret this strai^'ht. INIr. Danner has testi-
fied he made two deliveries of $50,000 each. Is that what you're refer-
ring to?
Mr. Armstrong. I'm askino; if there could have been any more than
two,
Mr, Freedman. By whom?
Mr. Armstrong. By ISIr. Danner.
Mr. Danner. The answer is "No."
Mr. Armstrong, Are you certain there were only two contributions,
period? Could anyone else have made a contribution?
Mr. Danner. I know of no others.
Mr. Moore. One final question, and I'll be finished with Mr. Danner,
which is: There is now no way you can certaiidy state — or is there a
way you can certainly state, dates aside, where the first delivery was
made and where the second delivery was made?
Mr. Danner. I can state where the second delivery was made. Well,
not the second; but I can state that the delivei'y was made in San
Clemente on July '^. I am ceitain of that date, of 1970. As to the other
date, I'm not certain.
Mr. MooRE. You can say only that the other delivery was made in
Key Biscayne. But which comes first, Key Biscayne or San Clemente.
you cannot presently recall ?
11469
Mv. Danxer. That is correct.
;Mr. Moore. OK.
Mv. T^ACKRiTz. All ri^ht. Mr. Danner, I would like to call your at-
tention to the time period of May 1973. You Ve testified previously
that at that time you received telephone calls from Mr. Rebozo ask-
ino; you to come to Washington, D.C. And we previously discussed, in
treneral terms, what you discussed with him on that occasion.
Oh, I'm sorry. Terry, did you want to ask a question ?
Mr. Lenzxer. Go ahead and finish.
Mv. Lackritz. All rijn:ht. Now, when you came to Washington, your
diary indicates you had breakfast with Mr. Rebozo on May 18, 1973.
Do vou recall where the breakfast was ?
Mr. Daxxer. I believe it was in my room at the Madison Hotel.
Mr. T^ACKRiTz. And is that the first occasion when Mr. Rebozo asked
you to take the money back that you pro^dded him ?
INIr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. ^Y[\ilt did Mr. Rebozo say to you, and
what did you say to him ?
Mr. Danner.* He told me that the money had never been used and
had been in his custody, control, and possession since tlie date of the
delivery, and that since it had not been used he Avanted to give it back.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate to you that he
had sought any advice concerning whether or not he should return
the money ^
Mr. Danner. Not at that point ; no.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he indicate to you he had discussed the matter
with the President, and the President had so advised him to return
the money ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he mention to you that he had discussed the
matter with Mr. Herbert Kalmbach?
Mr. Dax^x'er. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you have any knowledge at that time of whether
or not, in fact, Mr. Rebozo had discussed this matter with Mr. Herbert
Kalmbach?
Mr. Danner. No. It came as a shock to me. It's the first I had heard
of it. There was no discussion as to with whom he may have discussed
this prior to telling me about it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he indicate to you that he had discussed the
matter with Mr. William Griffin ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Or with any attorneys in the White House?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Or with any other officials in the White House?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he indicate to you at that time if he had dis-
cussed this with the President?
Mr. Danner. No ; he did not.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he indicate to you at that time that he had
discussed the question of obtaining the legal expenses for Mr. Halde-
man or Mr. Ehrlicliman with anyone at that point?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
11470
Mr. Lackritz. So the conversation at breakfast on May IS was
solely limited to Mr. Rebozo asking you to take this money back?
Mr. Banner. That is true.
Mr. Lackritz. And what was your response?
Mr. Danner. That I wouldn't or couldn't participate in that. It was
not my money ; I was not Mr. Hughes' representative. It was his money
and he would have to — he, Bebe Kebozo, would haxe to make the
arrangements through some other source. And he kept insisting that I
should handle it, and I was e(|ually insistent that I should handle it
not. And that is how the subject wound up.
Mr. Lackritz. You say he kept insisting, and you are referring
solely to this breakfast on May 18, 1973 ?
Mr. Banner. Right.
Mr. Lackritz. About how long was the meeting with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Banner. Probably 2 hours, 2iA hours.
Mr. Lackritz. iVnd at this time, did you discuss this subject with
anyone else outside of investigative authorities and your counsel, in
terms of whether or not you should take this money back ?
Mr. Banner. No ; this Avas there in the room.
Mr. Armstrong. At that or at any other time, did Mr-. Rebozo — ^did
you ever discuss with Mr. Rebozo whether or not Mr. Hughes would
be willing to consider this a gift rather than a contribution ?
Mr. Banner. No; I refused to have anything to do with it. I told
him if I were in his place I w^ould see a lawyer.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did he ever raise that subject ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And you never had any discussion with him on that
point, as to whether it would be a gift as opposed to a contribution?
Mr. Banner. No, sir,
Mr. Armstrong. Bid you ever have a discussion with anyone else
on that subject?
Mr. Banner. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. As to whether it was a gift or a contribution ?
Mr. Banner. I have no authority to make a statement like that.
Mr, Armstrong. Are you aware of anyone else, any other representa-
tive of Mr. Hughes' having reportedly made the statement that it
could be considered a gift, as opposed to a contribution ?
Mr. Banner. No, sir,
Mr, Lackritz, All right. Bid Mr. Rebozo on this occasion indicate
to you that this money had ever been used for any other purposes, or
any purposes, or given to any iiuli viduals ?
Mr, Banner, No.
Mr, Lackritz. Bid he specifically indicate to you that the money
had not been used for any other purposes ?
Mr. Banner. It had been in his possession and control since the
date of delivery, and it was intact.
Mr. Lackritz. Bid he indicate to you that he had taken the bank
wrapper off the money at that i)oint in time ?
Mr. Banner. I am not certain whether he told me that he had
removed the wrappers and put rubberbands on or whether I read
about that in the papers.
Mr. Lackritz. You're not certain about that one way oi* the other?
Mr. Banner. No,
11471
Mr. Lackritz. All riglit. Xow, following your meeting with
Mr. Banner on May 1 8
Mr. Daxner. Mr. who^
Mr. Lackritz. Excuse me. Following your meeting with Mr.
Rebozo on May 18, did you advise anyone of what Mr. Rebozo had
just informed you of?
Mr. Danner. Not immediately.
Mr. Lackritz. When did you first advise anyone of wdiat Mr. Rebozo
asked you ?
Mr. Danner. After we had concluded the discussion of this, I
dropped the matter, and I had no further discussions with anyone
outside. He continued to call me and — asking my help — and when it
finally got down to where he was with Mr. (Temmill, the attorney in
Philadel])hia, I finally volunteered to call Chester Davis to seek his
advice. I did call Mr. Davis. He did say that he would be happy to
discuss the matter with him. I did call back and tell him.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine. This is a little bit further down the road?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. "WHiat do you mean, a little further
down the road ?
Mr. Lackritz. This is in June of 1973, was it not ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. That's Avhat I meant by a little further down the
road.
Mr. Freedman. Well, the first conversation in the Madison was in
May with Mr. Rebozo. And Mr. Danner said Mr. Rebozo kept calling
him. Finally, in June, from Mi-, (xemmiirs office, Mr. Rebozo called
him.
Mr. Lenzner. I think all Mr. Lackritz is suggesting is that we Avill
get to that conversation. He's dealing now just with May. We're not
going to £!:et the conversation.
Mr. Lackritz. T^n-uh.
Mr. T^enzner. I withdiaw my comment.
]\fr. Lackritz. Did you meet with Mr. Rebozo later on in the after-
noon of May 18?
Mr. Danner. Was that the date we had the meeting at the hotel?
Mr. La( KRiTz. Yes.
Mr. Danner. Yes ; we went to lunch together.
Mr. Lackritz. Who was present at lunch ?
Mr. Danner. Mr. and Mrs. Robert AbjJanalp.
Mr. Freedman. He went through all of this in great detail.
Mr. Lackritz. Well. I understand that, Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman. Well I mean that. 1 don't see why this witness at
this late houi- ought to have to <jo tliiougii exactly the same thing
he testified to 6 months ago. I think it is an outrage. Go ahead. Ask
the questions, and I'm going to tell him wliether or not he should
answer, on the grounds that it's repetitious.
Mr. I^ENZNER. Go ahead and ask the questions.
Mr. Lackritz. Are you through?
Ml-. Freedman. Go ahead and ask the question.
Mr. Lackritz. In that day's lunch with Mr. and Mrs. Abplanalp
and Ml'. Rel)ozo, was anyone else present ?
11472
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. And this lunch you're describing was the occasion
wlien you flew up?
Mr. Danner. Yes. That is true.
Mr. Lackritz. And is it still your testimony that there was no dis-
cussion at that time of returning the money during this lunch or trip,
thi-oughout it, and back ?
Mr. Danner. That is true.
Mr. Lackritz. When you met with Mr. Rebozo on the morning
of May 18, was there any discussion then about the political situation
in terms of the mood of the country or the reaction of the country to
developments in the Watergate case?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall anything specific. I am sure there was.
Things were getting — the situation was getting pretty hot then, and
I recall we did discuss it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you discuss with Mr. Rebozo the mood of the
people on the west coast or the tenor of the political climate in terms
of the support for the President?
Mr. Danner. I recall I said I didn't think the impact had reached
the west coast nearly as hard as it had on the east coast.
Mr. Lackritz. At that time, did Mr. Rebozo suggest that you meet
with President Nixon ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. When did Mr. Rebozo first suggest to yoii that you
might meet with President Nixon ?
Mr. Danner. He called me Satuiday afternoon and asked me if I
would cancel my reservations for return on Sunday and come up to
Camp David.
Mr. Freedmax. Kxcuse me. Could we get that date?
Mr. Lackritz. Saturday, May 19, lOT-l Now, the reason I'm going
back into this particular meeting, Mr. Danner and Mr. Freedman, is
because ther-e was some conflict based on White House press state-
ments and based on other testimony the committee has received con-
cerning how long your meeting was with President Nixon on the
20th.
Your prior testimony — and T do not have a page reference right
now, Mv. Freedman, 1 will be happy to tnkc a shoit recess and I can
find it for you — was that the meeting witli Mr. Nixon was approxi-
mately 2 hours long, and you recall walking around the grounds with
him at Camp David in a misting rain. Is that still basically your re-
collection about the length of the meeting?
Mr. Danner. He came over to the cottage where Bebe was staying.
We talked there for some time. I could not give the exact amount of
time. Then wo w(Mit for a walk. We walked down a circuitous road out
to the helicopter pad and l)ack, down the I'oad, back, and he di'opped
off at his headquai ters or whatever you call it. And l^ebe and I left and
T didn't see him any fuithei- aftcM- that. Now, 2 hours, an houi- and a
half ; I could not be that certain.
Mr. Lackritz. But it was certainly more than a r)-minute meeting?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Now, Avhen you came out to Camp David,
did you come out in a car that IVfr. Rebozo ordered for you ?
11473
Mr. Danxer. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And when you arrived at Camp David and left that
car, where did von go first ?
Mr. Daxxer'. To the cottage that Bebe was staying in.
Mr. Lackritz. Do yon recall which cottage he was staying in?
Mr. Daxner. No.
:Mr. Lackritz. Did yon have any discussion with :Mr. Rebozo prior
to the President arriving at Mr. Rebozo's cabin?
Mr. Daxxer. No. You mean — concerning what?
Mr. Lackritz. Just any discussion with Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Daxxer. Well, we sat there and visited and talked — had a
bloody marv.
JNIr! I^ACKRiTz. Do you recall, was the bloody mary brought in by a
servant of the President or anyone out there, JNIr. Sanchez? Do you
recall ?
Mr. Daxxer. T don't recall. He had one sent over or called someone,
or maybe they were around. I don't remember.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you discuss the return of the money on that
occasion with Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. The subject may have been brought up again. I do not
recall that it was. I think most of the conversation had to do with
talking to the President and admonition not to bring up any new sub-
jects, let him do the talking and ask the questions and so on, which is
normal.
INfr. Freedmax. That was before the President came down ?
Mr. Dax^xer. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. How long did you meet with Mr. Rebozo prior to the
President's arrival ?
Mr. Daxxer. We were probably there a half hour or 45 minutes.
Mr. Lackritz. And was anybody else present during this time ?
]Mr. Daxxer. No. I don't recall. Now, the servant may have been
up there, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, we may have talked to
him.
Mv. Lexzxer. You didn't see Miss Woods or General Haig or any-
body like that at that time?
Ah'. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, on this occasion on May 20, 1973, did Mr.
Rebozo indicate to you that he had discussed this matter Avith anyone
else in terms of getting advice to return the money ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. At this time, did he indicate to vou he had discussed
the matter with Herbert Kalmbach?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Could you describe what the President
said to you and what you said to the President after the President
came into the room ?
]\rr. Daxxer. He visited for a few minutes, asked me how I was get-
ting along, tlie usual introductions. Then he began talking about
Watergate. He assured me he was not guilty of anything nor of those
things of which he was being accused, that this matter would clear up,
and he would be vindicated, and that he wanted to know if I had any
feel of the leaction in my section of the country.
11474
He did most of the talkin<!;. 1 told liini from what I had heard
around oiii- hotel, where you ^et, of coui-se, people, but not only from
the California area and Arizona, that there didn't seem to be any great
uproar over it. T uiean, what little I knew about it at that stage. I
remember saying it could be a teuipest in a teapot.
Mr. Davis. It depends on who's brewing the tea, I guess.
Mr. Danner. And it wasn't any — there was no great tiiade, no
great vehement speeches; it was just a general discussion of how the
thing had come about and what would be the best thing to do to
weather the storm.
Mr. Lackritz. How^ long was this discussion in ]Mr. Rebozo's cabin?
Mr. Danner. It probably lasted — well, I have no way of knowing.
It was not a lengthy conversation. Perhaps 30 minutes.
Mr. Lackritz. Was there any mention at the time of the $100,000
contribution ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Did President Nixon ask you to take back the money ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo bring up the subject during the
meeting ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir, it was nevei- mentioned.
Mr. Lackritz. So it was never mentioned by any of the participants
of this meeting about the $100,000 contribution ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. And if there would have been any mention of it, I
take it that this would be something that you would remember?
Mr. Danner. I am sure I would.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Following your discussion in the cabin, you took
a walk with the President and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Right.
Mr. Lackritz. What was discussed during the walk ?
Mr. Danner. It was a continuation of the conversation we liad in the
cabin, and it varied — he showed me the helicopter pad and what they
were doing in the way of improving the grounds and a few things
like that; pointed out some of the buildings they were fixmg up; what
a wonderful retreat it was. And I recall when he left, he told Pebe to
take me down and show me where the conference room was being set
up where he was going 'to meet with Brezhnev — 'the Russian delegation
was soon to come over. We walked up around; he showed me a few of
the places and we had lunch, and we walked back up and I left.
Mr. La(ikritz. All right, during the time that you wei-e walking
around the grounds with President Nixon and INIr. Rebozo did the sub-
ject of the $100,000 contribution come up then?
Mr. Danner. At no time in the presence of the Pr-esident did that
subject ever arise.
Mr. Lenzner. Were you accompanied by Secret Service agents dur-
ing any of that time?
Ml". Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Did the President discuss with you the public state-
ment he was about to make to the coimti-y on AVatei-gate ?
Mr. Danner. No ; I don't recall.
11475
Mr. Lexzner. Did he indicate that he was goinir to make a public
statement i
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall.
Ml'. Lexzxer. You do not recall him telling you on May 20 that in
2 days he was <::oin<j;; to make a public statement to the country on the
(juestion of Watergate?
Mr. Daxxer. If he mentioned it. T don't recall it.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did he ask you for any advice for a public statement
tliat he Avas about to make?
Ml-. Danner, No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Now, as I understand it. you arrived early in the morn-
ing and you saw Mr. Rebozo. and the President joined you and you
took a wiilk, and then the President departed and what did you do ? Did
you leave Camp David at that time?
Mr. Freedmax. In the first place, he didn't say early in the morn-
ing— that he got there early in the morning.
Ml-. Daxxer. I said that after he left us, he told Bebe to take us down
to this hall, or to this building. I believe he took us through there — the
President took us through there.
Mr. Lexzxer. Through the building?
Mr. Daxxer. Through the lobby, and then he said, "Bebe, take Dan-
ner down there and show him the conference room we have set up
for the meeting with the Russians." And we went down and looked at
that, and then went over and had lunch in the mess. And I left shortly
after that.
]Mr. Lexzxer. Did you eat with INIr. Rebozo or anybody else?
]Mr. Daxxer. Just the two of us.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you see or talk to anybody during the lunch be-
sides Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. And do you know what time vou departed Camp
David?
Mr. Daxxer. No; I don't recall the time. I'm trying to place the time
I got back to the hotel. I think it was midafternoon — 4 p.m., something
like that.
]Mr. Lexzxer. How about the time you arrived at Camp David?
Mr. Daxxer. It was before noon, but I don't know the exact time.
]\Ir. Lex'zxer. And one other (piestion that is not clear on the record.
Did you say that you did or did not discuss with ]Mi-. Rebozo, prior to
the President's arrival, the issue of the $100,000 (
^Ir. Daxxer. "We may have, and he may have asked me then to help
him out on that or figure a way out to get the money back to Mr.
Hughes. But I don't recall any definite conversation. I think most of
it had to do with how to conduct myself in the presence of the Presi-
dent.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did ]Mr. Rebozo indicate any specific subject matters
that you should not discuss in the presence of the President ?
]SIr. Daxxer. No; I don't recall any.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you, after the President departed, when you
walked and had lunch with Mr. Rebozo. did the subject of the $100,000
come up again with Mr. Rebozo?
I
11476
Mr. Davis. I object to the. woi-d '"■a'Tain" — but otherwise, if it came up
at all.
Mr. Danner. I don't recall any specific discussions, althou<^h that
seemed to be very paramount in his mind. He may have mentioned it
again during the luncheon.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you.
Mr. Freedmax. Are we finished?
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Danner, just so I undei'stand it from your de-
tailed testimony of tlie walk ai'ound tlie grounds and your discussion
with President Nixon, you are fairly certain that the meeting was be-
tween 11/^ and 2 hours long? Or at least a substantial meeting; it was
not merely a 5-minute meeting with the President?
Mr. Danner. Oh, no ; no, no.
Mr. Lackritz. And you are fairly sure that it was a relatively long
meeting of duration, approximately, that you have described?
Mr. Danner. Well, it's however long it took us to sit there and talk
for 20 or 30 minutes and then take this long walk around the grounds —
and we walked a considerable distance, as I recall — and then came
to this one building that they had remodeled. It was sort of an office
building, as I recall. So it could have taken 2 hours; it could have
taken less. I don't remember the exact time. Just to pick a figure
out of the air, I'd say it was closer to 2 hours.
Mr. Lenzner. While they are conferring, Mr. Danner, with your
permission let me ask you one question. You said that you advised
Mr. Rebozo to see a lawyer or talk to a lawyer when you fii"St learned
from him that he had obtained the funds. Do you recall what Mr.
Rebozo's response was to that suggestion ?
Mr. Danner. He didn't respond to it.
Mr. Lenzner. And it's clear, then, in your recollection, that he
did not indicate to you that he had previously consulted with counsel
on that subject?
Mr. Danner. No ; if he had, he didn't tell me,
Mr. Lenzner. That's my point; he did not say that he discussed
this with Mr. Griffin, Mr. Wakefield, ^Nlr. (Jennnilf, or Mr. Kalmbach?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you want to take a break now, or
Mr. Danner. I^t's finish. Are Ave close ?
Mr. Lenzner. You said that you had spoken with Mr. Rebozo
with regard to the presence of Mr. Maheu in Key Biscayne at the
time of delivery. Well, when did you speak with Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. I think that was in the summer of 1972. After I
had been interviewed by the IRS agents on the first occasion, I seem
to recall then also going down to see him, talking with him.
Mr. Lenzner. "Him'' being Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you talk with him telephonically and ad-
vise him that you had been interviewed by the IRS; is that the idea?
Mr. Danner. Yes; he knew I'd been interviewed. They told him.
I think the way it is, they told him that I had been inter\newed,
that they had interviewed me and that they now wanted to talk to
him.
11477
Mr. Lenzner. And tiiis was after you were interviewed in May,
and you think it Avas befoi-e the election in 1972, sometime in the
summer of 1972?
Mr. Danxer. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lexzxer. Well, don't say "uli-huh."
Mr. Daxxer. My recollection is I was interviewed in May on a
tape, and they transcribed it and brought it back. It was July, the
following year.
Mr. Lexzxer. Riyht, but between after you were interviewed in
May of 1972 — I think it was in Texas — aiid before the President's
election, or reelection, you talked with Mr. Rebozo that summer of
1972?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes; it would have been along that time, following the
interviews.
Mr. Lexzxer. And Mr. Rebozo indicated to you at that time that
he liad been advised tliat he liad been interviewed and had furnished
information that you liad given him money ?
Mr. Daxxer. Right.
Mr. Lexzxer. And was it at that time — and then you talked on
the telephone, and then did he request that you come to Florida to
discuss that matter further?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. But you did talk with him further about that mat-
ter in Florida; is that your testimony? I think that Maheu said you
talked alwut that with him in Florida.
Mr. Dax^xer. About having been interviewed ?
Mr. I^exzxer. About the whole subject matter of the $100 >0 and
whether Mr. Maheu was present or not.
Mr. Daxxp:r. This conversation I recall was on the phone, where
I was telling him my difficulty in establishing a time zone. I mentioned
the fact that Maheu was with me, and he said, "no; definitely, Maheu
was not present.'''
Mr. Lexzxer. And that was on the telephone ?
Mr. 1 )axxer. It is my recollection that it was,
Mr. T^EXZXER. And did you call him on that occasion or did he
call you?
Mr. Dax^xer. I don't remember.
Mr. Lenzxer. Did anybody ask you to call him with regard to that?
Mr. Dax^xer. No.
Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have a later discussion with Mr. Rebozo
with regard to whether Mr. Maheu was present or not ?
Mr. Daxxer. T don't recall ; I don't recall any further discussion
of the matter, because when he was so certain, so emphatic, I assumed
he Avould have a better i-ecollection on that subject than I do.
Mr. Lexzxer. And why do you assume that, sir ?
Mr. Daxxer. Because he, INIaheu — or Rebozo — was not too trusting
to Maheu, and I think he probably would have insisted that he not
be present.
Mr. Lexzxer. And I take it the subject came up in the context
of your describing what you had testified to the IRS, and at that point
Mr. Relx)zo said, it is not my recollection — basically, it is not my
recollection that Maheu was with you at the time ?
11478
Mr. Danner. No; he was more omphatie. He said, "No, Alalieu was
not present."
Mr. Lenzner. All rit^ht. AVhy don't we take a break, then?
Mr. Lackritz. lentil 10 tomorrow niornin<r ?
Mr. Davis. Fine.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you, gentlemen.
[Whereupon, at 7:15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter
recessed.]
11479
Banner Exhibit No. 16
Chester C. Davis
ONE STATE STREET PLAZA
New York, New "VbRic 10004
(212) ■tas-osoo
March 20, 1974
The Honorable Sara J. Ervin, Jr.
Chairman, United States Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Ervin:
I am writing in reply to a letter over your signature
dated March 11, 1974 and a letter of February 22, 1974 from
Mr. Marc Lackritz of the Committee staff. These letters request
that three of my clients provide additional testimony and docu-
ments to the staff of the Committee.-
It is our continuing desire to cooperate with your
Committee and staff, notwithstanding the serious differences
which have existed and which may still exist as to certain
legal questions which require judicial determination. Unfor-
tunately, the requests contained in the above letters raise
additional serious questions which, at a minimum, ought to be
heard and determined by the Committee before further burdens
are imposed on my clients. These questions become apparent
when the requests contained in the above letters are viewed
in light of the special circumstances which exist in this situa-
tion and the prior proceedings involving my clients and your
Committee.
11480
First, your letter of March 11, 1974, states that
"some material has come to my attention on which we would
like to further question Mr. Danner." As you know, Mr. Danner
was examined under oath at considerable length by the Committee
on December 12, 18, 19 and 20, 1973. Prior thereto, Mr. Danner
had been interrogated at length by Messrs. Lenzner and Armstrong
of the Committee staff on August 30, 1973. The subjects con-
cerning which Mr. Danner has been examined by your Committee
have also been covered in extensive interrogation by other
departments and agencies of the government. As you may know,
Mr. Danner has been examined under oath on two separate occa-
sions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (August 4 and
October 15, 1973), once by a federal grand jury (November 20,
1973), and twice by the Internal Revenue Service (May 15, 1972
and July 5, 1973) . The Internal Revenue Service has also sub-
poenaed voluminous records of Summa Corporation relating to
travel by Mr. Danner.
Your letter also refers to a desire to e^camine Mr.
Ralph Winte. As you know, Mr. Winte was interrogated at length
by Messrs. Lenzner and Armstrong of your Committee's staff on
two separate occasions (August 2 8 and 30, 1973) . Mr. Winte
has also been interrogated twice by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (July 12 and August 14, 1973).
Third, Mr. Lackritz' letter of February 22, 1974
requests the production of a number of documents which were
11481
identified and described in Ms. Nadine Henley's testimony
before your Committee on January 22, 1974.
It is beyond dispute that your Committee has exam-
ined my clients and obtained the totality in great detail of
the information available to them which relates in any way,
however remotely, to the matters which the Committee is
authorized to investigate. Nor is there any doxibt that
other departments and agencies of the government with prose-
cutorial and judicial or quasi- judicial responsibilities are
pursuing with my clients many of the same matters as your
Committee. Unquestionably, your staff and the staffs of
these other governmental agencies are covering repeatedly the
same areas, seeking the same information from my clients and
are obviously using information obtained in one inquiry for
re-questioning the same individuals as to the same facts and
occurrences . This has become extremely unfair and burdensome
particularly when transcript of this inquisitional process is
not available to my clients.
This situation raises two serious questions. First,
-the fact that the Committee is requesting further testimony
and documents from witnesses who have already provided all
available relevant information strongly suggests that the staff
is exceeding its legislative authority and usurping the judicial
function of resolving conflicts in the evidence and appears
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 14
11482
to be interested in adjudicating questions of guilt or inno-
cence rather than merely finding out what occurred which is
germane to the legislative inquiry. Second, the fact that
the staff appears to be duplicating the functions of other
branches of the government indicates that my clients are being
siabject£-i to the unfair and impermissible burden of parallel
proceedings. I shall address these two questions in sequence
below.
Usurpation of the
Judicial Function
The Committee's enabling resolution authorizes an
"investigation and study of the extent, if any, to which
illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in
*** in the Presidential election of 1972 *** to determine
*** 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."
(S. Res. 60, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (1973)). Resolution of con-
flicts in the evidence and the adjudication of guilt or inno-
cence are no part of the Committee's legislative mandate.
Nonetheless, requests for successive interrogations and the
production of cumulative documentary evidence, such as those
contained in the letters referred to above, suggest that the
staff is engaged in just those functions, thereby exceeding
the Committee's legislative authority and trespassing on
11483
duties and functions vested exclusively in other branches of
government.
I am supported in this view by the decision of the
Supreme Court in Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880),
where the Court held that the Congress has no power to enforce
subpoenas in support of an inquiry that is "in its nature
clearly judicial" rather than legislative. (103 U.S. at 192).
In so holding, the Court observed that:
It is believed to be one of the chief merits
of the American system of written constitutional
law, that all the powers entrusted to govern-
ments, whether state or national, are divided
into the three grand departments of the executive,
the legislative and the judicial. That the
functions appropriate to each of these branches
of government shall be vested in a separate
body of public servants, and that the perfection
of the system requires that the lines which
separate and divide these departments shall
be broadly and clearly defined. It is also
essential to the successful working of this
system, that the persons entrusted with power
in any one of these branches shall not be per-
mitted to encroach upon the powers confided to
the others, but that each shall by the law of
its creation be limited to the exercise of the
powers appropriate to its own department -and
no other. [103 U.S. at 190-191]
The type of inquiry now being pursued by the staff
seems to me to transgress the line separating legislative
inquiry from the prosecutorial and judicial. The Supreme
Court has never departed from the principle that the lines
of division between legislative and judicial inquiries must be
I
11484
respected and has emphasized that:
No inquiry is an end in itself; it must
be related to, and in furtherance of, a
legitimate task of the Congress. Investi-
gations conducted solely for the personal
aggrandizement of the investigators or to
"punish" those investigated are indefensible.
fWatkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178,
187 (1957)] .
Parallel Proceedings
There are certain agencies of the government which
are authorized to conduct both investigative and accusatory
proceedings. Mr. Justice Frankfurter defined the distinction
between these two kinds of proceedings as the difference between
proceedings designed "to gather information as a solid founda-
tion for legislative action" and those "which are prelimin-
aries to official judgments on individuals". Hannah v. Larche,
363 U.S. 420, 489 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). It is funda-
mental that an individual may not be subjected to both types
of proceedings simultaneously. United States v. Parrott,
248 F.Supp. 196 (D. D.C. 1965). Nor may an investi.gative or
fact-gathering proceeding be used as a guide for engaging in
a prosecutorial or judicial function. Id.
Thus, even if it were assumed arguendo that the staff
is acting within its authority in exercising a prosecutorial
and judicial function, the fact remains that my clients may not
fairly be subjected to such proceedings in the guise of a legis-
lative fact-gathering investigation. Nor may such proceedings
11485
be continued in tandem with parallel proceedings being con-
ducted by other branches of the government which are exercising
the prosecutorial or quasi- judicial functions entrusted to them.
Nor, of course, may the committee engage in proceedings designed
to be the basis for "official pronouncements on individuals"
without affording all such individuals all of the procedural
rights traditionally required at a trial. Hannah v. Larche,
supra, at 363 U.S. 489; Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411 1969.
The burden of such parallel proceedings on my clients
is aggravated by the fact that many of the issues with respect
to which their testimony is sought are also the subject of litiga-
tion now being conducted in federal courts in California and
Utah. The heart of the matter is that there is a limit beyond
which further requests for information serve no legitimate
legislative purpose and become, at best, "a fruitless investiga-
tion into the personal affairs of individuals", Kilbourn v.
Thompson , supra, 103 U.S. at 195, or, at worst, an effort to
punish the witnesses or aggrandize the investigators, Watkins v.
United States, supra. We siibrait that this limit has been reached
when all relevant information has been furnished to a legislative
committee and further inquiry either exceeds legislative powers,
or unfairly duplicates the exercise of the powers of coordinate
branches, or both.
11486
Relief Requested
Accordingly, to assist me in determining whether the
further burdens sought to be imposed on my clients are being
required pursuant to a valid exercise of the Committee's legis-
lative powers, I would appreciate the Committee's view as to
the kind of additional information which is now being sought
and which has not been previously furnished, together with an
understandable explanation as to why the additional information
sought from my clients is necessary to the discharge of the
Committee's legislative functions.
I would also appreciate the Committee ' s advice as to
the nature of the proceedings in which further evidence is to
be taken. Although I understand that formal public hearings
before the full Committee have been terminated, it is not clear
whether further appearances of my clients before informal ses-
sions of the Committee will be open to such members of the public
as may wish to attend. In the event that it is contemplated
that further sessions be conducted in secret, I would appreciate
prior notice of such specific determinations as have been made
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 190a-l(b) as the basis for such secret
sessions.
Finally, I would like to renew the request contained
in my letter of February 11, 1974 for copies of transcripts of
testimony given by my clients in secret sessions of the Committee,
11487
While I appreciate the offer contained in your March 11, 1974
letter to make available a copy of Mr. Banner's testimony on
a temporary basis, this arrangement would be inadequate protec-
tion for my clients for at least two reasons. First, it is
no longer open to doubt that witnesses who give testimony at
supposedly secret sessions of the Committee will most likely
be confronted with incomplete and inaccurate press accounts
of their testimony based on leaks from the Committee staff.
In view of this unfortunate fact, I think it imperative that
a witness have the protection of a transcript of his testimony.
Second, since it appears likely that other committees and
departments and agencies of the government may have access
to transcripts of testimony given in secret sessions of the
Committee, fairness requires that witnesses be given transcripts
of such testimony for use in preparation for further appear-
ances in connection with other investigations.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the other members
of the Committee for their information and appropriate action.
Very truly yours ,
/
s/
Chester C. Davis
CCD:sd
11488
Danner Exhibit No. 17
KAM J. enVIN. Jtt., N.C. OtAIRMAM
MCWKAHD M, BAKtR. Jl».. TCNN.. VICE CHAIRMAN
HERMAN C TALMAOOt. OA. CDWARO J, OURNET, fl-*-
I U>WeU. P. VWEICKER. JR.. COW*.
MOC.
SAMUFL DASH
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOK
FRCO D. THOMPSON
MINOniTV COUNSO.
'^Criilcb Pieties Genetic
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
(PUWSUAMT TO 5. RES. W. (tO CONGRESS)
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20510
May 10, 1974
Chester C. Davis, Esq.
Davis and Cox
One State Street Plaza
New York, N. Y, 10004
Dear Mr. Davis ,
Thank you very much for your letter of March 20, 1974,
in which you discuss your objections to making Mr. Danner and Mr.
Winte available to the Senate Select Committee for further sworn testi-
mony and to providing the Committee with documents described by
Nadine Henley in her informal interview on January 22, 1974.
Since you have raised the questions of the Committee
usurping the judicial function and subjecting your clients to unfair
parallel proceedings, I would like to respond first to these arguments
even before reaching the particular facts surrounding the Committee's
most recent requests to you.
Usurpation of the ludicial Function
The Select Committee has no intention of usurping the
judicial function, and its further interrogation of your clients will not
do so. The present situation is wholly unlike the case of Kilbourn v.
Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881), upon which you so strongly rely. The
Court found that the subject of inquiry there — the conduct of a parti-
cular real estate pool subject to pending bankruptcy proceedings —
could not lead to valid legislation. But in the instant case the Select
Committee is examining the extent to which your clients (or some of
them) may have been involved in serious campaign practice abuses
affecting the integrity of the presidential electoral system. Section 1
(a) of S. Res. 60 instructs this Committee "to conduct an investigation
and study the extent ... to which illegal, improper, or unethical activities'
occurred in the 1972 presidential campaign and election, (emphasis added)
and section 2 admonishes the Committee to make sure that its investi-
gations should be "complete." Under these circumstances, the analogy
11489
to Kilbourn is very weak indeed. The Presidential election system
is clearly a topic upon which Congress may legislate and investigate
so that it legislates wisely. In any event, Kilbourn has been "severely
discredited" because of its "loose language." Hutcheson v. United
States , 369 U.S. 599, 613-14 (Harlan, J. concurring^
You contend that the Select Committee may not resolve
the conflicts in the evidence or adjudicate guilt or innocence (page 4).
If you only mean that the Select Committee's investigation is not a
criminal trial and the Select Committee cannot pass sentence, then you
are of course correct. But the observation is irrelevant since the Com-
mittee has neither the power nor the desire to assume either of these
functions .
But if you mean that the Select Committee cannot resolve
factual inconsistencies for purposes of building its legislative record;
if in short you mean that the Select Committee may not be concerned with
the truth, then you are simply wrong. The Select Committee has been
specifically mandated to issue a "final report of the results of its investi-
gation and study conducted by it pursuant to this resolution, together
with its findings and its recommendations . . . " S. Res. 60, sec. 5
(emphasis added.) The Select Committee is by no means prohibited from
seeking to verify or dispute your clients' version of events. To suggest
otherwise is to contend that a congressional committee cannot seek to
determine the truth. I might add that it is to your clients' advantage to
testify again in order to clear up some serious inconsistencies that have
developed in the record.
A long line of cases support the strong investigative power
of Congress in situations such as the present one. See McGrain v. Daugherty,
273 U.S. 135 (1927); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929);
Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599 (1962) (Senate Select Committee
on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field; investigation of
unlawful use of union funds to influence prosecution); Delanev v. United
States , 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1952) (House Ways and Means Subcommittee
on Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws; investigation of Corruption
by Collector of Internal Revenue); United States v. Costello, 198 F.2d 200
(2d Cir. 1952), cert, denied, 344 U.S. 874 (1952) (Senate Special Committee
11490
to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce); United States v.
Orman, 207 F.2d 148 (3rd Cir. 1953) (same); Sanders v. McClellan , 150
U.S. App. D. C. 58, 463 F.2d 894 (1972) (Senate Government Operations
Committee.)
Parallel Proceedings
The fact that agencies of other branches of the government
have interrogated some of your clients neither has been caused by nor may
affect the work of this Select Committee. Their purposes are different
from ours since we have a legislative function. Since our purposes are
different, it should not be surprising that our questions are different.
Even if these other agencies shared their information with the Select
Committee, that would not limit our own duties to investigate under S.
Res. 60. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Silverthorne v. United States,
400 F. 2d, 627, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 1022 (1971):
"the Senate Committee and the federal grand jury are associates in
exposing criminal activity and moving toward its curtailment. " Just as
even a court of law may not "say when a Congressional committee should
be deemed to have acquired sufficient information for its legislative purposes,
Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.Sr 599, 619 (1962) (Harlan, J. concurring),
neither may you, Mr. Davis, tell us when we have acquired sufficient infor-
mation.
Finally, I would like to point out to you the factual context
of the Committee's latest requests.
FiLSt, Mr. Winte has never given testimony under oath to
the Select Committee. As an attorney, Mr. Davis, you certainly under-
stand the importance of taking testimony under oath, even when it may
appear to be no more than repetition of information already provided informally.
Mr. Winte's testimony about his involvement in various activities during
the 1972 Presidential campaign is essential to complete the factual record
of the Committee. I would merely note, Mr. Davis, that Mr. Winte continues
to be under subpoena to the Committee and that he risks the full contempt
powers of the Senate should he fail to appear before the Committee at its
request. I request, therefore, that you immediately contact Mr. Lenzner
or Mr. Lackritz of the Committee staff to arrange for Mr. Winte's sworn
testimony at his very earliest convenience.
11491
Secondly, while Mr. Danner has been questioned by
the Committee staff in December under oath, new evidence given to
the Committee necessitates our recalling him in order to clarify some
matters not raised before and to attempt to resolve some contradictions
with other sworn testimony before the Committee. Mr. Danner remains
under subpoena to the Committee, and so I request that you immediately
contact the Committee staff to arrange for the continuation of Mr. Danner's
testimony at his earliest convenience.
Thirdly, the information requested of Nadine Henley in
Mr. Lackritz's letter of February 22, 1974, relates directly to the source
of the cash delivered to Mr. Rebozo in 1969 or 1970. In addition, you agreed
in the course of that interview to provide the Committee with these docu-
ments if they were specifically requested in a letter. If you are now taking
the position that you will not provide these documents to the Committee,
we will have to consider instituting more formal procedures in order to
obtain them. I would appreciate your providing those documents to the
Committee as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
\
w^^-n-^. "^,
"^.a^^'.y^ '^^''
Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
/
Chairman
I
11492
Danner Exhibit No. 18
Law Offices of
Davis & Cox
one state street plaza
New York, New York 10004
I2i2) AZS-OSOO
May 31, 1974
Paul R. Michel, Esq.
Watergate Special Prosecution Force
United States Department of Justice
1425 K Street, N.W,
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Michel:
On behalf of Mr. Richard G. Danner, we are here-
with producing photocopies of records in the possession,
control or custody of Mr. Danner called for by the grand
jury subpoena, as clarified by the correspondence and the
telephone conversations between us with respect to the
scope of the subpoena. A list of the records being produced
is attached hereto.
With respect to the diaries, only copies of those
entries or portions thereof responsive to Items 1, 2 or 3
of the subpoena have been produced. The diary entries pro-
duced for the period January 1, 1958 to December 31, 1968
reflect Mr. Danner 's travel or whereabouts outside of
Washington, D.C. For the balance of the period covered by
the subpoena the records produced reflect Mr. Danner ' s
travel or whereabouts outside the State of Nevada.
11493
We are not producing certain records called for
by the subpoena on the grounds of attorney-client and/or
attorney work product privilege; namely, the correspondence
between Edward Morgan, Esq. and James Hayes, Esq. analyzing
different aspects of the TWA litigation and the correspondence
between Edward Morgan, Esq. and Richard Danner with respect
to legal matters in connection with an application for a
television license. A complete list of all those documents
not being produced on the grounds of privilege is attached
hereto .
Sincerely yours^^
jawrence S
LSB/abc
Enclosures
LiU/UyU^y/UA^
11494
Danner Exhibit No. 19
LIST OF
RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED
1. Account Voucher for July 1971 re staff meeting in
Los Angeles .
2. Letter dated May 19, 1969 from Rebozo to Danner.
3. Letter dated November 11, 1969 from Danner to Rebozo.
(Memorandum not attached) .
4. Letter dated November 17, 1969 from Rebozo to Danner.
5. Letter dated November 19, 1969 from Danner to Rebozo,
6. Letter dated March 3, 1970 from Danner to Rebozo.
7. Letter dated March 17, 1970 from Danner to Rebozo.
(Memorandum not attached) .
8. Letter dated May 19, 1971 from Rebozo to Danner,
v;ith attachments,
9. Letter dated January 18, 1972 from Danner to
Eugene C. McGrath (with attachments) .
10. Letter dated March 1, 1972 from Danner to Rebozo,
with attachment.
11. Letter dated April 19, 1973 from Danner to Rebozo,
with attachment.
1968 Diary Entries
12. 1968 diary entry of January 5.
13. 1968 diary entry of January 8.
14. 1968 diary entry of January 14.
15. 1968 diary entry of January 15.
16. 1968 diary entry of January 16.
17. 1968 diary entry of January 25.
18. 1968 diary entry of January 28.
11495
"(1968 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
19. 1968 diary entry of January 29.
.20. 1968 diary entry of February 8.
21. 1968 diary entry of February 14.
22. 1968 diary entry of February 15.
23. 1968 diary entry of February 17.
24. 1968 diary entry of February 18,
25. 1968 diary entry of February 23,
'26. 1968 diary entry of February 29,
26A. 1968 diary entry of March 6.
27. 1968 diary entry of March 7.
28. 1968 diary entry of March 8.
29. 1968 diary entry of March 16.
30. 1960 diary entry of March 17.
31. 1968 diary entry of March 19.
32. 1968 diary entry of March 22.
33. 1968 diary entry of March 29.
34. 1968 diary entry of April 2.
35. 1968 diary entry of April 9.
36. 1968 diary entry of April 10.
37. 1968 diary entry of April 11.
38. 1968 diary entry of April 12.
39. 1968 diary entry of April 14.
40. 1968 diary entry of April 15.
41. 1968 diary entry of April 18.
42. 1968 diary entry of April 19.
43. 1968 diary entry of April 20.
44. 1968 diary entry of May 3.
45. 1968 diary entry of May 6.
11496
(1968 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
46. 1968 diary entry of May 8.
47. 1968 diary entry of May 14.
48. 1968 diary entry of May 15.
49. 1968 diary entry of May 16.
50. 1968 diary entry of May 17.
51. 1968 diary entry of May 19.
52. 1968 diary entry of May 21.
53. 1968 diary entry of May 22.
54. 1968 diary entry of May 23.
55. 1968 diary entry of May 26.
56. 1968 diary entry of June 4.
57. 1968 diary entry of June 6.
58. 1968 diary entry of June 7.
59. 1968 diary entry of June 9.
60. 1968 diary entry of June 10.
61. 1968 diary entry of J\ane 11.
62. 1968 diary entry of June 22,
63. 1968 diary entry of June 26,
64. 1968 diary entry of June 27,
65. 1968 diary entry of July 8.
66. 1968 diary entry of July 10.
67. 1968 diary entry of July 15.
68. 1968 diary entry of July 16.
69. 1968 diary entry of July 18.
70. 1968 diary entry of July 20.
71. 1968 diary entry of July 22.
11497
'■•■;». •
(1968 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
72. 1968 diary entry of July 23.
73. 1968 diary entry of July 24.
74. 1968 diary entry of July 25.
75. 1968 diary entry of July 26.
76. 1968 diary entry of July 28.
77. 1968 diary entry of July 29.
78. 1968 diary entry of July 30.
79. 1968 diary entry of July 31.
80. 1958 diary entry of August 3.
81. 196 8 diary entry of August 9.
82. 1968 diary entry of August 10.
83. 1968 diary entry of August 11.
84. 1968 diary entry of August 13.
85. 1968 diary entry of August 20.
86. 1968 diary entry of August 21.
87. 1968 diary entry of August 26.
88. 1968 diary entry of August 27.
89. 1968 diary entry of August 29.
90. 1968 diary entry of September 3.
91. 1968 diary entry of September 4.
,92. 1968 diary entry of September 10.
93. 1968 diary entry of September 11.
94. 1968 diary entry of September 15.
95. 1968 diary entry of September 16.
96. 1968 diary entry of September 18.
k
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 15
11498
(1968 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
97. 1968 diary entry of September 25.
98. 1968 diary entry of September 26.
99. 1968 diary entry of September 27.
100. 1968 diary entry of September 28.
101. 1968 diary entry of September 29.
102. 1968 diary entry of October 3.
103. 1968 diary entry of October 10.
104. 1968 diary entry of October 15.
105. 1968 diary entry of October 17.
106. 1968 diary entry of October 19.
107. 1968 diary entry of October 23.
108. 1968 diary entry of October 24.
109. 1968 diary entry of October 25.
110. 1968 diary entry of October 31.
IIOA. 1968 diary entry of November 1.
111. 1968 diary entry of November 2.
112. 1968 diary entry of November 4.
113. 1968 diary entry of November 5.
114. 1968 diary entry of November 6.
115. 1968 diary entries of November 8-10
116. 1968 diary entry of November 11.
117. 1968 diary entry of November 12.
118. 1968 diary entry of November 13.
119. 1968 diary entry of November 14.
120. 1968 diary entry of November 20.
121. 1968 diary entry of November 21.
122. 1968 diary entry of November 22.
123. 1968 diary entry of November 24.
11499
(1968 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
124. 1968 diary entry of November 25.
125. 1968 diary entry of November 26.
126. 1968 diary entry of November 29.
127. 1968 diary entry of December 2.
12 8. 1968 diary entry of December 3.
129. 1968 diary entry of December 4.
130. 1968 diary entry of December 5.
131. 1968 diary entry of December 8.
132. 1968 diary entry of December 10.
133. 1968 diary entries of December 13-15
134. 1968 diary entry of December 30.
1973 Diary Entries
135. 1973 diary entry of February 11.
136. 1973 diary entry of February 18.
137. 1973 diary entry of May 17.
138. 1973 diary entry of May 18.
139. 1973 diary entry of May 19.
140. 1973 diary entry of May 20.
141. 1973 diary entry of May 21.
142. • 1973 diary entry of Jvine 5.
143. 1973 diary entries of June 10-12.
144. 1973 diary entry of June 13.
145. 1973 diary entry of July 3.
146. 1973 diary entries of July 8-11.
147. 1973 diary entry of July 16.
11500
(1973 Diary Entries - Cont'd)
148. 1973 diary entry of August 4.
149. 1973 diary entries of October 4-7
150. 1973 diary entry of October 9.
151. 1973 diary entry of October 30.
152. 1973 diary entry of November 26.
153. 1973 diary entry of November 28.
154. 1973 diary entry of December 1.
155. 1973 diary entry of December 5.
156. 1973 diary entry of December 10.
157. 1973 diary entry of December 12.
158. 1973 diary entry of December 13.
159. 1973 diary entry of December 17.
160. 1973 diary entry of December 20.
11501
Banner Exhibit No. 20
DCCUr-lENTS KOT TO BE PRODUCED
ON TtlE GR0U1>ID OF PRIVILEGE
1. Letter dated March 13, 1970 fron Edv/ard P. Morgan
to R. G. Darmer. Re TT'ZA Litigation.
2. Letter dated October 19, 1970 fro.-n Edv/ard P. Morgan
to JaiTies V. Hayes (hereinafter "Hayes"). Re Ti'TT^ Litigation.
3. Letter dated Noveribar 4, 197 0 from Edv/ard P. Morgan
to Hayes. Re TvJA Litigation.
4. Letter dated Nove-TJber 2, 1970 from Hayes to Edward P.
• ■ Morgan. Re n7A Litigation.
5. Letter dated October 15, 1970 from Edward P. Morgan
to Hayes. Re TWA Litigation.
6. Letter dated October 12, 1970 from Edward P. Morgan
to Hayes. Re Tv7A Litigation.
7. Letter dated October 14, 1970 from Edward P. Morgan
to Hayes. Re Ti'7A Litigation.
8. Letter dated September 24, 1970 from Edward P. Morgan
to Hayes.. Re Ti-7A Litigation.
9. Undated Memorandizm prepared for Edward P. Morgan,
re T\'TA litigation.
10. Hemorandiom dated October 6, 1972 from Edward P. Morgan
to stockholders of Central Nine Corporation re legal
position in connection v/ith application for television
station .
11. Letter dated April 10, 1972 from Edv/ard P. Morgan to
R. G. Danner re legal natters in connection with
■ application for license for television station, v/ith
' attachment.
11502
Danner Exhibit No. 21
• ; - Inter epartmeut Gorrcspo 'ence
To: Ch-ck Hirsch " Hate October 21 , 1971
From: Richard C^a.-inarr-ivS
Subject: Expanse Account - July, August, September - 1971
July, 1971-
Tips 139.00
Breakfast - L.A. Meeting 4.50
Lunch - Staff Meeting 5. GO
TOTAL 148.50
11503
Danner Exhibit No. 22
\'.aij 19, 1969
SEIf B'SO.YS';. .lOSlDA 33148
l.[/L. R. G. VanneA
ffiOYvbLoJi Hotel
L(U) \JzgaA, Utvada
VzoA VlcJz:
Jhank you voAij muck ion. a wordzAiuZ tceefeend
In LcLi> l/egoi. Vou mO'tt tkan outdid you^uol-i. It
lijould be Ajiroo6blblt ioh. me to zxtz^xd compaAdblz.
ho6pUaJbuty'. T/ie la^yt z.veiilng th^AO. toAnzd out
\jCAy L<J2Zt. Tim oppoAtu;ilty to dlhcuA6 tlio. mattzA
iclvidi we had toZkdd about: p^xe^e-^vtzd tt^zZ^ and, OA
U tuAnzd ouJ:, I don't bdU^^JZ tX could .'laue wo/a^ed
out hUtzA. I cu?i uv^C; thz me^s^age camt tlviougk
loud and diza^t ^':ith -tz^pzcX. to both maJXeAi idvtch
you mzntionzd to ne aZ thz cocktatZ pajviy.
Thz advancz you pfiovidzd mz If^ fiztuAnzd hzAz-
votXk. Hopz it dozA> not bouncz.
G. Rzbozo
CGRUk
EncZ.
11504
Banner Exhibit No. 23
Novar.ber 11, 1969
^ir. C. G. Rebozo
•;^Bank::of -Key" Biscayna-^ ;;^L;!|;*^:;i\;^;^;^.';.: ''J '["^''i ,:^\Sf:}'-^"*^''';
Dear Bebe:
" Enclosed' herewith are tha news releases etc.,
pertaining to John Maier, together with a raeraoi-anduiu
iv':on the-saraa- subject which- I' discussed with" you. '.'.".■ '"'
- ^- v-v -:->'-•. v.-^ ••..'■: '-..:- r .» .>.:';r^>:rr- •■•:-:• ..._• .. ■ --' ;• : • >-,>-.^^ :■.. ■_■ ,:y{.
■'■"•-''"■■'"" ' Sincerely,
Lc'-iTM -»-tr->-"~- <:-;<•• ;-h>i'' ;•• v,,- ,.• ...-.v>s...^.v. --■—-.• rt/—<^,..-..P.ichar.d.G. Dannar. ,
V '^RGD/ras ■-^■^ ,;." ., •' ' - ■ ..'" ; ;.•':•■?''' -' ". .' /;; - Manag ing . D ir ec tor ."
'•>- Enclosures- v-^-^^*. .>;r>-:v-.vr^::. .•:::/■- ^;- •... ;-•'••••• ^' -- -
11505
Danner Exhibit No. 24
c. g. ^Rd'ozo
SET s:scAr>;. h-osida 331 u
NovQjnboJi 17, 7969
h'</L. ZicJioAd VojvieA
c/o V^^OYvtiVi Hotel.
.La6 \JiiQcu(> , Nzvada
VdoA Vlck:
Thoug!vt you migrvt tikt to havz a copy o^
tlie. tncZo6zd Lost o{, gueAtA idio cuttandzd thz 6 tag
. dinmA {^on. tliz Vha^wci.
P.cgaJidi , I
C. G. 'Re.bozo
I
CGR:6lb
Encto6uAz
11506
Danner Exhibit No. 25
MDVoniber 19, 1969
Mr. C. G. .•'.ubo.-io
h^-''^^y.- Biscayna- Banlo'Buriding "" >^::/'--:-^ J"; ■■y'>:^'.{v:""--'-^c;;/^"^-.' :'••:"; -■■
Dear BGb'3 :
I am attfichlno horeto a letter dated I^ovembar 17, 1959
v/hj.ch is self ercplar.a tory .
I'-jy^-yps' you riay, recall, ;V7alkervas -our.. first: •''brea3<^through'V'->
.'p^'flrC th3 Florida TDeinocrats for -the' Ni::-c6n carapaiga-in j.\'.~ /'■[
•.";V,;. r^carr.pa'ign- whan he vas' very helpful in' the Tarr.pa area. '" ■
Ke'onjoys a very fine reputation, both as an Architect
and a citizen.
'/^i
.^. ■•. '^-^wi'thijvpu, ;■ SO t-hat if you ■are'.'not-~ablg to do- anything,
XN;c*T"h'r"'^iXl^'Tiav3r"' knov;": •;7^■:'•^'■■■•^;>•^V"■^ ■ : '■■J-'" ^. y-'y.-.i.-^^'-^:^::'^-:,.: -•t;-.^x-.
'■•v-.-; , ■:i' -■ ■-'^' . >- - ... — . .. ■ . ■ • ..-^ . -. .- r .^ ... .
i.--:--^^.*.-,. -..^ . . Sincere persQna-l.v/ishaa, . . -;;
■ • • " .;,..■-> t-L.- ■ '" ..• :■■■-■■ •''-.■
',";■.;.■• "'-.v ''-•'>•;'■ •..•,..':•.. . . ; "'' '■■■■".;■•■.. . Richard. G. Danner' • . '.' 'V
.'"■•■ RGD/ras '. - ■ • ■■■-.■ Managing Director . •■' " '• •
.■ ■-''■[<-''^^?^j:y''- : ■ ': . ". ■..._vV-.;>''-v"'-.- •-.' - .■ ■ ■' ■■■.••■'■ '.r. '-.■'-
''^" 'Attr-Ki;'-' ; ..•■ ^^ ■;•%■.;__;; ;.^^:-'N'<v'^-,-;- - ^ .'/■ ./■^•'.^.:'- ■•;,;•; v^ '
-.v^..?.-S.r-w«..^l?ny J:_ha_n!c3 __for the gueat list of tlie White House
V;rr/>t-^:- v"''"Stag;jparty..-.^I was.- -wondering, ho^v i' could obtain''.' \;'.'
'--..V:''.-'-- "'one,' and you. -ansverad ray .wish- - ■■.'■' V" ••■•..•■"'
11507
Banner Exhibit No. 26
Mr. C.G. Tiii'cozo
Eank of Ivcy Biscayne
Key,.BiscayTie,.,E;la. -.-'•
^'^Daar Bebe:-. . .'■■r':^- .' -.:r;;.':>^!:i:- ->-- -'-^•^■^■"J-
I am attaching hereto a letter from Ed Morgan, tocjather
with some newspaper articles all on the subject of school
busing. He! and I v;ere discussing this subject when he
proposed the constitutional theory as set out. in his
r.f'V; ^letter and I asked that ha cavalop it further and give' ma-
•".X-.the- benefit of his. thinking. . /It occurred, to me' that . - •
■:'■• some- of- your friends up the line -rnight be interested- in
^^^/Viis/comneritc/'" ' --" -''^[y ' ■'■::■''':.''■ . ;■•"' " ."';.■;'" ■■-'
' In my opinion Morgan is one of the best trial and appeal
attorneys in the country. An examination of his record
will reflect that he rarely loses a case on appeal,
■.•;'.-_becau3e of his intimate' knowledge of the law and .the .l,-:->:r
vI;r:Constitution.':- ■ •:;- ^^\-'_'/^' ■:-"-•''•„."-' '•'■'- "'-'.r '=.■'.' ■v'-li-';!
.«■...'• I .whole-heartedly agree with his observations that this
■^-•^^S'issue'i^is^'going- to become of paramount importance in the .
.X'^i^'days 'ahead. The great rank and file of the people who
"..'" '--have accepted integration, '-civil rights, etc., in. good
><'.v.spirit-.wili ^simply blow..up. v;hen. it comes to .the question'.
' ■-•- of .busing* . and v/ill vigorously oppose such efforts.
■ Let .ma '.have your reaction. •; -
Sincere personal regards.
'^^ .- '■'■■.^■■,y.' ■■ '^J-:-' -I'l; '!J^-^•■v•:•;i''^■■ ...■■;"^- i-"^^' Richard G. Danner ■
J^RGD/ms '•;\!/'-V'?'.\v'v-^'-^"'^^ ■'/-'■'•• "'^^^"^^^"9 Director
•'■\ •■• . '-'--..'■ - .•• ' '•• '• - <-•-./ ■•" -■■.' '.•J—..' ■'■'"' •-,-', ■ ■ • ' - .. . -
•' Att:.
11508
Banner Exhibit No. 27
rir.rch 17, 1970
Mr. C- G. Roboro
Bsn'-; of K-^y Bincayno
^^'^Keiy .Bi3cayn3,:_Fla;- .; ~.^ ' .' ■. ,,, ' . .• ■■';:.;■....• ?.• :\^- ^^ •■'■•^V .
- ~ T).->Ti-»- ■B'^h)^ •■■•» »~ ■.■■.;■-,.'■'"-,.• "iV ^^ ...' •.',.' ->''-•,■■. 't ■ ~ '..-'■- 5. •"'. ■r''.'- • — '., .
I ?m attaching hereto a five paga mamorc^ndum rddrG3f?Gd to
"Vrhora it raay Concern" and a tv.-o page digest of the former
as DGr our conversation.
■ ■"-*. "...-..- - , ... *
''c'^; It'. occurs, to ma that the ' A. E.C:,... by., continuing; to 'conduc t "\""V:"
'■•'■"■undGrground ''tests, -is. noying -into the raaln of . tha un>:na--,/n, ,^-
<,^<^-/With..tJia.,.rasuitant...dangar_^ that.,'.: .should,, the . Pi.B.C. , have ain- '_•.
■;.^^' caJ.culatad, catastrophic'. affects could ensue. For example,
;.■■"" should an earthqua?<e be generated, v/hich nlcng i'i"th the
natural devaotating effects of e.r\ earthqur-ke, '.'ould also
break open the .sealed underground char>U"iers causing the latter
..ji ta rQlcasa..,tha stored, up. ,r:ad.ioaGtiye ma terials into the ^
.';'.;• underground water system, as wall as into the atraospherG,. '"'r."-
.-.: -.tha"damagc! could be incaLcuable. ^' '"'^-V: v. ■'_'•'■'•■ :.;'~"' '.V .;". " \-".'-. "C-"'
''.' -I- thiril-cl everyone raali-zes, by the same token, that chsre are.
•' -•probably-'great 'and over-riding "reasons stemming -from 'our-'" •.■ci".-.-;
^national security requirements that. may dictate that these..:-;..
• ■. -tests. /continue even if, there are serious risks that have. to". r.
"^'■'^'be taken. '" ' " • — -■ ' • - ■ • ■ ■■ ~--- •■ •' ■■ • ■ '-■:• - .•■■'-
If "itv'is possible on your part, I would sincerely appreciate
■.-.. having a scientific e^cplanation as to why -these fears of
earthquakes or contamination are groundless, or a simple
/.'.explanation that our national .existence is dependant upo:^
'"'■ our. ability to further develop" and refine our nuclear
ccpabilities.
^ »■ ._ *» ',*'j«" »'*,-» •■ »
Sincere personal v/ishos,' .
Richard G. Danner
RGD/ms Managing Director
Enc,.._ . .. •
•■ ■■■: ■-■■ :; -f
11509
Banner Exhibit No. 28
T'i n;-r'ivF.. — jDVMu .i :i va
M^y 19, 1971 ',
Mr. Richard G. Danner
Desert Inn
Las Vegas, Nevada 89109
Dear Dick:
The nev.'spaper clipping v;hich I sent you did not con-
form with what you had previously told me, that is X'/hy
I thought you would be interested.
Don't ever suffer under any illusion that the Miami
Herald "straightens anything out". As you knov;, it is
open season on the Director, and for that matter, law
and order in general. The Miami Herald's "goofing"
this one certainly does not establish a precedent as
we all know they are old hands at this .
Glad to know that everything is working out well with
you.
Warm regards.
Sincerely',
ozo
CGR:jl
11510
Mjty 14. 1971
rn)
\j)
Mr. C. G. r»i?'j(i -w
Key Iviscriync 'J:;:!. i^iildLnj
K'-y Bioca.yne, Floricia 33149
Dear Bobc: •
Despite yo'.ir rMti" n iir, "for your inforn'ation, no aclinowlerlge-
irfiil noci-:.'f-ir-. . i h ur.t ri-[ilN- to U\n clujpinc^ flial you f;ai\t n e
frorc t.lic iVi'.iri i lii r il>! "f Nitoti Sn iUjy'.s coluivti cniicorninjtj tin?
Caf^li l:if'>i''''f>itii; '!'■'•.
rr^
v^
I lhouf,'lil lliis II allf.T liad Ion;; aqo boon .straii;litcnctl O'.it, sinco it
iinpponixl •:on.'' '<:! \i.-ar.s aL;o, l>ut as you proljcil^ly will rctren ber,
Slicriff Colcnan !i:ul not^iiii'j to tio willi the ^okUi'^n of this case
otlier than (piitt' l)y coincidence. Me ;;ave Franklin Pierce McCall
a rifle -jp lo ^lialI i fron: I'rincefon and lurn'^d ^'cCall over to rric
v.'itti tl;e .'italenuMit Mi.it iV'cCall vaiitr.d lo lalk lo iou.o F. 13. I. n<.;ent.
It vi'ras y.our fri-nc' '• uiii'r- '.vlio fiirillv broke f' cC ill flnwn and p,ot '
his c.-nr-vr-i-iit. l-o -.i" na<' iviU'^i'- !• ■:'■,• v.-ith 'l but v-ir: r.n-nrt
ei»ou.;li ;illr- • 'U ',■ i; or-.il:/- i.-j iijii.-.-ini-i-r llial mi- . :u1 -jivr'n r.'cCall..
transportation lo ^ ian i.
I don't intend to write to Ihe Herald to Iry to strai/ihten tbcm c>iit,
but it docs .rjrieve ne to "ee them use i ptory llint was an effort to
atten pt to n ali.'jn tbe Director and which bar Ion'; since been
th(jfougly disco'inted. The Miami Ilf-rald really goofed this one,
and I .'■"epoosi? thai I'or the ni:xt ci.-nt'.n'y tlu'y will continue to justify
tlioir violation of n c onficL-nce, which incidentally no other n'^wsfjap.fer,
v.'ire :;-ervicc nor tiev/f: media violated.
Jini GcU'i^n tell.'; n e \ ou liuve not bef-n feelinr; well, vhicli I an"
j;orry b.) hear. ( v. onr!"r if it could be your cookinc., one' if it ;.s, if
yon weren't so priiMrious, t would be happy to coipc dov.-n as your
guest for a f"vv f'-iy.- or a month and fi:< you son.e n-.eals that n^ighl
straighten you oul (con ped, of course.)
Evervthin;T; '<? ijoiiu; fine out here, except that I am working too
hard but I am erijo mp/j; it. Let n e hear frorri yoi'.
Sincerely.
RGD/ss
Richard G. JVumer
11511
TTjC-^^^-f* T-"- TCt^u^^
i.:^ rf,*^ ni-B» -I '^■■■'mnr ■ i^\ii-» i---*- -^ - -- -.. ~».i ■^--xia
H
J
oover
Took
All the Credit
I!y NIXO.V SMILEY
Hfr>ld SliK Ar i;r
The controversy nvrr :r;c Irp d3g o,' lb.?.
G-men rcmini's some of cs ci 2 wsok 33
yc.irs ago v.hcri Dndc County hid a chincc
to s^c J. Ldjp.r Hoover in action
That occasion was after th:; kidnnping
on the cvcninRof May 23. ITil^, of five-ycar-
old James Bailey (Skcepic) CasJi Jr. from his
hed in Princeton. 2.') miles so'>:th of Miami.
Twelve da\s later Franklin Pierce McCall,
21. confessed kidnaping and murdering the
child.
Hoover took ail the credit for tiie FBI.
To the public Hoover and his G-men -^tood
10 feet tall. To a fcv close to the scene the
FBI. and particularly ficnver, would never
again stand quite so tall.
The Car-h kirinapinj; occurred on Satur-
day night and on Sunday Hoover %vas in
Miami v^-ith a squad of FBI agents. Mcan-
v/hilc, the FBI chief in Miami called local
newspapers, wire services and. radio stations
to ask th^m to carry nothing about the kid-
"r.p:";; "jntil ti'e ransom was paid and the
child returned safely.
This the news media aqrccd to do, pro-
vided reporters could bo kept informed of
the progress of the case in order to prepare
stories for eventual publication or broadcast.
The FBI acrccd to cooperate.
MEA.NWniLF, however, news of the kid-
naping spread far and wide. Hundreds of cu-
rious, as well as people wlin sincerely want-
ed to helprd. congregated in Princeton. By
Monday. Hoover had close to 40 G-men
dashing about, taking suspects into custody
for questioning. Fifteen were questioned in a
single day.
Reporters could learn nothing, though,
because Hoo\cr haa ordered his agents not
to talk with any reporter. \^'il(l rumors
spread like wildfire. The .sheriff's depart-
ment could answer few questions because
liic FBI was rot taking Sheriff D. C. Cole-
n»an into its conjidenccs.
When rc.-iders of The Mia;iu Herald
found nothing in the Monday paper about
the kidnapinc. hundreds called, many to
"tip" the editors off.
"It looks like everybody in Dade Coiinlv
knows of the kidn.-'ping e.Niept The Miami
Herald." fumed City Editor John Pcnne-
kamp.
Herald reporters had v.-ritlen thoiis.nnds
of words On the kidnaping and the editors
were keeping the matrrial up to fl.ite hour
by hour, waitinc for some word from the
FBI. Nothing came.
ASMIDMGHT Moncl.iy approached. 43
hours after the kidnaping, rennckamp or-
dered the pages readied to go. and on Tues-
day morning The Herald came out with a
full front p.ige of coverage under a two-line
streamer head: "Dado County Boy Kid-
naped."
At 4:4ri that morning th.e ransom mone.v
was delivered and The Jicrald soon came out
with an extra.
Hoover hit the ceiling. As the days
passed without the child being released,
blame was heaped up.in The Herald. Hoover
told Reporter Steve Trumb-.ill that if the
child was found dead The Herald would
have to shoulder the blame.
MEA.\"VVHILC. Sheriff Coleman arrested
Franklin Pierce .'^kCall. 21. and turned him
over to the FBI. Coleman had observed Mc-
Call, and. after questioning him, considered
him as a prims suspect.
The FBI released him. Apparently the
FBI could not believe tliat tb.c cleanly cut,
intelligent and outgoing youth, the son of a
preacher, could have planned sucii a job.
A second time Coleman arrested McCall
and turned him over to the FBI. He had
caught the youth in a lie. With this lead,
the FBI wrung a confession from McCall.
Early in the morning of June .0. 12 days
after the kidn.nping. the FBI announced Mc-
Call's confession and the finding of Skcecie
Cash's body in a palmettn clump a mile from
the child's home. McCall had tossed the
body there on the nishtof the kidnaping.
Sheriff Coleman's role in apprehending
the kidnaper was not mentioned.
A FEW WEEKS after the kidnaping.
Collier's macazine came out with a sensa-
tional article. "Death in Headlines." by
Qucntin Reynolds indicted The Herald for
its premature publication of the kidnap
story, implyin.5 that the nev/spaper's action
resulted in Skcegic Cash's death.
Rey.'olds. a friend of Hoover, hid gotten
his story from the FBI chief. Hoover had ne-
glected tn tell Rcsmolds. or Keynoltls liad
nusunderstood. that Skeegie Cash had been
dead for over -IS hours when The Herald
broke the story.
Hoover also implied to Reynolds that the
FBI suspected McCall all the while but was
hesitant to arrest him because of fear of a
possible lynching. That statement would
have been more believable had the FBI not
arrested several other "suspects" in South
Dade and haulerl them off to federal head-
quarters in Miami for questioning.
not VN^.. .
lodged witli
.-?. A LEA"^".
lonese rebei'
April 5 was ■
Korea after '
student in ^
Lumumba UT
to educate
nnn-Commu."
countries). F''
tiire. Ceylo '
North Korea
embassy tlicr
'1. ALL O
can radicals
Marcb. ja-.'"^
bo^—r-.. *.ritt.^ .'^-
after stints a'-
U. Five Sovi c
identified ;l
men. were
Mexicans a.s •'
The Mexi
aries had gon
the Soviet-M
exchange pi^
a'fter a wdiile, '
Russians to h
guerrilla mC'
were refused
and the Cu ^
North Korea
both train anr
they said.
First they
East Berlin, \v
given North
ports and I-
They then
through Mosc
Soviet Union,
on those pa ~"
suggests Sovi ,
and after tra '
turned the s,T •,
Mexico, their
the expelled
mats.
A SIMILAl
lievcd to bav
the Ccyloncsf
Ronan V/ijcw.
similar Sovio.
his training i.
according to r
The Soviet
the Mexican
affairs was :
subversion.
Bucharest.-
hand, was ar
sic. Questio'
what the
•were up to i.-
attcmpts invc
ican and Eelf
ANY AC
11512
Banner Exhibit No. 29
Uis \>;^-. Xfic^a • Vhonc 735-0111 ■ (Atcci Code 702) ^' p'\\^^\
January 18, 1972
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Eugene C. fv^Grath
Box 10341
Pananna 4, Republic of Panama • ,
Dear Gene:
I am in receipt of your letter of January 7, 1 972,
enclosing the statement of Ambassador de la Ossa
with reference to the Panama Canal negotiations. By
coincidence, 1 had just read a rather lengthy article
pertaining to the treaty problems which would seem to bear
out your observations.
I can understand your anxiety, but I just cannot agree that
our Mianni friend could participate in any manner in this.
There is no way he could volunteer his services without
being exposed to severe criticism for interference in a
very touchy and delicate matter.
I am certain that everyone up here must be aware of the
problem and hopefully in a position to do something about it,
but I think now would be a very difficult and dangerous
tinne for an "outsider" to inject himself into the negotiations.
Of course, if our friend feels differently, this is his decision;
but as little as I know about it, I would have to back off.
Sincerely,
J^
RICHARD G. DANNER
.^ RGD:ds • y, /^ 7^
At' i^'^" y^ _^^ ^^,
11513
EUGENE C . M o G Iv A T II
nox 10341
PANAMA * , :t E r C «t L 1 O O 1-^ PANAMA
January 1 , 1972
Mr. Richard G. Danner
Managing Director
Frontier hlotel
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dear Dick;
I know how fond you are of Panama, and how much Interest you have in
helping me to do "the right thing."
I remember all too well how you met "the Congressman" in Miami v/hen he
was dressed in a heavy winter suit in the middle of the Miami heat. You
took him to buy clothes, and held his hand during his most difficult days.
I also know how fond you ore to Bebe, and how much influence Bebe can
have on that ex-Congressman.
Therefore, I attach a copy of my letter of this date to Bebe, as well as a
copy of the transcript of the opening remarks of the Panamanian Chief
Negotiator in the U.S. -Panama treaty talks.
I am convinced that if Bebe could visit Panama (on a fishing trip or some
such other personal venture) upxin his return to the U.S. he could convey to
the President the correct picture of the local situation.
I also feel that Bebe would only fly down if accompanied by you, or by
George. 1 am earnestly asking for your help in getting him down here sometime
in late January on February, since 1 do not believe that the pressures building
up In Panama can be contained much beyond April if the U.S. continues to
drag its feet in the manner expressed In the comments of Ambassador de la
Ossa, as attached.
As a closing remark, may I say that I finally received your letter about
Antonio's entrance into Georgetown, it carried the date you mentioned but
inadequate stamps and therefore, by something somewhat slower than pony
express, devouring nine v/eeks from Las Vegas, reached me In Panama.
Perhaps your secretary could be reminded to check on proper airmail postage
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 16
11514
V/.-.e.-i you respond fo '"I's lerrer.
Chela joins me in sending -o vou, Martha and to your family our warmest
best wishes and hopes for c '.zopy new year.
Sincerely,
Eugene C. McGroth
ECM/enf
11515
January 7, 1972
iWr. G. 0. f<sb^oro
Ke/ Biscayna 5onk Building
Key Biscayne, Florida 33]40
Dear Bebes
I am offcching c translcflon of i'ne opening remarks mada by fho Chief
Pancmcnicn Negoriafor, Jose A. de !a Cssa, at a freafy negotiation
session of November 9, 1971 in WasHingfon.
General Torrijos bonded me the tranjcrJpt in Spanish. I have had
if translated for the benefit of a very few and selected friends, such
as yourself.
Upxan careful reading you will observe how tragically slow progress
Is being achieved, if I'i is being achieved at all, in these negotia-
tions. I am very preoccupied as to th« results of tho absence of
progress. 1 think you are in the position to be of great help to
President MIxon, and, incidentally, to the Republic of Panama. I
want very much to talk to you and explain to you my feelings in this
regard. I cm flying to Miami specifically for this purpose within th«
next few days. I hope this letter reaches ycu first.
Best persorwl regards.
Eugene C. McGrath
EGM/enF
11516
Inforrrial .'/seHng - Enbcssy of
9 N'5YCiTifc-9r 1971 - 2:oo p..-n.
VVajhingfon, D. C,
Words by Ambossador de la Cs53 of th^ inUiotion of fhfj rnceHng:
Ambaswdor Mundt, Meryj. Sh';rfi;y and Finn;
Sofore entering Into tho dixcusjion aj to land and wafer, I would like to J^y Q few words, with
your pormljilon.
r
My dclogafion haj sfudiod vAt'n great cere fha drafts which v/cre delivered by yo'j. AUbougii
wo understand toot this r ^prs-sonii only tho flr:t draft effci-f on your part, Int jndH to pot in
writing tfvs pojitico of th<t' United Sfofoj, w9 oro still scriovsly preoccupied as to its
contents, since wa rvow surmiso that fha United States Is prMsring Itself for a posiflon of
bargaining which wo coniidcr to ba c;<frcmuly dangerous. It v/ould appear thot, aftsr having
raachsd en cgreomcnt as to tho basis on v.'hich a now trc-aty would bo structured, tho documontj
which you hovo now presented controclct tho spirit of that accord ond ottsmpt to roduco its
scope.
Whot wero the basis of that accord? For my country thsro were thr«e toch basis, which we
hove proclaimed tims ond again throughout ths enflro procsss of these negotiations:
K To pot on end to thg perpetuity clcusoi
To dots wa have not received tho U. S. written position as to tho length of tho new
treaty. Tho only thincj tliat we hove heard from you is that yowr ospiratlons ars for a
treaty to bs 'long, very lono." This ©xprejslon, or point of view, certainly mok»s \f
difficult for a cordial atmosphero to bs engendered batwaen our tv/o countries, nor do«J
It ossist in In raoching a fair occord.
2. An end to o "government within onother government."
The papers which wa have received oppaar to inciccto thot this principle Ikjs been sat
cslds, olthough you Insist tliot you continue to rsspect our position In this rs^ord. You
reflact in these docum^>nfs tho dciirs of the United States to remain with cimost oil of th«
visible forrns of jurisdiction until tho end of the frsoty.
How can Panama accept o troofy that supposedly ends the Jurisdiction of the United States
In our country, whsn you insist on preserving In effact the powers of your courts, your
police, ond continua to apply the lows of tho United Stotei (In the Ccnal Zen« orao)?
11517
Hr^>v can y,--j ■:' -jrs, witT a -trious fact, fh.:}t you rocosntzo fhs effect of soveraignty
of Pan -ma. in fSe C:;,-^^! Zone when, after fiis draft v/hlch you present us, wa would
Qiva to you tho p<r-«f fo expo! or deport Panamanians from that crea?
Ha^ can you tal< of tn» concept of "a society" b'?h'"?'?n Panomo ond tiie Unitid
Sfotes on the bo^ii of oquolity wh^n, aj a matter of f^ct, you propose iho cr&atlon of
a privatij poli = 5 fcce (in tha Canal aroa) 15 yvan ofter ths signing of ths treaty, end
for fh~ rsrf of thfj duration cf ffwt treaty?
Up to d3t3 th-i only thing fhot you havo ceded, as for 03 jurJsdIctior* Is concsfTif>d, 11
commcrcicl jurisdiction, end that not tofclly, jlnco you insist on reserving tho right to
carry out certain typci of commtrcicl activity at your solo discretion. r
3 . Grsatar parti cipofi'^n in i!ia economic bansfits or the ConcI;
V/'o havs hjord nothing concrete from you In that record.
We ors ct a vital crossroads in our efforts. The posltlvo things that you have said that
you era willing to conc-;do lo Pancnra will bo converted into n^gotivo things if you
Insist on ths spirit or fonor of the documents which you hava fust p)T«antod to u$. I
suggest that wo turn beck end that v.'3 ro-excwlne with great cara ths principles c^nd
fiindarrjfnfcl objective; of fhe freofy, end tinat from thot point, from that initial :pirit
of rsform, and from this origin of a now era in our relations, bassd on equality,
fustico and unoVr^tam'ing of our ifgltirrata osplrations, we con than davelop a draft of
a treoty that could ntisfy both countries.
i do not wish to refer to, tn fact, 1 do not even wont fo think of, the consequences
of a fclluro. I only want to say thot the responsibility of such a failure will bo 00 our
shoulders, the negotiators of both countries.
To start onew, porarin reaffirms its Initial position, which has not varied »Inc« the
beginning of the^a conversations.
•— We ore wilting to hovs yo'j monoge ond mofntain the present canol;
~ V»'e ere willing *o permit you to protect end defend It, rejecting its neutrality,.
Thesa things we ogres to within o fixed parlod of time.
The Pnnamcnian position in these negotiations Is not, as some fcor, to Hquldats or eliminate
the prwinca of the United Slatt^s in Panama but, rather, to be oble to say "wo wont" Instsod
of repeting as we have s-iid until now "we fiove."
V/o want to have our relations brought up to dote, enlivened ond folr.
11518
Qjr poi'il'ion ts cenero'ji, hcnwcbl^ end of o liigh level. Tiis efforts thot you hcjvs dis-
played to noinfain end pfej*rva the "jfatos quo" oi fo tn9 policemen, tho courts, ths
oppWzaWon (of U.S. i:^w.) f'~« sxtr^diHon, fignfs 3r)d pov/ers, otc. go woy ba/ond that
which Ponomo I» willing fo cgreo fo in a now frcoty. Your poilflon li unfsncbl'i before tha
world public oplniCTi. I'roi pcilfion Is far from cDing cco.i^^^n^ with fh<?i ollminotlon of "a
government within o governrrunt" that you ollcgs you hava accapfed.
Throughout its history cs a republic, Porwma lias ii3V!?r bntn stingy In offering its full re-
sourcoj, its friendship end Its ovn land fo fha United Sfcitcs for th«> <jr»^t worI< of tha canal.
Wo hiNQ boon good vrlcnds in tho pusi and wo do not dciCPi'n tho troctmont that yov era
0lvln9 0$. My people cannot accept the continuation of thj "ofatus quo." Thay rejact and
rcpuc'Iota It. It was tha "status quo" that -was the motivatIf,-n of tha notional exprssiicn in tha
decoders of tho fiftic-s. It was tho "stotus quo" thot was thj caute of 22 deaths in January
1964. It was tho "status quo" thot resulted in tha joint daciGration of April 1964, which hat
brought uj hers In ihc negotiation of a na-// tr!>3ty. Hcr,v then can you expect us to undtr-
stand )*our ctubbofn desire to prejcrvo and maintoin tho "sJatus quo" of thsia soma things In
a naw treaty? Hcr.v can you ev-sn dr«am that we would think of acccpiing these conditions?
We are a rcajorwble p^Kspla and wo have accepted, bsccusa we understand your poll Heal
position, that there rr.uit (sx\it a p'?riod of gradual rsducrion, of changes by jtoges In our
rclcflons. But wa h<3'^B so accspted this tronsitlonal phiiowphy with o vlsvv towards
lafisfying our cspirotiofl in tho nc-ar future.
Nevcrthslen, tha tlrn» limits proposed by you crs not rsasonocle, end they hove no basis
In either logic ncr low. Your only purpose (as far as long limits aro concerned) ts to ma\n-
taln the (vated "status quo. "
The pop«fs which you have presentad Indicatg a greot lack of ccnfldooco, and olmost tho
total abvtnca of gcod faith, towards our intantions and our ability to comply with whot wo
promlsa. How do wa plant the ss^ds of a new relationship under these condition*? How
do you expect Panai7;a, in turn, not to disfn.i5t tha United Statas? Furthsrmore, to fop it
oil off, YO\^ ask us, surprisod, vj'ny wo want to liquldoto or alimlnatis the U. 5. presence
In Poncrna? Slncarely, gsntlemen, I bellave the Unifed States U oufo-liquldating its
foreign pcllcy, not only In Panama but also throughout tha American continant.
I wish to relterata my pIsa for o rs-O^omination of our positions. For our part, wa hove
b«gun fo ra-axomlna o«rs. Thara Is much at staka. Panama Is a wnajl country, smoll in
area cs well as In population. V/a ors not capable of threatening tha United States, the
rrost powSfful country in fha world. But v/a do want yoy to understond tha sccpa of our
emotion: If wa fail In our effort to reach a satisfactory accord, and In a r-;laflva!y short
period of tima. our rc-laticns v/ill not remain unaltered. Y/J do not subscrlba to tha theory
that it Is possible to postpone tha solution of this problem in the coming years. Wo want
ond wa expect a prompt solution fo these gr^we problems. Nobody con accuse u» of baing
tmpotiant. Remember that In fha provsnt process of negotiation my country Is calm, and
there Is tranquility thare. My people trust that tha United Stotes understands, and agree to
remsdy the existing situation.
Let ui start today dcnfyin-j our positions In on atmcsphero of coTplote frankness. I
propose that wo 50 on fo orpiain our position cbout wotsf nnd lond In the Panama Canal
area. I Ixjpe that you will capture new concepts from our statements here today.
11519
Danner Exhibit No. 30
tin- ^cri> -^-^ \> ■■ ; ^ 1 /'
Lcs Vcz'!'!. Sci^uic ' Fhunc 73^-9111 • (Area Code 702)
V I i (^
March 1 . 1972
Personal & Confidential
Mr. Charles 3. Rebozo
Key Biscayne Bank Building
Key Biscayne, f^lorida 33140
Dear Bebe:
I am attaching hereto a copy of a letter dated f^ebruary 18,
1972, from Gene McGrath which has further referenbe to
his expressed concern over the Canal Treaty negotiations.
I don't know v/hy he is so concerned over the matter other
than he possibly could have made some promises which
he is finding hard to fulfill.
In any event, I assunne that you received a copy of my
letter to him of January 1 3 on the same matter, and I
still feel the same: narnely, that it would be impossible
and, to say the least, exceedingly foolish if you permitted
yourself to become involved in a matter of this type. I
am certain that in your o^A/n good judgment you have al-
ready reached the same conclusion.
I think our friend has accomiplished very nearly the im-
possible on his recent trip to China, and what criticism
we^are now hearing probably stems from sources who
hoped it would be a dismal failure. I can see nothing
but good emanating from this if it is handled in thie future
in the same manner.
I had hoped to get down to f^lorida last month, but the
r)re =='jr»=> r\f b'i = i'-'3c:= contint.i<='s uinabated O'.it here >A/hich
PTiade it necessary that 1 cancel my trip. I haven't given
11520
up though, so please keep the spare bedroom cleFinsd
up and ready.
I talked to the new bridegroonn recently, and he seems to
be enjoying his new role; he should for he practiced long
enough.
If you get a minute, drop ms a note or call me. I would
like to hear your predictions as to how the f^lorida primaries
are going to go.
Sincere personal regards.
4^
RICHARD G. DANNER
RGD:ew
attachment (copy of letter)
11521
i: U G E N E C . M c O K A T H
BOX. 103-41
P.*. MAMA -4, nKPCBLIO OE" l*ANA>tA
February 18, 1972
PERSONAL & CONFiDENTlAL
Mr. Richard G. Danner
The Sands Hotel
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dear Dick:
Thank you for your letter related to a proposed (but not pending) visit of
G, B. Rebozo.
I do feel that there arrives a time when one must stand up and be counted.
I do not believe in the theory that one "should not get involved" since,
by extension, this includes the horrible things that happened to people in
full view of fellow citizens without anyone placing a restraining hand on
the criminal.
However, there Is obviously nothing more I can do to convince anyone,
including particularly Bebe, of how foolish and inadvised is the foreign
policy of the United States vis-a-vis Latin America.
I assure you, from the bottom of my heart, that due to his advisors, Nixon
is steering a short course of auto liquidation of virtually any influence
that the United States might have had, or might have in the future, in
connection v/ith Latin America.
I have lived to regret my agreeing, through you, to pay $2,200 to hire
airplanes (Engle Flying Service) for Nixon in his first primary In New
Hampshire In 1964. Perhaps If I had not done so, someone else would
have. I would, like to believe so. 1 do not even regret that I never had
acknowledgment from him nor from anyone else for this "favor", but I
am convinced that Humphrey would have done immensely better as
President of the United States.
11522
May I tell you v/Uh sincere love fo you both that Chela and I are anxious
to have you spend a co-jple or weeks with us. Our farm is now beautiful
and we are most eager for you to Join us. April would be a marvelous
time to do so if you feel free at that time.
With our warmest personal regards to both of you, and to Jeannle,
Sincerely,
Z^
Eugene C. McGrath
ECM/yv
11523
Danner Exhibit No. 31
^%
The SaridS Las Vegas, Nnarla 89100 {702) 735-9111
RICHARD G. OA\NEa
April 19, 1973
PERSONAL
Mr. C. G. Rebozo
Key Biscayne Bank BuUding . «■
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
Dear Bebe:
I wanted to thank you for your nice letter of April
12, 1973, concerning your recent visit here. I, too,
nnust apologize for conking out that night; but as events
developed, 1 found later that T was conning down with
pneumonia, so it was probably well that you suggested
that vve krrock it off and go to bed early. 1 have been
out for about ten days, but am now getting back into
the swing of things.
I was very much impressed with our friend's statements
of April 17 with regard to the situation there in Washington,
and I think he covered the nr^atter very forcefully and
forthrightly in his statement. Some comnnents that I
have received here indicate that he has put to rest any
suspicions as to his involvement, or even knowledge, as
to what was going on at the tinne and will sim.ply let
the facts speak for themselves. The more 1 see of this
man in action, the more I ann impressed with his ability
to handle the most difficult of situations at the right
time and in the right manner.
11524
I rooe t'-'.is fir>ds you in good health and spirits, and one
o.' f^ese days I will try to sneak off and conre down
and spend a quiet visit with you and submit myself
to the indignities and penuriousness one associates v/ith
you (when you are on your best behavior).
Sincerely,
/Uc/,-
RICHARD G. DANNER
RGD:dn
11525
XST BtSCi/vZ rLOallXi 331-lii
Ap/uZ /Z, ?973
\lx. RZdiOAd V. Vannon.
Sands l\ot2Z
LcL6 UzgcLS, Ncv.
V(2Af>onaZ
t>eaA V-Lck:
Thank ijou voAij much (^on. the, i-JondoA^ut ho&p-itaLity &hoi^zd
me XJx2. othoji yu-qIvL. It ci.'a4 Qood geXtlng togoXhoA uxiXJi you
a^tzA. 60 many yejx/vi.
SohAy iatiiQA tAjnz ha.6 i>o^X o^ cauglit up LCiXJi me. and T
wo^ unable, to geX t(v%ough the. eyvUjiz e-ventng. Some, day
Comz on domi, even though Jcan't A.zcJ.p^oaatz tlie. tavt^h
ho6p-ctaLcty, I 'It aHond you thz "quzzn {^oh. a day /lOom" .
CGR:6mfL
11526
Henley Exhibit No. 1
■ir^, CASH
TEXAS 7^^T COMMERCE
Of IIOtTTO\
p*Ti; "July 30. iQ 68
L2Ml£L_si^
35^:60
1 1 30
TM^a4i£i^S:2i^t^iSi8'iLQ^
-$
25,000.00
AUo 1 1'Jfab
j-a;>niJ8, iihr-i
m
r
OWAHD H. UUGIIES
-Dollars
/
./■-■
•i:ii30'"OOE.oi: ioo-q6oi,"''
/
/OOO 2 500000/
■-'.'Jv^^.V...-
h A<--:>
iw txisia i-^-
» ■•• - - - -
i-/.i^ j(k
RECEIVED C5,000 CASH FOR NON DEDUCTIBLE COKTRIOmONS.
VJ!>ctC^.\\-i^.. -<^^- t
Received By
D^te
11527
7^. ^*
y1 "'
'^b^O-azj
9Ay^e
11528
Henley Exhibit No. 2
TEXAS l^^K^ COM MERGE
3S- f '^
■ list)
Datb.
Sapt. 9 1060
:• :IATES ,
'.'VI 1 i:i:zi (; .
I...
i:u30'"Dor-,oi: ioo"'Se.oi.i^
; » n , i » :. !i e
OO.cco.rr.
I)(>LLAhS
iio\v.ARH« in c.iri;K
/DOD50000DO,''
fi
.ft?
;> >
^1 's
t-3
CI
J\ J. -At
-*UM*-V ■ ^ - Iw
vi. . r.
Received from Howard Hughes check In the amount of $50,000.00.
ROBERT A. MAHEU ASSOCIATES
By jRjUt ^ >\^'JL^- '^ V^
(oyte)
9, /?L8
11529
Henley Exhibit No. 3
C ' —V.-.. ~
I Tt»TllR
K'KCI MCI
' i! 1
TEXAS ""^^^ COM M ERCE
"I Sept. 9
6
r
- /7^ :^-
19
63
RC:ZRT A. "■.•■■Sfi/.'.T'-S.f.nt
as-so I
tiso i
■ li
-S '.90'P.^--<^>-
S !
]v;:: ittac. Tsssf-
DoMvAns
i:u3D'"OD&oi: ;oO'"9bOMi'
/DDIOOOODDD.''
c:
-I
WnSvl
L •'•■■-i -••'5)1'-; 3 •; " ■• '?«54
A,!. 2 I
~, t i-\ i l\
.i\U, .
T B8
ii
£5 51-* " n'-^?-^^
! i *
Received from Howard Hughes check in the amount of $100,000.00.
ROBERT A. MAHEU ASSOCIATES
(date)
31-889 O - 74 - pt, 24 - 17
11530
Henley Exhibit No. 4
TEXAS T.liroV- COM M ERCE
35-60
1130
or HOurroN
,_ TtATR -' Dec. 5. iffcS
Iav
'TO Till:
roi:hof_
UU <ii\t^-
$50.000.00
DoLi.Ans
'. alOWARD R. uuGncs
eafisis^i •
ea -i^-^^ '
i:i i30"'OOE,oi: ioo-ieou"'
y
/oan^^nnonoD/
■ 9
o
o
-»- .1-.. ■ .'•-, i. _.
. f ^ f*. f-:- }:■ n; jt. f % ?^ f«^ 5^ j^ ■ i 3' -i - 1
. ; . pi St
V p«v .".3? ea::«, f !: 3 --• r ^
r* ' - - •
Received $25,000.00 cash from Mr. Howard R. Hughes for non-
deductible contribution.
0^ ^.o.-.f ^ %.sua ay^^^..
J
12/5/68
(Date)
^Received $25,000.00 cash from Howard R. Hughes for a non-
deductible contribution.
^{jur qy^wiu^
W(>/6B
11531
(M^M^
^ J 37 ^^
j:
s
<
11532
Henley Exhibit No. 5
3S-60
cii Hi';*n»v
Robert A.
^ o -^ • -"••
'.^arch 3_^_i() 69
-- -* T ( r»ci
|445.S!inU£i;p ]^ D-JiJ U--;;U Uii::.liL_-
W
1
noxvAPi) n. m-Gin;s
i
«•- -J ti
BV.
''t.-i «y
{
IT.
cr
1.: r ; t-
i'"^'" ^ii•^• J^f*^ A^-./i {.Kr-^y-f^^^G*-
•-v
.'S .-'\ j-v ;"~; ••
.j\j'..y .
5^ C5
;
»
11533
Received from Howard Hughes, check in the amount of
«
$50^000.00 to cover reimbursement for non-deductible
\
contributions. \
-T-
(Date)
\
\
\
11534
5
Henley Exhibit No. 6
TEXAS^J^^-J^-COMMERCE
35-60
1130
1
in tur. ^l(>\
r*-'
JC' "L.
Date June 27, IP 69
$ 50,000.00
Dollaxs
V- V ♦V.-
IOWA RTI;
•iy*"' " ^' '^' ■ nOWARTI/K. lUj«llliS
iruao'-Dor.G.: ica-'^n.cu!.'
'000 5000000,.*
/ ,.
■'■':? p,p/
;:h /:,
■ V — fcw'»L ■' " ' ii* tpi^
U\.,i:i■^ .,.v<./^
Received froa Howard Hughes cosh In Che amount of $50,000.00
for non-deductible contributions.
G^^9d - ^^Jl^O 7yy u^Mm^
//^ ^9^?
11535
I irtTMi;
HENLEY Exhibit No. 7
TEXASS'opXOMMERCE
<>t tKK'JTOX
ROBtRT A. i<.Mii:n-T-:^x»6-*^.
95-60 I i. '
ttTo I i
! !1
I \\
70 j I j
jion.ooo.oo I
i
DOLLAKS I
ituaD'-oD&os: loo-'iE.ov,'.'
/ODIOOODOOO."
00 .
;• f. ■,.,.■
-.1
A-
4-
•r m :.!
c ? •.'■ ' ■•• '■:■■■
C ? IT- " ■■•■ - ■ L
*" ^h.'- :.•'■ <■■■
nOO.OOO.OO. coverm. non-aeaucUbXe con«ibuClons
Received by
,~/-^
y/
R'^^^^tATMaheu Associates
May 26, 1970
(Date)
11536
Henley Exhibit No. 8
BAM J. CRVIN, JR.. N.C.. CHAIRMAN
HOWARD M. BAKCR. JR.. T£:NN., VICE CHAIRMAN
KCKMAN C. TALMADGE, CA. EDWARD J. OUnNCY. FUA.
CAKICL K. INDUrE, HAWAII 1-OWCXJ. P. WEICKER. JR.. (
JOSEPH M. MONTOrA, N, MCX.
I^Krxiicb ^laicS: Senate
SELECT COMf-IITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
(pursuant to S. res. «9. SID CONGRESS)
V.'ASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
February 22, 1974
Chester C. Davis, Esq.
Davis & Cox
One State Street Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10004
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is to request the following documents described
by Nadine Henley during the January 22, 19 74, interview. Your
cooperation in providing this information will be greatly appreciated.
(1) Copies of the following cancelled checks drawn from
Howard Hughes' personal checking account maintained at the Texas
National Bank in Houston and any other documents or records relating
to such checks:
(a) Check dated July, 1968, made out to cash for
$25,000. This check was cashed at the Bank of America, Hollywood
branch by Nadine Henley for Robert Maheu.
(b) Check dated in September, 19 68, made out to
Robert Maheu Associates for $100,000.00.
(c) Check dated in September, 1968, made out to
Robert Maheu Associates for $50,000.00.
(d) Check dated December 5, 1968, made out to
cash for $25,000.00. This check was cashed at the Bank of America,
Hollywood branch by Nadine Henley for Robert Maheu.
(e) Check dated December 6, 1968, made out to cash
for $25, 000. 00. This check was cashed at the Bank of America,
Hollywood branch by Nadine Henley for Robert Maheu.
11537
(f) Check dated in March, 1959, made out to Robert
Maheu Associates for $50, 000.
(g) Check dated in July, 19 69, made out to Robert
Maheu Associates for $50,000.
(h) Clieck dated sometime in 1969, made out to
Robert Maheu Associates for $50,000.
(i) Check dated in May, 19 70, made out to Robert
Maheu Associates for $100, 000.
(2) Copy of the list compiled by the accountants for the
Silver Slipper Casino detailing withdrawal of cash from the Silver
Slipper.
(3) Copy of the memo dated January, 1970, from Nadine
Henley to Howard Hughes concerning the withdrawal of cash from
the Silver Slipper and certain discrepancies in Henley's and Maheu's
books of account.
(4) Copy of the list of expenditures incurred in 1968 by
Robert Maheu Associates on behalf of Howard Hughes. Tliis list
was provided to Nadine Henley by Richard Ellis in late 1959.
(5) Copy of a memo from Nadine Henley to Howard Hughes
dated May, 1970. Tliis memo was written as a follow-up to the
January, 1970, memo described in the above paragraph 3.
We would appreciate receiving these documents as soon as
possible, and in no case later than March 1, 1974. If there are any
questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
Marc Lackritz
cc: Nadine Henley
Sol Freedman
WEDNESDAY. JUNE 12, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington^ B.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 11 :05 a.m., in room
G-o34, Dirksen Senate Office Huildiii'r.
Pivsent : Marc Lackritz. Kobeit .Muse, aud James Moore, assistant
majority counsels; Scott Armstronii-, i n vest io:a tor; Richard L. Schultz
and Bob Silverstein, assistant minority counsels.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD BANNER— Resumed
Mr. Lackritz. This session is a continuation of yesterday s session
with Mr. Richard Banner as the witness.
Mr. MooRE. Mr. Danner, tuniin<i; once ao^ain to some of the details
of the money delivery in connection with your trip to Florida, when-
ever that was to make a delivery in Key Biscayne, do you remember
whether, as part of that trip east you also traveled to Washington,
D.C.?
Mr. Danner. I don't remember whether it was on that trip. I do
recall one trip to Key Biscayn(> where I leturned to Las Vegas via
Washington; whether it was in comiection with that one, I'm not
certain.
Mr. MooRE. So, your recollection is not firm on whether you went
directly to Miami and back, or wliether this trip involved a stop in
AVashington, either before or after Florida ?
Mr. Danner. No.
INIr. Moore. Yesterday, Mr. Danner, in your testimony you referred
to the — I believe I'm quoting it — "Lapse of time" between the deliver-
ies. Can you give us some idea how long that lapse was ?
Mr. Freedman. Look, he testified to this in December; he testified to
the same thing yesterday. We know his responses, and we are simply
going over the same ground over and over again. I think this is ap-
proaching the position where this witness is being harassed about
the same thing.
Mr. Lackritz. I think the question was solely that Mr. Danner testi-
fied l)efore that he thought the period of time was, as I understand it,
anywhere from a few months to 3 months ; and Mr. Moore is only ask-
ing if tliat is still his testimony.
Mr. Freedman. He testified yesterday to the whole thing.
Mr. Lackritz. If ]\Ir. Danner would just answer the question it would
solve the whole thing more quickly, ]\Ir. Freedman.
Mr. MooitE. Do you want me to repeat it?
Ml'. Daxxkr. V\w aware of a time lapse. th(> c^xtent of which I'm un-
able to define more accui-ately. But, they were made at two different in-
(nr)39)
11540
tervals. Now, liow far tliey were, I'm still in a ({Uiuidry. I hate to sound
evasive, but I'm not. I just can place one of the (hiys, I can't place the
other. Whether that was the first, or the second, I'm still in the dark.
Mr. Moore. Fine. So, the lapse of time was of an unspecified duration.
Mr. Banner. Yes.
Mr. MooRE. Fi-oni weeks to months, perhaps.
Yesterday also, INIr. Danner, you mentioned the wrappers that were
at least on some of the hills. I)o you remember in glancing over the
money, oi- looking at the money, whether all of it was w^-apped in some
fashion or other, the kinds of wrappers that banks have; w^as there
any loose money, or any money wrapped other than in standard
wrappers ?
Mr. Freedman. I think he testified, again, last December about what
he knew about the wrappers.
Mr. Lackritz. The question mei-ely was, was any money wrapped
other than in bank wrappers.
Mr. Freedman. And he testified to all of this.
Mr. Lackritz. It's a simple question, yes, or no.
Mr. Freedman. You say simple, but the same thing over and over
again. I don't want the w^itness to be in a position where you can say,
on page 32 he said this, on page 168 he said something different, so,
the witness is
Mr. Lackritz. Are you directing him not to answ^er the question ?
Mr. Freedman. Go ahead and answer it.
Mr. Danner. All the money was in bundles of $5,000 in a wrapper.
I think I testified I had some vague recollection, somehow, Valley
Bank. Now, w^hether that is a custom to see our money come in w^rap-
pers with Valley Bank, or whether this had it on it, I couldn't be cer-
tain. But, it was all in the straps.
Mr. MooRE. Thank you, that's what I wanted to know.
Mr. Freedman. And it's my recollection that's exactly wdiat he said
in December.
Mr. MooRE. Mr. Danner, does the Hughes operation, the various
casinos use the Valley Bank for financial ti-ansactions ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. Just answer as far as you know about that.
Mr. Danner. Well, I do know that.
Mr. Freedman. All right.
Mr. Danner. We do use the Valley Bank, certainly all the casinos
I'm acquainted with.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Dannei-, did INIr. Maheu tell you before you made the
first delivery to Mr. Kebozo that that money was money that had been
available in" 1968^
Mr. Frf.i:dmax. I want the lecoixl to show I nm tnaking the snnio
objection. You aie going over and ovei- again the same thing.
Mr. Lackritz. Mi-. Freedman, if I could just make a point, the pur-
pose for asking the (piestion is, if you go over the transcript, this
question was not |)revi()usly answeivd ; it was previously provided by
Ml". Danner and icfenvd to a convei'sation he had with Mr. Kebozo
in the spiing of IDOi), not at the time of the delivery of the money in
Key Biscay ne, Fla.
11541
T will be happy to be corrected if you can point me to some place in
tlie record where the question was answered. But that question Mr.
:Moore was asking is directed to the delivery in Key Biscayne.
Mr. MooRE. Two questions, Mr. Banner; the first was, immediately
befoi-e that delivery, did ^Mr. Maheu tell you that w^as money from
1968? And the next question is, when you made that first delivery to
:Mr. Rebozo. did you so represent to him that this was money that had
been available in 19()8 ?
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute, I don't like "the first delivery" be-
cause he doesn't know which was the first delivery. So, if you can re-
strict it to the place that would be helpful, and I think he did answer
that.
Mr. Moore. It is my understandinjgi;, and T don't have the page refer-
ence in front of me, I think it did not appear, and that specific question,
to make the record clear, has not been asked before.
Mr. Freedman. If I can have the question again, I would appreci-
ate it.
Mr. MooRE. My first question, Mr. Banner, is whether you can take
them by place, whethei-. before you made a delivery to San Clemente
you were informed by Mr. Robert ^Nlalieu. or someone, Peter Maheu,
perhai)s, that the money was the same money available in 1968.
Ml". Banner. My recollection
]VIr. Freedman. Wait a minute, I think I can find the place.
Mr. Bi'RNStein. (^an you i-ead the (juestion back ^
[Question read.]
Mr. Banner. I don't recall whether it was identified as the same
money, but to my best recollection Mr. Maheu said the monr being
the $.50.000 '
Mr. Lackritz. Robert INIaheu ?
Mr. Banner [continuing]. ]\Ir. Robert Maheu, w-as available any
time they want it. Now, this Avas in a different context, when the
subject of the conti-ibution for the 1970 congressional election arose,
and INlaheu secured wliatever authoiization he had to secui'e, and told
me that the money was available. I don't recall whether he said at
that time it was the same money; l)ut he did say the $50,000 was now
available.
Now, I don't have a r-ecollection that he said that was the same
money that was obtained on a previous occasion.
Mr. Freedman. T^et me ask you this: Was there some reference of
tlie money being at the cage of the Fi-ontier; does that refresh your
recollection?
Mr. BANNf:R. The fiist contribution that was made, I recall with
pretty definite certainty, was a package of bills that had been in the
safe deposit box in the cage at a casino.
Mr. MooRE. And that was the $50,000 to which you were just re-
fei'i-ing. that Mr. Maheu said was available?
Mi-. Banner. Yes, that would have been the first contribution.
Mr. MooRE. But. yon cannot remember exactly whether he said that
was the same money that had been available in 1968.
Mr. Banner. No, I don't recall that he identified it as such. I recall
my initial testimony in this field, that for some reason I had some
11542
reason to believe that was tlie money that had been available in 1968,
but I have nothing; to g^o on, thei'e is just some vague recollection that
was the fact. Subsequently I recall that
Mr. Frkedmax. I am callino; the witness' attention to the transcript
of December — where is it?
Mr. BuRSiT.iN. Page 58 in the typewritten version, and I think he
answered that question.
Are you finished with your answer?
Mr. Danner. Yes, but the money was not m my custody and con-
trol. I was told one time by Maheu'that the $50,000. refei-ring to 1968.
was still available ; and there was the assumption on my part that the
$50,000 T got was that same money, but I'm not certain, I did not re-
tain the money.
Mr. MooRE. Mr. Maheu told you the money was available sometime
before — what you just related as Mr. Maheu's discussion was some-
time before you made the first delivery.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Moore. Xow, turning to the other delivery that came not from
the Frontier cage but some other source, did you have a similar con-
versation with Mr. Maheu, or with anyone else, in which any dis-
cussion was made about this money in connection with 1968?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Moore. When you visited Key Biscayne — excuse me, I'll give
you a chance to read the transcript.
Mr. Daxxer. All right, what was your question?
Mr. MooRE. Mr. Dannei-, to conclude this, two quick questions. When
you visited Key Biscayne and made the $50,000 delivery to Mr. Rebozo.
do you remember saying anything to Mr. Rebozo about this money
being connected in any way with the 1968 money?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I have no recollection.
Mr. Moore. No i-ecollection of saying to him this was money avail-
able in 1968 ?
Mr. Daxxer. No. I don't.
Mr. Freedmax. Now, wait, you had a previous discussion with him.
Mr. Daxxer. Hei'e is the thin<r that I want to make clear. One
of the deliveries, the first one, was the money that we ai-e talking about
having been i-aised inl968 ; whether- it was the same money. T can't say.
of course, because ii had not been in my custody and control.
The second delivery of $50,000 was new money that had been raised,
or put together specifically for the purpose of making the second
installment.
IVfr. FREEn:\rAX. But my question is. before von made the first de-
livery, did you have a conversation with Mr. Rebozo that the $50,000
that constituted the first installment Avas in effect the same $50,000
that was to have been made to the 1968 campaign ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes, I recall I told him the $50,000 that was offered in
1968 was still available if they wanted it.
Mr. Freedmax", And when you made the first delivery you didn't say,
"Now, remember, this is what I told vou sometime before, the same
$50,000."
Mr. Danner. I don't recall that I ever said, "This is the same money."
the pledge. Let's call it a "pledge" of $50,000 made in 1968, oi- offered
in 1968, still existed, "here is the money."
11543
Now, as I said, they could have substituted other money, I don't
know.
]Mr. MooRE. Do you remember whether you reaffirmed that pledge
to Mr. Rebozo in a telephone call, or in a personal visit to Key
Biscayne ?
Mr. Banner. I don't recall.
Mr. ^NIooRE. And I gather from what you just said, there was no
similar representation made by you regarding a second delivery to Mr.
Eebozo; you gave no indication to him that had any connection with
1968, the second delivery.
Mr. Danner. Xo. That 1968 money had been disposed of.
Mr. Freedman. By "disposed of" you n:iean had been delivered.
Mr. Danner. Had been delivered.
Mr. MooRE. And one final question, do you have any understanding
when you refer to 1968 money about Avhen — are you referring back to
the visit you were talking about yesterday, the Washington and then
the New York trip, that planned delivery that did not work out ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. MooRE. That's your reference ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. ]MooRE. Thank you.
Mr. ScHULTZ. Let me get some clarification so I understand it. At
some point after 1968 you advised Mr. Rebozo, whether on the phone,
or whether in a meeting, that the commitment of $50,000 was still
available.
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. ScHULTz. You know that, or you were told that this $50,000
which was committed in 1968 was still available and constituted the
$50,000 as far as you know, in the first delivery.
Mr. Freedman. The same cash ?
ISIr. ScHULTz. Well, so far as he knows this is the same commitment,
or
Mr. Danner. I think my best recollection, the way it was stated to
me was. the pledge of the $50,000 made in 1968 still exists.
Mr. ScHTjLTZ. Still exists.
Mr. Danner. Xow. if you want it, it's available. Now, whether it was
the money that was put together in 1968 I don't know.
Mr. ScHUT.Tz. So, at the time of the first delivery, whether or not it
was in San Clemente or Key Biscayne, you in fact fulfilled that com-
mitment by delivering $50,000.
Mr. Danner. That is correct.
Mr. ScHULTz. And you don't know whether or not the first deliver}^
was at San Clemente or Key Biscayne.
Mr. Danner. That's my problem.
Mr. ScHULTz. And you did not discuss at the delivery, either place,
that this is in fact the same $50,000 we were talking about in 1968.
Mr. Freedman. You mean the same, exactly the same currency?
Mr. ScHTjLTz. Right.
Mr. Danner. Let me get this straight. You mean did I identify that
as the same money ?
Mr. Freedman. Well, you see the problem when you say "the same
money."
Mr. SciiiTLTZ. This is where it's getting difficult.
11544
Mr. Freedman. That's why I sugg^est you talk about the same cur-
rency.
Mr. ScHULTZ. That's a good suggestion.
Mr. Freedman. That's the first one today.
Mr. Danner. To my recollection, "Here is the fii'st $50,000 of the
$100,000 pledge."
Mr. Lackritz. All right, Mr. Danner, have you ever been to either
500, or 516 Bay Lane, Key Riscayne ?
Mr. Freedman. Can you identify what that is, whose house?
Mr. Lackritz. President Xixon's.
Mr. Danner. Let me start with 490 Bay Lane, the house immediately
south was the one that Smathers owned. I have been in that house
when Smathers owned it. I have not been in the house since the Presi-
dent took it over.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. There is another house located in the same
neighborhood, down the block, 516 Bay Lane, which the President uses
as an office. Have vou visited that home ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. "When you visited Mr. Rebozo at his home, have
you stayed at 490 Bay Lane ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And you had no occasion, during those visits, to go
next door to the President's home ?
Mr. Danner. T have seen it. I have seen the grounds, but I don't
recall ever having been in the house after he took it over.
Mr. Lackritz. Are you aware of the major improvements that were
made to the house at 500 Bay Lane, either by private contractors or
by Government officials?
Mr. Freedman. I don't see what this has to do with the 1972 cam-
paign. It may have to do with some other things, but I don't see that
it has anything to do with the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, it has to do with the 1972 campaign only as far
as funds which mav have been raided for the 1972 campaign may have
been used to pay for some of the improvements.
Mr. Freedman. If you want to ask him that, ask him that.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, I am laying a foundation, Mr. Freedman, to
see if he knows of any improA^ements that were made. If he laiows of
no improvements that were made
Mr. Freedman. It's notorious, the improvements that were made
there.
Mr. Lackritz. Any personal knowledge, or if he observed improve-
ments being made.
Mr. Danner. I was told by Rebozo that they had put an antishark
net in the bay ; they put in a helicopter pud ; extensive security elec-
tronic equipment had been installed into the yard and in the house.
The extent of the remodeling, refurnishing, decorations. I don't recall
ever having that described to me.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate to you that he was acting
as agent foi- President Nixon in making some of tliose improvements?
Mr. Danner. No, T don't j-ecall he took credit.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he ever indicate to you lie expended any per-
sonal funds, or other funds in his custody or control to make such im-
provements in the residence of the President ?
11545
Mr. Banner. No, he-
Mr. Freedman. You answered the question.
Mr. Banner. No, he did not. Well, as an aside, he did remodel his
own house.
Mr. Lackritz. Were you aware what kind of refurnishing he did
to his own home ?
Mr. Banner. He put in a new kitchen ; he extended the front of the
house to put in a den, or an office ; he remodeled his living room and
refurnished it.
Mr. Lackritz. So, these were extensive improvements.
Mr. Freedman. He described what it is.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, I'll retract the question.
Bid he put in a fireplace in his home, do you recall ?
Mr. Banner. It always had a fireplace.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. And do you have any knowledge if any of
the funds that were raised for the campaign of 1972 went to pay
for the improvements to Mr. Rebozo's house ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. You have no knowledge of that ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr, Lackritz. OK. Mr. Banner, do you know a gentleman by the
name of Tony Whitaker ?
Mr. Banner. Tony Whitaker?
Mr. Lackritz. I will identify him for the record. He is the special
agent in charge of the President with the FBI in Miami.
Mr. Banner. I have heard of him, I have never met him.
Mr. Lackritz. You never personally met him ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Bid you ever talk to him on the telephone?
Mr. Banner. No, I don't have any recollection ever having any
contact with him.
Mr. Lackritz. In the 1968 campaign your position w^as with the
Florida Bemocrats foi- Nixon ; is that correct ?
Mr. Banner. I was with the Committee To Elect Nixon-Agnew,
some name like that, which w^as located and operating out of Wash-
ington. I was, you might say, detached from that in the early fall, and
assigned to Fort Lauderdale headquarters to organize and direct the
Bemocrats for Nixon campaign.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. Bo you have any knowledge of any payments
that the Florida for Nixon made to Mr. Rebozo, following the 1968
campaign ?
Mr. Banner. No, I was not involved in any finances.
Mr. Freedman. You asked that yesterday.
Mr. Lackritz. So, you were not aware of any payment of $6,000
by that committee to Rebozo, if it occurred ?
Mr. Freedman. He just said he doesn't know.
Mr. Lackritz. I asked him specifically on that question.
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Banner, did Mr. Rebozo ever ask you for legal
advice, or legal counsel about whether or not to return money, in 1973 ?
Mr. Banner. You mean during the discussion of that money?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 18
11546
Mr. Daxxkk. Xo. I (hink it was I who siiirjrosted tlio possibility of
his discussing the matter with an attorney and find out what would be
the best way, from his standpoint ; but I never suggested anyone, and
he didn't comment on it.
Mr. Lackritz. When you suggested that he consult legal counsel,
did he indicate to you that he already had spoken with legal counsel?
Mr. Freedmax. He answered that yesterday.
Mr. Daxner. No.
Mr. Lackritz. He did not ?
Mr. Danxe .. No.
Mr. Lackritz. Now, Mr. Banner, in your previous testimony, on
pages 42 and 48 of the testimony given on December 18, 1973. vou
testified that your conversations with Mr. Rebozo about a contribu-
tion after the 1968 election occurred in April or May 1969, sometime
in that area. On line 14 you said, "I would say it started in our con-
versation, I was in frequent contact with Rebozo, about April or May,
sometime along in there."
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. I take it that is still your testimony?
Mr. Danx'er. That is still my best recollection, yes.
Mr. Freedmax^. Now, wait a minute
Mr. Lackritz. I'm just going to refresh Mr. Banner's-
Mr. Freedmax". Just a minute. His testimony is exactly now as it was
on December 18, 1973.
Mr. Lackritz. Correct.
Mr. Freedmax^. With respect to what appears in the transcript of
December 18, 1973, is that it?
Mr. Lackritz. I'm asking him if his recollection is the same today
as it was on December 18 when he testified.
Mr. Daxx'^er. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. OK. Now, having testified these discussions with Mr.
Rebozo about a contribution be<ran in April or Mav 1969. Showincr
you again your letter from Mr. Rebozo on May 19, 1969, which is ex-
hibit 22 from yesterday's session. I would like to ask you, Mr. Danner,
if those matters to which Mr. Rebozo refers in his letter had anything
to do with your discussions with Mr. Rebozo at about that same time
concerning contributions from INTr. Hughes?
Mr. Freedmax. Wait a minute, I will let him answer the question,
but I must object to the characterization of what you said about the
nature of his previous testimony. With that understanding, answer the
question.
Mr. Daxxer. As I testified yesterday, I am at a loss to recall what
the subject matter refers to, whether it had to do with money, people
projects, I don't know. The only one that would know would be Mr.
Rebozo.
Mr. Lackritz. And your recollection of those conversations con-
cerning the possibilitv of a contribution in April or May 1969 does
not refresh your recollection about the substance of this letter.
Mr. Dax-^xer. No.
Mr. Lackritz. In the fall of 1971, Mr. Danner, were you informed
bv either Mr. Rebozo or anv other individual of the investigation that
Newsday \vas doing on Mr. Rebozo ?
11547
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall the time. I know that I was aware that
Xewsday was conductino: an investigation; whether it was in that
period I don't recall.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall how you were informed of this ?
Mr. Daxxer. I don't know if someone from Newsday called me, or
I just heard it throupfh mutual friends that they were conducting an
invest location.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Rebozo ever seek your advice, or counsel in
tenns of what he should do in response to that investigation?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
yiv. Lackritz. Did you ever learn if any action was taken by either
^h: Rebozo or the White House in response to that investigation?
Mr. Daxxer. No. I recall he
INIr. Freedmax. You answered the question when you said no.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, do you recall if Mr. Rebozo explained to you
his reaction; did he explain to you anything about the investigation?
Mr. Freedmax. "WTiat period of time ?
Mr. Lackritz. The period of time in summer and fall of 1971.
Mr. Daxxer. Yes; he thought it was very unfair; this thing had
been going on for months and failed to disclose anything, and that it
was just constant harassment.
Mr. Lackritz. Did he say at the time if he was going to take any
further action concerning the investigation ?
Mr. Daxxer. No ; he was just upset over the fact that they continued
to investigate him.
]Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall traveling with Mr. Rebozo on any oc-
casion on the De Havilland jet of the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Freedmax. He testified about that in December.
]Mr. Lackritz. We had subsequent testimony by the pilot of the
plane. I am just wondering if Mr. Danner's recollection is at all re-
freshed by any subsequent events.
Mr. Freedmax. Now, wait a minute. First, the pilot testified before
Mr. Danner. that's the first item.
The second item, we never got the transcript of the pilot's testimony.
I don't know how he could have been refreshed by something that we
didn't have.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, what I am asking, Mr. Danner. if you have
anytliing to add to your prior testimony concerning traveling on the
De Havilland with !Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Daxxer. I testified that on one occasion
Mr. Freedmax. In other words, you testified at great length, is there
anv reason to change that?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
]Mr. Freedmax. OK. I don't want you to say aarain what you said 6
months ago. and maybe there is something that is a little different, and
then you will bo accused of inconsistencies.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, do you recall more than one occasion when you
would have traveled with ]\Ir. Rebozo on the De Havilland? I'm just
asking the question ; yes or no.
ISIr. Freedmax. Look, you took him down every single trip that was
reflected in
Mr. Lackritz. In the travel records that were submitted.
11548
Mr. Freedmax. The travel records that were furnished by the pilot.
Mr. Lackritz. That's not correct, Mr. Freedman. The record will
speak for itself; but clearly, we did not.
Mr. Freedman. So, for once I'm wrong.
Find the testimony that he testified to on the De Havilland trip.
Mr. Lackritz. I don't recall that I did.
Mr. Danner. Yes, you did.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, then, could you repeat your recollection in terms
of when you traveled on the De Havilland with Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Freedmax. If you have whatever you have from the De Havil-
land, if you have itemization that shows that ^Ir. Danner was on the
De Havilland, that might be helpful to him.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, the only itemization that I could use to re-
fresh your recollection, there is testimony that Mr. Rebozo traveled
with you and Maheu down to Florida in February of 1970.
Mr. Freedmax. And that doesn't mean that it's right. Does that help
you?
Mr. Daxxer. The thing I do recall is a trip we made from Miami to
Nassau on the De Havilland. Now, whether he came from Las Vegas to
Miami. I don't recall.
Mr. Freedmax. Let me reflect that, maybe I can help you. Remember
there was an astronaut in Las Vegas ?
Mr. Dax^x^er. Yes.
Mr. Freedmax'. And you flew him to Melbourne, and apparently Mr.
Rebozo was with you? I'm not sure whether Mr. Rebozo was with you.
And then you went to Miami, and my recollection is you said that you
and Mr. Rebozo
Mr. Daxxer. And Mr. Maheu.
Mr. Freedmax. And Mr, Maheu then went to the Bahamas ?
Mr. Lackritz. To Nassau.
Mr. Freedmax'. Does that help, do you recall that trip ?
Mr. Dax'xer. Yes, I recall that trip, but I don't remember whether
Bebe was on that trip from Miami to Melbourne, to Florida.
Mr. Freedmax'. I'm sure he testified, if we can find it
Mr. Lackritz. The astronaut was Mr. Cernan, Eugene Cernan.
INIr. Freedmax. That's the name of the astronaut ?
Mr. Lackritz. That's right. Do you recall if Mr. Rebozo was on that
flight?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I don't.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record.
Mr. Armstroxg. Mr. Danner, subsequent to June 17, 1972. the date
of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters
of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office build-
ing, did you ever discuss the subject of that break-in with ]\Ir. Rebozo?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I don't recall any specific discussion on the
break-in.
Mr. Armstroxo. Do vou recall anv Watergate-related discussions,
aside from the $100,000"contribution?
Mr. Freedmax. I don't know what you mean.
Mr. Armstroxg. Matters generally referred to in the context of the
Watergate. Mr. Danner said he didn't i-ecall any discussions specifically
on the break-in. I thought he might have recalled something.
11549
Mr. Freedmax. Well, if you ask him a specific item, it might refresh
his recollection. Everybody has been talking about the Watergate,
even I.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I am asking him whether he had any discus-
sions with Mr. Rebozo.
Mr. Danxer. If you are asking me do I recall any specific conver-
sation, the answer is "No."
Mr. Armstroxg. I suppose you had no discussions about the break-in
prior to June 17.
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. At any time did Mr. Rebozo discuss with you, or
mention the need for a legal defense fund for the defendants?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
jVIr. Armstroxg. Or the potential need for legal defense funds for
White House employees ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did he ever mention to you that a legal defense
fund had been, or was being created ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Or that he had funds which he was willing to make
available for the legal defense of former employees of the Govern-
ment ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall a period of time prior to May 20,
1973 — excuse me, subsequent to May 20, 1973, do you recall Mr. Rebozo
trying to reach you from Saranac Lake in New York ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I don't recall getting a call from that area, no.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall if he ever indicate he was on a
trip with Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Griffin ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I dont recall any such discussion.
Mr. Armstroxg. Have you ever had any discussion of the Hughes
$100,000 contribution with Mr. Griffin of Mr. Abplanalp?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Can vou tell us. subsequent to the election on
November 5, 1968, what discussions you had with Mr. Edward Morgan
regarding the Hughes contribution to Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Daxxer. That matter was pretty well dropped, as I pre\dously
testified, after Mr. Rebozo refused to take the money in 1968.
Mr. Armstroxg. OK.
Mr. Freedmax. Excuse me. You are not certain whether in 1968,
whoever Mr. Abplanalp went to see — whoever Mr. Rebozo went to
see. whether he actually had the money, or whether there were dis-
cussions about delivery of the money. You don't know which it was,
do you ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Freedmax. In other words, you don't know whoever was sup-
posed to talk about the money, or give the money, or actually had the
money; or whether there were supposed to be further discussions
about how the money was to be delivered; you don't know which, is
that correx't?
Mr. Daxxer. That's correct.
Mr. Armstroxg. But. can you say definitively since November 5,
1968, you have had no discussions with Mr. Morgan on that subject?
11550
Mr. Danner. No, I can't say we had no discussions. I don't recall
any.
Mr. Ar:mstroxo. Do yon recall if Mr. Moro-an ever related to you
a meetinfr he had with Mr. Kalmbach early in 1971. the sprinof of
1971. in which he asked Mr. Kalmbach if any campai<rn ^roup had
T'eceived a contribution from Mr. Hughes in 1969-70?
Mr. Danner. No, I have no recollection of such discussion.
Mr. Armstrong;. You rlon't ref-all Mr. ^Ior<ran relatiuir to you any
details that would indicate he had sucli a meetinc;?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Morgan ever indicate to you that as far
as the Republican National Committee, or the Finance Committee to
Re-Elect the President, or other campaign groups were concerned
that they never received a contribution from Mr. Hughes ?
Mr. Danner. Can you repeat the question ?
Mr. Freedman. Let the reporter read it.
[Quest ion read.]
Mr. Freedman. If you understand the question, answer it; if you
don't understand it, say so.
Mr. Danner. No, I don't underetand the question. Did Morgan
ever tell me — what is the period of time ?
Mr. Armstrong. I'll repeat the question.
Has Mr. Morgan ever told you that the Republican National Com-
mittee, or the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, or some
other campaign group. Republican campaign organization, has indi-
cated that they never received Mr. Hughes' $100,000 contribution?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any contact vrith Mr. Morgan
since our last session on the 20th of December, 1973 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Tell us when that was, sir.
Mr. Danner. I think the most recent one was a couple of weeks
ago when he was in Las Vegas and called me, just to visit; he was
out there on business.
Mr. Armstrong. And was there a discussion at that time about
Mr. Hus:hes' contribution ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And have you had any other contact with him
since December 20, 1973 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes. We have had several discussions having to do
with his representation of a group of which I am a member, concern-
ing an application that he is handling.
Mr. Armstrong. An application for the FCC ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. The Federal Communications Commission.
Mr. xVrmstrong. But there have been no discussions of the Hughes
$100,000 contribution.
Mr. Danner. I have no recollection of discussing that at all.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us what discussions you had
with Mr. Herman Gre^nspun i-egarding the Hughes $100,000
contribution?
Mr. Freedman. ^Hiat period of time?
11551
Mr. Armstrong. From July 1, 1968, to the present.
Mr. Danxer. July 1, 1968?
Mr. Armstrong. From the time when the original contribution
was — I don't even know if you knew Mr. Greenspun at that time.
Mr. Danxer. Well, I knew him after the story broke. I see him
occasionally in Las Vegas, and I am sure the subject matter has been
discussed ; he repeatedly mentioned it in his column in his newspaper.
But, there has never been any discussion that I recall where there
were any details discussed.
Mr. Armstrong. You say you have discussed it with him after
the story broke. Are you referring to when it broke in the Anderson
column in August of 1971 ?
Mr. Danxer. No, I don't recall if it was after the Anderson column,
or after the story broke at some later date about the contribution.
I don't recall what time it came up.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, has Mr. Greenspun ever asked you whether
or not the contribution to your knowledge was used for the purchase
of San Clemente ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Has he ever asked you whether to your knowledge
the contribution was used for the personal use of the President ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Tell us, have you had any discussions regard-
ing the Hughes contribution with Senator Smathers since Decem-
ber 20, 1973, since our last session ?
Mr. Danner. Yes, I think I have seen him— I think I saw him in
January of this year.
Mr. Freedman. And did you discuss the $100,000 Hughes
contribution ?
Mr. Danner. The subject came up, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us, what was the discussion at
that time ?
Mr. Danxer. Well, that I had been called upon by a number of
agencies to testify concerning the contribution. He was aware of the
details, naturally, having read it many times ; and there was no ques-
tion about whether I handled it.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss with Senator Smathers at that
time, or at any other time since December 20, 1973, any of the conflicts
between statements you have made to this committee, and statements
that Rebozo allegedly made to this committee ?
Mr. Daxner. I was not aware of any statement Rebozo made to the
committee.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever asked Senator Smathers to contact
Mr. Rebozo for you ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And to your knowledge, has Mr. Rebozo ever asked
Senator Smathers to contact you for him ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any contact with Mr. Rebozo since
December 20, 1973 ?
Mr. Danner. December 20 ?
Mr. Armstrong. That is the date of our last session.
11552
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you liad any contact with ^Ir. Rebozo
through third parties since December 20, 1973 ?
Mr. Freedman. Mr. Lenzner asked that yesterday.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any investigations which have
been conducted by the Summa Corp., or the Hughes Tool Co., related
to the $100,000 contribution ?
Mr. Freedman. Answer that yes or no.
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any discussions with Mr. Golden
regai'ding the Hughes $100,000 contribution — Mr. James Golden — to
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Let's go off the record for a moment.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what these discussions were?
Mr. Freedman. Could we have a time reference, first on this?
Mr. Armstrong. Since July 1, 1968.
Mr. Danner. July 1
Mr. Armstrong. Just tell us what those discussions were.
Mr. Freedman. Well, I'd like to get a time reference.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what those discussions were?
Mr. Freedman. Incidentally, who is James Golden?
Mr. Danner. Jim Golden, at the time you are referring to, was the
director of security for the Summa Corp. stationed in Las Vegas. I'm
not certain whether the discussion occurred after the Jack Anderson
column, or later on, after the initial interview with IRS, the IRS
agents in Houston.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the discussion was ?
Mr. Freedman. I don't know about that. That is the work product
of the organization.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, had Mr. Golden indicated at that time he had
been asked by some attorney for Summa Corp. to discuss the
contribution ?
Mr. Danner. No, that was not in the sense of an inquiry. We were
having lunch, or something like that, and I told him about it. He was
well aware of it, and I told him my involvement. I'm certain it was
after the interview of the IRS — I'm not certain, but that is my best
recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Which would have been in May of 1972?
Mr. Danner. If that's when the interview took place.
Mr. Armstrong. And was Mr. Golden familiar with the details
of the contribution prior to your discussion with him ?
Mr. Freedman. Now, wait a minute, only if you knew, you know.
Mr. Danner. No, I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. Rack on the record.
Did Mr. Golden at any time in that discussion, or any other time
indicate he had visited Mr. Rebozo in Deceml^er of 1970 ?
Mr. Freedman. He answered that yesterday.
11553
Mr. Armstrong. That's a different question. You just heard what
he said, and obviously I didn't ask the question related to that, I am
asking a question about a specific trip that Mr. Golden
Mr. Freedman. Don't your notes indicate that Mr. Danner said that
he doesn't know whether or not Mr. Golden ever discussed that with
Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Armstrong. That was not my question, yes, he did say that. But
I asked a different question.
Mr. Freedmax. Well, I missed one.
INIr. Danner. What is the question ?
]Mr, Armstrong. The question is, Mr. Danner, were you aware of a
visit that Mr. Golden made to visit Mr. Rebozo in December of 1970.
Mr. Freedman. Assuming he made such a visit.
Mr. Danner. He told me he had made such a visit.
Mr. Armstrong. And what did he say happened on that occasion?
]\rr. Danner. That he discussed with Mr. Rebozo my position at the
time shortly after the change of administration in the Hughes organi-
zation; that I was in a precarious position, but so far nothing had hap-
pened insofar as I was concerned.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate any questions he put to Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. Xo, he didn't tell details of the conversation.
]Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate whether he sought information
of any type from Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. No.
]\Ir. Freedman. You don't even know if they discussed the $100,000 ;
is that it ?
Mr. Danner. That didn't enter into it at all, as I recall.
Mr. Armstrong. You have no information that would indicate Mr.
Golden did ask Mr. Rebozo about the $100,000 contribution, is that
correct ?
INIr. Freedman. He just answered that very specific question. Answer
it again, Mr. Danner.
Mr. Danner, Xot to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. And did Mr. Golden ever indicate to you that he
had any discussions with Rose Mary Woods regarding the $100,000
contribution?
Mr. Danner. Xo.
IVIr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Golden ever indicate to you it was his un-
derstanding Mr. Rebozo was going to denv that he received the Hughes
$100,000 contribution?
Mr. Freedman. That was gone into yesterday. Go ahead.
Mr. Danner. Did he ever make that statement to me ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Danner. Xo.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Do you recall any specific individual who
made that statement to you ?
Mr. Freedman. That was gone into yesterday.
Mr. Lackritz. No.
IVIr. Danner. There was a rumble, a rumor emanating from Jim
Golden, as I understand, something to the effect this money had never
been delivered.
Mt. Armstrong. And how did that rumor come to you, sir?
11554
Mr. Danner. I don't recall from what source I heard it.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do vou know how you learned it was emanating
from Mr. Golden?
Mr. Daxner. In the rumor the story was that he had made the
statement that the $100,000 had not been delivered.
Mr. Freedmax. Had not been delivered by you ?
Mr. Armstrong. And did the rumor indicate on what knowledge, or
what authority Mr. Golden made that statement?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Was this rumor prior or subsequent to the conver-
sation with Mr. Golden about the meeting that he had with Mi-.
Rebozo in December of 1970 ?
]\Ir. Freedman. Can we go off the record ?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. At whatever date Mr. Golden discussed with you
his rrieeting with ^Nlr. Rebozo in December of 1970, was it prior to or
subsequent to that date, that is the day of the meeting discussed be-
tween you and Mr. Golden, that this rumor — that you first recall this
rumor ?
Mr. Danner. My best recollection
]Mr. Freedman. Excuse me. There is a fact in there about when Mr.
Golden saw ]Mr. Rebozo, and I'm not sure
Mr. Armstrong. That is a fact Mr. Danner testified to not 5 minutes
ago.
Mr. Danner. Yes. My recollection was that the rumor came to me
sometime later in 1972, the inference being that Mr. Golden had in-
formation to the effect the money had never been delivered.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever discuss that i-umor with Mr. Golden ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever discuss it with anyone else ?
Mr. Danner. Perhaps I did, I don't recall with whom I may have.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have discussions with Mr. Peloqurs about
that ?
Mr. Danner. No, I can't recall any.
Mr. Armstrong. Any employee of Intertel ?
Mr. Danner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any such discussions witli ]\Ir. Winte?
Mr. Danner. Yes. I think I did.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us about that discussion?
Mr. Freedman. AVait a minute, as a result of something that counsel
for Summa Corp. asked Mr. Winte to do ?
Mr. Danner. I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Let me ask you this, sir, can you tell us when that
discussion took place?
Mr. Danner. I still think this was during the period between my
initial interview with IRS and the correction of the deposition.
Mr. Armstrong. So, sometime between May 1972 anrl July 1973?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. ArjMstrong. Can you tell us if it was between ]May 1972 and
May 1973 when you met with Mr. Rebozo in Washington ?
Mr. Danner. That would have been nuich prior to that,
Mr. Armstrong. Closer to May of 1972 ?
11555
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us where you had that discussion with
Mr. Winte?
Mv. Daxxer. In Las Vegas.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the setting was ?
Mr. Daxxer. As I recall I was complaining, or explaining to Mr.
Winte
Mr. Freedmax. Just answer the question.
Mr. Daxxer. Let me explain it. That I couldn't understand why
Golden, if he had made this statement, could have made it when it
was well known that I had acknowledged having delivered the money,
and Mr. Rebozo had acknowledged having received it. And that I
wondered why he hadn't taken the pains to check out this rumor if he
in fact had started it.
Mr. Armstrong. And you brought this up to Mr. AVinte, then ?
Mr. Daxxer. Yes.
Mr. Armstroxg. And did Mr. Winte indicate to you he was investi-
gating the matter for Summa Corp. ?
Mr. Daxx'er. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us what Mr. Winte's reaction was to
your statement about Mr. Golden ?
]Mr. Daxxer. My recollection is that he felt the same reaction as
I had, why would anyone put out a rumor like this when it was so easy
to verify.
Mr. Armstroxg. And did Mr. AVinte indicate that he had taken
steps to verify it ?
Mr. Daxx-^er. I don't recall whether he said anything along that line
or not.
Mr. Ar3istroxg. Was Mr. Winte familiar, prior to your conver-
sation, with the details of the transaction ^
Mr. Freedmax'. If you know.
Mr. Dax'xer. I don't know.
Mr. Armstroxg. I mean, don't give information you don't know
about.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Freedmax. At the time when this rumor started, allegedly
attributable to Mr. Golden, was Mr. Golden still emploved bv Summa
Corp.?
Mr. Daxxer. The best I can recall, he had left the organization
and gone to Atlanta fii-st, then to Washington; and I had heard of
this rumor having emanated from him. In the meantime Winte had
replaced him.
Mr. Freedmax. OK.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know if Mr. Winte took any action as a
result of your conversation ?
]Nrr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Now. have you had any discussions regarding the
Hughes $100,000 contribution with your son Robert, Robert Danner?
Mr. Daxxer. Richard, Jr. ; I do have a Robert.
Mr. Freedmax. Which one is it ?
Mr. Armstroxg. I think I am referring to Robert.
Mr. Daxxer. That is my younger son.
11556
Mr. Armstrong. Is this son married to
Mr. Daxxer. Oh, yes.
Mr. Armstrong [coiitiniiino:]. Mr. Golden's sister-in-law?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any conversation with Robert re-
garding: the Hughes $100,000 contribution ?
Mr. Danner. I think on one occasion T explained it to both of them,
the nature of them. It had been reported in the press and I told them
the story on it, as far as my involvement was concerned.
Mr. Armstrong. Was this subsequent to the Jack Anderson article
in 1971 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And was it prior to Mr. Rebozo's contacting you
in May of 1973 ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you place it any more precisely in time?
Mr. Danner. Well, my recollection was that after that article ap-
peared, there was considerable conversation about it, and I felt I owed
them the parental duty to explain what the circumstances were because
understandably they were upset, not knowing the full meaning of the
incident.
Mr. Freedman. Mr. Armstrong, is there any allegation by any mem-
ber of the staff or the committee that Mr. Danner did not deliver the
money? Because otherwise I don't understand what this is all about.
Really, I'm completely perplexed, who said what to whom, some rumor,
explanations ?
Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. I was wondering when you were going to ask that
question.
Mr. Armstrong. I^et's go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. Back on the record, now.
Mr. Freedman. I want to object to this line of inquiry.
Mr. Lackritz. "\Yhy don't you state your objection for the record.
Mr. Freedman. My objection to this line of inquiry, it is complete
harassment by the committee, he testified he delivered the money —
it's complete harassment of the witness to ask about rumor's. He testi-
fied at great length about rumors, I think it's enough.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe the record will show my question was
about a conversation Mr. Danner had with his son Robert Danner
shortly after the Jack Anderson article in August of 1971 ; and we
were discussing at that time the rumor Mr. Golden had allegedly
been spreading about Mr. Rebozo not having the money.
Mr. Freedman. And the witness testified, I don't know whether he
wants that on the record or not, he testified he felt that he owed it
to his family to explain exactly what had happened; and he did so.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Danner, was your discussion that you had with
your son Robert and other members of your family — did you explain
to them fully the details involving the contribution ?
Mr. Danner. I didn't go into any details.
Mr. Armstrong. Did any of the information you gave them conflict
with your testimony before this committee ?
Mr. Danner. No, sir.
111557
Mr. Armstrong. Let's take a recess.
Mr. Lackritz. We'll recess for 5 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Armstrong. Back on the record.
Mr. Freedman, you wanted to state an additional objection.
Mr. Freedman. I'll save it for the end.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Danner. you testified previously
Mr. Freedman. Where?
Mr. Armstrong. The first day of testimony, Tuesday, December 18,
at pa(je 112, that early in 1971 you reported to the board of Directoi-s
the fact that a contribution — the members of the board of directors,
including Mr. Collier, Mr. Holliday, and Mr. Gay ; and in your testi-
mony of Wednesday, December 19, page 15, you stated that you
particularly called Mr. Gay, you told Mr. Davis at that time, or at
your next meeting with them about the contribution.
Mr. Freedman. Well, I think the transcript will show what it does
show ; I'm not sure your characterization is right. Go ahead.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if at that time, Mr. Danner, you
would have indicated to Mr. Davis, Mr. Gay, Mr. Holliday, and Mr.
Collier that the purpose of the contribution was to support various
Senate and congressional political campaigns ?
Mr. Danner. Did I tell them that?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Danner. I don't recall that I did. My best recollection was —
I'm saying m}' l)est recollection is that I did tell them the nature and
purpose of the contribution.
Mr. Freedman. Incidentally, on that same page 15, on lines 7. 8, and
9 Mr. Danner answered he later discussed the matter in detail with
Chester Davis and Bill Gay.
Mr. Armstrong. And one of the details you discussed with them was
the purpose for which the contribution was given, which was, it was
given for the 1970 congressional campaign ?
Mr. Danner. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Now, did at any time subsequent to that, did
either ]Mr. Davis or Mr. Gay indicate that the contribution was an
authorized contribution from Mr. Hughes ?
Mr. Danner. I don't recall them ever having commented on that.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever commented on any discussions that
they have had, or anyone else was having with ]\Ir. Hughes, regarding
this contribution ?
Mr. Freedman. If you know.
Mr. Danner. No, I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. And to your knowledge, has Mr. Davis had any
contact with any representatives of Mr. Rebozo, or JNIr. Rebozo, other
of course than his contact with Mr. Gemmill ?
Mr. Freedman. If you know.
Mr. Danner. I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. And to your knowledge, has Mv. Gay had any
contact with Mi*. Rebozo or representatives of Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Danner. I don't know.
11558
Mr. AR:\rsTROxr.. Now, at any time. Mr. Danncr, have you i-ocoived
any information from any individual that the Fo(l(Mal Kesoi-ve Hoard,
or any othei- Government ajrency was checking out the dates of issue,
or distril)ution of tiie $100 bills involved in the contril)ution ?
Mr. Frkedmax. Wait a m unite, othei- than ireneial I'umors. if vou
know of anythino; to that effect.
Mr. Danxer. I think I read that much in the newspapers.
Mr. ARi\rsTRONG. Have you ever had any discussions with any in-
di\iduals, relating to the dates of issue, or the dates of distribution of
those bills ?
Mr. Freedman. AMiat individuals do you have in mind. Mr.
Armstrong ?
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any discussions with Mr.
Rebozo, or representatives of Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Banner. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any discussions with any agents,
employees, or representatives of Mr. Hughes, or Hughes Tool Co. on
that subject?
Mr. Freedman. I'm going to advise him not to answer that because
that is within the organization. If he has had anv discussion with
counsel, that is privileged. Next question.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any discussions with anyone other
than counsel for the Summa Corp. on that subject ?
Mr. DANNf:R. This was a matter of general discussion. It was re-
ported cm almost daily in the press, the efforts to check the bills. Now.
did I sit down and talk to anyone, did anyone interview me. was I
(jueried on it, the answer is no.
Mr-. Freedman. General topic.
Mr. Danner. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did you ever receive any specific information
that the Fedei'al Reserve Board in terms of the bills — that some of the
bills did not check out?
]Mr. FREEDiNfAN. Fiom whom did he get that information?
Mr-. Danner. Well. T never i-ecei\'ed any such information.
Mr. Armstrong. Then we won't ask from Avhom he got it.
Have you ever had any discussions with Mr. Rebozo regarding the
Intei-nal Revenue Sei'vice's inA'estigation of ]Mr. Rebozo's part in the
conti'ibution. or his i-eturn?
Ml-. Danner. As I previously testified, we talked about his inter-
view with IRS shortly after the one that I had in 1972.
Mr. Freed:man. This a.o:ain is another illustration of asking the Avit-
ness the same ([uestion that was asked before.
Mr. Arafstrong. Well, Mr. Fi-eedman. if you tell us where that testi-
mony can be found ?
Mr. FREEn:MAN. Can we go off the record?
Mr. Armstrong. Sui'e.
[Discussion off the i-ecord.]
Mr. Armstrong. We wei-e talking about talking with Mr. Rebozo
about youi- intei-view with IRS.
Ml'. Daxner. He had been interviewed.
Mr. Freedman. It is my recollection yesterday the question was put
both ways.
11559
]Mr. SciiFLTz. I afjree, but not both ways. The question was posed
yesterday, did you discuss with Mr. Rebozo the inconsistencies he may
have had; and he said, "I don't know of any inconsistencies," however,
tliey irot into the chanjje of the dates. After your interview you called
hini and he said, no, that wasn't when it was.
]\rr. Daxxer. The one thin^r I J'ecall having said about the discussion
with Rebozo after the interview with the IRS. and I'm certain it was
after his because I i-emeniber liim sayine; they were the same two
airents that talked to me that came down to Miami and talked to him.
Skelton and Lebar.
And that's when he told me he was certain, positive that Maheu
had not been present durinir either delivery: and I corrected my testi-
mony to that etFect.
]\Ir. Armstrong. So. tliis conversation was on May 20. 1973, or
May 18. 1973?
Mr. Danxer. Xo. I would sav durinjx the mid or late summer of
1972.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Well. ]Mr. Rebozo hadn't been interviewed at that
time.
]\Ir. Daxx'er. He had been interviewed shortly after I had.
Mr. FREEDMA^^ Fi'om wliat you understand, is that right?
Mr. Daxx'er. That was my understanding.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Did you have any discussions with him after
May 10. 1973. regarding the Internal Revenue's investigation of this
niat*^ei'?
^Iv. Daxx'er. No. I think the first conversation I had with him
during that period was that one in May of 1973 in the Madison Hotel
at which tim^^ he told mo the money had not been used, and he wanted
to return it.
]Mr. Armstrox'g. Well, did he indicate at that time what action, if
any. Internal Revenue Service was taking with regard to the matter?
]Mi-. Daxxer. It seems to me I I'ecall that they were
Mr. Freedmax. What he said.
M". Daxx'er. He said they were satisfied with his explanation.
Mr. .\R:\rsTRox'G. And did you have any discussion with Mr. Rebozo
subsequent to tliat. regarding the Inter-nal Revenue Service?
Mr. Daxxer. After May of 1973?
Mr. Armstrox'g. Yes.
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Ml'. Araistroxg. And have you had any discussions with any other
individuals i'e,<j:ai'ding the Intei-nal Revenue Service's action in this
matter, after May of 1 973 ?
]Mr. Freedmax. Just yes. or no.
Mr. Daxx'er. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox'g. And can you tell us with whom that was?
Mr, Dax'x^er. That was with Rebozo calling me relative to setting up
a meehng to effect the delivery, return of the money, culminating in
the telei:)]ione call from Rebozo in his attorney's office in Philadelphia;
resulting in my makin<r ai-rangements for them to call Chester Davis,
and handle it through him.
Mr. AR:\rsTRox'c;. What discussion occurred on that occasion, relat-
ing to the IRS?
11560
]\Ir. Daxxer. T don't recall any discussion concerninfr IRS.
Mr. AiorsTRox(;. I'm sorry. Tho (juestion was. aft(M- May of 1973
what discussions did you have witli any individual i-e<rarding the
Interna] Revenue Service's concern with the Hughes contribution, its
receipt or return ?
Ml'. Daxxer. I can't recall any conversation re^ardinj; the IRS.
Mr. Freeomax. Vm ^oin^ to object to this line of (juestionin^. It is
obvious it has nothinj:; whatsoever to do with the function of this
committee.' if this connnittee is functioning as an adjunct of the IRS,
to make some deteT-mination by the IRS. I think it's entii-ely out of
place. I think this committee or statf ou^ht to let the IRS conduct its
own investigation, unless the committee is investigating the IRS; and
I don't think that's part of the resolution creating; this committee.
Mr. Armstroxg. Now. Mr. Danner. do vou lecall when you first met
Ralph Winte?
Mr. Daxxer. No, I don't recall the date. It was shortly prior to the
time he was employed by Summa Corp.
Mr. Armstrox'g. And what was your understanding of Mr. Winte's
duties from that time forward, with the Sununa Corp. ?
Mr. Freedmax. Wait a minute; don't guess, unless you know.
Mr. DAxxf:R. Well, he had the title of directoi- of the administra-
tive services, some title of that sort.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you know what his duties were, sir?
Mr. Daxxer. Generally, he related to me, he was charged with
security, security investigations, personnel investigations, assisting
the hotels and casino in some of their security problems, drafting
security regulations, policies.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us when you first becam.o aware of
any contact Mr. Winte had with Mr. Howai'd Hunt ?
Mr. Freedmax. If you know.
Mr. Daxxer. My best i-ecollection is he told me about that after he
was first subpenaed by the Watergate Committee.
Mr. Armstroxg. In other woi-ds, it would have been subse(|UPnt to
your meetings and subsequent to the return of the money by Mr.
Rebozo to the Hughes Tool Co.. subsecfuent to .Fune 1973?
Mr. Daxxer. Well, you would have to give me the date because il
was after the subpenas were issued, as I recall, that would have been
what, November of 1973 ?
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us what Mr. Winte said on that
occasion ?
. Mr. Freedmax. I don't know about that.
Mr. Danxer. I don't recall the exact conversation. This was the
reason for his subpena. that he had been contacted by someone : T don't
know who it was. And I don't even know if lie told me that in Las
Vegas, or some other place.
Mr. Armstrong. And did he tell you what action, if any. he was
taking as a i-esult of his meeting with the Committee To Re-Elect the
President, or the White House; whether it was with ^Ir. Hunt, or
Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Freedmax. I don't understiand the question— what INIr. Winte
did, contacted Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Armstroxg. What he did as a result of this meeting Mr. Dan-
ner referred to.
11561
Mr. Freedman. I still don't understand the question.
Mr. BuRSTEiN. Did Mr, Winte relate to you what he did after he
met with Mr. Hunt ; is that what you are asking?
^Ir. Armstrong. That's what I'm asking Air. Danner, exactly.
Mr. Daxxer. The conversation, as I recall — he said that he declined
having anytliing to do with it.
Mr. Freedmax. With Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy, is that it?
Mr. Daxxer. Right, and their request.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did ^Ir. Winte indicate that lie discussed that
with any other agent, representative or employee of the Hughes Tool
Co., or the Siunma Corp. '(
Mr. Daxxer. He iuunediately reported the contact to the executive
committee of Summa Corp.
Mr. Armstrox-^g. And did he indicate in what form — was that in a
meeting, an executive meeting?
Mr, Daxx"^er. I don't know how it came about, but they had em-
phatically agreed that he liad handled the matter properly and were
glad he didn't have anything to do with it.
Mr. Armstroxg. AVho are the members of the executive committee
of the Summa Corp. ?
Mr. Freedmax. If you know, Mr. Danner.
Mr, Daxx'er. Well, we deal primarily with ]Mr, William Gay, I
believe he is the chairman of the executive connnittee. I'm not certain
I want to try to state wlio the other members are.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. Did Mr. Winte indicate he talked with Mr. Gay
on the subject?
Mr, Daxx'er, Whether he mentioned him by name I don't recall,
but that lie did discur^s tlie matter with the executive committee, the
contact ; and what his reaction was to it.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. Between the time that Mr. ^IcCord testified about
an alleged plan to break into the safe of Herman Greenspun, which I
believe Mr. McCord testified to in May of lOTo, and the time that the
subpenas were issued in November of 1973, did you discuss Mr.
McCord's testimonv or the subject of the break-in with anyone ?
Mr.DvxNER. Did I?
]\rr, Armstrox'g. Yes.
Mr. Dax'X'er. Oh, it was a topic of conversation ; it sounded to me
like a screwball thing. But, I don't recall having seriously discussed
it with anyone.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, had you discussed it with Mr, Winte prior
to your discussion during, or after November of 1973 i
Mr. Daxxer. I don't recall, I'm confused as to what timing, I did
have a conversation with AVinte. he did tell me about this contact.
Just when it occurred — I seem to recall it was after he had been
subpenaed,
Mr. Armstrox'g. And did you have any discussion with Mr. Gay
on the subject, the subject of Mr. ]McCord's testimony, the alleged
break-in plan, to break into Mi-. Greenspun's safe ?
Ml". P'reedmax\ I'll let him answer the question, but I'm going to
object.
Air. Daxx'er. Well, yes. This matter was discussed within the or-
ganization, the absurdity of the whole thing, the fact that it got wide-
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 19
11562
spread i)ublicitY and in no way involved any member of tlie Siimma
Corp. In fact, wc were at a loss as to why. what tliey were trying to do,
other than malign the organization.
Mr. Armstroxg. "When was this conversation?
Mr. Daxxer. These took place over a period of time, I couldn't set
anv dates.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did Mr. Gay indicate in conversation that he had
spoken with Mi-. Winte shortly after ISIr. Winte's meeting with Mr.
Hunt ?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you ever discuss the subject with Mr. Chester
Da Ads?
]Nf r. Freedmax'. Just answer yes, or no.
Mr. Daxx^er. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox^g. Can you tell us when that was ?
Mr. Freedmax*. I object to that, that comes under the lawyer-client
privilege.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, was that related to Mr. Davis' representation
of vou here today, sir ?
Mr. FREEDMAX^ Whatever it was, when he discusses this with Mr.
Davis
Mr. Armstrox'g. Well, every conversation that Mr. Davis and Mr.
Danner had isn't privileged, is it, IVIr. Freedman?
Mr. Freedmax'. No; if they ask about a drink or something, that is
not privileged ; but I think something where ]\Ir. Davis was making
an investigation, then T think that is privileged.
Mr. Dackritz. Mr. Freedman, I think, however, you have to admit
that Mr. Davis and Mr. Danner had discussions where Mr. Davis was
not acting in the capacity as legal counsel to Summa Corp., and that
will not be privileged.
Mr. FREEDiSrAx*. Mr. Davis was making an investigation, and that is
why he asked Mr. Danner questions: and that is privileged.
Mr. Lackritz. That was not the point, or the question that was
raised, Mr. Freedman. The point T raised was obviously Mr. Danner
and Mr. Davis had a discussion in which Mr. Davis was not acting in
the capacity of counsel for the Summa Corp.
Mr. Freedmax. Mr. Danner doesn't necessarily know all the
nuances, of when the person is or is not acting as counsel. So, I in-
struct him not to answer.
Mr. Arinistroxg. Well, why don't we find out when the conversation
A\ as, Mr. Freedman.
Tell us when the conversation was.
Mr. Dax'xer. T have no way of placing it-
Mr. Armstrox'G. Can you tell us if you had more than one conversa-
tion on that subject with Mr. Davis?
Mr. Daxxer. Mav T go off the record for a minute?
Mr. Frep:dmax. Wait a minute, don't go off the record and tell them
something you shouldn't be telling them.
Mr. Daxxer. No; T'm just saying people do read the newspapers,
and this has been, as you know, a topic of givat conversation and
publicity.
[Discussion off the record.]
11563
Mr. Daxxer. All right, what was the question ?
[Question read.]
Mv. Daxxer. Yes; there were a number of conversations not only
coveriniff this subject, but other facets of the Watergate investiga-
tion
INIr. Freedman. Now. don't describe what IVlr. Davis said of the in-
vestigation.
Mr. Daxxer [continuing]. As reported in the news media; they
were not in the context of his querying me, or seeking my advice or
counsel, just a topic of conversation which, as far as my "experience,
most iieople who read the newspapers do discuss, cocktailparties, vari-
ous other functions, meet on the street.
jS'ow, to fix any date, or what was said on any different occasion
voidd be ii^MossibV. The details and iudividuals— I have no recollec-
tion of ha\-ing singled out any single person for discussion.
Mr. Freepmax. Xow, I am going to object to this line of question-
ing, obviouslv Mr. Danner was not — were you present when Mr. Hunt
and Mr. Liddv allegedly asked Mr. Winte about whatever it is the
connnittee thinks occurred, were you present then ?
Ml". Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Freedmax. All right, then obviously this is complete hearsay,
and T don't see how this committee can rely in any way upon that kind
of testimonv being relevant and probative testimony, appropriate testi-
monv to draw any kind of conclusion.
^fi-. Armstroxg. Well, your objection is noted. The committee ruled
on that issue, and I'm sure they can — —
Mr. FREEn:\rAx. Tell mo Avhere the committee ruled on it because it is
mv i-ecollection this is the first time I ever objected on that ground.
Mi-. Lackritz. T think it is my recollecfion this is the first time he
has ever objected on that o-round.
Mr. Freed^fax. So. therefore, if the committee has already ruled
on it. T would like to see it in the context
IM)'. Armstroxc;. The committee ruled on the admissibility of evi-
dence of this nature.
Ml-. Freedmax. Let's not characterize it as evidence. If you want to
talk about questioning the witness and obtaining answers, that's not
necessarilv evidence.
^fr. Armstroxg. Mr. Danner, can vou tell us if any discussions you
had with ^Mr. Davis indicated Mr.' Davis had specific information
about the factual nature of the alleged meeting between Mr. Winte
and Mr. Hunt?
Air. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. It indicated that Mr. Davis did not have any
specific information?
Mr. Freedmax. He answered the question.
Mr. Armstroxg. I'm trying to fio^ure out what his answer means.
Mr. Freedmax. Well, he answered your question.
Mr. Daxxer. You asked me if he had anv factual information, and
the answer is, "No, I do not know."
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know if Mr. Winte discussed this contact
with All-. Hunt, or Mr. Liddy with anyone other than you, a;ny other
individuals other than you and Mr. Gay ? , ' "
Mr. Daxxer. No. I do not know.
11564
Mr. Lackritz. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. LACKRnz. Back on the record.
All right, Mr. Danner. as I recall your testimony, and I don't have
any specific pa<;c reference, but in <^ener-al. paraplii'asin<r your testi-
mony, in December of 1973 when you appeared before the Select Com-
mittee you testified about the two $50,000 contributions that you were
responsible for transmitting to Mr. Rebozo had no relationship what-
soever to the subsequent — excuse me, to tlie approval by former Attor-
ney General Mitchell of the acquisition of the Dunes bv Hughes Tool
Co.
Mr. Freedman. Now, w^ait a minute, whatever he testified to, he testi-
fied to.
Mr. Lackritz. I know that, and I'm not about to go into any great
detail. My (mly question is. have you ever testified in any other forum
that there was some relationship between the two $50,000 contribu-
tions and the approval of the acquisition of the Dunes Hotel ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir,
Mr. LACKRrrz. And liave vou evei- testified in :inv other forum, dif-
ferently from Avhat that testimony was in December ?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you ever told a different version to any other
individual?
Mr. Daxxer. No, sir.
Mr. Lackritz. I have no further questions.
Mr. ScHULTz. I have two. Do you have knowledge whether or not
tlie Dunes was ac(}uired by the Summa Corp. ?
Mr. Daxxer. It was not.
Mr. Freedmax. He answered that before.
Mr. Armstroxg. Since January 1. 1969, Mr. Danner, have you had
occasion to meet with Herbert Kalmbach ?
Mr. Daxxer. T think I have met him on three different occasions
during the period, of let's say, up to this year.
Mr. Armstroxg. And when were those, sir?
Mr. Daxxer. As I recall, the first occasion was in December of 1970,
I was at the Fi-ontier Hotel. He was visiting Las Vegas, came by, called
on me; visited, told me who he was. AVe had many mutual friends, in-
cluding Bebe Rebozo,
The second occasion was at a dinner party at Gen. Ed Nigro's
house at Las Vegas. He was there, and so were other couples, inchiding
Del Webb and liis wife.
And the third was, T ran into him at Ed Nigro's funeral in Las
Vegas, which was earlier this year, T guess.
Mr. Armstroxg. And on anv of these occasions, did you discuss cam-
paign contributions with Mr. Kalmbach?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did he attempt to solicit any funds for any purpose
from you?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
Mr. Armstroxg. At any time, did he elaborate, or did you have dis-
cussions M'ith liim i-egarding any specifics of your relationship with Mr.
Rebozo, other than just mutual friends?
Mr. Daxxer. No.
11565
Mr. ScHULTZ. I have no further questions.
Mr. Armstroxg. Thank you very much,
Mr. Freed:max. I want to say something on the record and take a
recess and discuss something: with the witness.
It seems to me the entire testimony today virtually all was repeti-
tious of what has gone before. I think it's complete harassment of the
witness, trying to catch him in an inconsistency to what he said on
previous occasions before this committee ; and some of it was obviously
not for tlie purpose of elfecting legislation, particularly that part that
dealt Avith
:\rr. Daxxer, The IKS,
Mr. P'reedmax. Oh, yes. the information that dealt with what he did.
what information was given to the Internal Revenue Service by Mr.
Banner; and whatever Mr. Rebozo told ^Ir. Danner about his conver-
sation with investigators of the IRS. I don't see how any of that can
possibly etfect legislation because whether or not to adopt legislation,
whether or not the money was delivered or not delivered, and the inves-
tigation of the IRS can't possibly have anything to do with what ap-
propriate legislation ought to do.
Thank you.
Xow I would like to have a short recess, I woidd like to discuss some-
thing with the witness outside.
Mr. Armstroxg, Let me just respond on the record, it is clearly our
feeling that the questions today were not repetitive; that the relevance
of tlie general areas and in that sense the specific questions to the legis-
lative mandate of tliis committee are as to legislative recommendations
that will be obxious when the connnittee issues its final report,
Mr. Frf:edmax. And T always heai'. well, he can answer the questions
because if they don't tie up it then becomes immaterial, so therefore you
ask irrelevant questions; and always, well, you'll find out in a couple
of months what if anything wo do with the testimony, and then it be-
comes clear. It's supposed to be clear at the time the questions are asked,
not at some certain date,
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Freedman, I think your objection is clear on
the record ; and we appreciate Mr. Banner's testimony this morning.
We'll take a short recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record. I would like the record to note
that the witness and his counsel have returned from their session in
the hall,
I would also like the record to note that, Mr, Banner, in case you
discover any further correspondence in your offices, either at the
Frontier, or Sands, or the Besert Inn that has not previously been
provided to tlie conmiittee. the record will remain open to receive that
evidence that you mav turn over in the future.
Mr. Baxxer. I understand.
Mr. LAcKRrrz. ]Mr. Freedman. is there anything vou Avould like to
add to the testimony of Mr. Banner prior to closing the record ?
Mr. Freedmax'. In fairness to the witness because some of your
questions about the Bunes brought up the question, one of the ques-
tions I think Mr, Armstrong asked was whether he testified any dif-
ferently before any other tribunal, or it was Mr, Lackritz, whether
he testified before any other tribunal otherwise than which he testified
11566
before this committee with respect to the discussions to do with the
acquisition of the Dunes, with respect to the Dunes.
Mr. Danner did testify before the Security and Exchange Commis-
sion that it was his impression and his recollection at the time when
he made his trip to Washington. Now, Mr. Danner
Mr. Daxner. INIr. Lenzner took me through this in detail, page 52
of the interview on December 19, at which time I told him. Mr.
Lenzner reminded me that in an interview in Las Vegas I mentioned
the name McLaren. '"Do you recall telling us that in Las Vegas," I
said that I was mistaken, I never asked for a letter. "Do j^ou recall
telling us that?"
"I don't remember."
"Do you recall telling us Mr. McLaren told you it would be un-
necessaiy, the Department of Justice would not file a law suit."
"Yes, but thinking the matter over in more detail my best recollec-
tion is now, the Attorney General was the one who related the infor-
mation to me."
What I meant to say, I do not now remember who it was Avho was
in there, whether there were other people present; I have no clear
recollection. I seem to recall there was someone else in the office. I may
have told you or Mr. Lenzner, McLaren, because he occurred to me.
and I'm guessing. The Attorney General might have said, "We will
refer that to McLaren and get his judgment on the matter." And that
is now my best recollection.
Mr. Freedman. And to the extent you testified otherwise before
the Securities and Exchange Commission, what you testified before
this committee is your best effort ; and what you testified otherwise be-
fore the Securities and Exchange Commission, that was incorrect.
Mr. Danner. That's correct.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine. Are there any other additions, or corrections ?
Mr. Freedman. Not at the moment.
Mr. Lackritz. Fine. We'll go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Back on the record.
Mr. Freedman. I understand, Mr. Lackritz decided to have Mr.
Davis here this afternoon ?
Mr. Lackritz. Yes, we would like to take testimony from Mr. Winte
and Mr. Davis. How^ever, Mr. Davis yesterday gave me a copy of a
letter dated June 11, 1074. requesting that Mr. Winte's testimony be
given at a public session. I am hopeful we can get this matter solved
this afternoon in time to take testimony from Mr. Winte by the end
of today.
I am also hopeful that in the interim, while we are waiting for the
determination of that request, we will be able to take testimony of
Mr. Davis. And therefore I hope we can take Mr. Davis' testimony
this afternoon.
Mr. Freedman. All right, we are back to Mr. Davis' business en-
gagements in various matters.
["V^^ereupon, at 1 :12 p.m., the committee recessed imtil 2 :30 p.m.
on the same day.]
11567
Afternoon Session
Mr. Armstrong. This is a continuation of the executive session of
December 4, at which Senator Ervin presided. Mr. Davis continues
under oath. Mr. Freedman ?
Mr. Freedman. All the other objections we had previously, with
respect to ]Nfr. Davis' testimony as well as tlie other witnesses, are still
existent, we still press them. And I think Mr. Davis wishes to advise
the staff of the committee and the committee itself of certain develop-
ments we just entered.
TESTIMONY OF CHESTER C. DAVIS, ACCOMPANIED BY SOLOMON
FREEDMAN AND LAWRENCE BURSTEIN, COUNSEL
Mr. Davis. The record should reflect, Mr. Lackritz, that today in
the Federal court in I^s Angeles, in the court of Judge Pregerson
where the major litigation is now in progress, the announcement was
made by the clerk of Judge Pregerson in open court, that he had re-
ceived a call from Robert Muse. ]M-u-s-e. of your staff, of the staff of
this committee, advising the court that he had available testimony
which I was required to give in executive session with respect to
political contributions to Mr. Humphrey.
My understanding that the court inquired as to the nature of what
Mr. ]\Iuse was offering to provide, I do not understand the basis for
the Senate committee or its staff to actively interfere in private litiga-
tion pending in the Federal court, much less do I understand the
justification for Mr. ^Muse's conduct which I consider not only highly
improper if not illegal, but also despicable.
Xow, I think the record should also reveal. Mr. Lackritz, that
Mr. Muse saw fit to appear and attend a portion of yesterday's pro-
ceedings in this very room. I do not know at whose invitation Mr.
Mu'e attended, but I want to reemphasize on the record that I am
here under protest, that I believe that my rights have been infringed
upon by the conduct of the staff and of the committee, and that I
a'r^. proccedino- only becau'^e of the coercive attitude of the staff j^nd of
the committee — threatening me with contempt of the Senate for at-
tempting to exercise my legal rights. You may now proceed.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, if I may interject, Mr. Davis, after your
comments, I would like to take a brief recess off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. We have just made an effort to locate Mr. Muse
so that he could come into this executive session and respond to the
allegations tliat have just been raised bv Mr. Davis. I have not been
able to locate Mr. Muse, so I would like at this time to leave the
record oi:)en for a subsequent submission of a statement by Mr. Muse
to describe the events that occurred and the facts as he understands
them to be in response to the allegations raised by Mr. Davis at this
time.*
Now, if we can proceed with the examination of Mr. Davis, Mr.
Armstrong has some questions.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Davis, could you tell us when and how you
firet learned of Mr. Hughas' contribution that was given to Mr.
Rebozo — contributions given to Mr. Rebozo?
* Mr. Muse's statement on p. 11614.
11568
Mr. Davis. When I was acting as counsel for Mr. Danner and
was required to testify pursuant to a subpena issued by the IRS?
Mr. Armstrong. And that was the first occasion on which you had
any knowledge of that contribution.
Mr. Davi§. That is correct.
Mr. Armstrong. And was that solely in preparation for that
Mr. Davis. No, it was not in preparation. I was attending hearings
being conducted by special agents of the IRS.
Mr. Armstrong. This was at the Hughes Tool Co. offices in Houston,
Texas ? Is that correct, sir ?
Mr. Davis. That is correct.
Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us if you have any other knowl-
edge regarding the delivery, if you received any other knowledge
regarding the delivery or the purpose of the contribution from Mr.
Hughes that was given to Mr. Rebozo other than what was revealed
in that IRS session ?
Mr. Davis. You will have to break up your question so I can
understand it.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you receive any infomnation regarding the
delivery of the contribution ?
Mr. Davis. A^Hien?
Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to the meeting with the Internal Rev-
enue Service in Houston ?
Mr. Davis. I investigated tlie matter.
Mr. Armstrong. Was that as counsel to the Summa Corp. ?
Mr. Davis. In connection with the preparation of a number of
issues, including the litigation now going on with respect to Mr.
Maheu's activities.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there any information relating to the delivery
or the purpose of that contribution that you can share with us that
is not privileged?
Mr. Davis. You have a compounded question in there and I would
appreciate it if you would ask your questions so I can answer them.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Is there any information regarding the de-
livery of that contribution which you received after that May session
with the IRS which you can share with us which is not privileged?
Mr. Davis, That depends upon what your question is as to whether
it is privileged or not.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, is there any other information on that you
can share with us. sir-?
Mr. Davis. I don't liavo any other information to share with you.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you receive any other information on the
subject of the delivery of the contribution subsequent to that May
meeting which was not privileged?
Mr. Davis. That depends on what your question is, sir.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, Mr. Davis, what your investigation
of the delivery of the Hughes contribution consisted of ?
Mr. Freedman. I object to that. That is the lawyer's work product
as to what instructions he gave and what was done and what happened
and what results of the request by Mr. Davis as counsel produced.
11569
Mr. Armstrong. Did you receive any information regarding the
delivery of the contribution that Avas not as a result of a lawyer's work
product ?
Mr. Davis. I cannot answer that question that generally, sir. If you
ask me a particular question with respect to the delivery, if I obtained
information other than pursuant to my investigation of the conduct
and activities of Mr. Maheu. I will answer the question if I can.
Mr. Freedmax. There is another point. I don't know what you are
trying to get at here. This record is replete about the delivery. There's
no allegation by anybody that Mr. Davis had an}i;hing to do whatso-
ever with the delivery, so I don't know what you're trying to find out
from Mr. Da\is. You're not finding out any facts.
Mr. Lackritz, Mr. P^reedman. tlie only point of the line of question-
ing that is being pursued is to see if there is any assistance that
Mr. Davis may be able to ])rovide this committee outside of some of the
other information that has been provided by clients represented by
Mr. Davis and by others concerning this matter.
If Mr. Davis does not feel he has additional information that can
assist this investigation at this time, then he is free not to respond to
the question, but the general line of inquiry is to see if we can short-
circuit going through a detailed and rather laborious series of ques-
tions about the delivery of the contributions and the return of the
contributions, in an effort to get any information that ]Mr. Davis can
provide to this committee in its investigation.
Mr. Freedmax. "Well, obviously anything he learned as a result of
his activities as an attorney for Mr. Danner oi- for anybody else con-
nected with the Huglies Tool Co.. of course that is privileged. And
you've got Mr. Danner's testimony for (5 days about this subject, 4 days
in December, yesterday, today, in which you went over the same thing
over and over again. Mi". Davis — are you saying ]Mr. Davis had any-
thing to do with the delivery ?
Mr. Lackritz. That wasn't my question nor my implication.
Mr. Freedmax. Well, if that is so, then I don't see what you are
going to <j:vt from him. It is a complete fishing expedition. (tO on and
ask the next question.
Mr. Armstroxo. Mr. Davis, did you have any discussions with
Mr. Hughes regarding this particular contribution?
Mr. Freedmax. I think that is privileged, too.
Mr. Armstroxg. "Well, I am not sure. Is the existence of the conver-
sation privileged ? The answer is no, it is not privileged.
Mr. Davis. The only conversation I had with Mr. Hughes was sub-
sequent to the information that came to my attention in the matter I
have indicated, and I did communicate with Mr. Hughes in connection
with the factual investigation I made relating to the claims that were
involved, as I indicated on several occasions, not only to the staff but
to the committee, that I was engaged in investigating the facts relating
to such civil remedies as Mr. Hughes or the Hughes Tool Co. had
against Mr. Maheu by reason of the manner in which he handled
monevs belonging to ^Nlr. Hughes and monevs belonging to the Hughes
Tool Co.
Mr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss your conversation with Mr. Hughes
with any other person who is not a member of your law firm or is not
counsel to Summa Corp. ?
11570
Mr. Davis. No, sir. I have not.
Mr. Armstrong. Is there any portion of that conversation which
you feel you can share with us ?
Mr. DA^^s. As I told you before, I have nothing to share with you.
Mr. LACKRrrz. "When was your coiivei-sation with Mr. Hughes,
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. T don't remember the exact time.
Mr. Lackritz. "Where was it?
Mr. Davis. T believe at the time Mr. Hughes was in Nicaragua.
Mr. Lackritz. And this was a person to person, or in person
conversation ?
Mr. Davis. It was a communication I had with my client.
Mr. Lackritz. I was just asking you the form of the communication.
I was not asking the substance.
Mr. Freedman. That is attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Davis. I don't care to go into the manner in which I communi-
cated with my client. Actually it was in various forms of
communication.
Mr. Lackritz. What was Hr. Hughes' reaction upon learning this
information ?
Mr. Freedman. Isn't that part of the lawyer-client privilege ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. So you are claiming privilege on the response to that
question ?
Mr. Freedman. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did you have more than one discussion
with Mr. Hughes about these matters ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. And as I understand your testimony, at no time have
you discussed the substance of any of these conversations with any
persons not counsel to the Hughes Tool Co.
Mr. Davis. That is correct.
Mr. Lackritz. All right.
Mr. Armstrong. Just to make sure our record is complete, Mr. Davis
did you not discuss with Ms. DeOreo and myself on October 10, 1973.
the fact that Mr. Hughes had told you that tliere was no authorization
for any particular contributions by Mr. Hughes except for the reim-
bursement of Mr. Maheu for the $100,000 that was given to Mr.
Kebozo ?
Mr. Davis. If you will show me a transcript of my testimony. I will
address myself to it.
Mr. Armstrong. I don't believe a transcript was made. "We have
notes that were made by a staflf secretary that was present at the time.
Mr. Davis. Then you show me what those notes state, and then I will
address myself to them.
Mr. Lackritz. "Well, Mr. Davis, do you have any independent recol-
lection that you so testified ?
Mr. Davis. T have a recollection of having testified or answered in-
quiries that were made, as I understood the inquiry that was then
being made.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, do you recall testifying about the substance
of wliat Mr. Hughes advised you of?
afjam
11571
Mr. Davis. Not specifically. My problem is in separatin*; that which
relates to a particular transaction and that <i:eneral information which
I obtained in connection with something other than what I was inves-
tio;ating relating to what I have described a moment ago. Now, what-
ever I said before was accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. I note that Mr. Richmond Anderson was present on
that occasion and took what he purported
Mr. Davis. He was acting as my secretary and taking notes.
Mr. Armstroxg. He took what he purported was a verbatim trans-
cript.
]\[r. Davis. It may be that lie did.
Mr. Arms'iijoxg. My notes also reflect that you said at that time that
Mr. Hughes — the conversation was in late 1971 or early 1972, and
that Mr. Hughes — that you did not discuss particular conversations
with Mr. Hughes. Is that correct, is the substance of that correct, sir?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what was correct on that subject,
what these notes should reflect ?
Mr. Freedmax. Well, aren't vou getting into the lawj^er-client area
' ?
Mr. Davis. T^nless you show me what you are referring to, I cannot
help you.
Mr. Armstroxg. I am referring to the section of the notes of our
staff in that session that says "Hughes told Davis that there was no
authorization for paiticular contributions by Howard Hughes except
for the reimbui'sement of Maheu of the $100,000. This conversation
was in
Mr. Davis. I don't know what $100,000 you are referring to because
unless I look at it in the context of what was being inquired into. I
cannot answer your question.
Mr. ScHULTz. Can we go off the record for just a second, please?
[Discussion off the record.]
iSIr. Armstrong. Back on the record. The notes that I have reflect
the immediate reference to the $100,000 at that time. At that time
Maheu claimed he was owed $100,000 for contributions that he had
made and he was entitled to reimbursement.
Mr. Davis. Well, you see what your notes indicate, the trouble with
your question, Mr. Armstrong, is you are mixing apples and pears
together, because there was a time when I did testify with respect to
events which came to my attention other than a time when I was en-
gaged in either giving advice to my clients or engaged in investigating
the facts with respect to possible claims which were involved in pend-
ing litigation with Maheu and others, and that is the trouble with the
way you phrase your questions and the answers I gave you before.
You stai-ted off by asking me questions with respect to when I first
obtained information as to — it so happens it's also $100,000 that was
delivered by Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo. When I gave you the answer
to that and I told you what I did subsequent to that.
Now, if you are talking about some different, some other $100,000,
then that is why I insist on seeing what it is you are referring to so 1
can address myself to something in context and not out of context io
create more confusion than you have already created.
11572
Mr. ARMSTK()X(i. Well, as I i)oiiited out. Mi-. Davis, yon apparently
have access to verbatim notes fi'oin that iiitei-view, and if you want to
consult those, feel free.
Mr. Davis. I don't know what yon think I have access to. I know
that I requested at the time for a ti-anscrii)t of the proceedinirs. which
was denied to me, alle<i:edly pursuant to somebody's constructions of
the rules of the connnittee, which I regard as improper construction
of the rules and which is a subject matter of lititjation which is now
pendino-, inclndin<r a mattei- which is now pendino- befoi-e tlie court of
api)eals of this district.
Now-, if you want to present me with somethintr and you want me to
address myself to any testimony or evidence T have previously oiven
you, show me Avhat it is that you are talkin<i' about, and 1 will address
myself to it.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did yon ever have a conversation in late
1072 — excuse me — late 1971 or early 1072 with Mr. Hughes regardin^:
campaifjn contributions ?
Mr. Davts. I can't place it by dates. I have told you before that the
only time I had any conununication with Mr. Huofhes relatin^f to cam-
pai^i contributions was at a time when, followino; cer-tain informa-
tion coming to my attention. I began to investigate the facts in con-
nection with the litigation I have previously described to you.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, can you tell us what the information was
that came to your attention at that time ?
Mr. Davis. T don't know what time you are referring to. what infor-
mation you're referring to. If you are referring to information with
respect to the contribution or deliveries of moneys bv Mr. ')junier to
]Mr. Rebozo, T have already told you when that first came to my
attention and wliat T did subsequent thereto.
Mr. Armstrong. I am referring to the time that you just referred
to, Mr. Davis. I am trying to find out
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't undei'stand your question, tlien.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Hughes
regarding campaign contributions prior to Mr. Danner's interview
with the Internal Revenue Service?
Mr. Davis. I don't believe so.
Mr. Armstrong. My question is, did you tell us on October 10, 107?).
that Mr. Hughes had told you that tlieie was no authorization for
pai-ticular contributions by Howard Hughes except for the reimburse-
ment of Maheu for the $100,000 foi- contributions he had made and
that he felt that he was entitled reimbursement for-?
Mr. Davis. You will have to show me a transcript of the testimony
before I can answer that question.
Mr. Armstrong. I aiti saying there is not a transcript of the testi-
mony.
Mr. Davis. Then I cannot help you.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, do you recall if you did have such conversa-
tion with Mr. Hughes nrior to Mr. Danner's testimonv or deposition
before the IRS?
Mr. Davis. I think I answered just a moment ago that my recollec-
tion is when I fii'st had any conversation with Mi'. Hughes
was folloAving that, wdien I began to investigate the infoiination that
11573
cnnio to my attontion at that time, insofar as my convorsations or com-
miiiiications with Mr. IIn<>hes wore involved. How many times do you
want me to answer the same question ?
Mr. Armstrong. Well. I was trying to refresh your recollection,
Mr. Davis.
INIr. Davis. Well, I can remember what I said 5 minutes ago.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, did you leani in the course of your inves-
tigation of the purpose of these two $50,000 contributions that were
delivered to :\rr. Rebozo in 1969 or 1970 ?
^Ir. Freedmax. Isn't that privileged ?
INIr. Davis. Let me try to refresh your recollection in the confusion
you create by the way you conduct these hearings, which I think are
highly improper if not completely illegal.
I think previously you were asking me (Questions with respect to
matters which did come to my attention at the time w'hen Mr. Maheu
was seeking to obtain moneys from Nadine Henley, w^hich was at a
time before I was investigating anything, and with respect to when
Mr. Maheu was asking me to use my efforts to convince or urge Miss
Henley to make more moneys available to him. which is not the same
thing to what you are talking about with respect to the $100,000 or
the two $50,000 deliveries which were made to Mr. Rebozo by Mr.
Danner, of which I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever until
Mr. Danner appeared before the IRS and I was with him as his
counsel.
]\rr. Lackritz. Well, at that time, ^fr. Davis, were you representing
Mr. Danner or were you representing the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Davis. Both.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Danner had retained you ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; or ask(Ml me to rei)iesent him. Pie was an employee
of the Hughes Tool Co., and I was acting as his counsel with ]Mr. West.
Mr. Lackritz. That is ]Mr. ^lickey West ?
^Ir. Davis. Xo; I'm talking about Mr. Danner when Mr. Danner
was subpeiuied by the IRS investigating
Mr. Lackritz. I'm trving to identify Mr. West. That was Mr.
Mickey West ?
Mr. Davis. That is correct.
Mr. Armstroxc. Can you tell us. Mr. Davis, prior to the time that
you began the investigation which you made reference to, what knowd-
edge you had of campaign contributions that ^Ir. Hughes had made
from January 1, 1969, on.
]\rr. Davis. Well, the question is too broad, jrentlemen, for me to be
able to answei- intelligently. I was aware dui'ing a period of time that
political contributions were being made by and on behalf of Mr.
Hughes through Mr. Maheu with funds obtained by Mr. ]Maheu out of
Mr. Hughes' pei-sonal account through Nadine Henley, but that is not
the same thing as what you started asking me questions about, which
relates to the deliveries of moneys to Mr. Rebozo by Mr. Danner. And
if you can't recognize the ditference between the two. I can't help
you out.
Mr. Armstroxo. I think the record will show that the last three
questions have not been directed to the contribution to
Ml-. D\\is. Well, I don't know what it is you're asking me. Ask me
a question I understand and 1 will answer it if I can.
11574
Mr. Armstrong. I'm asking yon what knowledge yon had of cam-
paign contributions.
Mr. Davis. Well, it's too broad a (juestion Tor mc to answer what
knowledge I had. I don't know what knowledge I had. You ask nie a
specific question and I'll answer it.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, i)i'ioi' to tlie time yon began youi' investiga-
tion, had yon had any discussions with Mr. Hugiies about campaign
contributions in general ?
Mr. Davis. I think I've answered that three times now.
Mr. Armstrong. Did yon have any discussion with Mr. Maheu prior
to having begun your investigation al)out campaign contributions^
Mr. Davis. (3h, yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what those discussions were, sir?
Mr. Davis. There were a gi-eat many of them, but generally speak-
ing, that Mr. Mahen's philosophy was to give small sums of money to
various candidates, usually early in the period of their candidacy be-
cause that he thought that was the proper way of handling political
contributions, ^iv. INIaheu and I had any number of conversations
along those general lines at a time when he was just talking generally
to me, when he was not seeking my advice about anything.
I am eliminating from that — I think there was a point in time when
there was a question that was i-aised which involved legal advice with
respect to the propriety of certain types of contiibutions to state or
other committees, and the handling of particular contributions, and
I am not referring to tliose. I am referring to other conversations I
had where he was generally describing the i)olicics and philosophies
that he was pursuing, handling political contriluitlons.
I am now referring to a period in 1961, 1062 and following, having
nothing to do whatsoevei' with the subject matter of the delivery of
moneys by Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo.
INIr. Armstrong. Did any of those conversations take place after
January 1, 1969, and prior to May 10, 1972 ?
Mr. Davis. What is the question? What conversations^ T have
referred to a mnuber of conversations till now. T don't know what
you're referring to.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm talking about vour conversation with Mr.
Maheu. Did any
Mr. Davis. I understand that and I told you I had many conversa-
tions with Mr. Maheu durijig the i)er-iod of years.
Mr. Armstrong. And I just said did anv of them occui- between
Januai-y 1, 1 969, and May lO', 1972 '?
Mr. Davis. T may have had some convei'sations with Mr. Maheu
with respect to political contributions irenei'ally during that period
of time, not subse([uent to 1970. because I have had no discussions with
Mr. Maheu subsequent to December of 1!)70, when his services were
terminated.
Mr. Armstrong. AVell. during 1969 and 1970, did you discuss with
Mr. Maheu any conti-ibutions made to Piesidential candidates, either
]*residential candidates in 1968 or i)otential Presidential candidates
for the 1972 campaign ?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Maheu did tell me in some conversations that lie had
made or claims to have made a contiibution of $2r),000 to the — to
Kennedy after the assassination.
11575
]\[r. Freedman. That's Robert Kennedy.
Mr. Davis. Robert Kennedy, and he also told nie of an alleo;ed con-
tribution of some $oO.()0() which he chiims to have made to Senator
Humphrey, and I cannot tell you just when that conversation took
place. It could have been in 1068 or 1969, that I remember him tell-
injr me about that. And I recall a conversation with Mr. Maheu in
which he told me that he had been authorized to make a similar con-
tribution of $50,000 to Mr. Nixon. Those were the conversations I had
with Mr. Maheu at a time and under circumstances where I was not
being: consulted as an attorney.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mi'. Maheu indicate whether or not he had
actually made a contribution to "Sir. Nixon, a $50,000 contribution?
Mr. Davis. No. My recollection of the conversation was in terms of
that which he claims to have been authorized to do.
Mr. Armstrong. Was this a contribution to the 1968 campaign,
or was this subsequent to the 1968 election ?
Mr. Davis. I don't remeuiber when the conversation was, but the
conversation I had with Mr. Maheu which I recall is one where he
told me in sub^-tance that he had been authorized, that he was quite
pleased, he was going to contribute $25,000 in some manner to make
up some deficit in the R-obert Kennedy cain})aign, and that was due
to the fact that he was no longer a candidate and tluit he had been
authorized to, wanted to or was about to nuike a contribution of
$50,000 to Senator Humphrey and $50,000 to Mr. Nixon.
I did have such a conversation with Mr. Maheu, and it may be sub-
sequent to 1968 he i-eferred to it, because T am sure he mentioned that
more than once to me in those conversations.
Mr. Armstrong. Am I correct in the understanding that these were
contributions to the 1968 Presidential campaign ?
Mr. Davis. I have told vou what Mr. Maheu told me.
Mr. Armstrong. You don't know then ? Is that the answer ?
Mr. Davis. I don't know what — I know what he told me, sir. and
that is all I can tell you.
Ml". Freedman. He answered.
Mr. Armstrong. Mv question is, did he tell you for what campaign
these contributions were being uiade. for what j-ear, the 1968 cam-
paign, the 1972
Mr. Davis. My understanding from the convei'sation I had with
him was he was referring to a $50,000 contribution in connection with
the Presidential campaign of Senator Humphrey and Mr. Nixon and
the aborted campaign of Senator Robert Kennedy.
Ml-. Ar:\istr()NO. What I'm trying to pin down is
Mr. Davis. All I can testify, sir. is with respect to — you asked me
about the conversations I had with INIr. Maheu. and I don't believe
that in that conversation Mr. ]Maheu was any more explicit than I
have indicated to you.
Mr. Armstrong. I'rior to the time that you began your investigation,
did you liave any conver-sations with Mr. Gay and subsequent to Janu-
ary 1. 1969. did you have any conversations with Mr. Gay regarding
Presidential campaign contri})utions?
Mr. Davis. Now, your (juestion is limited to Presidential campaign
contributions.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. sir.
11576
Mr. Davis. T don't romombor any particular convorsation with Mr.
Gay relating specifically to Presidential campai^i contributions. I
have a recollection of having; had conversations with Mr. Gay and
with Ml'. Maheii with respect to the jjeneral approach or philosophy
of political contributions and how they should be handled, jjenerally
speaking.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Maheu ever indicate to you that he had
made any political contributions to any Presidential candidate in ex-
pectation of a favoi-able ruling from any administrative agency or
department of the U.S. Govei'nment?
Mr. Davis. Oh. good heavens, no. no.
Mr. Lackritz. Mv. Davis, you have indicated that prior to 1970 you
had a number of general conversations with Mr. Robert Maheu about
political contributions dating back to 1961.
Mr. Davis. Prior to 1971, I would say.
Mr. Lackritz. Prior to 1971. fine. Did Mi-. Maheu indicate to you
in his conversations any general philosophy behind making political
contributions to candidates?
Mr. Davis. Yes, T think I attempted to describe that a moment ago.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, as I understand the w^ay you described it, you
said he wanted to make contributions early on in the campaign.
Mr-. Davis. Yes. he thought that yon obtained more favorable i-ecog-
nition oi- credit — T forget the words he used — if you reacted earlier in
a campaign than later.
]Mr. Lackritz. What do you mean by more favorable recognition or
credit ?
Mr. Davis. Well, because, as you well know, you are solicited for
campaign contributions, and you can usually satisfy the recjuests that
you receive if you respond early than late, and that was my — the gen-
eral nature of the conversation was that you could discharge your
sense of obligati(m toward political candidates by making a contri-
bution early in the game and T think we also had some conversation
in which he indicated the desirability of making contributions to A^ari-
ous candidates, whatever party they were.
Mr. Lackritz. And what was the purpose of making these contribu-
tions, according to Mr. Maheu. Mr. Davis? Was it to obtain
Mr. Davis. Well. T don't think that my conversation with Mv.
Maheu was so naive as to think that the purpose of making political
contributions ofher than what T have indicated to you. that as a gen-
eral rule response to requests for contributions to political candidates,
more desirable to do so early in the campaign than later in the cam-
paign. I remember him saying first of all. thev need the funds early.
It is a hard time to get them, and that you discharge your sense of
obligatlcm to support candidates if you do so — my words — early in the
game.
T don't know exactly how Afi-. Maheii described that thought, but
that was the sense of the conversations that T had with him during the
period that you referred to.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, did Mr. Maheu indicate to you that it
would be easy to obtain access to candidates if contributions were
made earlier in the cami)aign ?
Mr. Da\is. Oh. Mr. Maheu never referred to iiolitical contribu-
tions as being related to having access to anvone. INlr. Maheu felt that
11577
yon ooukl have access to everyone and anyone, including the Pope,
iitoi-ally.
Ml'. Lackritz. "Well, did the philosophy of making contributions
early on in political campaigns of candidates have anything to do.
as far as you know, witli obtaining a favorable ti-eatment from elected
candidates once they were in office?
Mr. FuEEinrAx. Would you mind repeating that again? I got lost?
Mr. Lackritz. Well, fi'oni youi' conversations with Mr. ]Maheu re-
lating to i)olitical conti'ibutions
Mr. Davis. Xo, my recollection of those conversations were quite
the opposite of that if I recall correctly what Mr. Maheu was say-
ing to me. But again, you are referring to a long period of time, not
to any particular conversations, generally speaking was that you
usually — iNIr. Maheu speaking — got more i-espect from the various
candidates by reacting early, and usually, as he explained it to me at
least, my understanding of what he was saying to me was that he
was then advocating against making overly large contributions which
by the very nature of the contribution could give rise to some thought
that something was expected. But again the problem is always, you've
go to speak about each thing, you've got to take each situation on its
own. what is going on. what are the problems, what candidates you are
talkiuir about. And I am now not limiting — the conversation that we
were having, did not relate to Fedei-al offices versus State offices or
anvthing, generally speaking.
Mr. Lackritz. I understand that.
Mr. Davis. And what Mr. Maheu and T were then discussing was
the general philosophy of political contributions, and those are the
thoughts that were being expressed in these conversations.
Mr. Lackritz. Why did Mr. Maheu indicate to you — —
Mr. Davis. Why ]\Ir. Maheu did anything, sir, I don't understand
particularly in the light of what I now know.
Mr. Lackritz. All right.
Mr. Davis. It is difficult for me. but go ahead.
Mr. Silvp:rstkix. May I ask a question to try to clear this up on this
area ?
Mr. Lackritz. Sure. Bob.
Mr. SiLVERSTEix. Did Mr. Maheu ever indicate to you the purpose
of these contributions?
Mr. Davis. None other than that to display support for the can-
didates, and the desirability of supporting a candidate.
^[r. SiLVERsiTJN. That's the only question I have.
]\rr. Davis. He felt ver\' strongly — I have heard him say that be-
cause of Mr. Hughes' reputed wealth, that it was awfully difficult to
resist annroaches for contributions, and that part of the problem that
the realities of life that you confront is the expectation of substantial
contributions, and it was in that context that we were discussing how
do you — T won't use the word "resist," but do you Avith the ap]ieals for
contriliutions by everybody runninor for office, and the pi'oblem of
how to liandle the ]iroblem that exists by reason of these appeals.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you and Mr. Maheu evei' discuss the purpose in
suniiorting both candidates in any given election.
Mr. Davis. None other than the perfectly obvious — I mean, I re-
member conversations where he indicated the desirability of doing so
31-889 O - 74 - pt 24 - 20
11578
even when he pei-sonnlly stated, even thonofh T am reasonably satisfied
that this fellow is the leading horse in this horse race. First, you never
can tell, and second, you've got to be fair. That's what is expected, and
thafs what is the desirable thing to do. It was just an approach where
you would feel the desiral)ility of contributinir to both, and in that
connection he sometimes would say is one of the desirabilities of not
publishing or publicizing Avhat you give to one because if you start
doing that you get into trouble. You get into troul)le with the others.
Why did you give uw $100 and the other fellow $:2()0? I am using
these hy{X)thetical sums, and the sums we sometimes referred to might
be $1,0<)0 to one and $5,000 to another or what have you. And the
support that he was talking about was the desirability of supporting
candidates of both parties, and my understanding is that that is
what he was doing.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Maheu during
the period of time from January 1, 1968, forward?
Mr. Davis. 1968 forward ?
Mr. Lackritz. January 1968, that's right. I am including the con-
tribution or the attempted contribution in the summer of 1968 that
Mr. Danner discussed yesterday. Did you have any discussions with
Mr. Maheu during this time period concerning particular problems
that were facing the Hughes organization and any assistance that
making contributions to Federal campaigns could provide?
Mr. Davis. I cannot separate what you have just said into the form
of a question, sir. Let me, first of all, just sav that it is very difficult
for me to have on one hand — I need a time point of reference to answer
you intelligently.
At the same time, I don't remember these conversations with any
particular point of reference of January 1. 196S, and insofar as
l)roblems are concerned, the Hughes Tool Co. always had problems of
one kind or another, but if you are sujriresting that Mr. Maheu and I
have had a conversation where Mr. Maheu suggested to me that the
solution to any problem that we had was by making a political con-
tribution, the answer is no. We never had anv such, and I don't regard,
in connection with this, the conversations I had with Mr. Maheu as
to the offers foi- funding that he described and discussed with me, as,
for instance, his efforts to fund studies to be conducted eithei- by the
Hughes Tool Co. or Mr. Huffhes, or to be conducted bv the Govern-
ment with respect to the undesirability of having atomic energy tests
being conducted in Nevada, which as I understand it, he said to me
that he had hovn authorized — at one point in one conversation, as T
recall, he said that he had been authorized to expeiul ui) to $1 million
if need be and offered to spend that much to fund studies to be made,
designed to establish the risks or lack of risks involved witli these
nuclear- explosions in Nevada which were at the time of great concern
to Mr. Hughes.
But T don't regard those in tei-ms of political contributions. Those.
as T understand, wei-e contributions that he felt he could make to be
sure in the political system, but not in tcT-ms of. insofar as T know — T
don't know what, if he ever made any of those, but we had discussions
with that in that area, and those were, — T think those were in 1968 or
1969, or after January 1, 1968.
11579
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, did you have any responsibilities for at-
tempting to terminate the underground atomic testing in Nevada ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Lackritz. So that your discussions with ]Mr. ]Maheii on the sub-
ject were solely limited to 'Mr. Maheu's authorization to expend funds
on studies.
Mr. Davis, I am referring to conversations I had with Mr. Maheu,
sir, and what Mv. IVIaheu was telling me with respect to some of his
activities and some of the problems lie had, and the efforts he was mak-
ing to solve tliose problems, and the means and tools tliat he had avail-
able dealing witli a particular problem.
Mr. Lackritz. Did ]Mr. ]\Iaheu ever discuss with you any success that
he had in terminating the atomic testing program in Nevada?
]Mr. Davis. No; Mr. Maheu had conversations with me indicating
that he thought that at one point in time, as I understood what he was
telling me, anvAvay, that he thought he was making progress in ob-
taining some delays in some testing, or I believe at one point he also
told me that he thought he had gotten somebody to agree to undertake
some kind of study. I know that he had some other people allegedly
making some studies or organizing the making of some studies, includ-
ing this fellow John ]\[eier. That is liow he introduced me to him
anyway.
Mr. Lackritz. "Well, did Mr. Maheu indicate to you who he was— any
governmental officials that he was working with to attempt to cease
these tests ?
Mr. Freedmax. Just a minute. Before you answer that, Mr. Davis,
aren't we going very, very far afield ? "What has this got to do with the
1972 Presidential campaign?
Mr. Lackritz. AVell. because there is some indication that in terms
of memorandums and other testimony that the committee has received,
that Mr. ]\Iaheu was terribly concerned with getting the atomic
tests stopped on behalf of Mr. Hughes in 1969 and 1970 prior to his
departure, and if Mr. ^Slahen was involved in authorizing the $100,000
contribution to Mr. Eebozo, then it may have had some relationship
to the
Mr. Freedmax. To the 1972 campaign?
Mr. Lackritz. "Well, we have testimony that indicates the money de-
livered to Mr. Rebozo was for the 1972 campaign.
yir. Freed:max. "\"\"ell, we've been over this and rehashed this and
rehashed this and rehashed this, and frankly, I think the testimony of
^Nlr. Davis on this point is frankly an imposition. I don't know how else
to characterize it. T don't know what you're oojncr to get out of it or
what you hope to get out of it. Obviouslv — I don't know.
Mr. Lackritz. I am just asking if Mr. Davis has any knowledge that
Mr. ]Maheu was involved in attempting to make contributions to resolve
some of these problems to campaign
Mr. Davis. Political contributions? It was never suggested in any
way, shape, or form.
]\Ir. Lackritz. In any discussions you ever had with Mr. Maheu.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely not so.
Mr. Freedmax'. OK. Next subject matter — new chapter.
Mr. Lackritz. Prior to 1971, Mr. Davis, did you have discussions
with Mr. Maiheu about the then-pending T"WA litigation ?
11580
Mr. D.WT^s. Oh, certainly.
Mr. Lackritz. And did you have discussions with Mr. Maheu about
the proper Ip^jal strategy to follow in the then-pendino^ TWA liti-
gation ?
Mr. Davis. Well, I had many discussions with Mr. Maheu with re-
spect to the TWA litigation, yes, I would say including legal points
and the validity thereof that were being raised by me, him. friends,
associates, everybody making suggestions.
Mr. Lackritz. Do you have any knowledge of the retainer
Mr. Davis. Of the who?
Mr. Lackritz. Of the retainer or of the retaining, T guess is more
appropriate, of the Mudge, Rose, Gutheries & Alexander law firm to
participate in the TWA litigation?
Mr. Davis. Yes. I was involved in that situation, and I went to the
Mudge, Rose firm at one point in respect to an anticipated aspect, but it
did not last very long.
Mr. Lackritz. I see. "N^Hien was this, do you recall ?
Mr. Davis. Well, it w^as after the decision of Judge Metzner affirm-
ing the Brownell damage hearing report, when we began to consider
two things. One was the kind of bond that we might have to put up, and
also the appeal.
At that point in time Mr. ISIaheu strongly urged that the Donovan
firm which had handled the damage hearings, be relieved of that
responsibility, and that we retain another firm. T was opposed to doing
that at that point in time, and we met in conference on the subject in
Xew York. But in anticipation of the possibility of making such a
determination, I did p:o to the Mud^e, Rose firm, and T d'd do some
work in connection with the preparation of the possible applications
for — of proceedings that might take place before Judge Metzner, that
would take place if they Avere to handle it in connection with the
obtaining of the bond for a stay pending appeal, and the possibility of
their being assigned the responsibility of conducting the appeal before
the second circuit. But that is not what we did.
Mr. Lackritz. But I take it that they did do some work in prepara-
tion for the course of action.
Mr. Davis. Oh, they did quite a bit of work in the sense of prepara-
tion and did pi-epai-e drafts of papers that would have been filed, and
ai-guments and what have you in connection with that aspect of it.
Mr. Lackritz. Did you have any discussions with INIr. IMaheu about
the hiring of Mudge, Rose — the Mudge, Rose firm ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Lackritz. Did Mr. Maheu favoi- that ?
Mr. Davis. That is what Mr. Maheu wanted to do and that is what I
was opposed to. Among other things, I felt it was undesirable to go
tliat i-()ute because of the former association of President Nixon with
tliat firm, and one — this confei-ence that T am referring to wliere I
said that I was not ."'oing to do it that way — T was responsible actually
for the handling of that aspect of the matter, and T remember his
calling me the next day and saying he'd been thinking it over and he
didn't see anv reason why the firm should be disqualified merely be-
cause one of its former partners had become President of the TTnited
States. And I said, my problem is that it would be misunderstood. And
so I didn't.
11581
Mr. Lackritz. And so you went ahead and hired them anyway ?
Mr. Davis. No. Well, the work was done. The decision that was made
was to stay with the Donovan firm through the second circuit.
"VVTiat I wanted to do at the time was to find — we went to see Moore
at Yale to have enouijh counsel personnel who would be able to handle
the proceduial questions that were involved in that liticration. and that
that would be a desirable thinof to do. I did not think it was desirable
to change from the Donovan firm to the ]Mudg:e, Rose firm. I didn't
think that was <roin^ to accomplish anything.
JVIr. Lackritz. Well, I'm sorry. I guess I misunderstood you. I
thought you just testified that it was the other way around, and I guess
T misunderstood you. I'm sure the record will be clear on it. You op-
posed approaching the Mudge. Rose firm.
Mr. Davis. I did not oppose approaching the Mudge, Rose firm.
Mr. SiLVERSTEix. Retaining them.
]Mr. Davis. I opposed the decision of relieving the Donovan firm and
giving the Mudge, Rose firm the responsibility^ of handling the appeal
in the second circuit of the decision by Judge IVIetzner. And as I say,
we did not do that.
But, during the period of time when we were — when we were
developing various legal opinions, the Mudge, Rose firm was asked —
it was asked by me — was asked to undertake or to prepare themselves
to undei-take certain aspects of the thing until it reached the point
when I had made a final decision with respect to it. At that point
there was a substantial difference of views lietween — ^among other
tliins.-: — between myself and membere of tlie fii'm of the Donovan firm,
which I didn't know how they would work out.
'Slv. Lackritz. Mr. Da\is, who made the initial decision to approach
the Mudge, Rose firm ?
Mr. Davis. I did.
Mr. Lackritz. But that was not initially suggested by Mr. Maheu?
Mr. DA^^s. The Mudge, Rose firm was one of several that was men-
tioned in this conference about the possible desirability of switching
law firms.
!Mr. IxVckritz. And then you decided — —
Mr. Davis. I don't know who was first to mention the existence
or availability of the Mudge, Rose firm. I knew them, T knew members
of tliat firm, and I then thought and I still think highly of them, and
I indicated in that conference that they were a firm that certainly de-
served consideration if we were goiuir to change from the Donovan
firm to anothei- New York City law firm.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Did you and Mr. ]\Iaheu have any discus-
sions about the advisabilitv of approaching Mudge, Rose firm because
a former partner was President of the Ignited States?
^Ir. Davis. I just finished telling you. YouVe turning in the reverse
position, that there came a point in time
Mr. Lackritz. I'm just asking if Mr. INIaheu ever indicated that to
you ?
Mi-, Davis. No. Mi-. Maheu indicated to me that he did not think
tliat it was a sufficient i-eason to disqualify or not to go with the Mudge,
Rose firm merely because one of its partners had become President of
the United States.
11582
I was advancing a number of reasons why I thoii^jht it was undesir-
able to make this switch, quite apart fi-om the fact that both firms, so
far as T am concerned, were staffed by people more than competent to
handle the kind of questions, but there were a number of reasons which
I'm not goino- to go into
Mr. Lackritz. Nor would I want you to.
Mr. Davis. Relating to the desirability or lack of desirability of
making a change. One of the reasons I advanced to Mi-. Malieu for my
not wanting to make that change was the fact that among others such
a move could be misunderstood or misconstrued. Initially Mr. Maheu
saw the mei'it of that thought or suggestion. I remember a telephone
call from him saying to me that, I have been thinking the thing over
or talked the thing over with somebody, and that he did not see any
reason why the law firm should be disqualified from consideration,
from further consideration from utilization, merely because one of its
partners had become President of the United States.
It is only in that context, and just in one conversation, that identified
the Mudge, Rose firm with the fact that Mr. Nixon had been a member
of that firm.
Mr. Lackritz. OK.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. Back on the record.
Mr. Davis. I believe I have made it clear in one of my prior ap-
pearances that the Mudge, Rose firm was not the only firm that was
under consideration. I remember very specifically, for instance, that
we also considered my former law firm, Simpson, Thatcher, and Bart-
lett, was also under consideration.
Mr. ArmstroxCx. Is that all you wanted to add ?
Mr. Davis. I believe I had answered in my prior answer that the
Mudge, Rose firm was only one of several that was discussed and under
consideration, as a result of this meeting I refei-red to.
Mr. Armstroxo. Now. ]N[r. Davis, can vou tell us if, subseciuent to
]Mr. Danner's interview with the IRS in May of 1972, Mr. Danner in-
formed you that his understanding of the purpose of the contributions
given to Mr. Rebozo was for support of the various Senate, congres-
sional campaigns in 1970?
Mr. Freedman. Well, if he testified to that effect before the Internal
Revenue Service, then Mr. Davis
Mr. Davis. No, he's asking me subsequent to that.
Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to that.
Mr. Davis. I am trying to think if I had a conversation with Mr.
Danner with respect to your question other than in connection with the
investigation that I undertook subsequent to that, and the circum-
stances were Mr. Danner was not seeking my advice, and I suppose
that the answer is ves, I believe I did have — I know I did have some
conversations with Mr. Danner subsequent to that time, and that other
than with respect to my effort to develop facts relating to litigation
I previously referred to, and other than circumstances where Mr.
Dannei- was seeking or functioning as his counsel, the answer is yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if in these conversations Mr. Dan-
ner indicated that it was his undei-standing that someone else other
than Mr. Danner was to specify which campaigns were to be supported ?
11583
Mr. Davis. I cannot tell you what Mr. Banner's understanding
about anything is. The only thing I can recall is conversations I had
with Mr. Danner.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did Mr. Danner infoiTn you that it was his
understanding when he gave the contribution to Mr. Rebozo that it
was not up to him to select which campaigns were to be-
Mr. Freedmax. Wait a minute. Which campaigns or which candi-
dates in the 1970 campaign ?
Mr. Armstrong. The campaigns of whatever candidates. It wasn't
up to him to select the candidates' campaigns that were going to re-
ceive the money in 1970.
Mr. Davis. Let me understand what your question is, please.
Now, what is it you Avant to know ?
Mr. Armstrong. ^VTiat I want to know is if Mr. Danner ever told
you subsequent to May 10, 1972 that Avhen he gave the money to Mr.
Rebozo for the 1970 congressional campaigns, it was his understand-
ing, that is, Mr. Danner's understanding that it was not up to him,
Mr. Danner, to select the candidates to whom the money was to be
given.
Mr. Davis. My problem is the question.
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. Why didn't you ask that of Mr.
Danner when he was here for 6 days ?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I believe that was asked of Mr. Danner.
Mr. Freedman. Well, you've got the answer.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm asking Mr. Davis. I'm trying to corroborate
Mr. Danner's testimony.
Mr. Davis. ]\Iy problem with your question is that as you phrase
it. I don't know whether you are asking me about what took place
when the money was delivered or what IVIr. Danner told me with re-
spect to the facts and circumstances which led up to the delivery of
the money. That is my problem with your question. "WHien you say when
he delivered the money. I — that is giving me difficulty in answering
you.
Mr-. Armstrong. Well, I'm asking if Mr. Danner ever made any state-
ment to you on the subject of who it was that was to select the candi-
dates that were to receive money from this contribution for Mr.
Rebozo?
Mr. Davis. There's no question that Mr. Danner told me that in
connection with that $50,000 initial delivery, and the subsequent
$50,000 delivery to INIr. Rebozo, that it was for the purpose of con-
tributing toward congressional campaigns in 1970 to be selected by
the administration, as I understood it. No individual was mentioned,
but that he was not — that he did not intend to and had not said that
this was for Mr. A or Mr. B., or Mr. C, as such.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. And did Mr. Danner also indicate tliat he
was at a later time supposed to be furnished with a list of those
candidates that had been supported ?
Mr. Davis. No. that is not mv under-standing of what Mr. Danner
said to me in sever-al conversations that I had with him in the area
that I am able to testify.
Mr. Freedman. I think you should have asked that of Mr. Danner.
I don't recall you asking that of Mr. Danner.
11584
Mr. Davis. It was my understandino: that what Mr. Danner told
me was if and when he wanted to know who had received any part
of tliat money, that he would be informed, but I don't recall his ever
sayint; to me that he had an understanding with anybody that he
was goino; to be fui'nished with a list at any pai-ticular point in time.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when it was that Mr. Danner first
informed you that the candidates wlio were to be supported were to
be selected by someone other than himself? How soon after the
May 10, 1972 meeting it was ?
Mr. Davis. I cannot tell you how soon it was thereafter. The con-
versation I had with Mr. Danner following: his testimonv before IRS,
at which I was present, when he told me what I testified alwut, that
is the way I always understood what Mr. Danner was savin": to me.
and I think I understand it pretty clearly.
Mr. Freedmax. Wait a minute. I think this record ou^ht to indi-
cate, as far as I can recollect — and I have been following this pretty
close — you never asked Mr. Danner these questions, and I think it
is highly improper, unless you can show me on the record where you
asked him, to now ask a witness as to what Mr. Danner told him when
you haven't asked Mr. Danner directly.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, I don't have the transcripts. Mr. Lackritz
does. I would wait until he returns and show them to you if you like,
but I would like to ask Mr. Davis if he recalls that conversation took
place in calendar year 1072.
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes, I believe that it would be. I don't remember.
I don't have a date in mind with respect to the conversations that you
a.re inquirins: about and with respect to which I have testified, but
I would think it would have occured duriiiir the year 1972.
Mr. Armstrong. OK, Mr. Davis, can you tell us when you first
became aware that^
Mr. Davis. I think it occurred fairly shortly after the date of the
mS interview. How soon after or how much lonirer thei-eafter, I
just don't have any recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when you first learned that Mr.
Danner was to meet or had met with Mr. Rebozo on Mav 18 and
May 20. 1978 ?
Mr. Davis. The dates don't mean a thinir to me.
Mr. Armstrong. This is a meeting in Washington with Mr. Rebozo
followed by the meeting at Camp David 2 days later with Mr. Rebozo
and the President.
Mr. Davis. You mean apart from what he testified to when he was
here ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Ml-. Davis. Well, the first time I heard about that I guess was
when I discussed his appeai-ance here in connection with his testimony,
and I think what I discovered during that period of time was priv-
ileged, other than what you know, and the extent to whicli I over-
lieard it. If you are asking foi- a period prior to that, the onlv time
I would have discussed anything with respect to that would have been
in conversation
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me ask you a question that might make
it easier and save Mr. Freedman anv anguisli. Can vou tell me if Mr.
11585
Danner had informed you, by the time that you originally talked with
Mr. Geminill in June of 1973, that he had met with Mr, Rebozo in
May of 1973?
Mr. FREp:Di\rAN. Why don't you ask the question this way? If you
haven't testified before, Mr. Davis, when did Mr. Danner tell you
to call — that you might expect a call from Mr. Gemmill with respect
to the i-eturn of the money ? Is that the question ?
Mr. Armstroxg. No, that has nothino; to do with the question.
Mr. Freedman. Well, I don't know what you're trying to get at.
I thought that's what it was.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me ask it and listen to it and we'll all
know.
Mr. Freedmats'. Hopefully.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if prior to your first call from Mr.
Gemmill, youi' first conversation with Mr. Gemmill
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. If Mr. Danner had informed you that
he had met with Mr. Rebozo in Washington, D.C., in May of 1973 ?
Mr. Davis. Xo.
Mr. Armstrong. And prior to that first call from Mr. Gemmill,
had Mr. Danner informed you that he had met with the President
at Camp David in May of 1973 ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Now. I would like to ask the question that Mr.
Freedman thought I was putting before, and that is, can you tell us
when Mr. Danner first informed you that you can expect that he
was expecting a call from Mr. Gemmill ?
Mr. Davis. That who was expecting a call ?
Mr. Armstrong. That Mr. Gemmill was — Mr. Danner was expect-
ing a call from Mr. Gemmill ?
Mr. Davis. He never told me that that I know of.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Can you tell us Avhen you first learned that
Mr. Rebozo was trying to retui'n the money to Mr. Danner?
Mr. Davis. It was in a telephone call that I received from Mr.
Danner.
]Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us approximately when that was ? Can
you place a date on that ?
[Mr. Davis nods in the negative.]
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the substance of ]Mr. Danner's
call was, what he indicated at that time?
Mr. Davis. He told me that he had been approached, and that there
was a desire — I don't remember if he mentioned the name of Rebozo
in the telephone conversation. He referred to the moneys he had de-
livered which I was aware of in the IRS hearing. However he did that,
I don't remember. And that either I was to call or I should expect a
call from a Mr. Gemmill who wanted to make arrangements for the re-
turn of the money, and — oh, he also said to me that he had been ap-
proached, I don't believe he told me who had approached him, or he
may have, and that he had said that he had referred the matter to me,
and I said fine. I will take it from there.
Mr. Armstrong. And did Mr. Danner indicate why he, himself, did
not want to have any further discussions about whoever had ap-
proached him about the return of the money ?
11586
Mr. Davis. As to why he referred the matter to me ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. No. He just informed me that something had come up
that he had referred the matter to me, and I said fine.
Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me. AYe'll take a 10-minute recess.
Mr. Davis. He may have said somethiiif; about T don't know who to
refer this to and I thou^jht that you probably were the best person
to refer it to and that if you're not the ri^lit pei'son, you do something
about it, something to that effect. I don't remember liis exact words.
All I know is I received this call where he told me the substance of
what I disclosed to you and he told me he had referred the matter to
me and I said fine.
Mr. Armstrong. He didn't indicate any specific reason why he felt
it would be inappropriate for him to conduct any further conversa-
tions ?
Mr. Davis. That it would be inappropriate for him ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Good. Lets' take a 10-minute recess.
[Eecess.l
Mr. Davis. Mr. Armstrong, I think I should clarifv my last answer.
IVlien I said no, T should say I do not recall in that telephone conversa-
tion, but I must say that it could have been in a telephone conversation.
I am having difficulty remembering when it was that Mr. Danner in
effect said to me he didn't know what to do with the money if it was
returned to him, and that is why he was referring the matter to me.
He might have said in the telephone conversation, he might have told
me that after the telephone conversation, I remember ISIr. Danner tell-
ing me that. Just when he exactly told me that, I cannot say for a
certainty.
Mr. Armstrong. What was the next thing that happened regarding
the $100,000 contribution after your conversation with Mr. Danner?
Mr. Freedman. I think he has covered that on December 4, 1973.
Mr. Davis. "\^niich he probably hasn't read.
Mr. BuRSTEiN. The whole thing has been covered.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you give me the pages ?
Mr. BuRSTEiN. Pages 1 to 10.
Mr. Freedman. Pages 1 to 10.
Mr. Armstrong. This is the
Mr. Burstein. It's the afternoon session of December 4.
Mr. Armsti{Ong. Well, my question still stands. What was the next
event that hap])ened regarding — there's nothing here that indicates to
me what the next event after that phono call was.
Mr. Freedman. If it is so important and the witness remembers
Mr. Davis. I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Gemmill.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you have more than one phone conversa-
tion with Mr. Gemmill ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, I've had more than one telephone conversation with
Mr. Gemmill.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. The first conversation, I gather, was the one
you described on December 4 in which Mr. Genmiill asked you if you
would take back the money.
11587
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't have it from my testimony from Decem-
ber 4, but I do know that the next thin^ that happened after I
received that call from Mr. Danner Avas a telephone conversation with
Mr. Gemmill which I know I previously described in another session.
Mr. Armstroxg. OK, now ; subsequent to the return of the money,
did you provide ]Mr. Gemmill with ^Slr. Danner's affidavit which
amended his previous testimony before the Internal Revenue Service ?
Mr. Davis. It is my recollection that I did, and I believe I so
testified previously.
Mr. Armstrong. I think your testimony before was to the question
of having provided a copy of the original
Mr. Da\t:s. Well, if you'll take the time to read more of my prior
testimony, you'll find that I also referred to a request for that cor-
recting affidavit. I believe I also testified that I asked Mr. Danner if
he had any objection to furnishing to ]Mr. Gemmill, and when he told
me he did not, I made it available to Mr. Gemmill,
Mr. Armstrong. This was a request from Mr. Gemmill ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, I believe it was.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Did you ever have any conversation directly
with Mr. Rebozo regarding the return of the money ?
Mr. Davis. Not with respect to the return of the money or the
arrangements for the return of the money. I have a recollection of
having a telephone convei^sation, I believe it was with ]Mi". Rebozo at a
time when I was in Mr. Gemmill's office conducting an investigation
relative to my desires to obtain information related to the issues that
were involved in the Maheu litigation.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you just tell us when that was, sir?
Mr. Davis. I cannot give you a date, no.
Mr. Armstrong. Was it after Mr. Gemmill — was it after the money
had been inspected in the safetv deposit box — I believe it was around
October 10?
Mr. Davis. No. I don't relate it to the — see. I was not involved,
personally involved in connection with the actual receipt of the money.
I had made arrangements with Mr. Glaeser in my office to receive the
money.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm referring to the inspection of the money by
the Internal Revenue Service in October. Do you Iniow if it was before
that date?
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't associate the two events together. It was
sometime during a period when I developed a sense of curiosity in
connection with the investigation I was conducting, and I was trying
to obtain as much information as I could with respect to the origin and
source of those funds, the connection with the investigation I was then
conducting, part of the investigation I was then conducting with
respect to the accountability of Mr. Maheu with money he had
obtained.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what ]\Ir. Rebozo related to you on
the phone on that occasion ?
Mr. Daates. Mr. Freedman, I have no objection to going into it, but
I don't want to in any way, shape or form waive any part of my work
product privilege for fear that if I do I lose it all. And that is my con-
cern, sir, with respect to giving you any part of any information I
obtained while engaged in those activities.
11588
So I want to avoid the possibility that on some subsequent occasion,
well, now, you testified with respect to that and therefore you want to
inquire of me everything that I obtained by way of facts and knowl-
edge as a part of my investigation.
Now, my recollection is that at the time you are referring to. I was
then engaged in, among other things, pursuing efforts that I was
engaged in with the staff that I employed in gathering facts that
would be useful in connection with the effort that I was then making
to obtain accountability from Mr. Maheu, and I don't want to waive
any part of my activities in that regard.
Mr. Armstroxg. The committee is willing in such cases, without
considering it in any way a waiver of your
Mr. Davis. Well, I know the committee is willing to. That's not my
problem. My problem is what happens to me on some subsequent
occasion when someone asks me the question of whether or not I
revealed or disclosed any part of that privileged information to third
persons, and you are a i:hird person to me, sir, unrelated to my staff.
Mr. Freedman. I will advise you, Mr. Davis, not to respond as to
what Mr. Rebozo told you in connection with your inquiry relating to
your efforts to ascertain an accountability of the moneys that Mi-.
Maheu had given.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if what Mr. Rebozo related con-
flicted with Mr. Danner's testimony before this committee?
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. That is the same question. That
raises the same problem.
Mr. Davis. To ease your mind, Mr, Danner did not testify to those
aspects that I was investigating, that I am aware of.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Is that the only conversation you have had
with Mr. Rebozo on the subject of the $100,000 contribution ?
Mr. Davis. It is my recollection that actually I was not seeking that
information from Mr. Rebozo. I was having a conversation with Mr.
Gemmill, as I recall, in his office when the call came through, and he
said to me, well, why don't you ask whatever it is you want to know
directly to Mr. Rebozo, and that is what in effect I did.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any other conversations with ]Mr.
Rebozo other than on that occasion ?
Mr. Davis. No, not that I know of.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that the only conversation since January 1, 1969,
that you've had with Mr. Rebozo on any subject that you recall ?
Mr. Davis. Insofar as I know, I never met the gentleman, I never
talked to him other than in connection with what I just have
identified.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, are you aware of any requests from Mr.
Rebozo or any agent or representative or designee of Mr. Rebozo's
including his counsel, that Mr. Hughes, any request that Mr. Hughes
considered a contribution to be a gift rather than a contribution?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Freedman. Now, wait a minute, this is where somebody on be-
half of Mr. Rebozo wanted Mr. Hughes to make that statement, and
you wanted to know whether Mr. Davis knows anything about that ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Freedman. Your answer is no?
Mr. Davis. No.
11589
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of whether or not any ag:ent or
representative or desi^jnee of Mr. Hughes has ever advised Mr. Rebozo
that he coukl consider the $100,000 a gift as opposed to a contribution?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. By that I mean a personal gift to either he or the
President as opposed to a contribution, as opj^osed to a contribution
to a political committee ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you know if Mr. Hughes has ever advised
anyone that he was willing to consider that to be a gift, a personal
gift as opposed to a contribution?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Freedman. The answer is no.
Mr. Davis. That's right.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if any report in the form of a gift
tax return has ever been filed in relationship to either of the $50,000
contributions given to Mr. Rebozo bv Mr. Hughes or anyone on his
behalf?
Mr. Freedman. Is that privileged, Mr. Davis, in your opinion?
Mr. Davis. AMiat his tax return — well, I don't have any — I mean, I
don't deal, except with respect to limited questions, I don't deal with
Mr. Hughes' tax returns. I only deal with matters that are specifically
called to my attention.
I can say to you I don't have any information indicating or tend-
ing to indicate that that was ever considered or ever done. I am not
personally knowledgeable with respect to Mr. Hughes' tax returns.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Now, are you aware of any requests from Mr.
Rebozo or any agent, representative or designee of Mr. Rebozo's for
any moneys other — or any funds other than the two $50,000 contribu-
tions which he received from Mr. Danner ?
Mr. Davis. No.
]\fr. Armstrong. And are you aware of any other funds which
]\Ii-. Hughes has: provided to Mr. Rebozo other than the two $50,000
conti'ibutions which Mr. Danner gave him ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any request on Mr. Rebozo's
part or in the part of any agent, representative or designee of Mr.
Rebozo, that Mr. Hughes or any agent, representative or designee or
employee of Mr. Hughes exchange $100 bills or provide him with any
quantity of $100 bills in return for cash or funds which he had ?
Mr. Davis. No.
]Mr. Armstrong. Regardless of the request, are you aware if that ever
happened, if $100 bills were ever exchanged
Mr. Davis. I don't know that it ever happened.
Mr. Armstrong. OK, now, can you tell us when you first became
aware that Mr. Lawrence O'Brien had been retained by Mr. Maheu on
behalf of the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Davis. AVell, I became aware of ^Ir. Maheu having first had
some conversations with Mr. O'Brien and subsequently having re-
tained the services of either Mr. O'Brien himself or Mr. O'Brien's
public relations firm in New York, from conversations I had with Mr.
Maheu which I cannot place as to date but which in the context of those
11590
conversations, took place at or about tlie time when Mr. O'Brien be-
came— Avell, it was in a conversation with Mr. INIaheu that 1 first
learned of the (leveloi)ment of a i)ossible relationship, and thereafter,
of an actual relationship with Mi'. O'Brien.
Mr. Armstron(;. Do you recall in the context of the possible rela-
tionship if Mr. ^Nlaheu informed you shortly thereafter that because
Mr. O'Brien had decided to mana<r(' oi- ('omanao;e Senator Humphrey's
campaign, that getting O'Brien on board would be delaved until some-
time in 1969 ?
Mr. Davis. My recollection is that Mr. Maheu told me that Mr.
O'Brien had decided to head some brokerage house.
Mr. Armsi'Koxc;. I believe that was subsecjiuMit to the campaign.
Mr. Davis. Well, I just have a recollection of Mr. Maheu telling me
that Mr. O'Brien was not going to be available.
Mr. Freedmax. And you cannot remember when that was.
Mr. Davis. No; not as a date. I could follow it in terms of sequence
of events.
Mr. Armstrong. You don't recall if there were one or two delays in
^Ir. O'Brien's consultancy ?
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know if there were one or two delays. All
I know is Mr. Maheu told me that he had contacted, had conversations
with Mr. O'Brien looking toward the development of a relationship
in some terms then to be negotiated. You were asking me when T first
learned about it. Subsecpiently, of course, subsequent to the termina-
tion of Mr. ]\Iaheu I then did have access and was furnished with —
I don't have the dates — an exchange of letters between Mr. Maheu and
Mr. O'Brien, and
Mr. Armstrong. These were tlie letters tliat led up to and cidminated
in the consultancy agreement ?
Mr. Davis. Well, these are the letters that reflected the arrangement
that was made. T also recall ivceiving a letter from Mr. (^'Bi'ien at
which he reviewed the — in the letter to me, of the development of his
relationship with the Hughes Tool Co. That was in connection with
the discussions he was having — T was having with Mr. O'Brien with
respect to the termination of the arrangement. That is all.
I am having diflficulty separating your <|uestion of when T first
learned of something and information that I subsequently obtained.
Ml". AR3rsTRox<;. Well, I gather there did come a time sometime in
1969 when Mr. O'Brien did begin an arrangement, a consultancv ar-
rangement that he had set u}) with Mr. Maheu. Is that correct?
Mr. Freedmax'. Do you now know? — that is the question,
Mr. Armstr()N(;. Yes.
]Mr. Davis. Do T now know that ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Yes; I know what the letters reflect, and T know that
there was a point in time when Mr. O'Bi'ien was available because I
participated in a meeting in which he was inxolved.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. Can you tell us about what the subject or sub-
jects of meetings that you took pai-t in with Mr. O'Brien when Mr.
O'Brien was a consultant to the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Davis. Well, I recall a i)articular meeting. I am not so sure it
was the only one, but it was one T do recall when thei-e was a — quite a
conversation with respect to the desirability of undertaking some kind
11591
of public relations activity to develop a public image of Mr. Hughes
in terms of his accomp-lishments rather than in terms of what had
transpired either in connection witli the TWA litigation or other mat-
ters. It was a meeting involving Mr. Maheu and ^Ir. O'Brien, myself
and others where that was discussed at some length, and it also in-
volved, as I recall, the manner in which some of the accomplishments
of the Hughes Aircraft Co. couhl be considered, how to present the
facts more accurately and more effectively than the kind of publicity
that was then taking place, which was, according to Mr. O'Brien, and
properly so, false and inaccurate by reason of what appeared in the
press and books that people wanted to publish and that sort of thing,
and he thought it would be higlily desirable if he was given actually
I think — he was discussing with Mr. Maheu and I the kinds of things
which we thought he could undertake and would be supported in
undertaking.
Mr. Armstrong. Was this meeting in New York?
Mr. Davis. Yes ; in a hotel room.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall what hotel that was, by the way ?
Mr. Davis. I can't remember the name of the hotel.
Mr. Freedmax. Does it make any difference, really?
Mr. Armstrong. I think it helps specify what meeting we are talk-
ing about.
Mr. Freedman, I don't see how it does that.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Edward Morgan was present at
that meeting?
Mr. Da\t:s. Yes ; at least he was present during part of the meeting,
but he was also there. There were a number of people there and that
was a meeting which subsequently also became involved in this question
of the use of or possible change in counsel in the TWA case.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if Mr. O'Brien represented the Hughes
Tool Co. in any matter before the Federal Government or had any con-
tact with Federal agencies or employees?
Mr. Davis. As far as I know, he never did.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, Mr. Davis, your knowledge of the
cii'cumstances which led to the termination of the arrangement be-
tween Ml". O'Brien and the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Freedman. Now, look, I think this — we are entitled and particu-
larly, we are entitled to show how this line of inquiry has anything
whatsoever to do with the Presidential campaign of 1972, and unless
you show us without something that maybe will tie it up and maybe
we've got something in the back of our mind and explain rationally on
the record any rational, reasonable connection, I will advise the witness
not to answer. I think we've gone far enough and have been indulgent
enough ; that this is a complete fishing expedition that for some ex-
traneous reason outside of a person's curiosity about Mr. O'Brien
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Freedman. Do you
really have difficulty understanding how an investigation into the cir-
cumstances that led to the break-in to the premises of Mr. O'Brien's
office, and what part of a plan that allegedly included a plan, was to
be financed by the Hughes Tool Co., given the circumstances ?
Mr. Freedman. You show me the evidence that says there was any
financing by the Hughes Tool Co., of the break-in of Mr. O'Brien's of-
11592
fices, which I think is what you just said — you show mo that and we'll
go aliead.
Mr. Armstrox(?. Mr. Freedman. if you do not show mo tho courtesy
of listenino; to what I am going to say, I don't know why I should ad-
dress you. Can you answer my question. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Freedman. Well, I am — I'm tolling him that unless you show
there's some relevancy
Mr. Armstroxo. Well, if you Avish to instruct the witness not to an-
swer, would you please do that ? The question is so clearly relevant I'm
absolutely flabbergasted
INfr. Freedmax. I am flabbergasted by this line of inquiry.
Mr. Daat^s. What's the question ?
Mr. Armstrong. The question is: If you can tell us the circum-
stances that led to Mr. O'Brien's termination, the termination of the
arrangement between Mr. O'Brien and the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Davis. Let's go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Freedman. All right, back on the record. Maybe it's faster to
answer the question than to keep arguing about it.
Mr. Davis. I don't understand the question; that is my problem.
Mr. Armstrong. The question is, can you tell us the circumstances
which led to the termination of the arrangement
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know what you mean by the circumstances
which led to — I had conversations with INIr. O'Brien in Avhich ho in-
dicated, as it turned out, he did not feel that he w^as or had been per-
mitted to, in the sense of undertaking or launching the kind of pro-
grams that had previously boon discussed, and that he thought that
while he would always — he always would remain available on some
basis — the fair thing to discuss was termination, which we did. and we
terminated, and I think it is reflected in tho correspondence I had Avith
him.
But I had conversations with him with respect to it when folloAving
the termination of Mr. Maheu and after the discovery, as far as I was
concerned, of the letters which had boon exchanged and the- -I had a
conversation with Mr. O'Brien.
You see, tho thing you must underst;iiid is. going back to (liat moot-
ing I referred to a moment ago, IVIr. O'Brien and at that point in time.
Ml-. INfaheu was tending to indicate that the Hughes Tool Co. and Mr.
Hughes. I believe also HHINII and HHC wore willinf? to sponsor, par-
ticipate in oi- support an effort to bi-ing about what the true facts were
instead of havins? the public misled as the contention was. they were
being misled bv newspaper accounts and by these irrational books that
were being published which did not fairly reflect what the facts were,
and he was pointing out all tho kinds of things. Avondorful tliiii.frs. he
was putting it that HHC had d(me, that ITua:hes had done, that HHMI
was doing, that the public didirt know anything about, and he thought
that something ought to be done about it.
And I Avas pointing out that it Avas my underetandin.fi^ to that point
in time that Mr. Plughes had chosen not to seek publicity Avith i-e-
spect to any of his achiovomonts oi- the achievements of ;nn' of his
companies. Mr. Maheu Avas in effect saying. Avell, he thought that there
had been a change in philosophy, and he thought that tho point had
11593
been reached when Mr. Hughes would be willinjgr to permit those kinds
of activities, and in fact nothing developed.
And so when I had my conversation with Mr. O'Brien he in effect
was saying, well, he and his organization had come aboard to do a job
and he did not feel what he had felt that he had done some things
which he described, that he was not doing enough of what he thougfht
O'Brien and Associates were capable of doing and should be doing.
And I told him that I didn't think there was any likelihood that the
policies which had prevailed in the past insofar as T was concerned —
I had seen no indication that they were about to change, irrespective
of what Mr. Maheu might have told him.
And he felt if, in fact, that was going to be so, he thought that
we ought to discuss termination of the arrangement because he didn't
see the ]5oint of getting paid for nothing.
Mr. Armstroxg. j\Ir. O'Brien was on a fixed retainer so that he re-
ceived fees regardless of the services provided.
Mr. Freedman. If you know.
Mr. Davis. I don't know, but my understanding is that he was re-
ceiving an amount in accordance with the terms of those letters ex-
changed that I referred to. I believe at the time of my conversation
with Mr. O'Brien no payment had been made for some period of time
and one of the questions was, what should we do about it, some kind
of a — T don't know whether or not he had Avritten the letter that
was referred to me, or just exactly how the subject came up, but that
is basically the way the circumstances developed, that ended up with
a termination of the arrangement with Mr. O'Brien. That was it.
Mr. Armstroxg. Thank you.
Mr. ScHtT^Tz. Do you Icnow the amount paid Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Davis. I don't think I could be accurate about it now. Yes, I did
know at the time. The letter reflects it. I don't remember exactly what
it is now. And if you Avill recall, I was subpenaed and produced my
files with respect to the arrangements with Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. ScHULTz. That is correct.
Ml-. Armstrong. Do you know, did Mr. Bennett, Robert Bennett of
Mullen & Co. to your knowledge ever inquire as to what the terms
of the arrangement between Hughes Tool Co. and Mr. O'Brien were?
Mr. Davis. Wliat was the question ?
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Bennett ever inquire into what the ar-
rangements were between the Hughes Tool Co. and Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Davis. I believe that there were conversations, and I believe
I had a conversation with Mr. Bennett sometime after his services
were retained for — as Washington i-epresentative of Hughes Tool Co.,
who was inquiring as to what was the nature and scope of our re-
lationship with Mr. O'Brien and O'Brien and Associates. That was
wlien I recall, when we picked up the pieces, so to speak, after the
termination of Mr. Maheu and when arrangements were made with
Mr. Bennett as to who was going to be responsible for what aspects of
it, and I think at that time he did — somebody was inquiring of me,
I believe Mr. Bennett — I am almost positive that that conversation
with Mr. Bennett with respect to what the nature and the scope of
our arrangement with Mr. O'Brien was.
Mr. Armstrong. This would have been at the very last part of 1970
or early 1971 ?
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 21
11594
Mr. Davts, It would not have been in 1970.
Mr, Armstrong. Tt was subsequent to Mr. Maheu's termination in
December 1970.
INIr. Davis. Oh, yes, It was subsequent to tlie arran^rements that
were made with Mr. Bennett for assuminfj the responsibility himself
and whatever staff he had
Mr. Armstrong. For public relations?
Mr. Davts. Yes, public relations and bein^ — because that was sup-
posed to have been one of the areas covered by the prior arrangements
with Maheu and Associates.
Mr. Armstrong. There was a small overlap between ]Mr. Bennett
assumed — when his arrano;ement began and when Mr. O'Brien's ter-
minated, was there not ?
Mr. Freedman. If you remember.
Mr. Davis. Well, you would have to g^ive me the dates. I don't have
any clear recollection of just exactly when either of those two events
occurred.
Mr. ScHULTz. Scott, I think you're confusing the O'Brien termina-
tion and the Maheu termination and the takeover.
Mr. Armstrong. I said there was a small overlay) between when Mr.
Bennett began his arranc:ement and when Mr. O'Brien terminated his
arrangement. That was the question, wasn't it ?
Mr. Freedman. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. OK, well let's let it stand. At any rate, Mr. Davis
doesn't know. Now, do you recall, INIr. Davis, if you were aware prior
to the calendar year 1973 of any relationship between any employees
or representatives of the Hughes Tool Co. and Mr. Donald Xixon —
F. Donald Nixon, the President's brother?
Mr. Davis. Well, if I understand your question correctly, of an em-
ployee of the Hughes Tool Co., the answer is no, I do not know. I have
never heard of any relationship between an employee of the Plughes
Tool Co. and F. Donald Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. How about an employee of Eobert ]\Iaheu and
Associates?
Mr. Davis. I was aware of — INfi-. Maheu has told me of Mi-. John
Meier and our effoi-ts that involved him, efforts that involved Mr.
F. Donald Nixon.
Mr-. Armstrong. And can you tell us when Mr. Malieu might have
informed you of that ?
Mr. Davis. Well, again, I don't relate things with dates. I relate
events. Even the sequence of events, it was at a time when Mr. Maheu
was expresssing to me a concern which he had or which was develop-
ing because of the activities that either Meier and Donald Nixon were
involved in. I remember a particular conversation when contrary —
Maheu was telling me, efforts that he had made, or was supposed to
have made, urging Mr. Meier to sever at least his business relation-
ships, whatever thev wei-e, with Mr. Nixon, nevertheless havino- met
Mr. Nixon at some airoort. Now, liow he knew that, I don't know.
But I i-emember his telling me that and expressing concera with re-
spect to Ml". Meier.
Mr, Maheu was very high on Mr. Meier at one point and then ap-
parently became disenchanted about Mr. Meiei-. or at least that is what
he was — that is what he was telling me.
11595
Mr. Armstrong. At any time did you become aware of any requests
or any concern expressed by Mr. Rebozo or by representatives of the
Nixon administration about the relationship between Mr. Meier and
Mr. F.Donald Nixon?
Mr. Freedman. All right, now, listen. This was gone into in great
detail with other witnesses, and I don't want to have to keep going over
and over it.
Mr. Davis. I never heard of that other than my familiarity with
what has been disclosed or revealed in testimony in these proceedings
and comparable proceedings, so many of them are going on. I have no
awareness of any concern.
Mr. Armstrong. Independent of these hearings or of media reports
on the subject.
Mr. Davis. Independent, no. None other than these hearings and
comparable hearings.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Davis, were you aware of any involvement
that Mr. Donald Nixon had in the acquisition of Air West ?
Mr. Davis. As far as I know, he was not involved at all.
Mr. Freedman. Now, I will just make the statement I don't know
what that has got to do with the 1972 Presidential campaign.
Mr. Armstrong. The answer is "No" to the question ?
Mr. Davis. I don't understand the question to begin with.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, are you aware of any role that Mr. Donald
Nixon had and his involvement in the acquisition of Air West by
Hughes Tool Co.?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did anyone ever tell you that he was claiming or
felt that he deserved a finder's fee in that acquisition ?
Mr. Davis. That ]\Ir. Donald Nixon was claiming a finder's fee?
Mr, Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. I don't believe anybody ever told me that. There is —
well, it didn't involve — a character is the best way you can refer to
him, who was making an assertion about claiming he had something
to do with Air West or claiming a finder's fee, but the name Donald
Nixon as far as I know didn't come up in that story. Wliat he was
telling me was so phony that it was unbelievable.
Mr. Armstrong. Are you referring to Mr. Murray ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, Mr. Murray.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, can you tell us when you first became aware
of any allegations involving the plan to break into the premises of
Herman Greenspun ?
]\Ir. Davis. I think there was some reference in the newspapers
about it, or someone called me about he had heard some testimony of
Hunt or somebody like that is my best recollection of it. It is the
first time I ever became aware of someone making any
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall attending a board meeting in Encino,
Calif., and receiving a call, a message from your New York office that
there was a reporter that wished to talk to you about an alleged in-
terview given bv Mr. Bennett relating to material in Mr. Greenspun's
safe?
Mr. Davis. Yes, I remember the board meetings that I was attending
in Encino when I received the message or an inquiry. I think some
newspaper reporter was trying to reach me.
11596
Mr. Armstrong. Would that have been the occasion during this
hoard meeting? Wonkl that have been the occasion of wlien you first
learned of these allegations ?
Mr. Freedman. Allegations? What allegations?
The witness testified that the first time he heard about, it was when
he either read it or somebody told him that there was some testimony
someplace by Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm ti*ying to refresh his recollection.
Mr. Davis. Well, what you're referring to in my recollection there
was with respect to an alleged interview or statement that was at-
tributed to Mr. Bennett by some newspaper reporter where some
newspaper reportei' was trying to reach me, and what my recollection
is, that at some point in time— and that, so far as I'm concerned, had
nothing to do with other than some alleged interview or statement
that some newspaper was trying to track down.
Wliat I am referring to is I have a vague recollection of someone
either calling me or sending me or telling me in connection with the
Senate committee hearings that Mr. Hunt had testified to something
or other, Hunt or maybe ISIr. Liddy, I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. McCord ?
Mr. Davis. It could have been Mr. ISIcCord.
Mr. Armstrong. And this would have been in 1973 ?
Mr. Davis. Whenever that took place.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, do you recall if the — in the instance you are
referring to, if he referred, whatever inquiry touched it oflf, to Mr.
Richard, !Mr. Hanna, Mr. Richard Hanna?
Mr. Davis. No. You are confusing two things.
I referred this inquiry from this newspaper reporter at the time that
I was in Encino at these board meetings, to Mr. Hanna, as I often-
times did when newspaper reporters were tryina: to reach me about
something or other. I sometimes would call Mr. Hanna and ask him to
try to find out what it was all about.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall some mention of it prior to that
time ?
Mr. Davis. The two are unrelated to me. What you are referring to
and my conversation with Mr. Hanna was the result of an inquiry that
was passed on to me by mv office that some newspaper reporter was try-
ing to reach me about Mr. Bennett having had some kind of an inter-
view or havin.o- made some statement to soine newspai^er re]:)orter.
Wliat I told you before was that I don't know when one event oc-
curred with the other because the two, so far as I am concerned, were
separate events, is that somebody told me about some testimonv being
given, whether it was Mr. McCoi-d or INIr. Hunt or Mr. Liddv, T don't
know, when testifying in public hearings, made a reference to a plan
relating to Mr. Greenspim and his safe.
Mr. Armstrong. Can vou tell us when you first heard of anv alleged
meetingfs between Mr. Winte and Mv. Hunt or any other re]:)resentative
of the Committee To Re-Elect the Pi'esident, regarding the break-in of
]Mr. Greenspim 's safe ?
Mr. Freedman. If that happened.
Mr. Davis. Yes. There came a point in time when Mr. Winte con-
sulted me with respect to interviews that either he had been asked to
11597
be interviewed by the FBI out of the Special Prosecutor's office, and
that is when I had the conversation with Mr. Winte relating to that
event.
Mr. Armstroxg. Was this May 1973, sir, about the time of Mr. Mc-
Cord's testimony publicly ?
]SIr. Davis. No. My conversation with !Mr. Winte related to his hav-
ing been contacted, and his inquiry to me about holding that interview,
and the desirability or lack of desirability of having someone there. I
told him to go ahead and be interviewed and tell them whatever he
knew.
]Mr. Armstrong. That is the first time you ever spoke to Mr. Winte
about his meeting with Mr. Hunt ?
Mr. Davis. Tliat is my recollection of the first time that I had a de-
tailed conversation with Mr. Winte. It was after, I think, he had
been interviewed by the FBI, but when it is in point of time I just
don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if he had spoken to Mr. Gay or any-
one else prior to that point in time ?
Mr. Freedman. Well, how would he know whether he had talked to
Mr. Gay unless he was present when Mr. Winte talked to Gay ?
Mr. Armstrong. I said you talked to him.
Mr. Davis. Well, I had conversations with Mr. Gay following my in-
terview with ISIr. Winte, yes, but in connection with what I just
described.
Mr. Armstrong. Prior to your conversation with Mr. Winte, did
you have a conversation with Mr. Gay on that subject ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, can you tell r.s what ]Mr. Winte told you at
that time ?
ISIr. Davis. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that within the attorney-client privilege?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Winte relate to you conversations that he
had with INIr. Hunt which involved a plan, a potential plan tq break
into the premises of ISIr. Greenspun which would be a crime and there-
fore not covered by the attorney-client privilege?
Mr. DA\^s. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Winte was not involved
in criminal conduct.
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute, let's get this exception to the attor-
ney-client privilege correct.
Mr. Davis. What he's saying is that criminals don't have a right to
consult an attorney, but he's not an attorney.
Mr. BuRSTEiN. That's the exception to it. Thafs Avrong.
Mr. Armstrong. I am referring to a conversation in perpetuation
of — in which Mr. Winte may have indicated that he had not brought
forth information when previously required by the FBI or any other
Federal agency.
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. If you are asking the witness what
Mr. Winte told him, I think it is covered by the attorney-client
privilege.
jVIr. Armstrong. Well, did vou discuss with us, Mr. Davis, on Octo-
ber 10, 1973, the fact that :Mr. Winte had told you that he had met with
two men in California, and that they had asked about a possible ar-
11598
rangement that oonld be made for the use of an executive aircraft of
the Hughes Tool Co. in return foi' whatever it is that they might have
found in Mr, Greenspun's safe that could be of interest to tlie Hughes
Tool Co.?
Mr. Freedman. Now, wait a minute. You are reading from some-
thing, Mr. Armstrong. Would you mind telling us what it is ?
Mr. Armstroxg. I'm reading from the notes of an interview of
October 10, 197'^), with Mr. Chester Davis, at which Mr. Richmond
Anderson w^as present, purportedly taking down a verbatim transcript
for Mr. Davis' benefit.
Mr. Davis. Well, the same is true with respect to your prior question
relating to political contributions. I don't know what your're talking
about. If you show me Avhat it is I previously testified about
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I just read it and I'm asking if you — did
you tell us that ?
Mr. Davis. No; because you're taking things out of context. You
apparently don't understand what you read to begin with, and you are
construing whatever it is that you are construing in a manner which
I cannot recognize. Now, if you can show me what it is that you think
I said on a prior ocassion, I will be glad to try to explain it to you.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, can you tell me whether or not you recall
saying what I just read to you ? It's a yes-or-no question.
Mr. Davis. No; not in the way that you are para phasing it.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what you recall saying to us on
that occasion ?
Mr. Davis. No ; I don't recall. I answered your question.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, how- do you know you don't recall saying
exactly what I just read ?
Mr. Davis. I am telling you what you just read is false. Is that clear
enough ?
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall telling us that Mr. Winte had told
you that he had met with Mr. Hunt in Mr. Bennett's office ?
Mr. Davis. No ; I don't recall that aspect of it. I do recall having
been told that Mr. Winte had met Mr. Hunt, but I don't know in
what context you are referring to it, so unless you can show me what
it is, what testimony I g^ive, then I cannot explain to you what it is
that you are referring to.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall discussing this subject with us at
all on October 10, 1978? '
Mr. Davis. Discussing what subject?
Mr. Armstrong. Tlie subject of Mr. Winte's conversations with you
regarding his prior conversations with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Davis. I recall some questions about Mr. Winte, but I can't
place them in context, that's my problem.
Mr. Armstrong, I am not going to waive the attorney-client privi-
lege. There are conversations which may have taken place which I
regarded then and would also regard now as being outside of the
attorney-client privilege, but not the way you are asking the question.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, didn't you discuss this with us on a prior
occasion and didn't you waive privile2:e at that time?
INIr. DA^TS. You say discuss this. I don't know what you're talking
about until you show jno what it is that you claim that I have said, and
11599
then I will tell you whether or not that refreshes my recollection of
havino; said something.
Mr. Armstrong. Is it or is it not a fact that von discussed this with
us on October 10, 1973?
Mr. Davis. Discussed what, sir?
Mr. Armstrong. Discussed your conversation with Mr, Winte in
Avhich he discussed with you his conversation with Mr. Himt regard-
ing a l)reak-in to Heraian Greenspun's office ?
]\Ir. Davis, I don't have any independent recollection of that at this
time, but that may have taken place, and if you show me what was
said at that time, I am sure I will be able to explain it to you.
Mr. Armstrong. Didn't you. in fact, waive the privilege at that time
by discussing that with us?
Mr. DAV^s. I don't believe I did, I never intended to, and I don't
think I did.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall on October 10, 1973, Mr. Davis, tell-
ing us in substance that the firet time you found out this desire to make
a deal to provide an aircraft in return for finding whatever it was to
be found in Greenspun's safe was when Davis received a phone call
from Winte saying he was about to be interviewed by the FBI out of
Cox's office, and asked if Davis thought he should have an attorney
present ?
Mr. Da\t:s. I recall receiving a telephone call from Mr. Winte when
he informed me that he had been contacted by the FBI out of the
special prosecutor's office and I referred to that a moment ago. I don't
know what the date of it was.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you tell Mr. Winte that you did not see a
need for him to have an attorney and that he should tell the FBI what-
ever he knew about it ?
Mr. Davis. Yes ; there is no question that I told Mr. Winte that I
didn't see any need or reason for an attorney being present in connec-
tion with an interview by the FBI.
Mr. Armstrong. And that the occasion of that phone call was the
first time that ]Mr. Winte had told you that he had met with ]\Ir. Hunt
and ]Mr. Liddy in California, and that they had asked about a possible
ai-rangement that could be made for the use of an executive aircraft of
the Hughes Tool Co. in return for whatever it is that they may have
found in Mr. Greenspun's safe^
Mr. Davis. That's inaccurate.
Mr. Armstrong. That could be of interest to the Hughes Tool Co.
IMr. Davis. Xo. sir, no, sir. that is not true.
]\Ir. Armstrong. And did you tell us at that time that ]VIr. Winte told
you that he does not knoAv where Mr. Greenspun's office is?
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Mr. Da\t:s. At that time refers to when ? "\^nien he asked me whether
or not he should be interviewed by the FBI ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Xo, sir, I don't recall any such thing.
Mr. Freedman. Wait a minute. You're starting to get into the law-
yer-client relationship.
Mr. Davis. No, no, no. He's referring to what it is that Mr. Winte
said to me in connection with — and at that point I did not get in-
11600
volved in ffivin^ advice to Mr. "Winte or anything else. I told him that
if the FBI wanted to talk to him about anything, there was no reasoai
why, based upon everHhin^ that I knew, he could not talk to him. and
he did not need a lawyer. He was askinjx me about it.
Mr. Armstroxg. T)o you recall on any occasion that Mr. "Winte asked,
sayin<r that he did not know where Mr. Greenspun's office is?
Mr. Davis. What's the question?
INIr. Armstrong. Do you recall on any occasion that Mr. Winte told
you that he did not know" where Mr. Greenspun's office is?
Mr. Davis. Yes; I believe Mr. Winte told me that at some point in
time.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall ISIr. Winte at any time told you
that he went to Mr. Gay about the plan and that it was turned down
and that that was the end of it?
Mr. Davis. I don't know anything about the plan.
Mr. Armstrong. The plan to break into the premises of Mr.
Greenspun.
Mr. DA\^s. No ; I do not recall it in that context.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what context you do recall it in?
Mr. Freedman. If it is not lawyer-client privilege.
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know Avhat you're talking about, that's my
problem. You are trying to say that I said something in a prior in-
terview, and until you tell me or show me what it is that you claim
that I said in the prior interview, I am not going to be in the position
to explain to you what it is I w^as referring to or what I was describing
to you.
It is perfectly clear to me from the way you are phrasing vour ques-
tions that you are making some interpretation of things I may have
told you before which are completely erroneous.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I'm giving you an opportunity to correct that
interpretation.
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know what your interpretation is. I am tell-
ing vou what you ai-e saying is not true.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you ever recall Mr. Winte telling you he went
to talk to Mr. Gav about his conversation with ]Mr. Hunt and Mr.
Liddy?
Mr. Davis. What was the question noAv? Do I recall what?
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall Mr. Winte ever telling you that he
had gone to Mr. Gav and discussed witli him his convei^sation with
Mr. Hunt and ]Mr. Liddy?
INIr. Davis. You are asking me do I recall that other than on an oc-
casion when Mr. Winte was consulting me ? Is that what you are asking
me ?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I'm asking you if he ever
Mr. Davis. Because I'm not going to tell vou what it is that took
place wlien Mr. Winte was consulting me, OK?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did he ev(M- tell you that in any instance
when he was not consulting you ?
Mr. Da\t[s. Well, that is what I cannot remember. That is my prob-
lem. I am not saying it did not take place on some other occasion, and
that is why I am saying to you that if you had a transcript as I asked
you to have a transcript of prior hearings, and that is the problem
11601
with the improper manner in which you've been conducting these
interviews, and your refusal subsequently to furnish the person who has
testified with a transcript of those interviews.
Mr. AitMSTROXG. Mr. Davis, if you recall, it was at your request that
we allowed Mr. Anderson to sit in and make a transcript for you.
Mr. Davis. That may be. but I'm making — I don't have it with me.
Mr. Armstroxg. Well, that's your problem.
Mr. Davis. I'm making it your problem right now.
Mr. Freedmax. How did the witness know you were going to get
into that subject matter ?
Mr. Davis. I asked you and I requested that there be — that you
provide a reporter, and you refused to.
ISIr. Armstroxg. We did not have
Mr. Da\t:s. That is your problem and not mine, because apparently
all you were interested in doing is taking some notes so that after-
wards you can tell the press and others there with a distorted version
of what in fact takes place and I charge you specifically, sir, with that
very purpose. And I think you've got a record showing that you make
statements which are untrue to the press and othere. and I intend to
try to prove that at some date.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you have any knowledge you would like to put
on the record of that subject ?
Mr. Davis. I have nothing to say to you in that connection at this
time, sir.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you have any allegations to make?
Mr. Davis. When I have some to make, you will be aware of them.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you deny that you told us
Mr. Da^ts. I am not going to answer any further questions in that
area, sir.
Mr. Armstrox'^g. On what groimds ?
Mr. DA^^s. On the grounds it's none of your business, on the grounds
that you are acting illegally and improperly and you don't know what
you are doing.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you deny that you told us that Mr. Winte
Mr. Sil^^ersteix. AYait a minute, wait a minute.
Mr. Armstrox'g. Let me finish my question.
Mr. SiLY-ERSTEix. No, I will have to interrupt now. As a minority
counsel I would like to say this. You are going into an area now ag-
gravating the witness. It is reaching the point where it is getting close
to harassment of the witness, and I respectfully request that you go
to another area at this time and come back to this area when he cools
off.
Mr. ]MrsE. With all due respect, Mr. Silverstein. I think the record
speaks for itself and it will show that Mr. Armstrong has made no
efforts to harass.
Mr. Sil'\t:rsteix\ No, he hasn't, but I said it's reaching a point where
it may be in that area, and it's not harassment. I will repeat for the
record that Mr. Armstrong is not harassing the witness, but it may
reach that area.
]Mr. Armstrox'G. INIr. Davis, have you had any conversations with
Mr. Bennett regarding any contact he had with Mr. Hunt on the mat-
ter of the alleged plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's safe?
11602
Mr. Davis. Not as you phrase the question, sir.
Mr. AmrsTijoNG. Have you had any conversations with Mi-. Ben-
nett i'e<j:ar(lin<>- the aHe<<:e(l plan to break into Mr, Gi'eenspun's safe^
Mr. 1)avis. Not as you have phrased the question.
Ml". AH.>rsTi!OXG. Have you had any convei-sations with ]Mr. Bennett
about Mi-. Hunt's testiinonv before tlie Watergate committee?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Armstkong. Can you tell us what those are, sir ?
Mr. Davis. I called Mr. Bennett and asked him what it was that Hunt
referred to in the news[)aper i-e])ort. was it the Hunt that I met in his
ofhce, and he told me it was, and I asked him what he was doin<r about
it and he told me he was terminating him, or had given notice that he
was going to be terminated if he dichi't do something or other, but
that was the substance of the telephone conversation that 1 had with
Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Armstroxg. And when did that occur, sir ?
Mr. Davis. At about the time that the news broke that Mr. Hunt
had been involved in breaking in at AVatergate.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any conversation with jNIr. Bennett
about any role Mr. Hunt may have played in the alleged plan to break
into Mr. Greenspun's safe ?
Mr. Davis. Xo, sir, I never had any conversations with Mr. Ben-
nett with respect to any alleged plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's
safe, or to break in anywhere.
Mr. Freedmax. Let me get this straight. As I understand it, Mr.
Davis, after the break-in of the Watergate, there was a mention that
a j\Ir. Hunt was involved, and it was at that point in time that you
called Mr. Bennett. Is that correct?
Mr. Davis. That is correct.
Mr. Freedmax. OK.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ask Mr, Bennett on that occasion whether
he had any prior knowledge of the break-in of the Watergate to the
Democratic National Committee headquarters?
Mr. DA\^s. I don't believe I ever put that question to ^Nlr. Bennett
as such. All I remember is that when I read about ^Nlr. Hunt's involve-
ment in connection with the Watergate break-in T called Mr. Bennett
and asked him if the Mr. Hunt that was i-eferred to was the Mr, Hunt
in his office that I liad met there. He told me it was and I asked — I said,
what are you doing about it or some con\'ersatioii took place, and at
the time he told me. as T recall it, either he had given notice that the
man was through or something to that effect. But that to me, as I
recall it, was the totality of the conversation T had with Mr. Bennett
at that time.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you ask Mv. Hunt — or did you ask Mr.
Bennett if he had any knowledge, any personal knowledge of ]\Ir.
Hunt's activities in this area?
Mr. Davis. This area referring to the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Armstroxg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. T had conversations Avith ]Mr. Bennett from time to time
about the Watergate break-in and the stupidities involved in connec-
tion with it, but I never asked Mr. l^ennett what he knew about the
Watergate break-in; no, I don't recall being stupid enough to ask
that kind of a question.
11603
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Bennett Mr. Mc-
Cord's testimony before the Watergate committee?
Mr. Davis. No, I don't believe I ever discussed with Mr. Bennett
Mr. McCord's testimony, although I could very well have asked
Mr. Bennett if he had read what Mr. McCord had testified to, if
Mr. McCord is the fellow who made some reference to the Greenspun
safe. I probably had a conversation with Mr. Bennett about the actual
testimony, but as a result of what was appearing in the press and
conversations I had with Mr. Bennett with what was taking place in
the press, I undoubtedly did, but I have no specific recollection of dis-
cussing Mr. McCord's testimony. I am not aware of Mr. McCord's
testimony to begin with, in toto, I mean.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Bennett the allega-
tion that he had had conversations with Mr. Hunt regarding a break-in
to the premises of Mr. Herman Greenspun ?
Mr. Freedman. AVhat allegations?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, among others, allegations that Mr. McCord
made.
Mr. Freedman. Do you know what he's talking about, Mr. Davis ?
Mr. DA^^s. I don't know what the question is now. Conversation with
]Mr. Bennett with respect to what ?
Mr. Armstrong. The allegation that he had discussed with Mr.
Hunt a break-in to the premises
Mr. Davis. "\Miose allegation? I don't know of any allegation, so
that answer to your question is no.
Mr. Armstrong. You're not aAvare of any allegations that Mr.
Bennett discussed with Mr. Hunt a break-in to the offices of Mr.
Greenspun.
Mr. Freedman. You mean Mr. Bennett said that, that he had
discussed
Mr. Armstrong. That isn't what I said.
Mr. Freedman. That's the way it sounds.
Mr. Davis. So far as I know
Mr. Armstrong. I know, but that's not what I said.
Mr. Daa^s. I am not aAvare of that. I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Armstrong. You want to misstate every question I state.
Mr. Freedman. No. You said the allegations. I want to know who
made the allegations, to help the witness.
Mr. Daves. I am not aware of any allegations that Mr. Bennett was
involved in any plan for the break-in of Mr. Greenspun's safe.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Bennett any meet-
ing that ]Mr. Winte may have had with Mr. Hunt in Mr. Bennett's
office?
Mr. Davis. Yes, I believe I did have some conversation with Mr.
Bennett in respect to Mr. Winte having met Mr. Hunt in Mr. Bennett's
office.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that conversation occurred?
Mr. Davts. Not with a date or even an approximate date.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what the substance of that conver-
sation was?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Mr. Bennett told me that there was an occasion
when Mr. Winte visited Mr. Bennett and that on that occasion, he
introduced ]\Ir. AVinte and Mr. Hunt.
Ili604
Mr. Armstrong. And did he say what conversation if any trans-
pired between Mr. Winte and Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Davis. I think he described the fact that they were talking to
each other because Mr. Winte had been an FBI man and Mr. Hunt
had been either FBI or CIA or something, but they had a conversa-
tion in his office with respect to their respective backgrounds. I be-
lieve that he gave me a description of that meeting.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, can you tell us, did he describe — did Mr.
Bennett indicate that he was aware of any contact between Mr. Hunt
and Mr. Winte regarding a plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's safe ?
Mr. Davis. No, I am not aware of Mr. Bennett being familiar or
discussing with me any plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's safe.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he discuss with you any conversations that Mr.
Hunt and Mr. Winte might have had on that subject?
Mr. Davis. No, he did not describe to me any conversations between
Mr. Winte and Mr. Hunt on that subject.
Mr. Armstrong. Let me make sure I understand your testimony.
You are testifying that you had no conversations with Mr. Bennett
regarding any planned break-in to Mr. Greenspun's safe. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Davis. I am not aware of any plan to break into Mr. Green-
spun's safe, sir, other than what I have read in the newspapers or in
testimony that someone gave, whether it be by McCord, Hunt. Liddy,
or somebody else.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Bennett indicate the subject of what Mr.
Hunt and Mr. Winte discussed in his office ?
Mr. Davis. I told you, he told me when I inquired of him, that he
introduced Mr. Winte to Mr. Hunt. Mr. Winte had gone to see Mr.
Bennett in connection with a matter that we were then looking into.
I think it had something to do with the Clifford Irving matter, and
that he introduced Mr. Winte to Mr. Hunt. I was introduced to Mr.
Hunt by Mr. Bennett in Mr. Bemiett's office, and the conversation he
described at some point or other, Mr. Bennett told me that he re-
called Mr. Winte talking to Mr. Hunt about their respective
backgrounds.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did Mr, Bennett ever deny to you that he
was present for any conversation between Winte and Hunt regarding
a plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's safe?
Mr. Davis. No; Mr. Bennett did not deny anything to me that I
know of.
Mr. Armstrong. I would like to return to the subject of Mr. Winte
which we left a few seconds ago.
Have you discussed with Mr. Winte whether or not he went to Mr.
Gay, Mr. Winte went to Mr. Gay and discussed a plan which Mr.
Hunt had presented to him to break into the premises of Herman
Greenspun ?
Mr. Freedman. Now, look, Mr. Armstrong. You know we have an
objection to Mr. Winte's testifying for the reasons set forth in Mr.
Davis' letter, and I think it is highly improper to try to get that testi-
mony under the circumstances tTirough this witness in disguise, and
I will suggest to the witness that he not answer.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm trying to get Mr. Davis' testimony, not Mr.
Winte's testimony.
11605
Mr. Freedman. I know, but you are trying to get Mr. Winte's testi-
mony through Mr. Davis, because the way you asked the question
Avas
Mr. Armstroxg. No ; I am trying to find out what Mr. Winte told
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Frekdmax. That's exactly the same thing.
Mr. D.wis. Fm not going to tell you what Mr. Winte told me in
connection with interviews I had Avitli Mr. AVinte in preparation to his
testimony not only heie but elsewhere, and I'm not going to violate my
attorney-client piivilege in that regard.
If vou can refer to any conversations I had with Mr. Winte other
than under those circumstances, I will be most happy to tell you what
I know, what I can recall about any such conversations. And you keep
referring in your questions to the participation of Mr. Winte in con-
nection with a plan to break into Mi'. Greenspun's safe, and with what
1 have told you about. I do not knoAv of any conversation I had with
Mr. Winte with respect to any such plans.
I do have information with respect to what Mr. Winte told me dur-
ing the period when he described to me. and for the first time when I
went into the question with Mr. Winte in the preparation of his testi-
mony, not only with respect to these proceedings, but also in connec-
tion with other proceedings including proceedings before the Gaming
Commission, and I can assure you that your characterization of what
took place at that time is completely erroneous and is a figment of
your imagination.
But nevertheless. I am not going to disclose to you ever what any-
one whom I represent tells me in the course of those kinds of con-
versations. I have no objection to, and will, as I undoubtedly may
have, not in the distorted way in which you like to present summaries
of any other conversations I had that were not a part of conversations
I had with someone I represent. And it is very difficult for me. ob-
viously, to separate; the questions if you want to get any answers from
me, will have to be phrased in such a way that they relate to con-
versations or meetings that I had unrelated to what I was told, even
though what I was told does not indicate anything. But I am not
going to discuss with you or anyone else —
Mr. Armstroxg. Now, in the case of this attorney-client privilege,
is this a privilege between you and Mr. Winte you are referring to?
Mr. Davis. No, it is a privilege to the client that I am not going to
violate.
Mr. Armstroxg. Is the client Mr. Winte ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
yir. Armstroxg. Did INIr. Winte ask you to represent him as an
attorney?
]Mr. DA\as. Yes.
Mr. Armstrox'g. And this was an individual representation as
opposed to his employee
Mr. DA^^s. Well. I don't know as opposed to an employee. The rea-
son I accepted responsibility is because he is an employee. I made my
services available to him if he wanted them, and he said he did.
Mr. Armstroxg. Now, have you ever discussed with us previously
these Drivileo;ed communications between yourself and Mr. Winte?
11606
Mr. Davis. So far as I know, I have never discussed with you
privileged communications.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, can you tell us what conversations you had
with Mr. Winte that were not privileged that were on this sul3Ject ?
Mr. Davis, Not until you ask me a question that will refresh my
recollection about something. I can't go back and think of all the
conversations I had with Mr. Winte which are not privileged. It is an
impossible task insofar as I am concerned.
Mr. Armstrong. In other words, Mr. Davis, if I can tell you what
you are going to tell us, you are going to tell us that.
Mr. Davis. No. If you were someone who were skilled in the process,
you would know how to ask a question.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if you have had any convereations
with Mr. Winte that were not privileged that were on the subject
Mr. Davis. I am sure I have had many conversations with Mr.
Winte which were not privileged.
Mr. Freedman. He added, and I don't think you heard him, on this
subject.
Mr. Davis. I don't know what subject he's talking about. If he's
talking about the subject, the plan to break in or commit any other
unlawful act, the answer is no,
Mr, Armstrong. When did you begin to represent Mr. Winte in re-
gard to this matter, Mr. Davis ?
Mr. Davis. Whenever he asked me to do it.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that was ?
Mr, Davis, I believe that may have been at a time when it was con-
templated that he might have to testify before the Gaming Commis-
sion in Nevada, but I would have to — I believe that probably was
about, at about that time, but I have difficulty in placing these partic-
ular events in proper sequence. I know that I was not involved and
saw no necessity to represent him at the time that he was interviewed
by the FBI, and likewise at the time when you gentlemen interviewed
him, whatever it was that you did. So you give me those dates, and I
can tell you it was subsequent to those dates.
Mr. Armstrong. I believe we interviewed Mr. Winte in late August
of 1973. I don't know when he appeared before the Gaming
Commission.
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know what those dates are, but so far as I
was concerned at that time, I had no — there was no need, so far as I
was concerned, and the only reason that a need arose subsequently is
because I think that any person who is required to testify as a witness
involving these kinds of matters and the distortions of which you
gentlemen are capable of, he needed counsel.
Now, I recognize the need for counsel, or his feeling for a need for
counsel, but I saw no reason whatsoever based upon everything I knew
at the time, whatever conversation I had with anybody at that time,
I had no problem in telling Mr. Winte that so far as I was concerned
at that time that he did not need counsel in order to talk to you gentle-
men as he did, or to talk to the FBI, as he did, and to tell them what-
ever the hell he knew about the transaction or whatever took place, and
so far as I know, he did.
And I don't recall particularly his telling me the details of what-
ever it is that he discussed with you or with the FBI. I wasn't that
11607
curious, I'm a busy man. So it is quite possible I had conversations
with Mr. Winte in a connection other tlian the period when he asked
me if I would be available to him when he found himself the target of
the nonsense that has been going on. And that is why I keep saying
to you, if you will show me or if you were in a position to show me that
which I claim — T told vou at the time that you interviewed me, would
be in a position of explaining to you what T was talking about at that
time, and if you would ask the same questions that were then being
asked, I would probably give you substantially the same answers, be-
cause the facts insofar as T am concerned did not change.
INIr. Armstroxg. Well, I've already read you the section, Mr. Davis.
]Mr. Davis. AAHiat you read to me is nonsense.
]Mr. Armstrong. Well, it purports to accurately deflect your
answers.
Mr. Davis. Well, what it purports to be or what you make of it, I
won't characterize, but you got my answers.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, can you tell us if at the time when Mr. Winte
talked to you to detei-mine whether or not he felt he needed counsel, if
he described to you the events that had taken place in
Mr. Davis. I don't like the way you were saying he felt he needed
counsel.
Mr. Armstrong. No, I say you felt.
Mr. Davis. No, it wasn't my feeling. T just recognize the need of a
witness like any individual citizen to have his rights protected when
you people want to invade those rights.
Mr. Armstrong. I am not making anv comments.
Mr. Davis. I am making the comment, then.
Mr. Armstrong. Mv Question is. At the time when you consulted
tho — excuse me, when IMr-. Winte talked with you
Mr. Davis. He discussed with me. yes.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. In the case of his pending interviews
before us whether he needed counsel, did he describe to you the eA'ents
of this meeting with Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Davis. No, he did not. He just told me that he'd been approached
bv you gentlemen, and I told h'm to tell you whatever he knew about
Avhatever it was you were inquiring into.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he sav what we wanted to talk to him about?
Mr. Davis. No, I don't believe he knew what you wanted to talk to
him about. That was before vou saw him.
Mr. Armstrong. And he gave no indication he felt he knew what
Ave wanted to talk about?
Mr. Davis. No. My recollection is he called me on one occasion to
toll me that the FBI had contacted him and wanted to interview him
and whether I thought it was necessary or desirable. I suppose he was
asking me because I represent the company, to have counsel present
during the interview, and I said I saw no need or reason for it. I re-
member another reason when he told me that he had been contacted
bv some individuals jnirporting to represent tlie Senate Watergate
Committee that Avantod to intervicAv him, and as I recall, I told him the
same thing. I don't now remember- Avhich came first, actuallv.
I have a I'ocollection of haA'ing a Pon^•ersation Avith ^Nlr. Winte after
both of those occasions, asking him hoAv it went. He said it went fine.
11608
He said, they asked me questions, I told them what had happened,
they seemed to be satisfied ; and I said fine.
That is my recollection substantially of what happened.
Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Winte tell you that he had informed this
committe-e that after talking; with Mr. Hunt, he had gone and told Mr.
Gay what Mr. Hunt had told him ?
]Vf r. Davis. I don't recall it in that context. Mr. Winte might very
well have told me at that point in time, some aspect or a summary of
what it is that had been covered during those interviews, quite pos-
sibly, that took place. I just don't remember the details of that. And
I am trying at this point to separate what took place at that time
versus what it is, because I go into things much differently when I func-
tion as counsel interested in a matter in connection with details, I am
a detail man, sir, I try to get the facts as accurately as possible, a virtue
which I highly commend to you.
INIr. Armstrong. Is there any reason why in your discussion with us
on October 10, 1973, you did not assert attorney-client privilege?
Mr. Davis. Because your questions did not ask me to violate at-
torney-client privilege at that time, I am sure.
But I am not sure that you understood the answer to your ques-
tion or you understood the questions you were putting to me.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me finish my question.
Is there any reason why in our conversation on October 10, 1973,
you chose not to assert the attorney-client privilege when we asked you
about your conversations with Mr. Winte on the matter of the alleged
plan to break into Mr. Greenspun's safe?
Mr. Da\ts. I don't know what you're talking about.
Mr. Freedman. May I say, Mr. Armstrong, we have gone into this
at great length. It is now 10 minutes after 6. I don't know how much
longer you are going to go. You know Mr. Davis is not available
tomorrow or Friday. Next week he has other things that must be done.
You told us an hour and a half ago that you would be finished
very, very shortly thereafter, and here we are going into repetitious
things. We are going into an area which I think is improper. So can't
we please finish up because Mr. Davis tells me — if Mr. Davis tells me
he is getting tired, we are just going to have to leave.
Mr. Lackritz. I understand that Mr. Davis is getting tired, Mr.
Freedman, and I think the record will show your representation to
that eifect.
Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Davis, have you received any information
regarding any attempt by or through the Federal Reserve Board to
check the dates of issuance or dates of distribution of the $100 bills
that Mr. Kebozo i-etumed to you in June of 1973 ?
Mr. Davis. What was the question ?
fThe reporter read the last question.]
Mr. Davis. Well, to make it simple, t don't undei-stand your question.
Mr. Armstron(5. Well, have you made any attempt to check the
dates of distribution of any of the bills that Mr. Rebozo returned
to you ?
Mr. Davis. Have I made any attempt? As I told you before, I have
conducted an investigation with respect to the facts and circumstances
relating to those bills in connection with my efforts to obtain an
11609
adequate accoimtincr from Mr. INIaheii, and I do not intend to discuss
that matter with you.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you have any knowledfje as to whether any of
those bills were issued subsequent to a date that Mr. Rebozo alleged
to have received them ?
]\Ir. Davis. I have no knowledge of those bills other than which I
obtained in connection with that investigation I just referred to.
Mr. Armstrong. You have received no information regarding any
other investigation as to the dates of issuance or distribution of those
bills, is that correct, any investigation other than those which you
have conducted ?
Mr. Davis. Or that was conducted at my request.
Mr. Armstrong. Is that correct, no other investigations beyond
those?
Mr. Davis. Not that I know of.
Mr. Armstrong. And have you ever advised Mr. Kenneth Gemmill
as to the results of your investigation as to the dates of issuance or
distribution of those bills?
Mr. DA^^s. Xot that I know of. I think there was a conversation
between me and ]Mr. Gennnill about how to go about or what facts were
relevant to something, and I think I had some conversation with him
because it was as a result of the conversation that I had with Mr.
Gemmill that made me conclude that perhaps I had an area of investi-
gation that might be useful for my purposes. But I don't recall, I am
sure I never had any conversation with Mr. — I never reported to
]Mr. Gemmill the results of any of the investigative activities which
were conducted by me or by persons conducting such investigation.
I may have had a conversation Avith Mr. Gemmill indicating that
hei-e is someone else who might be trying to get the same information
that we're trying to, but that is the only recollection T have in response
to your question. Your question was difficult to understand.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever advise Mr. Gemmill that when you
completed the investigation you would apprise him of the residts?
Mr. Davis. I don't understand your question now.
]Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever tell Mr. Gemmill that when the inves-
tigation was over you would tell him wdiat your investigation revealed «
]\Ir. Lackritz. Your own investigation.
Mr. Davis. I don't believe so unless I was referring to after whatever
litigation I was involved in was over with, but T don't recall that
subiect coming up in that context.
Mr, Armstrong. Did Mr. Gemmill ever advise you to advise him ?
Mr. Davis. Xot that T recall.
Mr. Armstrong. What the results of the investigation were?
;Mr. Davis. Not that I recall.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, so that we have a clear record on this
subject, ^Ir. Davis, do you have any knowledge if the two $50,000
contributions delivered by Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo had any relation
to the ]iending acquisition of the Dunes Hotel by the Hughes Tool Co. ?
Mr. Davis. Any connection between the two ?
]Mr. Lackritz. Any relationship between the contribution and ap-
proval from the Justice Department?
INIr. Davis. None whatever.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 22
11610
Mr. Lackritz. For that acquisition. OK. Do you have any knowledge
that the two $50,000 contributions delivered by Mr. Danner to Mr.
Rebozo had any relationship with the purchase by the Hu":hes Tool Co.
of Air West? '
Mr. DA^^s. None whatever.
Mr. Lackritz. Or did it have any relationship to Government ap-
proval of that acquisition ?
Mr. Davis. None whatever.
Mr. Lackritz. All ri<»:lit. To your knowledge did the two $50,000
contributions delivered by Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo have any rela-
tionship to Mr. Hughes' desire to have nerve gas dumped in the At-
lantic Ocean ?
Mr. Davis. None whatever.
Mr. Lackritz. Finally, to your knowledere, did the two $50,000
contributions delivered by Mr. Danner to Mr. Rebozo have any rela-
tionship to the desire, to any position ]Mr. Hughes took on the anti-
ballastic missile system '?
Mr. Davis. None whatever.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when the last time you spoke with
Mr. Golden was — Mr. James Golden ?
Mr. Davis. I can't place a date on it. I recall hearing from ]Mr. Gol-
den at or about the time that he said that he was in the process of open-
ing or had opened some offices here in Washington. I think that was
the last conversation I had with Mr. Golden.
Now, he might liave called my office sometime to say that he was
coming to New York and could he see me. If such telephone conversa-
tions took place. I don't remember or when I saw him.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any discussion with ?^r. Golden
regarding the contribution by Mr. Hughes of $100,000 to Mr. Rebozo?
Mr. Davis. No, I don't believe so. T think one of those, either at the
time he called me to tell me what he was doing there, he made rome
reference to some of the nonsense that was appearing in the press.
That could have taken place. I have no recollection of it one way or
the other. But so many people talk to me about something they read
in the newspapers whicli is so far from what the true facts are tlipt it is
not unusual for me to have had a conversation in that context. But T
never had any conversation with IVIr. Golden with respect to what the
true facts were of what took place.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr.
Golden about contact he had had with Rose Mary Woods?
Mr. Freedman. "If" it hapj^ened. You've got a fact in there that
isn't necessarily so.
Mr. Davis. T don't believe so. My difficulty — and I'm sure it did not
involve Mr. Golden. As I told you before, there was a point in time
when I was pursuing my investigation of all moneys that passed
through Mr. Maheu's Ivands, but T have no recollection of any con-
versation with Mr. Golden about Rose ]Mary Woods.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, to your knowledge has tlie Intertel organiza-
tion ever investigated the relationship
Mr. Davis. Except that Mr. Golden may have indicated to me that
he knew her at the time he was acting as a Seci-et Ser\ico agent. T mean,
ho may very well have told me on one occasion or another that lie knew
11611
her. I don't know. I don't know that he does, but I believe that he may
have told me that at one time.
Mr. Armstroxg. To your knowled«:e, has the Intertel organization
ever conducted an investigation into the relationship between Mr.
O'Brien and Mr. Maheu ?
Mr. Davis. So far as I am concerned, the only thing I know about
Intertel and its activities are activities under my direction with respect
to gathering facts germane to issues involving litigation, and — well,
that's the correct answer.
And if it will help you any, insofar as I am concerned, there doesn't
remain an}^ question in my mind about payments made to and received
by Mr. O'Brien. So if you put two and two together, you may find an
answer to your questions.
Mr. Armstrong. You are unable to answer the question as a result
of your
]\Ir. Davis. I am not going to discuss with you ;wliat we did or did not
do in connection with the investigative activities I conducted. I am
telling you that so far as I am concerned, I have never had occasion
to inquire or investigate payments made by the Hughes Tool Co. to
Mr. O'Brien via ]Mr. Maheu or otherwise.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you had occasion to investigate any other
aspect of Mr. O'Brien's relationship with Mr. Maheu?
]\rr. Freedman. Didn't we go through this — Mr. ]\raheu — we went
through this how many times? Now. I think it's an imposition on the
witness, up and back, up and back.
Mr. Davis. Well, I don't know what you are referring to. I believe I
received or participated in responding to inquiries from IRS with
respect to payments made to ]Mr. O'Brien because that's the only thing
I can tliink of that relates to your question.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. ^Ir. Davis, in my letter to you of May 31,
197-1, I requested if you could locate the check, check No. 9109, Sands
general account, at the Bank of Las Vegas, now the Valley Bank,
I^niversity Branch, payable to the Sands and signed by Mr. Lawrence
Ryhlick or Mr. John lanni, dated on or about December 4, 1968, as well
as a copy of a disbursal slip from the Sands Casino cage dated Decem-
ber 5, 1968, showing that Ryhlick and lanni received the cash.
We requested copies of both of these items, and in respect to the
second item, the original slip and any other file copies. I am just asking
if vou brought those with you today for production?
^Ir. Davis. No; I was informed that such a letter of request was
sent to my office. I made some inquiries about it and I am told that
apparently you are also interested in what is going on in the Maheu
litigation where those questions have been raised, and whatever docu-
ments you are referring to were involved in the ]Maheu litigation and
that is where they are, whatever it is, and I don't know that what you
are referring to exists.
And I see that Mr. Muse is in the room and I think the record should
so reflect, and if you want to make some I'eports to the court in con-
nection with the Maheu litigation, in respect to my testimony in that
regard, I will include that in connection with the other activities, Mr.
Muse.
Mr. Muse. I will be happy to do so after ]Mr. Lackritz is finished.
11612
Mr, Lackritz. Mr. Davis, I appreciate your efforts to include Mr.
Muse in this mattei-, but I tliink we can do tliat a little bit later. So as
I understand it, you have not brouirlit with you today those two items.
Mr. Davis. No; T do not have those items. I don't know if those
items exist. T told you exactly what T did when I was told that there
was such a request, and my information at the moment, which may
not be complete, is that you are a]ipaTently refei'rin<r to some ti-ansac-
tion involvinjr some moneys paid to Mr. Maheu or deli\ered to Mr.
Maheu, and that is all part of what is ^oinof on in the liti<>:ation in the
Fedei-al coui'ts in California, and I don't know what it is that interests
you about the pi-ivate liti^ration that is sfoinc: on in Califoi-nia.
^Nlr. Lackritz. ]\Ir. Davis, this has absolutely nothin<r to do with
anything that we are trying to do with respect to private litifration.
All we are asking you for are two specific documents that ai-e outlined
ver}' s})ecificallv.
Mr. Davis. Well, the answ^er is I don't have them.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, then.
]\Ir. Davis. If they exist.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you made a search for the alleged
Mr. Davis. I told you exactly what T did.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, who did you contact to determine if they
existed?
Jklr. Davis. T don't remember who it is that it was in my organi-
;:ation that I called to follow up on what that was all about.
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Robert INIorgan ?
c Mr. Davis. No ; I did not talk to'Mr. Morgan.
Mv. Lackritz. Was it someone in the accounting office ?
Mr. Davis. No, no; it was a lawyer familiar with what wj^s involved
in the Maheu litio;ation, and what had been produced and what had
been put into evidence in regard to the litigation, or who was supposed
to be familiar with it.
But I immediately recognized it as an item involved in the ]Maheu
litigation. There was no point in my going through anybody else.
]Mr. Lackritz. So are you saying that you still have custody of it
but it's
Ml-. Davis. I told you I don't have custody of it. 1 told you that I
don't know if any of that exists, but T told you to the extent to which
that exists, it is pai+ of whatever has been filed that was involved in
the Maheu litigation, and T haven't had an oppoi-tunity to pursue it
any further.
Mr. Lackritz. So you are refusing then to pureue the matter any
fuT-ther at this time.
Mr. Davis. Yes; I don't have any more information to give you at
this time, if you are entitled to any of it.
Mr. Lackritz. All right, and similarly with the disbursal slip from
the Sands dated December 5, lOfiH, you do not have that.
Mr. Davis. T don't have any infoi-mation with lespect to that. INfy
understanding is that the ti-ansaction you are referring to with respect
to the documents you identified there, as I understand it, is involved in
the Maheu litigation, and those documents, I believe what thev have
11613
been doing down there is to actually put into evidence the originals,
and by originals, whether it be originals or carbon copies. And that
is all I know about it at this point in time.
Mr. Lackritz. All right. Well, possibly we will pursue
Mr. Davis. If you would explain to nie the relevancy of that to any-
thing which is germane to any legitimate inquiry pursuant to your
enabling resolution, I may be more helpful. At the moment that is the
only thing I can tell you.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, if you would like for me to go into a long dis-
course of how this is relevant, I would be more than happy to.
Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. Excuse me, Marc. Can we go off the record for a
minute ?
Mr. Lackritz. All right, sure.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Lackritz. Mr. Davis, are you acquainted with Mr. John
Mitchell, formerly the Attorney General of the United States?
Mr. Davis. I have met him.
Mr. Lackritz. When was your last conversation with Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Davis. I believe — well, I described in my meeting with Mr.
Mitchell — may or may not have been in these proceedings. I met Mr.
Mitchell at a time when w^e were involved in the terms of a suggested
consent decree that was being urged by the Justice Department re-
lating to the employmentof blacks or nonwhites in hotels and casinos
in Nevada, and I was concerned as to the legality of the terms that
were being insisted upon by whoever it is that was representing the
Justice Department, and felt that I could not as a lawyer opine that
that was a lawful, proper agreement to enter into. In fact, I felt it
specifically violated the statute, and I took the position that before
we could consider the proposed agreement and consent decree, I
wished to have an opinion of the Justice Department that the terms
were lawful.
I was told that the representative of the Justice Department han-
dling the matter had no authority to give such an opinion, and ar-
rangements were made to call on the Attorney General who was then
Mr. Mitchell, and there was a meeting held in his office attended by
Mr. Hilton and his counsel, myself, I believe Mr. Gay, and possibly
some others, at which that matter was discussed.
Mr. Lackritz. Was there any discussion at that time of any matters
relating to the campaign of 1972 ?
Mr. Davis. None whatsoever.
Mr. Lackritz. Have you met with Mr. Mitchell subsequent
Mr. Davis. No.
Mr. Lackritz [continuing]. Subsequent to that meeting? Have you
met with Mr. Mitchell on any other occasions prior to that meeting?
Mr. Davts. Not that I recall.
Mr. Lackritz. And have vou had any telephone conversations with
Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. DA\as. No.
Mr. Lackritz. At any time since January 1, 1969?
Mr. Davis. No.
11614
Mr. Lackritz. All right, now, Mr. Davis, at your suggestion I
would like Mv. Muse, since he is in the room, on the record to explain
the allegations that were made earlier in the session and to describe
the facts of the situation and what Mr. ISIuse did. Mr. Muse, if you
could explain for the record.
Mr. Must:. After being informed by Mr. Lackritz that information
I transmitted on behalf of the committee to Judge Harry Pregerson.
the presiding judge of the Hughes-lNIaheu litigation in Los Angeles,
had engendered some controversy here this morning, I attempted to
reconstruct the events surrounding the decision of the committee to
release this information.
In late March or early April, Richard Johnson, Judge Pregerson's
administrative clerk, called me and asked if certain information
gathered by the staff could be made available to the court. Specifi-
cally, the court wanted any information the conunittee had that related
to the alleged Hughes-Humphrey contribution in 1968. Mr. Johnson
explained that it had become apparent that INIr. Maheu had been inter-
viewed by the staff on the few occasions. He further explained that
Mr. ^lorton Gallane, Mr. Maheu's attorney, had asked the court to
request whatever information the committee had.
Thereafter, Mr. Johnson called me and asked whether such infor-
mation could be provided. I explained that before such information
could be released, there would, pursuant to rule 40 of the rules of
procedure of this committee, have to be a release from the committee,
that the staff liad no authority to do so, and that I would bring the
matter to Chief Counsel Dash's attention.
For a while thereafter nothing further occurred because there was
no executive session of the Select Committee at the time no request was
made. Sometime later, I believe, toward the middle of April, the
issue was revived when, according to Mr. Johnson, counsel for Summa
Corp. caused to be issued by the clerk of the U.S. district court in
Los Angeles, subpenas calling for any and all information relative to
the alleged Hughes-to-Humphrey contribution.
These subpenas were served on the Internal Revenue Service, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Justice Department strike
force, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, and the Senate Watergate
Committee.
Service on the Watergate Committee was attempted by delivering
the subpenas to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. According
to Mr. Johnson in a telephone call a short time ago today, this caused
renewed interest on the part of the judge in gathering information
from this committee inasmuch as both sides, and I stress both sides,
had requested it, that Mr. Johnson — the judge again instructed Mr.
Johnson to again seek the information from the Select Committee.
I had discussions with Mr. Johnson and agreed to bring it to Mr.
Dash's attention. This was done and Mr. Dash told me he could not au-
thorize the release and the full committee would have to consider the
request.
At the first opportunity after the request on May 9, 1974, this was
considered and granted. I then attempted to gather all information we
116L5
had orathered which bore on the 1968 event. I checked with staff mem-
bei's and conchided that two pieces of information, botli products of
Robert Maheii interviews, were the sum of the staff's information about
tlie Hu^rhes to Humplirey contribution. Accordingly, I transmitted
those documents to the court where I understand they were made avail-
able to the parties by the judge.
Since that time I have had occasional telephone conversations with
Mr. Johnson seeking public court documents relative to committee mat-
ters. As his request for information was continuous in nature, he would
make reference to the judge's earlier request.
Last week I had occasion to examine Mr. Davis' staff interview of
October 10, 197r>, and I for the tirst time came across a brief paragraph
making reference to the Hughes to Humphrey contribution. I then
told ]\Ir. Johnson further information would be available, and after
checking with Sam Dash this morning, I asked — I called Mr. John-
son and read the paragraph to him.
Mr. Johnson told me at the time the matter would be treated con-
fidentially, and I understand that it has, having been released thus
far only to counsel and at the request of Sunnna counsel, placed under
seal.
Since drafting this statement, I have called Mr. Johnson and read it
to him, and he authorizes me to say that he endorses it in full.
Mr. Lackritz. Which means, just to make sure I understand Avhat
you have said, in other words, you were acting at all times pursuant to
the authorization of the committee.
Mr. ]MrsE. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. That is what you think you were doing. And will j'ou
state on the record whether or not in fact what you did transmit was
not testimonv given bv me, but a memoranduui bv Mr. Armstrong and
his construction, however inaccurate it might be, of Mr. Armstrong s
internal memorandum describing my testimony ?
Mr. Mi'SE. I think my statement has been full and accurate, and I
have no further comment.
Mr. Davis. AVell. it's your statement. Are you finished, sir?
Mi-. Lackritz. Yes, we have finished with respect to your testimony,
but I would like to sav on the record, Mr. Davis, if we could with vour
permission, I have been given this letter in response to your letter yes-
erday. from Chairman Ervin, in response to your request to have Mr.
Winte's testimony in public session, and as a result I would like to
give you that letter and have it made an exhibit to today's session, and
I will provide a copy of the letter after the session.
[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Chester Davis
exhibit No. 1, for identification.*]
Mr. Davis. You mean you are handing me a letter in a sealed en-
velope, and you are asking me to make it an exhibit.
Mr. Lackritz. No. I am informing you it is a response from Senator
Ervin to your letter of yesterday, June 11, 1974. that I jus> received
from Senator Ervin. and I am delivering it to you here now because
it relates to the request for testimony by Mr. Ralph Winte, since Mr.
*See p. 11619.
11616
Winte was the other iii(li\idual that we discussed taking testimony
fi'oin in our discussion on May '2S. I thouirht it wouhl he important to
have that mntter on tiie record on this occasion.
Mr. Davis. But you're dcliverin<r ine a response.
Mr. Lackritz. I am delivering the response to you and I wouhl re-
quest that a copy of that ivsponse be made a part of this record, only
after you have read the jvsponse. Mr. Davis.
So I would be perfectly \villin<r to cro off the record rijjht now, ^ive
you a chance to lead it. and I would like to make some — let us go off
the record ri<rht now.
[Discussion off the record!
Mr. Davis. The onlv think I would like to say on the record is, I
would like tlie record to reflect that prior to the connnencement of this
session I was approached bv Mr. Hamilton, who. as 1 undei'stand it,
has been actin<r as counsel for the committee in connection with the
judicial proceedin<rs which are now pendiiiir. particularly the appeal
that is now pendine; before the court of appeals, and he in effect said
he didn't see any particular reason for filino: a brief in i-esponse to our
brief because in his view he thouo'ht that the whole subject mio-ht be-
come moot before, or by the time that the court of appeals could
consider our pending appeal.
I explained to ]\Ir. Hamilton that in my view the matter was not
moot, and I su<rgested to him the possible desirability of cooperating
with a schedule which would expedite the filing of a brief with the
court of ap])eals representing the views of the committee as to the
legality of theii- y^roceedings, and to join in a re(|uest to the court of
ap]ieals to give the matter an expedited heai'ing before an • termina-
tion date, if there is a termination date with respect to the desires of
the committee or its staff to interview Mv. Winte.
My understanding is that Mr. Hamilton's answer to me was not
only to reject that suggestion but to indicate that he contemplated filing
a motion with the court of appeals foi- thv })urpose of obtaining an
extension of time within which to file briefs with the court of ajipeals.
This indicates to me an effort to thwart obtaining a judicial determina-
tion of the i)osition which I have taken, and I would like to renew that
suggestion to you, ISIr. Lackritz, as a reasonably fair effort to obtain a
judicial determination as to the rights of ]Mr. Winte before he is re-
(luired to testify unde?' the coercion of some kind of pun.itive action by
the Senate committee.
I would appreciate that having my request adequately considered
by whoever considers this kind of request, and urge upon the staff as
well as the committee to make an effort to cooper'ate and obtain a fair
judicial detei-njination. unless of course there is a i)olicy decision to
avoid a possible judicial determination as to the propriety and legality
of the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted.
As the record reveals. I have commitments in Xew Yoi-k touiorrow
and Friday, but I will be available to receive any conununication you
are in a i)osition to give me at that time as to any decision which the
committee reachf^s with i'esj)ect to that renuest.
T think it only fair to say that there i-^ another alternative to me
which rec^uires a decision on my part which I would hope to delay 'as
11617
long as possible, and that is the necessity of bringino; another and
separate action, this time for dainat>es since I know I will not be able
to get injunctive relief, that woukl be sufficient to give my clients the
relief tluit 1 believe tliey are entitled to.
I may state in fairness to all concerned that I do not intend to let
the matter become moot.
Mr. Lackritz. I think you've made your feelings very clear, Mr.
Davis. T think I shoukl also make clear that Senator Ervin's response
to you says, and I quote, ''Since ^Ir. Winte remains under subpena
to the committee, I direct him to testify as soon as possible pursuant
to your agreement with ]Mr. Lackritz so that the committee can com-
plete its work expeditiously."
Xow, you and I agreed that Mr. Winte testify today — on May 28.
You made a request based on Mr. (rreenspun's appearance on a televi-
sion show, that Mr. Winte's testimony be given in a public hearing.
You applied to have a court enjoin further executive sessions of this
committee pending a judicial determination of your position, and that
request was denied by the district court and also by tlie court of
ap):)eals, as I understand it. The substance of the case has moved up
and now it is under consideration by the court of appeals, and there
is no reason, as I can see it, as far as I can see it, for not going forw^ard
with ]Mr, Winte's testimony tonight if possible, and with other counsel
if it is not possible for you to be present.
Mr. Davis. Well, there is no reason in the world so far as I am con-
cerned why it would now be possible to submit the matter by having
tlie committee submit its brief in response to our brief before the
court of appeals, and asking the court of appeals to render a deter-
mination on the merits.
I do understand, in fact, that the court of appeals has not seen fit
to enjoin anything pending its consideration of the appeal on its merits,
and I see no reason why we cannot give ]Mr. White an opportunity to
have the court of appeals make a decision on the merits. We believe
we have a meritorious appeal. We believe that our position is lejjally
sound. And we believe that we will prevail on the merits, and Mr.
Winte will not be available this evening, neither will I.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, will ]Mr. Winte be available tomorrow?
Mr. Davis. No, Mr. Winte will not be available tomorrow. So, as
I say, if you are in the position of now turning down without further
consultation the suggestion which I am making which would permit
hopefully a determination of the legal questions involved by the court
of appeals, and still give you an op]iortunity to examine INIr. Winte
if you should prevail on the merits. I will take that as your decision,
or the decision of the Committee, if you tell me that you are in the
position to make a decision perhaps by the connnittee, and I will pro-
ceed accorrlintrly. and will consider what steps I may take to adequately
protect Mr. Winte's rights.
Mr. Lackritz. Well, cei'tainly. Mr. Davis, this matter has been
brought up before to the committee. Chairman's response to your
request is now a matter of record, and T take it vour response to me
at this point is that vou ai'e not going to make Mi-. Winte available.
Is that right ?
11618
Mr. DA^^s. Certainly not tonicrht, that is correct. INIy response to
you is to <rive nie an answer to the siio:<restion I have just made, unless
you want ine to take your statement as the answer.
If that is what it is, then I will proceed accordingly. I will take
some action, and I am not in a position to tell you what action I will
take at this point in time.
Mr. Lackritz. You have always been a magician at concealing your
cards, Mr. Davis. I only point out that T think Chairman Ei-vin's let-
ter is explanatory on the face of it. You made your request of Chair-
man Ervin. and you received his refusal to accede to your request, and
so I think the record is very clear that you ai-e not going to pi'oduce
Mr. Winte tonight, nor are you going to produce Mr. Winte tomorrow
for testimony.
Mr. Davis. That is correct. But I don't know what I will take if, as
a result of this letter that you handed me 5 minutes ago. The only thing
I am asking you to tell me at this point is, is whether or not you are
rejecting the suggestion which I have made with i-espect to the possi-
bility of obtaining a determination of the court of appeals of the
merits before Mi-. "Winte testifies in proceedings which I considei- to
be highly improper, if not illegal.
Mr. Lackritz. All I am pointing out to you, Mr. Davis, is
Mr. Davis. Let me have an answer. Do you want to consider my
suggestion or not ?
Mr. Lackritz. The chairman has directed you and Mr. Winte to
testify before the committee pursuant to subpena.
Mr. Davis. I am quite capable of reading the letter and I will let
you know promptly.
]Mr. Lackritz. The letter speaks for itself.
Mr. Davis. And I will let you know promptly what I am going to
do in response to that letter.
Mr. Lackritz. And at the present time you are not ready to make
Mr. Winte available. I think that's clear for the record.
Mr. Davis. He's certainly not going to be available tonight, and as
far as I can tell you now, T don't believe he will be available tomorrow.
T don't have any intention right now to make him available tomorrow,
but you will hear from me further in response to that letter from
Senator Ervin.
And one of the things I would like to have, of course, is — I imagine
I will have it as soon as possible — is a transcript of the proceedings
that we had yestei-day and today.
Mr. Lackritz. T would like to direct that Mr. Winte appear tomor-
row at 10 a.m. for testimony before the Select Committee, pursuant
to Seiuitor Ervin's letter of June 1"2. 1074. which is presently marked
as an exhibit.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
[Whei-eupon, at fi:!,") p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter
adjourned.]
11619
Chester Davis Exhibit No. 1
■AM J. nWIN. JK., NX.. CMAIMMAM
MOWAMO M. ■AKCN. JR.. TCNM. VICE CHAlWMAH
C TAi^MAOCE. CA. EOWAUD J. CUItNEV. FLA.
CU K. INOUTE, MAWWAII LOWCl-i. P. WEICKEA. JR..
MOMTOTA. M. MEX.
■ AMUCL OA5N
COUHSEL ANO STAFF BIRECTON
rRED O. THOMPSON
MINORITY COUN5E1-
■UFUS 1_ COMISTEN
DETUTT COUNSEi.
^Znileb ^ia{cB Syenctle
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
ImjKSUMfT TO S. mZS. ». UD CONGRESS)
WASHINQTON. O.C. 20510
June 12, 1974
Chester C. Davis
One State Street Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Dear Mr. Davis:
I have received your letter of June 11, 1974, and have noted
your request that the testimony of Mr. Ralph Winte be given at a
public hearing.
You have already been heard by the Committee on your request
to have the testimony of your clients, including Mr. Ralph Winte,
heard in public sessions. Your request was denied by the Committee
because of a number of factors, including but not limited to the
Resolution passed by the Committee on November 29, 1973, and at-
tached hereto.
In addition, as you noted in your letter, you have taken this
matter into the federal courts where you are awaiting a judicial
determination of the very issue you raise in your letter by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Both
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have
refused to enjoin the Select Committee from having further executive
sessions pending the disposition of your case.
Therefore, since the Committee has already ruled on the issue
you raise and since the matter is now pending in the federal courts,
no further purpose would be served at this tiae by another hearing
before the full Committee on the same issue. Since Mr. Uinte re-
mains under subpoena to the Committee, I direct him to testify as
soon as possible pursuant to your agreement with Mr. Lackritz so
that the Committee can complete its work expeditiously.
Sincerely,
■^
rt^'J-^
Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
United States Senate
Enclosure
SJE/mcr
Jr
FBIDAY, JUNE 14, 1974
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Wmhhigion, D.C.
The staff met, pursuant to notice, at 12 :30 p.m., at the offices of
Hiinten, Williams, Gay & Gibson, 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Present : Scott Armstrong, investigator; Richai-d L. Schultz, assist-
ant minority counsel : and Mary DeOi'eo, investigator.
Mr. Armstrong. This is an interview with Mr. Johnnie Walters,
former Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Walters, could you tell us when you were first employed by the
Internal Revenue Service ?
INTEEVIEW OF JOHNNIE M. WALTERS, ACCOMPANIED BY
STEPHEN SACHS, COUNSEL
Mr. Walters. I was first employed by IRS in January 1949. 1 stayed
until October 1953.
Mr. Armstrong. In what capacity did you sei-ve ?
Mr. Walters. I was a lawyer in the L. & R. Division of the Chief
Counsel's office.
Mr. Armstrong. L. & R. ?
Mr. Walters. Legislation and Regulations Division.
Mr. Armstrong. At that time, were you acquainted with Mr.
Kenneth Gemmill ?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I believe at that time he was in the Treasury
Department.
]Mr. Armstrong. Do you know in what capacity he served in the
Treasury Department at that time ?
Mr. Walters. I think he was tax legislative counsel, although I am
not sure of his title, and I am not sure that he was still there. But I
have known him since the early 1950's.
Mr. Armstrong. Professionally?
Mr. Walters. Professionally only.
Mr. Armstrong. When did you next serve with the Federal
Government ?
Mr. Walters. I came back to the Federal Government in January
1969, to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division
of the Depai-tment of Justice. I remained in that job until August 5,
1971. On August 6, 1971, 1 became Conmiissioner of Internal Revenue,
and I held that job through April 30. 1973.
Mr. Armstrong. Since that time, you have been in private practice?
]Mr. Walters. That is right.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us how you Avere first recruited for
your position as Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division?
(11621)
11622
]\Ir. "Walters. Yes. The first notice that I had of consideration for
that post was a telephone call that I received in early January 1960,
infoi-inin<j me that I was beino; considei'cd. alon*; with two other peo-
ple, to head up that I)i\ision. And I was asked if I would be interested.
That telephone call came from John Alexander, who was the senior
tax partner in the ^fudofe. Rose firm. T had worked with John Alex-
ander in Xew York City on a larfje case back in 1953 and 1954. And
that is how he came to know me and I to know him.
John Alexander, alon^ with a man named Euo;ene F. Boffan, who
was a tax lawyer here in Washino;ton, were both in the ofroup who was
^ettinjr toofethei- some tax professionals foi' consideration by the
President to head up the tax a^rencies in Government. I do not know
whether my name was initiated by Alexander or Bo^an. I suspect that
one or the other were the first ones to put my name in the hat, so to
speak.
Mr. AR:NrsTRoxG. Prior to the decision being made, did you speak
with anv officials of the transition or the administration ?
^Nlr. Walters. Yes. I responded to Mr. Alexander by sayinir that
I would like to have some time to think about it. He said that he
needed to know that morning, by noon, whether I would be interested.
I talked with my wife and my partner's and called him back and
said that, while I was not seeking the job, but as a tax professional,
T would be interested, and I would be available if they wanted me.
Later in the week, I received a call from Harry Dent, who was then
in the transition office, advising me that I was being considered for
the post and suggesting that I ought to talk with certain peoi)le so
that they Avould get to know me. I informed ]Mr. Dent that I had
agreed to be available for the job but that I was not seeking it. If it
involved a lot of politicking, I was not inclined to ])ursue it.
Nevertheless, I did agree to talk to two or three people, the main
one being Senator Thurmond of South Carolina, because at that time,
vou Avill remember, in addition to being the senior Senator fi-om my
home State, he was given a lot of credit for the election. I did talk
Avith Senator Thurmond, and I informed him that I had been asked
if I woidd be available, that I was not seeking the post, but that as a
tax professional I thought that I had a responsibility to say yes. I
would do this, if asked to do it. that anv tax lawver worth his salt
would, because I realized that it was an opportunitv and a privilege.
T'ltimately. Senator Thurmond said that he would tell them, who-
ever them means, that he supported the idea.
About January 7, I guess — I may be off a day or two — 1969, I was
called and asked to come to Xew York City to meet the Attorney
Genei-al-desi<>nat(>, John ^Nfitchell. And T believe Saturday. th(> 9th —
these dates — I have not checked that; I think they are about right.
I did go to Xew York on Saturday and met with John Mitchell and
Richard Kleindienst, who later became the Deputy Attorney General.
After interviews with both of them, I was asked to report to the
Department of Justice on the following Monday, which I believe was
January 11. Again, the dates are subject to verification. And, of coui-se,
that was for the pui'pose of working with the then-Assistant Attoi-ney
General INfitchell and his staff, so that on January 20, when I was
moved into this spot, that I would have some idea of the pending busi-
ness. And just to ease the transition, I did that.
11623
That is basically how it came about, and I do not know whether
it was Roo-an or Alexander who snijgested my name.
]Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, sir. During the period of j^our serv-
ice as Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division of the Depart-
ment of Justice, did you have any responsibility or handle any cases
that had any bearing on Howaid Hughes oi- the Hughes Tool Co.?
Mr. Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Any cases that had any bearing or involved
Lawrence O'Brien?
Mr. Walters. No, I do not think so.
Mr. Armstrong. Any cases that involved the President as a direct
party, or any of his relatives?
Mr. Walters. No.
]Mi'. Armstrong. Any cases involving Mr. Rebozo or any corpora-
tion of which lie was then an officer or a clirector ?
Mr. Walters. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. Any cases involving Resorts International?
Mr. AValters. AAHiat is Resorts International?
Mr. Armstrong. Resorts International is a corporation. It is a New
York corporation that owns, among other things, Paradise Island in
the Bahamas.
Mr. Walters. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Armstrong. At one time it was acquiring a good deal of Pan
American Airlines stock.
]\rr. Walters. Not to my knowledge. I say it that way because of
the flow of business; but I do not recall any of those names. I do not
even kuow whether there were cases.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us how you came to be Commissioner
of the Internal Revenue Service in August of 1971 ?
Mr. Walters. In, I guess, late 1970 or early 1971, it became obvious
that then-Commissioner Randolph W. Thor was running into diffi-
culties, maybe PR difficulties. But anyway, there was a lot of flak in
the press, and his position became unhappy, let's say. He resigned in
early 1971. My recollection is that he submitted it sometime in
Januai-y.
Randv Thor and I had been good friends for a long time. And, of
course, I knew about his plans from my discussions with him. How-
ever, he agreed to remain as Commissionei' until they found someone.
The administration did not find someone right away, and Randy
stayed, I believe, until the summer of 1971. I forgot exactly, but for
some time.
Many names, I guess, were being considered. And they were having
difficulty, I guess, finding someone or getting someone to agree to take
the job. At some point, my recollection is, that I mentioned to the
Attoi-ney General, then John Mitchell, that while I had hoped to
leave Govei-nment sometime in the summer or early fall of 1971, that
if it would be helpful that I might be willing to take the job of Com-
missioner, of course realizing that I would have to stay on for the
first 4-year term.
Later on. my name surfaced as a potential, which was natural any-
way. l;ecause in that spot I was one of the tax team and had been from
the beginning.
11624
AVhotlior or not tlmt was passed on 1)\- the Attorney Gonoral. T do
7iot know. T do not know wluit role lie ])1ny('d in my bccoininjr Com-
missioncM'. altliouirli I would susfx-ct that hv si)oke well of nic.
Several names ultimately bioke out in the media. One was Jack
Xollen, who was at Treasury. And the media made some do about
Xollen and AValters. T do not think eithei- one of us were really seekin<r
that iob.
Ultimately, Secretary Connally — T talked to him. By that time he
had come in. And. of coui'se. he was the one who would make the final
decision. And T r-econnnended to Secr(>taiT Connally. Jack Xollen.
tellinir him that he was alieadv in Tivasurv, he was highly qualified,
and he was there. Secietary Connally admitted, o?- stated to me, that
he would like Xollen and that he wanted to think about it.
intimately. Secretary Connally invited me back for a second con-
ference and informed me that he would like foi- me to be Commis-
sioner, because he had decided that he wanted to kee]) X^ollen in his
office at the Treasui-y Department. And once he made that decision,
of coni"se. T <>niess the paperwork, the normal routine moved forward.
^Ir. Ar:mstroxg. Thank you, sir. Can you tell us, as Commissionei- of
the Internal Revenue St'rvice when you first became aware of any of
the tax matters involviuir the Huii'hes Tool Co. or John ^Nleier?
Mr. Walters. ]\Iay we o^o off the re<?ord ?
]\Ir. A R:\rsTRoxrT. Yes.
[Discussion ofi' the record.]
INIr. AY M.TERS. I indicated that the paperwork moved forward in the
normal fashion. That is true, but with one little exception. That is,
that as soon as my name had surfaced as the likely successoi- to Kandy
Thor, Ro^er Rarth, who then Avas Special Assistant to tho Commis-
sioner, came to my office in the Justice De[iartment and informed me
that he wanted to be Deputy Commissioner, which is the Xo. 2 man
at IRS.
I told him quite frankly that I would not recommend him. that I
would not affree to that. I infoi-med him of mv reasons and views,
my reasons bein<r, that as Deputy Conunissionei- — the man who is in
charjre of the day-to-day ojierations of the business of IRS — he is a
career official ; he should be a man of mature judirment and experience.
He should know IRS personnel and he should know the tax system.
He shonld know the Internal Revenue Code. T infoiined ]\[r. Barth
that in my o]^inion he did not meet those qualifications and, accord-
ingly, I could not entertain that su<i:*;est ion.
The next moi'nin<r I received a telephone call fi'om John Ehi-lich-
man. who infoi-med me that he had heai-d a T'umoi' that if I were made
Commissionei- that I would <>('t rid of Rooer Barth. I resi)onded by
informin<; ^Nlr. Ehi'lichman that 1 had not reached any such conclu-
sions but thn<^. in my opinion that there was a very definite problem
with Roirer Barth beino- at IRS and that if I were to be nominated I
thoup-ht that we ouidit to sit down and talk about it. He airreed and
thou^-ht it was a <2food idea and said that he would keep it in mind.
A few days later, I received a call askiiur me to '^M>et with ^Nfr.
I^vhrlichman at some appointed hour. I foriret. and when I ai'rived
Mv. Ehi'lichman was not present. I was informed that he was with
the President and that I should see Fred ]\Ialek.
11625
I did see Fred Malek, and we discussed the status of Roger Barth as
it related to my beinor nominated to be Commissioner. I quite frankly
informed Mr. Alalek that there Avas a problem with Roger Barth being
at IRS, working the wny he worked, that I would not agree for him to
be Deputy Commissioner, and that if the administration felt tiiat they
needed someone at TRS in the role of a spy that they did not want me
as Commissioner; further, that I did not want to be Commissioner in
that situation.
Mr. Barth is a 3'oung man with talents and capability. And I in-
formed ]Mr, INIalek that if he were to remain in IRS that I thought
everyone would be sei-ved well by him doing or performing substantive
tax work, which would be good for IRS and good for j\Ir. Barth.
Mr. Malek agreed, and we ultimately compromised, I guess, by my
agreeing to keep ]Mi-. Bai-th for a period of 90 days, changing his work
as I anticipated. And if it, at the end of 90 days, was not working out
satisfactorily, then that Mr. IVIalek would support me in moving
Mr. Barth.
Mr. ScuuLTZ. Did you say "moving" or "removing" ?
Mr. WaIvTERS. INIoving him to some other spot somewhere.
I was told, of couise, that the papers which would nominate me for
that post would not move from the President's desk to the Congress
for confirmation, woidd not move from Mv. Ehrlichman's desk to the
President and then on to the Senate for confirmation, until we reached
some solution to the Barth problem.
After Mr. ]\Ialek and I discussed the matter, I went back to the
Treasury' Department and discussed it Avith Secretary Connally and,
I believe, ITnder Secretary "Walker. But I am positive about Secretary
Connally. And we all reluctantly agreed that we should try that. The
papers moved forward, and I ended up in this glorious spot.
Mr. Sachs. You might want to add, carrying that thought foi-ward,
what changes you did in fact make with respect to Barth.
Mr. Walters. Let me say this, and I regret having to speak in a way
that might cast some disci-edit upon Mr. Barth, because I do not like
to do that to anyone. And, as I indicated earlier, he is a young, capable
man. He has a lot of capacities.
But at IRS, with him having been the advance man for the Nixon
girls and David Eisenhower in the 1968 campaign, he more or less
immediately took on the posture of being closely aligned with the
White House.
Mr. SciiuLTZ. Excuse me for 1 minute — what was his title?
Mr. Walters. He was Special Assistant to the Commissioner.
Mr. SciiuLTz. Special Assistant.
Mr. Walters. Throughout IRS, maybe with minor exceptions, he
was thought to be a White House spy. And I say, thought to be, be-
cause I do not know that anybody can ever point to anything specific
that would prove it to your satisfaction or anybody's satisfaction. But
the IRS management teams were leary of hmi.
When I became Commissioner, I decided that we needed to change
that, and that was just one change that I made, but certainly one. So
I immediately initiated the following changes to try to overcome that
kind of aspect.
First, I had discussions with him and suggested, as I had already,
that to serve his personal goals better, he ought to do substantive tax
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 23
11626
wor'k and tliat T waiit(Ml to ofivo him tliat kind of an assipfiiniont. And
I started d()in<r (hat, with vvvy litth> success, because I just nevei- <2:ot
to the kind of })i-o(hictive work in that \"ein that I hoped that I would
get.
Second, Mi'. Rartli, ah)iia" with tlie otliei- Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, a man named Kd Pei'kins. a technical man: he i)revi-
ously had attended the stall' meetinas. The stati' meetin<>s involved the
Commissioner, the Deputy Commissionei-, the (^liief Counsel, and all of
the Assistant (\)mmissioners. Mr. Barth had served as secretary
thi'ouahout those meetiiiirs and had pre|)ared the minutes.
T decided that T would like the toj) mana<:ement team to be relaxed
in their approach to (juestions and com})letely free in (liscussin»j the
subjects that we wanted to discu^-s on a hard-nosed ))rofessional basis.
I said that from that time forward, the only people that were to attend
the staff meetinirs would be the (Commissioner, the Deputy Commis-
sioner, and the Chief Counsel, and the Assistant Commissioners. I
excluded others, including- the Special Assistants to the Commissioner.
Further, we did not keep minutes, except as individuals mi<>-ht make,
you know, handwritten notes at the time, because T did not want those
discussions to be dampened by any idea that what was said in there
miofht be published in some form.
This upset Mr. Barth, needless to say, but that is how we proceeded.
Mr. SciiULTz. What happened to the OO-day commitment ?
Mr. Walters. The 90-day commitment expired with Mr. Barth still
remainin*>; as a Special Assistant.
Why ^ Because as we approached the end of the 90 days, from sev-
eral sources I was led to believe that Mr. Barth would be leiM'ino- IRS.
I discussed this with him. on heariui^ this, and he infoi'merl me that,
yes, he thou<i-ht that that was so, that he understood that there were, as
he put it, that they are lookino- for a spot for me. T believed not just
him but the others sources that he would be leavino- lES, and I decided
that it would be inadvisable for me to make a Federal ease and just
up and push him out if he were o-oino-to be leavino- o-racefully. because,
obviously, it was advantao-eous for the agency to be on a reasonably
<!^ood relationship with the White House staff.
These rumors pei'sisted but he did not <iO. And in, I think, the early
fall of 1972, he left the ])ost as Si)ecial Assistant to the Commissioner
and became Deputy Chief Counsel. Th(> Chief Counsel's Office is in
the Treasury Department and is not under the Connnissionei-. al-
thouo-h he is in the building- and. of course, is the in-house lawyer, you
miahtsay.
Mr. ScnrLTz. T take it that you did not either formally or inform-
ally ask that at the end of the 90 days that he leave.
Mr. Walters. I did not, because I thought it was <>-oino: to be im-
minent and it kei)t drao-o-ingout.
Is that satisfactory i
I Recess.]
]Mr. AValtkks. The Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service.
K. Martin Worthy i-esianed. My ivcollection is, in January 1972, his
Deputy, a num mimed Ia'c Ilenkel, was promoted aftei- several weeks
to the" position of Chief Counsel. He beoan lookino; aiound for a
Deputy, and identified a lawyei- that he wanted to be Deputy. AVhen
he advanced that thouo-ht, he was met with the proposition that he
11627
probably ou^ht to have two deputies, with the second beinor Roger
Barth. And Mr. Barth did beconio the second Deputy Chief Counsel.
]\Ir. ARMSTHOX(i. Who offered that sugaestion ?
Mr. Walters. I cannot answer that directly; I suspect that this
came probably from ]Mr. Baith and his sponsor. Mr. Ehrlichman, but
I cannot state that as a fact. That would be my guess.
Mr. AiiMsTKoxG. To whom did Mr. Worthy — excuse me — to whom
did Ml'. A\'orthy or ^.Ii-. Henkcl actually leport ?
Mr. AValti:rs. To the (xeneral Counsel of the Treasury Department ;
at that time. Judge Saimiel Pierce.
^Ir. Scjii'LTZ. This transfei- had been subject to your approval?
Mr. WaltepvS. Xo. it was not. All 1 had to do was sit quietly.
]Mi". Armstrong. When did ^fr. I^arth assume his duties as Deputy
Chief Counsel?
Mr. Walters. My recollection is in the fall of 1972.
Mr. AR:\[STr.oxo. Subsequent to that, did he retain any of his old
duties that he had had as Special Assistant to the Commissioner?
^Ir. Walters. Xo, because that was a complete shift, you might sa}-.
from one function to another.
^Nfs. DeOreo. October ol. 1972. was the date that Barth became
Deputy Chief.
]\[r. Armstrong. For the clarity of the record, you have spoken of
your awareness, when you were being considered for Commissioner,
youi- awareness of the i)roblems with Earth's role at IRS. How had
you been familiar with those ?
Mr. Walters. As Assistant Attorney (icneral, of course, T worked
closely with the Commissioner, the I)e[)uty Commissioner, the Chief
Counsel and the toj) IRS stati' people, Wy osmosis T became awai'e of it.
Ml". AR:\rsTR()X(;. You were well acquainted with ^Ir. Barth and the
role he played?
Mr. Walters. T would not say well acquainted; I was aware of it.
And lun'e aagin. let me say this: As I indicated earlier. T cannot point
to any misbeha\ioi- on his [)ai't specifically, but this was a general
feeling that existed in IRS.
Ml'. ARMSTR()X(i. Can you tell us when you first became aware of the
[)ending tax matters against ]\Ir. Hughes or the Hughes Tool Co.?
^fi'. Walters. Xot specifically, although T think it was late in 1971,
early 1972. By that. I mean the Avinter of 1971. the spring of 1972.
I became awai'e of the fact that we had and were moving foi'ward with
a pi'oject to examine tiie Hughes oiganization and operation, with
the team being headcjuartei-ed in the Xevada district, but with agents
'n other districts, paiticulai-ly Houston and. I believe, some in Xew
York that were working theuL
Mr-. Armstroxg. When did you first become awai'e of the so-called
John Meier case?
Mr. Walters. Tn all probability I noted these things in the sensi-
tive case i-epoi-ts. I could not pinpoint when I first noted it. Along in
this time, in the spring and summer of 1972, the ]Meier case and other
names weic falling out of the Hughes investigation.
^fi-. Armstroxg. Both the Meier case and tlie Hughes Tool Co. case
were the subject of sensiti\e case re[)oi'ts. and von bi'iefed the Secre-
tarv?
11628
]\rr. Walters. Tn nil probability the latter case would have been
linked with PTiijrhes because it grew out of the Huj^hes situation.
Mr. AR:\TSTRoxrx. You would brief the Secretary on these as a part
of the sensitive case system?
Ml'. "Walters. You say "briefing." Xo. I would not brief him; I
never did l)i'ief him on the sensitive case reports, althoujrh he regu-
lai'ly saw the sensitive case repoi'ts. Sensitive case reports were pre-
pared monthly; one copy went to the C'ommissioner; one copy to the
Chief Counsel. Aftei- the Commissioner saw his copy, and the Deputy
Commissioner, then IVfr. Bai-th-^T mipht as well be specific — would de-
liver that copy to the Secretary foi- the Seci-etary's perusal. T never
did do that. That was ])roper and desii-able. But fi'om time to time T
would mention — not brief, but mention — to the Secretary, sensitive
cases. Of course, these would tend to be the ones that were more sensi-
tive than the averao;e sensitive case, and T did mention to him the
Howard Hughes situation because it was so big and required so much
manpower.
Mr. Ar^mstroxg. Do you know if Mr. Barth would show the sensi-
tive case reports to anyone other than the Secretary?
Mr. "Walters. No, T do not. T assumed that he would take those to
the Secretary; the Secretary would look at them; Mr. Barth waited
for them. I assume that he brought them back and put them where
they Avere supposed to be in TRS.
]Mr. AR:\rsTROXG. Were you ever aware of him showing sensitive
case reports to Deputy Secretary Simon?
Mr. "\Yalters. No, but that would be proper, and T would assume it
might happen.
Mr. Armstrong. Were you ever aware of him showing sensitive case
reports or sending copies of sensitive case reports to Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Walters. No, T was not.
INIr. Armstrong. Would that have been within his authorized
function?
Mr. Walters. Tt would have been out of the routine, and I would
worry about it.
Afr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first discussed either the
Meier or Hughes case with Secretary Shultz?
Mr. Walters. To my best recollection, the first time T mentioned
the Meier or Hughes investigation to the Secretary would be INIarch 3,
1972.
Afr. AR^rsTRoxG. Exhibit 1 for today, an eight-page set of hand-
wiitten notes foi- a briefing with the Secretary on that date, March 3,
1972: is that correct?
[The document referred to above was marked Walters exhibit
No. l.*l
Mr. "VValters. That is correct.
Mr. Armstrong. These are all in your hand?
INfr. Walters. That is correct.
Mr. Armstrong. "Referring to those notes, on page 3 there is a refer-
ence to the John TT. Meier case. T^efeninc to those notes, you can tell
us as best vou can what vou discussed Avith Secretarv Shiiltz on that
day ?
►See p. llfinV.
11629
INIr. Walters. Yes. Growing out of the Huirhes investiofation and
the Meier case liad surfaced — and this involved the sale of mining
claims in Xevada — at that time, based on information that IRS had,
it appeared tliat Donald Nixon might have been involved in that.
And T mentioned this to the Secretary because T thought that it was
the kind of very sensitive matter that he should be alerted to.
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us as much of the substance of your
conversation with the Secretary as you recall ?
Mr. Walters. At this point, of coui'se. I do not even recall the con-
versation: but based on my notes, which T made in advance of going
to meet with the Secretary, I would have advised him that Bebe
Kebozo. according to some" indications that IRS had. may have ad-
vised ]Meier to make himself unavailable, relative to the Hughes Tool
Co. acquiring those mining claims because of the fear that Meier
would reveal that Donald Nixon was his partner in connection with
those claims.
INIr. AR:\rsTROXG. Do you recall whether or not you would have in-
formed Secreta!-y Shultz that Donald Nixon was. in fact, Mr. Meier's
partner ?
Mv. "Walters. No. I would not. because at that point the most that
T would have done would be alert him to this possibility, indicating
th;it we had some indication that this might be the case.
Mr. Armstrong. In your handwritten notes, in exhibit 1. there are
some areas that are darkened. Does that indicate a highlightinof?
Mr. Walters. After I wrote out my notes for use as a guide in talk-
ing to the Secretary. I took a big, yellow, felt pencil and overwrote
certain words, or highlighted them, so that when I was talking with
the Secretary, I would not have to read the note, but could just glance
at the tliought that I wanted to talk about.
Mr. Armstrong. I notico thei-e is a checkmark at the left of "mining
claims."
]\rr. Armstrong. Yes. the checkmai'ks generally indicate that that
is an item that I have discussed with the Secretary. I would check it
off and go on to another one.
jNIr. Armstrong. You recall that this would have been a conversa-
tion you would have initiated with the Secretary ?
Mr. Walters. This would have been at one of the discussions with
the Secretary where I more or less brought him up to date on what
was happening at IRS, what w^e were doing, what we needed to do. It
was just kind of a briefing session, and I mentioned various items.
]Mr. SciiULTz. Were these regularly scheduled meetings or on a need
basis?
Mr. Walters. On a need basis.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if the Secretary seemed familiar
with the Meier case at that time ?
Mr. Walters. No, I have no recollection of how he appeared. He
just received this information without any comment or reaction.
Mr. Armstrong. Did the Secretary indicate at that time or subse-
quently what, if any. action he would take, based on your briefing?
Mr. Walters. No ; he did not.
Mr. Armstrong, ^^^^lat was your understanding of the purpose of
the sensitive case reports and your adding details to it in terms of
briefing the Secretary ?
11630
Mr. Walters. The purpose of the sensitive case reports, as T under-
stood tlieni for a lon<r time, is to aleit tlie Commissioner and his top
stall' in "Wasliinniton, and tlirouirh liim, the Socretai'v, to cases or inci-
dents tliat mi<rht be prominent in the media, in tlie news media, one
way or the otlier; so that we could be alert and not be surprised by
some bifi blow someplace, that is all.
Mr. Armstijoxg. Is it also your understandin<; that the Secretary
has any responsibility to alert anyon(> in the Executive Office of the
Pi-esident?
INIr. Walters. I never really stopped to think about it. I assume that
it is natural that he niio^ht. I never considered it as something that
he would just use and carry on to the White House, although it would
be quite proper.
Mr. Armstrong. Would the Secretary take notes during your brief-
ing sessions?
IVIr. Walters. No ; he did not.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there anyone else present during these
sessions ?
Mr. Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. On page 6 of the same set of notes, there is an
item — item 5 says "sensitive."
]Mr. Walters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Then there is the word "Texas" — it appears to be
"Southwest."
Mr. Walters. Southwest region. The Southwest region covers Texas
and some other States.
Mr. Armstrong. This would indicate that vou were discussing sen-
sitive cases from that region ?
:Mr. Walters That is light.
Mr. Armstrong. Item "C," under 5, says "Hughes — Howard —
Tool." Can you tell us from those notes what that indicates to you?
Mr. Walters. This, I would be mentioning to him here, in this
particular area, because it falls Avithin the Southwest region, which
was the Secretary's home region — then-Secretary Connally — and be-
cause part of the Howai'd Hughes team, as we referred to it, was in
Houston, where the headquarters of the Howard Hughes Tool Co. is.
As the note indicates, we had not only a civil investigation moving
forward, but one being conducted by the Intelligence Division for
possible criminal violations.
As the note on the left indicates. Secretary Connally said. OK, just
be sure that the IRS people act pi-operly. Fi-om time to time, when
I was discussing subjects with him and I did get a reaction, I would
make those notes.
jNIr. Armstrong. Do you i-ecall to what Secretary Connally was
referring? What his emphasis was in terms of "make sure that the
IRS people act properly"?
Mr. Walti:rs. Just this — I thought I might have made another note
to indicate it, but I do not see it — Secretary Comially felt very strongly
that IRS should act properly wlien it needed to act informally, or that
IRS should never harass taxpayers, should nevei- be overbearing. And
when he said, just be sure that IRS people act properly, that is what
he meant ; act properly, but do not be overbearing.
11631
Mr. ScHULTz. Secretary Connally?
Mr. Walters. Secretary Connally.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall who the Deputy Secretary was at
this time ?
Mr. Walters. Charlie Walker.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall Mr. Barth ever briefing Mr. Walker
on sensitive case reports ?
Mr. Walters. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And that would be proper ?
Mr. Walterj^. Yes; because in the Secretary's absence, the deputy
acted for him. So it would be quite proper.
Mr. Armstro^cg. You have a notation here, "civil substantial," and
two dollar signs.
Mr. Walters. That would indicate at this point — and unfortunately,
we cannot read the figures — this would indicate that in the Howard
Hughes investigation, we could already see substantial civil liabilities
growing out of the investigation.
I do not know what conclusion, if there has been a conclusion, but
the indications were that the Howard Hughes organizations would
owe IRS substantial additional taxes.
Mr. Armstrong. In order to be clear on this particular entry, this
case is a case which is separate and apart from the Meier case ; is that
correct ?
Mr. AValters. It is separate and apart, but they are quite related, be-
cause the Meier case grew out of the Hughes investigation, as I under-
stand it.
Mr. Armstrong. Would this include the so-called Maheu case ? The
activities of Mr. Maheu?
Mr. Walters. Probably, because they were all so intertwined.
Mr. Armstrong. The references to civil liability indicates to you
that that Avas a liability of the Hughes organization, not on Mr.
I\Iaheu's part?
^Ir. Walters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, there is a reference on page 7, three lines
at the top of that page. Can you tell us what those are and what they
indicate to you ?
Mr. Walters. This Hughes project, investigation, was a mammoth
undertaking because the Hughes organization was so diverse and so
Avidespread that we required a substantial number of agents, special
agents, and others to carry on the investigation. I forget, but I have
a recollection that at one point we had approximately 50 people on
this thing; and I could see it going on forever. And I kept pressing
our people to at least draAv some parameters and set some goals so
that we could conclude this thing and not let it go on and on and on.
And I had suggested to them that we should try to accomplish the
job in less than 18 months.
Now, the next note indicates that the Hughes Tool Co. officials and
employees were cooperating. We were not getting any foot-dragging
or any dilatory tactics on their part.
And the third line indicates what was a big concern of mine^ — was
Howard Hughes alive— that question I worried about because I felt
that if he had died, then IRS should be trving to determine what
11632
estate taxes would be due, because presumably the amount would be
hufTo.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall what, if any, comment or observa-
tion the Secretary made on this se^jment of your report?
Mr, Walters. T don't think he made any, because this was more or
less iust an informative-type oral report to him. I do not recall him
niakin^r any comment with respect to that.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any indication contemporaneously
or at a subsequent time that Secretary Connally reported on either
the Meier or the Hughes matter to anyone in the "Wliite House?
Mr. Walters. No. I do not.
Mr. Armstrong. Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
]\fr. Armstrong. Do you recall, sir, when you would have next dis-
cussed with the Secretary any similar matters related either to Mr.
Hujjhes or the Meier cases ?
Mr. Walters. Based upon the contemporaneous notes made for my
discussions with the Secretary, they in all probability would have
occurred on INIarch 24, 1972 ; although T cannot be positive that that
date in 100 percent accurate.
But in one of my sessions with the Secretary, just mentioning to
him some of the sensitive matters with which we were working, my
note indicates that I mentioned to him that I would be going to Las
Vegas for a briefing on the Howard Hughes investigation. Now, that
was not a trip planned specifTcally for that. My recollection is that
I was going to Los Angeles and possibly San Diego for other busi-
ness, and I stopped back by Las Vegas for a briefing because of the
immensity of the Howard Hughes investigation and the critical nature
of the thing.
By that I mean, here Ave had a lot of our manpower tied up in this
(hing, following money not only across the country but across the
seas, trying to find out where the money was going and why. I did
stop back by Las Vegas for the briefing — and you will notice on that
particular note, "files-27." Someone apparently had mentioned to
Secretary Connally that IKS was misbehaving in the Howard Hughes
investigation. By misbehaving, T mean maybe harassing the Howard
Huirhes people. The allegation had been rnade to the Secretary that
ITvS had seized 27 cabinets of Howard Hughes' files and would not
let them gain access to them. The Secretary asked me to check on
that and determine whether it was true.
That is this note that indicates — reminds me that T did check on it
while T was out there, and found that the allegation was not correct;
that we had not seized 27 files and were not holding them. And T was
just repor-ting that fact to him.
Mr. Armstrong. Fot- clarity of the i-ecord, Mr. Walters is making
reference to exhibit No. 2, which is a handwritten memorandum of
notes from. T gatlier. a briefing Avith the Secretary, Avhich Mr. Sachs
notes in the upper lefthnnd corner "belicA^es to be on March 24, 1972."
Ts tliat correct?
[The document referred to aboA^e was marked Walters exhibit
No. 2.*]
♦See p. 11665.
11633
Mr. Walters. That is correct.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you rocall if the Secretary made reference to
who had raised that question?
Mr. Walters. He did not. I recall that he did not; nor did I ask him.
Mr. Armstrong. You have never become aware of who it was?
Mr. "Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, do you recall any of the substance
of 5''our briefincr in Las Vegas on the Hughes matter ?
Mr. Walters. Yes. I had two briefings, one at about this time in
March of 1972, and one in August of 1972. The first briefing, of course,
was mainly to orient me to the size of the project and some of the
problems and the direction which the investigation was taking. When
I arrived in Las Vegas, sometime late on the night before the briefing,
my recollection is 10 or 10 :30, the District Director met us at the
airport — and with me at that time was the Regional Commissioner,
then Homer Crosmun. He took us to our hotel and then to a casino, be-
cause I had never been in a casino before. And he recognized that the
next morning when they were briefing me they would be talking about
the "pet" and other things and I had no concept of it. So we went and
he showed me through a casino and we watched the play in action. We
did not engage in it; it was an educational tour, so to speak.
So, the next morning at the briefing we went into the space occupied
by the intelligence agents where they had one wall of the room with a
chart, or charts, showing the various Hughes organizations, corpora-
tions, and other activities, and also the names that were beginning to
surface in the investigation. JNIy recollection is that that chart covered
almost the entire wall of the room — to give you some concept of the
immensity of the thing.
The team manager, whose name I do not recall at this time, briefed
us, told us how the investigation stood, where we were, where they
felt they had to go. Actually, it was a briefing for me on more or less
a managerial level, just to inform me about it. That was the one in
INIarch.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Keany was a part of that?
Al Keany ?
Mr. Walters. Yes, JNIr. Keany was part of this investigation ; yes,
he was.
Mr. Armstrong. At that time was there discussion of Mr. Donald
Nixon's ties with Mr. Meier ?
Mr. Walters. I do not recall, and if there were discussions, I would
not recollect that it was pari, of the briefing, but maybe part of an
aside comment or conversation while at the briefing. I do not recall
whether it was at that briefing or the one in August, but it is very
likely that it could have been either one, because by that time, Mr.
Donald Nixon's name had been mentioned in connection with it.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether Mr. Rebozo's name came up ?
Mr. Walters. I do not recall when it came up, but that, too, surfaced
in connection with all this.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you tiake any notes at that briefing, do you
recall ?
Mr. Walters. No, I did not.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there anyone else with you traveling on your
staff?
11634
Mr. Walters. At the socoiul briofiufr, of coiirso, T reccall the Assistant
Coniniissionor of Compliance was there. Tie may have been at the first
briefing, too, I do not recall specifically. Also. I'luul a second briefing;
I believe Mr. Crosmun was there also. He was the Regional Commis-
sioner ont of San Fi-ancisco. This was in his region.
Mr. Srni'LTZ. Were yon ever fnrnished with a snnnnarv of the
briefing later, a recapitnlation?
Mr. Walters. I do not recall receiving any written recapitulation.
^Ir. Armstrong. Did yon report back on the briefing to Secretary
Connally subsequently?
]Mr. Walters. At some point, this would indicate that I planned to
and I am sure T did. you know, just to advise him that I had the
briefing and I had checked on the matter of the files.
Mr. Armstroxg. Am I correct in assuming you were unable to locate
any notes relating to the Hughes and ^Meier matter between March
of 1972 and August of 1972 ?
]\Ir. Walters. I have none, because when T prepared these notes, of
course. I did not realize the full use to which they would be put. I
really prepared them just for my use in talking with the Secretary, and
I think I kept them all and I have no other notes.
Mr. Armstrong. Up to this bi-iefing of ISfarch 1972, did you ever
have any discussions with anyone in the White House or anyone, any
associates of the President or agents of the President, or with any
campaign affiliation, regarding any tax matters related to Hughes or
Meier matters?
jNIr. Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Had you had any contact with anyone in the White
House relating to any IRS functions at all from the time that you were
appointed through ^farch 1972 ?
^fr. Walters. I do not think so. T do not recollect any contact in the
AMiite House in that vein.
Mr. Sachs. Excuse me. There is a reference in your exhibit 1 to. on
page
Mr. Walters. On page 4.
Mr. Sachs. With respect to the Dean call. He is ^"SHiite House there.
JNIr. Walters. T am sorry.
Mr. Armstrong. Why do you not mention the name of the tax case?
Mr. Walters. I probably answered your question too specifically.
From time to time when the White House would be considering ap-
pointing an individual to some governmental post requiring confirma-
tion or naming some individual to an honorary commission or some-
thing of this sort, they would n^ike inquiry of us. asking whether IRS
had any ongoing investigation of the particular individual.
This we considered — and I think everyone does — proper, and also
advisable, and we would also do another thing. If IRS happened to
notice a name mentioned as a likely Presidential apjiointee of some
fashion and whoever noticed it knew that something Avas ongoing in
IRS, then they would call that to our attention. This kind of informa-
tion we did ])ass on to, generally John Dean in the White House, and
I ha\e this contemporaneous note that indicates that I did advise him
in this respect.
11635
Mr. Armstrong. I also notice that on page 5 there is an item. Again,
-we do not need to mention it by name. Item No. F, which has next to
it, "Call Mitchell." Is that Attorney General Mitchell?
Mr. Walters, That is right.
Mr. Armstrong. That indicates, then
Mr. Walters. That I was trying to reach him on March 6, 1972.
And I might just add that I did later get him a day or two later on
that. This was just to post the President through John Mitchell that
IRS had this situation going with that individual that reportedly was
a friend of the President, and the purpose of the call was to alert them
that they should not be too cozy with that kind of an individual. This
was done on an ongoing basis because if we could anticipate a
problem — for instance, you may notice the next item on that partic-
ular page. It shows the name of a doctor, and this now has become
public information, so we can now talk about it without any worry.
Someone noticed, someone in IRS noticed in the media that the Presi-
dent apparently intended to take Dr. Ryland with him on his trip to
China, and I was alerted that we had an ongoing investigation on
this particular individual and that maybe we would want to alert
the President that we doubted that he should take this man.
I did alert the Secretary of this, and either he or I — I do not know
which — may have called John Dean, We did alert the White House
of this and suggested that maybe he would not want to take this man.
He did take him to China, And the same thing reoccurred prior to the
Russian trip, Nevertheless, we ended up prosecuting Dr. Ryland. After
a very lengthy trial, just a few weeks ago he was acquitted.
]\Ir, Armstrong, Do you know if you would have mentioned the
Meier or Hughes case or Mr. Donald Nixon or Mr. Rebozo's involve-
ment in those cases to either Mr. Dean or Mr. Mitchell ?
Mr. Walters. I do not think so. I doubt it. That kind of thing
ordinarily I would just mention to the Secretary.
Mr. Armstrong. Incidentally, the item that we referred to on page
5 as item F, involves a name of an individual that has not come up
previously in this case, so we will leave it off the record.
Mr. Walters. I agree.
Mr. Armstrong. It is an associate of the President, but he has not
been named previously.
Mr. Sachs. There is a similar item E on page 4. There is also a
reference "Call Mitchell."
Mr. Armstrong. Right.
Mr. Walters. May we go off the record?
Mr. Armstrong. Sure.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong, Could we put this on the record ?
I appreciate you being forthcoming, and it is important for you to
have it in the record. Go ahead, sir.
Mr, Walters. You will note that in my discussion with the Secre-
tary on March 3, 1972, and I mentioned the fact that IRS did have
some investigation going with respect to two or three individuals.
The Secretary suggested that I call John Dean in one instance and
John Mitchell in the case of a couple of the others.
The purpose of the Secretary was to alert these people, and through
them the President, that we did have these sensitive matters pending
11636
and that possibly the President sliould be alerted and act accordingly.
While it did not occur to me at the time, I'ecently it was pointed out
that John Mitcliell had left the Attorney General's position or office
1 or 2 days ])rior to the time that T finally reached him on the phone,
March 7, I believe. I tried to i-each him on March 0. but failed to.
But the Secretary's idea, with which I concuri-ed. was that John
Mitchell was at that time the closest [)erson to the l-*resi(lent, and that
he could alert the President to the situations invohin«r rei)orted friends
of him much better tlian could the Secretary or someone else.
Mr. Armstkong. Do you recall in your conversation with Mr. Dean
on or about IMarch fi if Mr. Dean mentioned Larry O'Brien and the
fact that Mr. O'Brien was involved in a leasino^ arran<2:ement with the
Department of Transportation headquarters buildinof. anythino: in
that nature?
Mr. Wai.tkrs. No, I do not. In fact, that is the first time I liave
heard that kind of lan^uao;e.
Mr. Armstrong. Do your lo^s and diaries reflect any nieetino;S with
the Secretary between March 24, 1072 and August 25, 1972?
[The document referred to above was marked Walters exhibit No.
3.*]
Mr. Walters. I am sure they do. These sheets that we have brought
down here were the ones whei'e there were mentions made of the
Howard ITufrhes investigations and related cases. But I am sure that
they would reflect meetings.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you show a meetino- durino- the week of
June 10, 1972?
Mr. Walters. I mio:ht add that these sheets are not perfect.
Mr. Sachs. Let me also say on the record that John A, Walters'
com})lete set of his notes of meetings with tlie various secretaries he
has, and the ^ri'^nd jnry has the complete set of everythin<r. I would
also look in there to see if there are any notes. T gather you do not
want notes that are not related to this subiect matter ?
Mr. Armstrong. Althouo;li if we could find a meetino- during: that
week that would indicate what was discussed, that mifjht be helpful.
IMr. Sachs. Foi- his reference it miirht be helpful.
Mr. WAL'n>:Rs. June, what date ?
INfr. AR:\rsTnoN(;. For reference ])oint. it was around the time that
Secretary Shultz was concerned. It pi'obably would have been one
of your first briefin<»;s with him. and I believe between the 10th and
17th. somewhere in there.
Mr. AValters. INIy calendar shows that at 8:4;") on the 16th I w^as
due, and I assume T went, to a staff meeting at Treasury, and at 11 :30
on the IBth T saw Secivtary Shultz.
Mr. AK>rsTRONG. On tlie June 2 meetino- of Connally. does that
reflect anything that would cause to elicit any infoi-mation on the
O'Brien-Huofhes-Meiei- investifriition ?
Mr. Sachs. The fii-st answei'. without lookino. is. if so, it should
be in here.
Mr. AR:\rsTRON(j. It occurs to me that theie mio-ht be a fjeneral refer-
ence that would not be aj^parent the fiist time, such as a reference to
just substanti^-e cases.
*See p. 11666.
11637
Mr. Walters. That was my last nieetino; with Connally.
Mr. Sachs. AVo have no objection to you looking at it. It depends
what you want in this record.
Mr. AiniSTKOXo. Did you have any joint meetings ?
Mr. Walters. With them jointly'^
Mr. AiarsTROXG. Yes.
Mr. Walters. Never did.
Mr. Ar^istrong. Do you recall if in that first meeting with Secre-
tary Sludtz that you would have brought him up to date on the sensi-
tive case reports^
Mr. Walters. I doubt it, because due to the nature of Secretary
Shultz being quite an intense man I do not think I would have jumped
rififht into these sensitive cases right awav.
* ••11
Mr. Sactts. It is indeed possible that you had meetings with the
Secretary from time to time that are simply not the subject of notes?
Mr. Walters. That is possible.
[Recess.]
Mr. AR:\rsTRnxG. Do you recall in your first briefing with Secretary
Shultz if the Hughes Tool Co. project or the ]\Ieier case was likely
to come up at that time ?
Mr. Walters. Well, when you ask the question that way, I would
assume it did not, because my recollection is that the first briefing of
Secretary Shultz was not involving the — you might say the top team
in IRS — or at least part of the top team, how Ave Avanted to outline
the broad scope of IRS, what we were doing, whei'e we stood; it
would have been a broad, general administrative approach, rather than
talking about specifics. I doubt A'ery much that Ave were talkini about
specific cases, including the HoAvard Hughes iiiA-estigation.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. And your calendar indicates that Avould haA^e been
on June Ifi?
Mr. Walters. Well, that indicates that Avas the first appointment
I had Avith Secretary Shultz, yes.
INlr. AR:NrsTRoxG. And you recall AA'hen Larry O'Brien's name first
camo to your attention in any matter related to Internal ReAcnue
SerA'ice action?
Mr. Walters. Referring to my notes made — as I talked about be-
fore— before talking with the Secretary various times, the first specific
i-efei-ence to Larry O'Brien's name is in my notes on August 25. 1972;
although, in all likelihood his name had come to my attention in a
sensitiA'e case report earlier than that, just hoAv eaily I don't recall.
Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Do you i-ecall Avhen Mr. Danner's name first came
to your attention in relation Avith the Hughes matter?
Mr. Walters. That. too. Avas earlier in 1972 in connection Avitli the
sensitiA^e case reports, again. Just Avhen. I couldn't pinpoint, but I
would say in spring, or late spring of 1972. probably.
Mr. ARArsTRoxG. Would that haA^e included the substance of the
interA'icAv Avith Mr. Danner in JNIav of 1972 in Avhich he disclosed he
delivered the $100,000 from the Hughes Tool Co. to Mr. Rebozo?
^Ir. Walters. Well, at some point it probably Avould haA^e. Avhether
it did initially. I don't recall. Later on I did learn of the allegations
of the moncA' to which a'ou are referring.
11638
Mr. AmrsTROXG. Duriii<2: the summer of 1072, woro you receiving:,
aside from two briefin<i:s you told us about in ^Nfarcli and Aug^ust of
1072, Aveie you i-eoeiving; any information independcMit of sensitive case
reports on TIuo:hes-]Meiei" matters?
Mr. Walters. Yes, to some extent we were g:ettin<r status reports on
the Howard TTufjlies investigation; liow frequent tliose were, I can't
say now. It's been sug;<2;ested that it mio;ht liave been eitlier weekly or
biweekly, I don't recall. But because of the size of that project and
the importance to IRS, and also the sensitive nature of the matter, we
Avere g:ettin<; status repoi'ts on it.
Mr. Ar^nistroxc;. Who was present when the rejxjits were made, and
who made them?
Mr. Walters. If they Avere made orally, in all likelihood it would
be either John Haidon. reportino- to me, or Joe McGowan, who is John
Hanlon's deputy, reportino- to me. If they were made in writing:, of
course, in all likeliliood they would come out of the Intel li<i:ence Divi-
sion of the national office througli Mi". Ilanlon. and then up to the
Commissioner.
Mr. Ar^fstrono. In an oral bi-iehng:. Avould an vone be present besides
Hanlon ?
INIr. Walters. It's likely that the Deputy Commissionei- Avould be
present, althoug:h he mig:ht not be present each time. The Deputy
Commissioner Avas then a man named Ray Harless avIio lias since re-
tired and noAv liA'es in San Francisco.
Mr. Armstrong, And do you recall if you had any contact directly
Avith the White House in relationship to any of these matters, up to
August of 1072?
Mr. Walters. Well, the only direct contact T had with the White
House was in connection with the Larry O'Brien matter, that's the
one Ave're discussing-. T guess, was a telephone convei-sation initiated by
Secretary Shultz to John Ehi'lichman in late Aug:ust 1072. While I
can't say precisely what date it was, after much refreshing- and much
further checking:, not onlv our notes but othei's' we have speculated
that date Avas Augnist 20, 1072.
Mr. Armstrong. Before Ave discuss the substance of that conversa-
tion, can you describe the substance of A'our conversation with Secre-
tary Shultz on Augnist 25, 1072 ?
Mr. Walters. No. I can't. All I can do is look at the notes I made
contemporaneously before going- into the Secretary's office, indicating:
the items I wanted to just mention to him. And of course that note of
Ang^ist 25, 1072. indicates I mentioned se\eral sensitive cases. Tavo
items mentioned the Howard Hughes investigation and various names
that Avere surfacing- in tliat inxestigation. one of them being: Darrv
O'Brien's.
By that time IRS had indications, information that the HoAvard
Hug:hes oi'g:anization had paid clearly substantial sums to Larry
O'Brien, oi- Larry O'lirien and his associates; and IKS, as in many
other cases, Avas intei-ested in fiiulina- out more about these payments,
Avhy they Avere made, and w1hm(> they ultiinately Avent.
Mr. AR>rsTRoxG. Can you just describe bi-iefly the history of the
O'Brien matter as it de\eloped. and the Hughes niattei", uj) to the first
time it came to the attention of the White House?
11639
jNIr. "Walters. "Well, I (loii"t know wlien it first came to the attention
of the "White House, except liow, I mio;ht say, it flowed back to me.
In the sprin<2: and summer of 1972, of course, IRS had information and
evidence that these payments had been made to Darry O'Brien and
his associates. The team on the Howard Hughes investi(?ation wanted,
of coui'se. to follow the Huo'hes money wherever it went, and find out
why it went, and where, ultimately.
At some point in the sunnner of 1972 — and I cannot pinpoint the
date — Secretary Shultz stated to me that the White House had in-
formation that indicated that Mr. O'Brien may have received large
amounts of income which possibly might not have been reported prop-
erly. The Secretary asked if I could check, and I said I would check.
I then asked the Assistant Commissioner of Compliance, Mr. Hanlon,
if he would determine whether Mr. O'Brien had filed returns, and the
status of those returns. A fcAv days later Mr. Hanlon reported orally
to me that IRS had checked, that INIr. O'Brien had filed returns; that
those returns reflected large amounts of income; that the returns had
been examined, that a small, relatively small deficiency was indicated
in one, which Mi'. O'Brien had paid ; and that the audits and examina-
tions were closed.
Now. I reported this to the Secretary at some point and told him
just that, which meant that there was nothing else, that IRS had per-
formed its function and responsibility. Subsequently — and when I say
"subsequently" I don't mean within a day or week, but sometime later —
the Secretary indicated that that had not completely satisfied Mr.
P^hrlichman. and, wasn't there anything else that could and should be
done; and of course by this time IRS had already concluded, felt that
it should interview Mr. O'Brien in connection with these payments
from Hughes.
I told the Secretary — and I don't know whether the idea initiated
in the field, earlier with me, or even in the discussions with the Secre-
tary— that we could interview ]\Ir. O'Brien and just be sure that the
amounts reflected in the return covered the particular amounts from
the Hughes organization.
We did tlien undertake — and when I say "we" I mean the people
conducting the Hughes investigation — undertook to interview Mr.
O'Brien : and needless to say, he was busy and not easily available. But
they did ultimately have an appointment with him which was not
kept. ]Mr. O'Brien clid not show. And the agents ultimately felt they
were given some sort of a runaround. and they were being dodged.
I say this reporting to you factually, not indicating what I think,
because I think at that time obviously Mr. O'Brien was very, very
busy and it could have been an accident. In any case, they ultimately
did" talk with Larry O'Brien, Jr., and he indicated that lie knew
al)out his father's affairs, and that he would be pleased to sit with them
and conduct a conference. The agents initially agreed to that.
In some fashion — how I do not know — this information became
known to ]Mr. Ehrlichman ; and when I say that flat out I am. I guess,
surmising to some extent because ^Ir. Ehrlichman never told me that;
but that's the indication. In any case, through Secretary Shultz I
was informed that that hardly seemed appropriate, that IRS should
interview the taxpayer, not the taxpayer's son; and of course I agreed
with that. I think it's quite propei- to interview the taxpayer, and so
11640
I advisor! our people and directed them that they should have the inter-
view with the taxpayer and not the taxpayer's son.
They did have an interview with Mr.Oliiien on Anirust 17, 1972.
T believe here in Wash in «rt on. While the time tliat Mr. O'Brien could
<rive them Avas limited, the report which they made in writing: indi-
cated he was cooperative, there was no harassment on either side: and
apparently it was a completely <rood. solid conference. Mr. O'Brien
indicated, of course, that any further conferences should be postponed
until after the election.
Incidentally, subsequently I was told that tlie idea of postponin<r
further conferences was not exactly cricket, but the TRS never did
conduct any further conferences.
The Au<j:ust 18 conference report was transmitted to the Secretary,
at my suofffostion. as T recall. T don't know who delivered it. l)ut any-
way, by this time I thoutjlit he should have a full report.
By this time, of course. I thouf;ht this th'm^x should be completely
over and done with, with IRS. The taxpayer liad filed his returns, re-
ported his income, paid his taxes. IRS had conducted an audit, so the
case was closed. And I insisted to the Secretary that that was the situa-
tion. However, it appeared that he was bein<j: pressed — I'm talkin*;
too much.
At some point in Aufjust of 1972 the Secretary asked if I would
brintr over Mr. Barth so that he, INIr. INIerric. and I could review the
O'Brien affair, and call and discuss it with John Ehrlichman and fjet
rid of it for once and all.
INIr. Armstroxo. Before we discuss that, your affidavit of June 10.
1974, which is exhibit 4 here today, covers the same topic and makes
reference to the fact that the O'Brien meetinos — the interview with
Mr. O'Brien and the IRS was Aujrust 17, 1972.
Mr. Walters. Ri^ht.
[The document referred to above was mai'ked Walters exhibit No.
4.*]
Mr. Armstrong. Noav, is there any way to ]ilace the date of when
Secretary Shultz indicated that someone in the "N^Hiite House had in-
formation that Mr. O'Brien had received lai'^e amoimts of income
that micfht not have been repoi-ted pT'operly ?
Mr. W.M/rERS. No. not specifically. It ^oes back to, presumably,
sometimes in July, maybe even eai-lier: I don't i-ecall. and I have no
wav of ])in))ointing it.
Mr. ARiNrsTHONo. Could it hnvo been the first meetinjr with Secre-
tary Shultz on June Ifi, 1972?
Mr. Walters. No. I don't think so: but I can't sav "no."
Mr. Armstrong. Subsequently you became aware that it had been
an individual who told this to Secretary Shultz, it was Mr.
Ehrlichman.
IVf]'. Walters. That is i-icfht, and it was confirmed in late Aucfust
by the Secretary. I brought Mr. Bai-th over, and we discussed that,
called Ehi'lichman, and jLi'ot rid of it once and for all.
At some ))oint I think the Secretary and T felt that we were bein^r
"back-dooi-ed" in some fashion, and we didn't know how. But that
it would be advisable for 'Mv. Barth to be advised of this particular
*Rpe p. llfir.7;
11641
matter, Avhat we were doing, and what we were conclnding. Now,
that may suggest things to you, and if it does let it be, I don't want to
make these assertions.
Anyway, we did do this. I brouglit Mr. Bartii in and told him the
situation as I understood it ; we had the suggestion that large amounts
had been made and maybe not reported; that IRS had checked the
returns that had l^een filed, had examined them, and that it appeared
that everything was proper, we had closed the examination, and there
was nothing else we could do. Mr. Barth concurred in that view, so
did the Secretary. So we went, Mr. Barth and I
Mr, Sacfis. It's my turn to interrupt. Just to direct your attention
to AA'hat could have been an ambiguity, and may be an ambiguity, and
that is this: Would you just address yourself to the proposition of
Avhether the O'Brien interview on August 17 was an interview with
O'Brien, taxpayer, for purposes of determining his own tax liability:
or, was it an interview of O'Brien, taxpayer-witness in the Hughes,
or Meier, or Hughes-related investigation? How did you see it?
Mr. Walters. I saw it as part of the Hughes, and my recollection
is that the memorandum covering the conference Avith Mr. Hughes
was in that vein; it Avas following the payments made by Hughes to
Mr. O'Brien. And I think if you have that, if you get that, you will
find that was the vein in which it was conducted.
Mr. Sachs. There is one other theme that is reported in your af-
fidavit that probably belongs here, as far as the record is concerned,
and that is, you already said here that you don't recall whether the
necessity to interview O'Brien, how it was Avith respect to Hughes,
exactly hoAv it Avas generated; Avhether it Avas from the field, Avhether
it was the Secretary, Avhether it Avas you. But in any case, an inter-
view Avith O'Brien certainly indicated it Avas a part of the Hughes
in\'estigation.
Mr. "Walters. That's right.
]\Ir. Sachs. Noav. you liaA^e said in your affidavit, and Avhy don't
vou address vourself to it here, normalh'. notAvithstandinof the neces-
sity of such an interview, it probably Avould have been postponed be-
cause of the sensitivity of that season, but that postponement didn't
occur. Would you addi'css youi'self to that ?
]Mr. Walti;rs. That's right, thank you, Steve. I can't say, as I in-
dicated earlier, but I suspect that the initial idea of an interview Avould
have been generated in the field, because they AA-ere conducting this
thing all ovei'. Howevei*. as I indicated, it possibly could have come
out of my discussion Avith the Secretary, something AAe could do; I
don't know. I think from the field. But, in any case, in late 1071 and
early 1972 a to)) management team of IRS. the DejMity Commissioner,
the Assistant Connnissioner. the Chief Counsel and I talked about
1972; Avhat kind of year it Avas tjoino- to be Avith an election cominc;
up. We delibei'ately concluded that Ave Avanted to conduct our busi-
ness afl'aii's in a stiaightforAvard. ])i-opei- fasliion Avithout getting in-
volved in politics on eithei- side, to the extent ))ossil)le. Avithout losing
either revenue or position — and by "position" I mean IRS position
as to a i^articular case oi* issue.
We though tliat Avhei-e Ave could pi-operly do so. anything involving
a A^ery sensitiA'e matter, Ave Avould postpone until aftei- the election.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 24
11642
Now, however, if in doinor so we ondan^ered either the revenue we
were to collect, or a position that IKS should take, we would not post-
pone, we would <ro ahead and just let it happen. We didn't want to
make either side mad. With that policy in mind it's obvious that in
any pursuit, or interview, if that's a ofood word — maybe I shouldn't
use the word "pursuit" of Lariy O'Brien
Mr. Sachs. You already did.
Mr. ">>^\LTERS [continuin<r]. Would have been postponed until after
the election. So. I think IRS would not have conducted that interview
until after the election had it not been for the aeueration of pressure
from the ^^liite House. Ehrlichman. To that extent. I think, we
varied from oui- pattern. But, it's an interview that we would have
conducted, and had he been Johnnie Walters, oi- Jim Smith, or Joe
Blow, we would have interviewed him even earlier.
Mr. Arm.stroxo. Does there exist any memorandums, or any min-
utes, or anything that reflects the internal policy to postpone such
sensitive interviews until after an election?
]Mr. Walters. No. you won't find that in writing, because I told
you earlier, we stopped takin<j minutes and for this reason, it was a
conscious manao;enient decision Ave made to try to o;et through 1972
without any bigbloAvs on either side.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, but all of the key management staff that
you described in 107 would have attended at least one meeting Avhere
that was discussed exclusively.
Mr. Walters. Well, I would think so.
Mr. ARZsrsTRoxG. Amoni>- the Assistant Commissioners and Deputy
Commissioners we should be able to find othei- participants.
Mr. Walters. I would think so. It's just, you know. Ave Avanted to
do it in a sound Avay.
Mr. Armstrong. Do I understand correctlv that you liaA'^e no spe-
cific recollection of any specific request, or planned to intervieAV Mr.
O'Brien independent of
Mr. Walters. Howard Hughes?
INIr. Armstrong. No. I am thinking of the Shultz-Ehi'lichman
suffirPstioiL
Mr. WAi/rKi;s. No. AA-ait a minute, as T said earlier, the idea. I'm ])Osi-
tiA*e in my oavii speculation, let's put it that Avay. existed in the field;
but it A'ery likelv Avould haA'e been postponed until after the election
except for the Ehrlichman-Shultz discussion.
]\ri'. Sachs. Can avc go off the I'ccord ?
Ml'. Armstronc;. (\'rtninly.
[Discussion off the I'ecord.]
Mr. AR:\rsTR()NG. Was it customary. Air. Walters, that j-equests for
intervicAvs of iironiinent iiulividuals be bj-o.ight to your attention?
]\ri'. Walters. No. I Avould saA' it Avas not customarA' because you
don't have that kind of a situation developing often. T think in this
situation it devel()])ed. ]))'obably. for tAA'o reasons; one Avas the Hughes
proi(»ct Avhich Avas big and of continuinji interest to me as Com-
missioner because of the great consumption of manpoAvei" foi' one
thinjr: and also, second because of the intercession of the Seci-etary on
behalf of the White House, it was. needless to say. necessary for me
to keep ]-)ost(Ml. So. it Avas unusual.
11643
:Mr. Armstroxo. Do von recall— I think von mentioned previonsly
yon i-eoalled Mv. Rebozo's name snrfaoing sometime in the late spring
or early snnnner of 197'2.
'Sir. Walters. Eight.
]\rr. Armstroxg. Do yon recall any reqnest to interview him?
Mr. Walters. Yes. IRS here. too. in the fiekl. jnst as I snspect in the
O'Brien case: bnt 1 recall. speciHcally as to ^Nlr. lU^bozo. they wanted
to interview Mr. Rebozo and Mv. Donald Nixon ; those names more
or less snrfaced together, Nixon and Rebozo.
Mr. Armstrong. Do yon recall, however, in snmmer of 1972 there
was a reqnest for an interview with Mr. Rebozo?
:Mr. Walters. I think there was. on the part of IRS. yon mean?
Mr. Armstr()X(;. Yes.
:Mr. Walters. T think there was. and the feeling was. my feeling
was and at least, T think, some of the other IRS officials felt the same
way, this was one we shonld postpone nntil after the election in line
Avitii the policy T already mentioned to yon. And, they were not inter-
viewed before the election. Needless to say, we did not have pressnre to
interview them.
Mr. Arjistroxg. T^nt. do yon specifically recall any meetings in
which Mr. Rebozo's name came np and it was snggested that he was
in tliat categoiy of individnals that yon postponed nntil after the
election?
Mr. Walters. I was in Las Vegas in Angnst. Angnst IS, I believe,
to make a speech to a national convention of public accountants, fol-
lowing attendence at the American Bar sessions in San Francisco,
and the Secietaiy's briefing on the Hughes project. Now, while I can't
recall specifically, (juestions have been asked of me that indicated that
in all pi'obability while I was thei-e for that briefing, the subject came
UD with some indication that I said we should postpone it until after
the election. T don't recall that conversation specifically, but let me
say, I certainly can believe that it very well might have occurred;
and it would have been in line with what T said.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do yon recall who mentioned the conversation to
you ?
Mr. AValters. No.
]\rr. Armstroxg. But someone subsequently did mention it to you.
Mr. Walters. Oh. yes.
Mr. Sachs. This was someone, an assistant pi'osecutor on Jaworski's
staff?
Ml'. Walters. Right.
Ml-. Armstroxg. That was in reference to testimony he received
elsewhere, without identifying tlie source.
Mr. Walters. Riglit.
]\rr. Ar:mstroxg. And. did you have any discussions Avith Secretary
Shultz regarding the request to interview ]\Ir. Rebozo prior to the
election of 1972?
Mr. Walters. T don't think so; I think it probably came after that.
Mr. Armstroxg. So, when the request came up to your recollection
it stopi)ed at your leA'el ?
Ml-. Walters. T think so.
11644
Mr. Am[STROx<;. Xow, could you doscribo for us just briefly— in the
interost of tinio. your (l('S('rii)tion of tho ovonts on August 20. 1972.
tliov aro comploto in your aiKdavit?
Ml'. "Waltkhs. In substanco (■oui])loto. yos.
Ml-. AimsTRoxa. "Why don't wo iiuMition for tho record, that is ex-
liibif 1. th(M-o.
Mr. Walters. Yes. Tjot's <ro off tlio record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Arjistroxg. Back on the record. Looking at the affidavit of
June 10. are there any additions that you wouhl like to make to that?
^\v. AVai/iers. Ts til is tlie O'Brien one ?
^fr. AR>rsTRoxo. Yes. sir. to tlie statement in parajri'aph 0. or item 9?
INlr. Walters. The only other tiling T would add is this, and maybe
vou detected it from the discussion up to this ]ioint. and that is that
T felt, quite riirhtlv. Avhen the Secretary recoiA'cd information that
here Avas an individual who may have received lar<re ]>ayments Avhich
mi<rht not have been rei)orted, that we should check. We would have
done this if it had been Steve Sachs, not because it came from the
White TTouse. it could have come from any other reputable source
because TI\S does not ha\e the resoui'ces to do the job that needs to be
done without help; this is one means you can find out fairly inex-
pensively. So. T think that Avas pro])er. to check.
Xow. once avc checked and found the returns had been filed, larpfe
amounts i-eported. audits made, deficiency paid, and the case was
closed, that Avas all ; that Avas the end of the roAv. So. T think my feeling
rip:ht alouir was to — and T think to some extent, although he should
spealc for himself — the Secretary's Avas. avc'a'c done oui' job. noAv let's
convince him that Ave haA-e done it. And as T indicated, the Seci'etary
said. "Brin^ Barth OA-er and let's fret rid of this thinpr once and for
all'', and the idea AA-as. cret it OAcr A\-ith, fxi^t it off our back.
]\rr. AR:\rsTRoxo. And it aaus the Secretarv's request that a'Ou brought
:\rr. Barth.
^fr. Walters. Yes.
]\rr. AR^rsTuoxo. Were you aAvare of any role INIr. Barth played
preA'iously ?
^Iv. Walters. Xothin<r exce|)t for a fcAA- days just precediiifr this T
had brouirlit him up on the thin.tr. brought him up to date so tliat AA-hen
A\-e did iro. Ave revicAA-ed it. Ave could yet rid of it. T Avas not aAvare
of any independent pursuit of this matter by Mr. Barth.
Mr. .ViarsTRoxo. Did vou become subsequently aAvare of
INfr. Wai/i'ers. Xot subsequentlv aAvare. ((uestions haA-e been asked
by ]\rr. JaAvorski that caused me to believe it.
Mr. AR^rsTRox<;. Did you ever become aware of any request other
tlian from another invest i oat ive agency, anv request bv Afr. Barth in
the Couudiance Division foi'^fr. O'Brien's returns?
IVfr. Walters. Xo.
!Mr. Atimstroxc. Xow. Avas it vour understandino- when Secretary
Shultz called you and Mr. Barth. requested vou to couie to his office,
that it Avas already his intention to call Mr. Ehrlichman ?
INfr. Walters. Oh. yes. T think that Avas Avhy we did it.
^h^. Armstroxg. And did you oet the impression that INfr. Ehrlich-
man had insisted on a conference call ?
11645
Mv. Wai/fers. No, I thoiio-ht it was the Secretary who was doing it
so we could get rid of it.
Mr. Armstrong. In the course of Mr. Ehrlichnian indicating his
disappointment, and saying he was tired of foot-dragging tactics, did
he indicate what he considered any pattern in relation to other
matters?
Mr. Walters. No, he didn't.
INIr. Armstrong. And, did he specifically recommend any action that
should be taken?
Mv. Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he direct any specific questions to determine if
any specific actions had been taken ?
Mr. Walters. No, not to my recollection.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he seem generally familiar with
Mr. Walters. No. Maybe he didn't have a chance because the con-
versation Avasn't too lengthy. My recollection is that the Secretary, of
course, hoped that by indicating we all worked on it, and talked
about it ; and IRS had done what it could. And I more or less then
emphasized the fact that the returns had been filed, we had checked
them, the deficiency had been paid, in 1 year a small deficiency; the
cases were closed, and under our published policy and procedures we
could not reopen the case unless there was some good reason; and that
was simply all we could do, at which point things became a little bit
offensive. I hung up the phone, got off the phone because I felt if I
didn't I might say something I shouldn't.
I don't recall ^Nlr. Ehrlichman giving any specific directions. In
fact, my recollection of this whole thing was that was the end of the
case. That offensive telephone conversation finished it, just as the Sec-
retary and I thought it would.
Mr. Armstrong, l^efore we go to the next activity of Mr. O'Brien,
before we go to that, did the conversation, you recall, did the conver-
sation continue after you
INfr. Walters. My recollection was, it didn't continue very long, it
might have been a minute ; it wasn't very long.
Mr. Armstrong. Go ahead, then.
Mr. Walters. But, as I said, my recollection was, that terminated
the whole affair. However, other investigators have asked questions
and have maybe indicated indirectly to me that there was at least one
further step, and that is possibly within a few days. The date, again,
is imprecise, but we speculated September 5. 1972, that I may have
furnished the Secretary some figures, schedules that he could use in
satisfying Mr. Ehrlichman that in fact the returns had been filed and
reflected the amounts. I have no recollection of that, but I don't deny
it ; it's possible.
[The document refei-rcd to ul)ovc was mai'ked Walters exhibit
No. 5*]
Mr. Armstrong. Is that what you believe the exhibit 5 and exhibit
2 may refer to?
Mr. Walters. That's right. Now, to oui- best i-ecollection, this is
a handwritten note that I made on September 5, 1972, at 8 :25 in the
morning of a telephone conversation with Secretary Shidtz. Now,
^See p. 11672.
11646
Avliile I have not seen it, I believe his lo^ does indicate a call from
him to me at that time, or rou<rhly that time. And that the second item,
"delivered ti<>uivs to Shult/, and he will call I^hrliclmian." that in
all probability that did reflect to the O'Brien all'aii-. T can not say flatly
it does, bnt I would assmnc from all I have heard in lecent weeks, that
that is likely.
Mv. AimsTUoxo. Do you recall the nature of the fifjures, or sched-
ules you were to furnish ?
Mr. "Walters. I can't, that may surprise you ; but T would assume it
indicated o-ross amounts reported, which would be the bi<r amounts,
indicated amounts which ITufjhes had paid Avould be included.
Mr. AinrsTRoxo, In your conversation, the telephone conversation
on August 20 Avith Mr. Ehrlichman. was Mi-. Ehrlichman principally
referrinof to the matter of the TTuahes consulting- fees that ^Nlr. O'Brien
receiA'ed ?
INIr. Walters. I don't recall any discussion on that aspect of it. T
think it was mainly the other way. what we had done, and that we were
at the end of the road; that Avas it. T don't recall any discussion
Mr. Sachs. Do vou i-ecall any specifics from ^Tr. Ehrlicliinan at all ?
]\Ir. Walters. Xo. T don't, except for one. T exploded.
Mr. Armstroxo. Did you ever have any specific indication that the
matter Scci-ctarx' Shnltz had orioinallv ref(Mred to vou. indicatina'
the White ITouse felt there mioht be undisclosed income on INfr.
O'Brien's part, did you subsequently learn it came from INlr. Ehrlich-
man ; did you e\-er leai'u that the unreported income was a reference to
TTuc'hes money ?
Mr. Walters. Well, first let me say this. 1 think that we concluded,
if we ever suspected it. that it was not unreported income, it was
reported; but because the lai'o-e Hu<>hos ])ayments were reflected even
in the sensitive case rcDorts eai-lier, T don't know whei-e the idea came
from as to the orio-ination of the payments. The Secretary and T mijrht
have talked about it, T don't know, I don't recall. But. it had been
reflected earliei- that larjre pavments were from Huirhes, So. I never
(listin«iuishe(l. leally. to that extent.
^Nfr. AR:srsTR()xo. Was this the only comersation you had Avith Mr.
Ehrlichman on this subject ?
Afr. Walters. Tt Avas.
Mr. Arivistroxo. And T gather there Avas no discussion about Mr.
Rebo/co and Mr. Donald Nixon, not in the context of that conversa-
tion?
Mr. Walters. No ; there Avas not.
Mr. AR^rs'rRoxo. And do you recall if you ever discussed Avith ^fr.
Ehrlichman anything: else related to the overall TTu<rhes matter, Meier
mattei-. ^{v. "Rebo/.o ?
Mr. Walters. T did not.
INfr. AR:\rsTR()xo. Do you recall if you at any time discussed Avith
Attorney Genei-al ^fitchell. either in his capacity as Attorney Genei'al.
or after he became campaifrn manairer, or subseouent to that, anythin<x
relatiufr to the TTuffhes matter, the Meiei- case, Kebozo ?
Mr. Walters. T don't think so, T don't ivcall e\er discussinir it Avith
him. There Avas a sli<rht hesitation when you said "Meier" because T
forp;ot just Avhen this case oi-i<rinated ; T don't think T discussed any of
this stuff.
11647
Mr. Akmstroxg. Or with Mr. Kleindienst ?
Mr. Walters. That's right.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, do your diaries, or logs, or calendars reflect, or
do you independently recall any request for an interview with Mr.
Rehozo on or about September 27, 1972 ?
Mr. "Walters. No. You mean any request IRS made to him ?
Mr. Armstrong. Any request that came up the ladder to you.
Mr. Walters. No: I don't recall that specifically. I know that IRS
people in the field wanted to interview him, just when they advanced
the idea I don't recall. But, it could have been that date as well as any
other, I just don't have any pinpoint on that.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, do you recall the next occasion when any
action or anything came to your attention involving the Hughes case
and the Meier case, and Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Walters. Well, let me say that, I think the only way I can an-
swer that question is indicating that the Hughes thing was just a great
mass that kept flowing like Old ]\lan River; and in all probability it
was mentioned with some regularity from then on, as long as I was
Commissioner. But, with one possible exception of one other investiga-
tion it was by far the largest investigation we had that was ongoing.
So. I would have been alert to it and aware of it on a continuing basis.
Mr. Armstrong. Both in the form of the sensitive case reports and
the briefings which you made reference to earlier.
]Mr. Walters. The status reports.
Mr. Armstrong. The status reports?
Mr. Walters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall if that Avould have been a matter
you covered with any regularity with the Secretary, or the Deputy
Seeretary ?
Mr. Walters. In all probability, each time I sat down with them to
bring them up to date, to brief them, however you Avant to put it, I
])robably would have just mentioned it, without going into details
because of its overall significance.
Mr. Ar:mstr()NG. Do you recall, during calendar year 1972, if any-
one indicated to you that Rebozo's or Donald Nixon's case appeared
to be closing, appeared to be moot, appeared not to be something you
followed up ^
Mr. Walters. No, I don't recall that.
Mr. Sachs. Did anyone suggest those interviews were off limits in
any way ?
Mr. Armstrong. Well, did anyone suggest, coming up through the
I'anks. that it wouldn't be necessary to review Mr. Rebozo ?
Mr. Walters. No, I think my recollection is the opposite. I knew
our people wanted to interview him.
Mr. Armstrong. Now. the next matter we should have, I gather, is
February 22, 1973, your conversation with Deputy Secretary Simon.
Ml-. Walters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what you know about exhibit 5 ?
Mr. Sachs. You have handwritten notes as exhibit G ?
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Sachs. And exhibit 5 was Sei:)tember 5 ; and exhibit 7 is the
typewritten memorandum,
11648
Mr. Armstronc. Correct.
Mr. Sachs. Whore is tliat?
Mr, Armstrong. There is reference on pajire 3.
Mr. Walters. Oh. I'm sorry. T didn't ofo far enouirh.
Mr. Armstrong. That's all rijrlit.
Mr. Walters. Well, in this session with Deputy Secretary Simon
on February 22. 1973. I reviewed several things, some con<jressional
relations; some dejiartment policies relatinir to personnel, and other
thinfr?- And then T mentioned to him briefly some of the sensitive
mattei's that were ix'ndinir in IKS: and. as you will see in item 5, I
mentioned the Ilowai-d iru<rhes case.
[The documents referred to above Avere marked Walteis exhibits
Nos. r> and 7.*]
In that particular reference was indicated, first, that tliere had been
some charges bv Maheu. who had been connected with Huirhcs earlier,
that either $50'000, oi- $100,000 had been conveyed to Kebozo in 1068
and 1070. And that the IRS people Avho were conductinir that Ilusfhes
investigation felt thei-e was a need to interview Mr. Kebozo to orot
the facts.
Also. I mentioned to him the fact that Donald Nixon had been men-
tioned several times in connectioji with various aspects of the Howard
Ilufrhes investi<ration; and I really insisted to the Deputy Secretary
that IRS needed to. and wanted to ffo ahead and interview these ]wo-
ple. And Avhat we needed to do is let the White House know of this,
securino; their knowledije in advance so that we could conduct these
interviews on a sound, piofessional basis.
Now, my recollection of the discussion is that Dei^ity Secretary
Simon said that the Secretary woidd be seeino; the President later that
day; and mv recollection is that he would be iroiTiff to Camp David to
be with the Pi'esident. Mr. Simon sua'irested that I ouaht to aet a memo
over to him right awav. so that it could be used as a talkinii" pai)er in
discussin<xthat with the President.
Ml-. Armstrong. That was a memo to Secretary Shultz.
Mv. Walters. Right; for Secretary Shultz' use in discussing it
with the Pi-esident. I did go back to IRS right awav and personallv
prepared the sensitive and confidential memo dated Febiuarv 23, 1073.
And, as T indicated earlier. I can't explain the difference between
February 22, 1073. and February 23. 1073, unless it was a typograph-
ical slip.
Mv. .\. R:\rsTRONG. Btit it is your recollection the memo should have
been dated Fel^ruarv 22.
Mrs. Walters. That's mv recollectioiL
Mr. Sactis. ITnless you purposely dated it the next day. knowing lie
Avas going to be using it tliat da v.
Mr. Walters. Steve. T just don't know why that hapnened.
Mr. AR:\rsTRON(;. Put it was luepai-ed on February 22.
Mr. Walters. I tWmk so. In any case, that was prepared in the vein
that we ought to infoi-m them that this is the situation, and that we
plan to go ahead with it. There was no intention of asking foi- an
approval to conduct the inter\iews. Had there been any such inten-
tion at that time, I would not have submitted the luenuu-andum be-
^Reepp. 1107.1. 1107.^.
11649
cause at that time I was approaching the end of my career with the
Government.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, again the memorandum dated February 23,
1973, which is exhibit 7, it conveys the substance in perhaps more de-
tail of your conversation with Secretary Simon.
Mr. Sachs. Seci-etary Shultz.
Mr. Armstrong. No ; the conversation on February 22 with Deputy
Secretary Simon.
Mr. Walters. Yes; this Avould sum up the facts, and maybe give
him a little more than I did orally; but this covers the subject on a
basis that would allow the Secretary to discuss it intelligently with
the President.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussions directly with Secre-
tary Shultz regarding this memoj-andum ?
Mr. Walters. Not until afterward. Now, I had of course informed
him earlier that we needed to inter\ lew these people; but I did not
discuss that with him until aftei'ward. As indicated by the notes on
it, it was April 7 of 1973 that I discussed it specifically with him.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you prepare this memorandum yourself?
Mr. Walters. T did.
INIr. Armstrong. Did you make reference to other memorandums or
some kind of backup documentation ?
Mr. Walters. I probably did, althougli by this time I had a fairl}'
independent knowledge about some of the things. You can see the only
figures here are the figures $50,000 and $100,000, and the 175, the rest
mainly refer to sums on those, or names that had been surfacing in
the Hughes investigation. Rut, I very likeh' did look at some other
documentation.
Mr. Armstrong. On page 3 of the memorandum you indicate, you
say in the middle of that paragrapli.
One difficulty with an investigation of tliis nature is that one cannot deter-
mine exactly where the investigation will lead. At this point, hased on informa-
tion we now have. I do not see the interview witli Mr. Rehozo as leading to any
action against him. T^nfortunately, I cannot say that with the same degree
of confidence in the case of Donald Nixon, because we simply do not have
enough information to make that judgment at this time.
Can you tell us, based on Avhat information, or wliat ])erception those
statements are made ?
Mr. Walters. Well, at the time that I prepared this memo IRS felt
that it needed to intei-view Mr. Rebozo to vei'ify information ; they felt
there would be no further need to investigate, oi- puisue ]Mr. Rebozo.
However, and at that time we thought it quite unfortunate, the indica-
tions might be otherwise with respect to Donald Nixon, and that he
very likely might be involved to some extent that would require IRS
to pursue him further. We just did Jiot have enough information to
cause us to believe that IRS would need to i:)ursue Mr. Rebozo; but we
felt that we very likely might in the case of jNIr. Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me ask you, was it the percejition of the
agency, the Internal Revenue Service, that there was a high likelihood
Mr. Rebozo had never received campaign funds ?
Mr. Walters. Well, we weren't sure, that was one of the facts they
wanted to determine.
11650
Mr. Armstrong. Woll, had he received the oaiii[)aio;n funds, would
it not be likelv tliat fui'tlior action would bo npcossarv i
Mr. AVat.tkrs. Woll, possibly, but it mio;ht bo just to find out, you
know, wlioro thoy had <i;one ; whereas in the case of tlu' other individual
at that time there w^as some suspicion as to the possible in\olvement in
further tax matters.
Mr. Armstkoxo. T note this memorandum does not make reference
to statements which oai-liei- sensitive caso reports had reflected. Your
notes of March 3, 1972, indicated Mr. Rebozo instiucted Mr. Meier not
to talk to IRS.
]Mr. Walters. No.
Mr. ARMSiTtONG. Do you recall the reason for that ?
Mr. Walters. I do not. At that particular time T was mainly in-
terested in layinjj tlie oroundwork for a <;ood interview, and just
didn't (TO back and pick it up, even if it should have l)een included. I
don't think it occurred to me, no reason.
INIr. Armstrong. Do you have any recollection that charge has ever
been dropped, or ever been i-esolved ?
INIr. Walters. Xo.
]\Ir. Armstrong. It certainly hasn't been resolved at the time of INIr,
Rebozo's interview.
INIr. Walters. Riofht. They were not sure, that was one of the things
they wei-o questioning.
Ms. DoOreo. It's not clear to me when you had knowledge about Mr.
Rebozo having received the $100,000; when did this come to your
attention?
Mr. Walters. As I indicated earlier, I can't pinpoint that, but it
would have been in summei- of 1972; in suunnor or late spring.
Ms. DeOREo. Now, that is the same time the information came to you
about Rebozo concerning Meier
:\rr. Walters. Right.
Ms. DcOreo [continuing]. And Meier's relationship with the IRS,
or is that prior to that ?
INfr. Walters. No. I don't know how to jdace this.
Mr. Sactls. Well, now. at least by March 3, 1972. the allegation that
Rebozo advised Nixon to bo unavailable had come to Mr. Walter's
attention.
Mr. AR^rsTRONG. You moan IVreior.
Ms. DoOreo. You said Nixon.
'Sh-. Sachs. Foi- ^Nfeier to be unavailable.
INfr. Armstrong. Do you recall what next you heard of this matter, or
the next
Mr. Walters. You moan aftoi- writing the memo?
Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. Yes, sii-.
]\Ir. Walters. Needless to say. it didn't come back right away; and
my recollection is that after a duo period of time, and how long that
would 1)0 T don't know, I chocked, and it had not boon disposed of, my
getting what T was seeking; and at some point T spoke Avith Mr.
Simon. I spoke Avith him. and presumably it was sometime
Mr. Sacmts. Exhibit S.
Mr. Walters. INlaich 8. again, item No. 4. spoke with him and said
Ave needed to get ooing on these interviews — this is almost illegible.
11651
but, "Bill Simon to check.'' I^ut, in any case, I pursued it, ,you see, that
was in March ; and of course by that time I had submitted my resigna-
tion to leave at tlie end of ApriL And I got the word back — I pursued it
until I got the word back on April 7.
Mr. Armstkoxg. Now, the March 8, 1972 memorandum, item 4, it's
extremely illegible; perhaps we can check this with INlr. Jaworski's
office.
Mr. AValtkrs. I think in all probability what is says, Rebozo, or
"Bebe and DN,'" and then ''BS to," and I would assume "check w4th
the Secretary."
[The document referred to above was marked Walters exhibit
No. 8.*]
Mr. Armstrong. So, it's youi- recollection tliat between February 22
and March 8 3'ou had not had any response.
Ml-. AValters. I had not gotten an answer. I think in all probability
I might have followed it once or twice, not often because it's not the
kind of thing you would follow vvevy day. But, I did follow it until
we got the answer we wanted, and then we moved forward.
Mr. Armstrong. Now, the answer you wanted — the answer is indi-
cated on page 2 of exhibit 7 in the form of — what we have is a copy of
a card that was attached to the original page ;^.
Mr. Walters. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. And on the left-hand side is Secretary Shultz;
and can vou indicate to us what that says ?
INlr. Walters. It indicates that we should go ahead with the in-
terviews with Bebe and Don Nixon; and "keep Don Alexander in-
foT'med so no gaps when JMW goes." By that time I had resigned and
was serving out the I'est of my time, then less than a month. And the
Secretary said, "Go ahead, but just keep your successor informed."
Mr. Armstrong. And did you — excuse me, go ahead ?
Mr. Walters. And as I said, a month later the note indicated that
T then informed the Assistant Commissioner of Compliance, John
Hanlon, to go ahead and h;\vv the inteiA'iews and move forward, as
the IRS people v»ere pi'epared to do.
Mr. Armstrong. And that was April 9 ?
Mr. Walters, That was A])ril 9. And then, at my i-equest, Roger
Bai'th informed Rebozo by telephone that IRS would be contacting
him foi- an interview. And Mr. l^arth informed me that John Ehrlich-
man either had infoi-med, or would inform Donald Nixon that IRS
would be contacting him.
Mr. AR:Nr>;TRONG. That was on April 12?
Mr. Walters. I can't make out from this whether it's April 12,
or what; but this looks like April 12, and it was about that time. The
])urpose of contacting these people, as I indicated earlier informally,
was so that they would know, when our agents contacted them, that
the White House was aware of it that we were iroing to conduct these
interviews. I don't know whether either one of them would have called
the White House, or come to the White House to try to impede in any
wav the interviews ; but we thought it would be sound business for them
to Iniow in advance that we were comine;. There was absolutely no
*Seo p. llfiTO.
11652
intention, or no antiri]:)ation of tipping them off in any way about the
intorviow. Tt is my understandin*: tliat interviews were eondncted and
followed tlironofh to a conrlusion in hoth cases, and without niiy im-
pediment on the j)art of anvhody.
Mr. Armstrong. And do yon recall what, if any. role Mr. Barth
played in i-elationship to the schednlin<r of these interviews with Mr.
rjebozo and Mi-. Donald Nixon ?
Mr. "W-M/rERS. No. T don't know more than is reflected here, that
Mr. Barth, as requested by me. did inform Mr. TJebozo. TTow he did
that, whether he did it throu<rh an attorney, I do not know.
Mr. AiorsTRoxG. And was that at anyone else's request?
Mr. Walters. That I can't say, either.
Mr. AR:MSTRONr,. It was your insti-uction to Mi-. Barth to notify
]\fr. Rel)ozo, based on the instructions that you received?
Mr. "Walters. No. it was not.
INIr. Armstroxg. And do you recall if Mr. Barth indicated in Avhat
caT:)acity he consulted Avith Mi-. Ehrlichman. and why Mi-. Ehrlichman
informed Donald Nixon?
Mr. Walters. No. T did not discuss that with him. T assume that
at that time it would have been the natural thino^ for Mr. Ehrlichman
to contact INfr. Nixon.
Mr. Armstrong. And had Secretary Shultz indicated to you at any
time, with whom he had checked in the White House ?
Mr. Walters. No; he did not.
Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate at any time the Pre.sident was aware
of the request ?
Mr. Walters. No.
Mr. AR:NrsTRONG. And did Mr. Barth indicate the President was
aware of the request?
Mr. Walters. No; he did not.
Mr. AR:\rsTRON(",. Now, do vou recall any activity subsequent to April
12, 197?>, related to this matter?
Mr. Wat.ters. No, except of course what T have since read in the
newspapers, information which led me to believe that TRS followed
throujrh with resjiect to INfr. TJebozo. And of com-se. T have not been
privv to IPS activities since April ?>(). 1973.
Mr. AR:srsTRONG. Did vou brief Mv. Alexander prior to. or at tho
time he became Commissionei-. repirdinj.': the history and facts of this
case?
Mr. Walters. T i)i-obablv did. Mv. Alexander came in 3 or 4 weeks
before he took o\er: and I tried to jrive him some overview of TRS.
what it was doini>:; the kinds of thin<2;s he could expect; and the kinds
of things that were i)endiim-. that mi<rht be considered very sensitive.
So, while T have no specific i-(>collection of discussini; this in detail
with him. in all likelihood T did mention it, particularly since the Sec-
retary asked me to.
Mv. Sagiis. TTow much lon;irer are we iroinof to oro?
FDiscussion off the record.]
Mr. Armstrong. Back on the record. Did Secretary Shultz or any-
one else indicate to you that A'our memorandum had been delivered to
the President, to be shared with anyone else?
11653
Mr. Walters. Xo ; he did not.
Mr. Armstroxg. Do .you recall around March of 1973, any reopen-
ing of the matter involving Mr. O'Brien, or to put on anything else
about Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Walters. Yes, I have : and I can't give you the details because
this was happening about the time I left. I believe. That is my under-
standing, anyway. I think that matter came up again, because of items
in Mr. O'Brien's return: and items in the return of who had been a
partner. I think, in a stockbroker's business in Xew York, and involved
some loss deductions being treated ditferently by Mr. O'Brien and by
the man. I believe, in Boston.
With those two returns being in the same region, it's my general
recollection that when it came out of the I^oston office in a routine man-
ner, that it was coordinated in the region and of course shoAved up
here as one taxpayer treating it one way, and here is another, treat-
iuir it another way. And. there was some talk about reopening Mr.
O'Brien's returns, I do not know whether they ever reopened them,
or what happened; but I know that was on the horizon.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you have any conversation with IVIr. Ehr-
lichman and Secretary Shultz about that?
Mr. Walters. No ; 1 did not.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there any discussion about whether there was
any impropriety, or apparent impropriety about Mr. O'Brien in these
matters ?
Mr. Walters. I don't recall. But. let me say this, I was not involved
personally in any of that; I was about to leave about then, I think,
or maybe I was leaving. But I am sure that IRS would be very care-
ful and precise in re-opening because of published policy with respect
to reopening closed years. However, under the published policy, if they
found a situation such as I described, where substantial items were
treated one way by one taxpayer and IRS, and another way by an-
other taxpayer and IRS, there would be grounds for reopening. Now,
whether or not they did, I don't know.
Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had any conversation with the
President regarding the Hughes case, the Meier case, IVIr. Rebozo, F.
Donald Nixon, or Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Walters. No, sir. You would be surprised how little conversa-
tion I ever had with the gentleman.
Mr. Armstrong. Did you ever have any conversation with him re-
garding any substantive cases?
Mr. Walters. I did not.
Mr. Armstrong. And did you, after Secretary Connally left as Sec-
retary of the Treasury, did you ever have any conversations with him ?
Mr. Walters. I think I had possibly just one phone call, just social,
but I don't even know that I liad that one. But T think I had one
telephone conversation.
Mr. Armstrong. And would any of those matters have come up?
Mr. Walters. No.
Mr. Armstrong. And do you have any recollection of ever dis-
cussing this with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kleindienst at any time?
Mr. Walters. I did not.
11654
Mr. Akmstroxg. And have vou ever discussed that matter with Mr.
(rpmniill '(
Mr. Walters. No, T have not; of tliat I'm positive.
Mr. Armstrong. Off the record for a second.
[Discussion off tlie record.]
Ms. DkOrko. Since you wcro not askin<r for approval, but were
merely inforinin<>; Secretary Shultz that the IRS wanted to interview
them, why did you have to wait for Secretary Shultz to come back
with an answer?
Mr. "\VAi/rKi!s. "Well, we could have jxone alicad, we coidd have o;one
ahead even without infoimin^ the Secretary or anybody else that
we were goin<r to do it, but had we done that, what I feared, that
ri^ht away possibly, and I em]:)hasize possibly, these people niiirht
have bpcn on the telephone rifflit nway. sayin<r '"Wliat do we do, IKS
is in here Inirassinjj us"; and I didn't want that to occur. I wanted
those people to know, T wanted first the Secretary to knoAv, and the
President to know that we were croinjr to interview them ; and then
I wanted those people to know that the Pi'esident and the Secretary
knew it. So, Avhen our a«>ents went in there would be no question
that they were o;oinir to conduct an intei-view.
Ms. DkOrko. And did vou have anv understandinof of why the
month Ino; between Februarv 2'2 and A]-)ril 7?
Mr. WALTKits. No; I did not. Of course it can be explained many
ways, and one way of course, as you and I know, the President is
extremely busy; the Secretary is extremely busy and they miffht just
r.ot have <2:otten around to it. And I did not feel that I could press
that kind of an item when they had so many otlier thino-s they were
concerned with, wa^e and ])rice stabilization, the wdiole batch. But,
I nevei" had any su^irestion from the Secretaiy or nnvbody we should
not do it, it was just a matter of timint!: and doinfj it properly.
Mr. AR:\rsTi!()X(i. One question wliich has just come u]) currently
in our inquiries, the fact that the Internal Revenue Service interviewed
Ml-. Danner in May of 1972, Avhen he revealed that he had iriven money
to Ml'. Rebozo: and in 107') the interview took ])lace. If I understand
it correctly it is your explanation that no interviews took ])lace from
November of 1072 as a result of the internal policy ?
Mr. Wal'jt.rs. It was reallv my decision, you could say. Now. I
don't mean S))ecifically on this case, but my policy, a ]>olicv that T
initiated; and that was to avoid political criticism from either side.
Mr. AnisrsTRoxo. Now, first of all. in this case Mr. Rebozo was not —
I don't l)elieve he was a campai<rn official.
Mr. ■\VAi/rKRS. No.
Mr. AR>rsTnox(;. "Was it based on his relationship to the President?
Mr. Wa LITERS. Ri<rht.
Mr. AR:>rsTRoxo. And was that a borderline, or Avas there anything
in narticular in the initial discussion
Mr. "Wai/pers. No, ther(> was not ; but when you ha\e a i)erson that's
obviously that close to the President you know it's iroin^ to be very
sensitive. There was no articulation about it. it was just when you
have the President's brother inxolved. too, it just becomes very
Sensitive.
11655
Mr. AmiSTROxG. And there was a case proceedinji: during the same
period wliich was Dr. Ryland, was it not?
Mr. Walters. Yes.
]\rr. AuArsTROXG. Now, that case, I gather, did continue.
]\[r. Walters. That case continued, it did ; but there is a ditFerence be-
cause except for the fact that Dr. Ryland accompanied the President
to China and to Russia, tliere was no real need to connect up the two
excejit when it got to court, and we didn't know whether it would get
to trial, to the court. Now, that was i^ursued, and in that investigation
Ave had to interview people at the A^Hiite House, and we did that; and
there was cooperation, there was no effort made to stop us, at least none
tliat T know of.
Mr. Ar:.istrong. l^ut the distinction there was the case started at a
prior- date, and it Avas active.
Mr. Walters. See, that was already
Ml-. Sachs. There is also a distinction, I suggest there is also a dis-
tinction of the person involved.
Mr. Walters. Well, that's what I suggested.
Mr. Sachs. A party can make political capital out of the fact that
it is the President's brother, or best friend that is in trouble, much
more so than out of the fact it is the President's doctor wdio hasn't
paid income tax.
Mr. AValters. But also, that was earlier and it Avas further along.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, Avere there any other cases that fell under this
category of politically sensitive matters that Avere deferred?
Mr. Waltt:rs. There may
Mr. Armstrong. If there are, Avhy don't Ave get the names oif the
record ?
Mr. Walters. I'm not going to give you names because I don't re-
call names. There may be, but I don't recall them specifically. But, I
couldn't say that there Averen't because they might ha\'e been handled
strictly in accord Avith policy, Avithout my CA'er knoAving it. T didn't
know about a lot of cases, as you can imagine.
Mr. Armstrong. Was there any diiferentiation betAA'een civil and
criminal matters in the GoAernment's policy ?
Mr. Walters. I ncA'er thought of it that Avay. I think Ave Avere think-
ing primarily of criminal matters because they are the ones that make
big splashes.
Mr. Armstrong. And from the time of the election until February
22, U)T8, is there an explicit explanation for Avhy the intervicAVS didn't
take place during that i)eriod of time?
Mr. Walters. Not explicit, no; except, quite frankly, if you re-
member the election and the things that happened after the election
didn't make for speed in getting things done, eA-erybody resigning.
And there Avas no eft'ort made by IRS, anybody in IRS the best I recall
it, to delay it. It Avas really just a matter of having a AA'hole lot of
things to do.
Mr. Armstrong. OK.
Mr. Walit.rs. And there Avas no thought of dropping it, as indi-
cated by this memo. Avhat happened, at least, if there Avas any thought
of eA'er dropping it, I didn't knoAv about it.
11656
Mr. Arimstrong. Off tlio record a second.
[Disnissioii oil' tlio record.]
Mr. AR.ArsTRONO. Can you tell us, is there any connection, Mr. Wal-
ters, between your departure from the Internal Re\'enuc Service, and
this matter of any pressures from the White TTouse?
Mr. Walters. No, I don't think so. There were speculations, of
course, that I would be fired after the election; and like other Presi-
dential ai)})ointees, I submitted my resi^jnation the day after the elec-
tion: it was not picked u}). T later had to resulnnit it in a much more
substantive form. I received back from the President a very nice letter.
So, I don't think I was fired. I mio;ht have been, had it not been known
that I was planninir to leave.
Initially, I liad been ])lnnnin£2: to leave in the summer or fall of
1072 — excuse me. 11)71 — l)ut after I shifted from the Department of
Justice to IKS, I realized full well that in a responsible way I should
remain for the first teim of the President ; and so, I was planning to
leave in January of 197?).
Xow, both Secretary Connally and Secretary Shultz knew this; and
Secretary Shultz stated to me that he hoped T would stay on. but he
knew full well I lie need for me to re-enter the private sector, because
of the need to make some money to educate our four children, and
asked me to stay until they could find someone to take my place.
I hoi)ed to leave in January 1973, but ultimately stayed until April
30, 1973, by which time they had identified Don Alexander as a nomi-
nee to take the i)ost. While he was not confirmed by April 30, he was
shortlv thereafter. And I did leave at the close of business on April 30,
1973. '
Mr. Armstroxo. Thank you very much. We will close this interview
now, and if we have any further questions we will ^et in contact.
Mr. Sachs. F'uw.
[By agreement between counsel there were three more exhibits
entered into the record for future identification. They were marked
Walters exhibits Xos. 9. 10. iind 11*1
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m. the connnittee recessed, subject to the
call of the Chair.]
*Soe pp. 11680. 11084, and 11717.
11657
Walters Exhibit No. 1
.+:>'-,= ;•
CD s
n.
-W
-^
C^)
r=
^^^L^..J:,..._.vi:2t
^^J //7/ ,^T^-c^-.^.' - X-Ji'r^J-
h-^ C/-^-/<^
rt-^'
^z^s- /^
0 ^7/- /W?^- "^^^^^-r^-?!, / i -'•-
/
e-i^-^i^ <7 /^
^e)
z;^
■^;
-/-v'
/-
./?\
»o-
't ^m-k^.
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 25
11658
•2- —
lo
r /^^af-
^
r^
11659
5
, - y?/; ^ A-'^
/--
11660
/;
u - .^ '
/J rj^UlL^ /f.Q7k^
'U-yVf^
;F
v._ _— •
7
^ ^2__
11661
0
'I
i?^^
fy-^-K-^-^'V/'
i^u=^;.i -yi; -.^>i-
^ I'X ■ 7^
n./-i
/
'-Q'-4^l
.\yr'
>^'
/
- 1- V-v.^L-^ 1 ■'^^- ^^'-^"^
■. .. ..1 / . J ~'.>c-!,v ,T ^
/^■c^
e^is:zv;ss7( '- ^— )
11662
C^
r) ^-t-^-^^A^-D
.^
0
^) /zsir^ii^
/w i^
"^^-f-
/ /
^^f - d:-^' -//U /£' ^-t/-
11663
/-^^C/i*-^
(.J
«
^ f^UJU.
V. • '<;^
D
"]/hi -''^^ ■^^"' /^''i^/'-v^? 2)y
J^t^F7=^
11664
^ff)
.^^u.^ U^i^^
/b
{^c:c~~^'/M:x/-«-<>^~^7'<'t^n-?re--''r^:^::^'''~«^ — '— ^
4. - /^ /,
2-<'cr>— r-^^-'— lAi-TV^ — ^
T
vr
^/
vc:^
11665
Walters ExmBiT No. 2
^^/i"''l>U>''''
2^y
/^//i/- tdjy'^^
C?^ ^^5L^2-=^ - ^::^I^„^^ ,^C*^-^-^
11666
Walters Exhibit No. 3
^/?
4^-%
2s7 7z^
(^ CoUlVw-vI^U^ C^/^>^Aaa-,7Y vytWtA-J-^-^-N^ . tP^iO-f v-^\.C_
^3;) 7,-..^— fe^,. ..:^.-- x/
CJ
./^
^4^)4.;./ ^>4^ .:^-^'- ^ /Cv /Ji^'^
11667
Walters ExmsiT No. 4
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) ss
AFFIDAVIT
JOHNNIE M. WALTERS, being duly sworn, deposes
and says :
1. This statement is made upon my best recol-
lection of the facts as they occurred, without my having
had the benefit of reference to files and other materials
in the possession of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
which might permit a more precise statement.
2. I served as Commissioner of Internal Revenue
from August 6, 1971 through April 30, 1973.
3. Beginning late in 1971 or early in 1972 the
IRS began an intensive investigation of the Howard Hughes
organizations and operations. During the course of that
investigation, IRS learned that some fairly substantial
amounts of money had been paid by the Hughes organization
to Lawrence O'Brien and his associates. Sensitive case
reports with respect to the Hughes investigation refl'.icted
the O'Brien payments. (Sensitive case reports are sent to
11668
the Commissioner from the field each month to keep him
and the Secretary of the Treasury advised of IRS investi-
gations or proceedings relating to prominent persons or
sensitive matters.) A Special Assistant to the Commissioner
(during my tenure as Commissioner, Roger Barth) regularly
delivered to the Secretary of the Treasury the monthly
sensitive case reports.
4. During the summer of 1972, Secretary Shultz
informed me that someone in the White House (subsequently
identified as John Ehirlichman) had information that Mr, O'Brien
had received large amounts of income which might not have
been reported properly. The Secretary asked whether IRS
could check on the matter, and I advised that IRS could.
• 5. I thereupon requested Assistant Commissioner
Hanlon (Compliance) to determine whether Mr. O'Brien had
filed returns which reflected substantial amounts of income.
After a few days, he reported orally that Mr. O'Brien had
filed returns which reported large amounts of income during
the preceding years, that IRS had examined the returns for
1970 and 1971, that Mr. O'Brien had paid a small deficiency
for one year, and that the examinations were closed. I
reported this to Secretary Shultz.
11669
6. Thereafter, from Secretary Shultz I learned
that Mr. Ehrlichman was not satisfied with the report on
the status of Mr. O'Brien's returns. I informed Secretary
Shultz that Mr. O'Brien would be interviewed in connection
with the Hughes investigation. I do not recall specifically
whether scheduling of the interview of Mr. O'Brien originated
in the Field investigation independently of Secretary Shultz 's
inquiries or as a result of Secretary Shultz 's inquiries,
but, in any case, IRS needed the interview and would have
scheduled it. During 1972, however, it was IRS policy to
postpone investigations involving sensitive cases, to the
extent possible without loss of position or revenue, until
after the election. In line with that policy, IRS probably
would not have interviewed Mr. O'Brien prior to the election;
however, because of the indicated inquiries, IRS did inter-
view Mr. O'Brien during the summer of 1972.
7. To the best of my recollection, the IRS field
personnel had some difficulty in scheduling an interview
with Mr. O'Brien and at one point they agreed to interview
his son instead (who had informed the IRS agents that he
had information about his father's financial matters).
Before that interview took place, however, I was infoinned
11670
by Secretary Shultz that Mr. Ehrlichman thought IRS should
interview Mr. O'Brien, not his son. I agreed with that
and directed that IRS interview Mr. O'Brien rather than
his son. I do not know how Mr. Ehrlichman learned of some
of the details of which he had knowledge.
8. IRS interviewed Mr. O'Brien on or about
August 17, 1972. Mr. O'Brien was cooperative although the
interview was limited timewise, and Mr. O'Brien suggested
that any further interview be postponed until after the
election. My recollection is that IRS furnished a copy of
the Conference Report to Secretary Shultz. A short time
thereafter, Secretary Shultz informed me that Mr. Ehrlichman
was not satisfied and that he needed further information about
the matter. I advised the Secretary that IRS had checked
the filing of returns and the examination status of those
returns (closed) and that there was nothing else IRS could
do.
9. On or about August 29, 1972, at the request
of Secretary Shultz, I went to his office with Roger Barth
so that we could conclude review of the O'Brien matter and
dispose of it. Secretary Shultz, Mr. Barth and I discussed
the matter and agreed that IRS could do no more. We then
jointly telephoned Mr. Ehrlichman. Secretary Shultz
11671
informed Mr. Ehrlichman of that; I stated that IRS had
verified that Mr. O'Brien had filed returns, that those
returns reflected large amounts of income, that IRS already
had examined and closed the returns, and that we (Shultz,
Walters and Barth) all agreed that there was nothing further
for IRS to do. Mr. Ehrlichman indicated disappointment,
and said to me "I'm goddamn tired of your foot dragging
tactics." I was offended and very upset but decided to
make no response to that statement. Following the telephone
conversation, I told Secretary Shultz that he could have ,
my job any time he wanted it.
10. The meeting with the Secretary and telephone
conversation with Mr, Ehrlichman stand out in my recollections
as the final incidents in the O'Brien matter, however, in
concluding the matter, I may have furnished some data with
respect to Mr. O'Brien's returns to Secretary Shultz shortly
after (5 or 6 days) that encounter (some questions posed
seem to indicate this) .
'k^.
ers
'^</ Johnnie M. Walt
Sworn to before me this 10th day of June, 1974.
CA
<-^-^-/^c
Notary Public
My Commission expires y/%g/ /y^ (Y'P /
11672
Walters Exhibit No. 5
:2. s~
>c., ^...-^ 9^ f— r-?;2
5*) /<1.-^ d^^-c^-^y ^^r ^^^-^^ ■7^-/'
r^^ ^;^^J2 ciX^d--
.^
11673
Walters ExmsiT No. 6
■'--y^/'-'^-^o ..-?^-'^^-)-i
,r4t
'/
/q^
''/n
dr as a,. ^/^.^<^hr
7 S^vle^-^^
<^5-iy
■i-^/f/^
/'-■-/:A'-'^^''
^^ 4/t (ae..
— 0 7)-
111" • -*-•<-
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 26
11674
■/„ y^<
; ~<^^-^+-<^-i' — (^
<y^^
ZO^
/
J
3>) VC (h
^.
c.
U^^
■2) >^^^
>W^ ^
^W^^ --^^.^
4! '^^/
, ^} ,_^._£^' ^^^^ _ T/W-^- MAr^^'h L^:.^
/^
^ V
^
h
■>■
11675
Walters Exhibit No. 7
SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTML February 23, 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR- secretary shultz
Johnnie M. Walters, Commissioner
nternal Revenue Service
IRS Investigation Involving Howard
Hughes Interests and Associates
In the development of the IRS investigation involving
the Howard Hughes interests and associates, our field
investigative team has concluded that there is a need to
interview Mr. Charles "Bebe" Rebozo and Mr. Donald Nixon.
I am convinced that it wbuld be advisable to authorize
these interviews. However, in view of the sensitivity, I
shall not authorize the interviews until you and I have an
opportunity to discuss the subject.
The team needs to interview Mr. Rebozo in an effort to
determine facts. Richard Danner, Managing Director of the
Frontier Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, has testified that
he and Robert Maheu, formerly a close associate of Howard
Hughes, each delivered $50,000 in currency to Mr. Rebozo in
the summer of 1970 for contributions to the campaign of
Republican Senatorial candidates. Through his attorney, Mr.
Maheu has alleged that Richard Danner had delivered $50,000
to Mr. Rebozo in December 1968 for the 1968 campaign of
President Nixon. Maheu 's son Peter has alleged that the
amount was $100,000 delivered to Mr. Rebozo in 1968, Danner
has denied receiving any money for delivery to Mr. Rebozo
other than $50,000 he delivered in 1970. There is evidence
that Maheu took $50,000 in currency from the Sands Hotel
Casino cashier on December 5, 1968, part of $175,000 he
.received in currency which did not go through known bank
accounts or records.
Initiator
Reviewer
Reviewer
Reviewer
Reviewer
Surname
Walters
Initials
~1
m/
form OS 3129
Oeparimcnt ol Trcasufi
r
i/
f
11676
- 2 -
The IRS investigative team needs to interview Mr.
Rebozo with respect to these monies in order to document
the case against Maheu. The IRS investigative team is
informed that Intertel, a private investigative organization
which has been working for the Hughes organization, has
interviewed Mr. Rebozo and that he denied receiving any
money from Danner or Maheu in 1968.
During the development of the investigation involving
the Hughes organization, the name of Donald Nixon has arisen
several times in connect^ion with activities and transactions
involving some of the Hughes associates (Clarence Hall,
Eldon Cleveland, John Meier and others). There has been
some public notice (possibly unfounded) of financial dealings
between the Hughes organization and Donald Nixon (for instance,
a $200,000 loan in 1956). In addition, in the course of the
investigation, there have been indications of possible
involvements of Donald Nixon which our investigative team
feels it must check. The team needs to interview Donald Nixon
with respect to:
(1) Any knowledge of any financial trans-
actions and investments made by Clarence
Hall, Eldon Cleveland, John Meier, and
Anthony Hatsis during the years 1968-71;
(2) Any knowledge of the sale of mining
claims to the Hughes Tool Company during
the years 1968, 1969 and 1970;
(3) Any financial transactions he may have
had with John Meier, Anthony Hatsis,
Eldon Cleveland or Clarence Hall during
the years 1968, 1969 or 1970; and
(4) Any work performed for or money received
from any of the foregoing individuals or
companies owned or controlled by them
during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.
11677
- 3 -
The subject investigation has been underway for many
months. In my opinion it would be advisable to proceed in
a sound v:ay to complete the investigation so that we can
determine the facts in order to make sound judgments as to
what actions are to be taken. One difficulty with an
investigation of this nature is that one cannot determine
exactly where the investigation will lead. At this point,
based on information we now have, I do not see the interview
with Mr. Rebozo as leading to any action against him.
Unfortunately, I cannot say that with the same degree of
confidence in the case of Donald Nixon, because we simply
do not have enough information to make that judgment at this
time.
^--
,-^^.-(2 //^^^
(2^^
d ^tc ^
/i/.)^ -/^-nc y
'^ I,- .J
' • / / c
■J A
■J-'-- ^"-; /./;' J.
6
^^ --4. i^L--^
-.1
/ :. ' l •■■■
' r'
11678
FRIDAY -. April 6
9:00 - Treasury
1/
lA Tx Cl npr
c
11679
Walters Exhibit No. 8
',-- ^ {
V
5 -.^-7 3
7>
- ,/^/ c-^^ /
a)
^-hhLO
/; ,^ r/-e>^
Ill) .^.-y^ - /C d.-.
ii-UV^
J
1) J/zliZl
6>-
/
/
.7 --^ /^ /
\
V\
* ^^.^ .
A^^'-'l-
f'f^'
---:= — - L-'^^^ ./i^a^^e
' ,/i^^-
11680
Walters Exhibit No. 9
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES
C0>E1ITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
AFFIDAVIT
C
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) ss:
JOHNNIE M. WALTERS, being first duly sworn,
deposes and says:
1. I served as Commissioner of Internal Revenue
from August 6, 1971, through April 30, 1973.
2. On September 11, 1972, I met with John W.
Dean, III, pursuant to his request, in his office at the
Old Executive Office Building, At that meeting he gave
me a list of names, and requested that IRS undertake
examinations or investigations of the people named on the
list. The list appeared to contain names of persons on
the 1972' Presidential campaign staff of Senator George
McGovern and of contributors to that campaign,
3. Mr. Dean stated that he had been directed
to give the list to me. It was my impression at the
time of the September 11, 1972 meeting that John D.
Ehrlichman was the one who had given Mr, Dean his directions,
but I do not recollect on what my impression was based.
11681
Mr. Dean stated that he had not been asked by the
President to have this done and that he did not know
whether the President had asked that any of this
activity be undertaken. Mr, Dean expressed the hope
that the IRS could do this in such a manner that would
"not cause ripples." He indicated that he was not yet
under pressure with respect to this matter.
4. I advised Mr. Dean that compliance with
the request would be disastrous for the IRS and for the
Administration and would make the Watergate affair look
like a "Sunday school picnic," I asked whether he had
discussed the matter with Secretary Shultz, and he said
no. I advised him that I would discuss the matter with
Secretary Shultz, and that I would recommend to Secretary
Shultz that we do nothing on the request.
5. On September 13, 1972, at the earliest
opportunity, I discussed the matter with Secretary Shultz,
showed him the list, and advised him that I believed that
we should not comply with Mr. Dean's request. Mr. Shultz
looked briefly at the list, and said do nothing with
respect to it. I placed the list in a sealed envelope
and placed it in my office safe. I believe I may have
11682
informed Mr. Dean of the decision, but do not specificall>
recall doing so.
6. On or about September 25, 1972, I received
a telephone call from Mr, Dean. He inquired as to what
progress I had made with respect to the list, I told
him that no progress had been made. He asked if it
might be possible to develop information on fifty-sixty-
seventy of the names. I again told him that, although
I would reconsider the matter with Secretary Shultz,
any activity of this type would be inviting disaster.
7. Thereafter, on or about September 29, 1972
and again at the earliest opportunity, I discussed the
matter again with Secretary Shultz, We again agreed
that nothing would be done with respect to the list.
I have no recollection of any further discussions about
the matter during my tenure as IRS Commissioner, except
the possibility of mentioning (without showing) it to
the present Commissioner, Donald C, Alexander, as he
was in the process of being named Commissioner.
8. At no time did I furnish any name or names from
the list to anyone, nor did I request any IRS employee or
official to take any action with respect to the list.
11683
9. I removed the list from the safe when I
teft IRS and thereafter personally kept it in the sealed
envelope and locked in my present office.
10. On July 11, 1973, upon written request,
I submitted the list, along with my handwritten notes
of the September 11, 1972 meeting, to the Joint Committee
on Internal Revenue Taxation in connection with that
Committee's investigation of allegations that the IRS
took enforcement actions for political purposes.
/
Johnnie M. Walters
Dated: V ^' ^7^
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ^ day
of May, 1974.
':i/2i
Notary Public
My Commission expires
^-^rrC-ty
(,'.; Ccmn^.iision Expirss Feb. 14, 1375
11684
Walters ExraBiT No. 10
no CONGRESS, 1«T SESSION LAURENCE N. WOOOWORTM
CMicr OF Staff
MEMBERS
un.»« cmiv UNCOIJ4 ARNOLD
•«*^ ""'^ OO^ffTCM.«F or STAFF
tnUUR D. MILLS. ANK., RUS8CU. ■. L-ONO. LA^
CHAIRMAN Vice CHAtHMAH
AL ULLMAN. OftCO. HCRMAM C. TALMAOOE, OA.
JAMES A. BUHKE, MASS. VAMCE K. MAITTKE, IND.
KEWMAHT.scMNEEBELi.FA. WALLACE F. ■e»«CTT. ip-AM JOINT COM MITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION
HANOLD K. COLLICR. ILL. CAftL T. CimTIS, NEBR.
1019 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDINO
Congre£isi of tfje Zl^niteb States!
>MMITTEEON INTERNAL REVENUE T*
9 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE aUILDIh
Wiaebmton, ©.C. 20515
July 11, 1973
Mr. Johnnie M. Walters
Hunton, Williams, Gay & Gibson
1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Dear Mr. Walters:
You will recall that in the discussion we had with
you on the 5th of July you indicated that you were
invited to the White House by John Dean and that,
at that time, he turned over to you a sheath of papers,
presumably including a list of opponents of the
administration, asking for you to start audit on them
right away. As you indicated to me, this was in fact
not done, and the list was in fact not used for this
purpose at all.
It is my understanding that this list which you
have in your personal possession you are willing to
turn over to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue
Taxation. I have checked this matter with Wilbur D.
Hills, chairman of the committee, and he has requested
that I obtain the list from you for use in connection
with our review of action taken by the Service, if any,
with respect to the so-called opponents of the
administration.
Sincerely yours,
^^Laurence n.
11685
Law Offices
HiTNTON. Williams, Gay & Gibson
tTlO PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.W. SUITE lOSO
Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone (2021 e33-i680
Richmond, Ta. OrncR
July 11 1973 ^OO ^*S''' ^*'"' Street
^ ' P.O. Box IE. 5 23213
TCLCPHONE (703) 649-3661
FILE NO.
Dr. Laurence N. Woodworth
Chief of Staff
Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation
Longworth House Office Building
Room 1015
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Woodworth:
Responding to your letter today requesting
in behalf of the Joint Committee that I turn over to
the Committee the list of names delivered to me as
Commissioner of Internal Revenue in late summer or
early fall of 1972 by John W. Dean, III, the Counsel
to the President, I herewith deliver to you that list.
In doing so, I would like to confirm statements I
made on July 5, 1973 to you, Lincoln Arnold and
Bernard M. Shapiro at the time I appeared in your office
at your request for preliminary discussions in respect
of the investigation the Joint Committee has under-
taken following the testimony of Mr. Dean before the
Senate Committee investigating the Watergate Affair.
I confirm the following facts:
(1) At the time Mr. Dean delivered the list
to me with the request that IRS undertake
examination or investigation of the individuals
on the list, I reminded Mr. Dean that IRS should
not take the action requested, that IRS should
continue to take action solely for tax reasons,
that to undertake the requested action would
create severe problems for IRS and for the
Adminis tration .
11686
Dr. Laurence Woodworth -2- ' July 11, 1973
(2) I asked Mr. Dean whether he or anyone
had discussed the matter with the Secretary
of the Treasury (Shultz) and he replied no.
(3) I then advised Mr. Dean I would undertake
two actions,: (a) I would inform the Secretary
of Mr. Dean's request; and (b) I would recom-
mend to the Secretary that IRS not take the
action requested.
(4) As soon thereafter as I could, I did advise
the Secretary of the Dean request and the list,
showing the list to the Secretary. I recommended
strongly that IRS not undertake the requested
action. After glancing at a page or two of the
names, the Secretary returned the list to me,
agreed that we should not take the action requested,
and advised me to lock up the list and do nothing
about it.
(5) I then sealed the list of names and had it
locked in my safe in the Commissioner's office.
(6) No one other than the Secretary and I had
even the slightest glance at the list. I did not
furnish any name or names from the list to anyone,
nor did I request any IRS employee or official
to take any action with reference to the list.
Thus, I" can say, with absolutely no" reservation,
IRS never took any action with respect to this
list I am delivering to you.
(7) As you will note, I sealed the list the last
time on May 21, 1973. It was at that time that
I was clearing my files at IRS having resigned
as Commissioner. Thus, even with all the public
notice of the list mentioned by Mr. Dean in
11687
Dr. Laurence Woodworth -3- July 11, 1973
his testimony, I have no idea whether this
list is a copy of the list mentioned by
Mr. Dean.
While I hope this statement on my part will
satisfy the Committee that IRS did not take any action
as requested, I will be available and willing to answer
any questions or furnish any further information with
respect to this matter as the Committee deems it advisable
or necessary.
Very truly yours,
very truly yours.
Johnnie M. Walters
11688
ComiTtI isioner
off
Internal Revenue
Johnnie
M.
Walters
Date
rr"
<tsi
i
To
v///'^^
f'//- 7 1-
QyV-t-
,0 n'^
/^ /&c, ^-^^^. "^^V
/S) JJ' ^e^-t^ /W^3^ /^-<r/ ^U.^'i^
ii i^T(k i^ /r-s ^-v^
11689
.y
31-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 27
11690
Commissioner
of
Internal Revenue
Date
Johnnie
M.
Walters
To
s
V ^ * —
y^?^ 7/
A>
/■i^^ /ix-
r-v^ ♦
/^^ A
L^^O--^^^^
c_<3.
^-^^
.;^'/'
^ A---^'
^
c_
- ^
0.-/--A ■^'"'
./
..^-^s-f '4V--^ ^--^'^•
11691
Abzug, Kep. Bella
Armstrong, Robert
Brown, Willie L.
Caddell, Patrick
Caplin, Mortimer
Chayes-, Dr. Abram
Clifford, Clark
Cohen, Dick ^
Cunningham, George
Daniels, Harley
Davis, Lon
DeWind, Adrian
Dougherty, Richard
Duffey. Rev, Joe
Dutton, Frederick G.
Farenthold, Frances (Sissy)
Gavin Lt. Gen. James M
(Retired)
Guggenheim, Charles
Ha Is ted, Tom
Hart, Gary
Heller, Walter 0
Himmelman, Harold
Holum, John D.
James, Wil liam S.
Jones, Kirby
Kiraelman, Henry
Kuh, Edwin
LaRocque, Rear Adm. Gene
(Retired)
Levett, Michael
Lobell, Martin
MacLaine, Shirley
11692
Mankicwicz, Frank
Martindcll, Anne
McPherson, Mike
Meyers, Henry
O'Brien, Lawrence
Okun, Arthur M.
Patterson, Basil
Pechman, Joseph A. ^
t
Pokorny, Gene
Proxmire, Senator William
Rapp, Stan
Smith, Floyd
Stearnes, Rick
Surrey, Stanley S.
Sylvester, Edward S., Jr.
Tobin, James
1
1 7
■ /
■
I
:.
Van Dyck, Ted
Warnke, Paul C.
Weil, Gordon
Westwood, Jean
Rubin, Miles
Salinger, Pierre
Schultze, Charles L.
Wexler, Anne
White, Cissy
Willens, HaroJd
Scoville, Herbert Jr.
Yorki Herbert F.
11693
M/M Richard Abrons
10 Rigene Road
Harrison, N. Y. 10528
Thomas Boylston Adams
Concord Road
Lincoln, Mass. 01773
Joseph Antonow
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, 111.
Paul S. Arraington
3031 Macomb St.
Washington, D. C. 20008
'^.
^
1(
T^
Isadora Adelman
1035 Sximmit Drive
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Julius Ochs Adler
50 E. 77th St.
New York, N. Y. 10021
Dr. Sheldon Adler
474 Duquesne Dr.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15243
Archilbald Alexander
744 Broad St.
Newark, N. J. 07102
Mrs. Elaine Attias
605 N. Bedford Drive
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Milton S. Axelrad
687 Driftwood Lane
Northbrook, 111.
M/M John Axtell
10 Lincoln Road
Scarsdale, N. Y.
Mildred E. Barad
(No Address) '
Henry Alker
512 Wyckoff Rd.
Ithaca, N.Y.
Irving Barr
ll-5th Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10003
Bruce Allen
5411 S. Harper Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60615
Herb Alpert
1416 North LaBrea Ave.
Hollywood, Calif.
Jim Barrett »
7621 N. W. 34th
Oklahoma City, Okla . 73008
Robert Batinovich
100 Flying Cl9ud Island
Foster City, Calif. 94406
Judith H. Alpert
Box 452
Princeton, N. J.
Doris Z. Bato
Cognewaugh Road
Cos Cob, Conn. 06807
Frank Altschul
730 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10019
Dr. /Mrs. Bernard Batt
31 Livingston Road
Sharon, Mass.
William R. Anixter
279 Moraine Road
Highland Park, 111.
Dr. /Mrs. Theodore B. Bayles
94 Summer St.
Weston, Mass. 02193
11694
- 2
Mrs. J. (Helen) Beardsley
7336 Monte Vista
La Jolla, Calif. 92037
John M. Behr
10820 Vicenza Way-
Los Angeles, Calif.
Charles Benton
585 Ingleside Place
Evanston, 111.
Eugene C. Blake
256 Country Club Road
New Canaan, Conn.
Louis C. Blau
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, Calif. 90212
Leonard Block
257 Cornelison Ave.
Jersey City, N. J. 07302
Marjorie Benton
585 Ingleside Place
Evanston, 111, 60201
Polly Bergen
Los Angeles, Calif.
Jerome Berger
35 Ridgemoor Drive
Clayton, Mo. 63105
Louise Berman
6 West 77th St.
New York, N. Y.
Nahum A. Bernstein
295 Madison Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
•Peter L. Bernstein
767 Fifth Ave',
New York, N.Y. 10022
Harold Berry
19330 Stratford
Detroit, Mich,
Harold & Vivian Berry
16300 N. Park Dr.
Apt, 1517
Southfield, Mich, 48075
Mrs. early Billings
P.O. Box 1014
Sag Harbor, N. Y, 11963
Elizabeth Blossom
56 Linnaean St,
Cambridge, Mass.
Mrs. Frances Boehm
1 Willow Lane
Hewlett Harbor, N. Y.
11557
M/M Robert Boehm
I Willow Lane
Hewlett Harbor,' N. Y. 11557
Edward G. Boettiger
Dunham Pond Road
Storrs, Conn, 06268
Alva T, Bonda
II Bratenahl Place
Suite 14E
Bratenahl, Ohio
and
1700 Investment Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Joel Bonda
Investment Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Lou Bonda
Investment Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Richard Bo row
1800 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, Calif. 90067
11695
- 3 -
M/M Constantine & Elizabeth Boukas
P.O. Box 116
Dunnigan, Calif. 97102
Michael Brande
1360 N. Sandburg
Chicago, 111.
M/M Thomas Buckner
445 Boynton
Berkeley, Calif. 94707
Stimson Bullitt
1125 Harvard E.
Seattle, Washington 98102
M/M Irwin H. Braun
546 N. Cliffwood Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Gerald Breslauer
3306 Barbydell Drive
Los Angeles, Calif.
John Briscoe
Silent Meadow Farm
Lakeville, Conn. 06039
Robert L. Brock
1153 Stratford Road
Topeka, Kan.
Earl Brockelsby
Box 2063
Rapid City, S . Dakota
George Brockway
63 Brevoot Rd.
Chappaqua, N.Y,
Edward R. Broida
J222 Corinth Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90064
John Brown • •'
5811 Orton Road
Louisville, Ky.
M/M Lester R. Brown
8716 Preston Place
Chevy Chase, Md. 20015
Robert W. Brown
371 Noco Lane
Menlo Park, Calif.
M/M Roger Brown
3249 O Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
Carter Burden
305 E. 79th St.
New York, N.Y.
Walter Burke
Winding Lane
Greenwich, Conn.
Michael Butler
Los Angeles, California
V. - •
Michael Butler
Oak Brook, 111.
Alexander and Luis a Calder
Roxbury, Conn,. 06783
William D. Carleboch
1112 Hardscrabble Rd.
Chappaqua, N.Y. 10514
M/M Robert Carlson
495 Prospect Blvd.
Pasadena, Calif.
William H. Carter
2222 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, Calif. 90067
Jerome Cassidy
3515 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Raymond Cerf
1000 Sunset Drive
Lawrence , Kan ,
Mrs. David (Joan R.) Chall'nor
3117 Hawthorne St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
11696
Tertius unaiiuj-cj.
27 20 Elmwood Ave.
Berkeley, Calif.
R.B. Chaote
3508 Macomb St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Ann Chapman
1026 Maxine
Flint, Mich.
Edwin Child
73 W. Cedar St.
Boston, Mass. 02114
John C. Chi Ids
1020 Cromwell Bridge Rd.
Baltimore, Md. 21204
Ellis Chingos
7707 North Federal Highway
Boca Raton, Fla. 33432
Jeine Ann Choate
Hudson House
Ardsley-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Willard Chotiner
10501 Wyton Dr.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Blair Clark
229 E. 48th St.
N.Y., N.Y.
Mrs. Alice Erdman Cleveland
Bonnytop
Tamworth, N.H. 03886
129C Ave. of the Americas
New York, N.Y.
Lionel Cohen
P.O. Box 884
Gary, Indiana 46401
M/M Ronald B. Cohen
3509 Severn Road
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118
Saul and Amy Cohen
203 Hommocks Rd.
Larchmont, N.Y.
A. Cohn
1440 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, 111.
Catherine W. Coleman
101 West Monument St.
Baltimore, Md. 21201
I
Louis L. Colen
2727 Krim Drive
Los Angeles, Calif.
/-
Ms. Lucinda C. Collins
19 W. 12th St.
New York, N.Y. 10011
M/M Randolph P. Compton
53 Brookby Rd.
Scarsdale, N.Y. 10583
Edward T. Cone
18 College Road West
Princeton, N.J. 08540
Michael Coburn
26 Witherspoon Lane
Princeton, N.J. 08540
11697
p. F. Conrad
29328 North Bay Road
Pales Verdes, Calif.
Alan S. Davis
37 West 12th St.
New York, N. Y.
M/M Andrew D. Cook
48 Academy Rd., Apt. 6
Westraount, P.Q., Canada
Ed G. Davis
319 Harden Burg
Demarest, N. J. 07627
Tim Cooney
201 East 21 St.
New York, N. Y.
Irving Davis
1300 Midvale
Los Angeles, Calif. 90024
Edward T. Corre
18 College Road West
Princeton, N. J.
Stewart W. Davis
Innstrasse 16
e Munich 80, Germany
Phyllis Cox
88 Garden St.
Cambridge, Mass.
Mark b1 Dayton
900 Old Long Lake Rd.
Wayzata, Minn.
William H. Crocker
3333 P Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Lucy F. DeAngulo
2845 Buena Vista Way
Berkeley, Calif. 94708
P. McEvoy Cromwell
710 Circle Road
Ruxton, Md.
Ruth Cromwell
710 Circle Road
Ruxton, Md.
Priscilla Cunningham
160 East 72nd St.
New York, N. Y. 10021
Morris Dees
Rolling Hills Ranch
Matthews, Ala. 36052
or
P. O. Box 2087
Montgomery, Alabama
Mrs. June Oppen Degnan
Ames Ave. & Shady Lane
P. O. Box 1036
Ross, Calif. 94957
Dorothy V, Dal ton
1130 Short Rd.
Kalamazoo, Mich.
Lawrence Deutsch
1800 W. Magnolia Blvd.
Burbank, Calif.
Eugene S. Daniell, Jr.
Franklin National Bank Bldg.
Franklin, N. H.
Adrian W. DeWind
345 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10021
Joan K. Davidson
(No Address)
Carl Djerassi
127 Cresta Vista
Portola Valley, Calif.
11698
Henri G. Doll
18 East 78th St.
New York, N. Y.
- 6
Lawrence Ellman
1 W. 72r.d St.
New York, N. Y.
Inez W. Dries
61 Superior Drive
Campbell, Calif.
Martha Ward Dudley
2942 Macomb St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20008
Angier Biddle Duke
47 Chester Square
London, SW 1, United Kingdom
i
Abe Dunn
3100 West Alabama
Suite 203
Houston, Tex. 77520
Cornelius Dutcher
7712 Moonridge Place
La Jolla, Calif. 92037
Cornelius & Barbara Dutcher
7617 Convoy
San Diego, Calif.
M/M Oscar Dystel
666 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10019
Norman Eisner ' '"
16 Shady Brook Rd.
Great Neck, N, Y.
Richard A. Eisner
280 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10016
Donald F. Eldridge
167 Isabella Ave.
Atherton, Calif. 94025
Helen W. Ellsworth
Salisbury, Conn. 06068
Victor Elmaleh
860 United Nations Plaza
New York, N. Y. 10017
James S. Ely
170 Gregory Hill Rd.
Rochester, N. Y.
Richard Emerson
Wells Hill
Lakeville, Conn. 06039
George G. Emert,
9512 Singleton Drive
Bethesda, Md. 20034
Beatrice Blair Epstein
292 Ambassador Dr.
Rochester, N. Y. 14610
Michael C. Erlanger
Redding, Conn. 06875
bominck Etcheverry
41 E. 10th St.
New York, N. Y. 10011
Ralph Ettlinger, Jr.
1370 Lincoln Ave., So.
highland Park, 111. 60035
S. Sanford Ezralow
9556 Sherwood Forest
Beverly Hills, Calif. 90210
Max Factor
336 S. Hudson
Los Angeles, Calif.
0
11699
- 7 -
M/M Gary & E. Familian
1011 Cove Way
Beverly Hills, Calif.
or
9134 Sunset Blvd
Los ;^ngeles, Calif,
Mary Dupont Faulkner
c/o State Street & Trust
Boston, Mass.
and
255 Goddard Ave.
Brookline, Mass.
S. Ferry !
1572 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Stanley Feuer
23140 Mariposa De Oro
Malibu, Calif.
Martin D. Fife
180 Madison Avenue
New York, N. Y.
John Fisher
123 Part St.
Buffalo, N. Y.
Mark H. Fleischman
36 East 38th St.
New York, N.Y. 10016
Moe Foner
Drug Hospital Union
M/M J. Malcomb Forbes
133 Coolidge Hill
Cambridge, Mass.
Orville Forte, Jr.
40 Nobscott Rd.
Weston, Mass.
M/M Stanley A. Frankel
161 E. 42nd St.
New York, N. Y.
John French
100 Wall Street
New York, N. Y. 10005
Michel Fribourg
Two Broadway
New York, N. Y.
Jules L. Furth
2450 Lakeview Ave.
Chicago, 111.
Mrs. Helen Fuson
325 College Ave.
.» Richmond, Indian^ 47374
Andrew Gagarin
Gallos Lane
Litchfield, Conn. 06758
John B. Gage
683 Santa Barbara Rd,
Berkeley, Calif.
Margaret Gage
11769 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Elizabeth Galande
Dickson Mill
Greene Village, N. J.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Harvard University
207 Littaner
Cambridge, Mass.
Florence Gardner
Chicken Valley Rd.
Locust Valley, N. Y.
Samuel Gary
1776 Lincoln St.
Denver, Colo.
Jerorae Ginzberg
25 Hutchinson Pkwy
Lynbrook, N. Y.
11700
- 8
J. W. Gitt (Gritt(?))
Hanover, Pa.
M/M.' J. W. Gitt
Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374
Ralph Gleason
10th and Parker
Berkeley, Calif.
M/M Martin L. Gleich
2210 - 4th Ave.
San Diego, Calif. 92101
Alan Glen
5454 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20015
Seth M. Glickenhaus
30 Broad St.
New York, N. Y. 10004
Robert & Susan Glickman
29 Oxford Rd.
Scarsdale, N. Y. 10503
Michael J. Goldberg
15366 Longbow Drive
Sherman Oak, Calif.
Margaret S. Goheen
Princeton University
Princeton, N. J.
Dr. Orville J. Golub
359 Veteran Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Elinor Goodspeed
1230 - 13th St., N.W,
Washington, D. C.
Howard Gottlieb
1000 Lake Shore Blvd.
Evanston, 111. 60202
Isabella Grandin
301 Berkley St.
Boston, Mass. 02116
Edith B. Greenberg
10591 Rocca Way
Los Angeles, Calif.
Kenneth L. Greif
4000 N. Charles St.
Ba 1 tiniore , Md .
I. A. Grodzins
5737 S. Blackstone
Chicago, 111.
George Gund
Gund Ranches
Lee, Nevada 89801
Richard S. Gunther
707 North Bedford Drive '^
Beverly Hills, Calif.
John H. Gutfreund
Salomon Bros, & Hutzler
(Address unknown)
Richard Tod Gutknecht
19890 Lures Lane
Huntington Beq.ch, Calif, 92646
Gene Hackman
9171 Wilshire Blvd,
Los Angeles, Calif.
Hugh Hamill
384 Milne St.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19144
11701
victor G. Hanson
15929 W. Seven Mile Rd.
Detroit, Mich. 48235
- 9 -
Alfred E. Heller
121 Woodland
Kentfield, Calif. 94904
Irving B. Harris
First National Plaza
Chicago, 111. 60670
Clarence S. Heller
244 California St.
San Francisco, Calif.
Anne B. Harrison
3556 Macomb St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Carmen Ha rs chaw
417 S. Hill St., #434
Los Angeles, Calif. 90013
Ruth B. Heller
121 Woodland
Kentfield, Calif. 94904
M/M Paul & Ruth Henning
4250 Navajo St.
North Hollywood, Calif.
Nan A. Harvie
3317 Paty Drive
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Henry Waldron Havemeyer
350 Fifth Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10001
R. Allen Hermes
R.D. #2
West Redding, Conn. 06896
M/M Alexander P. Hixon, Jr.
5443 Palisade Ave.
Bronx, N. Y. 10471
Mr. Heckler
201 East 42nd St.
New York, N. Y.
Hugh M. Hefner
919 North Michigan Ave.
Chicago, 111.
William Hegarty
448 North St.
Greenwich, Conn.
Fred Heim
2973 Passmore Drive
Los Angeles, Calif.
Frank Heineman
120 East 34th St.
New York, N. Y.
Harrison Hoblitzelle
16 Gray Gardens West
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Harold Hochs child
Blue Mt. Lake, N. Y. 12812
John P. Hodgkin
515 Madison Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10021
LeRoy E. Hoffberger
900 Garrett Bldg.
Baltimore, Md. 21209
Janet Hoffheimer
198 Green Hills Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Joseph Hofheimer
2 Great Jones St.
New York, N. Y. 10012
11702
10 -
Alice A. Hoge
63 East Bellevue
Chicago, 111.
David L. Hollander
2518 Talbot Rd .
Baltimore, Md. 21.;16
Edwin Janss, Jr.
104 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, Calif. 91360
Christopher Jencks
C/O Cambridge Trust Co.
Cambridge, Mass.
Louis Honig
3555 Pacific Ave.
San Francisco, Calif.
Tim Horan
Wunderman, Ricotta & Kline
575 Madison Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10022
Raymond Home
725 Bryson St.
Youngstown, Ohio 44502
Alice A. Howe
63 East Bellevue
Chicago, 111.
Rudolph Hurwich
Box 1030
Berkeley, Calif.
Peter Hutchinson
'!221 D. Halsey
Princeton, N. J. 08540
Raymond lekes
111 Alvarado
Berkeley, Calif. 94705
James H. Inglis
8811 Colvesville Rd., #803
Silver Spring, Md.
Jennifer L. Jacobs
577 West Ferry, Apt. 3
Buffalo, N.Y.
Esther Johnson
R.D. Oldrick, N.J.
M/M Walter Johnson
19641 Coral Gables
Southfield, Mich. 48075
Alfred W. Jones-.
435 E. 52nd St.
New York, N. Y. 10022
Catherine S. Jones
2728 32nd St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20008
Larry Kagan
1900 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, Calif.
Albert J. Kallis
528 N. Palm Drive
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Sheila Kamerman
1125 Park Place
New York, N. Y.
Louis Kane
10 Chestnut St.
Boston, Mass.
Jack Kaplan
760 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y.
Frank Karelsen
600 Park Ave.
New York, N.Y.
11703
- 11
David Karr
47 Rue Faubourg St, Honore
Paris, France
Samuel Katzin
5530 S. Southshore
Chicago, 111.
Anita Katzman
100 Sands Point Rd.
Longboat Key
Sarasota, Fla. 33577
Don Kaufman
3100 Mandeville Canyon Rd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
M/M Elwood P. Kaufman
148 Library Place
Princeton, N. J.
Gloria Kaufman
3100 Mandeville Canyon Rd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Harold Keith
93 Malibu Colony
Malibu, Calif. 90265
Dorothy Kent
San Juan
Pueblo, New Mex. 87566
James R. Kerr
1275 King St.
Greenwich, Conn.
Jim Kerr
10850 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Peter Kessner
112 W. 34th St.
New York, N.Y. 10001
Henry L. Kimelman
P. O. Box 250
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
Dr. & Mrs. J. J. King
7121 W. Manchester Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif.
David B. Kinney
3636 N. 38th St.
Arlington, Va . 22207
Travis Kleefeld
8929 Wilshire Blvd., #212
Beverly Hills, Calif. 90211
Mrs. S. B. Knight
Box 174
Gates Mills, Ohio 44040
Arthur J. Kbbacker
3172 Homewood Ave.
Steubenville, Ohio 43952
Harvey L. Kbizim
145 Main St. ' "^
Westport, Conn. 06880
Gilman ICraft
401 St. Cloud Rd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Herbert Kronish ..
1345 - 6th Ave.
New York,. N.Y.
Violet Krum
43 N. Housac Rd.
Williamstown, Mass.
Norman Kunin
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, N.Y. 11530
11704
Mrs . Joseph Lachowicz
1042 N. 5th Ave.
Tucson, Ariz. 85705
- 12 -
Norman Lear
132 S. Rodeo Drive
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Lou Lamberty
301 South 51st Ave.
Omaha, Nebr.
M/M Corliss Lament
315 W. 106 St.
New York, N.Y. 10025
Mrs. Helen Lamont
315 W. 106th St.
New York, N. Y. 10025
Roy Lamson
68 Francis Ave.
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Burt Lancaster
(No Address)
Peter Lake
10005 Reevesbury Dr.
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Bert Lane
224 South June St.
"Los Angeles, Calif. 90004
Theodore V. Lane
1330 De Soto
Canoga Park, Calif. • ■-
Frank E. Laplin
Princeton, N. J.
H. Irgens Larsen
10 Frog Rock Rd.
Armonk, N. Y. 10504
Frank Lautenberg
405 Route 3
Clifton, N.J.
or
36 Stonebridge Rd.
Montclair, N. J.
Mrs. Lucy B. Lemann
525 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y.
Timothy Leonard
1027 City Park
Co lumbu s , Ohio
George Leppert
20 Leroy St.
Potsman, N. Y. 13676
M/M Albert W. Lerch
1511 Amalfi Dr.
Pacific Palisades, Calif.
Mrs. Beatrice Lerner
300 Lillore Road
South Orange, N. J.
Alvin Levin
Old Winter St.
Lincoln, Mass. 01773
Robert A. & Kay Levin
1411 Judson Ave.
Evanston, 111.
Abner Levine
2 Amberly Road
Lawrence, N.Y.
Joseph E. Levine
1301 Ave. of the Americas
New York, N. Y.
M/M Bernard Levy
91 Chatham Road
Kensington, Conn. 06037
Diana B. Lewis
778 Park Ave.
New York. N.Y.
11705
- 13 -
M/M Peter B. Lewis
18930 South Woodland Rd .
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122
John E. Mack
111 Beverly Road
Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Robert K. Li f ton
201 E. 42nd Street
New York, N. Y.
Timothy Light
104 Eastern Heights Dr,
Itahca, N. Y.
Elizabeth Mackie
98 Bayard Lane
Princeton, N. J.
Milton Maidenberg
1100 Euclid Ave.
Marion, Ind.
William E. Little, Jr.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10001
Lewis Manilow
■» 105 W.-.. Adams St.. .
Chicago, 111. 60603
William Louis-Dreyfus
One State Street Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10004
Stanley Marsh
115 W. 7th Ave.
Amarillo, Texas
Dr. A. A. Lumsdaine
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98105
Mrs. Frances B. McAllister
P. O. Box 1874
Flagstaff, Ariz. 86001
Anne Martindell
1 Battle Road
Princeton, N. J.
08450
Priscilla Mason
2817 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20007
Fred McConnaughey
2230 S. Patterson Blvd.
Dayton, Ohio 45409
F. R. McConnaughey
4385 Tam-o-Shanter Way
Kettering, Ohio 45429
Stephanie May
Duncaster Rd.
Bloomfield, Conn. 06002
Kenneth Pray Maytag
21 East Canon P^rdido
Santa Barbara Calif.
Alan McGowan
16785 Bayview Drive
Sunset Beach, Calif.
C. W. V. Meares
307 East 44th St.
New York, N. Y. 10017
Priscilla McMillan
12 Hilliard St.
Cambridge, Mass.
J. J. Meeker
4511 Ridgehaven Rd.
Fort Worth, Tex.
,•'1-889 O - 74 - pt. 24 - 28
11706
- 14
Daniel Melcher
228 Grove St.
Montclair, N. J.
M/M Charles Merrill
23 Commonwealth Ave.
Boston, Mass. 02116
Robert Mertens
P. O. Box 245
Woodstock, Vermont 05091
Mrs. LuEsther T. Mertz
860 United Nations Plaza
Apt. 30E
New York, N. Y. 10017
Howard M. Metzenbaum
1700 Investment Plaza
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Ruth Meyer
252 Huntington St.
New Haven, Conn. 06511
Harry C. Meyerhoff
6301 Reistertown Rd.
Baltimore, Md. 21215
Jack Meyerhoff
5560 Collins Avenue
Miami Beach, Fla.
Robert Meyerhoff
3209 Fallstaff Road
Baltimore, Md.
Jean Milgram
5 Longford St.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Gerlad J. Miller
1220 Blair Mill Rd.
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
Joseph Miller
1913 Delancey Place
Philadelphia, Pa.
M/M Marshall Miller
Gateway Towers, Apt. 20K
Pittsburgh, Pa.
M/M Richard G. Miller
^ Box 621, R.R. #1 .
Carson City, Nev. 89701
Leon R. Miral, M.D.
4821 E. McNichols
Detroit, Mich. 48212
Ralph Mishkin
7130 LaPresa Drive
Los Angeles, Calif.
Robert L. Misrack
901 S. Hill St.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90015
Stuart Moldaw
49 Faxon Road
Atherton, Calif.
Kenneth Monfort
1902 25th Ave.
Greeley, Colo^
Jenny McKean Moore
6619 Newark St., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
11707
15
Carol S . Moss
335 S. Rimpau
Los Angeles, Calif.
M/M Jerome S . Moss
1416 N. LaBrea Ave.
Hollywood, Calif.
Stewart Mott '.
515 Madison Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10022
M/M Stuart Mudd
734 Millbrook Lane
Haver ford. Pa. 19041
I
William' W. Mullins
509 S, Linden
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Eleanor E. Murdock
301 Berkeley St.
Boston, Mass. 02116
David C. Nash
305 E. 40th St., Apt. 5F
New York, N. Y. 10016
Mrs. Margaret De. Neufville
Thomas Road
Mendham, New Jersey 07945
C . M . Newman
9820 Spring . ..
Omaha, Nebr.
Murray Newman
8405 Indian Hills Dr.
Omaha, Nebr. 68124
Nick Newman
9820 Spring
Omaha, Nebr.
Paul & Joanne Newman
Westport, Conn. 06880
Frederick M. Nichols
9454 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Georgia O'Keefe
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Wilfred A. Openhym
230 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10017
'> M/M Harold Oram ■ .
77 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10016
Albert Ornstein
210 E. 86th Street
New York, N. Y. 10028
and
Apt. M-11, Bldg. 2
Washington Square Village
New York, N. Y.
Moe Ostin
Warner Brothers
Burbank, Calif.
Mrs. Louise Ottinger
150 Central Park South
New York, N. Y. 10019
Mrs. Joan B. Overton
(No Address)
Janet F. Page
1007 Paseo de la Cuma
Santa Fe, New Mex. 87501
Joan Palevsky
623 S. Beverly Glen Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90024
11708
- 16 -
Max Palevsky
755 Stradella
Los Angeles, Calif. 90024
Victor Palmieri
107 Malibu Colony
Malibu, Calif.
Robert O . Peterson
530 B St.
San Diego, Calif. 92101
Donald A. Petrie
2500 Virginia Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Esther Parker
177 Lake St.
Sherborn, Mass.
Gifford Phillips
825 S. Harrington Ave,
Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Grace Parr
Box 463
Taos, New Mex. 87571
J. R. Par ten
1603 Bank of the Southwest
Building
Houston, Texas
Isaac Patch
185 Maple St.
Englewood, N. J.
07631
Henry Pearlman
630 Third Ave.
New York, N. Y.
10017
Edward R. Peckerman, Jr.
230 Park Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
Martin Peretz
Assistant Professor
Harvard University
(No Address)
Harry J. Perry
PNB Building
Philadelphia, Pa.
M. Platov
Tannersville, N.Y. 12485
Gene Pokorny
Rte. #2
Howe lis, Nebr .
A. Pollcind
716 W. Arbor Drive
San Diego, Calif.
1
Jerry E. Poncher
7400 Caldwell Avenue
Chicago, 111. 60648
Sidney L. Port
2961 Gregory St.
Chicago, 111.
Bibb Porter
78 E. 56th St.^
New York, N.Y."
Riobin Poto'ff
574 E. Main St.
Waterbury, Conn.
Diane S . Poucher
303 N. Deere Park Dr.
Highland Park, 111. 60035
11709
- 17 -
M/M Charles Pratt
242 E. 68th St.
New York, N.Y. 10021
George Pratt (George D., Jr.)
Bridgewater, Conn. 05752
Mrs. Jean Wood Preston
Weston Road
Lincoln, Mass. 01773
Julian Price II
1776 Butler Creek Rd.
Ashland, Oregon
and
Box 5786
Greensboro, N. C.
Bernard Rabinowitz
2 Laurel Lane
Clifton, N. J.
Reviben Rabinowitz
2 Laurel Lane
Clifton, N. J.
Bernard Rapoport
Box 208
Waco, Tex.
Joan Re a
510 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y.
Charles R. Reed
402 A Deuereux
Princeton, N. J. 08540
Walter T. Ridder
1325 E St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20004
Ellis Ring
11400 Rochester Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif.
M/M Joseph Robbie
1301 N.E. 100th St.
Miami, Fla. 33138
James Robbin
740 Cordova Ave .
San Diego, Calif.
Edward Hutchinson Robbins
5303 Boxwood Court
* Washington, D. C- 20016
Bernard M. Rodin
919 Third Ave.
New York, N. Y.
M/M Richard Rogers
2 East 61 St.
New York, N. Y. '10021
M/M Frank Roosevelt
404 Riverside Drive
New York, N. Y. 10025
Carl Rosen
Essex, N. Y.
Jaclyn B. Rosenberg
1155 Shadow Hill Way
Beverly Hills,- Calif.
Richard S . Rosenzweig
1519 Euclid Ave.
Marion, Indiana
Mike Roshkind
6464 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
11710
- 18 -
Stanley Rothenfeld
19100 South Park Blvd.
Shaker Heights, Ohio
Arvin K. Rothschild
Universal Marion Bldg.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Walter Rothschild, Jr.
521 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10017
James W. Rouse
10354 Windstorm Drive
Columbia, Md.
Miles Rubin
77 Malibu Colony
Malibu, Calif. 90265
Mrs . Vera Rubin
1080 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y.
*Dr. Vera Rubin
1028 Fifth Ave
New York, N. Y.
Madeline Russell
3778 Washington St.
San Francisco, Calif,
Edward L. Rye r son, Jr.
71 Washington Ave.
Cambridge, Mass.
John D. Ryan
Northville, N. Y. 11234
M/M Eli Sagan
153 Dwight Place
Englewood, N. J. 07531
Eli J. Sagan
520 8th Ave.
New York, N. Y.
Alan Sagner
301 So. Livingston Ave.
Livingston, N. J. 07039
Alan Saks
3840 West Fullerton Ave.
Chicago, 111.
Elizabeth M. Salett
6 Kensington Ave.
Trenton, N. J. 08618
Richard Salomon
870 United Nations Plaza
New York, N.Y.
and
Riverbank Road
Stamford, Conn. ^
Maxwell H. Salter ( and Mrs. Janet)
804 N. Linden Drive
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Edward and Rose Sanders
509 Tuallitan Road
Los Angeles, Calif. 90049
Stanley Sands
2601 Woodcrest
Linco In , Nebr .
* Dr. Vera Rubin may be
same as Mrs. Vera Rubin
listed at address above.
David Sanford
614 Pearson
Flint, Mich-
11711
- 19 -
William H. Scheide
133 Library Road
Princeton, N. J.
Fred Schiener
18 Beverly Drive
Great Neck, N. Y.
11021
J. L. Schiffman
15 Exchange Place
Jersey City, N. J.
Robert Schlossberg
3846 Virginia St.
Lynwood, Calif.
Lei and Schubert
2 Bratenahl Place
Bratenahl, Ohio
Leonard Schulman
444 Park Ave . , S .
New York, N.Y.
MrSc Milton Schulman
737 Park Ave.
New York, N. Y.
Edward L. S chum an
4201 Cathedral N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
Kenneth L. Schwartz
4280 North Hills Drive
Hollywood, Fla. 33021 .
Burnell Scott
276 N. Pleasant
Oberlin, Ohio
Peter J. Scott
P. O. Box 388
Lyndhurst, N. J. 07071
Marvin Shapiro
1800 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, Calif.
Betty Warner Sheinbavun
819 San Ysidro Lane
Santa Barbara, Calif. 93103
Stanley K. Sheinbaum
819 San Ysidro Lane
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Ralph Shekes
16 W. 77th St-
New York, N. Y. 10024
Malcolm Sherman
10450 Waterfowl Terrace
Columbia, Md. 21044
Richard Sherwood
9606 Feather Road
Beverly Hills, Calif. 90210
Mrs. Richard T. Shields
812 Fifth Ave.
New York. N. Y. 10021
Emilie Helene Siebert
310 Riverside Dr.
New York. N.Y. 10024
Jerome A. Siegel
1175 Old White Plains Rd.
Maranoneck, N. Y. 10543
Joan Simon
7 Gracie Square
New York, N. Y. 10028
11712
- 20 -
Alfred P. Slaner
640 Fifth Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10019
Howard Sloan
75 Maiden Lane
New York, N.Y.
George A. Smith
17 Ames St.
Rutherford, N, J. 07070
Ruth P. Smith
1 West 72nd St.
New York, N. Y.
*Mrs. Randolph Smitherman
617 Tinkerbell Rd.
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
*Mrs. M. R. Smitherman
617 Tinkerbell Rd.
Chapel, Hill, N. C. 27514
George Soros
25 Central Park South
New York, N. Y.
Leonard and Libbie Spacek
1550 Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, 111. 60610
L. M. Sperry
20 Crest Road
Belvedere, Calif. 94920
Mrs. Leonard M. Sperry
9198 Cordell Dr.
Los Angeles, Calif.
M/M Paul J. Sperry
115 Central Park West
New York, N. Y. 10023
* Mrs. Randolph Smitherman
& Mrs. M. R. Smitherman may
be same person
V. Sperry
500 Crestline Drive
Los Angeles, Calif. 90049
Mrs. Victoria H. Sperry
500 Crestline Dr.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90049
Vicki Sperry
c/o Carol Moss
335 S. Rimpau
Los Angeles, Calif.
Lyman Spitzer
* 659 Lcike Dr.
Princeton, N. J. 08540
Jon Splane
619-1/2 Third
Flint, Mich.
Fortney Stark, Jr.
Security Bank Building
1500 Newell Ave.
. Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596
Dinah Starr
198 Beacon St.
Boston, Mass. 02116
Leften Stavrianos
53-109 Kam Hwy,
Punaluu, Hawaii
Hy Steirman
1 Chesterfield Rd.
Sceirsdale, N. Y.
John A. Stephens
4400 Via Abrigado
Hope Ranch, Calif.
Carl W. Stem
55 Raycliff Terrace
San Francisco, Calif. 94115
11713
- 21 -
M/M Philip Stern
2301 S Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20008
Meirk Swann
R. D. #1
New Park, Pa,
17352
Alvin Sternlieb
20 Willowbrook Lane
Freeport, N. Y. 11520
Dr. & Mrs. R. J. Stoller
1100 Rivas Canyon
Pacific Palisades, Calif.
Martain and Elaine Stone
10889 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Mrs. Myron K. Stone
56 East 80th St.
New York, N. Y. 10021
Robert C . Stover
150 College Ave.
Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 12603
Donald B. Straus
140 West 51st St.
New York, N.Y. 10020
Marvin A. Strin
11110 Ohio Ave.
West Los Angeles, Calif.
Bernard Stryer
104 Raymond Ave .
Millburn, N. J.
Lee J. Stull
New Delhi
Dept. of State
Washington, D. C.
John Sturges
13063 Ventura Blvd.
N. Hollywood, Calif. 91604
O. W. Switz
P. O. Box 723
Red Bank, N. J.
George H. Talbot
125 East 4th St.
Charlotte, N. C.
and
417 Hermitage Rd.
Charlotte, N. C.
A. A. Taubman
Special Account
Southfield, Mich.
Michael Taylor
32 Gramercy Park South
New York, N. Y.
Michael Tennenbaura
c/o Bear Sterns & Co.
1 Wall St.
New York, N.Y.
Frank Thielen, Jr.
P. O. Box 427
Baytown, Tex. 77520
Lee B. Thomas, Sr.
Box 1523
Louisville, Ky.
Matthew D. Thomases
1450 Broadway
New York, N. Y.
J. B. Tietz
410 Douglas Bldg.
257 S. Spring St.
Los Angeles, Calif.
11714
- 22 -
Bardyl Tirana
3509 Lowell St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20016
John L. Tishman
885 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y.
Beliront Towbin
C . E . Unterberg
(No Address)
Robert C. Townsend
45 Sutton Place South
New York, N. Y.
R.C, Townsend
Duck Pond Road
Locust Valley, N. Y. 11560
Mrs. Katharine W. Tremaine
1512 Miramar Beach
Santa Barbara, Calif. 93108
David H. Tucker
10383 Barcan Circle
Columbia, Md. 20144
Joyce B. Turner
4948 S. Kirabark Ave.
Chicago, 111. 60615
Eugene K, Twining
Commonwealth Building
Allentown, Pa.
Frances Vicario
North Bennington, Vt. 05257
Fred Viehe
9320 S. W. Eighth Ave.
Portland, Ore. 97219
Norman Wain
15809 Onaway Rd.
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44115
Dr. George Wald
21 Lakeview Ave .
Cambridge, Mass.
Linda Wallace
435 S. Lafayette
Los Angeles, Calif.
Ira Wallach
Centrai National .Corp.
100 Park Ave.
New York, N.Y.
Joan Warbtirg
60 East 42nd St.
New York, N. Y.
Maxine F. Warner"
100 Malibu Colony
Malibu, Calif.
Carmen Warschaw
417 S. Hill St., #434
Los Angeles, Calif.
Samuel Warshauer
187 Leroy St.
Tenafly, N. J. 07670
Jean S . Weaver.,
445 El Arroyo
Hillsborough, Calif. 94010
Robert Weil
1880 Centuray Park East
Los Angeles, Calif. 90067
Samuel Weiner, Jr.
451 West Broadway
New York, N. Y. 10012
11715
- 23 -
Howard Weingrow
201 E. 42nd St.
New York, N. Y.
Howard A. Weiss
209 South LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111.
Molly Weiss
1040 North Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, 111.
Robert G. Weiss
209 South LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111.
Bernard Weissbourd
111 East Wacker Dr.
Chicago, 111. 60601
Stanley S . Weithorn
405 Lexington Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10017
Mr. Wellington
Princeton, N. J.
Albert B. Wells
^50 Golden Hills Dr.
Portola Valley, Calif.
Joseph P. Wells
673 Second Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10016 " ■"
Barbara Wheatland
P. O. Box 271
Topsfield, Mass. 01983
Keith Wheelock
Todd Pond Rd.
Lincoln, Mass.
Henry Willcox
38 Dock Road
South Norwalk, Conn. 06854
Harold Wi liens
1122 Maple Ave.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90015
and
321 South Bristol
Los Angeles, Calif.
Estelle Williams
723 N. Elm Dr.
Beverly Hills, Calif. 90210
Charles E. Wilson
4513 Coachmen
Baytown, Tex.
Mrs. Catherine Winkler
4660 Kenmore Ave.
Alexandria, Va. 22304
Werner F . Wolfen
Suite 900, Gateway East
Los Angeles, Calif.
or
1800 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, Calif.
Louis Wolfson
Financier
(No Address)
Mrs. Dudley Wood
320 E. 72nd St.
New York, N. Y. 10021
Miss Lucia Woods
214 E. 70th
New York, -N. Y. 10002
Mrs. Elizabeth G. Woodward
800 Seminole Ave.
Philadelphia, Pa.
11716
- 24 -
Frederick Worden
45 Hilltop Road
Boston, Mass.
Lyn Wyman
650 Nash
Menlo Park, Calif.
i
George Yntema
RFD 2, Box 80A
Manchester, Conn.
Quentin D. Young, M.D.
1418 E. 55th St.
Chicago, 111. 60615
Floyd Yudelson
9021 Melrose
Los Angeles, Calif.
Alejandro Zaffaroni
214 Polhemus Ave.
Ather ton , Calif.
Meyer Zeiler, M.D.
710 North Walden Dr.
Beverly Hills, Calif.
11717
Walters Exhibit No. 11
^ /■
o
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 06313 328 2
\
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11