Skip to main content

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

See other formats










The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation, and Related Matters 

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 29, MAY 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 
22, 28, 29, AND JUNE 6, 1974 

Book 23 

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


Concord. New Hampshice Q33.Qi 

ON DEPOSIT '^"'^ ^' '^^^ 










The Hughes-Rebozo Investigation, and Related Matters 

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 29, MAY 2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 
22, 28, 29, AND JUNE 6, 1974 

Book 23 

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

31-889 O WASHINGTON : 1974 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govemment Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.85 


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

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


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


Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel 

RuFDS L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant 

David M. Dorsen, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel 

James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Carmine S. Belling, Chief Investigator 

Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel 

James C. Moore, Assistant Counsel 

Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel 

Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel 
W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel 

Alan S. Weitz, Assistant Counsel 

Robert F. Muse, Jr., Assistant Counsel 

Mark J. Biros, Assistant Counsel 

R. Scott Ar.m strong. 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. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Carolyn M. Andrade, Administrative Assistant 

Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager 

Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority 

[Executive session hearings released to the public after the filing 
of the final report of the Senate Select Committee.] 





Monday, April 29, 1974 10733 

Thursday, Mav 2, 1974 10849 

Sunday, May 5, 1974 10855 

Tuesday, May 7, 1974 10877 

Friday, May 10, 1974 10925 

Monday, May 13, 1974 10945 

Wednesday, May 15, 1974 _ 10975 

Friday, May 17, 1974 11053 

Wednesday, May 22, 1974 11073 

Tuesday, May 28, 1974 11149 

Wednesday, May 29, 1974 11173 

Thursday, June 6, 1974 11221 


Monday, April 29, 1974 

GrifBn, William E., secretary of the Precision Valve Corp., accompanied by 
Miles Ambrose, counsel 10736 

Thursday, May 2, 1974 

Haig, Gen. Alexander M., Jr., staff coordinator to the President, accom- 
panied by James D. St. Clair, counsel 1 0849 

Sunday, May 5, 1974 

Kalmbach, Herbert W., former personal attorney of the President, accom- 
panied by Edward P. Morgan, counsel 10855 

Tuesday, May 7, 1974 

Buzhardt, J. Frederick, special counsel to the President 10877 

Friday, May 10, 1974 

Simon, Hon. William E., Secretary of the Treasury, accompanied by 

Edward C. Schmults, General Counsel, Department of the Treasury. _ 10925 

Monday, May 13, 1974 

Brown, Jack, auditor of the Key Biscayne Bank & Trust Co., accompanied 
by Andrew C. Hall, counsel 10945 

Wednesday, May 15, 1974 

McKiernan, Stanley W., attorney for F. Donald Nixon and Edward C. 

Nixon 10977 

Haig, Gen. Alexander M., Jr., accompanied by J. Fred Buzhardt, counsel; 

testimony resumed 1 0998 

Friday, May 17, 1974 _.^ 
Garment, Leonard, assistant to the President 11053 



Wednesday, May 22, 1974 

Higby, Lawrence M., former deputy assistant to the President, accom- Pase 
panied by Richard Hauser, counsel 11073 

Tuesday, May 28, 1974 

LaRue, Frederick, former White House counsel, accompanied by Fred 
Vinson, counsel 11149 

Wednesday, May 29, 1974 
GemmiU, Kenneth W., accompanied by Matthew J. Broderick, counsel 11173 

Thursday, June 6, 1974 

Barth, Roger V., former assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal 

Revenue Service, accompanied by Kenneth Schroeder, counsel 11221 

Griffin Exhibits 

Nos. 1 through 6 — Previously entered in Griffin testimony of March 28, 
1974. See Book 22. 

No. 7 — (10735) Two aircraft registration numbers of planes owned by 

Precision Valve Corp 10795 

No. 8— (10735) Check to Precision Valve Corp. from Mr. Griffin, dated 

September 13, 1973, for $7,284.38 10795 

No. 9 A— (10735) Personal check of Mr. Griffin to Richard M. Nixon 

for $15,000, dated September 17, 1973 10796 

No. 9B— (10735) Griffin check for $2,916.69 to Precision Valve Corp., 

dated December 17, 1973 10797 

No. 9C — (10735) Check payable to Westchester County Republican 

Committee for $800, dated September 24, 1973 10798 

No. 10 — (10736) Copy of National Airlines ticket for ffight No. 55 from 

LaGuardia Airport to Miami on May 3 10799 

No. 11— (10736) New York Times article of December 12, 1973, en- 
titled: "Nixon Aide Acted on Rebozo Refund" 10800 

No. 12 — (10736) Documents relating to transfer of funds from Hudson 
Valley National Bank to C. G. Rebozo on November 27, 1972, and 
a retransfer of same to Precision Valve Corp., November 30, 1972. _ 10801 

No. 13— (10739) Document from Mr. Griffin dated October 22, 1970, 

entitled: "California Property" 10804 

Nos. 14 and 15 — (10743) Two documents supplied by Mr. Griffin 
representing the total amount of funds given to B. & C. Investment 
Co. by C. G. Rebozo, for periods from January 1, 1971, through 
December 31, 1972, and January 1, through August 15, 1973. _. 10819-20 

Nos. 16 and 17 — (10746) Two checks from Precision Valve Corp. to 
Robert H. Abplanalp dated November 1 and 15, 1973, in the total 
amount of $295,000 10821-22 

No. 18 — (10749) Partnership agreement of B. & C. Investment Co. by 
Robert Abplanalp and C. G. Rebozo, with copy of promissory note 
by Mr. Rebozo to the B. & C. Investment Co. in the amount of 
$600,000 10823 

No. 19 — (10752) Two checks written on the account of the Precision 
Valve Corp. payable to the B. & C. Investment Co. One dated 
July 12, 1973, for $95,000; the other dated October 18, 1973, for 
$20,000 10845 

No. 20 — (10763) Interoffice correspondence from Mr. Griffin to "File," 

dated December 8, 1972. Subject: C. G. Rebozo loan 10847 

No. 21^(10764) Retained in the files of the committee. 

Kalmbach Exhibits 

Nos. 1 through 4 — Previously published in Kalmbach testimony of 

March 22 and June 13, 1974. See Book 17. 
No. 5 — (10861) Check from the Florida Nixon for President Committee 

account to Herbert Kalmbach for $216.18, signed by Mr. Rebozo.. _ 10862 
No. 6 — (10861) Check from the Thomas H. Wakefield special account 

to Herbert Kalmbach for $200, signed by Mr. Rebozo 10863 

Additional material submitted for the record 10864 

Note : Figures in parentbeses Indicate page that exhibit was made part of the record. 

Brown Exhibits 

No. 1-A — (10955) Three Key Biscayne Bank card forms, one identify- Pase 

ingboxNo. 225 10969 

No. 1-B — (10955) Visitation card and reverse side of exhibit 1-A 10970 

No. 2 — (10957) Questionnaire form for safe-deposit boxes 10971 

No. 3- A — (10958) Invoice prepared by Diebold, Inc., for work done for 

Key Biscayne Bank, for $26. 10, dated March 21, 1973 10972 

No. 3- B— (10958) Diebold invoice dated March 28, 1973, for $31.40, to 

Key Biscayne Bank 10973 

No. 3-C— (10958) Diebold invoice dated April 26, 1973, for $19.57, to 

Key Biscayne Bank 10974 

McKiERNAN Exhibits 

No. 1 — (10977) Letter from McKiernan to Senators Ervin and Baker 
dated May 9, 1974, setting forth his grievances about the manner 
his clients, Edward and Donald Nixon, have been "harassed" by 
certain committee members; also related telegrams 10984 

No. 2 — (10979) Copy of subpena to F. Donald Nixon, with attach- 
ment 10991 

No. 3— (10982) Copy of subpena to Edward C. Nixon, with attach- 
ment... 10993 

Haig Exhibits 

No. 1 — (10995) Select Committee resolution re executive privilege — 11037 

No. 2 — (10996) Committee document entitled: "Authority To Investi- 
gate" 11038 

No. 3 — (10996) Questions from the Haig executive session of May 2, 
plus a memorandum re pertinency of questions that General Haig 
refused to answer. Also a copy of the original subpena on General 
Haig 11042 

No. 4 — (10996) Copy of subpena served on General Haig for this 
executive session 11051 

Higby Exhibits 

No. 1 — (11076) White House memorandum for Bob Haldeman from 
Bill Safire dated August 4, 1970, re Newsweek article about Larry 
O'Brien 11114 

No. 2 — (11076) Memorandum for John Dean from H. R. Haldeman 

dated August 5, 1970, attaching Newsweek page "The Periscope". 11115 

No. 3 — (11076) John Dean memorandum for H. R. Haldeman dated 
August 18, 1970, re O'Brien's reported involvement in "an inter- 
national consulting firm" 11117 

No. 4 — (11077) Memorandum from Tom Huston to John Dean dated 
August 17, 1970, re public affairs analysts, with attached report of 
same 11119 

No. 5-A — (11079) White House memorandum from Charles Colson to 
Roy Goodearle dated January 15, 1971, re Bob Bennett's new 
chent, Howard Hughes 11123 

Nos. 5-B through 5-F — (11079) Various correspondence between John 
Dean, H. R. Haldeman, and Jack Caulfield concerning Hughes, 
retainer for Lawrence O'Brien; dated January and February 
1971 11124-31 

No. 5-G — (11079) Caulfield memorandum for John Dean dated 

February 3, 1971, subject: Hughes-Maheu 11132 

No. 5-H-^(11079) Dean memorandum to Caulfield dated February 5, 

1971, re CBS "60 Minutes" interview with Maheu 11133 

No. 5-1 — (11079) Memorandum entitled "Hazard Posed by White 
House Stafif With Security Officials in Howard Hughes Corpora- 
tion Interests in Las Vegas" 11134 

No. 6- A — (11084) Memorandum from Charles Colson to John Dean, 

dated March 3, 1972, regarding an attachment (not included) 11135 

No. 6-B — (11084) Memorandum from Steve Karalekas to Charles 
Colson dated March 3, 1972, concerning O'Brien's leasing of a 

Government building 11136 

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


HiGBY Exhibits — Continued 

No. 7 — (11085) John Dean memorandum to Charles Colson, dated Pase 

April 6, 1972, re O'Brien and the lease arrangements with GSA 11137 

No. 8 — (11097) Previously published in Book 3 as exhibit No. 34-4, 

p. 1117. 
No. 9- A — (11098) Jack Caulfield memorandum to John Dean dated 

October 14, 1971, re Kennedy people and Toyota franchise 11138 

No. 9-B — (11098) Memorandum trom Jack Caulfield to John Dean 

dated October 20, 1971. Subject: Businessman J. Otani 11139 

No. 10 — (11100) White House memorandum dated January 12, 1970, 

re summary ot meeting called by Mr. Haldeman 11140 

No. 11-A — (lllOl) Memorandum from Jack Caulfield to John Dean 

dated September 10, 1971. Subject: Newsday article 11143 

No. ll-B — (11101) Jack Caulfield memorandum to John Dean dated 

October 14, 1971. Subject: Newsday article assertedly financed by 

the Kennedy Foundation 11144 

No. 12- A — (11102) White House memorandum for John Dean from 

Jaclv Caulfield dated November 2, 1671. Subject: Los Angeles 

Times- Anti-Trust Action 11 145 

No. 12-B — (11102) Memorandum for John Dean from David Wilson 

dated December 1, 1971. Subject: x\ntitrust action against the Los 
. ;! Angeles Times 11146 

Affidavit of Roger V. Barth dated June 24, 1974, with attachment 11275 

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



MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974 

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

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m., in 
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senators Inouye and Montoya. 

Also present : Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; Marc Lack- 
ritz, assistant majority counsel ; Scott Armstrong, investigator ; Mary 
DeOreo and Emily Sheketoff , research assistants. 

Mr. Armstrong. This is a continuation of the executive session 
begun on Thursday, March 28, 1974, at which time Mr. Griffin was 
sworn in and began his testimony. Would you like to make a statement? 

Mr. Ambrose. I would like to make a statement. Are you ready at 
this time, Mr. Armstrong ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Ambrose. Senator, Mr. Griffin has appeared and testified vol- 
untarily on two prior occasions ; once in a so-called informal fashion 
in New York City, before, I think, Mr. Armstrong and other members 
of the legal staff of the committee; thpu, again, here in March, under 
oath, at some length. We have a total testimony of over 9 hours at this 

Subsequent to our testimony in March, there had been a series of 
newspaper articles which have been attributed to sources close to the 
investigation, which have resulted in, to say the least, a great deal 
of embarrassment, if not an invasion of my client's personal and con- 
stitutional rights, with reference to his testimony which was in exec- 
utive ''ession here: with reference to the testimony of other people in 
fonnection with this investigation, all of which. T tlnnk, are quite 
teriou? and deserve and merit the attention of tlie Seriate itself in 
the handling of this in\ cstigation. 

I want to state, for the record, that we are presei-ving whate\'er 
rights we may have in con"junction with this. It would appear to me, 
at first blush, and 1 do not know who is res)>i)nsib1e for the leaks, 
ob\-iously it could very well ]-»e unothiofil viohitions, it coidd very 
well be illegal A'iolations, which T think are things that should be 



We have been called to produce a number of documents. ]\Ir. Griffin 
is a lawyer. He has appeared here, basically, in his capacity as an 
attorney for people who are obviously either the subject of the 
investigation or under some kind of inquiry by the staff. 

He has produced those documents. Most of the documents that have 
been called forth had been subpenaed previously. He has produced 
some additional documents and information. He has sought and re- 
ceived a waiver of his legal responsibilities from some of his clients, 
under the circumstances, with reference to specific areas of testimony. 

I would like the record to be completely clear and it is my under- 
standing that this is agreeable to the staff and to the Senate, that 
a partial waivef of his lawyer-client privilege does not constitute a 
complete waiver as to all transactions that may have no relevance to 
this committee's area of jurisdiction and I want to make sure that 
that position is quite clear. 

I have so advised him, after research. Senator, that I think that 
is a very valid legal position. We have been called on to produce a 
number of documents I think would be helpful. We have also been 
informed of some subject areas of inquiry by letter and I think it 
would be helpful in the interests of speeding up this proceeding if 
we could go over those now so that we could state whatever the opposi- 
tion is, relative to each one of these items. 

Senator Inouye. Fine, sir. First of all, I would like to say I concur 
in your concern over the so-called leaks. We have made an attempt to 
try to locate the source of these leaks. To ssij the least, it is not easy 
to locate them. We hear inferences, but some, at times, come from the 
witness himself, others from the witness* counsel, sometimes from the 

If I personally knew of any person responsible for leakhig informa- 
tion, whether it be important or unimportant, I can assure you I 
would make every effoi't to see that he be fired without any reluctance 
on my part. 

As to the concept of a partial waiver, I think it is a valid one 
and I do not think that the staff has any opj[)osition to that. 

Mr. Lenzner. No objection. 

Senator Inouye. I see none on my part. With tliat, you ma}' please 
proceed, sir, 

Mr. Ambrose. The other jwint Mr. Griffin calls to my attention, too, 
is quite appropriate. I have requested a vote of the Senate for being 
given a cop}^ of tlie last hearing, which we have not yet received. 

Mr. Griffin, in the meantime, has examined the transcript here on 
file in the Senate. There are a number of corrections that we would 
like to make. Most of them are relatively small, but, nevertheless, 
< hey are corrections we would like to make. 

I do not want to be in a position where any time limits arc imposed 
upon us that we may have waived something like that. I would like 
to make sure that we have ample time to do that after 1 got a copy 
of the transcript, presumably, which I will do. 

Senator Inouye. I will advise the staff to so notify the cliaii-man. 

Mr. Lenzner. There is a session tomorrow wliorc the (juestion of the 
transcript will be voted on. I am sure tliov will get one aftei- that. 


Mr. Ambkosk. I can start olf. T think. Senator, by snl)niittin<r a 
couple of dociinients wliioli Avere called for at the last nieetino-. There 
were two aircraft registrations wliich were sought. 1 am submitting 
herewith a listing of the two registrations : Grunnnan Goose registered 
N-150M and a Grumman Mallard registration No. N-2954, wliich are 
planes that are owned by the Precision Valve Corp. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you want that marked as an exhibit ? 

]Mr. Ambrose. Yes. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. We will have that marked as exhibit 7. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 7.^] 

Mr. Ambrose. In addition to that, you sought a number of checks 
which I have received information from by letter of April 24. One is 
a check for $7,284.38 from Mr. Griffin — ]Mr. Griffin's personal account 
to this, it is dated September 13, 1973, payable to tlie Precision Valve 
Corp. I have a Xeroxed copy of the front and back of Mr. Griffin's 
pei-sonal check that I would like to have marked. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. That will be exhibit 8. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 8.2] 

Mr. Ambrose. I also have a check dated September 17, 1973, payable 
to the order of Richard M. Nixon, for $15,000. Mr. Griffin's personal 
check. It is my understanding that you were unable to have the 
back of this clear when you subpenaed the records of the bank, is that 
correct ? 

Ms. DeOreo. There was no back. ' . ,- . 

Mr. Ambrose. I am submitting it with a Xerox of the back of the 
check. And, together on the same sheet, is a check dated December 17, 
1973, to the Precision Valve Corp. for $2,916.69, Mr. Griffin's personal 
check, the front and back which are here Xeroxed. 

Attached to this is a third item, the check payable to the Westchester 
Republican County Committee in the amount of $800, dated September 
24, 1973. There is a Xerox of the front and back of this also. There are 
three items. 

Mr. Lex'^zx'er. Do you have any 

Senator Ixouye. ^Yhy do you not make that 9-A, 9-B and 9-C ? 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Griffin exhibits 
Nos. 9-A, 9-B and 9-C ^] 

Mr. Ambrose. In addition to that, by letter of April 24 to JSIr. Arm- 
strong, we were given a list of other items which you requested us to 
submit to you, which are items from the Hudson Valley National Bank 
and would appear to be the — the first sheet of which would appear to 
be a sheet submitted by the bank as a result of your subpena to them, 
of items which were missing from their records, 

Mr. Griffin has, in a short period of time, attempted to locate the 
originals of them that he has possession or copies of. At the luncheon 
recess I would be glad to go over those with you and give you those 
copies, if necessary. 

1 See p. 10795. Griffin exhibits Nos. 1 through 6 were entered in hearing of Mar. 28, 1974. 

2 See p. 10795. 

3 See p. 10796-98. 




Mr. Griffin. There were about 200 items. 

Senator Inouye. You are not submitting tliat at all ? 

Mr. Ambrose. Yes. In addition to which, during the course of testi- 
mony on March 28, Mr. Griffin was asked to furnish a copy of a Na- 
tional Airlines ticket issued on INIay 1 for flight No. 55 which left La- 
Guardia Airport at 9 :55 on May 3 for INIiami. I am submitting a copy 
of that ticket, for the record. 

Senator Inouye. That would be exhibit 10. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 10.1] 

Mr. Ambrose. In addition to that, we are furnishing you with a copy 
of an article that appeared in the New York Times on December 12, 
1973, to which Mr. Griffin referred to in his testimony on March 28. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 11.2] 

Mr. Ambrose. I am also submitting three sheets which are Xeroxed 
copies of various documents which relate to a transfer of funds from 
the Precision Valve Corp. to Mr. Charles G. Rebozo, from the Hudson 
Valley National Bank, in November of 1972, which I would like 

[Wliereupon, the documents referred to were marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 12.3] 

Mr. Griffin. These documents indicate a transfer by check to Mr. 
Charles Rebozo on the 27th of November 1972 and the retransfer of 
the same amount of funds on the 30th of November 1972 by I\Ir. Rebozo 
to Precision Valve Corp. 

Mr. Ambrose, I think that completes — except for those items that I 
suggested that we go over at lunch time, tlie items called for, with the 
exception of documents called for in a letter of April 15, 197^^, wherein 
Mr. Lackritz, assistant counsel of the committee, outlined to me the 
scope of inquiry that the committeee wishes to discuss with JSIr. Griffin. 

Item 2, there, calls for the production of all of the records that he 
has in his possession, custody, or control as secretary of the B. & C. 
Investment Co. I submit that while obviously Mr. Griffin has a great 
number of records in connection with this, that it would be inappro- 
priate to produce before this committee those records that have no 
bearing under the committee's jurisdiction — those, of course, which 
have occurred considerably subsequent to the period of time that the 
committee's inquiry is directed, including as late as last week, and so 
forth and so on. 

This, obviously, relates to the purchase, the entire purchase of ]:)rop- 
erty in San Clemente, Calif., the President's — the investment of Mr. 
Griffin's client, Mr. Abplanalp, certain transactions with regard to 
certain trust obligations, and so forth and so on, some participation 
by Mr. Rebozo and various details. There is nothing here that is secret 
except that there is a considerable amount of material tluit is part of 
the lawyer-client privilege between Mr. Griffin and Mr. Abplanalp. 

1 See p. 10799. 
- See p. 10800. 
3 See p. 10801. 


The committee's broad gaged request is a little too pervasive, it 
seems to me, under the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact — 
for whatever the reasons — the personal lives and details and so forth 
of all the people involved has been spread across the New York Times 
so many times that it is a little discouraging. 

Under those circumstances, we would be quite glad to produce any 
records which are relevant to this inquiry. Mr. Griffin w-ould be quite 
willing to testify as to whether, in fact, there were cash transactions 
involving ]\lr. Rebozo, Mr. Abplanalp, and so forth, which could bear 
in any way to the subject of inquiry before this connnittee. 

On' the other hand, the dragnet attempt to get all of the records of 
this corporation, I think, are inappropriate, and we would like some 
guidance of the Senator with a view toward reference to this. 

Senator Ixouye. May I get some guidance from you ? How did you 
determine what is relevant to the investigation ? 

Mr. Ambrose. As I understand this particular inquiry, what we 
have gone through in the course of the inquiry, has been Mr. Griffin's 
basic representation of Mr. Rebozo and the transaction involving 
$100,000— moneys from Hughes Tool Co., from Mr. Howard Hughes, 
in connection with campaign contributions. 

From what I read in the newspapers and the line of inquiry on 
March 28, 1 gather that the committee staff feels that there were some 
other transactions made wherein funds were used to either reimburse 
this money, which was kept in a safe-deposit box, or something like 

We are quite willing to testify to any of these things, but to the trust 
agreements between ]\Ir. Abplanalp and his children, as to the actual 
original purchase setting up the corporation, all of that has been gone 
over at great length by the Senate in a joint committee. They have 
issued a rather unbelieveably large report and analysis which I am 
sure you are aware of, concerning the President's tax liability. There 
has been a tremendously thorough-going analysis of the transaction, 
by both the Senate committee and the Internal Revenue Service. 

I see no purpose in Mr. Griffin being in a position where he is, on 
the one hand, the secretary of the corporation and on the other hand, 
the attorney for the principals, getting into a position of being kind 
of "Lucky Pierre" in deciding which is in the purvnew of legal privi- 
lege and which is not. 

As I say, we are perfectly willing to produce any records of any 
areas that we can discuss and think are relevant to the inquiry but 
not a broad gaged shotgun request for all the records. 

Senator Ixouye. What are your thoughts, Mr. Lenzner? 

Mr. Ambrose. I would like to have the letter of April 15 produced 
into evidence, if I might. I am sure you have a copy of it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Senator, I think it is important to note that Mr. 
Lackritz' letter of April 15, 1974, merely requests IVIr. Griffin to bring 
with him the records for the investment company which will allow 
him to refer to matters which might come up during the course of 

If they then appear relcA^ant to the record, or pertinent to the com- 
mittee's concerns, we would then like to request their production. We 
have not yet requested the production of any documents. 


Senator Inouye. You have not requested the production, per se, of 
any document ? 

Mr. Armstrong. That is correct, other than in a meeting in New York 
on January 8, 1974, Mr. (xriffin was kind enough to produce a series 
of related documents which I believe are part of tlie same files. Other 
than that, we have made no specific requests. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it the purpose of this letter was to have the 
records here, and then as we went to the questions, to focus down on 
Mr. Griffin's possible pertinent testimony. If that testimony reflected 
documents pertinent to the inquiry, that we then ask that those docu- 
ments be produced. 

Senator Inouye. At the appropriate time of the incjuiry, counsel 
can object to production on the grounds of irrelevancy. 

Mr. Ambrose. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Griffin calls to my attention that if the record is not clear on this 
point, both Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo, who are clients of Mr. 
Griffin in connection with tliis transaction, have waived legal privilege 
with reference to the actual transaction of the B. & C Investment 
Corp., the purchasers of San Clemente, and so forth, and have per- 
mitted him to testify about this. He has already testified, to some ex- 
tent, about this. He is quite prepared to testify further. 

The other areas, of course, the more recent ones, they involve 
another question.' 

Mr. Griffin. In addition to that, Mr. Abplanalp has also waived 
his privilege concei-ning his transfer through the corporation of 
$225,000 to Mr. Eebozo, and the return. That has been waived by 
Mr. Abplanalp personally and the corporation as to that transaction 
as well. 

Any other areas that may, or may not, be relevant, I would neces- 
sarily need to know what they would be so I could contact them 
concerning the Avaivei- of the pi'ivilege in those areas. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, when did you first learn of the Presi- 
dent's interest or intention to purchase property in San Clemente, 
Calif. — in that area of the country ? 

Mr. Griffin. Some time — I don't know whether it w^as May, June, 
April, in that area, of 1 969. 

Mr. Armstrong. Prior to the actual purchase of the property? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know what the date of the actual purchase 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe it was eluly 15, 1969. 

Mr. Griffin. Prior to that date, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of the efforts of Mr. Raine, to 
locate property suitable for the President ? 

Mr. Griffin. No ; I was not. You mean at that time ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. No, I was not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what discussions vou liad with 
anyone prior to July 15, 1969, relating to the i)rosppctive jKirchase 
of the property for the President oi- on the Pivsident's behalf? 

Mr. Griffin. The basic discussions that I had, I believe, were with 
Mr. Herbert Kalmbach. I am not sure whether I had any discussions 
with Mr. Frank DolSIarco, through Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. Kalmbach 


asked me to contaot my client, I believe, concerning the possibility of 
loaning the funds to the President so he could accomplish the purchase. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when that was ? 
Mr. Griffix. In the area — I do not know exactly when. 
Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when you first learned of the Presi- 
dent's intention to purchase an additional 2.9 acres of property known 
as the Elmore property i 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know the exact date, Mr. Armstrong. I really 
do not know. 

INIr. Armstrong. Can you recall if it was as early as the purchase of 
the Cotton estate, the original property ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know. There was some discussions concerning 
it, to round otf the property, I do not know exactly when they were. 
I do not know when the Elmore property was purchased. Give me a 
date as to when it was purchased. 

Mr. Armstrong. Let me proceed. What discussions, if any, have 
occurred regarding the methods which might be used to protect 
Mr. Abplanalp's loan to the President? 

Mr. Griffin. There were many discussions concerning the protec- 
tion of Mr. Abplanalp's loan, but I do not believe, during that time — 
you are talking about collateral for the loan ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Any collateral or security ? 

Mr. Griffin. I think that was discussed subsequent to the loan. We 
requested a pi'omissory note to be signed by both the President and 
his wife on the transfer of the funds, which we did receive. You are 
talking about the original $175,000? 

Mr. Armstrong. The original loan was $450,000 on July 1 . 1969. 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was the transfer of the property itself ever 
discussed ? 

Mr. Griffin. At that time ? 

Mr. Armstrong. At that time. 

Mr. Griffin. No, it was not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when that was first discussed? 

Mr. Griffin. About the latter part^ — I believe it was the latter part 
of 1970 — September, October, somewhere in that area. I prepared a 
memorandum at that point, which I gave to you people. I think that 
was sometime in October. We were, at that point, discussing the 
transfer of the properties to a partnership. 

Mr. Armstrong. Is this the document dated October 22, 1970, cover 
sheet, "California Property" ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. We will mark this exhibit No. 13. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 13.*] 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Griffin, would you like to look at this? 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, can you tell us from whom you first 
learned of the President's interest in selling a portion of his interest in 
tlie Cotton property and the entire Elmore property ? 

Mr. Griffin. I tliink it was a combination of people that we were 
discussing it with. One was Mr. Rebozo, one was Mr. Kalmbach, and 

♦Seep. 10804. 


one was Mr. DeMarco. Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. DeMarco representing, 
as I understood it, the President, at that time. 

Mr. Armstrong. You were representing? 

Mr. Griffin. At that time, I was representing Mr. Abplanalp. I sub- 
sequently represented Mr. Rebozo as well in the transaction. 

Mr. Armstrong. When did your representation of INIr. Rebozo 
begin ? 

Mr. Griffin. It began, basically, when we started discussing the 
acquisition of the piece by a partnership to be formed by Mr. Abplanalp 
and Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when the discussions, or when you 
first learned of the President's interest in selling the prox)ert3^? 

Mr. Griffin. Exact dates — I thought it was in August, September, 
or October 1970 ; that is when we started discussing how to do it. That 
is when I prepared a memorandum. 

Mr. Armstrong. It is my understanding that sometime in April 
of 1969, Mr. Kalmbach and/or Mr. DeMarco requested that a survey 
be done, anticipating a carve-up of the property, and a sale to a com- 
patible buyer. Were you aware as early as April 1969 of the President's 
interest in selling the property ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, I was not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Your first discussions were contemporaneous with 
the document ? 

Mr. Griffin. My first discussions concerning the property were 
early 1969, when there was a request of my client to loan the Presi- 
dent some money. 

Mr. Armstrong. Concerning the sale of the President's interest 
in the portion of the Cotton estate ? 

Mr. Griffin. It is difficult for me to recall the exact dates. It was 
sometime subsequent to the second loan of money which I believe was 
in July of 1970. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether there was any discussion of 
the sale by the President of his entire interest in the Cotton and El- 
more pr(tperties to Mr. Abplanalp, or any group of Avliich Mr. Ab- 
planalp was a part? 

Mr. Griffin. Discussions ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Between yourself and anyone else. 

Mr. Griffin. There might have been. I may even have raised the 
subject myself w^ith Mr. Kalmbach, as a method of doing this. I 
raised a number of ways that we might do it and I prepared a memo- 
randum finding on that, of the thoughts of lawyers. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any correspondence relating to that 
possibility? That is, of the purchase by Mr. Abplanalp or a group of 
which Mr. Abplanalp was represented, of the entire interest ? 

Mr. Griffin. The only discussions that I had were concerning the 
question of Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp acquiring it, or whether 
the three of them should possibly go into some form of a joint ven- 
ture partnership. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any discussions of a joint ven- 
ture or partnership involving the President, Mr. Abplanalp, and Mr. 
Rebozo which occurred prior to July 1969 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not say that the discussion took place in July. 
I say the discussion took place before that. April, May, June 


Mr. Armstrong. T am talking about 1969, prior to the purchase of 
tlie Cotton estate. AVas there any discussion that you are aware of, 
regardless of whether or not you participated in it, of the President, 
Mr. Abplanalp, and Mr. Relwzo forming a partnership, or approach- 
ing the property as a joint venture ? 

Mr. Griffin.' Not in April or May of 1969. 

Mr. Ar]vistrong. Not before the purchase of the property ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any documents which would assist 
us — any correspondence on the subject ? 

Mr. Ambrose. Assist you in what subject ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Regarding the joint venture or the partnership 
involving the President, Mr. Abplanalp, and Mr. Rebozo, or the pur- 
chase of the property or the entire interest of the property, from the 
President by Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo and resale to the Presi- 

Mr. Ambrose. That's a pretty broad area. Obviously, Mr. Griffin 
has some documents relating to the original purchase and Mr. Ab- 
planalp's and Mr. Rebozo's participation. Is there some specific thing 
that you want ? I don't quite understand the question. 

Mr. Armstrong. The question is : Does Mr. Griffin have any corre- 
spondence or documentation which reflects any discussions or in- 
terests of Mr. Abplanalp, or any group of which Mr. Abplanalp was 
a part, in purchasing the President's entire interest in the Cotton 
estate and reselling a portion to the President ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have a problem. It is a technical problem. I received 
some correspondence from Mr. DeMarco. They were copies of let- 
ters to another party involved. I do not know whether I can release 
those documents to you or not. 

Mr. Ambrose. Obviously, if they are letters from Mr. Kalmbach 
concerning his legal relationship with the President, I think the ap- 
propriate party for you to get that document from would be Mr. 
Kalmbach, who I gather has been a witness before this committee and 
quite a willing witness. I think it puts Mr. Griffin kind of in the middle 
as to whether he should release third-party documents relating to 
legal privilige when you have an opportunity of getting the original 
from the witness before this committee, who may or may not have 
waived his legal privilege. I am not aware of it. 

Mr. Armstrong. First of all, do the documents assist us in placing 
a point in time at which such discussions occurred? 

Mr. Ambrose. It assists Mr. Griffin in testifying. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can ]Mr. Griffin testify orally to the substance? 

Senator Inou-^-e. That should be sufficient for this purpose. 

Mr. Griffin. These document? arc in March of 1 !^T0. That was the 
first contact I had r-onccrning tiie methods by ^^hi(■ll we might have 
used concerning the division of the property. And those are docu- 
ments which I have to refresh my recollection. There are one or two 
documents m March of 1970. and I have received additional documents 
m September of 1970 wliich assisted me in my recollection of when we 
discussed the question of the division of the property. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you say these letters are from IMr. Kalmbach 

to another party and you were sent copies, I take it courtesy copies. 

]Mr. Griffin. My guess is that when I discussed this with Mr. Kalm- 


bach, he sent to me the necessary documents for my review, because 
the}^ included the secured notes, the trust agreements that v/ere estab- 
lished. They included a title report. Of course, the other notes I have 
are the notes directly from the President and Mrs. Nixon to Mr. 
Abplanalp and a letter covering that, which was the original note of 
$450,000, plus the descriptions of the property. 

Mr. Lenzner. I am just thinking through, Senator, whether it is 
not a waiver of the lawyer, since documents to another individual who 
he is not representing, if that does not consist of a waiver of any 
privilege that might attach itself to the substance of those documents? 
Mr. Ambrose, I do not think it would be considered a waiver under 
any circumstances when the lawyer who he sends it to is a lawyer of 
one of the parties in the transaction. Therefore, we have no lawyer- 
client privilege. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who were you representing at the time, Mr, Griffin ? 
Mr. Griffin. At that point, I was representing both Mr. Abplanalp 
and Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Lenzner, By March of 1971 you were in the lawyer-client rela- 
tionship with Mr. Ilebozo ? 

]\Ir. Armstrong. Could we proceed before we consider this issue? 

Senator Inouye, Let us proceed and consider them after lunch, 

Mr, Armstrong, Prior to March 1970, then, was there any discussion 

of the joint venture with Mr, Abplanalp, or any group that Mr, 

Abplanalp was involved with, in purchasing the entire Elmore estate 

and selling back a portion of it to the President, that you are aware of ? 

INIr, Griffin. Yes. We discussed many ways of doing it, I'm talking 

about Mr. Kalmbach and myself, and I discussed that with my client 

as well. There were discussions as to whether the three of them should 

go into a partnership. There was discussion whether the two of them 

should buy it all and lease it back. There were several discussions. It 

was lawyer-to-lawyer discussion. It was not lawyer-client discussion. 

After a great deal of conversation and a great deal of thought, I 

prepared this memorandum, which is dated October 22, which you 

had, with the general items to be considered after due consideration of 

several other areas which was a substantial memorandum that went 

into the method to do it, potential tax consequences, thoughts I had, 

and steps that should be taken to do it. This memorandum of the 22d 

which was a culmination of my thoughts as a lawyer and discussions 

with Mr. Kalmbach as a lawyer. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what your best recollection is as 
to how early these discussions occurred ? 

Mr, Griffin, From my correspondence, I would say the original 
discussions started some time in March. 

Mr. Armstrong, Are you now not aware of any prior discussions by 
any other individuals on any other subject? 
Mr, Griffin. I do not believe so. 

Mr, Armstrong, On January 8, 1974, you provided us with two 
page-s of type, whicli you represent to be the total amount of funds 
given to the B. & C, Investment Co. by Charles G, Eebozo. The first 
page is for the period January 1, 197i, through December 31, 1972; 
the second for the period January 1, 1973, through August 15, 1973. 
Can you tell us if this comprises, to the best of your knowledge, all 


of the funds provided by Mr. Rebozo to the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

]Mr. Griffix. Through what period ? 

^Ir. Armstrong. For all periods of time. Were there any funds sub- 
mitted by Mr. Rebozo prior to Jajiuary 1, 1971, or subsequent to 
August 15, 1973 ^ 

Mr. Lexzxer. Let's have those marked. 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked as Griffin 
exhibits Nos. 14 and 15.*] 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe there were. I would have to go back 
and check the checks. I think that is the total amount. Those are 
copies of notes that I gave to the Internal Revenue Service, I think, 
and copies of notes that I gave to Cooper and Lybrand. 

Mr. Ar.mstrong. The lirst payment this rellects is a payment on 
January 1, 1971 ^ 

iMr. Griffin. That is when it w^as received and cleared through the 
bank account. 

j\lr. Armstrong. Do you know the source of those funds, the $25,000 ? 

Mr. Griffin. The initial $25,000 ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. I believe it was placed in the account by Mr. Rebozo. 

^Ir. Armstrong. Do you know^ if that was done as a result of a 

Mr. Griffin. A debit memo or a credit memo to the account. I have 
it on the financial statement as B. & C. Investment Co. on January 5, 

^Ir. Armstrong. Do you know^ w^hat account was debited in order 
to credit that account ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. I will see if I can find that ; I may have the memo. 

Mr. Armstrong. The account that was credited was the account of 
the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Griffin. The account that was credited for $25,000 was the 
B. & C. Investment account located in Key Biscayne Bank — 1-0731-4. 

Mr. Armstrong. While you are perusing those Government docu- 
ments, can I ask you whether Mr. Rebozo has ever given you funds 
for the B. & C. Investment Co. in cash 1 

Mr. Griffin. Xo ; he has not. Do }- ou mean cash money ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Currency. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not have — at least the debits appear, but I think I 
can get it for you. 

Mr. xVr3i.strong. I would appreciate having a copy of that. Are you 
aware of the source of any of the funds that Mr. Rebozo transferred 
to the account ? 

Mr. Griffin. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of the source of any of the funds 
that Mr. Rebozo transferred to that account ? 

Mr. Griffin. I assume that it came out of his accounts — some other 
account, and transferred. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any specific knowledge of which ac- 

]Mr. Griffin. I i-eceived a general memorandum from the bank trans- 
ferring accounts. 

♦See pp. 10819-20. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-2 


Mr. Armstrong. Was there ever a transfer from a savings account 
as opposed to a checking account ? 

Mr. Griffin. None that I know of, but if it is important to you, I 
can get all those transfer slips for you. 

Mr. Armstrong. We would appreciate that. Incidentally, sir, can you 
tell me who maintains the books of the B. & C. Investment Co.? 

Mr. Griffin. I do. 

Mr. Armstrong. You also have custody of all the financial records 
in that capacity ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Would it be possible for us to peruse the financial 
records of that corporation up through the payment to Mr. Rebozo 
which purchased back his partnership interest? 

Mr. Ambrose. What is the date on that? 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe he has said it was August 15, 1973. The 
payment may have been somewhat later. 

Mr. Griffin. I can provide it to you. You are talking about the 
ledger cards? Is that what you're talking about? 

Mr. Armstrong. It would also include checks, deposit slips, bank 

Mr. Griffin. Sure. 

Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. When and from whom did you first 
become aware of Mr. Rebozo's interest in selling his partnership in- 

Mr. Griffin. A combination. As I explained to you before, Mr. Ab- 
planalp and Mr. Rebozo are very close friends. I do not know exactly 
when they were talking about buying out Mr. Rebozo's interest. Mr. 
Abplanalp had mentioned the fact that he wanted to provide some trust 
for his children, had in the past — it was sometime, I believe, in either 
late 1972 or early 1973, in that area. There were some discussions, and 
Mr. Abplanalp had suggested to me that I discuss with Mr. Rebozo the 
acquisition of his interest, and they had some discussions between tliem- 
selves concerning it. That took ])lace — the actual transfer took place — 
in August; I believe it was August of 1973. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you then, in late 1972 or 1973, discuss with Mr. 
Rebozo his potential interest in transferring his portion of the part- 

Mr. Griffix. I do not know the exact date when it was, but I did start 
preparing agreements in tlie summer of 1973 cuiicerning the transfer 
of that interest. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the first instance of correspondence 
on that subject ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. I am sure it was probably telephonic. As I told you 
before, I talked to Mr. Rebozo a great deal. I talked to Mr. Abplanalp 
a great deal. Since we wore on the phone a great deal, v:e did a great 
deal of work by i)hone. I do riot know the exact dates of wiien it was. 

Mr. Armstrong. The occasion of your first conversation with Mr. 
Rebozo regarding his possible interest i)i selling iiis portion of the part- 
nershi]>, tliat discussion Avas initiated by you? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know it was initiated by me me. I do not know 
whether Abplanalp called and said, "I discussed it with Bebe," or 
Bebe called and said, ''1 discussed it with Bob." This is what we are 
thinking about. To pin it down to exact dates is very difficult. 


Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when it was first broached what Mr. 
Rebozo's interest was, whether he was enthusiastic? 

Mr. Griffix. Bob was interested in acquiring the property through 
some trust for his children. I do not know whether it was mutual inter- 
est between the tAvo of them or not. I know Bob had some conversations 
himself with Rebozo about buying his interest in it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall what Mr. Rebozo said to you in terms 
of his interest in selling his portion of the partnership? 

Mr. Griffin. No, not, exactly. I do not know when we talked. Some- 
times we talked in a three-way conversation. If I were sitting in Mr. 
Abplanalp's office and he was talking to Mr. Rebozo, I would get on the 
extension and we would go over certain things. It's culmination was in 
August of 1973. 

Mr. Armstrong. Had Mr. Rebozo ever previously rejected the idea 
of selling his portion of the partnership ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not think it was a question of an acceptance or re- 
jection. It was a question of two friends getting together. Mr. Abpla- 
nal}) at a certain i)oint was asking, in effect, Mr. Rebozo to do this be- 
cause he thought it was a good opportunity for his children. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you became aware at that time or at 
any other time of any other reasons why Mr. Rebozo was interested 
in selling his partnership interest ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you represent both purchaser and seller on that 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who represented Mr. Rebozo in that? 

IMr. Griffin. Mr. Wakefield. 

Mr. Armstrong. On the occasion when this committee interviewed 
Mr. Abplanalp and you represented him- — I believe sometime last 
fall — do you recall relating to us at that time that it was your under- 
standing that Mr. Rebozo was short of funds and this was the reason? 

Mr. Griffin. I said to you one of the possibilities I think might 
have been that Bebe maybe needed some money. I know he was in- 
terested in the j^roperty at Key Biscayne. We were talking about 
another matter, buying another piece of property, which is another 
area where I was representing him. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when Mr. Rebozo first expressed 
interest in this other piece of property ? 

Mr. Griffin. We are getting into areas that I am representing a 
client in other transactions again. 

Mr. Armstrong. I thought you were representing Mr. Rebozo? 

j\Ir. Griffin. I am representing Mr. Rebozo and the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co. I am representing Mr. Rebozo in handling the $100,000. 
I did represent Mr. Aliplanalp in other discussions with Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Ambrose. Other investments. 

Mr. Griffin. Connected with other investments, unrelated to both 
of these. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you referring to the Matheson property? 

Mr. Griffin. That's one of them. 

Mr. Armstrong. At this time, all I am trying to do is place in time 
when you first became aware that Mr. Rebozo had some other interest 
or use of his money than the B. & C. Investment Co. 


Mr. Griffin. As I said, my best recollection is sometime during the 
summer, or even the spring of 1973, and it was a general conversation 
between Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Kebozo that culminated in my prepar- 
ing the documents to buy out Mr. Rebozo in early August . 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe on August 15, 1973, Mr. Rebozo did 
assign to Mr. Abplanalp his 50-percent interest, including his liabili- 
ties, in the B. & C. Investment Co. for a total of $295,000 ? 

Mr. Griitin. I believe so. 

Mr. Armstrong. At that time, he executed, I believe — Mr. 
Abplanalp executed three promissory notes, one for $45,000, one for 
$50,000, and one for $200,000 to Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. There was one promissory note with three payments 
in it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us when those payments were made ? 
Let me ask you — I have two checks here from the Precision Valve 
Corp. to Robert II. Abplanalp, trustee for children's trust, both of 
which are signed over for direct wire transfer to Mr. Charles G. 
Rebozo. I would also like to have those marked as exhibits. 

Senator Inouye. Those will be 16 and 17. 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Griffin ex- 
hibits Xos. 16 and 17, for identification.*] 

Mr. Griffin. I could check them for you. I believe they are. I just 
do not know. I can check them for you and verify it. 

These two checks total $295,000, which was the agreed-to amount of 
the promissory note, dated August 15. I would want to verify the 
checks, if I may, and 1 could let you know on that. 

Senator Inoute. At this, may we recess the hearing? 

Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Senator. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :35 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was recessed to reconvene at 1 p.m. the same day.] 

Afternoon Session 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Griffin, I think we talked the last time on the 
question of whether Mr. Rebozo ever asked you to obtain any cash 
for him. Did there come a time when Mr. Rebozo did seek to obtain 
any large amounts of cash from you ? 

Mr. Griffin. Cash ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Cash in the form of any particular denomination? 

Mr. Griffin. At no time. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate to you that he was in need 
of a considerable amount of cash ? 

Mr. Griffin. He never did. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you testified earlier this morning with regard 
to the funds that Mr. Rebozo made available to the B. & C. Invest- 
ment Co., do you know whether Mr. Rebozo ever furnished any money 
for the benefit of the San Clemente property that did not go though 
the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Griffin. None that I know of. 

Mr. Lenzner. What you are saying, I take it, you are not aware of 
any expense items that he may have furnished for the San Clemente 
property, apart from the amount that you've already discussed? 

^See pp. 10821-22. 

Mr. Griffin. Aside from the amounts- 

Mr. Lenzner. That you gave us in exhibits 14 or 15 or 15 and 16. 

Mr. Griffin. Except for the money given through the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co. that he snared all the expenses of. 

Mr. Lenzner. One other question. When the first loan was made to 
President Nixon, you said that there was no collateral put up, or 
security. Is that accurate ? 

Mr. Griffin. There was a note signed by the President and his 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there any examination or determination of 
whether the President had assets, or liquid assets that might be avail- 
able for his payment of the note as it became due ? 

Mr. Griffin. By me ? 

Mr. Lenzner. By you, or anybody else that you are aware of. 

Mr. Griffin. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Armstrong. This morning, we spoke of the fact of an occasion 
when Mr. Abplanal]) a])peared before the committee last fall — 
whether or not he had indicated that ]\Ir. Rebozo could not afford his 
B. & C. obligations. You indicated that it was your understanding that 
he had other investments that he preferred to make with that money. 

Mr. Griffin. It was just a general conversation. We never got into 
that that specifically. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you remember telling us these are from tran- 
scripts — not a formal record, but transcript notes — where a secretary 
was present : 

Mr. Griffin. My general understanding was that the cost involved in main- 
taining this was quite substantial. He could not afford it. 

This does come from a transcript of an interview with Mr. 
Abplanalp. Later : 

There was a request to meet certain obligations he had incurred which were 
substantial. Do you have a copy of the Cotton mortgage, which has a balloon 
payment in 1974? Principal payment was $100,000 a year, and the interest was 
$60,000 a year and that's a lot of dough to get up each time it comes around. 

Do you recall, now, your testimony at that time ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. It was not exactly like that. One of the areas was, 
as I was saying to you, the B. & C. Investment Co. structure was — by 
Mr. Rebozo being a 50-percent partner, assumed basically the entire 
obligation under the Cotton and Elmore mortgages. That was his con- 
tribution to the partnership; as such, whenever a payment came due 
either under the Cotton mortgage or the Elmore mortgage, I would 
have to request of Mr. Rebozo, pursuant to the terms of his agree- 
ment with the B. & C. Investment Co. funds. In each case, it was a 
substantial amount of funds. In some cases, I think, it was $86,000, 
$90,000 or something like that. It is a struggle for anyone to get that 
kind of money. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when Mr. Rebozo first indicated that 
he Avas having difficulty raising that amount of money ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was not a question of him having any difficulty. He 
did mention the fact that every time I would call him to say the next 
payment was due, he would say, how mucli? Oh, boy, here we go 
again type of thing. There came a time when Mr. Abplanalp in effect 
wanted to buy him out. 


Mr. Armstrong. The price of $290,000 which was arrived at — can 
you tell us how that price was calculated ? 

Mr. Griffin. Very simply. We took the total amount of money Mr. 
Rebozo contributed to B. & C Investment Co. and gave him 10 per- 
cent on that. That is how we arrived at it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo contributed approximately $263,000. 
Is that right? 

Mr. Griffin. I gave you those figures. We took the list of the total 
amount Mr. Rebozo contributed to the B. & C. Investment Co., added 
basically 10 percent to it. That is how we arrived at the purchase price. 

Mr. Armstrong. The figures you gave us this morning indicate con- 
tributions on Mr. Rebozo's behalf totaling $268,152.81. I believe you 
said you checked to make sure these were the only payments made. 

Mr. Griffin. Let me see those again, 

Mr. Armstrong. These are exhibit 14 and exhibit 15. 

INIr. Griffin. That is probably close. I told you that I checked those 

Mr. Armstrong. You have not had an opi)ortunity to go over them 
since we 1 ast t alked ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Given the interest rates and the amount of interest 
that was due on the money which Mr. Rebozo paid into the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co., would it be correct to sav tliat of the $263,000 con- 
tributed, at least $100,000 was interest ? 

INIr. Griffin. I do not know what the interest figure was. I can get 
that for you, if you wish it. We took the total contribution in dollars 
and c<^nts by INIr. Rebozo, basically added 10 percent, rounded it off, 
and that was the figure that we paid, with 50 ])ercent interest. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was there any calculation based on the amount of 
principal that Mr. Rebozo would pay ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was the ratio of Mr. Rebozo's principal to interest 
payments made under the installments that he made similar to the 
ratio between principal and interest in the calculations that you pre- 
pared on October 22, 1970; the original plans of the B. & C. Invest- 
ment Co. ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. As I have testified before — and I think you have 
a copy of the note that Mi-. Rebozo in effect signed for the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co., was a note of his contribution, which he equated to be 
50 percent, which w^as in the neighborhood of $600,000; the repayment 
of that note to the B. & C. Investment Co. was in the same proportion 
that the B. & C. Investment Co. had to make its payments, principal 
and interest, on the Cotton and Elmore mortgages. 

Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, were some portion of the pay- 
ments that Mr. Rebozo made applied to interest ? 

Mr. Griffin. I am sure they were. He had to pay to the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co. interest on his note assigned to liim, basically, in the 
same propoition that we were paying principal and interest on our 
portion of the Cotton and Elmore properties. I think vou have a copy 
of that. 

Mr. Armstrong. I do not believe we have a copy of the note itself. 

Mr. Griffin. I gave you a copy of both the B. & C. Investment 
Co. ajTi-eement and the notes attached to it. 


Mr. Armstroxg. We have the partnership agreement. 

Mr. Griffix. That looks like a copy of the note of the Elmore or the 

Mr. Lexzxer. Wliy do you not look at this ? 

Mr. Griffix. This is a copy of a promissory note given by Mr. 
Rebozo to the B. & C. Investment Co. in the amount of $600,000, 
with interest on the unpaid principal, at the rate of 7 percent per 
annum. Interest is to be paid with principal payments. In addition, 
the payment of principal interest by installments, commencing on 
July 15, 1971, which corresponds to 'the Cotton mortgage payment, 
thereafter at place and time and the amount required to be paid by 
the note. Each of the certain promissory notes, dated July 10, which 
is the Cotton mortgage, and September 11, as you know, which is 
the Elmore mortgage, are attached. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Why do we not have that document marked that Mr. 
Griffin was just reading from ? 

[AVhereuj^on, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 18, for identification.*] 

Mr. Armstroxg. Prior to the note, I believe was executed on August 
15, 1973 by Mr. Abplanalp, in consideration of Mr. Rebozo's assign- 
ment of his portion of the partnership agreement, other than that, was 
there any promissory note that was executed, any promissory note 
that was prepared for execution, between Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. 
Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffix. Concerning the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Yes. 

Mr. Griffix. Let me correct something. It was not Mr. Abplanalp 
who purchased Mr. Rebozo's interest ; it is a trust which was created. 
Mr. Abplanalp is the trustee of it. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Is the note a personal note between Mr. Abplanalp 
and Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffix. The note was signed by Mr. Abplanalp as trustee. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Could we have a copy of that ? 

Mr. Griffix. I can provide it to you. 

Mr. Armstroxg. The beneficiaries 

Mr. Griffix. The beneficiaries of the trust are Mr. Abplanalp's 
two children. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Was there any promissory note prepared prior to 
the one signed on August 15, 1973 ? 

Mr. Griffix. Involving the B. & C. Investment Co.? 

IMr. Armstroxg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffix. Xo, not that I know of. Between Abplanalp and 
Rebozo ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Right. None on July 12, 1973 ? 

Mr. Griffix. What was July 12? 

Mr. Armstroxg. We've just had information that there was a 
promissory note of July 12. 

^Ir. Griffix. Involving the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. A promissory note between ]VIr. Abplanalp and 
Mr. Rebozo, which we understood to be — although it may not be — 
we understood it to be the B. & C. Investment Co. 

•See p. 10823. 


Mr. Griffin. J know of no note wliich invohcd rho B. & (\ Invest- 
ment C'o., other than the one I told 3'ou. 

Mr. Armsti?ong. I believe j'oii testified previously, either on Jan- 
uary 8, 1974, when you saw us, or on the occasion when Mr. Ab])lanalp 
appeared before us, that there was from the beginning of the B. & C. 
Investment Co. concern at the balloon payment which was to be 
made, I believe it was July 1975. 

Mr. Griffix. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. It was then anticipated tliat there would be a need 
for refinancing. 

Mr. Griffix. I testified to the fact that I had urged right from the 
beginning that we start negotiations about the refinancing, because 
in July of 1974, a rather large payment was due under the Cotton 
mortgage. It would be best for all parties and it would be good business 
to renegotiate that over a longer term and reduce the cash require- 
ments to be made on both the mortgages. I am still stressing that. 

Mr. Armstroxg. lias tliere been any refinancing sought from any 
specific lending institution ? 

Mr. Ambrose. What point in time ? 

Mr. Armstrox'g. I am talking about — actually, if you w^ould like, I 
will rephrase my question as such. Prior to August 15, 1973, was any 
lending institution approached ? 

]\Ir. Griffix. I had asked both Mr. Kalml)ach and Mr. DelNIarco 
to contact as many institutions as they possibly could to determine 
if we could get refinancing and under what terms and conditions. 
I have written sevei-al letters to that effect, authorizing them to do 
so on our clients" behalf. 

Mr. Armstroxg. To your knowledge, have they contacted any lend- 
ing institutions? 

Mr. Griffix. Yes ; they have. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Canyon tell us on what dates? 

Mr. Griffix'. No. I just do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you been advised by letter? 

INIr. Griffix'. By telephone. I have been stressing the question of 
refinancing for over 2 years, because I think it is about $600,000 
that comes due in July of 1974, under a balloon ])ayment in the Cotton 
mortgage. We liave to get the money from some place. 

Mr. Armstroxg. You have notes that reflect the dates, the approxi- 
mate dates, and the institutions contacted ? 

Mr. Griffix. No, I did not do the contacting myself. Mr. Kalmbach 
and Mr. DeMarco were autliorized l)v me, as far as my clients were con- 
cerned, to contact whom they thought they could concerning a large 
mortgage, the larger the better. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Could you remember the context approximately? 

Mr. Griffix'. I have been doing this for quite some period of time. 
It was obvious to me when we first entered into the agreement that 
there was going to be a requirement for a substantial amount of cash. 
The sooner we could arrange for additional financing, the better off. 
I have been doing that for 2 years. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Were there any contacts in 1971 ? 

Mr. Griffix. There might have been. 

Mr. Armstroxg. You have no correspondence or records that would 
reflect that ? 


Mr. Gkiffix. Xot originally. I lia\e correspondence that recently — 
you know, I have been in touch with them concerning the refinancing. 

Mv. Armstrong. Do those make reference to efforts at refinance 
prior to August 15, 197;') ? 

Mr. Gkiffix. Xo. But there were efforts made prior to that time, 
exi)licitlv at my request. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Whose responsibility is the effort to refinance the 
property ? 

Mr. Griffin. We considered it a joint responsibility to do it, all 
parties concerned. The total property is owned by the President as , 
well as the B. & C. Investment Co. The entire property, the Cotton 
])iece and the Elmore piece, are both under mortgage. It is held by 
a title company. 

In order to refinance the property, we needed the entire piece of 
property. I have asked them as far as my clients were concerned to 
refinance, and I thought they should do it for their own clients' sake. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than ]\rr. Kalmbach or Mr. DeMarco, or 
members of their firm, are you aware of any other individuals who 
souo-ht refinancing? 

Mr. Griffix. Xo. I do not know if Mr. Abplanalp talked to anybody 
concerning that. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Did Mr. Rebozo have any responsibilities? 

Mr. Griffix-. I talked to him as well as far as the i-efinancing — as 
he was a partner in the B. <S: C. Investment, his share of the balloon 
was as large, if not larger than, an^'body else's. I asked him to look 
around as well. 

Mr. Armstrox^g. Do you recall the first time you would have spoken 
to him about the refinancing ? 

Mr. Griffix^. I have been o^■er this before. When the deal was first 
created, the need for refinancinsr was evident. We are talking December 
of 1970. 

When you have a balloon coming up in 197-1. a very substantial 
amount of money, it was obvious to me that we should refinance, 
the sooner the better, not only for that reason, but the Cotton mort- 
gage required a payment of principal each year of $100,000. Its in- 
terest rate was 7.5 percent. When you're talking about $175,000, 
if we could finance a larger mortgage with a substantial balloon at 
the end. the requirem.ent of coming u]) with big money in 1971, 1972, 
and 1973 would be substantially reduced. From the very beginning, 
I have been advocating a refinancinir of the property. 

Mr. Ar:mstrox-g. Do you recall if vou had any discussion with Mr. 
Rebozo regarding the refinancing of the property prior to the purchase 
of the i:)roperty bv the B. & C. Investment Co. 

Mr. Griffix'. I do not really recall whether I did or did not. I 
rlid advise him. as one of his attorneys, that refinancing was a necessity 

]\Ir. Armstrox"g. Did you offer advice on refinancincr the property 
prior to the interest that the B. & C. Investment Co. held in the 
property ? 

Mr. Griffix-. I mav have, but I do not believe so. You arc talking 
1970 now? 

yU-. Armstrox'g. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffix-. I mav have. 


Mr. Armstrong. Can yon proA'ide ns, Mr. Griffin, with records that 
will reflect your representation of Mr. Kebozo in the matter of the 
B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Ambrose. What does that mean ? 

iNIr. Armstrong. Time records. 

Mr. Lenzner. The question is, do you have any documents that 
reflect when you first started representing Mr. Rebozo? Did you keep 
time sheets reflecting the hours of time you spent on his behalf? 

Mr. Griffin. No, I did not. Our office did not keep time sheets 
until, I think, the early part of this year. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was he billed for any billable hours ? 

Mr. Griffin. He was not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was the file opened on him as a client in your office? 

Mr. Griffin. The file was opened up as the B. & C. Investment Co., 
Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Lenzner. When was it opened up ? 

Mr. Griffin. 1970. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was anybody billed for the hours that you spent 
representing either Mr, Abplanalp or Mr. Rebozo or both? 

Mr. Griffin. No, not yet. You are talking about B. & C. now ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir. Do you have a date when the file was opened 
up with Mr. Rebozo's name on it ? 

Mr. Griffin. The first correspondence in this file — it looks like 
March of 1970. There was a previous file. That was a loan file. 

Mr. Lenzner. For Mr. Abplanalp ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, I have two checks which I would like 
you to identify and tell me. if you could, the purpose of these checks. 
They are written on the account of the Precision Valve Corp., both 
I'ayable to the B. & C. Investment Co. One is dated July 12, 1973, in 
the amount of $95,000 ; the other is dated October 18, ^973, for the 
amount of $20,000. I am sorry, but the checks we received from the 
bank are mirror images, and they are a little difficult to read. 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. I think both of these were loans to B. & C. Invest- 
ment Co., short-term loans for the pavment of, I guess, taxes. The 
first check is dated October 18. That is the date. I believe, that the 
semiannual tax payments are due on the California property. The 
other is July 12, 1973. I believe that is the other date. I am not sure. 
T believe they were gap loans. If it is important. I will check it out 
for vou and let you know. 

Mr. Armstrong. T would appi'cciate docnmentntioti, anv backjiround 
information that we could get. Could v:q liave this marked as exhibits? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. The October 18 one is foi $20,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. Tliese will be marked as our next exhibit. 

I \\liereupoii, the documents referred to were marked Griffin exliibit 
No. 19.*] 

Mr. Amhrose. This is for a ))eriod of time — this is Vvay bevond any- 
thing bevond tlie tra]isf(>r of the ^u-opertv*. Is tliere anv relevance to 

♦See p. 10845. 


Mr. Armstrong. I think the relevance will be clear from the ques- 
tion that follows. Prior to July 12, 1973, how had payments of taxes 
been handled? 

Mr. Griivfin. I prepared a check out of the B. & C. Investment Co. 
and sent it to Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Kalmbach, and they would take 
part of the President's money for taxes and send the money in. 

Mr. Armstrong. What were the sources of funds that Avere in the 
B. & C. Investment Co. account ? 

Mr. Griffin. Contributions from Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Armstrong. Had ^Nlr. Abplanalp made contributions on a regu- 
lar basis prior to July 1973 ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Both Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo were con- 
tributmg ? 

Mr. Griffin. Basically, the contribution for the payment of the 
mortgages was Mr. Rebozo's responsibility. When it came time for the 
payment of the taxes, there was a joint responsibility. I would send a 
note around to both of them and say, "The taxes are due. It is x number 
of dollars this year, so nuich is yours, so much — please send checks to 
my office." 

I prepared one check and sent it out to Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. De- 
Marco, to the firm's escrow account. As I understand it, he would pre- 
pare a check for the entire tax and send so much out. 

jNIr. Armstrong. Had there been any loans previously from the 
Precision Valve Corp. ? 

Mr. Griffin. To the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know ; there might have been. I could check 
it for you if it is important. 

In what periods are you talking about ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I am speaking prior to July 12, 1973. 

Mr. Griffin. July 12? 

]Mr. Armstrong. Right, the date of this one check for $95,000 — prior 
to that time. Was there any particular reason why it was necessary to 
borrow money from Precision Valve Corp. on those two occasions? 

Mr. Griffin. Sometimes Mr. Abplanalp is away; sometimes Mr. 
Rebozo was not available. Sometimes they did not get the money to me 
in time. I was writing checks out ; Mr. Kalmbach was paying the taxes, 
and I wanted to get a check out to him. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall in July 1973, whether Mr, Rebozo 
was away at that time ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you dealt with Miss Moncourt in Mr. Rebozo's 
bank ? 

Mr. Griffin. On occasion, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, does Miss Moncourt have power 
of signature over Mr. Rebozo's account ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. Had you ever dealt previously with Miss Moncourt 
concerning the transfer of Mr. Rebozo's account to the B. & C. account ? 

Mr. Griffin. I may have. I think she is his personal aide. I have 


talked to her on many, many occasions, not necessarily for the B. & C. 
Investment Co. That is Nicole? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. As I get it — one question — DeJNIarco would go ahead 
and pay the taxes, then would you reimburse him, or how was that 
done ? 

Mr. Griffin. He would call me or send me a note and say, "Taxes 
are due on such and such a date, so please send me a check." 

Mr. Lenzner. That would be your pro rata share, that is the B. & C. 
pro rata share ? 

Mr. Griffin. Our share of what the taxes were. I would try to get the 
money together. If it was not in the B. & C. account — it usually was 
not — I would send a note around to Mr. Abplanalp and send a note 
down to Mr. Rebozo, call them both on the plionc, and say, "We have a 
payment of x number of dollars. Your share is such and such." 

I believe on one or two occasions, because the date the payment 
was due, they advanced funds. I wanted to make sure we got our checks 
to them on time, if possible. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there ever come a time, to your knowledge, when 
Mr. Rebozo would pay the taxes or other expenses by mere transfers in 
the Key Biscayne Bank and Trust ? 

Mr. Griffin. He would not pay any bills for the B. & C Investment 
Co. I would pay them all. In fact, I do not think he was a signatory 
on the B. & C. Investment Co. account. He would transfer funds some- 
times to the B. & C'. Investment Co. which would be his share of either 
the mortgage payment or the interest or his share of the taxes, then I 
would pay all the bills. I paid all the bills for the B. & C. Investment 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe that you previously testified to us that 
on October 10, 197o, you met INIr. Gemmill, I believe it was in New 
York. I am not sure of where, the location, but it was for a meeting 
with the representatives of the Internal Revenue Service, at which 
time they were conrlucting an audit of the books of the B. & C. Invest- 
ment Co. for 1971 and 1972. Can you tell us in conjunction with what 
issues this audit was conducted ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have no idea. Mr. Gemmill called me and said they 
were doing an audit. I think at the same time Cooper & Lybrand were 
doing their audit. I was involved with providing information concern- 
ing the B. & C. Investment Co. for that business. 

Gemmill advised me that IRS would like to see the books. He ar- 
ranged for a meeting in New York, whatever date it was; I don't 
really recall. I went down with the books and the tax returns and met 
Mr. Gemmill and two representatives of the Internal Revenue Service. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall the representatives? 

Mr. Griffin. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether they Avere interested in ex- 
amining the books for 1970, albeit, how partial the })ooks would be, 
or any portion of the books from 197o ? 

Mr. Griffin. I gave him the books and records and the checking 
account and tax returns of the B. & C. Investment Co. up to the date 
that we were there, and we had no conversation otlier than looking 
at them and taking notes. 


Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, at that meeting, who you were 
representing ? 

JNIr. Griffin. I was representing the B. & C. Investment Co., com- 
posed at that time of two partners. 

What date was it ? Do you know ? 

jMr. Ambrose. October 10. 

Mr. Armstrong. October 10, 1973. could you tell us who Mr. Gem- 
mill was representing ? 

Mr. Griffin. I did not ask, but I assume he was representing the 

Mr. Armstrong. He was present at the time that the books were 
examined ? 

]Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was Mr. Gemmill representing the B. & C. Invest- 
ment Co. or any of its partners ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, he was not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us, subsequent to that meeting, if you 
had any communications with any individuals regarding the sub- 
stance of the meeting? Did you talk to anybody about the meeting 
after it was over ? 

Mr. Griffin. I talked to Mr. Abplanalp and I talked to Mr. Eebozo 
and I talked to, I think, Mr. DeMarco, and I talked to Gemmill. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the substance of your communica- 
tion with Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. Just the fact that I attended a meeting whereby the 
Internal Revenue Service was auditing the books of the B. & C. In- 
vestment Co. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you comnnmicate to Mr. Rebozo any conclu- 
sions that you drew regarding what the Internal Revenue Service's 
interest was in the B. & C. Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have no idea. There was no conversation except for 
basically a hello. 

Mr. Armstrong. At any time prior to August 15, 1973, had Mr. 
Rebozo ever indicated a need for a quantity of funds in excess of 
$10,000 ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, but we are getting involved into other areas. 

Mr. Ambrose. In relationship to this particular transaction or any 
of these transactions ? 

]\Ir. Arzmstrong. I'm not sure what the relationship would be. Let 
me put it this way : Has Mr. Rebozo ever approached you or discussed 
with you securing a loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. With the Hudson Valley National Bank? 

Mr. Armstrong. Or any other banking institution. 

Mr. Griffin. As we talked this morning, there are two areas where 
I obtained from botli Mr. Rebozo and Mr, Abplanalp a waiver of law- 
yer-client ]:)rivilege. One of those areas was the B. & C. Investment 
Co. The other area was the $225,000 loan that was made by Precision 
Valve Corp. and subsequently made by the Hudson Valley National 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr, Rebozo seek any other loans? 

Mr. Ambrose. Again, Mr. Armstrong, we are back to the point that 
we raised this morning. If you have a specific area of inquiry that 


involves — a relevant inquiry that involves transactions between Mr. 
Griffin and his client, the lawyer-client relationship with Mr, Rebozo 
on these — if yon will delineate them to us, we will seek the possibility 
of getting a waiver of the lawyer-client pi-ivilege, but we are not waiv- 
ing lawyer-client privilege other than in these two specific areas. 

Mr, Armstkoxcx, The question still stands in rather speciMc form. 
If the answer is yes 

Mr. Ambrose, There is no answer. The answer is that he has no 
authority to waive his lawyer-client relationship in any area other 
than those that we delineated. If you have something else that you 
want him to waive it on, we will have to go back to jMr. Kebozo. You 
ought to be specific about it. 

Mr. Lenzner. It is hard to know if there are other areas that we 
want to inquire into. For example, if Mr, Rebozo sought money. Sen- 
ator, for a loan from Mr, Griffin during the period of time tliat is rele- 
vant to the return of the $100,000 to the Hughes Tool Co., it may m- 
deed be pertinent. But if Mr. Griffin cannot answer the ({uestion, gen- 
erally — did Mr. Rebozo ever seek loans besides the $225,000 loan that 
we are aware of, we obviousl}^ will be foreclosed from pui'suing that. 

Let me ask this question as a foundation question, however. When 
Mr. Rebozo discussed the loan of $22r),000, were you representing him 
for the purpose of obtaining that loan '. 

Mr. Griffix. I was acting-— the $225,000? 

Mr, Lenzner, Yes, sir, 

Mr, Griffin. As far as the $225,000 was concerned, botli ]Mr. Rebozo 
and Mr. Abplanalp have waived 

Mr. Lenzner. That was not my question. My question was, did he 
come to you as his counsel and ask you to obtain a loan f loiu the Hud- 
son Valley National Bank^ 

[Discussion off the record.] 

]Mr. Griffin, As far as this was concerned, I am not sure whether 
he asked me or Bob Abplanalp, At the same time we were in the con- 
ference, he was going to another bank for a loan. We are in the bank- 
ing business, and we discussed the question of, obviously, our bank 
making a loan to him. Our bank Mas a new bank and needed loans. 
I was acting in that capacity in discussing the $225,000 with him and 
Mr. Abplanalp, and at the same time helping to get the loan at our 

Mr, Lenzner, What is your position at the bank ? 

Mr. Griffin. Secretary. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did there ever come a time — were there other times 
when Mr. Rebozo and you discussed other loans on his behalf? 

Mr. Ambrose. Again, we are back to the point. There are, and I do 
not think we have made any bones about it, there are and have been 
other business and legal transactions between Mr. Griffin and Mr, 
Rebozo, for which he has no authority to waive lawyer-client privilege. 
Obviously, he cannot, under those circumstances, answer certain 

Senator Montoya, Let me ask this, since I was not here this morn- 
ing, ^\niat particular waiver was obtained from ]Mr, Rebozo with re- 
spect to one transaction ? 

]\rr. Griffin. The waiver from Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp both, 
since I represent both, was anything surrounding the B. & C, Invest- 


ment Co., and anything surrounding the $225,000 loan which was 

Senator Montoya. When you spoke to Mr. Rebozo, you are speaking 
on behalf of the bank and not as an attorney, not through the attorney- 
client relationship. How could you do that ? 

Mr. Griffix. I was — being the secretary of the board of the bank. 

Senator Moxtoya. And representing him at the same time? 

Mr. Griffin. We were out ti-ying to hustle business for the bank, 
and we needed loans. Sometimes you get your clients to do those 

Senator Moxtoya. However, the attorney-client relationship 

]Mr. GRiFrix\ I'm not claiming attorney-client relationship as far 
as the $225,000. 

]Mr. Ambrose. There are other transactions that he's now inquiring 
about which are direct attorney-client relationship for w^iich Mr. 
Rebozo has not given any waiver simply because we do not even know. 
This is the first time we have heard about any of these things. On 
specific areas that you want a waiv'er on, some specific transactions. 
^Ir. Griffin will confer with jSIr. Rebozo. If he deems it advisable to 
waive it, he will waive it. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. ^Vliat I'm suggesting. Senator, is, if there are dis- 
cussions between this witness and Mr. Rebozo with regard to this 
witness assisting Mr. Rebozo as Secretary of the Hudson Valley Bank 
and acquiring loans for Mr. Rebozo, it is a business transaction. It 
does not relate, indirectly or directly, to any attorney-client privilege, 
and that the witness ought to answer the question. 

If it is a business transaction, and Mr. Griffin is requested by Mr. 
Rebozo to obtain loans, that is not a transaction that is attorney-client 
transaction. That is a business transaction. Mr. Griffin has stated he 
has had business transactions and business discussions with Mr. Re- 
bozo. That is what we're talking about. We're not asking about advice 
or counsel he may have provided as an attorney to Mr. Rebozo, albeit. 
Mr. Griffin also concedes that they never billed Mr. Rebozo for any 
advice or counsel, they never opened up a file on his behalf. 

Mr. Ambrose. That is not an accurate statement, Mr. Lenzner. The 
question of billing, of course, has never been a legal precondition. 

Mr. Lexzxer. It is an indicia of a lawyer-client relationship. 

Mr. Ambrose. It is not a legal definition. Mr. Griffin has testified 
that he has opened a file, so your statement of fact is inaccurate. 

Mr. Lexzxer. He opened a file on the B. & C. Investment Co., of 
which Mr. Rebozo is a partner. 

Mr. Ambrose. And Mr. Abplanalp. That is what he stated. That is 
what the record shows. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. The question now before us, Mr. Griffin, did Mr. 
Rebozo ever approach you to obtain other loans? I suggest it is a 
business transaction, Senator, and the witness be directed to answer 
the question. 

Senator Mox'toya. From whom ? From the bank? 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Any bank. 

Senator Moxtoya. Of which he was an officer ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. First from any bank of which he was an officer. 

Mr. Griffix^ As far as the Hudson Valley National Bank was con- 
cerned, of which I am the secretary, only the one transaction that I 


gave you that thev both waived, conoerning that you have all those 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Kebozo ever request you to do anytlimg on 
his behalf to facilitate or obtain a loan, other than the $225,000 loan ? 

Mr. Ambrose. That is the area which JNIr. Griftin has no right to 
waive his legal privilege. 

Mr. Griffin-. I have a number of files to represent Mv. Rebozo. Those 
files involve other matters. If you can pinpoint for me what you are 
talking about, I will be glad to contact these people. It is not ni}' right 
to waive attorney-client privilege except in the areas that I receive 
an expressed waiver on. 

Mr. Lenzner. I am not asking you about other areas. I'm asking 
you about specific loans that you sought to obtain on Mr. Eebozo's 

Mr. Ambrose. In his relationship or his capacity as attorney for 
Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Lenzner. You are assuming a fact that I do not believe is a fact. 

Mr. Ambrose. He is making a representation. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me finish, if I can. If he were asking. Senator, 
as a business consultant in facilitating a loan — it strikes me that you 
cannot provide attorney-client privilege to protect every business 
transaction that you are involved in, because it is a business trans- 
action, just because at one time or another you are alleged to repre- 
sent someone as an attorney. 

Senator Montoya. Let me ask the witness : What was your attorney- 
client relationship with Mr. Rebozo? In what functions did you per- 
form in that relationship ? 

Mr. Ambrose. Senator, I am sorry if I seem difficult on this point. 

Senator Montoya. Just give me a general description of it, not 
going into specifics. That is what I mean, so I can probably rule on 

Mr. Griffin. I was and have been the attorney for Mr. Rebozo and 
his interests in the B. & C. Investment Co., his interest in acquiring 
certain properties, in his interest in transactions involved with B. & C. 
in the original partnership. Mr. Rebozo is connected with Mr. Ab- 
planalp in several business transactions. I represent them both in 
those areas — both of them. 

Senator Montoya. Does that entail your going out and getting 
loans for Mr. Rebozo from other institutions ? 

Mr. Griffin. It entails — the answer to that is "yes." 

Senator Montoya. This is a very close area here. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you conduct activities on behalf of INIr. Rebozo 
that did not include advice or counsel with regard to these loans? 

Mr. Griffin. I was acting as his attorney and in some cases Mr. 
Abplanalp's attorney jointly in seeking — in some cases potential fi- 
nancing- — in seeking additional loans on other transactions for which 
I was representing him. 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Lenzner, if he was seeking other loans for 
Mr. Rebozo and representing him as attorney, whether they were 
strictly legal questions or not, he was acting as his attorney, and I 
think the relationship applies. 


Mr. Lenzxer. Senator, if a lawyer is asked to give tax advice, for 
example, on a loan, on whether a client should involve himself in a 
particular loan, that might well indeed be protected. And indeed, if 
he had conversations with the potential lender of the money to deter- 
mine the eventual tax consequences so he could well advise his client, 
that well might also be protected. But, if he has a business venture 
on behalf of a client and sought out third parties, he was really acting 
as an agent for business purposes for his client, rather than as at- 
torney. He was not acting for the purposes of providing advice and 
counsel to his client. He was acting as a business agent to facilitate a 
business transaction to obtain a loan. When you step out of that role 
of providing advice or counsel and contact third parties for the busi- 
ness, you gam the benelit of another person, then it seems to me the 
attorney-client privilege does not exist. 

Senator Montoya. 1 d like to ask some citations on that. 

Mr. Lenzxer. We do have some citations. Senator. Maybe we 
should get those. 

Senator Montoya. I Avant to rule right on this. 

Mr. Armstrong. Otf the record. 

[Discussion otf the record.] 

Mr. Armstroxg. Back on tlie record. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Let me ask this, so the record is clear to protect you, 
Mr. Griffin. Have you had discussions as to whether these areas might 
come up and you have been advised by your clients that they did not 
wish to exercise the waiver ? 

Mr. Ambrose. That is within the lawyer-client privilege. The state- 
ment by Mr. Griffin has been that his expressed waiver of the lawyer- 
client privilege was with the relationship to the areas we discussed 
earlier. The other areas that he is preserving the lawyer-client privi- 
lege are still preserved within the lawyer-client privilege. 

Mr. Lenzxer. All I'm getting for the record is — you have not ex- 
plored the possibility of waiver in these other areas ? 

Mr. Ambrose. I do not think we ought to get whether he has ex- 
plored it or not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Just say no. We will go ahead. 

Mr. Ambrose. It is not a question of saying "no" at this point. The 
question is before you. The statement is before you that these are 
specific areas according to the letter that you gave me that he has 
gotten it. Whether he has gotten it in other areas or he has discussed it, 
that is also within the lawyer-client privilege. 

Mr. Griffix'. I also specified when we began this hearing this morn- 
ing that if there are other areas, I'd be glad to take those areas back 
and request. I cannot waive that privilege. 

Mr. Ambrose. We also discussed, and Senator Inouye agreed this 
morning, that for the purposes of the purposes here that there are lim- 
its, and so stated on the record. 

Mr. Lex-^zner. We will get the citations. It is our position that 
this could not be made in these areas. 

Mr. Ambrose. I don't know how you make the statement, if you 
do not knoAv what the areas are. How can you make a conclusionary 
statement ? 


Senator Montoya. I have to base my decision at the present time 
on a fact that if an attorney is representing a client and the attorney 
is negotiating a loan for that client, of necessity he is giving the client 
some legal advice with respect to that transaction. 

Where is the line of demarcation between what is legal advice and 
w^hat is business advice 'i Can you separate the two 'i 

Mr. Lenzner. Our position is you can, Senator. As soon as you 
begin to act as a business agent seekmg loans. 

Senator Montoya. And then there's no lawyer-client relationship 
on anything else. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you're acting as a business agent, that is correct. 

Mr. Ambrose. 1 would suggest, also. Senator, as you well know, that 
there is a body of law that says that the umbrella of the lawyer-client 
relationship covers transactions which may be incidental, which may 
be somewhat business in nature but incidental to the relationship, and 
are covered. 

Senator Montoya. If there is any doubt as to whether the attorney- 
client relationship exists, the doubt should be resolved in favor of 
the relationship. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well 

Senator Montoya. That's the point I'm making. I would rather 
resort to a complete evaluation of this on the basis of authorities that 
you might cite. 

Mr. Lenzner. We will give the citations. 

Senator Montoya. Why don't you ask him particular questions? 

Mr. Lenzner. We will, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. I think that is the way to do it. Do you want 
to read that now ? 

Mr. Lenzner. I will find the citation. I do not want to hold you up, 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. GrifRn, you mentioned that the circumstances 
surrounding the $225,000 loan or loans from Precision Valve and/or 
the Hudson Valley Bank to Mr. Rebozo — any privilege that might ex- 
ist has been waived. I think it would be simpler and most expeditious if 
you just described the circumstances surrounding the loan, how the 
events occurred. Then I will ask specific questions. 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Rebozo discussed with myself and Mr. Abplanalp 
the question of borrowing $225,000. It was in late November of 1972. 
And I thought the purpose was to acquire a i)iece of proi^erty in Key 
Biscayne. I was not sure of that. He said he was going to a bank in 
New York to do this. I suggested to him he might come to our bank 
because we could use the business. I then had the bank send to him 
loan applications and all the necessary data for the preparation of a 
loan application to the bank. He submitted that to the bank. As I 
understand it, in the meantime — I think it was on the 27th of Novem- 
ber — he either consulted me or Mr. Abplanalp and said he was closing 
on the pi-operty and would need the money almost immediately, and 
that the Hudson Valley National Bank's loan committee had not met 
on the loan yet. But they were meeting in a day or so, and they 
expected to grant him the loan. And so for a day or two Precision 
Valve Corp. loaned Mr. Rebozo $225,000. I have provided to the 
committee a copy of both the front and back of the check from 


Precision Valve Corp. to Mr. Rebozo, dated November 27, 1972, in 
the iMnoiint of $225,000 to Mr. Charles G. Rebozo's account on the 
Key Biscayne Bank. It was a direct wire transfer to the bank on 

Mr. Ambrose. The direct wire transfer from the Hudson Valley 

National Bank i 

Mr. Griffix. From Precision Valve Corp.'s account at the Hudson 
Vallev Bank. I believe that the bank on the 28th or 29th passed on the 
loan, '^approved the loan, and gave him the money, at which time 
Mr. Rebozo wired back to the Precision Valve Corp. account the 
$225,000 which he had borrowed, and that transfer was on Novem- 
ber ao. 1972, the same amount. Those are the documents. 

Senator :Moxtoya. Let me ask this question : If all of you knew 
that the loan would be made, why was there any necessity for trans- 
ferring money the day before ? 

Mr. Griffin. As I 'understand it, he was closing the real estate deal 
where time was of the essence and needed the money that day. The 
bank and loan discount people were meeting the following day or the 
day after for approval of the loan, and in order to satisfy Mr. Rebozo 
and do him a favor, Mr. Abplanalp suggested we give him the gap 
loan of 1 or 2 late days. We wired $225,000 to his account and you 
have evidence of that. Ho wired the money back 2 or 3 days later. 

Mr. Armstroxg. For the record, let me note, Mr. Griffin made a 
reference in his connnents to exhibit 12, which was entered in the record 
this morning. At any time did the Precision Valve Corp. act as a 
guarantor or provide security for Mr. Rebozo with the Hudson Valley 
National Bank ? 

Mr. Ambrose. In connection with this specific loan ? 

Mr. Arinistrong. In connection with this specific loan. 

Mr. Griffin. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what explanation or narrative 
Mr. Rebozo provided to the loan committee or to the Precision Valve 
Corp. to indicate the purpose of what I believe was an unsecured loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. As far as the $225,000 from Precision Valve Corp., I 
believe it was to close a piece of real estate that he had to close because 
time was of the essence or date certain in closing. As far as the Hudson 
Valley National Bank is concerned, I did not review those documents 
on that or on the loan discount committee of the bank, although I am 
counsel to the bank. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Did you yourself appear before the loan committee 
on Mr. Rebozo's behalf? Did you discu^ss it with the loan committee 
on Mr. Rebozo's behalf ? 

Mr. Griffin. The loan of $225,000 was a loan that had to be passed 
on by the entire l)oard of the bank. As a member of the board of the 
bank, it was discussed with me, and I think you people have copies 
of the board of directors' minutes when that loan was discussed and 

Sir. Armstrong. Can you tell us what representations you made to 
the loan committee on Mr. Rebozo's behalf ? 

Mr. Griffin. I just said he was looking for a loan, and the possi- 
bility was that it would be a good loan for us, but that Mr. Rebozo 
should file financial statements with the bank and fill out the applica- 


tion and fill out all the necessary documentation, and have the loan 
committee either approve or disapprove and then take it to the board 
for final approval. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you, at any time, indicate to the loan com- 
mittee specihcally what property or the nature of the property to be 
purchased ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not remember if I did or I did not. I think I indi- 
cated there was a piece of property in Key Biscayne. He filled out all 
the papers and sent them back to the bank for processing. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if tliis was a piece of commercial 
property ? 

Mr. Griffin. I am guessing when I tell you I think it was a piece 
of property on Cramden Boulevard. I am not sure. 

Mr. Armstrong. This is the piece of property that is adjacent to 
the property that Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Kebozo own together^ 

Mr. Griffin. There are several pieces of property on Cramden 
Boulevard that these people own. 

Mr. Armstrong. Is this around the corner from the bank ? Let's put 
it that way. 

Mr. Griffin. It is on Cramden Boulevard. How far from the bank, 
I don't know. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo execute a promissory note to Pre- 
cision Valve Corp. at any time ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know. It was a bang-bang transaction. He 
needed the money, I talked with Mr. Abplanalp about it and arranged 
to have the money trajisf erred to him. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you, at any time, ever handle a promissory 
note from Mr. Kebozo to the bank^ Did you, or did you not forward 
that to Mr. Kebozo or receive it from him^ 

Mr. Ambrose. If there is one. 

Mr. Armstrong. The promissory to the bank note. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. To the best of your knowledge, the loan between 
the Hudson Valley National Bank and Mr. Rebozo was an unsecured 
note, unguaranteed loan 'i 

jNlr. Griffin. If I am correct, he filed financial statements with the 
board and they decided on the basis of that, that it was a good loan. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you recommend this loan to the bank^ 

Mr. Griffin. As a member of the board I passed on the loan. It 
required full board approval. 

Sir. Lenzner. Did you recommend to them that they should approve 
the loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. I said they should process the loan as every other loan 
is processed, that they should review his financial statement and find 
out whether it's good or not, that the loan discount committee should 
go over the loan and then come to the board under the rules and 
regulations. I know it came to the board and they voted on it. 

Mr. Lenzner. You did not make any recommendation ? 

Mr. Griffin. I may have said that I know" it's a good loan, this is a 
f i-iend of mine, I'm trying to get business for the bank. There could 
have been a lot of conversation in that area. I do not remember writing 
any specific request to them saying, "I want to make this loan," or 


"I do not want to make this loan. If it's good business, we should 
make it." 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you represent to tlie bank your representing Mr. 
Kebozo as counsel ? 

iSIr. GiuFFiN. On this loan, no. 

]\lr. LEXZ^ER. When Mr. Kebozo talked to you about this, did you 
say that he described the specilic purpose or the details of the loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. My recollection of this is that he needed tlie money to 
linally accomplish or sign a contract or to pay for part of the contract 
concerning a piece of property. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did iie indicate what the piece of property was to be 
used for 'i 

Mr. Griffin. Xo ; he did not, 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he seek any specific counsel or advice from you 
about the loan on the property ^ 

Mr. Griffin. This loan ^ 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you do any specific research with regard to the 
property or the loan i 

Mr. Griffin. At a future date I did, regarding the property. 

Mr. Lenzner. Prior to the time that the loan was obtained from 
the bank? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. The answer is "No"? 

Mr. Griffin. The answer is "No." 

Mr. Lenzner. Was a separate file opened up in your law firm re- 
flecting, your representation of Mr. Kebozo for the purpose of obtain- 
ing this loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe so. 

Mr. ^Vrmstrong. Did you review Mr. Kebozo's financial statement 
when it was submitted with his loan application i 

Mr. Griffin. I think the board reviewed it, and I may have re- 
viewed it myself. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you reflect to the board or any officei's of the 
bank any perception of jMr. Kebozo's ability to repay the loan? 

Mr. Griffin. 1 may have. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you filed a memorandum to the 
file wliich is entitled 'Tnteroffice correspondence of the Hudson Valley 
National Bank," regarding the liquidity of Mr. Kebozo's personal 
financial statement ? 

Mr. Griffin. I could have. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you idejitify this piece of correspondence, 
dated December 8, 1972, from Mr. W^illiam E. Griffin to file? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes; I prepared this memo. This memo is December 8, 

Senator Montoya. A^^ould you mark tliat as an exhibit ? 

[Wliereupon. the document leferred to was mai'ked Griffin exhibit 
No. 20 for identification.*] 

Mr. Lenzner. Would you like to see this, Senator? 

Senator Montoya. Yes. 

*See p. 10847. 


Mr. Armstrong. I also have a financial statement from Mr. Rebozo 
dated October 10, 1972. I would like to see if you recognize that finan- 
cial statement. 

Mr. Griffin. I think it is the same one. I can only tell you by looking 
at the one in the bank whether it is the same one or not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Tliis comes from the files of the bank. I am inquir- 
ing whether or not you recall having seen this ? 

Mr. Griffin. I saw something similar to this. I assume it is the 
same one. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any role in its preparation or give 
Mr. Rebozo any suggestions ? 

Mr. Griffin. I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. In the interoffice correspondence memorandums 
of December 8, 1972, reference is made in the second paragraph: 
"although the liquidity of the personal financial statement is not the 
best, it was decided that this would be a good loan for us in the amount 
of $200,000 for 1 year and $25,000 for 9 months." 

Do you recall sjjecifically what items on the financial statement 
caused you to consider the liquidity as not the best ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes; he only has $12,000 in cash. The balance of it 
basically is long-term investment in stock, and his liquidity is not 
necessarily the best. The B. & C. Investment Co. is in here and several 
other things. Some of it is probably held corporate stock. Thus liquid- 
ity is very, very tenuous at best. 

Mr. Armstrong. Senator, could we have the financial statement 
marked as an exhibit ? 

Senator MoNTOYA. Yes. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Griffin exhibit 
No. 21 and may be found in the committee files.] 

Mr, Griffin. Senator, for your knowledge, these memorandums are 
written to the file for several purposes. One, of course, is to satisfy 
the control, the feasibility of it. 

Senator Montoya. I understand. I have gone through that process 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware, Mr. Griffin, of what the status of 
this loan was as of August 15, 1973 ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of its current status ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell me whether or not any payments on 
principal have been made ? 

Mr. Griffin. To the bank ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Griffin. Tlie bank has been fully paid off. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us a]>pi-oximately when that payment 
occurred ? 

IMr. Griffin. No. A<Tain, it is sometliiiio- 1 can jriiess for you. 

Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to August 15, 1973 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I can die: it out for you and get it for you. 

Mr. Armstrong. T woidd appreciate that. 

Mr. Ambrose. You do not have that from the records you snbpenaed ? 


Mr. Armstrong. No, sir. In your inemoranduiii of December 8, 1972, 
Mr. Griffin, could you tell us why in the first sentence would you say: 

On the 6th day of November 1972, Mr. C. G. Rebozo, a personal friend of mine 
and a close associate of Mr. Robert Abplanalp, was in New York to acquire funds 
on a loan basis from the Bankers Trust Company. 

It continues — 

At a luncheon between the three of us, Mr. Abplanalp suggested to Mr. Rebozo 
that he acquire funds from our bank rather than any other New York bank. 

Why in that paragraph or in any other paragraph in this memo- 
randum, does it not reflect the fact that you were an attorney represent- 
ing Mr. Rebozo i 

Mr. Griffix. i did not think it was necessary to put it in. That 
memorandum was only for the purpose of making the file complete for 
the loan, not only for 'the review of the bank examiners, but review of 
our own auditors. 

Mr. ArjMStrong. Was any bank officer aware of the fact that you 
represented Mr. Kebozo in securing that loan ? 

Mr. Griffix. I really do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. You do not recall informing anyone ? 

Mr. (triffin. I do not recall not informing anyone. 

Mr. Armstrong. Wliich means you do not recall informing anyone. 

Senator Moxtoya. Did you receive any compensation from Mr. 
Rebozo for representing him ? 

Mr. Griffin. Xot yet, Senator. 

Senator Montoya. Have you billed him ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have billed him. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Have you billed him for the time you spent on this 
loan transaction ? 

Mr. Griffin. I just billed him, I just gave him a general bill for 
general services, which included many items. 

Mr. Lex^zx'er. Was this loan included in the list ? 

Mr. Griffin. General representation was listed — was included in the 
list. This loan ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall. 1 couid flrid out. It may have been. 
I kind of doubt it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, since Jaiuiary 9, 1969. aside from your 
representation of Mr. Rebozo in the B. & C. Investment Co. and in 
securina: — providing assistance in securing the loan from the Hudson 
Valley National Bank, can you tell me what other business or financial 
transaction you've had with Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Ambrose. That is within the attorney-client j)rivilege. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are there any that you do not cour^ider to be within 
tlie attorney-client privilege ( 

Tklr Griffin. In tlie first place. I do represent Mr. Robozo on several 
transactions. I do represent — still do represent the Precision Valve 
Corp. and Robert Abplanalp, the main corporations. In som.e cases 
thev are intermingled. 

Mr. Armsti^oxg. First of all, let me specify. Do y(^u personally, 
in your capacity as an individual, have any business or financial trans- 
actiori with ]Mr. Rebozo ? 


Mr. Griffin, Yon are talking about me personally ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. No ; I jnst bought some stock at his bank. 

Mr. Armstrong. Yon have had no other business transactions with 
any corporations of which he is an officer oi- has a controlling interest, 
other than purchasing stock ? 

Mr. Griffin. Personally ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Personally. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe so. I cannot recall any. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever acted personally as his cosignator 
or guarantor in any business or financial transaction ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or provided collateral or securit}^ for him in any 
business or financial transaction ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or acted as his agent, representative, or designee 
in any business or financial transaction, other than, and apart from, 
3' our actions as his attorney ? 

Mr. Ambrose. I'm not so sure that can be separated from any legal 

]Mr. Armstrong. For example, it's conceivable to me that if Mr. 
Griffin was representing someone else in the transaction, and Mr. 
Rebozo specifically designated him to rejn-esent him in that even 
though he did not retain him as his attorney. 

Mr. Ambrose. It may be conceivable. It is awfully close. 

Mr. Griffin. If I were representing somebody else in that trans- 
action, I would have lawyer-client relationship in that transaction. 

Mr. Armstrong. Not so far as you would liave contact with Mr. 
Rebozo or a third party. 

Mr. Ambrose. As long as he would have contact with anyone in the 
world on behalf of his clients, it would be within legal privilege. 

Senator Montoya. What he's saying, if he was performing as attor- 
ney for another client and engaged in a transaction with ^Iv. Rebozo 
that was strictly business and not a legal i-elationship, that would 
still come under the privilege of attorney-client. That is what you 
are contending? 

]Mr. Ambrose. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. I understand the contention. Individually, you have 
not acted as an agent, representative, or designee, apart from the 
attorney-client relationship ? 

Mr. Ambrose. There may be circumstances — we are not answering 
that specifically. There may be circumstances which an agency rela- 
tionship could be spelled out. But they Avou.ld result fi'om any attorney- 
client relationship, either with Mr. Rebozo or others. If yon have 
something specific in mind, we would be glad to check it and see. 

Senator IVIoxtoya. Do you have that brief thei-e? Let me check 
that brief. 

Mr. GRiFnisr. I have also stated for the record, when we first began, 
that if we raise specific areas, that they want to discuss, let me know 
Avhat they were and I would be glad to go back to my clients. 

Senator Montoya. What do you think of that? Ask the si)ecific 
questions, then have him go back to his clients ? 


Mr. Ctriffix. "When we began this morning, Senator, 1 said 1 had 
discussed specifically with my clients certain areas that were desig- 
nated. If you have any other '^specific areas that would be designated, 
1 woukl be glad to take them back. 

Senator Mt)NToYA. 1 see the citation here where the client generally 
seeks legal ad\ice and the existence of noidegal incidental connnunica- 
tions between them, does not result in the loss of the privileged We 
are in a very narrow area here. I do not want to make a mistake 

Mr. Lexzxer. I appreciate that, Senator. The reference I was draw- 
ing your attention to was the reference where it's noted, "If your client 
seeks business advice, even though the attorney may be representing 
him before" 

Senator Moxtoya. It has been established that he was representing 
him on legal matters, too. 

Mr. Ambrose. We admit for the record, your honor, that if Mr. 
Rebozo came to Mr. Griffin and asked his advice on investment in 
General ^Motors that would not constitute a legal privilege. 

On the other hand, if he came to him in connection with a business 
deal that he was representing Mr. Kebozo on and it involved nego- 
tiating with banks for loans, or putting up General Motors stock 
as collateral, or the tax consequences, or anything like that, that would 
be incidental to the legal relationship. That would be clearly under 
the umbrella of lawyer-client relationship, a most treasured rela- 

Mr. Griffix. Again, I will repeat. Senator, that if there are specific 
areas they want me to discuss, I will be glad to take them back and re- 
quest both Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo as to whether they want 
that waived. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Well, on those transactions, we are particularly 
interested in the loan transaction that Mr. Rebozo sought and^the 
security for those for the period January 1, 1969, to March 31, 1974. 

Mr. Ambrose. Is that a specific question ? Do you want him to seek 
a waiver of any legal relationship on specific loan transactions which 
took place between 

Mr. Armstroxg. January 1, 19G9, and March 31, 1974. 

Mr. Griffix. I do not understand the relevancy in 1974. 

Mr. Ambrose. Neither do I. 

Senator Moxtoya. What is the relevance of 1974 ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Senator, one of the things we've been attempting 
to acquire in determining the financial status of Mr. Rebozo's holdings 
was from the period August 15, 1973, through the end of the year, Mr. 
Rebozo liquidated a substantial portion of his assets. And, subsequently 
in 1974. he began repurchasing the property through the end of 1973, 
and the beginning of 1974, and in particular, some of the purchases 
that were made were jointly with former business associates and were 
on terms that were extremely favorable to Mr. Rebozo such that it has 
created the question in the minds of some of the staff members as to 
whether or not the business transactions themselves were an effort to 
make Mr. Rebozo whole or to assist him in recovering from a drain of 
funds which mav have been associated with the $100,000. 


Since we received testimony from Mr. Kalmbach that that money — 
that Mr. Rebozo told Mr. Kahnbach that that money was, in fact, used, 
we have been attempting to trace down those transactions. 

Senator Montoya. What do you have to say about that ? 

Mr. Ambrose. I see absolutely no relevance to the jurisdiction of the 
committee on that issue. None, whatsoever. If they are looking for Mr. 
Rebozo's business records, his background, his dealings, and every- 
thing else, I think you ought to go to Mr. Rebozo. As I understand, he 
has testified here on more than one occasion, and ask him. 

Senator Montoya. Is it your feeling that any inquiry in this area 
would throw a reflection on whether or not Mr. Rebozo was using cam- 
paign funds ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. The question is compounded with the question 
of whether, in fact, he had used campaign funds for some noncam- 
paign purpose previously, and then he was in a position where he had 
either to return those campaign funds or make whole the campaign 
contributions. We would like to trace those. 

Senator Montoya. I will rule that question in order. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, since January 1969, have you person- 
ally sold or exchanged any real or personal property of Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Ambrose. For his own account ? Mr. Griffin's own account ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Ambrose. Nonlawyer relationship ? 

Mr. Armstrong. That is correct. 

Mr. Griffin. Give me the question ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you sold to or exchanged with Mr. Rebozo 
any real or personal property from January 1, 1969, to the present? 

Mr. Griffin. None that I know of. 

Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1969, has Mr. Rebozo made any 
gifts to you valued in excess of $100 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not think so. A couple of dinners, maybe. 

Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1969, has Mr. Rebozo asked you 
to provide him with a quantity of cash in $100 bills or in a quantity of 
currency ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1969, has Mr. Rebozo provided 
you with any quantity of cash or currency totaling over $1,000, with 
the exception of the one occasion when he left with you what purported 
to be $100,000 for delivery to Mr. Gemmil in Ncav" York? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Senator Montoya. Is the answer "No" ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, are you aware of any attempt on Mr. 
Rebozo's part, to obtain any quantity of currency totaling over $1,000? 

Mr. Griffin. By cash, do you mean currency ? Cash ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Cash. 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1969, have you had any business or 
financial transactions with President Nixon ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what those are, sir ? 

Mr. Griffin. I purchased the President's two lots at Key Biscayne. 


Mr. Armstrong. xVre there any other business or financial transac- 
tions cUirin<5 that period, other than in your capacity as attorney for 
Mr. Abphmalp or Mr. Rebozo 'i 

Mr. Griffin. My personal transactions with the President 2 

Mr. Armstrong. Eight. 

Mr. Griffin. Just that one. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us how that transaction came about, 

Mr. Griffin. I think it was Mr. Rebozo who contacted me saying 
that he had a buyer who was going to sell these two lots. I talked to 
Mr. Abplanalp about it. He thought it was a good transaction. We 
both looked it over. 1 thought it was a good business transaction, a 
good investment, and I acquired two pieces of property. 

Mr. Armstrong. You say you believe it was Mr. Rebozo who con- 
tacted you ? 

Mr. Griffin. I think so. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us approximately when that was, sir? 

Mr. Griffin. It was closed on December 28, 1972. 

Mr. Armstrong. Excuse me, are you looking for additional docu- 
mentation ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was closed on December 28, 1972. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you say when Mr. Rebozo called you and 
indicated that there was a buyer for the property ? Can you tell us when 
you first became aware that President Nixon OAvned lots in the Cape 
Florida Development ? 

Mr. Griffin. When I first became aware he owned them ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall ; I knew he owned them. I do not exactly 
know when. 

Mr. Armstrong. Had j^ou ever visited the sites ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you know when you first visited them ? 

Mr. Griffin. Specifically ? November, December 

Mr. Armstrong. Prior to your purchase of the property ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when Mr. Rebozo mentioned that 
there was a party interested in purchasing the lots ? If he named the 
party at that time ? 

Mr. Grifitn. No, I do not believe he did. He indicated somebody else 
was interested in buying the lots. He thought it was a good investment 
and discussed it with us. 

Mr. Arivirtrong. Did he indicate what price that party or parties 
michtbe willing to pay? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes; he indicated a price to me. T believe he indicated 

Mr. Armstrong. That is the price at which the President would sell 
you the pro])erty ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. I believe it was the price he indicated he thought 
somebody else would buy the property, that is the price I bought it for. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate that you, in turn, would probably 
be able to resell the property ? 


Mr. Griffin. He indicated to me that he thoiiglit it was an excellent 
real estate investment. As it turned out, it was. I sold the property about 
9 months later, for $180,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. The parties you sold the properties to, were these 
same parties that Mr. Rebozo had indicated had an interest in purchas- 
ing the property ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe so. He also recommended to me at that 
time not to sell it, because he thought he could get more money for it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussions regarding the price 
of the jjroperty besides with Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. Mr. Wakefield. 

Mr. Armstrong. Would that have been after the price had been 
agreed upon ? 

Mr. Griffin. I think we had discussions concerning the fact that 
there was a broker involved in this. I think the price that was quoted 
was $160,000 and tliat would net the President somewhere in the neigh- 
borhood of $135,000 or $140,000. 

In my discussion, first off, maybe I could buy it for less — my discus- 
sion, I believe with Mr. Wakefield or Mr. Rebozo, I thought that that 
would not be fair. In effect, I would pay $150,000 for the property 
which I understood was the offer. 

Mr. Armstrong. When you say — just to make sure I understand your 
reference— you mean buy it for less without the broker ? 

Mr. Griffin. Without the broker. 

Mr. Armstrong. Who was representing the other party. 

Mr. Griffin. Representing the party who was interested in acquiring 
it. In other words, the net to the President would be less. Tliere was 
some discussion concerning that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussions with the President 
or Mrs. Patricia Nixon Cox ? 

Mr. Griffin. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any negotiations before arriving at 
a price witli anyone other than Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. I probably discussed it with Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us what those discussions were ? 

Mr. Griffin. Those discussions were that this is the price of the prop- 
erty. We both thought it was a good piece of property. I thought it 
was a good investment. I thought I could make some money on it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first identified tlie potential 
buyer? When you first identified the person to whom you were going 
to sell the property ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was sometime after 6 months after I acquired the 
property. The advantage of holding it G moiitlis was capital gain. I 
advised Mr. Rebozo and some of the peo])le tliere that if it was the 
right price, I certainly would be willing to sell it. Then, I do think that 
either Wakefield or Rebozo called me and said certain ])eople would like 
to buy the property. They quoted a price and Rebozo suggested it and 
that's all. 

He figured there would be more money in it if I waited. There was 
also a question of subdividing the property into two distinct lots. I 
basically made the decision at one point that I was going to sell it, even 
though he advised me against it. 


Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us at what price and to whom the prop- 
erty was sold 'i 

Mr. Griffix. I sold the property at $180,500 on September 7, 1973. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the party to whom it was sold? 

Mr. Griffin . It was sold to Vicky Holding Corp. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us who tlie principals in the Vicky 
Holding Corp. are (. 

Mr. Griffin. 1 do not know the principals. They were represented 
by Mr. Sabatino. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of any of the parties who were 
interested in purchasing the property at that time ^ Mr. Schwartz? 

Mr. Griffin. Somethnig like that, yes. He showed some interest in 
it, that is the Schwartz from Sir Pizza. He owns Sir Pizza, some- 
thing to do with Sir Pizza, which is a chain operation in Florida. 

Mr. Armstrong. Where you aware of Mr. Schwartz' intention of 
purchasing the property, repurchasing a portion of the property from 
the Vicky Holding Corp. at the time you sold it to tlie Vicky Holdnig 
Corp. ? 

Mr. Griffin. That was a problem here. That w-as, that this was one 
piece of property where there were two lots. It was not subdivided 
and a method of subdivision — for example, the thought was that I 
could subdivide the property for two lots and sell each lot off at a 
much higher price than 1 got it for. 1 did not want to go througii all 
that. If two people wanted to buy the two lots, they could probably 
buy it through a corporation acquiring tlie total lot and subdivKling 
it among themselves. And it prevented us from going in on • sub- 
division on the property. 

As I understand it, Mr. Louis Sabatino is the president of Vicky 
Holding Corp. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you purchased the property, did anyone hold 
an interest in it besides yourself ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. You say it was not until at least 6 months after you 
purchased the property that you became aware of the interest m 
repurchase ? 

Mr. Griffin. I did not want to sell the property or enter into any 
agreement concerning the property until after 6 months had passed, 
the title and transfer. 

jVIr. Lenzner. I understand that. But were you aware at the end of 
the 6-month period and the capital gain, that Mr. Sabatino and the 
Vick}' Holding Corp. were interested in purchasing it from you I 

Mr. Griffin. It may have been, but I was not going to enter into 
any agreement until after the waiting period was completed. 

Mr. Lenzner. You had no communication, no contact ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe I ever talked to Mr. Sabatino. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you have communication or contact with 
anyone about the resale of the land before the 6-month period was up ? 

Mr. Griffin. Possibly Tom Wakefield. Not to sell it, just to advise 
him that it was purchased for an investment. 

'Mr. Lenzner. Was Mr. Rcbozo, Avhen he contacted you and Mr. 
Abplanalp and communicated with you with regard to the possible 
sale of the land, acting as the agent or representative of the President ? 


Mr. Griffin. I assumed that he was acting as a friend. I do not 
know whether he was acting as an agent. You mean like a broker? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not think so. 

INIr. Lexzxer. I take it you indicated to Mr. Wakefield that prior 
to the end of the 6-month period, you would be interested in reselling 
the property, at some point ? 

Mr. Griffin. I indicated when I bought the land that the purpose of 
the acquisition was basically for resale. It was an investment that I 
thought I could make some money on. It turned out that I did. It is 
too bad that the President did not hold it for another 8 months. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was the original contact between you and the 
Vicky Holding Corp. through Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. Either Rebozo or Wakefield. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if there was any indication of whe- 
ther the President was interested in selling the property at that point 
in time ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. I do not recall anything being mentioned. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate why he was not purchas- 
ing the property himself ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. So we can review the financial transactions in- 
volved, can you tell us what tlie amount and date of your first payment 
to the President was for that i^roperty ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was a $e''>9,150 payment made on December 28, 1972, 
made payable to Wakefield, Hewitt, Webster Trust Account. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what bank the check was drawn 

Mr. Griffin. It was drawn — it was a Precision Valve Corp. check 
drawn on the Hudson Valley National Bank, direct telephone trans- 
fer to Wakefield. 

Mr. Armstrong. Would you tell us how that transaction came 
about ? Was that part of the proceeds of a loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. $39,150 was a loan to me which I signed a note for. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were there any subsequent loans IFrom the Precision 
Valve Corp. ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. There was another loan of $95,000 some odd, for 
a total of $1-35,000, and I signed a note for that at 71/2 percent interest. 

Mr. Armstrong. Does the note include— you said a note for $135,000 ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if you submitted a second check to 
the President ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, I did ; and a third check. 

Mr. Armstrong. There was a second check ? 

Mr. Griffin. The second check was $95,000 some odd— $95,850. It 
was my check No. 208, which I think you have, made payable to 
AVakefield, Plewitt, and Webster Trust Account. That was dated 
January 2, 1973; and there was a third check, my personal check 
made payable to the President in the amount of $15,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. You submitted a copv of that check this morning, 
5'our check No. 336, dated September 17, 1973, to Richard M. Nixon. 

Mr. Lenzner. I believe that is exhibit 9-A you furnished this 


Mr. (iRiFFiN. Yes, for $15,000. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Incidentally, is there any reason why that was not 
paid through A^'aketield, Hewitt, and Webster 'I 

Mr. Gritfix. Yes, there was, I think. No, I think I just wanted to 
write a check out to the President. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do these three checks comprise a complete full 
payment you made to the President? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. There was $2,000 held in escrow on the date that 
we closed the property, that is, the sale of the property, which Avas for 
the payment of the real estate taxes from the date I purchased it until 
the date I sold it. That $-2,000 was held by Mr. Wakelield as the escrow 
agent until the taxes were determined. I then paid them and received 
a check from Mr. Wakefield for the balance, which was $300 some odd. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if the two loans from the Precision 
Valve Corp. were personal loans? 

]Mr, Griffin. Yes, they were. 

jNlr. Armstrong. Whom at the Precision Valve Corp. did you ap- 
proach in order to secure those loans ? 

Mr. Griffin. 1 approached Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Ferrara. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were they aware of the purpose of the loans ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, they were. 

Mr. AitMSTRONG. This was an unsecured loan? 

Mr. Griffin. I executed a note to them. 

Mr. Armstrong. The property was not encumbered in any way by 
the note ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. I considered it morally encumbered, and I did pay 
Precision Valve Corp. back $135,000. I did pay them back $7,000 some 
odd in interest as well. I believe that you have all those checks. 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, we do. Shortly after the second loan for 
$95,850, you repaid a previous loan for the Precision Valve Corp. of 
$100,000. Was there any reason why that money was not applied to 
this property transaction I 

^Ir. (triffin. a totally different purpose. It had nothing to do with 
this transaction — nothing to do with the President. 

Mr. Armstoong. Was it also an unsecured personal loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. Xo ; it was a secured personal loan. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were you aware of the use that was made by the 
proceeds of this loan by the President or Tricia Nixon Cox? 

Mr. Griffin. At that time ? 

Mr. Arms'iTvOng. At that time or subsequently. 

Mr. Griffin. No. T have now read in the paper and read in the 
committee reporr and everything else. I find it is difficult to determine 
what you heard and said, and what you read in the papers. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you hear that Mr. Rebozo was to receive any 
proceeds of this loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you become aware of that in the committee 
report ? 

Mr. Griffin. I believe tliat was the fir?t time, when I read this 
CCH— t he 200-page report. 

Mr. Armstrong. You did not represent Mr. Rebozo in securing that 
loan ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 


Mr. Armstrong. The $65,000 loan from the proceeds of this trans- 
action — I believe on January 8, 1974, you discussed with us the fact 
that Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo had purchased property together in 
Key Biscayne, property that I believe was referred to as the Matheson 
property on Craniden Boulevard ; is that correct? 

Mr. Ambrose. Is this an area you want a waiver of privilege on? 

Mr. Armstrong. "We have had testimony on this area previously. 

Mr. Ambrose. I do not care if you have had testimony previously 
here or not. The question is, is this what you want within the scope? 
Do you want Mr. Griffin to get a waiver of privilege on this ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I thought, in that particular area, there was a waiver 
of privilege since we had a full discussion of it previousl}'. 

Mr. Ambrose. The full discussion previously may or may not have 
been. Mr. Griffin was not represented by counsel then. It was an in- 
formal session. If you want some testimony on this from Mr. Griffin, 
you had better get a waiver from the client. 

Mr. Griffin. You have to understand the position of me as an 
attorney here. I cannot waive this. 

Mr. Armstrong, We would like waiver on that. 

Mr. Ambrose. What is the specific area you want waiver on ? 

Mr. Armstrong. On the acquisition of the property in Key Biscayne 
by Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Kebozo. We would like waiver of any joint 
purchase of property by Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo from Janu- 
ary 1, 1969 

Mr, Ambrose. You are extending it beyond this one item ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I do not loiow whether it is one item or a series 
of items, I am unclear — the discussion that we had 

Mr. Ambrose. You want him to see if he can get from Mr. Abplanalp 
and Mr. Rebozo a waiver of the lawyer-client privilege, on the joint 
purchase of any property, by Mr, Bebe Rebozo — ]N[r. Charles G. 
Rebozo — and Mr. Robert H. Abplanalp, from Januaiy 1, 1969, to 

Mr. Armstrong. March 31, 1974. 

Mr. Ambrose. To now? Is that wnthin the scope of the pei'iod of 
time that we are concerned with here, Senator ? 

Mr. Armstrong. As a matter of fact, in an issue last Friday, Senator 
Ervin signed a subpena covering this same period of time, ior similar 
financial transactions involving Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Ambrose. That does not attest to the — of whetlier Senatoi- Ervin 
signed a subpena for it. It does not vest it with any gi-eat undue legal 
responsibility or authority. It is irrelevant to the sco])e of the inquiry 
here — the Presidential campaign activities of 197"2. 

Mr. Armsti{ong. We believe that it is for the sauie reasons stated — 
I stated — about 15 minutes ago, 

Mr. Ambrose. What reasons? 

Senator Montoya. Tliat custody of so nuich money by Mr. Rebozo, 
whether or not there were any subsequent transactions that would shed 
reflection on that. 

Mr. Ambrose. Senatoi-. tliis is a specific purcliase of ])ropeity by two 
individuals, all of which are a matter of public Tvcord. I assume, in 
some recorder's office some ]ilace, tluoiigli a })eriocl in ^faich 1974. Tliis 
is not anv clandestine kiiid of ti'ansfei- of fimds oi- anvtiiinii- like tliat. 


Senator Montoya. If they are public, they do not come within the 

INIr. Ambrose. Insofar as his representation of those individuals are 
concerned and what he did in connection with those. The question is, 
whether this is a time period within the purview of this committee. I 
submit, sir, it is not. 

Senator Moxtoya. "What is the purpose of this ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. The purpose. Senator, is to inquire into those trans- 
actions — series of transactions — which Mr. Rebozo may liave had with 
Mr. Abplanalp and others. We are only concerned with this partic- 
ular — concerning Mr. Abplanalp — where there was some attempt to 
give favorable terms or provide Mr. Rebozo with capital that would 
be unavailable to him in any other form, to participate in financial 
ventures which would allow him to profit in such a way to make him 
whole and replenish funds when expended when the money was re- 
turned to the Hughes Tool Co., in June of 1973, so it would be subse- 
quent to June 1973. 

Senator Moxtoya. They are related to the camapaign funds? 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. That is correct. 

Senator ]Mox'toya. That is your contention ? 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ambrose. Sir, subsequent to the return of the so-called campaign 
funds — this is a new theory. This is highly speculative. Senator. 
Obviously one of the problems we have every time something comes 
up, it is spread before the newspapers. I submit, sir, it is absolutely 
of no relevance. 

Mr. Armstrox^g. Perhaps, at one time, it would have been prior to 
our having received testimony that Mr. Rebozo had indicated to other 
individuals that he had expended the funds, and, therefore, would 
have had to replenish them from one source in order to return them to 
Hughes Tool Co. 

It would have been speculative, but since we have that testimony, 
and some independent A'crification of the testimony, I believe it is no 
longer a si-)f>culative assumption, but a matter of trying to determine, 
how, in fact, he was able to replenish those funds. 

Mr. GrifRn, today, has testified to the difficult position, vis-a-vis ]Mr. 
Rebozo's liquidity during that period of time, and the fact he did not 
have cash available. We have already seen tcstimonv today that his 
attempts to dispose of property such as his portion of tlie B. & C. 
Investment Co. And we have learned today that apparently his compen- 
sation for that did not come until much later. 

We are looking for — I believe the checks totaling $295,000 came at 
a considerably later time, sometime toward the end of 1973, at which 
time, INIr. Rebozo — we have other testimony that he entered into an- 
other financial transaction with ]Mr. Abplanalp. 

These transactions are complicated and involved. AVo are trying to 
determine what Mr. Rebozo's position was at each time and when he 
would have been in a position — Avhen he coidd ha\e replenislicd the 
money that he would have expended by returning it to Mr. Hughes. 

Senator Moxtoya. All right. 

INIr. Griffix. The best evidence of that is the testimony of Mr. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 


Mr, Ambkose. What we are doing is casting a tremendous burden on 
a lawyer here to seek out from his clients, as a stakeholder and repre- 
sentative of individuals, what they want and do not Avant him to 
testify to before your committee, Senator. 

I suggest, if the committee wishes to derive that information, its 
first source ought to be the original source, Mr. Rebozo, or Mr. Abpla- 
luxlp; not the lawyer. 

If every lawyer is going to bo put through tliis kind of test every 
time he turns around, we are going to be in a hell of a situation. 

Mr. Armstrong. There is some merit to that suggestion, Senator. 
As a matter of fact, we may — it may be most appropriate to call Mr. 
Abplanalp at the suggestion of Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Griffin, as a 
witness, providing Mr. Griffin 

Mr. Ambrose. I am not suggesting that you call on anybody, Mr. 
Armstrong. Please do not put words in my mouth. I am quite capable 
of articulating my own pos■^ion. My suggestion is, sir, to ask a lawyer 
to seek a waiver of privilege, when there are other sources available to 
you, is hardly the way to proceed, either under a normal investigation, 
or under such unusual cii'cumstances as these. 

Mr. Armstrong. If you will let me finish my statement? 

Mr. Ambrose. Just do not jjut words in my mouth. 

Mr. Armstrong. It probably would have been clear to you — on a 
previous occasion, Mr. Abplanalp testihed before us in an informal, 
not an executive session, and some similar, although not issues such 
as these jDarticular issues, were raised. 

Mr. Abplanalp was unable to provide the details because he leaves a 
great portion of his business affairs to Mr. Griffin. He lias a oreat re- 
spect for his judgment and advice. Therefore, we would probalbly need 
]\Ir. Griffin in order to })rop('rly elicit from Mr. Abplanalp 

Senator Montoya. Did ^Ir. Abplanalp open the subject? 

Mr. Armstrong. You would have to check the transcript as to his 

Senator Montoya. If he did, then the privilege is waived. 

Mr. Ambrose. First of all, there is no transcript of this meeting. 

Senator Montoya. You do not hr^ve to have a transcript for the 

Mr. Ambrose. There is no waiver. I make that representation. I do 
not think there is any waiver on his part, or o[)e)iing hy liiui, un- 

Mr. Armstrong. I did not make that repi-esentation. I said that I 
did not know. 

Mr. Ambrose. There is no way you can make that representation. 

;Mr. Armstrong. I said tluit T would liave to malce a clieck of the 
transcript, of Avhich I ha\e a. copy here. 

Mr. Griffin. Thei-e was no transci-ipi made. 

Ml-. Armstrong. I have a copy. 

Mr. Griffin. Some secretary's notes. 

Mr. Armstrong. It is not a tr-auscript. 

Senator IMoNTOYA. It is a resume of the interview? 

Mr. Armstk'ong. It is a verbatim seiies of noies i-elated to the inter- 
view. Let us ]>roceed. 

Mr. Ambrose. Can we also get a co[)y of (hose ? 


Mr. Armstroxg. I believe Mr. Griffin has a tape of the entire 

Mr. Ambrose. Is this from that tape? 

Mr. Griffix. I have a tape. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Other than the Cape Florida Development Corp., 
have 3'ou had any business or financial transactions with the President 
since eJannary 1, 1969? 

Mr. Griffix. Xo. 

INIr. Armstroxg. Have you had any business or financial transactions 
since January 1, 19G9, with Mr. Wakefield, other than in his capacity 
as an attorney for you or an attorney for the President or Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. Griffix. Personal transactions? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Yes. 

Mr. Griffix. Yes ; he represented me when I purchased the two lots 
from the President. 

Mr. Armstroxg. In no other instance ? 

Mv. Griffix. Yes ; I have had some transactions with him last week, 
with no relevance or relationship to this inquiry at all. 

Mr. Ar3istroxg. Do those have anv relationship or bearing on 
Mr. Rebozo? 

^Nlr. Griffix. No relationship or bearing at all on anything we are 
talking about. It is another business transaction. 

i\Ir. Armstrox'g. Strictly with Mr. Wakefield? 

]\Ir. Griffix. Xo : it is not strictly with ]Mr. Wakefield. 

ISIr. Armstroxg. Is ]Mr. Wakefield representing the President, Mr. 
Rebozo. and ]Mr. Abplanalp ? 

Mr. Griffix. Yes. And so was I. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us what that transaction was? We 
would also like waiver on that. 

Mr. Griffix. Senator, they seem to be putting an attorney in a spot 
by either saying testifv or go get a waiver. And, to me, that is totally 
unfair. And, too, you I am sure have all the testimony of "Sir. Rebozo 
and all the testimony of all the witnesses and they're saying to me now 
that we want waivers of all this speculative stuff. 

And unless you can show me that there is some direct bearing on 
something that has to do with this investigation, I do not think we 
have to answer those questions. I do not want to read it in the New 
York Times tomorrow. Senator. 

Senator ]Moxtoya. Do you not have any testimony from his clients 
about this inquiry? 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. His clients' testimony would conflict with his. 

Mr. Griffix. Senator, he is saving something 

Senator INIoxtoya. If the subject has been opened, then the privilege 
has been waived. That is what I want to find out. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. What I am saying, not necessarily the transactions 
that occurred last week, regarding the other financial transactions that 
Mr. Griffin by extension is making reference to betAveen ]Mr. Abplanalp 
and Mr. Rebozo. ^Nlr. Rebozo has testified they do not exist. Therefore, 
we would feel tliat his testimony would be relevant. 

Senator ]Moxtoya. ^Iv. Rebozo has testified 

Mr. Armstrox^g. That tliere are no transactions other than the 
Matheson property itself. 


Mr. Griffin. We are talking about a transaction that took place a 
week ago where I am in effect representing both Mr. Abplanalp and 
Mr. Rebozo in that transaction. That is what he has just asked me to 
get a Avaiver on. 

Senator Moxtoya. That is subsequent to what Mr. Rebozo had testi- 
fied to. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Rebozo testified on March 28. That would be 
subsequent. Let me ask you : 

Between January 1, 19()9, and March 20, 1974, were there any busi- 
ness or financial transactions between Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Abplanalp 
besides the 13. & C. Investment Co. and the Matheson property? 

Mr. Griffin. I am not going to list for you all the transactions where 
1 represented either Mr. Rebozo or Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Armstrong. I did not ask for that. 

Senator Montoya. lie asked for a yes or no answer. 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. The statement I made before 

Senator Montoya. Mr. Rebozo testified there was only one. 

Mr. Armstrong. Two. 

Mr. Griffin. I represent either Mr. Abplanalp or jNIr. Rebozo. 

Mr. ARMSTRON(i. I'm asking, between the two of them were there any 
business or financial transactions between January 1, 1969 and March 
2u, 1974, between Mr. Robert Abplanalp and Charles G. Rebozo, or l^e- 
tween the Pi-ecision Valve Co. and Charles G. Reliozo, other than B. & 
C. Investment Co. and the })urchase of the Matheson property? 

Mr. Ambrose. We'i'e getting in the area here whei'c the questions are 
somewhat uncleai-. 

Mr. Ar]mstrong. Tliat could not have been more precise. 

Senator Montoya. lie has testified that Mr. Rebozo testified to those 
two transactions. 

Mr. Ambrose. He is not testifying; he's making a statement. 

Senator Montoya. Did he? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ambrose. It would be helpful to us. 

Senator Montoya. The question is now on those two transactions. 
Mr. Rebozo said that thei'e were no others. 

What is the witness' testimony now ? 

Mr. Griffix. Are you asking me now to di\ulge the Pi-ecision Yalve 
Corp., or these transactions as his attorney? 

Mr. xVrmstrong. My connnents were in response to the objection, and 
Mr. Ambrose's continued objections that the questions wei-e in some 
way inappropriate and to prolong this hearing, or were meant in some 
way to coAer areas that wei-e not covered in our numdate. 

I am suggesting, among other reasons, why it falls within our man- 
date, that we've had testimony in the past and apparently Mr. Griffin's 
would conflict. 

Mr. Ambrose. Senatoi-, my position is still unchanged. I have not in 
any way verified that, whether Mr. Rebozo testified in such a fashion. 
I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Rebozo has indeed waived 
his privilege in this area. My advise to my client is not to testify in this 
area without an expressed waiver of lawyer-client privilege from Mr. 
Rebozo and/or Mr. Abj)lanalp. 


Senator Montoya. The only way I can rule on this is if you show 
me from the transcript where Mr. Kebozo testified that there were only 
two transactions and no others. [Pause.] I will show you the transcript 
after I read it to you. Question of jSIr. Rebozo by Mr. Armstrong : 

Can you describe the financial or business transactions you liave had with 
Robert AbplanalpV Just briefly list them. 

Mr. Kebozo. The B&C operation. You have gone tlirougli all those records. And 
more recently, we have purchased jointly some property on Key Biscayne. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us — would you describe that property? 

Mr. Rebozo. On Key Biscayne? 

Mr. Armstrong. Just one parcel? 

Mr. Rebozo. I have 150 feet next to the Bank, and 650 feet separated. I had 
a parcel that Abp'analp had previously bought of 450 feet. I had an option on 
the 650, and participated in the purchase of that. That was just this year. 

Mr. Armstrong. Is that property described as the Matheson property? 

]\rr. Ambrose. I have not heard him say that is the only transaction. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Pie lists them, and he listed two. 

Mr. A:mbrose. That is not an exclusionary statement by any stretch 
of the imaoination. 

Senator Moxtoya. You have not asked him if there are any others, 
have you? 

Mr. Ambrose. I would add for the record, in conjunction with this, 
]Mr. Griffin did not represent Mr. Reliozo. He represented Mr. Abplan- 
alp. So he has to seek the client-attorney privilege from Mr. 

Mr. Ar^estroxg. Well, let's seek that. 

Senator ]\IoxtoyxV. He was just listing what he wanted by way of 
waiver. There is nothing wrong with that. You can argue that point 

Mr. Ambrose. I agree with you. There is no question that that is 
what he's asking now specifically. 

Senator Montoya. Just list what you want. 

Mr. Armstroxg. That is what I am doing. Mr. Griffin raised an ob- 
jection to it. It was in response to that that we got off. 

Mr. Ambrose. It is clear that that is not an exclusive question. 

Senator Moxtoya. Not so far, unless I find something else. 

Mr. A:mbrose. I want to be sure that representation, insofar as that 
section of the transcript of Mr. Rebozo's testimony of March 21, which 
are pages what, Senator? 

Senator ]Moxtoya. It's actually — it starts at 455. 

Mr. A^tBRosE. Insofar as that section of the Rebozo transcript of 
March 21 is concerned, that does not indicate that there is an exclusive 
waiver or .statement by ]Mi-. Rebozo that those are the only transactions 
that he and Mr. Abplanalp are engaged in. 

Senator Moxtoya. I have not read the whole transcript. 

Mr. A:srBROSE. From what portions you have seen, sir, is that correct? 

Senator Moxtoya. Yes. I think the record will speak for itself. 

Mr. Ambrose. We do not have access to the record at this point. I 
just wanted to make sui-e that that representation was made. 

Mr. Armstroxg. ]\Ir. Griffin, have you had any business or financial 
transactions since January 1, 1969, with Mr! Kalmbach and Mr. 
DeMarco? I'm talking about personal. 

Mr. Griffix'. No. 


Mr. Armstrong. Have you liad any business or financial transac- 
tions since January 1, 19()9. with any of the President's immediate 
family or his relatives? 

Mr. Ambrose. Personal? 

Mr. Griffin. I have had no business transactions other than the 
ones that I indicated with you with the President. I do not know who 
his relatives are. 

Mr. Ambrose. We have a mutual friend wlio is a relative of the 
Pi'esident's wife, whom we went to college with. It was a neighbor, 
it was a neighbor of ]Mi'. Griffin's. You may have had some business 
transactions with him at some stage, 

Mr. Griffin. Give me specific names ; I can give you specific answ^ers. 

Mr. ARMSTRf)NG. The business had no bearing on the President'-^ 
financial position or that of his immediate family? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any business or financial transactions 
with Miss Rose ]Mary Woods since January 1, 1969? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any business or financial transactions 
with Mr. Edward C'. or F. Donald Nixon since January 1, 1969? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, there were — in the letter we forwarded to 
Mr. Ambrose, thei-e was a series of financial transactions which I as- 
sume would require waiver in order to be discussed. I'm not sui'e, items 
3 and 4 — first of all, we mentioned any and all financial or business 
transactions between Robert Abplanalp and/or Precision Valve or 
President Nixon. Charles G. Rebozo, Thomas II. Wakefield. I just 
wanted to make sure that we specified that we would like ]Mr. (xrifRn 
to attempt to get a Avai^'er on this, regardless of Avhether or not we 
address those (|uestions. in addition to Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Ambrose. Do you have any specific ones? 

All of the financial and business transactions 

Mr. Armstrong. Since January 1, 1969. between Mr. Abplanalp 
and/or Precision Valve on one side and President Nixon, Charles G. 
Rebozo, and/or Thomas H. Wakefield on the other side. 

Secondly, all financial and business transactions — I believe we have 
gone through these others, Mr. Griffin with President Nixon, Thomas 
II. Wakefield. Charles G. Rebozo, or Patricia Nixon Cox. We have 
gone through all those except those in which JNIr. Griffin is represent- 
ing Mr. Rebozo. which I gather we have asked for a waiver on. 

]Mr. Griffin, are you aware of any business or financial transactions 
between President Richard M. Nixon and Mr. Charles G. Rebozo 
since Januai-y 1, 1969? 

Mr. Ambrose. That he has personal knowledge of, or that which he 
has derived from newspapers — what do you mean? 

Ml'. Armstrong. Exclusive of newspapei-s, that is derived from any 
discussions fi-om any individual oi- that he has personal knowledge of. 

Mr. Griffin. None tliat I can recall. 

Mr. Arms'j'rong. W\'re you aware of Mr. Rebozo's purchase of a 
house in Maryland? 

Ml'. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. How did vou become aware of that, sir? 


Mr. Griffix. I do not know if Bebe told nie or I read in the news- 
paper. I'm not sure which. 

Mr. Armstrong, "Were you aware of any loans from the President 
to Mr. Kebozo^ 

Mr. Griffix. I am now; I read it. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Prior to your reading the newspapers? 
Mr. Griffix. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. You have no knoweldge of that transaction inde- 
pendent of the newspaper? 
Mr. Griffix. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Are you aware of any payments of expenses on 
behalf of the President by Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. Ambrose. Do you have any personal knowledge? 
Mr. Griffix. No. What kind of expenses are you talking about? 
Mr. Armstroxg. Business or personal expenses Mr. Rebozo may 
have paid on behalf of the President. 

Mr. Griffix. I do not know. Does he have a personal checking 
account? I do not know who handles the checking account. 
Mr. Armstroxg. From his own funds? 
Mr, Griffix. Exclusive knowledge that I have, 
Mr. Armstroxg. Any direct — any knowledge from any sources other 
than the newspaper. 

Mr, Griffix, It is not to the President. There was a bowding alley 
that was put in the White House, wdiich was a gift from Mr. Rebozo 
and Mr. Abplanalp. There was a pool table that was purchased, given 
to the White House. Things like that are what you're talking about? 
Mr. Armstroxg. These were given to the Federal Government ? 
Mr, Griffix, They were presented to the White House. I think Mr. 
Rebozo and ]Mr. Abplanal}) paid for them. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Any other items besides those two? 
Mr. Griffix. A pool table. I do not really recall. 
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us the total cost or the value of those 
items ? 

Mr. Griffix, No, I do not know. 
Mr. Armstroxg. Can you recall ? 

Mr. Griffix. The Government records would show. I do not recall. 
There was a pool table given, I think, for the President's birthday 2 
years ago or something like that. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Were you involved in those transactions ? 
Mr. Griffix. I was involved in the bowling alley transaction. 
Mr. Lexzxer, Representing whom ? 
Mr. Griffix. Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever become aware of what the source of Mr. 
Rebozo's contribution was or how much it was ? 

Mr, Griffix. No. I'm only aware of what Mr. Abplanalp con- 

Mr. Lexzxer, Do you know what the total cost was ? 
Mr, Griffix. No, I do not, I am sure that is a matter of public record. 
I really do not know if Mr, Rebozo was involved in that, I know we 

Mr. Lexzxer. You sav you do not know whether Mr. Rel)ozo was 
involved in assisting with the purchase of the gift of the bowling alley 
and the pool table? 


INIr. Grtffix. I do not know whether he was contributing. I know he 
was involved in having- it installed. It was a gift. Mr. Abplanalp con- 
tributed to the gift ; who else contributed, I do not recall. Somebody 
in the U.S. Government asked how to make the check out from Mr. 
Abplanalp as our contribution toward the payment of that gift. I am 
not sure AvKether it was a gift to the President; it was probably a gift 
to the United States. I am sure there were several items like that. 

Mr. Lenzxer. I think the other question that Mr. Armstrong was 
getting at — did you become aware of additional ex])ense items which 
]\Ir. Rebozo paid for, expense items that were incurred on behalf of the 
President or inured to his benefit? 

Mr. Griffin. From INIr. Rebozo or Mr. Abplanalp ? 

Ml". Lenzner. From Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Griffix. I do not know. I don't know whether he buys things 
for him or does not buy things for him on Key Biscayne. I do not 
know. I really do not know who handles the checkbooks for the Presi- 
dent. I thought maybe Bebe did ; I do not know. It might be. 

Mr. Lexzxer. You seem confused by the question. Let me ask it 
again. Do you know whether iSIr. Rebozo paid funds of his own, 
either by cash or by check, for expenses on behalf of the President be- 
tween January 1, 1909, and the present? 

Mr. Griffix. I do not know for a fact that he did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Have you received any information that, in fact, he 
has acted? 

INIr. Griffix. I thought he contributed, for example, to the bowling 
alley. I just do not have the actual knowledge to tell you that he did. 
I just do not know. I know we did. I thought he did. I have no actual 
knowledge of that fact. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if Mr. Rebozo paid for expenses in- 
curred on behalf of the President relating to the Key Biscayne and 
San Clemente property, other than the money that you have furnished 
the indication of? 

Mr. Ambrose. Would you rephrase that question? I am not sure I 
understand it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any information that relates as to 
whether Mr. Rebozo paid for expenses on behalf of the President re- 
lating to the Key Biscayne property, first of all ? 

Mr. A:mi5Rose. The purchase of it ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Xo. Relating to expenses. 

Senator iMontoya. Expenses. 

Mr. Griffix. I have no absolute knowledge; no. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I was not asking for absolute knowledge. Do you have 
any information? 

Mr. Griffix. I thought he may have paid for some miscellaneous 
things. I am not sure. I know INIr. Abplanalp at one time was going to 
make a gift of something and decided not to do it. I knoAv they were 
talking about putting in a pool table down in Kev Biscayne. I am not 
sure who ])aid for that, who i^ut that in. If it is that important, 
Senator, I could dig out the information. There are several things on 
it that I am sure came up. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Are you sugijesting that there was an item that Mr. 
Abplanalp was going to purchase for the Key Biscayne property that 
he did not purchase but Mr. Rebozo did ? 


Mr. Griffix. He may have. I do not know. I refer specifically to one 
item I know about — tlie pool table. 1 think they put it in down at Key 

Mr! Lexzxer. As a gift ? 

Mr. Griffin. I guess it was a gift or an expense item. 

J\lr. Lenzner. Do you know whether Mr. Abplanalp or Mr. Kebozo 
were reimbursed for that? 

Mr. Griffix. I don't know. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you remember how much it cost? 

Mr. (triffix. I do not know. I can guess for you ; $2,000. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. You do not have to guess. Did you have any involve- 
ment yourself in the expenses that were incurred on behalf of the 
President relating to the Key Biscayne property ? 

Mr. Griffin. No; other than the property held by Mr. Abplanalp 
was once in the President's property. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. The answer is "No"? 

Mr. Griffix. No. 

Mv. IvEXzxer. Do you know of any other items besides the possible 
pool table that Mr. Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo may have purchased on 
behalf of the President for the Key Biscayne property ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, I do not; not offliand. There were certain things 
that were bought by INIr. Abplanalp — gifts. There were certain plaques 

Mr. Lenzner. Things over $1,000 ? 

Mr. Griffix. Not that I recall ; no. I can check it for you. I have had 
no personal experience. Maybe Mr. Abplanalp has; I'll ask him. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know whether Mr. Rebozo or Mr. Abplanalp 
paid for the expenses of heating, maintenance of any kind with regard 
to the Key Biscayne property out of their own funds? 

Mr. Griffix. 1 do not know. They may have tried to. I do not know. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Are you aware of any trust created for the benefit 
of President Richard Nixon, of Charles G. Rebozo, or Miss Rose Mary 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or any trusts created for the benefit of any relative 
or designee of President Richard M. Nixon ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Are you aware of any trusts created by Charles G. 
Rebozo or by Rose ]\Iarv Woods or by President Richard Nixon ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, has Mr. Abplanalp or his Pre- 
cision Valve Corp. or any other corporation of which Mr. Abplanalp 
is an officer or has a controlling interest ever permitted ]Mr. Charles G. 
Rebozo, jNIiss Rose Mary AVoods, or President Richard Nixon to with- 
draw funds from a bank account owned by ]\Ir. Abplanalp or a cor- 
poration in which he has a controlling interest or is an officer of? 

Ml-. Griffix. In my representation of Mr. Abjilanal]:) in this area 
with those corporations. I do not know, but I can ask. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. We would appreciate that. Since January 1, 1969, 
have you made any transfer exceeding $1,000 in value without an 
adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth to Presi- 
dent Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Charles G. Rebozo, or INIiss Rose Mary 


Ml*. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are. you aware whether Mr. Abplanalp or ]Mr. 
Rebozo has paid for expenses or made gifts associated with President 
Nixon's San Clemente estate ? 

Mr. Griffin. I am sorry. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any expenses paid for or gifts 
made by Mr. IJebozo or Mr. Abphmalp related to the President's San 
Clemente estate ? 

Mr. Griffin. It is not the President's San Clemente estate. 

Mr. Armstrong. Related to that portion of the estate, or to that 
portion of the interest that he continues to hold ? 

Mr. Griffin. I think the B. & C. Investment Co. pays part of the 
guard expense, 

Mr. Armstrong. A portion ? 

Mr. Griffin. I am not sure. A guard or what. We have made several 
pa\'ments. I think tliere's a gate guard. I think he's on the property 
owned by B. & C. or on the joint property. It's one of those private 
gates and there is a guard there. We made certain payments as a 
proportionate share of that expense. 

Mr. Armstrong. Any other expenses you are aware of ^ 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr, Armstrong. Any other gifts ? 

Mr. Griffin. There have beeai a lot of gifts made to the President, 
but it's not in the form of cash or dollars. It is in the form of various 
things that Mr. Abplanalp may want to give to the President — 
plaques, nothing of any substantial value. The plaque was over $1,000 
when they had it done. It was a birthday gift. 

Mr. Armstrong, Any associated with the San Clemente estate? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mi'. Abplanalp or Mr. Rebozo to your knowledge 
incur expenses related to the purchase and construction of the pool 
that was added to the President's house at Key Biscayne? 

Mr. Griffin. I think Mr. Abplanalp did. I am ]iot sure about it. He 
may have. I can ask jNIr. Abplanalp and tind out for you. 

Mr. Armstrong. You do have some recollectio]i of that. Mr. Griffin? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

^Ir. ARMS'raoNG. Do you have a recollection 

Mr, Griffin, There is also the maintenance of tlie three-hole golf 
course. I am not counting that. That is on the property in San Cle- 
mente which was done by a group of people out in California, which 
we hare nothing to do with. 

Mr. Armstrong. That is the friends of the Pi-esident, or something? 
With regard to the pool, though, do you ha\e any i-ccollcctioJi of ap- 
proximately when that was [)urchased ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, I do not, 

^Ir, Lenznkr. Do you have any recollection ? 

Mr. GRTFFfN. There was some discussion on it. Maybe Bol) may 
]ia\e advanced t])e funds. I do not Icnow. I can check it foi' you and get 
it foT- yon. 

Mr. Lkn'/nt^r. Do von recall whether there Avas a comnnmication on 
that with Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. Griffin. Probably, 


Mr. Lenzner, Do you know whether Mr. Rebozo advanced any 
funds for tliat ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know. Let me check with Mr. Abplanalp. I 
will get the answer back. 1 do recall something. 

Mr. Lexzner. We'd be interested for the record in who made the 
first initial request for it, how much was paid, what the form of the 
payment was, whether there was any reimbursement, what Mr. Re- 
bozo s role, including what he may have provided, if you know. 
Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me say also, if I can, we would also request and 
appreciate any other items of that nature. I am not talking of plaques 
now, but any substantial expense items that may have been incurred 
on behalf of the Jr'resident by Mr. Abplanalp or Mr. Rebozo to your 

Mr. Griffin. There were substantial expenses incurred by Mr. 
Abplanalp at Grand Key, which is an island the President goes to 
visit. These are expenses that the Government said that he wanted 
to put in, but he refused to do it. He built all the roads there. He built 
gazeboes, the houses, the helicopter. He put in the security. He paid 
for it himself. 

Mr. Lenzner. I was restricting the question to the Key Biscayne 
property. I take it Mr. Rebozo took no expenses on Key Biscayne? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let's restrict it to the Key Biscayne property. 

Mr. Armstrong. The property owned by the President. 

Mr. Lenzner. The property owned by the President. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you acquainted with Mr. James Golden ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Golden is a former secret service agent serv- 
ing with the President. 

When did you become acquainted with Mr. Golden? 

Mr. Griffin. During the lOGS campaign, the 1968 primary. 

Mr. Armstrong. Gan you tell us when you last had any conversation 
or spoke with Mr. Golden i 

Mr. Griitin. I do not know — 6 months ago, 4 months ago. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us the context of that conversation? 

Mr. Griffin. He called to say hello. He had moved and called to 
say hello. I think he was back in Washington then. At one time he 
had transferred jobs and he was out in Las Vegas. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have any discussion at that time relating 
to the so-called Huglios contribution to Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. Griffin. Xone at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or the return of that money ? 

Mr. Griffin. ^^. 

]\Ir. Armstrong. Do you recall prior to that when you had last 
spoken to Mr. Golden ? 

jMr. Griffin. Periodically he calls, I would say like two or three 
times in a year, maybe. 

INIr. Armstrong. Do you recall during the ]:»eriod you held funds 
on behalf of Mr. Rebozo for the return in New York to Mr. Gemmill 
or Mr. Glaeser. do you i-ecall whether Mr. Golden called during that 
period of time or shortl v thereafter ? 


Mr. Griffin. As I said before, I discussed tliose funds with no one 
other than Mr. Kebozo and Mr. Geniniill until they appeared in the 
newspapers sometime in October. You have the article, the day it 
appeared. It is marked as an exhibit. That inchides any discussions 
with Mr. Abplanalp or anybody else. 

Mr. Armstrong. You recall why Mr. Golden mi<2:ht have called you 
on June 10 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I know Jim as a friend. I went to his wedding. I know 
his wife. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he mention having any contacts with the firm 
of Davis and Cox that day ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, lie said hollo. I don't know if he said he was back 
in Washington or North Carolina or someplace, that he was back. 

Mr. Armstrong. The fact that he called Davis and Cox a few 
minutes prior to his call to you would be to vour knowledge, un- 

Mr. Griffin. Totally unrelated. 

Mr. Ambrose. Could you identify Da^'is and Cox ? 

Mr. Armstrong. It is the law firm of which ^Ir. Chester Davis 
is a senior. 

Mr. Ajmbrose. I found out that his oflice was in the same building 
as oure was in New York. I never knew that before. 

Mr. Griffin. All I kneAv was that Mr. Golden was working for 
the Hughes organization or some group out in Tvas Vegas. 

Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to our meeting on January S, 1974, 
in New York, can you tell us who. if anyone, you reported to on the 
substance of that meeting ? 

Mr. Ambrose. I nuist object to the (jucstion. I see no I'elevance what- 
soever to the inquiry. 

Can you explain ii to me ? Obviously, he's discussed it with me. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than counsel. I nm puzzled why the relevance 
is not self-evident. 

Senator Montoya. I do not see anytliing wrong Avith that question? 

Mr. Ambrose. I do. If he wants to talk to anybody about something 
that goes on, there's no prohibition against that. What is the relevance ? 

Is he trying to embarrass this witness ? Is that the ])urpose of it? 

Senator Montoya. You can file through and get some testimony from 
some of the witnesses where they haAc one version on one day and 
one version another day. 

jNIr. Ambrose. The testimony, the discussion was with Mr. Arm- 
strong and Mr. Lackritz, I suspect Mr. Lenzner. Whether he also 
discussed it with anybody in the world has no relevance AA'hatsoever. 
NoAv, it is clear to me, an implication to try to show that tliis witness 
was discussing it all over the ])lace. There is no prohibition on his 
discussing it. I do not think it is relevant. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, did you contact any rejiresentative of 
the White House or the Nixon administration subs(>quent to that 

Mr. Lenzner. With regard to the su])ject ninfter discussed at the 

Mr. Griffin. Which meeting? 

Mr. Armstrong. January 8, 1071. 

Ml'. Ambrosi:. I see no relevance wliatsoever. 


Senator Moxtoya, I'm going to overrule you on that. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall I did. I may have. Not a substantive 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall who you may have talked to ? 

Mr. Griffin. At the White House? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. I do not think I talked to anybody at the White 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall that you talked to Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes ; I talk to Mr. Rebozo three times a week. 

Mr. Armstrong. Regarding our interview on January 8 — can you 
tell us when you talked to him, the substance of that conversation? 

Mr. Griffin. Just a general discussion that I was down there and 
I appeared before you people. Certain areas were discussed. I also 
discussed it with Mr. Abplanalp at that time. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo ask any questions on what the 
particular areas came up ? 

ISIr. Griffin. No; it was a very general conversation. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo specifically ask you whether or 
not Mr. Kalmbach's name had come up 'i 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you tell him whether or not Mr. Kalmbach's 
name had come up ? 

Mr. Griffin. 1 do not think I did. I don't even know whose name 
came up. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you talk to jMr. Rebozo the day that we inter- 
viewed you in New York, on Januaiy 8, 1974 ? 

]Mr. (triffin. I do not know. I just do not know. I may have. I 
really do not know. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have no recollection of placing a phone call? 

]\lr. Griffin. Do you have my telephone records ? 

Mr. Lenzner. No. 

Mr. Ambrose. The answer to the question is, he really did not 

Mr. Griffin. I do not. I may have. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall calling him from New York before or 
immediately after the interview ? 

Mr. Griffin. The interview — no, no ; I did not. 

Downtown New York? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Before or immediately afterwards? 

Mr. Griffin. No; I grabbed a train and went home. I may have 
talked to him that night. I really do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. If you called him, would it have been from your 
office or home phone ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Not from a pay phone ? 

Mr. Griffin. If it were from a pay phone it would be on my 
records because I usually use credit cards. 

Mr. Lenzner. Your recollection now is you have no recollection? 

Mr. Griffin. If I went back and checked my telephone records I 
could tell you whether or not I made a call to a specific number. I do 
not recall whether I talked to Mr. Rebozo that day or not. 


Mr. Lenzner. You have no recollection of calling or communicat- 
ing with anyone who was employed at the White House or who repre- 
sents the White House or the President with i-egard to your interview 
of January 8, 1974 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Buzhardt ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have never talked to ISIr. Buzhardt. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have never discussed the subject of the Hughes 
money to Mr. Rebozo with Mr. Garment? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Or anyone else at the White House ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you discussed it with Mr. Frates ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us when that occurred ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, 

Mr. Armstrong. Shortly after the January 8 meeting? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. In person or telephonically ? 

Mr. Griffin. Probably by telephone, if I did. Mr. Frates does some 
work for us in another area. I may have talked to him in that area. 
I am not sure. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you furnish him or anyone else with a memoran- 
dum reflecting the substance of the interview ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr, Armstrong. Do you recall the last time you spoke with Mr, 
Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Griffin. A couple of weeks ago. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall the substance of that conversation? 

Mr. Griffin. The refinancing of San Clemente ? 

Mr, Armstrong. When you say a couple weeks ago, during this 
month, during April ? 

Mr. Griffin, It might have been, 

Mr, Armstrong. What role did Mr. Kalmbach have ? 

Mr, Griffin, I think it was w ith Frank DeMarco, 

Mr, Lenzner. Do you recall the last time you spoke to Mr. Kalm- 
bach ? 

Mr, Griffin, Within the last month, 

Mr, Armstrong, Have you ever had a discussion with Mr, Kalm- 
bach related to tlie Hughes contribution ? 

Mr, Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first learned that Mr. 
Kalmbach had had a discussion with Mr. Rebozo regarding the use 
of the $100,000? 

Mr. Griffin. Come again ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall when you fii'st learned that Mr. 
Kalmbach had a discussion with Mr. Rebozo regarding the use of 
$100,000 received from Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. Griffin. The use of it ? 


Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Griffin. Or the fact that Mr. Kebozo asked him for advice? 

Mr. Armstrong. Eitlier one. 

Mr. Griffin. 1 am vague on this. I am not sure whether Eebozo 
told me that he had discussed tlie question, getting advice from Kalm- 
bach or not, or read it in a newspaper. 1 liave some recollection that 
Bebe may have said to me that he discussed this with Kahiibach when 
he talked to me about it in May. 1 am not really sure of that. 1 read my 
testimony last time ; I'm stdl not sure of it. 

Mr. Arjnistrong. Do you recall if you made reference to having ad- 
vised Mr. Kahnbach that he used the money in some way i 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. No, he did not make reference to that? 

Mr. Griffin. No reference to that at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first learned that Mr. 
Kahnbach and Mr. Rebozo had spoken of the use of the money ? 

Mr. Ambrose. Say that again. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall the first time when he spoke about 
the use of the contribution ? 

Mr. Griffin. You are talking about Kalmbach's alleged testimony ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Griffin. The first time I read it in the newspapers. 

Mr. Armstrong. The substance. 

Mr. Ambrose. The testimony that was taken, in executive session, 
before this committee, which appeared in the New York Times, is that 
what you have reference to ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I am talking about the substance of the testimony, 
not the fact that it appeared in the New York Times or the fact 

Mr. Ambrose. Is that the testimony you have reference to ? 

Mr. Armstrong. The fact that the allegation that Mr. Rebozo, made 
by Mr. Kahnbach, that he used the money. 

Mr. Griffin. When I read it in the newspapers. 

Mr. Armstrong. Subsequently, have you had any other inde- 
pendent source of knowledge on that subject ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed that with Mr. Frates, that ques- 
tion ? 

Mr. Griffin. I have not. 

Mr. Lenzner. What is your most recent contact with Mr. Frates ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not know, a week ago. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss any aspect of the money Mr. Rebozo 
received from the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. We were not discussing that matter. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have had several discussions, I take it, with Mr. 
Frates with regard to tlie $100,000. 

Mr. Griffin. I had several discussions with Mr. Frates about an 
action taken on my behalf. 

Mr. Lenzner. Nothinsf relating, no discussions with Mr. Frates 
with regard to the $100,000 that Mr. Rebozo received ? 


Mr. Griffin. Maybe just a general discussion that I testified to it. 
Nothing specitic. 

Mr. Lenzner. You furnished him with no information with regard 
to tlie questions or tlie answers that were asl^ed you in January lUTl ? 

Mr. Ambrose. Let's get something straight. Are we not trying to 
find out wlietlier Mr. Griffin is tlie source of leaks to the newspapers 
and to Newsweek magazine, is that the purpose of this inquiry i If 
that is the case, 1 think maybe the Senator ought to start asking you 
people under oath who is leaking these things to the newspapers. This 
is getting a little out of hand and 1 object to it, Senator. 

Mr. Griffin, did you make any statements to the newspapers about 
this case or did you leak the testimony ? 

Mr. Griffix. No. 

Senator Montoya. He answered it no. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, do you recall the last time you spoke 
with Mr. Danner, Richard Danner ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe I've ever spoken with Mr. Danner. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Griffin, you have furnished us with an airplane 
ticket. Does that reflect the first trip you made to Florida to consult 
with Mr. Rebozo with regard to $100,000? It is exhibit 10, Senator. 

Mr. Griffin. We went over this last time. 

Mr. Lenzner. I now- produce an airplane ticket that appears to be, 
w^hich was issued on May 1, 1973. I am asking you, does this ticket 
represent your trip to Florida where you first discussed with Mr. 
Rebozo the question of the $100,000 ? 

Mr. Griffin. I said I thought I had made another trip in late 
April. I may have. I can't find any tickets for it. I testifled to that be- 
fore. You asked me to produce that ticket, which was the May 3 trip 
that I made to Miami, and that is the ticket. 

Mr. Ambrose. The testimony, as I recall, he may or may not have 
discussed this matter with Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying now. sometime in May Mr. Rebozo 
did indicate to you that he had discussed this same subject with Mr. 
Kalmbach '? 

Mr. Griffin. I just do not know. I read over my testimony about 
that. I do not know whether Bebe said to me at one of these meetings 
that he had also asked Herb for some advice. However, Mr. I^enzner. 
I just cannot recall. He may have. I just do not know. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate he and Mr. Kalmbach had met at the 
White House ? 

Mr. Griffin. No, he did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. As I understand, you testified a few moments ago 
that you reported our meeting on January 8, 1971, to Mr. Rebozo, Mr. 
Abplanalp, and Mr. Frates, and of course, you've had discussions watli 
your counsel which we are not interested in. Do you recall if you dis- 
cussed it with anyone else ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was not a report on the testimony. I happened to 
mention it, I believe, that I was down there and testified. It was not a 


le^iort on what 1 testifietl to or what I testified or -svhai the subjects 
weie, the specifics. It was a very ifeneral eoiiversaiioii. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall ii you discussed it with anyone other 
than those three individuals ? 

Mr. Griffin. I discussed it with other individuals. I discussed it 
with my wife. 

Mr. ^\juisTR0NG. Anyone else ? 

Mr. Griffin. Some of my law partners. I also discussed it with 
several other counsel. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you discuss it with anyone else? 

]Mr. Griffin, With about four other lawyers. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do any of those gentlemen represent you ? 

^Ir. Griffin. The}* may. As I am sure vou are aware, I have been 
not only embarrassed by the publicity that lias come out, in my opinion, 
I have been damaged by some of it. I have received very derogatory 
mail. I have lost several clients. And I feel frankly. Senator, that I 
have really been damaged and I have consulted several lawyers 
concerning the question of bringing a lawsuit. 

Mr. AioisTRONG. Other than those consultations, have there been 
any othere ? 

Senator Montoya. About the leakage of the testimony. 

Mr. Griffin. Yes, sir. 

Senator Montoya. I think it it terrible. I agree with you. I do not 
know how to stop it. We have tried to stop it. 

Mr. Griffin. To give you an example just so you know, I'm a 
member of the bank board, and the publicity hits the newspapers up 
there and it's just that with the innuendo in the newspapers — I do 
not know who does it — ^to the fact that the bank puts it to me : "You 
are creating a very bad image for this bank. Maybe you should st«p 
down. ]Maybe you should not be the counsel of this bank. Maybe you 
should not be on this board." 

That to me, is directly related to the newspaper stories and the board 
feels very strongly that these things are hurting the bank and hurting 
me personally. And I have consulted several lawyers concerning that. 

Senator Montoya. I sympathize with you. We have been trying 
to stop these leaks here and we have just met with utter failure. 

Mr. Lenzner. One other question : Did Mr. Rebozo indicate in his 
discussions with you, Mr. GrifRn, whether he had received other con- 
tributions similar to the contribution he had received from the Hughes 
Tool Co., that is, the cash that he had kept in his safe-deposit box ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not believe so. The only thing we discussed, and I 
went down to discuss it, was the question of the $100,000 Hughes 

Mr. Lenzner. He at no other time mentioned to you any other con- 
tribution he had received in cash ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you familiar with Mr. Jack Davis or Mr. 
James Crosby, principals of Resorts International ? 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-5 


Mr. Griffin. I am. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall in Avhat context and when you met 
those gentlemen ? 

Mr. Griffin. The first time I met them I believe was at the inaugu- 
ration in 1969. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had discussions with those gentlemen 
regarding the acquisition of Pan American Airlines sought by Resorts 
International ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall when that was and under what 
circumstances ? 

Mr. Griffin. I do not recall when it was, sometime after January 
1969. It may have been 1970. I don't know exactly when. There was 
one conversation I had with them. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if anyone else was present on that 
occasion ? 

Mr. Griffin. I think Mr. Peloquin. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Peloquin, Mr. Davis 

Mr. Griffin. I believe Mr. Crosby and I believe Mr. Abplanalp. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall where it took place? 

Mr. Griffin. I think we had lunch or dinner and I think it was in 
Washington. I think maybe it was at the Mayflower. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you relate briefly the substance of the con- 
versation ? 

Mr. Griffin. It was a very brief conversation. Apparently, Resorts 
International had obtained options to acquire some stock of Pan 
American, that they were being attacked concerning these options and 
really did not know how to counterattack it in any manner, shape, or 
form. It was just a general discussion as to what they may be able to do. 

I suggested to them that they go around and discuss it with the 
various Senators who were involved. That was about the extent. 

Mr. Armstrong. Senators that were involved ? 

Mr. Griffin. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. In the passage of legislation that restricted them ? 

Mr. Griffin. There were some proposed legislation at that point 
prepared by Senator Magnuson and some others. I suggested that 
they go see the Senators. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did anyone at that meeting suggest that someone 
should talk with the President or some representative of the Executive 

Mr. Griffin. There was no discussion concerning the White House. 

Mr. Armstrong. They made no request of you or Mr. Abplanalp to 
speak to the President on their behalf or any representative of the 
President of what would be so desired from them in order to stave off 
this legislation? 

Mr. Griffin. No. The discussion centered around that they were not 
familiar with Washington, nor was I, and they had this problem. They 
wanted at least to put their best foot forward. I suggested they go see 
the various Senators involved and explain it to them. 


Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, was there any other occasion 
in "hich those gentlemen — that is, Mr. Davis, Mr. Crosby and/or 
Mr. Peloqiiin — -spoke to yourself or Mr. Abplanalp regarding the 
President or the Executive Office of the President? 

Mr. Griffix. There was no discussion of me at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. You are not aware of any with Mr. Abplanalp ? 

Mr. Griffin. I am not aware of any. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were there any discussions on that occasion about 
campaign contributions on the behalf of Resorts International? 

Mr. Griffin. None. 

Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, has the President or has Mr. 
Rebozo or has Mr. Mitchell, the Attorney General, ever maintained a 
large quantity of cash, that is, cash currency in excess of $1,000 in any 
location other than a bank account or a safe-deposit box ? 

Mr. Griffin. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, has the President or Mr. 
Rebozo or Mr. Mitchell ever maintained a large quantity of cash that is 
in excess of $1,000 in any location other than a bank or account or 
safe-deposit box ? 

Mr. Griffin. None that I know of. Mr. Rebozo apparently main- 
tained $100,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than a bank account or a safe-deposit box ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any foreign — that is to say non- 
domestic — bank accounts or safe-deposit boxes that Mr. Rebozo or the 
President had maintained ? 

Mr. Griffin. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. One thing we have used in the past, Senator, which 
has reduced some of the leaking, and that is to put a control on the 
copies of executive session transcripts, and also ask that no notes of 
the interview — I have not taken any, but other people, they have 
taken — not be typed or disseminated, and that if anyone seeks to deter- 
mine what went on, they could perhaps sign up down at Mr. Dash's 
office or someone's office for a copy of the executive session transcripts 
so we have a log of who's had access to it and who hasn't. 

Mr. Ambrose. On that subject, Senator, I think there are other ways 
of establishing who leaked this information, frankly very easily 

I make a representation to you, sir, that we have not under any cir- 
cumstances or do not intend to have some prohibition imposed on me 
that I cannot consult with other lawyers or legal counsel in those 
matters related to this or anything else, and any attempt to put this 
client down for that purpose under the guise of stemming leaks that 
come from this committee seems to me to be highly inappropriate. 

Senator Montoya. I do not think we can prohibit the lawyer from 
taking notes. 

Mr. Lenzner. That was not the purpose, Mr. Ambrose. I hope you 
know that was not the purpose. 


Mr. Ambrose. I want to make sure it is not. 

Mr. Lenzner. No. 

Mr. Ambrose. I am highly suspicious under the circumstances, in 
view of the damage that has been done to my client here, Senator, 
which he has relayed only a portion of. I am, to say the least, very, very 

Mr. Lenzner. In that case, I will withdraw my offer and my sug- 
gestion that we try to restrict access to this information. 

Senator Montoya. I think it should be restricted to anyone. 

Mr. Ambrose. Under the rules of the Senate 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Ambrose, do you have with you the phone 
records of Mr. Griffin presented last time ? 

Mr. Ambrose. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have those in your office up here ? 

Mr. Ambrose. No. Which phone records ? 

Mr. Griffin. Just a minute. There's one thing I do want to put on 
the record concerning those phone records. There were telephone con^ 
versations, telephone calls that I or someone in my office made on the 
27th of June. I asked at that time whether there was anyone that knew 
where Mr. Rebozo was on that day. Mr. Armstrong testified that he 
was at Key Biscayne. 

Mr. Ambrose. You made the statement that he was in Key Biscayne. 
It appears in a transcript. You should not shake your head and say 
you did not because you did. 

Mr. Griffin. That information was totally false. He was not in Key 
Biscayne that day. He was in San Clemente. 

The telephone calls that were made that day to the White House 
switchboard was to find Mr. Rebozo in California through the White 
House switchboard. If I were to call him in Florida, I would have 
called him on the number in Florida. I was under the impression dur- 
ing Mr. Armstrong's testimony, in effect, that Mr. Rebozo was in Key 
Biscayne. He was not. 

Mr. Ambrose. These are the list of phone calls, which I thought we 
had given to the committee on prior occasion, which were extracted 
from the record after you looked it over. Are they not in evidence, 
Mr. Lackritz? 

Mr. Lackritz. That is correct. They are in evidence. 

Mr. Ambrose. If there are any other telephone calls that you'd like, 
I'd be glad to find them. 

Mr. Armstrong. We wanted an opportunity to see the originals. 

Mr. Ambrose. Why don't you come over to my office tomorrow and 
we'll have them there ? 

Senator Montoya. Are we finished ? 

Mr. Armstrong. We will adjourn for the time being. 

[Whereupon, at 3 :55 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 

Griffin Exhibit No. 7 

Grumman Goose Reg. No. N-150M 
Grumman Mallard Reg. No. N-295'< 

Gbiffin ExMiBrr No. 8 


YONKERS. N. Y. 10701 

a5 O O 



."Jx^ ^-^-yJ />aj-^j^jV /Z-^ /^ kx^;'^:;~^ <- /^■'c- 'iv^ 

-'.v, /'-"/■<' '-' ^1 

:-;L!DCG.v: valley 


c:: vTry -^-i^/C ^^ 

»i:osi3"'Dq30i: li'Oi-CQOO i-soi"* 

/CQOO? 23-: £.3/ 


O Szi 










en o 








'J ^ 









6 ^ 







"i -'^s 


Griffin Exhibit No. 9A 


YONKERS. N. Y. 10701 

'•DOO J.5C00CC:'' 

.;:r-;v3 'm:- /.■/■. 


Griffin Exhibit No. 9B 


YOXKKKS. X. Y. J0701 

J Z-^W 



_.— i3> ^i>»«C> 


*i)IJ --^ ■.■ -Ty.^v^i/ 

•OOOD 2"% ua&"=:.'' 

""U vi 

t^ ^, -S O 

"- i > — ^ 

' ^- o 

-^ — ■ CD CVJ 


Griffix Exhibit No. 9C 




YOXICERS. X. Y. 10701 

'^'■^. ^ 

V7~. //J:S-y^^y3y'cy^£' 

;-.w;;^c;.N valley 


1:0 E L i'-'-OSiQir-ii'D l"'OC!Ob.lJ" 20 in" /COOQCEaGuO/ 

•). •;; -:-0A .'.^;jf q 

*** --* T 

— '. foi-i "A •;: -;."0.; ,■;.■. 

J 6 


Griffin Exhibit fso. 10 

Kilt kUA4*w k nu asoT' 


t I f^y 1 




AiA >> A 

T2ii;i55;i9y ' 


i<6T eaw wi (quel i 







/]/£u-} '/o 






/- O/'t n' 

ar7),7J°-""^ 1 

"syr^i -s= 


ivi.;iO(i'J i<i 

' f'**"'^."' '^xyz.iy.'"'"*"'',^""'"" 

'j-H.-''; =^' 

8211155192 2 n 

T- { 


Griffin Exhibit No. 11 

Wednesday, December 12, 1973 

Tax Lawyer Says He Told 

Banker to Return Cash 

to Hughes Lawyer 


Spedat to Til* New York Timei 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — 
One of President Nixon's chief 
advisers in preparing the state- 
ment of his personal finances 
also acted as a key intennedi 
ary in the return of $100,000 
in cash from Charles G. Rebozo, 
the Florida banker, to a lawyer 
for Howard R. Hughes, tlie 
billionaire, it was disclosed to- 

Kenneth W. Gemmill, a Phila- 
delphia tax lawyer who worked 
without pay for a month at the 
White House on last weekend's 
voluminous report of Mr. 
Nixon's financial dealings con- 
firmed today that he had ad- 
vised Mr. Rebozo last spring 
to return the money and make 
a voluntary disclosure on the 
matter to the Internal Revenue 

Mr. Gemmill was identified 
in secret testimony before the 
Senate Watergate committee 
earlier this month as having 
first informed Chester Davis, 
the Hughes lawyer, that Mr. 
Rebozo wished to reutrn the 

Mr. Davis also testified that 
Mr. Gemmill Cold him, "I do 
not care what you do with the 
money after I deliver it to you 
but I want it delivered in cur- 

The disclosure of Mr. Gem- 
null's role in the return of tlie 
Hughes money is the first- 
known connection between any 
uf those involved in the finan- 
C<iil .ispecls of Mr. Nixon's 
"Operation Candor" and th* 
transactions that have thus far 
oi>ine under examination by the 
Sanate Watergate committee or 
other investigative agencies. 

The Watergate committee 
reportedly has taken testimony 
indicating that part of the 
$100,000. which Mr. Nixon has 
called a campaign contribution, 
may have been given by the 
lli;;;lii": iii R.uii.'alinn in return 
fill i.nois fi.iin the' adiiiJiiis- 
Ir.ilion on and other 

From « Third Person'*"" 

At a recent news conference, 
the President described the 
Hughes money as a contribu- 
tion to his reelection campaign 
last year, but said that Mr. 
Rebozo, his close friend, had 
never given the funds to his 
campaign committee for fear 
that the gift "might prove to 
be embarrassing." 

Walter Glaeser, an aide to 
Mr. Davis, told the Watergate 
committee staff in a closed ses- 
sion on Dec. 4 — the same day 
that Mr. Davis testified— that 
1 he had been appointed by Mr. 
Davis to meet Mr. Gemmill in 
a New York bank last June 27 
to receive the refund. 

He arrived at the Marine 
Midland Bank that morning, Mr. 
Glaeser recalled, and met Mr. 
Gemmill, but was told that the 
cash itself would be delivered 
' shortly by a third individual, 
who eventually arrived, indent 
fied himself and handed over 
the money. 

"Was that Mr. William Grif- 
■ fin?" Mr Gleaser was asked 
"It might have been, yes," ht 

Terry F. Lenzner, an assistant 
committee counsel, inquired 
whether Mr. Glaeser was 
"aware at the time that Mr. 
Gnffm represent Mr. Abplan- 

Mr. Glaeser said he had not 
been aware of that. 

Mr. Griffin is the secretary 
of the Precision Valve Corpora- 
tion, which is owned by Robert 
H. Abplanalp, another close 
friend of Mr. Nixon's and, like 
Mr. Rebozo, a multimillionaire 
Mr. Glaeser said that he and 
Mr. Gemmill proceeded to 
count the 1,001 $100 bills that 
Mr. Griffin had handed over, 
checking each one against a 
list of serial numbers that had 
been included in the package. 
He said they fnund one or two 
minor errors, which were sub- 
secjuently corrected. Mr. Davis 
has furnished a copy of the 
list to the Watergate com- 

Despite Mr. Nixon's public 
assertions that the Hughes pay- 
ment was intended as a con- 
tribution for his 1972 campaign 
Mr. Davis insisted repeatedly 
before the committee staff that 
"the money was delivered to 
Mr. Rebozo in 1970 in connec 
tion with the Congressiona 
campaign," and had "absolute 
, ly nothing to do with" the 
1972 election. 

When he was first tele- 
phoned by Mr. Gemmill and 
told of Mr. Rebozo's desire to 
return the $100,000, Mr. Davis 
said, he was unaware that the 
Hughes organization, which he 
represents as general counsel, 
had ever made such a pay- 

He subsequently determined, 
he said, tliat the money was 
to have been used in the 1970 
campaign and that "Mr. Re- 
bozo or the Administration was 
to decide which campaign. Sen- 
atorial or Congressional, was 
to get financial support." 

Reached by telephone at his 
Philadelphia office, Mr. Gemmill 
declared that he had no idea 
why Mr. Rebozo had chosen 
to call him "out out of the 
blue" for advice on the handling 
of the money. 

But, he added, the request 
had "no connection at all" with 
his service as an unpaid advis- 
er to Mr. Nixon. 

"People are always calling 
me from all over the coiin- 
thy," Mr. Gemmill said. 


GRifTiN Exhibit No. ll,> 

; horn the desk ol . . . LUCY AVERSA J ;//// 

l/l^^ooL -^ 53/ ro 







^^xtf i&/.^^t^y-- 

■T^L. /}M/^ 



P. EG. 

NOV 27,42 93 


YONKERS en con 1 






I POST OFFICE BOX 309, YONKEKS. N. Y.^ 1 0702 












Miami Florida 
Credit account Key B 
Key Biscayne FTcrida 
Charles G. Rebozo 

.t i 1 

I Florida Mational Bank i;iYClp. VONKEtS — -- ' 

^__ \t Y. 

i sceyne~5anl< 

n'0«i5iaTn' «:0 2 I 3'"0S 30i: n'CUM>000Ei0'"a0 l"' 

/OQEE 500000.'' 





r oATt 









' 1 


1 j I 

j225J00C( OQ 

j 1 

j i 

! I 

1 • 

i i 
i 1 




1 i 

1 i 


! i 
i i 

1 i 

! ! 

1 i 
1 1 

. i 



J j 
i i 1 

I. i i 

i i 

: : 
i j 
i j 

i i 1 

! I 

1 I 
1 1 

! ! 


1 1 

i i 
j 1 

j 1 
1 ! 

i 1 
j i 
1 j 






^ cxciKajMUi 

CMfCl 0»» 

• vouCHca NO c^oss *jmchjnt 




i «i5l89 


1172717 225.000.00 

225,000.00 j 

ppfrK'ov Vfl|>)f CORPORATION 



vi-vCO* I CHtC^ N-Q- 



172717 J \_ 




i~ . ~i 

■ riorida National Sank ' 

Mla-TiJ Florida - 

Credit account Key Biicayne Bank 
ICey BIscayne Florida 

I Charles G. Rebozo 1 

rO«.Siaq"' 1:0 2 1 3-01 30«: ""O i-'OOO&D'-aO i«" 

r-.iiS' ''V- =»(3/ 



•9 f/^ ■ - 


Griffin Exhibit No. 13 


October 22, 1970 



1. Assume that all transactions take place as 
of November 15, 1970. 

2. Assume a basic return of 8% for all parties 
on investments made. Mortgages are at 7j% but other obligations 
are at 8%. ] •< . • 

:■■'._' 3. "B" investment, as of November 15, 1970, 

including accrued interest at 8% is $677,600. 

7/15/69 $ 450,000. 

' Int. 7/15/69-7/15/70 36,000. 

7/15/70 175,000 

Int. 7/15/70-11/15/70 16,600. 

$ 677,600. 

4. Get tax opinions on all phases of the 

transaction. - > 


5. No fomlal documents at all should be entered 
into between "A", "B" and "C" at this time regarding the 24 re- 
maining acres. There could be an oral understanding between the 
partnership ("B" and "C") and "A" but that is as far as I think 
we should go. At some future time specific agreements could be 
entered into. 

6. To provide that "A" must have final approval 
before anything can be done with the balance of the acreage seems 
too restrictive and this I think should be avoided. 


7. All figures proposed in this outline are 
for example only. In all areas they may be adjusted, such as: 

1. "A's" initial contribution of $42,500, this 
in turn would affect "A's" mortgage amount. 

2. "C's" contribution to "B" on 11/15/70. This 
in turn would affect the amount of mortgage assumption. 

3. Amount of principal paid by "A" at each 
mortgage payment date. 

4. Amount of principal paid by "B" and/or "C" 
at each mortgage date. 


October 22, 1970 

STEP I , ' 

To preserve the present trust Instrument, thus 
avoiding the recording of any documents which could create 
unwanted publicity and on the further ground that the present 
holders of the note will not pro-rate said note over two or 
more separate parcels^ "A" would sell his entire Interest to 
"B" and "C". In effect "B" and "C" would succeed to the bene- 
ficial interest in "A's" trust. This transaction would be done 
at "A's" cost as of November 15, 1970 (cost being defined as 
"A's" original base plus any and all amounts expended, as 
apportioned, for improvements, taxes, carrying charges, interest 
expense, etc. from the date of purchase to disposition date). 
For the purposes of this memorandum I have assumed that 
$1,650,000 would be the adjusted cost of the entire interest 
presently held by "A". (This adjusted cost would include the 
adjustments that would be made as of November 15, 1970 for 
interest on the obligations, etc.). • t • v 

The acquisition would be paid for in the following 

1. "B" and "C" would assume the present mortgages 
on the property which presently amount to $964,000. 

2. "B" would cancel the present obligations existing 
between "B" and "A" together with the accrued interest which 
amounts to, as of November 15, 1970, $677,600; and 


3. A cash payment from "B" and "C" to "A" in the 

amount of $8,400. 

f . 1. $ 964,000 

'"<• \ 2. 677,600 

-- 3. 8,400 

. . ' $ 1,650,000 

. ' . C: .T "A" would be responsible for taxes and other 

expenses through November 15, 1970. •. , ^. ; ,' . 

QUESTIONS: ' ■ . " - ' '■'' --v"" ;Tv ., ^-' .,-•->-'■. v^-; ■ 

1. What are the tax consequences for "A" since 
there in effect would be a repurchase of a portion of this 
property? Would there be any recognition of gain or loss to 
"A" on the sale and repurchase as outlined below? 

2. What is "A's" actual adjusted cost as of 
November 15, 1970? 

en:. 3^ jg there a deferment of gain or loss under 


the like kind rule on the repurchase? -^ v*-'«J' -i-' '^o* '^ s^./.^ J-;,-^ 

4. Has "A" taken a deduction on his tax return 
the amount of interest presently owed to "B"? 

5. If "A's" note to "B", plus accrued interest, 
is included as being part of the purchase price does "B" have 
constructive receipt of the interest and thus would he be taxed 
on ordinary income? 


31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - S 


STEP II .; , <^n' }.,.!• -r:.w-- <■..", ;. ., ., - _ ..... . "^?, .;:=-' 

On November 15, 1970 there would be immediate 
resale of a portion of the property from "B" and "C" to. "A". 
This land sale would cover the present residence, four or 
five acres of ground surrounding the residence, a portion 
of the shoreline and an easement over the balance of the ^ 
beach property. The price for this would be $340,000 (as 
per appraisal) plus or minus any adjustments that may be 
made at the time of the transaction. The purchase of this ,. 
property would be paid for as follows: „, v' , -i ,»j«,^i» *'. Vj 
(1) Cash of $50,000 from "A" to "B" and "C"; 
(ii) Mortgage in the amount of $290,000, plus 
or minus adjustments which would conform in principle to the 
terms of the overriding first mortgages on the premises and 
have the same interest rates. Thus "A" would on the various 
mortgage dates presently in existence make the payments to "B" 
and "C" which are indicated on the outline attached. 

Of course, the amount of payments, and the amount 
of downpayment may be adjusted to suit the needs of "A". Doth 
"B" and "C" will conform their documents and the payments to 
those desired by "A" and those which fit into "A's" present 

On July 15, 1974 several options are open to avoid 
the balloon payment, for example, refinancing, sale, extension, etc. 


In addition to the above, an agreement would be 
worked out concerning apportionments. In effect "A" would be. 
liable for his share of taxes, insurance, utilities, etc. and 
"B" and "C" would be liable for the total costs of maintaining 
the remaining property. Further, "B" and "C" would be directly 
liable for the mortgage obligations of $964,000 plus interest. 

STEP III " . - \j. -. 

On November 15, 1970 "B" and "C" would enter 
into a partnership agreement. This agreement would provide 
for all contingencies including ownership, division of obliga- 
tions, buy-out, buy-sell, pay-out of mortgages, etc. This 
agreement would be a personal one between "B" and "C" and it 
would carry out the steps above enumerated. 

QUESTION: ,. .^.-,,. .: - ^ . -^ , 

(1) Does partnership a'cquislon satisfy tax 
statute for deferment of tax where one individual of the , 
partnership has had an involuntary conversion of some other 

■ -^ As can be seen from the steps taken, there would 
be in the hands of "B" and "C" a 24-acre piece of land at a 
cost of $1,310,000, composed of the following: 


h^j.->' (a) Mortgage net (964-290) 674,000 

;-■ (b) ' "B's" contribution of loan 
•.*■'.' plus accrued interest 677,600 

., V- '• (c) Cash from "A" to "B" and "C 

■,,Vpr.jj^ net ($50,000 minus 8,400) (41,600 ) 

:C^^^^'^ -.3. TOTAL , ; ■ '- 1,310,000 

• It is assumed that "B" and "C" will be equal, 
partners each assuming 50% of the ownership and 50% of the , ' 
liability. Thus, if the cash of $41,600 were given to "B" 
on November 15, 1970 there would be the net mortgage obliga- 
tion of $674,000 and "B's" contribution of $636,000. "B" and 
"C" each would be responsible for $337,000 of the mortgage and 
"C" would repay "B" the sum of $318,000. This sum could be 
repaid by a cash contribution on November 15, 1970 in an 
amount to be determined and the balance thereof be taken on 
as an assumption of "B's" mortgage obligation. For example, 
if "C" were to pay "B" $100,000 on November 15, 1970 then 
"B's" and "C's" obligation under the mortgage would be as 
follows: ' ' . "• ■"" / ' 

"B" $ 119,000 

"C" 555,000 

$ 674,000 
Of course, based upon what cash would be forthcoming, these 
figures would be adjusted accordingly. 

(1) \ 

July 15, 1971 1 
2nd Payment Large Mortgage 



'A" Interest on $900,000 from 

'A" Principal and interest on 

$270,000 (290,000 less 20,000 
applied to smaller mortgage) 
.30% factor 


'B" Principal and interest on 

$100,000 (119,000 less 19,000 
applied to smaller mortgage) 
11% factor 

:" Principal and interest on 

$530,000 (555,000 less 25,000 
applied to smaller mortgage) 
59% factor 

Interest Principal 

$ 22,500 

13,500- $ 30.000 

5,000 11,000 




$ 22,500 

43 , 500 




$ 67,500 $100,000 


10812 ' 

■ .• ' (2) 

* October 15, 1971 
2nd Payment Smaller Note 

Party Item Interest Principal Total 

"A" Interest on 64,000 from 
10/15/70 to 11/15/70 

"A" Interest and principal on 
$20,000 (30% factor) 

"B" Interest and principal on 
$19,000 (30% factor) 

"C" Interest and principal on 

$25,000 (40% factor) ; 

TOTAL ' ' ;: ': :':.'■ . . 

$ 400. 

$ 400. 


$ 4,800 




. 6,105 

1 ,720 







; (3) 

July 15, 1972 
3rd Payment Large Mortgage 



"A" Principal and . interest on 
> $240,000 V ^ \^: ' 

"B" Principal and interest on 

"C" Principal and interest on 
$471,000 . - : 


Interest Principal Total 

$ 18,000 $ 30,000 $ 48,000 

6,675 11,000 17,675 

35,325 59,000 94,325 

$ 60,000 $100,000 $160,000 






October 15, 1972 
3rd Payment Small Mortgage 

Party Item . Interest Principal Total 

"A" Interest and principal on 

$15,200 .^ $ 1,140 $ 4,800 $ 5,940 

"B" Interest and principal on 

$14,200 1,065 4,800 5,865 

"C" Interest and principal on 

$18,600 1,395 . 6,400 7,795 

TOTAL , ■ $ 3,600 $16,000 $19,600 


• • (5) 

July 15, 1973 
4th Payment Large Mortgage 

Party Item Interest Principal Total 

"A" Principal and interest on 

$210,000 $ 15,750 $ 30,000 $45,750 

"B" Principal and interest on ■ 

$78,000 5,850 11,000 16,850 

"C" Principal and Interest on 

$412,000 30,900 59,000 89,900 

TOTAL =:''..', '•'-■ ^' ^ $ 52,500 $100,000 $152,500 


October 15, 1973 
4th Pajnnent Small Mortgage 

Party I tem Interest Principal Total 

"A" Interest and principal on 

$10,400 $ 780 $ 4,800 $ 5,580 

"B" Interest and principal on 

$9,400 705' 4,800 5,505 

"C" ' Interest and principal on • 

$12,200 _ . 915 6,400 7,315 

TOTAL ^ ;. ,;-.;;■ jc/^c , .^ $ 2,400 $ 16,000 $ 18,400 

(7) - 

July 15, 1974 
Last Payment Large Mortgage 

Party Item Interest Principal Total 

"A" Principal and interest on 

$180,000 $ 13,500* $ 180,000 $ 193,500 

"B" Principal and interest on 

$67,000 5,025* 67,000 72,025 

"C" Principal and interest on 

$353,000. . 26,475*' 353,000 379,475 

TOTAL :'''..••.-"- $45,000 $600,000 $645,000 

*NOTE: Balloon may be taken care of with several alternatives. 


October 15, 1974 
Last Payment Small Mortgage 



$ 420 

$ 5,600 



Interest and 



$ 6,020 


Interest and 



345 "^^ 

' :^ 4,600 



Interest and 

% 0.-. .,■%-. 3. •? 







$1 , 200 




Griffin Exhibit No. 14 

Total Amount of Funds Given to the 
B. & C. Investment Company by Charles G» Rebozo 
for the Period January 1. 1973 through August 15, 1973 

Date V'^;^- :' Amoiint 

Januarys, 1973 $17,829.00 

March 28, 1973 : 4,000.00 

May 15, .1973 5,280.41 

' Total for 1973 $27,109.41 


Gribtin Exhibit No. 15 

Total Amount of Funds Given to the 
B. fc C. Investment Company by Charles G. Rebozo 
for 'the Period Jfanuary 1. 1971 through December 31." 1972 

Date . • Amount 

January 1, 1971 $25,000.00 

July 7, 1971 86,250.00 

December 7, 1971 12,946.00 

March 29,: ,1972 , v:: $ 7,554.00 
July 19, 1972 50,000.00 

September 19, 1972 54,293.40 


Total for 1971-1972 $236,043.40 

■ 10821 




3 ( 


'■' ■-•y*» 

>as3q?5«' i:o?»5-oq*[K ""Oi*- 

^OO k 50O000O/ 



(tkrFFi.v KxHiBir No. 1] 

f*^ »:o?i»«o«t»D= 

i /OOW.5nO0CM3/ 



(jtRifTix Exhibit Xo. is 

OF ^ wi 'i .; 

undersigned, ROBERT H. ABPLANALP and C. G. REBOZO, as 
General Partners on December 15, 1970 at New York, New 
York. The partners desire to form a general partnership 
for the sole purpose of acquiring, as an investment, all 
of the beneficial interest in and to the real property :.; 
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (hereinafter 
sometimes referred to as the "Investment"). The partners 
intend that this partnership shall be limited to the fore- 
going and such ancillary activities as may be necessary or 
desirable to effectuate such purpose. 

The partners therefore mutually agree as follows: 


The partners hereby form a general partnership 
pursuant to the provisions of the Partnership Lav; of the 
State of New York as set forth in McKenney's Consolidated > 
Laws of New York, Book 38, "Partnership Law". ,^, ,. 

II ...; : :,-:_: J ■>-:■< - ...ij. "v 
The express, limited and only purposes for which 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-7 



this partnership is to exist, unless otherwise mutually- 
agreed by the partners, are to engage in the business 
of acquiring and holding as an investment, the Invest- 

In view of the exclusive purposes of the 
partnership, the partners shall not have any fiduciary 
obligations with respect to the partnership or to each 
other insofar as making other investment opportunities 
available to the partnership or to the other partners. 
The fiduciary obligations of the partners shall there- 
fore be limited to those arising from the actual acquisi- 
tion and holding of the Investment. 

... - III . . • 

This partnership shall be known as and shall 
operate under the name of B. & C. INVESTMENT COMPANY 
(hereinafter referred to as the "partnership") , 

The principal place of business of the partner- 
ship shall be 30 South Broadway, Yonkers, New York, 10703, 
or such other place or places of business as may be desig- 
nated by the partners from time to time. A Statement of 
Partnership shall be executed, acknowledged and recorded, 
as provided by California law if necessary in connection 
with further disposition, development or sale of the 
Investment or a portion thereof. 

IV ■■■:■■ "■■ ■■ , ; 


The term of this partnership shall commence as 


of Jie date hereof and shall exist until December 15, 
1990/ unless sooner terminated as provided herein. 




The total initial capital contribution of 
each of the partners to the partnership shall be the 
sura of Six Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars 
($625/000.00)/ which shall be contributed in the follow- 
ing manner: 

(a) ROBERT H. ABPLANALP does hereby assign 
and transfer to the partnership those certain promissory 
notes payable to his order dated July 15, 1969 and July 
15, 1970 in the principal sums of $450,000.00 and 
$175/000.00, respectively, executed by Richard M. Nixon 
and Patricia Nixon, husband and wife. The partnership 
does hereby acknowledge receipt, transfer and endorsement 
of said notes to the partnership by Robert H. Abplanalp. 

(b) C. G. REBOZO does herewith make, execute 
and deliver to the partnership, payable to the partnership, 
his personal/ unsecured promissory note in the principal 
sum of $600/000.00, payable on or before July 15, 1974 

and bearing interest at the rate of 7 1/2 percent per 
annum; together with the sum of $25,000.00 in cash; 
receipt of the note and the cash is hereby acknowledged 
by the partnership. 

(c) The partners acknov/ledge that the note 
referred to in subparagraph (b) hereinabove shall be pay- 
able at the times and concurrently with payments which 
tjiis partnership may become obligated to pay in connection 


with a prorata portion of the existing encumbrances 
which constitute a lien against the beneficial interest 
in the real property which constitutes the Investment 
being acquired by this partnership. It is the spirit, 
purpose and intent of this provision to provide that pay- 
ments on the capital contribution note of C. G. REBOZO 
shall be made to the partnership for the purpose of pro- 
viding the partnership with funds with which to discharge 
such existing encumbrances against the Investment. 

(d) The partners shall have the right, from 
time to time, to loan or advance sums to the partnership 
and in such event shall be entitled to repayment of said 
s\ims as in the case of any creditor of the partnership. 

■ >: ' .. .. K 'V-- ■■ VI 

-^ : r\ 3 - ,1 : PROFITS AND LOSSES 

The net profits of the partnership shall be 
credited to the partners equally and the net losses, if 
any, shall be charged to the partners equally. The 
partners shall have equal and mutual interest in the 
partnership and its equities. » . . 

.. .. ' , VII 
(a) An individual capital account shall be 
maintained for each partner. The capital of each partner 
shall consist of his original contributions, increased by: 
(1) any additional capital contributions made, and (2) 
his proportionate share of partnership profits transferred 
to capital, and decreased by: (1) distributions in 


reduction of partnership capital, and (2) his propor- 
tionate share of partnership losses, if charged to 
capital . 

(b) An individual drawing account shall be -^ 
maintained for each partner. Each partner's share of 
the partnership profits shall be credited to his drawing 
account. Each partner's share of partnership losses and 
each parther's withdrawals shall be charged to his draw- 
ing accouht. A credit balance in a partner's drawing 
account shall constitute a liability of the partnership 
to that partner; it shall not constitute a part of the 
partner's' capital or of his interest in the capital of the 
partnership. A debit balance in a partner's drawing 
account, occasioned by drawings in excess of his sliare 

of partnership profits, shall constitute an obligation of 
that partner to the partnership and shall not reduce his 
capital account or his interest in the capital of the 
partnership. ?.■.:;. 

(c) Anything to the contrary hereinabove in 
this article, or in this agreement, notwithstanding, in 
the event of a sale, trade or exchange of the Investment, 
or any of the property of the partnership, the partners 
shall be entitled to recoup the full amount of their 
invested capital, together with any additional capital 
contributions made by either of them, prior to the 
prorata distribution of the proceeds, gains or profits 

on such sale, trade or exchange in the proportions of 
their interests in profits and losses. 


V ■ ' VIII 


(a) The partners may not sell, transfer, hypoth- 
ecate or pledge their respective interests as partners in 
this partnership to any other person, without having first 
received the written approval thereof by the other partner, 

(b) New or additional partners may be admitted 
to this partnership, from time to time, upon the express 
written consent of each of the existing partners. 

• ;.•'•.•"■'-. '.■<v,-"- '-'^ ••::,•-■ T IX .-_;■ ",. : ;•■—■•.. 
(a) The partnership books of account shall be 
kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting 
principles. The books shall be kept at the principal 
place of business of the partnership, or such other place 
as the partners shall agree. With respect to the financial 
affairs of the partnership, the following provisions shall 

(1) The cash basis of accounting shall be 
employed ; . - . 

(2) The fiscal year shall be the calendar 

. (3) Balance sheets and statement of income 

and expenses shall be rendered at least annually; 

. . • (4) Each of the partners shall be supplied 
copies of the partnership Federal income tax 
; information returns. 

(b) Each of the partners shall have the right 


to examine all accounting records, reports and other 
documents of the partnership at all reasonable times, 
by agent, attorney, accountant or other representatives, 



(a) Subject to the limitations hereinafter 
set forth, all operations of and decisions concerning 
the business of the partnership shall be made by the 
partners acting jointly and mutually. 

(b) The partners shall not commit any of the 
following acts : 

(1) Do any act in contravention of the 
partnership agreement; 

(2) Do any act which would make it 
impossible to carry on the ordinary business 
of the partnership; 

(3) Confess a judgment against the 
partnership;,^^ ^^ 

(4) Make any agreement to dispose of all 
or any portion of the investment without the 
prior written approval of the other partners. 

(c) The partners shall not be required to devote 
full time to the partnership but only such time as is 
reasonably required to conduct the affairs of the partner- 
ship. In this respect, partners may employ on behalf of 
the partnership such persons, firms or corporations as in 
their discretion and judgment they deem advisable for the 
proper operation of the business of the partnership, 
including, without limitation, legal counsel, auditors. 


consultants and management services, 

(d) Neither partner shall receive any salary 
manager's fee or other compensation unless otherwise 
specifically provided herein or mutually agreed between 
the partners. 

(e) The partners shall not be authorized to 
bind the partnership or to execute any instruments and 
other documents , including those for the borrowing of 
funds and pledging or hypothecating assets of this 
partnership and conveying of its assets, except on the 
joint signatures of the partners. :- 

- - • i-^ -'■■•^- ■-.- ■ . ::^ XI '^-^ ' --' 
In the event that any partner shall (i) make 
an assignment/ general or special, for the benefit of 
his creditors, or (ii) file any petition for any relief 
under the bankruptcy laws of the United States, or for 
any other law of the United ^tates or any state for the 
relief of debtors, or (iii) should the Investment, or 
any portion thereof, or any interest therein, or any 
interest in the partnership be levied upon or otherwise 
be subject to claims of the creditors of the partners 
or come in the possession of a receiver appointed for the 
partner (except in an action to enforce a properly 
authorized obligation of the partnership) and should the 
same not be dismissed within ninety (90) days, or (iv) 
should control of the affairs of either partner in any 
manner come under the jurisdiction of any court in any 


insolvency proceeding or action in bankruptcy, arrange- 
ment for the benefit of creditors / receivership or 
other judicial or governmental action with respect to 
debtor relief and not be dismissed within ninety (90) 
days, or (v) should either partner breach any of his 
obligations hereunder, and in the further event that such 
breach in obligations is not cured after thirty (30) 
days' prior written notice from the other partner, such 
events shall be deemed to be events of default hereunder. 
In the event of default, the non-defaulting partner may, 
at his sole and absolute option, take either of the 
following actions: 

(a) Dissolve the partnership and wind up its 
affairs, in which case the creditors of the partnership 
shall be paid and the assets of the partnership shall be 
distributed to the partners pursuant to this paragraph 
and Article XIV hereinafter. The defaulting partner shall 
execute, or cause its legal representative to execute, 

all documents necessary to effect dissolution and winding 
up, and shall have only the right to receive, upon a final 
winding up of the affairs of the partnership, the distri- 
butive share to which he would have been entitled on a 
winding up had such event not occurred, less all damages 
resulting from a breach, and the costs, expenses and 
losses incurred and resulting from the winding up of the 
affairs of the partnership; or 

(b) The non-defaulting partner shall have the 
right to continue the business of the partnership for an 
indefinite length of time under its present name by 


himself or in conjunction with such other person or 
persons as he may select, but the non-defaulting partner 
shall account to the defaulting partner for the value 
of his interest in the partnership as provided herein 
with payment of such computed sums to be paid to the 
defaulting partner in the form of a non-interest bearing 
unsecured note of this partnership, payable in ten (10) 
equal annual installments commencing one (1) year from 
the -event of default.. The sole interest of such default- 
ing partner shall be the sum of the lower of his capital 
account or proportionate share (using share in profits 
and losses to form the ratios) of the market value of 
the Investment as of the date of dissolution and his in- 
come (loss) at the time of dissolution shall be added 
to (subtracted from) his capital account. 

■':''■ . - • . / XII ■■ ■" - ^- 

•^ .: In the event of the death or adjudicated incom- 
petency of a partner, the remaining partner shall 
terminate and liquidate the partnership business, unless 
he elects to purchase the interest of the deceased or 
incompetent partner pursuant to Article XIII hereof. In 
the event of such election to purchase, notice in writing 
of such election shall be given within ninety (90) days 
after the death or adjudication of incompetency to the 
personal representative of the decedent or incompetent. 
If no such election is made, the partnership 
shall be dissolved with reasonable promptness. The 


procedure as to liquidation and distribution of the wj 
assets of the partnership shall be as set forth in , fz 
Article XIV hereof. - 

- ' - ^i ' XIII ... , „.; .* -^ 


' In the event of the election to purchase the 
interest of a deceased or incompetent partner, pursuant 
to Article XII hereof, the purchase price of such 
interest in the partnership shall be determined by 
appraisal of the partnership assets and liabilities as of 
the date of the death or adjudication of incompetency of 
such partner. Such date shall be deemed the "date of 
purchase" and of passing of title. In making the appraisal, 
there shall be taken into account all assets and liabilities 
of the partnership and the assets shall be valued at the 
fair market value thereof at the date of purchase. The 
extent of the interest to be sold shall be determined by 
giving consideration to the extent of all capital accounts 
and the respective partners' proportionate shares of 
partnership net income or net losses realized to the date 
of purchase. _- ■ . 

The appraisal shall be made by an appraiser 
selected by agreement of the purchasing partner and the 
personal representative of the deceased or incompetent --, 
partner. If no agreement can be made, the appraisal 
shall be made by three arbitrators, one selected by the 
purchasing partner, one by the personal representative 
of the partner whose interest is to be purchased, and the 


two so selected shall name the third. The arbitrators 
shall be governed by the rules then in effect of the 
American Arbitration Association. 

The purchase price shall be paid in three (3) 
equal annual installments, beginning two (2) months after 
the appraisal is made. Interest at six percent (6%) per 
annum shall be paid on the unpaid balance of the purchase 
price, .beginning as of the date of purchase. 

._. ... - ■ XIV . - - 

-yF-" - * .> . - 


.,v Upon termination of the partnership business 
by agreement of the partners , by expiration of the terra 
thereof, or for any other reason, the partnership's 
liabilities and obligations to creditors shall be paid 
or otherwise adequately provided for, and its assets or 
the proceeds of sale thereof shall then be distributed 
in the following order: - ■ " • . 

,.. .. (a) To each partner, any amount credited to 
his drawing account which has not been distributed. 

(b) To each partner, the credit balance in 
his capital account. 

The profits and losses of the partnership, 
if any, during the period of liquidation shall be credited 
or charged to the partners in the proportions set forth in 
Article VI hereof. \ -. 


Any gain or loss in disposition of partnership 
properties in the process of liquidation shall be credited 
or charged to the partners in the proportions of their 
interests in profits and losses. Any property distributed 
in kind in the liquidation shall be valued and treated as 
though the property were sold and the cash proceeds were 
distributed. The difference between the value of property 
distributed in kind and its book value shall be treated as 
a gain or loss on sale of the property and shall be 
credited or charged to the partners in the proportions of 
their interest in profits or losses. .... ...w». . • .. 

,: V : .: - :,: ■ XVI , -., :,;. ; ,y . ,, 
'.^. - DISSOLUTION M -:- ^.. ^^-.,, , ^ 
This partnership may be dissolved prior to the 
term specified in Article IV upon the mutual agreement 
of the partners, or for any reason authorizing a dissolution 
pursuant to the Partnership- Law of the State of New York. 

•■ r _ .^ :v^ - ui XVII ■ ' 

The partnership shall maintain bank accounts 
at such banks as the partners shall determine. All funds 
of the partnership shall be deposited in the partnership 
name and shall be subject to. payment by check upon the 
signature of either partner. .t-'i^.-:.,c i* -j i. 

rtO if-y J 


The partners agree to execute any instrioments 
and to perform any further acts which are or may become 
necessary to effectuate and carry out the partnership 
created by this agreement. - • 

■ •.■'■■ ■■■'■ ■; " ■■■■■ ■- ■ • ■'"■'' XIX •■ \. ■•■'•' '^ . '.- ■-.' 

" ' ■ . '■ NOTICES ■ '■■: 

All notices required under this agreement 
shall be delivered in person or may be mailed by certified 
or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage 
prepaid, addressed to the partners at such addresses as 
are set forth opposite their respective signatures to 
this agreement, or such other address as may be given by 
any partner. All notices shall be deemed delivered 48 
hours after deposit in the United States mail as herein 
pi:ovided . 

XX -- ■ - i.. 

Captions of the articles set forth in this 
agreement are for convenience only and shall not be con- 
sidered or referred to in resolving questions or interpre- 
tation or construction. The language in all parts of this 
agreement shall be in all cases construed as a whole and 
according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or 
against any of the partners. 



If the partnership or either partner on behalf 
of the partnership is a party to an action to enforce 
any of the terms of this agreement or of any other con- 
tracts relating to the partnership affairs or this agree- 
ment, the partnership or such partner, if it or he pre- 
vails, shall be entitled to recover its or his costs, in- 
cluding reasonable attorneys ' fees , incurred in prosecut- 
ing or defending the action. 


This agreement is subject to amendment only upon 
the mutual consent of both of the partners. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the partners have hereunto 
affixed their respective hands as of the day, month and 
year first above written. 

Address for purpose c/o William Griffin', Esq. 
of notice hereunder: v?«> 6^ South Broadway 

Yonkers, New York 1070 1 

-"'^ ^ ' 7? .>* 

C. G. REBOZO \^ 
Address for purpose Key Biscayne Bank 
of notice hereunder: Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 


". • OF 


.. s.-i . • ', December 15, 1970 

.• All right, title and beneficial interest in and 
to certain real property in the County of Orange, State of 
California, more particularly described in a certain 
Declaration of Trust, number PR-17327, on file at Title 
Insurance and Trust Company, 433 South Spring Street, Los 
Angeles, California, dated April 25, 1970, EXCEPTING THERE- 
FROM, however, all right, title and beneficial interest in- 
to that portion of said property heretofore sequestered and 
reserved by the present beneficiaries of said trust as and 
for a homesite, which sequestered portion is described by 
metes and bounds as follows: . ;: 





December 15, 1970 

All right, title and beneficial interest in ^nd 
to the following described portion only of that certain real 
property in the County of Orange, State of California, which 
is the subject matter of and is more particularly described 
in a certain Declaration of Trust, No. PR-17327, on file at 
Title Insurance and Trust Company, 433 South Spring Street, 
Los Angeles, California, dated April 25, 1970, the remaining 
portion of the property described in said Declaration of Trust 
having been heretofore sequestered and reserved by the present 
beneficiaries of said trust as and for a homesite; said portion 
which is the Subject Matter of this agreement being described 
as follows: 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 


P arcel 1 (Rcrainins Property F^stcrly of Railv/ny Richt-of~V/ay) 

That portion of Ssction 1^, Tov.Tiship 9 Soutli, Hanse 7 V/est, San Bernardino 
Ibriclian, in the City of San CloirDnte, County of Oransc, State of California^ 
according to the official plat of said land, dcscrlbod as follov;s: 

Beginning at the most Easterly comer of Lot "D", Tract Ho. 1202, as shovm 
on a mp thereof recorded in Book 152, P^s^s 3U to 36 iJiclusivo of I'lscellaneous 
)&ps, records of said Coirity of Orangej thence along the Southeasterly boundary 
Of said Tract Mo. I;202 ths folla.nns courses: South I460 06' CO" West, 2h7.93 
feet, South-.vestsrly (j$,80 feet along a curve, ccicave Southeasterly, having a 
radius of liBCCO feet rr.d a central angle of 10° Ih' 30", South 37'^ $1* 30" 
TTcst. 110.36 feet, South 37° 10' 30" ^est, liO^.^l feet, South 35° 53' 30" "Jest, 
172. f;5 feet to the bsginning of a cur-/e thsreon, having a radius of 90.00 feet 
and a leng-th of 78,05 fest; thence leavLng said Southeast-nrlv boandary of Tract 
Ho. 1|202, South 63° 21' 50" East, 32.23 feet; thence llorth 63° 21' 50" East, 
117,83 feet; thence South 77° li2' CO" East, 153.25 feet; thence Moz-th h5° OS" 00" 
East, 6I4.62 feet; thence South hl° 51' 00" East, I47.U8 feet to the beginning of 
a tangent curve, concave South.vesterly and hp.'/ing a radius of 25,00 fe3t; thence 
in a Southerly dii'3cticn along the arc of the above rsntloned cui've, thorough a 
central an^le of 55° hS' lO", a distance of 25.33 feet; thsnce South 10° 57' lo" 
West. 5^.0v') fe?t to the beginning of a ting^nt cvxve, concave Sasterlv and having 
a radius of DUj3«00 feetj tliejice in a Southerly direction along the arc of the 
above E^ntioned curve, through a central angle of 19° 12' CO", a distance of 
383.02 rczt; thonce South 87° li7' lO" T.est, 3l6,l4l feet; th=nce South 67° 19' 19" 
Vest, 111. 23 feet to a point on the Easterly r5 ght-oiV/ay line of the Atchison, 
Topolca and Santa re P.ailv/ay Corn^sjiy, as described in a deed datod Hoverber 15, 
1886, ard recorded in Book lo7. Page 13 of L'eef^s, records of Los Angeles Co'j^-.ty, 
California, said Easterly righ.t--of--ay line being a crjrve, concave Horthoast-srly 
and havi:ig a radius of 23?J4.93 feet, a radial line to the center of said curve 
bsars'llorth 67° 19' 1?" East; thence in a Southeasterly direction aJ-ong the arc 
of. the above rentioned carve, through a central angle of 0° 37' 19" > a distp.nce 
of 30.55 feet; thence continuing along said Ev'.sterly right-of-r/ay line. North 
23° 16' 00" '.Test, 165.29 feet to an intersection v/ith the Easterly right-of-v.-ay 
line of the Atchison, Tops'.ca and Santa ?e Rai.l'.-ay Corpany, as described in a 
deed recorded .'Zay 19, 1933;» in Book 9liO, Page 321 of Official Records of said 

County of Orange, said point of intersection being a point on a non-tangsnt curve, 
concave Northeasterly and having a radius of 2311i.93 feet, a radial line to the 
center of said curve bead's Horth 6h° 02' 03" East; thence coniinuing along said 
Easterly right-of-r/ay line and said curve, through a central angle of 7° 16' 28", 
a distance of 357.39 feet; thence Koi-th $6° h5' 35" East, 50.00 feet to the 
beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave "ortheasterly and having a radius of 
27611.93 feet, a radial line to the center of said curve bears llorth 56° 1*5' 35" 
East; thence in a Southeas-i^-^rly dii'ection along the arc of the above iKntioned 
cm-ve, through a central a^igle of 5° 03' 58", a distance of 2l4b.li8 feet to an 
intersection with the boundary line betv.-een Orange and San Diego Counties; 
thence leaving said Easterly Railway right-of*-v;ay Hine and foUov/ing said County 
bomdary line, Ilorth 12=^ 26'' 22" East, IC3I.9U feet to the rost flortheasterly 
corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed by deed recorded October 13, l?69j 
in Book 910!i, Page 922 of Official Records of said Orange County; tlience leaving 
said County boundary and fo?.lov/ing the Ilorbhcrly boundai-y of said property con~ 
veycd by deed recorded October 13, 1969, 'lorth 77° 33' 30" V.'cst, 257.06 feet; 
thence South 76° 16' 05" T/est, 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. 

The above described parcel of land contains 16.356 Acres, 


VfMC'hy \:-':;«.7ni- 

'^'r"V)»at -pc-rtion of S2C^■•■on 15, Ya-.-nohip 9 South, Ran^C' 7 T/cst, Satv IJcrnardiao 
l'oridir.n, in tha City of ,-in Clercnt^, County of Oi-rn^dJ Jtate of Calif oi-nia, 
official plat of said land, described as foUov/s: 

California; th;nca fron said point of coLT^cncorcnt along said V/esterly right^- 
of-aay lino South 16° 22' CO" East; 379.?1 feet to the bcginnins of a tansent 

curve thereon, concave Northeasterly and havins a radius of 29lli.93 feet; thence 
Southeasterly along the ?jc of the above rentioned curve, through a central angle 
of h° 13' 111", a distance of 21°.3li feet to the true point of beginning of this 
description; thence Tron said true point of beginning, continuing Southeasterly 
along said Tfesterly Railrray right-of-v.-ay line and said curve, through a central 
angle of 0° 37' 1?", a distance of 31. 6h feet; thence South 23° 13' 00" East, 
6148,31 feet to the beginnijig of a trjigent curve, concave Morthoasterly and 
having a radius of 1323.^7 feet; thance in a Southeasterly direction along the ■ 
arc of the above rentioned c^orve, through a central angle of 16° 0!i' 07", a 
distance of 371.20 feet to an inbersection vriLth the boundary line betvrcen Orange 
and San Diego Counties; thence leaving said "csterly P.ail.Tay right-of-v.'ay line 
and folla.ving said County bound.-a-y line, South 12° 25' 22" West, 39^ fest, .-ore 
or less, to the Ddno of ordinary high tide of the Pacific Ocean; th-3nce lea-.d-ng 
said County boundary line and follcr.-ing northerly along said line of ordLnary 
high tide to a point 7.' tears South 67° 1?' 1?" V.'cst frora the said true point 
of beginning of this description; thancc llorth 67° 1? ' 1?" East, 133' feet, core 
or less, to the true point of beginning. 

The above described parcel of land contains 6 Acres, rore or less. 

Parcel ^ (Streets it Rights-of-'Tay 7-lthJ_n Tract V.o. h202) 

. That portion of Tract V.o. Ii202 in the City of S?.n Clerante, County of 
Oraiige, State of Cnliforniaj as per rap recorded in Book 1^2, Pages 3h to 38 
inclusive of rdscellaneous Tiips, in the office of the Coiuity Recorder of said 
County, described as , • . . 

Beginning at the UortV.oasterly terrc'jius of that certain course described as 
North 1.90 0I4' 06" -ast, 29.9$ feet' in Pai'cel I of the deed to Capri E>ailders Inc., 
recorded July 7, 1961, in Boo!: $776, Page 6!:2 of Crficial Records; tiience along 
the boimdrjt-y of said Prrcel I, the follov/ing covvrses: South 17° 20' 00" East, 
$0.$$ feet. Southeasterly 72.11; feet along a cixc-ve, concave "orthcasterly and 
havDJig a radius of 65.00 fc-t ?nd a central cJigle of liS^ Oj'liO", South 6$° 23' liO" 
pAKt, 72.)ili fret. Southeasterly, 92.32 feet along a curve, concave Soutlrjesterly 

having a radius of $10,00 feet and a central angle of 10° 22' 20", South $$° 01' 20" 
East, 17lj.l;8 feet, Southeasterly $$3. hi feet along a cm-ve, concave Southvesterly 
}) a radius of 76O.OO feet r.nd a central angle of l!l° Ji3' 1$", South lio° Co' CO" 
T/cst, 113.23 feet, Soutfe-estcrly 59.33 feet along a curve, concave Southeasterly 
liaving a radius of $00.00 feet a central angle of lOO llj' 30", South 37° $1' 30" 
T/cst, 110. $0 feet, South 37° 10' 30" V.'cst, 2$$. 00 feet and South $2° li9' 30" East, 
20, OD foot to the Southeasterly boundary of said Tract !Io, l!202; tliencc along the 
boujidaiv of said Tract, the foilor/ing courses: Korth 37° 10' 30" East, 2$!i.G3 
feet, Horth 37° $1' 30" East, 110.38 feet, northeasterly 0$.eo feet along a curve, 
concave South-e.-'.sterly Inving a radius of lioO.OO I'cet and a central an^le of 
100 3Jji 30'!^ :;orth I160 06' CO" East, U.i7.93 feet, Ilorth'csterly 533. $0 feet along 
a non-tangent cu:-.'c, concave Southvosterlv having a radius of "COO.OO feet and a 
central angle of liio 1,7' 2$", !!orth $5° 01' 20" '/.'est, I7I1.I18 feet, Mortlr./cstcrly 
99.57 feet rJLong a cm-ve, concave SoMthr/ostorly hevir.g a radium of 550.00 feet 
and a central angle of 10° 22' 20", Horth 6$^ 23' 1;0" V.'cst, 72.K'i feet, "orth- 
v;estcrlly anj 102.92 feet along a curve, concave Eanlerllv having a 
radius of 1;6.C0 feet and a central angle of 12C° 11' 30", I.'orth 62° liV' 50" -"vast, 
C55.I1O feet, I.'orth 27° 12' 10" V.ost, 30.00 feet, Sout.i 62° li7 ' 50" V.'cr.t, 926. Ii7 
foot aid Soutlj li9° Oil' 05'' '••est, 15.05 fc?t to the point of bcginnip^g, 

Yl\Q above described parcel of land contains l.Clih Acres, 

EXHIBIT "A" - Page 3 



$600,000.00 Key Biscayne, Florida 

December 15, 1970 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby promises 
to pay to the order of B & C INVESTMENT COMPANY, a co-partnership, 
the principal sum of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00) 
with interest from date on unpaid principal at the rate of 
seven and one-half percent (7-1/2%) per annum, interest payable 
with principal payments, and in addition to principal payments; 
said payments of principal and interest shall be made in 
installments commencing July 15, 1971, and thereafter at the 
place, times, and in the amounts required to be paid by the 
maker of each of those certain promissory notes, dated 
July 10, 1969, and September 11, 1969, attached hereto as 
Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, which promissory notes are 
hereby incorporated herein by reference as though fully set 
forth; provided, further, all sums due under this promissory 
note shall be paid by the maker hereof to the payee hereof on 
or before July 15, 1974. 

The privilege is reserved of paying this note in 
full or in part, at any time, without penalty or bonus. 

If action be instituted on this note, the under- 
signed promises to pay such sxom as the court may fix as 
attorneys' fees. 

,/ ' .: - • C. G. REBOZO 


' Do Not Destroy The Orlclnal Note: V/hcn paid, said Original Note, 
together with the Deed of Trust socurinc same, must be surrendered 
to Tnjstee for Cancellation and retention before reconveyance will 
be made. 


$1,000,000.00 Los Angeles, California July 10, I969. 

In installments as herein stated, for valued received, I promise 
L. HARBACH, as Trustees under that certain Deed to Trustees 
executed June 14, I96I, in Los Angeles County Superior Court 
OGDEN VEST (formerly Janice Lucy Ogden) ; or order, at Los Angeles, 
California, the sum of ONE MILLION AND NO/lOOTHS DOLLARS, with 

interest from July IS, I969 on unpaid principal at the 

rate of 7 1/2 per cenc per annum, interest payable with principal 
payments and in addition to principal payments; principal payable 
annually in installments of ONE HUiroRED THOUSAJID AND NO/lOOTHS 
DOLLARS, beginning July I5, I970 , and continuing until 

. July 15. 1Q74 , at which dace the entire balance 

of unpaid principal and accrued Interest shall be due and payable. 

The privilege is reserved of paying this note" in part or in full, 
at any time after January' 1, 1970, without penalty, but no 
payments may be made on account of this note prior to January 
1, 1970. 

Should interest not be so paid it shall thereafter bear like 
interest as the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded 
shall not exceed an amount equal to' simple interest on the unpaid 
principal at the maximum rate permitted by law. Should default 
be made in payment of any installment of principal or interest when 
due the v;hole sura of principal and interest shall become ImiT.ediately 
due at the option of the holder of this note. Principal and 
interest payable in lav;ful money of the United States. If action 
bo instituted on this note I promise' to pay such sum as the Court 
may fix as attorney's fees. This note is secured by a DEED OF TRUST 
to TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, a California corporation as 
Trustee. ■ - . - 

It is understood and agreed that this note is made, executed 
and delivered by maker only in the capacity of Trustee, and not 
otherwise, and that it shall be liable and responsible hereunder 
only in that capacity and not otherwise; and the payee for himself, 
his successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases' and relinquishes 
all recourse against maker save as such trustee, hereby agreeing to 
look solely to the assets of said trust estate for satisfaction of 
any claim or demand of whatsoever nature he may ever have or assert 
under or by virtue hereof. 

BY: // Lv, 

Vice President 
BY; /C<y^^^-.<^^U'^^=:r-' 

Asola^ant Secretary 




Do Not Destroy' The Original Note: V/hen paid, said Original Note, 
together with the Deed of Trust securing same, must be surrendered 
to Trustee for Cancellation and retention before reconveyance will 
be made. .=■■ ^:' :■ ■ -':->\:". ^■■>'\: 

".. '■■■.\V'.-.-:'':':'^-> .NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST V.-. : "^l'-' .'^.^ 
"■.;■' .-f ■■■'''■'•■:■ ■- (INSTALLMENT- INTEREST EXTRA) ■'•';;■ '^■J'^'z 

$80,000.00 -■• Los Angeles, California September 11, I969. ■-" 

In installments as herein stated, for valued received, I promise 
ELMORE, Trustees under the last will and testament of Hetty J. 
Elmore, or order, at Newport Beach, California the sum of EIGHTY 
THOUSAND AND NO/IOOTHS DOLLARS, with interest fro m October 13, 1969 

on unpaid principal at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent 
per annum, interest payable with principal payments and in addition 
to principal payments; princioal payable annually in installments 

and continuing until October 13. 1974 , at which date the 

entire balance of unpaid principal ^nd accrued interest shall be due 
and payable. ' ■ - 

The privilege 3s reserved of making payments to apply on account of 
principal or interest hereof, from time to time, and at any time 
prior to the maturity hereof, without penalty or bonus. 

Should interest not be so paid it sh^Tl thereafter bear like 
interest as the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded 
shall not exceed an amount equal to simple interest on the unpaid 
principal at the maximum rate permitted by lav;. Should default 
be made in payment of any installment of principal or interest v;hen 
due the whole sum of principal and interest shall beco'me immediately 
due at the option of the holder of this note. Principal and 
interest payable in lawful money of the United States. If action 
be instituted on this neb e I promise to pay such sum as the Court 
may fix as attorney's fees. This note is secured by a DEED OF TRUST 
to TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, a California corporation as 

It is understood and agreed that this note is made, executed 
and delivered by maker only in the capacity of Trustee, and not 
otherwise, and that it shall be liable and responsible hereunder 
only in that capacity and not otherv.'ise; and the payee for himself, 
his successors and assigns, hereby waives, releases and relinquishes 
all recourse against maker save as such trustee, hereby agreeing to 
look solely to the assets of said trust estate for satisfaction of 
any claim or demand of whatsoever nature he may ever have or assert 
under or by virtue hereof. 




GriI'Tix Exhibit No. 19 


cr?§«. <.?a7d ;/i2/73 z;}?"*? 

• & C lnv«»t»«ot Co. j/c*l 073' ^ 
K«v lisoyne B«nk ( Trust Co. 
Ktfv ii5C«vr<» florid* 




.•«>r>»..'s^,, r^asw*. -^ „ • ^/- ^■. --•,.- 5»»c-i •-:<i'-i; WTS,- 


Griffix Exhibit No. 20 



To: File Date: December 8, 1972 

From: William E. Griffin cc: 

Subject: C. G. Rebozo - Loan 

On the 6th day of November, 1972 Mr. C. G. Rebozo, 

a personal friend of mine and a very close associate of 

Mr. Robert H. Abplanalp, was in New York to acquire funds 

on a loan basis from the Bankers Trust Co. At a luncheon 

between the three of us, Mr. Abplanalp suggested to 

Mr. Rebozo that he acquire the funds from our Bank rather 

than from any other New York bank. 

Mr. Rebozo filled out an application and filed with us a 
financial statement, dated October 10, 1972, showing a net 
worth in excess of 1.4 million dollars and income per year 
in excess of $190,000. Although the liquidity of the 
personal financial statement is not the best, it was 
decided that this would be a good loan for us in the 
amount of $200,000 for one year, $25,000 for nine months. 
The interest rate on this loan is to be 1^% above the 
prime rate, not to exceed 7^%. 

Because of the associations of these individuals, it was 
suggested that these files be kept in the strictest of 
confidence and that they only be shown on a "need to know" 
basis . 

Attachments: Application and 

Personal Financial Statement 

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1974 

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

Washington^ D.G. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m., in 
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Lowell P. 
Weicker, Jr., presiding. 

Present : Senator Weicker. 

Also present : Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; Marc 
Lackritz, assistant majority counsel; Fred D. Thompson, chief 
minority counsel; Richard L. Schultz, assistant minority counsel; 
Scott Armstrong, investigator; Emily Sheketoff and Mary D'Oreo, 
research assistants. 

Senator Weicker. Now, I have read this letter here, and I dare- 
say we will get into matters raised in that, but I think the first 
thing to do is go ahead and swear in the witness. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Haig. I do. 

Senator Weicker. All right. Council. 

Mr. Lenzner. Mr. St. Clair, would you like to read that letter 
into the record? 

Mr. St. Clair. Gentlemen, have the general identify himself. 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. State your name, address, and position. 


Mr. Haig. General Alexander M. Haig, retired. I am the Presi- 
dent's staff coordinator, and I live in the District of Columbia, in 

Mr. Lenzner. How long have you been staff' coordinator to the 
President ? 

Mr. Haig. Since May of last year— May 1973. 

Mr. St. Clair. May I read into the record a letter of which I 
have furnished to you? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

Mr. St. Clair. The date of May 1, 1974, addressed to General 
Haig from President Richard Nixon, reading as follows: 

I am informed that you have been subpenaed to testify before the Senate 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities on May 2, 1974. 

It would be wholly inappropriate for the Committee to examine you about 
your activities as Chief of Staff or about information that has come to you 
in that position since your assumption of your present duties in May, 1973, 
or in your earlier position as a member of the staff of the National Security 



A President's Chief of Staff is inevitably very close to the President and 
functions as the President's right arm. He is often the means by which the 
President communicates with his lawyers on matters that are within the 
attorney-client privilege. It is also the means by which the President communi- 
cates with other members of the Executive Branch. 

In your former capacity as a senior member of the National Security Council 
staff, you dealt with the most sensitive categories of information relating to 
the national security. 

Whatever differences there are about the reaches of executive privilege 
generally, I aui confident that the members of the Senate Select Committee 
will recognize that it is essential to any President that he be able to talk with 
complete freedom and candor with the person that occupies such a close rela- 
tionship with him and who works so closely with him on the full range of 
executive functions. 

While I have made every effort to waive privilege for former and present 
members of my staff to testify before the Senate Select Committee, I must 
regretfully decline in your case. 

You are, therefore, directed not to testify about my information received 
or activities undertaken while you served as my Chief of Staff or as a member 
of the National Security Council staff. 

The letter is addressed to Gen. Alexander M. Haig, Jr., Assistant 
to the President. 

Mr. Lenzner. Could you indicate Avho signed it? 

Mr. St. Ceatr. Richard Nixon. 

]\Tr. Lkxzner. For the record, General Haio^, could you describe 
the duties that the letter describes as the — that you functioned in 
as the President's chief of staff? 

Mr. St. Ceair. Mr. Lenzner, I am instructing the witness to 
ansv^-er no further questions in the light of this instruction. 

Mr. Lenzner. How can we determine, Mr. St. Clair, whether the 
area of inquiry relates to his duties as chief of staff and staff co- 
ordinator, as he has indicated, are outside his duties as chief of 
staff if Ave don't know Avhat his duties are as chief of staff? 

JNIr. St. Ceair. That is a problem you will have to solve for 
yourself. This witness will not testify. 

Mr. Lenzner. Senator Weicker, I think the witness ought to be 
directed to answer that question so we can determine if there are 
pertinent areas as to our inquiry. 

I don't see how we can — let me ask him this question : Have you 
had occasion to speak with individuals who are not employed by 
the U.S. Government? 

Mr. St. Clair. The witness will not testify. 

Senator Weicker. I Avould ask the reporter to read back the 
original question. 

[Whereupon the reporter read back the previous question.] 

Mr. St. Ceair. Senator, the witness has been ordered by the 
President to not respond to questions regarding any of his duties, 
and I am instructing him in the light of this direction from the 
President, and with all due respect, cannot properly answer any 
further questions. 

Senator Weicker. Li other words, it is your interpretation, comi- 
sel, that the President's letter has as its meaning a direction to 
General Haig that he cannot testify, period? 

Mr. St. Ceair. That is correct. 

Senator Weicker. Rather than the limitation which I read as to 
testimony as to his duties as chief of staff from May 1973, as a 


member of the Xational Security Council. It is your interpretation 
of tlie President's letter that the admonition not to testify doesn't 
just relate to those particular functions, but goes into any testimony 
whatsoever ? 

IMr. St. Ci.air. If you want to ask him about the weather — I 
assume he is here because of actions taken in either one of these 
capacities. His personal matters are irrelevant, and I think he 
should not even be asked any such questions. 

Clearly, the President makes in this letter this witness, on his 
direction, is not to testify, and furthermore, I may add for the 
record that consulting with the President, those are the clear in- 
structions that the President gave me. 

Mr. Lenzxer. He is not to answer any questions? 

Mr. St. Clair. That is correct. 

Senator A^'eicker. Well, I think that is a matter then, that has 
to be resolved. No. 1, that is not what I read in this letter, and I 
appreciate counsel's explanation. 

I would agree as to questions that relate to General Ilaig's posi- 
tion as a member of the staff of the National Security Council, and 
I would rule any questions out of order that touch upon that area 
of his activity. 

On the other hand, I think what I would like to do now is to 
have counsel proceed and I will have to make the determination 
question by question as to whether I will direct the witness to 

Mr. Lenzner. Since the letter relates to attorney-client privilege, 
are you an attorney. General Ilaig? 

Mr. Haig. No, I am not an attorney. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, can you tell us as part of your duties as 
chief of staif, have j^ou had occasion to discuss what appeared to 
you to be criminal activities of other individuals? 

IMr. St. Clair. I will direct the witness not to answer. You know. 
Senator, is there some mechanism whereby we can accommodate 
you? I know you are busy and so is the general. The witness will 
not under this order answer any questions that have any bearing 

Senator Weicker. I would like to, if I could, at this time meet 
with both minority counsel and Mr. Lenzner out in the hall, if I 


[Discussion ofF the record.] 

Senator Weicker. On the record. 

Mr. Lenzner. General Haig, what are your duties as chief of 
staff since May of 1973? 

Mr. St. Clair. I instruct the witness not to answer the question. 

Mr. Lenzner. I would request the direction that the witness 
answer the question as being a proper question in compliance with 
the mandate of this committee. 

Mr. St. Clair. Respectfully, sir, the witness is instructed in ac- 
cordance with the directions of the President not to answer the 
question, and I do not contend that the question is improper except 
that it calls for an answer that would be in violation of the wit- 
ness' orders from the President of the United States. 


Mr. Lenzner. With your permission, Senator, we will furnish 
for the record and for Mr, St. Clair a statement of pertinency and 
relevency as to each of these questions for fuither consideration of 
the committee, if that is agreeable to you. 

Senator Weicker. Yes. 

Mr. St. Clair. It is agreeable to me. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you on occasion, as part of your duties as 
chief of staff at the White House, discussed with other individuals, 
criminal activities involving individuals? 

Mr. St. Clair. The witness is instructed not to answer. 

Mr. Lenzner. I request the direction that the witness answer. 

Senator Weicker. I would request the witness to respond to the 
question as being a proper questioji. 

Mr. St. Clair. Respectfully, Senator, the witness is instructed 
not to respond. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you on or about October 18, 1973, telephonical- 
ly contact Attorney General Richardson and speak to him with 
regard to an ongoing criminal investigation by the Internal Revenue 
Service of $100,000 that (^harles (t. Rebozo had received from the 
Hughes Tool Co.? 

Mr. St. Clair. The witn(>ss is instructed not to respond. 

Mr. Lenzner. I request the direction that the witness answer 
that question. 

Senator Weicker. I direct the witnes^s to respond to the question 
as being a ])roper question and l)eing within the mandate and 
purview of this committee. 

Mr. St. Clair. In the light of the directions of the President, 
he will not respond. 

Mr. Lenzner. One last question : As chief of staff since May of 
1973, General Haig, have you had occasion to discuss the $100,000 
in cash that was furnished Mr. Charles G. Rebozo by the Hughes 
Tool Co., with Mr. William Fi-ates, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. 
Robert Abplanalp, Mr. John Ehrlichman, Mr. H. R. Ilalderaan, 
Mr. Herbert Kalmbach, Mr. Fi-ank DeMarco, Mr. Richard Banner, 
Mr. William (rriftin, Mr. Kenneth Gemmill, Miss Rose ]Mary Woods, 
Mr. F. Donald Nixon, Mi-. Edward Nixon, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. 
Frank Strickler, ^Mr. Charles Colson, Mr. David Shapiro, or Mr. 
Charles G. Rebozo himself? 

Mr. St. Clair. The witness is instructed not to answer. 

Mr. Lenzner. Senator, I request that the witness be directed to 
answer that question. 

Senator Weicker. I direct the witness to respond to the question as 
being a proper question and within the mandate and purview of 
the committee. 

Mr. St. Clair. Respectfully, sir, in light of the instructions of the 
President, we decline to answer. 

Senator Weicker. Now, as I understand it, counsel has further 
questions to ask of the witness. I also understand from counsel for 
the V7itness that he would continue to instruct his client not to re- 
spond pursuant to the request of the President in his letter of May 
1, 1974. 

Mr. St. Clair. That is correct. J ■.,-■..- 


Senator Weicker. T want to indicate to counsel it will be my duty 
to take the matter before the full committee for whatever determina- 
tion they can make. 

Mr. Lenzner. With your permission and Mr. St. Clair's permis- 
sion, I would like to furnish both the committee and Mr. St. Clair 
a statement of relevancy of these questions, but also other questions 
we would have propounded, and a statement of relevancy relating 
to them, 

Mr. St. Clair. I will be pleased to receive such a statement. 

Mr. Lenzner. I assume your client will not respond ? 

Mr. St. Clair. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. May I ask you, Mr. St. Clair, are you representing 
General Haig as counsel ? 

Mr. St. Clair. I am representing the President of the United 
States as special counsel and this witness in his capacity of chief 
of staff. 

Mr. Lenzner. It is my understanding that on May 22 President 
Nixon issued a statement which indicated : 

I specifically stated that executive privilege will not be invoked as to any 
testimony concerning possible criminal conduct or discussions of possible 
criminal conduct in the matters under investigation. 

Is it your position or the White House's position that the letter 
to General Haig of May 1, 1974, amends the President's prior state- 
ment relating to executive privilege that I just read? 

Mr. St. Clair. Well, I don't know that I need respond to inter- 
rogation, but I have no hesitancy 

Senator Weicker. I don't think counsel does have to respond. He 
has made his position clear. I don't think counsel has to respond. 

Mr. Lenzner. We will furnish those additional materials for the 

Thank you. 

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon at 11 :30 a.m., the hearing adjourned.] 

SUNDAY, MAY 5, 1974 

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

Washington, D.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5 :40 p.m. in suite 
300, 900 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. 

Present : Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel ; Scott Armstrong 
and Mary DeOreo, investigators. 

Mr. Lenzner. This is a continuation of previous executive sessions. 
Mr. Kalmbach has been sworn anti continues to testify mider oath. Do 
you understand that, Mr. Kalmbach ? 
Mr. Kalmbach. I do. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Kalmbach, do you have any recollection or 
can you give us your best recollection regarding any requests for in- 
formation that jNIr. Rebozo may have made of Mr. Jack Gleason with 
regards to accepting the contribution from a contributor living 
abroad ? 


Mr. Kalmbach. I have a faint recollection, perhaps more of an im- 
pression, that I was asked about this inquiry of Mr. Gleason by Mr. 
Rebozo, and that perhaps 1 was advised more than asked, of this 
inquiry. But I have no certainty in my mind as to this inquiry. It is 
just a faint recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us your best recollection as to who 
asked you about it, or who advised you about it? 

]Mr. Kalmbach. Well, it seems to me that I was talked to by Mr. 
Gleason, who advised me that Mr. Rebozo had called him and that 
Mr. Rebozo had asked ]Mr. Gleason to tell him whether or not it was 
permissible for foreigners — that is, foreign nationals — to make polit- 
ical contributions; and I have the impression — and I have no cer- 
tainty in this area — but I have the impression that Mr. Gleason's re- 
sponse was that he was not certain himself as to the answer to that, 
and that is about the extent of my memory of that conversation with 
Mr. Gleason. But again, I want to underscore it for tlie record, that 
I do not have a clear memory on this, and it is just a faint impression. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall a rough time period when this would 
have occurred? 

Mr. IL\LMBACH. I don't know, but it could be in the 1970, 1971 or 
the 1970, probably in the 1970 period, although it could have gone into 
1971, but more in 1970, or perhaps — I don't know. Perhaps this was 
sometime in 1968. ]My memory of this is so poor that I just do not have 
any sort of a precise fix on — gee, even the approximate date of such a 


31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-9 


Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any recollection regarding the iden- 
tity, or any of the characteristics of the foreign national that was or 
about whom, the request had been made? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I don't. I think that Mr. Rebozo, at another 
time, talked to me — again, this is the same quality of an imprcvssion — 
talked to me about a foreign national making contributions, and he 
was talking to me about, I think, someone in Europe, a man of affairs 
in Europe, who perhaps represented people of wealth in Europe. I 
did not and still clo not have a clear memory, or a clear understanding, 
as to the man's identity, or even the man's nationality, but it was 
someone that I think he was alluding to, but he was talking to me in 
a very general way, and I was just noting his comments. Rut other 
than that very general impression, I cannot be more responsive. 
[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, Mr. Kalmbach, after you were interviewed by 
members of the Senate Select Committee staff with regard to a con- 
versation you had with Mr. Rebozo. w^as communication made to Mr. 
Rebozo to advise him that the subject of the April 30 meeting had 
come up? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, there was a communication to Mv. Rebozo to 
that effect. 

Mr. Lenzxer. And was a similar communication made to Mr. Re- 
bozo prior to the interview you had with the I^.S. Attorney's Office 
in the Southern District of New York, advising Mr. Rebozo that the 
subject might come up also with them, the subject of the April 30 
meeting ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. The feeling was that the subject might come 

Mr. Lenzner. And to clarify my prior question, as I understand it, 
Mr. O'Connor called Mr. Rebozo after your interview in October with 
Mr. Armstrong and myself, basically to advise Mr. Rebozo that the 
attorney-client privilege did not have to be invoked during the Octo- 
ber interview? 

Mr. Kalmbacit. Yes. The purpose of that call was to advise Mr. 
Rebozo that Mr. Lenzner had requested information relevant to the 
President's personal bank accounts, and thereby posing a possible 
attorney-client problem that Mr. Rebozo — and through Mr. Rebozo, 
the President should be aware of. And also the second purpose of that 
call was to advise Mr. Rebozo that the attorney-client matter relative 
to IVIr. Rebozo and INIr. Kalmbach had not been raised. 

Mr. Lexzner. And as I also understand it, the times you did call 
Mr. Rebozo, prior to your meeting with the XLS. Attorney's Office in 
New York on the Vesco matter, was also related to your prior inter- 
view with the Senate Select Committee and the Special Prosecutor's 
Office. Is that correct? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me, will you restate your question ? 
Mr. Lexzner. Yes. The phone contact that you had with INfr. Rebozo 
on the April 30 matter that we already asked you about, also related 
to possible interviews with the Special Prosecutor's Office and with 
thei Watei'gate Senate Committee. 
Ml". Kalmbach. That is correct. 


Mr. Lenzner. And I also understand that in March of this year, you 
again saw Mr. Rebozo and indicated to him that it had not become 
necessary to invoke the attorney-client privilege up to that point. 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, that is not correct. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Well, straighten me out on that. 

Mr. Kalmbach. In March of this year, shortly after I had resigned 
from my law firm, I called Mr. Rebozo on the telephone and informed 
Mr. Rebozo of my resignation from the law firm. I informed him also 
I was tendering my resignation as an executive trustee of the Richard 
Nixon Foundation through him to the President to be accepted or not 
accepted at the President's will. And finally, I advised Mr. Rebozo in 
that conversation that I had been questioned about the attorney-client 
matter that we had talked about, and that I had invoked the privilege 
before the Special Prosecutor's Office. 

jNIr. Lexzxer. Now, coming to another subject, did there come a 
time when ]Mr. Iligby of Mr. Haldeman's staff advised you that Mr. 
Leonard Firestone of the Richard Nixon Foundation was to employ 
the President's brother, INIr. Edward Nixon ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did he also advise you that this was at Mr. Halde- 
man's direction? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you communicate that to Mr. Firestone and the 
amount that ISIr. Edward Nixon was supposed to receive from the 
foundation ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did. 

]Mr. Lexzx'er. And do you know^ if, after that conversation, Mr. 
Edward Nixon was, in fact, employed by the Richard Nixon Founda- 

INIr. Kalmbach. Yes, he was employed on a part-time basis. I think 
the salary figure was $1,500 per month. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Now, generally, looking at the diary entries of your 
records, Mr. Kalmbach, so we do not have to go over each item, is it fair 
to say that, on a numl^er of occasions, the diary entries reflect subjects 
that you were seeking to discuss, or did discuss, with Mr. Ehrlichman 
that included Mr. Donald Nixon on occasion, Mr. Tony Ulasewicz, and 
Mr. JackCaulfield? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzner. Now, is it also fair to say that, beginning in 1969, 
you were reporting and discussing with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlich- 
man, and, on occasion, Mr. Rebozo, issues relating to Mr. Donald 
Nixon and ]Mr. Edward Nixon ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. And, indeed, looking at the January 28 diary entry, 
does that not reflect a breakfast meeting that you had with Mr. Donald 
Nixon to discuss some issues with him ? 

INIr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Armstroxg. That's 1969. 

]Mr. Lexzx-^er. 1969, thank you. And did those discussions include, on 
occasion, discussions with regard to his employment with Gladieux 
with regard to certain investments, with regard to his retainer for the 
Carnation Corp. ? ^ " 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 


Mr. Lenzxer. And did the substance of those conversations become a 
part of your later discussions with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Ilalde- 
man on occasion ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer, Did there come a time when you requested Mr, Blech, 
at Mr. Ehrlichman's sug-^^estion, to also assist Mr. Donald Nixon in any 
tax problems he was encountering? 

JNIr. Kalmbacit. There did come a time when I did ask Mr. Donald 
Nixon to get in touch with Mr. Blech to help in his personal tax mat- 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, if you look at the January 14, 1960, diary, that 
generally reflects some of the funds that were given to you as trustee, 
and it also reflects a conversation with Mr. Stans. does it not ? 

INIr. Kalmbach. Yes, this note advises me whei'e Mr. Stans asked 
me to act as trustee for certain funds which he characterized as largely 
from the primary period of the 1968 campaign, and further the note 
indicates, in a pers})ective way. the general amounts that may be the 
subject of my trusteeship. 

Mr. TjExzxer. And subsequeiit to that conversation, on occasions, did 
you discuss with Mr. Ehrlichmaii, JNIr. Haldeman. and Mr. Stans, the 
amounts and funds that you were retaining in safety deposit boxes of 
these funds ? 

Mr. Kai.mbacii. In safety deposit boxes and in a checking account in 
New York City, and that was on a continuing basis. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And I believe that notations in the diaries reflect those 
communications with those gentlemen, is that not also correct? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is also correct. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, turning to the date March 5, 1969, in your diary, 
under the initials "]MHS (list) :'', there is a notation, "DKL $25,000" 
appears to be " ( WMM) "'. Can you explain what this is? 

]\Ir. Kalmbach. It would be my recollection that ]Mr. Stans spoke 
to me about a contribution bv ^Ir. D. K. Ludwio- in the amount of 
$25,000, and I think that Mr.' William Middendorf, who was at that 
time treasurer of the Republican National Finance Committee, had 
knowledge, or more specific knowledge, as to that contribution. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And Mr. Middendorf was the treasurer of the Repub- 
lican National Committee at that time, was he not ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, he was, and of course he had been treasurer 
of the Nixon for President campaign in 1968 as well. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And did there come a time when you learned that 
part of those funds were disbursed to another individual ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. We'll pick up that date later, but can vou just de- 
scribe, while we are on it, for the record, what you learned with 
regard to that ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I have no inde]^endent recollection of this 
and my recollection is prompted solelv from tlio review of my notes 
which tells me that in speaking to Mr. Middendorf. I learned that 
Mr. Edward Nixon was to be paid approximatelv $^.000 from funds 
which, per my notes, wei-e funds received from Mr. Ludwig and that 
these payments were to be paid to Mr. Nixon until such time as he had 
gained employment. 


Mr. Lenzner. Now, looking at JNlarch 15, Mr. Kalmbach, there is a 
notation "Flanigan box." Does that retiect a communication you had 
with him where you probably advised him about the existence of the 
safety deposit box in New York ^ 

Mr. Kalmbach. Correct. And not only the safety deposit box in New 
York, but also the safety deposit box" that had been opened in the 
Riggs Bank in Washington. 

Mr. Lenzxer. And again, just for an example of the kind of en- 
tries we have here, on Monday, March 17, 1969, your diary indicates 
a meeting with Mr. Haldeman at 10 o'clock at the White House and 
the name Don Nixon being a part of that list of issues you may have 
discussed with him. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Correct. 

Iklr. Lexzner. And on ^March 18, again, another reference to Mid- 
dendorf $25,000. That again would refer to your prior testimony on 
that $25,000 contribution 't 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, in 19G9. 

Mr. Lenzner. 1969. All right. Now, your notes of Friday, March 
21, 1969, reflect a phone contact from Mr. Rebozo re Jim Crosby. Was 
that contact the first of a series where you received information w4th 
regard to a problem concerning Resorts International^ 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it would be my recollection that it was the fii-st 
in a number of calls, wherein I was requested to prepare a memorandum 
and to be of assistance in that matter. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that was a memo for Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That memo was mailed to Mr. Ehrlichman, that 
is correct. 

]Mr. Lenzner. And vour notes, without going through all of them — 
do the dates March 21, ]March 22, 1969, reflect the information that 
you received from the people that discussed this with you ? 

]Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Because of the time problems and Mr. Kalmbach's 
cooperation with us in reviewing several numbers of items on his 
diary, we are going to attempt to put into coherent fashion the infor- 
mation that we have received relating to these considerable number 
of details over the 1969 and 1970 period. However, there are just two 
or three entries that I want to deal with right now, and then I will close 
the record. 

jNIr. Kalmbach, on April 29, 1969, there was an entry under the 
name Ehrlichman, Ed Nixon, $3,000. Can you tell us if that is the 
money that came out of the Ludwig contribution and that you were 
instructed by Mr. Ehrlichman on this matter with regard to that 
money * The money was to be paid to Mr. Edward Nixon. 

Mr. Kalmbach. It would be my impression, Mr. lenzner, from 
that notation which I think has an "OK" after it, that I had raised 
this matter with Mr. Ehrlichman and that he had, in fact, OK'd the 
payment of these funds to Mr. Edward Nixon. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, turning to what has been marked as page 60 of 
additional notes of yours. Mr. Kalmbach — and these are in your hand- 
writing, are they not ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. They are. 


INIr. Lenzner. You will note, under the heading "Ehrlichman" at 
the top of our page 60, the words "Ed Nixon, $3,000?'' and then an 
OK. Is that the OK that you were just referring to ? 

Mr, Kalmbacii, That is the OK that I understood that you were 
asking me about before, and I identify that as the item in my diaries 
that I was testifying to. 

Mr. Lenzner. And on that same page, there is a note, "Bebe : Bebe's 
$200 Caulfield $320." Does that refer to the funds that Mr. Rebozo sent 
to you left over from the 1908 campaign that were used to pay Mr. 
Tony Ulasewicz ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. I think that note, ^Ir. Lenzner, refers to funds that 
were left over from the Florida campaign, the 1968 campaign, and 
were used to pay JNIr. Caulfield for, I think, an expense statement tliat 
he had submitted to me for payment. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, looking at a diary entry entitled "Things to 
do and calls to make, Monday, July 14 and Sunday July 20," Mr. 
ivalmbach, you will note the name Rebozo there. Does that indicate 
a contact with Rebozo with regard to the issues on the right of tliat? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. It means that I did contact INIr. Rebozo and the fact 
that I drew a line through Mr. Rebozo's name and all the items attrib- 
uted to JNIr. Rebozo meant that I talked to him and talked to him on 
the subjects indicated. 

Mr. Lenzner. There is a notation of $1,000, Tony $917 and then 
expenses. Can you describe what those items would have reflected ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. Yes; Mr. Ulasewicz had been put on my payroll, 
that is from funds under my control, at the direction of Mr. Ehrlich- 
man and this amount, this $917 represents, to my thinking, the first 
compensation, 2-week compensation payment to Mr. Ulasewicz, based 
on a $22,000 per annum com]>ensation arrangement and in order for 
me to make this payment to Mr. Ulasewicz, I was sent $1,000 by Mr. 
Rebozo from funds under his control, and that amount was placed in 
Mr. Ulasewicz' checking account and a $970 2-Aveek compensation check 
was drawn against that $1,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me show you this check marked as Rebozo exhibit 
No. 2.* 

Mr. Kalmbacii. I identify this check as a check that INIr. Rebozo 
sent me from the Thomas II.' Wakefield special account for $1,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. And is that the check that you referred to in your 
prior testimony as the $1,000 that was to pay for Mr. TTlasewicz that 
you discussed with Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. And is it not clear from going through these diaries 
that you had on a number of occasions, discussions directly with Mr. 
Rebozo with regard to Mr. Ulasewicz and payments for liis activities? 

Mr. Ivalmbach. Correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, turning to entries marked July 21, 1970, in your 
handwriting — is this vour handwritino-. Mr. Kalmbacii, wliere it says, 
"Stans, $5,000" and then to the right,' "$5,000 Don N." ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. Yes. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. And can you tell us what those entries reflect ? 

Mr. Kalimbac^ii. Yes; my recollection is that this notation indicates 
that I told Mr. Stans that in a count of the funds then in the Riggs box 

*SeeBook 21, p. 10156. 


ill Washington, that in making that count I noticed that an envelope 
marked witii Mr. Don Nixon's name on the outside of the envelope, was 
short in the amount witliin the envelope as against the amount marked 
on the outside of the envelope and the shortage was $5,000 in amount. 

Now, this means to me, or meant to me at the time, that Mr. Don 
Nixon was paid that $5,000 in 19G8 from these cash funds and was 
paid $5,000 more than was indicated on the outside of the envelope. 

Mr. Lenzner. And these funds were funds left over from the cam- 
paign and were campaign contributions to the 1968 campaign^ 

Mr. KAL3IBACH. \ es, that is correct, and my assumption here is that 
those funds were disbursed to Mr. Don Nixon as expenses in the 1968 

Mr. Lenzner. Let us mark these two checks as exhibits 5 and 6. ^ 

[The documents referred to were marked Kalmbach exhibits Nos. 
5 and 6, respectively, for identification.*] 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, showing you exhibits 5 and 6, Mr. Kalmbach, 
does exhibit 5 reflect a check from the Florida Nixon for President 
Committee from Mr. Rebozo i 

Mr. Kalmbach. It does. 

Mr. Lenzner. And that was sent to you and you deposited that in 

Mr. Kalmbach. That was deposited in a special trustee account. 

Mr. Lenzner. And you drew funds from that account? For what 
purpose ^. i , 

Mr. Kalmbach. And in addition to that amount of $216.18 the sec- 
ond check was also— which is marked "Exhibit 6"— that second check 
was deposited in that self-same account, and the balance being $416.18, 
and against that account I drew one check, to my memory, in the 
amount of $220, and that check was disbursed to Mr. Caulfield for ex- 
penses incurred. 

I think there was an additional disbursement from that account to 
pay for the printing of checks for the account, leaving a balance of 
less than $30 which is the same balance as is in the account today. 

Mr. Lenzner. And I take it that the entries reflecting communica- 
tions in the diaries with Mr. Rebozo, with regard to Caulfield and 
L'^lasewicz, would indicate to you that the funds you just referred to 
were indicated to Mr. Rebozo to be used on behalf of Mr. Caulfield ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, that would be my memory, and that is that 
both Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Rebozo were aware of the fact that this 
$320 check was to be disbursed from this account to Mr. Caulfield for 
expenses incurred by Mr. Caulfield. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, can we stipulate that we have reviewed with 
INIr. Kalmbach and Mr. Morgan a considerable number of documents 
that Mr. Kalmbach has furnished the committee and that the commit- 
tee staif will prepare an affidavit for review by both Mr. Morgan and 
Mr. Kalmbach, based on the documents that we have been reviewing 
today and Mr. Kalmbach's responses ? 

Mr. Morgan. It is agreeable. 

Mr. Kalmbach. It is so stipulated. 

Mr. Lenzner. Thank you very niuch. 

[Whereupon, at 7 :15 p.m. the executive session was adjourned.] 

♦See pp. 10862-63. 


Kalmbach Exhibit No. 5 


Hert«rt w. "nl-tin 



< ) 





• >• I 


< 's 

I: .^ 


^^^^m^mimmm^mft 9 m,^ 


.,, -i - Kalmbach Exhibit No. 6 


AH ; I '•«> ^, , ,^ 

• <» All 

K.'.Imo. Herbert W. Kalmbach ^ 200,00 

. ' . .y ;-■• 

'rocii-c . .<"»•: ^"- i&ii. 


o Ik 

,-V..;:-"-t '■ 


Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

V;i! '- bo loc'-cin^: Torvai'd to .t.cj ; bi-.:^- with yoi; on or about t^a;- 6ih 
i'> '.■;u..;':'.ir',;. "■:n» I v;ili call you on V^y Ist to confira yoiir arz'ival. Listcid 
b-sl-;-.-. i.s tt list of 3:cp3r.333 ir.CL-~i-ed by ny^slf and anotner individiuii v;l:o 
a ;all reir^in na;.-al-2S3 with respect to L-attors of interest to J.D.E. : 

V^ - Data- I-larch 23- arch 20 '' ■ 

"iXC-.-jayliLigtcs /iirfars- $40 -CO ■'. .-• ^ 

- Fiotal . . - ^ - 


Dato-iipril 2- April 4 

Tr'iC V/ashii'.gtcn Airfare- 540.00 


$85 .CO 

Data- April 7-April 12 
inc V/ashington Airfare 


$110, OC 

Liata-Ap ril $-10 (a.TGc:,T.ciJ3) 
Ajjrfccca Mi'C-iv'asii . i^40.C0 

Hotal 15»C0 

Total ^3^0.00 

I ■i;oald approciata a check in t! 3 £.T.o.jat in.licatod accva to 
illed to r^y roGidartCS, 14 Carlston P^cad^ Orangeburg, lieu York, 

Cordially, ^"^ 

/ /Jack '"Gaulf i^'ld 













< z 







< _ 


a 5 





< •-: 


v^ »* 

(5 > 

- >■ 

5- O 

O 5 
2: Q 

2 !ii 
- z 




it ■- 




6 ? 





t ^T 




■ -»^ 







■ B 








t o i;<J 



O _ c, _- 

< £ o -g 



C c - ;T 

•s. cj .■=; <-> 


= s^r. 


:3 a.:^ T, 

K s s ? 

0) :zt->^^. 



o V 




-'. ' ^ 



ro ■ 








!h . ■ 
















^ 1 



•^ 1 O 





> .w 1 O 


i -^ 






I — 



<■' ri 


< "-> 



a a: 

s o 



-J uu 



< . 


^ z 


- s 



? o 

5 u 



.■ ^- " 

tj < 

•'? ;' 









i." 1 


n 1 

f 3 









vl rr. ■ 

;^ / ■- 

/• <s> 

, ^ X 

;\ §1 °i 

. . , ' 


fr ^^"'i 

• ' • 

^ 11^ 


' ' — * 

* c 

- ' C '^ 

u J ::: 

•■ •• - -^ i rr- 


' r2 


<" > -,i 

'^ -1 ". .-» :d ' , • 

r ■ t 


-:' {'. •■ - O 1 . ■-* 

* . V . 

^v/ ^ \ / 

w c> 

'".- J ' -'' / 

* * c c 

3 -r. 

o ^-^ -• " ' 1 



.^* ^' 

' 1 


!_• ^ . 

I '— 


ZI ^ 



° i 



■o i- 


• .-t ■ 

' i^^/ 


r-V =^* 

.^ !w 



"^'■~- ..--., / 


i: :; 


C J-' 

1 Z 


r-i '^ 

J 3 -'; 

■ ■ - ■ O "^ 

'■' "' ""' '/•- 

>-i o 

-' -n 





• o 

■c ci 


S ^ 

' O- ? 



VD,--'- <1> 

:-p t! 

1 +J <J »• 

^ CJ 

•- j2 

-d! c3 -n 

o ^ 

"^ o 9 

■ la^M 

,0 C3 

:k ^ 

r-i f,H 

^ ^ - 

sr "iJ 


o ;- 

^ "^ 

o : -H 

:c cH 

> ;:; 

• t*-, ^ 

S " 

ON -r-l O 

c a. 

\D'. U 4J 

i o 

S c 

^^ u 

C o 

ir\ >-, 

c -^ 

00 -P ^ 

r-H -.H :-. 

u o 

CM y Ci, 



< _ 


• > 


y ^ 


ci 5 

< f*^ 



. .. 

^ •« 




< *:: 

~ lU 





-> < 

I^ > 





c * ' 

> ^ 




•,- o 

~ ^ 



," ' 

rj >2. 




a ^' 

O t-^ 




d p 




2 =:; 




t z 


























Q ^ 




o y 








< a 

O o 



' L 


% o 



-. u ■- 


o '- 


hp I 

a ;^ 

1 I 

;i i 


■ / 

•-.vr -M^T :A.-iif ». r. c- 

LC\:.*k i(£i .MAS S»iKCf« 

riZ2 'V^Co 

' ^A 



• P.J--JI li :_-i..' , , 

- 5r' 




Herbert W.JCalinbach 

•■...- '^■'i .;') ,.'"; -,''i' i'^ i'"'. ■ 1 r> ',--■• 


s:o&3 J="'0!.3ai: E-itni"' 




- ^ yy^ J. ^ J-. J : 1 > 

:.,.= .ccouHT Nv...: = .P. | QS/ - VO L \ 



/;.$- ;3 ? \. ..^DC O 


ij TOTAL DEPOSIT y^- ^ O o'.C 


Trv.stes for C3.i-3r.t3 Apri] 




On this data I recsiv-sd a check signed by C- C. 
p.aoc^o on behair oi" the plorida for liixon. Ccrrjnittee '■..'hlch 
is the initial curount that I will deposit in the oe^i^rity 
Tacific .'iaticr^al Bank's office here in the Tiewport C-sr.tSi"* 
uncsr a ''Trustee for Clients" Account. 

I an vvTltin^ a conf Isttsr to John Zhrlich- 
nan this date, a copy of v.hich is attached^ 'vvhich specifier 
the r.anner in which disbursals are to bs scida fron this ac- 


/i o r. 

Ilr. John D. Ehrlic^jnan 

G=nsral Cc-unael ; _ .. •. 

Ihs Wii"t3 Kcuss . - . , ' , .: .• ; - ' ' 

l7e3hln5ton, D. C. ', .. ,- •. 

Bear Jchn: - . . »• 

Confirrairig oiir convsrsatior. of a Xe;f 2d.nute3 ^-^^[o, 
I an in ths prccssa o? setting vp a ''Trustse for Clients" 
Acccunt at Security Pacific national E^.nk's r'e'wport Bsach 
oi'zTica h3rs in ths I'Jewport Center. Tha irJ.tial dsposit will 
bi; in the anrcjnt of $2i6.l8 vjhich vas recsivad frop. Esfce t>.i:; 
d2:te. I -Trill vvrit2 chacks to Jack Caxiifi2ld ar.d '.ihcaev^r -l3>i 
3/0U rray siu^r.oriza to receive payments at such ti^e as I :--.9c■■=^iv-» 
the SL'Jditicrial funds. 

I v;ill post Jack a check drawn on this acccunt in 
the ar.cunt or $520 aftsr I receive the additional deposit 
ifithout a^-ain chacking with you en the assumption that siich 
disttir^al'ia proper. A photocopy cf Jack's Istt^r of April IS'--.". 
is snciossd. 

Ko disbuTjals will bs mace frca this account -withr-Jt 
your authorization. 

Best regards. 

Kero?rt !T, Kalr.'bach 



^ LAV/ OFhSCEo ^ 

^^ i; 'rt o ;• A ^j ^j u ;,) 

An-il 1 



Fro:^: K^rbsr-^ U. K-lncaci 

On this cat'2 I r^caivad a cheolc si^n-'d by C. C-. 
r.a"bo:o on b^^ha-lf of tha Florida for lilzccn Ccrsnittas '.'hich 
iG -hs initial 3x::ount that I v/ill csposit in the Sec^^ity 
Pacific ^lai^icnal Bank's office liera in tha Ns>pcrt Csntar 
ur.csr a "Trustee for Glien-cs"' Acccont. 

I a3 v.'ritlns a ccni"i3rr:ing letter to John Elirlich- this cats, a copy of vnich is attached;, '.fhi-jii specifies 
the cann-^r in 'which disb^.ir"ai3 are to ha r.aia frcn this ac- 

/ ^ 


31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-10 


April 22, 1509 

Kay Bi3cayne BanZ-c ' . - 

iCey 3i3C3:^'ne, Flcric^a 331^9 

This is to'rl-edgs receipt of your ch2ck in tha 
-a^icunt of i2l6-l3 "which has D^ien c2po3it-ad into a '-Irustes 
r"or Ciisnto Account'' at ths Security Pacific Sank branch har=i 
ir> our buiiding. 

Unless I haar rron you to cha contrar;/"^ I'm aasuning 
■chai: ycu he- /e talked to Jchn E2irlichr;an and that I ai3 to nait 
for an acditional check bei"or? na^lr.g paj^^nent on th-s $320 
stataasnt that hiis bsen recsived. 

Pleaaa lat nt3 knc-?f i? you havs any queaticns or if 
thsrs ±3 any vjay in vihich I isay bs ci" further assist£r»c2. 

East rsgarda. 

Harhert 'i. Kalnbach 

c. a ^R.t.0.0 

;;-.. rtj.i::av om 


A!::^i.C 2&. i969 



Kafj-.', Vz:-[a/lcc, \':.ic.pp 6 CkLiXJ-MO'Vo-lzh 

S'jJjtz 900 Vei-.po^J: ¥l).an(uxit VZa.zc:. .-^ . 

EncZoizd ^-iiid CM. addocio'rurJ. c/iecJ: -In thz ax':ou.>it 
oi ^ICO.CO. Thl.', vuZl at IzoAt :tcLkz C(V:z 0^ tkz 
$510,00 6tcjtz>vZfU: idvick you nciv kavz. 

OvQjL t'-z itzz'zz'.J. , I -ipc'fct I'xitk Jo'ui Ek^.tiahman 
and ZKptcJ.:izd. to him that Lt had bzzn dzcid.zd that 
tiiL 9_ar^oix bate'-ae :'."'u^c(i I r-'ir^t-'loJiCCi tc '^O'j. vj-itt bz 
k.iL;j-Z " tn cnd^'t to ta-iz CjCL^-Z cf'. ^Kzqu^ivt adin.iyiL'i - 
tict-ioiz-c.Oi'iizct-id coi^ii v:ri.ic}i oJiL^z ,y"'j"'i t^j)Z to tbv.z. 
Lzt ir.z kiio:-;, .£5 y?a. :zzzd nO'':.z h?Z-p. 

Tho.nk yon vcty nud'.. 


■ "f' 




Mr. C. G. 

Key Bi3ca;/na .tanx Buildlnz 

Key Bisca^.oa^ Florida '33159 

r-ear Baoa : 

Th2 check in the anicunt cf ^00 has 
l)een received &rd has been deposited in a Trustee for Client: 
P.ccc-cnt. X^rs. new in a pcsiticn -where I can ".vrite a check on 
that accoimt to covsr the $320 stat^rient- 

Kopefiillyj I'll be seeing yci! on hadne.-cay night 
ci" next v/eek at the Victory Dinner. If notj I'll hope to 
see you out here in California before too long. 

2est regards. 

: ; "J ■ Herbert v/. Kal^ibach 


"I- I'^-l-b^O- Is t*"3r3 any reason why vie have to a Icaep 
the attached 'Trust -3 account open. It has bsen inactive ■■ 
s'l-'C^'i'^y o^ 1969? ?lea3= advise. 

.^ ^s,^^' ' 

5>^ j^^-' IV^ 


/ ; I \ \ 

! }' 


^/Z^ -/ /yxMyCMP^' 

3-Jr ^.-L, ' i'/J r ~ 7 


— --^ C^.-^C 


'/ -^.OC O. 

[ <^:/aJi^.y- 

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1974 

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

Washington., D.O. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in 
room S-143, the Capitol. 

Present : Senators Weicker and Baker. 

Also present : Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel; Robert Silver- 
stein and Richard L. Schultz, assistant minority counsels; Scott 
Armstrong, investijrator; Emily Sheketoff, research assistant. 

Mr. Lenzner. This is a continuation of the executive session begun 
on April 10, 1974, when the witness was sworn by Senator Ervin. 

You understand, Mr. Buzhardt, that you continue to testify under 


Mr. Buzhardt. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. ]Mr. Buzhardt, have you ever had a discussion with 
Mr. Charles G. Rebozo with retjard to his receipt of $100,000 in cash 
from the representatives of the Hughes Tool Co.? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever had such a discussion with regard to 
that subject ? 

Mr, Buzhardt. No. 

INIr. Lenzner. Now, you testified on April 10 that you did see Mr. 
Rebozo at a dinner in October 1973. Do you recall where that dinner 

Mr. Buzhardt. Yes. It was in Key Biscayne. 

Mr. Lenzner. And do you recall who was there ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Most of them, I think. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was it a large gathering? 

Mr. Buzhardt. About 20, 25, people, I would imagine. 

]Mr. Lenzner. With the President? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. And was there any discussion that evening with 
regard to the receipt by Mr. Rebozo of $100,000, discussion between 
you or others ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. That you ever heard ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Not that I heard. 



Mr, Lenzner. Do you remember the date of that dinner ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. No. It was in the fall but I don't remember when 
it was. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any objection to supplying us with the 
date of that dinner, if you have it in your records, at a later time ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. I am sure I do. 

Mr. Lenzner. And you will supply it for the records? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you had any duties with regard to the question 
of the $100,000 in cash receipts by Mr. Charles G. Rebozo from the 
Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. At one time I received — the only time I remember 
anything in connection with this, I received a request from Mr. Ken- 
neth Gemmill to see if I could get some answers to some questions for 
an Internal Revenue agent. I believe that pertained to this, from Miss 
Rose Mary Woods. I think you submitted to me a list of questions 
which I provided to Miss Woods. Miss Woods gave me the answers. I 
drafted a letter for her to a Revenue agent or somebody with the 
IRS, and I believe it was Jacksonville, Fla., but I do not recall for 
sure. That is the only thing I recall doing Avith respect to this at all. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, is that the first 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Excuse me, sir — any duties I ever had with it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you know^ Mr. Gemmill prior to the time that — 
did you know Mr. Gemmill prior to that time? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't know whether I had actually met Mr. Gem- 
mill at that time or not. I met him sometime last year for the first 
time. I did not know INIr. Gemmill. 

Mr. Lenzner. And how did he communicate with you with regard 
to this ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. T don't recall whether he called me on the telephone — 
that is my recollection, that he called me on the telephone, to the 
best of my recollection. 

Mr. Lenzner. At the time he called you, were you not aware of the 
fact that he was also representing President Nixon with regard to 
some of his legal problems? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I may have been. I don't recall precisely when I 
first knew jVIr. Gemmill. 

Senator Weicker. Well, how did Mr. Gemmill present himself to 
you or talk to you — in what capacity ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. ]VIr. Gemmill — and there were newspapers about 
that time, Senator Weicker, about INIr. Rebozo's IRS investigation — 
and Mr, Gemmill said that he had received a request, and I assumed 
he was acting for INlr. Rebozo, received a request from the IRS agent 
to get certain questions answei-ed by ]Miss Woods. He gave me the 
questions and asked me if I would see if I could obtain an answer. It 
should be mailed directly to the IRS agent, which I did. 

Senator Weicker. Well, did you consult, in other words, having re- 
ceived that request from Mr. Gemmill, who did you consult with as to 
whether or not you should honor this request — anyone? 

Mr. Bi^ziiARDT. INIiss Woods. 

Senator Weicker. Were you the attprney for Miss Woods? 

Ml-. Bi^ziiARDT. No; I was merely — we had a lot of legal matters at 
the White House, as you know. I was requested to give assistance, to 


contact Miss Woods and see if she would provide some answers to 
questions to the IKS. That is precisely what I did. I showed her the 
questions, got the answers, put them in letter form for her, and sent 
them along. 

Senator Weicker. Am I to untlerstand that then you communicated 
Mr. GemmiU's recjuest directly to Miss AVoods. and to no one else? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall talking to anybody else about it. 

Senator Weicker. Did you talk with General Haig? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. I may have mentioned it to General Haig. I don't 
recall whether I did or not. Senator Weicker. 

Senator Weicker. Or to the President? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. No. I am sure that I didn't talk to the President 
alx)ut it. I don't have any recall talking to him about it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, prior to this time did you ever have discussions 
or hear discussions or become aware of the fact that Mr. Gemmill 
was, in fact, representing ]\Ir. Rebozo ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. Probably; I don't remember the occasion, but I 
probably was aware. And I don't really recall. It didn't make a big 

Mr. Lexzner. Well, do you have any recollection of having specific 
discussions with other individuals with regard to Mr. Gemmill repre- 
senting Mr. Rebozo prior to the time Mr. Gemmill called you? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No; I have no recollection of it. I may have been, 
but I don't recall any of it. It didn't make an impression. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have a recollection of ever having a discus- 
sion with Mr. Leonard Garment with regard to representation of Mr. 
Rebozo ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. Yes, I had. I recall having a conversation with Mr. 
Garment, but that related to whether anybody — any of the White 
House counsel could give advice to Mr. Rebozo. I think we discussed 
that the last time. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Yes ; and that was the occasion, was it not, sir, when 
Mr. Rebozo apparently requested ISIr. Garment or other people at the 
White House to represent him ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't know that he requested them. I just remem- 
ber the question coming up of whether it would be appropriate for 
anyone at the White House to give advice to Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Well, with regard to that, do you recall what issue 
would be pertinent to iSIr. Rebozo's legal problem that would make it 
appropriate for White House lawyers to represent him? 

5lr. BuzHARDT. No. I never knew of any of Mr. Rebozo's problems 
that would make it appropriate for White House lawyers to repre- 
sent him. It didn't matter what they were. 

Mr. Lex'zx^er. Did you ever discuss with President Nixon the ques- 
tion of Mr. Gemmill representing Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. BuZHARDT. No. 

Mr. Lexzx-^er. And do you know if discussions were held between 
President Nixon and other individuals at the White House with 
regard to that question ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. No. I didn't ; no. 

Senator Weicker. What time period. Counsel? What time are we 
talking about here ? 


Mr. Lenzner. Well, this would ]>e beginning on or about January 1, 
1973, to the present. 

Senator Weicker, But, as to specifically the conversation between 
Mr. Gemmill and you, Mr. Buzhardt, when did that take place? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't recall. Senator Weicker. It seems to me it 
was perhaps in the late fall, but I don't have — it is not something I 

Senator Weicker. Late fall 1973? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Perhaps. And I just don't recall when. 

Senator Weicker. Did INIiss Woods have Mr. Kyan as her attorney 
at that time ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No, I don't believe she did. If she did, I wasn't 
aware of it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, when Mr. Gcmniill called you, Mr. Buzhardt, 
exactly what did he say to you in terms of what he wanted from Miss 
Rose Mary Woods ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't remember trie conversation. I remember 
there were questions, somehow he provided me with the questions that 
were asked, that the Internal Revenue wanted answered. I don't even 
remember what the questions were. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember what the subject was? 

Mr. Buzhardt. It seems to me the subject was about whether Miss 
Woods had had a conversation with Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Lenzner. With regard to what ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Well, now, I don't recall this, but I assume from 
subsequent matters that I have seen in the newspapers that it was 
about whether he had ever discussed with her the $100,000. 

Mr. Lenzner. But you have no recollection at the present time that 
that was the subject matter of the telephonic communication between 
you and Mr. Gemmill ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No. I rememl>er he had some questions he wanted 
answered for the IRS, or the IRS wanted answered. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you take notes of those questions? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't recall whether I took notes or whether he 
supplied mc subsequently with a piece of paper with questions on it. 

Mr. Lenzner, Well, have you received documents on occasion, or 
correspondence, from INIr. Gemmill ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Correspondence from Mr. Gemmill? No. 

INIr. Lenzner. Correspondence or documentntioji of any kind? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No, not to my recollection; I haven't received any 
from Mr. Gemmill. 

Mr. Lenzner. So the answer would be he did not furnish you with 
a list of questions in writing? 

Mr. BuzTFARDT. I just told you I don't recall Avhether he read the 
questions to me over the phone or he sent me a list of the questions. 

INIr. Lenzner. Well, have you ever received anything in the mail, 
or hand-delivered, from Mr. Gemmill ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Yes, I am sure I have received something hand- 
delivered from Mr. Gemmill. 

Mr. Lenzner. When was that ? 

INIr. Buzhardt. That — it is not related to this matter. 

Mr. Lenzner. But when was it? 


^Ir. BuziiARDT. I don't recall when it was. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. But you do recall receiving specifically some docu- 
ments hand-delivered to 3'ou at the White House from ISIr. Gemmill? 

Mr. BuziiARDT, I have recei\'ed documents that came from Mr. 
Gemmill, yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Relating to what issue? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Not related to this issue. Related to the President's 

Mr. Lexzxer. And that would be in Mr. Gemmill's representation 
of the President ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes; that is correct. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. And do you know how soon after you had your tele- 
phonic communication with ^h\ Gemmill that you received those 
documents ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Xo, I do not. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. And what did you do after you got the questions that 
^Ir. Gemmill said the IRS wanted answered ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. As I just told you, Mr. Lenzner, I contacted Miss 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Well, did you see her in person or by telephone? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall whether I saw her in person or by 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. What did you do when you talked to ISIiss Woods? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I discussed the questions with her and I asked her 
what the answers were and would she answer them for the IRS. And 
she said, '"yes." She gave the information and I prepared the letter 
for her as I recall, or a draft, and sent it over to her. And, as I recall, 
she sent it back to me and I mailed it. I think, as I recall, I sent her 
the draft and I sent an envelope addressed to the IRS agent, to the 
best of my recollection. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. When you went over the questions with her, did she 
furnish the answers orally or in writing? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. When you had the letter prepared, did you dictate 
the letter ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall. I don't know whether I dictated it or 
wrote it out. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall who typed it? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I do not. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. And you say you sent a draft over to Miss Woods 
and she looked at it? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I sent a draft over. It was in finished form. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. And she 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. Whether she— I don't remember whether she 
changed it or signed it like it was. But, I recall the letter was sent. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Do you have a recollection now of whether the letter 
that you prepared for ]\Iiss Woods, after you got her answers, was 
signed by her and then sent by you? 

iNIr. BuziiARDT. Yes. I don't recall whether she changed it or not, 
but I recall that it was sent. 

INIr. Lex'zxer. Do you recall whether you changed anything on the 


Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall whether I changed anything on the 
letter, whether it was sent like it was in the first draft. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have — did you retain any notes or copies of 
the letters that you sent, oi- drafted, with regard to this matter? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. I know I didn't retain any notes. There might be a 
copy of the letter. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Are you not aware, INIr. Buzhardt, of the fact that a 
letter was prepared, and after it was typed and signed, that you left 
with the letter and made some changes on tlie lettei- and tlien had to 
have it retyped because of the changes that you made on the letter? 

Mr. BiTziiARnT. No. It may have happened, but T don't 

Mr. Lenzxer. You are saying that you don't recall that happening? 

INIr. Buzhardt. No; I don't recall that happening. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Now, between the time that the letter was typed and 
the time it was sent, did you contact or communicate with any other 
individual Avith regard to the contents of the letter? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't recall. 

INIr. Lenzxer. So, but it is possible that you did talk with other 
people about the substance of the letter ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Tt is possible, yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of ever talking with 
INIr. Charles G. Rebozo with regard to the substance or contents of 
the letter before it was sent ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No; I have no such recollection. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Do you have any recollection of ever talking or dis- 
cussing subsequently the contents of the letter with Mr. William 
Frates or any representative of his law firm before it was sent? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No ; I do not. 

Senator Wetcker. I am not quite clear on one point, and that is, 
whether or not the questions which you have i^ropounded to Miss 
"Woods were a matter of notes, which you took down in the course of 
the telephone conversation, or whether, indeed, you had correspond- 
ence from INIr. Gemmill with you? 

]\Ir. Buzhardt. I don't recall. Senator Weicker. I don't have the 
foggiest idea. 

Senator Wetcker. Would any such — if there were such a letter, and 
vou have indicated that thei-e could be, would vou have that in your 

Mr. Bt'Zhardt. T think it highlv milikely. T haven't searched for it. 
There might be a copv of the letter somewhere in the files. 

Senator Wetcker. The letter from INIiss Woods to the TRS? 

Mr. Buzhardt. That is right. 

Senator Wetcker. BiTt yoiT don't tliink there is a copy of any letter 
from Mr. Gemmill to you. proDOTTuding the questions to INIiss Woods? 

Mr. Bt'zttardt. T don't recall aretting a letter from him. I think if I 
had gotten a lettei-. T would recall that. 

Senatoi- Wetck;er. Well, T ain not saying that you did, but you said 
that you might have. 

Mr. BuzTTARDT. T said I might have gotten the qTiestions in writing 
somehow or he may have given them to me on the phone. I JTist don''t 
recall. The incident did not seem to have any significant proportions 
to me at the time. 


Mr. Lexzxer. Can you supply us, Mr. Buzhardt, with whatever 
documentation you retain in your files associated with tlie prepara- 
tion and mailing of this letter? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I will be g:lad to look. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, have you had an occasion to look through your 
files to determine if you do ha\o any notes or copies of these letters 
prior to the time that you came up here on April 10, 1974, or today, 
for that matter ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have occasion since January 1, 1973, to 
have any communication or contact with any member of the Internal 
Eevenue Service with regard to the receipt of $100,000 by Charles G. 
Eebozo from the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

]Mr. BuzHARnx. No. Unless this is the — this letter was to somebody 
in the Internal Revenue Service. 

Mr. Lexzxer. But aside from this letter? 

]Mr. BuzHARDT. No. I don't recall having any discussion with the 

]Mr. Lex'zxer. Can you look at this letter, Mr. Buzhardt, and tell 
me if you can identify that document? 

]\Ir. BrziiARDT. I don't have any specific recollection of it. It could 
well be the letter that we have l)oen discussing here, but I don't have 
any independent recollection of it. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Do you have any recollection of how soon after you 
learned from ]Mr. Gemmill of his request that vou talked to Miss 

Mr. Buzhardt. No. 

Mr. Lex^zx^er. Was it a day, 2 days, a week? •- . 

]Mr. Buzhardt. I don't have any idea. 

!Mr. Lex'zx'er. You don't know if it was the same date that you 
heard from ]\Ir. Gemmill ? 

]Mr. Buzhardt. No. I think that that is probably unlikely, but it 
is possible. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now. that letter is dated (Vtober 18, 1973.* Do you 
have any recollection of how long prior to October 18, 1973, you 
talked to Mr. Gemmill with regard to this request? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you talk to Mr. Gemmill after you talked with 
Miss Woods about her responses to the questions that you had pro- 
pounded ? 

]Mr. Buzhardt. I don't recall whether I did or didn't. 

Mr. Lex-^zx'er. And what is your understanding? That these ques- 
tions were propounded on behalf of the IRS, but were being sub- 
mitted by the taxpavers' attorney ; is that correct? 

Mr. Buzhardt. Yes. It was my understanding that the IRS wanted 
a letter addressing the questions. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. But was it your understanding 

Mr. Buzhardt. And thev were communicated to me bv Mr. Gem- 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was there any request to inter^dew Miss Woods, to 
vour knowledjie? 

»Previously entered as Woods exhibit Xo. 1. Book 22, p. 10283. 


Mr. BuzHARDT. There may have been; I don't recall. 

Mr. Lexzner. Do you liave any recollection of having a conversa- 
tion with regard to the question of interviewing Miss Woods by the 
IRS at any time ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall it, and it could well have been. 
There were a number of people from time to time that made requests 
to interview INIiss Woods on a number of matters. 

Mr. Lenznrr. I am tallving now specifically of the Internal Reve- 
nue Service requesting to interview Miss Woods with regard to the 
receipt of $100,000 by Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall it, but it may have been. 

Mr. Lexznf.r. But do you have any recollection of any conversa- 
tion about Miss Woods responding in writing to questions but not 
allowing her to be interviewed by the IRS with regard to this mat- 

INIr. BuzHARDT. No, I don't recall it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, looking at that letter, do you have any recol- 
lection of whether any changes were made in the substance, content, 
or body of that letter, prior to the time it was sent; and, if so, which 
changes were made? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't. This could well be the letter. It didn't 
refresh my recollection. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did you furnish a copy of that letter to any other 
individual ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I do not know. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you send a copy of it to Mr. Gemmill, Mr. Re- 
bozo, or any attorney or representative of either of those individuals ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall whether I did or not. 

INIr. Lenzner. Did you furnish a copy of that letter to anybody 
else employed at the White House, including the President? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Not to my recollection; no. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss it with General Haig, Mr. Garment, 
Mr. Ziegler, or any other individual employed at the White House? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall ; I may have. 

Senator Weicker. As a matter of procedure, since yours is a rather 
precise profession that den Is with precision, in your capacity as an 
attorney down at the White House: would you keep specific files on 
these matters as they ai'ose relative to the various individuals? 
Wouldn't it certainly have been in the interest of the White House 
to have a clear record of what activity you engaged in on their 
behalf ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. If it were something of significance to some busi- 
ness that Ave were conducting, probably so. I am sure that whatever 
letter went. Miss Woods had a copy of it. It was not a matter of 
significance to my office. But, it was not a matter that we were really 
involved in. We get many passing requests of various and sundry 
kinds, and certainly I don't open a file on all of them, by any means. 

Senator Weicker. You have indicated to me that this matter of the 
$100,000 conti-ibution wns of no iiuportance to the counsel to the 

Mr. BiTziTARDT. It was certainly not to me; it was certainly not 
anything that I haA^e any responsibility to deal with, or that was 
ever indicated to me I should have anv concern with. •. i 


Senator Weicker. Do yon think that in yonr capacity — in other 
words, had it ever occurred to you at any time that in the interest 
of protecting, or representing your client, the President, that any 
communications that came to you, that a written record should be 
made of them? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Xo, Senator, not by any means. There are many 
things that pass that are not of significance to keep a written record 

Senator Weicker. So in October of 1973, Mr. Rebozo's $100,000 
contribution was not of particular significance to the counsel to the 
President; is that correct? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Certainly not to me; no. 

Senator Weicker. Go ahead. 

]Nrr. Lexzxkr. Thank you. Senator. In regard to Woods exhibit 1 
in front of you, Mv. Buzhardt, I want to make sure that we have the 
record clear on this. Do you ha\-e any recollection of taking a docu- 
ment that you had had typed in to Miss Woods for her signature and 
handing her the document for her signature? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No; I don't have any specific recollection of it. I 
am sure I somehow took it — got it to Miss Woods. I know I recall 
doing a draft for her of a letter. 

INIr. Lexzxer. When you say a draft, was that a letter in final form, 
or was it a draft ? 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. It was probably typed in final form, 

Mr. Lex'zx-^er. Ready for signature? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. But it was sent over to her for her approval, or 
change, or whatever. 

Mr. Lexzx-^er. And do you have any recollection of receiving that 
document back in your possession ? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No. I don't have any specific recollection of whether 
I received that document, or changed the document, or what. 

Mr. Lex^zx-^er. Well, the piece of paper that you sent over to Miss 
Woods is what I am trying to get at. Do you have any recollection 
today of getting that paper back with her signature on it, or with 
changes on it ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't. 

Mr. Lexzxer. So, you have no recollection of ever receiving the 
document again after you sent it to Miss Woods or had it delivered 
to her? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I recall that whatever went out finally, I think 
I can somehow picture in my mind a letter with an envelope attached 
to it. So, I think I must have gotten the copy that went out back, 
and probably mailed it from my office, because I remember seeing an 
envelope attached. So, whatever letter went out 

jNIr. Lexzx-^er. And it was sent back to you ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. And it is prol)able that it was mailed from my office, 
so I think something must have been sent back to me to send out. 

IVIr. Lex-^zx^er. Now, is there any reason why it was sent back to 
your office in view of the fact that it was a letter from Miss Woods to 
the IRS ? 

]\fr. BuziiARDT. No. I can think of no particular reason. 

Mr. Lex^zx-^er. Was that done pursuant to your instructions or 
request ? 


Mr. BuziiARDT, I don't recall whether it was or wasn't. 

INIr. Lenzxer. Did yon request to see the document or the letter 
before it was sent to the IRS? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't rememl)er specifically. I don't have any 
recollection of it. 

Mr. Lexzner. Now, do you have a recollection of receiving a docu- 
ment back, a letter back, that you had drafted with INIiss Woods' sig- 
nature on it, looking at the document, reading it, and making changes 
yourself on the letter? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. And then having it retyped? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I have no recollection of that. 

Mr. Lenzner. And if you did that, Mr. Buzhardt, is it not likely, 
if not a certainty, that you would i-emember making changes j'oureelf 
on a letter that was to be signed by INIiss Woods? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. Well, I don't have a recollection of it, IVIr. Lenzner. 
I am sure I wouldn't have made changes unless there was some out- 
side ini^ut because I didn't know anything about the mattei-. I had no 
idea what the answers to the cjuestions were, so I would have had to 
have some input from outside, if I made changes. They had to come 
from INIiss Woods. They couldn't have come from me because I had 
no earthly idea about the matter, one way or the other. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, did you have an outside input from anj^body 
else besides Miss Woods ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, T certainly don't recall any. 

Mr. Lenzner. Are you saying 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't i-ecall even discussing with anybody else 
after I got the request from Mr. Gemmill. I don't know how he gave 
me the request, but I remember I got some questions. It seems to me 
there were two or three or four of them. I don't recall what they were. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, looking at the letter, can you recall what any 
of the questions were? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I am not even sure I recall from the letter. I 
have assumed recently, because I didn't recall it, that the question 
was about whether they had a conversation and what the conversa- 
tion was about that they had, but that is all I recall about the matter. 

Senator Weicker. I wonder if, at this time — T think in the interest 
of fairness, there is no jioint in l)oating around the bush. Does counsel 
have some basis for pursuing this line of questioning and, if so, I 
think you should let either Mr. Tiuzhardt oi' myself, or both, know 
what it is. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, we have testimony under oath. Senator, by 
another witness. 

Senator Wek^ker. The idea is not to entrap anybody. It is to get 
all of the facts. Now, if you can be of assistance in refreshing INIr. 
Bnzhardt's recollection 

Mr. BuziiARDT. T will l)e glad to tell you anything I know about it. 
I am sorry, but I don't lememlier it. But it was just not a thing tha't 
assumed great imDortance to mv mind at the time. 

iNIr. Lenzner. We have testimonv under oath. Senator, that INIr. 
Buzhardt brought in a lottei- that INfiss Woods signed. Mv. Buzhardt 
loft with the letter, left the room physically, made changes on the 


letter, took the letter back to Miss Woods and had it retyped and had 
it re-siffiied. Tn other words, there were two diflFerent letters. One that 
was ori<zinal]y taken in, based on Miss Woods' answers to Mr. Bnz- 
hardt's qnestions. That was typed up. Chancres were made on that 
letter after Miss Woods signed it and it was retyped, and signed, and 
that is what I am ti-ying to get at. 

Senator Weickkr. All right. Fair enough. You have testimony to 
this etfect. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Under oath. 

Senator Weicker. ]N[r. Buzhardt, does that help you in any way to 
refresh your recollection? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I had understood from Mr. Lenzner's line of 
questions that he must have had some testimony that the letter was 

Senator Weicker. And that is what he says, that he does. 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. He does and, you know, it just doesn't help me. It 
may have happenech I don't know. 

Mv. Lexzxer. Now, in the third i^aragraph of the letter, Mr. Buz- 
hardt. it reads: "I would fui-ther like to state that at no time did I 
ever discuss this matter with any other individual." Now do you 
recall whether that was a question propounded by Mr. Gemmill, or 
was that something that you added at your own volition? 

]\rr. BizHARDT. I do not recall, ]\Ir. Lenzner. I don't recall what 
his questions were. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall asking jNIiss Woods if she ever dis- 
cussed this matter with anybody else at the White House or with the 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Can you recall whether you placed any importance 
on the question of whether the President's secretary and executive 
assistance had discussed the receipt by Mr. Rebozo of $100,000 with 
the President? 

iNIr. BrziiARDT. No. At the time 

]\Ir. Lex'zxer. At the time you say that would not have played any 
imi)ortant role at all in your mind? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. It would now, I am sure. I think — but, T don't recall 
whether even — I don't even recall what my state of knowledge about 
this thing was at the time. I don't know what was in the papers. 

]Mr. Lexzx'er. ]Mr. Gemmill did explain to you telephonically, at 
least, ^Ir. Buzhardt. that the Internal Revenue Service Avas conduct- 
ing an IRS investigation of Mr. Rebozo? 

!Mr. BuziiARDT. He either explained it to me or it had come to my 
attention by some other laeans. I am sure I must have known at that 
time because he wanted — obviously, if it was going to be addressed to 
the IRS and it concerned Mr. Rebozo, they were interested. I prac- 
ticed tax laws so I am not naive about these things. I would have 
known that the Internal Revenue was making an audit or some kind 
of an investigation. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. And that it involved the receipt by Mr. Rebozo of 
$100,000 in cash? Did he not also advise you of that? 

]\rr. BuziiARDT. He may well have, or I may have already been 
aware of it, Mr. Lenzner. I don't recall how much he told me, how 
much I already knew from public sources or wdiat. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 


Mr. Lexzxer. Now, since that time you say that you have not ever 
had occasion to go back to your files to review the documentation 
related to this incident? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. All riofht, sir. 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't have any recall of going back to my files on 
this thing. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Now, on or about the same date as this letter, do you 
recall having any discussion with any other individual with regard 
to the initiation bv Special Prosecutor Cox of an investigation into 
the receipt bv Mr! Charles G. Rebozo of $100,000 from the Hughes 
Tool Co. ? 


]\Ir. Lexzxer. Have you at any time become aware of the fact, aside 
from the news media, that JNIr. Cox had initiated an investigation 
into this matter ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I may have been ; I don't recall it. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Do you have any recollection of eA'^er discussing that 
issue, the issue of the Cox investigation of the Rebozo receipt of 
$100,000, with General Haig? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No ; T don't recall it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Were you aware of the fact that General Haig placed 
a call on the same date, October 18, 1978, to ^Nlr. Elliot Richardson, 
then Attorney-General, to advise him that the President was upset 
that Special Prosecutor Cox was investigating Mr. Rebozo's receipt 
of $100,000? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I may have been aware. I don't think I would have 
been aware that he made a tele])hone call, but I may have l)een aware 
that Mr. Cox was reputed to have been investigating. I just don't 
recall at this time whether I knew that, or didn't know it. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Well, do you have any I'ecollection of talking about 
that with General ITaig at any time? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I have no recollection. 

]Nf r. Lexzxer. At no time ? 

Mr. BuziiARm\ Not until tlie last few days. Not until the last few 
days. I think you mentioned something about one of the questions he 
was asked, or something, about it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. That was after 

Mr. BuziiARDT. He brought up that there was a question of talking 
to then-Attoi'ney-General Elliot Richardson about this. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And you are saying that is the first time you ever 
discussed it with General Haig? 

]\rr. BuziiARDT. The first time T ever recall discussing it with Gen- 
eral Haig. T discussed it with him then. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. You mean a few days ago? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. And what did you say when he brought it up? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. T think it was brought uj) in the form of the ques- 
tion as to whether I ever recalled any discussion with Elliot Richard- 
son. T said "No." 

]\fr. Lexzxer. Who else was present at this discussion? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't think anybody else was. 


Mr, Lexzxer. Well, why don't you give us the substance of that 
conversation that vou had with General Haig after his appearance up 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Well, he said there was something raised about a 
discussion with Elliot Kichardson in the period preceding the firing 
of Mr. Cox; and I believe he characterized it. He said they have the 
liairbrain fantasy that this matter has something to do with the firing 
of Mr. Cox. ''Do you ever recall discussing it with Elliot Richard- 
son?" and I said. "Xo,"' l>ecause I didn't. 

]Nrr. Lexzxer. Well, did General Haig recall discussing it with Mr. 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall. He said he may have — let's see, it 
was something about a telephone convei*sation. I don't know whether 
he said he had a telephone conversation or that you had said that he 
had a telephone conversation or whatever. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. ]\Ir. Buzhardt, did General Haig, several days ago, 
confirm or deny that he had a telephone call with Attorney General 
Richardson with regard to Cox's investigation of Rebozo? 

]\Ir. Buzhardt. I don't recall what he said about it. I don't know 
whether he said he had a telephone conversation or that you told him 
he had a telephone conversation. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. So the answer is you don't recall what he said? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No, I don't recall. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. And when was this conversation, specifically, that 
you had with General Haig? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't even recall when that was. It was in the 
past several days. 

Senator Weicker. At what time did this matter become of concern 
to vou or those associated with vou? I now am talking about the 
Rebozo $100,000 contribution. You testified that as of the fall of 1973 
this just was not something that you were involved with, and was 
not of any particular concern. At what time has this become of con- 

Mr. Buzhardt. Senator, it is still not a concern to me. It might be 
to the people in the PR business that have to deal with all of the 
leaks from this committee. But it sure isn't a concern for me. I don't 
know anything to substantiate it or anything about the facts. 

Senator Wetcker. So, the matter of the $100,000 contribution is not 
a matter of concern to the attorneys to the President? 

^Ir. Buzhardt. Well, it is not to this attorney to the President. 

Mr. Lex'^zx'^er. Do you know of anybody at the "White House who is 
l)resentlv assigned to monitor the investigations that are going on 
with regard to the $100,000 received by INIr. Rebozo? 

Mr. Buzhardt. No, I do not. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. So the answer is nobody, to your Iniowledge, is 
assigned to that ? 

!Mr. Buzhardt. No. 

]Mr. Lex"zx'er. Now, when was the last time you had a discussion or 
a meeting with regard to the subject of the $100,000, the investigation 
of the receipt of $100,000 bv Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I don't know that I have ever had a meeting, Mr. 
Lenzner. I am sure the conversation of vour investig-ation has come 


lip from time to time in conversations, but I don't recall ever having 
a meeting on it. 

]\[r. Lexzxer. Now, General Haig was np here Thursday and you 
had a conversation sometime since Thursday with General Haig with 
regard to the questions propounded to him at that time; is that cor- 

Mr. Bi^ziiARDT. I sure did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And do you recall physically where that was? 

INIr, BuziiARDT. Yes. In General ITaig's office. 

Mv. Lexzxer. And do you recall whether anybody else Avas present? 

INIr. BrzHARDT. No, I don't. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you I'ccall Avhat day of tlie week it was? 

Mr. Ik'ziiARDT. No, I don't. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. Do you recall whetlier it Avas over the weekend? 

Mr. BizTTARnT. Yes. T think it was — T don't knoAv Avhatever day he 
was liei-e — it Avas Avhen he received the Avire serA'ice story that came out 
that afternoon. 

Ml'. T^EXzxER. What did he say? 

Mr. I^rzTiARDT. We discussed Avhat slioidd be done about the deplora- 
ble situation of the character of the story that Avas given, assumedly 
by this committee, or some meml)er of the committee to the wire serv- 
ices, and Avhat action should be taken. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And AAdiat actions did you recommend ? 

Mr. BuzTiARDT. I don't knoAv that T lecommended an action at all. 

INfr. Lexzxer. And Avhat 

Mr. BrziiARnT. A decision Avas made. T think General ITnig made a 
decision to Avrite Senator Ervin a letter, to the hest of my recollection. 
I don't know whether he did or not. 

Senator Weickkr. What story is this that is being referred to? 

Ml-. Bi'ZTTARDT. It Avas the report of General Haig's appearance here. 
Senator Weicker. It Avas carried, I believe it Avas on T"PT Avire story, 
and T don't know that it was ever printed, l)ut it Avas certainly put out 
on the wire seiwice. 

Senator Weicker. And Avhat story Avas this? I am not familiar 
with it. T don't recall anything happening. 

INIr. BrzTTARDT. The storv said, in etfect, and I couldn't recite it, 
that General TTaig appeared. 

Senator Weicker. Right. 

My. Buztiardt. And refused to ansAver over 100 questions and then 
it listed some of the questions. It Avas a A^ery distorted story. It did 
not say that General Haig had no choice in the matter, that he was 
directed 1)v the President not to testify on executive i)rivilege, and on 
the grounds of executiA'e privilege. It recited tlie nuestion as if Geueral 
Haig Avas concealing some knowledge of criminal actiA^ity. It was a 
very bad story. 

Senator Weicker. And you are attril)uting this story to this com- 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. I assume that that is AA'here it came from. I am 
quite sure that General ITaig didn't release it, or Mr. St. Clair. There 
Avould have ])een no ]iuri)ose. I don't belicA^e that there Avas anybody 
else here except somebodv representing the committee. 

Senator Weicker. As far as I kuoAv, the letter from the President 
to General TTaig Avas a matter, at least probably betAA'een tho Presi- 


(lout's counsel, ]Mr. St. Clair, and as far as the procedure of the com- 
mittee is concerned, T want the record to show that several questions 
we!-e asked, and, quite frankly, the hack and forth between the coun- 
sel, Mr. St. Clair, and the coinmittee, was cordial and proper. 

Mr. lUzirAKOT. The story did not reflect that. Senator Weicker. 

Senatoi- Weickei;. ^Ve ai-e not the press; we are a senatorial com- 

]\fr. BuziiAROT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Were any of the other questions discussed with Gen- 
eral Uiug and you other than the call allefjedly made by General 
Hai<2: to ]Mr. Richardson ? 

]Mr. BuzTiARDT. There was a discussion, I believe, of the questions 
that were asked by you, Mr. Lenzner, or somebody at the committee. 
I don't recall what they were. But they were reflected to some extent 
in the wire service story. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And did General Ilai^ indicate that he had any 
information, or any discussion with regard to this matter prior to the 
time he came to the committee ? 

Mr. BrziiARDT. Xo. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And was any etfort made to determine whether Gen- 
eral TLiig had, in fact, called Elliot Richardson with regard to the 
investigation by ^Nlr. Cox into the $100,000 received by Mr. Rebozo, 
to your knowledge ? 

i\fr. BuziiARDT. Xot to my knowledge; no. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if anybody else 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. No, I don't know. I don't recall anything except 
there was a discussion of the telephone conversation and it wasn't 
clear whether you had asked him, whether you had told him that he 
had made a telephone fall, had a telephone conversation, or whether 
he had a telephone conversation, or what. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And when you talked about that question with Gen- 
eral TTaig, is it your testimony that General Haig could not recall 
making that telephone conversation? 

Mr. BrziiARDT. Xo, that is not my testimony. I don't know what the 
context was of telejihone calls, whether you had asked him the ques- 
tion about it, or whether you told him — accused him of making a 
telephone call or whether he had, in fact, made a telephone call, or 

Mr. Lexzxer. All I am asking now 

Mr. Bttztiardt. I recall there was discussion of something about a 
telephone call. 

Mr. Lexzx-^er. And all I am asking now is did General Haig recall 
to you that he had, in fact, made such a telephone call? 

Mr. Bt^zitardt. I don't recall what he said about the telephone call, 
]\rr. Lenzner. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Have you learned 

]Mr. BizTTARDT. Tt is not of concern one way or the other to me. The 
concern at the moment Avas the wire service story. 

Ml. Lexzxer. Mr. Buzhardt, when did you first learn that the 
Internal Revenue Service was, in fact, conducting an investigation 
into Mr. Rebozo's receipt of $100,000? 

]Mr. BuzKARDT. I don't recall when it was, Mr. Lenzner. 


Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall who advised you of that? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No", I do not. I may have read it in the newspapers ; 
I don't know. 

Mr. Lp:xzxf:R. Do you i-ecall ever discussinir thai issue of the IRS 
investif^ation with ]\ir. Leonard Garment, also of the counsel staff, I 
believe, or was ;ut one time? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall discussing it with him. Wo probably 
did at one time or another. I recall having; a discussion about whether 
we could advise Mr. Rebozo, luit I don't even remember what it was 
that the question came up about. It may have been — he may have said 
at the time it was an IRS investifjation; I don't recall. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Garment advis- 
ing you that the Internal Revenue Service oi- the Treasury Depart- 
ment had contacted him to advise him that the Internal Revenue 
Service was, in fact, conducting an investigation of INIr. Rebozo? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall it but I may well have been. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Let me ask if this refreshes your recollection. Do 
you recall ]\Ir. Gai-ment telling you that INIr. AYilliam Simon, then 
with the Treasury De):»artment, had, in fact, telephonically communi- 
cated with him to advise him that the IRS was conducting an investi- 
gation of Mr. Rebozo ? - 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Have you ever had a discussion with INIr. Simon with 
regard to this matter? 

Mr. Bt'ziiardt. I don't rememliei- if I have ever tallced to INIi-. 
Simon. I don't recall it. 

INIr. Lexv.x'er. How aboiit Secretary Schultz? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't ever recall talking to Secretary Schultz 
about it. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Have you talked to any representative or employee 
of the Treasury Department or the IRS with regard to the receipt 
by Mr. Rebozo of $100,000 ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I don't recall talking to any of them. I don't 
even knoAv INIr. Alexander and I don't know who else is under him, 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Have you received any memoi-andum or documenta- 
tion with regard to the IRS investigation of ^Fr. Rebozo? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. One other question: Do you have a i-ecollection of 
Mr. Garment discussing the IRS investigation with you about Mr. 
Rebozo and of you telling Mr. Garment that there was nothing to it? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall that, but I may well have. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And if you had said that, ^Nfr. Buzhardt, what would 
you liave based that statement on? 

]Mr. Bttziiardt. I have no idea. I recall at one time — may I volun- 
teer? ■ ; ' - .', - 

Mv. Le^tzxer. We would appreciate it. 

Mr. Bttziiardt. I think at one time, because I am trving to be help- 
ful on what I recall or know about the mattei", INFr. Lenzner, at one 
time ]\rr'. Rebozo called me on the phone and asked me if I would talk 
to his attorney. I said, sui"e. I talked to his attorney. I don't even 
remember who the attorney was. It may have been Mr. Frates. At 


that time, you were concluctino; voiir investigation, this committee, in 
]\rianii. The lawyer, whoever he was, and I don't remember whether 
Mr. Kebozo told" me the man wonld call me, or he was there tlien, bnt 
the fellow talked to me, and he gave a long list of grievances against 
the committee investigator. TTe was considering bringing a civil suit, 
and asked for my advice, whether he should bring a civil suit. I de- 
clined to give him any advice. 

And at that time he recited a long list of grievances against the 
committee statf members and, as I recall it, he was talking in terms 
of abuse of process and a whole list of things. 

Mr. Lexzxek. Xow, when ]Mr. Rebozo called you, did INIr. Rebozo 
advise you of what the subject of tlie communication was to be with 
the attorney ? 

^Ir. BrziiARDT. I don't recall if he told me he was considering 
bringing a suit, or whether the attorney told me. I just don't recall. 

Mr. Lexzxer. AVell, did he tell you that he wanted you to talk to 
his attornev with regard to the investigation into his receipt of 

]Mr. BrzHARDT. No, I think — T don't recall him telling me that at 
the time. I think it was well publicized that the committee was down 
there interrogating Mr. Rebozo or serving subpenas on him or some- 

Mr. Lexzxer. And did you take any notes from your conversation 
with the attorney ? 


i\Ir. Lex-^zxer. And did you discuss the matter that he discussed 
with you with any other individual at that time? 

]\rr. BuziiARDT. Not to my recollection. I may have. T think I prob- 
al)lv did discuss it with Mr. Garment, telling him about the phone 

^Ir. Lexzxer. And did ]Mr. Garment respond in any way. to vour 

Mr. Buziiarot. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Garinent 
thought I should advise him not to bring the suit. 

Mr. Lex'zx'^er. On what grounds ? 

INIr. BrziiARDT. lie just didn't think it was a good idea. He didn't 
know much a])Out it and my recollection is that I told him we 
Avouldn't give advice one way or the other; it wasn't our busines? 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you have any discussion with any other indi- 
viduals? Mr. Ziegler, General Haig, or the President, with regai'i to 
that phone contact ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall ; I may have. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Well. ]\Ir. Buzhardt, do you have a recollection now 
that that was ]Mr. William Frates who talked to you on the telephone? 

]Mr. BrzirARDT. No. I don't. I have tried to recollect who it Avas, but 
it may have been INIr. Frates. But I don't recall it. I don't know Mr. 
Frates. I have never met the man. I didn't Imow whoever it vras I 
talked to on the phone, and I never met him. 

]Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you furnish ]Mr. Frates with any information 
with regard to the committee or its investigation at that time? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, not to my recollection, since I didn't have any 
to furnish. 


Mr. Lexzkkr. Did you venture any suggestion or information with 
regard to your own experiences with the committee investigation? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. No ; I don't recall doing so. 

INIr. Lenzner. Xow, are you aware of any other individual or em- 
ployee at the White House who has been in contact with the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Treasurv Department with regard to the 
$100,000 received by Mr. Rebozo ? " 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No ; I don't recall anyone. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, do you recall discussing with any individual 
at the White House or elsewhere the meeting that took place at Camp 
David between INIr. Richard Danner, Mr. Charles G. Rebozo, and 
President Nixon on or about JNlay 20, 1073 ? 

jNIr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall discussing it with anybody. But I 
seem to remember that you people made such a request. I recall I 
knew about that, that you asked some questions with regard to it. You 
may have asked me, Mr. Lenzner. I don't know. I didn't handle it, so 
I don't know. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Well, we did make a request of you, Mr. Buzhardt. 
You ai'e quite correct to determine from the logs whether the logs 
reflected that meeting, and we were advised that the logs did not 
reflect the meeting betAveen the President and ^[v. Danner. But what 
I am asking is, did you have discussions with regard to that meeting 
with any other individual at the White House to determine whether, 
in fact, it took place? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. I did not determine whether it ever took place. T 
didn't do the checking. Whether anybody discussed it with me or 
whether you made the request to me and I passed it on to somebody 
else, I don't recall. I remember being aware that you had made a 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you 

INIr. Buzhardt. And I think T remember reading something about 
j\Ir. Danner going to Camp David, in the newspapers. So, I don't 

]\fr. Lenzner. Well, but did you I'equest a check be made to see 
whether, in fact, that meeting took place at Camp David on Mav 20, 

IMr. Buzhardt. I don't recall doing it. Somebodv else I think 
handled it. IVIaybe INIr. St. Clair. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you learn the results of that check of the record 
at any time ? 

Mr. Bi'ZiiARDT. T am sure I must have. You told me that it didn't — 
that the record did not reflect it. T may huxe known that or perhaps 
difl. To the best of my recollection, that is my memory of it. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, did you evei- have discussions with Ziegler or 
Warren with regard to a statement that the White House issued that 
the meeting only lasted .5 or 10 minutes? 

^Ir. Buzhardt. No. 

IVIr. Lenzner. Did you ever have discussions 

]\fr. Buzhardt. Not that T recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did a^ou have a discussion with anvbodv with re- 
gard to that? 

Mr. Buzhardt. T don't I'ocall any, no. T don't oven recall that it 
lasted only 5 or 10 minutes, if it did. 


]Mr. Lenzxf;r. But you liuve uo rocol lection of so acUnsing Mr. War- 
i-en or ]Mr. Zietrler for the purposes of issuing a statement to the 
press ? 


Mr. Lexzxf.r. Did you ever discnss with President Nixon or Mr. 
Rebozo tlieir recollection of how long that meeting was? 

jNIr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do yon know if any individual has discussed that 
question with the President? 

]Mr. BrziiARDT. No. T do not know. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Did you ever have discussions with any individual 
with regard to the antitrust investigation and determination on the 
acquisition of a Dunes Hotel by the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. Yesterday afternoon Mr. Garment mentioned 
to me did I know anything about the Dunes, and I told him, "No." 
At the time, I thought he was talking about something, about one 
of these wilderness pieces of legislation. This morning he mentioned 
in j^assing there was an article in the newspaper all about the Dunes, 
and T asked him what article and he said, "You know, about the hotel 
out there.*' That is the first I ever knew he was talking about a Dunes 
Hotel. So. I do know that the Dunes is now a hotel or something. 

Mr. Lexzxer. That is the first time. 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. But I learned that this morning. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. And that is the first time you discussed a Dunes 
Hotel acquisition by the Hughes Tool Co. with anybody? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall ever knowing. I guess that I was 
aware that somewhere there was a Dunes Hotel, but it never dawned 
on me that that was what he was talking about initil this moniing, 
until he told me. 

Mr. Lex'^zxer. Do you know of any effort by any indi^^clual or em- 
jiloyee of the "White House to obtain from the Department of Justice 
information with regard +o the approval by Attorney General Mitch- 
ell of the acquisition of the Dunes Hotel by the Hughes Tool Co.? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I think Mv. Garment mentioned to me he had talked 
to the Department of Justice on something about the Dunes. I don't — 
that M'as either last night or this morning in our conversation but 
I have no idea to whom, or when, or what about. 

]\Ir. Lex'zxer. And did he tell you what the result of his inquiries 
were ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

]\Ir. Lex'zx'er. Did he ever furnish you with the results of his in- 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

IVIr. Lex'zxer. Do you know for what purpose he contacted the 
Department of Justice? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lex'^zx'er. Have you had any discussions with individuals or 
employees of the White LTouse with regard to the cessation of the 
atomic bomb testing in Nevada, and its relationship to the Hughes 
Tool Co. and ^Nfr. Hughes ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I seem to recollect way back when I was in 
the Department of Defense, we had a question on bomb testing, but 


I don't recall it havino; anything to do witli Mr. TTufjlies. Not since 
I have been in the White House have T known anything about it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of a discussion with 
any individual or employee at the White House with regard to the 
acquisition of Air West Co. by the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

]\rr. BuzTiARDT. No, T am aware that there was — maybe I read it 
in the newspaper that thei-e was something about Hughes and Air 
AAVst. But, I don't know. 

iNfr. Lenzner. Have you learned of any information relating to 
the obtaining of funds fi-om campaign contributions by President 
Nixon and his brothers, V. Donald Nixon or Mr. Edward Nixon? 

An individual froui the news media reports 

Mr. BuzTiAUDT. Yes. I think we covered that liefore. T think I re- 
call talking to Mv. Donald Nixon on the phone. 

Mr. Lexzx-^ek. Well, let me 

]\rr. BuzTiARDT. He was curious about it and said, "I never got any 
money from INTr. Bebozo." This was after the news story came out. 

Mr. Lex'zner. No. My (juestion was not directed to INIr. Bebozo, 
specifically, but generally have you learned whether President Nixon 
or his brothers, F. Donald Nixon or Edward Nixon, at any time, 
received funds that were campaign contributions? 
Mr. BizHARDT. No, I have not. 
Senator Weicker. Off the record. 
[Off the record discussion.] 

Mr. Lex-^zx-^er. Turning to Mv. Dean's testimony before this com- 
mittee, you, in June 1073, transmitted a memorandum to Mr. Fred 
Thompson, minority counsel. Avhich reflected the substance, which 
lists certain oral comnnmications. telephonic and face-to-face be- 
tween President Bichaid Nixon and John Dean. Can you tell Sen- 
ator Weicker and the committee, what the source of this information 
was that was contained in the I'eflected communications between the 
President and Mr. Dean? 

Mv. BuzTTARDT. First, the answer to youi- assumption is no, I did 
not transmit a memoi-andum to Mv. Thompson. 

Mr. Lex-^zxeRv. Well, did you ti-ansmit information to Mv. Thomp- 
son regarding tele]>honic and face-to-face 

Mv. Bi'ZTTARDT. T had discussion with Mv. Thomiison, yes. 
Mr. Lex'zx'er. And what was the source of the information you 
furnished Mr. Thouipson? 

INfr. Bi'ZTiARDT. That is within the attorney-client privilege and T 
would not tell you. T cannot tell von. 
Senator Wetcker. That is sufficient. 

Mv. Biv.TTARDT. The comnumication says 

Senator Weicker. That is a sufficient answer. That is a sufficient 
answer to his question. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, aside 

Senator Wetcker. Now you can go ahead and ask other questions, 
aside from the connnunications with your client, and T take it your 
client that you are claiming the attorney-client jn-ivilege on behalf of 
is President Nixon. Is that correct, sir? 

Mr. Bi'zirARDT. That is coi-rect. And his agents. 
Senator Weicker. Excuse me ? 


Mr. BuziiAKDT. And his afronts. 

Mr. Lexzxeu. ^Vell, aside from cnnimunications directly to the 
President or his a.ironts, did any of the information that yon com- 
mnnicated to Mr. Thompson witli reirard to INIr. Dean's meetings with 
the President derive from the tapes of those meetino:s? 

^Fr. BiTzuAinvr. A«j:ain, T cannot answer that question on the basis 
of the attorney-client i-elationship. 

Ml'. Lenzxer. AVell, Senator 

Senator Wek-ker. I think it is necessary, Mr. Pnzhardt, for you 
to list those individnals who you pni-port to represent. Yon have 
a heady mentioned the President, but I think the others, it is not 
sufficient just to say "ao:ents." 

^fi-. BiTziiARDT. "\yell 

Senator "Weickek. T am jierfectly willintT; to recoo;nize that that is 
what you are sayino; before this committee. 

!Mr. BrzTiARDT. His agents would be in communication by his 
agents to me and not necessarily with respect to this information, 
but any information, any immediate staff member, including Gen- 
eral Haig, by whom the President connnunicates information to me 
for use in mv legal re]:)resentation of him. 

Senator AVeicker. Does counsel have any other questions? 

]\rr. Lexzxer. "Well, Mr. Buzhardt, have you heard the tapes of 
meetings l>etween ]Mr. Dean and the President prior to the time that 
you communicated with ]Mr. Thompson with regard to those meet- 

^fr. Bt ZIIARDT. No. 

Mv. Lexzx'^er. Did you use transcripts of the tapes to prepare the 
infoi-mation that you furnished ]\[r. Thompson with regard to the 
meetings between iVIi-. Dean and the President? 

Mr. BiziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. And did you receive information from other indi- 
viduals who had heard the tapes with regard to the substance of the 
information that you furnished to Mr. Thompson? 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. I would have to assert the attorney- client privilege 
with respect to that question again, because such information as was 
connnunicated to me was connnnnicated within the attorney-client 

^fr. Lex'zx'er. You mean the information that was furnished with 
regard to the meetings between Mi*. Dean and the President was 
furnished to ^'ou within an attorney-client relationship? 

iNIr. Bu^iiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Lex'zx^er. Well, the infoi-mation was furnished to Mr. Thomp- 
son for the purpose of propounding questions to Mr. Dean, was it 
not ? 

]\rr. Buzhardt. The information was furnished to Mr. Thompson 
on the basis for cross-examination of IMr. Dean and there was no 
representation of authenticity of it, or the verification but merely 
as a basis for cross-examination. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. Now, when you say cross-examination, you are indi- 
cating that the intent was to furnish the information solely to Mr. 
Thompson for purposes of his propounding questions ? 

INIr. Buzhardt. That is correct. 


JNIr. Lexzxkr. And the idea then Wcas tliat the information Avas not 
intended to go further tluin Mr. Thompson or to be published? 

Mr. BiznAr.irj'. That is correct. At least that was my thought at 
the time. 

Mr. Lexzner. And did you so communicate to ]\Ir. Thompson? 

Mr. BijziiARDT. I don't recall the specific conversation as to Avhether 
T did, whether that was explicit, or I assumed it to be implicit in the 

INIr. Lexzxp:r. But in any event, your intent was not to furnish 
this to other members of the committee, but merely to furnish it for 
cross-examination purposes to Mr. Thompson? 

Mv. BuziiARDT. That was the purpose in providing it, to assist him 
in cross-examination. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And only Mv. Thompson ? ■ 

Mr. BuziiARDT. With thnt particular conversation? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BiziTAROT. T don't know whether he would use it for himself, 
or the connnittee — pi'ovide it to the committee membei's as a basis 
for cross-examination. If you will recall, we also submitted ques- 
tions, and we also submitted another document — I don't know how 
you Avould characterize as a basis for cross-examination, a hypothesis 
for examination. 

Mv. Lexzxer. But it was clear at the time, was it not, that the 
information was used to propound questions, that the information 
was going to be a matter of public knowledge and that, therefoi-e, 
any privilege that attached would be waived by the fact that the 
information would becon^ie public? 

Mr. BuznARDT. I don't think the information in the document is 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, then, T don't understand, sir. If you could 
enlighten me as to exactly what is privileged? 

Mv. BiTZTiARDT. In the first place, let me say what IVIr. Thompson 
wrote down. It is his own memorandum. I have never verified it. I 
couldn't if I had to, as lieing the liasis of our conversation. 

Mv. Lexzxer. No, no. ]\[y question is, sir. if the information that 
you furnished was not privileged, what is privileged? I am trying 
to just see where you draAv the line on what you consider to be privi- 
leged and not privileged? 

jSIr. Bt^ztiardt. The information I had. and the means by which 
T acquired it, the information I had at the time. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, did you furnish — go ahead. I am sorry. 

INIr. BuzTiARDT. I had a discussion with Mv. Thouipson and sug- 
gested a basis for his interrogation. 

Mv. Lexzxer. Of Mv. Dean ? 

Mr. Bfzttardt. Of Mr. Dean, that is cori-ect; without any assertion 
that the basis had a factual basis in its entirety. 

Mv. Lexzxer. Well, are you suggesting, sir, that you furnished 
Mv. Thompson with information that vou knew was not based on 


Senator Wetcker. No. I don't think that that is what he said. 
Mr. BrziTARDT. No. I didn't sav that at all. 


Senator Wkukkk. Let lue step i'i«iht in here now. That is not what 
Mr. Buzhardt said, and T don't consider the comment of counsel 
proper. I understand, if my understanding is correct, the memoran- 
(Uun which you are refei-riiic: to, IMr. Lenzner, is a memorandum of 
Mv. Thompson; is that correct? 

Mr. Lkxzxek. Yes. sir. 

Senator "Wkickkk. And it is not a memorandum of INlr. Buzhardt? 

;Mr. Lexzxek. No. But 1 think jNlr. (Tarment did conummicate Avitli 
tlie committee and indicate that the memorandum was an accurate 
reflection of the inrormation tliat they had furnished INIr. Thompson. 
I believe tliat is in our record. 

Senator Wiuckei;. Now, "Sir. Buzluirdt, as I understand it, both as 
to the individuals tliat he talked to, as well as the subject matter 
discussed with ]Mr. Tliom]ison, and the nature of those conversations 
with those individuals is exerting the attorney-client privilege, is 
that correct ? 

Mr. BuziiARn-r. That is correct. jNly communication with Mr. 
Thompson is obviously not privileged, t do not claim any privilege 
on my conversation with Mr. Thompson. 

Senatoi- AVeickek. I understand. 

Mr. BuznAKOT. And just so you understand, I communicated to 
Mv. Thompson a liypothesis, if you will. And if you will recall, we 
also provided to the committee — I don't recall to whom — a rather 
extensive hypothesis on what took place on the Watergate break-in, 
as I recall. I don't even recall the document very well, but purely as 
a basis for cross-examination, a liypothesis for cross-examination. 
There was no assertion that I had any proof, absolute knowledge, or 
anything else as to my communication with INIr. Thompson. I don't 
know whether INlr. Garment has professed to verify the document. 
T was the one who had the communications with ]Mr. Thompson. 
Subsequently, so you are aware, T believe the document was the sub- 
ject of a discussion I had with Mr. Dash. I recall at that time trying 
to see if I had any notes of my conversation with Mr. Thompson, 
and I found, unfortunately, I didn't. I considered the memorandum 
that he had written inaccurate in a number of respects and to the 
best of my recollection of what our conversation was, not even re- 
flected in our own conversation. There may have even been some 
changes in it, you know, and T said he could have never gotten it 
fi"om my conversation. T don't Icnow whether he really made the 
changes. This was the discussion I had with INIr. Dash, but I recall 
T came up to look at the document either before or after it was put 
in the record, and I don't even recall that. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Senator, it might be useful for Mr. Buzhardt, at 
some time, then and since this is information that comes to me for 
the first time, to indicate for the record what corrections he would 
make in the memorandum that appears at page 1796, book 4, of the 
committee's hearings. 

Mr. BuziTARnx. ]May I respond to that, Senatoi'? - ,- 

Senator Weicker. Please do. 

Mr. BuziTARDT. I could probably do a much better job of charac- 
terizing the meetings at this time. But, to attempt to reconstruct 
what our discussion was between ]Mr. Thompson and myself at the 


time we talked n])out tlie matter, would be impossible. I couldn't 
even do it shortly afterwards. 

Senator "Weicker. I think if this matter is to be pursued, and I am 
not saying that it can't be pursued, as INIr. Buzhardt has indicated 
there is no privilege between himself and Mr. Thompson, neverthe- 
less, if it is to be ])ursued, it sliould be pursued with minoi-ity coun- 
sel in the room. And I think it not proper to continue this line of 
questioning Avithout minority counsel in the room. 

Mr. EuziiARDT. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Lexzner. One other question then. 

Senator Weicker. I am not saying that, as I said before, it should 
not be done, but I am saying that if it is to be done, it shoidd be done 
under those circumstances. 

INIr. Lenzner. One other question. Mr. Buzhardt, did any of this 
information that you did communicate to INIr. Thompson come from 
Mr. II. R. Haldeman? 

INIr. BuzTTARDT. Not to my recollection. I don't think I ever talked 
to Mr. Haldeman at that time. It may have come fiom some of' — 
and I don't even recall now whether there — Mr. Haldeman had — 
I guess he had not testified at that point. 

Mr. Lenzner. That is correct. He had not. 

Mr. BuzirARDT. And I lose the time sequence here. There may have 
been some reflection in it of his telephone logs, meeting logs. Perhaps 
he had turned over to the connnittee l)y that time. I don't recall any 

Mr. Lenzner. But, INIr. Haldeman. I believe 

Mr. Buzhardt. Anything coming from ]Mr. Plaldeman. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. INIr. Plaldeman. T believe, had heard some of these 
tapes. Do you i-ecall whether you received any information from 
INIr. Haldeman directly or indirectly with regard to his having heard 
the tapes ? 

]\fr. Bi'Ztiardt. N"o. I don't think so; T may have. I may have 
talked to his attoi-nev. I don't recall. At one time, I did talk to Mr. 
Wilson on two or three occasions, soliciting information. I am afraid 
at that time T was very short on information. But, I don't recall 
whether it was lx»f ore this or after this. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever on occasion heard taped couA^ersations 
reflecting conversations between Mr. Chai-les G. liebozo and Presi- 
dent Nixon ? 

INIr. Stia'erstetn. Lxcuse me. Are you asking INIr. Buzhardt if he 
heard the tapes? 

iVlr. Ijenzner. Yes. 

Mr. Btzttardt. What taj^es I have heard, well — I don't want to 
say anything that would Avaive the privilege, but to the best of my 
knowledge this would not, and I haven't, so, no, so I don't want 

Senator WErcKKR. Well. I miderstand that you are exerting the 
privileo-e and the jirivilege won't be wai^^ed? 

Mr. Bi'ZiTARnT. Bight. But, I never heard a conversation between 
tho President and ]\Ii'. Bebozo. 

Mr. Lenzner. Or seen a transcript which reflected such conver- 


Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lenzxek. Do you remember informing Senator Ervin that 
the taping system used in the White House and the Executive Office 
Building was installed in 1071? Can you tell the committee what the 
source of vour representation was that the system was installed in 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I derived the information from the Secret Service. 

Mr. Lexzxer. From records of theirs or from oral representation? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. AVell, they gave it to me. I presume they got it from 
their own records. 

INlr. Lexzxer. Do you remember who specifically you talked to 
about that? 

]\lr. Bi ziiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Who was that, sir? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. ]Mr. Siinms, Chief of the Technical Security Divi- 

Mr. SiLVERvSTEix. When did you learn this, do you remember ap- 
proximately ? 

INlr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Was it before or after INIr. Butterfield's testimony? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. It was after INIr. Butterfield testified. Sometime 
subsequent thereto. 

Senator Weicker. At this time I have to meet with the Secretary 
of Transportation. It shouldn't take more than, I think, 20 minutes 
in my office. And with that in mind, I would like to recess this hear- 
ing until noontime. 


Afterxoox Session .. 

]Mr, Lexzxer. ISlv. Buzhardt. when was the last contact, the com- 
munication you had, with INIr. Rebozo, Mr. Frates, or any representa- 
tive of either Mi'. Rebozo or INIr. Frates? 

j\Ir. BuziiARDT. I iust described one contact with INIr. Frates. I 
haven't had any with ]\Ir. Rebozo nor seen him nor talked to him 
since the telephone call that I mentioned. INIr. Frates I talked to 
one time last week, if it was INIr. Frates I talked with before. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. You say you talked to INIr. Frates last week? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. I called him to tell him that the President 
was releasing transcripts of conversations in which one of his cli- 
ents was included and, as a lawyer, for Mr. Ehrlichman. 

]Mr. Lex'zx'er. And did you have any discussion with INIr. Frates 
at that time with regard to his representation of Mr. Rebozo, or 
with regard to Mr. Rebozo? 

]\fr. BuziiARDT. No ; none whatever, or anybody else. 

Mr. Lexzxer. So, you did not see INIr. Rebozo or talk with Mr. 
Rebozo in January, or since January 1, 1974? 

INlr. BuziiARDT. No. T don't recall seeing Mr. Rebozo since then; no. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And had no communication with Mr. Rebozo? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No. 

]Mr. Lexzxer, Do you know of anybody employed at the White 
House who has been in communication with either Mr. Rebozo or 
]Mr. Frates, other than you ? 


Mr. BuzHARDT. No, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, nve you not aware of wlietlier "Sir. Tvebozo 
has been in coniinimication witli President Nixon at any time since 
January 1, 1974? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't know tliat he has, no. T assuuie Ihat lie has 
but I don't know it. I have seen them tofjethei-. 

Mr. Lenzner. And nobody has advised you of the substance of 
any conversation between President Nixon and jNIr. IJebozo with 
i'eo:ard to the investio:ation of the $100,000 received by ^NFi'. Eebozo? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Senator Weicker. Who, if I may ac:ain, and T don't mean to press 
the point but, obviously, I think it is a point that has to be clarified. 
But, to your knowledo;e, Mr. Buzhardt, is there anyone in the White 
House in a leo;al capacity charo;ed with lookino; at the Pi-esident's 
interests, or monitorino; this Rebozo $100,000 contribution sitiuition? 

INlr. BuziiARDT. No, Senator Weicker; if anybody is workinc; on it 
I don't know about it. It has not been assijxned as a responsibility. 

Senator Wetcker. The i-eason why T asked my question, you 
know, this is not an alleged contribution to ]\rr. Rebozo, this wasn't 
an alleged contribution to him, but this was an alleged contribution 
to the President which Mr. Rebozo retained. Isn't there something 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. I don't know that is so. 

Senator Weicker. These are the allegations. 

Mr. Bi'ziiARDT. It is my understanding that it was a campaign 
contribution of some type. 

Senator Weicker. Fine. A campaign contribution. 

Mv. BuziiARDT. So you understand, Senatoi- Weicker, it is not this 
contribution, but any contribution. As you know, the Committee To 
Re-Elect is represented by counsel and involved in a number of pieces 
of litigation, a number of matters, and the White House legal staff 
takes no interest in that. Now, we don't have any assigned responsi- 
bilities in that whole matter. 

Senator Wek^vER. All right. Then you have answered my question. 
This is all I asked. Am I correct, then, in my impression of your 
I'esponse to me that the committee, the lawyers of the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President, are the ones who are involved on the Presi- 
dent's behalf Avitli this alleged contribution? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. , 

Senator Weicker. Is that correct? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No, no. I did not mean to imply any such thinef. 
I was just using that to illustrate that White House counsel staff do 
not woi-k on matters ai'ising out of political campaign contributions. 
We are Government counsel. Senator Weicker. If it is a matter of 
political contributions, it is not our role. That is not our role in the 
counsel's office. Second, let me say I don't even have to take much 
personal interest in this. I don't see how it relates to the President. 
I know Mr. Lenzner has and perhaps you have a number of theories 
that this money was used foi- something other than a campaign con- 
tribution. I have no information that would in anyw«,y so indicate. 
It iust happens that I don't believe it. And I have no information 
to tell me to the conti-ary. and no reason that I should be concerned 
about it. 


Senator "Weicker. Well, T am not trying to theorize at all. I don't 
have any theory. ^Nly job is to ^o ahead and <ret the facts and, and 
yet you were iil\olv"ed in this matter to the extent that you relayed 
insti'uctions or questions from Mi-. Gemmill to INIiss Woods. i\.nd, 
:!l)])arently. you participated in the ivply fi'om ]\riss Woods to the 
Tnte)-nal Ivevenue Service. 

]\rr. BrziiAiuvr. That is correct. Aiid l(>t me explain that. Anytime 
a Government atrency — T am informed that a Government agency is 
seeking infoi-mation. if it had been JNIr. Rebozo seeking information 
T would have told him lots of luck, you know, try somewhere else. 
Where \vc have Government agencies actually or purportedly seeking 
infoi'iuation. we have a responsibility to be of such assistance as we 
can, and no ])roblem. We have inquiries from any number of Govern- 
ment agencies about any number of matters. If it is a JJ.^. attorney's 
office that wants infoi-mation from somebody on the White House 
stafl". we ai-e theii- contact point, and if they want an interview, we 
attempt to set it up. if the pei'son is agreeable. It is not ours to 
choose who people talk to in their private capacity. But, we do it to 
facilitate the Government ])usiness, whatever it is. 

Senator Wkickei;. ^Iv. Buzhardt, was Mv. Gemmill — was he em- 
ployed by the Internal Revenue Service or any Government agency? 

Mr. BrziiARDT. Xo. He represented to me that the Internal Reve- 
nue Service was seeking some information. And to the best of my 
knowledge, he gave me the address of a tax agent to whom the in- 
formation should be sent. I accepted his word that it was the In- 
ternal Revenue Sei'vice or whoever it was, that wanted it and we 
sent it directly to them. 

Senator Weicker. But. nevertheless, the request did not come from 
the Internal Revenue Service? 

^Ir. Bi'ZTTAKOT. That is correct. It was relayed by Mr. Gemmill. ' 

Senator Weickee. In his capacity as representing Mr. Rebozo? ' 

!Mr. BuzTiAunT. I assume so. 

Senator Wetcker. Go ahead. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Well, on occasion, is it not correct, ]\Ir. Bnzhardt, 
that you have discussed ongoing investigations with comisel and 
their witnesses who have not been employed at the White House? Is 
that not correct? 

Mr. BuziTARDT. I don't understand your question. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, on occasion, you have discussed with people 
who are not in Government agencies or employed at the White 

Mr. BrzTTARDT. Bv all means. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Information relating to ongoing investigations? 

Mr. BizTrARDT. Absolutely. I just recited one for you. I talked 
with Mr. Rebozo's lawyei' and I assume it was INIr. Frates, but I don't 
recall if it was. I talk with a lot of people. 

^Ir. Lex-^zx'er. And on occasion, is it not true that you have also 
furnished information that has come to you with regard to aspects 
of the investigation to peo])le who are not employed at the White 
House or by Government agencies? 

]Nrr. BrzTTARDT. Aspects of the investigation ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, information that has come to you with regard 
to investigations. .,..■... .;..:-., '■:.:. 

Rk 2 3-12 


" Mr. BuzTiAKDT. I don't recall any spocifically. 

Mr. Lexzner. Haven't yon discnssed with ]ieople who are not 
om]iloyed by Government ao-encies or the White ITonse what witnesses 
have been iiitcrviewed on occasion I'elatino; to this investi<2;ation ? 

Mr. BuzTTAKOT. I don't recall. T frankly don't keep np with what 
witnesses yon interview, Mr. Lenzner. I did that one time when 
yonr reqnests for witnesses were bein^ fnnnelcd thron^h my office. 

INFr. Lkxzxei{. Well, haven't yon on occasion, for example, discnssed 
with ]Mr. Stanley JNTcKiernan, who represents Mr. F. Donald Nixon 
and Mr. Edward Xixon, witnesses who have been interviewed relat- 
in^r to that investifjation? 

INfr. Bi^zTiARDT. T am snre I have discnssed with him the fact that, 
his clients have been interviewed or about to be interviewed, and I 
may have discnssed others. T don't know. He may have told me. 

Mr. Lexzxer. No. My question is, Mr. Buzhardt, didn't you, in 
fact, inform Mr. INIcKiernan of other individuals who had been in- 
terviewed bv this committee with rejjard to its investijiation of INfr. 
F. Donald Nixon and IVIr. Edward Nixon? 

INIr. Bi^zirARDT. T don't recall doino; so, but I may well have, if T 

Senator Wetckfk. Did you testify before the committee last ses- 
sion, Mr. Buzhardt, that one of vour functions in the "White House 
was that of liaison — if you want to use another term, please ^o ahead 
and do so — l)etween the White House and the Nixon brothers? 

INIr. Bi ZTTATJUT. No. T did not. Senator Weicker. 
. Senator Wetckei;. Would you like to describe what 

Mr. Bt ziiAitDT. Fiom time to time I do — I am in contact with the 
President's 1)rothers. T have talked to Mr. INIcKiernan frequently 
on various and sundry matters, sometimes about his clients. Some- 
times he discusses them with me or their problems. But T have no 
formal resiionsil)ility in that respect, whatsoever. 

Senator Wetckek. That answers my question. 

Now, T have ^rot a vote. 

INfr. Lexzxer. Mr. Buzhardt, do you still want a Senator here while 
we ask these questions? . ., ■ . 

Mr. Bi ZTTARDT. Yes. 

INfr. Lexzx'ee. Or do vou want to waive that? 
. IMr. Bt'ztiardt. No, T do not want to waive that. 

IVfr. Lexzxer. I iust thouirht we mi<iht be able to expedite thinjjs. 

Mr. BizriARDT. T am interested in exj^editinu' but not at the sacrifice 
of the rules. 


INIr. Lexzxer. I don't think we made this clear on the record. Sen- 
ator. T want to ask this airain. Tf you have yourself made changes on 
the letter that vou had ]\[iss Woods siixn, would you not remeinber 
that clearly at this time? 

Mr. Biv.TrAROT. T do not recall, ]\Ir. Lenzner. 

INIr. Lexzxer. All riffht. Now, do vou recall when vou first learned 
of the return of the $100,000 by ^Nfr.'Bebozo to the Hu^rhes Tool Co.? 

Mr. Bt'zitardt. No. T do not. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. Do you recall havinc; anv discussions with any repre- 
sentatives of the Hughes Tool Co., INfr. Eebozo, or the '\Aniite House 
with re^-ard to the return of that $100,000 ? 


^Ir. BrzTTAKDT. No, T do not. 

Mr. T.F.xzxF.n. Do yon know of any funds that liave been fnrnishod 
by Pi-psidont Xixon to ^Fr. Ivolvozo witliin the last 18 months? 

Mi-. Bi/.iiAnnT. Xo, T do not. 

]\rr. Lf.xzxf.r. Do von know of any funds that have boon fuvnishod. 
loanod to tho Prosidont bv "Mr. Robozo in tlio last 18 months? 

Mr. BrziiAiuiT. T alroady answorod that question once. INIr. Lenzner, 

^fr. Lfxzxfk. Xow. T think T ask yon 

Mr. BrziiAiMrr. And you askod it at least once previously. 

Mr. Lkx'zxfr. Well, your ansAvor is then 

^Ir. PrzTiAiinT. Ts. no. 

^Ir. Lf.xzx'kk. Thank you, sir. Xow. also for tho record, have you 
ever on occasion discussed with any other individuals in a mpetin<r rit 
Cami^ David that took place between INfr. Danner, President Nixon, 
and Mr. Eebozo. on or about May 20, 1973 ? 

^fr. BrzTTAnnx. T do not recall any. T romomber, as T told you pre- 
viouslv. ^fr. Lenzner. that T recall vou made the request, or somebody 
nnist have told mo. Who told mo T don't know. And T may have dis- 
cussed it with tliom at tho timo. But, T had the recollection that I was 
aware that you made tho request, but T don't recall discussina" it with 

^fr. Lfx'zxfi;. And vou have no recollection of discnssinof any in- 
formation rolatiuir to that mooting', other than the committee's request 
for the loofs of that moetinfif? 

]\rr. BizriAiarr. Xo. T don't even have a recollection of discussing 
tho connnittoe's request. But, T i-ocall that I know that you made a 
request, so someliody must have told me. 

^fr. Lf.x'zxftj. Have yon had any discussions or meetings or com- 
immication^ with any roprosentatives of the PTn<]:hes Tool Co.? 

^Ir. BrziiAKOT. Xo, not in recent years. I don't — at one time, some 
years ao-o, T knew Mr. Mahou. maybe 1.5 years aoo. I met him. I don't 
think T have soon him since or talked to him since. 

^Ir. Lex-zxer. Tn what capacity did yon know him? Socially or 

^[r. BrzTrATurr. Pi'ofessionally. T worked here on the Hill. I think 
T met him at some time. I don't even remember what ca]')acity I met 
liim, but I haven't seen him since. T wouldn't Iniow him if I met him 
on the street today. 

Mr. Lex'zxfr. Have you had any discussions, communications, meet- 
incfs, or correspondence, with any representative of the law firm of 
Davis & Cox since vou joined the White House staff in IVlav 1973? 

Mr. BTziFAnnT. Xo. T don't recall the name. T don't even know who 
it is. 

Mr. Lexzxer. "Well, Mr. Chester Davis is the representative or 
comisel for the Summa Corp., which was the Hughes Tool Co. Tho 
answer is still no? 

Air. BrziTARDT. Yes. 

]\rr. Lexzxer. Yes, the answer is no? 

Mr. BrziTARiiT. Yes. the answer is no. 

]\[r. Lexzxer. Xow, ]\fr. Buzhardt. have you become aware of a 
mooting that took place either late 1973 or January 1974 between 


President Nixon, ]Mr. F. Donald Nixon, ISIr. Edward Nixon, and Mr. 
Stanley McKiernan? 

INIr. BuziiAKDT. Well, I am sure the President has seen these indi- 
viduals, but I don't recall any specific meeting. 

Mr. Lkxzner. You have not been advised that such a meeting took 
place, and that issues relating to the investigation of the $100,000 was 
discussed at that meeting? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. I never knew of any discussion. 

Mr. Lenzner. Plave you learned or been advised of the preparation 
of a memorandum by ]Mr. INlcKiernan for President Nixon relating 
information of F. Donald Nixon and Edward Nixon? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. Yes. I think I was told by INIr. McKiernan that he 
had provided to the President a memorandum with respect to Mr. 
Donald Nixon's physical condition at some point. I don't know when 
it was. 

INfr. Lenzner. And did he also indicate that that memorandum con- 
tained information with i-egard to the Senate Select Committee's 
investigation and also the Vesco matter? 

Mv. BuzHARDT. No, he did not. 

INIr. Lenzxer. Have you ever seen a copy of that memorandum? 

]Mr. BuzTiARnT. No, I have not. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. A copy of it, or the memorandum itself? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if such a memorandum was physically 
delivered to President Nixon? 

Mr. Bttziiardt. No, T do not know that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of ever discussing with 
INIr. ]\rclviernan the question of whether his clients, Mr. F. Donald 
Nixon and Mr. Edward Nixon, would be called as witnesses before 
the Senate Select Committee? 

]Mr. BuziiARnT. I don't have any recollection of it, but I am sure he 
has mentioned the fact that they were going to testify, were called, 
did testify. I am aware that you had a hearing on the west coast with 

Mr. Lenzner. AYell, did you ever discuss with them whether they 
would be called, whether the Nixon brothers would be called as wit- 
nesses in public hearings before the Senate Select Committee? 

i\Ir. Buziiardt. I may have, I don't recall. I don't recall the ques- 
tion being raised of them being called in public hearings, but it may 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever learn of requests by either Edward 
Nixon or F. Donald Nixon that the President designate a member of 
his staff to provide advice to them and to INIr. McKiernan with regard 
to the investigation relating to them? 

Mv. Buziiardt. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. T^ooking at this memorandum. Mr. Bu/hardt, you 
have seen that document on a prior occasion, have you not? 

]Mr. Buziiardt. I ]:>ossibly have, T don't recall it. 

Ml-. Lenzner. And you will note in that document that there is a 
refeience made to a January 18, 1071, memorandum for Mr. Tlalde- 
man from Mr. Dean reciuesting an investioatiou of, I think, ISli'. 
Maheu, and his relationship to the Hughes Tool Co. 


]Mr. SciiULTz. Terry would you identify it for tlie record, please? 

Mr. Lj:nzxek. "Well, I would like 

^Ir. Bi'ziiAKDT. This is a nioniorandum dated January i2(), 1071.* 
confidential meuioranduiu foi- IT. I\. Haldeinan, fi'oui Dean, subject: 
'Tluo'hes Ketainei- of Larry O'Brien."' and 1 will lune to read it to 
see if there is any such thing as you said in it, Mv. I^nzner. And to 
answer you. 

Mi: Lexzxeh. Just read the first paragraph. 

Senator "Weicker. Xow, if counsel desires to read the whole 

Mr. Lexzxer. Tt is a lengthy memorandum. I am just going to ask 
about one matter. 

Senator Weicker. The fact is that counsel will refi'ain until ]\Ir. 
Buzhardt has read the memorandum. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEix. I assume you are going to put the whole thing in 
(he record? 

Mr. Lexzxer. That is not necessary. 

]\Ir. BuzTiARDT. In answer to your question, Mr. Lenzner, I do not 
see where it says that INIr. Haldeman told Mr. Dean to make an 

Mr. Lexzxer. "Well, the question — may I have the document back? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. The question is specifically to the language : "Pursu- 
ant to your memorandum of Januaiy IS. 1071, I have conducted an 
inquiry on the relation between Lariy O'Brien and Howard Hughes," 
and my (juestion to you. sir, is, have you ever observed the memoran- 
dum dated January IS. 1071, from Mr. Haldeman to Mr. Dean regard- 
ing an inquiry into the relation between O'Brien and Hughes? 

Mr. BuziiARUT. No, not to my recollection have I ever seen such a 

]Mr. Lexzxer. And you recall the committee requesting you to 
determine if such a memorandum existed in the files of the Wliite 
House ? 

INIr. BrziiAROT. Xo, I don't recall it, but it may well have been. 

^Ir. Lex'zxer. You don't recall us requesting that? 

Mr. Bi'ziiARDT. Xo. I don't recall your requesting that specific docu- 
ment. You requested any number of documents, as to a number of 
other people. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall making a search for that document? 

]Mr. BuziiAROT. Xo, I do not recall making a search for that docu- 

Senator AVeicker. I might add. Counsel, foi- the committee, is 
Counsel in the possession of such a document? 

'Sir. Lexzx'er. Xo, Senator. "We requested it and I remember speci- 
fically being in Mv. Buzhardt's office with Mr. Dash and I think Mr. 
Thompson, on at least two occasions, when we requested that memo- 
randum. And Mr. Buzhardt said he would make a search of the files 
to see if such memorandum existed. We do not have a copy of that 
and that is why we made the i-equest. 

Senator "Weickkr. Mr. Buzhardt, are you in a position now to make 
such a search and to get such document if, indeed, it exists? 

''Later entererl as Hisby exhibit No. 5-D, p. 11127. 


Mr. BiTZTiARDT. T (loirt — Senator, I may have made such a search. 
T just don't i-ecall if T searclied for that particular memorandum. It 
doesn't strike any cliord in my recollection. I have searched the en- 
tirety of Mr. Dean's files T thiidc about four times, almost paper to 
pa])e7', and T don't ever recall seeinjj such a memorandum, no. 

Senator Wf.ickkk. Well, mig-ht T sufrfjest. since ai)parently, and I 
mi<rht add that T don't l)lame vou if you can't remember a specific 
document and s])ecific days with thousands of documents to go over, 
but may I su^rgest, since this has been a matter of discussion between 
you and the committee, that you once apiin review the files and if, 
indeed, such a document exists that it be turned over to the commit- 

ISfr. BrziTAROT. ]\ri<rht T ask Mr. Lenzner if T ever replied to his 
request and said that T did or did not find it because ■ 

]\fr. Lexzxer. No. I i-emember 

]\rr. BuzTiARDT. I don't recall. 

INfr. Lexzxer. For the record, I remember we requested the docu- 
ment orioiuallv, and then several weeks aftei- that we met ap:ain in 
your office and asked if yon had found the document and you said 
that at that time, T believe you said, that you had not been able to 
make a search for it. We made the request a<iain and T don't think we 
ever fjot an answer unless you commmiicated to ]Mr. Dash and I was 
not privy to that communication. 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. Well, T just don't recall. 

INfr. Lexzxer. LTave you^ 

]Mr. BrzrTARDT. T will check and see if T can find some record of it 
and see if I did. 

^Nfr. Lexzxer. TTave vou had any communications or discussions 
with ]Mr. TTaldeman, with regard to the subject of these memoran- 
dums ? 

^Iv. BlZTIARnT. No. 

Ml". Lexzx'er. Or have you had any discussions with any other indi- 
vidual with regard to the subiect matter of this memorandum? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. T don't recall any,^Ir. Lenzner. T don't recall your 
discussion with me on this specific memoi'andum. But, T could well 
liave had some. 

IMr. Lexv.x-^er. "Well, other than 

Mv. BuzTiARDT. T iust doii't recall it. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Other than members of the committee, or its staff, 
have you had any discussions with anybody with regard to the sub- 
ject matter of this memorandum? 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. T don't i-ecall any, Mr. T^nzner. 

INfr. Lexzxer. Have you had any discussions with anv individual 
with regard to the information in the transci'ii)ts, elsewhere relating 
to an attempt, alleired attem])t, to break into TLmk Greenspun's safe? 

Mr. BuzirARDT. Now, would you go back over that? What transcript 
are vou talking about ? 

Mr. Lex^'zx^er. The transci-ipts the Wliite TTouse i"ecentlv released, 
at page 430, thei-e was a conversation between the President, INIr. 
TTaldeman, aiul "Slv. Ehrlichman, and let me just show it to you. It is 
page 425. . 


Mr. BrziiAinvr. Yos; OK. Well, T liaveivt had any disciipsions with 
respect to this material. I may have talked to somelwdy about the so- 
called Greenspun safe. If T did, it was probably Senator Baker or 
^Fr. Thompson. I don't recall discussing this type of subject matter 
with anybody else. 

^fr. Lexzxkk. Well, do you lemember 

]Mr. BrzTiAKDT. Thouirli T may have. Let's see, there may be one 
other person and T can't remember his name now. But give me a 
minute and I will. 

Mr. Lexzxkr. Yes, sir, take your time. 

Mr. BuzHAKDT. And I am ashamed because he works here and I 
have known him for a long time, but I can't for the life of me 
remember right now. One time I had a conversation and, no, he 
doesn't work with this committee. He works for the Joint Committee 
on Atomic Enei-gv, and I believe at one time he was 

Senator Weukkk. ^Iv. Mur])hy ? 

Mr. BizHARDT. Mv. ^Nfurphy. Tliat's right, ^Iv. Murphy. I believe 
he was there when Senator Baker and I had a discussion once, and I 
am not even sure we discussed this. But, we may have because we 
were on this tyj^e of subject. We could have discussed it then. To the 
best of my recollection, I haven't discussed it with anybody else. 

^Ir. L?:x'zxER. As a result of that discussion, did you seek to obtain 
any additional information with I'egard to that suliject matter? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Xo, I did not. 

Senator Weicker. And the meeting that was held with INIr. Thomp- 
son and ]Mr. Murphy and Mr. Baker, when was that meeting, to the 
best of your recollection ? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall. There was more than one discussion. 
T don't think T talked to Mr. Thompson and Senator Baker at the 
same time, but T don't recall when it was. It was some months ago — 
several months ago. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was it prior to the committee's decision to hold pub- 
lic heai'ings, or after the committee's decision to hold public hearings? 

]\Ii'. BrzTiARDT. It was after the public hearings. 

Senator Weicker. After the public hearings ? 

jNIr. BrziFARDT. After the public hearings. 

Senator Weicker. Was the meeting on this particular matter — was 
this one requested bv ^Ir. Thompson and /or Senator Baker, or was 

^Tr. Bi'ziiARDT. Yes. Senator Baker came to ^ee me initially about 
the matter. 

Senator Weicker. I see. 

]Mr. BrziTARDT. About several matters. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I don't want to get into this in great detail, but can 
you tell us iust what the context of the conversation was or what the 
pur])ose of it was? 

]Mr. BrziiARDT. Xo, the purpose was to discuss whether we had 
information that could add to his portion of the investigation that 
he was working on. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Which was what, sir? 

]Mr. BrziiARDT. Interested in. 


Mr. Lenzner. Which was what? 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. I believe it involved possible CTA involvement, and 
a number of factors in connection with the AVateriiate break-in: this 
type of thini?. 

Senator Wetcker. I think, obviously, that counsel should be allowed 
to ask Mv. Buzhardt any knowledge he mi^ht have of it, but I would 
suoffjest to counsel that if there is any further responses that arc 
necessarv, that counsel confer with either minoritv counsel or Senator 

INlr. Lexzxer. Yes. 

INIr. Buzhardt. Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Senator. 

INIr. Lexzner. I ap:ree. and I just want to ask one question. And, 
that it, were you able to furnish any additional information or did 
you obtain any additional information with regard to any of those 

jNlr. BuzirARDT. No, T did not. T am afraid that they had done much 
more work than I ever knew about. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did you pass on those communications with anybody 
else, did you pass on the substance of your comnumication with either 
INIr. Thompson or Senator Baker with any other individual? 

INIr. Buzhardt. I may have ; probably did. 

Mr. Lex'^zxer. Do you remember who that was? 

l\[r. BuZTIARDT. No. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Do you know of anv surveillance, physical or elec- 
tronic, conducted on any member of the committee — Senate Select 

]\[r. Buzhardt. No. 

INIr. Sn.vERSTEix. Excuse me. Do you have any information alon^ 
the lines that any member of the committee has had electrical or 
phvsical surveillance ? 

]\fr. Lexzx^er. I will be o;lad to discuss that with you, Mr. Silver- 
stein, some other time. 

Mv. Sh^versteix'. T would like to discuss that with you. 

My. Lex^zxer. Fine. And do you have any information or knowl- 
edge as to whether any physical or electronic surveillance has been 
conducted on any member of the committee staff? 

Mv. Buzhardt. No. I thought that was included in your other 
question, your first question. 

Mv. Lexzxer. Now, you conducted yourself, did you not, ^Ir. Buz- 
hardt, an investigation into wiretai)]')infy and electronic surveillance 
that had been conducted prior to January 1, 1974? 

Mv. Buzhardt. No. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Well, is it not ti'ue. Mv. Buzhardt. that you made 
inquii'ies and o-athered information with reo-ard to allegations con- 
cern ino- M'iretappino;? 

Ml'. Buzhardt. Certain information came to mv attention, ves. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well 

Mv. Buzhardt. But T never conducted an iuATstiiration. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Well, did you ask for that infoi'mation to be prepared 
for vou, presented to vou ? 

IVfr. Buzhardt. T don't recall. There was not one transaction but 
there were a number of transactions related to wiretappino; that I 


liavo come into information of from one time to the other. I don't 
know what you are specifically ttilkinc; a})out. 

^Ir. Lf:xzxr.i;. Well, did you not request certain information from 
the U.S. Secret Service with re_a:u-d to possible electronic surveillance 
oi- physical sui-\-eillance that they (conducted I 

Mr. lU'zuAnDT. I don't recall if I requested. Cci+ain infoi-mation 
was connnunicated to me, yes. 

Afr. Lkxzxki;. And for what pni-pose was it communicated to you? 

^Ir. BrzitAKDT. I think that will again come within — well, certainly 
mattei's relating to that have been and are the subject of exocntive 
})i-ivile<ie claims by the President. He has asserted it and I would 
have to re<rret fully decline to answer the question, because I am under 
the same injunction on that subject as othei's. I am aware because I 
have o:iven — afforded the instructions. 

Senator Wkicker. If I may liere, as I understand it, you are declm- 
ino; to respond to this question on the basis of executive privilege ; is 
that right? 

Ml'. BrziiAKUT. Yes, sir. Executive privilege has been asserted by 
the President. T am sure in this conunittee, with respect to this subject 
matter, I am aware of that and I could not answer the question. 

Senator "Wkickkr. Well, what subject matters are we refendng to? 

Mr. BrzuARDT. This is with respect to information relating to 

Mr. Lf.xzxer. Well, did you receive any information relating to 
electronic sui'veillance or wireto])s conducted without authorization 
of the appropriate authorities? 

Mr. BuziiAitnT. Well, that is — that is again within the — let's see — I 
know of no electronic surveillance conducted without appropriate 

Mr. Lex'zxer. And by appropriate authorizatioTi, I mean a request 
and an authoi-ization by the Attorney General of the United States 
pursuant to the appropriate statute. 

INIr. PrzTTARirr. Well, I didn't so limit my answer. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Well, T assume that you probably were making a 
rather general answer there, ^Nfr. Buzhardt, and what I am simply 
asking now is, did you learn of any electronic surveillance conducted 
without authorization by the Attorney General or pursuant to statute, 
01- a Federal court iudge pursuant to statute? 

]Mr. BrzTTARDT. I am sorry, I cannot answer your question because 
it is subject to the claim of executive privilege as to the information 
concerning these wiretaps. It is subject to an assertion of executive 
]^i-ivilege by the President. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you conduct 

]\rr. BrzTiAROT. And T am aware of those instructions not to testify 
with respect to that subject, because I have passed them on to other 
witnesses — relayed the President's instructions. 

]Mr. Lex-^zx'er. Did you conduct an investigation into the wiretap- 
p i no: of Joseph Kra ft ? 

^fr. BrZTTARDT. No. 

]Nrr. Lexzxer. You received no information relating to that alleged 

^fr. BizTiARDT. I conducted no investigation with respect to the 
wiretap of Joseph Kraft. 


Mr. Lenzxer. Did you receive any information as to who ordered 
the alleo:ed electronic suiveillance of Mr. Kraft? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did yon receive any information relatin<^ to the alle- 
fjations concernino; electronic surveillance of ISIr. Kraft other than 
the news media? 

Mr. BiTziiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Lenzxer. And can you desci'il)e what the substance of that 
information was? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I cannot. I am sorry. That, too, is subject to an 
assertion of executive privilege, and I cannot. 

INIr. Lexzxf,r. Well, let me ask this 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. I cannot discuss it here. I think — and T am not 
really aware — T am aware that Attorney General Eichardson, when 
he was Attorney General, discussed that with the Judiciary Commit- 
tee. The extent to which he made the disclosure T do not know, a dis- 
closure about it. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Well, did you not, in fact, learn on occasion, Mr. 
Buzhardt, that Mr. Kraft's telephone was tai^ped by a private indi- 
vidual who was not employed by the LT.S. Government? 

Mr. BuziTARnT. No, T did not learn that. I have heard allepitions in 
the public to that effect, but I have never seen anythin^r to substan- 
tiate it. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Well, you certainly know Mr. Ehrlichman requested 
Mr. Caulfield to implement that wiretap, do you not ? 

Mr. BiTZTiARDT. No, T do not. 

Mr. Lex^zx^er. You do not know that INIr. Ehrlichman's testimony 
l>efore the Senate Select Gommittee 

Mr. BuzTTARDT. No. TTe may have said it but T am not aware of it 
if he did. T just don't recall him saying that. T didn't listen to all of 
Mr. Ehrliclnnan's testimonv, and T am not sure T ever read all of Mr. 
Ehrlichman's testimony. I have read portions of it but I don't recall 
ever reading that. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. Do vou know if President Nixon personally ordered 
the electronic surveillance of Mr. Joseph Kraft? 

INIr. Bfzttardt. No, T do not. 

Mr. Steverstetx. Excuse me. Are you exertinof executive privilege 
i-elatinc: to all questions relatint? to wiretap? 

INfr. B\TZTTARDT. No. For that information which came to me through 
unofficial sources, and T have, obviously, seen them in the newspaper 
and thinfjs like that, T can't exert executive privilege. 

INIr. Steversteix\ Of youi" personal knowledge? 

Mr. Bt'Zttardt. Of my personal knowledge, yes. 

Mr. Stlverstein. All right. That is the only question that T had. 
Thank vou. You may proceed. 

IMr. Lex^zxh^^.r. Did you receive any information as to what purpose 
Mr. Kraft's phone was wiretapped ? 

Mr. BuzTTARDT. Again, T would have to assei't executive privilege 
with respect to that or decline to answer for that reason, because it 
is at the direction of the President that that testimony on that subject 
not be given. 


Mv. Lexzxrpv. Tho testimony, specifically. }'ou have been instrncted 
by the President that you cannot testify as to information you re- 
ceived with reoard to electronic .-mveillance of jNIr. Kraft's phoned 

Mr. SiLVERSTKiN. Excuse me, Tmry 

■ Mr. BuziiAinrr. "With respect to wiretaps by the Government, yes. 

Mr. Lexzxeii. And do you ha\ c information that indicates to you 
that when you say wiretaps by the Government, doos that mean any 
tai>s authorized or implemented by any oOit'ial of the Government, 
regardless of Avhether they are authorized j^ursuant to statute or not? 

Afr. BuziiAiinT. No. If I knew of any, 1 know of none that were 
actually done by anybody other than the auencies of Government. 

Mr. Lp:xzxer. "Well, do yon know who wiretapped Mr. Kraft's 
phone ? 

Mr. Bi'ZTiATJDT. What wireta|'> of Mr. Kraft's phone, T don't know. 
You could explain what — if you ai'e talkinu- about the allep:ation that 
somebody taj^ped ^Ir. Kraffs telephone at his home in Georo:etown, 
which I have read in the i^aper. I know nothing more than I read in 
the ])aper, or any other public document. 

^fr. Lex'zxer. You have recei\(Ml no other information with regard 
to that Aviretap except what you liave learned in the news media? 

^[r. BrziiAijDT. And reading it. I think it was referred to at some 
1)1 ace in a transcript or tape, I (h>n't know. 

Mr. Lexzxer. But you have received no information from any other 
source inside the Government with regard to that? 

JNIr. BuzirARDT. No. 

INIr. Lex'zxer. That allegation ? 

AFr. BrziiARDT. No. 

]Mr. Lex^zxer. Now, did you also receive information with regard to 
electronic surveillance of F. Donakl Nixon? 

Mr. SiLA'ERSTETX'. Excusc me. 

]\[r. BUZITARDT. No. 

^Ir. SiLVERSTEix'. I have got to interrupt at this time. I am counsel 
here, too. 

Now, the witness. I understood, has said he has no personal knowl- 
edge of an>i"hing pertaining to wiretaps. He has made it as clear as 
can be, and he is willing to answer any question, and I think you are 
going beyond and reaching the stage of hai-assing the witness. 

Senator Wetcker. That is u]) to the Chair, and I am not going to 
rule on tliat. But, neither do I understand, to paraphrase Mr. Buz- 
hardt's position, that he might or might not have information, but in 
this area of Government electronic surveiUance wiretaps, whatever 
you want to call it. he is under a ])i-ohibition of executive privilege. 

^Ir. SiEVERSTEix'. And he also stated. Senator, that he has no knowl- 
edge of any wiretaps. 

Senator "Wetcker. No, he didn't. 

Mr. BrziiAROT. No, I didn't. If you will permit me to correct the 
record hei-e. If there is a misumUu-standing, T said I had 

Mr. Steat:rstetx'. Please, do. 

Mr. BuzirARDT [continuing]. T said I had no information except 
what T have read in public documents about the alleged wiretap of 
the telephone of Mr. Kraft in Georgetown. T believe that is where it 


was, to the best of my rerollections from the public documents. But, 
with respect to official activities, I am under directions not to testify 
with respect to tliem. 

Mr. Lenznkr. Well, do you know of a specific electronic surveillance 
that Avas conducted without authoiization, pursuant to the existino; 
statute for electronic surveillance? 

]\[r. BuziiARDT. You Avill have to })ai-don me a minute, because I am 
ha vino; to think. 

Xo. To the best of my recollection and knowledfre. 

]\Ir. Lenzner. And did you receive information on occasion with 
re<rard to the wiretapping; and suiveillance of F. Donald Nixon? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. Yes, T received such information. 

Mr. Lenzxer. And could you tell us. did you request such informa- 
tion to be fui'uished you? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. I don't recall. ■ ' 

Mr. Lenzxer. And do you recall who furnished you the informa- 
tion and what the nature of it was? 

INIr. BuziiARDT. Yes, T recall. But, I cannot testify with respect to 
that, INIr. Lenzner, because it is sul)ject to an assertion of executive 
privilejxe by the President. T am under an injunction not to. 

Senator Wetcker. I understand. Now% am T to assume, because I 
think this will set the record straifrht and save a lot of further ques- 
tions alons; this line, am T then to reassume by your response on F. 
Donald Nixon, the question posed by Mr. Lenzner, that that was an 
electronic surveillance liy a Government agency and, therefore, falls 
within the executive privilejje imposed on you by the President? 

Mr. BiTZTFARDT. Yes, I think so. Senator Weicker. 

Senator "Wetcker. Because T take that, in other words, to l)e. be- 
cause of youi" statement of executive privilege and your answer to the 
previous question of havino; no knowledge of ones that were outside. 

INIr. BuzTTARDT. Ycs. 

Senator Weicker. I am talking now about 

INIr. BuzTTARDT. Ycs. T think that is right. 

Senator Wetcker. Now, I think that ]\Ir. Buzhardt has made this 
pretty clear, Terry, with that series of questions you posed, and with 
this, as to exactly where we are on this matter. T hope you can shorten 
this up a little bit. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Let me ask just one more question to clarify the 

Do you knoW' if that electronic surveillance was authorized by a 
court after the Attorney General authorized it, pursuant to the exist- 
ing statute ? 

Mv. BuzTTARDT. T obviouslv have the knowledge of the cii-cum- 
stances of this, Mr. Lenznei-. I don't want to mislead the connnittee at 
all, but T cannot testify about the substance of it, and I cannot answer 
your question without going into the substance. 

Mr. Lexzxer. All right. Senatoi-, the only thing T wanted to sug- 
gest for the i-ecord is that if wiretaps that INIr. Buzhardt is aware of, 
were not authorized pursuant to the statiTte or by the Attorney Gen- 
eral, the fact that they may have been implemented bv Government 
agencies does not necessarily make them legal. Tf, in fact, they were 
illegal wiretaps outside of the authority of the agency, or whoever 


conducted them, then they would fall outside of the scope of executive 
privilege, and would be propeily answeral)le here. 

Senator Weicker. But I o^ather from Mr. l)uzhardt. and correct me 
if I am wrong, that he has responded that he does not know of any 
illegal wiretaps, whether they happened to he done by an indi\adual 
and. therefore, are illegal, or whether they happened to be done by 
Government without proper authorization and are illegal. 

Mr. BrzuAKDT. That was my answer to liis earlier question. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I think we are going to — I don't want to belabor this, 
and I am going to droj:) it, but I think I want to clarify the record, 
because I think what Mr. Buzluifdt says is legal under his defini- 
tion may not be the feeling of the committee, and I do not want to 
speak for the committee. But, f suspect [Perhaps Mr. Buzhardt is 
assuming any wiretap authorized by the President of the United 
States, even though it is not authorized by a couit of law, nor is 
reviewed by the Department of Justice, is. in fact, a legal wiretap. 

Senator Weicker. Well, he has already answered your question. I 
don't think that he is trying to mislead at all on this point. Do you 
have any knowledge of wii'etaps, electronic surveillance, which, 
though conducted by a Government agency, is illegal? 

]Mr. BrziiARDT. Xot in my opinion. Senator Weicker. 

Senator "Weicker. Do you have any knowledge 

Mr. BrzHARDT. And I am not, you know, I am familiar with the 
^'arious — T am not an expert — but I am familiar with the varioiis 
statutes that have been enacted from time to time and the court deci- 
sions on these mattei^s. 

Senator Weicker. Do- you have any knowledge of wiretai:>s. elec- 
tronic surveillance, performed by sources, persons outside of the 
Government which per se would be without authority? 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. That is a very broad question, and it goes back a 
long time. Senator Weicker. Let me say, not in connection with any- 
thing T know you are interested in. Let me put it like that, other than 
what T have read in the newspapers or this sort of thing. 

Senator Weicker. Now, is there any further question, Terry, that 
you want on this point? 

Mr. Lexzxer. No : just one question. Did you eA'er advise Attorney 
General Richardson that, in fact, you had conducted an investigation 
with regard to electronic surveillance and had obtained certain mate- 
rial pursuant to that investigation? 

Mr. BiTziiAROT. I don't recall doing so, luit I could have. I have 
never conducted an investigation. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. So your answer would be. you never would have .so 
represented that to Attorney General Richardson? 

Ml". BuzTiARDT. I may have discussed wiretaps with Attorney Gen- 
eral Richardson. I am quite sure T did from time to time. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. And was that discussion in the context of Mr. Cox's 
investigation then? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. Yes. T am sure it was at one time or another. 

Ml'. Lexzxer. And did you lune other discussions with Attorney 
General Richardson with regard to other matters being investigated 
by Special Prosecutor Cox? 

Mr. BrziiAROT. Probably, yes. I don't recall any specific one, but I 
am sure I did. 


Mr. Lenzxer. Do you recall whether that inclncled a discussion of 
Cox's investigation of the personal finances relating to President 
Nixon ? 

Mr, BuziiARDT. It may have, I don't recall. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did it also include conversations Avith Attorney Gen- 
eral Richard relating to the special prosecutor's investigation of Mr. 
Rebozo and the receipt of $100,000? 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. No, T don't ever recall discussing that with him at 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did it include discussions Avith regard to Special 
Pr-osecutor Cox's investigation, or alleged iuA^estigation, of San 
Clemente ? 

Mr. BuzHARnT. It may have, I don't recall. I recall that I did dis- 
cuss the issue of INIr. Cox's jurisdiction with INIr. Richardson from 
time to time. And you will recall, also, that I was Mr. Richardson's 
counsel at the time that he Avas appointed special prosecutor — I mean, 
Attorney General — at the time that he Avas selecting a special prose- 
cutor. We have had a number of conversations — I haA^e had a number 
of conA^ersations Avith him since. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Were there discussions with regard to the electronic 
surA^eillance, particularly electronic surA-eillance by the Secret Service 
in the context of Special Prosecutor Cox's jurisdiction over that 
matter ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. There may Avell have been. 

Mr. Lexzner. Do you recall any other issues you discussed with 
Attorney General Richardson Avith regard to the iuA^estigation by 
Special Prosecutor Cox ? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. No. I recall I discussed Avith him INIr. Cox's juris- 
diction, the jurisdiction of the special prosecutor, what it Avas, Avhat 
it should be. 

Mr. Lex^zx^er. Were you doing that at the request of anybody? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I was doing that in my official function. 

]VIr. Lexzner. Well, then, did the President request on occasion that 
you discuss 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. AttorncA' General Richardson 

Mr. BuziiARDT. What the President 7-equested of me falls within the 
attorney-client relationship and Avouldn't — I can't discuss it. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Well, let me ask this, Mr. Chairman, if I can. Were 
you CA'er requested by President Nixon to direct Attorney General 
Richardson to direct Special Prosecutor Cox not to conduct investi- 
gations into certain areas ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. What I was instructed by the President comes 
Avithin the attorney-client relationship and I can't, Avithout waiA'ing 
the entirety of it, Avaive any part of it, and I just cannot ansAver that 
question on that ground. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. What I am asking is, Avere you directed by the Presi- 
dent to haA^e Attorney General Richardson close down or shut off an 
inA'estigation by Special Prosecutor Cox? 

Senator Weicker. As I understand it, Terry, and I am trying to be 
fair to your question, but the fact is the Avhole question is based on 
AA'hat the President instructed Mr. Buzhardt, and that is something 
that Avould fall within the attorney-client pi'ivilege. 


]Mr. Lexzxer. Lot me rephrase the question. Senator, if I can. Did 
you over re(i[uost Special Prosecutor Cox — Attoiney General Richard- 
son, to instructor Cox not to conduct an invcsti oration into certain 
areas ? 

jNIr. BuzTiAUDT. No, to the best — so I can clarify this, if I may, since 
you have got us out of what I consider the attorney-client relation- 
ship, I don't ever recall directin»r Mr. Richardson to do anything. I 
have discussed — I did discuss at the time, I am sure, Mr. Cox's juris- 
diction, generally, and with regard to any number of specific areas, 
of what it was. what Mr. Richardson belie^'ed it to be, what Mr. Cox 
believed it to bo. I also discussed it with INIr. Cox personally, prob- 
ably on half a dozen occasions. Xever do T remember giving either 
ono of them anything like a direction. I certainly expressed, so there 
is no misunderstanding, T certainly expressed my opinions about the 

Mr. Lex'zx-^er. Mr. Buzhardt, did you leai-n of the l)reak-in of Dr. 
Fielding's office prior to the time that it became public knowdedge to 
the news media ? 

!Mr. BrzTiARn-j'. No. "Well, let me say, and it is hard to remember 
back there, at the time I was at the Dopartmont of Defense, T guess. I 
remember it and, obviously, T had worked with the U.S. attorney out 
there and I don't recall whether it was in the public media first, or it 
was disclosed to the U.S. attorney, and he told me. But it was about 
the same time. 

Mr. Lexzxer. All right. 

;Mr. Bi'ZTiARDT. So, you know, I recall T did talk to him on the 
phone. The matter came up. Which is first, and I either learned about 
it in the news media about that time, or we were having a discussion 
and he told me about that time, or perhaps one of the people from 
the Department of Justice told me about that time. 

Mv. Lexzxer. But I take it, then, you are saying you have not had 
a discussion then with jNIessrs. Liddy, Krogh, Mardian, Young, with 
regard — or the President — with regard to the — well, skip, hold the 
President — Mardian, Krogh, Young, Liddy, with regard to the 
break-in of Dr. Fielding's office^ 

^Ir. BuzTiARDT. No, that wouldn't be correct, because I did have a 
conversation with Mv. Krogh, T believe, after his plea was in and 
while he was awaiting sentence recently. 

Senator Weicker. Yes. I think it is important to point out, Terry, 
so that there is no confusion on the record, your initial question to 
Mr. Buzhardt related to knowledge he had prior to the matter be- 
coming public. 

^Tr. Lexzxer. Right, right. 

Senator Weicker. Which INIr. Buzhardt denied, with the exception 
of what he referred to in his capacity over at the Department of 
Defense. Now, you are moving into another area, and I think it just 
ouglit to be pointed out. 

Mr. BiTZTiARDT. I will be glad to say the occasion was — ^the judge 
requested, prior to sentencing, that Mr. Krogh be permitted to review 
certain classified files in the preparation of his statement to the judge. 
This request was relayed to us by the Office of the Special Prose- 
cutor. We made the arrangements. Mr. Krogh came in to see his 
files and, at that time, he stopped by my office and I am sure we dis- 
cussed the affair of Dr. Fieldincf. 


Mr. Lexzxer. Did you discuss who authorized the break-in of Dr. 
Fielding's office? 

Mr. BuzTiARDT. No; we did not. 

Mr. Lknzxek. And is that the only discussion you have had. either, 
or any other discussions with any individuals including Mr. Krotjh, 
Mr. Mardian, INIr. Liddy, INIr. Young, Mr. Hunt, with regard to the 
Fielding break-in ? 

INIr. BiTzirAKDT. It is the only one T recall. I think T meit Mr. Liddy 
once in my life. I haven't seen ^Nfr. Young since he left the White 
House, and I never knew that he was in any way involved in it. I 
have never met Mr. Hunt in my life or talked to him, and when I 
met Mr. Liddy it was some long while ago. 

INIr. Lexzxer. All right, sir. Now, may T have this mai'ked as 
exhibit 1. 

[The material was marked as Buzhardt exhibit No. 1 for identifi- 
cation and is retained in the tiles of the counnittee.] 

Mr. Lexzxer. ]Mr. Ruzhardt, you will note in your affidavit there 
that you say this memorandum, except the date, is identical to the 
document previouslv described in the affidavit of Leonard Garment 
dat-ed Julv T), 1973. It has been informally ascertained from the origi- 
nator of the memorandum that it was originally prepared on Novem- 
ber 22, 1971, and so dated. The date on the file copy was apparently 
changed by persons unknown to conform to the date of the Presi- 
dent's meeting described therein. 

]My first question is: Who was the oi-iginator of that memorandum? 

]Mr. BrzTiARDT. Mr. Lenzner, as this document sets out, the docu- 
ments involved are subject to the same claim of executive privilege 
by the President, and on a matter i:»ending in coui't and, of course, 
T am subject to the injunction of the Pi-esident, of which I am aware, 
that this is a matter sul)ject to executive })rivilege. so I could not 
answer your rjuestion. 

Senator "Wetcker. What is this memorandum ? 

INIr. BuzHARDT. Senator, this is an affidavit I filed with the court 
in the case of Nader v. Bvfz. ft c//.'. the so-called MUh case. All of 
the documents were delivered to the court in camera for the court's 
inspection pursuant to a claim of executive privilege asserted with 
respect to them. The documents are listed and described by identify- 
ing memorandums, but not by content or specific author, or that type 
oi thing. The court has not vet ruled on the claim. We expected it 
last week, but it hasn't come through. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Well, was it you, Mr. Buzhardt, who informally 
ascertained from the originator of the memorandum that was orig- 
inally prepared on November 22? 

INIi". Buzhardt. No, it was not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. All right, sir, do you know when that was ascer- 

]Mr. Bt'Zttardt. No, T do not. Sometime i)rior to the filing of this 
memorandum, this affidavit, and this was filed on the 16th day of 

]\rr. Lexzxer. 1973. 

Mr. BuziTARDT. And it says here, let me read it 

Mr. Lexzxer. That is 1973. 


Mr. BuziiARnT. 1073. It says licre. I tliink it is a recitation of some- 
thino- tliat was said in the prior affidavit of Mr. Garment. I don't 
even i-ecall tliis specific document. 

]Mr. Lexzxek. Do you know where the original document was kept 
after it was prepared? 

]\[r. BrzHAKDT. Xo, I do not. 

Mr. Lexzxeh. Do you know who had access to it? 

^Ir. BuzHARDT. Xo, I do not. 

]\lr. Lexzxek. Do you know of any other documents in the case 
of Xader v. Butz, where, in any way, they were chanfjed or altered? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. Not that I know of. May I say that this affidavit 
helps to cleai- the record a little bit. This affidavit indicates that a 
memorandum was filed previously with the court, and subsequently 
another memorandum, T presuuie, another copy, Avas obtained, to put 
another date on — that had another date on it. I don't recall the 
specific document anyhow, but it is subject to the claim of executive 

]Mr. Armstrox'g. Mr. Buzhardt, other than the Hughes contribu- 
tion to Mr. Eebozo of $100,000, are you aware of any other cash con- 
tributions received by Mr. Eebozo prior to April 7, 1972, which Mr. 
Rebozo did not turn over to the campaign or the campaign commit- 
tee, oi- authorized representatives of the camj^aign? 

!Mi-. Bi'ziiARDT. Xo. If you would so limit your question, I am not 
aware of any other campaign contributions he received which he did 
or did not give to the committee. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. OK. Now, regarding the transcripts of Presiden- 
tial conversations released on April 30, 1974, it is my understanding 
tliat Mi's. Acker, INIrs. Yates, Mrs. Bakie, and Miss Woods were the 
individuals who transcribed, or nearly, the complete set of tran- 
scripts. Is that correct? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. They were among those who worked on them; 

INIr. Armstrox'G. Are there any other individuals who participated 
in that transcript — in the actual transcription? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. 

ISIr. Armstroxg. Can you tell us their names ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Senator, if I might, I don't understand the rele- 
vance of that question. 

Senator AVeicker. I have some difficulty with it myself. Scott, 
can you explain; can you tell us what it is you are trying to do 
here ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. If I can ask the second question, maybe 

Senator "Weicker. Go rdiead. 

]Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Can you tell us, Mr. Buzhardt, who — what indi- 
vidual or individuals participated in the editing of the transcripts? 
By that I mean, the exclusion of what are referred to in the tran- 
scripts as "expletives" and the deletion of uiaterial which is noted as 
"material unrelated to Presidential actions deleted." 

Mr. Buzhardt. I still don't understand the relevancy of the ques- 

Senator "Weicker. Perhaps counsel can tell us. Can you relay the 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 13 


Mr. ARMSTitoxc. Seiiiito!-, \vo liavo, as you know, two subpenas out- 
standinp: for iapos, inchulin*!:. of course, some tapes that are not pro- 
vided in the ti-anscripts so far published, i^ut a great number, ex- 
cludino:. T think, about 10 of the transcripts published, the rest of 
the conversations are presently under subpena by the committee, and 
we are, of course, concerned about the completeness and the fullness 
of the transcripts themselves. And T would like at least to know 
what indi^Mduals made the judirment about what was to be included 
or what was not to be included in the public transcripts. 

Senator- WkkuvF.r. Scott. I have a great deal of difficulty with that 

]Nraybe Mr. Buzhardt can respoiul to it. and T don't know whether 
he can, I just don't see the relevancy to our mandate. That is my 
problem with this thincf. 

]\rr. AR:\rsTROxo. Well, we ai'e concerned initially with the com- 
pleteness and the accuracy. 

Senator Wetckek. Tf T may state, these transcrii>ts were ti'anscribed 
and handed over to the House Judiciarv Committee; is that correct? 

Mr. AR:\rsTR0X(:. Well, also, and additionally issued publicly. 

Senatoi- Wekuveu. "Well, issued publicly, but they Avere primarily 
handed over to the House Judiciary Committee. And I could under- 
stand the question, if I were on the House Judiciary Committee, and 
T would find it a lot easier to answer this question. 

INIr. AR:\rsTnoxo. Tt is our understanding that with regard to the 
pending court case, that these transcripts have become public, that 
we no longer have a need for the tapes, and we also have a second 
subi:>ena for access to 400 taped conversaitions. 

Senator Wetcker. Wliich the court has not ruled on? 

Mr. AR:\rsTi?oxT;. On which there has been no — there has been no 
ruling. They haven't gone to court — on the first subpena we have 
gone to court, and T understand that we are at the ap])eal stage. 

Mr. BuzTTARDT. Tf T may correct the i-ecord. Senator Weicker. T 
believe wi^th respect to the second subi^ena, that the judge, and T have 
forgotten which one quashed those subpenas, but that was my under- 
standinof. I was not aware that an apneal had been filed fi"om that. 

Mr. Ar^istrox-^g. T was not aware thev had been quashed. 

Senator Wetcker. T think very fi'ankly, Scott. T don't want to rule 
against you on the matter, but T would just as soon that you move 
on to other questions. 

Mr. Armstroxc All i-ight. We were concerned, and we have re- 
ceived testimony from one of the individuals transcribing them, that 
they or she, herself, had not deleted any of the material and was not 
sure who had deleted it. 

Senator' Weictver. Well, this entor-s into another- ar-ea of investiga- 
tion, and as T say, T am not indicating that it might not be worthy 
of investigatiorr, brrt it just is not within the marrdate of this com- 
mittee. Arrd T woirld think it worrld be mrrch mor-e ]ier'tinent to the 
House Jrrdiciar-y Committee and/or anv of the courl^ cases. No one 
wants to hide arrv facts at all. and let the recor-d so show. But I 
r'eally thirdv that insofar as this witness is concerned, we have to 
keep within the confines of our- mandate, and T think that goes 
somewhat bevond it. 


;Mi-. Armstrong. OK. Mr. Buzhardt, liave you ever advised any 
witness or prospective witness, scheduled to appear, or prospectively 
.-cheduled to a[)pear before this committee, to turn their files over 
to the counsel's office, oi-. that is, counsel to the President's Office 
or to the Presidential i)apors files, or to Miss Gertrude ProAvn's secure 
liHna- area, and I am not sure how that is referred to in the White 
IFouse, in order to ])rotect those documents from subpena ^ 

Mr. PuzirARUT. Mr. Ai-mstronc;, on a numl)er of occasions, as you 
ai-e well awai\^, all papers i)repared by White House staff — I do not 
say all papers: there are exceptions to that set forth in the White 
House re.ixulations — the rest of the documents prepared in the course 
or conduct of business at the White TTouse, <>eneially si)eakino\ unless 
they are personal documents, and I think that includes telephone 
1o<j:s, and calendars are considered the individual's personal property, 
but the i^apers prepared in the conduct of business are Presidential 
l^apers. I have certainly so advised witnesses appearin<i here, and I 
liave ad^-ised them that in your request for a document, it should be 
referred to the opposite counsel, which, in turn, would be thereby 
taken up with the President for his decision. I hope I have advised 
;<11 witnesses that I knew about, to that etfect. I think it is general 
policy. It is stated in a written retrulation. I think it was prepared 
by ;^Ir. Dean. He was White House counsel and put out subject to 
I'eiiulation — ouidelines. 

^fr. AR:\rsTRox(;. Can you tell us, Mr. Buzhardt, since April 30, 
IOT.'k what individuals have had access to Mr. Dean's files at the 
White House? 

Mr. BrzTiARnT. I am tryino; to think; INIr. Dean, on one occasion, 
myself on several occasions, members of my staff on probably several 
occasions that I know of. I haven't checked the logs to see. 

^Nfr. AR:\rsTRoxG. And have Mr. Haldeman and jNIr. Ehrlichman 
and ]\[r. Higby ever had access to them, or their counsel? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. No, not since May 23. That is the earliest date of 
which I can speak. 

]\Ir. Armstrong. That being the first time in which you had any 
control over those files? 

]\rr. BrziTARDT. Yes. 

Senator Weicker. Who determines, Mr. Buzhardt, access to Mr. 
Dean's files? 

^Ir. BuzTTARDT. General — Senator Weicker, let me give you a 

Senator Weicker. Senator. I got out as a captain and I was glad 
to get out. 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. Excuse me. Senator Weicker, I am sorry. Generally, 
the general rule is that a person can have access to the files on which 
he works while a member of the White House staff, so each can 
have access to his own. Otherwise, the President determines the 

Xow, for the purpose of making searches for documents, and that 
is the only one T recall that is pertinent to this case, to the files we 
are talking about, I have made a number of those searches, members 
of my staff have made a number of those searches, INIr. St. Clair has 
made a number of those searches. We have used other people where 
we thought they could be of assistance. All of those are done under 


the Secret Service siii)ervision. T tliink it is fairly well known now, 
that the loo;s of some of tliem ai'e either an exhibit in Jndo;e Sirica's 
case, or liavc certainly been — the whole record of supervision of 
access has been subject of public testimony. 

Mr. AR]\rsTRoxG. Have copies, excuse me — have copies of rlocuments 
from Mr. Dean's files been made by any individuals that have had 
any access since May 28? 

Mr. Bi'ZiiAKDT. Yes. ' 

]Mr. Ak^mstroxo. And excludiuji: INIr. Dean, and ]Mr. Denn has had 
access, l)ut was not allowed to make any copies. 

Mv. BiTziiARDT. I have made copies, any number of copies. 

Mr. AR]\rsTROXG. And have these copies all been submitted to either 
Juda^e Sirica's court or this committee '^ 

Mr. BrziiARDT. To the Special Prosecutor primarily. 

Mr. AR]NrsTRoxG. And you retained no copies of documents made 
from ]Mr. Dean's files? 

Mr. BrzTiARDT. Oh, no. 

INIr. Armstroxo. That were not submitted? 

Mr. BuziiARUT. Any documents that are ever copied, and it depends 
on whether we have been requested to provide the original or a copy, 
if the orioinal is provided, a copy is reinserted with a note to that 
etfect. If the document is copied and a copy submitted, then we have 
I'eplaced it, we have put a note in the file that they were copied at 
that date and, also, a date, a notation on the lo^x. and an inventory 
of every document that is copied and removed from the files for 
whatever purpose. 

Mr. Armstrox^o. IMr. Buzhardt, are you aware of any surrepti- 
tious entry or burglary performed by employees, rej^resentatives, or 
desipiees, iu the U.S. Government, in the Executive Office of the 
President, or of anv campaiixn orjianization, other than those entries 
hivolved in the Fieldinc: l)ui-<rlai-v, and the two entries into the 
AYaterfjate — the Democi-atic National Committee headquarters at the 

INIr. BiTziiARDT. Yes. 

Mr. Armstroxo. And can you tell us what those are? 

Mr. BuzriARDT. No, T cannot. They don't have anythinc; to do with 
your case, let me say, but these are matters that are classified, and I 
cannot discuss them. 

]\I]\ AR:\rsTROXG. Have they occun-ed since January 1, 1069? 

Mr. Bfzttardt. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And were they ])erformed by — were INIr. Liddy, 
]\rr. Hunt, Mr. Kro^h, oi' INlr. Youno;. involved in any Avay in these? 

Mr. Bttztiardt. No: not to my knowled<]i:e. T don't know of any- 
thino; they did except the Fieldinc; thine:, and I have read about the 
Greens]:)un thin*!:. T don't know really whether they went in there or 
they didn't. 

jNIi-. ARisrsTRox'G. Is that the priviletje you have exerted there, is 
that executive privileo:e oi- national security? 

IM]-. BuzTTAROT. Yes; it is both. And you will have to recall in this, 
that I did work in the De])artment of Defense a number of years. 
Certainly from 1960 to 1973, T did. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if these entries were performed 
bv the Federal Bureau of Tn vest iirat ion? 


Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes, they Avere. 

]\Ir. Ar:m STRONG. They "vvere? 

Mr. EuziiARDT. Yes, they were. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEix. Excuse me. Were these pertaining to the man- 
date of this committee? 

]Mr. BrziiARirr. Xo. 

]\rr. Silvers TKix. That you ai-e aware of? 

]\Ir. BuziiAROT. I don't think so ; not as I understand the matter. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEix. In your opinion? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. In my opinion, no. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxct. And were they into the premises of any member 
of the news media or any elected official of the U.S. Government, or 
a candidate for public office of the IT.S. Government? 

Mr. BrziiARDT. Xot insofar as I know. 

]\rr. Ar:v[str()x<;. "Wore tliese entries in any way done at the instruc- 
tion or under tlie advice of Mr. Ehrlicliman or ^Ir. Haldeman? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't know. 

Mr. Armstrong. I am sorry ? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. I don't think so. I don't liave any knowledge if they 

!Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if any funds were paid with regard 
to those activities that were related to, or derived from, campaign 
funds ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I know of no surreptitious entry in any way related 
to campaign funds, other thnn the ones we mentioned here. 

^iv. Armstrong. So the only other surreptitious burglary or entry 
are those performed by the Bureau that you are aware of? 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. Well, the Bureau or another agency of Government 
in its normal activities. You have not even limited it to the United 
States, so your question is quite broad. , . 

]Mr. Ar:mstrong. Within the domestic 

^Ir. BuziiARDT. Within the continental limits of the United States, 
I know of none other than the Bureau investigation acti\dties. 

Mr. SciiULTz. If I may, I believe the term "burglary" was used. 

jNIr. BuziiARDT. I was directing it at surreptitious entries. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. Well, the term "burglary" was used, and are you 
satisfied with that term? 

]Mr. BuziiARDT. Xo. I have no knowledge of burglary. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are von acquainted with Mr. William Griffin, 
sir ? 

My. BuziiARDT. Mr. William Griffin? 

^Ir. AR:\rsTRONG. Yes. He was Mr. Abplanalp's attorney in the 
Precision Valve Corp. 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. Xo. I had a classmate named Bill Griffin, but obvi- 
ously not the same one. He is a securities broker, I think, in Xorth 
Carolina now. I don't think he would be the same one. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any discussions with Mr. Griffin 
or any agent or representative of ]Mr. Griffin? 

Mr. Bi'ziiARDT. Xot that I am — to my knowledge, no, since — unless 
he was the lawyer I talked to on the phone and, as I said 

]Mr. Arinistrong. On behalf of ]Mr. Rebozo. 

]\Ir. BuziiARDT. And I said I don't recall who he is. I don't know 
Mr. Griffin. 


Mr. AR:vrsTROXG, Are you aware of any business or financial trans- 
actions between President Richard Nixon and Mr. William Griffin? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you ever seen any memorandum at the Wliite 
House or elsewhere that reflects information concerning INIr. Rebozo's 
f undraising activities ? 


Mr. Lenzxer. Have you ever seen any memorandum at the White 
House with Mr. Rebozo's name in the memorandum, to your recol- 
lection ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I don't recall any, but T may well have. 

Senator Weicker. Gentlemen ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I am sure — I will tell you I am sure I have seen 
him on daily diaries. He visited the President but T don't remember 
any specific 

Mr. Lenzner. Memos from Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Ehrlichman, or 
Mr. Dean, or anybody else ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. Well, let me say, yes ; I do i-ecall one. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you recall what the substance of that was? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, I don't recall the substance. I remember seeing 
a file that I turned over to the Special Prosecutor, which pertained 
in some way — it had something to do with Mr. Rebozo, something 
Mr. Fielding did, but I don't know what it was. 

Mr. Arimstrong. Was this related to the Newsday — so-called News- 
day investigation of ]\fr. Rebozo? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. Yes. Newsday strikes a bell. I think so. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall ever seeing anything in any memo- 
randum relating to any kind of contribntious that Mr. Rebozo was 
to obtain to be used by the President, or the White House or the 
President's brothers ? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No, and I don't believe such exists, just for the 

Mr. Lenzner. And do you know Mr. Jack Cromer? 

Mr. BuziiARDT. No. 

Senator Weicker. Are those all of the questions. Counsel ? Does 
counsel for the minority have questions? 

Now, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1 :30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

FRIDAY. MAY 10. 1974 

U.S. Sexate, 
Select CoMiiiTTEE ox 
Presidextial Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 
The Select Committee met at 1 :40 p.m., in the staff office of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Treasury Department. 

Present: Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel; Scott Armstrong, 

Mr. Lexzxer. This is an informal intervicM- that Mr. Simon has 
agreed to have ^vith the committee. And at the request of !Mr. Simon, 
we will be glad to furnish him with a copy of the transcript as soon 
as it is available. And T would request Fred Ward to simply shoot 
that over here as soon as it is ready. And we will send it to ]Mr. 

;Mr. SciiMi'LTS. Send it to me, Edward C. Schmults, general counsel 
at the Treasury. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Just for the record, Mr. Simon, could we have your 
full nauie and home address? 


Secretary Simon. William E. Simon, Langley Place, INIcLean, Va. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And you have been Secretary of the Treasury since 
May 8, 197i? And prior to that aou were Deputy Secretary from Jan- 
uary 10, 1973? 

Secretary Simox'. Yes. sir. 

]Mr. Lexzx'er. During your tenure as Deputy Secretary do you have 
any regular or occasional responsibilities in the area of either Secret 
Sei'vice or Internal Eevenue Service? 

Secretary Simox. Let me explain. "When George Shultz brought me 
in as his Dei^uty, you remember he had many additional duties in 
the White House as Assistant to the President and broad duties 
throughout the Government. And one of my responsibilities was the 
day-to-day operations of the Treasury. And my other responsibilities, 
of course, were getting involved in all the substance that George Shultz 
was involved in. And so when he wasn't here there was smooth transi- 
tion, whether it is trade ]^olicy, tax policy, tax reform, economic ])olicy, 
it just ran the economic gamut from A to Z. And that was our 

Now. as far as the Secret Service, sure, sure, they are part of the 
law enforcement group here in the Treasury Department, and would, 
just in the day-to-day operations of that Bureau, come and ask my 



opinions and decisions if indeed decisions were made. And if tliey are 
imi:»oi'tant enon<>li decisions in any area, T always went to the Secretary, 
as I would be Avitli him quite often with lists of various activities that 
occurred during the day that he couldn't become personally involved 

The Internal Eevenue Service i-eported diivctly to me. And thei'e 
is one thino; I wanted to say relatixc to your memoiandum — I should 
say, to your telephone call to me. The other dav. my secivtary typed 
this up while you Avere readino; it. Tn that fifst ])ara.'^rai)h half way 
down you say: "It is his understandine' that you had a one-time 
responsibility more or less as liaison, et cetera, between TliS and the 
White House." Not true. 

"And Commissioner Alexandei- and others wouhl report to you as 
well as Secretary Shidtz." That is true. But princi])ally to me. Well, 
principally to me when it came to the day-to-day operations of the 
Internal Revenue Service, the ])ersonnel ]iroblems, and the chanires 
that are ffoins: on, tax policy, and all the mundane affairs. And many 
times a lot of these thino-s, if not most of them, I would .<to in and 
discuss with Geor^-e at the end of the dav or the middle of the day, 
whenever it was. 

Mr. Arv:ArsTRoxrT. Durino; the course of your responsibilities with re- 
o-ard to the Internal Revenue Service, did you partici]iate on any 
reo-ular basis in briefino-s re^'ardiuii" sensitiA-e case repoi'ts? 

Secretary Simox. Yes. 

Mr. Akmstroxg. Will you aive us the sul^stance of those? 

Secretary Simox. When I was available, it hapix'ued in two or three 
different ways. Whether it was done in any rejxulai' basis or not, T 
couldn't sav. It seemed like it was about every 3 or 4 weeks thev would 
come over with their sensitive cases, and it would either be Johnnv 
Walters or Johnny Walters and Rocer Bai'th, or Roijer T^arth and 
of course later. Commission Alexander, usually bv himself, if I remem- 
ber correctly. And most often T would be in the room, and it would 
be Shultz and Simon and the Internal Revenue Service. 

^^Hien on occasion it was Bill Simon in hei'e and then Georoe would 
ffet it at a later date if the schedule conflicted, then they would come 
in with their folder and they would hand me the foldei- and I would 
look at tlie cover pao-e and I would look down the list of names and 
hand it back to him. And that was pi'ctty much the extent of my sensi- 
tive case business — although we would discuss on occasions ]iotential 
embai-rassinii" things to the President, which Avas the purjwse of the 

Mr. AR^rsTROxo. A^Hiat period was this? Was there a time you 
dropped it, when that responsibility ceased ? 

Secretary SiiNrox. Well, it wasn't a matter of— I can definitely tell 
you that everythino- stopped in my life at the end of November when 
my eneroy thinir started, wliich was ]iretty aj^parent to everybody. 
Ed Schmults took over my dav-to-day duties and a lot of my substan- 
tive duties, if you Avill, in the Ti-easury from the end of November on. 
But it was sporadic, these sensitive cases, as far as my ])artieipation, 
thouo-h they tried to keep me posted, because if the Secretai'v is aware, 
obviously, as I said before, it is a cood idea that I am aware, of the 
]iroblems. But the sensitive case area was the Secretai'v's as far as 
notification and otherwise. 


Mr. Armstroxg. After Xovember you did not rofoivo any sensitive 
case information, is that fair to assume? 

Secretary SiMt)x. Xow. to the best of my kno\vled«xe, they didn't 
come over durino- tliat ]>eriod durino; any ener<i:y czarship, because I 
Avas over in the other buildinii', with any sensitive case reports. 

Mr. Ar^istroxg. You said they would come in and present you with 
a folder ? 

Secretary Skmox. They usually didn't come in just with that for 
tlie ])ui'pose of sensitive cases, tliey usually had other things to talk 
about, other day-to-day operational thinjrs that were as important 
to them, and certainly more important to me. I have a (jreat deal of 
trouble since your telejihone call to conjure up what object you had, 
because you can honestly say I never paid a damned bit of attention to 
most of this business. 

"We would be talkintr — Johnny Walters would come in, and he was 
dyino- to oet out of here, because it was becinninfj to bite, his years in 
Government, and he was anxious to oet into business. And one of my 
main jobs was staffino- the Treasury Department — how are we doin^ 
frettino- candidates in here. Then he would o;o throup;h all the inter- 
viewiuiT i^rocess, and we selected Don Alexander — who his Deputy is 
^oin<r to be. and what we are <>"oin(j to do about this, and what about 
the new organization, and so and so wants to move back to San Fran- 
cisco. This was ])rimarily my relationship. But I would go to staff 
meetings over at IRS whenever I could, because I liked to show that 
they were ])ai't of the Treasury family, and the fact tliat I am visible 
there and interested in helping: in any way I can with any of the 
problems they liave ffot, that I thought was my important function, 
even thouirh I didn't do it as much as I wanted to. 

Mr. Ar^lstroxg. Did you receive any oral elaboration on the sensi- 
tive case reports, or did you just read the folders as they were 
presented ? 

Secretary Simox. I ha: TUy ever read the folders. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Did you skip the list of names ? 

Secretary Si^rox. I would look at the names on the front pa^e, and 
once in awhile I would o-o back and just say, what is the purpose of 
this, that type thinof. And then there would be an oral elaboration. 
When the Secretary and I were totrether in his office, then it would 
come in and it would be all oral as far as any recipient. And a good 
deal of this time, as T say, I was elsewhere. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Other than Commissioner "Walters, Commissioner 
xVlexander and ^Nfr. Dartli, was tliere anvone else that was ever present, 
anv IRS? 

Secretary Sorox. I can't say no with any certainty, because it is 
possible that on one or two occasions someone else mioht have been. 
But routinely, in tlie routine sensitive cases, it was as I described 

^Ir. Ar:mstroxg. Xow, durin<r that period do you recall seeing sen- 
sitive case reports from tlie Iluohes Tool Co. ? 

Secretary Si:Nrox. I believe that that was on there when I arrived 
in the Treasury Dejiartment as one of the sensitive cases. 

^Ir. AmrsTRoxG. And do you recall — by that time that John Meier 
one had stopped. Do you recall a sensitive case re]iort of John Meier? 

Secretarv Simox. If I recall it I never read it. 


Mr, Armstrong. Do you recall if, in the course of the Hnghes Tool 
Co., the names of ])onald Xixon or Larry O'Bi'ieii came up? 

Secretary Si^roN-. 1^)0113101 Nixon, I remember. And 1 remember 
liavino- l)een in the room Avhen O'Brien's name was discussed. But 
I never o;ot into the substance of that conversation at all. 

]\Ir. Armstrong. And Mr. Rebozo's name ? 

Secretary Simon. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And Edward Nixon ? 

Secretary St^fon. T don't remembei- Edward Nixon, just Donald. 

]Mr. AR:\rsTR()NG. Do you recall if there was any sul)stantive discus- 
sion aliout the Huii'hcs Tool Co. i-epoi't. or any other of Donald Nixon's 
sensitive case reports in the ])eriod you Avei'e here? 

Secretary ST:\rox. Well, it was all sort of rolled tog-ether in one con- 
versation. Whethei' or not T sat in on all of the conversations is 
unknown to me. And I nmst admit that 1 wasn't i:)ayin<i that close 
attention to the substance of the deal other than it was a potential 
embarrassment to the Pi-esident because of the closeness of these people 
to the President. 

INfr. Lenznf.k. "Will you describe the soui'ce of embarrassment, what 
was the context in which it was described ? 

Secretary Si:\roN. The way it was explained to me on tlie whole sensi- 
tive case report when I arrived here was, that this was a procedure 
that i)rotected the President fi'om noteutial embarrassment, leaks you 
wouldn't want to ix'ivQ the guy a Boy S(>out award for and the next 
day he is indicted for something. So you would call over there and 
say. this man is being investigated, and that is the extent of the infor- 
mation. And that Avas the purpose of the exei'cise. So when a person 
was being investioated. audited, if you will, that was the ]:)otential 
embarrassment, if he was a visible fellow. 

Mr. Lknznkr. But it i-elated solely to investigation and audit, not 
to other i^ossible derogatoiy information that might be contained in 
the re]:)orts? 

Secretary Si^rox. Not dealing with the substance of wha<^ the find- 
in<Ts ai-e. and all that stuff. 

INlr. Lknzxer. Eor evamide. if an on-goinq; i u vest i.fjat ion brought in 
another fact that d'dn't relate directly, say. to a tax investigation, and 
that was reported in the rei^ort. that would also, T take it. have been 
discussed as a possible embarrassment to the President if this person 
was associated with the Pi-esident? 

Secretary ST:\rox. There ao"ain. T didn't hav(> couA'ersations like that 
with the White House, so T am not aware 

Mr. Lknzxer. T meant the conversations v.-ith I'egai'd to the sensitive 
I'cports here in the Ti'easury. 

Secretary ST:\rox. Yes. Don Alexandei' i'l an oral presentation in 
Q's and A's would ronort on the asnocts of the case to us. yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. What ]-esponsil)ilitv did you and Secretai'v Shultz 
have T'es)iertively foj- dealing with that infoi-mation once you had 
I'eceived it? 

Seci-etiirv Si^rox. The Secretary routindv called, first. T believe. 
John Ehi-lichman, and after that General ITaig. to report on the 
sensitive cases, potential embarrassment. 

INfr. ScirMTXTS. T thiidv they Avere routineh' called whenever he felt 
that thei-e was a ]^ossibiIity of embari-assment. 


Secretary Snrox. Xot tliat thov woro rout inc. is what T inonnt. 
]\rr. Akmstroxg. Did he evei- report baek to yoii on those coiivor- 
satioiis or a'ive yoii a brief on what had transpired in his discnssions 
with them i 

Secretary Snrox. It is jiossible, beeanse as T said, wlien we went 
down the laundry list of all the areas of the Treasury Department 
as we did. we kept very close on all su<rjrestions — T can assure you 
that sensitive cases were riirht down at tlie bottom of the list of our 
activities, as Secretary and Deputy Secretary with the substance we 
had to deal with in the Ti-eas>iry, and we didn't spend terribly much 
time in discussinji; that subject. 

^fr. Dexzxf.k. Did you jjet an impression as to liow important it 
was to ^fr. Ehrlichmtin, foi- e.\am]de, or General TTaio;? Was there 
any feedback from Seci'etarv Shultz for followu]) information that 
you could make some assessment as to how important it was to them, 
even thouirh vou obviously didn't feel it was terribly important? 

Secretary Si:Nrox. Xo. T wouldn't have been privy to those conver- 
sations between the Secretary and John Ehrlichman, no. 

^fi-. Lexzxer. Did the Soci-etary ever come back and say, INIr. 
Ehrlichman or General TTai^- wants some followup information on 
anv particular matter? 
Secretary SiMox'. Xo. 

AT)-. Aii:\rsTROXG. Was tliere ever an expression of concern that the 
White TTouse Avas i)articularly conceined about one or another of the 
areas that mi<xht have been bi'ou^ht up? 

SecT-etaiv Si:\rox'. The onlv area of concern that was ever expressed 
to me bv anybody in the White House was leaks, news]>aper stuff. 

^Ir. AR:\rsTRoxo. That were comino; from the Internal Revenue 

Secretary Si:\rox. They didn't know. 
Mr. Ar^istrox'g. "Relating to tax information? 

Secretary Suneox-^. Sure. And we were concerned about it too, for any 
taxoayer who called — remember, there were quite a few at that time, 
so that was the only area of concern that was ever expressed. 

^Ir. xVrmstrox'g. Did there ever come a time when you had dis- 
cussions with White House staf!' or White House personnel reofarding 
the sensitive case reports or TRS investiirations? 

Secretai-y Si:\tox. Well, when you say White House staiT or White 
House ]iei-sonnel. my conversations with the White House staff and 
White House i')ersonnel Avere to the President's assistant. Haig. or 
Garment, that is all. T would not talk to the staff ]')ersonnel. T Avould 
talk ri<rht at the top leA'el involving anythinc: like this. 
^U-. AR:\rsTRoxG. T didn't mean that. 

Secretary Si:\rox. Because T recofriiized the sensitive nature of the 
information, and had to be very disci-eet in anv handlinc: of it. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. Was this all subsequent to Api'il 80? Did you ever 
talk to Mr. Ehi-lichman or 'Slv. Haldeman or Mr. Dean? 

Socretarv ST:\rox. T can absolutely guai-antee you that T never talked 
to 'Sir. Haldeman. Whether or n.ot it ever came up in the presence of 
^Ii-. Ehrlichman — T don't believe so. no. INIr. Ehrlichman Avas in- 
A'oh'ed in a great many of the domestic affairs whi"h crossed economic 
policy, and Ave were in a multitude of meetings together in the 4 


months that ]ie was in Govoi-nnient tliat T was. So T can't swoav that 
it Avasn't brono^ht np at that time, but I don't recall if it was. 

JNIr. Armstroxg. And Mr. Dean? 

Secretary Simox. T never saw ^Iv. Dean. T nevei' talked to him. 

^Nlr. Araistroxg. Do yon recall Avlien yon first wonld have had dis- 
cussion Avith INIr. (xarment or ^NFr. TTaiji in^frardina' an Internal Revenue 
Service matter? 

Secretary Simox. j\"o. T wouldn't know an exact date. 

When did Al come on. May 1 or April 1 ? 

INfr. Armstroxc!. It mnst have been early ^Nlay. 

Secretary Si^iox. I wonld say that if thei-e wei-e conversations, 
what they Avere specifically. I don't recall, so they conldn't have been 
fri<rhtfnlly im]>ortant. It wonld have occni'red in ^Nfay, bnt T Avonld 
say that tlie majority of substantive conversations of substance wonld 
have been held Avith the Secretai-y on issues, althonuh I did haA'e a 
conA^ei'sation Avith Len Garment on the substance of tlie Ixebozo matter. 
And in lookino; np my recoi-ds. it })robablA' occurred at the end of 
May. I am tryinfj to refresh my memory. Rut I conldn't onarantee 
it. But that is probabh^ Avhen we liad this conversation. 

Mr. Arvistrox'g. Had you discnssed that conversation Avith GcMieral 
ITaio- earliei'. or is this the first time that that subject had come up? 

Seci'etary Simox. I had in'o])aI)ly discussed it Avith (jeneral Ilaie: 
earlier. Hoav much earliei- is defined, I don't know. I couldn't o-uarantee 
that I did, but I probably did. 

Mr. Armstroxg. IVfaybe the most expeditions AvaA' to proceed is. as 
best yon can, can yon recall the information that you learned and felt 
AA^as necessary to pass on ? 

Secretary Stmox. OK. If I lemember cori'ectly — of course the White 
Ilonse lono- before had been notified that there Avas an investio-ation — 
I Avas o'iA'ino; them information, and T had to call Alexandei', because I 
fr-anklv didn't remember Avhat the investio-ation was abont. And it Avas 
abont $100,000. All rio-ht, it is about $100,000 that Bebe Rebozo sup- 
posedly received from someone, j\Ir. Danner and Mr. Mahen. iVnd Avliat 
^Ye Avere interested in from the Internal Revenue Service — Treasury 
Department point of vicAv, Avas the tax liability side of it — tAvo thinos. 
actnally, one, Avhen mone\^ is transferred from one i^erson to another, 
the transferee has tax liabilitv, pei-haps. Well, that is one. And there 
Avas a second thin<>-, and that is the nondisclosure aspect of it. And that 
is all. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Can yon pass on the substance of that i Yon think 
first to General Haio- and then a'ou say definitely to Mr. Garment? 

Secretary Simox. Yes. Whethei- I passed that on to General Ilaia: 
or not I fi-ankly don't knoAv. ])ut I definitelv i)assed that alono- to Mr. 

Ml'. Armstroxc;. Yon say in order to refresh your memorA' as to the 
details, yon had to call Connnissioner Alexander about it. Had there 
l)een a request for information on that, or did it just occur to yon that 
you should ])ass it on, you needed more information ? 

Secretary Simox. I believe thev called to ask Avhat is ooincr on, an up- 
date on this thino-. And that Avas it. 

Mr, Armstroxg. So as best yon can remember you did not receive 
any specific request for information? 


Secretary Simox. I will say, in lookino- at tliis they called and asked 
what the status was of this atlair, and that is when I had to call 
.Vlexander and refresh my memory because I didn't frankly know. 

Mr. AimsTKoxc;. Do you recall fiom whom you received the call? 

Secretary Simox. I belie\e it was Len Garment. 

Mr. AimsTKoxG. And do you recall what it was that prompted Mr. 
Garment's call ? Was it a specific document ? 

Secretary Simox. I notice I talked to Al Haig that day. Whether it 
was on that subject or not I have no idea, because from the day Al 
Ilai": took over in that job to this day, I talked to Al Plaio- probably as 
much as any person does in goxernment. And I nuist admit, none of 
it was ever in relation to any Watergate stutl', we just have too much 
else on our plate over here in the Treasnry, and we really haven't been 
involved in an^^ of those discussions. But it is on my log. I don't know 
whether it came from Haig or not. And again going back to my first 
statement. I couldn't swear that that was the conversation that I had 
with Garment when I was telling him about the Rebozo thing. But 
it appears that that is when it was. 

Mr. AmrsiRoxG. But you do recall that Mr. (jarment was aware that 
there was some investigation of Mr. Ilebozo, and requested informa- 
tion on it I 

Secretary Simox. Oh, yes. As I said, that information had been 
given to the White House long before that. 

]Mr. Akmstroxg. Do you recall when that information would have 
first gone over? 

Secretary Simox. Absolutely not. 

^Ir. Akmstroxg. Was tliat an active case when you first stated sensi- 
tive case reports, do you recall ? 

Secretary Simox. I don't recall. But that can be checked just by the 
date I came on board. Was he there? I don't remember, frankly. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. You say you have daily entries. What day are we talk- 
ing about, INIr. Simon ? 

Secretary Simox. ^Nlay 23. It is a telephone log. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And does it show a phone call from General Haig 
and then a retui-n I What exactly dot^s it show ? 

Secretary Simox. It shows a phone call from Ilaig and from Gar- 

]Mi'. Lexzxer. You mean a conference call from them ? 

Secretary Simox. Oh, no, two calls. 

Mr. Lexzxer. From General Haig first ? 

Secretary Simox. Yes. But there again I could not swear they were 
relevant, that they were related. 

Mr. Lexzxer. The Haig call Avas first and the Garment call was 

Secretary Simox. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And you are not sure whether it was General Haig 
or Mr. Garment, then on May 23, 1973, who first raised the subject, 
but it was on that day that it was raised ? 

Secretary Simox. I believe, in looking at it, that that appears to be 
a reasonable assumption. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And does your log show a phone call after that to one 
of these? . . ..^ ,, ,, \ , , ... .,, . ., . . ,, . ; 


Secrctarv Simox. To ^Iv. Alexander. 

Mr. Lkxznku. Docs it sliow it after the ITaio- rail, or after the dar- 
inent call, or aftei" both ? 

Scci-ctary Smox. I believe after the (laiincnt call. But T can check 
that, that is easy. 

INFr. Lkxzxer. Ts thcMc any wav of checkiuo- that now ? 

Scci-etary Snrox'. "We will check it. 

Mr. TvKXzxKR. One other (question. TTow did von become awar(> that 
the report on the lve])ozo investigation had been transmitted to the 
White TTonse prioi- to May 2?. ? 

Secretary Simox'. T^roba1)ly in my con\ ersations heie the last conple 
of days witli Ed Schnndts on tlu> subject, and tryin<r to refi-esh my 
memory on tliese thino-s tliat 1 ne\-er paid mnch attention to. But there 
a<rain it is not diiiicnlt for me to surnnse when a visible name like IJebe 
Kebozo comes np that tlu^ Secretary would make that call, which was 
his function. 

Mr. TjKXzxkk. I know you were teiribly busy in ^Nfav of 107^'). But 
do yon have any recollection of knowina', when yon talked to General 
Haiji' and INIr. Garment that, in fact, they had ali'eady received a lej^ort 
oji the Tvebozo matter at that time ? 

Seci'(>tary Snrox'. Xo, because basically, T don't frankly remember 
what the conversation was, other than what T told you. I just remem- 
ber talkinti: to Len Garment about the issues involved. And that is 
all we talked about, was just the issues iin'olved. But Ik^be Bebozo was 
on that sensitive case, and the TTu<i'hes file in the sensitive cases. And it 
is a mitural assnmi^tion that the notification had been made, T am snre. 

Afr. Lexzxkr. When yon talke(l to Gonnnissioner Alexander, did 
he furnish yon with anythin"; other than an oi-al repoi't ? 

Seci'etary Si^rox'. Yes. because he ixi\w me this — ]w talked so fast — 
fastei" than yon do — I am not a tax lawyei'. and he started tellinii" me 
about the ti-ansfcror and the transferee and so I o^ot a piece of ])a])er 
with, a pai'aora])h that put it into Eni^lish for a })oor investment 

INIr. Lex'zxkh. Tn other words, he sent somethinii' o\-er to yon 

Secretary Snrox'. Yes. ' 

^tv. L7-:x'zxKK. And you nsed that meuioi-andum to contact 

Seci'etary Siafox'. Then T knew what T was talking- about. 

Ml". T^KxzxKi;. So that you could be sure you were fuoiishin"" him 
accurate infoi-mation ? 

Secretai'y ST:\rox\ Yes. 

]\ri-. AR:\rsTi;ox'o. The subject of the ])aia<:iaph was the pai'ticidar 
tax ])]-oblem that he had, not the facts related to the case, do T undei-- 
stand that coi-i-ectly? 

Seci'etai'v Si^rox'. Not the facts, those — no. T beir voui- ]>ardon. the 
facts i-elatino-to the case. First, he receiv(>d $100,000. TTe had been inter- 
viewed on whatexer the date was before ^Nfav '-l-). AFav 10. he was intei-- 
viewed. And he had received $100,000, two $50,000 installments, or 
whatevei- it Avas, such and such. The substance of the issue was tax and 
not disclosure. 

Mr. AiarsTRoxci. TTe didn't elaborate on those two tax ]>roblems, 
what the ramifications of those wei-e, and how they fit, oi- what criteria 


would bo used to detorniino wliotlier or not you had any criminal lia- 
bility or any tax liability'^ 

Secretary Simox. No, not really. It was pretty clear to me that the 
ffuy ,<rot $iOO.O()0 and he kept it" for a couple of years, that it was 
debatable. And that is what they were lookinji' at. 

Mr. Lexzxer. In these kinds of areas, in the process itself, do they 
ti-y to oive you some kind of assessment so that General Ilai^ or who- 
ever it mifrht be would have some feel for what the potential would 
be for embariassment ? I take it this has been done in prior adminis- 
trations, and I am just wonderin<2; 

Secretary Si^iox. I don't know, not in any of my conversations, 
because I attempted to use this very tender dependence and interde- 
pendence indeed, of Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury De- 
partment, as they are part of our family, and the White House. That 
is one of our functions, to make sure that com])liance in our tax sys- 
tem is the most important thin<>- to me, and to maintain the intej2:rity 
of that jri'oup over there was my first and foremost responsibility, 
and I did it with A'io;or. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I understand that. AVhat I am wondering about is, 
obviously the White House would have wanted some assessment or 
evaluation of the potential problem. Did the Commissioner give you 
any ideas, for example, as to how serious a problem it was? I think 
that is what 3'ou were after. 

Mr. AmisTRoxo. The fit between the facts and the law, whether, 
if the situation were such that criteria were met, you would have a 
problem I 

Secreary Soiox. Xot to the best of my knowledge ; no, sir. 

Mr. .Vrmstroxg. You don't recall him ever seeking such as that? 

Secretary SiMox'. The White House? ,. ■ , . •. 

INIr. Armstroxg. Yes. 

Secretary Simox'. No. Of course, these things come out in conversa- 
tions here dui'ing the sensitive case report, sure. 

]Mr. Lex'zxer. You mean when they are bringing you the informa- 
tion initially? 

Mr. SciiMUETS. Mr. Simon's telephone log on May 28 shows a call 
from General Haig. And then a call to Connnissioner Alexander. And 
next a call from jNIr. Garment. And then a call from Mr. Alexander. 

]Mr. Lexzx^er. Commissioner Alexander would be the last one? 

Mr. SciiMULTS. Commissioner Alexander. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. Does that log indicate whether the cnll to Commis- 
sioner Alexander was completed, or wouldn't it show that? I know 
the Department keeps that for the Attorney General. I don't know 
whether they keep it over here. 

Secretary Simox. No, they don't. 

Mr. Dex'zxer. It would show that the call was placed, but it doesn't 
necessarily reflect 

Ml'. ScHMULTs. No. The Avay Mr. Simon's logs are kept, as I under- 
stand it, when he receives a call, if he is busy and the call is not com- 
pleted, and he returns the call at a later time, it still shows "from X". 
And that is when they enter it, because the call was initiated "from 
X," even though it may have been completed, and it is just a reverse 
in outgoing calls. It would show "to X" if "X'' were busy when Mr. 


Simon placed the call, and "X'' retnrned tlie call later on, it wonld 
still show "to X" at a later time in the loo;. And that wonld be indeed 
even carried over to the next fhiy, if yon placed a call "to X" on Tnes- 
day and "X" didn't retni-n the call nntil AVcdnesday, it wonld show 
"to X" on Wednesday, and there wonld be no recoid on Tncsday. 

jNfr. L?:xzxEn. In othei- words, based on that record, then, a call was 
made from Genei-al TTaio-, and then a call was placed to Connnissioner 
Alexander, and then a call was from (xai-ment, and then a call from 
Commissioner Alexander ? 

IVIr. SciiMi^LTS. That is certaiidy likely, althoniih, in fact. General 
Ilaig- mio-ht have placed a call a (hiy befoi-e or indeed 2 days before; 
yon can't bo sure from tlie loo's. 

Mr. Lenzxer. It wonld show a call was completed on May 28 from 
Genei-al ITaio-? 

i\fr. KScmriLTS. That is coi-rect. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do yon recall if Mr. Garment requested that you 
send over any written material ? 

Secretary Simox. Xo, I don't recall that. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRoxo. Do yon still have the parni>i'a|)h ? 

Secretary Stmox. Yes, T have the memorandums that Don Alex- 
ander prepared for me ; ves T do. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Would it l)e ])ossible for us to oet a copy of that? 

Mr. S(Mi:sri'LTS. Can we talk about that for a minute olf the record? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Sure. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you i-ecall what Mr. Garment's inaction was to 
the information you ti-nnsmitted to him ? 

Secretary Simox. There was none. 

Mj-. AR:NrsTRox'G. Do yon recall any concern on his [lait? 

Secretary Sorox. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Armstrox(;. That he expi-essed at that time ? 

Secretary Simox'. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Ar:mstrong. Did yon ha\"e any subsequent con\-ersations with 
Ml'. Garment about this or any othei- tax mattei-s { 

Secretary ST:\rox. Whetliei' this came u)) in the ensuin<>' months 
when I was in and out of tlie White House 25 times in convei'sation. T 
really couldn't sav one way or anothei'. De asl^ed me. when vou people 
called him a month aiio, and we talked al)out that kind of thin<>-, would 
yon refresh my memorv. And I must admit, when he asked me about 
that a month aoo, T didn't know as much as T did aftei- havino- talked 
to Ed foi- the last couide of days, because T needed my memory re- 
freshed, because T remembei'ed it as well as I conld. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRoxG. Mi-. Gaiment called yon a month airo in oi-der to 
try to ]nece too-othei- con\ersations he had had with you i)revionsly? 

Secretai'v Si]\rox". Yes. 

Ml-. Ar^fstroxg. At that time did Mr. Garmeiit recall any other con- 
versations, OT- did you recall an v ? 

Secretary Siisrox. We didn't talk about that. Ib> just asked me that 
one question, and I i-esponded as best T could. 

Ml". Arafstroxg. Did you recall what tla^ conversation was about? 

Seci'etary Stmox'^. T didn't i-emember what the conversation was 
about, and I didn't ivmeml)er the day or the month. 


Mr. Ainrsi'Koxc. You just iviupuiboi'ed o-euorally tlio subject? 

Soci'otnrv St^niox. Yos. 

INfi-. Atjmstkoxc. Do you recall at some tiuie iueutiouiu<>- to Mr. 
Ganueut that thei-e was a rumor — 1 thiuk his term was "scuttlelnitt" — 
arouud Washin^tou that there was a $1 luilliou trust fund in which the 
President had some inteivst ? 

Seci-etary SnroN. When I was talkino- to Len a month a_a'o, when 
he called u"ie I said tliat that could have been the other topic that we 
would talk a])out at the same time as the Eebozo tliinn-. But obviously 
that was impossible. becaus(> that didn't come out. I ffuess, in the news- 
paper until much latei". So I was just o-ettino- months mixed up and ob- 
Auously I didn't remember. 

jNIr.' AniNrsTROx-^rr. Do you recall what your source of information 
was as to that $1 million trust fund ( 

Secretary Si^tox. The newspaper article. 

Mr. AinrsTK()X(;. Simply a newspaper story ? 

Secretary Si:Nrox'^. Sui'e. 

Mr. AR:\rsiT.ox<^,. To youi- knowlediie. have sensitive case reports or 
any other wi-itten terms which reflect the substance of sensitive case 
i-eports be sent over to the "White ITouse at any time? Has that ever 
been a procedure ? 

Secretary Si:Nr()x. I can ouarantee that that is not a procedure as far 
as we liere in the Treasury ai'e concerned, to tlie best of my knowledge. 

^fr. An:\rsTRox<;. Do you recall, yourself, seeing any investigative 
files or tax returns, anything otlier than sensitive case i-eports that 
related to this Rel)Ozo matter? 

Secretary Snrox. Like what ? 

Mr. Armstroxo. Like an actual investigative file or investigative 
report of an interview with INIr. Eebozo, or Mr. Eebozo's tax return, or 
anything like that ? 

Secretary Simox. T never saw Mr. Rebozo's tax return. And I don't 
believe T saw any other investigative file either. 

IVfr. ARrsrsTRox-^o. Were you aware of any contact between the Secre- 
tary and the White House, or yourself and the White House, regard- 
ing the original scheduling of the interview with JNIr. Ivebozo, when 
tliey first talked about it? 

Secretary Simox". No. 

Mr. Ar^istroxOt. Do you know if that was an issue at any time, 
whether or not INTr. Rebozo would be willing to be interviewed, or 
wlien or how or under what conditions? 

Secretary Snrox'. Well, in reading the last few days, as T have, 
these memorandums that you have in front of you, it was a questioii. 
But that is not my role. 

Mr. TiExzxER. First, Mr. Simon, there is a notation in the np]">er 
riglit-hand corner in pencil. Is that your handwi-iting. "by hand"? 

Secretary Simox^. No, it isn't. You would know my handwriting. 
You wouldn't be able to read it. 

Mr. Lexzxf.r. Then again in the lower i-ight-hand corner on the 
bottom of the page thei'c is additioiial handwriting. Tt refers to — do 
you Ivuow whose handwi-itingthat is? 

Secretary Simox-^. I don't recognize it. And it is not mine. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23-14 


Mr. Lexzxei;. Do you know if Secretary Shultz — is that a "GS" 
there above tlie date 4-12-78? Do yon know if tliat is liis initials or the 
way he signs off ? 

Secretary Simon. Xo. I can shrAv you lots of clocnments here on 
the way hesifjns off. lie sijjns "GPS"' to everythinfj that he sio:ns off on. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do yon know whose handwritino; that mioht be, Ed? 

Mr. SciiMi-ETs. I was told by an attorney in the Wateroate Special 
l^i-()secntor"s office that that Jiandwritinii" is Coinniissioner Walters' 
handwritino-. 1 do not know that, but tliat is what they have told me. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I can't read that handwritino-. 

[Discussion oft' the record.] 

Mr. Lexzxj:r. Did you say, sir, that these memorandums or any of 
these documents were ever copied or sent to anybody in the White 
House ? 

Secretary Stmox. No, to tlie best of my knowledge, I really don't 

Mr. Lexzxer. Xow, when you discussed this with General Haig 
and Mr. Garment 

Secretary Simox. I know I discussed it with Len Garment. Whether 
or not it was with Al Haig on this issue, I don't recall. But it is rea- 
sonable to assume, as I say, that we discussed those things. 

Mr. Lenzxer. You say you discussed 

Secretary Smox. Tliis is the broad base, that is the $100,000, and 
this is the substance, as T said before, of tlie tax and the nondisclosure. 

Mr. Lexzxer. On the face of this memo, it indicates that Mr. Rebozo, 
pursuant to the interview, told IRS agents that the reason why the 
funds Avere not used for campaign purposes was his understanding 
that more than enough money had been raised. Was tliat also com- 
municated to ]Mr. Garment or General Ilaig? 

Secretary Simon. Xot to the best of my knowledge. I broadly told 
them what the issue was about. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of whether any of the 
information contained either in the covei- memorandum of May 28 to 
you from Commissioner Alexander, or the memorandum attached 
from John Walters to Secretary Shultz of February 28, 1978, whether 
any of that information contained therein was transmitted to any 
other individual at the White House? 

Secretary Simox. No. I am sorrv. I don't. 

Mr. Lexzxer. AVas there any effort to request a copy of either the 
interview mentioned here with Mr. Rebozo, ^Nlr. Danner, Donald 
Nixon, by you, or anybody else to your knowledge? 

Seci'etary Simox. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. And I take it the second memorandum that was de- 
livered by hand — it indicates 12-26 — this was what you were referring 
to that you had asked Commissioner Alexander to put into language 
that you could understand better, is that correct ? 

SecretaiT Simon. Yes. 

Mr. Ar:\istrox'o. Subsequent to your convei'sation witli Mr. Garment 
did you discuss with General Haig, Mi-. Garment or anyone else in the 
Wliite House, Mr. Rebozo's tax ]-)rol)lr'm or his situation? 

Secretary SiMO>r. No. 


Mv. Armstrong. Or any other matters reported in sensitiA'o case 

Secretary Soiox. Not to the best of my knowliMlo-p. 

Mr. Armstroxo. I know you mentioned before tliat there mif^ht 
liave been an occasional meetini;- in wliich somel)ody may liave men- 
tioned it in some other context. 

Secretary Simox. That is correct. And also, anytime there was a 
leak in the newspaper and tliey called up to complain, and let's get to 
the bottom of these leaks, tliey are embarrassin<i-, they arc indeed 
illeoal, ])erhaps conversations ensued at that time on the substance, 
but not the substance as you and T know them. 

^fr. r^KxzxKij. At any time duiino; your tenure as Deputy Secretary 
did you liave any conversations with tlie Attorney General or anyone 
in the Department of Justice or tlie Special Pi'osecutor's office whicli 
lelatcd to this case ? 

Secretary Simox". No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And do you know if the Secretary or anyone else in 
the Treasury hierarchy had any discussion with these officials? 

Seci-etary Si:\rox. Xo. 

Mv. SniMULTS. What time ])eriod are you talkino- about? Of course, 
t hei-e have been interviews. 

Mv. Armstrong. I am talkino- about durino- ^fr. Simon's tenure as 
Deputy Secretary. 

Mr. SciiMULTS. That would start in January 

^U: Armsit.oxg. Up through November 1973 when he assumed his 
i-esponsibility as the head of the Federal Eneroy Office, which I gather 
consumed the majority of his waking hours. 

Secretary Si.aiox^ Some of my sleeping hours, too. 

]\ri'. L?:xzxER. One question in connection with that. Did there come 
a time prior to November 1978 that you learned that the Special 
Prosecutor's office was seeking to obtain disclosure from the Internal 
Ke venue Service with regard to the $100,000 received by Mr. Rebozo? 

Seci-etary Stmox^. If it came up in conversation in one of the routines, 
I don't remember it. 

Mr. Lexzxkr. It doesn't flag anything in your memory now ? 

Seci-etary Stmox . No, sir. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you recall any discussions, specific discussions here 
at Treasury with IRS or others with regard to Special Prosecutor 
CoxinitiatiuiT an investigation into the $100,000? 

Secretary Snrox. Here again, if it came up in the routine of sensitive 
cases. I wouldn't recall it. At that point I can just reemphasize what 
I said before, I must admit my attention during those sessions on 
sensitive cases was limited. 

]Nrr. Dexzxer. I understand that. This might have been outside the 
i-egnlar I'eporting and sensitive cases, if the Special Pi'osecutor's office 
had begun an investigation as part of their responsibilities, it might 
have come u\) outside of the regular sensitive case reporting system, 
l^ut you don't have any recollection of that happening? 

Secretary Si:vrox. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Do you have any recollection of anybody discussing 
that with vou from the White House ? 


Socrotary Simox. No. 

[Discussion off the rocord.] 

Mr. AinrsTiioNG. Do you i-ccall ever seeiuc; iiny material or being 
briefed on any sensitive case report material or similar information 
I'egardino- ]\rr. Robert Abplanalp or tlie Precision Valve Corp. ? 

Secretary kSi:M0N. No. 

JNIr. AR:MS'njoxG. It doesn't flao- a bell similar to the one that Mr. 
Rebozo's would have as a close associate of the President's'^ 

Secretary SnroN. No. 

Mv. ARMSTrvOXG. Do you I'ccall any sensitive case report that made 
mention of foi'mer Attorney General John Mitchell or any other sim- 
ilar investigative reports or materials ? 

Secretary Siivrox. No. 

Mr. AR:\rsT];oxG. Or that made mentioii of the President other than 
simj^ly his relationship to ^Nfr. Rebozo or of Donald Nixon, his l)rother, 
or any that focused on him as a subject or potential subject? 

Secretary Simox. The income tax return. 

Mr. AinrsTRoxG. Other than that one specific audit, sir? 

Secretary Si:\iox. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And do you recall Parry O'Brien, any specific audit 
or any specific case report on Larry O'Brien dui"ing the time you were 
Dei^uty Secretary until you Avent to the Federal Eneroy Office ? 

Secretary Siivrox. There again, if it was ever brouglit up, it didn't 

]\f r. AR:\rsTRoxG. And were there any other briefings or information 
provided on Donald Nixon other than those provided in the mention 
of Jiis relationship to JNIr. INfeier or his ])otential relationship to the 
ITuo-hes Tool Co. ? 

Secretary St^niox. To the best of my knowledge, that was it. 

IMr. Lkxzxer. There is a notation in the February 'io memorandum 
from ]\rr. Walters to Secretary Shultz: 

At this point, based on information we now have, T do not see the interview 
with Mr. Rehozo as leading to any action against him. 

And also it goes on to say : 

Unfortnnately I cannot say that with the s.ame degree of confidence in the 
case of Donald Nixon, because we do not have enough information. 

Was that assessment connnunicated at anv time to anybody at the 
White House? 

Secretary Si:mox. Not to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of the question of inter- 
viewing ]N[r. Rebozo coming up prior to the May "2''^ ]^hone contacts 
that you did have as an issue ? 

Secretary Si^rox. I don't really recall when it was biought up. But 
obviously with the February memorandum it had to be brought up with 
Secretary Shultz and John Walters. 

INfr. Lexzxer. Were you tied into that at all? Were you aware that 
that was an issue at the time ? 

Secretary Srisrox. T might have been in the usual routine, sure. 

]Mi-. Lexzxer. Do you recall whether or not thei-e was any com- 
munications with any employee at the White House on the question 
of whether Mr. Rebozo should be interviewed ? 


Secretary Si^rox. No, I don't recall, because T initiated none. 

]\rr. TjKxzxek. And yon heai'd no discussion or I'eceived any informa- 
tion with rea'ai'd to that question l 

Secretary Si:\r()x. No. 

Mr. Lexzxkr. And do you have any recollection of seeing the Febru- 
ary 28 menioranduni prior to May 23? 

Secretary Si:mox. I don't know. 

Again I must apologize for being necessarily yague. I Avish we conid 
talk about financial regulations and othei- things Ayliere T could l>e 
more specific. 

Mr. Akmstroxo. Do you recall ever having anyone, either an official 
of the (Tovernment or a private individual, perhaps associated closely 
with the l^-esidential i-ace, ask any (juestions of yon, or to 3^onr 
knowledge of any other Treasury official, regarding the ability of one 
to place a date on issuance or circulation of currency based on serial 
munbei's? I am talking largely about large denomination currency, 
$100 bills or what not. Do you ivcall that that subject ever came up? 

Secretary Simox. Don Alexander bi'ought that up in the course of 
the briefings. 

Mr. AuMSTRoxG. In connection with the IIughes-Rebozo conyersa- 

Secretary Simox. Yes. 

Mr. ARMSTROX(i. Do you recall how early that question came up? 
Was that as early as the beginning of the briefings on it? 

Secretary Simox. No, to the best of my memory it was later than 
that, much later than that. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall whether it was prior to the beginning 
of your obligations, at flie Federal Energy Office '( 

Secretary Si:mox. No, I don't remember the exact time. 

Mr. Armstroxg. I gather it most likely would haye been, you would 
have had a little contact with him. 

You would haye had little contact after you moved over there? 

Secretary Simox. That is correct, although I did haye contact with 
him after I was over there, because the IRS carried out our law en- 
forcement program in the Energy Office, and we had a lot of problems 
there, and that is what we discussed. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Can you place it at any time around this May 23 phone 
contact ? "Would it have been before or after that ? 

Secretary Simox. It was after that, that I do recall — I believe I 

jSIr. Lex^zxer. Do you haye any diaries, notes, or memorandums that 
might refresh your recollection as to when that happened? 

Secretary Simox'. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. You have not, I take it, prepared any memoi-andum 
that would reflect your knowledge of this whole nuitter chronological- 
ly, or anything like that ? 

Secretary Simox. No, I never got that deeply involved in it to wi'ite 
enough on the subject. 

Mr, Armstroxg. When the subject came up with Conunissioner 
Alexander, was he indicating a problem or solution, proposed solution 
to problems that the IRS had, or was he seeking information himself, 
or in what context was that discussion? ... 


Secretary Snrt^x. It was just i)art of the onuoinii' investi<i"atioii witli 
the Internal Kevenue Service. 

Mr. AinrsTKONC. Tliey were atteiHi)tino- to trace the $1()().0()0, the 
dates of issuance usino- the serial nuiiihers^ 

Secretary Simon. Yes. 

Mr. AR:\rsTi;ox(;, Do you recall passiiio- (hat infoi'ination on to any 
one in the AA'hite ITonse? 

Secretary Siafox. No. 

^h'. AinrsTKox'c. Are you awai-e as to whether or not the Secretary 
niiii-Jit have briefed anyone on that ? 

Secretary Simox. No. 

jNIr. Akmstroxo. Did there ever romo a tiin(> when you became aware 
that the Secretary had stopjxMl bi'it'fiuii- indi\iduals in the White 
House in the Kebozo matter ? 

Secretary Si:\rox'^. I wouldn't know that. 

Mr. S(Mmm.TS. Let me say that T don't know that Ave know that he 
briefed individuals in the White House on the Rebozo matter. That 
question indicates there was ono^oino' briefino-s. It is not a ([uestion of 
whether that was stopped or not. And I don't thiidc Mr. Simon knows 
that there was such a process. 

Mr. An^rsTKOX^G. Do yon recall any discussion of a memorandum 
from the Director of the FBI to Connnissioner Alexander reirardinti- 
contact that the FBI special ajjent in charae of the Miami office had 
had with ]\[r. Rebozo in June of 1 97^-5 !' Does that rin<2,- a bell? 

Secretary Si:srox'. Tlie only thina" 1 remember down there was the 
bank investio;ation. And that was IKS, that had nothino- to do with 
the FBI. I can't remember anythi]i<>- about the FBI. 

]Mr. Armsthox'^g. Let me place the letter in different context. Do you 
recall a letter that discussed the fact that the special aofent in charo^e 
of the Miami office had been called in l)y Mr. Kebozo and asked to tell 
him whether or not the $1()(),00() could be traced or one can determine 
whether or not it had been held in a safety de})()sit box? 

Secretary Simox\ No. 

]Mr. Lkx'zxer. And ask him to lie jiresent for the removal and count- 
ing of the $100,000? 

Secretary Simox^ I don't recall that. 

INIr. Lex'zxer. Let me ask you presently what the leportinii' system 
is reixardino- sensitive case reports, in jiarticular the one we are focus- 
ino- on Avith Mr. Rebozo to individuals in the White House. General 
Haio- or others? 

Secretary Simox". I have only been back here a very brief ]ieriod 
of time from the Federal Fneroy OfHce. And that is p:oin<i: to be one 
area that as the new Secretary, I am most certainly ^oino- to sit down 
and review Avith my General Counsel. 

Mr. Lexzx?:r. We, of course, have to make leffislative recommenda- 
tions A'ery shortly in this area. Do you have any i-eflections on the 
necessity or efficacy of the sensitiA^e case report system ? 

You are familiar, T am sure, Avith questions that are raised pub- 
licly as to the ap])ropriateness and use of the information as it moACS 
particulai-ly fi-om the Treasury to the White House? 

Secretary Simox'. The only thin<r I know is the experience that I 
have had as Deputy Secretary Avorkino- with (leoi-ije Shultz as Secre- 


trti-y. And I, havino- known the way tliis p;roat Department functioned, 
witli the inteo-rity tliat I have always believed that has been here — 
the major role of the Treasury Department is protectins: the integrity 
of the ser\ice and kee))ino- voluntary compliance as hiah as it is or 
hjoher. and so it has to be handltMl very, very carefully, and with o-reat 

ATr. AiorsTuoxc. Tv(^t me ask you this. Do you believe it is necessary 
for information i'e<xardini>- the Internal Revenue Service includino-tlit^ 
fact that there is such an investio-ation, to be ]iassed to the White 
House at all ? "Would it not be ])ossible for the White House to clear 
appointments, for example, with a backo-round chapter, whatever it 
would be ai)propriate, in other words, for the request to come from the 
AVhite House to the Internal Revenue Service rather than the 
information conu> the other direction ? 

Secretary Simox. I would sav that tliis is part and parcel of w^hat 
I want to ^et together with my oeneral counsel on and discuss tlie 
whole subject of the sensitive case reports, and what their function is, 
and how they can best serve everyone, and most particularly the tax- 
paver and oui- system of taxes. 

Mr. AR>rsTT?oxG. If you have sucli an opportunity in the next couple 
of weeks, we are just about out of business, but if there is an opportu- 
nity to relate to us maybe your thou<ihts, tliis is a serious area we 
have o-ot to deal with. 

Secretary Si:\rox. You know, I would really like to do that, I 
seriously would. I think the relationship of the Internal Revenue 
Service and the Treasury Department is a very important one. And 
I think it is about time we sat down and looked at all the functions 
and facets. And I would be delij^hted to let you know what we think. 

]\rr. Lex-^zx?:r. It will be invaluable to us, because you are a person 
that has had exjierience in this area, and you are lookino; down at the 
top. and we are lookino- at it f i-om the standjioint of the Hill, and there 
are orave implications that mi^jht react on it adversely as to the way 
you see it. and we might like to get some information for the commit- 
tee and other people. 

Secretary Stmox'. I would very definitely like to do that. 

Mr. Lexzx'?:r. In that comiection. let me ask this, Mr. Simon. Have 
you had an opportunity or has anybody reviewed i\Ir. Barth's file to 
determine Avhat the nature of connnunications were, if any, between 
himself and the peojde at the White House? Do you know if any effort 
lias been made in that area ? 

Secretary Simox*. No, I do not. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. Had you been aware at all of an effort by the Internal 
Revenue Sei'vice to contact ]SIr. Rebozo after they learned in the 
spriuiT of 1972 that he had received a $100,000? In other words, back 
in 1072, duriuir that period of time? 

Secretarv Si:srox. Xo. sir. Xot beiiio- here then, that would have been 

Ml". Lex'zxer. "\^niat I am really asking you is, have you received 
anv information since you have been here that would reflect that? 

Secretary Stmox'. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Lex'zx"^er. Were there any other telephone contacts on ^Ma}^ 23 
that were related to this subject besides the ones you have mentioned 


Secretary Simon. Not to my kiiowlod^e, no sir. Here aoain, that 
is assuiniiio- tliat that is wiiat tiiose tele[)hoiie conversations were, but 
it seems reasonable to assume tiiat they were. 

Ml'. Lknzner. And in addition to not having sent copies of these 
memoranchnns, do you know if any written report has ever been sub- 
mitted to the Wliite House on Ibis subject matter? 

Secretaiy Simox. No, I (h) not. 

]\Ir. Ai{.ArsTRON(}. Just a couple of \eiy (|uick questions on the Secret 
Service, the first of which I imairine Mr. Schmuhs will interpose an 
objection to for the President. 

I)o you have any infoimation as to the reason for or output of the 
wii-etap th(> S(>ciet Sei'vice coiuhictcd on F. Donald Nixon? 

jNIr. SciiMiTLTS. Mr. Armsti'on<>-, I would like to interrupt. As you 
know, we have a directive from the President asser-ting executive 
privileg'e as to this Subject. And so I nnist ask that Mr. Simon not 
answer the question. 

Mr. Ar]\istij(^no. Durino- the course of your dutii'S as Deputy Sec- 
retary Avas it ever l)rou<j:ht to your attention that durino- the course of 
the previous campai<in, the V.)7'2 campai^jn, that reports on any of the 
Democratic Presidential candidates had found their way to the Com- 
mittee To Ive-Elect the Pi-esident or to Mr. Ilaldeman? These are re- 
ports i)rei)ared by Secret Service agents who were })i'oviding them 
with protection? 

Secretary Snrox. I don't remember whether I read that in the 
newspapei- or not. 

Ml". Armstron(;. There was one report in the newspaper which I 
believe came uj) durino- our hearings regarding a Pennsylvania visit 
that I believe ]\Ir. McGovern had made. 

Secretary Simox. That is right. 

Mr. AinrsTRoxG. Do you recall any other instances, though, of any 
systematic abuses along that line? 

Secretary Sitvion. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Or anything known as the Redwood repoi-t? 

Secretary Simox. What is that? 

Mr. Armstroxg. "Well, Kedwood, I believe, is the Secret Service 
code name for Mr. McGovern, Senator McGovern. 

Secretary Simox. No. 

Mr. Ar:\istroxg. And in the course of their duties, I believe they 
report back on security problems they are having or just the general 
status reports. The reports, of course, would include personal informa- 
tion, or might include personal information. 

Secretary Simon. During tlie elections? 

Mv. Armstroxg. I don't tliink tlie question is as to tlic re))orting 
back, but the use of the information or where it might circulate. You 
don't recall any questions in that area ? 

Secretary Simox. No sir. 

Afr. SciimI'IjTS. At some point in time if you Inne any information 
that you think would be of interest to us here in the Treasury De- 
partment to pursue, we would very much like to have that. Tliat is 
the first time that T have ever heard i\n\ ief(M'ence to that. 


Secrotarv Snrox. ]Mo, too. 

Mr. A u:\rsi IK txG. AVc would be happy to provide wluitever wo can 
l)iiJl toaotluM' ill doouments. 

Mv. TvENZXKi:. ITavo you Imd anv contact witli JNIr. Fivd Buzhardt 
wit h roo-ard to tlie $1()().()()() cash '. 

Secretary Si.^rox. Xot to tlio \n\<t of my Ivnowlodg'c, no. 

Mr. Lenzxki!. Wlioii ^Fr. (larmcnt talked to yon. did ho indicate 
whethor ho had had any prior contact with the taxpayer. Mr. Eebozo, 
hiinsolf ? 

Secrotarv Siaiox'. lie did not. 

Mr. Lexzx^er. Have you since learned whethor any officials of the 
White House have had any contai-t with ^Nfr. Kebozo with regard to 
this matter^ 

Secretary Si:vrox'. I had no t'nrthor coin insations with them over 
there on this. I didn't talk to iheni about you follows comino; here 

^h: Lexzxer. I take it, then, that you have never attended any 
moetino-s witli White House eniploy(>es where this subject was 
discussed ? 

Secretary Simox'^. If it came up in any obtuse fashion, I don't recall. 

]Mr. Lexzxek. There was a notation in tlu> sensitive case reports that 
Mr. Rebozo instructed another individual not to submit to an IRS 
interview. Do you have any recollection of that subject matter over 
coming" u}) ? 

Secretary Simox'. Xo sir. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. And I think it related to F. Donald Nixon. Does that 
refresh your recollection at all? 

Secretary Simox'. No sir. 

Mr. Lex^zxer. Did you ever learn of the results of the interview on 
May 29. 1973, of F. Donald Xixon by IRS ? 

Secretary Stmox*. Xo — I shouldn't say no so quickly. 

Mr. Lex-^zxer. To the best of your recollection ? 

Socretarv Snrox. If I did learn it. I wasn't intoiested. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. And did you over receive any inquiries with regard 
to anv of the facts relating to Mr. Larrv O'Brien's emplovment by 
the Hughes Tool Co.? 

Secretary Simox. Xo. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Would you have any objection to furnishing us 
with a copy of the diary entry for the entire day of May 28, 1973 ? 


Mr. Lex'zx'er. That is all we have. Thank you, Mr. Simon. We ap- 
preciate your cooperation and your help. 

Secretary Simox". As I say, I fool inadequate. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. You have been helpful, and we appreciate the time 
^•ou have given us out of your schedule. And if you could furnish us 
with any thoughts on that other matter, we would appreciate it. 

Secretary Si:uox'. I promise you that I will do that. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. We promise you that avo will read it with great care 
and interest. 

["\A'Tiereupon, at 2 :53 p.m.. the interview was concluded.] 

•T,, .. 

MONDAY. MAY 13, 1074 

U.S. Senate, 
Select ('(t.MMiTTEE on 
Presidkntial Campaign Activities, 

Washington. D.C. 

The Select Committee met, ]>m>;nant to notice, at 11 :lo a.m., in 
room-324-A, Dirk^cii Senate Oflii\' iWiildino-. . 

Present : Senator Talmadffe. 

Also present: Scott Avmstroniz. Lee E. Slueliy, and ^Nlary DeOreo, 
investifrators : l^ichard Schnltz. assistant miuority connsel ; Emily 
SheketolT, minority investigator. 

Senator Taoiadge. ^\v. Bro\Mi, will vou |)]ease raise vonr rioht 

T)o von swear that the evidence yon ^ive to t iie Select Connnittee on 
Presidential Campaio-u Activitit\-< for the Acai' 1972 shall be the trnth, 
the whole trnth, and nothino: ])iil the trnth. ~o help yon (lod? 

.Mr. Brown. I do. 

Senator Talmadge. ^'on may he seated, -ir. Mr. Hall doesn't need 

That's all? 

f Ivecess.] 

Mv. Armstrong. ]Mr. Rrown, coukl we ha\ e yonr fnll name and ad- 
dress for the record, please? ■ ., 


AFr. P)RowN. Jack AVarren P)i'<)\vn, 7051! Sonthwest 21st Street, 

Afr. Armstrong. 70,')() SontliAvc-,!- 21st Street I And von home phone, 

Mr. Rroavn. 264-7802. 

Afr. AR:\rsTRONG. And that's area code ?)05 ? 

Afr. Broavn. Yes. J 

Mr. Armstrong. And yonr pi'(»sent employment, sir. 

ATr. Brown. Key Biscay ne Bank Jv- Trnst i\). 

ATr. Armstrong. And what jiosition are you in? , 

Afr. Brown. Anditor. 

All'. Araistrong. And liow lonu' liave you heen in a position with 
that bank? 
I ]\rr. Brown. Since December 11)72. 

^\v. Armstrong. And were yon employed by the banlv ]irior to that 

Afr. Brow^n. Yes. I was. 

Air. Armstrong. In what capacity ? 

■ : (10945) ' ^ ' ■' ■ '■' ■■ •''■ ■' 


Mr. I^KOWN. Assistant to tlic president. 

Mr. Armstroxg. How lono; were you in that i)osition, sii- '. 

Mr. Krown. February ];)7() until December 1072. 

Mr. Armstrong. And piioi- to Febiuary 1970 'I 

Mr. Brown. I worked for my bi'other-in-law at Velvet Cream. Inc. 

Mr. Armstrong. In youi- capacity as assistant to the })resident, Key 
Biscayne Bank, what weic youi' priii«i]);il dutii'S ? 

Mr. l^ROWN. Well, it was kind of a catcli-all type thino-. T did just 
about a little bit of evei'vthin^. Wherever they needed anybody oi- 
wei'cshoitof help, or what ])aveyou. Iliat is where I went. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you have au}- duties relating' to the mainte- 
nance of the safety deposit l)oxes duiiiiu' that period? 

Mi-. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. And as auditoi', can you tell us your i)rincij)al 

INTr. l^RowN. The princijval duties are to audit the internal oi)erati()iis 
at the bank. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you haxc duties, occasionally or i-eo;ular, 
associated with the maintenance of safetv de})Osit boxes within tlie 
bank ? 

]\rr. Brown. Only insofar as internal audit is concerned, to detei'- 
mine that rents are paid, check the contracts to make sure there ai'e 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. In that function, the audit, the internal audit 
i-e<!:ai'dino: safety deposit I)oxes, what records does the bank reo-ularly 
keep on them ? 

Ml". Brown. Do you mean for each individual box? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Ml'. Brown. AA'^e have a contra<-t si<iiied by the indiwidual sayin<i; 
who is — if they'i'e leasinp- a box — who is authorized to <ro into tlie box, 
and then you also have wluit they call an entry recoi-d, which is a 
sio-uature cai'd which the individual sio-us in and it also has the date 
that they jjot in, the time, and it is initialed bv the attendant who 
allows them to ^o into the box. 

Ml-. AR:\rsTR<)NG. And is thei-e a rental card or a jiayment cai-d ? 

ISfr. I^ROWN. Yes; there is, Avhatthey call a billino-card. 

]\ri-. Armstrong. A billino- card? And ar(> tluu-e anv excei)tions to 
the billinji: card? 

AFi-. Brown. The bank does not ])av for their own boxes, noi- does 
Mr. Bebozo pay for his. Those are the only excei)tions. 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us how many boxes the bank 

Mr. Brown. The bank has two. One tliat T use for my own j)urposes, 
and the other is for theboaid of diicctors. 

Mr. AR:\rs'rRONG. And tlie one that you use foi- youi- own puri)oses. 
does aiivone besides yourself have access to tliat box ? 

Mj-. Thrown. No. 

Mr, Arms'i-I!ong. So you maintain the only key to that box? 

Mr. THROWN- . Yes. sir. 

Mr. Arms'I'K()n<;. And tlie box foi' tlie board of directors, is that box 
O.'j.'] — oh, (>xcuse me. 

Mr. Browx. I am not reallv sure of the numliei-. 

It 1047 

Ml'. Aioisri;(»x<;. Aw tlit' sii>-ii;itines- 

Mv. Hat.l. ^Ir. Arnistrono-, if you are «>-()ino- to put in any docu- 
ments, I would ask your iudulo-ciice by sho\vin<>- us what documents 
you are jioinii; to refer to. 

Mr. ARiVrsTHoxc. Certainly. T have a recoi-d Ixd'ore me which appears 
to be the visitation record and salVty deposit box lease for box 222 at 
the Key Biscavne Bank. Key Biscavue, Fla.. tor which— 1 doirt know 
whether it's (t". J^. or C. B. Grant and Mr. AViikefield and IMr. Rebozo 
have apparently at one time oi- another been siiiiiators. T would like 
you to identify "that, if you can, Mr. Brown, aiul tell us if that appears 
to be the box for the boar<l of directors. 

-Mr. Browx. It ai)peais to be. Mi'. Gi-ant w as a vice president at one 
time, it was several years before I came there. This was October 14, 
HXiG, I <ruess. I think he left shoitly thei-eafter. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. 
IJebozo are still, at present, members of the board. 

Mr. AitMSTRoxo. That istheonly [)aa-eth:ir pertains to that box. 

Mr. H.M.L. Thaidcyou. 

Mr. Armsirox'c. Xow, can yon tell us what boxes Mr. Rebozo main- 
tains or how man}' boxes he nnuiUains? 

Ml-. Browx'. To the best of jny recollection he has two, other than 
the director's box. one was him and Mi'. Wakefield, and one by him- 
self,! believe. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRox(;. T lune two mor(> docmnents attached. 

One is what purports to be a safety de])osit hox lease, and the other 
a \isitation record, both for box 2-J4, the sio-natures for which appear 
to b(> Afr. Rebo/o and Mr. Wakelield, althouah Mr. Whitaker and a 
Mi's. Barker have also entered the l)ox. 

Doesthat appear to be the box you were rel'errino- to that Mr. Rebozo 
haswitliAFr. Waketield? 

Mr. I^Rowx. Yes. it is. 

Mr. AR:\rs'n;ox(;. And second, a record of a hox that, in the name of 
(\ (J. Rebozo and Carolyn Rebozo and a ^•isita^ion recoi-d and a safety 
deposit box lease for box Cu>^. 

Does this appear to be the l)o\- that you wvw referring" to as Mr. 

AFr. BijowN'. Yes. T didn't remeniber that his sister was on it also. 

Afr. ARArs'i'Koxc. They have been previously entered into the record 
and identified by Afr. Rel)ozo as e\idence submitted. 

Since the documents and the foinis were entei'ed in the record and are 
somewhat out of order, let me just say that hox ()?>?>, box 222, and box 
224 ai)|)ear in book 21 as Rebozo (whibits 5. 4. and ;'> respectively. 

Xow, ]\ri'. lii'own, are you aware of any other boxes to which INIr. 
Rebozo has access ? 

AFr. Browx. Not to my knowleilu'e, 

AFr. FFaij.. Excuse me a minute. T am not certain as to what you 
mean by access. You mio-lif want to pin that down. 

Mr. AR^Nr.sTRox'c. Which to Mw I'rown's kuowledL^e Mr. Rebozo has 
a key or has some proprietary inteicst. 

^\v. Browx. Xot to my knowh^dut^ : no. sir. 

]\rr. AR:\rs'nrox(!. Xow in your capacitities ;it the bauk. under whose 
dii'ection do you normally work? 

I\Fr. Browx. Tender th(> board of dii'ectors. . . 

I 10948 

Mr. AimsiKoNd. And to whom do you iioinialh' report ^ 

JNIr. Bkowx. AVell, I make a report once a month collectively to the 
board of dii-ectors. Normally, if somethin«r came u}), whichever one 
happened to be handy, if 1 needed to contact liim, in most cases it- 
would be Mr. Kebozo since his oflice is 

Mr. AimsTK()X(;. No\\'. in the course of your duties at the Key 
Biscayne Hauk has there c'\ei- been a time when you had uiade safety 
deposit box keys for anyone 'I 

Mr. Buowx. When 1 have actually had safety deposit boxes, no. 

Mr. Ai;:msti{()ng. And are there any occasions on which you have 
drilled safety deposit boxi>s? 

By tliat, 1 mean nsinp- a mechanical tool that is used to turn the lock 
itself and break it in such a way that it can bt' remo\-ed without a key. 

JMr. Buowx. No; that would noinially be done by Diebold in the 
presence of two security ollicers. 

Mr. Ai!.MS'ri{ox(;. But yon yourself have never done that '. 

And has there ever C()nu> a time wluui you have changed the locks on 
the safety deposit boxes "l 

Mr. Bhowx. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. Akmstroxo. And on how many such occasions ha\-e you chana-ed 

Mr. l^R(»wx". It is customary when somelxxly surrenders the box 
to chano-e the lock. That is what 1 use — the one box T said is for my 
purposes, actually only has exti'a locks in it. so whenever somebody 
suri-enders a box we customai-ily chaniie keys. 

I have also chano-ed the locks on one of Vix. T\(>l)ozo's, but I don't 
know which one. 

Mr. AR:\rsTKox'^(!. Could you tell us what is inxohed in chani>-ino- the 
locks, just l)riefly? 

Mr. Bijowx. Well, yon open the box. The oidy way you can chano-e 
it, of course, is the person has to hax'e the key to open it. 

Mr. Amrs'rKox'o. You op(>n it with a k-ey ? 

Mr. Brown. You opeji it with a key and on the baclv of it there are 
four bolts or screws, actually, aiul ynn just scic, • it out and the whole 
lock assembly comes out and you put a new one in and screw it back 
in. That is a very sim))le matter. 

Mt*. AR:NrsTROX(i. And in oi-dei- to relock th(> l;o\, you would need 
the new key to the new lock' ? 

Mr. l^Rowx. Tiio-ht. 

Mr. AR:\rs'rR()X(i. And in order to eutei- the box subse<iuently, one 
would need a new kev ? 

Afr. l^i{()wx. That's ri<rht. 

Mr. AR:NrsTRox(!. Now, do you recall — has there e\er been a ditferent 
l)i'ocedure that vou've followed!' Ibne von excr had to force open the 

Mr. Browx. No. Anytime the box's both keys lia\(> 1)een lost, Diebold 
has been called. 

IVfr. Araistroxo. TTas there ever been a time when one kev has been 

Mr. Browx". Yes: on some occasions, and \- liat we luiiinallv do is 
o))en the box, in that case, aiul switch the lock aiul <ii\e them auothei' 
lock with two ke\-s. 


Ml". Armstrong. Do you ever rernll an instance in wlnrl! yon yoiiv- 

' f made anotlierkey to replace a lost key ^ 

Air. IjRi^.wn. Xo, sir: riot that I'\e ever made anoi' . no. 

Mi-. Akmstroxc. Do you e\er have hlanlvs lor those types of safety 
deposit boxes? 

INfr. Brown. Xo, ajrain.Diebold iiMi'inally nrikcv them, of course. 

Mr. ,\.R:^rsTRONG. X"o\v. ^vhen you chaiiiic a lock, do vou ever I't'call 
any irre<>ularities at all. or is it u-ually the sauie procedure, you open 
it with at least one key ( 

Ml". Hrown. AVitli the one remaiiiiuii- key '. 

Mr. Hall. Excuse me, Mr. Armstrono-, avIumi yon use the word "ii'- 
reonlarity"", that presumes cei-tain thiniis to have occurred that wei-c 

Mr. ARMs'rRoxc. Anythiuii- other than the process tliat you ha\e 
iust described to ns. 

^Ir. Hall. That is the norma. I loutine. a dillerent ))hrase would be 
more a))propriate. 

Mr. Armstrong;. Anythina-othi'r than the normal routine? 

Mr. BRt^vN. X'o. 

^fr. AR:Nrs-rRox(;. And do you recall when it was that Mi'. Eebo/o 
asked yon to chaniie the lock on his l)ox^ AA'a< it ]\[r. Ivebo/o who re- 
qu(>sted you chanoe it I 

Mr. Browx'. Yes. I rememlxu' on one occa-ion. lu' did. Tie lost one 
key and couldn't find it and ask(Ml tluit I chan'ie tite lock, so we went 
in and he oj)ened the box and 1 ( hauui'd the lock, but ^-.hen it was. I 
really cannot say. J would l)e iiuessina- if 1 tiied to iri\e you a date 
on it. 

Afr. AR:\rs'i'Rox'^o. Was it aftei' K\\v date when vou became auditor of 
the bank ^ 

Mr. Broavx. Yes. sir. 

Afr. Armshjoxo. Had you chanaed any l()(!<s prior to the date you 
became auditor^ 

A[r. l^ROWN. Xo, sir; not that T can recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. So it was subse(|uent to Decc^mber lOT-J '. 

Mr. Broavn. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ARMSTRONCi. And do yon recall if it was prior to the date when' 
^fr. Kebozo's name came u]) in the press, appro?:imately October 107", 
when it came ii)) in connection with the Howard Hui>'hes contribution { 

]Mr. Hall. Just a minute. Are yon tall\ii\u- about j)ress matters, 
mattei-s that ai-e in the media I 

Mr. Armstr()N({. I am just talkinu' — helpinu' Mi-. Bi-own recall the 

Mr. PTall. Why don't you just refer to the date as Octobei- 10T-'>. 
That would be more heli)ful. 

Mr. Ar:mstr(^N(;. Do yc)u recall it' it was })iiorto October lOT^W 

Ml'. Browx'. It was. 

Mr. Ar^fstroxg. Do yon recall i I' it was pi-ior to dune 'I'l, l'.»T;'> i 

Afr. Browx'. Xo,sir; I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Xoav, can you tell ns or can you just describe what 
the circumstances wei-e, when ^fr. Ivebozo (irst biouaht it to your 
attention that he had lost a key and nc^eded the locks chan<red on one 
of the safety dej^osit boxes ? 


Mr. Brown. AVell, he called me into his office and said that he had 
lost the key to one of his boxes, and he had the one reniainin<>- key and 
could we chano-e the lock without too much trouble, and I said, ""Yes, 
sir." So he said, ''OK, I'd like to chance it then." And so he went in 
and opened the box, and I can't remember whether we took the box 
out or whether he stood and watched and we chanoed the lock, save 
him the new set of keys, and closed it back. 

Mr. Armstkoxc. This was immediately after he called you into his 

Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. You proceeded directly to the vault I 

Mr. Brown. [Nods in the affirmati\e. J 

Mr. Armstrong. And you ^avehini both keys on that occasion ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did he ever nive you back either of those keys? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. he didn't. 

Mr. AR:vrsrR0NG. Did he indicate a necessity to make any copies 
of those keys ? . , 

Mr. l)RowN. No,sir, he did not. 

Mr. xVrmstrong. And do you recall where, physically, he had it — 
the key that you used to open the box to chan<ii:e the locks — if he 
removed it from his jxx'ket or had it in his hand or an envelope or 
what ? 

Mr. Brown. I think he had it layiuii; on his desk, but T am not 
really sure. 

Mr. Ar:\istron(;. Do you recall the size of the box that he changed? 

Mr. Brown. It was a 3 by 10. 

Mr. AR:NrsTRONG. A 8 by 10 is 3 inches by 10 inches ? 

Mr. Brown. Right. 

Mr. Ar:mstrong. fan you tell us what the rental rate for a o-by-10 
box is? 

Mr. Brown. A 3 by 5 is $8. 

Mr. Ar:mstrong. A 3 by 5 is $8 ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. So a 3 by 10 is $17.50. 1 believe. 

Mr. Arms'irong. "Well, actually all these figures are helpful. A 3 by 
5 is $8 ? 

Mr. Brown. Eight dollars. 

Mr. Armstrong. AT) by 5 is? 

Ml-. B>RowN. It is $13, 1 believe. - ■-. 

]\ri-. .\.r:mstrong. And a 

Mr. l^,i;owN. A 3 by 10 would be $17.50, and then a 10 by 10 is $30. 
I belie\e there is a 5 by 10 that is — I'm not sure what the ]n-ice on that 

Mr. AR:^rsTRON(;. OK. And did these rates change i-(\oularly ? Have 
they changed since you've been there ? 

Ml-. Brown. No, sir, tliey have nol . 

Mr. AR:\rsTR0NG. So you recall tliat a 3 by 10 

^Nfr. Brown. Tothebcsj of my ri'collection : yes. sir. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. And did you ])ull out the box — T don't know how 
you refer to the box insi<l(' the compai-tmeiit ? 

]Mr. Brown. No, sii-. 1 did nol. and T don't really recall wliether 
^Ir. Rebozo took it out or whellicr he left it tliere and watched us 
while we chan<red the box. 


JNIr. Ar;.MsrRox(;. It is not nocessarv that you ivinove it^ You don't 
luive to ivniove t ho iutei-nal hox to chauirc the hx-ks because (he door 
swiiiiis o})eii ^ 

Mr. Buowx. T\w door swinj^s out, i'i«2:ht. 

Mr. AiiMsiKuNo. Xow, is there any diilereuce in the size of tlu' locks 
accordino-to tlie size of tlie hox itself? 

Mr. J^Kowx. No, sii". 

Mr. AuMSTKoxG. The locks are all identical ? 

Mr. Biiowx. You have a rijjht hand or a left hand hinoe. That is 
the only difference in the locks themselves. In otlier words, some of 
them have the hasj) oi- the lockin*>- mechanism on the ri<>ht-hand side; 
some of them are on the left-hand side. 

Mr. Ait.AisTKoxc;. Which is customary^ Are they evenly divided, 
or is there a predominance ^ 

Mr. Broavx. They are pretty well evenly divided. 

Mr. Armstrox'o. Do you recall what this was? Whether this was a 
loft oi- a riojht handed ? 

]N[r. Browx. No, I don't, but the boxes normally swino- together 
like — the doors swing together like so [indicating]. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Yon mean as a barn dooi- would close ? 

Mr. Browx. In other words, the two adjoining boxes would be 
even and tlie same sides of the door would swing. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Now, during the time when you changed the 
locks on this box, was there anyone else present besides Mr. Rebozo 
and yourself ? 

Mr. liRowx'. I think Mr. O'Sullivan was pi'osent. I'm ])retty sure 
he was. 

Mr. Armstrox-^g. And on that occasion, did you change locks on any 
of the other boxes? 

Ml'. l^Rowx. No, sir. 

Mr. Akmstroxg. Just that one? Was there any particular reason 
why ]Mr. O'Siillivaii was present? 

Mr. Browx. Normally, we like to do anything with safotv deposit 
boxes in the ])resence of two officers. 

Mr. AinrsTROXG. That is in addition to yourself ? 

Mr. Bijowx. Includingmyself and one other officer. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRf)X'G. Well, Mr. Rebozo is an officer. 

]Mr. Browx. lie is, but in this case, it was his ])ox. 

]\Ir. Armstrox<;. So you ai'e pretty sure Mr. O'Sullivan was present ? 

Mr. Browx. Yes. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Now, what happened to the key for the box from 
the lock that you removed ? Actually, what liapponod to the lock and 
the key? 

Mr. Browx'. Well, the lock would have gone back into my safety 
dei)osit l)ox. and the one remaining key Avould have l)oen sent to 
Diebold for a duplicate to have been made. 

Mr. Ar:\istroxt;. And how would you have marked the key so that 
when you received it and its duplicate back, that yon would have been 
able to match it u)) with the box, or with the lock ? 

Mr. Browx. Well, normally, there would be only one or two of 
them at a time, so I would sot the locks aside, soj^arately when there 
is no key: and when the key comes back, we would just match them 
up witli the lock, and we would 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 15 


•-•'Mr. Armstrong. But you don't use any — there's no code or dis- 
tin^uisliino- cliaracteristic t 

Afr. Browx. There is nothin<»; on any oi' tlie locks. 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, do yon recall if you did, in fact, ^et the 
duplicate for that and put the lock l)ack in cii'culation '\ 

\\v. Hrowx. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Ak.aistroxg. Now is it customary to make any records when you 
chano-e the lock on a safety de])osit box to make a record that you have 
chano-od it ^ 

Mr. Browx. The only record would be such as we would noruially 
charo-e the customer. We don't make a physical record that we've taken 
a lock out of so-and-so and put it so-and-so. Normally, the customer 
pays the charo-e of havino; a du]:)licate key made. 

Mr. AR:\rsTROXG. In this case, would Mr. Eebozo have jiaid the 

Mr. THROWN'. No, he wouldn't. 

INIr. AR:NrsTROXG. Would tliat indicate then that the bank would have 
paid the char^re on his behalf ? 

Mr. Browx. Yes ; more than likely. 

Mr. Ar^fstrox^g. So durino- the period when keys were requested 
from the Diebold Co., there should be at least onc^ key that was re- 
quested that was not in turn billed to a customei-, is that correct? 

]\f r. T^Rowx'^. That's correct. 

Mr. AR:\rsTR0XG. Now how does the billino- process work noi'mally? 

I realize it didn't haj^pen in this case, but when you chanjie a 
lock, what document or record do vou use to bill a customer? 

Mr. Browx^ We normally — when we chano(> a lock, of course, the 
customei' has to be there to have access to the box, so what we normally 
do is chani>-e the box, oive him two keys, he surrenders the one remain- 
ine: key. and it is sent out, and normally they just pay the ofirl for the 
safety box de])osit. to the attendant. Eithei- they ])ay her, there's a $3 
charo-e for the key, or they charo-e their account. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRox'G. And is there any document you fill out, any form 
that vou com])lete? 

j\Ir. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. So whatevei* record is kei^t would be a recoi'd that 
she would keei> which amoimts to a recei]it for the custouier or a billinp; 
to his account? 

Mr. Browx. Ei.olit. 

Mr. Arafstrc^xg. And do you know what form those are Vq\)\ on? 

Mr. Browx'. It is iust a n^o-ular three-wav char<>e, unless of course, 
the customer would iiav her casli oi- somethino- like that. 

Mr. AR^rsTRox'G. Tf it is cash ? 

Mr. Browx'. Tf the cash is the onlv thin.o'. an entrv would be uiade to 
the o;eneral led.<>er account, safetv deposit box key, statiuio' that so- 
and-so naid for lost key. 

Afr. AR:\rsTR()XG. And it would state the name of the individual? 

Mr. Bijowx. Eithei' the name or the box number. 

Mr. AR:\rsn;oxG. And the three-wav charoe. is tlie three-way charjofe 
slin used for anvthinp- else? 

iVfr. Browx. Anv char.q-e or credit to a customer's account that could 
be used for — we have customers that want vou to chartre their account 


for various tilings wIumv tliev tell you to buy tlieui some Treasury 
bills, or sonietliiiio- of this natuiv, and we will i)ut the ehai'<i-e to their 

In othei- woids. any charge to their account for any purpose, Ave 
would use this. 

Mr. Amrs'ntoxG. This is what we laymen would refer to as a debit 
memorandum i 

Afr. Brown. Kiaht. it's a debit memorandum exactly. 

^fr. Armsthoxc. .Vnd are the debit memoi'andums separated in any 
way ^ Are they collected in one placed Is there one copy that is 
clironoloo'ically kept ? 

Mr. I^Rowx. Xormally. the oi^iginal is sent to the customer in the 
nuiil. The second copy is sent to the computer center to be charo-ed 
aoainst his account and it ooes back to the customer with his statement 
and tlien the pink copy, or our copy, normally aoes attached to the 
back of the customer's individual — what we call ''history sheet.'' our 
o-eneral information sheet. 

Mr. Armstroxc. Is there any record on a chronoloo-ical basis of such 
charges on a bankwide basis ^ 

Mr. RROwx^ Xo. sir. there is not. 

Mr. Ar^istroxg. So the only way to recreate a clironolooical history 
of such transactions would be to o'o throu^rh each customer file? 

Mr. Rrowx. That, or oo throu<!h the film. They are filmed, along 
with the checks and items. 

Mr. Armstrox'G. To oo throuoh each customer's account for the 
particulai- pei-iod or the customer file, and those are the two. 

Mr. Hrowx'. Right. ~~ 

]Mi-. Armstroxg. Xow, is there a limit to the nmiiber of keys that 
are o•i^•en out with a safety deposit box '( 

Mr-. Browx'. Xormally we give out two keys, 

Mr. Armstrong. Are there any exceptions to that rule ? 

Mr. Browx'. Xot to my knowledge. There could well be. I guess, 
somewhere a thii'd key. Then the key deposit, of course, is $3 for a set 
of keys. So I suppose they could get a third. I don't know of anybody 
who has. 

]Mi-. AR:\rsTRox'G. Did Mr. Tvebozo indicate that he had only two keys 
to the box and that one was lost? Did he explicitly say that? 

Mr. Rrowx. It was my understanding that he had lost one key. that 
he had lost a key and had this key and could we change the lock. 

Ml'. Armstroxg. And you gave him only two keys ? 

Mr. Rrowx'. Yes, sii', that's right. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. To the liest of vour knowledge about the keys, are 
these keys keys that could l)e duplicated bv any locksmith, or is there 
anvthino- atypical about the Ijlanks, first of all. 

Mr. Hall. Two questions. Which question do you want him to an- 
swer first ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. To the best of your knowledge and expertise, is 
there anvthinc unusual about these blanks, the key blanks themselves? 

Mr. Hall. I think you're gettino- into a funny area. Are you asking 
him as a layman, as a director of the bank or his knowledge as a lock- 
smith ? Be very precise. 


jNIr. .\.i{:\rsTHoxG. Witliiii his experience as a banlc auditor and as 
one who has chano-ed a lot of safety dej)osit l)o\es. 

Mv. Hi'iJ.. AVell, YOU ai-e ariiuiuo- aaain. In Ids experience as 
an auditor, tine, answer the (piest ion. 

Mr. Hhowx. I don't tliink it could he duplicated hy an outside lock- 
sniitli. 1 don't think they could. 

INfr. Ai;:\[STRoN'o. Did the hank every use anyone duriii<j,- the ])ei-iod 
that you were there other than the Diehold (^o. ? 

Mr. I?i{owx. Xo. sii'. 

Mr. AimsTKoxG. In ordei: to duplicate k'eys or to reipiest additional 
equipment for the safety deposit boxes ? 

^fr. Bitowx. A"o, sir. 

^Nfr. AK:srsTi;ox(;. Customarily, when you chano-e the locks on the 
boxes, is this an individual tiiino- that is done on each at t)ie customers' 
request, or is it done on a ]>eriodic basis? 

]\rr. Bnowx'. Xo: it is done one of two times: If tlie customer loses 
the key and comes in and requests us to do it. we do it. or if tlie 
customiM' suri'endei's the box for some I'eason or other, then customarily 
we chaiiii'O the lock so that — in other woi'ds. if he had an extra key 
and he supplied us only with two. theoretically he shouldn't be able 
to o-et back in there, l^ut this pre\-ents that. In otliei' words, he couldn't 
<j:o back to that same box and the same key wouldn't woi-k. 

Mr. An^rsTKOxo. TTavino- chani>"od locks, when you send in the re- 
mainino-key from the lock that has been removed to have it du])licated, 
do YOU normally do that with a aroup or as it occurs ? 

Mr. Bnowx'^. As it occurs. AVe noi-mally mail it to Diebold by reo-- 
istered mail and they mail it back. 

Mr. AR:\rsTKoxo. So that on the occasion that you chan.ued l\lv. 
Eebozo's lock, am I ri.o'ht in assumin«^- that fairlv close to that date 
there would be a sinirle key mailed to the Di(>bold Co. ? 

Mr. Br.owx'. A sino-le keY. If there'd been anv others chana'ed in that 
particular timeframe — T don't re(^an any oth(MS, but there would be 
neYer moi-e than two or three. 

Afr. Amrsnjoxo. But you didn't chana'e anv othei'S? 

'Mr. BRowx^ Xot on that ]iarticular day, T don't recall chaniiino; any 
othei-s around that |)articular time. 

]\rr. AK:\rsTn(^x'(;. Good. Incidentally, while I'm looking at these 
pa|)ers here, are there anv other events that would hel]i us narrow 
the period when this lock niicht have been chano-ed ? 

Does Your birthday fall in the first half of the year? 

INfr. Bnowx'. Xo: it's in the sec^ond half. 

Mr. AinrsTKOx'^c. Prior to October ? 

]\rr. Bnowx. Se]>teml)er 2Tth. 

]\rr. AR^rsTHOx'G. I assume the lock was chano-ed prior to your hirth- 
da v. is that cori'ect ? Do you remember indei^eiidently ? 

Mv. Bnowx-^. I would think so. yes. 

Mr. Ar!:\rsTKoxo. Are there auY other important dates that you 
associate durino- the year 1078, major events ? 

T am just askino- for whatever helji you can oi\e us. Birth of a 
child, anythina- that mio-ht help you ])lace it in time? 

Ml-. IIaij.. J(>wish Ilioh Ilolidavs? 

^Nfs. SiTEKETOFF. Auui Yersaries ? 


^Iv. I^Rdwx. ^fy (laiio-liter Avas boni on Jamian- 4 of that year; my 
anniversary was .Vpril S. 

Mr. Hai.i,. Do tlicse (latos moan anytliinij:^ 

^h\ Hifowx. "Well, Vm trvino- to tliink, bnt T can't tie th(Mn in. T Avas 
tryino- to tliink of whether I conld tie it in witli my vacation, whetlier 
it was hefoi-e or after I wont on vacation, bnt I can't remembei- tlmt 

^fr. Aimsriioxc;. Well. T want to come back to this hei'O in a second, 
and there's one Hie tliat I need 1 don't ha \e here. 

^Iv. TI.M.L. Tjot's take a recess. 


^Ir. Ai{MSTi;()X(;. OK. we're back on the record. 

]\rr. Brown, first of all, I Avonld like to show yon a document which 
has three records on it, one is a visitation record, the other appears 
to bo sort of an identification record of safety deposit boxes, notes, 
identification references and release, and what appears to be normally 
the Hip side of it would have rental payment I'ocord. 

Can you identify this as the type of form — reaai-dless of the in- 
formation that's on this particular one, that is wiitten on it — the 
form itself is the ty))e of form that you use ^ 

Mr. l^Rowx. Yes : tliis is the contract form. 

]Mr. Hall. The middle of the two. 

^h: l^Rowx. The middle of the two is the contract form. This is the 
one they would normally si^n when they <>o in. 

Mr. Hall. You are talkino- about the toj) record ? 

^Ir. Browx'. Yes; the top record is the visitation record that the 
person sipis when they ai'o o'oino- to o-o into the box and this 

^[r. Hall. Iveferrino- to the bottom record. 

^Iv. l^Rowx. The bottom record is the one that we record the date 
they paid theii- rent and when it is paid through, and so fortlL 

]\rr. An:\rsTi{oN(;. All rio-ht. Now this jjarticular one is filled out. 
Tt says: ''Xame, bank, box number 225." And the only other writinp; 
on it a])pears to be — the identification sheet is scratched out — and it 
says, "released October 12, 1071. number 225." 

Mr. Br.owx. The only thino; I can think of — I really don't know 
anvthino; about it. 

iNIr. Hall. Well, let's mark this. 

Mr. Armstrox'o. Let's have this marked as exhibit 1-A. And this 
next paae is exhibit 1-B, and this again has what appears to be three 
forms on it. The top is visitation rec(»!d for box 225. Key Biscayne 
Bank. The second is. I "uess. the appointment of de]nity form: and 
the third is the safety deposit box lease, whach aii'ain is filled out for 
box 225, Key Biscayne Bank and sio-ned by Mr. C. G. Rebozo. 

[The documents referred to were marked Brown exhibits Nos. 1-A 
and 1-B for identification.*] 

Xow. would any of this be the flip side, the back side of exhibit 1-A, 
which is exhibit 1-B. 

Mr. Hall. Just a minute. Are you asking if it is the reverse side 
of exhibit 1-A? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Yes, any portion of it. 

♦See pp. 10969-70. 


Mr. Browx. Yes; it would ho the flip side of the middle and the 

Mr. AiJMs'inoxo. The lower two items on 1-A would be the baek sides 
of the lower two items on 1-H ^ 

]\Ir. l^ROAVN. That's riojht. 

Mr. AiorsTRONG. And that would comprise the extended form tliat 
the bank' uses? 

Mr. Huowx. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. Ai;:\rs'i'Tu>xo. And on the visitation record, is the visitation record 
identical on both sides? 

Mr. l^Howx. "^'es, it is. 

Mr. AniMSTuoxo. So I realize that it is hai-d foi- you to tell, because 
this one is comj)letel3^ blank, if it is the back side of this one, but the 
back side of 1-B, the top form on 1-R, would have a side similar to 

Mr. IIali.. You're talkino- about the raw form ? 

Mr. AiaisTRox^o. The raw foim. 

Mr. linowx. The raw form, would have it; it is the same on both 

Mr. Armstrong. Tncidentally, while we ai-e on this, were you aware 
of any other box that INIr. Rebozo had had at any prior point in 
time, prior to your assuming- the duties as auditor I 

Mr. l^Rowx. Not to my knowledoe, no. 

Ml'. Ar:\istr()X'^(;. Has this box come to your attention subsequently, 
this box Xo. 225 as havin<2: been a box INIr. Rebozo had access to? 

Ml". Brown. I can't really say. The number doesn't mean anythiufj to 
me. I just know that he has a couple of boxes. 

Mt'. Arisistrong. ok. Have you ever been involved in a search for 
T-ecoT'ds associated with any safety deposit boxes to which INIr. Rebozo 
has access? ... 

Mr. Brown. No; I have not. 

Ml'. AR:\rsTRONG. OK. Are you aware of who, if anyone, has been 
involved in seaT'chino; for records of safety deposit boxes of Mr. 

Mr. Brown. Mrs. Moncourt. 

Mv. AR:\rsTRONG. You've had no role in that ? 

Mr. Brown. No ; I have not. 

Mv. TTaij.. I think, comparinc' 1-A and 1-B, it would ajipear that 
1-A is in fact the back side of the top' item of 1-B and I base that — I 
think that that would be correct as to all of the information. It seems 
to me that l-I^, in fact, is the front sheet and 1-A is the back sheet. Is 
that rio-ht ? 

Mr. Brown. No. This would be the reverse. This would be the front 

sheet and this should be the back slieet, but on the one you are rio;ht. 

Mr. TTai.l. So as to the top item. 1-B is in fact the front sheet, 1-A is 

the back sheet. On the bottom two items. 1-B is the back sheet and 1-A 

is the front sheet. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Brown. That is correct. 

Mr. Ar^fstrong. Now is the customer to fill out the form known as 
the identification or reference form? This one is filled out just to the 
extent of savino-. "bank and 225,'' but is it customary to identify it as a 
])artl('ular account ? 


Afr. Hrown. Yos: with ;iii iiuli\-idiial we iioinially have tlie name, 
addivss and Hini, (4 cotoia. 

Mi-. Ahmstkonc. AVould tliat liold tnie foi- Mr. "Rehozo's per.sonal 
boxes ^ 

Ml'. Haij.. If YOU know. 

Ml". Bi{o\vN. I don't know. 

Afi'. AR:\rsTnoN(;. And as you say, accounts for Mr. IJebozo or the 
l)ank would not luive any rental payment lerords, is that connect? 

Afr. Huowx. No; they wouhl not, and this recoi'd is custoniaiily not 
used. I have a sepai-ate card that they use for lental payment record. 
It's a blue cai'd ; it is similai- to this. 

jNIr. Armstuoxo. So the rental lecoi'd — — 

Mr. l^Rowx. Is not actually kept with the contract. 

Mr. Armstrox^o. So the rental r-ecoi-d in exhibit 1-A is not the same 
as what you were I'efei-rino- to ])i-eviously as the billino; cai'd ? 

Ml'. Broavx. That is con-ect. 

Mr. Ar:\[strox"(}. And the billi?i<j card itself? 

Mr. Browx. It is a blue cai'd that contains substantially the same 

Mr. AR:\rsTRox(i. Wliich would be, roualdy speaking, date paid, 
amount, exj)iration ? 

Mr. I^Rowx". That is coi-rect. 

Mr. AR:\rsTROX-^G. OK. And of course, tlie name of the account and 
the box numbei'? 

Ml'. l^Rowx. That iscoi'i'ect. 

Ml'. Ar^fstroxo. And who keeps, incidentally, the billino- cards, the 
blue billiuii' cards? 

Afr. l^ROWx. They are in the custody of tlie safety deposit custodian. 
When she bills them — some of them come due on a monthly basis, and 
she bills them. 

Mr. Armstroxo. And wlio is that presently ? 

Mr. Browx'. Mrs. Sheehan. -'' 

Mr. AR:srsTRox(;. And is that Majorie Sheehan 'I 

Ml'. BRowx^ That is correct. 

Mr. Armstroxo. Just for the record, if you can identify this, this is 
a questionnaire which I believe was ]:>repaT'ed by some Government 
ao-ency oi' other, and was reviewed with bank employees and auditors 
and so forth. It says at the to]:), "questionnair-e, safety deposit boxes." 

We can have it marked as exhibit 2 for identification. 

[The document referred to Avas marked Brown exhibit No. 2 for 

^rr. l^Rowx. I have never seen this before, this particular one. _ 

]\rr. Hall. Do you know what agency normally this is a business 
record of ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. We liave this in our file. Mr. Bellino has been 
workiuir on this. 

Mr. Hall. What is the source of the recoi'd ? 

Mr. Armstroxo. It is my understandino- it is a Government aofency 
tlint hp'^ suni^liod us with tliem. 

Afr. Hall. What airency ? 

Mr. AR:\rsTR()XG. I don't have that riffht now. If he hasn't seen it, 
I'm not goinir to co throuo:h it ; it's not relevant. -— 

*Sppp. 10971. 


Mr. Hall. Tlicn it's uoi relevant. Do you want to niaik it anyway, 
just so we'll understand^ It's an irrelevant document that has been 
]o resented. 

iVlr. AuMSTROXc. That is the one that Mr. Brown cannot identify. 

Now I have here, Mr. Biown, a tile copy of invoices prepared by 
the Diebold (^o. for work done for the Key Biscayne liank & Trust Co., 
and I would like you, if you can identify them we will have them 
marked as an exhibit, ancl if you cannot identify them T would still 
like to see if they could assist us in any way in placino- them in time. 
There are three such invoices. 

Mr. Hall. These are the only three you're t alkino- about ? 

Mr-. Akmstroncj. Yes. 

[The documents referred to wei'e marked Brown exhibits Nos. 3-A, 
3-B and o-C, for identification.*] 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Brown, when did you assume your duties as 
auditor of the Key Biscayne l^anki^ What time of the month in 
December of 1972? 

Mr. Brown. It was late December. I l)elieve the date was Decem- 
ber 27. 

Ml'. Armstrong. And prior to that time, you had not had any 
responsibilities pertainin<>- to locks of safety deposit boxes, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Incidentally, do you know who had that responsi- 
bility prior to that time? Was there an internal capacity to chanfje 
the locks ? 

Mr. Brown. There was, but which particular officer had it, I don't 
know; i^ossibly Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Stearns leave about that time? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, he did. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now you Inwv had an opportunity to peruse three 
documents, exhibits 3-A. 3-B, and 3-(\ 

First, let me ask you. if duriuir the course of your duties you had 
come into contact with documentation or invoices or materials from 
the Diebold Co. ? 

Mr. Brown. The only reason I would ever lia\'e these was a spot- 
check with ex]iense accounts to si'e if thefe was an invoice to back up 
the issuance of a check, or somethin^f of this natui-e. 

Mr. Ar:mstr<)Ng. Is there any form you sio-ned? Any Diebold form 
you sio-ued when you send it to them, wlieu you o-ive them a work order, 
when you make a rej)air. or when you scmkI them a • . • , 

Mr. Broavn. Yes. 

They normally have — well, if they are there, they normally have a 
work ordei- form tliat they fill out and it is sio-ued by an officer detail- 
ino- the work that they had done. 

]Mr. Armstron(;. Tliat would l)e a repair service order? 

Mr. Brown. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And this one we have luu'e is a file copy of an in- 
voice. Would you ever see such a docuuient ? 

Mr. Brown. The only time I would see it was like I said if durino- 
an audit of oui- expense accounts, I usually spot check a check. In other 

"See pp. 10972-74. 


words, I'll o-o tliroua'li iuul I'll take a clu'ck ami I'll ii^o to see if we 
had ail invoice to siibstaiitiato the issuance of that check. 

^fr. AmrsTKoxi;. Do you recall if you've seen any of these three 
invoices in that capacity ^ 

Mr. Bkowx. Xot to my knowledge. 

Mr. AnMSTRoxG. Well, let me see if the events descril^ed in here 

miijht help us in any way and place the chano-ing of the locks in time? 

All'. Haix. Just so we're clear, you're not asking about those invoices, 

just using them to establish dates about the other questions you've 

already asked. 

Mr. AmisTRoxc. Yes. 
Mr. Hall. All right. 

Mr. AitMSTKoxo. Ifow regularly, or how often, is it necessary to 
drill safety deposit boxes — for the Diebold people to come and drill 
them ^ 

Mr. Browx. Very, very, very few times that I can recall ever having 

^Ir. Armstroxo. Do you recall the necessity to drill a box in March 
1978, about mid-March i9T8 ^ 

Mr. Rrowx. If I knew the name involved, it might jar a memory, 
but the box number by itself does not mean anything. 

Mr. Armstr()X(;. OK, just to make the record clear, Mr. Browji 
seems to be making reference to the invoices shown preyiously which 
have reference to box 412. 
Mr. Hall. That is correct. 
Mr. Armstroxg. And a box number. 

Mr. Hall. I think what he is telling yon is that it's not helping pin 
the date down. 

Mr. Armstroxg. OK. And do you recall an occasion when it was 
necessary to replace the Plexiglas and flange on the drive-in windoAV 
at the Key Biscayne Bank. 

Mr. Br()\vx'. I don't know what you're talking about — oh, yes, I do, 

There was an occasion Avhere a teller had the driye-up Avindow out 
and a car hit it — the chute that slides out and has got a Plexiglas 
cover on top of it. 

Mr. Armstr()X*g. Do you recall if the occasion of that instance was 
in any particular proximity to the time that you changed Mr. 
Rebozo's — the locks on his safety deposit box ? 
Mr. Browx^. Xo. I am afraid I don't. 

jSIr. Armstroxg. Incidentally, when you were submitting a group 
of keys to haye duplicates made for safety deposit box keys, if these 
were boxes that had been relinquished, and I gather they might 

accumulate, you miglit turn them in at one time, several at a time 

Mr. Hall. Well, wait a miiuite. I don't understand what that ques- 
tion is ? How about restating it ? 

Mr. Armstroxg. On occasion, do you collect several safety deposit 
box keys from boxes which have been relinquished, keys that haye been 
relinquished when there was a lost key ? 

]Mr. Hall. Well let me see it T can undei'stand you. You're asking him 
whether he attem]:)ts to accumulate the number of orders that go to 
Diebold and submit them in a grou}) ? 


Mr. Armstrong. Eight. 
Mr. Hall. OK. 

Mr. Browx. Xot consciously. Sometimes, if it comes in the prox- 
imity when the Diebold man is .i>:oino- to l^e there, they carry the equip- 
ment to make keys witli them, so if we do need any kej'S we customarily 
have them made then, if not, we send them on to them by registered 
mail. We try to do it concurrent because we don't want to get a lot of 
keys, because then you are presented by the problem of not knowing 
which key goes back to which lock. 

That is customarily done by the safety deposit box custodian. 

Mr. Ar^sistroxg. OK; and you distinctly recall that the process of 
securing the duplicate to Mr. Ivel>ozo*s key, you mailed the key in to the 
Diebold people? 

ISIr. Hall. The cpiestion is, do you? 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you distinctly remember that? 

Mr. Broavn. I couldn't swear positively. I think it was mailed in. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if there were other keys that ac- 
companied that key when it was submitted, or when the duplicates were 
made ? 

Mr. Broavn. I cannot be ])ositive. I seem to remember that it did go 
by itself. 

Mr. Armstrong. One last question. Let's see if we can identify the 
box in question. 

Do you recall if the location of the box in relation with the rest 
of the room, whether it Avas toward the l)ottom, or on the floor? 

]\Ir. I^RowN. I would say it was about midway up. toward the rear 
of the vault on the lefthand side as you moved in. 

Mr. Armstrong. And are yon familiar with the numbering system as 
such, that you could give us or tell us ? 

Mr. Broavn. Well, it's kind of a random numbering system since 
they've added four sections since the original numbering and they 
don't run in any kind of concurrent order. 

Mr. AR^rsTRONG. Would this be one of the ncAv sections? 

Mr. Broavn. No. it Avould be one of the older, and T — Avell, I really 
don't knoAV Avliat the number of it would be. If I looked at it, I could 
probably pick it out, near to the number, but not the exact number, 
but I don't remember the exact box. 

Mr. Armstrong. But it is your recollection it Avas a 3 by 10 l)ox, not 
one of the square boxes ? 

Mr. Broavn. Right. 

Mr. Armstron(;. It Avas one of the rectanaular o bA' 10 ? 

Mr. Broavn. 3 by 10 or 5 bv 10, it could l)e. l)ut T think it Avas 3 by 10. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. OK. Before, Avhen you Avere trying to give us the 
api^roximate rates, I'm not sure you gave us the rate for 5 by 10. I 
tliink it Avas the 3 by 10 and the 5 by 10. 

Mr. Broavn. Yes. I'm not sure. On the 5 by 10, I'm not sure of the 

Mr. Ar^fstrong. It certainl v Avould not be less than $17. .50 ? 

Mr. Broavn. No; it Avould not be. Somewhere betAveen $17.50 and 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have anything on the safety deposit boxes, 
Dick? . ,.. 


Mr. ScHULTz. No. ' .: 

Mr. ARirsTROXG. Lee ? 

Mv. Shkeiiy. Xo. 

]Mr. AR:\rsTR()XG. Are you aware of wlietlier or not Pi'esident Nixon 
or any member of his family maintained safety deposit boxes at the 

Mr. Rrowx. No ; they do not. 

Mr. AR:\rsTU()XG. Or Mr. Abi)lanali) or Mr. ({ritlin '( Are you familiar 
with Mr. Al)[)hinalp ? 

]\rr. Browx. Yes; I am. " ' ' ' . 

Mr. Ar:mstr()X(.. And Mr. Griffin. 

ISIr. l^Rowx. Mr. (iriffin does not have one, Mr. Ab})]analp may well 
be; he is a director of the bank, so he may well have access. 

Mr. Armstroxg. liut apart f i-om that box ? 

Mv. Browx'. No, sir. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Now, did there — from time to time, did you sion 
invoices or work orders on Mr. Rebozo's behalf for his personal — 
relatinjr to his personal business as opposed to the bank's business? 

Mr. Broavx. I have in the past, yes. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And have you ever done the same thino-, signed 
invoices or work orders or lease a<2:reements on tlie President's behalf? 

Mr. Browx'. No. sir — well, yes; I did sion a couple of work orders. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And can 3'ou tell us what those were ? 

Mr. Browx'. Contracts in relation to the screen and the carpeting 
wlien the swimmins: ])ool was put in. 

Mr. Armstroxc;. Just brietly, can you tell us what the screenin<x 
and carpetin<>: consists of in relationshi]) to the swimmin^r i)ool ? 

Mr. Browx'. The screenin«: is — the swimmino- pool itself is screened 
in. It is like a patio type thing, and the screen goes all around the 
outside of the patio and covers the pool. It v\-as an indoor/outdoor 
type; one of these green grass type carpets was put out also on the 
patio around the pool area. 

Mr. Armstrox^g. And is this at 500 Bay liane ? 

]Mr. Browx'. Yes, sir. 

Mr. AR^rsTP.oxG. Can you tell us at whose request you signed those 
work orders ? 

^Ir. Broavx'. I think it was Mr. Rebozo. 

]Mr. Armstrox-^g. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate to you on whose behalf, 
or who was paying for the work that was being done ? 

Mr. Browx'. No, sir, he did not. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And have there been any other occasions that 
you recall where you have signed work ordei's for .500 Bay Lane, 
or on behalf of the President or lend-leases or purchase agreements? 

Mr. Browx'. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. ARMSTRox(i. OK. Do vou recall a lease agreement for a water 
tank for the Belcher Oil Co. ?' 

Mr. Browx'. That's the pool heater. 

Mr. Armstroxg. The pool heater ? 

Now, is there a water tank and then a heater that is separate from 
the water tank, a purchase a.qreement for the heater and a lend-lease 
.'•greement for the water tank ? 

Mr. Browx*. You mean a water tank, or a fuel tank ? 


Mr. Armstrong. It could well be a fuel tank. 

Mv. Brown. I am trying to recall now, but I think we purchased 
the tank separate from the purchase of the heatei-, although they may 
lia\'e leased it to us in return for buying fuel, I am not sure what 
the agreement was. 

Mr. AR>rsTRONG. Do you recall at whose request you would have 
signed those agreements '^ 

Mr. Brown. That woidd be Mr. Rebozo. 

jSJr. Arislstrono. OK. 

Mr. ITall. Do you ha\'e those agreements with you ? 

Mv. Armstrong. No ; 1 don't. We hope to shortl}^ 

Incidentally, can you tell us the company that did the screening 
and carpeting? 

Mr. I^ROWN. The screening was done by a company called Clima- 
trol — C-l-i-m-a-t-r-o-1, I believe it is — and the car})eting was ])ut in 
by Paul's Carpet. 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us whei'c (Mimatrol is located? 

Mr. Brown. They are located in Miami, the exact address I do not 
know. Somewhere out near liialeah, I believe. 

Mr. Armstrong. And Paul's Carpet ? 

Mr. l^RowN. They are down on Northwest Second A\enue, I believe 
it is. 

INIr. Armstrong. In Miami? , . . 

Mr. Brown. In INIiami. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. Now do you recall signing any other pur- 
chase agreements, leases, or work orders on behalf of the President 
or at 500 Bay Lane or at 516 Bay Lane ? 

Mr. Brown. Well, let's see, the screening, the carpet, at the pool, 
heater, possibly a service agreement on the pool heater. I cannot think 
of anything else that was signed in reference to the 

Mr. Ar:mstrong. I gather all these things were associated with the 
installation of the swinnning ])ool ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sii-, they were. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were there any other instances, any other times? 

jNIr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Were you ever thei-e to icceive goods on behalf 
of the President? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRON(;. When someone made a delivery, or ])erha])s when 
someone made a delivery to 400 Bay Lane ? 

]\Ir. Brown. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Armstron(}. OK. And are you aware of whether or not Mv. Be- 
bozo paid for any of these services or e(|uipment or for the pool itself 
on the President's behalf? 

Mr. Brown. The only thing I was told was that the invoices were 
to be forwarded to Mr. Wakefield's office. 

Mr. AR>rsTR()NG. The in^•oices should all be forwarded to Mr. Wake- 
field. Mr. Tliomas Wakefield? - . 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. 
. Ml-. AR:^rsTRON(;. Of Wak(>field, Hewitt c*c Webster ? 

i\Ii". Brown. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Arimstijoxg. .Viul did you ever rccehe any iiistnictions otlier 

^Ir. Bitowx. Xo, sii-. Any hills wc ixot that wcix' inaiied to lis \yero 
mailed to him. 1 assume they were paid. 1 iievt'r heard any more 
about it. 

Mr. SiiKKiiv. Do yon know the relati^"e amounts of the expendi- 
tures for the screen and for the carpetiui'- ? Just <>;enerally ^ I know 
you miiiht not remember the exact dollai's and cents. 

Mr. Bkowx. It seems tliat the sci'een was somewhere aroiuid $1,800 
and the cai-[)et Ayas somewhere around $500. 

Ml'. SiiKKii V. And these Ayere all done pretty much contemporan- 
eous Ayith the installation of the pool i 

Mr. Bitowx. Yes: they were all done — it was all done oyer a period 
of "2 or ;> weeks. 

^fr. SiiKEiiY. Late 19T!2. in December 1972? Can you remember? 

Mr. l^nowx'. Yes ; I think that's about the time it was. 

Mr. SiiEKHY. "Were there any others, I guess, like pool furniture or 
a di\ino- board? Were they installed with the pool, or did they come 
independent of that from another source ? 

^h: I Lvrr. If there is any. 

Mr. SiiKKiiY. Tf there was one. 

Mr. Bi;owx\ Xot to my knowledoe. I don't eyen think there's a 
diying board on the pool. There was not, I believe, at the time. "\Ve 
miii-lit haye subse<juentlv put one on, but I haye no knowledge of it. 

Air. SiiKETiY. That's all. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. I haye a coui)le of more questions, here. Are you 
familiar with a INIr. Richard Danner I 

]Mr. Browx. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstroxg. A Mr. Robert Maheu ? 

Mr. Browx'. No, sir. 

Mr. Armsi^roxg. And on any occasion, has ]\Ii'. Rebozo discussed 
with you, or do you haye any inde]>endent knowledge — independent, 
that is, of the media sources — of the so-called $100,000 contribution 
from ]\rr. Hughes to INIr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Hall. Just a minute. Let's repeat the (piestion ; I missed it. 

Mr. Ar:mstrox'g. Do you haye any knowledge, independent of media 
sources, inde]iendent of what is ayailable in the journalistic media, 
from ]\Ir. Rebozo or others, regarding the i^lOO,000 contribution from 
Mr. Howard Hughes to Mi-. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Browx". You are waiting for me to answer. 

Mr. Hall. Of course, you're excluding attorney-client priyilege 
here, and things like that. 

Mr. Armstroxg. I'm asking for any information he might haye 

Mr. Hall. "Well, the first thing is, do you haye any information 
independent of the media, so answer that. 

INIr. Browx. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. Armstroxg. OK. And on any occasion, has Mr. Rebozo asked 
you to secure for him, or p\ck up for him, a quantity of currency in 
$100 bills since January 1, 1969 ? 

Mr. Browx. No, sir, he hasn't. 


Mr. Armstrong. And have you ever seen Mr. Rebozo with a quantity 
of currency in $100 bills that did not come fioni his bank in a briefcase 
or any other container ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir ; I have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. And to your knowledge, other than what Mr. 
Rebozo niioht keep in a safety deposit box or might have kept in 
safety deposit boxes at the Key Biscayne Bank & Ti'ust Co., are you 
aware of any other location where Mr, Rebozo might have kept any 
quantity of currency in excess of $10,000 ? 

jVIr. Hall. His money ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Of Mr. Rebozo's or anybody else's money, but in 
currency form. 

Mr. Brown. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SciiULTZ. Well, excuse me. I want to ask the other half of your 

You said you did not see any briefcase in Mr. Rebozo's possession 
of the $100 l)ills which did not come from his bank. Have you seen 
him with a l)riefcase with $100 bills which did come from his bank? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you seen anyone else with a briefcase or any 
container Avith $100 bills ?" 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, I haven't. • 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you evei- made any trips outside the con- 
tinental Ignited States on Mr. Rebozo's behalf I 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever made any trips to Las Vegas, 
Nev., on Mr. Rebozo's behalf ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever made any trips to California on 
Mr. Rebozo's behalf ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. y.A ■ / 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever made any tT'i])s to Washington, D.C., 
on Mr. Rebozo's behalf ? 

Mr. Hall. Excluding the current trip ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Excluding the current trip, although I'm not sure 
it's on IVIr. Rebozo's behalf, but anyway, it is on our request. 

Mr. Brow^n. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or any trips to New Yoik on Mi-. Rebozo's behalf? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstiwng. And have you made any trips to Washington, D.C., 
New York, California, or Las Vegas, Nev., on behalf of the bank? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, T have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or outside the continental United States on behalf 
of the bank? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of anv assets that Mr. Rebozo holds 
outside of the continental TTnited States ? 

Mr. Brown. No, sir, T am not. 

]\[r. Armstrong. And are you aware of anv jn-oprietarv inteiyst in 
assets that Mr. Rebozo has in assets which are held outside the T'nited 
States, the continental United States ? 


Mr. Browx. No, sir. 

]Mr. SiiEEiiY. Diiriiio- that 2- or 8-week period that tliat pool was 
installed, were you aware of any other work that was done on either 
500 Bay Lane or 516 Bay Lane, either at Mr. Rebozo's instructions or 
the instructions of 

Mr. Hall. Any other person, persons, partnerships, or corpoiation? 

Mr. Browx. In addition to the pool, you mean ? 

Mr. SiiEEiiY. Riolit. 

Mr. Browx. The patio was extended out to cover the back of the 

Mr. SiiEEiiY. Did you have any direct responsibility for that; sign 
work orders for contractors ? 

]\rr. Browx. No, I talked to the contractor a coui:)le of times about 
it, but I didn't sign anythino-. 

Mr. SiiEEiiY. And who was that? 

Mr. Browx. J. H. Clao-oett. Inc. 

]Mr. SiiEEiiY. Of Miami, or Key Biscayne? 

Mr. Browx. Miami. 

]Mr. STir:EiiY. It was done in that same period, November to Decem- 
ber of 1972? 

Mr. Browx. It was all done at the same time. 

Mr. Sheeiiy. AVere you awai'e of any work that was done inside 
the houses as opposed to the exterior of the houses during this period 
of time ? 

Mv. Browx. Not that I know of. There may have been, but I don't 
know of any. - 

^Ir. SiiEEiiY. AVould INIr. Rebozo have asked anybody to handle 
those kinds of requests or ordere other than yourself ? 

Mr. Hall. I object. It is quite speculative. Ask him if he knows. 

^Ir. Sheehy. Do you have any knowledge of ]\Ir. Rebozo asking 
somebody else to contact an agency or individual to do this kind of 
work ? 

Mr. Browx. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Stieehy. Do you have any idea of the rough figures for the ex- 
tension of the patio in dollars and cents? 

INIr. Browx. No, I don't. I never saw that invoice, so I don't. 

Mr. SiiEEiiY. Did you get an estimate from the contractor? 

Mr. Browx. No, it was done — it was my understanding it was done 
on the time and materials tvpe of basis. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Anything else, Lee ? 

]Mr. Sheeiiy. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Are you aware of who INIr. Rebozo's bookkeeper 
was prior to Mrs. Moncourt ? 

Mr. Browx. "When I first came in there, he didn't have one, and then 
Mrs. Moncourt came in April, and so prior to that T really don't know 
who it would have been. 

j\Ir. Armstroxg. AAHien vou first came there — that was in Februarv 

Mr. Browx. February 1970, and Mrs. Moncourt came in Apiil. Dur- 
ing that interim, he did not have a bookkeeper. 


Mr. Armstrong. Can I road yon just a couple of iianios, to see if you 
mio-ht recoo-iiize the names of the prior l)ookkeeper from a list of 

Mr. Hall. Go ahead. 

Ml". Armstroxo. Nanci Lee Formau, F-o-r-m-a-n '? 

Mr. Hrowx. The name doesn't mean anythino-. 

Mr. Hall. Why don't you read the whole list ; if he reoog-uizes any 
names, he Avill say, "I i-eco<>nize it." 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, Chailes (t. Kebozo was not his own book- 
kee])ei-. Fred li. Brnndrett, E-r-u-n-d-r-e-t-t'^ 

Mr. Brown. Well, I recoonize the name, but you're s])eakino: in ref- 
erence or relationship to him beino; the bookkeeper? 

Mr. Armstron(;. Ki<>ht. 

Ml". Brown. No. 

Ml-. Armstrong. Matthew ( 'ampbell ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, I recoo-iiize the name. 

Mr. Armstr(^ng. But not a bookkeei)er ? 

]\I r. Brown. Not a bookkeei)er. 

Mr. Ar^estrong. Richard KStearns? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, I recognize the name, l)ut not a l)Ookkeeper. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRON(i. Vei-non Tucker ? 

Mr. Brown. The same. 

Mr. Armstrong. Nanci Lee Forman ? 

Mr. Brown. That name doesn't mean anything to me. 

Mr. AR3rsTRONG. Susan l^agdonas. I believe it's now Susan Bag- 
donas Martin. 

Mr. Brown. That is correct. She was his secretary. 

Mr. Armstrong. But not a bookkeeper? 

Mr. Brown. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Armstrong. Jose Alonso? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, I recognize the name, but again, it is not a book- 

Mr. Armstrong. Hilda Del Real ? I don't know whether that is a two 
part surname or not. That's D-e-1 R-e-a-L 

Mr. Brown. Yes, she was a cleaning lady. 

Mr. Armstrong. Juan Del Real ? 

Mr. Brown. That was her husband. 

Mr. AR:\rsTR0NG. Floy Santanello ? 

Ml". Brow^n. Yes, she was a teller. 

Mr. AR^rsTRONG. Mita Sue Scott ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, she worked in bookkeeping. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. She was a bookkeej^er ? 

AL". Broavn. Yes, she worked in the bookkee])ing department of the 

Mr. AR:\rsTRON(;. ^Nfaria Rodrigues? 

Mr. Brown. No. 
' ]\fr. AR:\rsTRoNG. You don't recognize that name? 

Mr. Broavn. No, T don't. 

Mr. AR:\rsTRONG. Delia Roche. R-o-c-h-e ? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, she also worked in the bookkee])ing department of 
the bank. 


]\ri-. AR:srsTuox(i. l\ooina Moioiia ? ' ' ' 

!Mr. T^Kowx. Yos : she -was a new acoonnts pccrotarv. ; 

]\Ir. AinrsTROXG. Enrique Tvodriirues i 

]Mr. Browx. He was assistant cashier. 

Mv. AR:srsTKoxo. Lelin Williams i 

Mr. Bkowx. Xo. 

Ml-. Aims-rnoxi;. Or Lelia AVillianis, L-e-i-1-a ? 

Mr. Bitowx. It doesn't mean anythinuto me. 

^Ii-. Ar:\istr()X(;. Caridad Z. Del Camjx) ( 

]\rr. Browx'. She was a proof oi)erator. 

Ml-. AT;:\rsTn()XG. Diana Mianeles? M-i-o-n-e-l-e-s? 

]Nrr. Bkowx'. [Xods in the neo-ative.] 

Mr. Akmstrox'g. Yon don't recoiinize that one ? 

Mr. Browx. Xo, T don't recoo-nize the name. j 

Mv. Ar:mstroxg. Paulina Gaunt ? Or Pauline (rrunt ? 

^fr. Browx. Yes. Paulina worked in the hookkeepin^j department. . 

^fr. Ar:\istroxg. Patricia Ann Powers ( 

]\rr. Browx'. Xo, it doesn't mean anvthino- to me. 

Mr. Ar^fstroxg. Mary Jane Ivichards ^ 

^Mr. Browx. ^Mary Jane ? She was a teller or in the proof depai-fment. 
one or the otlier. Xone of those were bookkeei)ers, to my knowledoe. 

^Tr. AR^rsTi;ox'G. One last question. Is ]Mr. Pebozo pavinir your leaal 

'Mv. ITali.. T object to that. That is entirely improper. You sub})enaed 
him on behalf of the bank. I think that is improper. 

Mr. Armstroxi;. OK. Pather than bother Senator Talmadfie, where 
we have an identical situation with Mrs. ]Moncourt, Senator Ervin 
ruled, and will you accept that rulino- ? 

Mv. Hall. On the attorney-client privileae ? 

Mv. Armstrox'g. An identical situation. 

]\rr. Hall. AVell, let me see it. May I see your subpena on the witness 
first, before lookino- for those ? 

Mv. AR:NrsTR()X('.. The subpena on Mr. Brown ? 

Mv. Hall. Call your office and read how the witness was listed on 
the subi^ena. Can you just ffiye me that infornsation ? 

Mr. SiiKiaiY. I know I have him listed as Mr. Jack Brown, period. 

Mv. Armstrox'(;. As an individual — can he answer the question ? 

:Mr. Hall. Xo. 

Mv. Armstroxg. ok. You may read the foreo-oino;. It's pretty clear 
from there. 

Mr. SiiF.EHY. You should say for the record Avhat he's readinc;. 

Mv. Hall. It's relevant to the relationship of the witness to the 

All rioht. let us take this position. We preserve our objection on 
the basis that that is privileo;ed on the relationship that has been 
established between Mr, Brown and his counsel. That is the relation- 
ship established under the laws of the State of Florida. 

Xow. if you wish to invade that pri^•ilege over my objection, you 
may do so. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 


]\Ir. Armstrong. We arc only interested in the relationship between 
Brown and INfr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Hall. And/or the bank, or just Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Armstrong. First, Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Hall. So you are ^'oinfj forwaixl over my objection, and invading 
the privilege as we have assei'ted ? 

]\Ii". Armstrong. Well, I'm not sure I accept your chai-acterization, 
but I'm asking the question. 

Mr. Hall. As long as we're very clear about what you're doing. 

INIr. Armstrong. Well, there's been an opportunity for counsel to 
peruse images 

Mr. Hall. No, there hasn't been an o])portunity to peruse pages. 
You were just showing me a ruling as infonnative. If you want, let's 
go get Senator Talmaclge. 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, I just want to put into the record what j-ou 
read; you looked at pages 106 and 107 of Mrs. Moncourt's executive 
session of Monday, April 1. 

Mr. Halt,. Where Senator Ervin took the position that under the 
laws of the State of North Carolina, that information is not privileged 
and asked that the question be answered. 

Now% we don't quarrel with the laMS of the State of North Carolina, 
because nobody's involved with North Carolina. 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, I don't think that's what he said. 

Mr. Hall. You ought to go back and check. 

Mr. Armstrong. I just checked. I think he said, "What we called 
the North Carolina" — I don't think he said, "That's what the law is in 
North Carolina." He later made specific reference that we're not in 
Florida, but Ave're in the District of C^ohmibia. 

INIr. Hall. I understand. But in Florida is where any relationship 
was created. 

Mr. SciiuLTZ. I suggest that you restate your question and let the 
attorney instruct his client, and iif it's not resolved 

Mr. Armstrong. Is Mr. Rebozo paying your legal fees, Mr. Brown ? 

Mr. Hall. That is privileged. It is attorney-client. 

INIr. ScHULTz. And you're instructing your client ? 

Mr. Hall. No, I reserve the right to move to strike the })oi'tion of 
this transcript, that information; I request that you treat it as sealed 
until we have a ruling on that, tlien go ahead. 

Mr. Armstrong. We will stii)ulate to that. 

Mr. Hall. Thank you, and I would like to participate in the argu- 
ment on that question. Go ahead. 

]Mr. Brown. Not to my knowledge. 
• Mr. Armstrong. Is the Key liiscayne Bank paying your legal fees? 

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir ; they are. 

Mr. PIall. The same stipulation goes to the second question, too. 

Mr. Armstrong. The same stij)ulation goes to the second question, 

That's all the questions I have. 

[Whereupon, at 12 :50 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 


Brown Exhibit No. l-A 


s ^ 










DltMlO CA1I0INEE« tOUM lOti («S1J) 

I F M A M J J 

A S 


O N D 

6>f//c .. ""--v^.^^. ^ 









— o.fc 




'=-*"^ ^/^ 1 



MOtHcrs ^^ 1 










iCL^ /^^ 

R E F E R^ /(TtiS^ ^ ^ 

x/T-^i^ ,^' 

A ?y.c\x--j^ - 

■■' y r y' 

|(r^-E LEASE i,a.«: 

The undersisjned hereby certiii^/that all c 

No pursuant to the foregoing le 

and said box is hereby surrendered. ^ 

Ke)-s given to and box found empty by V, 

>f the property stored in Safe 
-ase has been safely withdrawi 

Deposit Box 
1 thcrefroai 


rot THt BANK 




EJlllliAIlON ( OAie fAlO 







Brown Exhibit No. 1-B 

-Safe Deposit Box Lease; 

^ The undersigned have rented Safe Deposit Box # pi^^ 
in the vault of Key Biscayne Bank, Key Biscayne, Florida 

/< O^SC/r'r^l^ -^^'^/'^ereaher called lessor, at $ year, received TWO keys to sai 

agree to the Rules and Regulations of the said lessor in lorco at this date, as recited on a receipt l 
(■^r piymeo! ol rent, and to such Rules and Re<julatioa3 a^ may be hereafter adopted by said lessor. 
We agree that each of us may appoint attorneys or depubes to have access to or surrender said sal 
car.Ci^i any such appointment made by either of us, and that unbJ the receipt by said lessor at i 
branch where said sale is located ol wntten notice of revocation of any power of attorney or depu 
m-^irt or ol conclusive nobce of the death or legal incapacity of either of us, any action of said lessor 
upon such power of attorney or deputy appointment or m f>€rmittiiig the other of us to have acces 
Jg: any purpose shall be fully binding upon both of us and our respective heirs, executors, representatives, committee and assigns, and to that extent such power of attorney, dp'pu^y 
and/or such authonzahon to each ol us shall not be deemed to have been revoked by the death » 
p-icity of either ol \i\ and wo jointly and severally agree to indemnify said lessor against any una 
ol either of us ox of such attorney or deputy. 

[e and may 
ts offace or 
ty appoint- 

to : 

lid safe 

itialors, per- 

thonzed act 


Brown Exhibit No. 2 


Are records of each visit kept? 

Is custodian present at locking and unlocking? 

Are rental records reconciled to contracts andincome acc ounts! 

Are locks changed when boxes are changed? 

^ _ 

Are contracts kept on file for boxes? " . ' ' • _ 

Are fee boxes approved p^'operly? ijlf\ • _ 

" How? " - - . - - -- ^ 

Are proper visitation records maintained? ..■._..- ^ 

Is a signed contract on file for each safe deposit box? •^ \ 

Arc all collections of rental inconie recorded when received? ^^ ! 

Is there a firn policy of changing all locl'.s on surrendered boxes? <^ 

On notice of lost keys? ' ' \_ 

Are drilled boxes witnessed by X.\:o individuals? -y -_ 


Brown ExraBir No. 3-A 

MBOLD' SERVICE Diy-sioN ^rpv 






f5 W. Hclntyre St 
K«y Qlscsyne, Ft 331<i9 






- 85763 

Sharcn L«ber 

J. Itiinnlitg 



Orltled open safe dQX>&{t box UkXZm 




We hereby certily that these goods were produced 
in compliance with all applicable requiremonts of 
Section 6. 7 and 12 of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, as aimended, and of rerjulaiions and orders ol 
the United States Oepafimeni ol Labor issued 
under Section 14 ihereol. 








Brown Exhibit No. 3-B 


^ ./ .-..., ..hsis^fer 

73»037 & 731(Wt 

J:J3- 73 fc ?-22-7 3 



- 85827 




''nrY BISCArtlE &fMK 
95 ^^est Hclntyro Street 
Key Bftcay9e, FI 331'«9 



c. o'sun<> 


^31037t K«placcd plexiglass and flimse on drive-In windOM. 

7310Mit Cut and fumli^ied three Safe Deposit keys. 

Shopi Cut and furnished one Safe Deposit keys fMf bnk'% request 
through mail. 





We hereby cerllly Ihat these goods 

SecHon 6. 7 and l? of the f 
Act. as amended, and ol regu 
the Uniied States Depanaw 
under Section 14 th«rool. 

Labor Standards 
ons and orders ol 
ol Latwr issued 





T^o"" o-.o V47f 1 '-^'^ too yeoM •^yj^iiuituiif, 

Brown Exhibit No. 3-C 







9S West HclRtyr* Str«st 
K«y Btacayiw, Fl 33t<i9 







- 84743 

J» Wanntng 

V20-7 3 


Mad« three pairs of keys to Mef>Ies (6). 




6 00 


We Hereby certify thai these Qoods were produced 
in compliance with all applicable requirements of 
Section 6. 7 and 12 of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, as amerHJed, and ol regulations and orders oi 
the United States Department of Labor issued 
under Section 14 ihereot. 




WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presiden^tial Ca^cpaign Activities, 

Washington. D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:40 p.m. in 
room G-o34, Dirksen Senate Office Buildinu'. 

Present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and stall' director; Robert 
]\ruse, assistant majority counsel; Scott Armstronoc. investio^ator ; and 
Richard Schnltz. assistant minority counsel. 

Mr, Armstrong. Peffardino- ]\[r. McKiernan's letter of May 9, 1974, 
to Chairman Ervin and Senatoi- Baker as vice chairman, in which he 
makes several statements regarding the conduct of Terry Lenzner, as- 
sistant chief counsel, and myself, in paragraph 3, INIr. McKiernan 
says : 

When I was in New York at the !\litchell-Stans trial in the week of April 1 
tlirousli April .5 for my clients, who were ffiving testimony there. I was informed 
by Mr. Lenzner. tliroujjli Mr. Armstrong, that I mnst meet witli them on Sniulay, 
April 7, 1974, in Seattle with P]dward C. Nixon and I must meet with them the 
next day, Monday, April 8. 1974. in Los Angeles with F. Donald Nixon. 

For the record, I Avonld just like to state that the discussion was 
about the attempt to determine the availa])ility of Mr. Edward and 
^fr. Donald Xixon on those days and to encourage Mr. McKiernan 
that if they could be accommodated, they would be. I do not think it 
was ever stated they must be met with on that day. 

Second, in regard to Mr. McKiernan's statement on page 2, regard- 
ing the availability of Messrs. Edward and Donald Nixon after they 
returned to California he states: "Nevertheless, Mr. Lenzner and Mr. 
Armstrong wei\> intransigent in their refusal to make any arrangement 
other than the one they jn-oposed." Tn fact, we did make arrangements 
to delay the meeting for an additional week, although we did it reluc- 
tantly because we wanted to meet with Mr. Edwai'd and Mr. Donald- 
Nixon as soon as possible. But we did in fact make an accommodation, 
and I don't think there was any attempt to harass the witnesses or 
Mr. McKiernan in our effort to secure an interview as soon as possible. 

Also on page 2, regarding INIr. ^IcKiernairs statement that: 

We agreed that the Senator need not be present thronghout tlie inquiry upon 
assurance by Mr. Lenzner that we would receive a copy of the transcript. At the 
termination of tlie inquiry, we reminded Mr. Lenzner of his assurance, but he 
denied ever making such a statement. 

I believe that the matter of the transcript issued from a misunder- 
.standing that, as we said in the beginning, we had to secure the com- 
mittee's approval of the transcrii:)t. At the first date after oui- return 
to Washington that the committee met and had an opportunity to 



consider such a mattor, wo put it on their agenda, that is, we did take 
that up, the transcript was approved and I believe we ha^•e it here 
ready for Mr. McKiernan for the next time we see him. The date of 
that executive session, Avhen it was approved, was Thursdav, INfav 9, 

On page 3, INIr. McKiernan states that iNFr. Lenzner — this is tlie 
question about the jurisdiction of tlie committee to aiiain si)eak to 
F. Donald and Edward Nixon on the basis that yir. Kalmbach had 
testified IVIr. Rebozo told him that they received money as pait of the 
Hughes contribution. ]Mr. INIcKiernan states : 

Mr. Lenzner, however, took this opportunity to iiKpiiro into matters having no 
bearing whatsoever on the substance of Mr. Kalnibach's statement. With all due 
respect to the latitude to be allowed Mr. Lenzner in the i)erformance of his 
diities, we eventually felt obliged to object on the grounds that it was unfair 
and improper to represent the great m-gency for investigation due to Mr. Kalm- 
bacli's statement and then embark upon an inquiry into nuvtters the committee 
had long ago covered. 

It was our ]:)osition — it was then, and it has been all along — that 
Mr. Donald Nixon presented himself as a subject foi- inquiry and 
that, with the committee's work, because of the great concern asso- 
ciates of the President, the President, and members of the administra- 
tion had about Mr. F. Donald Nixon's business and financial affairs 
and that during the course of the testimony we took in California of 
Mr. McKiernan and Mr, Nixon, we attempted to again inquire into 
these matters on the basis that we now had additional assurance that 
jNIr. Rebozo apparently had at least told one indi\idual that his con- 
cern was at least to the extent that he had made some financial com- 
mitment and they transferred some money to ]Mr. Donald and Mr. 
Edward Nixon, and it was on that, and on that basis alone that we 
did i)ursue our inquiry. 

The last item is the item Mr. McKiernan makes reference to in the 
last paragraph on page o, which relates to — !Mr. INIcKiernan makes 
reference in the last paragraph on page 8, to the fact that ]\Ir. Lenzner 
had sti]:)ulated the committee Avould i:)rovide a list of the items speci- 
fied and that this, in some way, had altered the subpena. I just wanted 
to make clear — and I think we resolved it this morning — that the 
reference was to exhibits that we were using at the time and that we 
did not make any delineation or stipulations at that time regarding 
the subpena itself and that is the purpose of today's session. 

Now, in general, Mr. McKiernan seems to have characterized our 
behavior as harassment of the witnesses Mv. Edwai-d and INIr. Donald 
Nixon. I would like to point out that, as the transci-ipt of our session 
with them indicates, that on several occasions, with Mi". Donald Nixon 
for example, pages 4, 6, 70, and 237, Mr. Lenzner or myself expressed 
concern about INIi-. Donald Nixon's health and we Aveie willing to bi-eak 
that session, and that has been our position all alon.of that we were 
not in any way trying to inconvenience or hai-ass or in any way — in 
any other way — cause anv i^roblems for ^Nfr. Donald Nixon, but we 
Avere trying to pursue substantively Avliat we fc^lt Avas an im]iortant 
aspect of the investigation and Avhat ai)])ar(Mitlv meml'>ers of the ad- 
ministration, associates of the President, ov the I'l-esident himself felt 
were problems that gradually took a nieat deal of time by the indi- 
viduals paid for Avith campaign funds or in(li\iduals on the public 


])a_Yroll and which it has been doclarod an approjuiati^ part by the 
connnittee of this eoniiiiitteo's in(]uii'y. 

If there lias been any appearance of any attcnii)t to harass or other-- 
wise inconA-enience either ]\fr. Xixon or Mr. McKiei-nan, we a])oloiriz;o 
for it. It was certainly not intended. If there are any otlier details, we 
would like to have them noAv rather than at some later point. Are 
there '. 


Mr. McKiEKXAX. Foi- the record, I wouhl like to read the letter of 
jNIay 9. lOT-t into the record. ]N[y response to Mr. Scott Armstrong's 
conmient is to request that oui' letter, dated May 9, 1974, to Senator 
Ervin and to Senator Baker be admitted into the record. 

Mr. Musk. We will have that marked appropriately. 

["Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked ]\[cKiernan 
exhibit Xo. 1 for identification.* I 

^Ir. ]MrsE. Finally, I would like to tui'n o\er to you the transcriiit of 
the executive session of Stanley W. ]McKiernan, of Edward V. Nixon 
and of F. Donald Xixon. and a^ain note for the record, as did ^Ir. 
Armstrono-, that consideration ot" your request for the transcript 
V, as made at the first executive session held after Mr. Lenzner's return 
fi'om Los Angeles. 

Mr. ]McKiF.RXAX. We would like to expivss our appreciation on be- 
half of our firm and our clients for these co[)ies that were o'iven to us. 

[Whereupon at 1 :1() p.m. the meeting was recessed to reconvene 
the same day.] 

After xoox Sessiox 

Mr. Muse. Since 11 a.m. today Mr. Mclviernan has met with counsel 
for the committee. Present at times were Sanuiel Dash, Robert Muse, 
Scott Armstrono-, and Richard Scliultz. The ]:)nrpose of the meeting 
was to informally discuss the subpenas which were served upon 
Edward C. Xixon and F. Donald Xixon by Terry Lenzner on April 15, 
197-1-. in Eos Angeles. 

Those subpenas, wliicli called for the production of documents by 
April 18, have been continued until the pi'csent by agreement of coun- 
sel. Since that meeting in Eos Angeles, there has been a series of phone 
calls between Mr. Mclviernan or Mr. ^fcKiernan's associate. Dr. 
T'datt, and various members of the committee staft", including myself, 
Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Eenzner, Mr. Dash, and Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. McKiERXAX'. Also Senator Raker. 

Mr. ]\Ii-sE. During those con\'ersations there was some discussion as 
to the materials that Avere called for pursuant to the subi:)ena. It has 
been the position of the staff that there Avas no oral modification of 
the subpena by Mr. Armstrong or ]Mr. Eenzner in Eos Angeles and 
an examination of the recoixl at [)age 157 of Mr. Xixon's — correct that, 
l)age 158 — of Mr. Xixon's transcript which shows that a series of 
questions about certain of Mr. Xixon's financial records, resulted in 
agreement between Mr. Eenzner and Mr. ^Mclviernan to provide other 

*Spep. 109S4. 


records. This was not in lieii of the snhpeiin. We liave today examined 
l)oth suhpenas in detail and liaAe readied ceitain a^^reements which 
I will now state. 

With regard to the snl)pena issued to Mr. F. Donald Nixon, it is 
agreed that the time peiiocl for the sul)i)ena will be limited to Jan- 
nary 1, 19()9, until June 28, 197?>, the date of the return of the money 
by Mr. Rebozo. It is also agi-eed that Mr. McKiernan will provide bank 
statements of all of Mr. F. Donald Nixon's financial accounts other 
than those already rec(>i\-ed from the United California Bank. 

With regard to the canceled checks of Mr. F. Donald Nixon, it is 
Mr. McKiernan's position that checks will l)e provided for all pay- 
ments of over $5,000^ — $5,000 or over. Mr, jMcKiernan also agrees to 
provide all checks of all j)ayments of all loans as well as all checks of 
all payments to any financial institutions. 

With regard to Mr. McKieiiian's offer, it is the position of the 
staff, after considtation with Chief Counsel Dash, that the investiga- 
tion would be insufficient unless all of those checks not less than $100 
were ])rovided, and, in cases of those checks less than $100, the matter 
for Miiich the check was paid was generically identified. For example, 
if it were for a grocery bill, the notation would ])e that it was for 
that item. Accordingly, we have a, complete disagreement on the 
checks which are to be piovided pursuant to the subpena. 

Mr. McKiernan also agreed to piovide payments of all bills in ex- 
cess of $1,000 and charge card items of over $1,000. Again, it is the 
position of the staff* that these items, that the limits put on these items 
by Mr. McKiernan would result in an insufficient investigation and 
accordingly there is no agreement on these items. 

Mr. McKiei'uan also agi-eed to provide all of the documentation 
I'elative to the sale of Mr. F. Donald Nixon's home as well as the 
purchase of his new home. Mr. McKieiiian also agreed to provide all 
relevant documentation with i-egard to any tr-ansactions or business 
deals Mr. Nixon had with Mr. and Mrs. Lansdale, including informa- 
tion about a finder's fee and loan ai-ranged between these parties. 

It was also agreed by ]\lr. McKiernan to ])rovide all relevant finan- 
cial data on all tax shelter real estate transactions Mr. Nixon has been 
involved in, including those designated as ''NKM". Ivanchos Los 
Alamos and Alamos Valley Investment Co. 

Mr. McKiernan also agreed to j^T-ovide all i'ele\ant data on a 
transaction between F. Donald Nixon and Jolm Piraz/o in the amount 
of $5,000. 

Mr. McKiei'iian agreed to pro\ide all re1e\ant information con- 
cerning any income that may have be(>n generated by the association 
of Mr-. Donald Nixon and Carl Lans. Tbis would also include any 
r-elevant infoj-mation concerning anv loans or any other financial 
ti-ansactions between AFi-. Nixon and Mr. Dans. 

Mr. McKieiiian also agre(>(l to ])i-ovide all lelevant financial data 
concerning Mi'. F. Donald Nixon's involvement in a Scottsdale, Ariz., 
condominium, including a loan negotiated with the Afai'riott Cor]). 

Mr. McKieiiuin also agreed to ))i'o\ide a schedule of stocks that 
Mr. Nixon has acquired in any tiansaction over $5,000. With regard to 
this item, it is the |)Osition of the connnitte(> that the stipulation put 
on tlie item by Mr. McKicuiian would not be agreeable for purposes 


of our investio-atioii. Mr. MoKiornau aLfrood. howpver, to provide a 
seliodule of all stockl)rokers with whom Mr. Nixon lias had 

With rouard to the second portion of Mr. Xixon's snbpena. a copy 
of which will he submitted for the record and marked as an exhibit, 
extensive time Avas spent examinino- the different names noted thereon 
and aftei- this period of time, ^Tr. McKiernan noted those individuals 
wlio Mr. Nixon was likelv to hnw had sonii> correspondence with, and 
accordino-ly will ])rovidi> any (^riu'inal records, documents, memoran- 
dums, reports, and coi-respondence to or from any of these followiuir 

|Whereui>on. the documents lofcrred to were marked McKiernan 
exhibit Xo. -2.*] 

]Mr. McKtkrnan. Would you read that l)ack? 

The Rv-roKTER [readins:] : 

With regard to the .'^econd portion of Mr. Nixon's snhpenn. a copy of which 
will 1)0 snhinitted for the reoord and marked as an exhihit. extensive time was 
spent exaniinin.ii' the different names noted thereon and after tliis period of 
time, Mr. INIcKiernan noted tliose individuals who .Mr. Nixon was lilcely to liave 
had some correspondence with, and accordinjily will provide any ori.sjinal records, 
(h)cnments. memorandums, reports, and correspondence to or from any of these 
followinjr individuals. 

Mr. McKiKKXAX. Tt is my position that T ha\e suizofested to Mr. ISruse 
that there are certain people which Donald Xixon may have received 
correspondence from, not necessarily that it is likely that he lias i-e- 
ceiv(>d corres|)ondence, and possible correspondence from these ]ieo]de 
shall be searched foi-. 

^fr. ArisK. Because there is some confusion with this particular as- 
])ectof the su])j')ena, I would note that our purpose for o;oinp;throuo-h it 
all was to examine more closely those names aiul try to nive some indi- 
cation to ]\rr. ]\rcKiei'nan who these iiulividuals ai'e, so that he would 
be more easil v able to locate these items. f-Jut not mentionino- the follow- 
ino- naines does not mean that we are exchidiu'T the coi'resDondence 
called foi'. Of coui'se, the sul)])ena continues in full force aiul effect with 
ivirard to all individuals mentioiu'd on sub])ena. 

TTowevcr, aftei- this lenofthy examination the foUowinir individuals 
have been noted as those who m;iy ))ossibly lune had sonu> exchanire of 
documentation, records, memorandums, re|)f)i'ts or other co!-res]iond- 
once with F. Doiuild Xixon. 

^Fr. ]\rcK]KKx.\N. One oi- two of the names have been listed, not be- 
cause there is any likeliliood or e\'en a slim i^ossibility — but my client 
I'ecofrnizes the imnortance of th(v-(> i)eoi)le in tliis investijxation, and for 
that reasoii is ffoinn; to make ;in e\ti-emel\- <lilio;ent effort to find any 
concsi^ondence or to describe oral I v any correspondcMice he may have 
T'eceived and no longer has in his custody. 

^fr. ^frsK. .\.o-ain, the individuals luited bv Afr. ^fcKiernan as people 
who may have had correspondence with Mr. F. Donald Xixon are : Ar- 
thur l^lech, TToward Ceiaiv, Lef)nard Fii-estone, Talis and Tiolando Gon- 
zales. TTerhert Kahnbach, Wil'iani Marriott. Jr.. John Meier, Oliff 
:\riller, John Mitchell. T^av ]\ruriihy, Donald A. Nixon, "Richard M. 
Xixon. The Tiich.ard M. Xivon Foundation. Tlie San Bar Corp., Clau- 
dia Val, Tvo1)ert Yesco. "Rose ^Sfary "Woods, and Charles G. "Rebozo. 

*9in(- p. innni. 


It should be noted tliat all of the otluT names listed on the suhpena 
Avere examined and discussed by Mr. jNlcKieinan and myself. I^y not 
noting the particular individuals, it is meant that in all likelihood these 
individuals did not have coi-respondence with Mr. F. Donald Nixon. 
Mr. McKiernan has indicated that he will make a searcii to locate any 
correspondence from these ])articulai' individuals, even though it is his 
belief that in all likelihood they did not have any correspondence with 
Donald Xixon. 

Mr. McKiEKXAN. We would like to state that the subpena in question, 
first of all, was unreasonable on its face since, as stipulated by Mr. 
Muse, it was provided to us on the IGth of April and called for the pro- 
duction of records in Washington, D.C — on the other side of the conti- 
nent of the Taiited States — of all original records, documents and 
memorandums, reports and correspondence, to or from any of the fol- 
lowing 80 individuals or organizatiojis. 

This matter was brought to the attention of yiv. Lenzner at the time 
the subpena was served. Mr. Lenzner agreed that, obviously, it woidd 
be imi)ossible for us to comi)ly with the subpena, told us that we would 
have as much time as necessary. Further discussions were entered into 
concerning compliance with the subpena and it was represented to me. 
in the presence of my law partner, Dr. Meyer I^latt, that a list would 
be provided to us which would define more clearly the exact informa- 
tion that was required and that it was recognized l)v Mr. T>enzner that 
the 80 individuals or organizations was a broader list than they actu- 
ally expected us to comply with. 

It should be noted at this time that the identical list was given to ]\[r. 
Fdward Nixon, even though he lived in Seattle and did not know many 
of the people and organizations that were listed. It should further be 
pointed out that this sulipena was served upon Donald and Fdward 
Nixon after aJi investigation that covered almost a year and involved 
several voluntary conferences with the Senate committee investiga- 
tors and attorneys and add to that, by this time, A]U'il 10, the staff had 
a gi'eat deal of information and knew which of the SO individuals or 
organizations applied to Donald and which api)li(Ml to Fdward and 
could, therefore, have been a great deal more sjiecific. 

Addressing ourselves to the matter of whether or not tlu're was a list 
which we expected, we would like to point out that on ])a<i'(^ KU of F. 
Donald Nixon's transcrijit, there is a clear refei-ence made to the list. 
We would like to point out clearlv that this list was never forwarded 
to the law firm of McKiernan. F)la<t i^ May even though several re- 
quests were made for the lists. 

We would like to establish our ])osition clearly that this list was not 
in addition to, but was a substitute foi-, the subpena which clearly could 
not have been com]ilied with in the l^-day ])eriod. 

The discussion of this date has been one wherein both the investiga- 
toi's and attoi'ueys for the committee have been in accord with the law 
firm rei)i-e^enting F. Donald Nixon with the exception of essentiallv 
two areas. One has to do witli the matter of checks from the United 
(""alifoi'iiia T5ank. 


At the time of tliis nieetino- todnv. it was the uiulerstaiulinff of coun- 
sel for the Nixon brothei-s, Donahl and Kdward, that the connnittee in 
fact already had all of those checks. In fact, this tirni has nrjxed ]Mr. 
Fntcher, the attorney ivpresentiua- Tnited California Bank, to make 
available to the connnittee every document at their dis]^osal. 

It Avas the understandino- of the firm that all canceled checks Avere 
microfilmed and that these copies Avere forwarded to the connnittee. 
There was no argument on the part of counsel or Echvard and Donald 
Nixon as to whether or not the information should be o-i^-en to the 
committee. While it was laroely irrelevant information, since it Avas 
easily aA'ailable through a subpeiia of the microfilm records, and since 
it has always been the position of both KdxAard and Donald Xixon 
that full cooperation should be o-iyen AvhereA'er possible, I Avas uroed 
by ^Tr. Xixon to see to it that all of the microfilmed copies of the checks 
be forAvarded to the committee. 

I Avas adA'ised only today by ATr. Muse that unfortunately the micro- 
filmed copies Avere in many instances illeaible. and that the microfilm- 
iuiT did not benin in January 1000. ])ut only in early 1072. I have no 
knoAA'ledoe of this and Ave Avill assume that Mr. ]Muse is accurate in his 

The reason that Mr. Xixon desires to only submit checks OA-er $5,000 
is not that he does not Avish to disclose the nature of the checks, be- 
cause at this point aa'c had the impression that such checks had already 
been subuiitted throuah the microfilmino- ])rocess, but because of the 
burden of time and expense of preparing checks for 52 months. 

Mr. Donald Xixon's account was fairly actiA'e and the burden of 
findino- such checks and catea'orizinji" them as has been sua'.a'ested by 
the assistant counsel is ]')rohibitive. 

T^p to this point, no piece of information has CA'er been refused to 
committee counsel or iiiA-estioators. Tn fact, information has been 
volunteered AA'hich Avas not called for by subpena Avhich is reflectiA-e of 
]\[r. X^ixoirs desire to put the Avhole truth before the connnittee. IVIore 
than that. Mr. Donald Xixon and Mr. EdAvard Xixon liaA'c been com- 
plimented by th(^ connnit*-ee statl' on their attitude and their exemplary 
conduct in the field of cooperatin<2.- Avith the connnittee. 

'SW. ]\rrsF.. Ml-. McKiernan, T Avill not address myself to your re- 
marks AA-hich T irather AA'ould be the basis for your objection should you 
so moA'e to quash. HoAA'eA'er, T Avill ])oint out a couple of facts. 

One, AA'ith reo-ard to the lists that you noted INIr. Lenzner said he 
Avould proA'ide. at pao-e 101 of the transcript of F. Donald Xixon's 
deposition, it should be noted that tliat list refers to statements found 
in A'arious bank statements that haA'e been brought to the counnittee's 

Second. T Avould note that this decision to i)rovide the list Avas not 
done in lieu of the subpena, and indeed, it should be noted for the 
record that the subpena had not yet been delivered to F. Donald 
Xixon at the time the discussion noted on ]^aoe 101 took place. Of 
reference to pane 240 of the transcript Avhich shoAvs that the subpena 
AA-as nfiA'en to F. Donald Xixon at the conclusion of his session. 


Filially. T should iioto that by not rospondino- to tho artiunient. T do 
not mean by my silenco that I aonn* witli it. 

j\Ii'. ]\IrKiEHXAX. In response to the comment concerning- the de- 
liA'erv of the subpena. I mie'ht point out that while it was not deliyered, 
it Ayas discussed prior to the termination of Mr. Nixon's testimony. 
Is was discussed between INIr. Lenzner, myself, and Dr. Blatt. 

Mv. ]\IrsE. Now. turniiiii- to the sub])ena of Edward C. Nixon, there 
has been similar discussion of the items listed on the attachment. A 
copy of the subpena will also be submitted for the record and should 
be marked as an exhibit. 

rAVhereupon. the documents referred to were marked McKiernan 
exhibit No. 3.*] 

A^ain, as with Mr. F. Donald Nixon's subpena. there Ayas basic 
disa<.>reement as to the financial records to be proyided. 

I think it is a fair statement, ^NFr. McKiernan. would you not acfi'Pe. 
that the same objections and the same disaoreoments arise with re- 
pards to Edward C. Nixon's subpena as with F. Donald Nixon's sub- 
pena. where specifically ^h\ AfcKiernan finds that he will be able to 
proA'ide the bank statements of those checks of oyer S.'i.OOO. In addi- 
tion, he will be able to proyide checks of payments of all loans and 
checks of all payments to all financial institutions. 

Mr. McKiernan objects to proyidinp; the committee with any other 
checks. Mr. McKiernan did apree to proyide the bank statements to 
all banks that Edward C. Nixon has had accounts with durinp- the 
times designated in the subpena — which, incidentally, are by a.<rree- 
ment, January 1. 1960 to June 28, 1973. lie also aprees to proyide all 
loan and mortpajre records. He will also proyide a schedule of stock 
brokers and a schedule of any stock purchase oyer $5,000, as well as 
any documentation relatiye to any stock purchase of oyer $5,000. 

AVith reirard to paid bills, jNIr. JNIcKiernan a.Qiees to proyide recor-ds 
of those bills in excess of $1,000. As with Mr. F. Donald Nixon's sub- 
pena, the committee staff's position is that this is unacceiitable. With 
repard to credit cards, Mr. ^McKiernan says that he Ayill proyide rec- 
ords of those charpe items of oyer $1,000. Apain. this position of Mr. 
McKiernan's is unacceptable. 

INlr. ^McKiernan has apreed to proyide all records of the Richard 
M. Nixon Foundation, insofar as Edward C. Nixon had an association 
Ayith the foundation. Mr. McKiernan also apreed to make particular 
efforts to locate any documentation relatiye to inyolyement that Ed- 
ward C. Nixon has had with the followiiip; entities: The Oceano- 
o-raphic Fund. Jayfech Inc.. IleaUh Industries Inc.. Eocket "Research 
Inc., The Seattle Kinps Football Club, Separation/Recovery Systems 
Inc.. and Salidan Inc. 

With repard to the second ]iart of the subpena, callinp for the 
l)roduction of any and all oripinal records, documents and memo- 
randums, reports, and corresi)ondeiice. Mr. Edward C. Nixon has 
had with certain indiyiduals, it should be noted that as in the situ- 
ation with repard to F. Donald Nixon's sub])ena, a pood deal of time 
was spent examininp these names and it was concluded that the fol- 

*Seo I). 10993. 


lowino- individuals may liave liad some correspondence witli Edward 
('. Nixon — by excludin'o- tlie othei- names, it is not meant tliat Mr. Mc- 
Kiernan will not make an eft'ort to locate any documents that may 
exist. The individuals noted as those who may have had some coi're- 
s]X)ndence with Edward C. Nixon are: Howard Cerny, John Dean, 
Erank De^Farco, Thomas Evans, John Ehrlichman, Kol)ert Enich. 
Leonard Eirestone, James Golden. Patrick Hillings, Herbert Kalni- 
l)ach. Herb Klein. Normal Locitis. John Meier. Clill' Miller. John 
Mitchell. Edward L. Moro-an, Kav Murphy, and Donald A. Nixon, 
tlie Kichard :\r. Nixon Eoundatioii. P^i-ances Eaines. Separations and 
Keco\cry Systems, Inc., Kobert Vesco. and Kose Mary Woods, and 
Charles G. Rebozo. 

^Iv. McKiKRXAX. In reference to the comments concernino- Ed- 
ward C. Nixon just made by Mr. Muse, we would like— the counsel for 
Mr. Nixon would like to reiterate our position that was outlined con- 
cernino- Mr. F. Donald Nixon by reference to that prior comment. 

In further comment, concernino- the oral modification of the sub- 
pena, wherein it was recently stated on the record that there was no 
oral modification of the subpena. I would like to point out that on 
the record itself it will show that the subpena was modified orally 
to cover the time period from January 1. 1969 to June 28, 197:). This 
of course is contrary to the w-ritinir of the subpena and is indicative of 
the fact that there was an oral modification. This modification orally 
has been stipulated on the record. 

It is stipulated that it has been aoreed by counsel for E. Donald 
Nixon and Edward C. Nixon that the subpena of April 18, 1974, 
has been ajiain orally modified to read that E. Donald Nixon and Ed- 
ward C. Nixon are commanded to appear on May 22d at 4 o'clock be- 
fore the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campai^rn Ac- 
tivities of the Senate of the United States in their connnittee room. 
G-308, New Senate Office Buildino:, Washino-ton. D.C. and that on 
that day all of the items indicated on the second pao-e of the sub- 
liena sliall be brought forth by F. Donald Nixon and Edward C. 

The })urpose of the session today was to elicit from the attorneys 
and investio-ators representing the Senate committee a list of items 
which woukl satisfy both the counsel and investiirators of the com- 
mittee and the counsel of the witnesses F. Donald Nixon and Edward 
C. Nixon. 

I think if sliould be pointed out that sincere effort was made by coun- 
sels and investio:ators, as was made by the counsel for the witnesses, 
and that actually the effort was booged down by items which counsel 
for witnesses thouoht wei-e already in the i>ossession of the committee. 

^fr. MiSK. Ml-. McKiernan. T want to thank you for your coopera- 
tion today, and that will terminate the session. 

'Slv. ^NFrKirnxAX. Regarding this transcript, it was understood by 
counsel foi- the witnesses that a transcrij^t shall be supplied to counsel 
foi- the witnesses, as were the prior f r-anscripts, at the first opportunity 
at the meeting of the committee members. 

[Whereupon, at G :30 ]i.m., the meeting was adjourned.] 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 17 


McKiERNAN Exhibit No. 1 





MAPOLO L ORCHID LOS ANGELES. CALIFOR.N(,\ 90015 tokyq ios. jAoi.^ 

HOBSHT Y. NAOATA TELEPHONE l213| 7«6 - 3550 TELEPHONE A31 • es97 


SUITE 630 



FRANK H SCOtlNOS • , ■ TELEPHONE |202) 2Se-a-»SS 

May 9, 1974 

Sam J. Ervin, Jr., N.C. , Chairman 

Howard H. Baker, Jr., Tenn., Vice Chairman 

Senate Select Committee on 

. Presidential Campaign Activities 
Senate Office Bldg., Room 1418 
Washington, D.C. 20510 . • 

Gentlemen: . ., ., 

It is' with utmost reluctance that we feel compelled to bring 
to your attention, conduct of which you may be unaware, in a 
recent series of events involving members of your staff, to 
wit: Terry F. Lenzner, your Assistant Chief Counsel, and 
Scott Armstrong, Staff Investigator. 

The entire series of events have their roots in the statement 

made by Mr. Herbert Kalmbach to the effect that portions of 

the $100,000 Hughes contribution for the Republican Presidential 

Campaign which was alledgedly received by Mr. Charles Rebozo 

was given to - among others, one or both of my clients, Edward C. 

Nixon and F. Donald Nixon. 

While I was in New York at the recent Mitchell-Stans trial during 
the week of April 1-5 with my clients who were giving testimony 
there, I was informed by Mr. Lenzner through Mr. Armstrong ^hat 
I must meet with them on Sunday, April 7, 1974 in Seattle with 
Edward C. -Nixon, and that I must meet with them the next day, 
Monday, April 8, 1974 in Los Angeles with F. Donald Nixon. The 
purpose was to permit them to inquire into the substance of 
Mr. Kalmbach 's statement. . 

I advised them, that my clients required an opportunity to rest 
from their travels to New York prior to conferring v;ith me and 
reviev/ing the subject matter of the proposed inquiry. This was 
particularly so since F. Donald Nixon is in poor health. I 
further advised them that I had been travelling almost con- 
tinuously for the previous two weeks through such widely separated 
time zones as Honolulu, Tokyo and New York, and that it was 
imperative that I return to Honolulu to conclude the urgent busi- 
ness which I had cut short to appear with F. Donald Nixon and 

/Continued . . . 


Sam J. Ervin, Jr. , N.C. , Chairman 

Howard H. Baker, Jr., Tenn. , Vice Chairman 

Senate Select Committee on 

Presidential Campaign Activities >. - 
Page 2 
May 9, 1974 

Edward C. Nixon at the Mitchell-Stans trial. I also pointed 
out that thereafter I also would require a short period of rest 
prior to conferring with Edward C. Nixon and F. Donald Nixon 
in order for me to act as competent counsel. 

I indicated to them our great desire to cooperate. I also pointed 
out that we have consistently cooperated to the fullest and 
offered to make their inquiry more convenient by having both 
Edward C. Ni.von and F. Donald Nixon in my Office on Monday, 
April 15, 1974. Nevertheless, Mr. Lenzner and Mr. Armstrong were 
intransigent in their refusal to make any arrangements other 
than the one they proposed. They refused to recognize that older 
attornies, and in the case of F. Donald Nixon, a man in his late 
fifties,^. do not have the strength or stamina such as themselves, 
individuals in their late twenties or early thirties. It became 
quite apparent that further discussion was futile and to preserve 
the record of our desire to fully cooperate, I repeated the sub- 
stance of our conversation in a telegram to you with copies to 
Chief Counsel, Samuel Dash and Minority Counsel, Fred D. Thompson. 
A copy of that telegram is attached hereto. 

The next eyent centered about the appearance by F. Donald Nixon 
and Edward C. Nixon in my Office in Los Angeles, where they and 
I were to testify after being sworn by Senator Inouye. We agreed 
that the Senator need not be present throughout the inquiry upon 
the assurance by Mr. Lenzner that we would receive a copy of the 
transcript.- At the termination of the inquiry, we reminded 
Mr. Lenzner of his assurance but he denied ever making such a 
statement. Candor requires that we advise you that at the time 
he denied giving the earlier assurance, we did say that although 
a witness was not entitled to a transcript of his testimony as 
a matter of right, the Committee's policy has been to oEder a 
transcript be furnished to a witness where such witness has made 
a request. Our request was then repeated. To date, however, v/e . 
have not received a transcript, notwithstanding that your staff 
has had a copy for several weeks. 

/Continued . . 


Sam J. Ervin, Jr., N.C., Chairman 

Howard H. Baker, Jr., Venn., Vice Chairman 

Senate Select Committee on 

Presidential Campaign Activities 
Page 3 
May 9, 1974 

Another event which occurred about the same time dealt with 
the scope of inquiry. This subject came up because of our belief 
and understanding that the Committee had completed its inquiry 
of F. Donald Nixon and Edward C. Nixon months ago. Mr. Lenzner 
advised us that the substance of Mr. Kalmbach's statement required 
considerable investigation by the Committee. Our position at 
that time and now, was that the charge was utterly unsupported 
by any fact. We recognized, however, that, unfounded as the 
chcirge may be, counsel for the Committee was not only entitled, 
but was indeed obliged to make a full investigation. Mr. Lenzner, 
however, took this opportunity to inquire into matters having no 
bearing whatsoever on the substance of Mr. Kalmbach's statement. 
With all due respect to the latitude to be allowed Mr. Lenzner 
in the performance of his duties, we eventually felt obliged to 
object on the grounds that it was unfair and improper to 
represent the great urgency for investigation due to Mr. Kalmbach's 
statement and then embark upon an inquiry into matters the Com- 
mittee had long ago covered. There was a heated discussion on 
the subject after which Mr. Lenzner and Mr. Armstrong conferred 
in private. Upon return from their private conference, the 
objectionable line of inquiry was abandoned by Mr. Lenzner and 
further inquiries did relate to matters relevant to Mr. Kalmbach's 
statement. (We cannot cite the Committee to the portion of the 
transcript containing this discussion since we do not have the 
transcript. Indeed, we cannot even say with certainty whether 
the discussion was on the record or off the record.) 

The next event which arose during the inquiry had to deal with 
bank statements and requests for the sources of deposits and 
destination of checks indicated on the bank's statements. 
Mr. F. Donald Nixon had no recollection of said items but we 
offered to make an investigation into any items which Mr. Lenzner 
specified. It was agreed that he would furnish us with a list 
of those specified items. To date no such list has been received. 
Instead, and now we come to the final event, we were notified by 
Mr. Muse of your staff that Mr. Lenzner had denied ever making 
such a statement. After this discussion he sent a telegram to 
us indicating his position insofar as compliance with the subpoena 
is concerned. A copy of said telegram and of our reply telegram 
is attached hereto. 


Sam J. Ervin, Jr., N.C., Chairman 
Howard H. Baker, Jr., Tenn. , Vice Chairman 
Senate Select Committee on 
.• Presidential Campaign Activities 
Page 4 
May 9, 1974 

In my judgement, the expanded inquiry of Mr. Lenzner and 
Mr. Axmstrong into an area where the Committee has indicated 
its satisfaction constitutes nothing more or less than 
harrassment and is to be condemned; especially so since 
Chairman Ervin had stated that the investigation should not 
be permitted to become an harrassment of the President's 

This harrassment, plus the less than forthright expressions 

and representations and the less than courteous consideration 

for fellow counsel and witnesses, may not be illegal but it 

is hardly becoming, in an investigation which is directed toward 

uncovering not only illegal conduct but unethical actions as well. 

Such conduct by the investigating staff, whether by counsel or 

investigator, should not be tolerated. 

Very truly yours, 

■''~ A Law Corporation 

joration /^ 


SVnM : b.'Txi 


P.S. The grievances expressed have not diminished our desire to 
assist the Committee in its functions. Indeed, our history has 
been one of complete cooperation to the extent that we have even 
received compliments relating thereto from members of your staff. 
If the Committee has any requests please do not hesitate to advise. 

c.c. Samuel Dash, Esq., Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Esq. 

Minority Counsel , ^ . 

i 0/ • ,: , '■ 



rLTy^ n^i ^- ^ . -i 


2»02iJ106E096002 0«/06/7U *^- ~ ' ^~" -J fc-.=i-l r-^/,)wK*-.n4 

ICS IPMRNJCZ CSP ujes'ern union bwLlcCjIid 

^l^71J93.8038 MGH TOP. MAMMOTH LAKE3 CA 0U.06 09a6P EOT 





71«93ff8038 NL TORN MAMMOTH LAKES CA «00 00-06 090fcP EOT 









Af iiLyiiyoi'iliilii"' 


LSF-133(203S)(1-0445IIAI26)PD 05/0S/74 2034 '' 

ICS IPMNflWA WSH " •" ■ 

10082 GOVT NFWASHINQTON DC 60 09-06 805P EOT 

10 A. M. MONDAY, MAY 13, 1974, 



.7^6- 5^5° 


v-i2ai Vint) ' 



ujEsfern union U vy Jv^u J Wj ij sQJ J y | ^.';;r S 

2-071076E128002 05/08/7« 

I 2137U63550 MGM TORN LOS ANGELES CA 05-08 0932P EOT 
ZIP <)0015 



2137163550 MGM TORN LOS ANGELES CA 158 05-08 0932P EOT 
ZIP 20510 






21132 EOT 


MoKip:rnan Exhibit Xo. 2 



-, Greeting: 

$UrSiUant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMAJ^DED to 

CAMPAIGJi ACTIVITIES of the Senate of the United States, on 

AgrtUI ^ 197 4_^ at 2;.QNa o'clock JU- m., 

at their committee room G~3Q8f New Sanata OfflriA Rntl/Hpg, w'=^''h1ng tonjD .C?. 
then and there to testify what you Tnay know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee. 

And br ing w ith you any and all materials and docums nta listed on 
the attac hed sheet in your possesaion. custody or contrgU 

Seceo{ fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and pen- 

alties in such cases madi and provided. 


to serve and retur: 


(@iben under my hand, by order of the committee, this 

_Jjh day of Ascli , in the year of our 

Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-fom: . 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential m 
Cajnpaign Activities. 


And bring with you pursuant to S. Res. 60, 9 3rd Congress, 
1st Session the following: 

~ - ■ Any and all of your financial and business records for 

the period from January 1, 1969 to March 31, 1974 including, but 
not limited to, bank statements, canceled checks, deposit tickets. 
Journals, ledgers, loan and mortgage records, stock records, savings ' 
account records , safe deposit box records , financial statements, paid 
bills, diaries,, correspondence files and all related documents, -including, 
but not limited, to all records relating to The Richard Nixon Fcundatio' , 

V, -. - ■■ Any and all original records, documents, memorandaV reports, • 
and correspondence, to or from any of the following individuals or- .-. ' •■ 

■-■orgariizations:--Vn.f.:;;';^^v^V- , ' 'v'' ' •; ■ ■ -; * - r --;;;,-,' -•^.: ■ ■: 

;—'■'.'; - .-■.7-:^ Robert Abplanalp, Charles Adams, Air West Airlines, 
■ .Vincent Andrevvs,. Basic Industries, Inc, Arthur Blech, Gene Bowen, 
^JohnCaulfi eld, Howard Cemy, E.L. "Jack". Cleveland, James Cravatta, 
James Crosby, Richard Danner, Chester Davis, I. G. "Jack" Davis, 
John Dean, Frank DeMarco, Thomas Evans, John Ehrlichman, Robert 
Finch, Leonard Firestone, Fishers Island Corporation, William Gay, 
.Kenneth GemmiU, Georgetown Resources, Virgil Gladieux, James 
Golden, Luis Gonzales, Rolando Gonzales, William Haddad, Barry 
HaUomare.-Hallomare Homes, Lloyd Hallomare, Anthony Hatsls, ' - . ■ 

.NadineHenleyv Patrick. Hillings, Howard Hughes, Hughes Air Corps,. ' 
;. Hughes Tool Company ,---Inriego License,- N.V. , Robert Kahan, Herbert . ■■- ; 
Kalmbach,. Key BiscayneBank and Trust Company,. Herbert Klein,- Dr. • ■ '-/ 

.Isaac Kxaushaar, Frederick LaRue, Norman M. Locitis,; Maatschappli : ..*. - 
, Intennovle,N.V .',- Robert A ^ Maheu,. Robert A-Maheu Associates,.^-. .;=..•■ 

Marriot Corporation, WlUiam Marriot, Jr. , Stanley McKieman (excluding - 
any attorney-client communications), John Meier, Meier-Murray Productions,., 
Cliff Miller, John Mitchell, Nicole Moncourt, Monroe Land and Title 
Company, Edward L. Morgan, Edward P. Morgan, Ray Murphy, Rita 
Murray, Thomas Murray, Donald A. Nixon, Edward C. Nixon, Richard 
M. Nixon, The Richard Nixon Foundation, Ogden Foods, Frances Raines, 
Charles G. Rebozo, Resorts International, Chapman Rose, San Bar 
Corporation, Separations and Recovery Systems, Inc., John Suckling, 
Summa Corporation, Toledo Mining Company, Utah State Automobile 
Association, Claudia Val, Robert Vesco, Thomas Wakefield, Rose Mar/ 


McKiERNAN Exhibit Xo. 3 


Congreg^ of tfje Winittti States; 


., (greeting: 

^UriSuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMAJ^DED to 

CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES of the Senate of the United States, on 

SpjiLlS , 197A., at 1Q.;Q.Q._ o'clock _ja^ m., 

at their committee room G-308. New Senate Office B u ilding, Washing ton, ^D. C. 
then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee. 

And bring with you any ^nd all ma terials and docu m ents listed o n 

the attached sheet in your possession, custody or control. 

l^eceof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and pen- 
alties in such cases made and provided. 

To '. :^ 

to serve and return. 

<@iben under my hand, by order of the committee, this 

£Lth day of April , in the year of our 

Lord one thousand nine hundred and s eventy -fnur 

led Committei 
Campaign Activities. 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential ^ 


And bring with you pursuant to S. Res. 60, 93rd Congress, 
1st Session the following: 

•■^ ? * • Any and all of your financial and business records for 
the period from January 1, 1969 to March 31, 1974 including, but 
not limited to,, bank statements, canceled checks, deposit tickets, 
journals, ledgers, loan and mortgage records, stock records, savings 
account records, safe deposit box records , financial statements, paid 
bills, diaries,- correspondence files and all related documents, -including, 
but not limited- to all records relating to Donald Nixon Associates. . 
Alamos Valley Investments Company, Rancho California, and NKM 
Land. ^- , , 

Any and all original records, documents, memoranda, reports, 
and correspondence, to or from any of the following individuals or 

Robert Aoplanalp, Charles Adams, Air West Airlines, 
Vincent Andrews, Basic Industries, Inc, Arthur Blech. Gene Bowen, 
John Caulfield, Kfoward Cemy, E.L» "Jack" Cleveland, James Cravatta, 
James Crosby, Richard Banner, Chester Davis, I. G. "Jack" Davis, 
John Dean, Frank DeMarco, Thomas Evans, John Ehrlichman, Robert 
Finch, Leonard Firestone , Fishers Island Corporation, William Gay, 
Kenneth Gemmill, Georgetown Resources, Virgil Gladieux, James 
Golden, Luis Gonzales, Rolando Gonzales, William Haddad, Barry 
Hallomare,Hallomare Homes, Lloyd Hallomare, Anthony Hatsls, 
Nadine Henleyy. Patrick. Hillings , Howard Hughes, Hughes Air Corps, 
Hughes Tool Company,-- Enrlego License,. N.'V./ Robert Kahan, Herbert . - 
Kalmbach, Key BiscayneBank and Trust Company^ Herbert Klein,. Dr, 
.Isaac Kraushaar, Frederick LaRue, Norman M. Loci tis,: Maatschappit :"■';.. 
Entermovle>. N. V,:,, Robert A ». Maheu,. Robert A^Maheu Associates,;--'- ^ - iVA.: 
Marriot Corporation, William Marriot, Jr., Stanley McKleman (excluding '—-' 
amy attorneys-client communications), John Meier, Meier-Munay Productions^ 
Cliff Miller, John Mitchell, Nicole Moncourt, Monroe Land and Title 
Company, Edward L. Morgan, Edward P. Morgan, Ray Murphy, Rita 
Murray, Thomas Murray, Donald A. Nixon, Edward C. Nixon, Richard 
M. Nixon, The Richard Nixon Foundation, Ogden Foods, Frances Raines, 
Charles G. Rebozo, Resorts International, Chapman Rose, San Bar 
Corporation, Separations and Recovery Systems, Inc., John Suckling, 
Summa Corporation, Toledo Mining Company, Utah State Automobile 
Association, Claudia Val, Robert Vesco, Thomas Wakefield, Rose Mar/ 
Woods . * , " " ■....;•. 1 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1974 

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

Washington^ B.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 
S-14o, the Capitol, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman. 

Present : Senators Ervin and Weicker. 

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred 
D. Thomi^son, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief 
counsel; Terry F. Lenzner and James Hamilton, assistant chief coun- 
sels; James Moore, assistant majority counsel; Scott Armstrong and 
Mary DeOreo, investigators; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; 
Robert Silverstein and Richard Schultz, assistant minority counsels; 
Emily SheketofF. investigative assistant. 

Mr. Lenzner. We have some admiuisterial things we ^vant to make 
part of the record, subpenas and other materials I have furnished 
Mr. Buzhardt. While -we are waiting for Senator Weicker we might 
as well go ahead and mark these exhibits. 

Senator Ervin. Give General Haig a copy of the resolution. 

]\rr. Lenzner. Yes ; I think it should be in the ])ackage. First let me 
say for the record. General Haig was subpenaed for an appearance on 
May 2, 1974, and he did appear in response to the subpena but re- 
' fused to answer any questions at the direction of President Nixon. 
Subsequent to that appearance the Senate Select Committee met in 
executive session and passed a resolution, which speaks for itself, and 
I would like to have a copy of that marked as exhibit 1 for identifica- 
tion and note for the record that we have furnished a copy of that 
to ]Mr. Buzhardt. 

[The document referred to was marked Haig exhibit No. 1, for 

Senator Ervin, I do not think the President's letter was clear as 
to why. The President's letter as properly construed only referred to 
information obtained by General Haig in his capacity as Chief of Staff 
and in his capacity as a member of the staff of the National Security 

Mr. St. Clair instructed him not to answer questions that had to do 
with matters that had no relationship to any information he obtained 
in those capacities, so it is broader than the President's letter. 

Mr. Lenzner. That is an accurate statement. Senator. We have also 
previously furnished ]Mr. Buzhardt and ]Mr. St. Clair with a memo- 
randum entitled "Authority to Investigate," which states the sections 
of S. Res. 60 upon which the questions were propounded to General 

♦See p. 11037. 



Haig and will be propounded, plus the leoislative purpose in support 
of the questions for (xeneral Hai<2:. I would like to hiive that marked as 
exhibit '2 for identification. 

[The document referi'ed to was marked iraiir exhibit No. i^, for 

Senator Ekvin. Let the record show, since Genei-al nai<2: and the 
committee pi-eviously voted unanimously to r(\i(H't his claim of execu- 
tive privilege as to any questions that relate to political matters, 
political contributions, illegal matters, or unethical matters, that that 
was the reason for passage of the resolution. 

I might state for clarification that I think it is the position of the 
committee, as I understand it, that the President is entitled to have 
kept secret, confidential communications had by him with aides, or 
even among his aides, if those confidential conununications had merit 
for the purpose of enabling the President or the assistant to the Presi- 
dent, in performing in a lawful manner his official duties, otherAvise 
there is no basis foi- executive ])rivilege. Executive privilege does not 
cover political acti\ities or political contributions because they havi no 
relation to official acts, illegal acts, or unethical acts. Th(\v have no 
relation to official duties of the President. 

Mr. Lenzner. Senator Weicker, while we were waiting, I am just 
putting in the record certain documents relating to the pi'ior subpena 
and pertinency of questions to be projwunded to General Tlaig. 

I would like to have marked as exhibit 3 for identification, questions 
from the executive session of May 2 and a memorandum that lays out 
the pertinency of questions propounded to General Haig, Avhich he has 
refused to answer, plus a copy of the original subpena on General 

[The docmnents I'eferred to were mai'kcMl Haig exhibit Xo. ."). for 

Mr. Lenzxer. And exhibit 4 is the subjx'ua issued and I'cceived on 
General Haig for his appearance today. Then Ave can go forAvard Avith 
the questions. 

[The document referred to Avas marked Haig exhibit Xo. 4, for 

Mr. Lexzner. Shall aa'g commence ? 

Senator Era^n. Yes 

]Mr. PrzTTARDT. ]\rr. Chairman, might I be heard, sir? 

Senator Ervik. Yes. 

Mr. BuziiARDT. I am Fred P)uzhardt, counsel to the Pi-esident, 
accompanying General Haig at the President's instructions. I Avould 
like to nuvke a brief preliminary statement. 

In response to the remarks made earlier. General Haig Avas sub- 
penaed originally. He Avas given no specific area about Avhich he Avas 
to be interi'ogated. The Pi-esident did claim or assert executive pi'ivi- 
lege as to all matters Avithin General Haig's official conduct. T belicA-e 
General Haig Avas accompanied l)y Mr. St. Clair Avho instructed him 
not to ansAver the questions proposed. 

^ Sop p. llOrST. 
= Soep. 1103R. 
^ See p. 11042. 


Since that time, the coinmittee has provided to Mr. St. Clair and he 
transmitted to me a statement of relevance as to the questions, the 
purpose of the investigation, and it appeared to us the committee's 
area of inquiry was into matters concernin*!; the so-called Huglies- 
Rebozo contribution. As to that, we have consulted with the President 
and he said, as to tliat matter, anything; within General Haifa's knowl- 
ed<re. whether oained in his official scope of duty or without, including 
conversations with the President, he would waive executive privilege 
and permit General TTaig to testify. He is prepared to respond to 
questions on that subject today. 

I uiight say that 1 have examined the questions. Some of the ques- 
tions, as a uiatter of fact, are so general and broad as to make it iuipos- 
sible to even know Avhether they fall within or without the scope of 
executive privilege. For instance, whether or not General Haig, as a 
part of his duties, had occasion to discuss what appeared to him to be 
criminal activities of other individuals. That is a very Avide scope, for 
example. He might well have discussed remarks made about the so- 
called Patricia Hearst kidnaping. It might well be criminal activities 
of others. 

So I would hope that the questions could be precise, somehow 
identified, so that will give General Haig some ability to decide 
whether it is within or without the scope of executive privilege so he 
can be responsive to the committee. 

Senator Weickek. Which questions are you referring to? 

Mr. RrziiAKDT. These are the questions asked on ]\Iay 2. 

Senator Weicker. I would like to point out to counsel that as a 
result of an agreement with Mr. St. Clair, counsel for General Haig, 
the questions were speciRcally broad because neither General Haig nor 
Mr. St. Clair cared to sit and respond to about 200 specific questions 
during the course of the afternoon, and this was a matter of. as I say, 
agreement arrived at between counsel; several broad questions would 
be asked and they would get back to their duties. That was the gen- 
erality of the questions. 

Senator Ervix. Maybe we can make them specific today and also, 
there may be some items in addition to the Rebozo-Hughes fund. 
We will pass on those when we get to them. 

Mr. BrzHARDT. All right. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Perhaps we should clarifv if, Mr. Buzhardt, you are 
representing the President and General Haig today ? 

J\lr. Pi'ZHARDT. Yes; General Haig is appearing in li^s official capac- 
ity and as counsel to the President. 

Senator Ervix. He is a])])earing here in the capacity of a human 
being. The counnittee Ix^lieves he knows some matters that are rele- 
vant to what the committee wants. 

^[y. BiziTAROT. T am not testiuir that, Mr. Chairman, but 

Senator Ervix. He appears here as a witnes=:, not necessarily one 
restricted to — he bears, therefore, all Duri^oses of the witness. 

Mr. Bi'ziTArDT. Is there anv objection to my a])pearance with him? 

Senator Ervix. Xo; I am always glad to have anybody rein*esented 
by counsel. 

]\rr. Dash. Xot onlv that. T think UTulei- the .quidelines of oui- com- 
mittee, whei-ever there is a question of executive ])i"ivilege. it was the 


position of our coinniittec thfit the President also should be repre- 
sented by counsel wlio eould assert the privile<>e on bclialf of the Presi- 
dent. 'J'lierefoi-e. I think Mr. Huzhar(h"s presence is quite appropriate. 

Senatoi- Kuvix. (tentlemen. as a lawyer I always like to se(> lawyers 
kept busy. 

Mr. JUziiAUDT. 1 felt completely louesonu' when I api)care(l here 
by mysel f . 

]Mr. TjKXZxkk'. Could vou describe voui' duties as ("liief of Stall' since 


(leueral IIaio. Esseutially, T serve as the coordiuator for the Presi- 
dent of the activities of the White House stall', to insure that th(> How 
of information to aud froui the President is pioperly disseminated, 
properly coordinated, that his schedule of activities is integrated to 
insure that his best efforts are allocated to the subject luatter most 
uro-ent aud that his eiiergies are allocated to the best interests of 
the functioniu.o- of the White House aud the executive branch, and in 
that context I have dealiuiis with the senioi- White House stall', with 
the Cabinet, ao-ency chiefs of Governuient, and on a regular aud daily 
basis with the President. T think in general that describes the duties. 

Mr. Lkxzxeu. I take it you ha\e on occasion responsibility f(U' 
dealing with specific policy issues? 

General Haio. Yes. sir; but I would not want to poitray it as 
essentially a ])olicy role for me, other than the context of being 
sure that the Pi-esident has been provided with all the a(h-ice he can 
get from within and without Government on a particular policy issue 
prioi- to a decision, aud on the o(n'asious that he might ask me about 
my own view, of course, I would ])ro\'ide it, but essentially not as a 
functional responsibility. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have any duties with reaai'd to the sub- 
ject matter of the $100',000 transmittal to Mr. Charles G. Rebozo from 
the Hughes Tool Co. or representatives of the Hughes Tool Co.? 

Genei-al Haio. Xo duties as such. T think if the counsel would like, 
T could tell you when T fii-st heard or became aware of this situation 
and ju-ecisely what I did about it. if that is the (piickest way to get to it. 

Mr. Lkxzxki!. Tliat woidd be a Hue way to begin. Why don't you 
go ahead and do that ? 

Senator Ekvix'. T think that is well modified by the (leneral Counsel, 
pardon me, because I do not tliiuk' tliis is i>art of the official duties 
of any aide to the President, to liave anytliing to do with political 
matters. T don't think executive privilege evei- coA-ers ])olitical matters. 
So you go ahead. 

General Hak^.. All right. T came to the AVhite House on the weekend 
of ]\ray G, having been asked to come temnorarily to fill the role 
of staff coordinator for the President. T. at that time, had been Vice 
Chief of Staff of the Armv. T arrived at the White House at a time 
that Afr. Haldeman. ^Iv. Ehrlichman. Mi-, (^olsou, and sevoal other 
individuals had already left, and it was necessary for me to ]>ick 
up the strin.q-s of an ongoing oi)eration and to insure that the effective- 
ness of the Wliite House continued. 


Soinctiriio in ahout iiiid-^ray, 1 ivcoivcd a call from tlu> Secretary 
of the Tivasurv. I beliexe it was Mr. Slmltz. It may have been ATi'. 
Simon. 1 am not clear on it. It was probably jNFr. Simon. Mr. Shultz 
was out of the comitry. He informed me at that time — my first discus- 
sion with the ScM-retary of 'I'reasury or TreasuiT Department — that the 
TntcM'iud KevcMiue Sei'vice was aoino- to concbict an audit of the Presi- 
dent's incom(> tax. 1 asked what tlie reasons for this were and th(>y 
said that it was a result of a I'andom selection, as occurs with many 
tax])ayers. I then discussed this matter with counsel at that time, 
who was y\v. Leonard (larment. Afr. Fred Kuzhardt had just come 
o\er to help with the problems we had in the A\niite TTouse at that 
time, and from the l)e))artment of l)ef(>nse. whei'e he was the General 
Counsel. "We discussed this matter and I called Mr. Simon back 
and said, "That is tine." that they should ^o ahead and do that. 

About a week later, T received a call from Mi'. Simon and he said 
tliat he would brino- to luy attention a matter of potential embarrass- 
ment to the Tresident which involved the alleo-ed payment of $1()0,()()0 
from TTunhos Tool Co. to Mr. IJebozo, a friend of the President's 
and that the TTvS was o-oina- to investiaate this matter botli with 
respect to whether it had been reported and wliethor or not taxes 
should ha\-e been paid on it. T told ^Nfr. Simon that T thought this 
was a matter he should discuss with our counsel. This is the first 
time 1 had heard anythin<>' about tlu> subject at all. 

T then was visited by ^Slr. Garment and Mr. Puzhardt. T thiuk tlie 
initial lueetino- was with just the two. At that time T had beeu iuuu- 
dated with a number of various rumors, charo-es. allea'ations involviuo- 
the l^resident and the TVesident's men, and tliis was just another 
one of those amona many. 

Pecause T did not know the cii'cumstaiu'es of any of these charo-es, T 
was very cai-efid to consult every step of the way with the Pi-esideut"s 
coun.-^el." T understood that they included — and T met, I think, also 
with Afr. rha])py Pose, Mr. Garment, and ^Iv. Puzhardt. I under- 
stand they discussed this matter with another as-istant counsel as to 
what we "should do with the information which had not only been 
o-i\en to me by Mr. Simon, but which consisted of my request to Mr. 
Simon which was also conveyed to IVfr. Garment. We met in my office. 
T was cautioned bv the counsel to be very careful about this subject 
because of its sensitivity and T was very aware of the sensitivity. The 
consensus of counsel was that T should inform the President of this 
inf<n-mation as an obligation of a matter which could be of embar- 
rassment to him. i)otentially, and that T shoidd not discuss it with 
Mv. Rebozo. At that time counsel also told me that from tlieir 
pers)~»ective that it would appeal' Mr. Pebozo should have a qualified 
tax attorney and tliat thev would be willing- to recommend one if 
^Fr. Pebozo should be inclined to be desirous of o-ettiuff such a recom- 
mendation. T passed this information on to the President and there 
was no discussion between us about it. 

Sul)sequentlv. the President mentioned to me that I should iret the 
name of the attorney, whoever the counsel would recouunend, and ^Iv. 
Garment made the specific recommendation to me. This was ."> or 4 
davs after the hist mention of this issue. He o^ave me the name of a 
Mr. Ken Gemmill of Philadel])hia. who is, accordino- to the descrip- 
tion at the time, a very well-known and competent tax attorney. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 18 


That is the first time I had heard Mr. Gemmill's name. As a matter 
of fact, ]\Ir. Garment gave, or at least I got a card in ni}- office with 
Mr. GemmilPs name on it. 

I mentioned this to the President and he said fine, that we were 
going to Key Biscayne that weekend, and we did, and the President 
asked me to give the name while there, to Mr. Rebozo, which I did. 
At tliat time Mr. Rebozo took it and said he did not know what he 
would do with it, but he obviously was w^ell aware at that time of the 
IRS interest in the Hughes $100,000, there is no question about it. 
That was my initial exposure to the matter and that is the subtotal of 
the actions I took on the matter at that time. 

If counsel would like, I could go on to give you the full exposition 
of the remainder of my contact and knowledge of this subject. 

Senator AVeicker. Might I ask one question at this point ? When you 
conferred with the various counsel, prior to seeing the President, 
did you merely mention to them the fact that you had been informed 
by Mr. Simon that there was an IRS investigation of Mr. Rebozo, or 
had you tried to ascertain from Mr. Simon any further details? 

Did you just tell him, "I received a call from Assistant Secretary 
Simon, he informs me there is an IRS investigation of Mr. Rebozo," 
or had you tried to ascertain further facts from Mr. Simon, which 
facts were to be presented to this group of persons that you were 

General Haig. Senator, I am not sure my recollections are precise 
here as to where I got the facts that I initially held, whether it came 
from Mr. Garment, Mr. Buzhardt, or Mr. Simon, because it im- 
mediately triggered these discussions. 

I do know this : I did ask Mr. Simon to discuss this matter with 
counsel. White House counsel, and conveyed to him, I know, because 
that was my frame of mind, tlie impression that I did not necessarily 
want these details, I thought it was a legal matter and should be 
handled by competent legal counsel. 

Now, whether at the time of the initial discussion with Mr. Simon, 
he told me such details as there was $100,000 in a safe-deposit box, 
which had not been reported, I do not know, or whether it was the 
subsequent and almost innnediate visit I had from Buzhardt and Mr. 
Garment at which we discussed more of the details of the case. I can- 
not answer that with precision and I would be afraid to do so. 

Senator Weicker. So either it would be in the discussions you had 
with Mr. Simon or in the meeting which was called to determine what 
to do? 

General Haig. That is right. 

Senator Weicker. At which time you might have well been apprised 
of counsel who had been in touch with Mr. Simon. 

General Haig. I think that is essentially correct, and again I would 
have to emphasize that this was to me a very peripheral issue at that 
time among a number of far more urgent and more difficult isssues, 
and I can recall, for example, at that time there were allegations that 
the President was running a toll bridge in conjunction with Mr. 
Rebozo, between Paradise Island and the mainland of Nassau and was 
takinsr the funds from this. 


Tlierc was an alleg'atioii that thoy had both been involved in a land 
purchase in one of the Caribbean Islands or in Latin America. All of 
those things converged in to nie, and to me it was a rather sizable 
problem that was best in the hands of counsel and not in my primary 

Senator Weicker. After this discussion M'ith counsel, which would 
include Mr. Buzhardt, Mr. Garment, possibly Mr. Kose, you said 

(jreneral Hak;. Yes, I do remember Mr. Rose ueing there when we 
had this detailed discussion in my office. 

Senator "Weicker. You then informed the President? 

General Haig. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator "\Veicker. You say there was no discussion ? 

General Haig. Xo; not to speak of. I cannot speak for the Presi- 
dent's reaction. I don't think it was news to him that there was a prob- 
lem of this kintl. He just shrugged it off and, as a matter of fact, 
handled it with a nmnber of other ongoing problems that I was dis- 
cussing at the time. 

Senator AVerker. In other words, you came away with the impres- 
sion that this was not the first he had heard of this particular problem ? 

General Haig. I cannot say that with finality and I woulcl not pre- 
sume to. Subsequently, I got the distinct impression on the weekend 
I gaA'e the attorney's name to jSIr. Rebozo that Mr. Rebozo was w^ell 
aware of IRS' interest in this matter and apparently had been so for 
some time. 

Senator "\Vetcker. But again I want to follow in time the track. So 
the initial passing along of this piece of information to the President, 
you said 3 or -i days later you again met Avith the President on this 

General Haig. No ; I said that I got the name of an attorney 3 or 4 
days later and mentioned to the President I had this name, Mr. 

Senator AVeicker. Who made the request that an attorney be found 
for ]Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. Our counsels, Mr. Garment, Mr. Buzhardt, and Mr. 
Rose said that if, in fact, this were the kind of — and in this climate, 
and with all of the charges that were rimning around the newspapers 
at the time, that if ]\Ir. Rebozo felt the need for a competent tax at- 
torney, he should certainly have one, but that was his oj)tion to exercise 
or not to exercise. It wasn't until later that a specific name was recom- 
mended which I passed on to the President and to Mr. Rebozo at Key 

Senator Weicker. And you say, however, it was the President at 
Key Biscayne who i-equested you give the name? 

General Haig. When I first told this to the President, I told him 
that the attorneys thought jNIr. Rebozo ought to have competent coun- 
sel and they would be willing to get a name and he said, "Tell them to 
do so," and they did, and then subsequently I got the name and it was 
passed on. 

Senator Ervix. Was this after Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman 
had left the White House ? 

General Haig. Yes, Senator, they had. When I came, they were 
gone, on the 6th of May. 


Senator Ervin. They left on the 30th of May, that is my information. 

General Haig. The 30th of April. 

Senator Ervin. I mean Af>ril 30, 1973. 

General Haig. I had one meeting with Mr. Haldeman in his ojSice. 
My first exposure to the White House was to go to Key Biscayne and 
meet with the President there. When I came back. Sir. Haldeman's 
office was vacated. I think he used that weekend to get his last pei"Sonal 
eJl'ects out of the office I occupied and I did meet with him that Mon- 
day, I believe it was a Monday or Tuesday, and talked about the 
duties and responsibilities that I would have to pick up. 

Senator Ervin. About how many days was it after the 30th of April 
1973, before you got the call from Mr. Simon, the first time ? 

General PIaig. I think it was probably about the last week in May 
and I had had a call a week earlier about the audit. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, just to tie that one up. General Haig, do you 
know how long after the President's May 22 statement that you re- 
ceived that phone call from Mr. Simon, was it before or after the May 
22 statement? 

General Haig. I am quite confident it w^as after, because the May 
22 statement, we almost started immediately on that. I am quite con- 
fident it was after. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know how long after ? 

General Haig. Very soon afterwards. 

Mr. Lenzner. And do you have any logs, any telexDhonic logs? 

General Haig. No ; I had a notebook, an appointment book, which I 
reviewed this morning to try to get a fix on this date. I don't have a 
fixed date and I do not have a record that shows it, because I had 
walked into what was a fairly complex situation to get set up and op- 
erating, and I did not have that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Does your secretaiy keep a record of who calls you 
or whom you call ? 

General Haig. She does now. She didn't then, unfortunately. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you make any notes of the call that you had with 
Mr. Simon? 

General Haig. No ; I did not. • 

Mr. Lenzner. AVell, 1 would like to come back to this area so you 
can tell your whole story. l^Hiy don't you go ahead and continue and 
we will come to some other points we want to pursue. 

General Haig. Subsequently, some time during the summer, I know 
Mr. Garment told me that Mr. Genmiill had been acquired by Mr. 
Rebozo to represent him in this matter. Concurrently, we had Mr. 
Gemmill come over sometime that sunmier to work on the President's 
property, he worked with Mr. Rose, and I saw — met ]Mr. Gemmill 
sometime that summer, I think July probably for the fii*st time. 

We may have exchanged a word or two about the Rebozo IRS inves- 
tigation. I do know at some point in the summer Mr. Gemmill started 
to mention to me — always peripheral to one of the meetings that we 
would liave had on the President's affairs — that he thought the IRS 
investigation of Rebozo was the most extensive that he had observed in 
all of his years of handling tax matters with the IRS. 

On one occasion, it could have been August or September, he re- 
counted to me that lie was very disturbed that a great deal of what was 


going on was leaking to the press, and that he was concerned about it 
because it was a matter of considerable monetary cost to his client who 
was running a banking institution and who was experiencing some runs 
on deposits. It was always an informational type thing. 

Then in the fall — this would have been late September or October — • 
again when Mr. (Tennnill was in my oilice with counsel discussing Presi- 
dential legal allairs, at the conclusion of one of these meetings he told 
nie that the IRS investigation had been extended, that he was con- 
stantly being told by IKS investigators the}- had concluded onlj' to find 
out that the}- had not — and they wanted to go back into this or that or 
the other thing, and again he complained about the extent and the se- 
verity and intensity of the investigation as being something way be- 
yond the normal that he was accustomed to. 

He also stated to me that he had Hnally — and this was in, I think, 
October — I am quite confident it was in October — that he had been 
told by the IRS man in charge of it that they had, in fact, concluded 
their investigation and that they had felt that Mr. Rebozo had been ab- 
solved of any difficulties with respect to charges or failures to pay in- 
come or handle the thing appropriately, but that they were inhibited 
from announcing this or making it official, because at that time the Spe- 
cial Prosecutor s Office had expressed an interest in it, and that the 
agents had told him that they could not conclude the matter until the 
Special Prosecutor had given them a clean bill of health on it. That is 
about it. 

I know that the committee here is interested in what I may have done 
with that information. I am not sure whether I even mentioned that 
to the President. I probably did. I am sure I would have. I do not recall 
any particular reaction about it, other than what has been his reaction 
any time this issue has come up in my presence, and that has been that 
it is characteristic of a lot of the things that have been going on. 

I mentioned this to Elliot Richardson on October 18, I know that, 
and I know you have asked that specific question. I mentioned it as a 
peripheral issue at a time we were discussing another matter, which 
was the focus of our conversation, and it was used as an illustration of 
the Special Prosecutor moving very broadly within his charter at that 
time, and that is all. That is the only reference that was made to it to 
Elliot Richardson. It was entirely in that context and it had nothing 
to do with the subject matter which we were discussing, which was one 
of considerable importance. 

I think I mentioned it also to George Shultz, the fact that Mr. Gem- 
mill had told me that the case had been completed, as far as IRS was 
concerned, and that no clean bill of health had been given to Mr. Re- 
bozo because the IRS was afraid to do so until the Special Prosecutor 
had concluded his deliberations on the matter, and, as I recall, Mr. 
Shultz said, "Well, I am not sure that is so ; I think they still have some 
questions," and I think that is the sum total of my exposure to this 
thing, and certainly any actions that I may or may not have taken with 
respect to it. I have discussed it on occasion with Mr. Rebozo in the 
sense that when I go to Key Biscayne with the President, frequently 
I will be ill a gathering where he will be there and he invariably will 
raise this as an unjust and unfair persecution of him. He will talk about 
the press leakage, the impact it has had on his own financial interests, 


but that lias been only in a social context and never for the purposes of 
anticipating any action on my part, because I had none that I would 

Senator Weicker. So, in other words, this is not a matter then that 
you have followed since when — except as it is raised in conversation? 

General Haig. That is right. 

Senator Weicker. When was the last time you were involved in this 
matter in an official capacity, aside from that of hearing about it? 

General Haig. Well, I have had observation of a more recent flurry, 
of course. The matter that suddenly^ — now Rose Woods and the Presi- 
dent's brothers are alleged to have received some of this money. 

When 1 say that, I mean it in the context of reading it in the news- 
papers, having met Rose Woods in the hall one day and she said, *'My 
God, they are hauling me up on this one now.'' And 1 make it a habit 
of not going much further than that with anyone who has these prob- 
lems for the simple reason that I am very conscious of the vulnerabili- 
ties involved. But I did have a brief exchange with her on it and she 
expressed her consternation and outrage at the allegations that have 
been made with respect to her. That is the most recent fluri'}- that I can 

I, of course, had a discussion this morning with the President on the 
dilemma of how to cope with this situation here. He told me at that 
time that he wanted me to come up here and be explicit about whatever 
I knew with respect to this matter, to include whatever discussions 
he had with me on it as an exception to the executive privilege, which 
as you know, he feels strongly about. 

Senator Ervin. Did you talk to Mr. Kalmbach about this ? 

General Haig. No; I don't know Mr. Kalmbach, never talked to 
him, to my knowledge, and certainly not on this subject. 

Mr. Lexzner. General, do you know of any employee at the White 
House who has been assigned to monitor or track the problems in- 
volved with the Hughes-Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. Not at all, and I am confident if there were one, 
I would be aware of it. 

Mr. Lenzner. So, as far as you know nobody is trying to stay 
abreast or keep current with this ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lexzner. Or any issues relating to this ? 

General Haig. Having said that, I must tell you that anyone who 
works in the White House today around the President is concerned 
about anything that involves the President. 

Mr. Lenzxer. I understand that. 

General Haig. In that broad sense, of course, I guess we all have 
our antenna up. If you hear something that is disturbing and trouble- 
some it registers. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Do you have any notes, documents or any other kind 
of matter that reflect the matters you have just testified about? 

General Haig. None to my knowledge, no ; I do not. 

Mr. Lex'^zx'^er. Now, prior to the time that you had your conversation 
with Mr. Simon — the first conversation with Mr. Simon with regard 
to this matter — had you had any discussions with the President with 
regard to the Hughes-Rebozo matter ? 


General Haig. None whatsoever. 

Mr, Lenzner. Had you had discussions with any individual prior 
to the contact ? 

General Haig. No ; the first time I ever heard of this issue was at 
the time I had that notification from INIr. Simon. 

jMr. Lexzxek. Now, prior to your communication with Mr. Simon, 
were you aware that on or about May 20, 1973, the President met 
with Mr. Danner and Mr. Eobozo at Camp David, Md. ? 

General Haig. I was aware of it subsequently, because I remember 
the flurry of public relations activity associated with it, and that I 
think occurred in August, much after the fact. I don't know Mr. 
Danner and the name would never have registered. I generally knew 
who the President met, but at the Camp David exercise, no. 

I remember when it became public that there had been such a meet- 
ing, some discussions with respect to that, and a very clear enunciation 
on the part of the President to the Press Secretary, not in my hearing, 
because I did not deal with it, there had been no cliscussion about the 
matter at the Camp David meeting. 

Mr. Lexzner. I am a little confused. Are you saying when the 
news items came out that you recall at that time that there had been 
such a meeting between 

General Haig. No; I do not recall the meeting; it never registered 
on me that there had been such a meeting. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. And after the news ? 

General Haig. Until after the fact. 

Mr. Lexzxer. After the fact, did you discuss the meeting with any 
individuals yourself ? 

General Haig. I discussed it in the context of having the Press 
Secretary be able to coj)e with what was a matter of current press 

5lr. Lex'zxer. And ? 

General Haig. To get the facts and to put the facts out as we best 
knew them. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Whom did you discuss that with ? 

General Haig. I discussed it with Mr. Ziegler. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. And did Mr. Ziegler, when you discussed it with him, 
have the facts with regard to the meeting ? 

General Haig. I cannot recall. I do know he got them. I know he 
discussed the matter with the President and subsequently put out a 
response to the press inquiry. I did not handle that. No, I did not. 

Mr. Lex'^zx^er. But were you present when Mr. Ziegler discussed 
it with the President? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lex'^zx'er. Did you, yourself, discuss the meeting with the Presi- 

General Haig. No ; I did not. 

]Mr. Lex-^zxer. Did you make any effort to ascertain how long the 
President met with ]Mr. Danner and/or Mr. Rebozo? 

General Haig. I think I know what you are driving at. I was 
satisfied from a discussion with Mr. Ziegler that he had ascertained 
the facts of that so-called meeting, the details of it, the purposes of 
it. I recall being told by Mr. Ziegler that the purpose of the meeting 


at Camp David was to enable Mr. Danner to express his support for 
the President at a time when the President had been under heavy 

Mr. Lenzner. And this was information that Mr. Ziegler represent- 
ed he had obtained from the President ? 

General Haig. Yes, more than that. I am sure he checked the logs 
of the President's meeting time and he knew tliat he was precisely cor- 
rect in whatever he would put out publicly, because we have had con- 
siderable difficulty in that area and so we are very careful about 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know whether the logs reflect that Mr. Dan- 
ner did, in fact, meet on or about May 20, 1973 ^ 

General Haig. No, I did not check that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Ziegler represent that he had checked the 
logs and they did reflect that meeting ? 

General Haig. I camiot answer that. I know that my frame of mind 
at the time was such that he was on top of the matter and he had the 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, the purpose of the meeting was for Mr. Dan- 
ner to express his support for the President. That came to you from 
Mr. Ziegler w^ho had obtained it from the President ; is that correct ? 

General Haig. He may have obtained it from any other sources, 
too. I do not know. He may have obtained it from Mr. Rebozo, he may 
have talked to Mr. Danner. I don't know, I did not inquire. You know, 
what I am saying is, I cannot tell you precisely how Mr. Ziegler 
obtained the information that he had. I have great confidence in his 
ability to do so, however. 

Mr. Lenzner. But you did say that he represented to you that he 
had discussed the meeting with the President ? 

General Haig. Yes ; I got that very distinct impression. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he tell you what the President told him with 
regard to the meeting ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Pie did not ? 

General Haig. No. I assumed he told him just exactly what I have 
told you, that he was brought up very briefly to register his support 
and to say hello to him. That is the distinct impression I got. I don't 
want to be too definitive on something like this. It is one of those 
things that moves very, very quickly. It is a press matter, primarily, 
or it was, from my perception of it at that time. 

I could have learned some things subsequent to the event and I don't 
want to be too precise on it. My recollection is this is a very blurred 
situation other tlum what I have told you. 

Senator Weicker. Off the record. 

[Discussion ofi^ the record.] ' ' '^■ 

Senator Weigker. On the record. 

In any of the conversations which you had eitlier with counsel, 
prior to informing tlie President of tlie Rebozo IRS investigation, 
or in subsequent conversations with the President and/or Rebozo, did 
you find out or did you advise as to the matter of the money being 
returned? In other words, who ordered that and when, if at any 
time, did you learn that ? 


General Haig. I cannot ansAver. Senator, who ordered it. My own 
recollection of it — the ori<>inal discussion with our attorneys was that 
I hoped and prayed to God the money woukl be returned. I think 
Mr. Rebozo told me the money had been returned or was to be returned. 

I know ]Mr. Gemmill on one occasion mentioned to me that he was 
o-oincr to Xew York to turn o\er the money with Mr. Rebozo and 
I did not check the circumstances. It was merely an informational 
thing. I know on one occasion these were some press speculations about 
the money and I don't know whether it was serial numbers or what, 
but they were — the money was newer than the time that Mr. Rebozo 
allegedly received the payments, and I think this fall or this spring, 
when I saw Mr. Gemmill again, on the President's tax matter, I said, 
-What is this about the money V and he said, "Oh, that can't be right 
because it w-as checked and all the serial numbers were checked at the 
time," and that is about it. 

Senator Weicker. Well, now, this Avas, as I understand it, counsel 
can correct me, either counsel — if I am not mistaken, this money was 
in the nature of a contribution to the President's campaign. Did the 
President at any time order that the money, to your knowledge, be 
returned ? 

General Haig. I can't answer that with precision, sir. As I say, 
I think that anyone who heard al)out this, I would assume the Pres- 
ident reacted as our counsel did, and as I did at the time I first 
learned about it, that that was an imperative that certainly must be 
recognized. He does Jiot give orders to Mr. Rebozo, nor did I. I don't 
view m3'self in that position. 

Senator Weicker. What I mean to say here, General, if this w-as 
not money given to ]Mr. Rebozo, but rather money given to INlr. Rebozo 
in the nature of a contribution to the President, and w^hat I am trying 
to ascertain is, eithei- for lack of a better time, counsel among your- 
selves — prior to seeing the President or when you informed the 
President or at any subsequent time, did anyl)ody state that it would 
be the best thing to do or proper to have that money returned? 

General Haig. I did not. 

Senator Weicker. Or was this left up to Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. I assume it was, and I have no way of knowing 
whether or not it was. I did not convey to Mr. Rebozo instructions or 
even advise that he should return the money, I knew the money was 
being returned. 

Senator Weicker. Ho w^ ? - . • 

General Haig. Well, as I told you, Mr. Gemmill told me the money 
had been returned. I am not sure whether the President mentioned 
to me the money had been retuiTied or Mr. Rebozo mentioned to me 
the money had been returned, or whether I read it, but it was not 
a matter that I was really quite operationally concerned with, other 
than the kind of nagging Avorry that would be for anyone around 
the President. 

Senator Weicker. I suppose the point I am trying to make — I am 
trying to do the best I can to dig out the facts Avhich clearly are diffi- 
cult for you. I can understand that during that period of time there 
must have been about 100 different situations. This was not a Rebozo 
problem, as far as the money was concerned. 


What I am trying to state — it obviously was a Presidential problem 
as far as the money was concerned. It was not Rebozo money, it was 
in the nature of a contribution to the President's campaign, and as 
such, I only wondered as to whether or not you all discussed the matter 
as to how best to treat the situation, assuming no knowledge of the 
President that Mr. Rebozo had this money. 

General Haig. I do not know how to best answer the question, but 
I must say this : That at tlie time I first heard it my concern was, did 
the President know about this;! That is the reason why we decided, 
I think collectively, and me with the advice of counsel, that I should 
pass this matter on to the President without delay. 

I did not view it as a matter of the President's money. I viewed it as 
a matter of the President's friend who was being charged with having 
received money which he obviously retained in his possession and had 
not re^Dorted, perhaps had not paid taxes on it, perhaps, whatever ir- 
regularities can be attributed to that. 

As I recall, it was a 2-year span he held that money. I have subse- 
quently been told that Mr. liebozo did not tell the President about the 
money at the time of receipt, that he himself did not give it, process 
it as he had processed other campaign contributions, for fear that it 
had an aura about it that could be very troublesome politically. 

Now I have been told that, but I have had no — I don't know how to 
describe it — no operative role in those facts. 

Senator Weicker. When you hrst met with ]Mr. Rebozo, or at any 
other time, not just the hrst time, after having been informed by Bill 
Simon, did Mr. Rebozo tell you what the nature of this money was, 
that it was a contribution to the President's campaign ? 

General HxiiG. Well, I assumed that from the beginning, but it was 
not a subjective focal point of my assessment of the problem that it 
was the President and the President's problem. I was looking to be 
sure the President had fewer problems, not more. 

Now, I think Mr. Rebozo or the President or counsel told me that 
Mr. Rebozo had gotten two increments of payments, $50,000 each, and 
that he had put them in a safe-deposit box, he had wrapped a rubber 
band about it. I know I have heard Mr. Rebozo say, but 1 think it was 
much subsecjuent to the initial encounter we had on it, where I gave 
him the name of the lawyer. All I recall, the hrst discussion with ]\Ir. 
Rebozo was to give him Mr. Gemmill's name and to have him say, 
"Well, yes, I have had this money and IRS is aware of it," and I had 
gotten the impression it was an ongoing discussion and dialog. 

Senator Weicker. Was there any discussion in the Committee To 
Re-Elect the President, insofar as it was alleged this was a contribution 
to the President's campaign^ 

General Haig. Not that I am aware. 

Senator Ervin. Who told you about the money being put in — about 
the money put in rubber bands '^ 

General Haig. Senator, I believe that jNIr. Rebozo told me that. 

Senator Ervin. It has been my recollection we have received evi- 
dence that at the time the money was taken out of the safe deposit box 
for its return to the Hughes interest, that the serial numbers were 
then noted. .■ ., , 


We have no evidence any serial uunibers were noted at the time that 
the money was put in the box. So 1 just want to make it clear what 
Mr. Genmiill tokl you because that would be very important evidence 
if any such serial numbers were C()[)ied. 

Did Mr. Gemmill tell you they had the serial numbers when it came 
out or when it went in ^ 

General IlrViG. 1 do not recall. I recall 1 got the impression when 
the money was turned back. 

Mr. Ervix. That is our evidence, the evidence taken before us. 

We have no evidence that an}- serial numbers were noted by anybody 
or any record made of the serial numbers at the time Mr. Rebozo said 

General Haig. When he received the money. I have never heard 

Senator Ervix. I want to clarify your testimony about Mr. Gem- 
mill's remark. In other words, Mr. GemmilFs statement to you, so far 
as you can recall it, is that what he said about the serial numbers was 
related to the time the money was taken out of the box for the return? 

General Haig. Yes, and 1 thmk Mr. llehozo told me subsequent to 
this initial exchange and in one of these social things, he said, "My 
God, 1 had an Elii agent come in to be sure tliat it w^as correct, but it 
was always in the context of when the money was turned over." 

Senator Ervin. That is in harmony with our testimony. I wanted to 
clarify that. 

I regret \'ery much I am going to have to go. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Did you say wiio told you Mr. Eebozo had not told 
the President about the money ? 

General Haig. I cannot answer that question. 

Senator Weicker [presiding]. Excuse me. 

Xow, I still want to come back to the point as to when it was that 
you found out that the money that Mr, Rebozo was holding was in the 
nature of a political contribution to the President. 

Was it when Bill Simon called you? 'Was it when you met with 
counsel^ Was it when you met with the President? When you went 
down to Key Biscayne and met witli Mr, Rebozo ? 

General Haig. 1 know you are asking a very fine point that you 
have a keen interest in, Senator, but I have got to express to you that 
from the outset I assumed it was a campaign contribution. That is the 
way it was conveyed to me. 

Senator Weicker. I see. 

General Haig. In that context, yes, of course, but as far as the Presi- 
dent knowing anj-thing about such a contribution, that never even 
entered my mind at the time that this first news was given to me. 

What I was concerned about was a close associate of the President 
being involved in an investigation .suggesting irregularities and that 
was the context of our first discussion. We were concerned when we 
had that meeting as to what appropriately could we do with the 
information, was it appropriate, tor example, for me to pass this on 
to the President. I recall, at the time, our sa\'ingthis is a normal IRS 
intelligence-type thing and when a matter of potential embarrassment 
comes that it can be and should be, in fact, conveyed to the President. 


I also recall the counsel saying: "Do not be the portrayer of this 
to Mr. Rebozo." 

We didn't know at the time what ]\Ir. Reibozo knew or did not know 
about the issue and w^e were very conscious of the dangers of passing 
on, if you will, information received through official channels to a 
third party, not associated with the Government and we did not 
want to make that kind of a mistake. 

Senator Weicker. "Well, if this was in the nature of a campaign 
contribution, why, then, was it not determined to turn it over to the 
Committee To Re-Elect tlie President, or to put it another way, w^hy 
was it determined to try to give it back to the donor? 

General Haig. I cannot answer that except the Committee To Re- 
Elect the President at that time was in a very bad state of disarray. 

I think our concerns were, if you get money which has not been 
reported, the best thing to do if you do not want the money, and the 
money was apparently in some controversy, as I recall, it had some- 
thing to do with the Huglies-Maheu split, the sources of the money 
were questionable — I just don't know — we did not threat this as a 
key problem at that time. 

Senator Weicker. Did you participate in the decision or did you 
know of those who participated in the decision to return the money 
to Hughes or to attempt to return the money to Hughes? 

General Haig. No; but I know my inclination at the time was, I 
hoped and prayed he had returned the money, and at that time I didn't 
know where the money was and I Avould have thought he should 
have returned it. I know subsequently during the summer someone 
told me that Mr. Rebozo had been trying to return the money for 
a considerable period of time, which made great sense to me. I don't 
know anything of the details about that but it was a hearsay piece 
of information that I guess influenced my perception of it. 

Senator Weicker. Wouldn't you look upon the problem as being 
dual, that of Mr. Rebozo. as it related to the TRS and return of certain 
moneys which were unre]iorted, and which would relate to the Presi- 
dent, since it was his campaign, the money was iriven as a campaign 
contribution? Did you look upon it as two problems, or did you look 
upon it as unreported income to Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. Well, T looked at it as really several problems. One 
is, it was another charge among many, many charges floating around 
at that time. 

Senator Weicker. It was true, wasnt' it. there was $100,000. 

General Haig. I have no wav of even knowinir that, T assnme it is 
true because it has continued to be the subiect of investigation. Manv 
of the other things haA'e dropped by the wayside. At that time T just 
assumed that. 

Senator Weicker. Are you sayinsr neither vou nor pouuspI. wh^n 
you met with counsel prior to meeting with the President, thought 
the facts to be true ? 

General Haig. T had no wav of knowins: whether thev were true or 
not. I must say, and T ffuess it is hard in this room for peonle that 
were not exposed to the wild ehar.o-es that wero flowinp- nbont at 
the time to understand some of them were iust as crazv as thev could 
be. Some had <'-reater roots. T did not know the answer. T do not think 
our counsel did. 


Senator Weicker. So when you gave Mr. Rebozo Mr. Gemmill's 
name, even at that time Mr. Rebozo did not tell yon that he had 
$100,000 '( 

General Haig. I think he hold me, "Yes, IRS is aware of this, I have 
told them this.'' 

Senator Weicker. So you know it to be a fact that he did have 
$100,000 which had been given to him as a campaign contribution to 
the President 'i 

General Haig. I assumed that to be so. I didn't question him. 

Senator "Weicker. All right. As a campaign contribution to the 
President, forgetting whatever jnoblems Mr. Rebozo might have with 
the IRS, was there anything you or anyone else Avithin the White 
House recommended as to the Presidential aspect of the problem? 

General Haig. No; not in that context other than to be very sure 
that if needed Mr. Rebozo had competent legal counsel. After all, 
all we were being told was that the Internal Revenue Service was 
launching an investigation, which is at it should be. I think that is 
about the limit of it. 

yir. Lenzner. Well, just following up on what Senator Weicker 
asked, did you or any of the other employees of the White House, to 
your knowledge, ever furnish any advice to Mr. Rebozo with regard to 
the contribution ? 

General Haig. I know I didn't. As I say, I have had several dis- 
cussions witli them but never in. tlie context of official advice or any 
other kind. I do not know Mr. Rebozo that well. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Again, when you discussed with counsel, after your 
discussions with Mr. Simon, was the issue of whether the fund should 
\^e turned over to the Committee To Rc-P]lect or back to Hughes 
discussed ? 

General Haig. I do not recall it ever coming up in the context of 
referring that money to the Connnittee To Re-Elect. The committee, 
when I got to the White House, w as an entity that really was not viable 
for any considerations at that time. I do not know that I have lost 
that perception of it since. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there any concern to determine why Mr. Rebozo 
held the money for as lone: as he did ? 

General Haig. Well, there was consideral)le personal concern and 
concern with counsel about it and I think concern that this was his 
problem and hopefully the President was not involved, and we 
passed it on to the President to be sure that he was aware of it. 

He was aware of it. As a result of that, and I say, I am not sure he 
did not know beforehand and T didn't ask him, I am confident he did 
because I subsequently got the impression in discussions with Rebozo 
that this had been ongoing for some matter of time with the IRS. 
I also got the subsequent impression that tho President was not aware 
of that contribution at the time it was made. When he became aware 
of it. I cannot answer that, Senator, and I haven't presumed to ask the 
President that. 

yiv. Lexzner. On what do you base your knowledge of the fact that 
the President was not aware of the contribution at the time it was 
made ? "\^niat is that based on ? 

General Haig. It is based on either somethiug that the President has 
said to me or something our counsel have said or something IMr. Gem- 


mill may have said, or perhaps Mr. Rebozo ; but I definitely have that 
impression and have had it for some time. 

Mr. Lenzner. I take it the purpose of discussing this with the Pres- 
ident after your meeting with counsel was because of your joint con- 
cern that the President might have a problem here, and did you ask 
the President at any time whether, in fact, there should be any con- 
cern w^ith regard to him since his best friend was involved in this ? 

General Haig. Not in the hard way that you have asked it. In my 
discussions with the President on this matter, which have been very, 
very limited, I had the distinct imi)i'ession that he was aware of the 
implications of it fully and he was comfortable with the process that 
was underway with respect to it. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did he say about it ? 

General Haig. I do not know. What do yon mean ? 

Mr. Lexzner. Wliat did the President say to you when you say he 
expressed the fact that he was comfortable with the ongoing 

General Haig. I am talking about a general state of mind that I have 
had as a result of the few discussions I have had with the President 
on this matter. 

Mr. Lexzner. I am asking what he said that created that state of 
mind, that the President said to you that created that state of mind. 

General Haig. I cannot give you anything, anything precise that I 
could recollect, that would really be pertinent to what your question 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recollect any statement that the President 
made to you in discussing the $100,000 that Mr. Rebozo received ? 

General Haig. No. As I said, he has on occasion expressed consterna- 
tion about it, the way it has been handled. 

Mr. Lenzner. What did he say about that ? 

General Haig. He thought that the investigations have been exces- 
sive and 

Mr. Lenzner. Which investigations, General Haig? 

General Haig. IRS investigations, the leakage of information, and 
I suppose committee investigations as well. You know a great deal of 
this stuff has come out in the press. There have been prolonged periods 
down there in the bank where there have been investigators and 
cameras and news reporters and he has expressed consternation about 
this from time to time to me, but never in the context that I was to do 
anything about it at all. 

Mr. Lenzner. So you i-ecall the President's concern with regard 
to the IRS investigation and the Senate Select Committee investiga- 
tion of Mv. Rebozo's return of $100,000 ? 

General Haig. In the context of abuses and leakage of evidence and 
material that had been provided to investigators ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did lie express any concern with regard to any 
witnesses that had been interviewed with regard to these investiga- 
tions ? 

General Haig. I do not think so, to my recollection. I cannot recall. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall any other statement the President made 
to you, aside from his concern with regard to the investigations, relat- 
ing to the return by Mr. Rebozo of $100,000 ? 

General Haig. Do I recall any other discussions ? 


Mr. Lexzxer. Any other statement that the President made to you 
with regard to the $100,000 returned by Mr. Rebozo, in addition to 
his concern with regard to the investigation 'i 

General Haig. As I say, I have difficulty pinpointing whether I got 
something from the President, from our attorneys, from IMr. Gemmill, 
from the newspapers or perliaps even Mr. Rebozo himself, although 
my contacts with him have been very limited and almost entirely to 
tlie few times we have been in Key Biscayne. and there were probably 
other people there when this came up. But I know I got the distinct 
impression that when the initial information was given to the Presi- 
dent, I had the impression he was aware of the situation. He has, on 
the few occasions we have discussed it, merely expressed to me his 
consternation about the direction in which this investigation was go- 
ing. He was very disturbed, I know, very recently when ]Miss Woods 
was called up here and there were allegations made about his brothers. 

I think he believes, and he has conveyed to me, these are totally 
unfounded allegations. 

I think that is about the sum total of what discussions we have had 
on it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did the President express any concern about Special 
Prosecutor Cox's investigation ^ 

General Haig. Xo; never. 

The concerns I had about it were very limited. In the fall there 
were some concerns about a number of areas that the Special Prosecu- 
tor may or may not have been involved in the context of his charter. 
^Ir. Buzhardt, I know, has discussed it with me and J laiow he dis- 
cussed it with the Attorney General at that time, Elliot Richardson. 

I think I recounted at the outset — I raised this with Mr. Richardson 
because you expressed concern the last time I was here about dis- 
cussions I may have had or may not have had with Mr. Richardson 
on this subject. I think I know the directions in which your interest 
lies and I think I can state categorically, that actions taken with 
lespect to Mr. Cox in October were in no way from my frame of 
reference, and it is a fairly precise one in terms of that incident, 
related to the decision made to fire Mr. Cox. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well, now, specifically, did you discuss with the 
President the fact that the Special Prosecutor's Office was initiating 
an investigation into Mr. Rebozo at any time? 

General Haig. I do not recall doing so, and it was not a matter of 
special concern, it was just another area of Mr. Cox's activity. I do not 
recall discussing this with the President. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Do you recall representing to Mr. Richardson that 
the President was concerned that Mr. Cox was getting into an investi- 
gation of Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. I may have. I know our counsel were concerned 
about it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Which counsel was that? 

General Haig. ]SIr. Buzhardt and I discussed it. We discussed that 
and we discussed another area of activity that Mr. Cox was into and 
I kno%\ there were some ongoing discussions with Mr. Buzhardt and 
Mr. Richardson. 

Maybe you had better continue asking. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did you advise the President, after you talked with 
Attorney General Richardson, that you had raised the question of 
Special Prosecutor Cox's investigation into Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. No ; I am sure I did not because I know when it was 
raised. It was raised in the context of another matter which I did 
apprise the President of in great detail. 

Air. Lenzner. Which was that, sir ? 

General Haig. That was the week of the so-called Stennis com- 
promise which we were working on. As I pointed out earlier, that is 
when this issue arose. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall on or about October 18, 1973, tele- 
phonically communicating with Mr. Richardson and telling him in 
addition to talking about the Stemiis proposal that there was concern 
in the White House with regard to the investigation Mr. Cox was 
conducting into Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. Yes; I do, and again in the context of an indication. 
At the time we were very concerned about another matter with 
respect to Mr. Cox and Mr. Cox's failure to give us a response and the 
whole subject of Mr. Cox's frame of reference, activities, and investi- 
gations came up. 

As I recall, Mr. Richardson mentioned something to me about a 
Cox activity at that time that I knew nothing about, involving 
Abplanalp and his discussions with Mr. Cox about that. Well, I did 
not raise that, Elliot raised it. 1 raised this strictly in the context of 
the problems we were having with Mr. Cox on another issue, and what 
I would want to make very, very clear is that the Rebozo matter had 
nothing to do with the considerations and deliberations made with 
respect to Mr. Cox in that week of October. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were aware at the time that the matter was 
related to a campaign contribution, is that correct ? 

General Haig. Yes ; but I thought it more in the context of trouble 
with the IRS and possibly illegalities with respect to the IRS. 

Mr. Lenzner. "VYliat was the basis of your concern in view of the 
fact that the money was a campaign contribution ? AMiat was the basis 
of your concern over whether the Special Prosecutor was investigat- 
ing it or not ? 

General Haig. Well, up to that time, as I recall, there were a num- 
ber of things that Mr. Cox was either reported to have or alleged to 
have started new investigations on. 

I think it would be well for me to express to you what my concerns 
at that time were and have been with respect to this whole matter. 

In the month of October we were in a situation in which, for better 
or worse, I assumed, and that was an assumption shared by some 
people in whose judgment I have high regard, that this whole matter 
was influencing calculations being made abroad. 

You will recall that the Middle East war started on the 6th of 
October and we were noticing increasingly from the outset of tliis 
conflict, a hardening of relationships between ourselves and the Soviet 
Union and I was very concerned that if these investigations were to 
be prolonged and continued, and I must say my perceptions would be 
veiy different tlian those of the people in this room and had to be, 
although I do not accuse you of not being conscious of them, too, I 
am sure you were and are. But tliis was my main focus of concern in 



this whole matter. As a matter of fact, that was the genesis of that 
week's activities in tlie White House and I think Senator Ervin him- 
self can attest to that because he was involved in some of the 

What I am tryinir to get across to you, if I can, is that I do not 
believe, to the best of my knowledge, that a discussion and a reference 
to Mr. Cox's looking into the Rebozo matter contributed in any way 
that I am conscious of, to the decision to separate Mr. Cox. 

Mr, Lejstzner. I appreciate that. I was only asking what specific 
concern 'I 

Greneral Haig. My concerns were that we bring Watergate to as 
rapid a conclusion as we could for the good of this country, not that 
I am the least bit cavalier about the seriousness of all of the situation, 
but I am nonetheless convinced tliat is ray responsibility and it was 
among my responsibilities to do what I could to bring these things to 
a conclusion. 

Mr. Lenzner. Wlien you called Attorney General Richardson on 
October 18 and discussed with him a number of matters, including the 
Rebozo investigation, was that at the instruction or direction of Presi- 
dent Xixon ? 

General Haig. No, it was not in that specific sense. And again you 
have to put yourself, if you can, to portray the kind of dialog that 
was going on during that week — during that week a proposal was 
conceived of, it was conceived of with complete consultation with 
Elliot Richardson and continuous discussion with him. I was fre- 
quently in the habit that week and at other times of having a dis- 
cussion with the President and picking up the phone and calling 
Elliot Richardson. On that occasion I may have expressed this as 
being a Presidential concern and I am sure if I did that I would have 
reason to know that either because I knew the President's thinking or 
because he specifically told me so. 

Senator Weicker. If I may interject another line of questioning: 
I think maybe, Terry, you are coming back to it, but leaving aside 
Archibald Cox and other things, if this money was a campaign con- 
tribution, which nobody has denied, yourself included, who makes the 
determination as to what happens to that contribution? 

AMiy would Mr. Rebozo make the determination? In what capacity 
would he make the determination that the money should be returned, 
for example ? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. May I say here that I think General Haig has ex- 
pressed the outline of his duties. Nothing concerns political activities 
and political campaigns. He stated already he did not consider it in 
the context of those political campaign operations. So I think direct- 
ing the question to him 

General Haig. I have never, since I have been in the White House, 
touched or been involved with or concerned with campaign contribu- 
tions. I have not. I would not touch it if someone suggested that I 
did. That may seem to be negligent. I don't think so because we just 
have not been involved in such matters. 

Senator Weicker. I understand, but there was a specific problem of 
returning $100,000. My question is, who was to make this 
determination ? 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 19 


General Haig. I viewed it as a problem that Mr. Rebozo had, that 
he had the money in a safe-deposit box which had apparently not been 
reported at the time the report came to us. 

Senator Weicker. I miderstand. 

General Haig. And that was his problem. I thought commonsense 
would be he would get tliat money to where it belonged. 

Senator Weicker. You never viewed it as a contribution to the 
President's campaign, you viewed it as 

General Haig. I think I have made it clear when I learned about the 
thing for the first time, it was in the context of a campaign contribu- 
tion th vt went to Mr. Rebozo, that went no further. 

Senator Weicker. So the money belonged to the President, is that 
correct ? 

General Haig. I do not want to be led into saying it belonged to the 
President, therefore, we were remiss because we didn't take whatever 
action may be conceived should have been taken. What I thought was, 
and the way I viewed it, in the very brief period I dealt with the issue, 
was that Mr. Rebozo had $100,000 that was given to him as a campaign 
contribution, that went no further and stayed, and he did not use 
as a campaign contribution, and I did not know what he used it for and 
IRS was aware of it and were looking into it, and that is as it should 

I think I can add an additional thought here. I am not aware that 
President Nixon ever touched campaign contributions. He has told 
me repeatedly, I have heard him say it publicly and I have heard it 
socially and I have heard him say it officially, he made a habit never 
to touch campaign contributions. 

What we are talking about here, if I get the drift of your questions, 
is whether or not the President of the United States had a responsi- 
bility with respect to this money. We did not view it that way. He 
never did. 

Senator Weicker. In other words, what you are saying, if that is 
the case, you have to view it as being Mr. Rebozo's money, period. Is 
that the way you all viewed it ? 

General Haig. Oh, no, I think 

Senator Weicker. How can you say the President didn't have any 
responsibility for the money? It is either Rebozo's money or it is 
Presidential campaign money. 

General Haig. Or it belongs to the President's campaign fmid. 

Senator Weicker. Were you concerned, in other words, that the em- 
barrassment w^ould arise out of the President's association — friend- 
ship — with Mr. Rebozo, or were you concerned that the embarrass- 
ment would arise out of the $100,000 being either unreported or 
midelivered ? 

General Haig. That is hard to say precisely. I was concerned about 
the whole bag. I was concerned about it all. I think my principal con- 
cern was their evidence of illegality, and that would probably put it 
in the context of unreported retui'ii of funds with no taxes paid or no 
proper reporting procedures. 

Senator AVeicker. So you were concerned with Mr. Rebozo, that 
that would fall upon his shoulders ? 

General Haig. My concern for Mr. Rebozo would be solely in the 
context of the slop-over effect it would have on the President and the 


Presidency. I did not even know Mr. Rebozo. I probably met him once, 
before this time had occurred. Subsequently I have seen him fairly 
often but prior to that time I did not even know him. 

Senator AA'eicker. So the hrst time 30U ever met with Mr. Rebozo 
was at the same time 

General Haig. Xo; I met liim at San Clemente a couple of times 
when I Avorked for Henry Kissinger. 

Senator AVeicker. But in the context of your position of associa- 
tion with the President of the United States, the first time you met 
with him was when you suggested Mr. Gemmill's name to him down at 
Key Biscayne ; would that be correct ? 

General Haig. Xo. The first weekend I went to Key Biscayne in 
May I think Mr. Rebozo was there. I don't recall talking to him at 
the time. But when we get olf the helicopter he is generally standing 
there and I shake his hand. 

Senator Weickek. Did you seek him out on the occasion of your 
meeting ? 

General HL\ig. No ; the President told me to give him the name. 

Senator "Weicker. So you sought him out ? 

General Haig. Yes ; and I do not recall whether he called me or I 
called him but it was 

Senator Weicker. Obviously, I am not trying to put words in your 
mouth, but let me ask, the conversation consisted of something more 
than, "Mr. Rebozo, the President has asked me to give you the name 
of Mr. Kemieth Gennnill, tax attorney, a good boy," or was there other 
convereation or inquiry on your part as to what was involved here 
from the horse's mouth, so to speak ? 

General Haig. Xo ; I believe he told me at the time that he had the 
money, that he had received the money, he hadn't used it. I don't 
know whether he told me then it was going to be turned back. I am not 
sure I even cared, I don't think I did. 

I gave him the name of the attorney. I told him it was Mr. Garment 
who re-commended liim, and I think that is about the limit of our dis- 
cussion on it. He may have told me, "Yes, I got the money and I got 
it with wrappers," at that time. I don't recall having that kind of a 
grasp of it. I think I knew by that time from the attorneys, that the 
IRS had passed througli to Mr. Simon, to the attorneys, and I did 
know that the initial thing was — that there was $100,000 — ^two 
increments had gone into a safe-deposit box and had not been reported 
and had not been forwarded. 

Senator Weicker. At the time that you had this discussion, or at 
any subsequent time, did you discuss any other moneys which Mr. 
Rebozo might have received ? 

General Haig. I do not recall. I recall the President telling me that 
Mr. Rebozo frequently received money, campaign money, which he 
normally would process through to the proper campaign recipients. 

Senator Weicker. Mr. Rebozo at no time then revealed to you 
$50,000 for example, which he had received, which he testified to re- 
ceiving from other individuals outside of this? 

General Haig. I don't recall. I do know that he has told me he had 
received money from time to time, and people were frequently giving 
him campaign money and he had generally passed it on through the 
proper procedures. 


Maybe you have to be more precise. 

Senator Weicker. I was trying to be very precise, specifically, that 
$50,000 which he has testified having received from the Davis brothei-s. 

General Haig. 1 do not know the Davis Ijrothers. 

Senator Weicker. Has he ever discussed this with you ? 

General Haig. I do not believe so, no. I don't believe so. If he has, 
it would not have registered because I do not know who they are. 

Mr. Lenzner. Well, when the President told you that Mr. Rebozo 
had received f imds in the past, did he indicate what time period ? 

General Haig. I have had the impression, and I think he talked 
about a number of yeai's, but I would have to be careful there because 
it is just the impression I had, that many times, and I assume this is 
not too unlike ty[)ical campaign situations, where a candidate, if he 
has a known individual who he is close to, and if he will not accept 
contributions, frequently they go that way. I don't know. This is a new 
field to me. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did he indicate that time period would go back 
during the period 1969, 1970, 1971 ? 

General Haig. Not precisely, but I would have assumed that. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did he indicate any other specific contributions that 
Mr. Rebozo had received that the President was aware of besides 
the Hughes contribution i 

General Haig. No ; other than he told me he had frequently gotten 

Mr. Lenzner. Did the President indicate that he had asked Mr. 
Rebozo to contact specific contributors at particular times? 

General Haig. Never to my knowledge. 

Mr. Lenzner. Or that he had asked him to set up a separate fund 
in 1969 for the use of the White House '{ 

General Haig. I have never heard of such a fund. It has never been 
discussed in my presence. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, you were aware at the time, were you not, 
that you learned that Mr. Rebozo had been involved in assisting in 
the purchase of San Clemente and had been involved in other business 
transactions with the President t 

General PIaig. No ; frankly, I was not. At that time I had no con- 
ception whatsoever of the President's financial arrangements, his 
relationship with Mr. Rebozo, other than to know he was a friend. 

Mr. Lenzner. And did you subsequently learn that the President 
and Mr. Rebozo did have financial transactions together ? 

General Haig. I subsequently learned when the property situation 
developed and the allegations with respect to San Clemente that Mr. 
Abplanalp and Mr. Rebozo and the President had been involved in 
some kind of interlocking arrangement on the purchase of that prop- 
erty or on the mortgage of that real estate. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever attempt to learn whether Mr. Rebozo 
had spent any of the campaign contributions he had received, directly 
or indirectly, for the benefit of the President ? 

General Haig. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever attempt to learn whether Mr. Rebozo 
utilized the campaign contributions that he did receive, includino; but 
not limited to tlie Hughes contribution, for the direct or indirect 
benefit of the President ? 


General Haig. I am not sure how to answer a question like that. 

Mr. JLenznek. Did you ever attempt to determine i 

General Haig. Do 1 feel it was my responsibility to investigate 
Avhat Mr. Kebozo may or may not have done ( 

Mr. Lexzner. A\ ith the money he had received. 

General Haig. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. You were concerned as to whether this contribution 
related to any illegal activity, were you not i 

General Haig. I would be concerned about illegal activity at any 

Mr. Lexzxer. And did you attempt to determine whether there were 
any illegal activities connected to this contribution ^ 

General ILvig. Are you talking about subsequent money or other 
money that may have been given to Mr. Rebozo or are you talking 
about the Hughes mone}- i 

Mr. Lexzxer. The Hughes money, as I told 3^011. 

General Haig. The Hughes money — as I told you, I was apprised 
that there was an investigation underway by the appropriate agency 
to look into it, and, if anything, I was determined to see that that was 
done properly. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. And did you make any efforts to insure that it was 
done properly I 

General Haig. I did not have to make any because I was told it was 
underway and I received, as I told you, periodic reports from Mr. 
Gemmill on that. My concerns were, if anything, that there were delays 
and excesses being applied. That is because of where I stood and 
that is the kind of reports that were coming to me. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever discuss with the President whether any 
of those funds were spent on his behalf, any of the Hughes funds? 

General Haig. I don't recall ever discussing such a thing with the 
President ; no. I do recall the President expressing to me his chagrin 
that there were allegations that his secretary had received some money 
or that members of his family had received such money, and I got the 
distinct impression from that that he would be appalled at such a 

Senator AVeicker. When did ]\Ir. Gemmill report to you the money 
liad been returned ? 

General Haig. It would be about the same time it was returned be- 
cause I know it was in conjunction with a trip he was going to take to 
Xew York to turn the money over, and that could have been July or 
June, I am just not sure. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Following up on Senator Weicker's question, was any 
discussion held with regard to whether the fund should be turned 
over, if not to the Committee To Re-Elect, to the Republican National 
Committee that was the continuing body ? 

General Haig. I don't recall any discussion or any recommendation 
that that should have been done. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Now, do vou have any recollection of whether you 
were in Camp David on May 20, 1973 ? 

General Haig. No. I do not believe I was. I may have been up there 
that weekend, I would have to check, in and out, but I do not recall 
that weekend and I do not remember seeing Mr. Rebozo or Mr. Dan- 


ner, and as I say, I did not know Mr. Danner and would not know 
him if I did see him. 

Mr. Lenzner. The President was preparing his May 22 statement 
at Camp David at that time. Does that refresh your recollection as 
to whether you were there ? 

General Haig. I am not sure whether we spent the full time there 
or not. I don't think we did. I think I came in and out that weekend, 
together with counsel and a speechwriter. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of seeing Mr. Rebozo 
in Camp David ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now, one more question; on October 18 — two more 
questions. When you called Attorney General Richardson, were you 
attempting to have Attorney General Richardson turn oif Mr. Cox's 
investigation into the Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. Absolutely not. When I called Mr. Richardson it 
was in the context of an ongoing discussion and multiple commimica- 
tions with Mr. Richardson both in my office and telephonically on a 
matter related to the so-called Stennis compromise. That was the topic 
and the subject matter of our discussions that entire week. And on 
one occasion during that week when we had been awaiting a response 
from Mr. Cox, which those of us working on the matter felt was over- 
due, I expressed to Mr. Richardson concern that the IRS investiga- 
tion, which had been reported to me by Mr. Gemmill as having been 
concluded with a clean bill of health given to Mr. Rebozo, was being 
delayed because Mr. Cox had put a hold on it, or his harsher language 
was "intimidating the IRS" so they could not get this additional 
burden oil' the back of the administration. And I do not know anything 
Elliot Richardson could have done about it in any event. 

]Mr. Lenzner. Were you aware at the same approximate time that 
the IRS was seeking to obtain a letter from Miss Rose Mary Woods 
with regard to the Hughes-Rebozo money ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. You were not aw^are that Mr. Buzhardt helped pre- 
pare a letter, that Miss Woods signed, to the IRS ? 

General Haig. To the IRS ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes, sir. 

General Haig. No ; I am not aware of that. 

Senator Weicker. Would General Haig or counsel like to take about 
a 5-minute break to get a drink of water or something ? 

Mr. Buzhardt. I think we would really rather get through as soon 
as possible. 

Mr. Lenzner. Going back to your telephonic commimication with 
]Mr. Simon, do you have any recollection as to whether you placed 
that call to Mr. Simon rather than him calling you ? 

General Haig. I do not know. You have to be careful when you get 
a question like that. My recollection and my firm recollection is that 
the information was conveyed from him to me at his initiative. Whether 
I called him and he wasn't there and then he called me back, or vice 
versa, I cannot say, but the first knowledge I ever had of this subject 
was conveyed to me by Mr. Simon at his initiative. 


]Mr. Lenzxer. And do you recall any specific information that he 
gave you besides the fact that Mr. Rebozo was going to undergo an 
IRS audit? 

Senator "Weicker. I think the general has already testified to the 
fact that, as best as I understand the record, either in that conversa- 
tion or in conversation with counsel subsequently, who had been in 
touch with Mr. Simon to learn of the details of the situation. 

General Haig. That is right ; and I recall telling Mr. Simon, because 
I was goosey about the very subject matter he was raising, he best talk 
to counsel about it. However, how far he got in relaying to me what 
he knew about it, I don't know. I do know there was an investigation 
involving $100,000 of campaign contributions. 

^Ir. Lexzxer. Did you learn from Mr. Simon or others Mr. Rebozo 
had indicated to the IRS that the money had not been used because 
enough money had been raised for the campaign ? 

General Haig. Xo, I have never heard anything of that character 
associated with this. What I heard was that Mr. Rebozo was concerned 
about the character of the money and the source of the money, that 
there were ongoing litigations with Hughes and that that was money 
best not put into the campaign coffers and that he, on his own, judged 
not to pass it on. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did you ask Mr. Simon to determine exactly what 
potential tax liability or criminal liability, for that matter, Mr. Rebozo 
might be facing ? 

General Haig. Xo ; I did not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did Mr. Simon furnish you with any information 
with regard to that ? 

General Haig. Xo, I do not recall that. I don't think so. 

ISIr. Lexzxer. Do you have any recollection of jVIr. Simon contact- 
ing you on the same date with additional information he received 
from the files of the IRS with regard to this matter ? 

General Haig. You mean additional details on the initial report? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yes. 

General Haig. Xo, I do not recall that. It does not mean it could 
not have happened. I do not recall. I do recall there being some con- 
fusion about what this was all about. The initial report I had was 
that the IRS was investigating Mr. Rebozo based on his tax return 
and his failure to report this money. 

Subsequently I heard from counsel that wasn't the genesis of the 
problem at all ; that it spawned out of the investigations in Las Vegas 
having to do with Hughes money, and that that is what triggered this 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever on occasion discuss the Hughes-Rebozo 
matter with Mr. Haldeman of Mr. Ehrlichman ? 

General Haig. Xever. 

Mr. Lexzxer. How about Mr. Higby ? 

General Haig. X^ever. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did ISIr. Simon indicate to you, by the way, on the 
same day, that the IRS was also seeking to interview Donald Xixon? 

General Haig. Xo. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you learn subsequent to Mr. Simon's communica- 
tion with you that Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman had been con- 


cerned and had received information with regard to this matter — the 
Hughes-Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. You mean that they were 

Mr. Lexzner. They had been concerned about it prior to youi- 
arrival at the White House and they had received information con 
cerning it? 

General Haig. No, I was not aware of that at all. In fact, I thought 
I was bringing the first news in and, as I say, I didn't get the impres- 
sion that it was news to the President and it was subsequently certainly 
not news to Mr. Rebozo when I told him about the attorney. He told 
me that this had been onooino- for some time. 

Mr. Lexzner. Well, did the President indicate to you, or someone 
else indicate to you, that, prior to your coming on the White House 
staff, other individuals had been working on this matter? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you have any communications with Commissioner 
Walters or Commissioner Alexander at any time with regard to this 

General Haig. Never. 

Senator Weicker. Have you checked this matter out, General Haig, 
on the tapes, such tapes that exist ? Have you checked this matter out, 
this matter of the Rebozo problem, on tapes, if indeed such tapes exist, 
that are in the possession of the White House ? 

General Haig. No ; no, sir. 

Senator Weiceler. Was the taping system in operation at the time 
these conversations were going on ? 

Mr. Lexzx'er. Yes, it was; it was up through June- July of 1973. 
We are talking about ISIay, June, and July. 

General Haig. Maybe I am misreading you. Are you talking about 
the discussions that I have just learned about ? 

Senator Weicker. What I am saying is, in other words, have you 
tried to enhance your knowledge relative to this matter by listening to 
any tapes that might exist on this matter ? 

General Haig. No. As I say, my first recollection, my knowledge of 
the thing was the day that ]Mr. Simon informed me. 

Senator Weicker. I understand that. I understand that completely. 
But obviously you went and discussed it with the President? 

General Haig. Yes, sir. 

Senator Weicker. Before. All I am saying to you is, as this matter 
achieved a greater importance, let's say, in the public mind or the 
public domain, did you attempt to go back and refresh your memory 
as to the facts of this matter via the taping system ? 

General Haig. No; because I think my recollection of my exclianges 
with the President are fairly precise. Also, I am doing 16- to 17-hour 
days on things that, as serious as this is, are equally serious in my 
view and pei'haps a great deal more serious. 

Senator Weicker. I do not have the slightest doubt about the accu- 
mulation of serious matters. 

Mr. Lenzner. General Haig, you said after you talked with Simon 
you met with Messrs. Rose, Buzhai'dt, and Garment, and one other 
associate counsel. Do you remember who the other counsel was? 

General Haig. No ; 1 was told that Mr. Parker had been involved in 
the consultations before the counsel came to mv office. I do not think 


Mr. Parker came into the office. He may have. He did on the May 22 
statement, from time to time. 

jMr. Lexzner. And at the meeting that you had with counsel, do I 
take it correctly tliat they had information that they had received prior 
to your contact with Mr. Simon with regard to this matter ? 

General Haig. No, I got the distinct impression, and I am sure you 
can ask them, the first knowledge of this matter was the result of the 
same sequence that I was exposed to, notification from Mr. Simon. I 
asked Mr. Simon specifically to contact the President's counsel and give 
him this information and in greater detail. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did Mr. Garment indicate to you Mr. Rebozo had 
specifically reques'ted Mr. Garment to advise liim or find another 
counsel to advise him? 

General Haig. No, my recollection is, and I think it is precise, that 
the counsel raised the matter with me of the need of being sure that 
Mr. Rebozo had competent legal assistance ; they had no way of know- 
ing whether he did or did not and I should convey to the President 
in addition to the information that IRS was investigating Mr. Rebozo, 
that he should be counseled to have competent counsel and that they 
would so recommend if Mr. Rebozo desired to exercise that option. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now when you furnished Mr. Rebozo with Mr. Gem- 
mill's name in Key Biscayne, did he indicate to you that he did not 
have counsel at that time ? 

General Haig. He indicated to me that he did not have a tax expert. 
I think I knew he had counsel, he had a lawyer. I think he probably 
mentioned it to me. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did you know who that lawyer was ? 

General Haig. No, I've subsequently seen his name — Frates. 

Mr. Lexzner. Mr. Frates? 

General Haig. Frates. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you had any communication with Mr. Frates 
or any representative of liis office ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was anybody present with you and the President 
when you discussed this matter on the first occasion after your phone 
call with Mr. Simon ? 

General Haig. I don't think so. I'm sure I did not. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Did the President make requests or directions to you 
in addition to furnishing Mr. Rebozo with the name of that counsel, 
Mr. Gemmill's name, with regard to the Hughes-Rebozo matter? 

General Haig. Not that I recall ; No. 

INIr. Lexzxer. Did he ever ask you to obtain any additional facts 
or information for him regarding this matter ? 

General Haig. No, I have never to my recollection ever been involved 
in anything of that kind other than to listen to expressions of concern 
about the continuation of the investigation and the prolongation of 
it and whatever excesses were perceived to be falling out of it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. So the answer is "No," he did not make any request 
for information ? 

General Haig. What you must mean is, did I contact the IRS with 
respect_to it ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Or anybody ? 


General Haig. No ; other than the exchange I recalled for you with 
Mr. Richardson and his expression of concern to Mr. Shultz at one 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever learn whether Mr. Rebozo had discussed 
this matter directly with the President, the fact that he had received 
these funds on the President's behalf ? 

General Haig. I am confident they discussed it. There is no question 
in my mind about it. But I do not have first-hand knowledge except 
to know that the President has told me what Rebozo did and he could 
only have gotten that from Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. Lexzner. The President has described to you some statements 
Mr. Rebozo apparently made to him ? 

General Haig. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenzner. Can you tell us, do you have any recollection of what 
those statements were ? 

General Haig. I think, and I cannot be precise, it was something that 
happened so long ago, and it was to me of peripheral concern. I think 
he probably said that Mr. Rebozo did not use the money because he 
was afraid it would have been troublesome and he put it in the safe- 
deposit box and left it there. I know more recently the President has 
expressed to me his absolute conviction that none of that money was 
given to Miss Woods or to his family, his brothers. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any effort made to determine from 
either the President's brothers or jNliss Woods whether, in fact, they 
did receive any of these funds ? 

General Haig. I am aware it has been an ongoing effort. 

Mr. Lenzner. I mean employees of the White House or the President 

General Haig. Do you mean whether the President asked 
Miss Woods? 

Mr. Lenzner. Whether the President or other employees of the 
"Wliite House interrogated Miss Woods or Mr. F. Donald Nixon or 
Mr. Ed Nixon. 

General Haig. I am not aware of any. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know Mr. Stanley McKiernan, who is counsel 
to Donald Nixon? 

General Haig. No. I know of him. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you learn or become aware of a meeting that 
Mr. McKiernan and the President's two brothers had with the Presi- 
dent in San Clemente in late December or early January 1974? 

General Haig. In January 1974 ? ... . ., , 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

General Haig. I was aware of a meeting, yes. At the time I think it 
had to do with some discussion at that time about the Nixon Founda- 
tion. I think that was the total of my knowledge about it. It was 
peripheral and was not a meeting that I was involved in, in any way. 

Mr. Lenzner. How did you learn about it. General Haig ? 

General Haig. I think the President told me. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he tell you about it before the meeting? 

General Haig. No; afterwards. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did the President indicate that they had discussed the 
Hughes-Rebozo matter and the fact 


General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. He did not. Did he tell yon they had discnssed the pos- 
sibility that the President's brothers might have to appear at either 
public hearings before the Senate Select Committee or the Vesco trial 
in New York ? 

General Haig. No ; I do not recall his ever telling m© that. I don't 
think lie would have. Our relationship was not of that character. 

]\lr. Lexzner. Are you aware of a memorandum which was prepared 
subsequent to that meeting concerning the President's brothers and the 
Hughes-Rebozo matter and other matters ? 

General Haig. A memorandum prepared by whom? 

Mr. Lexzxer. By Mr. McKiernan and the President's brothers. 

General Haig. No. 

Senator Weicker. Did the President — General Haig, since your last 
appearance before the committee, is it at the President's suggestion 
that you are testifying today, or did you request of the President 
that you be allowed to testify ? 

General Haig. Well, I don't think either, really, in a black and white 
sense. I think I personally have been very chagrined about this thing. 
I have been chagrined about it because I have read in the press that I 
refused to answer a number of questions which suggested to the reader 
that I had knowledge that I don't believe I had, which is bothersome to 
me personally. 

I also must say, Senator, that before I was called to this committee 
I was notified by the New York Times that I would be, and it was the 
day after that I received notification that I should come. That bothered 
me a great deal. 

The day I left here last — by the time I got back to my office, on the 
wires were first a report that I had refused to answer over 100 questions 
involving the Rebozo matter. Well, to any layman in this country that 
reads that, they can only assume General Haig is involved in illegal 
activity on the Rebozo matter. 

Then the next lead that came out was a little more precise but equally 
damaging because the questions that were asked for the record here 
were given lock, stock, and barrel to the press. I personally resented 
that very much. I still do. 

Because of that, and because of my own belief that I was put into a 
position in the White House as public duty, w^hich I had to do, and 
because in the conduct of those duties I have been exposed to one or 
another piece of information that now it appears to some who do not 
know me that perhaps I am involved some way in an illegal conspiracy 
or worse. 

Because of that, and after discussing it with Mr. Buzhardt and Mr. 
St. Clair and Mr. Garment, and at their recommendation I discussed 
with the President the dilemma, and he said, "Well, by God, I know 
what you don't know about this subject and you know nothing, and so 
I am going to waive the inliibitions I placed on you when you came 
up here last and I want you to tell everything you know and can recall 
about this subject." And that is sort of a joint combined judgment by 
counsel, myself, and the President that we should do this today. 

Mr. Dash. May I say. Senator Weicker, in questions put to General 
Haig earlier today, it may raise some question or inference ; somebody 


from the staff may believe General Haig was involved in wrongdoing. 
That is really, perhaps, an improper assumption to make because in- 
formation may have come our way that you yourself may not have been 
personallv involved in any illegal or wrongdoing but the fact you may 
have such information may affect what other people may do. You 
yourself may be a neutral possessor of information and please 

General Haig. I understand that, Mr. Dash. 

Mr. Dash. I don't think you should take any 

General Haig. What bothers me, if I enter into an executive session, 
by the very rules of this committee — I expect it to be processed that 

Mr. Dash. You have every right to believe that. 

Senator Weicker. You have every riglit to believe it and unfortu- 
nately, General Haig, from what direction the news comes is somethmg 
we cannot fathom any better than you can, and I would dare say if we 
knew the record, both of us, we would find it comes in equal propor- 
tions from both sides. But I want the record to state very clearly that 
never at any time, earlier or not, is there any importation at all of any 
involvement on your part in illegal activity. On the other hand, the 
difficulty you find yourself in is, I do share — I won't share, I will take 
it upon my own shoulders, I rather hold the view executive privilege 
as defined in the broadest sense of even pertaining to any knowledge 
of illegal activities, et cetera, is a lot of rubbish. 

Unfortunately, that puts you in the bind that has nothing to do with 
your character or your integrity, which is beyond reproach, and has 
nothing to do with any of 

General Haig. That is true, but I have been exposed to countless 
telephone calls from friends and longstanding acquaintances since that 
incident and the simple facts are that the results, whether intentioned 
or not, have been very damaging, and that is just a fact of life and I 
recognize that. 

Senator Weicker. As I said before, the record shows exactly how 
it is these matters come up and exactly which that I have stated relate 
to your reputation and your integrity. Unfortunately I would agree 
that delay in all this matter is something that does not help anybody. 

General Haig. No. 

Senator Weicker. Let me ask counsel this : What have you got left 
in the way of questions for General Haig? 

Mr. Lenzner. I would say 35 minutes, probably. Scott has some. I 
have just a few held over. 

Senator Weicker. I want to recess for about 5 minutes. 


Senator Weicker. Let's proceed with the questioning. 

Mr. Dash. Can we proceed now as expeditiously as possible ? 

Mr. Lenzner. General Haig, after your contact with Mr. Simon, 
did you have other contacts with the IRS to obtain information with 
regard to the Hughes-Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. I have never discussed this matter with the Internal 
Revenue Service. In the 12 months, tlie only time I have talked with 
the IRS had to do with the leakage of some information in Rhode Is- 
land in which they subsequently found the fellow who had leaked the 
information. It had to do with the President's tax return. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did you discuss this matter again with Mr. Simon 
after that initial contact ? 

General Haig. I do not recall ever discussing it again. 

Senator Weicker. Did this have to do with the story in the Provi- 
dence Journal relative to the President's taxes ? 

General Haig. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Lenzner. Now did the President indicate to you at any time he 
was not aware of the contribution at the time it was made — the Hughes 
contribution at the time it was made ? 

General Haig. Yes ; I have that very distinct impression that he was 
not aware of it — he was not told about it. Now I must say I am not 
confident in my own mind whether he told me that personally, whether 
Rebozo did or whether our counsel did or Mr. Gemmill did. But I have 
had that impression since very early in this exercise. 

Mr. Lenzner. But you cannot say for sure today that the President 
ever said to you specifically, General Haig, "I do not know ; I did not 
know of the contribution at the time it was given." ? 

General Haig. I think he told me. I just don't want to be so finite 
about it that it is categoric; that he expressed to me his relief that 
Rebozo had never told him about this and that he used what the Presi- 
dent considered to be good judgment that he did not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did the President indicate that, when he discussed 
with you the fact that Mr. Rebozo had received other campaign con- 
tributions, Mr. Rebozo had kept him informed with regard to those 
matters ? 

General Haig. Precisely the opposite. The President, as I stated 
earlier, always conveyed to me his longstanding practice that he would 
never either handle campaign contributions or deal with them. I know 
that is a pretty naive statement in its broadest sense but he has said 
that to me on a number of occasions, not with respect to this issue but 
with the issue in general and with respect to this issue I think he has 
told me, I believe he has — if he hasn't someone has — that the President 
was not aware that Mr. Rebozo received this money when he received 

Mr. Lenzner. Did the President ever advise you as to whether Miss 
Rose Mary Woods advised him Mr. Rebozo received the fund ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever discuss that with the President ? 

General Haig. No ; and I do not know whether Miss Woods knew 
about it or not ; I never asked her. I know she conveyed to me in a very 
passing meeting conversation in the hall that she did not know any- 
thing about the Rebozo money or any piece of it, or having received 
a piece of it, which was more recently the subject of investigation. 

Mr. Lenzner. But she did not indicate at that time or at any time 
she had not been told by Mr. Rebozo or had been told by Mr. Rebozo 
he had received these funds ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Rebozo ever indicate to you when he did 
receive the funds ? 

General Haig. No ; but I recall that it is reported to have come in 
two increments. I don't know whether he told me that or I read it in 
the newspapers, and all this sort of merges into a blur. I'm sorry, but 
that is a fact. 


Mr. Lenzner. Did the President indicate to you whether he had 
ever instructed Mr. Rebozo that he should or should not accept con- 
tributions on his behalf ? 

General ILmg. No ; I have never discussed that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed with the President or Mr. Rebozo 
or any other individual whether funds were obtained to replace any 
part of the money that was, in fact, received by Mr. Rebozo from 
Howard Hughes? 

General Haig. No; I have seen some newspaper speculation about 
that but never discussed it. 

JNIr. Lexzxer. Have you had any contact, communication, or do you 
know of any contact or communication Avith the Federal ReserA^e 
Board to determine whether the bills that Mr. Rebozo returned to the 
Hughes Tool Co. were the same ? 

General Haig. Have I had any 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know anybody else who has had contact ? 

General Haig. With the Federal Reserve Board ? 

Mr. Lenzner. With regard to the question whether the bills that 
were returned were dated prior to or after the times that Mr. Rebozo 
said he received them ? 

General Haig. No. I know Mr. Gemmill told me that there had been, 
they were checking on the serial numbers and date of issue, and I 
assume that is the Federal Reserve, I don't know who does it, but he 
told me that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he advise you of the results of those checks ? 

General Haig. No ; he told me that he did not think there was any- 
thing wrong and he assumed that there is nothing wrong. I don't 
know that to be a fact. 

Mr. Lenzner. Is that investigation an IRS investigation — you re- 
ceived your information from Mr. Gemmill, I take it? 

General Haig. What I received from Mr. Gemmill are periodics 
added on to meetings that we have had on other matters where he 
would just tell me that the IRS investigation was still going on or they 
had concluded it but would not announce the results of it because Mr. 
Cox, last fall, was involved in looking into it. 

I think that is about the limit of what I have gotten from him plus 
the fact he told me that one weekend they were going up to take the 
money and return the money. I don't recall any other specific thing, 
other than the fact that there were some reports in the paper about 
serial numbers of the money, and I think the last time or the time be- 
fore I saw Mr. Gemmill I said, "What is this problem?" and he said, 
"Well, I think it has something to do with the date of issue, and I am 
not aware of any irregularities." I don't know how he would be. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you received information from Mi'. Gemmill 
of that nature relating to the IRS investigation, did you pass that on 
or transmit it in any form to the President ? 

General Haig. No. I may have. I don't think I did. I may have told 
him that Mr. Gemmill thought the investigation was about concluded 
on Mr. Rebozo when he told me that and that they were through. I 
probably did pass that on to the President. I think I would have. 


Mr. Lenzister. Did the President have any response to that, to your 
recollection ? 

General Haig. Not that I would take note of. 

Mr. Lexzner. Did you furnish anything in writing to the President 
with regard to the Hu^hes-Rebozo matter? 

General Haig. No, sir. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Approximately how many times do you think you can 
recall talking to the President with regard to this matter ? 

General Haig. I would say there were several brief discussions when 
it first came to my attention, to my knowledge. Then there was a pro- 
longed period when it never came up at all. Then I may have discussed 
it once or twice when the investigation was nearing a conclusion. I am 
sure that I would have heard anytime there was a flash in a newsstory 
which woidd have been derogatory, the President may have com- 
mented on it or said something about it. 

He certainly expressed himself very clearly on these most recent al- 
legations about his family and his secretary, but that is usually in the 
context of an expression of letting off steam, in that character. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did you discuss with the President the question of 
whether public hearings Avould be held by the Senate Select Committee 
on the question of the Hughes-Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. No ; I know he told me a week or so ago Mr. Rebozo 
had been up here and testified. He may have told it last time he was up 
here and testified. But, no, this is something we both knew, we read it 
in the newspapers. 

Mr. Lexzxer. When the President discussed with you Mr. Rebozo's 
appearance here, did he indicate in any way any of the areas that were 
involved in the questioning ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. The answer is "No." 

General Haig. You mean did he characterize it in general ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did he describe it in specifics ? 

General Haig. No ; I did not discuss that with him in detail. 

Mr. Lexzxer. He didn't say anything about it ? 

General Haig. No. I think he got the general impression that — I 
think he told me he spent a whole day. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you ever discuss with the President his meeting 
in 1968 with Mr. Danner and Mr. Rebozo where Mr. Danner has testi- 
fied that a discussion was held with President Nixon there concern- 
ing the Hughes contribution ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was anybody else present at any time when you dis- 
cussed any of these matters with President Nixon besides you and the 

General Haig. Well, there have been, as I say, some discussions in 
Key Biscay ne which have been of a general character and usually 
critical in character about the persecution of Bebe Robozo. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Mr. Rebozo has been present ? 

General Haig. Yes, sir ; where I may have been there and may have 
been just leaving and Rebozo came in and the President might make 
some remark and there have been very brief discussions of it. 


Mr. Lenzner. Was there any discussion during those times as to 
how Mr. Reibozo or the Wliite House should respond or react to 
particular problems? 

General Haig. You mean in the sense of an oflB.cial strategy 
discussion ? 

Mr. Lenzner. No; in the sense of just a response by either Mr. 
Rebozo or 

General Haig. No, not in an operative sense. 

Mr. Lenzner. Any sense ? 

General Haig. Wliere courses of action were discussed and it was 
incumbent upon me to execute them ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Whether Mr. Rebozo should respond in a particular 
way or the press office ? 

General Haig. I recall Mr. Rebozo stating he was suing the Wash- 
ington Post for matters related to this issue and I think he is conduct- 
ing such a suit. 

Mr. Dash. He is suing us also now. 

General Haig. I hadn't heard that one, I am sorry. He thinks he 
is going to win the Washington Post suit, I have heard him say that, 
and his lawyers have so told him. 

Senator Weicker. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any effort made by any employees 
of the White House tx3 obtain information with regard to the Hughes 
acquisition of the Dunes Hotel ? 

Genearl Haig. No. The Dunes Hotel ? 

Mr. Lenzner. In Las Vegas, Nev. 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you had any discussions with Mr. Abplanalp 
or Mr. William Griffin, his counsel, with regard to this matter? 

General Haig. No; none at all. I do not even know Mr. Griffin. 
I have met Mr. Abplanalp maybe twice. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have not discussed this matter with Mr. 
Abplanalp ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed it with Mr. Blech, the President's 
accountant ? 

General Haig. No, I do not talk to Mr. Blech. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you discussed it with Mr. Stan Ebner? 

General Haig. I don't know Mr. Ebner. 

Mr. Armstrong. General Haig, are you aware of any other cam- 
Daiq^i^ contrihutions, other than Hughes' contribution, which Mr. 
Rebozo or onyone else turned over to the campaign committee that 
has been withheld ? 

General Haig. Have I heard about any ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

General Haig. No. Having said that, I don't know what precisely 
I may have heard at one time or another, but I do not recall any at 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than the concern which the President ex- 
pressed regarding the conversations Mr. Kalmbach allegedly had 


with Mr. Rebozo on April 30, other thaji the President's general con- 
cern of the specifics of those allegations, have you discussed with the 
President whether or not there was such a meeting with Mr. Eebozo 
and Mr. Kalmbach on April 30 ? 

General Haig. No, I have not. 

Mr. Akmstroxg. And did the President ever indicate he instructed 
I\fi-. Robozo, or has anyone else indicated the President instructed 
Mr. Rebozo to talk with Mr. Kalmbach regarding the Hughes 
contribution ? 

General Haig. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Did you ever discuss the April 30 meeting specifi- 
cally with the President, aside from the allegations? 

General Haig. I'm sorry, what is April 30 ? 

Mr. Armstrong. That is the meeting which allegedly took place 
between Mr. Rel>ozo and Mr. Kalmbach in the AVliite House. 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. AVere you aware of a meeting in January 1974, I 
believe it was January' 8, 1974, between Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Kalmbach 
in San Clemente? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you had any discussion with Mr. Rebozo 
regarding his meetings with Mr. Kalmbach ? 

General Haig. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than the instance when the President asked 
you to relay the name of Mr. Gemmill to Mr. Rebozo, has the Presi- 
dent ever given you anv other instructions to contact or discuss with 
anyone else any related Hughes contribution to Mr. Rebozo ? 

General Haig. No, I do not think so. I do not recall any. 

Mr. Armstrong. You mentioned in discussion your conversation, 
with Attorney General Richardson on October 18, that it was in the 
ongoing context concerninsf the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecu- 
tor's Office, how those might affect other governmental activities and 
responsibilities. Can you tell us what the other matters of jurisdiction 
were you discussed with Attorney General Richardson in the ques- 
tion of iurisdiction of that office? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I believe that goes beyond the Presi- 
dent's waiver of executive privilege to get into other matters. 

General Haig. I can answer it in general and give you a feel for it 
without being specific. 

As I said, we were working that week on a matter of what we con- 
sidered to be of great importance and that is the subject of it — our 
communication on the 18th that you are referring to. Now there were 
a number of other areas of activity which were peripheral and in the 
ludgment of our counsel borderline or beyond borderline, and I think 
there was just a broad reference to that in the discussion that is in 
terms of Mr. Cox's charter — the things that he was charged with doing 
by the Senate and the terms of reference worked out by Mr. Richard- 
son. Now that wasn't new. That had gone on for a period of some 
weeks and Mr. Buzhardt here was the primary point of contact with 
Mr. Richardson on it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Let me address those which might be related. Did 
you discuss with Attorney General Richardson whether or not the 

-^ / ' 


Special Prosecutor's Office was conducting an investigation regarding 
the purchase of San Clemente — any use of campaign fmids for the 
purchase of San Clemente? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. Again, this gets back into General Haig's general 
conversations, discussions with the Attorney General, as chief of staff 
for the President, as to which he has no waiver of executive privilege 
of this. I think he earlier testified he generally discussed with the 
President the subjects of his discussions with Attorney General Rich- 
ardson, particularly in this period, the week in October, whatever it 
was, and I think that to answer these questions on specifics of his dis- 
cussion, other than the Hughes-Rebozo matter, goes beyond the Presi- 
dent's waiver of executive privilege. These matters have not been taken 
up with the President and we get into matters that are confidential 
within the Presidential conversations. 

Senator Weicker. Let me comment. I won't have to make any rul- 
ing on these matters if we can avoid them. If I am not mistaken, this 
area which is being touched upon at times by Terry and Scott — isn't 
this presently before the Senate Judiciary Committee? 

Mr. Dash. I think it is. 

Senator Weicker. I do not want to get far afield. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can I express our interest in it ? We received testi- 
mony from several individuals that a prominent publisher, Mr. Her- 
man Greenspun — "Hank" Greenspun, of the Las Vegas Sun — had 
discussed with representatives of the administration the question as 
to whether or not political contributions were used in the acquisition 
of furnishings in San Clemente and whether or not that might be the 
Hughes contribution. Also, in the context of those conversations, the 
representatives of the administration sent Mr. Kalmbach to discuss 
with Mr. Greenspun whether or not Mr. Donald Nixon, in this case — 
the next question I was going to raise 

Senator Weicker. If these are the questions you want to direct 
toward General Haig, I have no objection. I just don't want to get 
into the business with Elliot Richardson and Archibald Cox. I would 
rule in your favor but right now we are off on conversations between 
General Haig and the President relative to the Cox-Richardson 

General Haig. I can dispose of that matter. I have never discussed 
any of that with Elliot Richardson or anybody else. I am not familiar 
with the matters you discussed. 

Mr. Armstrong. You never discussed the acquisition of San 
Clemente ? 

General Haig. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you discussed with Attorney General Rich- 
ardson the subject of whether or not the Special Prosecutor's Office 
was inquiring into Secret Service wiretaps? 

Mr. BuzHARDT. If you please, that has been the claim of a specific 
subject of a specific claim of executive privilege by the President on 
repeated occasions — anything to do with the Secret Service wiretaps, 
and the President has asserted that. , , . 

Senator Weicker. Yes. 


Mr. BuzHARDT. I do not believe General Haig understood the Presi- 
dent's instructions. He can, without violating those instructions, go 
into that. 

Senator Weicker. I agree. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Did you discuss with Attorney General Richard- 
son whether or not the Special Prosecutor's Office was conducting an 
investigation of ]\Ir. Abplanalp ? 

General Haig. As T recounted at the outset, I did not discuss it with 
him : he raised it with me in that same discussion that we are referring 
to. He told me that ]Mr. Cox had investigated into and disposed of 
that matter. As I recall, I think he said that there was nothing wrong 
with that matter. I didn't even know the matter ; I never heard of it. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Did you express any concern whether or not that 
was within the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor's Office? 

General Haig. I had not. He raised it with me in the conversation, 
as I recall, because I remember after hanging up that I had never 
heard of it. That does not mean that someone else, counsel, had not 
raised it — I do not know ; but as I recall in the discussion, Mr. Rich- 
ardson said, for example, of the Abplanalp case in New York, that 
Cox has been through and is through with, or something to that effect. 

]SIr. Armstrox'g. Xow, subsequent to your conversation with Attor- 
ney General Richardson on October 18, and that portion of the dis- 
cussion which related to whether or not the investigation of Mr. 
Rebozo was within the jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor's Office, 
did you discuss your conversation with the Attorney General, with 
tlie President, Mr. Rebozo, or ]Mr. Gemmill ? 

General Haig. Certainly not Mr. Rebozo or Mr. Gemmill, and I 
do not think with the President, and really it wasn't in the context 
of being beyond the jurisdiction, it was in the context of not get- 
ting a response from Mr. Cox that we needed, and in the context of 
this being an example of some kinds of the delays that are imposed on 
doing away with Watergate-related matters and getting them off the 
national scene. 

There was no effort on my part, for example, to tell Elliot Richard- 
son in the context of the Rebozo thing that he was not to investi- 
gate this matter. I was complaining that the IRS had completed 
their investigation, had given a clean bill of health and now it was 
being held up — resolution of the matter was being held up because it 
was under investigation by Cox, or they perceived that it was. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Now, in the recently released transcripts submit- 
ted to the House Judiciary Committee, the transcript for April 14, 
1973, contains some references to a conversation which the President, 
Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Ehrlichman had relating to the actual or at- 
tempted break-in to the premises of Hank Greenspun, publisher of 
the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas, Nev. Other than what is contained 
in the transcript, do you have any other information or 

General Haig. I am not sure I focus what is in the transcript. 

Mr. Armstroxg. You certainly have no other information ? 

General Haig. No ; I know nothing about that. 


Mr. Armstrong. One point we covered, before and I just wanted to 
make sure our record is clear on it. I was not sure I understood your 
answer previously when you spoke with Tender Secretary Simon in 
late May 1973. re<;ardino^ the investi2:ation of ]Mr. Rebozo by the IRS; 
was there any discussion of an investigation or need to interview Mr. 
Donald Nixon ? 

General Haig. I do not recall that at all and I am confident it 
would have registered had it 

Mv. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first became aware of any 
IRS interest in Mr. Donald Nixon ? 

General Haig. No, I do not recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was it prior to published reports or press ac- 
counts ? 

General Haig. No, I don't think so. I don't think it would be. 
It doesn't even register. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any discussions or any actual 
discussion or actual investigations or electronic or physical surveil- 
lance by a member of this committee or its staff? I include investiga- 

General Haig. Of this committee ? 

Mr. Armstrong. A member of the committee or of its staff. 

General Haig. Wlien ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I don't know. 

General Haig. That goes beyond the instructions but the answer 
is categorically I am not aware of any such thing at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. That is all I have. 

Mr. Schtiltz. You mentioned that when you gave Mr. Rebozo 
Mr. Gemmill's name that it was your recollection he indicated to you 
that it was an ongoing situation, and then I believe a little later you 
said he did not have an attorney. Was this your feeling that he did 
not have an attorney, or did he specifically tell you that he did not have 
an attorney? 

General Haig. It was my feeling he did have an attorney, but he 
did not have a tax specialist. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Did he specifically tell you that at that time ? 

General Haig. I think he expressed an interest in contacting Mr. 
Gemmill, yes, at that time. > v .- 

Mr. ScHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Dash. General, has anyone ever told vou the President him- 
self may have a legal problem with regard to the Hughes contribution 
or the Rebozo matter ? 

General Haig. Never. You mean in the context 

Mr. Dash. '\^niether he has a legal problem involving a relation- 
ship — any kind of legal problem Rebozo may have or any legal prob- 
lem he may have with regard to the Hughes contribution — the Presi- 
dent himself? 

General Haig. No ; I have never been. 

Mr. Dash. The only question is, "Has anvbodv told you?" — not 
that you know he has. Has anyone brought that to your attention? 

General Haig. No. 


Mr. Hamilton. General Haig, I want to change the subject. Do 
you know Frederick Malek? 

General Haig. Yes. 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know that in 1971, the latter part of 1971, 
and in 1972, he was involved in putting together an administration 
program to use the resources of the Federal Government to reelect the 
President ? 

General Haig. I don't really know how to answer that question. 
Did I know it at that time ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Did you know he was putting it together at that 

General Haig. I have read about the thing subsequently. At that 
time, no ; I was not aware of any such thing. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Contemporaneously ? 

General Haig. No. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Had you heard the term "Responsiveness Program ?" 

General Haig. I have heard about it since I have returned to the 
White House here. I had no knowledge of such a program when I was 
working in the National Security Council. 

Mr. Hamilton. Well, now, in late 1971 or early 1972, did Mr. Malek 
contact you regarding a matter in the 1973 Defense budget? 

General Haig. I do not recall it. That does not mean it did not 

Mr. Hamilton. Let me be more specific. Did he contact you about 
the inclusion of a budgeted amount for the F-111 airplane for the 
Air Force ? 

General Haig. F-111? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. 

General Haig. No. And if he had, I do not know why he would. I 
had nothing to do with the Defense Department procurement. 

Mr. Hamilton. I realize that. But we have received at least a 
hearsay allegation that in 1971 or 1972 he did contact you about re- 
placing the budgeted amount for the F-111 into the Defense budget 
for the Air Force — it had been taken out. 

General Haig. It would be inconceivable that he would do so. I 
do not recall it but I don't know why he would ever talk to me about 
it. I would throw him out of my office if he came in with something 
like that. In the first place. I had nothing to do with it. 

]Mr. Hamilton. Did he contact you to ask you to intercede with 
anybody in the Defense Department ? 

General Haig. In the Defense Department ? 

Mr. Hamilton. Yes. - 

General Haig. Inconceivable. • .- - ' '• . i, ^ i 

Mr. Hamilton. Did he contact 

General Haig. For the F-111. 

Mr. Hamilton. "Well, did he contact you in regard to another air- 
plane designated A-7, which I understand is version D which is an 
Air Force airplane, A-7D ? 

General Haig. It does not ring a bell with me and again I can only 
state that I had no responsibilities at that time with Air Force 


procurement or with White House relationships with the Defense 
Department in that area. Our considerations in tlie White House and 
NSC were solely limited to the broadest context of the Defense budget 
in terms of overall national capabilities in implementing our diplo- 

Mr. Hamilton. Do you recall any discussions at that time with 
Mr. Malek or anybody else about funding these two projects or either 
of these projects so that Defense money would flow into the State of 

General Haig. No, no. 

Mr. Dash. I am glad you permitted those questions because it gives 
General Haig a chance to clear the record on it. 

Senator Weicker. I am all through. Is there anything further on 
that matter? . • 

Mr. Hamilton. That is enough. 

Senator Weicker. Let me state for the record that certainly Gen- 
eral Haig has responded to all questions put to him. Are there any 
other questions anybody wants to put ? I want to make sure everyone 
has their opportunity so that when I go out there I am going to 
respond quite frankly to the press that all questions put to General 
Haig were responded to. I want to make certain that 

Mr. Dash. I would also like the record to show that what General 
Haig raised earlier, I thoroughly agree with — not only his interpre- 
tation of the rules, but when he comes into executive session, the only 
one who should say anything afterward is the presiding Senator. A 
general statement as to General Haig's appearance here should be the 
only statement, and that certainly there be no reference by any member 
in this room to any of the questions put forth. 

I think the answers have been forthcoming. We have had complete 
answers to the questions, but none of the questions or none of the 
characterizations or anything of the questions should get out of this 
room because this is an executive session and under the rules nothing 
in it should be released without a majority vote of the committee. 

Senator Weicker. Everyone is so directed and, insofar as comment 
is concerned, obviously. General, you and counsel are free to make any 
comment you want. 

It would be my intention to indicate that you have fully responded 
to every question put to you by the committee and this is about the 
essence of it. Any statement ? 

General Haig. I would like to say this, if I may, that we had 
received, subsequent to our earlier appearance here, specific defini- 
tive areas that the committee was interested in and that based on 
that, and it involved the Rebozo matter, that the President waived 
the executive privilege and we answered accordingly. 

Senator Weicker. All right. 

Mr. Dash. I think. General Haig, you are at liberty to say anything 
you want ; you are not bound by our rules. 

Senator Weicker. I think he should be able to say that. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to 
call of the Chair.] 


Haig Exhibit Xo. 1 
Resolved by the Committee as follows: 

1. The Committee totally rejects the implication in the 
President's letter of May 1, 1974 and the advice of his 
counsel to General Haig that questions of this Committee 
concerning political contributions, conversations about 
political contributions, alleged criminal activities and 
conversations relating to alleged criminal activities need 
not be answered under the doctrine of executive privilege 

or that the President has any authority under the Constitution 
or the laws of the United States to order any White House 
employee to refuse to answer such questions posed by the 
Select Committee or its staff. 

2. The Committee hereby finds that the questions posed 
General Haig by Senatdr "Weicker and the Committee's "" '. 
counsel on May 2, 1974 were proper questions that sought 

to elicit information relating to matters the Connmittee 
is authorized to investigate. " - ' 

3. That, the Conamittee again subpoena General Haig to 
appear before it and infornn hinn that the Comnaittee requires 
him to appear before the Committee at a time specified and 
to testify fully concerning any knowledge he has concerning 
political activittes that the Committee is authorized to 
investigate. " 


Haig Exhibit Xo. 2 


The--general authority of the Select Committee to 
conduct the Hughe s-Rebozo investigation is set forth in 
Section 1(a) of S. Res. 6o (93d Cong., 1st Sess.). More 
specific authority to investigate campaign contributions 
of this type is contained in Section 2 of S. Res. 6o, 
subsections 11 through 15. Those subsections authorize . 
thorough investigations of any transactions , in the words 
of subsection 11, involving "moneys . . . collected or 
received for actual or pretended use in the presidential "; 
election of -1972 *.^.-l,,.\^. "./ Uo clearer generic description't^ 
of the purpose of the Hughes -Rebozo investigation could be 
found tham in the authorizing language of these subsections, 
which should now be entered in full on the record. 



iThe legislative purpose of the Senate Select Com- 
mittee is clearly spelled out in section 1(a) of the 
resolution authorizing the investigation (S. Pxes. 60, 
93rd Congress, Ist Sess.): ■' ■ - 

". - . to conduct an investigation " ■._■:. -r: 
.; ,. • and study of the extent, if any, to 
■■'■—• which illegal, improper, or unethical 

■ . activities were engaged in by any per- ■ -• 
." ■■ '.sons ... in the presidential election 
.--r ■•■■ y of 1972 - . . and to determine whether . •' • . . 
. "'.iv ';:. in its judgment any occurrences which ^ .'■;_ ' .'" 
• .-p ;>".-" :■. may ba revealed by the investigation ..-"":';; 
;"'■.'■..' and study -indicate the necessity or de- •: -. 
.,'• '. . sirability of the enactment of naw con- '■ ^'." 
; -gressional legislation to safeguard the " 
/.-./--. - electoral process by which the President;. 
^•"\ ■;'■"'■■"" of the United States is chosen." 

_ _ Pursuant, tp its mandate under S- Res. 60, the Select 
Coiranitfcee has been investigating the circumstances sur- 
rounding the- -alleged transfer of 2100,000 in one hundred 
dollar bills from Howard R. Hughes to Charles G. Rabozo 
in 1969 or 1970 for use in the 1972 Presidential campaign. 
The facts surrounding this contribution are of critical .. 
importance to the Committee's legislative task for a 
variety of reasons. 

First, these facts go to the very question of the .■ 
advisability of p^_--itting large cash contributions to 
political caiHpaign;. The circu^T-stances of this Si00,0G3' 
cash contribution ill go a long way to'.vard documenting 
any dangers or po~ "tial dangers inherent in allowing sur' 


- 2 - - 

■-a-^s cash contributions. Any possible legislation in 
j-p-j^3 area rr.ust be constructed upon a solid factual record 
,^--pich the CoiTjnittee is attempting to build. These specific 
-.etters all fall within the scope of paragraphs (11), (12), 
(13) and (16) , Section 2, of S. Res. 60. 

Secondly, the facts of this specific inquiry will 
help to answer legislative questions in the areas of 
Dossible^ reporting" requirements for contributions as well ■ . 
as which individuals- or committees should be allowed to 
receiver cash or. other political contributions » To answer 
theseP-lcinds-- of ^questions effectivelyv the Committee needs 
for example, a full and complete factual record on the*. > 
potential c3angerg-of not reporting contributions, which 
was in fact the case with the $100,000. In addition, the 
factual"record must be clear concerning the motives, pro- 
pensities, and actual conduct of individuals collecting 
large cash contributions in order to legislate appropriately 
in this area. These matters are also covered by paragraphs 
(11), (12), (13)''and. (16) , Section 2, of S. Res. 60. 

Third, the facts of the $100,000 contribution may 
have seme relationship to the events described in paragraphs 
(1),' (2), and (31, Section 2, of 3. Res. 60. Certainly 
any corrective legislation to be recommended by the Select 
CCiTHi-ittee must perforce rely heavily npor. a full and 
complete factual record of those events. . . . -. 


- 3 - ■ .• 

Finally, the story of the 3100,000 contributicp. 
potentially reveals rr.uch information about normal means 
by v/hich government business is transacted. The Comjr.ittee 
m.ight wish to recommend legislation in this area pursuant 
to paragraph (16), Section 2, S. Res. 60. Tnerefore, a 
full and complete factual record noting these behavioral '. 
patterns and practices is necessary so that informed 
decisions in this area, can be mada.^ " ■•'■.".■."..'.'•';■■;.;. 


Haig Exhibit No. 3 

MAY 2, 197^. • 

Question 1 (page 5) 
Mr. Lenzner. 

For the record. General Haig, could you 
describe the duties that the letter descril 
as the — that you functioned in as the 
President's Chief of Staff? 

Mr. St, Clair. Mr, Lenzner, I am instructing the witness 
to answer no further questions in the 
light of this instruction. 

Question 2 (page 6) 

Mr, Lenzner, 

Have you had occasion to speak with indivi- 
duals who are not employed by the United 
.States government? ^ .,^,_vv:>j-.'^ ;-^ >:..;. . . ^ 

Mr, St, Clair, The witness will not testify, ;'• .. -,...-; 

Question 3 (page 7) ^ . -—_;j._, ■■ ~ 

Mr, Lenzner, Now, can you tell us as part of your dutle. 
as Chief of Staff, -have you had occasion 
■ '" to discuss what appeared to you to be. 

• criminal activities of other individuals? 

Mr. St. Clair, I will direct the witness not to answer. 
You know. Senator, is there some 
mechanism whereby we can accommodate you? 
J. ,. I know you are busy and so is the General. 

The witness t«.11 not under this order 
answer any questions that have axxy bearing 

Question 4 (page 8) 

Mr. Lenzner. 

-General Haig, v/hat are your -duties" as 
Chief of Staff since May of 1973? 

Mr. St, 

Clair. I instruct the witness not to answer 
the question. 

Question 5 (page 9) 
Mr. Lenzner. 

Have you on occasion, as part of your 
duties as Chief of Staff at the White 
House, discussed with other individuals 
criminal activities involving individuals? 

Mr. St. Clair, The witness is instructed not to answer. 


- 2 - 

Question 6 (page 9) 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you on or about October l8 of 1973 
telephonically contact Attorney General 
Richardson and speak to him with regard to 
an on-going criminal investigation by 
the Internal Revenue Service of $100,000 
that Charles G, Rebozo had received from 
the Hughes Tool Company? 

Mr. St. Clair. The witness is instructed not to respond. 

Question 7 (page 10) ': ;;;^;;"cf:v^>-;': 

Mr. Lenzner. One. last question. 

As Chief of Staff since May of 1973, Gener 
Hai'g, have you had occasion to discuss 
the $100,000 in cash that was furnished 
Mr. Chajrles G. Rebozo by the Hughes Tool 
Company with Mr. William Frates, Mr. James 
•;. v.. .. - • ■ ' . ~ O'Connor, Mr. Robert Abernath, Mr, John 
'^■yVr-'^-jv^^-v.;! "■'-"", Mr. H. R. Haldemah,- Mr, Herber 
":• . Kalmbach, Mr, Frank DeMarco, Mr, Richard 
.." : ' ■^■--" Banner, Mr. William Griffin, Mr. .Kenneth 
" / -Gemmill, Miss Rose Mary Woods, Mr. P. Dona 
■ Niaon, Mr. Edward Nixon, Mr. John Wilson, 
Mr, Frank Strickler, Mr. Charles Colson, ■ 
Mr, David Shapiro, or Mr. Charles G, 
Rebozo himself? - 

Mr, St, Clair, The witness is instructed not to answer. 



Pertinency of Questions 1 and 4: 

Questions 1 and 4, which ask General Haig to 
describe his duties as Chief of Staffs seek to establish 
the witness's background to enable the Committee to 
ascertain what his responsibilities were and the information 
to which he may have had access. They attempt to lay a 
foundation for further questions dealing with the witness's 
responsibilities and knowledge of relevant information and 
events. Such questions are basic to any interrogation and 
■are_as. pertinent -a=s a request that "the -witness identify - ,V; . 
himself"." The questions also sought to elicit- the witness::--" '" 
duties -to determine _4:he confines of the President' si^estric- 
tions which prohibited responses to questions related to hiss 
duties as Chief of Staff. ■■.■•. 

Pertinency of Question 2 : 

Queation 2^ which, asks whe-ther- General Haig has 
had conversations with individuals not employed by the 
United States Government^ similarly seeks to establish a 
background for further questioning. Many people involved 
"in the Hughe s-Rebozo transaction Eire priva-te citizens 
without any governmental interest. By establishing" that 
the witness iiad communications with non- governmental people. 


a subsequent question asking him to identify these non- 
governmental persons who may have discussed pertinent 
matters would be asked. Obviously, private citizens 
such as Rebozb himself may have conferred with the 
witness., on matters clearly outside the scope of his duties 
as Chief of Staff. Indeed, as Special Coiinsel Buzhardt has 
indicated, neither he nor any White House employees to his 
knowledge, had duties related to the receipt of $100,000 r',; 
by Mr. C. G. Rebozo. In addition, such discussions may- 
have included information related to yiolations of the law' 
pertaining to misuse of campaign funds, bribery, obstruction 
of "justice and others. .- ■ - • '-\'- J - 

-' "Pertinency of Questions 3 a-nd 3 - 

Questions 3 and 5, which ask General Haig whether, 
as Chief of Staff, he has had occasion to discuss criminal 
activities of other indi-viduals aie pertinent in that evidence 
has been received which, if true, shows that part or all of 
"the $100,000- contribution from Howard Hughes -was misappro- 
priated and used by Mr. Rebozo in a manner which resulted 
in violations of laws. ■ " . ■ 

Possible violations of laws relate directly -to 
the Senate Select Committee's mandate as articulated in 
S. Res. 60 and include the issues of misuse of campaign 
funds, the reporting and receipt of cash campaign contri- 
butions, the use of such funds to affect government decisions. 

- -"' - V 11046 

(bribery) J perjury and subornation^ efforts to obstruct 
investigations into these possible violations, conspiracy, 
the diversion of campaign funds to individuals for non- 
campaign purposes or for the personal benefit of such 
individuals, IRS violations, and others. This area of 
Inquiry focuses on the problems that arise when aji investi- 
gatioh is attempted on individuals such as Mr. Rebozo who 
are close friends of the President. It is imperative to 
determine whether executive agencies can adequately 
investigate such a situation. ....■." 


Pertinency of Quest ions 6 and 7: 

— — , 

Since last October, the Select Comraittee, pursuant to 
SI, Res. 60 {93d Congress, 1st Session), especially sub- 
sections 11 through 15 of Section 2, has been investigating 
a $100,000 cash contribution given to Charles G. Rebozo by 
a representative or representatives of Howard Hughes. - - 
According to testimony before this Committee and before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, General Haig has some knowledg 
about that transaction and the investigation of it by the 
IKS and the Special Prosecutor's office. In fact, -'*.■'. '• -. 
. question/ was premised on former Attorney General Richardson's 
"testimony "to "the-Jxidici'ary" -Committee -and- infdrmati-on fumi-shed 
thijs Committee -that the witness, called Richardson, on.' XJctober 
l8, 1973, -to advise him of concern that. Special -Prosecutor 
Cox was investigating Rebozo after the IRS had conducted its 
own investigation. ( See Richardson testimony, 11/6/73 
Special Prosecutor Hearings, Part 1, p. 275; 11/8/73, 
Part 2, p. 386.) It is the purpose of the questioning to 
determine what knowledge he does have, how he obtained it, 
and to whom and when he may have conveyed such knowledge. 
It is also pertinent to determine who directed the witness 
to call Mr. Richardson and whether the purpose was to ' 
obstruct an investigation of the- matter by the Special 
Prosecutor's Office. The question/ also relates to other 
possible criminal beh .vior as listed in the above sections 
and as incorporated by reference herein. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 21 


As to Question 7, in which Haig was asked about a list 

of persons with whom he might have discussed the $100^000, 

every person on that list has been identified as having 

' '. ^the transaction, 
pertinent information relating to/Rebozo's own testimony 

in executive session (March 21, 191^, p. 395-98) indicates 

that Rebozo talked with General Haig about the $100,000 

sometime after April 30, 1973. Rebozo 's conversation with 

"this witness may be crucial in examining certain events- 

that, fpllowed it. Rebozo, during the Spring of 1973, 

discussed with several people his receipt of $100,000, . 

and. what he and the President's new chief aide discussed 

-coiild shed -light on the -total story. -In- addition, the -■ - 

Committee has received. evidence that this witness was 

-•directly involved in securing legal assistance- for Mr. 

Rebozo, which indicates additional information General 

Haig may be able to furnish. '' y- . '' .^^l}'/:--' 


/ made service of 'Hie jvithin suhpena 

~—thtrw liU ti' i-jmJji,e d /^w6c-^- j^d^ -^ylt-^^^ 

/_/_•■_ ..^ii^Ct?rfA^ .^^^^r?^'r2V—<. 

, at 

at _J?.J^..O--D._ o'clock ^L..^rn.j qji 

the ji4:. 7 ... -.- j-= : dsy 

of /:^.z.^fC^^^^^ . :, 197:^ 

Signed X.^^^-A^ L-1 L 

a.X. coyr>aa[«T rmimaa omcz 22^461^ 



Congrefifii of fte Winittt} Btatt^ 


., greeting: 

^ursJuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMAJTDED to 
CAMPAIGJf ACTIVITIES of the Senate of the United States, on_ 

_MajLZ ■ iS7_7f at ._lfl:i).Q ^ o'clock _A^ 


at their committee room ■^■3pJ^„Ngg_SgngleOgj^ce_Ri.Udlngj Wa shtnatgiai.p , C . 
then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee. 

hereof fad not, aa you will answer your default under the- pains and pen 
■alties in such cases made and provide^ 

to serve and rsiwrn, 

<@{ben under my hand, by order.-of the committee, this 

10 t h day of April , in the year of our 

Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-ioig_ 

_^^^_<k y »' Vv _<J^ 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential ^ 
Campaign Activitie*. 



Haig Exhibit iNo. 4 

/ Ttiade service of the within suhpena 



the luithin-named ..ri_ C 

X. M Og 

„„i-, at 


£c3zP /f^^ 

cu i.^ 

' ^ o cIocJc ../„ 7n., 07t 

/f/ cj i^lY^^.^^ 


Congress; of tlje '(Bniitb states; 

To c^-i5i>£n_Ai,s5jaaa©r-Sa4s- 

., Greeting: 

^Urfiuant to lawful authority, YOU ABE HEREBY COMMANDED to 

CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES of the Senate of the United States, on 

?Tn7 ^5^ -,.197^, at g;00 o'clock _£. m., 

at their committee room. C C^^j !T~:'Suaato 0ff:!.7.T? '^v^l'/'''^ *^z » 

then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee. 

I^ereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and pen- 
alties in such cases made and provided. 

To ^(Cf~/^A/^ . W jrf/t y^OMC 

to serve and return. 

, ©iben under my hand, by order of the committee, this 

13^1 1 day nf T-T^rr , in the year of our 

Lord one thousand nine hundred and o^^fOilty-S^^^? 

Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities. •' 

FRIDAY, MAY 17, 1974 

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

Washington^ D.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in 
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 
Present : Senator Weicker. 

Also present: Marc Lackritz, assistant majority counsel; Robert 
Silverstein, and Richard L. Schultz, assistant minority counsels; Scott 
Armstrong, investigator; and Emily Sheketoff, research assistant. 
Senator Weicker. Would you raise your right hand ? 
Do you swear the evidence you are about to give is the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 
Mr. Garment. I do. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Garment, could we have your full name and 
home address for the record, please ? 



Mr. Garment. Leonard Garment, 4601 Greenspring Road, Alexan- 
dria, Va. 

Mr. Armstrong. Your home phone number ? 

Mr. Garment. 354-3678. 

Mr. Armstrong. You are presently employed with the Executive 
Office of the President ? 

Mr. Garment. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. And have been employed there sine© January 1969 ? 

Mr. Garment. June 1969. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you tell us what positions you have had and 
for what periods of time from June 1969 ? 

Mr. Garment. From June 1969 until January 4, I was special con- 
sultant to the President. From April 30, 1973, until January 4, 1974, 1 
was also acting counsel for the President. On January 4, 1 became an 
assistant to the President, and ceased being special consultant to the 
President, and acting counsel to the President. 

Mr. Armstrong. In the course of your duties in the Executive Office 
of the President, have you had any occasion to be concerned with the 
Hughes Tool Co. or Mr. Howard Hughes or any of their activities? 

Mr. Garment. No, not in any direct way. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did there come a time when you made inquiry 
to the Department of Justice to Mr. J. T. Smith of the Attorney 
General's office regarding any matters connected with the Hughes 
Tool Co.? 

Mr. Garment. I did. 



Mr. Arimstrong. Could you describe the background and circum- 
stances of that discussion ? 

Mr. Garment. My best recollection — and this is a recollection devel- 
oped after you called me and asked me about that matter — was that 
on or around October 9, 1973, I called J. T. Smith at the Justice 
Department and asked him about two matters, the Air West merger 
and the Dunes transaction. 

The reason, as I recall it, was that there was some publicity about 
that time on October 8 or 9, newspaper publicity about materials 
that had been developed in the course of one of the investigations. 
My best recollection was it was the Senate investigation suggesting 
that there were certain questions raised about the transaction. 

I called J. T. Smith and asked him to give me any indication what, 
if anything, he Imew about it. I also had Fred Fielding, who was 
in the White House counsel's office, check specifically the Air West 
merger and see if there w-as any indication of any irregularities there. 
He reported to me on that so far as he could determine, there were 
none of any sort, or any interventions. The record was a clear and 
clean record. 

J. T. Smith called me back, I think, as I recall, generally confirming 
that there was no problem on the Air West. That is on the CAB 
clearance of that acquisition, and that on the Dunes matter he sum- 
marized for me, and I believe he read to me portions of an executive 
file having to do with that matter. My principal recollection — let me 
not go on and volunteer further. If there is anjrthing you want to ask 
about it, go ahead. 

I might say, essentially, that Avas the sum of what I did, and what 
I learned, I learned from Mr. Smith, and I do not recall passing 
that on to anyone. I may have discussed it with Fred Buzhardt. I 
generally discuss everything with him. There were some things, be- 
cause there were so many items that were coming up either in the 
press or in telephone calls, or in one fashion or another at that time, 
that some were discussed and some were not. I am sure that I dis- 
cussed it, probably discussed it briefly with Doug Parker who was 
working with me. That would be about the size of it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was your initial call and concern prompted by 
discussions with anyone else, or instructions from any other party? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that. I think this was more or less 
on my own initiative to find out what that was all about. It is not 
improbable that may have raised that and found out w'hat 
that is all about ; whether there is some file or some information that 
would indicate that there is a problem, that there is a specific rela- 
tionship between that transaction. There is no point in me trying to 
reconstruct conversations I cannot recall. 

But there might have been some preliminary discussion. I do not 
recall any. My best recollection is that these two cases were in the 
press, they were talked about in a fairly casual way. The determina- 
tion was made that I should check that out. Whether I made it myself 
or whether I made it discussing it with Fred Buzhardt, Al Haig, I 
do not recall. I spoke to Fred about that not too long ago, and he did 
not even remember what the Dunes case was all about until I raised 
it with him. 


Mr. Armstrong. Can you recall Avheii you spoke to Mr. Buzhardt 
about it recently ? 

Mr. Garment. Last week. 

Mr. Ar^istrong. Do you recall whether it was before or after 

Mr. Garment. Before. 

Mr. Ar:mstrong. Before he appeared before us ? 

Mr. Garment. I think it was before he was here. 

Mr. Armstrong. You told him what you remembered ? He had no 
recollection ? 

Mr. Garment, I said, "Do you remember me raising that with 
you?'' He said, 'As far as I can make out, this is the first that I have 
heard of the Dunes." 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall with whom Mr. Fielding 

Mr. Gar^ient. This was shortly after you had called me about that 

Mr. Arivistrong. Wliich was at the same time we made arrange- 
ments for you to come down here. 

Mr. Garment. That is right. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall with whom Mr. Fielding checked 
regarding the Air West merger ? 

Mr. Garment. I think he may have checked with the CAB. He may 
have checked with Peter Flanigan's office. He may have checked with 
Jonathan Rhodes. I am giving you a lot of may-have checks. I am 
trying to indicate all the possibilities without ascribing to anyone — 
anyone as a specific source. It would be pretty much in that group. 
He may have checked with the Justice Department. That would be 
the group of sources that he would go to. 

Mr. Armstrong. You say that Mr. Fielding reported that he had 
been able to find no irregularities or interventions on any part? 

Mr. Garment. That is right. 

Mr. Armstrong. I gather Mr. Smith reported the same thing ? 

Mr. Garment. On the Panes? 

Mr. Armstrong. Air West. 

Mr. Garment. No problem. 

Mr. Arivistrong. Did you ask about any particular interventions or 
any particular individuals who intervened? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that. Again, I am inferring from my 
customary way of doing business, I would have said, what is the story 
on this. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us in sum what Mr. Smith's report 
was regarding the Dunes matter ? 

Mr. Garment. The substance of it, as I recall, that sometime in 
1970, on a couple of occasions or several occasions, there was a record 
of conversations and correspondence involving the then Attorney Gen- 
eral John Mitchell and the Director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, and 
other persons with respect to the matter of the acquisition of the 
Dunes by one of the Hughes companies. 

I just do not know which it was. And that the backgroimd of it, the 
general background was, in a prior administration an acquisition or 
acquisitions had been prohibited as involving an excessive accumula- 
tion of rooms ia Las Vegas, insofar as the antitrust laws are concerned. 
The discussion was raised and batted back and forth. 


That is the impression that I carried away from that discussion, 
that nothing very conckisive was settled upon, that ultimately, as I 
recall, nothing happened. That is, the acquisition did not go forward. 
There had been representations made somewhere by one or more of 
Hughes' representatives that reflected a belief on their part that there 
would be no objection to the acquisition. But that may well have been 
based upon some misapprehension, which in turn was caused by an 
inquiry to the Gaming Commission or the Gambling Commission — 
whatever it is — in Las Vegas about the desirability or suitability of 
having this acquisition, in view of certain problems that existed there 
with persons and organizations involved in rackets and other criminal 

Mr. Akmstrong. Do I miderstand correctly that the executive bar 
Mr. Smith was referring to, made reference to representations made 
by Hughes representatives that there would be no objections to addi- 
tional acquisitions ? 

Mr. Garment. There was some allusion to that or a state of belief. 
As I recall, the file indicated the belief was not well founded. But it 
may have developed as a result of certain inquiries that had been 
made on behalf of the Justice Department in Las Vegas, and from 
those inquiries certain persons may have drawn the conclusion that 
there would not be an objection. That is the closest I can come to it. 
It seems to me the best evidence of what is there would be in that file, 
and that J. T. Smith would be in a position to testify more knowledge- 
ably what is there and what it was all about. I do not want to guess 
about what is there. There were some misapprehensions about what 
is definable and ascertainable facts. 

Mr. Lackritz. What I wanted to clarify, was there any discussion 
that you had with Mr. Smith about conversations the former Attorney 
General may have had with representatives of the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not think Smith had any independent informa- 
tion. What he gave to me was from a file. He was reading to me or 
summarizing for me information from a file, rather than saying, I 
know this or I know that on the basis of some independent investiga- 
tion I, J. T. Smith, made. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall from his reading of the file that there 
were any meetings between representatives of the Hughes Tool Co. 
and former Attorney General ^litchell in regard to this matter? 

Mr. Garment. My best recollection is that there were references to 
such meetings. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall how many of these meetings there 

Mr. Garment. I do not. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall any of the substance of what those 
meetings involved? Were they specific requests from Hughes to the 
Attorney General for approval for this acquisition ? 

Mr. Garment. I would be guessing and I would be guessing on the 
basis of a total impression I had, that they were trying to get clearance 
for the acquisition. They were having discussions. The Attorney Gen- 
eral was trying to find out what problems existed and whether it could 
be done, how it could be done, if it could be done, the kind of investiga- 
tion that would take place bureaucratically as a matter of course 


without necessarily forecasting what the end result of the total process 
would be. I just say that my general impression was that there were 
either meetings or discussions of some sort by representatives of 
Hughes or Hughes Tool Works or whatever the corporate entity may 
have been, that in general had to do with getting a clearance, that 
nothing beyond the procedures by which it might be accomplished 
were discussed, that nothing was settled upon in any definitive fashion, 
that there was a reference to an impression that may have been de- 
veloped by one of the Hughes attorneys, Morgan — again, that is my 
recollection — Edward Morgan, about the fact or the possibility of a 
clearance, and that this may have been based on some misapprehension 
deriving from certain inquiries that had been made by or on behalf 
of the Antitrust Division. 

Mr. Lackritz. Did you check out any of this information? 

Mr. Garment. And that it did not go forward. So I am giving 

]Mr. Lackritz. As I understand your response, you are saying that 
based on what Mr. Smith told you that your information was that 
the Attorney General had not given his approvel ? 

Mr. Garment. My general impression was that he had not. It had 
not reached that stage. My recollection may be faulty. As I said, the 
best evidence of what the file has to say is the file itself. 

Mr. Lacrrttz. In the files you say there were memos to and from — — 

;Mr. Garment. If I may add to that, again, my best recollection is 
that the matter was up in the air. that there were shadings of belief 
and impression on the part of the representatives, the Hughes repre- 
sentatives, tliat would lead me at this point to believe that a firm 
approval had not been given, nor had that matter proceeded to the 
point where a formal approval was solicited. 

Mr. Lackritz. Was there any indication from Mr. Smith that the 
procedures that were followed in the case of the Dunes acquisition 
were the normal departmental procedures, or was there some 
irregularity ? 

]\ir. Garment. I do not think it was a question of irregularity. Let 
me put it this way. I do not think anything that J. T. said was either 
literally or substantially to the effect that there were irregularities. 
I think that he said — I would not want to swear by the exact words — 
that it was an unusual file, but not in terms of irregidarities, and cer- 
tain of the procedures followed, the kind of letters that were written 
by the Director of the FBI and so forth, customary boiler-plate lan- 
guage that would be used with clearance, where a clearance had previ- 
ously been denied. 

Mr. Armstrong. L^nusual in what respects? What did you draw 
as his inference? 

Mr. Garment. I do not know if I would want to get into the whole 
process of speculating on my speculations, and trying to recall them 
with that degree of precision. I think, once again, if there is material 
there that is available, it should l>e obtained, examined, and made part 
of the record. 

Mr. Lackritz. You said that in the file you recall memos from 
Attorney General Mitchell to former Director Hoover of the FBI? 

^Ir. Garment. References to them. 

Mr. Lackritz. What did those memos concern ? 


Mr. Garment. I think the question, generally the question of the 
legality, validity, appropriateness of a clearance of this particular 

Mr. Lackritz. Why \v'ould the Federal Bureau of Investigation be 
involved ? 

Mr. Garment. Because the Crime Commission was concerned with 
the problem of the control of the hotels by persons allegedly involved 
in rackets and the like. I recall also, there was some discussion of the 
economic consequences of acquisition. 

Mr. Lackritz. Was there any mention by you or by Mr. Smith to 
you, or was there any mention in the file, that you recall, of Mr. 
Richard Danner? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that, no. As a matter of fact, I have 
no recollection of that. 

Mr. Lackritz. As I recall the publicity at that time concerning these 
matters — didn't this publicity result from disclosures about this al- 
leged $100,000 cash contribution taken by Mr. Banner to Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Garment. It was alleged and some questions were raised about 
these being transactions that were somehow connected with that con- 
tribution, or allegedly. I do not recall there being any reference to 
Danner in J.T.'s summary to me of what was there. He may have. I 
do not recall. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall whether you asked him? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall. 

Mr. Silverstein. May I ask a question ? Roughly how long was that 
conversation ? 
. Mr. Garment. We did not spend half the afternoon. 

Mr. Lackritz. You indicated that the time of your conversation 
was in early October of 1973. 

Mr. Garment. That is my best i-ecollection. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall how you determined that date ? 

Mr. Garment. Two things: One, the news clippings at that time, 
and the fact that there is a telephone log reference to a call to J. T. 
Smith about that subject, about Air West. My secretary had a note 
saymg I talked to him about Air West and some other subjects. She 
was not sure what it was about. I knew I talked to him about both 
these things. 

Mr. Lackritz. The telephone log reference was on October 9 ? 

Mr. Garment. About that time. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you receive any written materials or reports 
or anything else from Mr. Smith ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you make any notes of that conversation? 

Mr. Garment. I did make some notes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Is that something you could share with us? 

Mr. Garment. Not at the moment ; I do not have them here. They 
add very little to what I've already told you. 

Mr. Armstrong. Would it be possible for us 

Mr. Garment. Let me undertake to find out whether that's an ap- 
propriate thing to do. We are dealing with a file at the Department of 
Justice, and that is a matter presumably related to one of the investi- 
gations, and properly so. And if it is proper for you to have access to 
it, it seems to me that should be done through the usual process by 


which documents of the Department of Justice are obtained. I am 
giving you my recollection of that phone conversation, I really do not 
think it would be appropriate to go much further than that. 

Mr. Lackritz. Do you recall passing this specific information or 
passing on copies of your notes to anybody else in the "V^%ite House 
other than Mr. Buzhardt ? 

Mr. Garment. I did not pass the notes to him. I did not pass the 
notes to anyone. I'm not even sure I discussed the matter with any- 
one. I may have discussed it with Doug Parker. It did not seem like 
a matter which at that time i-equired urgent attention. We had other 
problems at that time. 

Mr. Lackritz. I understand. Did you discuss this matter with the 
President ? 

Mr. Garment. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you or Mr. Smith or Mr. Fielding raise Donald 
Nixon's name in this respect ? 

Mr. Garment. I did not. nor did Mr. Fielding, nor did Mr. Smith. 
As to all of this. I should say that is my best recollection. My best 
recollection is that I did not, not that I do not have recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. I appreciate you checking on that for us. Mr. Gar- 
ment, can you tell us when you fii*st learned of the Hughes contribu- 
tion which !Mr. Rebozo received and the context of that ? 

Mr. Garment. I believe the first that I heard of this was in the 
course of a telephone call from then-Under Secretary of the Treasury 
William Simon. That was at the end of May or eariy June. 

Mr. Lackritz. 1973 ? 

Mr. Garment. 1973. In the course of which Mr. Simon said that 
there was information or that Mr. Rebozo was under investigation, 
and I believe he said the investigation moved to the special agent stage 
and involved the receipt of a campaign contribution which had not 
been delivered and w^hich. therefore, might be considered to be income, 
unreported income. And the substance of it, Mr. Simon said to me 
that this was a matter that might be potentially embarrassing to the 
President by reason of the closeness of Mr. Rebozo to the President, 
and that we should know about this. As I recall, that was the substance 
of what he told me on that subject in that conversation. He may have 
mentioned some other problem at that time. 

I fix that at the end of May or early June, because as I indicated 
to you, when we had an informal discussion about this previous dis- 
cussion that I had with Mr. Simon, again, as I recall, on his initiative, 
was with respect to the audit or the tax return of the President, that 
was around May 17, as I recall, that he called and told me that under 
the procedures of the IRS an audit was in order. 

I believe I mentioned that to General Haig. There was rapid agree- 
ment between us that this was a matter that should go the ordinary 
course of the IRS without any further ado or discussion. 

Mr. Armstrong. You are referring to the audit of the President and 
Mrs. Nixon? 

Mr. Garment. As I recall, I spoke to Mr. Simon and Mr. Alexander, 
who may have called me. I said, "Just proceed as if you were doing 
it with any other individual." I think I arranged — either I arranged 
or somebody arranged it — in any event, I conveyed the information 


that Mr. Bleck would sign the retiim as the preparer, and, therefore, 
did not need a power of attorney to meet with the IRS, would be in 
Washington, would meet with a designated official of the IRS to dis- 
cuss the return. I go through all that for the purpose of fixing the 
date of my subsequent conversation with Mr. Simon, w^hich, as I say, 
was the latter part of May or June, in connection with the investiga- 
tion by the IRS of Mr. Rebozo and the $100,000 in the safe-deposit 

He may at that time, also may have mentioned some other story or 
rumor floating around about a large, $1 million trust fund or invest- 
ment portfolio that was being jointly — ^that was being handled in some 
secret name by Mr. Rebozo or someone else for Mr. Rebozo. And of 
course it turned out there was nothing to it. That may have taken 
place in that convei^sation or in a subsequent conversation. 

Mr. Akmstrong. Mr. Simon places the conversation according to 
his phone logs on May 23, 1973, which would be the day following the 
President's May 22 address. 

Mr. Garment. I would not dispute that. It may well have been. It 
was either May or early June. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall what prompted Under Secretary 
Simon's call? Were you aware of whether there were any preceding 

Mr. Garment. I did not know of any preceding calls. Wlien he 
called me he just told me that piece of information. I recall discussing 
it with Mr. Buzhardt and with Doug Parker, who was working closely 
with me and with Fred Buzhardt at that time. Then, of course, I think 
Fred and I went over to discuss it with Al Haig. We also discussed it 
at a subsequent time with Mr. Rose. 

Mr. Armstrong. "We" being Mr. Buzhardt and yourself? 

Mr. Garment. Singly or together. It would be hard to be precise 
about either the day or the circumstances. I know I discussed it with 
him. I am quite sure we discussed it with him jointly at one or more 

The question that was raised was, what to do about this information, 
inasmuch as it could be embarrassing to the President because of the 
closeness of Mr. Rebozo to the President, and of course, the nature of 
the information and the implications of the information. We con- 
cluded rather early that it would be inappropriate for any of us to 
discuss the matter with Mr. Rebozo, and concluded that it would be 
appropriate and probably obligatory for us to advise the President 
of this. And General Haig was given that advice by all the lawyers 
who had functioned on the matter — who were then functioning on 
the matter. When he discussed the matter with the President? I do 
not know. I subsequently learned that he had. 

We all agreed that if Mr. Rebozo were under this kind of investi- 
gation, presumably he was represented by counsel. We could not find 
out because none of us were about to call him. But if the President 
discussed the matter with him and if he did not have counsel or did 
not have good, reliable, reputable, trustworthy — by that I mean a pro- 
fessional of professional competence and integrity who could advise 
him on the tax problems — that he certainly should have such counsel. 

At some point a little bit further down the road, in a matter of days 


or a week, I furnished to General Haig, Mr. Gemmill's name, Mr. 
Kenneth Gemmill, as a tax hiwyer who could provide such represen- 
tation if Mr. Rebozo needed a name or wanted a name. 

That is the substance of it. That recommendation and the recom- 
mendation of Mr. Gemmill's name came up sometime, I think, early 
June, middle of June. I am not quite sure when his name was broached. 
He may have already been consulted in connection with the matter 
of the Presidential papers. 

In any event, that was the name that was given to General Haig. 
I think he asked me for the name, and then I obtained the name and 
address and phone number, and that was given to General Haig on a 
card, which he then — I think at a subsequent time he was asked by 
Mr. Rebozo for a recommendation of counsel. That was the name 
that was given to him. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Under Secretary Simon indicated 
if he had discussed this matter earlier with General Haig when he 
called ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or that General Haig indicated to you to expect 
a call from Under Secretary Simon in this matter. 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that. Memories being what they are 
and particularly at that time. I would not rule out that possibility. I 
do not have a recollection of him saying to me, "You will be getting a 
call from Bill Simon about some such matter." But he might have. I do 
not recall that. 

Mr. Armstrong. After first speaking with Secretary Simon on the 
subject, did you request any further information or any more precise 
information ? 

Mr. GxVRiMENT. I do not believe so. I think I tried to figure out 
what stage this investigation would be at and what significance, what 
one could infer from the fact that it had reached the special agent 
stage. It was not until much later on that I learned from newspaper 
accounts that there were two investigations. One was an investigation 
into the Danner contribution, and the other was an investigation of 
Bebe Rebozo's own return. I may have that wrong at this point. But 
they dovetailed. The two investigations were going on pretty much at 
the same time. 

"Wliat I was trying to figure out, was whether he was already being 
represented by counsel at that time, whether he should know about this 
at this point. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when Mr. Simon first related the 
problem as he posed it to you, whether or not Donald Nixon's name 
was also mentioned ? 

Mr. Garment. No, I do not recall Donald Nixon's name being 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate that the Internal Revenue Service 
had already interviewed Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Garment. Mr. Simon ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that. He may have. 

IVIr. Armstrong. Do you recall if he read or indicated that he was 
reading from any specific memorandum ? 


Mr. Garment. It was a very brief conversation. That's the recol- 
lection that I have, and following that conversation, I made some 
effort to figure out as a matter of inference on the limited facts that 
were made available, whether he would have been notihed by the IRS 
and would have counsel and would himself be involved in the process 
officially to raise the matter with the President and to consider 
whether there was some potentially embarrassing material there that 
was part of the puzzle at that point, which leads me to believe that he 
did not go into that much detail with me. But he might have. 

Mr. Armstoong. Do you recall that the level of detail would indi- 
cate that there was a joint investigation ? 
Mr. Garment. No ; he did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Between the Audit and the Intelligence Divisions ? 
Mr. Garment. No ; he did not. I do not have any recollection of that. 
I did not learn that there was a joint investigation going on until 
much later on. 

Mr. Armstrong. He did indicate, however, that the subject of the 
investigation was the transfer of a substantial amount of cash, a 
$100,000 campaign contribution Mr. Rebozo had retained undis- 
closed ? 

Mr. Garment. Words to that effect, and that it had proceeded to 
whatever the term is, the special agent status, or a status that would 
indicate that there was a possibility that it had reached the stage of 
criminal investigation. 

Mr. Armstrong. In that context, then, did he indicate that the gen- 
eral funds transferred from one person to another for a particular 
purpose, but not used by the transferee for such a purpose, were gen- 
erally considered income for tax purposes ^ 

Mr. Garment. It was something said to that effect. In other words, 
I understood that there was a question of his not having reported 
income or being in a position — this is really quite vague and it may 
be something tliat I inferred from the convosation or from a dis- 
cussion with one of my colleagues — that was they claimed this would 
be moneys appropriated to his own purposes, and therefore, if he 
did not report it or did not deliver it to persons that it was to be 
delivered to, but held it with intent to use it for his own purposes, it 
might be considered in the nature of an embezzlement or something 
like that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate 

Mr. Garment. Let me make clear that these are not words that I am 
putting in someone's mouth, but this is the sense of the problem as I 
understood it at that time, which was rather puzzling to me. 

Mr. Armstrong. In an effort hopefully to refresh your recollection 
on this, because I realize — do you have any notes on this conversation ? 
Mr. Garment. None at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Let me go through what we have been told from 
what are purported to be notes that Mr. Simon used, although we 
were not able to get a copy, because of some of the bureaucratic prob- 
lems with the Internal Revenue Service and so forth. Did he indicate 
that the additional aspect of nondisclosure to any third party was sig- 
nificant in that, in such a transfer of cash and the retention of the cash, 
if the purpose or the fact that the cash was received was not disclosed. 


that that m itself Avas an indication of retention by the individual of 
the fact that it was taxable income? 

Mr. Garment, That he said that to me? 

Mr. Armstroxg. Words to that effect. 

~Sh: Garment. I don't recall that. He may have. 

]Mr. Armstrox(^,. Let me put it this way : JNIore simply put, it was 
that ]\Ir. Rolwzo had purpoi-tedly not told anyone that he had gotten 
the money. Was it indicated that that was in itself a tax problem? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall him going into that much detail with 

!Mr. Lackritz. Was there a discussion at that time 

Mr. Gar^iext. If you could indicate, are these notes that Simon made 
at the time of his phone conversation with me, or is this his recollection ? 

]Mr. Armstroxg. These are notes that he received from the Commis- 
sioner of the Internal Revenue Service, as I understand it, in order to 
use in his conversation with you, so he could be fairly explicit. 

^h\ Garmext. I do not think he was very explicit. That is the 
point I am making. I think he was rather guarded, as we all were, 
about getting into a whole lot of details of the problems of a taxpayer. 
That is why we were dancing around on the head of a pin to try to fig- 
ure out how to discharge what we thought were our responsibilities to 
the President on matters that might be embarrassing to him, because of 
the closeness of his relationship with Rebozo, and at the same time not 
make the kind of disclosure that would be an improper disclosure to 
someone who was the subject of an investigation. I think Mr. Simon 
himself was being cryptic and guarded in providing information that 
was very limited. 

I am quite confident about that because, as I say, I spent some time 
after that quite literally, as well as figuratively, scratching my head, 
trying to figure out what in the woi'ld was going on without getting in 
touch with anyone. It would have been very simple to pick up the 
phone and call Bebe Rebozo, but I did not do that, and I would not 
let anyone else do it. 

Mr. Lackritz. At the time that you had this discussion with Mr. 
Simon, was there a general discussion, or do you recall a general dis- 
cussion about the various factors which would be indicia of ownership 
of the money ? 

Mr. Garmext. I do not recall that. I may have called Alexander or 
Gemmill — I do not even know I knew Gemmill at that time — to try 
to find out if it had reached the stage of a special agent, what does 
that mean in terms of whether or not he would have counsel, would he 
have been notified, would he know what was going on, would this be 
a big secret to him ? 

Is he knowledgeable, so that there is no problem in someone talking 
to him about it ? 

And the information that I had was that he would certainly be 
knowledgeable about this at this point. He might be proceeding with 
his head in the sand, not retaining counsel, handling it himself. But the 
procedure was such that he received a notification to be called in, he 
would have gone through various steps in the investigation procedure 
which would make clear that he had knowledge. 

I undertook that to find out myself from persons other than Bill 
Simon, and I believe other than Don Alexander, which leads me to 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 22 


conclude from all that, that this kind of detail was not involved in my 
discussion with either of them at any point. 

Mr. Lackritz. I guess what you are saying is, your concern was more 
on the state of knowledge of the investigation, as opposed to the legal 
points that were involved ? 

Mr. Garment. The questions were: Where was the investigation? 
Would he have counsel at this point ? Would he know what was going 
on ? And what would be the appropriate thing to do ? 

In other words, I was not at that point trying to determine, and no- 
body was working out with me, what inferences might be drawn from 
the fact that he had not disclosed the matter to anyone else. 

Mr. Lackritz. Certainly, that knowledge would be material in de- 
termining what course of action to take, would it not ? In other words, 
some discussion about the legal ramifications of his factual situation 
would have some bearing on what action you were to take, would it 

Mr. Garment. In relation to what? In relation to notifying the 
President ? 

Mr. Lackritz. Certainly, the notifying of the President and cer- 
tainly knowing w^hat comisel he may have had or what counsel he 
should have. 

Mr. Garment. I think you are right. There may have been some 
internal speculation about : What did he do ? What did he have ? What 
had he done with the money ? Did anyone know ? I said, "I am not 
going to talk to him, I do not think anyone else should talk to him." 

Mr. Armstrong. Was there any discussion initially witli Mr. Buz- 
hardt or Mr. Parker about whether or not it would be appropriate for 
anyone from the White House to actually represent Mr. Eebozo ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall that discussion. 

Mr. Armstrong. I understood you said there was a discussion of 
whether or not it would be appropriate to discuss it at all with him. 
The decision was that it was inappropriate? 

Mr. Garment. Right. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was there a further discussion or a preceding dis- 
cussion of whether or not the individual from the White House should 
actually represent him, to discuss it with him in an attorney-client 
relationship ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall any such discussion. If there was, I 
would say I was not party to any such discussion. It would have 
struck me as a very strange thing to do. 

Mr. Armstrong. The discussions that you had with Mr. Buzhardt 
and Mr. Parker and subsequently with Mr. Buzhardt and General 
Haig, did these take place on the same day that you received the call, 
as best you can recall ? 

Mr. Garment. I really do not recall. I imagine, I would guess that 
they would have been the same day. 

Mr. Armstrong. Reasonably timely, that day or the next day ? 

Mr. Garment. Right. 

Mr. Armstrong. I gather in the meeting with General Haig it w^as 
decided that it would be appropriate to advise the President, and 
General Haig indicated he would? 


Mr. Garmext. That took a little bit of time before he reached that 
point — what to do. I am not sure it was in that one meeting, in that 
meeting. I think there may have been some interval of time from 
the time that this information came to me or us. 

I understand from the newspaper accounts and otherwise that 
General Haig had a conversation with Mr. Simon also. In any event, 
I do not believe that there was a decision not to discuss it wath Mr. 
Kebozo and to discuss it with the President and that General Haig 
should discuss it with the President in that order at one time in one 

Mr. Armstroxg. Can you explain wdiat the issues were in terms of 
whether or not it was appropriate to advise the President? Was there 
some resistance to that idea? Did someone feel that it might be 
inappropriate to advise the President? 

Mr. Garmext. The question, in general terms, was about the impli- 
cations of the problem itself. What might have transpired we just did 
not loiow, I did not know. I am quite sure that Fred Buzhardt did 
not know. I am equally sure that Al Haig did not know, and certainly 
Mr. Rose did not know. And there was discussion about, how could we 
find out. The only one who had any information about this pre- 
sumably would be Mr. Rebozo, of a firsthand nature. 

I think Ave rather quickly and unanimously concluded — I know that 
I personally, to speak for myself, and Fred, and Rose — the lawyers 
were very clear tliat it would not be proper to discuss the matter with 
]Mr. Rebozo. 

There were other problems that were occupying the attention and 
time of all of us at that time. I think it might have gotten on the 
back burner for a matter of days, while we thought about it, and it 
was a subject of some concern. Finally, the conclusion was reached. 
How? I do not specifically recall. The conclusion was reached that 
the only thing that could be done that would meet the dual needs of 
advising the President of something that could be quite embarrassing 
to him if it broke without him knowing anything about it because of 
his closeness with ]Mr. Rebozo and because of certain inferences that 
might be drawn from the facts, whatever those facts were, all at the 
same time not making a disclosure of investigatory information to 
Rebozo, was to have General Haig advise the President of this investi- 

Mr. Armstroxg. Was there discussion as to the appropriateness of 
having the President then advise Mr. Rebozo? 

^Ir. Garmext. I do not recall tliat. I think that was a question that 
would be a matter for the President's own judgment: No. 1, what his 
own state of knowledge was on the subject; No. 2, what he would want 
to do at that point in the way of asking questions and trying to ascer- 
tain what had transpired and what should be done from that point on. 

We felt that we should advise the President and he should determine 
on his own what to do. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Was there any advice to the President, though, 
in terms of any counsel or caution that he might consider before ad- 
vising Mr. Rebozo ? 

]Mr. Garmext. I do not recall that. I do not even recall that we got 
into that degree of detail. 


Mr. Armstrong. Was it prior to General Haig's having advised the 
President — let me put it this way — prior to the decision that General 
Haig ought to advise the President, that it was suggested that if Mr. 
Rebozo did not have appropriate, good, reliable counsel, that he should 
have, and he did have such a name of such a counsel ? Was this some- 
thing that General Haig took in at the same time ? 

Mr. Garment. I would have to guess on that. My recollection is, my 
best recollection is that they were more or less contemporaneous. You 
say "take in," you mean the name of the counsel or the advice? 

Mr. Armstrong. The advice. 

Mr. Garment. That he did discuss it with him and Mr. Rebozo did 
not have counsel, he certainly should have counsel? 

Mr. Armstrong. That someone in the White House was aware of 
appropriate counsel ? 

Mr. Garment. That is right. 

Mr. Armstrong. You believe that tliat did go in? 

Mr. Garinient. That is my best recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Gemmill came 

Mr. Garment. Mr. Armstrong, I think that Ken Gemmill came into 
the picture a little later on, which would lead me again — in an attempt 
to reconstruct the sequence and substance of the event — to believe that 
this matter of suggesting Gemmill would have taken place — or for 
that matter, the matter of advising the President — would have taken 
place perhaps a week or 2 or 3 weeks after the information first came 
to my attention from Mr. Simon, that there would have been a lag in 
between, while other things were occupying our attention or while we 
were trying to determine what would be the proper course of conduct, 
proper course of action. 

Mr. Armstrong. It is your belief that at the occasion when the de- 
cision was made that General Haiof should advise the President was 
closer to the time that Mr. Gemmill's name was given than it was to 
the time that you were originally informed ? 

Mr. Garment. That is right. That would be my best recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Gemmill has represented the President in tax 
matters before the Internal Revenue Service. Do you recall at this time 
whethei" Mr. Gemmill had been consulted ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not believe so. I believe the first time — the first 
occasion that I had anything to do with Ken Gemmill and tax prob- 
lems was on the matter of tlie Presidential papers. I may be wrong. 
There may have been something else, there were so many things going 
on at that time. Telephone logs indicate that my fii'st conversation 
would have been about the time that the Washington Post story on the 
Presidential papers broke, and that would be early in June. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you know how you obtained Mr. Gemmill's 

Mr. Garment. From Mr. Rose. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Rose had been associated with Mr. Gemmill? 

Mr. Garment. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when Mr. Rose was first consulted ? 

Mr. Garment. Consulted about what ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Consulted about Mr. Rebozo's tax problems. 

Mr. Garment. Mr. Rose was consulted by me from time to time on 
a variety of Watergate matters going back, really, to early April. So it 


would be a little hard to pinpoint when this was. It w^as shortly after 
when I first heard about this. I would call Mr. Eose and say, "What do 
you think?" 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall, was there any particular role that 
]\Ir. Kose played, was there any expertise on his part in the consulta- 

Mr. Garment. Judgment. 

Mr. Armstrong. Being more familiar, perhaps, than Mr. Buzhardt, 
than youi"self , about tax problems ? 

]\Ir. Garment. Infinitely more than me. Besides tax expertise in his 
case, the judgment of a man wise in the matters of law and govern- 
ment. And he, of course, suggested Ken Gemmill as a tax specialist. 

Mr. Arivistrong. Do you recall when General Haig heard the sub- 
stance of what you heard from Mr. Simon ? 

Mr, Garment. I do not have a precise recollection. I believe I — we, 
learned about it sometime after it took place, and from General Haig. 
"We were meeting all the time. Either I would meet wnth Al Haig or 
Fred and myself, or Fred and Chappie and myself. And the meetings 
were a constant floating conference. It wovdd be hard to be precise 
about when one learned about any particular matter. They were multi- 
subject meetings, telephone conversations in different places, frag- 
ments of one subject overlapping another. It would be very difficult to 
be precise about it. 

5lr. Armstrong. Do you recall if General Haig related at that time — 
by that I mean subject to having related it to the President — what 
the President's reaction was, or any comments the President made on 
that subject? 

Mr. Garment. I do not have a recollection of that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether he related at that or any 
other time that the President seemed familiar with the problem, the 
details ? 

Mr. Garment. I am not sure. If I had to lean one way or another 
on my recollection — and I am doing a certain amount of informed 
guessing about these matters — with that caveat, I would say the gen- 
eral impression I retain is that the President did not know or did not 
know much of the details of the matter. But he may very well have in- 
dicated otherwise. That is quite a shadowy recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. You indicated, I believe, that General Haig did 
come to you and ask for Mr. Gemmill's name and address ? 

^Ir. Garment. I do not think he came to me. I recall that I was in an 
office, probably his office, and I think he said that Mr. Rebozo wanted 
the name of that lawyer. I do not think that General Haig at that 
point knew Ken Gemmill. And I have a recollection on this of asking 
General Haig's secretai-y to call over to my secretary. Then she w^rote 
down on a piece of paper or a card Mr. Gemmill's phone number and 
address in Philadelphia. That was given to him. He called back or 
gave it to him when he saw him. I just do not know how that took 

Mr. Armstrong. Were you informed later as to whether or not Mr. 
Eebozo had received Mr. GemmilFs name and how that had taken 

Mr. Garment. I learned at some later point that he had received 
the name that he had asked for, that he was given it by General Haig. 


And I do not recall, I am not sure that I know that it was done on the 
telephone, or in person, or by mail. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you were informed that the Presi- 
dent had requested that General Haig talk to Mr. Eebozo ? 

Mr. Garment. He may have. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you discuss this subject at any time, or were 
you present at any discussions Avith the President on this subject? 

Mr. Garment. No ; I was not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you discussed this subject at any time with 
Miss Kose Mary Woods? 

Mr. Garment. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first became aware that 
Miss Rose Mary Woods had been informed, or that Mr. Rebozo alleged 
that Miss Rose Mary Woods had been informed of the receipt of the 
contribution at an earlier date, a date earlier than Mr. Simon's call 
to you ? 

Mr. Garment. I would ask you to put the question again. I don't 
think it's necessary, because I do not think I have any information 
on that subject earlier than the time that I read about it in the news- 
papers. The answer is probably no. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any discussions within the White 
House about the Hughes contribution to Mr. Rebozo that occurred 
prior to May 23, or prior to the call from Mr. Simon ? 

Mr. Garment. Am I aw^are of any ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Garment. Did I participate in any ? No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or whether Mr. Ehrlichman had learned from the 
Internal Revenue Service or the Department of the Treasury that this 
problem had occurred, that Mr. Rebozo had heard in April 1973 ? 

Mr. Garment. The first I heard of that was when you raised the 
subject informally. 


Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first learned of the alleged 
meeting between Mr. Kalmbach and Mr. Rebozo on April 30, 1973 ? 

Mr. Garment. I learned about that in the press. 

Mr. Armstrong. From published accounts ? 

Mr. Garment. Published material, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if subsequently you have learned 
whether or not there was such a meeting on April 30 between Mr. 
Kalmbach and Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. Garment. 1 have no knowledge about that, 

Mr. Armstrong. Whether Mr. Rebozo spoke to Mr. Kalmbach 
regarding the Hughes contribution ? 

Mr. Garment. I have no knowledge. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you know — have you learned that the President 
at any time instructed Mr. Rebozo to speak to anyone regarding the 
Hughes contribution ? 

Mr. Garment. I have no knowledge ; I do not know. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall seeing Mr. Rebozo in the Wliite 
House on April 30 or about that time ? 


Mr. Garment. I recall that I did see him at that time very briefly, 
and we had no discussions about any specific problem. I think I saw 
him — it may ha^•e been about the time that the President was prepar- 
ing to make'^his April 30 speech, and I think that that Avas a very brief 
passage between us in which Mr. Rebozo reflected his pei-sonal sadness 
about the events of the day. 

j\Ir. Armstrong. Did he indicate any specific knowledge or in- 
formation about the events of the day ? 

Mr. Garment. Xo ; we did not get into that at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you were present or aware of any 
events at Camp David 

Mr. Garment. I am pretty sure it was that day or the next day. It 
was right at that time. ^ly recollection is it was that day. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you were present at Camp David 
or were aware of the events at Camp David on the weekend of May 20, 
immediately preceding the President's May 22 speech ? 

Mr. Garment. Xo. 

Mr. Lackritz. Are you saying that you were not there? 

Mr. Garment. You say May 20 ^ 

Mr. Lackritz. May 19 and 20. 

Mr. Garment. May 19 and 20 i 

Mr. Armstrong. Preceding the speech on May 22. 

Mr. Garment. It was not a speech, it was a statement. 

Mr. Armstrong. The statement, I am sorry. 

Mr, Garment. I was not up there then. I was working on that state- 
ment back home. 

Mr. Armstrong. In Washington ? 

Mr. Garment. In Washington. I was there April 30, the weekend 
preceding that. I was at Camp David — not in May, 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you learned at any time that Mr. 
Danner was present on the weekend of May 19 or 20 ? 

jNIr. Garment. I have no knowledge about that. 

Mr. Armstrong. On the weekend of April 30 at Camp David, do 
you recall whether Mr. Rebozo was present ? 

Mr. Garment. I did not see him if he was. 

Mr. Lackritz. Before we leave the April 30 date, do you recall seeing 
Mr. Kalmbach around that period of time? 

Mr. Garment. Xo ; I do not recall seeing him. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you acquainted with Mr. William Griffin, Mr. 
Abplanalp's attorney ? 

Mr. Garment. I know him. I'm not sure I have ever seen him. I 
think we have talked on the phone once or twice. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall generally what the subject of those 
conversations were ? 

Mr. Schultz. '\^^iy not be more specific? Having to do with the 
Rebozo matter and the $100,000 ? 

Mr. Armstrong. If Mr. Garment can recall the subject of the con- 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall the subjects of the conversations. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if it in any way concerned the $100,- 
000 to Rebozo, the Hughes contribution ? 


Mr. Garment. No ; I do not recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether it involved the B. & C. 
Investment Co. ? 

Mr. Garment. I am trying to recall what I did speak to him about. 
I know that I did talk to him once or twice. For the life of me, I 
cannot recall what it was. It might have been one of the technical 
details of the investment situation or the property situation. I could 
go through a whole lot of may-have-beens, but I do not recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether it was in connection with the 
audit of the President's personal finances? 

Mr. Garment. I do not believe it was. I had virtually nothing to do 
with that other than — well, I had virtually nothing to do with it. 

Mr, Armstrong. Do you recall whether it had to do with Mr. Grif- 
fin's purchase of the President's property in the Cape Florida develop- 
ment in Florida ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not believe so. I believe it had something to do 
with one or another of the hundreds of newsstories at that time that 
I was checking with him about something, trying to get some informa- 
tion about one of the stories, to try to verify or contradict, to find out 
what the information was. That is the closest I come to it. It may have 
been something entirely different. I really do not have a recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall when you first learned, if in fact you 
did, that Mr. Griffin had represented or consulted Mr. Kebozo regard- 
ing the $100,000 Hughes contribution ? 

Mr. Garment. I do not recall learning anything about that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or Mr. Griffin was involved with the $100,000 re- 
turned to the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. Garment. I believe that I learned about that in the public 

Mr. Armstrong. Has anyone ever told you or speculated with you 
or have you ever stated that you felt that the President had a legal 
problem associated with the Hughes contribution ? 

Mr. Garment. No. On the terms that you are putting it that the 
President himself personally had a legal problem there, the answer 
would be no. 

Mr. Armstrong. Would the President have a legal problem in con- 
junction with Mr. Kebozo's handling of the money or use of the 
money ? 

]Mr. Garment. Quite obviously, on certain hypothetical bases, none 
of which have been demonstrated as far as I know, there would be 
problems. There were never any facts that were discussed in my pres- 
ence by any of the persons involved in this matter that would indicate 
knew that you didn't, that he had a legal problem ? 

Mr. Armstrong. No one indicated to you, based on facts that they 
know that you didn't, that he had a legal problem ? 

Mr. Garment. That is right. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any of the concerns that associates 
of the President or individuals mi^ht have, any of the concerns they 
had regarding F. Donald Nixon during the course of the first adminis- 
tration ? 

Mr. Garment. Only in the most general terms. I had nothing to do — 
F. Donald Nixon is which one? Is that the nephew or is that the 
brother ? 


Mr. Armstrong. The brother. 

Mr. Garment. No; I do not liave specific knoAvledge. I know there 
have been discussions from time to time about them, concerns or prob- 
lems. I would not be able to identify them or identify the extent of the 

Mr, Armstrong. Are you associated with Mr. Stanley McKiernan ? 

Mr. Garment. Xo. 

jNIr. Armstrong. Have you ever talked to him on the phone ? 

Mr. (tarment. I may have had to convey a piece of information. I 
doubt that I did. I have no recollection what that information Avould 
have been, if I did convey it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you were aware at the time that 
it was prepared and, subsequently, of a briefing book on F. Donald 
Nixon's potential legal problems and Edward Nixon's potential legal 
problems or conflicts, as prepared by ]Mr. McKiernan? 

]\Ir. Garment. "Was I aware at or about the time it was prepared? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

;Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you become aware of it subsequently? 

Mr. Garment. I have heard of such a book. I have not seen it and 
know nothing about it. I have heard reference to a book or read ref- 
erence to a book. 

yh\ Armstrong. Do you recall any reference in the "WTiite House ? 

jVIr. Garment. I did. 

^Ir. Armstrong. Do you recall from whom you heard that? 

^Ir. Garment. Fred Buzhardt. 

]Mr. Armstrong. What was the discussion at that time ? 

Mr. Garment. All I recall was — ^there was reference to a book which 
contained information with resipect to certain matters, ^vhether they 
were problems or what, but information related to Donald Nixon or 
the Nixon brothers or the Nixon family. I really could not be more 
precise than that. 

Mr. ScHULTz. Was there any indication that these problems, 
wliether they were real or imagined, were in any way connected with 
the 1972 Presidential campaign ? 

Mr. Garment. No indication at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Buzhardt was attempting to 
locate the book if it had been misplaced ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

yir. Armstrong. Do you have any knowledge of a meeting in Jan- 
uary 1974 between the President and his two brothers and Mr. Mc- 
Kiernan in San Clemente ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any knowledge of any plan for or 
attempt to break in or actual break-in of the premises of Hank Green- 
spun ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Any information that — I believe there was a dis- 
cussion between the President and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlich- 
man in one of the transcripts that was released to the House Judiciary 
Committee. I believe it is the April 14, 1973, transcript. Do vou have 
any more information on what is contained in that ? 


Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any expenditures that Mr. Re- 
bozo had made on behalf of the President, or any cash or any items of 
value that Mr. Rebozo has given to the President ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you, yourself, heard of any Presidential con- 
versations — tapes of Presidential conversations? 

Mr. Garment. I have heard a few. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do any of those include presently unpublished 

Mr. Garment. I would not know. I may have heard one that is in- 
volved in the Vesco case. I do not think that was published. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall whether you heard the September 15 
1972, tape? 

Mr. Garment. I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you ever heard of any tapes of 
Presidential conversations between Mr. Rebozo and the President? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or seen any transcripts or are aware of any tran- 
scripts of any conversations ? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware, other than the tapes that were under 
consideration before Judge Sirica in November, December, this year 
in the hearings that took place regarding those tapes, other than the 
tapes in question there, are you aware of any erasures or gaps or altera- 
tions of tapes, or of any changes of custody other than those in the 
custody of the Secret Service or General Bennett? 

Mr. Garment. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. That's all I have. 

Mr. ScHULTz. No questions. 

Mr. SiLVERSTEiN. No questious. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :45 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 

WEDNESDAY. MAY 22, 1974 

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

Washington, B.C. 

The Select Committee met, piirsiuint to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 
G-o34, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator AVeicker. 

Also present : Fred D. Thompson, minority counsel ; Terry Lenzner, 
assistant chief counsel; Scott Armstrong and Mary DeOreo, investi- 
gators; Richard L. Schultz, assistant minority counsel; and Emily 
Sheketoff, research assistant. 

Senator Weicker. Will you raise your right hand? Do you swear 
that the evidence you shall give to the committee is the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I do. 

Senator "Weicker. So sworn. 

Mr. Armstrong. The purpose of this afternoon's session is to cover 
some areas with Mr. Higby, and to determine, within his knowledge, 
what he may know about some areas relating to the Hughes contri- 
bution to Mr. Rebozo. related to concerns about F. Donald Nixon and 
the White House, and related to concerns about Lawrence O'Brien 
and the '\A'Tiite House, as well as to cover some materials relating 
to Mr. Haldeman and others which were covered on prior interviews. 

This is Mr. Higby's first executive session — first interview under 
oath; so we may cover some materials co^'ered previously not under 
oath. We will request — is it your desire to have a copy of the tran- 
script ? 



Mr. Higby. If possible. 

Mr. Armstrong. We will request it from the committee, and as a 
matter of course, the committee has always granted it. But they do 
have to vote. 

Mr. Higby. I understand. Thank you. 

Mr. Armstrong. For the record, could you state your full name and 
address ? 

Mr. Higby. Lawrence Mead Higby, H-i-g-b-y, is the spelling of the 
last name ; address, 5002 Brookway Street, Bethesda, Md. 

Mr. Armstrong. And your present employment? 

Mr. Higby. I am presently employed by the Office of Management 
and Budget. 

Mr. Armstrong. In what capacity ? 



Mr. HiGBY. Special Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Director. 

Mr. Armstrong. The Deputy Director is 

Mr. HiGBY. Mr. Malek. 

Mr. Armstrong. How long have you been in that position ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Approximately 1 year. 

Mr. Armstrong. Prior to that time ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I was deputy assistant to the President, serving as 
principal deputy to H.R. Haldeman, who was chief of staff at the 
White House, with one brief interlude of about 3 weeks, when I served 
as a deputy to Haig during the initial transition phase after Mr. 
Haldeman left. 

Mr. Armstrong. When did you first come to the White House? 

Mr. HiGBY. January 20, 1969. 

Mr. Armstrong. And from that period until the time you departed — 
until the time Mr. Haldeman departed — you served as his principal 

Mr. HiGBY. No. I worked in various capacities for him, starting out 
as a staff assistant, and eventually ending up as his principal aide, and 
then his deputy. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, can you relate for us what, if any, knowledge 
you have of the Howard Hughes contribution to Mr. Charles "Bebe" 
Rebozo ? 

Mr. HiGBY. To the best of my knowledge, and to the best of my 
recollection, I have no knowledge of it. 

Mr. Armstrong. You first learned of that contribution from press 
accounts ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us if there is any relevant background 
information — any information that you feel is relevant to offer by way 
of background information to that transaction ? Let us go off the record 
for a second. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Armstrong. Back on the record. You may put that on. 

Mr. Higby. I have no knowledge of the Hughes contribution. I am, 
however, aware of the fact that Mr. Haldeman told me that during 
one of the discussions he had with the President at the time of, or im- 
mediately after, his resignation, the President indicated that Mr. 
Rebozo did have some funds that could be made available to Mr. 
Haldeman, and, as I understand it, also to ]Mr. Ehrlichman, for the 
purpose of assisting their legal defense. And that is all. 

Mr. Armstrong. \Yhen did Mr. Haldeman relate this to you ? 

Mr. Higby. Oh, I would say right before, or right after, his resigna- 
tion from the White House, which was April 30, 1973. 

Mr. Armstrong. And he indicated that, just prior to that — I mean, 
the President had indicated that information to him ? 

Mr. Higby. Not just prior to that, but within the span of a few days. 

Mr. Armstrong. Certainly within the period, April 15 to April 30 — 
that his resignation was being discussed ? 

Mr. Higby. Yes, I believe so. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did he indicate whether or not he had had any 
further discussions with the President on that subject? 

Mr. Higby. To my knowledge, he did not. He never indicated it to 
me ; whether he did or did not. 


Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate whether he took any action on that 
advice ? 

jSIr. HiGBY. Xot to me ; no. 

]Mr. Arivistrong. Off the record for a second. 

[Discussion off' the record.] 

Mr. Armstrong. All right, back on the record. Do you recall where 
this conversation took place with Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I really do not ; no. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Was anyone else present ^ 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I do not believe so. I do not recall anyone being 
present. I don't recall anything other than the fact that he said it to 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Haldeman had been seeking — 
had been attempting to locate or ascertain where he might get fmids 
for legal defense ? 

]\Ir. HiGBY. I do not know if he had specifically been trying to as- 
certain them. I know that was one of the primary considerations; one 
of his major considerations and concerns at the time of resignation, 
both in terms of general legal defense and just in terms of money to 
live on. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Haldeman indicate — do you know if Mr. 
Haldeman had any discussions with Mr. Eebozo on that subject? 

]\Ir. HiGBY. No, I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you want to follow that up ? I will come back to 

ISIr. Lenzner. Do yovi know if Mr. Haldeman ever had any financial 
transactions with ]Mr. Rebozo at any time ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I do not. To my knowledge he did not ; none that I 
am aware of. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if they e^e^ discussed any specific 
financial transactions? 

]Mr. HiGBY. Gee, not to my knowledge; no. Can you give me any 
areas or anything that might probe? I do not recall any; no. 

Mr. Lenzner. OK. Did you see Mr. Rebozo on or about the time 
tliat Mr. Haldeman advised you that Mr. Rebozo might have or had 
funds for legal defense ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I do not believe so. I do not believe I have seen 
Rebozo since the last time I was down at Key Biscayne which must be 
more than a couple of months Iwfore Haldeman left, other than I 
have seen him in the hali wandering around the White House; but 
I mean to have a conversation with him. 

Mr. Lenzner, Did you see him wandering about the hallways about 
the same time that Mr. Haldeman advised you concerning the money 
that Mr. Rebozo had ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I do not know. He came up and spent some time with 
the President, as I recall, shortly after Mr. Haldeman left, but I do 
not associate the two events particularly, Terry. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know what the purpose of his spending time 
with the President was ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I think in his role of being the President's friend. I 
think tlie President was very distraught over the departures of 
Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman. 


. Mr. Armstrong. We can return to that subject. 

Mr.HiGBY. OK. 

Mr. Armstrong. I would like to have you identify if you can, 
Larry — we will have this marked as exhibit 1 for identification — a 
memorandum from Mr. Safire to Mr. Haldeman, dated August 4, 1970. 

Mr. HiGBY. I cannot identify it. It does not ring any particular 
bells in my mind. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can we have that marked as exhibit 1 ? 

[Whereupon, the letter referred to was marked Higby exhibit No. 1, 
for identification.^] 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe the item attached to it we will have 
marked for identification as exhibit 2 — was probably attached to this 
first memorandum from Mr. Safire. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Higby exhibit 
No. 2, for identification.-] 

Mr. Higby. I am not following you, Scott. Do you mean this [in- 
dicating] was probably attached to this [indicating] ? 

Mr. Armstrong. No. The page from Newsweek, which is attached 
to the exhibit 2, which is the memorandum from Mr. Haldeman and 
Mr. Dean dated August 5, 1970. It is my belief that that was originally 
attached to the August 4 memorandum. Can you identify the second 
page, the attachment page, of exhibit 2 ? 

Mr. Higby. Periscope is a column that is published at the front of 

Mr. Armstrong. It makes a reference to Mr. O'Brien. 

Mr. Higby. Where? 

Mr. Armstrong. Down in the body. 

Mr. Higby. Where? [Pause] Here. Here it is. "Clout, Inc. — high 
powered, new international consulting firm." 

Mr. Armstrong. That is the correct section. 

Mr. Higby. Yes, I see it. I see the reference to Larry O'Brien. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall having seen that before? Does it 
ring any bells ? 

Mr. Higby. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. And the cover memorandum, the first page of 
exhibit 2, to Mr. Dean ? 

Mr. Higby. It does not ring any bells. Literally hundreds of papers 
went over my desk a week, and this one does not stand out in any 
particular way as being significant. 

Mr. Armstrong. I have a memorandum from Mr. Dean to Mr. 
Haldeman, dated August 18, 1970. We will have it marked as exhibit 
3 for identification. Can you identify that ? Take your time. 

[Whereupon, the letter was marked Higby exhibit No. 3 for 

Mr. Higby. I guess the word "market" — "Obviously this kind of 
service can best be marketed if it is nonpartisan." 

I cannot identify this memorandum other than it seems to be an 
obvious response to Haldeman 's memorandum to Dean. 

Mr. Armstrong. You do not recall having seen it ? 

Mr. Higby. No, sir. I am sorry, I do not. 

1 See p. 11114. 

2 See p. 11115. 

3 See p. 11117. 


Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of seeing Haldeman's 
memo to Dean that is made reference to, I think in the first sentence 
there; and the date would have been January 18 

Mr. HiGBY. No. I think it says clearly here, Mr. Lenzner, "Au- 
gust 15th." 

Mr. Armstrong. Which is the memorandum you were shown 
previously ? 

Mr. HiGBY. That is right. 

Mr. Armstrong. August 4 is the Safire memorandum to Haldeman. 
August 5 is the Haldeman to Dean memorandum. 

Mr. HiGBY. Are we going to go through all of those ? 

Mr. Lenzner. [Nods affirmatively.] 

Mr. HiGBY. Why don't you give me the stack ? 

Mr. Armstrong. This we'll have marked as exhibit 4. 

[Whereupon, the letter referred to was marked Higby exhibit No. 4, 
for identification.*] 

Mr. Armstrong. That is a series of memorandums from Mr. Caul- 
field to Mr. Dean which may or may not have been attached to exhibit 
3. And I show you those again to ask you if any of those look familiar ? 

Mr. Higby. No, I am sorry, they do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. One is from Mr. Huston to Mr. Dean. 

Mr. Higby. Is there any indication on any of them that I have seen 
them i I notice that a page is turned over here. Are there initials or 
markings of mine on them — on any copies that you have ? 

Mr. Armstrong. I do not believe so. I believe we have the copies 
which were probably file copies. 

Mr. Higby. Copies of copies, so to speak ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Copies of file copies, yes. 

Mr. Higby. No; these memorandums are not familiar to me. 

Mr. Armstrong. Does the subject or substance of those memoran- 
dums—do you recall any concern or investigations or any discussions 
with Mr. Haldeman on those subjects ? 

Mr. Higby. On those subjects there? No. To save time, Scott, why 
don't we see if we can narrow it down a little bit ? What I do recall is 
a general discussion at the time Mr. O'Brien became chairman of the 
Democratic National Committee — and I do not recall when that was — 
that he Avas, in fact, looking for another corporation and was not 
taking any money, but was apparently a lobbyist for a particular 
group or something like that. And I thought that it was the Ford 
Foundation that was paying him, or something like that. But appar- 
ently I am wrong. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall how you learned of that? 

Mr. Higby. I thought Colson raised the subject, but I may be wrong. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Colson indicate interest in O'Brien at various 
times that you are aware of ? 

Mr. Higby. I think so. I do not recall any specific occasion other than 
the one I have just related to you. 

Mr. Lenzner. Who else was present besides Mr. Colson at the time 
that you talked about Mr. O'Brien's other 

Mr. Higby. I am not sure if it was a meeting or via memorandum, 
Terry, to be honest with you. I vaguely recall the fact that Colson 

*See p. 11119. 


raised the concern about O'Brien and the dual role of being chairman 
of a major political party while also apparently part of a proht or 
private or public foundation involved with certain activities. 

Mr. Armstoong. Do you recall the time period during which he 
raised this concern ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes, as I recall it, it was shortly after O'Brien became 
chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 

Mr. Armstrong. Which would have been in early 1971 ? 

Mr. Higby. When was that 'i Your guess is as good as mine. 

Mr, Armstrong. Do you recall w^hat action, if any, Mr. Colson's 
concern precipitated ? 

Mr. Higby. I am not sure whether it precipitated any action with 
anybody like Dean. I am not sure whether it did or did not. I am, 
frankly, not sure what action it precipitated, but I do recall that it 
was a concern raised, or a point raised. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr. Bob Bennett, son of Senator 
Wallace Bemiett — if his name came up in the course of whatever con- 
cern Mr. Colson expressed ? 

Mr. Higby, The only thing Bennett rings a bell on is the stuff that 
has come out in the Post in the last couple of months, on the CIA. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mr, Colson's concern involved 
the concern that Mr, O'Brien had been employed by Howard Hughes 
or the Hughes Tool Co, ? 

Mr. Higby. I cannot recall a link with Hughes and O'Brien. No, 
that does not ring a bell. - - 

Mr. Armstrong. All right, let me 

Mr, Lenzner. Excuse me. Did you say reference in the newspapers 
to Bennett's connection with the CIA rings a bell to you ? 

Mr, Higby, I said that is the only connection that Bennett's name 
rings a bell to me is reading it in the Post. 

Mr. Lenzner, You are not suggesting that you have independent 
information relating to the stories in the Post ? 

Mr, Higby, No, No, Teri-y, I am not, 

Mr, Armstrong, I would like to show you a group of memorandums. 
The first memorandmn from Mr, Colson to Mr. Goodearle dated Jan- 
uary 15, 1971, 

Mr, Higby, G-o-o-d-e-a-r-l-e. 

Mr. Armstrong. The second is a memorandum from Mr. Caulfield 
to Mr. Dean dated January 22, 1971. The third is a memorandum from 
Mr. Caulfield to Mr. Dean dated January 25, 1971. The fourth is a 
memorandum from Mr, Dean to Mr. Haldeman dated January 26, 
1971. The next is a memorandum from Mr, Haldeman to Mr, Dean 
dated January 28, 1971. A memorandum from Mr. Caulfield to Mr. 
Dean, February 1, 1971. Mr, Caulfield to Mr, Dean, February 3, 1971, 
Mr. Dean to Mr. Caulfield, February 5, 1971. And a nondated memo- 
randum which, I believe, is from Mr. Caulfield to Mr. Dean. Those 
will be exhibit 5 for identification. 

Mr. HousER. Scott, for clarification, do you want to mark that as 
exhibit 5-A, B, C, D, et cetera ? 

Mr. Lenzner. That is a good idea. If he makes reference to one, we 
will know which one he is talking about. 


[Whereupon, the letters referred to were marked Higby exhibits 
Xos. 5-A through 5-1, for identilication.*] 

Mr. Higby, Gee, the whole cast of characters is in here. [Pause.] 
Scott, in quick reading, the only thing that rings any bells in here 
is — there was, I know, some thought about how this relationship — 
once again a relationship I thought was one with the foundation or 
someone else, I did not think it was Hughes, although all of this 
points so strongly in that direction. Maybe Hughes was the contact — 
could be made public. But none of these memorandmns specihcally 
mean anything to me beyond what I have just told you. 

Mr. Lenzxer. When you say "made public," are you referring to 
furnishing them information regarding this relationship to the new3 
media in some respect t 

Mr. Higby. Yes, I think that was the general idea. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Do you remember wliose idea that was? 

Mr. Higby. No, but I assume that it would have revolved around 
the Colson area. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you remember any newsmen specifically that they 
might have had in mind ? 

Mr. Higby. No, I am not even sure that it ever did become public. 

Mr. Armstrong. Exhibit 5-D, which is Mr. Dean's memorandum 
from Mr. Haldeman on January 26, 1971, makes reference, it opens, 
"Pursuant to your memorandum of January 18, 1971, I have con- 
ducted an inquiry into the relationship between Larry O'Brien and 
Howard Hughes."' Do you recall that memorandum and what request 
was made in that memorandum ? 

Mr. Higby. I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you seen that memorandum since Mr. Halde- 
man left the White House? 

Mr. Higby. Since he left the White House ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Higby. No ; not to my knowledge. I probably would have seen 
the memorandum if, in fact, there was a memorandum at the time 
Haldeman sent it, because I usually did take things in for signing, 
or review after it came out. But I don't recall that specific memo- 

Mr. AiaiSTRONG. Do you know specifically what Mr. Dean's charge 
was from Mr. Haldeman in terms of ascertaining Mr. O'Brien's rela- 
tionship to the Hughes Tool Co. ? 

Mr. Higby. No, I do not. 

Mr. Arimstroxg. OK. Also in exhibit 5 

Mr. Higby. I would guess it would be simply a research function. 

Mr. Armstrong. In exhibit 5-D, Mr. Dean makes reference to the 
fact — it said, "Second. I discussed the matter with Bebe Eebozo who 
indicated his information regarding this retainer had come from 
Robert Maheu, recently released head of Hughes' Nevada operation." 
Are you aware of any information which jNIr. Haldeman obtained 
from Mr. Rebozo directly or indirectly other than this? 

Mr. Higby. No, I am not. The only thing that I am aware of is, I 
have a general vague understanding — and I don't know where I 

*Seep. 11123. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 23 


picked it up — I thought from Chaplin — that Eebozo and Hughes were 
friends or acquaintances. 

Mr. Aemstrong. And do you remember what time period you picked 
that up ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I think it was very early 1969. 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you recall what Mr. Chapin said, or how 
you got that impression ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I cannot. I thought about it — I have discussed it 
with my lawyer to try to build the recollection, and that is all that I 

Mr. Armstrong. AVhen you say "discussed it with your lawyer," do 
you mean j\lr. Kane — your friend, Mr, Kane ? 

Mr. HiGBY. He is not my friend, he is my lawyer. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any other discussion with Mr. 
Chapin ? 

Mr. Higby. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. He did not indicate the source of his information ? 

Mr. Higby. No. I do not think it was in a financial vein, it was just 
that Bebe, in fact, knew Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any discussions with Mr. Haldeman 
or any others, or other information that Mr. Haldeman had access to 
which would have indicated any reason why Mr. Rebozo's name should 
be kept out of any further examinations of Mr. O'Brien's comiection 
with Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. Higby. Do I recall — there were about four questions in there, 
and I think the answer to all of them was "No." 

Mr. Armstrong. Let me simplify it. In exhibit 5-E, jMr. Haldeman 
and Mr. Dean on January 28, 1971, Mr. Haldeman said, "However 

Mr. Higby. To Mr. Dean from Mr. Haldeman ? Yes, I've read that. 
Do I recall any discussion of that particular point raised there ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Let me just for the record — Mr. Haldeman makes 
reference to : 

You should continue to keep in contact with Bob Bennett as well as looking for 
other sources of information on this subject. Once Bennett gets back to you with 
his final report, you and Chuck Colson should get together and come up with a 
way to leak the appropriate information. Frankly, I can't see any way to handle 
this without involving Hughes, so the problem of embarrassing him seems to be 
a matter of degree. However, we should keep Bob Bennett and Bebe out of it 
at all costs. Please keep me advised of your progress on this and any plans you 
decide on. 

Mr. Higby. Yes. - 

Mr. Armstrong. Is there any context — does this recall any other 
information about why Mr. Haldeman might want to keep Mr. Re- 
bozo's name out of it ? 

Mr. Higby. No, no. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Do you have any other questions on that ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Have those memos, or the subject matter in the 
memos, been a matter of discussion with you and anybody else recently 
in the last several months, besides your counsel ? 

Mr. Higby. Only from the standpoint of — I told INIr. Buzhardt of 
the fact that I was being asked to come up here and generally discuss 
the areas that Scott outlined at the beginning of the session today. We 
did not go into any detailed discussion of it, though. 


Mr. Lenzxer. Did Mr. Buzhardt make any comment or furnish any 
information at that time? 

]Mr. HiGBY. No, I do not think that he did other than to say, let's 
see, that he would be providing counsel to come up here, or would like 
to provide counsel. And, of course, I said I had no objection, and I 
would be happy to have someone come along. I think that was about 
the extent of our discussion on it. I think I relayed to him in rather 
absolute fashion my almost totally nonexistent knowledge of Bebe 
Rebozo's affaii-s. I believe, I am not sure, that I mentioned the fact — 
the one fact that we have already discussed, which is the fact that 
there was discussion of possible assistance in the legal fees area for 
Mr. Haldeman. 

This morning at breakfast he relayed back to me the fact that when 
I told him I was coming up here — I saw him at breakfast — that that 
was apparently the ai'ea of primary interest as far as the committee 
was concerned with Mr. Rebozo, He simply said : "I think what they 
want to ask you about is Haldeman and some possible help on his legal 
fees — some inquiries Bob made about that." And I said, "Well, other 
than what I had already told you I have nothing to add there." 

Mr. Lexzner. If I get the chronology straight — you first talked 
to Mr. Buzhardt prior to this breakfast on one occasion ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes; I think that I talked to him last night — Tuesday 

Mr. Lexzner. That w^as the first time? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes ; I think so. 

jNIr. Lexzner. Since you were requested to come up here? 

Mr. HiGBY. I think so. I am not positive, but I believe so. And I 
saw him at breakfast this morning, and it was literally one sentence — 
"I think what they want to ask you about it," and that was it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did he indicate how he had learned that that was 
the focus of the inquiry ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, sir. As I say, it was a one sentence thing. If you want 
to know how I think he learned about it, I think he was recalling my 
conversation with him of the night before, but I don't really know. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Was he able to provide any information as to whether 
or not any legal funds had, in fact, been secured from that source ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Terry, I have given you the extent of our conversation. 
I mean, it was literally one sentence. He was having breakfast with 
St. Clair and he turned back and started talking to St. Clair about a 
matter with which I was unfamiliar. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. Are you saying that that is the only person you have 
ever discussed this with besides your counsel — that is, the general sub- 
ject matter of Hughes or Rebozo or O'Brien, was to Buzhardt? 

Mr. HiGBY. No ; I think about 2 weeks ago I happened to be talking 
with ]Mr. Haldeman, and I mentioned to him in a general way that 
I was being called up here apparently to discuss Rebozo's activities. 
And he just said, "Jesus, I don't know why the Senate committee is 
still calling people." 

And I said, "Well, they are; and of course," I said, "this is one that 
is no problem because I have no knowledge of what the activities, 
were." I raised with him the point of — as a matter of fact — of a con- 
versation we had had about the $100,000 or how ever much money it 


was — the offer for assistance in legal fees, and he indicated, "Yes, 
that's right; we had talked about it." And he said he was never told — 
he indicated that he also had not been told the source of the funding, 
or apparently available funding. I don't believe he's gotten any money 
yet for legal defense from anyone. I think the general impression is 
that he is independently wealthy. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you say he indicated to you — this was 2 weeks ago. 
Where was that ? 

Mr HiGBY. I called him on the phone, I think, to see how he was 

Mr. Armstrong. And you mentioned to him that 

Mr. HiGBY. That I was being called up here again. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. And did you remind Mr. Haldeman that you 
had the discussion about the legal fees ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did Mr. Haldeman recall what amount of 
funds were being discussed at that time ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No ; I do not believe he did. 

Mr. Arjvistrong. You mentioned $100,000. 

Mr. HiGBY. I know, and after that I thought about it — the reason 
that figure sticks in my mind, I'm sorry to say, is from independent 
reading of the newspaper. But no, there was no discussion of funds 
when I called Mr. Haldeman that I can recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you mean amounts ? ■ ' 

Mr. HiGBY. Amounts. 

Mr. Armstrong. Have you ever had discussions with Mr. Haldeman 
where amomits Avere discussed vis-a-vis this prior conversation? 

Mr. HiGBY. Not that I can recall ; no. The recollection I have of the 
original conversation on amounts — and it is very vague — was $400,000. 
That Bebe had someAvhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 available 
to assist on legal fees. But, I would sure hate to be held to that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Well, did you mention that to Mr. Haldeman as 
part of your recollection, when you discussed it 2 weeks ago ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No ; I do not believe that I did. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Haldeman indicate any area of concern 
with regard to this topic ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No. In fact, he was very lighthearted. He said, '"Yeah, 
that's right ; we did discuss that.'' He has never partiouhirly indicated 
much in the way of concern anytime I have talked to him. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did he indicate whether he had any discussions with 
anybody else regarding that subject ? 

Mr. Higby. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. "VAHiether he had been asked himself about that ? 

Mr. Higby. No ; he did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate to you 2 weeks ago whether he had 
made any contacts at any time with Mr. Rebozo with regard to those 

INIr. Higby. No, lie did not; but from just talking to him on the 
phone occasionally over the past year, I am pretty sure he has not 
gotten any money from anybody. 

Mr. Armstrong. From anybody ? 

Mr. Higby. Yes. 


Mr. Lexzner. Are there any other communications with Mr. Halde- 
man other than that one 2 weeks ago ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes. I think that 1 talked to him last week. I had to go, 
I had two appearances last week before the grand jury and I briefly 
relayed to him the fact that I was up there — generally what I had 
been hit on by the grand jury in the areas of questioning. 

Mr. Lenzxer. Did any of those relate to the Hughes-Rebozo matter? 

Mr. HiGBY. 2so. sir ; not at all. 

Mr. Lexzner. So you just were advising him of the subject areas 
being inquired into, is that correct? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And that was a telephonic communication by you 
to him. 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes. 

Mr. Lexzxee. Anything else ? Any other contacts besides those two ? 

Mr. HiGBY. With Haldeman ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HiGBY. Xot specifically that I can recall. I called Bob — frankly 
I try to call him once or twice a week. He is a very good friend. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I understand. 

Mr. HiGBY. The coniversations usually are primarily social, al- 
though obviously with his deep interest in the Presidency, newspaper 
accounts eventually do come up. There is never a passage of messages 
of any sort. Pie has a very deep interest in my family and often asks 
how our youngest son is, who was born shortly after he left. That's 
generally the way it goes. Go ahead. That's about all I can say there. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And on the conversation 2 weeks ago, the telephonic 
conversation with regard to the legal fees, he simply confirmed the fact 
that he also recalled that conversation that he had with you? He did 
not den}' it i 

Mr. HiGBY. That is right. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did he furnish any additional information at all that 
you can recall with regard to that conversation ? 

Mr. HiGBY. He said that he had been asked up by you apparently 
to discuss the subject, and because of his indictment or the status he 
was now in, he was not appearing. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did he furnish any other information that you can 
recall regarding Hughes or Rebozo or O'Brien or the legal fees, for 
that matter ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo, no. I think I have covered it. I do not think I cov- 
ered with him the O'Brien part. I think it was — Bebe and money, I 
think, was the thrust of what I did mention to him. 

Mr. Lexzxer. So he did not indicate at that time or at any time 
what the source of the funds were to Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. Frankly, I have heard stories since I joined the 
Xixon operation that Rebozo was a self-made millionaire or something, 
so I just assumed that it was some of Rebozo's money. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Have you ever seen anything in writing that referred 
indirectly or directly to the possible funding by Mr. Rebozo of Mr. 
Haldeman's legal fees ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Gee, I sure cannot recall anything now. Do you have 
anything ? 


IMr. Lenzxer. If we did and you could identify it, we would be 
glad to sliow it to you. 

Mr. HiGBY. Which is your way of saying "No," I guess? 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there any reference made to anybody else's legal 

Mr. HiGBY. I thought it was for Bob and John. I think when Bob 
originally mentioned it to me, he mentioned it to me in the context 
of both of them, but that is all. 

Mr. Armstrong. When you spoke to Mr. Haldeman in the phone 
call 2 weeks ago, Mr. Haldeman indicated you were correct in your 
account of the stoi'y, which was the same account you gave us today ? 

Mr. IIiGBY. I think he said "Yes, that's right. It did come up." 
And I think he said, "But I don't know what the source of those funds 
were." And I said, "I do not either." 

Mr. Armstrong. And you mentioned to him that it was your recol- 
lection that he had told you that the President had told him that Mr. 
Rebozo had funds available to him for his legal defense? 

Mr, Higby. I think that is the way I put it to him, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And he said that was correct ; that was his under- 
standing ? 

Mr. Higby. That is correct. 

Mr. Lenzner. And he said he did not know the source of the funds ? 

Mr. Higby. That's right. 

Mr. Lenzner. Have you talked — besides Mr. Haldeman and Mr. 
Buzhardt, have you talked about this subject with anyone else — 
besides counsel of course ? 

Mr. Higby. Well, I repeated I guess almost verbatim the same thing 
to Mr. Hauser. We had lunch together today and he had apparently 
not talked to Mr. Buzhardt, so I went through that with him. 

Mr. Lenzner. That is this gentleman [indicating] ? 

Mr. Higby. Yes ; that is right. I think that is it, though. 

Mr. Lenzner. You have had no contact with jMr. Ehrlichman or 
any other employees of the White House or former employees of the 
White House with regard to your coming up here and the subject mat- 
ters that might be discussed here ? 

Mr, Higby. Not that I can recall. I have not kept it a secret, the fact 
that I am coming here, so I do not know if I have mentioned to some- 
one I have got to go up to the Senate next Tuesday or whatever today 
is, Wednesday, to talk about this. But I haven't had any serious 

Mr. Armstrong. We will have this marked for identification as 
exhibit 6-A and 6-B. 

This 6-A is a memorandum from jSIr. Colson to Mr. Dean, I 
believe, dated March 3, 1972, is that right ? 

Mr, Higby. Yes; it is. 

Mr. Armstrong. And exhibit 6-B is a memorandum from Mr. 
Karalekas, Steve Karalekas to Mr. Colson, dated March 3, 1972, 
which I believe precedes 6-A and was attached to 6-A. 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Higby exhibits 
Nos. 6-A and 6-B for identification.*] 

♦Seep. 11135. 


Mr. HiGBY. Neither one of these ring any bells, and I cannot recall 
seeing them. 

Mr. Lenzner. When you say ''ring any bells," we had better clarify 
that. It is sort of idiomatic. Do you mean that you do not recall 

Mr. HiGBT. Neither memorandum — the physical memorandum — 
makes me have any recollection, nor the subject matter expressed 
really in exhibit (5-B, of the specihc possibility involvhig Mr. O'Brien; 
neither one 

Mr. Lexzxer. You mean you have not seen them and you recall no 
discussion about them i 

Mr. HiGBY. I do not recall seeing them. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Can we have this marked exhibit 7 for identifica- 
tion, a memorandum from Mr. Dean to Mr. Colson, dated April 6, 
1972, regarding Mr. O'Brien. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Higby exhibit 
No. 7 for identification.*] 

Mr. HiGBY. This also — I do not recall this memorandum. . 

Mr. Lexzxer. Referring to exhibit 

]\Ir. HiGBY. Seven, I believe it is marked. 

Mr. Ar3istroxg. Prior to January 20, 1969, were you employed by 
the transition committee ? Did you have any role with the transition 
committee? ■ 

Mr. Higby. Yes. 

^Ir. Ar3istroxg. Can you tell us what your duties were there ? 

Mr. Higby. I was essentially a staff assistant, administrative assistant 
to Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Who had already assumed his duties as Chief of 

Mr. Higby. He was functioning in essentially the same role he was 
during the campaign, and I was also. 

Mr. Armstroxg. During that time period, did you have contact with 
Mr. Herbert Kalmbach? 

Mr. Higby. During that time period? - 

Mr. Armstroxg. Yes. 

yir. Higby. None that I can specifically recall. My Kalmbach asso- 
ciation sprung up in the spring of 1969 after I was already at the 
White House. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall any discussion during the transition 
period, toward the end of the transition period, of Mr. Kalmbach 
assuming custodv as trustee for cash in the balance of the transition 

Mr. Higby. I camiot recall any at this time, no. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know if there was any discussion between 
Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Stans as to who should assume custody of 
those funds? 

Mr. Higby. I do not know. All I know is that eventually Kalmbach 
did end up with at least the responsibility to control funds left over 
from 1968. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. When and how did you first learn of that? 

Mr. Higby. The way I learned about it was because we did some 

•Seep. 11137. 


polling, and as I liave already tcstifiod to and talked to you about, 
Kalmbach used these moneys apparently to pay for the polling. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall when the polling first occurred? 

Mr. HiGBY. I do not know if it was late 1969 or early 1970. 

Mr. Armstroxg. In summary form, can you characterize w^hat your 
contact with ^Nlr. Kalmbach was from the spring of 1969 through the 
remaindei' of 19()!)? 

Mr. HiORV. The remaindei- of 19()9 { Ir was very lieavy in the spring 
of 1969, because, we were setting up the offices in San Clemente and 
I was i-esponsible foi- CA-erything not on the President's pi'operty, the 
Government's side of building the office complex, and also for housing 
our people out there for what was going to be the stay out there that 
sununer. And Kalmbach had been n Xewpoi't Tknicli lawyer for years 
and ai:)]>arently knew a lot of people, and T was instructed by, I be- 
lieve, ]\[r. TTaldemaii, to l)e in touch with ^fr. Kalmbach. that he 
would be A'ery helpful in terms of securing adequate and moderate 
l)riced housing, and lie was in fact A'ery helpful, and that is Iioav I 
got to know Herb Kalmbach. 

]\lr. Ar:\[stroxg. Do you recall diii-ing that pei-iod 

Mr. Hauser. What iieriod is this uoav I 

!Mr. AinrsTROXG. The sju'ino- of 1969. Do you I'ecall if you learned 
flui'inu- that period that ^fr. Kalmbacli had assumed cu-tody of the 
ti'ansition funds? 

Mr. HiGHY. vScott, the two e^'eiits do not mesh. The meshing of 
Kalmbach and custodv of funds and my knoAvledii'o of the same goes 
thi'ough the i:)olling route, not thi'ough the San Clemente route. And 
T do not recall Avhen the polling took place, specifically Avhen we first 
started doing it. T thought dui'ing the fall of 1969, but it could have 
been the spring of 1970. 

Mr. An:\rsTR()XG. Do you recall if 'Wv. Kalmbach, on his trips to 
Washington during the spring of 19(;9, Avould bi-ief ^Fr. TTaldeman 
and you Avould be present for tliosc^ ])riefino:s? 

Mr. TTuiBY. T do not think he came back mucli in tlu^ spring of 
1969. T tliink he came back in the s]:>rino- of 1970. 

Mr. Ai;:\rsTi;oxG. Do you recall if there Avere briefings in San 

]\rr. ITiGBY. Tie always wanted to see TTaldeuian about something, 
but mostly T think it Avas in 1970. 

]\ri-. An:\rsTBoxG. Do voii recall on Avhicli occasion ^\v. TTaldeman 
fii'st s|)oki> to Mr. Tvalml)a;li ;il>()ut tlie Pi'c-ident ac(|uiriiig ])i'operty 
in San Clemente? 

^Fi'. TTkjby. Xo : T do not. 

^fr. AR:\rsTnox(;. Do you recnll — are you aAvai'e of the financial ar- 
rangements that Avei-e made foi- the President's j^urchase of San 

^Fr. TTua'.Y. T thought T Avas, but apparentlv T Avas Avronix. I thought 
that the ti'ustees of the foundation juirchased most of the T^roperty 
and thnt the Pi-esident pui'chased a small portion. That Avas the extent 
of riv knowledge at that time of hoAv the arrangements Avere. 

^Ti". AmrsTijoxG. Do a'ou ivcall Avhen you fii'st became aAvare that 
different arrau.«reuients had be(ui made ? 

^\\\ TTicBA'. T tliiidc wlieu T I'cad it in the newspapei'. . <,\' . ^v,.;- 


^Ir. Lexzxer. "What was tlic source of your iuforuiatiou prior to the 
newspai)or reports? 

Mr. HiiJBY. I think Ilaldenian. lii'Urrally. 

Mr. Ar.MSTROXG. By newspaper reports, are you I'cfei-ring to reports 
in tlie suinmor and fall of 1973 I 

Mr. TIiGBY. Yes. 

Mr. AmrsTiioxG. Do you recall if there was an}- disc\ission of Mr. 
Abplanalj) and ^Mr. Rebozo o-oin^- into a joint venture with the Presi- 
dent in the purchase of San Clemente? 

Mr. HiGin'. Xo; 1 do not recall any such — I know. I understood that 
they were trustees. 

Mr. Akmstijox'g. That they were trustees of the foundation? 

Mr. IIiGBY. Yes; members of the board of directors or something. 

!Mr. AiorsTRoxG. "When you say you were under the impression that 
the trustees had purchased the balance of the property, do you mean in 
the ca|)acity for the foundation or as individuals? 

Mr. HiGBY. No; for the foundation. 

Mr, Armstroxg. Durino; the sprinii' of 1969, do you recall Mr. Kalm- 
bach briefino: ]Mr. Ilaldeman and yourself on the subject of Donald 
Nixon's tax problems? 

Mr. IIiGBY. Xo. 

^Ir. Ar:mstroxg. Do you recall ]Mr. Haldeman relatiu": any of that 
information to you? Were you aware of any of that? 

Mr. HiGBY. X^ot that I can recall, no. Donald Xixon's tax problems? 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Right. 

Mr. HiGBY. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. The fact that he was about to undergo an Internal 
Revenue tax audit? 

^Ir. HiGBY. No ; I have never heard that about Donald Nixon that 
I can recall. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall when you first — in what context you 
first leariied of Arthur Blech. who later became the President's 
accountant ? 

Mr. IIiGBY. I am not sure. If you hadn't said that. I am not sure that 
I would have recognized the name. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. AVere you aware of Mr. Blech. who later became the 
President's accountant, having done any work on behalf of the Presi- 
dent's relatives prior to being retained by the President. 

Mr. HiGBY. Not to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Hauser. Scott, in order that ^Ir. Higby could be as helpful as 
possible, perhaps you could indicate to him the relevance and material- 
ity of this to, as I understand it, the mandate of the committee. I don't 
see the nexus here between this and the conmiittee's charter. 

jNIr. Armstroxg. OK. Very briefly, the committee is investigating 
the })ossible — investigating allegations — that concern over Donald 
Nixon in turn led to concern over Mr. Henry Greenspun, Ilennan 
(Treenspun. the publisher of the Las "\>gas Sun. and ultimately may 
have resulted in an alleged plan to break into the safe of ]Mr. Herman 
Greenspun which was part of the so-called Gemstone plan. 

^Ii-. Hauser. "Which eventually got involved in 1972, in that election? 

Mr. Lexzxer. It w^as discussed, according to ]Mr. ]Magruder's testi- 
monv. it was discussed in ^Nlr. MitchelTs ofiice in February 1972 when 


the Gemstone plan was discussed. And ^Iv. ^litchell discussed break- 
ing into Mr. Greenspun's safe, and thereafter evidence received by 
the committee in ])ublic testimony and ]:»rivate, INIr. Hunt and INIr. 
Liddy went to California to meet witli various individuals to discus? 
that plan. 

]Mr. Hauser. Maybe it is just my problem. I have a difficult time 
seemg the relationship between that and election laws and reform 
of the election laws as a result of the 107:2 election. So I would ask 
that the questions, just for time's sake, be as brief in this area as pos- 
sible, so that I don't find myself perhaps interposin<r objections. 

'Mr. Armstkoxct. Do yon recall during this period. ]\Ir. Higby. the 
spring of 1909 and later in 1909, Mr. Kalmbach briefing "Sh-. Halde- 
man on the activities and business affairs of ]\lr. Donald Nixon? 

^Ir. TTiGBY. No; I do not. I do not recall that. 

Mr. AR:srsTRONo. Were you aware of any concern that ^Nlr. Haldenian 
or !Mr. Ehrlichman or others in the administi'ation. or the Pi-esident 
himself expressed regarding l^lv. Donald Nixon's business activities? 

Mr. Hir.RY. I was aware in a general way of the fact that Mr. Donald 
Nixon apparently did have some financial prol>lems and that INIr. 
Kalmbach was a source, the man assiirned to help straighten those 
financial problems out with ]Mr. Nixon. That is the extent of my knowl- 
edcre in that whole ai-ea. 

]Mr. Akmstkoxo. Do you I'ecall how you learned of that? 

Ml'. TTiGRY. I tliink Haldeman told me. 

Mr. AR:>rsTROxr,. Do you recall wliat tlie natui-e of Mr. Donald 
Nixon's financial problems w^ere ? 

Mr. ITioRV. Yes ; I think Haldeman told me at one time that he spent 
more than he made. 

Mr. Ar^istroxo. Do you recall if thei'e ^\•ere anv specific instances 
wheiv there Avas concern about any specific financial difficulties Donald 
Nixon had gotten into ? 

Ml-. FTtory. No. 

Mr. ArMiSit^oxg. Do you recall if tliere was any attempt by Mr. 
Kalmbach or others to raise funds on l)elialf of Donald Nixon? 

Mr. HioBY. None that I am aware of. 

jVIt-. AR^rsTROXfi. Are you aware of any funds fi-oni Mr. Kalmbach 
or any other individual that went to Mr. Donald Nixon? 

INfi-. ITioRY. Donald Nixon is the older brother, right? 

]\ri-. Armstroxg. F. Donald Nixon. 

Mr. ITiGRY. No. 

Mr. Dkxzx'^er. Do you have any ivcollections of any discussions IMr. 
Haldeman had with you or with others regarding the use of leftover 
campaign funds in 1909 for ]Mr. Donald Nixon :• 

Mr. Higby. No, sir. I do not recall any such discussions. 

Mr. Armstrox"g. Just to make the record cleai-, specifically do you 
recall Mr. Kalmbach infoi'ming INIr. Haldeman that when he had 
assumed custody of the transition funds and leftover campaign funds 
from the 1908 campaign, that among the funds there was an envelope 
marked "Donald Nixon" Avhich had a particular amount of money on 
it mai-ked on the front of the envelope, and that there was less money 
in the envelope than was marked on the envelope itself? 


Mr. HiGBY. Specifically, I do not recall that. Just so the record is 
clear, I do recall sitting in on Kahnbach briefings by Haldeman — by 
Kalmbach or HaUleniiin. My recollection of tlieni is all in reference 
to the 1970 campaign. I do not recall anything about the area we have 
been discussing. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall any contact Mr. Haldeman had with 
other individuals other than Mr. K"almbach in an elfort to assist Mr. 
Donald Nixon? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, sir. I cannot recall any. 

Mr. Lexzner. How about Mr. Rebozo? Did his name ever come up 
in connection with any of Donald Nixon's issues? 

Mr. HiGBY. Not that I can recall now. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if INIr. Haldeman mentioned, or are 
you aware of any funds going from any individuals or from the cam- 
paign to Mr. Edward Nixon ? 

Mr. Higby. From the campaign ? 

Mr. Armstrong. From the campaign or any individuals? 

Mr. Higby. From campaign or individuals? 

Mr. Armstrong. Yes. 

Mr. Higby. No, I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if Mi-. Haldeman was ever informed 
that Mr. Donald Nixon had been kept on the payroll of the transition 
committee bevond the life of the committee ? 

Mr. Higby.' That Donald Nixon had ? 

Mr. Ar.:vrsTK()XG. Excuse nic, Pklward Nixon had been kept on the 
payroll of the transition committee beyond the life of the committee 
in order to tide him over until he found other employment? 

Mr. Hi(;by. No. Just so we don't go through the whole thing, my 
knowledire with i-egard to Ed Nixon was that he was made a consultant 
for the foundation in 1071, 1072, somewhere in there, and that he was 
receiving some money, as I understood it, from Kalmbach, as a matter 
of fact, foundation funds in connection with his being a consultant. 

Mr. Armstrong. You are referring to the foundation now as you 
were referring to it before. You are referring to the Richard Nixon 

Mr. Higby. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. I think you communicated some request, did you 
not, from Mr. Nixon to become, or at least be paid, by the Nixon 

Mr. Higby. I am not sure whether T communicated the request or — 
I think at one point Kahnbach raised the question, and I checked with 
Haldeman ancl told him that the arrangement was to continue. But 
certainly, I did have knowledge of that. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall any specific discussion between Mr. 
Kalmbach and Mr. Haldeman that you were either present for or 
learned about later regarding outstanding ])ledges from the 10G8 cam- 
paign that were to be collected during lOGO or later? I am talking 
about financial i)ledges for campaign contributions. 

Mr. Higby. Left over from 1968 ? 

Mr. Ar.MSTR()N(;. Pledges that had not l)een collected during 1068. 

]Mr. Higby. I cannot i-ecall any in relation to 1068, no. 


Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall the collection of a contribution from 

]\[r. HiGBY. The name does not rino; a bell. 

Mr. Lenzner. You say you can't recall any regarding 19G8. Were 
yoii aware of any efforts to raise funds for some other purposes in 
1969 ? 

Mr. PIiGBY. T am not sure if it was 19(19 or 1970, but Kalmbach was 
raising funds, I know, for the 1970 campaign. 

Mr. Lenzner. Aside from the 1970 campaign ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. That is what I was referring to, Terry. 

Ml-. I^ENZXKR. Mr. ITigby, did you on occasion direct or recjuest Mr. 
Ka]m})ach to furnish funds to other individuals other than for pur- 
poses of polling? 

Mr. TTiGBY. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. And can you tell us what instances those were ? 

Mr. TTiGBY. Well, let me do the ones I recall, and if you have any 
others, please raise them. 

Mv. Lenzner. I w^ll. 

Mr. ILcBY. T recall him — none of these were on my own authority. 
Mr. George Collins joined the AVhite House staff, was in the military 
and could not afford to live in Washington. He was a very low-level 
guy in the militar3\ At Mr. Haldeman's request, we made a gift to Mr. 
Collins of $1,000 to help him with his mo\-ing expenses, T think, and 
Mr. Kalmbach was asked to do that. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember when that was ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. Whenever Collins joined the staff. During the 1970 
campaign, there was the series of calls to Kalmbach with regard to 
Covernor Brewer in that campaign. 

:\rr. TvENZNER. That was for $400,000 ? 

Mr. ITigby. That is Avhat the report is. I cannot independently 
verify it. 

Mr. Lenzner. That was at Mr. TLildeman's direction, also ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Oh, yes. [Pause.] Those are the two that come to mind. 
The rest of the stuff in the 1970 campaign, I think, was all directed to 
Jack Gleason. Do you have any others ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes. Let's leave him aside for a second. First, do you 
know the source of the $1,000 for Mr. Collins ? 

Mr. HiGBY. T think leftover funds that Herb had from the cam])aign, 
from a cam])aign — 1 am not sure which one. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you recall asking ^Mi-. Kalmbach to furnish ap- 
proximately $100,00() in :\rarch of li)70 to anybody^ T think it was 
delivered at the Sherry-Xethei'lands Hotel. 

Mr. Htgby. That was ])ai't of the (lovernor Bi-ewer operation. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you kiiow who the individual was that obtained 
those fuiuls? 

Mr. HuiBY. Xo, T don't think T did. 

^Ir. Lenzner. That was also at Mr. Haldeman's direction ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes. 

Mv. Lenzner. Do you know who advised the person that received 
the funds to receive them ? 

Mr. Htgby. I believe what's his name — Llount, Red Llount. 

Mv. Lenzner. But you did not know the identity and ncvci- did know 
the identitv of who was the I'ecipient of those funds? 


Mr. HiGBY. Xo, I think the guy was supposed to be wearing a bhie 
suit or something. I don't recall. There was some Avay he would be 

Mr. Lexzxer. And you passed tliose directions on to Mr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Lexzner. Mav :2'2, 1970, you again advised him to deliver $200,- 

000 at the Sherry-Xetherlands ?" 

Mr. PIiGBY. I don't know. The date doesn't mean anything to me. 

1 know I worked with Mr. Kalmbach on getting some money to Gover- 
nor Brewer. 

Mr. Lexzner. And again, ]\lay 25, 1970, instructions that he should 
deliver $100,000 to an individual at the Bank of California. Do you 
recall that ? 

]\Ir. IliGBY. Not specifically : no. 

:Mr. Lexzxer. Tliat would make a total of $100,000. Is that the same 
money that was delivered to the Brewer campaign I 

]\lr. HiGBY. I don't know. I do not recall how nnich was delivered to 

Mr. Lexzxer. "Were there any othei- amounts paid to individuals 
personally in a similar situation' as ]Mi-. Collins for personal expenses 
that you are awai-e of I 

yiv. HiGBY. Xo. not that I can recall, no. 

Mr. Lexzxer. During the transitional period, were there any funds 
paid to persons which weiv not G'ovcrmnent funds, not })ublic moneys? 

Mr. IIiGBY. By Kalmbach ? 

]Mr. Lexzxer. By anybody that you are aware of. 

Mr. HiGBY. I received a gift from Mr. Haldeman to help with my 
moving expenses, and I think other individuals also did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know what the source of those funds were? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. I do not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know Jiow much Mr. Haldeman paid out for 
those expenses? 

Mr. IIiGBY. AVell. if he paid out like he did for me. it wouldn't be 
very much money. I think I got $1,000 or $2,000 to handle moving ex- 
])enses, since the' Government cannot jiay your moving expenses, and 
I was told it was a gift to cover those expenses, and that was all there 
was to it. 

Mr. Lexzxer. And that would have been in 1969 { 

Mr. HiGBY. 1968,Ithink. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know if Mr. l\el)ozo had any relationship to 
furnishing those funds I 

Mr. IIkjby. Xo. I do not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know any other individuals who received mov- 
ing expenses besides yourself? 

Mr. HiGBY. I think Haldeman did. I think Ehrlichman did. I 
think "Woods did. I think Chapin did. 1 am not sure Kenneth Cole did 
or not. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Krogh ? 

]Mr. HiGBY. I don't recall that, that would not have been unusual, 
because he was on staff at that time. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Would it be fair to say that senior and middle level 
aides to ]\Ir. Ehrlichman and Haldeman received moving expenses 
generally ? 


Mr. HiGBY. I would not bo. at all surprised if it went below that. 
Some of the sccretai'ics who had been there quite a while — and I don't 
think it would be fair to say only Haldenian and Ehrlichman. I think 
it was kind of the nucleus. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Mv. (^olson and i)erhaps others? 

Mr. ITKUiV. Mr. (^olson wasn't on at that time. 

I don't think he joined until hater, and he already lived in 

!Mr. L?:xzxKR. Do you have any idea how much was spent on those 
kinds of expenses ? 

]\rr. ITiGiiY. Xo, sir, I don't. 

]Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you ever learn that White House fvmds which 
were available to pay certain expenses. White House functions, that 
type of thino-, had been totally exi)ended by the Johnson administra- 
tion and there was a need to raise additional funds for those kinds of 

Mr. Hior.Y. Gee. I do not recall that fact. I don't recall that fact 
one way or another. I recall that there is ajiparently a Presidential 
Transition Act, or somethino- like that, and Johnson had taken a cer- 
tain amount of money and we had taken a certain amount of money out 
of whatever that j)ot was. 

Mr. Lexzxer. In addition to the transitional funds 

Mr. IIioRY. But as I recall, that is not available for movinof ex- 
penses. It is available for office file movings and that sort of thino;, 
l)ut not persoinil movings. 

jMr. Lkxzx'^er. As I understand it, there is a fund for certain events, 
official events at the White House, and that that fund allegedly was 
used — totally exhausted by the ])rior administration — and there was 
an effort to raise funds privately to replenish that source. Do you 
know anythiuir about that? Did you ever learn anythino- al)Out that? 

Mv. HioBY. For official events ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. Social events. 

Mr. Ht(;ry. At the ^^Hiite House ? " 

Mr. Lexzx-^er. Yes. 

Mr. HiGBY. T was involved in that area back in 1009. I do not specif- 
ically I'emember that. I remember we wondered at the start of the 
administration how official events could be paid for, because it did 
not seem that thei'O was enou<:h money compared to the number of 
events, until you found out the screwy way that the Government op- 
erates, the ropes that ai'e involved there. It was a bit pei'))lexino;, and 
in fact most official events are, in fact, considei'ed State De[)artment 
functions and that sort of thinfr. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Did you e\er learn of an effort to raise funds from 
private contT'ibutors to set up, to establish some funds for the White 
House outside of the reoular Government moneys? 

Mr. HiGBY. Gee, the only thino- that even va^ruely connects to that 
is, I think thei'e was some effoit on the part of Mr. Cono;er or maybe 
on the part of Mrs. Nixon, with i'e<rard to restoring- the White House, 
buyin<r antiques and that sort of thino;. 

Mr. Lexzx-^er. Did you ever learn that Mr. Rebozo had any role in 
raisinp- funds for a fund to be used by White House officials for cer- 
tain expenses? 


Mr. HiGBY. ?^ot that I can recall, no. 

Mr. Lexzner. Po you know if Mr. Eebozo retained funds or 
raised funds for any administration expenses beoinning January 1, 

Mr. HiGHY. I cannot recall any indication that I, in fact, knew 
an^thino-. If you can refresh my recollection, I will try. 

Mr. Lexzker. I think you are the onl}^ one who can answer that 

Mr. HiGBY. I can recall no such thing. 

Mr. Arjnistrong. Were you aware of expenditures made by ]Mr. 
Middendorf out of the transition fund ? 

Mr. HiGBY. The name sure rings a bell. I don't recall any specific 
expenditures that he made. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall instructing him to make any ex- 

Mr. IIiGBY. No. but it's possible that I did. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall two $2,000 expenditures each that 
you requested sometime in the spring of 1969? 

INIr. HiGBY. I do not. That was 4 or 5 years ago. Do you have any- 
thing that indicates that I did? The name Middendorf is familiar. 

Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Middendorf had been treasurer of the Repub- 
lican National Committee. At that time, I believe he was acting as a 
custodian for the transition fund. I assume that was still technically 
in his capacity as treasurer of the Republican National Committee, 
and it is fair to say that it is his recollection that he paid, at your 
instruction to you, two payments for $2,000 each. 

Mr. HiGBY. For what purpose ? 

Mr. Armstrong. For a purpose that he was not aware of. He was 
apparently instructed by Mr. Ilaldeman to accept your authority to 
pay out funds. 

]\lr. lliGBY. We kept an account called "account zero" which was 
kept by the White House office which was for the purpose of taking 
care of official expenses that were over and above of what could be 
taken care of. and those came from the RNC. I did not think it was 
Middendorf. I thought it was — what was the other guy's name? 

Mr. SciiuLTz. Dugan ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Tom Dugan, is that it ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Pat Dugan. 

Mr. HiGBY. Pat Dugan, yes. But those were for things like when 
you would go to a ])lace and the hotel bill would be greater than what 
could be paid for by normal Government rate, and uiey would not 
give you a Govermnent rate, and the fund would be used to supple- 
ment those sort of things. 

Ml'. Ar^istrong. And these wci'e left over from the transition, or do 
you know the source of those funds? 

^fi-. IlKiBY. I thought they were the RNC's left over from the cam- 
paign, or part of the RNC annual budget, because I thought Dugan 
was the guy at the RNC. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do vou recall how large this fund was? 

Mr. HiGBY. As I recall, it was kept around $400 or $500. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was it ever any larger than $10,000 ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I did not tliink it was ever as large as $10,000. 


Mr. Armstrong. Do you know who kept track of it in the Wliite 
House ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I (lid at first, but I did not actually keep track of it. 1 
wanted to make sure there was no question about it, so I had the ac- 
countin<z; office at the White House generally keep track of it and asked 
them to maintain custody of the funds, I think. But as soon as I moved 
out in the Haldeman position it became part of the staff secretary's 
position, I ])elieve Ken Cole then — I am not positive — took control of 
it. And after that John Bi'own became staff secretary, and he did, on 
through the reg:imes. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you know who you dealt witli at the account- 
in o; office? 

Mr. HiGRY. I think — well, no. I want to say the guy's name was 
Hauser, was somethinjT; like Hauser, l)ut he is not there any more. 

Mr. Hauser. As o})])osed to Dick Hauser, who is here right now. 

Mr. HiGHY. Kight. He was an older man. He retired, I think, in 
about 1970. 

Mr, Lexzxer. Do you say you presently liave no recollection of 
receiving these $2,000 payments from Mr. ^liddendorf or some other 
individual related to these funds? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xot that amount. I do recall receiving money from Pat 
Dugan, but I do not recall any fi'om Middendorf. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. Do vou rememl)er how nmch vou got f I'om Dugan ( 

Mr. HiGBY. I thought it was $500 or $(500. 

Mr. Lexzx'er. "Was there a a specific purpose for that ? 

Mr. HiGBY. The purpose of wliat we called this "account zero" 
was simply to cover these kind of expenses that T have already related. 

Mr. Lexzxkr. Was there a specific expense item that you were pay- 
ing off with tlie Dugan monev, or was it just foi- general purposes 
you just described ? 

Mr. TTiGBY. The item that comes to mind, and the reason T recall 
it, is in relation specifically to Key Biscayne. The President used to go 
down there all the time, and there was no I'oom imder $G0 a day down 
there, and we didn't know the ])eople down there that well, and there 
was just no way the President could take his staff down there and 
have any place to stay. And e\entually we woi-ked out an arrangement 
whereby the Key Biscayne Hotel. I think, offei'ed us a Government 
rate, which kind of obviated the need for those moneys. But by that 
time I think T was pretty well out of the o})eration. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. You never directed any funds to be paid to either 
Edward or Donald Xixon ? 

Mr. HiGBY. T think T have alreadv testified that T believe I did direct 
at least a continuation of pavment to Edward Nixon in relationship 
to that consultant matter of the foundation. 

Mr. Armstroxg. All right. l)ut a])ai't from the foundation funds? 

Ml'. Htgby. T cannot recall any. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you recall when you fii-st met Jack Caulfield or 
became aware of his ])osition on the White House staff? 

Mr. HiGBY. I met Jack — well, actually, I met Jack during the 
summer of 1908, when lie was kind of the security guy for the Com- 
mittee to Nominate Richard Nixon or whatever it was called. 


Mr. Armstroxc. Do you romill when you first bocrtine aware that he 
was coniiuo- on boanl tlie White I louse ^ 

Mr. IIicuY. No. 1 do not. 

Mr. Armstroxc;. Was it [)rior to liis arrival there, })rior to the lime 
tliat lie started work :' 

Mr. IFicBV. That he was eomiuu' on hoard the White House i 

Mr. Armstkox(;. That lie was <roinoto be on the White House stalT. 

Mr. IIkjby. T do not know when I l)ecanie aware of that. T think 
it was after we were already down in Washino-ton. T think lie worked 
for Khrlichnian for a while, as T recall. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall wliat his duties were when he fii-st 
came on ? 

Mr. HiGRY. Xo. He was kind of a research jruv for Pjhrlichman. 

Mr. Armstroxc;. And wei-e you aware of any specific assio'uments 
that he received ? 

Mr. HioRY. T cannot recall any at this time. 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. Do you i-ecall if you were aware that he had an in- 
dividual outside of the White House whose services he was authorized 
to conti-act for and was bein^- paid foi- by Mr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. HiGUY. The only services I am aware that I can recall that Ca\d- 
field had ability to call upon Avere some services for the purpose of de- 
buir^ino: rooms. 

Air. Hai'ser. Debuiraiiia" ? 

Mr. HnuiY. That's what I said, del)Uiririn^ rooms. It was somebody 
who had also been in the cam])aii2:n witii us who did that. 

Mr. Armstrox*g. Was that Mr. Keaaan { 

Mr. HiGUY. Yes, a little short irrayduiired <iuy. Yes. 

Afr. Armstroxg. Do you know what funds were used to pay Mr. 
Iveairan, or how Mr. Kea^an was compensated? 

]\Ir. HiGRY. I do not recall. 

Mr. ARMsn?oxG. And do you know if Mr. Rea^ran had any res{)on- 
sibilities assigned to him other than sweeping or debugging i-ooms ? 

Mr. Hi(;by. Xot that I can recall, no. 

?Ii'. AR:srsTRoxG. Are you awaie of any offensive capabilities that Afr. 
lieairan exercised ? 

?>rr. HiGRY. There was nevei- any discussion of any that I can recall. 

Mr. Armstroxc;. Did there come a time when you became aware of a 
concern about Joseph Kraft within the White House? 

]Mr. HiGRY. There Avas always a concern. There was a general concern 
about Kraft, because he always wrote such antiadministration columns. 
But I do not think there came a time when there was a specific concern 
about Kraft that I can recall. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall any concern about Mr. Kraft other 
than the fact that his columns w^ere antiadministration? 

Mr. HiGRY. Xot that I can recall. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall anv concern about leaks to Mr. Kraft ? 

Mr. Hi(;ry. I'm not sure if the leaks were — no. I don't sj^ecifically, of 
my own knowledge, recall that. Having read stuff in the paper after- 
ward, obviously, Kraft's name has come up. But no. not from my own 

Mr. Armstrong. Did there come a time when you became aware of a 
wiretap on Mr. Kraft ? 


Mr. Hauser. I am <j:oinof to ()l)je('t to Mr. Ili^by answering any ques- 
tion on wirota]')S. ■ , , . 

Mr. Lexzxer. On wliat grounds? 

Mr. Hauser. Executive privilege and national security. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Relating to Jose]>h Kraft? 

Mr. Hauser. In any wiretap area at all. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did there come a time when you became aware of an 
illegal wireta]) on Mr. Joseph Kraft? 

Mr. Hauser. I raise tlie same objection. 

Mr. Htoby. T have never been aware of an illegal wiretap, other 
than what has been published in the press. 

Mr. AR:\rsTROXG. I want to understand Mr. Hauser's objection. Is 
it your position that illegal wiretaps are covered by executive privi- 

Mr. Hai^ser. "Well. I am raising the objection and I will instruct 
him not to answer any questions about Aviretaps. whether we charac- 
terize them here as being legal or illegal. 

Mr. Lenzxer. In view of the fact that Senator Ervin and the com- 
mittee have taken a firm position that illegal activities are not covered 
or protected by executive privilege. I would ask whether proper 
authorization by statutory authorities implemented a wiretap on Mr. 
Kraft, in violation of the law. 

Mr. Hauser. I would raise the same question notwithstanding the 
chairman's statements. I do not know if the subject or the charac- 
terization of whether or not a tap, if there was a tap, was legal or illegal, 
is something that you or I or the chaii'man as such can resolve amongst 
ourselves. I mean, you can call it an illegal one; I can call it legal 
or call it nonexistent, but it does not reallv have any legal import, 
I don't think. 

Mr. Armstrox'o. I'm not absolutely positive, but I believe we dis- 
cussed the Joseph Kraft wiretap in the past in the presence of "White 
House comisel Mithout objection. Can you take a second and consult 
with your office? 

Mr. Hauser. I can. Can you give me some indication of wliere you are 
going with this once again ? 

Mr. Lexzxer. I don't think we have to do that, because this subject 
has been propounded to a variety of witnesses. 

]\fr. Hattser. Shall we go on, and then I can check ? That might be 
more expedient. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I take it, Mr. Hauser, that you would instruct the 
witness or your client not to answer any (piestions also I'clating to 
Donald Nixon's wiretap. 

Mr. Hat'ser. That is correct. 

INfr. Lexzxer. We have that on the record. Let me ask you this, Mr. 
Hauser, since we aie into this proV)le]n. Are you representing Mr. 
Higby today ? 

Mr. Hauser. I am representing the "\^niite House as such under 
the rules and also Mr. Higby in any area in which there is that kind of 
an overlap. I am not retained by Mr. Higby. I am on the staff of the 
"White PTouse counsel's office. 

Mr. AR:\rsTROX'^o. Is ^fr. Hauser here at your request, ]Mr. Higby Y 

Mr. IIi(;nv. He is hei-e witli u\\ totrl concui-rence. not with my spe- 
cific request, no. 


Mr. Lexzxek. Wo will reserve that issue, and if you can contact 
your ottice. because 1 belie\ e this may be a problem that can be resolved, 
and there is no sense of beatin<i' it over the head. You can <i-et a rulin*;- 
from your office. Otherwise, it may be necessary to bring Mr. Iligby 
back and have a dij'ection from the chairman on it. 

I think, for the record, we ])ropounded those questions or similar 
(juestions to Mr. Ilaio- with Mr. Kuzhardt present. And you might 
check with Buzhardt On that, and General Haig answered them. I 
think that is right. 

Mr. IIai'ski;. I will be glad to check. 

Mr. Lkxznki:. 1 Avill check the transcript on tliat. 

Mr. Iluiiiv. When shall we check { 

Ms. SiiKKKTOFF. He refused to answer the questions on Donald 
Nixon asserting national security. 

Mr. AiorsTU()X(;. We will go to another area and come back to that. 

Other than ]\[r. Reagan, were you aware of any othei' individuals 
that Mr. Oaul field em{)loyed i 

Mr. llicr.v. Xo ; 1 am not. 

Mr. AimsTRoxo. Did there come a time when you became aware that 
Mr. I'lasewicz had been emploved b\- Mr. Oaultield I 

Mr.IlmBv. Yes:Idid. ' ' ' ^ 

]Mr. AitMSTROxo. When was that I 

Ml'. IIkjby. When he ai)[)eared at the hearings. 

Mr. AioisTHox'c;. A\'ere you aware of any requests by Mr. llaldeman 
or others in the White House, for Mr. (^lulfield or for Mr. Ehrlichman 
to investigate the incidents suri-ounding the so-called Chappaquiddick 
incident in\-ol\ing Semitor Edwai-d Kennedy? 

Mr. llKiRV. T am not sure I am aware of any request. I think that — 

Mr. AK:\rsTi;oxo. Were you aware of any investigations involving 
the circumstances around Oha])})aquiddick I 

Mr. ITioRY. I'm not sure if I I'ead that in the paper. I thought Colson 
had some information on what had hai)pened up there, but T am not 
sui'o if T am aware of a specific request or a specific investigation or not. 

Mr. AiiMs'rnox'o. Do vou i-ecall if you authorized or you learned 
that Mr. TLildeuian had authorized anv funds cxi)ended on behalf of 
Mr. Oaulfield by :\lr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. ITic.iiv. I cannot call any at this time. 

Mr. Ai;:vrsTi;()X(;. Were you aware of any fimds being transferred 
f lom Ml'. Re})ozo to Mr. Kalmbach ? 

^fi'. Hi(;rv. Rebozo to Kalmbach? 

^fr. Ahmstrox'g. For paying exi:)enses of Mr. Caul field? 

Ml-. HiGBY. Xot that I can recall at this time. 

Mr. Akmstroxg. Were you aware of any transfers of funds from 
A[r. Rebozo to ^Nlr. Kalmbach at any time? 

Mr. Hk;i',y. T do not believe so. 

Mr. AitMSTitox-^G. We will ha\e this identified as exhibit 8. 

[Whereupon, the document referi-ed to was marked Higby exhibit 
Xo. 8, for identification.*] 

Mr. PTiGBY. OK. T have read this. 

'Previously published iu book .'', as exliibit Xo. 34-4, p. 1117. 


Mr. Armstrong. And have you seen that inenioranchnn before? Can 
you identify that? 

Mr. PIiGBY. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can yon tell us the sum and substance of your 
knowled<re about that meuiorandum ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I am not sure if I saw it before. I think you gave it to 
me one time when I was up hei'e for an intervieAv. 

Mr, Armstrong. And do you recall if you had seen it prior to that 

]Mr. ITiGBY. No. I do not. I am not sure if I had seen it before or not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Just for the record, can you just read the title? 

]Mr. HiGBY. I'm not sure if I've seen exhibit 8 before or not, aside 
from the time that I believe Mr. Armstrontr presented it to me one 
time when I was u}) here for an interview. 

Mr. Armstroncj. Can von just read the title of the memorandum? 

Mr. HiGBY. Subject : EMK visit to Honolulu, August 17-19, 1971. 
I think I did see this before, besides the time you gave it to me. 

Mr. Armstron(;. Referring to the substance of the memorandum, 
do you recall the investigation of the events descril)ed in the memo- 
randum ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No. It is pure speculation whether I am mixing this 
witli independent knowledge or with you giA'ing this to me before. 
This was a year ago when we first went through this Dean material. 

Mr. Lenznp:r. Do you have any recollection of ever seeing any 
memorandum relating to ^Vlr. Eebozo at the AMiite House? 

]Mr. IIiGBY. A memorandum relating to Mr. Eebozo at the White 
House ? 

]Mr, Denzner. A memorandum at tlie White House relating to ]Mr. 

]Mr. HiGBY. A memoranduui at the White House relating to Mr. 
Eebozo? I think Dean sent over a memorandum or two to Haldeman 
about the fact that Eebozo was being investigated by Xewsday and 
that they had spent months on it, or something like that, the investi- 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know what action was taken as a result of 
the memoi'andum ? , , ■ 

^Ir. HiGBY. Xo ; I am not suie that I did. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did you have any discussion with ]Mr. Haldeman in 
terms of this memorandum ? 

Mr. Hi(;i5Y. I am sure that I did. I don't recall the specifics of any 
of them. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have a recollection of seeing any memoran- 
dum relating to any funds Mr. Eebozo was raising or had in his 
possession ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Cee, I sure can't recall any. 

Mr. Ar:\[strox'g. Could we have this marked exhibit 9? 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked Higby ex- 
hibits Nos. 9-A and 9-B for identification.*] 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us in what context you recall 
ha\-ingseen those? 

Mr. Hi(;in'. I am not sure if y(Mi ])resented me with these when 1 
was up here before about a yeai- ago, or if I saw them as part of the 

*Soepp. 11138-39. 


iK'au t'xhibits wlicii I was ^'oino- throuiili all of Mr. Dean's tostiiiiony. 
siiicr my name had been mentioned so many times. 1 think thafs 
the context 1 have seen those two items, exhibits UA and U\\. 

Ml-. AuMSTRox(i. Do you recall from the substance of the niemoraii- 
dinn if you have any independent recollection of that? 

Ml-. Hi(;i;v. Xonethat lean recall, no. 

Does that lia\e anythino- to do with Kebozo ? 

^fr. Ai;.MSTHox(!. AVc> believe it mav have some connection. 

A[r.IIi(!i>.Y. Isce. 

Mr. AiiMsTKoxci. AVere you aware of any concern on Mr. l\el)()zo's 
part about Senator Edward Kennedy ( 

^Tr. ITionY. Senator Edwaid Kennedy ? 

Mr. AlorsTRON'G. [Xods in the affirmative]. 

]\rr. IlicBY. Xo. 1 know that Hebe had a o'eneral dislike, and I am 
not sure how I picked it u}). of the Kennedys. I had assumed that it was 
as the result of the I'.XK) cam[)aiun. 

^Ir. AuMSTHoxo. Can you tell us how you learned of that ? 

Mr. IIi(;iiY. Xo; I can't. 

Mr. Akmstkoxg. Grin what way tliat dislike miiiht have manifested 

Mr. HicnY. Xo. I just think that lie mentioned tlie Kennedys a time 
or two in my i)resence. 

]\rr. AHMSTr;()X(;. Do you recall if Mr. Kebozo had requested any 
investigations of the Kemiedys or su^rjiested any in vest i<i:at ions of the 

Mr. lii(;i5Y. To my knowled^iie, he had not. I can recall nolhinjj:. 

]Mr. AiiMsTRoxG.' Are you aware of any investioations that Mr. 
Khrlichman or Haldeman lune conducted of the Kennedys, other 
than what you have read in these two memorandums i 

]Mr. IlKiBY. When T was up here a year ago, you told me that 1 
authorized a :i4-hour surveilhince of Kennedy, and Dean testified to 
it the next day. I have wracked my brain, and I can still not remember 
doinii' that. Ijut apparently there was some effort underway there. 

Mr. Akmsthoxc. But you have no indei)endent kn()wled<ie of that? 

^Ir. IlnaiY. Aside from exhibits 

Mr. AK^rs-ii;()X(;. Aside from what you learned from ^Nfr. Dean's 

Mr. IIuaiY. Or exhibits pi'esented. no. 

Mr. LExzxEit. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Kebozo, relatinir 
to the interest in inA-esti<:-ations. and efforts that the White House 
made to ohtain infonnation on the Chappaquiddick incident? 

^h: IIuiHY. T don't recall any. Terry, no. T don't recall any occa- 
sion of Kebozo makina" any specific inciuiry about the Kennedys. 

Mr. Lexzxei;. Xot a specific inquiry, but he had. or i)layed a 
role in the AVhite House's efforts to obtain information on the Chappa- 
([uiddick incident? 

^Fr. IIiciBY. Xo : I was not aware of that. 

Mr. Lexzxei:. Did you have any responsibilities for any expenses 
incuri-ed at the President's homes in either San Clemeiite or Key 
1 Biscay !U' ( 

^fr. IIuMiY. Expenses incurred ? 

Mr. Lexzxek. Yes, sir. 


Mr. HiGBT. Xot that I can recall for his home, no. 

Mr. Lexzxer. I am talkin^: not about the public problems but the 
private i)roblems. 

Mr. ITioBY. That is why I specifically queried you. No, I can- 
not recall any. There was a controversy when we were building the 
whole complex out in San Clemente, and at that time there was a 
specific decision made between Mr. Tlaldeman and ]Mr. Ehrlichman 
that I would handle all the staff and pul)lic facilities and that Mr. 
Ehrliclunan would handle all of the private facilities. And the fence 
was the dividing line in terms of our responsibilities. 

Xow, T know upon occasion Kalm]>ach has mentioned to me, I think 
one time when the President was going to go out there, there was a 
question of whether or not the kitchen would be done in time and 
how much it would cost. This was in 1070 oi- 1971. They were doing 
some remodeling woi'k. l^ut that is about the only occasion I can 
recall there. 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Do you have any information regarding whether Mr. 
Rebozo or any other individual furnished any funds for expense 
items paid for at San Clemente for expenditures incun-ed at San 
Clemente ? 

INIr. IIiciJY. Exi)enditures incurred at San Clemente? 

Mv. Lexzxer. Yes. 

Mr. ITiGiiY. Whether Rebozo furnished them? I don't know. The 
only possibility I would have knowledge of there is, if by chance he 
were a member of that — I think the group was called the Friends of 
Nixon. They built a golf course out there, pitch and putt or some- 

]Mr. Lexzxer. Any other areas? 

Mr. PTicKY. Not that 1 recall, no. 

Mr. Lexzer. What about Key Biscayne ? 

"Were you ever aware, or did you ever learn or receive any informa- 
tion that Mr. Rebozo or any private individual furnished funds and 
paid for or assumed liability for any expenditures on the Key Bis- 
cayne property of the President ? 

Mr. IIi(;hy. T caimot recall any at this time, Terry. 

]Mr. Lexzer. Let me show you a memorandum dated January 12, 
1970, which has your name on it, and ask you what item 1 relates to, 
and we will have it marked after your answer. 

INIr. HiGHY. Yes. Go ahead. Ask whatever question you want to ask. 

My name apparently is only on here once. I think Avhat they are 
referring to here, Terry, although I am not positive, is the removal 
of the pool in the west wing and the conversion of that whole project 
to the press office, where the pi'css office is now located. 

INfr. Lexzer. It does not relate to San Clemente or Key Biscayne? 

Mr. HioBY. I don't know anything about Key Biscayne, but I know 
in San Clemente, T think, the ])ool was completed in the sununer of 
1969. I think these are all White House-related items here. 

Mr. Lexzer. Just for reference, let's have that marked exhibit 10. 
[Whei'eupon, the document referred to was marked as ITigbv ex- 
hibit No. 10.*] 

♦Seep. 11140. ''\ 


]Mr. AuMSTKOxo. Iliirby. do you recall an investigation by Xows- 
(lay newspaper in [.ono; Island. X.Y.. of Mi'. Kebozo i 

AEr. Hn-.UY. Yes. 1 do. 

Mr. AuMSTKOxc;. Do you recall if. prior to the publication of the 
stories about ^Ir. Robozo. if ^Iv. Rebozo raised with Mr. Haldenian, 
the President, or any other AMiite House official, any questions regard- 
inc that investiof^tion ^ 

Mr. IIiGBV. Most of the trailic I was aware of on that was between 
Dean and Haldenuin. 

]Mr. Armstkoxg. Can you tell us what you were aware of in that 
subject ? 

^tv. Hir.BY. That Dean became <renerally aware of the investigation, 
and he would update Haldenian on what they were probing into. And 
1 think there was one thing about the incredible amount of money they 
had spent on the investigation. Thev had had four men assigned to it 
for 12 weeks or something like that. 

Mr. Armsti;oxg. Do you recall if there was any investigation of the 
start' that Avere performing the Xewsday investigation^ 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. I think there was a general awareness of who they 
were, and for some reason the name ''Schram" stands out for me. 

Mr. Akmsti;ox(;. Let me have this marked as exhibit 11. 

[Whereupon, the documents referred to were marked as Higby 
exhibits Xos. 11-A and ll-B.^-] 

]\Ir. IIiGBY. The general substance of exhibit 11-A makes sense in 
that we were concerned about when the article was going to be pub- 
lished and who the people were in it. 

The general substance of exhibit 11-B I have no recollection of and 
don't believe I was ever aware 

Mr. AmrsiKoxG. Just for the record, exhibit 11-R was a memoran- 
dum to Mr. Caulfield from Mr. Dean on Octobei* 14. 1971. relating to 
the Xewschiy ai-ticle supposedly financed by the Kennedy Foundation. 

Were you aware of ]Mr. Ehrlichman assigning any member of his 
staff to go down and interview Mr. Rebozo to find out what, if any, 
substance there might be to some of the Xewsday- allegations? 

^Ir. Higby. I don't believe I was. iNIr. Scott. I don't recall it at this 

!Mr. Armstkoxg. Or Mr. Fred Fielding visiting ]Mr. Rebozo down 
there and recpiesting additional information of ^Ir. Rebozo? 

Mr. Higby. I do not recall that. I thought Mr. — well, no. Xo, I 
don't recall. 

]Mr. Armstrox'g. You started to say ]Mr. 

Mr. Higby. I thought that maybe Dean and Rebozo had talked 
once, but I am not really sure of that. I just know that Dean was 
handling that whole matter for the White House. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Were you aware of any responsibilities that Mr. 
Lyn Xofziger had, relating to the Xewsday — X-o-f-z-i-g-e-r? 

Mr. Higby. Xone that I can recall at this time. He worked in press- 
related areas like that, but I do not recall any specific responsibilities 
he had at this time. 

Mr. Armstrox-g. May we have marked as exhibits 12-A and 12-B, 
two memorandums, one from Mr. Caulfield to ]Mr. Dean on November 2, 

'See pp. 11143-44. 


1971, and the other for John Dean from David Wilson, dated Decem- 
ber 1, 1971. 

[Whereupon, the documents refeii-ed to were marked as Hig:by ex- 
lii})its Nos. 12-A and 12-B, for identification.*] 

Mr. HiGBY. I do not recall ever seeing either one of these memo- 
randums. Be it noted here I am referring to exhibits 12-A and 12-B. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Are you acquainted with the substance of either 
memorandum ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I do not believe so. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you have any knowledge about the references 
made in the last sentence of exhibit 11-A^ 

Mr. IIiGBY. Do you mean r2-A i 

Mr. Armstrong. 12-A, regarding the Xewsday project ? 

Mr. IIiGBY. No, what I would interpret the Xewsday project to be — 
would be the fact that Newsday was investigating JRebozo. which I 
have already indicated to you I was aware of. 

Mr. Armstrong. In the course of your duties in the White House, 
do you recall seeing any memorandum relating to IToAvartl Tlua-hes or 
the'lIughesToolCo.? " 

Mr. HiGBY. I cannot recall any at this time. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall a memorandum relating to the TWA 
litigation that the Hughes Tool Co. was going through at that time? 

]Mr. HiGBY. Not at this time, no. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or the acquisition of the Dunes Hotel? 

Mr. HiGBY. No. 

Mr. Armstr(^ng. Or to a suggestion by the President that Dr. Kis- 
singer visit Mr. Hughes and lirief him on the subject of ABM — the' 
Govermnent's ABM policy ? 

^Ir. IIiGBY. I do not recall such a thing. It's not impossible, but I 
don't recall it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than Mr. Chapin's reference that Mr. Hughes 
and Mv. Rebozo were somehow acquainted, do you recall if ^Ir. Kalm- 
bach or anyone else mentioned any association between Mr. Hughes 
and Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. HiGBY. With Hughes and Rebozo ? No. Kalmbach I thought was 
in touch with one of — I think I recall him reporting once that he was 
in touch with one of Hughes" associates with ivgard to possible cam- 
paign contributions. 

^Nlr. Armstrong. Do you recall when that was? 

Mr. IItgby. No. I would guess it would be 1970, because I don't 
think I recall anything like that from tlie 1972 campaign, but it coul'd 
have been. 

Mr. Ar.MSTRONG. Do you recall who of ^fr. Hughes' associates it 
might have been ? 

Mr. IIiGBY. No. 

Ml'. Armstrong. Do you recall wliat the result of tluit contact was? 

Mr. HiGBY. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall from wliom you learned it? 

Mr. IIiGBY. I think from Kalmbach one time when he was briefing 

]Mr. Ar:mstrong. Would this ha\e been a meeting in which you would 
have taken notes ? 

'Seopp. 11145-46. 


Mr. HiGBY. Probjiblv not — of tlio contribution stuff, no. 

]Mr. ARMsiTioxG. Do you recall if Mr. Kalmbach was given any 
directions by Mi-. Haldenian as to whether or not to continue to try to 
raise funds from the Ilughes organization or Mr. Huglies? 

Mr. IIiGBY. Xo. I do not. 

Mr. Armstkoxg. Were you aware of any f undraising responsibilities 
that Mr. Rebozo had in either the 196S campaign or the 1972 

Mr. Htgby. You have asked me that three times. No, I don't think 
that I was. 

yiv. AinrsTROXG. And were you aware, at any time, of any funds that 
]Mr. Rebozo received from any campaign contributor during that time, 
prior to press accounts last summer and fall ? 

!Mr. IliGBY. I do not believe so, vScott. no. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. "Were you aware of campaign contributions from 
]Mr. Pappas. Tojn Pappas ? 

]Mr. HiGBY. I don't think son. no. 

^Ir. Armstroxg. Or J. Paul (letty ? 

^[r. HiGBY. Kalmbach might have mentioned each of their names 
in reporting to Haldeman on his fundraising ability or successes, but 
I do not specifically recall them. 

]Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall if Kalmbach ever reported that Mr. 
Rebozo had given him names of individuals to contact? 

Mr. HiGBY. Not that I can recall, no. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall if you learned of any contributions 
by Mr. A. D. Davis or Mr. J. E. Davis of the Winn-Dixie Corp. ? 

^Ir. HiGBY. Neither one of those names mean anything to me except 
having seen them in the paper, I believe yesterday or the day before. 

^Nlr. Artmstroxc;. Do you recall any concer'n in the White House about 
the association l)etween ]Mr. F. Donald Nixon and Mr. John Meier, 

Mr. HiGBY. John Meier ? . 

Mr. Armstroxg. Of the Huirhes Tool Co. 

Mr. HiGBY. Not that I recall, no. 

Mr. Armstrox'G. Do you recall any instructions by Ish: Haldeman to 
atiyone. regarding the fact that !Mr. Donald Nixon should be instructed 
himself, not to associate with John ]Meier or any other individual ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I don't recall any specific instructions. The only thing 
I recall about that is Avhat I related to you. I don't recall any specific 
names associated with it. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Are you acquainted with ]Mr. Stanley McKiernan — 
yiv. Donald Nixon and Mv. Edward Nixon's lawyer? 

]Mr. HiGBY. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Are you aware of preparation of a briefing book 
on the Nixon brothere as to their potential campaign lial^ilities ^ This 
was during the 1072 camj)aign. 

Mr. HiGBY. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Returning to the Richard Nixon Foundation, can 
you tell us what your knowledge is, of the employment by the Richard 
Nixon Foundation, of ]Mr. Edward Nixon ? 

^Ir. HiGBY. Simply that Ed was employed by the Foundation at 
some rate on a consultant basis, I believe, at some rate — T thought 
$1,500 a month ; is that right ? 


Mr. Armstrong. I think you are correct. 

Mr. HiGBY. For the piir]wse of consiUtinof and visiting various 
potential sites, library sites. I believe. And also. T believe, he did some 
mediating: in terms of talking to some of the people in AMiittier, who 
very much wanted it to be in Whittier; and that sort of thing. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you know whose suggestion it was initially that 
he should be em])loyed by the Nixon Foundation ? 

Mr. HiGBY. [Nods negatively.] 

INIr. Armstrong. Did you, or to your knowledge, did Mr. Haldeman 
give any instructions that he was to be employed ? 

]Mr. HiGBY. I can recall no instructions. T am not sure if the instruc- 
tions were to employ him or to continue employment. ]My recollection 
is, it was to continue employment. I think Kalmbach raised the ques- 
tion wnth me at one point in time as to whether or not his employment 
should continue, and I raised the ([uestion with Mv. PTaldeman, and I 
think he subsequently informed me that it should. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did you in tuiii relay that to Mr. Kalmbach? 

Mr. HKiBY. I believe so ; yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you relay that to anyone else ? 

INIr. HiGBY. I don't believe so ; no. 

Ml'. Arinestrong. Did you ever have any discussions with ]Mr. 
Leonard Firestone? 

Mr. Htgby. No, sir; although I think I understood from Kalmbach 
that Firestone was the kind of the guy that Edward Nixon checked in 
Avith on, I assumed, this matter. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did you ever become aware of any instructions 
to Mr. Firestone, directions to ]Mr. Fii-estone, or requests of INIr. Fire- 
stone, that he should employ any other individuals? 

Mr. Higby. There was discussion as to whether or not ^Messrs. Halde- 
man and Ehrlichman should not be employed, when they resigned 
from the "White House, by the foundation for the purpose of the 
papers. And the next thing I knew — this was general discussion with- 
in the White House between me and Mr. Haldeman — and T think the 
next thing I knew about it, Firestone had come out in the paper saying 
that under no cir-cumstances would they be employed. This is 197;^). 

Mr. Armstrong. This would have been in the period of April or 
May of 1973 ? 

Mr. Htgby. Yes. . 

Mr. Armstron(;. Prior or subsequent to Mr. Haldeman's departure 
f i-om the AVhite House ? 

Mr. Higby. It may have been discussed piior to his departure, but it 
was right around that time. 

Mr. Armstrong. Eight around April .'lO, 1973 ? 

Mv. Htgby. Right. 

]\fr. Ariststrong. You say you leai-ned of this in discussions with 
Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Htgby. T believe so ; yes. 

Ml*. Armstrong. Did you have any contact with Mr. Fii'estone 
in this matter? 

Mr. Higby. No; and T do not believe Haldeman did either. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate that anyone had ? 


Mr. HiGBv. To my knowledfi'o. he did not. Pardon mc; to the best 
of niv I'ecolloction, he did not. Didn't we <2.o o\er this before, Scott? 

Mv. Armsthonc. Otl t he record. 

[Discussion otl the recoi'd.] 

Mr. AKMSTTioxG. Back on tlie lecord. You say tluit you were not 
aware of any eall by Mi-. Khrlichman to Mr. Firestone instructinfj him 
to put ]\Ir. Hakleman on the payroll ^ 

Mr. HiGHY. Xo. sir; not that I can recall. A^^ly, is that indicated 
there ? 

^Nfr. Armstkoxg. Xo: you liave not indicated that to us at any prior 
time. Are you familiar with the cor[)oration, Kesorts International? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo; I am not familiar with that name. 

Mr. Armstroxg. ())• Paradise Island? 

Mr. IIiGBY. ^'es. 

^fi'. Armsikoxi;. And Resorts is the cor[)oration which owns Para- 
dist> Island. 

Mr. IIiGBY. It is ? 

^Tr. Armstrox'g. It is. Mr. James ( 'rosby — are you familiar 

Mr. HiGBY. Chapin mentioned his name as one of the President's 
friends. Jimmy (^rosby, they call him. 

Ml-. AR:\rsTKox(;. Or, Tack I)a\'is: that is the other principal. 

Mv. Hi(;by. That name does not rino; a bell. 

Mr. AR:\rsTi;oxG. Do you recall it", in liXlO. there was any discussion 
in the White House that you were aware (^f or if you saw any memo- 
randums retlectin<2: a concern about pending' leoislation that would 
lia\e forced Resorts International to dispose^ of their stock in Pan 
American Airlines? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. sir : I do not recall any. 

Mi-. Armstkoxg. Do you recall Mr. Kalmbach reporting on that 
subject ^ 

Mr. IIi(;by. I do not. 

]\rr. Armstrox'g. Do you recall Afr. Rebozo raisinc: any questions of 
Mv. TIaldeman reo-ardino- the administration's position rejxardino; Re- 
sorts Intel-national ? 

ATr. HiGBY. Xo, sir ; I do not. 

]\rr. Armstroxg. Subsequent to learnino- — you say you learned of 
the Tluizhes contribution to Mr. Rebozo through press accounts in the 

Mr. IIiGBY. I do not know. "Whenever it came into the paper. I 
thought it was the spi-ing of this year. Was it the fall of last year? 

Mr. Ar:mstroxg. I believe there were some press accounts at that 
time. ' 

Mr. IIiGBY. OK. 

Mv. Armstroxg. In August of 1071, Jack Anderson printed a col- 
umn in which he discussed the fact that Mr. Danner, on behalf of Mr. 
Hughes, had transmitted a $100,()()() contribution to Mr. Rebozo. Do 
you recall seeing that column ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. I do not. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall if Mr. Kalmbach had been assigned 
to \'isit ]\ri-. Herman Greenspun ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo, I do not. 

^Ir. Armstroxg. Regarding this contribution? Or a question Mr. 
Greenspun had raised about it ? 


Mr. HiGBY. No, sir ; I do not. . . 

Mr. Armsteono. Were yon aware of any qnestion 

Mr. HiGHV. I do not recall. When I say, "I do not," that is what I 
am referrino-to. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are yon aware of any qnestion Mr. Greenspnn had 
raised regurdinij the contribntion ? 

Mr. PTiGBY. I am not aware of who Mr. Greenspnn is. 
. Mr. Armstrong. The pnblishei- of the Las Ve^as Sun. 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. I am not aware of any questions. I don't recall any 
(jnestions beino- raised by Mr. Greenspnn. 

Mr. Armstron(}. Were you aware of any inquiries lieino; raised 
about contributions of Howard Hughes prior to the press reports? 

AFr. ITiGBY. I caimot recall any, Scott, other than what I have al- 
ready related to you. 

Mr. AR:\rsrnoNG. Were you aware of Mr. Haldeman at any time, or 
Ml'. Ehrlichman at any time, instructino- Mr. Kalmbach to visit Mr. 
Greenspnn for any reason ? 

Mr. PTiGBY. I can recall no such instruction beino; <rive]i. 

Mr. AR:\Es'm()NG. Or Mr. Kalmbach visitins: with Mr. Edward P. 
Moi'iran, reo-ardiu"' a contribution fi-om ISfr. Tlu^'hes? 

Mr. ITiGBY. I cannot recall any. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are von faiuiliar with Mr. Edwaid P. Morofan? 

IVIr. HiGBY. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. He was an attoiney for ]\Ir. Huc:hes, and was a 
local attorney. 

INIr. PTiGBY. T do not recall his name comino: up. 

Mr. Armstrong. Subseciuent to youi- first knowledo:e throucrh the 
pi'ess of the Hu<2:hes contribution to ^Mi'. Tiebozo. luwe you had any 
discussions with any present or former employees in the "\\niite PTouse 
on that subject? 

Mr. HiGBY. Other than what we have discussed ? 

jNIt-. Armstrong. Other than what we have discussed today. 

Mr. PTiGBY. No; no. sir. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Are you awai'e of a meetiu"; between ]\Ir. Richard 
Danner. the President, and Mr. Rebo/.o at Camp David on ]March 20, 

Mr. HiGBY. Other than learning- about it in the pi-ess, no. sir. 

]\fr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any assets which the President 
has which were not disclosed in the Cooper-P^ybrand report? 

Mr. ITiGBY. I have not looked in any detail at the Cooper-Lybrand 
report. T am not fjenerally aware of the President's assets, thouofh. 

]\rr. Armstrong. Ai-e you awaie of any presently undisclosed assets? 

INfr. ITiGBY. No, sir; I am not. 

Mr. Armstrong. And are you. other than what you mifrht have 
infen-ed from Mr. Haldeman's comments refxardiufr the availability 
of leo:al defense funds for Mr. Pebozo, are you aware of any undis- 
closed assets that Mr. Pebozo holds ? 

Ml-. HiGBY. No. sir; I am not. We ono:ht to, just to be clear- — I ani 
not aware of what the extent of ^Nlr. Rel)ozo's assets are. I am not 
sure which of his assets are disclosed or undisclosed. 

]\rr. Armstrong. You have never had any of Mr. Rebozo's assets 
described to vou as hidden or undisclosed assets? 


Mr. HiGBY. No, sir. 

;Mr. AimsTROxo. Other than the tape with the so-called 18-miniite 
gap, are you aware of any other eiasures. iraps, or alterations of any 
tapes of the Presidential taping system? 

Mr. HiGBV. Other than what has been re[)orted in the press, no. 

Mr. Akmstuoxg. Tiiere have been reports in the press about gaps in 
tapes other than the tape with the 18-niinute gap. Are you aware of 
the substance of any of those chuiges or allegations? 

INIr. Higby. Xo. I am not. 

Mr. Armstroxg. OH' the record. 

[Discussion otl' the record.] 

^Ir. Armstroxg. Back on the record. 

Do you have any knowledge relating to a plan or an actual attempt 
to break into the premises of Herman Greenspun, publisher of the 
T-,as Vegas Sun ^ His home or office ^ 

Mr. Higby. Other than what 1 read in the paper, no; I do not. 

Mr. Armsiijoxg. Have you read the transcripts that were released 
to the House Judiciary Committee ? 

Afr. Higby. Xo; T have not. 

Mr. Armstrong. "Well, there is one reference — I don't have it with 
me — but there is one reference in the transcript — the President, and 
Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Ehrlichnian are discussing the fact that Mv. 
(""olson has briefed Mr. Ehrlichnum on this alleged break-in. Do you 
have any knowledge as to Mr. Colson's briefing of the President, Mr. 
Haldeman, or Mr. Ehrliclnnan t 

Mr. Higby. Xo; I do not. 

^Ir. Armstrox'g. Did there come a time when you became aware 
thai the Internal Revemie Service was about to initiate an investigation 
of Mr. Rebozo or any audit of Mv. Rebozo ^ 

Mi-. HiGiiY. T am not sure if I read it in the paper or if I l)ecame 
aware of it inde])endently. It was last year, is what I recall. 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Do you recall if you learned of this before ]Mr. 
Haldeman left the "White House ? 

Mr. Higby. I do not; no. 

Mr. AR:\rsTR0XG. Do you recall — if vou arc aware, of an Internal 
I\e\enue Service i)roject which iiuolved an investigation of the Hughes 
Tool Co., and the disposition of various funds for political 

Mv. Higby. I do not believe I was. I do not recall being aware of that. 

Mv. Armstroxg. Did you ever connnunicate with Mr. Pebozo regard- 
inu' any Internal Pevenue Service investigation? 

^li-. Higby. Xo; I do not l)elieve so. 

Ml'. Armstroxg. Wei'e vou awai'c 

Mr. Higby. Pardon me I 

Mv. Armstroxg. Wer(> vou a\^•aI■^' of any contact between Mr. Halde- 
man and Mv. Ehrlichman, or the President and Mr. Pebozo regarding 
an Internal Pevenue Ser\"ice investigation? 

Mr. Higby. I cannot recall any now. 

^Fr. Armstroxg. Have you had any comcrsations recently on that 
subiect ? 

Mv. Higby. Xo. 

Mr. Armstroxg. I have one moi'e question, but it fits better after 
this ; so why don't you go ahead. 


Mr. TjEnzner. Did you ever hear any discussions of any vulnerability 
that Rebozo had, any areas of concern that Mr. Haldeman or Mr. 
Ehrlichman liad with reo;ard to Mr. Kebozo ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No. 

INIr. Lenzner. I am not sure we asked this question flat out — do you 
know whether Mr. Haldeman or ]Mr. Ehrlichman or any other in- 
dividuals have received any funds from other individuals for their 
le^al expenses or expenses incurred after they left the White House? 

Mr. PTiGHY. Xo. I am not aware — wait. Yes, I am. I liave an under- 
standing — I don't have any firsthand know]ed<!;e. 

]Mr. Lenzner. What do you understand? 

Mr. PTiGBY. I understand that ]Mr. — this is kind of unfair, because 
these poor guys are really — oft' the record, please, for a moment. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

^Ir. HiGBY. Now I can go back on the record. 

No, I am not aware of any funds, just pure grants, being given to 
either Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman since they left the White 

]Mi-. Lenzner. Or moneys made available to them for expenses they 
incurred, other than compensation for work that they had done? 

]\Ir. HiGBY. No. I am not. 

]Mr. Lenzner. Then I take it you are not aware whether Mr. Ehrlich- 
man or Mr. Haldeman received funds from Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I am not specifically aware. To the best of my 
knowledge and a general impression I received from talking to Mr. 
Haldeman — and 1 cannot vouch for ^Nlr. Ehrlichman's situation — 
is that he has received funds from no one. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know that explicitly, or is it an impression? 

jNIr. PIiGBY. It is an impression, Terry. 

Mr. Lenzner. And when you talked to him the last couple of weeks, 
he has not indicated specifically that he has or has not received specific 
funds f T'om ]Mr. Rebozo ? 

]\Ir. HiGBY. No, but the strong impression is that he has not receiA'ed 
any from Mi-. Rebozo; because he has talked to me a couple of times 
about how he is starting to go through the necessary ste):)S to set up 
a legal defense fund. I do not think, up until a week ago, he even had 
one set up. 

Mr. Lenzner. Has INIr. Rebozo's name come up in connection with 
the legal defense ? 

INIr. HiGBY. No. ]Mr. Haldeman and ^Nfr. Rebozo were never really 
that close. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you know of any other individuals, other than 
]\fr. PLildeman or INlr. Ehi'lichman, who were intended to I'eceive 
funds f I'om Mr. Rebozo ? 

Mr. PIiGBY. No, T do not. 

Mr. Lenzner. Was there any reason, to your knowledge, based on 
your conversations or infoi-mation received, why ]\Ir. Rebozo might 
furnish money foi- legal fees foi- either of those ? 

INIr. HiGBY. I was nevei- clear whether — other than he was a friend 
of the Pi-esident and they were friends of the Pi-esident, no. 

Mr. Lenzner. Did Mr. Haldeman indicate to you that the President 
had discussed this issue with ]Mr. Rebozo? 


Mr. HiGBY. No. I do not think he did. 

Mr. Lexzxer. He did not say one way or another? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. 

]\Ir. Lexzxer. AVas there any discussion with Mr. Haldeman with 
regard to tlie propiiety of ]\Ir. llaklenian and Mr. Ehrlichnian receiv- 
ing- funds from Mr. Rebozo ? 


Mr. Lexzxer. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. HiGBY. Xo. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Do you know of any discussions of that nature? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Have you luul any discussions with Mr. Haldeman 
rehiting to the payment of funds by Messrs. LaEue, Rivers, Caufiekl, 
Ulasewicz, or others to the original Watergate defendants? 

Mr. HiGBY. Have I had any discussions with Mr. Haldeman regard- 
ing the payment of funds by anybody — is the essence of wdiat you are 
asking me!^ in relation to the origiiml Watergate defendants? 

Mr. Armstrox-^g. [Xods affirmatively."] 

Mr. HiGBY. Yes. I have upon occasion discussed that -with him. 

Mr. .Vrmstrox'g. And can you tell us the general substance of those 

]Mr. HiGBY. The discussions were more on the basis along the lines 
ithat any ]:)ayments that were made — Haldeman understood were 
made for the purpose of legal defense and family support; that he 
never was aware of the fact that any payments made to them were 
made for the purposes of hush money. And that is covering general 
knowledge over the past, really, almost liA years now. 

^Ir. Armstroxg. Did Mr. Haldeman ever indicate that he had 
authorized any of those pajnnents ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you kno\v if he. in fact, did authorize any of 
those payments ? 

Mr. HiGBY. The payments specifically? Xo, he told me he did not. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Or generally. 

]\Ir. PIiGBY. Pardon me. He has given me the impression that he 
did not. 

IMr. Armstroxg. Do you know if he evei- authorized it generally? 
Instructed Mr. Dean or anyone else to take care 

Mr. HiGBY. Xo. as a matter of fact. I have talked to you — can we go 
off the record for a minute ? 

Mr. Armstrox'g. Sure. 

TDiscussion off the record."] 

^Ir. HiGBY. Back on the record, then. With regard to Haldeman's 
instructions on disbursal of the remaining $350 or the $350, when 
tlie subject was first raised bv ^Nlr. Strachan, I believe I raised it with 
Mr. Haldeman. and Mi-. Haldeman's instruction was that the $350 
was to be returned to the committee, that those were coinmittee fmids. 
At some point. I believe a week or two after the initial instruction, 
the subject was raised again, that it had not been returned. In a phone 
call with Mr. Dean, ]Mr. Haldeman — I only heard one-half of the con- 
versation — but got the impression that Mr. Dean had already dis- 
bui'sed some of the monev. ^Nlr. Haldeman, T believe, at that time. 

indicated to Mr. Dean that the money should l)e ootten back, any money 
that he had disbursed. And that all that money was to be returned to 
the connnittee, that that was the committee's money. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of any instructions that ^Ir. Ilalde- 
man (»:ave to anyone regarding the payment of that money to the 
defendants in the original AVatergate case? 

Mv. HiGBY. I do not think that I am; no. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. HiGBY. Now on the record ; no, I am not aw^are of Haldeman 
advising anyone to pay any money to the defendants. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Do you recall wiien Ilakleman tirst told you that 
he was aware that the defendants were receiving legal fees or these 
funds ? 

Mr. HiGBY. No; I do not recall when he was first aware, but I think 
he was generally aware. In fact, I think there w^ere newspaper accounts 
to the effect that they were still being paid some money by the com- 
mittee. And I think that during the discussion of when the trials might 
be, the question was raised and tlie understanding was that their legal 
fees were being take care of. 

Mr. Armstrong. Just to be candid with you. the notes of the last 
interview reflect 

Mr. HiGBY. Can we go oft' the record, please ? 
,. Mr. Armstrong. Are you sure you don't want this on ? 
., Mr. HiGBY. OK, fine. 

Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. Reflect that Haldeman told Higby 
that Haldeman w-as aware of the fact that the defendants were re- 
ceiving legal fees in March of 19T''>. Haldeman never told Higbv that 
they w^ere receiving hushup money. Higby w^as not aware before 
March 1073 that they wei-e receiving legal fees. To the best of your 
knowledge, w^as that statement correct at that time ? 

Mr. Higby. You are asking me to recollect conversations of about 
a year ago. I thought that their general exj^enses were being taken care 
of, and I thought I knew that back in February or Januarv- 

Mr. Armstrong. Of 107P) ? 

Mr. Higby. Yes, sir. * 

Mv. Arinistrong. Do vou recall if you were aware of any payments 
to the defendants prioi- to Mr. Hunt's guiltv plea ? 

Mv. Higby. I do not know when Mi-. Hunt's guilty ])lea Avas. 

Mr. Armstrong. That was in December or early January — very 
earlv January 1973. 

Afr. Higby. I just do not recall. 

Ml". Armsit^ong. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not 
the Pi-esident authorized the pavuient of anv of these fees to any of 
tlie defendants? 

Ml-. Higby. No, I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do vou ha\e anv knowledge as to the jiavment of 
$75,000 to Mr. Hunt on March 21,1 073 ? 

Mi-. Higby. T have heard infei-ence uiade to it. 

Mr. Armstrong. Other than from public, other than from media 
accouuts? ^ , ^ 

Mr. Higby. Yes. • 

Mr. Armstron(!. Have you receivc^d information fi'om any othcu- 


Mr. HiGBY. Ye*, I have. 

Mr. AmiSTRONG. Can you tell us what that was ? 

Mr. HiGBY. I understand that payment was authorized prior to 
March 21, by Mr. John Dean. 

Mr. Armstrong. And from whom do you undei-stand that? 

Mr. HiGBY. General Hai^j. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you relate the substance of that conversation? 

Mr. Higby. Ye^. Can we go off the lecord for a minute ? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Higby. On the record. j • 

The only information I have is from General Haig, and he indicsiied 
to me that it apparently has now been established by the Special Prose- 
cutor's office that that payment was authorized prior to March 21, by 
]\fr. John Dean. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did General Hai<>: indicate how he had learned 
al)out it ? 

Mr. Higby. No, he did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Or what evidence the Special Prosecutor had to 
support that ? 

Mr. Higby. Xo, he did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. It mi<2fht be hel]:)ful if you related the portion you 
related jn-eviously, off the record, about Avhy the o^rand jury mifrht be 

Mr. Higby. The reason I had orifjinally gone to talk to Mr. Haijr 
Avas to find out why the grand jury was calling: me back again to go 
over testimony that I had essentiallv already covered in public hearing 
before Judge Sirica. And that is how I got into the conversation with 
Mi-. Haig. the fact that apparently the March 21 notes were missing. 

Mr. Ar^fstrong. And Mr. Haldeman had recalled that there were 
iiotes ? 

Mr. Higby. And that Mr. Haldeman had testified at some point in 
time that he thought there were some notes from March 21. 

Mr. Armstrong. And you have been unable to locate any March 21 
notes, is that correct ? 

yiv. Higby. That is correct. I only searched for them once, and I was 
unable to locate them at that time. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are anv of Mr. Haldeman's files located in any 
other place than 522 of the Executive Office Building? 

Mr. Higby. I do not believe so. 

]Mr. Armstrong. There is no other safe or cache of files that you 
are aware of? 

Mr. Higby. Not that I am aware of. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Dick ? 

Mr. SciirLTz. I have 2 hours" worth of questions — no questions. 

Ml-. Ar:\istrong. Mary ? 

Ms. DeOreo. In one of your earlier interviews, you said Haldeman 
at one time asked Barth to send u]) his own returns — Haldeman's own 
tax returns. 

Mr. Higby. Send up ? 

]\Is. DeOreo. Appai-ently so Haldeman could review them. And my 
question was gfoing to stem off this. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 25 


Mr. HiGBY. No. I think you are wrong. I think what Haldeman — 
well, <i:o alioad ; finish your question. 

Ms. DkOreo. Tf Barth had ever sent Haldeman anything else; for 
instance, a sensitive case repoi-t that would review anything the IRS 
was looking into? 

Mr. HiGBY. No, I think most of those kinds of matters came from 
the Secretary of the Treasuiw directly. I think that is an incorrect 
impression. I do not think Barth ever sent Haldeman his tax returns 
other than — Avhat I think I tried to relate there is I-Jarth came over to 
review tax returns after he — Haldeman — had prepared them to make 
sure they wei'e correctly prepared so that there was no impropriety 
in Mr. Haldeman filing his tax return. 

Ms. DeOreo. Did the Secretary of the Treasury ever send any sensi- 
tiA^e case ?-eports to Haldeman ? 

Mr. Htgby. I don't know if he sent reports. I think u]^on occasion 
he indicated that people wei'e being investigated. T think — I am not 
sure if it was to Haldeman or Dean — and then Dean sent it to Halde- 
man. But they were not case reports; they are all public. T think — 
the John Wayne one and the Dr. Ryland one are the ones that come 
to mind. 

Ms. DeOkeo. ok. but again, Mr. O'Brien's name or Mr. Rebozo or 
anything having to do with the Hughes investigation, w^as this specif- 
ically brought to Haldeman's attention ? 

Mr. HiGBY. Not that I can recall, no. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was there a file — did Mr. Haldeman maintain a 
file related to IRS matters or the sensitive case repoi'ts ? 

Mr. HicBY. No; in fact, the only piece of paper I can recall on it — 
I think it was mostly by phone — the piece of paper that I recall is 
the one that we have had in evidence here about John Wayne and 
Billy Graham, or something like that. 

Ms. DeOreo. ok. * ' , 

Mr. Armstroxg. Emily? 

Ms. SiiEK?:T0Fr. [Nodding negatiA'ely.] 

Mr. IlAt'SER. One final thing. Scott. Mv. Iligby has asked me to 
request a copy of his transcript that was mentioned before, and that 
you would have to present that to the committee for formal action 
before you can get it. And the other thing he would ask is that he be 
furnished relevant portions of Mr. Kalmbach's testimony — portions 
that would pei'tain to ]Mr. Higby. I believe that's also provided for 
under rule 22 of the committee's Rules of Procedure. 

Mr. Armstrong. I think the Rules of Procedure make reference to 
that before it is made public. I think there is some reference there 
that befor-e any testimony is made public or at which time it is made 
public, anyone who is mentioned adversely has an opportunity to 

Mr. Hauser. I think there ai-e two different places. I think there 
is that section, but there is also a section which provides that rele- 
vant portions of othei" Avitnesses' testimony may be given to a witness 
so that he could protect his rights as such. And since ISIr. Hiirby is 
being questioned by the grand jury and other forums. I think it is 
only fair that he should be given a copy of that testimony that would 
be relevant to his testimony here. 


Mr. Armstrong. "We will certainly present that to the committee. 
Mr. HicJBY. Very good. 
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. 
Mr. HiGBY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4 roo p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 

•-' TTf is -i . . . T TC 

11114 ?: 

HiGBY Exhibit No. 1 


August 4, 1970. 


According to Newsweek, Larry O'Brien (along 
with Cliff White) will be on the board of directors 
of an "international consulting firm, " Lobbying 
for foreign governments without the appearance 
of lobbying, I guess. 

Can't we raise a big fuss about this? Insist that 
he register as a foreign agent, demand to know 
what fees he will be getting for what work and 
"to what extent the Democratic National Committee 
is available for sale to foreign governnnents" ? 

We could have a little fun with this and keep O'Brien 
on the defensive. • . 


I HiGBY Exhibit No. 2 





August 5, 1970 

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




11 I! ll /:.-. b L^ li V. 'J O -l" ^.I'li /'., 


South Vietnam's Picsidciil Tliicii has finally yield- 
ed to U.S. ivrging and agreed to at least a partial 
devaluation of the piaster. At present, U.S. dol- 
lars sent into Saigon (an cslinialcd $oOO million 
a year) huy only IIS piasters apiece at the ofRcial 
rate, while the free- or hlack-market rale is 360. 
Under the new plan, these U.S. dollars will bo 
"exchanged officially at ahout 235 piasters. 


Red China i.s accelerating a diplomatic buildup 
in East ICuropo. Peking will soon establish full re- 
lations with Tito's Yugoslavia and has ordered 
its ally Albania to do the same. The T'lcnch offi- 
cials who recently visited Mao arc convinced 
China can do this because it has recovered from 
its cultural revolution. The French also expect 
Red China's No. 2 man, Chou En-lai, to visit 
Fiance and East E\nopc within the next year. 


A high-powered new intoniational consulting 
fliTrt ( New York, Washington, London ) will boast 
some of the top political operators in the U.S. 
Called Public Affairs Analysts, it is headed by 
F. Clifton While (a lop 19G1 Goldwatcr aide), 
backed up by Joseph Napolitan (sometime cam- 
paign .strategist for JFK, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey 
and, last year, Filipino President Nfavcos) and 
includes I-arry O'lkicn, Denioeratic National 
Chairman, as a director. The firm will not handle 
campaigns in the U.S. but will specialize in gov- 
ernment relations. 


Despite the implacable opposition of its chair- 
man, Rus.sell Long of Louisiana, the betting now 
is that the Senate Finance Committee will OK 
the Administration's family-assistance program 
—and .almost in the form the President wants. 
The White House, which can count on liberal 
Democratic support on Long's committee, iiosv 
has lined up such solidly conservative GOP mem- 
bers as Wall.icc Bennett of Ulah, Jack Miller of 
Iowa and Lcn Jordan of Idaho. 


William Magruder, the test pilot and engineer 
brought to W.Tshingfon to ramrod the .Xdmim's- 
tratiou's campaign to gel Senate support for the 
controversial SST airplane, has found his tough- 
est opponents within the Admiin"stration itself. 

Treasury' Secretary Kennedy, for example, dis- ' the whole idea as a frill. The Senate is ex- 
pected to vole on SST funds in about five weeks. 


Those long-range Soviet missile tests in the Pa- 
cific last week demonstrated two points: (1) the 
Minuleman-lype Russian SS-Il is now a mrdtiplc- 
Ihreat weapon (the warhcuds tested included two 
decoys phis the metallic chaff used to fool radar); 
and (2) Moscow, which has about SOO of these 
missiles, has produced in' three years a weapon 
that can penetrate the ABM clcfense Ihc U.S. is 
still developing. 


Iraq has added a new twist to the unremitting 
anti-U.S. campaign it started when Washington 
and Baghdad broke relations three >"ears ago. 
The Iraqis have ordered that the modem U.S. 
Embassy in Baghdad (which the Belgians have 
been tending) be sold lo an "authorized" buyer. 
Tlic lone authorized 'ouyer— Iraq. 


Bombing raids against North Vietnam have been 
halted (except for a rare strike to protect scout 
planes) since November 196S, but Hanoi is not 
relaxing. It still maintains a net of -1,000 ack-ack 
artillery and machine-gun sites, almost 500 radar 
points and -10 batteries of Soviet missiles. 


Despite the President's strong beefs about iho 
failure of Congiess to tax leaded gasoline (and 
thus cut air pollution and raise revenues), his 
chances look slim. Tlie tax-writing House Ways 
and Means Committee is dead scl against it be- 
cause, as its No. .2 Democrat, Hale Boggs of Loui- 
siana, grandly puts it: "We don't believe the pow- 
er to tax should be used as the power lo destroy." 


Though costs of the Vietnam war arc downi by 
half-from !??.9 billion to $1 L5 billion— Defense 
Secretary Laird is busy showing how the "saxing" 
is far less. Privately, Laird gave Congress 
this arithmetic: keeping up the combat troops 
that have left Vietnam but are still on duty lakes 
$1.5 billion; inflation and pay raises add $5.9 bil- 
lion. Even w ilh -$2.8 billion pared from non-Viet 
spending. Laird ends up with $G.9 billion, the 
exact sum trimmed from his new budget. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 3 

August 18, 1970 


MEMORANDUM FOR H.R. HALDEMAN ^. ,. : .^ ;.; . -. 

By a memorandum of August 5, 1970, you requested that I look into 
a suggestion fromi Bill Safire that we "raise a big fuss" about 
Larry O'Brien's reported (NEWSWEEK) involvement in an "inter- 
national consulting firm. " 

Attached is the NEWSWEEK article indicating O'Brien's involvement 
in Public Affairs Analysts (PAA) along with Clifton White and 
Joseph Napolitan. PAA is located in an office on Connecticut 
Avenue in a location that has been leased for the past five years 
by Joseph Napolitan; some five different firms conduct business 
out of this office. For some time White and Napolitan have had 
a cooperative arrangemient in which they pool their political 
contacts with corporations and other organizations in order to 
market their services as political consultants. The concept is 
to provide corporations with programs for employee political 
education of a non-partisan "public affairs" nature. Obviously 
this type of service can best be marketed if it is non-partisan 
and this is apparently why White and Napolitan have pooled their 

Napolitan has had somie success in selling his political consulting 
services abroad. The NEWSWEEK article notes his involvement with 
President Marcos of the Philippines. I understand that last fall 
Napolitan and White met with some European political consultants 
in Florence and discussed areas of mutual interest. Shortly 
thereafter PAA was established as another White/Napolitan operation. 
Apparently Larry O'Brien purchased stock in the new enterprise 
fromi Napolitan; while the precise amiount of stock is not known, 
it is estimated to be less than 10 percent of the stock outstanding. 
By virtue of this stock interest, O'Brien was elected to the Board 
of Directors --as reported in the NEWSWEEK article. O'Brien has 
no management responsibilities and no involvement in the day to day 
operations of the business. Apparently his present activities with 
PAA are rather limited. 



Based on the information that I have been able to obtain, I would 
recommend that no action be taken regarding O'Brien's involvement 
in PAA. To date they have done nothing that would require them 
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and I think 
we can assume that they are well aware of the requirements to 
register because Napolitan has registered, when necessary, in 
the past. The involvement of Clifton White also makes it doubtful 
whether any political gain can be made from focusing on O'Brien's 
involvement and it might have a detrimental impact on White's 
efforts to manage the Buckley campaign in New York State. 

John W, Dean 

A True Copy 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 4 



August 17, 1970 

SUBJECT: Public Affairs Analysts 

For some time Cliff White and Joe Napolitan have had a coopera- 
tive arrangeiTient in which they pool their political contacts with 
corporations and other organizations in order to inarket their services 
as political consultants. Generally, the idea has been to provide 
corporations with programs for employee political education --a 
nonpartisan "public affairs" prograi-n. Obviously, this type of service 
can be more easily marketed if it is clearly nonpartisan, which is why 
White aqd Napolitan decided to pool their efforts. From a business 
stafidpoint, this venture was designed to provide two political operatives 
with bread and butter in non-election years. 

Napolitan has had some success in selling his political consulting 
services abroad. Apparently last fall, he and White met with some 
European political consultants in Florence and discussed those things 
which "pols" world-wido find of mutual interest. Shortly thereafter. 
Public Affairs Analysts (PAA) was established as yet another 
White/Napolitan operation. 

As I can piece the story together, Larry O'Brien purchased from 
Napolitan some stock in the new enterprise. I am unsure of the precise 
amount, but it is less than 10% of the stock outstanding. By virtue of 
his stock interest, O'Brien was elected to the Board of Directors. He 
has no management responsibility and no authority in the day-to-day 
operations of the business. 



^ i.2 ^•,._ 


Public Affairs Analysts is not a lobbying outfit, but a political 
consulting firm. At the present tlnie, it has no foreign clients, 
although obviously it hopes to get sorrte. Counsel for PAA is a 
prominent New York law firm which would be sure to advise White 
of the legal implications of any business arrangement with a foreign 
interest. Knowing the firm as well as Cliff, I am confident that any 
arrangement would be not only legal but prudent. 

O'Brien's relationship with PAA is so ininor that I would think 
it unworthy of further investigation. 

■■'-:. . \ 






Discreet inquiry vas made in connection with Bob Haldcman's 
direction to look into an organization knovm as' Public Affairs 
Analysts. Such information v/as brought to H.R.H. ' s attention 
in a memorandum by Bill Safire resulting from a nevs item in 
an August 10, 1970 Kev;s\;eckj a copy of v/hich is attached hereto. 

Inquiry reveals that an organization knovm as Public Affairs 
Analysts is currently located at 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.V/. , 
Vfeshington, D.C. Telephone ?J'296-602it. These offices of subject' 
firm are housed at the above address in a building knovm as the 
La Salle Building. The firm occupies Room 7/'6l8 and is described 
as a t^fo door office vith only fair furnishings. It has been 
determined that the rental for such office amounts to $300-00 
I)er month and has been continually occupied for the past five 
years by Joseph Napolitan Associates. 

A discreet interview/ of the rental agent located on the premises 
reveals that the firm of Riblic Affairs Analysts initiated 
tuoincG3 at tho ibOvo lovjal/loii on July 15j 1970 at "one airecTiion 
of Mr. Joseph Napolitan. 

Listed below are the najnes of individuals affiliated with an 
apparent group of businesses using the above described offices: 
Joseph Napolitan, Claud J. Desautels, Barns Munson Hov.'ard, Oscar 
Jager, and E. K. Blunt. Additionally the belov; indicated firms 
conduct business fro:a the subject office: Joseph Napolitan 
Associates, Campaign Consultants, Murray Uatson, Ltd., University 
of Chicago- piub and Public Affaii^s Analysts. ' " " " ■ 

Source advises that a discreet look at the interior office structui-e 
of the subject business indicates an at\svering service type environ- 
ment with staffing inconsistent v/lth the number of fanns listed 
as doing business at that location. 

Vfliilc further inquiry \7lll continue as to the structure and operation 
of the firm Public Affairs Analysts, it appears at this time that 
the firm is operating in shoestring fashion and may veil be an 
ad hoc mediiun by v/hich a group of \7ell connected politicians can 
have on-going office space with a viev; tov7ards taking advantage of 
the needs of candidates for professional advise and guidance. Tiiis 
is a coHi-mon practice and one that is not alien to the Republican side 
of the coin. 


Public Affairs .' lysts - 2 - - 8/II/7O 

Relative to the international consulting aspects of this new 
firm^ a discreet inquiry vail have to be accomplished either 
from friends in the business or more directly from contact with 
F. Clifton V.liite v;ho is listed in (lie attached article as heading 
up the subject finu. It seems to me that Dick Kliendienst would 
be in the best position to make this determination because of 
his longtime association with V/hite. Advise if you wish for ne 
to pursue this particular aspect. 



I'.--' V .• c 

11123 : 

HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-A 




January. 15, 1971 

C-^«*"A_«, ^;^._<-'.A,-X t*-<; 


Bob Bennett, son of Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, has just left 
the Department of Transportation to take over the Mullen Public 
Relations firm here in Washington. Bob is a trusted loyalist and a 
good friend. We intend to use him on a variety of outside projects. 

One of Bob's new clients is Howard Hughes. I'm sure I need not 
explain the political implications of having Hughes' affairs handled 
here in Washington by a close friend. As you know, Larry O'Brien 
has been the principal Hughes man in Washington. This move could 
signal quite a shift in terms of the politics and money that Hughes 

Bennett tells me that one of the yardsticks by which Hughes measures 
the effectiveness of his Washington lobbyist is the important people 
he knows; that's how O'Brien got on board. Bob Bennett tells me 
that he has neVer met the Vice President and that it would enhance 
his position greatly if we could find an appropriate occasion for him 
to come in and spend a little time talking with the Vice President. 
Maybe you can think of a better way to do this than a meeting in the 
office,- maybe there is a social occasion that Bennett could be included 
in on. The important thing from our standpoint is to enhance Bennett's 
position with Hughes because Bennett gives us real access to a source 
of power that can be valuable, and it's in our interest to build him up. 
Could I have your thoughts on this please? ' - ■. 

Charles W. 

Col son 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-B 


January 22, 197I 




Initial inquiry indicates' that it will be most difficult to 
prove a direct financial transaction between Lav^rence O'Brien 
and Howard Hughes. A reliable source postures the subject 
retainer. in this manner: 

O'Brien and Robert I-Iayhew are longtime Boston area associates, 
going back to the early or pre-Kennedy days. During the 
Kennedy Administration, assertedly, there was continuous liaison 
Leowecu O'Bricu and Mayhev/. mien O'Brien left the Vvhltc IIoua<= 
and prior to becoming Postmaster General, Mayhev^ offered O'Brien 
a piece of the Hughes action in Las Vegas (believed to be 
$100,000) and O'Brien came close to accepting. 

O'Brien decided against it. Subsequently, after leaving the 
government, O'Brien formed a V/ashing ton-New York based P.R. 
firm bringing along one Claude Desautels , his Executive 
/^sistant at the Post Office. 

hly source states the Hughes -O'Brien financial retainer transactions 
were handled betv/een Desautels and Mayhew vrLth O'Brien one step 

Assertedly, such retainer continued until the recent Mayhew disaster 
in Vegas. 

This is an interim report. I have asked for additional information. 
Will forward when received. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-C 


January 25, 197I 





^ _^ 

A follow-up inquiry regarding this matter discloses the follo-v/ing: 

O'Brien, following his departure from government as Postmaster 
General, established a public relations fii-m. This occurred during "' 
1969' At that time, serious negotiations took place between 
O'Brien and Mayhew for O'Briens firm to represent the Hughes interests 
in VJashington. No hard evidence of the fee to be involved is 
available. Knov/ledgeable sources assert $100,000 was the amount 
under consideration. 

It is alleged that for unknov/n reasons the above discussed retainer 
did no J materialize in this manner. Rather, O'Brien's longtime 
confidant Claude Desautels formed a P.R. type organization named 
DeSautels Associates, 1725 I Street, N.V/. , VJashington, D.C., 
Tel. # 296-1338. It is reliably repoi'ted that this firm had handled 
the Hughes interests on Capitol Hill up until the Mayhew-Hughes 
controversy in Vegas. The fee involved for such undertaking is not 
knovm to my source. 

As one gets closer to Hayhow's dealings, it becomes evident that his 
tentacles touch many extremely sensitive areas of government, each 
one of which is frought with potential for Jack Anderson type exposure. 
For example : ' - 

Mayhew apparently fon/arded Hughes' political contributions, personally, 
to both parties over the last ten years. It is asserted that he 
dealt iri-th one Vic Johnson, nov; deceased, who was one of Richar-d llixon's 
fund raisers over the years. 

Former Californian Republican Congressman Pat Hillings is very close to 
Murray Chotiner, Hillings has been retained byl'ayhew : connection \< 
Hughes' interests for years. 

Former F.B.I, agent Dick Danner has been an aide to Miayhew. Danner is a 
close associate of forrier Senator Smathers and professes a friendship 
\7ith Bebe Reboso. I have reason to believe the Danner-Reboso relationship. 
is peripheral at best. 


Memorandxun for John V7. Dean ' ' ■* -" . January 25, 1971 

From: Jack CauLCield 

Page two . . . . : 

Clark Clifford's law firm has been the Vfeshington representative 
of the Hughes legal interests in Washington for a number of years ■ 

Mayhew \ra.s a close associate of rogue F.B.I. agent John Frank, 
generally believed to have engineered the assassination of Jesus 
de Galindez in New York City on March 12, I956 on behalf of the 
assassinated Pfafael Trujillo. 

It seems to me that before any action is taken vis a vis O'Brien 
and the Hughes retainer, ve should authorize an in depth analysis 
of all (CIA, F.B.I. , IRS) information available for White House 
pei-usal. There is a serious risk here for a counter scandal if 
we move precipitously. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-D 


January 26, 1971 



FROM: ••■ .^- - ^' JOHN DEAN fy^ 

SUBJECT: ■ -^ Hughes' Retainer of Larry O'Brien 

Pursuant to your memoranduin of January l8, 1971^ I have conducted 
an inquiry into the relationship betvrcen Larry O'Brien and Howard 
Hughes. My preliminary findings are set forth "bclov. 

First, Lyn Nofzi.ger, v?ho you thought had been doing some work in 
this area, reported that he had no knowledge of specifics, but 
had hearsay information of the relationship. 

Second, I discussed the matter vrith Bebe Rebozo who indicated 
that his info3.''inat.ion regarding the retainer had come from Robert 
Maheu, the recently released head of Hughes' Nevada operation. 
Bebe said that this information had come to his attention at a 
time when Maheu vras professing considerable friendliness towards 
the Administration, but that it was not documented information. 
Bebe Indicated that he felt that Maheu had possibly retained 
O'Brien for his services ■vd.thout any direct knowledge by Hughes 
himself. Bebe is under the Impression that Maheu had a good bit 
of freedom vath Hughes' money when running the Nevada operation. . 
Bebe further Indicated that he felt he could acquire some docu- 
mentation of this fact if given a little time and that he would 
proceed to try to get any information he could. He also re- 
'quested that if any action be taken vrlth regard to Hughes that 
he be notified because of his familiarity with the de!Licacy of 
the relationships as a result of his o\m. dealings with the Hughes 
people . 

Third, I have also been informed by a source of Jack Caulfield' s 
that O'Brien and MaJieu are long time friends from the Boston area, 
a friendship v/hich dates back to early or pre-Kennedy days. 
During the Kennedy Administration, there apparently was a con- ' '[ 
tlnuous liaison between O'Brien and Maheu. \Jhen O'Brien left 
the V/hite House prior to becoming Postmaster General, it is ' . '"-■ 
alleged that Malieu offered O'BrJ.en a piece of the Hughes action 
in Las Vegas (believed to be about a $100,000 arrangement) . 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 2S - 26 


O'Brien apparently did not accept the offer. After leaving the 
government, O'Brien formed a Vfeching ton-New York Lo.oed public 
relations firm and bro\i£;ht into the firm o. man by the name of 
Claude Desaultels, vlio liad been 0' Br Jen's Executive Assistant 
while he vas Postmaster General. TJiere is some basis to believe 
'that the Hughec-O'Brien financial retainer transactions have been 
handled by DesaulteD.s and Mahcu, O'Brien one step removed. 

Caulfield' s source further indicated that Maheu, apparently, was 
the man ^■fho forwarded all Hughes' political contributions, per- 
sonally, to both pai'ties over the last ten years. It is asserted 
that he dealt with a man by the name of Vic Johnson (now deceased) 
who he believed was one of the Nixon fund raisers over the years. 
I assume this is the Vic Johnson who vjas \Tlth the Congressional 
Campaign Committee . It is also noted that former Republican 
Congressman Pat Hillings, who is a fi'iend of Murray Chotiner's, 
has been retained by Mciheu in connection with the Hughes' interests 
for several years. It is further alleged that former FBI Agent 
Dick Banner has served as an aide to Maheu and Banner is an 
associate of former Senator Cmathers and Banner professes a 
friendship with Bebe Hebozo. I have not confirmed this latter 
fact with Bebe. Tlie Clark Clifford law firm has been the 
Washington representative of the Hughes' legal interests in 
Washington for a number of years. J . , , , . ^ 

Fourth, Bob Bennett, son of Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah, has 
recently left the Department of Transportation to take over the 
Mullen Public Relations firm here in V/ashington. Chuck Colson 
informs me that Bob Bennett is a trusted and good friend of 
the strati on. One of Bob's ne\r clients is Howard Hughes. 
Bennett informs me that there is no doubt about the fact that 
Larry O'Brien was retained by Howard Hughes and the contract is 
still in exis tence . The arrangements were made by Maheu and 
Bennett believes that O'Brien, through his associate Desaultels, 
is going to seek to have Hughes follow througli on the alleged 
retainer contract even though Maheu has been removed. Bennett 
'believes that Larry O'Brien has removed himself from the 
operation in a visible way, but for all practical purposes, is 
still involved with the former Larry O'Brien Associates which is 
novr run by Desaultels. Bennett believes that Desaultels is 
collecting on the Hughes contract and placing funds in a reserve 
account for O'Brien vhcn O'Brien returns to the firm. Bennett 
also indicates that he will be going to the V/est Coast to talk 
about the specifics of his Hughes relationship vrith Mr. Gay 
(the man who is responsible for releasing Malieu) . Bennett 
also indicated that he felt confident that if it was necessary 
to document th.e retainer O'Brien that he could get the 

-nc.v :■ : ;--■ •;J -.,r-.riTy.: • ■ ■■:^j , • o ' ..>:j - :. /,: vx.-. -..•"■. 

:i.r:. '^;3Li o.- 



necessary information through the Hughes peop].e, but it vould be 
with the understanding that the docujncnl-.ation would not be used 
in a manner that miglit embarrass Hughes. 

As I am sure you are aware, information in this area is somewhat 
difficult to come by. Bob Bennett appears to be the best source 
readily I have requested that he get back in touch 
with me when he returns from California. I will report further 
at that time and shall continue to explore other sources in the 
interim. ., 

Any other instructions? 



HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-E 



January 28, 1971 




SUBJECT: Hughes Retainer of Larry O'Brien 

You should continue to keep in contact \vith Bob Bennett, as well 
asr looking for other sources of information on this subject. Once 

■Q«.,— -J-". __A_ 1. _ -1- i- ,-.;jLi. i.j _ e: .. . t ,'. — a. ,--,, . — -i /^^^....■^- 

Colson should get togetlier and come up with a way to leak the 
appropriate information. Frankly, I can't see any way to 
handle this without involving Hughes so the problem of 
"embarrassing" him seems to be a matter of degree. However, 
we should keep Bob Bennett and Bcbe out of it at all costs. 
Please keep me advised of your progress on this and any plans 
you decide on. 


:■:<■ L>^y = 

; Yc . 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-F 

W A 5 H I N G T O N 

Februaiy 1, 1971 

MH-lORAirOUM FOR JOM W. DE.'^, Tkli\ ,0/ 


Inquiry regarding the Hughes retainer to O'Brien reveals that 
it can be documented only indirectly in that payment was made 
via the Mahew-Claude De Sautels route (De Sautels is a long time 
confidant of O'Brien). 

The revelation that an ' Brien-Hahevr relationship exists poses 
significant hazards in any attempt to make O'Brien accountable 
to the Hughes retainer. Mahew's controversial activities and 
contacts in both Democratic and Republican circles suggests 
the possibility that forced embarrassment of O'Brien in this 
matter might well shake loose Republican skeletons from the 

In this connection, it should be remembered that Don Nixon visited 
the Dominican Republic vdth a group of v;heeler dealers in 
September I969, v,'ho assertedly were connected vrith I-Iahew mining 
forces in Nevada. 

Further, forraet Republican Congressman Pat Hillings has long been 
on the payroll of Hughes in a P.R. capacity. Hillings is very 
close to. Murray Chotiner. V/hether or not business arrangements 
have transpired in this area is not knovm. 

Mahew's covert activifes from his V7ashington association with CIA 
in the early sixties to his Nevada involvment on behalf of Hughes are 
only generally kno->m here, at this time. It is again suggested 
that in depth infoiTiation be on hand before pursuing the suggested 



HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-G 


February 3, 19T1 





I eun sure you will find it interesting if you view the 
last half of CBS's "Sixty Minutes" show last night. 
It dealt ji-nLth the ongoing Hughes controversy, including 
an in depth interview of Mahew, Also an indication of 
Intertel's activity in Nevada. 


- ■-■••':'' -t-r-.r 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-H 

February 5, 1971 



SUBJECT: Hughes-Maheu 

Would you please arrange for me to view the last half of 
the CBS 60 Minutes Show of February 2, 1971, dealing with 
the Hughes controversy and the interview with Maheu. 
Please confirm the date and time with Jane. I think I 
should review it as soon as possible. , .,. , 

Thank you, Jack. 

A TRUE COPY ■■-:'-' - . . •.. x:'-:: 3; 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 5-1 



Information has been received from a source believed to be 
reliable indicating that the Hdward Hughes operation in Las 
Vegas is in serious financial difficulty. Source states that 
former FBI agent Mayhew, longtime associate of the Hughes 
operation, had been placed in complete charge of the Hughes 
hotel and gambling interests in Las Vegas. Source advises 
that Mayhew has gone completely sour in that close and 
ominous relationships have been established between Mayhew 
ajid well known Mafia figures. P\irther, that Mayhew and these 
figures have been criminally skimming huge profits from casino 
operations for their o^m benefit. A.ssertedly, only now are 
the Hughes corporate officials becoming av/are of the extent 
of the monies being stolen. It is feared that substantial 
millions are involved. ' .' 

Source advises that Mayhew is a consumate namedropper axid 
has convinved Hughes corporate officials that he has close, 
influential contacts at the V/hite House. Assertedly, only 
now are these officials becoming aware that Mayhew has no 
influence in this area. 

It is alleged that representatives of Mayhev? may have picked 
up hotel and bar tabs for the Presidential advance party in 
connection with the October 31st visit to Las Vegas. Further, 
that the same activity may have been involved with the V.P.'s 
trip there during the campaign. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 6-A 


-2'., ^..J^. . THE WHITE HOUSE ffclD'"''';^ 7"'TT" 1 




March 3, 1972 

MEMORANDUM FOR: . .;; ■:• JOHN DEAN .••■..•. 
FROM: ^iv-' ■;. ' ; • • CHARLES C OLSON V/^ 

Can you do anything with the attached? I have no idea, 
obviously, whether there is anything to it, but it might be 
worth taking a look at. It seems to me I do recall some 
publicity about this about two years ago. 



HiGBY Exhibit No. 6-B 


■ March 3, 1972 



It has been suggested to me that the appropriate office in this Adminis- . 
tration should commence. an investigation into the background and circum- 
stances surrounding the leasing arrangement of the Department of Trans- 
portation headquarters building in Washington. 

According to my source, it seems that Larry O'Brien, present Dennocra- 
tic National Chairman, and two cohorts were involved in very shady deal- 
ings y/ith LBJ. These dealings resulted in an extremely lucrative leas- 
intj aT-vanaf>Trier>f with O'RrJen r>rtr\ romnanv as the lessors and the U. S. 
Government as the lessee. 

I arn unable at this' time to be more specific, but according to my source, 
it is well worth checking. His suggestion was triggered by the current 
ITT - Jack Anderson revelation. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 7 
April 6, 197Z 




Per your e'jf'pcstion, I have looked Into the poooibllity that Larry 
O'Bi-len TiDd others "v?cra involved in coins hi^^ihly qucBtlonablc 
Icaclnj; arr.-::rements with the UnilcJ .States Covernn-vsnt during 
tho Johnson A<lm^l^i3tr?.lion, Specincr.lly, I reviewed tho subject 
of leaae err.^rgcrnonts' v/ilh GSA for tho DOT Mccdquarters Building, 
but apparently his r.ctivitico were even more viJesprcad. 

As a. rcault of ray invenlinatlon and discusslono, it appears that It 
would be extremGly cuflLcult to ci;t-\hllsh the direct tie-in botvreon ^ 
O'Brien and GSA, T.iven if could be done, hov/ever, it is tho 
cpnsenHUS of all with v.-hom I have discussed thii? that raising the 
lc:;;ic r.".lr;ht cp'-i"» & I\. aiJIvjio.'^ Du-i ili*.i wv. \voiiiu later rc^^ret opeomju 
It is not tl;?.t this Acininlstration or prior Republican Adnninistrationo 
have been ae culpable as it is obvious the Don-vocrats v/.-rrc: rather 
charges of iniproprifty could bo leveled anainst the current 
GSA Administration, and our point v/ould be lost in the cnnoke. 

This Is not to say that I thinlc wo cl>ould the v7hole matter. 
For your information, i'cnator ProN-naire has had GAO people 
investigating^ the GSA leasing policy for conrio tinr^e nov/. If it appears 
that the Senator v/ill attempt to mai;s this another of his causes" 
during the election year, which I currently think Is not a realistic 
posplbllity, v/e r.hould bo prepared to show that wo arc at worst 
guilty of bad jud^rmcnt whereas the Democrats were actually pullty 
of criminal convercion, etc. 



HiGBY Exhibit No. 9-A 



October lU, 1971 


,'■ i^^c .\y 





Dick Allen has passed information to HRH indicating 
Kennedy people have engineered a regional Toyota 
franchise in New England. 

My memo of August indicating BK visited with an 
asserted JcL^anese industrialist (J. Otani - not 
further identified) during a two day layover enroute 
from India now suggests a follow-up on J. Otani. 
Such inquiry is underway. 

'i *;, 


HioBY Exhibit No. 9-B 
THE WHITE HOUSE " . -' i -.,■ [',.»/ 


October 20, I97I 




Inquiry to date has determineu' the* following 

Otani is a multi-millionaire Democrat with extensive real 
estate and business foldings in Hav/aii. He is President 
and General Manager of the Otani Company which is a 
successful wholesale seafood enterprise. 

Sources advise that Otani significantly controls local politids 
in Hojiolulu to the extent that he is referred to as the "Mayor 
Maker". "... . ., „ 

He is a frequent visitor to Honolulu's Customs area, particularly 
when important Japanese visit the island . 

U.S. Customs sources contacted in this regard were unav/are of 
any relationship bet^/een Otani and Toyota- Since there apparently 
exists a friendly relationship betv/een Otani and Customs officials 
in that area, further inquiry through this source is deemed 
inadvisable. _. \ 

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

cc: R. Allen 

■f *t -• j C ' K ■ 

' n.i 

:i - 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 10 



;; ;, January 12, 1970 



* - MR. MAGRUDER ^-^^ 

■ , ^ . MR. ZIEGLER 

''^^ ■ MR. JOHN BROWN 


The following is a summary of the meeting which Mr. Haldeman 
C£illed at 12:35 p.m. today. On each subject covered, responsibility 
for action and/or follow-up was placed on the individual(s) whose 
name(s) appear in parenthesis after the subject title. In each 
case, please submit a report to Mr. Haldeman as soon as practicable 
(but no later than the close of business on Wednesday, January 21st) 
as to agtioQ tak^ja-axid/oi" i ecuuiii'«-ettxiation{s) for contemplated action. 

1.. Pool Progress (Brown/Higby) 

The Pre^sident wants to see some progress on the pool; 
he wants some speed on this project. 

2. Relocation of the Dispensary and the Secret Service Office 
-- Out of the White House (Brown) 

The President wants the Secret Service and the Doctor 
out of the White House. 

John Bro\vn advised that work has begun on this, and 
that the Doctor is "on the way out". 

3. ScicT.ce Advir.or (Brown) ■ 

Ol el. ;.-j Oi UlX:^ 

"four hats". 

/ lia<J iK o 

:iv; lO il^i.i 

.iCili-iciM^-C: DuLil ia-i: 'i 

Jr}'!-» T^. vf>'.v!i wns no! av. 

but 'jaid tli?il l\c 


4. Kinr^ Timalioe (Butterficld) :)■ ■ •. ••. • •■]'-'' 

The President wants Manolo. . . and Manolo only . . . 
to take care of Tim. 

5, Responses to the President's Birthday Messages (Brown) 

We should get a list compiled of those who sent the 

President a birthday message. Rose Woods is to look 

the list over and pick out the VIPs. Let's get moving 

on this and get responses out. Suggested wording: 

"Thank you for your thoughtful message", etc. ^^.t ■ >S' 

5, Scheduling for the President (Chapin) 

The President wants to meet only once a month with the 
committees. He wants this "regularized". 

He wants to have Leaders' Meetings (one and one -half hours) 
every other week. 

He wants to have NSC meetings (one and one -half hours) 
only when necessary. 

He wants to meet with the Political Group and the 
Research Group once a month 

For his 5:00 o'clock meetings, he wants to use the Oval Office 
or the EOB office. Meetings should be scheduled for 
one hour, including discussion time. 

7^ Form Letters in Response to Birthday Messages (Brown) 

The President wants to see the fornn -letter response to 
the birthday messages which he received. 

f. N-^c_cWo S;ini]j".c_th^Whitr. House Stnff (Butterficld) 

Report (this v.;rk) on v/hat we arc do-ng to sanitize the 


9. PR Group Mectint^s (Magruder) 

We will need more time for the PR Group meeting this 
week; in fact, let's do this on a general basis; best to 
start earlier. 


cc: Mr. Haldeman 

•*;--.L'r,.^_- "iVEfi o 

:'i X i^' 

t-^v:or;^r 'A^M-V- ■:'-=?i:af>?'n -y^- 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 11-A 


September 10, I97I 

MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN W. DEAN, ^^ _ , „ . . , 



Nev York sources advise the following scattered pieces of 

a) A discreet look at the newspaper's publication calendar 
has been accomplished. There is no indication at this time that 
the subject series of articles \Till appear during the month of 
September. However, this could be subject to change because of 
the high priority being given to the article. 

B) Unusual and highly secretive steps have been taken to 
prevent the substajice of the article from becoming known to other 
employees . . .. • ' 

C) A trusted member of the newspaper's staff has stated 
that heavy outside pressure is being exerted to uncover the . 
details of the story before publication. This pressure is 
Independent of the efforts being programmed from ray office. ' 

D) a firm consensus has been reached that Ed Guthman of 
the L. A. Times is close to this matter. It is alleged that 

he was in New York at the time of the planning stages of the . . 

E) Robert Greene, leader of the investigative group, has 
been in both Washington and Florida within the past two weeks. 

Will continue to push and follow through on this matter. 

31-889 O - 74 - Bk. 23 - 27 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 11-B 



October ik, 1971 





Proving this assertion may not be possible. As you know, 
it is based upon Bebe's observation that Greene and 
Guthman are Kennedy loyalists and that Moyers is no-.r with 
the Kennedy Foundation. . 

I cannot believe that a matter of this sensitivity would 
be identifiable through normal investigative technique. 
It seems to me that we need harder input than now at hand 
in order to proceed. 

I would suggest, however, that consideration be given 
to an oblique Nofziger media drop vis a vis the" Kennedys, 
Newsday, the L.A. Times et al - a sort of an alert that 
we are aware. 


HiGBY Exhibit No. 12-A 


W A S H I r,' G T O N 

November 2, 1971 






L. A. Times - Anti Trust Action 

I spoke with Lyn on this matter. He had little to give except 
to advise that the Times is conning out with a new^ street edition 
which, in his judgment, will stifle newspaper competition on the 
Southern California Coast. 

It is Lyn's view that this move may be countered by an anti- 
trust action and strong adininist ration steps designed to limit 
the number of newspapers which one corporation can own. 

However-, he feels that we should not precipitously move in this 
area until he completes his Ncwsday project which is moving along 



HiGBY E^CHIBIT No. r2-B , ;- 




December 1, 1971 



SUBJECT: ,. .. . Antitrust Action Against the 
'" ' Los Angeles Times 

You have inquired about the possibility of antitrust action against 
the Los Angeles Times as suggested in the attached memorandum 
from Jack Caulfield. Tliis proposal is apparently triggered by the 
fact that the Times is coming oxit with a new street edition which is 
expected to eliminate certain competition on the Southern California 

The most likely antitrust action that might be considered in this 
situation would come under either Section 2 of the Sherman Act or 
Section 3 of the Clayton Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits 
monopolization or attempts to monopolize. As defined in the leading 
case of United States v. Grinnell, 384 U. S. 563 (1966), the offense 
of monopoly has two elements: "(1) the possession of monopoly power 
in the relevant anarket and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance 
of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a 
consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic 
accident. " 

If the area of expansion of the Times is contiguous to Los Angeles, 
the market area might be drawn to include all of the Los Angeles 
area and thereby give the Times a percentage share of the market 
which would approach monopoly proportions. U the area of concern 
is ftirther down the coast, the market area would probably be narrowly 
limited giving the Times far less than a monopoly share of the market 
and eliminating any possible charge of monopolization. 


A crucial element of this offense, over and above pui-e size and 
power, is a deliberativcness in acq\ui-ing and maintaining the mono- 
poly power. Thus, a natural inonopoly such as most local news- 
papers which are the only newspaper in town, do not unlaw^fully 
monopolize merely by acting as strong, dynamic competitors. 
Union Leader Corp . v. Newspapers of New England, Inc. , 284 F. 2d 
582 (1st Cir. I960). These natural inonopolies are defensible 
because they have had monopoly thrust upon them in a market which 
cannot suppoi-t more than one viable competitor. An unlawful mono- 
polizer must engage in some sort of predatory, unfair practice 
aiiTied at eliminating any possible coinpetition. 

The offense of ati:empting to monopolize requires proof of even more 
specific intent to commit predatory practices than mere monopolization. 
Furthermore, newspapers can be charged under Section 3 of the Clayton 
Act if they engage in such practices as selling below cost with the 
intent to destroy com^jetition. Proof in these situations, however, 
is very difficult -- particularly in the newspaper industry which 
operates on very marginal economic grounds. The trend is tov/ard 
Xewer and fewer newapapurs because of the econuiiiic ilxiiilai.loiis ou 
the nuniber of newspapers in a given market which can be viable. In 
these circunnstances, practices which inight in other conditions violate 
the antitrust laws are soinetimes used and accepted as part of the 
struggle to survive. 

Congress recognized this problem in its passage of the Ne\vspaper 
Preservation Act (P. L. No 91-353 (1970)). This law immunizes 
existing joint newspaper operating agreeinents from the operation of 
the antitrust laws and exempts new agreements approved by the 
Attorney General upon finding that one of the jointly operated news- 
papers is in "probable danger of financial failure. " The Antitrust 
Division also learned these liarsh facts of life recently when a news- 
paper in Chattanooga after suit was brought by the Government folded 
rather than atteinpt to live with the restrictions proposed in the suit. 

Therefore, before any action might be considered against the Los 
Angeles Times, there must be strong evidence of predatory practices 
on their part such as selling below cost, offering rebates to advertisers, 
or attenipting to purchase sinaller coinpetitors. In discussing this 
general area with iBruce Wilson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General ' 


for Antitrust, he mentioned almost all the cases concerning news- 
papers in which the Division was currently involved. The Los Angeles 
Times was not included among these, indicating that so far it has not 
engaged in any practices wliich have caused a competitor to complain. 


TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1974 

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

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :40 a.m., in room 
S-143, the Capitol. 

Present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Terry 
Lenzner, assistant chief counsel; Marc Lackritz, assistant counsel; 
Scott Armstrong:, and Lee E. Sheehy, mvestigatore ; Fred Thompson, 
minority counsel; Dick Schultz, assistant minority counsel; Emily 
Sheketoft', minonty investigator. 

Senator Inouye. Raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear that the 
testimony you are about to give, will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you Grod ? 

Mr. LaRue. I do. 

Senator Inouye. Will you give vour name and address? 

Mr. LaRue. Fred C. LaRue, 1026 Hallmark Drive, Jackson, Miss. 

Senator Inotjte. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LaRue. Thank you. Senator. 


Mr. Armstrong. This is a continuation of the executive session 
begun this morning with Senator Inouye in his office. 

Mr. LaRue, from January 1972, until sometime in 1973, did you 
serve as a special assistant to the campaign director of the Committee 
To Re-Elect the President? 



Mr. LaRue. I'm sorry, would you repeat that ? 

Mr. Armstrong. From January 1972, until sometime in 1973, did 
vou serve as a special assistant to the campaign director of the Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President ? 

Mr. LaRtte. Yes. I'm not sure about the termination date of that, 
but that is basically correct. Whether it was terminated in late 1972, 
or early 1973, I'm just not sure. 

Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to the election. 

Mr. LaRtie. That would be correct, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And prior to that time, where were you employed ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, prior to that time I was self-employed, I was 
working on a voluntary basis as a special consultant to the President. 

Mr. Armstrong. In tJhe Executive Office of the President ? 

Mr. LaRue. That's correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did there come a time in March 1972 when you 
traveled to Key Biscayne, Fla., to meet with the then-campaign 

(11149) .- • 


director, John Mitohell and Jeb Magnider to discuss tlie Presidential 
campaign ? 

Mr. LaRttje. Again I would like to clarify that. I was in Key 
Biscayne, Fla., with Mitchell on vacation, and during that period of 
time I did meet with Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Flemming 
regarding the campaign. 

Mr. Armsteong. And was Mr. Rebozo present during any of the 
time you were in Key Biscayne ? 

Mr. LaRtje. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall on what type of occasion he was 
present ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, it would be purely social occasions. I think 
Mr. Rebozo was at Mitchell's house when I arrived in Key Biscayne. 
I recall one instance where we went out on Mr. Rebozo's houseboat, 
and I, quite frankly, don't recall whether he went on the trip with us ; 
I do know he took us down and got us situated on the boat. Wliether 
he actually went with us or not I just don't remember. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. During your visit in Key Biscayne on that 
occasion, did you discuss with Mr. Rebozo, campaign contributions? 

Mr. LaRue^ No. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did he discuss with you any specific campaign 
contributors ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he transmit to you any cash, or any sealed 
envelope purported to contain campaign contributions ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he give you any materials at all ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. For any purpose whatsoever? 

Mr, Dash. Can you fix the date ? 

Mr. Armstrong. This is in March 1972. Do you recall leaving Key 
Biscayne on approximately April 1, 1972, just the beginning of the 
Easter week? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. As I recall, it was Friday or Saturday 
prior to East«r. 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us where you traveled ? 

Mr. LaRue. Where I traveled ? 

Mr. Armstrong. From Key Biscayne. ' "'' 

Mr. LaRue. I went to my home in Jackson, Miss. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did you subsequently return to Miami ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall approximately when you returned? 

Mr. LaRue. The Monday following Easter. 

Mr. Armstrong. Which would be April 3 ? 

Mr. LaRue. April 3. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall, did you return to Key Biscayne 
after returning to Miami ? 

^Ir. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you stay at the aii'port ? l ^ 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. And whom did you meet there, and what did 
you do from there? 


Mr. LaEue. I met Mr. ]Mitchell. We picked him up and came to 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall how you returned to Washington? 

Mr. LaRue. Private plane. 

Mr. Armstrong. Was there anyone else accompanying- you and Mr. 
Mitchell on that occasion? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I recall. 

]Mr. Armstrong. And on April 3, did you leave the airport at any 
time ? 

^Ir. LaRue. Not that I recall. As I recall we made a stop, refuel 
pickup, picked up ]Mr. Mitchell and came directly to Washington. 

Mr. Armstrong. While you were at the airport, did you meet any- 
one else at the airport, besides Mr. Mitchell? 

M/. LaRue. Again, as I recall, there were one or two FBI agents 
that brought Mr. Mitchell to the plane. 

Mr. Armstrong. Anyone else? 

Mr. LaRue. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you sec or talk to Mr. Rebozo on that day? 

Mr. LaRue. No ; not that 1 recall. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall after seeing Mr. Rebozo in 
]March 1972 in Key Biscayne, when you next saw or talked with Mr. 
Rebozo ? 

]Mr. Vinson. Would you read that question back ? 

[Question read.] 

Mr. LaRue. ]My best recollection would be when I went to Florida 
to pick up this money. I want to clarify that. There is a possibility that 
I saw Mr. Rebozo during the period of the convention when I was dow^n 
there, but I just don't recall it. 

Mr. Armstrong. That would be August 1972. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. But, did you see Mr. Rebozo, or talk to Mr. Rebozo 
between your trip in Ma'-ch 1972 to Key Biscayne, and August 1972, 
the convention ? 

]Mr. LaRue. And I do not recall seeing him during the convention, 
but I certainly don't want to rule out — there were so many people in- 
vohed and present at various functions and meetings 

]Mr. Dash. If you did see him during the convention it would be that 
you bumped into him or had seen him there; but Avould you have had 
meetings, or transactions? 

]Mr. LaRue. I recall no transaction or meeting, ]Mr. Dash. As I say, 
I certainly would not want to rule out — ■ — 

Mr. Dash. The fact that you had seen him. 

Mr. LaRue. Rule out the possibility that I had seen him casually, 
or talked to him casually at a function, or durmg the course of the 
convention. But, I do not specifically recall any such occasion. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, through the convention in August 1972, were 
you aware of any role Mr. Rebozo played in campaign fundraising, 
during the 1972 campaign, other than just contributing himself? 

Mr. LaRue. Through the 

Mr. Armstrong. During the 1972 campaign, up to the point of the 
convention, were you aware of any role that Mr. Rebozo played in 
the campaign ? 


Mr. LaRue. No, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. And until the time of the AVatergate break-in in 
June 1972, did you handle any campaign funds, or any campaign cash ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Ar3Istroxg. Now, did there come a time when you did receive 
a campaign contribution from Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could you explain just briefly the background, 
how that came about, and the events that ensued ? 

Mr. LaRue. Now, this was in connection with a request from the 
Nunn campaign for some financial help. 

Mr. Armstrong. That was Governor Nunn's senatorial campaign? 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

My recollection, in advance I was contacted by Mr. Mitchell to see 
if we could raise some money, find some money for the Nunn cam- 
paign. As I recall, he suggested I contact Mr. Rebozo, that that 
might be a possible source of some funds. I contacted Mr. Rebozo and 
he indicated he could be of some help. I set up a meeting, went to 
Florida, met with Mr. Rebozo and picked up an amount of money in 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. Let me take a step back. How did you first 
learn that the Nunn senatorial campaign was looking for additional 
campaign funds ? 

Mr. LaRue. Through conversations with ]Mr. John Kerr. 

Mr. Armstrong. And can you tell us approximately when these con- 
versations would have occurred ? 

Mr. LaRue. As I recall there were several conversations, probably 
occurring in September, maybe as early as August. 

Mr. Armstrong. Of 1972^? ^ ,, 

Mr. LaRue. 1972, yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, when you fii*st spoke with him, did you com- 
mit yourself, one way or another, whether you had access to surplus 
campaign funds? 

Mr. LaRue. No, I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. And did you indicate to him what you would do 
from there ? 

Mr. LaRue. I only indicated that I would discuss it with people at 
the committee and get back in touch with him. 

[Discussion oft' the record.] 

Mr. LaRue. I also had some discussions with Mr. Kerr, I think, in 
the latter part of March of 1972 about the possibility, you know, of 
financial help for ]Mr. Nunn. 

Mr. Armstrong. And as a result of that conversation in March 1972, 
did you take any action, prior to this September-October 

Mv. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, was it in the context of these discussions with 
]Mr. Kerr in August-September 1972, the conversation with Mr. 
]Mitchell regarding where you might locate funds for the Nunn sena- 
torial campaig-n? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't think that is entirely correct, Mr. Armstrong. 
At a point in these conversations I suggested to Mr. Kerr that in my 
opinion, you know, if he were going to get any money out of this 


campaion he Avoiild have to discuss it with someone other than me, 
and I think I suggested Mr. Mitchell. 

]Mr. Armstrong. So, when Mr. ^Mitchell spoke with you and sug- 
gested that you contact ]Mr. Rebozo, did you raise the subject, or do 
you recall? 

Mr. LaRue. My recollection is that he raised the subject. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. Do you recall if JNIr. Mitchell stated affirma- 
tively that Mr. Rebozo had access to campaign funds? 

Mr. LaRue. Xo, I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. He suggested you contact him 

Mr. LaRue. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. To raise that question. And when 
you originally called ]Mr. Rebozo, did you indicate what the purpose 
that you were looking for campaign funds was ? 

Mr. LaRue. ]Mr. Armstrong, I'm sorry, I just do not loiow if I 
discussed that with JNIr. Rebozo, or not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you specifically discussed the 
Nunn senatorial campaign? 

]Mr. LaRue. I don't recall it. but I doubt very seriously that I w^ould 

Mr. Armstrong. And, did Mr. Rebozo indicate in your first conversa- 
tion whether or not he would be able to help you in raising funds? 

Mr. LaRue. This is my recollection, yes, sir. It was set up for me 
to pick up the money. 

^Ir. Armstrong. Do you recall how much time there was between 
your first conAersation and the meeting? 

IMr. LaRut:. No, I do not; I would only anticipate that it was a 
short lapse of time. 

Mr. Armstrong. A week, or two ? 

Mr. LaRue. At the most. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall Avhat period that would have 
been ? 

jNIr. LaRue. My recollection is October. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall specifically what arrangements 
you made to pick up the money, or meet with Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. LaRue. Just, you know, a time was arranged. As I recall I 
picked it up either on my way to Jackson, or returning from Jackson 
to Washington. 

Mr. Armstrong. This is Jackson, Miss. ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes. 

Mr. And do you recall where you inet with Mr. Rebozo? 

Mr. LaRue. In his office at the bank in Key Biscayne. 

Mr. Armstrong. And, do you recall the form of the contribution 
when he gave it to you ? Can you tell us what transpired in the office ? 

Mr. LaRue. You know, I met with Mr. Rebozo and I'm sure there 
was a conversation, probably about the Presidential campaign. As I 
recall I was in sort of a hurry to get back to the airport and catch a 
plane. I don't recall a long meeting, or extended meeting. At the con- 
clusion of the meeting Mr. Rebozo gave me the envelope containing 
the n^oney. 

]Mr. Armstrong. OK. Do you recall if the envelope w^as open, or you 
noticed the denominations of the bills? 


Mr. La Rue. I do not. 

INIr. Armstrong. Did yon provide ]Mr. Eebozo with a receipt? 

:Mr. LaRue. No, I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did Mr. Rebozo indicate tlie source of the funds? 

Mr. LaRue. No, lie did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall if you inquired into the origin of the 
contribution ? 

jNIr. LaRue. No, I did not. 

Mr. Armstrong. And do you recall the amount of cash that was in 
this envelope ? 

Mr. LaRut2. I do not recall the exact amount of cash. 

Mr. Armstrong. I believe on prior occasions you indicated that you 
believed it was approximately the amount that you subsequently con- 
tributed to the Nunn campaign? 

Mr. LaRue. That is my recollection ; yes. 

Mr. Armstrong. That is your recollection of the events, as opposed 
to your recollection of our prior conversation ? 

Mr. Dash. AVell, do you know the amount that would have been? 
''" Mr. LaRue. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now. from Key Biscayne. Mr. LaRue. can you 
tell us what happened to the money from that point forward ? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, I returned to Washington with the money. This 
is only conjecture on my part, but I am sure I would at some point 
have counted the money to have found out how much money was there, 
and reported this to Mr. Mitchell; and was instructed to deliver a 
sum of money- — not deliver, but make available a sum of money to the 
Nunn campaigii. I do not recall the specific amount of money that was. 

Mr. Armstrong. OK. I believe on April 9 you indicated to Mr. 
Sheeliy and myself that you believed it was approximately $20,000 
to $25,000; and a little while ago, I believe, you said it was between 
$25,000 and $30,000. 

Mr. LaRlte. My recollection is $25,000 to $30,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. Could it have been as much as $50,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. That is certainly a possibility ; yes, sir. 

Mr. xVrmstrong. I believe you indicated on April 9 that you didn't 
believe it could be 

Mr. LaRue. As I just said, I think I stated my recollection was, 
I thought it was in the range of $25,000 to $30,000^ But, not knowing 
the specific amount I certainly don't want to say it was not $50,000. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, do you recall whom you gave it to ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Let me interrupt. In other words, your best recollec- 
tion is it was around $25,000, but it could have been up to $100,000? 

Mr. LaRue. Well, Mr. Lenzner, let me put it this way, you know, 
I just stated I can't tell you the exact sum. That certainly is not my 
recollection that it Avas $100,000. I don't think I could just sit here 
and swear to you it was not $100,000. But I believe, had it been in that 
amount, in that category, I would certainly be a little more apt to 
remember the exact amount of money, or it was a sizable contribution ; 
I just don't recall it in those terms. 

Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any recollection of ]\Ir. Rebozo saying, 
"Here is x amount of money" ? 

Mr. LaRue. No, sir; I do not. -' ., •• , , 


Mr. Armstroxg. I would like to review briefly some of the cash 
transactions you discussed with us, members of our staff, on July T, 
1973, in that interview prior to your public testimony. You said at that 
time that you recalled receiving approximately $40,000, or $41,000 in 
early Julv of 19Ti> from Mr. Stans via Mr. Mardian; and another 
$40,000, $41,000 from Mr. Sloan. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. Early in July of 1972, but a total of $81,000. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. AVhich you stored in your file cabinet in your office. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. And that sometime in September of 1972, you 
received from ]Mr. Kalmbach through ]Mr. Ulasewicz approximately 

Mr. LaRue. That's correct. 

Mr. Ar3istrong. "Which you also stored in your file cabinet. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

]Mr. Armstrong. And at that time you said the next receipt of cash 
you received was $50,000 from ]Mr. Strachan, which would have been 
in December of 1972, which you picked up in Mr. Dean's office. 

Mr. LaRue. I don't think I picked it up. I don't recall 

Mr. AiiMSTRONG. Someone may have picked it up in Mr. Dean's office. 

Mr. LaRue. I don't think I picked it up in Mr. Dean's office. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Now, at that time you didn't discuss the receipt 
of this money from Mr. Rebozo. 

Mr. LaRue. That's correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. Can you tell us why you didn't discuss it at that 

Mr. LaRue. I stated throughout the recapitulation of this cash 
transaction I kept no records, and this was a best-efforts basis; it was 
just not a transaction that I recall. 

Well, I guess another reason in recompiling, making a recapitulation 
of money connected with the so-called Watergate, the so-called hush 
money, payoff money, 1 would just not have considered this as a 
part of this money. 

]\Ir. Armstrong. OK. Where was this money physically located dur- 
ing the time you had custody of it ? 

Mr. LaRue. Where? 

Mr. Armstrong. The money you received from Mr. Rebozo. 

]Mr. LaRue. I'm sure it was located in my filing cabinet with the 
other money. 

;Mr. Armstrong. Do you know whether or not the money was kept 
separate ? 

ISIr. LaRue. I don't. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, at the same time, we also discussed in terms 
of the disbursement cash that there were two disbursements to Mr. 
Kalmbach, $20,000 during the July to September period ; one to Mr. 
Kalmbach directly in Mr. Dean's office ; and one to either Mr. Kalm- 
bach or Mr. Dean for Mr. Kalmbach. Do you recall that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. And also that a $30,000 contribution was returned 
to Anna Chennault due to the legal question of whether or not it was 
appropriate to receive money that is a foreign contribution. 


Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Armstrong. And that was approximately in September 1972? 

Mr. LaEue. That's correct. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And in September or October 1972, you disbursed 
$25,000 to Mr. Bittman in Mr. I^ittman's office. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Arms'iuoxg. And I believe on that day you did not discuss 
any disbursements to the Nunn campaign, the senatorial campaign. 
Can you tell us why you didn't discuss that disbursement in July, last 

Mr. LaRue. Well, as I stated, I just do not recall that transaction. 

Mr. ViNSOX. I want the record to show w^hat it showed prior to the 
public hearing; namely, Mr. LaRue kept no records of any of these 
transactions, and he attempted to reconstruct receipts to the best of 
his ability. He was unable to pinpoint precise dates or precise amounts. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, at any time prior to the election of 1972, did 
Mr. Rebozo advise you that he had given to anyone else, or was trans- 
mitting to you, any contributions from Mr. A. I). Davis ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And did he ever indicate that he had transmitted 
to you, or was transmitting to you a $50,000 contribution from any 

Mr. LaRue. I'm not sure I understand your question. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did he indicate he was transmitting, or had trans- 
mitted to anyone else, or was transmitting to you, a specific $50,000 
contribution from an individual w ho was not identified ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstroxg. And at any time prior to April 7, 1972, did Mr. 
Rebozo transmit any amount of money, any campaign contribution 
to you ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Ml'. Armstroxg. Or. to your knowledge, did he transmit any amount 
of money, or campaign contribution to the Presidential campaign in 

Mr. LaRue. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. With regard to the April 7 date. Mr. Mitchell's diary 
reflects that you met with him and Mr. LaRue on April 4 — various 
times, April 5, 6, and 7, in Washington, D.C. ; is that also your recol- 
lection, as purport his diary entries? I know you can't remember the 
exact dates. 

Mr. LaRue. Well, I met with Mr. Mitchell virtually every day I 
was in Washing-ton. and I think the diary will so reflect. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Now, Mr. LaRue, do you recall on April 9, 1974, 
a rneeting with Mr. Sheehy and myself at Mr. Vinson's office and re- 
lating the information we just discussed ? 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Armstroxg. OK. Was there any difference between what you 
related today, and what you related then ? 

Mr. LaRue. I don't think there is any substantial difference. You 
probably have a better recollection of that than I do. 

Mr. Armstroxg. I did note in the record two differences in what 
we had in our notes, and what you recall today. But, other than that. 


was there any additional material that you at any time related to us 
on that occasion, that Mr. Rebozo had advised you that he had given 
you a contribution Avhich had come from Mr. A. D. Davis? 

Mr. LaEue. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Armstrong. Xow, subsequent to your receipt of these fimds 
from Mr. Rebozo, in approximately October 1972, did you arrange 
for any receipt to be given to Mr. Rebozo, or any tha)ik-you letter to 
be sent to him ? 

Mr.LARtT:. Did I? 

Mr. Ar3istroxg. Yes. 

Mr.LARuE. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Are you aware of anyone else authorizing a thank- 
you letter ? 

i\Ir. LaRit:. Xo, I'm not. 

]Mr. Armstrong. And did you. yourself, receive any receipt, or thank 
you for the contribution to the Nunn senatorial campaign ? 

Mr. LaRue. No ; I did not. 

]Mr. Armstrong. Is there any correspondence which would track any 
of the transactions we discussed today ? 

Mr. LaRue. No. 

Mr. Armstrong. Now, subsequent to our meeting on April 9, 1974, 
you had contact with Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Frates ? 

]\Ir. LaRi-e. Subsequent to what ? 

Mr. Armstrong. Subsequent to your meeting with Mr. Sheehy and 

Mr. LaRue. Yes; I talked to Mr. Rebozo, and I don't know the 
exact date. It was approximately 2 weeks ago, I think, concerning an 
article, a newspaper article that appeared in a Jackson newspaper. It 
was an AP article, and probably the source was a Washington Post 
article which stated that I denied, I think, ever receiving money from 
Mr. Rebozo. I did call ]Mr. Rebozo and, you know, just explained to 
him that the article was incomplete ; and I guess going OA'er some of the 
same areas of discussion that you and I had on April 9. 

Mr. Armstrong. Did you relate to him any information that was 
inconsistent with the information you related today ? 

Mr. LaRlt:. No, sir, not that I recall. 

Mr. Dash. The matter that was incomplete was that, in fact, some- 
time in September or October you did receive money. 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. "Which you now testify was involving +^^e Nunn cam- 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. That is what you wanted to correct. 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. ^laybe I should not have done it, but such an 
article appeared and it certainly upset me, and I wanted Mr. Rebozo 
to know that the article was incomplete. 

]Mr. Dash. And what did Mr. Rebozo say ? 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me ? 

]Mr. Dash. "\"\liat did Mr. Rebozo say to you, if an^i:hing? 

]\Ir. LaRue. Well, I recall specifically that he said he certainly was 
not worried about that, he knew — you know, I would not deny ever 
receiving any monev from him. 


Mr. Dash. Did he tell you, or ask you to recall Whether you had 
received the A. D, Davis oontributioii for $50,000, sometime before 
April 7, 1972? 

Mr, LaRue. I do not recall any such discussion. 

Mr. Dash. Now, the newspaper ■ 

Mr. LaRue. The news report carried, of course, the Davis story. 

Mr. Dash. The report directed itself to that particular contribution. 

Mr. LaRue. Pardon me? 

Mr. Dash. The news report directed itself to that particular 

Mr. LaRue. That is correct. 

Mr. Dash. And you recall, you in fact indicated, informed this 
committee that} you did receive a contribution from him later on in 
the fall 

Mr. LaRue. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dash [continuing]. To the Nunn campaign. Was there any 
discussion between you and Mr. Rebozo at the time • 

Mr. LaRue. Whether this was the Davis contribution ? 

Mr. Dash. Or whether or not you ever received funds from him 
from an A. D. Davis contribution. 

Mr. LaRue. Mr. Dash, I just do not recall that being any part of 
the conversation. 

Mr. Armstrong. Do you recall Mr. Rebozo's reaction when you told 
him you had received money in October of 1972 ? 

Mr. LaRue. Here again, I'm not precisely sure that I said I received 
the money in October of 1972. I do recall — I say I recall, I do think 
that I discussed with IVIr. Rebozo that there seemed to be a discrepancy 
on the date -w^hen I received the contribution. 

Mr, Armstrong. Did he indicate ■ 

Mr, Lenzner. What was his response to that ? 

Mr. LaRue. Wliat was his response ? 

Mr. Lenzner. Yes; when you indicated there was a discrepancy. 

Mr. LaRue. I'm sorry, I just don't recall. I mean the basic tenor of 
this conversation, Mr. Lenzner, was that, you know, Mr. Rebozo 
assured mo that he did not feel that I was — that he was glad that I 
called and reaffirmed the fact that I had not denied getting money. 

Mr. Dash, To clarify this, did you say an>i:hing to Mr. Rebozo 
indicating that, as a matter of fact, you did tell this committee that 
you received the A. D. Davis contribution of $50,000 ? 

Mr. LaRue. I certainly do not recall any such contribution. Mr. 
Dash, you know. I wouldn't have known whether it came from Mr. 
Davis, or Mr. Rockefeller, or any one else. 

Mr. Dash. And had you mentioned in that convereation the Nimn 
campaign ? 

Mr. LaRue. To this date, knowing all that I know now, I couldn't 
sit here and testify that I received an A. D. Davis contribution. 

Mr. Dash. Did you discuss — did you mention in the telephone con- 
versation the fact the money was for the Nunn campaign, to your 
recollection, whether you mentioned a date or not? As I take it, I'm 
tidying to clarify the question, you were calling him because you felt 
the newspaper story was incomplete. 

Mr. L\Rue. That is correct. > , • , \ • • . 


:Mr. Dash. And you wanted to reassure liini that you had told this 
committee correctly and truthfully that you had received money from 
Mr. Rebozo. 

yir. LaEue. Yes, sir. 

]\rr. Dash. And in that conversation that yoii mentioned, do you 
recall Avliether you discussed with liim that that contribution related 
to the Xunn campaio-n ? 

Mr. LaRfe. I'm sorry. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Lexzxer. Well.' did Rehozo indicate to you that the money he 
gave you in October was in fact the A. D. Davis money ? 

Mr. LaRi'e. ]\rr. Lenzner. T do not recall a discussion of Mr. Davis, 
whose money it was ; I just don't recall. 

Mr. Armstroxo. Did ^Nlr. Rebozo indicate if or why he kept that 
carapaiirn contribution for 6 months ? 

:Mr. LaRue. Xo. 

^Ir. Ar:mstroxg. Tliere Avas no discussion about that. 

]Mr. LaRue. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Armstroxg. Or the significance of reporting before April 7, or 

Mr. LaRfe. Xo, sir. 

]\rr. Dash. Again, I would like to have on the record that the pur- 
pose of your call was prompted by a newspaper 

]\Ir. LaRue. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Dash [continuing]. Storv that specifically referred to the 
A. D. Davis contribution of $50,000. 

Mr. DaRue. Yes, it did. 

Mr. Dash. And in that conversation with Mr. Rebozo you don't 
recall ]\[r. Rebozo making any reference to that particular 

Mr. LaRfe. I do not recall that : no. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Well, did he provide you with any information at all 
with regard to what his position was relating to the money ? 

Mr. LaRfe. Xo. I don't know whether I understand your question, 
but the conversation was basically centered around my, I guess 
reassuring Mr. Rebozo that I had not denied receiving money from 
him. That I had testified, stated it both to the Senate staff and the 
Special Prosecutor. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Well, did he say, "Do you remember coming down to 
Key Biscayne and picking the money up in April of 1972 from me?" 

Mr. LaRfe. Xo. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. He did not say that ? 

:Mr. LaRfe. X^o. 

Mr. Lex'zx'er. Did he indicate how much he had given you? 

Mr. LaRfe. Xo; I don't recall that, either. 

Mr. Lex'zx-^er. Did you indicate to him how much you thought you 
had gotten ? 

Mr. LaRl-e. X^o. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. Did you indicate that you couldn't remember? 

Mr. LaRit:. That's correct; yes. 

Mr. Lex'zxer. And did he indica