Summary

Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
ABC NEWS ARCHIVES - SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS: JOHN MITCHELL
07/10/1973
ABC
SPPB2093E.000
SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY OF JOHN MITCHELL, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DIRECTOR OF THE COMMITTEE TO REELECT THE PRESIDENT. OFF AIR HISTORY OF SPECIAL REPORT AIRED 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM. Live ABC coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into the cover-up of the break-in at Democratic Party National Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building, Washington D.C. ABC rejoins the hearings just after Committee Chairman Sam Ervin gaveled the Committee to order. Minority Counsel Fred Thompson questions former Attorney General John Mitchell. Complete Transcript of afternoon session. Content may continue on additional records in series. Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Thompson. Mr. THOMPSON: Mr. Mitchell, you have testified concerning the so called 1970 plan or the Huston plan or the Huston project, and then in answering questions from Mr. Dash you went into talking about what is known as the Plumbers project in the White House. Would you say that the Plumbers in the White House as you now know them to be, was a logical extension of this 1970 plan which was evidently rescinded? Mr. MITCHELL: I would not say so, Mr. Thompson, because of the {It is at this point ABC News joins the hearings for broadcast} time frame intervening and also the consideration of the Interagency Evaluation Commission---Committee--in the meantime. I think that was somewhat of a self-starter later on caused by events and if I would have to guess, without knowing, it was probably generated about the time of the Pentagon Papers. Now, these are opinions I am giving to you. I have no knowledge on it. Mr. THOMPSON: You mentioned a field for need of coordination between the intelligence-gathering agencies, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, I do. Mr. THOMPSON: Was this just in the White House or was this also in the intelligence community? Mr. MITCHELL: Well. it was in parts of the intelligence community and it certainly was in the Justice Department. We, as I think I mentioned this morning, found that we were receiving intelligence from quarters where we might not have expected it in connection with anticipation of violent acts in connection with demonstration and at other times just pure violent acts. I mentioned the Alcoholic Tax and Firearms Bureau which had, I thought, quite a very competent intelligence capacity certainly, in connection with some of the problems that we had in the Justice Department. I know that Mr. Hoover and Mr. Helms had broken off their liaison that they had established in connection with the CIA and the FBI. There was great interest in finding a vehicle to reestablish that in a meaningful way, and so that basically the implementation of the Interagency Evaluation Commission was to take personnel from the different intelligence gathering areas, put them into one room where they could sort out and exchange ideas and, of course, evaluate what intelligence they had. One of the problems that I found in government was that there was very frequently a great deal of collection of intelligence but the evaluation and dissemination lacked a great deal. Mr. THOMPSON: Then, was this need for better coordination because of problems that the agencies themselves were having internally or was it because of external considerations, or both? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I think I can best answer that to point out that there were many events that happened in this country, including the bombing of the Capitol and other such events that, if we had had appropriate intelligence in advance, we might have been able to prohibit it. I know that in connection with many of the large demonstrations that we had in Washington, while 99 percent of those people who came, came for peaceful protest and to petition their Government, that there was always that lunatic fringe that was bound to and deter- mined to thrash the place and cause damage, and if we had had better intelligence in some of these areas, and I am not excluding them to those but in other areas, but perhaps a great deal of that could have been prevented. That was the basis upon which the Interagency Evaluation Committee was considered in concept and put into place. Mr. THOMPSON: Let me leave that for a moment and invite your attention to the November 24, 1971, meeting which I believe you had with Mr. Liddy and Mr. Dean when Mr. Dean brought Mr. Liddy to your office. Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. MR. THOMPSON: And I believe introduced him to you. I believe your response to questioning this morning was to the effect that at that time you were not aware that Mr. Liddy was to be involved in intelligence activities as such but that later on you understood that he would be. Mr. MITCHELL: NO; I don't think that is quite true, Mr. Thompson. What I referred to was the Liddy prospectus about his job description at that time, which was one of the Dean exhibits, had a one-line reference to it in connection with gathering of information of intelligence or whatever it might be. Mr. THOMPSON: Just the one line. Do you recall any discussion about that? Mr. MITCHELL: I don't. As a matter of fact, it is one sentence, not one line. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you have that before you? Mr. MITCHELL: This is exhibit 11* of the Dean exhibits. I don't know what committee exhibit it might be. Mr. THOMPSON: And you don't remember any discussion about that at the time? Mr. MITCHELL: No, sir; the meeting didn't last long enough. Mr. THOMPSON: Did there come a time between that time and the meeting on January 27 when you became aware, or had a greater understanding as to what his role would be in the intelligence field? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I might say that sometime during early December, before Liddy was hired by the Committee To Re-Elect the President, Mr. Krogh brought Liddy over, and I may have been-along with other people to discuss the Drug Abuse Law Enforcements in which he had been working and which was my knowledge of Mr. Liddy's activities in the White House. I do not recall any meetings, and I am sure they didn't take place, in which Liddy's intelligence activities were discussed. It could very -well be that Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir; I can give you the exact date if you wish. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall right offhand whether it was before or after he went to the Committee To Re-Elect? Mr. MITCHELL: That is correct. It was 6 months later before I learned of the so-called Plumbers activities. Mr. THOMPSON: Were you even aware that he worked at the White House at that time? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, I was aware he was at the White House be-cause it was so represented at that meeting. Mr. THOMPSON: Whose office did you understand that he was working in? Mr. MITCHELL: He was working under Mr. Krogh's aegis in connection with the drug program over there. Mr. THOMPSON: All right. Did you know of any other activities that Mr. Krogh had at that time Mr. MITCHELL: Yes; he was very much involved in the 'White House relationship with the District of Columbia here. In fact, he was their prime contact. But as far as his activities in the area which has since been developed and become common knowledge, I had no such ideas. Mr. THOMPSON: I see. When you met with Liddy and Krogh in December did you inquire of Mr. Krogh then or did you have any discussion as to the nature of Liddy's work at the White House involving any of the Plumbers? Mr. MITCHELL: None whatsoever. We discussed entirely the DALE program, to the best of my recollection. Mr. THOMPSON: Neither of them mentioned anything having to do with his previous Plumbers activities. Mr. MITCHELL: No, sir, I can assure you of that. Mr. THOMPSON: All right. Mr. MITCHELL: Well, Mr. THOMPSON: I think I see what you mean and I do not want to try to draw names out that you do not want to present, but you have just presented one name. Would it be your opinion, if you care to give us your opinion, as to whether or not it might have come from more than one source? Mr. MITCHELL: It is always conceivable. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you have any reason to believe that it was either one source or more than one source? Mr. MITCHELL: No, I have no ability to weigh the potentials for the sources of concern in this area. Mr. THOMPSON: Knowing Mr. MITCHELL: I am sure it could not have been anybody in the White House. It must have been somebody in the White House with which he had a working relationship which he thought perhaps was in the interest of the campaign or somebody who had what you might refer to as superior authority. Mr. THOMPSON: A working relationship during the campaign or prior to the campaign? Mr. MITCHELL: No; I would put this very much on the basis of a working relationship during the campaign that goes to some of the testimony here of the people who have evidenced an interest in this intelligence-gathering field. Mr. THOMPSON: Of course, there were many people in the White House involved in the campaign, were there not? Mr. MITCHELL: What is your question, were there many people? Mr. THOMPSON: Yes. Mr. MITCHELL: I believe that the record shows there were quite a few. Mr. THOMPSON: Maybe too many people, would you think? Mr. MITCHELL: At times, that was my opinion. Mr. THOMPSON: You were discussing some of Mr. Reisner's testimony this morning with Mr. Dash, with regard to the Gemstone documents. I have here, verbatim, Mr. Reisner's testimony. I would like to ask you a couple of questions after I read that. I believe Mr. Reisner was talking about Mr. MITCHELL: Well, Mr. THOMPSON: So as far as you are concerned, your remembrance is that the Mitchell file was not in fact your file, but his file which he was using to bring documents to you? Mr. MITCHELL: The only thing that I can identify it as is a folder in which he brought up these memorandums to the office. Mr. THOMPSON: What color was it, if you recall? Mr. MITCHELL: I do not recall, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: You never saw any Gemstone documents that you remember? Mr. MITCHELL: No, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: In retrospect, would there be any materials that were a product of electronic surveillance without your knowing that they were? Mr. MITCHELL: No; I would believe that electronic surveillance, after my experience in the Justice Department-I do not know in what forms they are; I have not seen them to this date. But after my experience in the Justice Department, I think I would have a pretty good idea of what the source of it might have been, unless it was totally disguised. Mr. THOMPSON: So Mr. MITCHELL: Well, it was probably that whoever was doing it, it was in the misguided concept that it was in the interests of the campaign. But as I have observed before, I couldn't conceive of what would be in the Democratic National Committee on the 30th of Mayor the 17th of June that would be in the interest of the process of the campaign of the reelection of the President at that particular time. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Mr. THOMPSON: At the time that the break-in occurred, what was your professional political judgment as to how the President stood with regard to his chances for reelection? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, we go back to the middle of June and, of course, he had improved substantially from his previous lows vis-a-vis the then front runner, Senator Muskie. That looked like he was on the ascendency. Mr. THOMPSON: Had not some polls indicated that, at one time or another, Mr. MITCHELL: Yes; but I believe, if my recollection is correct, that this was somewhat earlier than in June. Mr. THOMPSON: You didn't consider him in trouble at that time? Mr. MITCHELL: I am not sure I understand the thrust of that question. Mr. THOMPSON: Well, I would think that if you thought you had the nomination or the election locked up, that you would sit back and take no chances whatsoever, any person running a campaign, if you could avoid them. On the other hand, if you considered yourself in trouble, you might take risks that you would not otherwise take. I am not even saying necessarily illegal risks. Mr. MITCHELL: They are both hypothetical questions as of June 17with respect to the first one. I don't believe that anybody thought the election was locked up, certainly with respect to the time element of June 17, with the potentials of the people that might become the Democratic candidate at the convention that was taking place in July. There were a great deal of uncertainties as to who the candidate might be and as to what the circumstances might be vis-a-vis the incumbent who was seeking reelection. Mr. THOMPSON: Mr. Mitchell, let me ask you about another point. Here is an excerpt from the civil deposition which you gave in the Democratic Party suit against the Committee To Re-Elect the President and I think I am quoting you verbatim in your testimony, when you were asked this question: "Was there ever any discussion at which you were present or about which you heard when you were campaign director concerning having any form of surveillance of the Democratic National Committee headquarters?" Your answer was: "No, sir, I can't imagine a less productive activity than that."Is that a correct--? Mr. MITCHELL: I think the total context, as I remember it, Mr. Thompson, had to do with the discussion of Mr. McCord and the security group. The answer was given in that context. Mr. THOMPSON: But this particular question, "Was there ever any discussion at which you were present"-and of course, I assume just from reading this question that that would involve any discussion with anyone. Are you saying that it is not your understanding of it? Mr. MITCHELL: My recollection of the testimony that I gave had to do with the so-called security group in the Committee To Re-Elect the President which discussed Mr. McCord and the security group. And the answer was in response to that, to my recollection. Mr. THOMPSON: Of course, as it reads, as I have read it, of course, it is not an accurate response Mr. MITCHELL: No, I say as you read it, but I think if you will look at the total context of the questioning, it referred to the security group that involved Mr. McCord which was the subject of the conversation. Mr. THOMPSON: Were you not asked any other broader questions about any knowledge you might have had of any surveillance activities? Mr. MITCHELL: I was asked broader questions with respect to did I ever receive documents that I could identify as coming from electronic surveillance and broad questions like that. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall any broader questions concerning conversations that you had? Mr. MITCHELL: NO, sir, I do not. Mr. THOMPSON: Is it just a case of not having asked you the right question? Mr. MITCHELL I think that that is the case. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me refer to June 19 or 20, I am not quite sure when it was, Mr. Mitchell: As I understand it, Mardian and La- Rue debriefed Liddy and found out what he knew about the break in, his involvement, and the involvement of others. And at that time, he related to them some of the White House horror stories; I believe you characterized them as, the plumbers' activities and so forth. I will go back to that in a minute, but as I understand your testimony this morning, the knowledge you got from that debriefing was really the reason why you, in effect, stood by while Mr. Magruder was preparing a story which, according to what you knew from Liddy, was going to be a false story, to present to the grand jury. Mr. MITCHELL: Along, Mr. Thompson, with some of the other stories that Mr. Dean brought forward to him, the Diem papers and the suspected extracurricular wiretapping, and a few of the others. Mr. THOMPSON: OK. That caused you to take that position with regard to Magruder. And also, I assume that those factors were the reasons why you, in effect, acquiesced, anyway, in the payments to the families of support money and lawyers' fees and that sort of thing, which I am sure you realize could have been pretty embarrassing, to say the least, if not illegal, at that time. Would that be correct as far as your motivations are concerned? Mr. MITCHELL: That is a correct summary of my motivation and rationale for the actions that I did take. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall the date on which Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue related this conversation of Liddy's to you? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, he certainly didn't debrief them on the 19th, I am sure of that, because they were in transit. Whether it was the 20th or 21st, I am not certain. Mr. THOMPSON: Did they talk to you the same day they talked to him? Mr. MITCHELL: My recollection is they talked to me the next day, but I am not certain about that, either. But in any event, it was in the time frame of the 21st or 22d, to the best of my recollection. Mr. THOMPSON: Can you recall in a little more detail what they said that Liddy had related to them? You have already mentioned the fact that Liddy said that Magruder had pushed him in the break-in at the Ellsberg psychiatrist's office, I believe, and the Dita Beard situation. What did Liddy supposedly say with regard to the Dita Beard situation? What did he supposedly know about White House involvement? Mr. MITCHELL: To the best of my recollection, and, of course, I have heard these horror stories in different versions from different people over the period of the years, the fact that he was either the one or assisted in spiriting her out of town, I believe was the discussion at that particular time. Mr. THOMPSON: Did he indicate, according to them, that the budget for the electronic surveillance operation which led to the break-in of the DNC had been approved by the White House? Mr. MITCHELL: You are testing my memory pretty hard. I am inclined to think that he did say that, but this is a-not that he said it, but that Mardian or LaRue reported to me that he had said it. But you are testing my memory pretty hard on a substance of which I have heard dozens and dozens of repetitions of it. Mr. THOMPSON: Did you ever verify any of these facts with the President? Mr. MITCHELL: I never discussed those specific factors with Mr. Haldeman until a later date. It was at that time that Mr. Dean was acting as a liaison between the White House and the committee with respect to these matters. Mr. THOMPSON: Did you ever talk directly with Ehrlichman about these matters? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, yes, possibly before the end of 1972, certainly in 1973. Mr. THOMPSON: At this time did you know of Hunt's involvement? Did Liddy tell them about Hunt's involvement? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes; I believe he did. In fact, I am sure he did. Mr. THOMPSON: So, in effect, what you are saying is that you were basing your later activities concerning Magruder's testimony and concerning the payments and these sorts of things as embarrassment upon the hearsay information of this man that presented these outlandish and wild eyed proposals in your office. It would seem like you would want some verification from him. Mr. MITCHELL: Let us back up, Mr. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL: So it was not just what Mr. Liddy had told Mr. Mardian and Mr. LaRue on the 20th, 21st, and 22d of June. There were further affirmations of the facts that came out of the White House from Mr. Dean. Mr. THOMPSON: Such as what, concerning these matters that we have been discussing? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, as I said a minute ago one of the things that I did not believe that Mr. Liddy had any reference to in the Mardian-LaRue Diem briefing was the papers and how they had been handled. Mr. THOMPSON: Did Mr. Dean verify this to you? Mr. MITCHELL: Mr. Dean so stated, he did not show me the spliced cables but he told me about the circumstances. Mr. THOMPSON: But as early as June the money started flowing, the payments started flowing and, of course-- Mr. MITCHELL: Well, now, you are assuming, Mr. THOMPSON: Well, I will ask you when you first became aware of- Mr. MITCHELL: As I said this morning, it was much later than that and I believe it was at the time that Mr. Kalmbach ceased in connection with his activities. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall the date that you became aware of any money being paid to any of the defendants or families or attorneys? Mr. MITCHELL: No, I do not recall the date but it was well after the matter was in progress and in operation. Let me perhaps help you a little bit on that, Mr. THOMPSON: June 23 or 24, I believe. Mr. MITCHELL: On June 28. - Mr. THOMPSON: And 28th. Mr. MITCHELL: June 28. You see, Mr. Dean had testified that they had been playing games with the CIA up to the 28th. Then, Mr. Dean testified that there was a meeting in my office with Mardian, LaRue, and Mitchell and I do not know who all else including Mr. Dean in the afternoon of the 28th in which it was decided, naturally Mitchell was always deciding these things, according to Dean, that the White House, somebody in the White House, John Ehrlichman should call Kalmbach and ask him to fly back from California that night of the28th, which led to their meetings on the 29th. The only problem with all of that was that I was in New York and could not have been at such a meeting, and I was not aware of it. Mr. THOMPSON: I believe your logs reflect that, Mr. MITCHELL: I would hope so because I have been so stating for quite some time. Mr. THOMPSON: It reflects that, according to your logs, you were in New York on the 28th. Mr. MITCHELL: Yes. Mr. THOMPSON: And that you arrived in the District of Columbia at 5:30. Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: There is no indication of any meeting after 5:30. Mr. MITCHELL: That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON: And I assume there was none. Mr. MITCHELL: The passenger that I had with me coming back from New York was not about to allow me to go to any more meetings on that particular day. [Laughter.] Mr. THOMPSON: I am not going to pursue that any further. Getting back to your knowledge of the money, perhaps my question should have been, "When was the first time that you heard of the need for the payment of money," and I ask it because of this: Dean testified that the first time he heard any discussions of the need for money to take care of those who were involved in the break-in was in a meeting which occurred on either June 23, Saturday, or June 24 attended by Dean, Mardian, LaRue, and yourself. Mr. MITCHELL: That is quite possible because as I recall the conversation of Mr. Liddy that he had with Mr. MITCHELL: That was the basis for the White House activities, that is absolutely correct. Mr. THOMPSON: Without getting into a great deal more detail, Mr. Mitchell, besides the Diem cables can you answer any further point of verification that Mr. Dean gave you concerning these matters we mentioned, the Ellsberg psychiatrist, the Dita Beard situation, any of those matters? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, of course, there was the purported firebombing of the Brookings Institution which had been discussed and so forth, I have already- Mr. THOMPSON: Did Dean tell you that was seriously proposed at one time? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes; I believe that I took it as a very serious proposal because of the fact that he flew across the country in order to get it turned off. Mr. THOMPSON: For that particular reason as you understood it? Mr. MITCHELL: Pardon? Mr. THOMPSON: He made this trip for that particular reason? Mr. MITCHELL: That is the way he so testified and I believe advised it at that particular time because, as you recall, it was tied into the Mardian trip to the west coast also. And also, it seems to me, that I have a pretty clear recollection there was general discussion of, as I say, the extracurricular wiretapping activities. Mr. THOMPSON: Did you consider these matters national security matters at the time you were considering them? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, since I didn't really know about them I could not make an assessment about them. Mr. THOMPSON: In your mind as you were seeking to justify your position, if you were, when these things were realized by you, did you consider them to be matters of national security no one had any right to know, that they should be covered up in effect, or were these just political decisions? Mr. MITCHELL: They were obviously elements of that in connection with some of these activities. But I think we would have to parcel it out in details before you could make that determination. Mr. THOMPSON: Would it be accurate to say your motivations were generally more out of political considerations at that time, in the midst of a campaign, than matters of national security? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I would think if you would put the aggregate of the subject matters we are talking about it would have to be from that point of view rather than from national security...- Mr. THOMPSON: What correlation do you put together there? Mr. MITCHELL: The fact that Mr. Hunt worked for Mr. Colson. With the second part about it with which there was particularly at the time frame in which he is talking about, there is considerable interest at that time as to, about the money that had been through Barker's bank and the Ogarrio checks that were coming out that had come from Mexico, et cetera, et cetera. This is the subject matter and that particular week in which Mr. Stans and perhaps Mitchell and others were asking the White House about. You will also, of course, recognize that the newspapers and Liddy himself, I believe, in the debriefing that Mardian got, referred to the fact that they had had CIA documents or materials, et cetera, et cetera. So there was a very considerable interest in, was there any CIA involvement, No. 1, in connection with the break-in, No. 2 in connection with the personnel involved and, No. 3, in connection with this gentleman from Mexico City, Mr. Ogarrio I believe his name was, in connection with his activities. Mr. THOMPSON: You would not categorize those things as part of a cover up, would you? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, that is what I say, Mr. Dean, I think, has put a blanket over activities that are happening at that particular time and talked about them as a cover up; this is where I started, I thought, my very lengthy answer. I am sorry to be so long. Mr. THOMPSON: That is all right. You have already stated that Dean's testimony about a meeting of June 28, and I believe I am quoting him correctly, where he said: Mitchell asked me to get the approval of Ehrlichman and Haldeman to get Herb Kalmbach to raise the necessary money. Mr. MITCHELL: That is right. Mr. THOMPSON: You stated that was false. Mr. MITCHELL: There was no such meeting; I made no such request, ever. Mr. THOMPSON: With regard to asking- Mr. MITCHELL: Ask Dean to ask Haldeman to get Kalmbach, to my recollection I have never made such a request. Mr. THOMPSON: Did you ever ask anyone to get Kalmbach to raise money for these purposes? Mr. MITCHELL: Not to my recollection. As I recall this scenario that Mr. Kalmbach did at the request of somebody, according to Dean, it was somebody in the White House, Kalmbach to Washington on the28th and met on the 29th with these people. He proceeded into this operation. There came a time in the fall, I believe it was September or October, where because of adverse publicity or whatever it was he wanted out and that was the end of it, and I certainly don't believe that I would have the audacity to ask him back into such an operation. Mr. THOMPSON: Dean testified that after the President's statement on August 29 referring to the Dean report he began thinking that he might be being set up in case the whole thing crumbled at a later time. He testified he discussed this with you and others and that you assured him that he need not worry because you didn't believe anyone in the White House would do that to him. Do you recall such a conversation with Mr. Dean? Mr. MITCHELL: I recall such a conversation, Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall when? Mr. MITCHELL: No, I don't recall the date but it was much, much further. In fact, I think it was into 1973. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall the month? Was it into April, per-haps, as late as April? Mr. MITCHELL: No, it would be before that. It would be in February or March I would believe. Mr. THOMPSON: Did he state to you the basis of his fears? Mr. MITCHELL: No I don't believe he did. As a matter of fact, to the best of my recollection I only had, of course, one conversation with Mr. Dean in April, and a very limited number of them in March so it had to be sometime in early March or February. Mr. THOMPSON: Dean testified: That during the first week of December you called Dean and said that you would have to use some of the$350,000 at the White House to take care of the demands that were being made by Hunt and the others for money, and that you asked him to get Haldeman's approval for that. Is that a correct statement? Mr. MITCHELL: No, that is absolutely untrue as far as I am concerned. I had no official capacity, I have no control over the money and there would be no reason why I should call Dean or anybody else with respect to it and I did not so call Dean. Mr. THOMPSON: Dean testified that shortly before the trial when the demands for money were reaching the crescendo point again you called Dean and once again asked him to ask Haldeman to make the necessary funds available and that after Dean talked to Haldeman the decision was made to send the entire $350,000. Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I would respond to that the same way I did to your last question. Mr. THOMPSON: Dean testified that on January 10 he received a call from O'Brien and you indicating that since Hunt had been given assurances of clemency and that those assurances were being passed to Hunt and others that Caulfield should give the same assurances to McCord who was becoming an increasing problem and again Dean was told that McCord's lawyer was having problems with him. Is that true? Mr. MITCHELL: I think that Mr. Dean, if he will go back and check his logs will find that I was out of town in Florida when he started the McCord dialog, and that there would be no reason in the world for me to direct Mr. Dean to do anything vis-a-vis Caulfield or McCord or anybody else. Mr. THOMPSON: The logs indicate, I believe, you were in Key Biscayne from January 1 through January 7. Mr. MITCHELL: I think it was December 20 through January 8, 1believe. Mr. THOMPSON: All right, sir. Let me ask you about one more piece of testimony, the meeting on March 22 which you had with Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean; I understand you met with them and that afternoon you met with the President. Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: I believe that Dean testified that Ehrlichman turned to you and asked if Hunt had been taken care of, or his money situation had been taken care of, and you assured him that he had been taken care of, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL: It is absolutely false as far as I am concerned be-cause I have never, to my knowledge, discussed any of these payments with John Ehrlichman and any of the specifics of that nature with respect to any individual, and I wouldn't have known on the 22d of March whether Mr. Hunt had been taken care of or hadn't been taken care of. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you think Mr. Dean could be mistaken about these various points? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, you said it, not I. Mr. THOMPSON: Are you saying that perhaps Mr. Dean's memory might not have been quite that good? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, it certainly cannot be with respect to the specifics of the March 22 meeting. I am sure of that. Mr. THOMPSON: Or with these other points about-well, is that a matter of memory as to whether or not you called him and asked that the $350,000 be sent over or as to whether or not you requested that Kalmbach be used to make deliveries of moneys to families? Is that a matter of memory? Mr. MITCHELL: I think it is a matter of confusion of people. I think as you look at this total picture, you get two aegises, one over in 1701 and one over in-what is the White House 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue? Mr. THOMPSON: I am sure you know better than I, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL: And Mr. Thompson, this fellow, you know he was just carrying messages back and forth, according to his statement. He had to have somebody over there as principals with which to get to do all of this. Unfortunately, at times, he has picked out some of these principals that just were not on the scene at the particular time, as I have indicated about the meeting of the 28th Mr. THOMPSON: Do you know of any other indications of this? Mr. MITCHELL: Well, I can go back through the testimony and I am sure provide you with some, if that is your desire. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall that as you remember his statement or have you read his statement? Have you read his statement? I assume that you have- Mr. MITCHELL: I have read his statement, yes. Mr. THOMPSON: Do you recall whether or not there are other points, without specifically naming one, if you cannot? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, there are. I am not sure I could pinpoint them today, but I can provide you with material, if it is something- Mr. THOMPSON: If you return tomorrow, as I expect you will, if tonight you could go through his statement- Mr. MITCHELL: You mean I am going to be invited back tomorrow? Mr. THOMPSON: Most cordially. Mr. MITCHELL: Thank you. Mr. THOMPSON: And refresh your memory on those points. Some of the Senators might want to ask some questions. Mr. MITCHELL: I will attempt to do so, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: Let me ask you about one more meeting, the meeting you had with, not with Mr. Dean, but Mr. Ehrlichman on April 13 at the White House. Mr. MITCHELL: Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. THOMPSON: Yes. Mr. MITCHELL: I believe the meeting was on April 14, if I am not mistaken. It was a Saturday. Mr. THOMPSON: What was discussed at that meeting? Mr. MITCHELL: Very little other than the fact that I had known that Mr. Magruder had tried to be the first one into the prosecutor's office and that he had already been there, and that Mr. Ehrlichman had learned that and had talked to Mr. Magruder and Mr. Ehrlichman advised me as to what Mr. Magruder was saying. I said, thank you very much and he said, would you not like to see the President? And I said under the circumstances of what is unfolding here; I think it would be inappropriate for me to see the President. So we left it at that. Mr. THOMPSON: Was this, in effect, telling you that from Ehrlichman's standpoint, anyway, from what was going on, that you could anticipate problems? Mr. MITCHELL: That I could? Mr. THOMPSON: Yes. Mr. MITCHELL: I do not think it is so much that way as he was re-counting to me what Magruder had said, which, of course, did involve me. Now, as to Mr. Ehrlichman's motive, I am not trying to guesstimate that. Mr. THOMPSON: We have some evidence before the committee of a taped conversation between Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Kleindienst. I wonder if you have any reason to believe that this or any other conversation that you might have had with Mr. Ehrlichman was taped? Mr. MITCHELL: In reflection, I would think that this conversation probably was taped. Mr. THOMPSON: Why? Mr. MITCHELL: For the reason that most of the time that I met in John Ehrlichman's office, why, we sat on a sofa around a coffee table and so forth. Mr. THOMPSON: This is the one we heard about in the Pat Gray testimony about the documents? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes; I believe that is the same coffee table and set of chairs. But at this particular time, he invited me over to sit in the chair at his desk and fidgeted around a little bit. So it occurred to me that a switch in the pattern of operation might very well have had something to do with as to where the microphone was. Mr. THOMPSON: Let me ask you one more question, Mr. Mitchell: Obviously, the only verification, I suppose, direct verification of the fact that you were not the one who pushed Liddy, or to the contrary, the only one who could definitely testify that you did push Liddy, would be Liddy himself. And, of course, he has not favored us with his testimony so far. I notice here a call in your logs on April 17 with a Mr. Peter Maroulis. Mr. MITCHELL: Maroulis, yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON: I believe he is Mr. Liddy's attorney? Mr. MITCHELL: That is correct. Mr. THOMPSON: Could you tell us the nature of that conversation? Mr. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, that was a return of a call to Mr. Maroulis, who had made a call to me, and Mr. Maroulis, within a day or two, came to see me. He was looking for guidance. What had apparently occurred, according to Mr. Maroulis, and I have not checked this out with the parties to know whether it is true or not, but the President had made his statement by that time, whichever one it was, in which he asked everybody to come forward and disclose what they knew about this matter. I guess that might have been-well, whatever date it was, the President or somebody on his behalf had asked, I believe, Henry Petersen to go to Mr. Liddy's local counsel here in the District-- Mr. Kennelly, and Mr. Kennelly carried the message from Petersen to Kennelly to Mr. Maroulis about the fact that the President wanted everybody to come forward. Well, Mr. Maroulis had spent a lot of time-he is a personal friend of Mr. Liddy. It was his opinion that Mr. Liddy had a valid case on appeal because of the errors made by the court and other matters that were involved, and he wondered if I could give him any guidance as to what the President meant by that particular phrase, which apparently had been quoted verbatim from Petersen to Kennelly to Maroulis. I told him that I could not add anything to it, that I had not talked to the President about it; I knew what the President's wishes were, but he as a lawyer was going to have to make his own decision as to what his client's interests were. Mr. THOMPSON. Is that the last conversation you had with him concerning Liddy's position? Mr. MITCHELL: That is the only conversation I have ever had with the gentleman. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell: I have no further questions.
Digital AirHistory
}