Thirty Minutes With…; Clark Mac Gregor

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in this fund were used in 71 to do the preliminary planning for the primary election season. A lot of people in the benefit of hindsight said Mr. Nixon didn't need to spend any money

in the primaries. What was it turned out he didn't? But it's awfully hard to know that in advance. Is that all that the fund was used for? No the funds were also used. I'm told and of course you understand that I'm giving you information that's been given to me by others since I had no involvement in the campaign and don't have any personal knowledge. Yes, there were there appeared to be in New Hampshire and elsewhere a series of concerted efforts to disrupt by a number of means including loud cat calling and other ways to disrupt people who were speaking for the President. Secretary Romney experienced one particularly unfortunate experience and there were funds used to try and determine if there was an organized effort to disrupt and to prevent the conduct of the presentation of the President's case in the primary election. Was any more than $350,000 spent?

No I think very much less than that was spent. Less than that because there have been reports that it may have been as high as 700,000. No. It was a relatively small amount when you consider presidential elections as being nationwide in scope and seeking to reach more than 200 million people. Who was authorized to make payments or to authorize payments out of that fund? I don't know if I can give you each and every person's name. Jeb McGruder was authorized to make payments for perfectly proper and legitimate purposes out of that fund. I can't remember the exact date that Mr. Stans left the Department of Commerce to come to the Finance Committee to re-elect the President. It seems to me that that was sometime in February. But funds were expended before that in planning for the primary activities, primary campaigns. And I know that Jeb McGruder was one. A fellow named Bart Porter had authority to withdraw funds to pay the travel expenses of people who were going around speaking for the President in anticipation of these primary

campaigns. There may have been others. I think Gordon Litty was another who had authority to expend funds, contributed to the President's re-election or carried over from 68. There may have been others, but I'm not aware of any others. That Mr. Stans, of course, when he came, which I believe was in February, Mr. Mitchell, when he came, which I think March, which was April 1st. There, as you know, was quite a bit of controversy in the last couple of days about whether or not Mr. Holdeman had anything to do with that fund, either could authorize expenditures or not. I read the various denials and they said that Mr. Holdeman did not have access to or authorize payments from contributions to re-elect the President. Now these were funds, as you've said, that were there from 68 or contributed in 71. Did Mr. Holdeman have anything to do with that fund? None, whatever. Even before in that. None, whatever. I can tell you that from personal knowledge since July 1st. As I think you may know, I officeed in the White House right next to Mr. Holdeman.

We shared a common wall. I saw him many times, each and every day, sometimes just the two of us talking about some matter relating to the President's legislative program in Congress, sometimes in connection with larger meetings involving congressional leadership. I think I had a pretty good awareness of what Bob's responsibilities were. Even before I was associated with the campaign committee. No time as Bob had any tie, whatever, to the funds contributed at any time. Or left over from the state. He just has had no part in any of the financial aspects of the campaign, either in terms of fundraising or in terms of expenditures of funds. Bob does have an interest in the campaign. But obviously, he's been closely associated with the President, I think, since 1956. And has been a part of each campaign until this one. And of course, now he's paid by the taxpayers and his job is in the White House and it's

not related to the campaign. He has nothing to do with this campaign. He's interested in it. Very interested in it. He and I are on the telephone often. I see him often. But he does not spend any of his time talking about the mechanics or techniques of the campaign. He talks to me about the President's schedule. I talk to him about the President's schedule. I talk to him about whether the President should do this or should do that. And since he manages to some extent the President's time, governmentally, and I have a responsibility for the President's time politically, we have to deal with one another in that sense. He has an assistant. He assists me. And I intern in... Mr. Alderman assists you. I endeavor to assist him. You can't say where, with any clear nicety, I'm sure you know, where government stops and where politics begins. If you are an incumbent, an incumbent senator, an incumbent congressman, an incumbent governor, or an incumbent president. Would you know for sure that he had nothing to do with this campaign other than the President's

schedule? My contacts with him have been primarily with the President's schedule. I think he has contributed ideas. He has asked me about strategy and tactics. He has, I think, at San Clemente. We spent some time here in John Erlichman and I in talking about strategy and tactics. That was on August 29th when the Congress was in recess and the President was at the Western White House. I'm sure he's in touch with others. Some of the members of the White House staff who were formerly on the White House staff are now in the committee. I think some of them worked directly for Mr. Hallerman. Still you mean or did before? Did before and thus there's a carryover association and they probably will again, after November 7th. Go back to the White House. Yes. I would expect so. And so I can't presume to say exactly who Mr. Hallerman talks to. But we have a, this is true, perhaps I can best put it this way.

A lot of people at the White House who have governmental responsibilities, have had former associations with the President politically. They're very interested in the President's political success. Not selfishly, ideologically if you will. By the same token, there are people who are working for me at the committee who hope to be in government after November 7th. The best way that Bob Hallerman and I have worked it out so as to keep a clear line of our channel is for any ideas that come from the people in government at the White House. They're funneled up to Bob, horizontally over to me. We talk about them. If I decide, yes, it's a good idea, then they go downward from me through the people in my organization. Conversely, if the people in my organization have a suggestion to make as to what the President ought to do, governmentally, they come up to me. I convey them horizontally to Bob and actions are taken, therefore. In other words, there is no lower level.

That means that nobody in a lower level and either committee would be undertaking activities without, at the White House, without Mr. Hallerman knowing about it and at the committee without you knowing about it. Since July 1st. Since July 1st. Since I took this position, that was the way he and I worked it out after the President first talked to me about it. You think they would have been doing things without his knowing about it before, from what you know about the White House? Well, that's a very speculative thing. I can't rule out the possibility that something was being done without Bob's knowledge by some of the people with whom he's associated. But I know Dwight Chapin, while your question may have in mind, or some of your viewers may have in mind, gosh, Mr. Drew and Mr. McGregor are talking about Dwight Chapin. I know Dwight Well. We're going to get to that. I know Dwight Well and a very high regard for his personal morality and integrity and his own standards as I do those at Mr. Hallerman. Good. Getting to the Mr. Chapin, I wasn't going to get there quite yet. But I wanted to ask you some other questions, but let's go to that.

There are reports about Mr. Donald Segretti, who is, there are not now a lot of reports in various newspapers about people that he is supposed to have contacted to disrupt campaigns to disrupt schedules. Today's New York Times said he hired picketers and he hired someone who hired picketers in California. What was Mr. Segretti's role? Have you checked that? Well, it's unknown to anybody that I can reach or talk to. Any activities along the lines that you mentioned were unknown to Dwight Chapin, unknown to anybody at the committee to re-elect the president. Dwight Chapin had nothing to do with the hiring of Segretti to perform any of the activities that have been referred to and hearsay reports carried in newspapers. Dwight Chapin just simply had no knowledge of her was not involved in any way in. He's told you that? Yes, he has. Well, what about all the calls that New York Times has reported from Mr. Segretti to Mr. Chapin?

The phraseology is always 20 or 28 calls to the White House to Mr. Chapin to so and so and so on. Mr. Chapin's home. I'm told that there was one call to Mr. Chapin out of that 28. Really? That's all? That's all. That's what I'm told. Bye. Bye, Mr. Chapin and by others in the White House. I asked the White House switch board and they said we have any way of knowing. We have 7,000 people who receive calls for the White House switch board. And none of his home? So the four of the White House. The four of the White House. They were none to his home. None that Dwight has indicated to me that he did not speak personally with Segretti. Ever? No, not ever, because they did know one another. I think Dwight was helpful in getting him a job in Treasury in the Department of the Treasury, made a recommendation, a favorable recommendation. They did know one another. But Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti never had a conversation about any of the activities that Segretti has been accused of being involved in. But they had conversation while he was in the White House. Yes, I think one call to the White House and you asked me about a call at home. There may have been one or more, but I think not.

I think it's just one. I was advised by the White House that there was just one call to Chapin. These activities in on the part of Mr. Segretti, nobody knows anything about them? Nobody that I can reach. Nobody will. Who can't you reach? Well, I can reach everybody at the White House. I can reach everybody in the committee to re-elect the president. I can't reach the seven men who are under indictment and whose trial begins for the holy stupid and idiotic and bizarre act of allegedly breaking and entering and snooping or eavesdropping in Larry O'Brien's office. I can't reach any of them. I don't know any of them. I never met any of them. They're all represented by council. You never met Mr. Haundry, Mr. Litty, even though they worked at the White House and the committee. I never did. I'm told that more than 5,000 people work in the executive office building, which is across West Executive Avenue, from where my office was, in the West Wing of the White House. And I suppose I haven't met more than 150 of those people. But anyway, you've talked everybody in the White House and- Everybody that I can reach, who would- Why do you say you can reach, I mean-

There's a can't reach people who are under indictment. Oh, yeah. And I'm not going to convict the people who are under indictment as a lawyer and one who'll practice law for 12 years and one who prizes his certificate of a Maritory Service from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is on the wall of my office, always has been since the part I played in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 64. I believe in various civil liberties. I believe in the principle of presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. And although it would probably be politically helpful for me to say something about the seven men indicted, I simply will not, in a public forum, deprive them of the right of a fair trial. And I apologize to just the government's case against them. Well, I didn't ask you about it. I know you didn't, but you see, you can't- Since it's been lumped in the public mind, since the unproven charges of so-called espionage and sabotage have always been lumped in every newspaper, in every network television story with a Watergate paper, there is an association of the two, and George McGovern

makes it all the time. In truth, and in fact, there is absolutely no relationship, whatever, between the illegal act, apparently illegal act, for which seven men are going to be tried next month. And the hearsay allegations of disruption of political campaigns. The hearsay allegations, as you refer to them, do talk about a somewhat concerted effort to disrupt the democratic primaries, as I say, hiring pickets, putting out releases on the letterheads of some of the democratic candidates. Did this go on? No, it did not. There is no such evidence that it went on. I think I can take you back, Mrs. Drew, to rely on my own experience, not on what the president said and answer to the press conference. I ran for office six times myself, five times successfully for a seat in the House of Representatives, once unsuccessfully for the seat in the Senate. I never had a campaign, but what I wasn't played by some volunteer, presuming to act

in my behalf, doing some stupid thing. Every candidate for office has had that experience. You can't escape it. I can't tell you that somebody who claims to have been acting for President Nixon didn't do some silly thing, like some of the things that you cited. But the important thing is, to fall, as the president has said. As soon as something like that comes to light, to take steps, to make sure that it doesn't happen, and so far as you're able to take those steps. And secondly, to investigate the matter thoroughly, and if there's been any violation of law, to bring that to the courts and to the bar of justice, and that we've done in this case. Is there an investigation of Mr. Cigretty and all these people who he supposedly hired, and as I said, they don't seem to be volunteers? They say that they were paid. Ah, but they say that, here you've got A saying that B told C that D did something wrong. That's really about what you've got. You've got this lady in Florida, who says that she was hired by somebody who was a young

Republican to do something. Surely nobody's going to blame Richard Nixon on that, or say that there's any association with Richard Nixon's campaign. It's just more smoke that's thrown up. Have you investigated that, for instance, does it concern you that it might have happened? Part of the political tactics of them are governance, is to take our attention away from a positive discussion of issues and the presentation of programs on matters that really concern people. Peace in the world, jobs, taxes, inflation, drug abuse control, crime control, and to talk about all of these peripheral issues, really, you know, when your case is weak, you've got to divert the public attention from what is really at stake in the selection, and that's what the McGuvernites are doing. Well, but the New York Times is not the McGuvernites are... Oh, yes. I'm sorry. It isn't part of the official machinery. But I sat with the New York Editorial Board, New York Times Editorial Board. Time magazine also? Is that... I have talked with the members of the Time Magazine. Because they've been doing this too. I think they're McGuvernites. Oh, many of them are, yes.

Oh, yes. And then a question, as you know, among the news fraternity for the principal newspapers in Washington and New York, and for the principal news magazines, that the bulk of the people who work in the Editorial Board are liberal Democrats. The story in Life Magazine, life was going to endorse Richard Nixon a week ago. But they were... They delayed because three-fourths of the Editorial Board signed pretty close to three-fourths of the Editorial Board signed a petition, virtually demanding that life endorse their candidate, George McGuvern. Well, to get back to the point about these charges, you say they aren't true, but you're not really investigating them because they're not... No, they're not related to the campaign effort to re-elect President Nixon. If they... Have you been sure if you haven't interrogated... Oh, yes. Oh, well, we know because they've never been paid. These people haven't been paid out of the committee to re-elect the President. They haven't been paid out of any funds within the control of anybody in authority or responsibility, either that I've been associated with since July 1st, or that we're there before that.

You know that. Yes, I do. You've established that. So, any reports of them being paid even indirectly from those funds are not true. They are not true. Okay. You refer to... I'd like to move from the... Sure, you would too. From some of these specific points, too. Well, I'm happy to discuss any matter you want to bring. Good. Uh, more general question. I mean, you've referred to these. You said every candidate's been harassed through, you know, in campaigns, and we all know about tricks and pranks and things, for as long as those of us can remember. Would you draw any line, or where would you draw a line between what you think would be proper? You've used the word proper and proper activities, involvement in the other parties by either side, campaign, and when do you think that maybe that's going beyond the pale? Well, let me give you an example of my own experience. Two years ago, I was running for the United States Senate in the state of Minnesota against Hubert Humphrey. My wife and I ran into a spate of similar circumstances. We would arrive at a home or at a function in a school only to find that there were no people there.

Then the people who were in charge said to me, but we got a telegram from you and your wife saying you couldn't make it. That you were weather delayed you in the other end of the state or the plane broke down. We had four separate instances where activities of that kind caused the expenditure of considerable money with absolutely no political benefit or result. We had a hostess, a couple of occasions, quickly calling up to tell people don't come because the McGregor's can't make it. And she said, what I got a call from your campaign headquarters or I received this telegram. Well, I'd say that's an improper activity. That's a prank that goes too far. The Dick Tuck type of operation where I guess he paid a secretary to infiltrate the gold water campaign train and to engage in some activities that were somewhat amusing, but also harassing to send her gold water at the time. Maybe those were right on the borderline. Doing things that are like forged letters or stealing any correspondence and sending out something that's a fake, that's the improper.

A forged letter you say would be improper. And what about the connoct letter that is allegedly came out of a kind of the White House? I'm glad you used the word allegedly because Penn Klossum has looked me in the eye and said I had absolutely nothing to do with that letter. I did not write it and I don't know anything about it. And the lady, Marilyn Berger or Berger, whatever her name is, misunderstood. And what about the releases that were supposedly put out under the Senator Muskie's letterhead, making allegations about senators, some things. Did it happen by anybody? Not that I know it. Remotely connected. No. But if it did happen. It's improper. It is improper. I like to move on. In other words, there should be a political campaign should be hard hitting. They shouldn't be pillow puff affairs. They should be hard hitting, but they should be hard hitting on the issues. And any tactics that are designed to deceive people as to what a candidate's true position is, or a schedule may be, or what his plans are, that are obviously with malice, that

involve malice. Those are improper tactics. There were reports in the Washington Post that a while ago that after the Watergate incident, some documents that your committee were shredded, including the list of who had access to the fund. And also the list of contributors before April 7th. Is that true? If there was a document or document shredded, it was not done by anybody who was employed at the committee, and who has been employed at the committee since the first of July. The names I think they use were Mr. Odell and Mr. Martin. Mr. Odell and Mr. Martin did not shred or destroy documents. Is there now still a list of those who contributed before April 10th? I don't know that there is or there isn't. I think before. You said April 10th. Excuse me. April 7th. Approximately. That's nitpicking. We have disclosed people who contributed on April 8th, 9th and 10th, on the Senate.

Right. April 7th. Right. There is information. In fact, I sought to obtain the consent of some of the people who took advantage of the law to give anonymously. I sought their consent to disclose their names. And I was told, in effect, if you can get all of the people to agree, we'll agree. But I think it should be 100% disclosure, because it's my right that I'm giving up. Well, we couldn't reach 100% of the people, so I had to give up that idea. Could you say there might not be a list of these contributors? Well, it's very difficult, because money was being contributed at various parts in the country and through various individual fundraisers and various parts of the country. Because you are being sued by common cause to reveal the contributors. In other words, you may not, even if they win, you may not have a list to reveal. You know, I wish I could answer your question. I really, I'm giving you information that's been given to me by several people. I wasn't there at the time.

I really don't know what these facts are. There may not be an opportunity for us to comply, even though the court might do the totally unexpected thing of saying that we had to. You know, you have more than 60 Democratic and Republican Senators in Congressmen running for re-election who also have not disclosed those who contributed to their campaigns before April 7th. And I suspect, in their cases, they may not know the names of all other contributors. The old law says the one that you're being sued under says that everybody who contributed over $100 has to be revealed. I'm familiar with the old law. I haven't been a member of Congress for 10 years and haven't been a candidate under the old law. Well, what do you think of the idea that all of this has raised, you know, of all this money and all these problems, of having campaigns financed by the government just rule out making private contributions, have airtime required to be given free and just get it out of the whole area of private donations. Now, I happen to believe in the idea of requirement on the television networks to give equal

time free to candidates, including fringe candidates. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be done. I know the network screen like Bloody Murder. I'm speaking about the commercial networks don't like that. And plot the idea when it was surfaced in Congress as it has been over the years. There are provisions of this new law that are that amount to a 50 percent subsidization by the taxpayers, by the government of contributions. You know, Mr. and Mrs. America can give $50 to a candidate of their choice. Alma Pays $12.50, Papa Pays $12.50, Uncle Sam Pays $25 in terms of a credit. We are long since out of time, excuse me, we have to stop. Thank you very much for coming. Thirty minutes with Clark McGregor, campaign director of the committee for the re-election of the president, an unedited unrehearsed interview with Thelizabeth Drew, recorded October 26th, 1972. This has been a production of Enpacked, the National Public Affairs Center for Television.