thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-18; Part 1 of 4
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
In the Senate of the United States, a resolution to establish a select committee of the Senate to conduct an investigation and study of the extent of any to which illegal improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or any campaign campus or other activity related to it. From Washington, impact brings you gavel to gavel video tape coverage due to days hearings by the Senate Select Committee and Presidential Campaign activities. Here is an vaccine new correspondent, Robert McNeil. Good evening, and welcome to the second day of coverage of the Urban Committee hearings. It was a day of startling testimony by convicted Watergate conspirator James McCord as he recalled his part in the break-in and explained why he did not go along with the cover-up.
In late March he decided to talk, giving new life to the entire case. McCord said that he started asking questions when he saw that Jeb McGruder would be a government witness. He said that meant perjury from a gruder. Between sessions today he explained that a fair trial might have changed his role. Totally a new ballgame, and since then that was what I was trying for to get sort of back up and start all over again with a fair trial which was not reinstalling because of the budget testimony that occurred and because some were going to be a fair trial and some were not, as I said, in the testimony that's been referred to me to be the proper foreign program of American justice. Whether I would have at point in time, I would have told the story is totally different matter and I would have been under totally different circumstances and it's about to compare. The hearings began calmly as McCord read from a summary he had prepared at his work for the committee to re-elect the president and his participation in the
court against breaking. Why had he done it? He was asked because the former FBI and CIMN replied he was under the impression that two of the highest government lawyers, John Mitchell and Attorney General and John Dean, White House counsel, backed the break-in. McCord said G. Gordon Liddy, one of the two convicted conspirators who was not actually caught on the scene, told him that Mitchell and Dean backed the plan. But Hawaii Senator Daniel Inoue asked whether McCord wasn't aware that breaking and entering and wiretapping were illegal. Yes, McCord admitted. Members of the committee were also alarmed and intrigued by McCord's assertion that he received information from the Justice Department's internal security division. Outside the hearing room, Republican Senator Lowell Wiker said he was very disturbed that such justice department data was made available to the Republicans, even if information was also given to the Democrats. But committee interceding to be at its highest point, when McCord explained how a friend who works at the Treasury Department asked him to plead guilty saying nothing, take a short jail turn,
and await objective tendency that would be grounded within a year's time. The friend's name is John Jay Caulfield. He's the man James McCord said delivered the crucial message, keep quiet and exchange for money and executive clemency, and according to McCord, Caulfield said the President of the United States knew all about the offer. We're all going to hear Caulfield's side of the story next week when he testified before the committee. Late this afternoon, however, Caulfield gave us a clue in a statement he acknowledged meeting with McCord and delivering messages on behalf of top White House officials, details coming next week stay tuned. Meanwhile, the question is about Caulfield himself. Who is he? He has been identified continually today as an official of the Treasury Department on lead. But he's much more than that. Until 1969, he was a plain closed detective with New York City Police Department specializing in intelligence work. He worked on the Nixon campaign, however, in 1968, and then John the staff of John Ericman at
the White House after the election. He later worked as a deputy to White House Council John D. He joined the committee to reelect the President in late 1971 as an aide to John Mitchell. The name is Caulfield. As the result of his friend James McCord, this was the day he became a very famous man. What you're going to be able to watch this evening is a rare glimpse given by a real life adventurers into the world of mystery and intrigue we usually hear about gummy and spine novels. Secret telephone calls instructing the court to go to a certain pay telephone on a Virginia highway where a mystery voice he still can't identify gave instructions for meetings with Caulfield. Secret rum table with a scenic spot overlooking the Capitol notes delivered by stealth in his mail box in some special espionage techniques picked up at the FBI and the CIA. $65,000 spent on sophisticated bugging equipment and always bizarre activities going under the cloak of normal life
in the suburbs of Washington and related as murder-effectly as if the narrator were James Bond. Yes, it was all very juicy and exciting today, but legally speaking there's still a lot more to be learned and proved before anybody else goes walking off to prison. As you will see, the senators took great steps to remind McCord and thus all of America via television that much above McCord said was hearsay, the legal term for secondhand information. All of McCord's statements about John Mitchell, John Dean, and Jeb McGruder's involvement in planning the Watergate bugging came from Lady, and thus it is legally hearsay. The same goes from McCord's testimony about Caulfield's telling him President Nixon was in on the offer of executive clemency as it relates to the president's knowledge. That's hearsay too. Two men who sat with us throughout today's entire proceedings are Professor William Greenhall of Georgetown University and author Alan Barr, the longtime student of congressional investigations. To set the scene from
McCord's testimony, we want to turn to each of them for a brief comment. First question for you, Mr. Greenhall, James McCord's testimony today opened up several legal possibilities for the future. Could you give us a few tips on what to watch for as they develop during the hearings? I think the most important consideration will be two phases of his testimony. First of all, this is the first time that he is publicly alleged through Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt that they were very high-level meetings involving John Mitchell. But at that time, as Attorney General, the United States, John Dean, who at that time was counseled to the president, and Jeb McGruder, that time was campaign director for the committee to re-elect the president concerning the actual planning for the later important activities of the working complexes. First time that that's publicly announced. The other thing, which came with some of his surprise to some of us,
although there had been some allegations in this paper, wasn't the matter of pressure. Now, Mr. McCord received from further individuals concerning his testimony at the trial. He alleged that he received political pressure from E. Howard Hunt. This is his lawyer, Jerome Walsh, and one John M. Confield. They were executive clemency would be offering him to plead guilty and therefore remain silent as well as financial support for his family while he was doing time. And then once he was released from prison, a job would be waiting. A little reading of the federal bribery statute concerning the offering something of value to witness that a federal criminal trial indicate this is a very strong possibility, and probably another federal grand jury allowed to be convened this time probably in the history district of Virginia. Mr. McCord, how does McCord stack up as a dramatic witness in a history
of famous congressional hearings? That's an interesting comparison, and it's not easy to make. I have seen some very dramatic communications in congressional hearings, and the one that springs to mind most obviously is the confrontation between Alger his and Whitaker chambers before the House Committee on American Activities. Today's testimony was dramatic in a somewhat different way. It seemed to me a testimony of a careful and quite precise witness who made allegations that derive their tremendous dramatic impact, impact because they involve the Attorney General of the United States and even the President of the United States.
Joining us tonight is author David Wise and expert on the secret intelligence establishment in America. We'll be talking with him later about the McCord testimony, but first to look at today's action, hour by hour. In the first hour, policemen Carl Schuffler adds more detail on how the Watergate burgers were arrested. Then one of them, McCord, said he took part only because he was told the operation was approved by the Attorney General, John Mitchell. In the second hour, McCord testifies that E. Howard Hunt and John Confield pressured him to stay silent after his arrest. He said the offers included cash for bail, executive cleanancy, and aid for his family. He said the offers remain in the name of the White House. Under questioning in the third hour, McCord said that G. Gordon Liddy told him that John Mitchell liked what the telephone tabs were producing and wanted a broken one fixed. And later in the hearing in the fourth hour, McCord said that the Committee to Reelect the President got intelligence reports from the Justice
Department almost on a daily basis. He said Assistant Attorney General Robert Marty helped him get these. Now let's go to the hearings, which Senator Sam Merton gobbled over him. It's been, I guess there's a march on committee members. It's been suggested by several members of the Committee that when the South was questioned with us, that the first goal around the limit themselves to 10 minutes. They haven't been eligible rounds as long to, but that's the fold that dates something, I guess, of 10, 10. At a reasonable time to question when it is no objection, Howard asked the amount of his consent that the chair will be allowed to limit each something to go around to, not more than the evidence, which would understand and come back later. This is an officer's shelter. He's well, the evidence you should give to Senator Select Committee on President's campaign. That gives you some
questions. For the record officer's shelter, give your full name and address and what your present position is. I think we're going to hear about her. Could you repeat your name, Officer? I think your voice is dropping, and I think he's also assigned to the inspection of the service's bureau, addresses are entering the Indian House. Where you are in duty in the early morning hours, June 17, 1972,
yes sir, and what particular outfit or unit were you assigned to, second district tactical squadron, casual clothing, and were you at that time traveling with the Sergeant Leaper, Sergeant Leaper and Officer Barrett and I were partners at that particular meeting, and then you'll answer with those other officers a call to come to the Watergate complex, yes sir. I vote for the questions of the witness of the chair. I think second thing. I think one of the questions, I'm sure if I did your call, when you were seeing the work from headquarters, the action was called on the Watergate, when you went to the car, and I was like, did the Leaper, yes sir. And you know, remember one of the comments you responded to the effect that a uniform car should not be sent. On runs where casual clothes units respond, if a casual clothes unit takes the right normally, a uniform car stays out
of the area. I don't recall if particular instructions were given to a unit from the car on that meeting to stay out here. I don't believe they will not amount unusual for you to make such a request. But once I have the warning was this, approximately 0152 hours. Were you working past your regular duty hours on my occasion? Yes, sir. What were your regular duty hours? 4 to 12, sir? Wow, were you working over time? Our tactical squadron deals with whatever particular crime problem is a problem at the time. We were having a great experience in a problem with awful smart sneezing burglaries in the downtown area and felt it working over the nakedness results. When you got there at the Watergate complex, he got our Mr. Frank Wells. Mr. Wells stated that he had discovered the doors had been
taken in a manner as to allow entrance to it. I asked him if there had been any prior burglaries. We were aware of fire burglaries in the building, but not of the particular floors. Mr. Wells related to us that there had been burglaries, I believe, on the 6th and 8th 40th set. What prior burglaries were you personally aware of? We were just aware of burglaries from our crime sheet at that particular address. We, I don't believe, any of us were aware of any details. Did you observe tape on parts of the doors at the Watergate complex? Yes, which door? We went down to the garage level of Mr. Wells, so he explained to us what he had discovered,
and the doors on the garage level both had tape on the box. What did you perceive as you went at the Watergate? When we originally arrived on the same desk through the front door, the lobby, what through the front door is bound to be to lower to the garage level. Yes sir, what did Mr. Wells go with you? Did he take it out? I'm going to show you that tape? Yes sir. I have to pay it to what did you perceive? At that time myself, Sergeant Leopard and Officer Barrett responded up the stairwell. We asked him from the dark that stairwell and the elevators were the only ways out of the building, so we felt that at the best if we went up the stairwell, we might possibly surprise someone in the stairwell. Did Mr. Wells go with you? I believe Mr. Wells at that point responded on the elevator,
and I believe he went to get the car for the 8th floor, because he had keys to the doors. The guard for the 8th floor, yes sir, was there a guard, especially as it made it to guard the 8th floor? It was my understanding that there was a guard in front of the 8th floor, yes sir. How many of the doors did you find think that we made a fast search of the 8th floor and we were able to determine that there were no signs of forest volunteering and into many of the offices on the 8th floor, and we immediately went in a few minutes, responded back down, checking the stairwell as we went down, and found take on the 6th floor door. What is located on the 8th floor? The National Democratic
Committee on the 8th floor, the 4th floor is there, sir. It was on June 17th, yes sir, and on the 6th floor, it's been a great match, and all headquarters, it was at that time, yes sir, so you check the 8th floor down to the 6th, down to the 8th floor, and the 6th, and you can see it inside, as I said. You've got to serve the one out of the balcony there, yes sir. You observe anything across the way at the power Johnson's hotel across the street. I notice it generally. At about our level, it had appeared to me in the observing us. What goes into reset conclusion was it just looking in a really good direction, yes sir. Was it by himself, yes sir, to the best of my members, they can speak to us whether or any other persons out there could you determine his features. At that particular time,
because of the fact that we're moving in more or less a hurry base, the only thing that I really did, the attention to was the fact that there was a subject over there. I was interested in this in the fact that my dress and the fact that I had at that point my weapon out, what I'm really getting at is what was in your mind that he could, he made you very well. I believe he saw us very well, yes sir. The room where you were there on the balcony was it was lit? Yes sir. And once you're present that time, it was scheduled for those who believe I had a cut-off army of Jack and Holmes. Could you tell the world enough this man falls to the way
out of what you're talking about? No sir. You could not tell. It was just because of your age because of the lack of life or he was. And he more so proudly because of our age. Because of the life, because we were in her position from her. Did you observe him? You observe him closely and wants to tell that in your mind that he was probably serving you. He makes some comment, do you follow us or stuff like that? Because of our dress, I felt that he made possibly call the police and he was with sirens and lights may respond to a man with a gun call. You know, the dispatcher who took this call this night from Mr. Williams River was there before he even called him Mr. Dick the Burger. This will be from my recollection of our interview, brought to me a few weeks after the Burger. And at that time, I believe the dispatcher told me
the garden placed the call. You're very pleased to go. Do you know the name of the dispatcher? I'll have the name shortly. Do those calls recorded in any manner? Yes sir, for a period of two months. You know whether or not there was? More than one call made that match. I don't know sir, I believe there was a report on our conversation. Of those records of those calls periodically destroyed by the police department. As he said, sir, I believe they keep them for two months and then destroy a tank. Unless a special request was made that they retain you know what I'm not there if you've seen the transmitters of, yes sir, but you think it may be a little bit of a news to turn us off, yes sir. Any public questions? Yes sir, I have to do.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thompson, I believe this cover, the events of that night very carefully, and I have only a few questions to ask. When you arrive at the sixth floor, how many doors were taped to the best of my recollection at this point on any door leading to Mr. Stairwell and to the four gate pictures? The stairwell to the fire escape or the stairs that lead from the sixth floor to the lower floor. That would be to stairwell that leads from the sixth floor to the lower floor. Yes sir, is that also the fire escape? Those stairwells are to get my measurements for our escape also. You have to have a key to get through that door to the fire escape as well as to get into the building and to the floor. It's necessary to have a key to gain entries to the floor
from the stairwell, but it's not necessary to have a key to get from the floor to the stairwell. Was there any other door tape that you have any recollection of on that floor? Yes, sir. The door to the DMC, the Democratic National Committee was not taped. The two glass doors around the other side there, yes, sir. That's my knowledge or any doors inside the DMC. So with the tape on the door from the stairwell to the main sixth floor, if you assume for the moment that it was taped for a sinister purpose, you would only need to have it taped to get into the sixth floor. You would not need it taped to get out from the sixth floor. I believe that's correct, sir. You want out on the balcony on the sixth floor, is that correct? Yes, sir. Did you have a flashlight? Yes, sir. Was it lighted? I believe
I used it at the corner of the lounge. I got out on the lounge where you're clearly visible on that balcony. I believe I'm imagining you're referring to from Howard Johnson's. That's what I am referring to. Really, let me short-circuit the inquiry by saying I'm trying by this line of questioning. Just to aptly see things, one, that you were on the balcony, some two that that's across the street from Howard Johnson's, three of my embers over there. And we later learned was named Paul. That you were clearly visible, that you had a flashlight, that you had your pistol, that Paul was there and your judgment, he saw you. If all those things are so, you may say so. All those things are so easy. All right, now what did Paul want to do? What did I later find out he did? Now, what did you see him? Oh, he just stood there, sir. Food that the additional police arrive, when did the uniform police and the police
work cars arrive? How long after you arrived? I would imagine it would have been approximately a half an hour after he arrested. Do you know who made the call on that? Or did they arrive in the ordinary course of the van? So it's only through requested transport. Did he do that after you went into the water gator while you were still near patrol car? Oh, after we had made the arrest, that's I see after you'd made the arrest. All right. When you got inside and made the arrest, by the way, who made the arrest, who made the first discovery of the intruders in the democratic national committee officers? Officer Barrett, first observed. Were you with him at the time? Yes. Was there any communication, but walkie-talkie or by walkie-talkie that you heard or I heard nothing else? The name of the building guard was, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Wells. And you met Mr. Wells in the lobby of the Watergate. What was his state of mind or appearance? Was he agitated or
calm? Mr. Wells is the type of person that's very hard to judge. He was saying something about he felt it was somebody inside possibly that at one time he had seen tape on the door and he would go to tape and later on he saw the tape was back and they'd say what floor that was on. Now, he kept indicating, I believe he kept indicating me garage door. Me too left because what he asked me to show us that's immediately right to us. Did he ever speak of the tape on the 6th floor or the 8th floor? At this time, I have no recollection of him speaking of tape on those particular doors. Did Mr. Wells make any reference to the democratic national committee? I don't believe, as again, my recollection, I don't believe he at any time indicated what he knew was on the 6th floor accepted. I think he informed us there were brothers on the 6th floor. He was aware of
that. And he might give me an indication as to why he didn't call it when he first found the doors tape, but rather only after they were retained. I believe when I interviewed him later, he told me that this suspicion was aroused only after the 2nd time because he had thought that possibly employees are building or someone doing work in the building as a convenience take the doors to keep open. I believe that's all for sure. I'm going to follow the questions. Okay, just for the record, Senator Baker asked your question concerning whether or not the tape was needed. It was inside the room in order to get out. And I think you said that one did not, a sergeant believer, yesterday testified that these doors were locked both inside and out so that if you were inside, you would need a key to get out. And therefore, it was his
testimony that the tape was necessary to get out. Do you have information on that? I mean, I'll just say no, we're not in court of law. We don't proceed by evidentiary rules, but the witness yesterday testified very clearly in one respect and this witness is justified very clearly today. And I think I think we ought not to try to leave the witness into a different statement. I think both statements stand on their own merit. I'm just asking the question senators to whether he knows that these whether these doors are locked on inside or out. I'm not asking he's already testified that you need to take in order to gain entrance, but you did not take to get out. There was even a timely arrest and a small investigation to get after. We were able to determine too much about the door. It's more than a place to call to clarify and was informed that certain offices in that building, you do need a gain for both
wise, but they have a buzzer system because of the fire regulation to get out of the office. That particular office didn't have a buzzer system. You could have free access from the floor to the stairwell, so you did not have to have a key to get out. That was a good question. How long were you on the balcony? I was asked to make three or four minutes here and how long after you believed all of them to have seen you and when you apprehended the fence. It would have had to be within five or six minutes, five minutes at the absolute
place we went immediately from the balcony to the hallway down the hallway of the three of us in an officer barrier observed a movement behind this green and the arrest were made. So that the time that you say it's the time for when you believe all of them to have seen you to the time that you apprehended the fence was appeared at five minutes at the most and the time that you're actually on the balcony, again, about two or three or three. Yes, could you give me an answer on that? I would think that the whole time from the balcony from his observation of me on the balcony to the arrest would have been five, six, seven minutes at the most and the actual time is filled on the balcony two to three minutes from the three minutes behind the hallway. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thanks. Chancellor, try to explain a little bit about how the Mr. Johnson before, Mr. Carter gets throughout him, will do so at the disadvantage of the
This is the first report we do, bring the microphone closer to you so that we can all hear out of your voices. Now for the record, you can first state your name and address. James W. Corin C. C. R. D. Jr. He uses number 7, wonder of the I.N.B.R. Wonder Court, Rockville, Maryland, 2.85. Now are you a company with counsel this morning? I am. Will counsel please identify himself? Yes, my name is Bernard Fenstow, Jr. Business address is in the N-16th Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. Mr. McPort, prior to your testimony, you have any preliminary statements you may wish to make to the committee.
Yes, there is. I would like to state as I did when I've heard every executive session on this committee. I'd like to be as accurate as I can. As some of the dates that I would refer to are approximately 75 to 100 different dates. I would try to recall to the best of my memory, some may be an effort. As I stated, when I first appeared, some matters go back to the 12 to 14 months, and some of the matters that are matters to the committee, therefore set forth and writing, attempting to reconstruct the jury to the best of my ability. I may refer to some of those around the during this meeting, and to other notes that pertain to dates. I hope you will bear with me and understand the reason in that regard. I'll state finally that my participation in the Watergate operation of my part,
from whatever reasons I may have had at the time, but whatever rationale I may have had at the time wasn't there. It wasn't a mistake. It's a very great mistake, which I regret. I'm ready to proceed with the question. Now, that is a fact that now I'm just going to score that you presently stand convicted on a multi-count federal indictment, charging burglary, electronic surveillance, and conspiracy, arising out of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters of the Watergate. It's correct. And are you now awaiting a sentence on that conviction? That is correct. What is your professional background, Mr. Portman? I was born in 1924 in America, the B-A-U-R-I-K-A-Water Co. I worked first for the Federal Bureau investigation in 1942, 1943, Washington, D.C. and New York City in radio and television news.
I subsequently, in 43 to 45, was an Army Air Corps officer from 1948 to 1951. I worked as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Diego and San Francisco, California. I worked for 1951 to 1970 with the Central Intelligence Agency as a Security Officer. I retired from that agency in August of 1970, after 25 years federal service. Do you want the educational background? No, that's not sufficient, Mr. Port. During your service with the C-A-A or the FBI, did you receive any awards or accommodations for your service? I received on retirement in August of 1970, the distinguished service award for outstanding performance of duty with C-A. And I'll see you some other. Now, prior to your arrest, indictment, and conviction relating to the Watergate incident,
will you ever arrested, charged with a crime or the subject of any complaint, or just might proceed in your life? I failed to do traffic violations in the Washington area. Because that's all. Now, will you and employee of the committee to re-elect the president? How was it? What position did you hold? The committee... I came aboard first as a Security Consultant part-time in September 1971. How did you get that job? I was introduced initially by Mr. John Callfield, who was for Robert Potal, the Director of Administration who testified yesterday. And based on that interview, it was employed part-time and then full-time, in January 1st of January 19th, suddenly, 2. Now, what were your duties in that position of the Security Act?
The duties were essentially the function of the protection of the property and the lives of the personnel committee, and their facility there, subsequently, and the facility at Miami, Florida, at the committee, and some of the White House staff were to occupy, during the Republican National Convention in August of 1972. The duties were primarily those of the physical security protection personnel security, some document security, and some protective work for the family of gentlemen. Now, for those duties, and that assignment that you just described, under whose direction did you work? From early on to the direction of Mr. Robert O'Dill, who was my immediate supervisor in the committee, the responsibilities with Mr. Mitchell and his family that received directions from him from Mrs. Mitchell,
from Robert O'Dill, from Fred O'Dill in various times? Now, did there come a time when you worked under the direction of Gordon Lee? Yes, sir did. But what was Mr. Lee's position at that time? He was at first on December until about March, 1970, December, 1971 to about March, 1972, General Counsel for the committee to re-elect the president. There after he was occupied the same position with the finance committee for the re-election of the president? When did this arrangement or which you worked under his direction began in August? The first discussion was all the arrangement, again sometime in January, 1972, early January. Would you briefly state the committee, Mr. Stewart?
What it was? Mr. Lee, you wanted you to do? I can give a bit of a background if you want that. When he first came aboard the committee in December, 1971, he began to, we struck up in the cleanups, we'd had a common background, and he began to question me regarding the state of the art of certain technical devices or one thing. Listening devices and so on disappeared to me at that point in time. A professional interest, a normal professional interest of someone who's worked in the field at law enforcement. We discussed as well the common topic of common interest to he and to me and to others who were senior in the staff, he anticipated no restrictions at the possible balance that might be coming up and send the angle California, which was originally scheduled
to be the convincing site for the Republican Congress in 1972 in August. The discussion was, I believe it might help, and I have to reiterate my due to some of the questions. We have a little further away from my talk, a little louder. I was grabbing that, and I thought we were trying to hear it. I think a little bit worse if you can turn off the bottom. Would you continue? Yes. Gradually when the discussion in December, January, February, 1972, with most plenty, gradually developed into more and more conversation on his part with me in the offices of the Committee for the Relational President.
Regarding the technical devices, political matters pertaining to the forthcoming conventional and it became apparent that he had an interest in several areas of intelligence gathering pertaining to the Democratic Party and the Democratic Convention and in which he was contemplated or planned by him and by others who he referred to at these conversations. As John Mitchell, John Dean, Council of the President, the General of the President, and the General of the Director, I think he might have re-elected President, which will appear in that those men, the four of them, work in a late January planning stage, in which political intelligence
was to be discussed at meetings in the Attorney General's office. Mr. Mitchell's office, and in which Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Lenny were seeking from these certain information, regarding the calls, and the title's electronic devices that could be used in the booking, that made part of the original proposal which he was working, working on. The second part dealt with photography operations, the plan list and photography operations, the third part dealt with the broad area of political espionage, political intelligence, and how specific it is in the court when he speak of political activities, political intelligence, budget activities. What do you mean in terms of how that was to be obtained?
It's going to be specific, and I'm sure knowledge of what Mr. Lenny told you. The area of political, history, knowledge, and intelligence he did not take, set that on the side very quickly, but not elaborate on, in much detail at all, to meet personally, the faculty others were involved with, which I can refer to later in the conversation, specifically Mr. Lenny. He and I are not. The topic of photography, the plan list and photography, which he was preparing the budget, and preparing to meet, was the gentleman I referred to before, planning sessions, dealt with photographic equipment, and that caused the photographic equipment, and specific items in the equipment, that would be used against democratic party, the democratic hierarchy,
in Washington Library, but also in Miami, Florida. The electronic devices, which he referred to specifically, were on my variety of types, developing as a specific, what's a tight sport, but how were we now looking to be used, where would they need to be placed, if you're understanding? The initial interest specified, about Mr. Lenny, and this reviewer, were number one against Mr. Lenny O'Brien, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, in Washington, D.C., at his residence in such a campaign, his office, in the Watergate office meeting, perhaps other offices in the Democratic National Committee, the Montgomery headquarters in Washington, D.C. were mentioned,
quite early in 1972, and there was some general reference to the Democratic National Convention, the sole of the earth site, where the line was located, at their convention in the summer of 2017. I know, this was a report and connection with this assignment, which, having a discussion with Mr. Lenny, did you come to associate yourself with Mr. E. Howertron, her and Art Barker, who came Martin Miss, Frank Sturgis, and for you, Gonzalez? Yes, then. As a result of their association, and your agreement with Mr. Lenny, did you, with Mr. Barker, Sturgis Martinez and Gonzalez, illegally entered the Democratic National Committee, and the headquarters of two occasions, one water about May 30, 1972,
and the other, in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972. I did. On the first occasion, part of May 30, 1972, did you install two telephone intercession devices or water tabs on two office telephones, one of the telephones spent some all over, and the other on the telephone, the alarms to fry, did it? Leaving aside from time being, while you broke into the Democratic National Committee, headquarters of the Watergate the second time on June 17, and what circumstances led to your arrest, you were in fact arrested by plain clothes and then of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police, shortly after your matter, is that true? That's correct. And is that arrested as led to your arrest and conviction? That's correct. If you tell the committee, Mr. McBord, why, after the lifetime of work, as a law enforcement officer, without as you testified, any blemish on your career, did you agree with Mr. Late,
to engage in his program of burglaries and illegal wiretapping, and specifically, the two break-ins on May 30, and June 17, the Democratic National Committee headquarters of the Watergate. If there were a number of reasons, associated with the ultimate decision of mine to do so, one of the reasons, and a very important reason to me, was the fact that the Attorney General himself, and Mr. John Mitchell, had his offices had considered and proved the operation. According to Mr. Late, secondly of that, the Council for the President, Mr. John Dean, had participated, and those decisions,
to with him, that one was the top, the legal officer, for the United States, and the Department of Justice, and the second gentleman was the top, the legal officer in the White House. That the matter had apparently been given, well, just for a second, I noticed you said, Mr. Mitchell had proved regarding the winning, he had personal knowledge of Mr. Dean's participation in this process, also according to Mr. Late. Mr. Dean's participation came to me through two sources. One was Mr. Late. One was Mr. Hunt, and discussions which subsequently came to me. Well, how am I going to say that my Mr. Chair, that we have no desire to try to repeat in terms of your testimony, or to try to adhere straight to the rules of evidence,
such as the hearsay room, which was otherwise quite a part of all, but it would be helpful to me in that way, many, many justice, and after my excuse, it was not at your own personal knowledge you identified as such, and it gives us a source. Yes, sir, I believe I was responding to a question of the Council that what was my work or my reasons, which involved, in my case, a conclusion and motivation and intent as opposed to what someone else had told me. We should be adhered as much as possible to the rules of evidence, which had proven that it was actually used to all the codes. And I would say that if the testimony, if your testimony is to the fact that you were sure by Mr. Liddy, that John Mitchell and John Dean, and, sir, we will have approved Mr. Liddy's offer both operations, and he also received the sure's not on this as to Mr. Dean from Mr. Liddy, also from Mr. Liddy,
that was based on what you could be told by Mr. Liddy and Mr. Liddy. I would say that among the rules of evidence, this is to present stage that's very not the invisible to the show, the connection, and the connection that's one of my John Mitchell and John Dean and Dean. I'm young, I'm a ruler, but in the testimony that Mr. Liddy's given is relevant to show the motives which prompted Mr. Liddy to the testimony that Mr. Liddy and I am not a lawyer, I'm a lager, I will try to give the information that I'm all in for this first hand or second hand to the benefit of this committee, and you can stop the input point if you may feel it's purpose. Mr. Chair, if I just elaborate that point, I thoroughly agree with the statement, but, Chair, I associate myself with him, Mr. Mr. Scott, and for him, and I, once again, I'm not trying to be in progress
your testimony would be very helpful to us, however, if when information is not, first hand information, you would identify so we can simply note it for our records that, thank you, sir. Now, did you have any knowledge, direct, or indirect, that would lead you to believe or have information that the CIA was involved in this plan. I had just the contrary that there was no indication, no evidence, no statements to me, that this was a CIA operation, that, quite the contrary, that it was an operation which was involved, the Attorney General of the United States at that point in time, subsequently, he became the Director of the Committee to Reelect the President involved the Council to the White House, involved, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Riddie, it was in General Council at that point in time
for the Committee to Reelect the President and subsequently, was the Finance Committee General Council. Therefore, in my mind, there was an absolute certainty that the CIA was not involved, neither did I ever receive any statements from any of the other proposals. At any important time, but to June 17, our subsequently, that this was a CIA operation. And for the record, your restate of your police, the Attorney General, Mr. Riddie, or other than Mr. Lydie, was, here, based on what Mr. Lydie told you. That is straight. That is correct. Now, would you have acted any differently with regard to this plan if you believe that Mr. Lydie was, Mr. Monning, he's playing for some. Yes, sir, and what would you have done? Yes, sir. Have the proposal for the operation and that of Mr. Lydie, Mr. Monning,
are in the other end of the vigil, acting separately as you are. From the White House, with the part of justice, I would not have participated. I have a personal opinion that some others would not have participated with that. You may not be relevant to your question. My question is a categorical answer with that. I will say that the decision made to participate was not one made immediately, but only after I saw that the gentleman involved had given a careful consideration of this operation over a period of time, including a 30-day waiting period, which to me was always significant. And I'm just a good part that you engage in any other break-ins or wire tabs in your own room with Mr. Hahn. Mr. Lydie, or others, such as the break-in and Mr. Elberg, so it's attached to this. Is that it done? No.
After your arrest, would you testify to did you receive any money? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And from home, did you receive any money? The White House would be a hard high which is not. And you tell us how much money do you receive? Yes, sir. received legal fees of $25,000 of dollars of the payment of wires and received contents or salary due later through January, the rate of $3,000 a month, but see others who are receiving as well. Did you have a knowledge information belief as to where this money came from? I was told that it came from the committed real-life process that I missed as high. Ah. Now, well, we'll see. Thank you, for the same rule. The United States to the committed will not be received just without just a hearing. The elders
will be elected to win. Now, after your arrest and during and at the time the indictment leading up to the trial or during the trial, ah, did you receive any pressures, suggestions from any person concerning what you should do about that trial that we got to your plea and your work on it? Yes, sir. But you now please state to the committee from whom you received such directions or pressures what it was for you. Yes, so they extended over a period of time beginning to the first of our recollection in late September of our early October 1972 and it continued
through the night before my conviction on January 29, 1972 the person who communicated information to me which I constralled as political pleasure and voted Mr. E. Howard and Mrs. I'm speaking from Mr. Hahn she stated my attorney Mr. Gerald Hulke Mr. John Colfield You please repeat again that the name your attorney that you just stated Mr. Gerald Hulke
You'll see you will be to that originally hard for the position or to present you for the position and that the committee to me with regards to Mr. Hahn or Mrs. Hahn recognizing that Mrs. Hahn we're dealing with both hearsay and the hearsay person to wonder law what what was communicating to you by these persons and Mrs. Hahn Mr. Hahn first Mr. Hahn conversation with Mr. Hahn began with most of our recollection in late September or early October 1972 on I would see at the courthouse on various small exercises or events motions that were
transferring which we have talked about various matters including the situation to be at that point of time at the future looked like for us and in a telephone conversation with him to the other words both in person in a telephone and the most of the phones were going to be provided with our given the second external scene after period of time in present in present in present in present in present in present in present in present in in present in the de
finished in and what Mr. Paulfield did stay between. I have a stipend sorry in this regard, but you do have copies of that statement of the money. Could you please just defense the law and provide copies of the money? So, after more background on the break-in from policeman Carl Shoeffler, James McCord offers the first of several hours of very exciting testimony. He said he would never have undertaken the Watergate book in operation if he had not been assured by G. Gordon Lee that both Attorney General John Mitchell and White House Council John Dean approved the operation.
After the arrest, he said that a former Treasury Department official, John Carlfield offered him executive clemency and money for his family, if he remained silent. By we pause in our take playback, we would like to know what you think of this type of gavel to gavel coverage. Let us know at impact post office box 300, Washington, D.C. 204. Impact's coverage of the hearings will continue after we take a pause for station identification. On a bridge coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. From Washington,
impact continues its coverage of hearings, but the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Here again, correspondent Jim Lehrer. As the hearings continue, James McCord is laying out a chronology of meetings, he said, reigned at putting political pressure on him to remain silent. All right. All right. I'd like to invite a next two or some rise to the record. Just breathe in anything will. I mean, someone has to state it. So this is what I mean. The only ones that he wants to read it. And that's Mr. McCord. Well, what might you hear at the statement? I'm very sorry for accuracy's purpose, because in the nature of the information that's contained there, as I have done with previous some previous statements to this committee,
where it felt that my most recollection has most taken to call it, said down and writing would be the most accurate way of doing it rather than, in effect, under the pressure of lights and cameras, and what have you making statements that might be the most construed might be Mr. McCord might be an accurate point of my part. And in order to set it forth as truthfully as I do now, please breathe the statement and read it clearly so that I don't hear it now. I will state as a volunteer that the dates of the telephone calls that are referred to in this statement, are part of the question of the recollection. They may be accurate by them there too, but they are at the best recollection I have of the names in which the calls occur. The subject is political pressure on the ladder to accept executive diplomacy and remain silent. Political pressure from the hardhouse was conveyed to me in January 1973,
by John Colfield to remain silent, take executive diplomacy by going off-prison quietly, and I was told that while there I would receive potentially in later rehabilitation and job. I was further told in a January meeting in 1973 with Colfield that the President of the United States was aware of our meeting, that the results of the meeting would be conveyed to the President, and that a future meeting there would likely be a personal message from the President himself. And the testimony of the President called me, as to what was told by him to him by John Colfield.
He is not about being accepted in a court of law to do, and that is the President. We as one dog, Mr. Colfield, is doing what it is invisible to too long, so, well, when the law of Mr. Colfield is spotted in a rewind attempt to suppress information about the problem of tomorrow at a time, what is not able to see his rest of his days? Mr. Chairman, if I get you to be pointed out right here too, that at this point in time in January 1973, my understanding is that John Colfield was not in the hardhouse at all, but it was employed, I think, by the treasury department of John Colfield. And I hope we can correct these things as we go along, as you're having all kinds of inferences here that are inaccurate in a casting experience that are going to damage people's characters.
Mr. Colfield is there to mistake them, and the primary hearing is that political pressure was conveyed to me, by Mr. Colfield, which he attributed to the White House, which helps recite them in the room of the service chair. My name is Councillor Layton, which we call me, Mr. Colfield. We have, as Mr. Colfield will be on this meeting, we will be right after this witness. This is the address of the integration test. His Council has been informed that he has wanted to testify by people who accept the subpoena about what the answer is. He is not in his opinion, and he is here in his opinion. He is here in his manner. The more Mr. Colfield will be tested at that evening's schedule, the test may be in the next succeeding this week. This was our understanding, Mr. Chair. He is also on this meeting. Mr. Colfield will be on the panel.
Mr. Colfield will be on his panel. Mr. Colfield will be on his panel. Mr. Colfield will be on his panel. Mr. Colfield will be on his panel. Mr. Colfield will end this meeting in the same way. We will be seen by the meeting in the statement. Mr. Colfield will be on his panel. to show what the COVID will be and see it. To induce the witness to take action and frame to take an action. It's not relevant to prove really the truth that the power of the group and the connection to the White House or the President. And proceed to see that. The Senate switch follows the last sentence which I read from the room reads the dates of the telephone call set forth below are the current dates and that word
is mistyped. It should be correct dates to the best of my recollection. The second paragraph is on the afternoon of January 8, 1973. The first date of the Watergate trial Gerald Altman attorney told me that William Oldman attorney for E. Howard Hunt wanted to meet me at the news office that afternoon. When I asked why, Altman stated that he had been wanting to talk with me about who's word I would trust regarding the White House offer of executive diplomacy. Altman added that Bill wanted to talk with both Bernard Barker and read that afternoon. I had more intention of accepting executive diplomacy but I didn't want to find out what was going on
and by whom and exactly what White House was doing now. A few days before the White House tried to lay the Watergate operation off on CIA and now it was clear that I was going to have to find out what was up now to do so involve some risks to fail to do so was in my opinion to work in the vacuum regarding White House intentions and plans which involved even greater risks I felt around 4.30 p.m. that afternoon January 8th while waiting for a taxi after the court session. Bernard Barker asked my attorneys and me if he could write in the cab with us to Buttons office which we agreed to. There he got out of the cab and went up towards Buttons office. I had been under the impression during the cab ride Buttons was going to talk to both Barker and me jointly and became an anger
but seemed to me. I can finish the statement sorry if you want, I'm giving opinion if you want opinion I will finish the statement if you want me to delete opinion I will not finish the statement I'm starting for the facts and I was going through my mind at the time I'll appreciate it I think it's fine or I'm going to go ahead and reinstall the statement once again to the extent that you can. Would you identify should go along those things that you didn't have to people if you did not know firsthand I had no objection versus you stating what it was so you find your state of mind is significant in terms of your conduct not necessarily in terms of the facts themselves but it is relevant to this committee's inquiry as it relates to your conduct at one point or the other the question I made a few moments ago was that well, much of some of your testimony will be here saying
the strict standards simply identify those parts that information which you give us in the statement which you receive seconding Well, I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry So let's start again around 4.30 PM that afternoon January 8th by waiting for a taxi after the court session has been hard for Barker as my attorneys and me if he could write in the cab with us to witness office which we agreed to Mary to get out of the cab and look towards Woodman's office I have been under the impression during the cab ride that Woodman was going to talk to both Barker and me jumping and became angered at what seemed to me to be the arrogance and audacity of the middleman's lawyer calling in to other lawyers' clients and pitching them for the White House Hogs saw my anger and took me aside for about a half hour after the cab arrived from the Woodman's office and look Barker go up alone about 5 PM
with the Woodman's office there also disappeared with Woodman and his salon and Woodman's office for a period of time became irritated Woodman's door for an hard-shank room and lost in the middleware attorneys for me and not respectively we're talking about legitimate legal matters I'm happy I'm happy I'm happy I have no knowledge I've heard that either an hard-shank room or a hospital member had any knowledge whatever they've been to which I'm discussing in this room all it's finally came back took me aside and said that Woodman told me that would be called that same night by a friend I have known from the White House but that White House I take it that that is secondhand information and so that is just one he said he said he said he said he said he said the White House he said the White House and 3rd it's very to say
Wood back is all loaded it's entirely greater characters once again while I'm not trying to exclude it then we send into a I believe I stated as soon as it occurred, which was this was a statement of Mr. Altch. My statement was that Mr. Altch finally came back to his side and said that Mr. Whitlum had told him, and that would be called the same night by a friend I had known from the White House. I assume this would be John Caulfield, who had recently recruited me for the committee for the re-election present position. I'm back to where at 30 p.m. that same evening, I received a call from a hundred identified individual. We said that Caulfield was out of town, and asked me to go to a payphone booth near the blue fountain in on Route 355 near my residence, where he had a message from me from Caulfield. There the same individual called me and read the following message.
Quote, plead guilty. One year is a long time, you will get executive policy. Your family will be taken care of, and when you get out you will be rehabilitated, and the job will be found for you. Don't take immunity when called before the grand jury. Unquote. Mr. Whitlum, did you recognize that voice at all? Did you know who was speaking to him, Tethon? I knew him. I knew him. I knew who the man while I was the voice I had heard over the telephone before previous calls in the late. And therefore you're not, it's not your testimony from me reading that statement that Mr. Baulfield was speaking to. That is correct. And therefore, somebody else telling you that Mr. Baulfield, you believe in the name of Caulfield, repeating any statements to Caulfield, but not a direct statement to you from Mr. Baulfield. He's so stated that he was repeating a statement for Mr. Caulfield, and he had repeated the statement twice.
That's correct. Aren't you continuing, please? I think Mr. Baulfield is talking about the same voice, what will they, what will they involve, one person? I think Mr. Baulfield can give them to you. I think Mr. Baulfield will be speaking to Mr. Baulfield. Mr. Baulfield told him that Mr. Baulfield received a call from a friend in North Wales. I mean, he said that well, first, the same date, and it's an estimate that I don't know about that. And he received this phone call from a number of five and a bit. And so Mr. Chair, what he also said was that he recognized the voice, because he had heard it in previous phone calls. And my question was, when and what were these previous phone calls about?
This is a very long time for two or three. I think his phone calls story gives a bit complex. I will be glad to put it either way you prefer to bring it more timely to finish the statement. First of all, can you desire his voice? No one is. I'm sorry, Mr. Guy, do you think you know who that may say he recognized the voice? Do you know who he is? Do you know who he is? Do you know who he is? Do you know who he is before? Have you heard the voice before? Have you heard the voice before? I think he will take long to do what's up here and stop. I guess he's here to put it in the voice. How was he going to do this? Is he going to hear the answer? What's the question? Would you perceive his phone call? Sometimes in July, 1972, certainly I've heard it out of jail, which was in June, 1972. About midday, there was a note in my mailbox at my residence.
On my open letter, which had not been stamped or sent through the mail, it was a note from Jack Callfield, Science Act, which said, go to the phone booth on route 3.55, near your home, and he gave three alternate times, at which I could appear at the phone booth for telephone call in. To the best of my reflection, all those times was very short in their after and hours of later. And another time was the next day, it seems to be that the third time was the following evening. I went to the telephone, to the telephone booth on route 3.55, that afternoon, the same afternoon as a vester call,
and I heard the voice that I have referred to in this memorandum of today. I do not know the individuals identity. He had an accent that I would refer to as a New York accent. He said that he had formally worked with Jack Callfield. He said that I'm a friend of Jack's, I'm a firm of work with him, Jack will want to talk with you shortly. He will be in touch with you soon. I received a call subsequently from Mr. Callfield to the best of my reflection it came to my home first, and it said go to the same phone booth on route 3.55, which I did. And there Mr. Callfield told me that
he was going overseas in a few days. He said if you have any problems, if you have any problems, call my home, and leave word, and I will call you back from overseas to your residents. He said when you call my home, ask for Mr. Watson, what's something that you hate to eat this whole year? He said also after I returned, if you ever need to call me at my office, he gave a number to the office number, and he said simply leave word that Mr. Watson is calling. So it was a name that both of us were to use. My name is named. I did not contact him. I'm having the next 30 days, and I'm next heard from him. It's the best of my reflection.
Sometimes in September, 1972, on Sunday afternoon, I came to call the exact date I didn't recall. It was to start my murder. Then we had the committee for the reflection present at just finished a television appearance on one of the top problems such as me to press. Mr. Callfield, calling me at home, and again ask that I go to the top office around 355, which I did. He stated that either trouble getting my home phone number, because it was an unlisted number, and he stated quote, we are worried about you. This is Mr. Callfield's name. And it went on then to read briefly the words of a deposition which he planned to give
to the Democratic National Committee. I had read in the papers a few days before that he had been scheduled as a witness before the Democratic National Committee, and he read the deposition to me, indicating that this was an effect of what he planned to say in the deposition. There was so much of us doing the conversation to something brilliant with the double agent in quotes. Mr. Clerk would record, as I recall, in his television appearance, had referred to the possibility of there being a double agent in the Watergate operation and the influence was that it was Mr. Baldwin. So far as I was concerned, whoever had drawn that conclusion had drawn an absolutely erroneous conclusion that I had seen absolutely nothing that would indicate such a simply one of the goals record was Mr. Callfield to that effect. We do want to get back to the statement,
but in short what you're saying is Mr. Callfield's friend, what's my name? Here's the man whose voice you heard. I'm not sure that's so much respect, but there's not much answer. Well, I believe Mr. Callfield used the name question. It was not his friend. Yes, ma'am. Well, how many times did you hear this act unidentified voice? Is it the most direct direction of the heart of the death of the voice or to the change of your call? Two or three times, I cannot be absolutely sure that at least twice before Jen will ease in connection with contacts with Callfield always. Yes, that's the question. Thank you. Let's see, the statement from where you left the law was in the court. I guess the part of the sentence will be in the five, but that's not even. I believe my last sentence that I read was that the same message was once again repeated,
obviously read that we that appears in a statement that you have on page three. Next sentence was that I told the call that I would not discuss such better some of the telephone and he stated that Mr. Callfield was up to town. On Wednesday, January 10th, 1973, the same party to the best part of the collection called until we were found. The Jack Award top of me was on Thursday night, following that January 11th, when he got back into town, and requested that I go to the same phone booth on Route 355. We heard that we found him. He also conveyed instructions regarding a personal meeting with Mr. Callfield on Friday night, January 12th. On Thursday evening, January 11th,
the same party called me at home and told me that Callfield's plan was late. I wanted him to be speaking of Callfield and I wanted to meet with me personally the same evening that is Thursday evening after arrival. I told him that I would not do so, but would meet with him on Friday night if he desired. Later that evening, the same evening, Thursday evening, about 9.30 p.m. Callfield called me on our phone phone and insisted on talking with me. My family refused to let him do so since I was asleep. On Friday night, January 12th, from about 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. I went with Callfield at the second overlook. That is overlooking, told him that it's a parking area before looking for the Tama River from George Washington Parkway in Virginia. It was a part of how it happened. We didn't get the rent.
How do you know the building? It was previously stated that we were on the Wednesday call to the best of our recollection in which this unidentified party had said that 12-year-old want to meet with the first day and he said, don't Friday night go to the second overlook of George Washington Parkway, and he specified at the time, and that's his other phone phone. I met with Callfield at the second overlook. George Washington Parkway, that is a second one meeting, Washington going out from Virginia and talking with him in his car. There's something to do. Callfield at the end of attending a law enforcement meeting inside Pomek, California, and I'm just returning. I advised him that I had no objection to meeting with him to tell him I'm afraid of mine,
but that I had no intention of talking executive diplomacy or training guilty, that I had come to the meeting at his request and how my home, and I was glad that I'm going to use. He said that the offer of executive diplomacy, which he was passing along, and of support by the President and rehabilitation and help towards toward a job later, quote, was a sincere offer, unquote. He explained that he had been fast to convey this message to me and he was only doing what he was told to do. He repeated this last statement several times during the course of a meeting that we had done in the live head during subsequent meetings, which he and I had. My response was that I would not even discuss the executive diplomacy or cleaning guilty and remaining silent,
but I was glad to talk with him so that there was no misunderstanding of anyone's part about it. I might explain that the trial was going on during this period. This was the first week of the trial, which began on January 8th. Callfield stated that he was carrying the message of executive diplomacy to me, folks, from the very highest levels of the White House, hurtful. He stated that the President of the United States was in key misconduct that we can refrain to the weekend following January 8th following the meeting that we were then in. The President had been told of the forthcoming meeting with me and would be immediately told from the results of the meeting. The President was saying that this evidence is found
just to show what the meeting is going to callfield in due to end use as to before to a clean guilty of kicks up. It is not due to illness with this President's statement of the hearing that the next meeting makes any connection to what he has in a role of the Senate. As to the President, the President, the President, he further stated that the Court may have a message to you at our next meeting from the President himself, not the Court. I advise callfield that I had seen the list of witnesses for the trial, and I had seen gentlemen putters named the hearing as a government witness. I advise them that it was clear of them that my reader was going to torture himself and that we were not going
to get a fair trial. For there I told him that it was clear that some of those involved in the Watergate case were going to trial and others were going to be covered for. For instance, I was referring to John Mitchell, John Dean, Peter, I suppose, and I saw many of those individuals that submitted during the conversation and I said that this was not my idea of American justice. For them, the same rule as last as far as John Mitchell John Dean would do this with some. That is, does not make them the same rule. For their lawyers called the ill that I believe that the government had lined in the line electronic interception of my foreign calls from my residents since June 19th, June 17th, 1972. And then I believe that the administration
had also tapped the phone until the only the fund was during that time. I mentioned two specific calls of mine, which I had made during September 19, 1972, which I was certain had been intercepted by the government. And yet the government had quietly denied any such tapping. These were my words to Mr. Colfield. I compared this denial to the denial the government had made in the elsewhere case in which for months the government had denied any such impermissible or suction of calls and yet in the summer of 1972, had finally been forced to admit to the one of Joe's order in my court order as such in the vote that those in government agencies and calls were accepted within the schools. I want to say separate from the record at this point that as I have previously stated I had no knowledge whatever of any activity, water drink,
what have you, Mr. Ellsworth calls as have previously come up as have earlier come up and the newspapers in the past few days is during the last months so that happens in the elsewhere case at that time and the following case in the papers and near the history of the case. To go on with the statement I stated that if we were going to get a fiction of a direct trial to a project testimony to begin with and then with the government to lie about the legal term.
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 1 of 4
Producing Organization
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-d795718g4z).
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 2 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Carl M. Shoffler and James McCord testify.
Broadcast Date
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Anchor: MacNeil, Robert
Anchor: Lehrer, James
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 1957525-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-18; Part 1 of 4,” 1973-05-18, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed December 9, 2023,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-18; Part 1 of 4.” 1973-05-18. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. December 9, 2023. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-18; Part 1 of 4. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from