1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-09-24; Part 3 of 5

He referred me sometime later to two attorneys, neither of whom were known to, I believe, either Mr. Jackson or myself, simply through an alphabetical process, I decided to retain this to inquire of Mr. Bettman whether or not he would be interested in representing me. And did you retain Mr. Bettman, William Bettman? I did. And when did you first meet Mr. Bettman in Washington? On the night of July 3rd. What was your understanding, Mr. Hunt, concerning legal fees and support of your family that you would receive?

What general understanding did you have? At the time, Mr. Litty appeared at the home of Mr. Jackson on the 21st of June. I raised the question with him as I had with several other people since I had left Washington, concerning counsel, furthermore how counsel fees, living expenses and so forth are going to be taken care of. Mr. Litty said, don't worry about that, it's all going to be taken care of just like the company or the agency to meet that in traditional CIA or clandestine services fashion. He then produced $1,000, which was pretty hard evidence that there was money available for this sort of thing. I now, later, might I just continue with thought. I said to him, but by now the paralysis that gripped the White House and CREP in the wake of the arrest must have ebbed to some extent, please tell me who was the action officer now?

And he said, it's Marty and or at least it was as at the time that I left this morning. And I found that encouraging nose. Well, now, when you returned to Washington and you retained Mr. Bittman, did there come a time when Mrs. Hunt, your wife had a contact with Mr. O'Brien, Paul O'Brien, at the Committee to Reelect the President? I believe she had that contact with Mr. O'Brien before I retained it, returned the East Coast. And what was the purpose of that contact? To continue to seek counsel and to make sure that the arrested men and those of us who were still out would be taken care of in customary fashion. Well, to your knowledge was she assured by Mr. O'Brien that support money for counsel and for the family would be forthcoming? I don't believe that she received that sort of assurances from Mr. O'Brien. As I recall her relating the incident to me, Mr. O'Brien was horrified by the revelations,

but said he would look into them. You say horrified by the revelations? What revelations? The revelations that my wife had given him? Well, do you know what revelations your wife had given Mr. O'Brien? I understand. And again, this is only hearsay from my late wife, was that she had told him that we had been acting on the behalf of the Attorney General of the United States and the Council of the President of the United States, that we had been apprehended, that men were in jail at bond money, bail money, counsel fees, all that sort of thing were needed and needed immediately. And my understanding is that this wall was news to Mr. O'Brien at that time. He did say, however, that he would look into the matter immediately. Now, they did come at time that they're not, if you would retain Mr. Bitman, that you received a call or Mrs. Hunt received a call from Mr. Rivers? Yes.

And what did Mr. Rivers have to say to your knowledge? My late wife reported to me that we're skipping now over the authentication of Mr. Bitman's orders in any event when Mr. Smith has responded to the gentleman who was operational alias, we knew there's Rivers and knew him to be an appropriate person for him to deal with. He said- Would you say that we're skipping your authentication? Are you- We're skipping all of his authentication. Yes. Did you first, was a call first, maybe Mr. Rivers to Mr. Bitman? Yes. And what was Mr. Bitman's reaction to that call? He rejected it and declined to speak of Mr. Rivers. And then what did he do there after? Within a day or so, he had occasion to be in conference with Mr. Paul O'Brien and possibly Mr. Parkinson. And mentioned this call is a curious matter, I believe at that point. He was assured that Mr. Rivers was an appropriate person for Mrs. Hunt to be in touch with.

And then again, was there a- is that when Mr. Bitman called you at Mrs. Hunt? Yes. And what arranged for me at that time? That, Mrs. Hunt, excuse me. Do you mean the arrangements with regard to further contact with Mr. Rivers? Yes. That by means of the public telephone usage of public telephones, Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Rivers would speak with each other, which, in fact, they did. All right, were you aware that payments were, in fact, made by Mr. Rivers to Mrs. Hunt? Yes. By the way, I think the record will show that we've already had testimony as to the identity of Mr. Rivers as Mr. Tony Elasowitz. Did you know, by the way, at the time that Mr. Rivers was a Mr. Tony Elasowitz?

No, sir. Did you have occasion to see a series of accounts or a couple of accounts that Mrs. Hunt made to Mr. Bitman concerning payments that she received from Mr. Rivers? Only recently. And was that by this committee? Yes. Now, I would like to say, I have been shown copies by the committee. I have been shown what purported to be original by Mr. Bitman, who I believe it was submitting them to the grand jury. Right. And they indicate to you that payments were made covering Mr. McCord, Mr. Barker, and the other persons who had been arrested? Yes. Did it come at time, Mr. Hunt, when you went to your attorney, Mr. Bitman, and tell him that you wanted to plead guilty?

Yes. What was the occasion for that? I had made up my mind following my, in fact, during my return flight from Chicago after the death of my wife. That was on December 10th. My wife was killed in a plane crash at Midway Airport on December 8th. And in fact, you did in our plea of guilty? I did. After your wife's death, did you receive a call from Mr. Bitman concerning funds that he had for you? I did. And did you receive those funds? I did. Do you recall how much that was? On the first occasion? Yes. Do you want to sherry out in? Do you have them in sherry out in perhaps we can expedite this by just giving us a very brief statement of the funds that you did receive through Mr. Bitman? Yes. on the 3rd of July, 1936.

On the 3rd of July, 1972, I retained Mr. Butman with a $1,000 cash payment. Some days later, Mr. Butman reported to me in a letter and also verbally that he had received the sum of $25,000 as a further retainer. He indicated that the money had come to him anonymously and had been delivered to his office, that it was to be used in my behalf and considered as a retainer. Later on, perhaps in the month of October, I had no date for this.

I was informed by Mr. Butman that an envelope had been delivered to his office. For me, I opened the envelope in his presence and counted out $20,000, which I turned over to him. Early in January or late December of 1972, no. January of 1973 or late December of 1972, Mr. Butman telephoned me to inform me that he had received an envelope at his house. He told me that this had been left in his mailbox. Previous telephonic instructions would have the effect that it was an envelope for me. I received the envelope on open from his hands. It took it to my home and found that it contained $15,000.

I gave $12,000 of those funds to Dr. Manuel R. T. May to assess the defense funds of the four men for my amma. It having been my prior understanding of the conversation with my wife that a committee was being formed in my amma for the defense of the four my amma men. Then I subtracted $3,000, which she had told me she had placed the disposition of other defendants from our own funds. And thereby reimbursed myself to the extent of $3,000 in the rest went to my amma. Mr. Hahn, I think it might expedite matters if you do have a record of that. I would like to provide the committee with a record of those payments. Let me just ask you, but you have the total figure that you paid Mr. Whitman by way of fee that you received through these mains. That I received the house, sir?

That you received through the support money that was coming in either through Mr. Rivers or through any other source. I'm not sure I'm asking for the total amount of money that you paid Mr. Whitman and legal fees. That Mr. Whitman was paid? Yes. That Mr. Whitman was paid. $156,000. And would you submit to us a statement of the details which we were giving us just a little moment ago I think would help us expedite the questioning. We'll be glad to. Now, did you ever call Mr. Colson to complain about the problems of the payment of fees? I did. And your call when you made that call? On November 24th, last. Now, do you have a copy of that, of a transcript that Mr. Colson made of the telephone call? I do.

And during that call, what in effect were you telling Mr. Colson, why did you make that call? I made the call, Mr. Dash, because my wife had indicated to me that because she had been placed in a very false and difficult position, these would be the Cubans and the other people who were or had become her, quote, clients, unquote, she was unwilling to continue in the role that she had agreed to accept at the urging of Mr. Rivers, and that is to say to be the go-between. She felt also that perhaps because she was a woman, her words, her urging, her representations were receiving insufficient weight, were not being seriously enough received by whoever the sponsors were, and it was in that spirit that she asked me to communicate with Mr. Colson, which I did. All right, now, on page three of that transcript, did you say to the following?

All right, now we've set a deadline now for close the business on the 25th of November, and I take it that's a deadline to receive funds, for the resolution on the liquidation of everything that's outstanding. And this, they're now talking about promises from July and August. It just has been an apparent, unconcern. Of course, we can understand some hesitancy prior to the election, but there doesn't seem to be any of that now. Of course, we're well aware of the upcoming problems of the Senate and. Did you make that statement during that call? Does this transcript, by the way, reflective to your recollection of the conversation with Mr. Colson? Do you recall that we showed you that transcript during the executive session? Thank you, Mr. Day. You've had a chance to read it. Yes, sir. What is your answer to my questions, whether that statement was made? It appears in the transcript.

I have no specific recollection of making the statement, Mr. Dash. However, inasmuch as it appears in the transcript, I accept it in good faith and will say under those circumstances that I made the statement. And I'll just make one further reference on page five if you look at the large paragraph at the top. And where you say, well, that's fine for we're protecting the guys who are really responsible. But now that's, and of course, that's a continuing requirement. But at the same time, this is a two-way street. And as I said before, we think that now is the time when a move should be made, and surely the cheapest commodity available is money. You see that statement? Yes, sir. And would you adopt that as something that you would have said during that conversation? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairwoman, I'm sure I answered the question.

Would you adopt that as one that you would have said or that you did say in the transcript? No, except it is a statement that I made. Now, after you stopped receiving funds from various supporting sources, Mr. Bittman asked for more funds from you? Mr. Bittman and fondly of the current state of my deficit balance with him, yes. Mr. Chairman, I should have this conversation with Howard Hunt, late November 1972, which was recorded, Mr. Colson, identified as an exhibit and entered an evidence. It will be received in evidence as an exhibit and appropriately numbered as such. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question about it just very briefly? Mr. Hunt, were you aware that this conversation was being recorded?

No, sir. How did you come to know of its existence? I can't recall whether I learned about it through the grand jurors or through this committee. Could I ask counsel how we received it? Oh, we received this from Mr. Colson. Yes, from Mr. Colson. I might say I felt that I, in retrospect, I was set up on this one. I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. I was set up as it were, because I had requested an opportunity to speak with Mr. Colson, and the message I got back was that if I would call him from the phone booth at a particular time, on a particular day, he would speak with me. Obviously, he had his recording equipment running at that time. Any reason to suspect that any part of the transcript is not correct? No, sir.

Thank you. But it is true in following up on your statement that you may have been set up, having had a chance to read this transcript. Is it not true that throughout the transcript, Mr. Colson repeatedly says to you whenever you wish to give many facts that he doesn't want to hear anything about the facts, not to tell him anything. That goes through the entire transcript. Certainly does. As you did, Mr. Bitman, ask you for any additional funds after the support money and stuff. I don't know if you would answer that. I thought I'd reply to that question, Mr. Dash. I didn't hear your answer. Mr. Bitman kept me informed in time to time of the state of my deficit balance with his firm. I did not interpret that as a demand for funds, but rather he was keeping me informed of how much money was owed. At that juncture, I was not considering debts owed to Hogan and Hurtson as being personal debts of mine, although I came later to accept them in that spirit. I felt that they should be paid by the people or groups who had sponsored our gemstone program.

And I encourage Mr. Bedman to turn to others for the payment of his fees rather than myself. Now the payment time, Mr. Bitman, was required to withdraw as your counsel. Did they not? Yes. Mr. Dash, I don't know that I can say of my own knowledge that he was required to withdraw as my counsel. I meant required by his own action. He did withdraw as your counsel. Did he not? He did. That was not your action. You did not? No, sir. That was his own volitional action. Yes, sir. To your knowledge. Then you retained in this, Mr. Sachs, the counsel, you retained immediately thereafter. Yes, sir. Did they come in time, Mr. Haunt, when you wrote to Mr. Colson concerning the problems that you were having wrote a letter to him?

Yes, sir. What was the occasion of that letter? I believe the letter. Do you have a copy of it? A copy of a letter dated to 731-1972. December 31st. Yes, I believe the letter is self-explanatory. And this letter followed the death of your wife. Yes, sir. And was it a letter in which you were again asking for assistance from Mr. Colson? In effect, yes, sir. Now, what did you get in response from Mr. Colson after writing that letter? Indirectly.

Well, how then directly? What kind of response? Who contacted you? Through counsel. Yes, and what did he tell you? That Mr. Colson would be meeting with him on, I believe, the 3rd or 4th of January. And then Mr. Bitman and Mr. Colson meet. I understand that they did. And did Mr. Bitman give you the results of that meeting? He did. And what if anything, did Mr. Bitman tell you about the meeting you have with Mr. Colson? First of all, Mr. Colson was a great and good friend of mine. He's so considered himself to be that I was a fine patriotic fellow. And if Washington were to take my children into his own home, that he was very sorry that I had ever become involved in this entire scheme.

The other two matters I ought to say parenthetically that I had asked Mr. Bitman, well, first of all, the rationale for the meeting to understand Mr. Colson's response, I really should go back a little, Mr. Dash. I had asked Mr. Colson to receive Mr. Bitman for the following reasons. One, I wanted Mr. Colson to be very sure about the reasons for my plea of guilty. I wanted him to understand all the circumstances, the fact that it weighed on me in making my plea or plea I was about to make. Secondly, there were two CIA matters which were unresolved and which I felt White House intervention could be to say the least very useful. Thirdly, there was an active motion and part of my counsel for the suppression of certain evidence obtained from my White House safe through the drilling, the unorthodox drilling

and seizure procedures that have been employed by Mr. Dean and company. And I wanted all of these matters discussed with Mr. Colson at that time. Now, what Mr. Bitman reported back to me, I have already indicated to you. I got no information from him concerning Mr. Colson's assistance with the CIA matters just had to do with my annuity and the changes of survivorship benefits for my annuity. Other than to say that Mr. Colson would always be delighted to help me to the extent that he could put her as a private citizen or in the White House, but purely as a personal matter. This suppression motion, I do not think, was reported back to me until the following day when after Mr. Bitman and Mr. Colson had met a second time. Did you ask Mr. Bitman to transmit any message from you on your plea of guilty decision concerning the length of sentence you might obtain or any clemency or consideration

that the government might give you if you pleaded guilty? No, sir. Mr. Chairman, the letter of the 731st, which precipitated the meeting between Mr. Bitman and Mr. Colson, I'd like that identified as an exhibit and entered in evidence. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Letterman, here he is. Will he be received in the help of the size of an exhibit and the appropriate number of such? Mr. Chairman, excuse me, Mr. Dash. May I ask when the committee plans to receive the sentence? 1230. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just pose a question to the witness since he's been relating conversations between he and Mr. Bitman. Do I understand that the witness is waving the attorney client privilege? In this particular instance, I'm a little bit confused.

I want to make sure that I understand the witness understands what those statements are. I'd rather statement, which I believe he said he was waving. Mr. Chairman, there may be some confusion on why you asked that question, Senator. The attorney client privilege as to Mr. Bitman and as to me has not is not being waived. The council, Mr. Sachs, and Mr. Hunt, made that statement also as Senator Wiker in executive session agreed to answer certain questions concerning conversation with Mr. Bitman, reserving the right not to waive all of his relationship in terms of his attorney client relationship. I think it's important to point this out because obviously the chairman and myself were laboring under the same apprehension that possibly there might be a waiver here. And I'm willing to have Councilor State. Well, Senator, I think I should supplement what I said by saying that as the committee knows, Judge Sirika stated that his cooperation with this committee and with the grand juries

would be waived by him in the ultimate sentence which he imposes. Under the force of that statement of Judge Sirika, we have advised Mr. Hunt to answer fully all the questions, but we believe that that does not constitute a waiver as it would in more voluntary circumstances. I made the statement I had on the basis of this statement and on page five of his prepared statement. He said, in fact, I have answered all questions, even those which involve confidential communications between my attorneys and myself. Senator, you have corrected our statement. Our statement was ambiguous. We did not mean all attorneys. There were. The privilege has been way, as I understand it, with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Sachswood, would you like to have your client like to have recess now instead of waiting?

I do think your senator that my client would appreciate arrestment. Okay. But just to finish that question, we were a little inaccurate in that statement. I'm sorry. He has waived one privilege that with Mr. Jackson. Yes. Well, I would ask you to indicate to the committee if any questions are asked. On parts that you think he has not waived, is right. Well, he has been answering all questions, Senator, but he is stating that by doing that, he is not waiving his privilege. Mr. Chairman, may I make sure I understand the situation just one brief moment. Attorney client privilege is a personal privilege to the client and not the attorney, and it would apply to each question that's asked. And if this witness chooses to exercise the privilege, he will claim that privilege before answering a specific question. Is that correct, sir? If there is any further concern, if there's any further concern with the attorney client, we will know it at the time that the question is asked.

Yes, Senator, but I'm afraid that to me at least your question reflects a little confusion. He is not refusing to answer questions as to conversations between him and his counsel, which he normally would do if he were claiming the privilege. At the same time, he is not waiving the privilege. No, I'm not confused. I don't understand that, but I'm not sure that that's a discernible distinction in the body of the law. Either you claim privilege or you don't claim privilege. Well, he is answering the questions. I think the issue as to whether his answers constitute a waiver may come up one day if an effort is made to question Mr. Bitman. But this witness is under Judd Sirica's admonition that if he doesn't answer the questions, he's going to be in trouble. So he is answering all questions.

He is not claiming privilege as to his answers to questions. Well, of course he is not releasing Mr. Bitman. At some point, Judd Sirica or some other judge will have to pass on the legal effect of those answers. That is my question. The second question to you is for the purposes of this committee's deliberations, if we are confronted with an executive with an attorney client privilege, we will be notified of it at the time of the question I presume by you or by your client. I take that to mean that if there comes a point in these hearings, when Mr. Hunt wants to refuse to answer a question by the committee on the ground of privilege, you would like to be notified. And his answer to that is yes, you will be notified. Thank you very much. The committee will stand and recess to two o'clock. As the senators give Mr. Hunt a breather and also recess for lunch, we are also going to pause briefly. Public television coverage of the Senate Watergate hearings will continue

after this pause for station identification. Unabredged coverage of these hearings is being broadcast as a public service by your local public television station. This is PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Hahn, shortly before your sentence on March 23, 1973, did you meet with Mr. Paul O'Brien in Mr. Bitman's office? The law officers of Hogan and Hudson, not specifically in the premises assigned Mr. Bitman.

Thank you very much. I believe Mr. Dash referring to the second meeting I had with Mr. O'Brien. Yes, I had requested that Mr. Bitman arrange a meeting between myself and Mr. O'Brien in as much as Mr. Bitman had kept me at prize at the extent of my legal indebtedness to the firm of Hogan and Hudson. Mr. O'Brien, I knew was the current contact that Mr. Bitman had on the committee, not only for marriage relating to the various civil suits that have been filed, but also in more relevately to in connection with the payment of legal fees for Mr. Bitman's services in my behalf.

Mr. Bitman indicated to me that his representations for the payment of legal fees had been ineffective, and I suggested to Mr. Bitman that he permit me to speak with Mr. O'Brien about that matter. That is the background of the meeting itself. When Mr. O'Brien came to the offices, we were shown into a private interview room, and I spoke to Mr. O'Brien at some length about the size and nature of the legal bills. I think at that time the amount of due approximately $60,000. I told him at the same time that I was very much concerned about the future of my family, that I would very much like to have the equivalent of two years' subsistence available to them before I was incarcerated, that incarceration being due within a very short period of time.

I put it to Mr. O'Brien that I had engaged as he might or might not know in other activities, which I believe I described as seamy activities for the White House. I don't believe that I specified them, however I did make reference to them, and the context of such reference was that if anyone was to receive benefits at that time, in view of my long and loyal service, if not hazardous service for the White House, it certainly should receive priority consideration. Would Mr. O'Brien be able, at least to draw an inference from his part, that because of the so-called seamy activities you said that you engaged in the White House, that if you weren't paid the sum of money, that these may become public?

I'll answer in just one moment. I would have to say that Mr. O'Brien might have assumed any number of things from our colloquy.

However, I would with a great deal of difference and begging the pardon in advance of the chairman of the committee, a quote from a certain testimony given in the early sessions of this committee, the first green-bound volume paid $325, when Mr. Alch was being questioned, and Mr. Irvin said, and I quote, well, where two men communicate with each other by word of mouth, isn't there a twofold hazard in that communication in first that the man who speaks may not express himself clearly, may not say exactly what is in his mind? And if he does, the man who hears it may put a different interpretation on the words than the man who spoke them, unquote. Well, Mr. Hunt, there has been considerable testimony, which we will not get into now before the committee, which indicated that both Mr. Dean and Mr. Mitchell

and a number of others believed that there was considerable pressure being placed by you at that time for money, and that the danger of not paying you was that there might be some public exposure of a seamy matter. In fact, Mr. Erlockman testified that there was a black mouth threat. So the question puts you was that you intend by telling Mr. O'Brien that one, the $60,000 had to be paid, and two, you had engaged in certain other seamy matters on behalf of the White House, did you intend to create that threat that unless that money was paid, you would make public the acts that you would engage on behalf of the White House. No, sir. Now, how did Mr. O'Brien respond to you when you asked for this money? Well, it was more than simply a question of asking for money, Mr. Dash. It was really my first opportunity to catalog the many difficulties that we had had.

That is to say, my late wife, principally, and to some extent myself, in finding the means to defend ourselves, that had been promised us as long ago as the previous June 21st. I told Mr. O'Brien told me, I should say, that he was finding himself increasingly ineffective as a goal between. I don't recall whether he used the word impotence or impotence, but he felt that his position was a very difficult one. He recognized that assurance has had been given, that to some extent they had in the past been carried out, but he felt that he was becoming less and less effective as an intermediary. But he matched Mr. Colson to you. For that reason, Mr. O'Brien suggested that I originate and send to Mr. Colson what he termed a strongly worded memorandum or a tough or a hard memorandum to Mr. Colson.

And what did you do after that? Did you write such a memorandum to Mr. Colson? I did not write the memorandum to Mr. Colson, but in response to Mr. O'Brien's suggestion, I believe that all I express surprise that he would have brought Mr. Colson's name into the dealings at this late stage of the game. I asked him why he wanted me to send the memorandum to Colson. And Mr. O'Brien said to the best of my recollection, well, there are some of us who feel that Chuck stayed out of this too long, that it's time he got his feet wet along with the rest of his words to that effect. My response was equivocal. I did not indicate to Mr. O'Brien whether I would or would not address such a memorandum, but I was disturbed by his suggestion.

Now, after that meeting with Mr. O'Brien, did you take steps to either try to have a meeting with Mr. Colson, to write to Mr. Colson, what efforts did you make to follow up on Mr. O'Brien's suggestion? Excuse me. I reviewed at once for Mr. Bitman upon Mr. O'Brien's departure the substance and thrust of Mr. O'Brien's conversation. I told Mr. Bitman that I had no intention of writing the recommended memorandum, but I thought that I should get in touch with Mr. Colson so that I could explain the situation to him, notify him of the suggestion that had been made by O'Brien, whom I classified politically speaking as a Mitchell man. So we haven't gotten into this in testimony so far before this committee, but there appeared to be a definite division within the White House itself, at least in the lower levels between the so-called Mitchell men and the so-called Colson men.

Accordingly, I found it rather bizarre that Mr. O'Brien, a Mitchell man, would suggest that I seek help from Colson, and as much as Mr. Mitchell, had been the progenitor of the gemstone plan and was at least in theory responsible for seeing that the assurances that were implicit and explicit in gemstone were carried out. Mr. Bitman, to my knowledge, did get in touch with the law offices whereby then Mr. Colson was in private practice with the law offices of Colson and Shapiro, and made these representations in my behalf, i.e. that I desired to meet Mr. Colson. A day or so later I was informed by Mr. Bitman that all go, Mr. Colson would not see me. His partner, David Shapiro, would see me, and he would see me the following Friday, I believe, the 16th of February, early in the afternoon.

And did you have that meeting with Mr. Shapiro? I did. And did you tell Mr. Shapiro, substantially, the same things that you told Mr. O'Brien? I did. And including the other activities that you engage in on behalf of the White House. I did not specify them. I referred to them. I might add that the context of our meeting was entirely different. Whereas Mr. O'Brien had approached me, I might say almost apologetically, Mr. Shapiro approached me rather aggressively and subjected me to a lengthy monologue, which I consider to be highly self-serving. My response was that I had expected actually to see Colson, although I could understand and for purposes of record, they might want it to appear that I had met only with Shapiro rather than with Colson. I had not really expected to be received by a Colson surrogate.

Now, did you make it clear, Mr. Shapiro, and Mr. O'Brien, that you needed to get the money prior to the date of sentence? Yes. That if I— Why was that? That I was to make—that if it was to be of any assistance to me in terms of making prudent distribution of it among members of my family, my dependents, taking care of insurance premiums and that sort of thing that would have to be delivered to me before I was in jail. This was not only implicit, but explicit as well as the dash. Now, what did Mr. Shapiro say to you when you made those representations to him? He indicated to me that he would use his own discretion as regards such portions of my conversation as he chose to convey to Mr. Colson. I responded rather angrily that I felt that he should convey all of my—what I had to say to Mr. Colson.

But despite what you consider to be an unsatisfactory reception by Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Shapiro, you, in fact, did— you you

you you